I thought this was a war
The Associated Press reports that the Bush Administration engaged in a sort of shellgame with detainees (in another time they’d be called prisoners of war) from Guatanamo, shifting from the island POW camp to “black prisons” before the courts and lawyers could sink their claws into them;
The transfer allowed the U.S. to interrogate the detainees in CIA “black sites” for two more years without allowing them to speak with attorneys or human rights observers or challenge their detention in U.S. courts. Had they remained at the Guantanamo Bay prison for just three more months, they would have been afforded those rights.
“This was all just a shell game to hide detainees from the courts,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a Seton Hall University law professor who has represented several detainees.
Removing them from Guantanamo Bay underscores how worried President George W. Bush’s administration was that the Supreme Court might lift the veil of secrecy on the detention program. It also shows how insistent the Bush administration was that terrorists must be held outside the U.S. court system.
So? What’s the big deal? I may be confused here, but I thought that the treatment of POWs is regulated by the Geneva Conventions not US courts. In fact, I’ve never seen the words “prisoners of war” in the Constitution. Is there any record of the trials of those sailors killed last week? Yeah, please don’t defend the lawyers and courts with “we’re better than they are” – we are, and we’ve yet to be worse than “they are”.
Category: Terror War
Yeah, this is war, however, the left has been working hard to give rights to enemy combatants that they don’t deserve and aren’t afforded under the Geneva Accords. I suppose those on the left are relying on the dumbing down of Americans in order to try and pass it off to an ignorant populace. It has worked on some, but not as many as they would have hoped.
I despise the ignorance of those who think the GC apply here. And I am tired, so tired of the PC bullshit.
If the enemy isnt wearing a uniform when captured, they dont deserve any rights. The enemy is laughing at us.
Too many Americans have fallen back into a pre-9/11 mindset. This is going to cost us here at home again.
YatYas, I’d say the ones with a pre-9/11 mindset didn’t go back to it…they never left it to begin with. For those of us who processed those events, we’ll NEVER go back, and NEVER forget.
I agree with you that the apologists are definitely “going to cost us here at home again,” however.
It’s called due process. We need to make sure they’re the bad guys before we do horrible things to them like hold them indefinitely. Many of our founding fathers were no strangers to this sentiment. John Adams and Ben Franklin have stated things similar to “it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.” Meanwhile, guys like Pol Pot have said things to the contrary.
It’s not anything like “we’re better than them,” because when we start to compare ourselves with crazies, (such as “at least we’re not as bad as them”) you know we’ve already gone too far. This is about treating human beings as such, identifying the bad guys, dealing with them, and sending everyone else home. Does anyone honestly believe that each of the few hundred people kept at Guantanamo Bay had anything to do with 9/11 or planning a new one?
Give them a trial, then punish them or send them home. You know, unless you want to make people needlessly suffer for some false sense or protection.
#6
It’s not a “false sense of protection” Paul, it’s prudent precaution.
Do some research.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/detainees.terror.return/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/29/gitmo-detainees-return-terror/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50C5JX20090113
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6975971.ece
Paul, you have it all wrong. Due process only counts for US citizens, not enemy combatants. That’s what the Geneva Accords are for. During our World Wars, we held POWs here in the US without trial or “due process” and it didn’t matter because it was within the Geneva Accords that this was done. A POW caught in 1942 didn’t know how long he was going to be in the jug; did he? We didn’t set a timetable for their release; correct? Under those same international agreements, those not in uniform and not fighting under the flag of a nation are enemy combatants and are afforded the same rights as spies; which means they can be executed on the spot. Should we do that, instead? It would save us a lot of bs and whining from the liberals.
#6 Paul:
My numbers and dates may be off, but I remember that approx. 300 of the Gitmo detainees were rounded up in about 10 days after 9/11.
What are your thoughts on the process used to pick up those men? How did we know who to zero in on for those detentions?
Pretty sure most of them are, paul. Especially considering most of them go back to fighting after being released, even if under the BS excuse that it was their treatment that made them do it in the first place.
Old Trooper: Yes, yes, I like many others also received the Geneva/Hague conventions briefing by the young lieutenant who could barely answer our questions. Well, WW1 and WW2 were actual declared wars, unlike what we’re going through now. Additionally, we were fighting actual nations at that point as well. It’s clear the Geneva Conventions does not apply in the same manner at this point. We are then limited based on the terms set with each sovereign country and (should) be operating under their laws and agreements set with them. Also in regards to WW1 and WW2, we were fighting countries until we took them over, then we released the prisoners that we didn’t try for war crimes. Last I checked, we “took over” and “returned” both Afghanistan and Iraq. So why haven’t we either given them a trial or released them? Some of them have been there longer than our involvement in either world war. If this doesn’t have anything to do with a foreign country but rather a war on terrorism (e.g. war on drugs, war on poverty, etc.), then this really is more of a police action, and it should be handled like we’ve handled terrorism in the past, identify the bad guys, arrest them, give them a trial, and punish them. Future Marine: Last I heard, only a handful have fought us after they were released. As of last year, the DIA stated 14% of those released were either suspected or confirmed of fighting US interests. If a foreign country captured me for years after invading my country, I’d probably want to fight them too, wouldn’t you? Since I assume by your name “Future Marine” you haven’t been to a combat-zone yet, let me tell you something from a “Past Soldier”: Life sucks for the people who live there. They have foreigners driving through the streets in armored vehicles pointing heavy machine guns (M2 50 cal, Mk 19, M240B, etc.) at their houses with their families, going through all of their belongings without much concern. If a foreign country did that here, in your neighborhood, I’d hope… Read more »
Paul, I wish I had my father’s war (WW II). We’d have countries to fight, and soldiers we could identify by their uniforms.
But no, we have today. No country claims the fighters who have declared war on us. They don’t wear uniforms. They don’t care who they kill. And they don’t care where.
THEIR neighborhood? What about MINE?? Does an AMERICAN have to die before you care about THEM? Tell me, my friend, because nobody has ever bothered to give me any instruction in this….how do I identify a car bomb? An IED? How do I know when one of the ladies walking down the street in her flowing robes is hiding a bomb vest? How do I know that the nice taxi driver who took me downtown and talked so earnestly with me about Islam isn’t planning on murdering everyone in my office building? Since you have so much compassion for people who are beleagured, have some for me, because by God, I don’t feel so safe or free anymore, either.
Paul,
As someone that just returned a month ago from Iraq and worked completely with the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi people in my AO were actually more worried that all the American units were leaving the area. Those armored vehicles were what brought stability to the neighborhood and allowed them to open their businesses and brought government services to the area.
While life does suck for them in these circumstances it is far better than secretarian killing or armed mobs ruling the area. At least the Americans are reasonable and offer repayment for actions taken.
I’m not saying the situations in both AF and Iraq are not completely optimal but the personell captured and being held are mostly fighters that came from a third country (Pakistan, Jordan, etc) so the fighting for their homeland argument does not work. They are ideological fighters that came to the fight and should be held accordingly and not recieve a trial.
The ‘returning to the fight’ number is now up to 20% per the DoD Paul, and growing as more intel comes in.
Also as a “past soldier”, as in recently retired, let me tell you; if a foriegn nation occupied ‘my country’ after ‘my country’ had facilitated an unprovoked act of terror against them while at the same time brutaly subjegating large portions of ‘my country’s’ population and subjecting them to horrid religious persecution, I would likely take up arms against my ‘own country’ and the ruling class that allowed such a thing to happen. Foreigners driving through the streets in armored vehicles pointing heavy machine guns (M2 50 cal, Mk 19, M240B, etc.) at MY house and family would encourage me to FIX what’s wrong with my OWN country. Cultural differences aside, uncivilized,un-neighborly behavior needs to be curbed, and if they can’t do it for themselves, it will be done for them.
I understand the bleeding heart sentimentality that feeds your world view, and in a nice world we wouldn’t ever have to worry about such things, but we don’t live in a nice world, and probably never will.
Daniel,
Ditto. I was there in 2003/2004, and one of the things that really shocks me sometimes is the uneducated view here at home, and even among some that have deployed to the AO, that the dismal standard of living in Iraq was as a result of our actions. I would agree that actions we took in 1991, or rather failed to take, and the support we asked of Iraqi patriots in the South of Iraq, where precursors to the 13 years of misery that Saddam visited on the south of his nation, but the blame for the ruination of that region rests squarely on the vindictive shoulders of the toppled regime. What was heartening to me was to see how much better the living conditions were in the southern half of Iraq when our unit left as opposed to before we arrived. A good many people there appreciate us, but that does sell news papers or advert time. Nor does it feed the incessant need for validation some bleeding hearts and apologists crave in their empty lives.
Paul, try reading history sometime. Many conflicts that mankind has fought were not decalred wars or necessarily against whole countries. However, you do have the ramblings of IVAW, Code Pink, etc. down pat.
Paul, You obviously misunderstand the Geneva Conventions. Call them detainees or POWs, the purpose of holding them is so that they DO NOT return to the fight. The point is that you are fighting a GROUP. Individuals matter only in that they make the group stronger. I know this is a foriegn concept to you, but I, as a Major, am more important for my organizational skills than for my combat efficiency. So, even though I might not have taken part in, say, Desert Storm, I am still able to be held if captured by the enemy because I can help plan FUTURE attacks. And, if released by the enemy, I do not need to participate in individual attacks to make the US Army more efficient. (Despite the protestations of the enlisted that work for me.) So, the only real purpose of trials of prisoners due to war (Which is how you read POW in Geneva-ese) is to associate them with a group or groups. If that group is still in the fight, hold them. Be sure to let me know when Al Qaeda, the Taliban, HIG, Al Haqqani, et al. release a statement of settlement, surrender or giving up the fight. That is when these guys get sent home. Another point is the tolerance for recidivism. In America we would be thrilled if we got criminal recidivism down to 50% (it currently runs at about 80%). In war, the acceptable recidivism rate is 0%. The capturing soldier could have killed these guys at the point of capture. Letting them return to the fight is a violation of the trust that soldier placed in us to keep the detainees off the battlefield. So it is rediculous to talk about a recidivism of “only” 18%. That is 18% higher than the soldier doing the capturing is going to tolerate. So the real question, Paul, is why are you trying to put US soldiers on trial for killing enemy soldiers? you are certainly putting them in the untenable position of having to kill every enemy they come across because we cannot keep… Read more »
Paul,
That you got the fast and furious briefing from a junior grade officer doesn’t mean we all did. I, myself, received my briefing every 6 months from a field grade officer who was very well versed in the intracacies of the Geneva Accords and had no problem in answering any questions that were posed to him.
Can you please tell me what country those enemy combatants have citizenship in? Most of them are foreign fighters that are there for political/religious reasons, hence the overlay of OBL, a Saudi national, and his 2nd in command, an Egyptian, wandering between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, there were sure a lot of foreign fighters in Iraq in the company of AQI.
You can try and reason it all away all day long, but it doesn’t change the facts. If they aren’t on the battlefield, then we don’t have to wonder if we will face them again; right?
It always makes me wonder when peeps like Paul say they served but have the kind of attitudes they do. I am still pondering a Marine that says he thinks a mosque at Ground Zero is ok. Why did they serve?
14% going back to the fight, I believe that like I believe there are only 50 or so AQ in Afghanistan.
O/T, but this is the only milblog i can comment on,
so thanx and whateves:
Force 10 from Navarrone is on the Military Channel right now.
Robert Shaw and Harrison Ford in the same movie. Nuff said. Richard Keil. Edward Fox. Leskovar. Carl Weathers.
Ringo’s wife Barbara Bach.
Masked Chetniks hunting Allied commandos, etc.
Great WW2 action flick. Filmed in Montenegro.
That is all.
PintoNag: You’re a paranoid bigot. I’m not wasting anymore of my time. Daniel: You and I may have fought in different areas and clearly at different times during the war. I was in the “Triangle of Death” in 05-06. From the interpreters I spoke with from Baghdad proper, the people around there liked the Americans and hated the insurgents. In the areas we were in however, it was quite the opposite. Perhaps things have changed in that regard, and I hope they have. About the foreign fighters, a lot of them may have the same fear that many people here have. “If we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here!” Additionally, they have more stake in the region than we do. Honestly though, I don’t have much sympathy for the foreign fighters. We’re foreign fighters over there too though. Jacobite: You’re a moron. Iraq did not aid any act of terrorism against the United States. Afghanistan did not aid in any act of terrorism against the United States. When the Taliban asked for evidence of Osama’s guilt for the extradition, the Bush administration refused to supply evidence. No Afghani or Iraqis were crashing American planes into buildings, period. I’m not saying we shouldn’t go after Osama and other terrorists – we should. That’s a far cry from taking over countries. YatYas: Congrats, you either didn’t read all of what I said or completely missed the point. Oh, then you grouped me with a bunch of crazies. Thanks. JAG: Firstly, I must on principle point out some officer elitism and contend that the enlisted don’t work for you – they work under you. (They work for the American people.) That being said, I really do appreciate the insight and would have much preferred a briefing from you. While I do understand that holding “until the war is over” is necessary to keep soldiers alive. I know I hated when our hands were tied due to diplomatic relations with various countries and had executive orders to do one thing or not do another. This isn’t how war should be… Read more »
Paul, I don’t think that we just pick up people off the street, in either theater, for shits and giggles . They are picked up either on the battlefield, or because they have connections, etc. that we are interested in. Just because they weren’t grabbed while in contact doesn’t mean they haven’t been involved in any way in other areas of the battle i.e. planning, providing intelligence on our movements, recon, moving weapons, etc.
As for AQI, that was a name they came up with after our invasion, because the people involved were already there before we got there, they just decided to make it official for recruiting purposes. The old saw that they didn’t start anything before we got there is meaningless, because they were involved in nefarious activities before we got there, they were just being left alone because they had Saddam’s blessings, as well as the taliban in Afghanistan. Salman Pak wasn’t an amusement park, after all.
Paul, first, to your statement that Afghanistan didn’t aid terrorism-If I’m correct, the taliban government refused to hand over Osama and others who planned the attacks, which since you like civilian law would be Aiding and abeding, (sp?) at the least.
Next to your implied (least, I inferred) statement that opposition to the mosque blocks away from ground zero is “biggoted”, would it be biggoted to oppose a Japanese cultural center at pearl? Or a Statue of Jane Fonda at the vietnam memorial?
You do get praze for declaring code pink and IVAW crazies, though
If because I am insulted, offended, and concerned about a mosque being built at ground zero makes me a bigot, then….ok, I am a bigot. So what? There are worse things in this world than being a bigot. A head chopper of innocent people or being a delusional person comes to mind… but that is just me.
Paul, do you have a DD214?
Paul,
Roger, I was in Fallujah in 03-04 and when I went back in 09-10 as a MiTT team chief it was night in day.
In the first deployment we were having 10-12 incidents in each Battalion AO daily. However, the second deployment was 10-12 incidents in the Division AO per day. It truly has changed dramatically since the surge ended.
I was the advisor for the 17th IA commander and lived in the center of the “Triangle of Death” on this last deployment. While you still had those dirty looks from certain tribal groups or neighborhoods, most people just wanted to get along with thier lives and we really had no issues except criminal actions. Basically the residents got tired of the foriegn fighters ruining their neighborhoods and made them leave and things calmed down considerably.
The Americans stopped patrolling in June 09 and everything is now Iraqi led so hopefully things will continue to improve but there is no telling in that area what will happen next.
Well Paul, maybe you’re not as bat-shite crazy like IVAW/Code Pink, but you definitely espoused a few of the same ideas. By the way, I was on a MNF-W staff out of Camp Fallujah from May 2005 to February 2006 and did some work that took me down around the “Triangle of Death.” Some Iraqis did not like us being there, but there were others that wanted our help.
We had been in a conflict with Iraq since Desert Storm and had every right to invade to remove Saddam. People don’t have to agree that it was a good idea or was handled well, but we had the right to do it.
OldTrooper: Yes, I know they aren’t just randomly picked up, however civilians do wander on to the battlefield all the time. (Otherwise, blue on white would never happen.) Are you saying there’s never any bad intelligence? Things happen – people die in war and are falsely captured “just in case.” I know the platoon that mine relieved was very willing to detain people. I also understand that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have it a lot better than any Iraqi or Afghani controlled prison. I was under the impression that most of those held in Guantanamo Bay are held there specifically more out of fear of their involvement in terrorist attacks against the US than for paramilitary operations against our forces overseas. If we are holding them for suspected terrorism, then that appears to me to be a criminal matter. If they are being held for reasons of military combat or terrorism in their host countries, shouldn’t they be held by their host countries? The whole situation situation seems to be a way to exploit a loop-hole in our system. Future Marine: After 9/11, the Taliban stated that they would not hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence of his involvement. (They stated it would be an “insult against Islam.”) Similarly, if a foreign country were to accuse an American of terrorism, the US government would not extradite him without sufficient evidence, period. The Taliban were concerned about the due process of a very influential person living within their country. They also didn’t want to have the embarrassment of handing over a Muslim from a respected family over to an “infidel” Western nation. The did offer to hand Osama over to a third-party for a trial. Regardless of this, the Taliban and Afganistan had no direct involvement in 9/11. Also, due to the high population of Japanese in Hawaii, I’m certain there are plenty of Japanese cultural centers near Pearl Harbor. The comparison is entirely unfair: It’s like saying there shouldn’t be any Christian churches near federal buildings in Oklahoma because McVeigh was Christian. The vast majority of Muslims are… Read more »
YitYas: Saying Afghanistan wasn’t handled well because we had a right to pursue Osama bin Laden is one thing. Saying we had a right to invade a sovereign country which had not attacked us or our allies in naïve.
Why did we invade Iraq again? WMD. Hans Blix stated that Iraq was in compliance, but could not confirm the accuracy. We invaded fearing that Iraq had WMD. They didn’t. So please tell me what right we had to invade?
Don’t get me wrong, Saddam was a bad guy and I’m glad he’s gone – but you say we were in conflict with Iraq since dessert storm. We bombed Iraq a lot, but they never bombed us. (If I recall, Republicans accused Clinton of “wagging the dog” by needlessly bombing Iraq.)
Paul, save the naive for yourself. Saddam violated the ceasefire of Desert Storm pretty fast which allowed us to attack him. Many of the bombs dropped on Iraq after the ceasefire were in response to Iraqi gunners shooting at or locking onto our aircraft with missile sites. As far as the “wagging the dog” incident that was in reference to a specific cruise missiles attack, which as a Republican, I disagreed with those that made that reference. As far as WMD, many countries thought he had them, he wanted people to think he had them and probably would have them once the sanctions were ended.
Damn, typing too fast again. Anon#29 is my response.
YatYas: So, they shot at hostile aircraft above their country? There’s a surprise. Since they defended their country, we were justified in completely invading them.
Paul, those aircraft were patrolling as part of the ceasefire agreement and yes we were justified in invading Iraq. That ceasefire was due to Saddam invading Kuwait and then a coalition of countries defeating him.
YatYas: Wrong again. The no-fly zones were established for humanitarian reasons after we told the Iraqi people to rise up, they did, then Saddam slaughtered them.
It appears that Paul doesn’t know the difference between a criminal matter and his ass. All that’s necessary for extradition, is, and I quote, “* An affidavit from the prosecutor explaining the facts of the case. See Criminal Resource Manual at 605.
* Copies of the statutes alleged to have been violated and the statute of limitations. See Criminal Resource Manual at 607.
* If the fugitive has not been convicted, certified copies of the arrest warrant and complaint or indictment. See Criminal Resource Manual at 606.
* Evidence, in the form of affidavits or grand jury transcripts, establishing that the crime was committed, including sufficient evidence (i.e., photograph, fingerprints, and affidavit of identifying witness) to establish the defendant’s identity (CAVEAT: The use of grand jury transcripts or trial transcripts should, if at all possible, be avoided). See Criminal Resource Manual at 608.
* If the fugitive has been convicted, a certified copy of the order of judgment and committal establishing the conviction, an affidavit stating the sentence was not or was only partially served and the amount of time remaining to be served, and evidence concerning identity. See Criminal Resource Manual at 609.
Prosecutors should be aware that there are few workable defenses to extradition, although appeals and delays are common. Fugitives, however, may be able to contest extradition on the basis of minor inconsistencies resulting from clerical or typographical errors. Although these can be remedied eventually, they take time to untangle. Therefore, pay careful attention to detail in preparing the documents.
But, he’s an apologist for the Taliban, mustn’t “insult Islam”, and OBL, so what would you expect? But, holy bat shite, one IA flipped him off? Why, that certainly validates his claim that they’re all corrupt, now doesn’t it? And he cites Hans Blix?
UpNorth: Ah, you’re trolling again I see. You actually copy/pasted something that proves my point. You should read it.
I’m once again impressed by you ability to put words in my mouth. Never once have I defended the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Saddam, et al. I’m just going to write this one off as trolling as well.
Also for the record, Hans Blix was right. There were no WMD found in Iraq.
#21 Paul:
“PintoNag: You’re a paranoid bigot…”
So THAT’S your answer to my question? A personal insult?
How very kind of you.