It had been a long time since anyone in Kotka Miralam Daud Shah, an oasis village near the Afghan border, had received a letter from America. So quite a crowd gathered when the Pakistani postman strolled into the dusty courtyard of Mohammed Azeem's house and delivered the letter. Azeem didn't know anyone in America. The envelope had a pretty stamp of Mt. McKinley and an unusual return address: Detainee, JBC, 160 Camp X-Ray. Even more mysterious, the missive bore the name of Azeem's son, Issa Khan, given up for dead months ago by his family.

Azeem tore open the envelope with the whole village looking on. He recognized Issa's writing, and his sad, ashen eyes lit up. "Kind father, mother and sisters," the letter read. "I'm in the United States. I've been arrested. I hope I'll be released soon, since I'm innocent." Azeem shouted for his wife, Sardara, who tottered into the courtyard, disrupting the chickens; racked by grief, she had suffered several seizures since their son went missing. "Issa's alive!" Azeem cried, adding with bewilderment: "But he's in America."

Close. He was actually in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as a guest of the U.S. military. How did Khan, a homeopathic doctor who (according to his family) had never picked up a gun, find himself 9,600 kilometers from home locked inside a razor-wired stockade? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has described Guantánamo's prisoners as "hard-core, well-trained terrorists." But according to his family and friends, Khan was nothing more than a fool in love, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.



LATEST COVER STORY

North Korea: The Dying State

Northern Exposure

Viewpoint

November 4, 2002 Issue

Past Issues After Bali Oct. 28, 2002 ----------------- Tadanobu Asano Oct. 21, 2002 ----------------- China's Most Wanted Oct. 14, 2002 ----------------- Headache Prevention Oct. 7, 2002 ----------------- Asia's AIDS Crisis Sep. 30, 2002 ----------------- China's New Rich Sep. 23, 2002 ----------------- Ready for War? Sep. 16, 2002 ----------------- 9/11 Remembered Sep. 9, 2002 ----------------- Green Century Sep. 2, 2002 ----------------- Asian Journey Aug. 19-26, 2002 ----------------- 9/11: A History Aug. 12, 2002 ----------------- Plastic Surgery Aug. 5, 2002

ASIA

Pakistan: The Long Way Home

Japan: Last Stand

Bali: Rubble Trouble

Viewpoint: The U.S. and China

ARTS & BUSINESS

Entertainment: Tricia Chen

Vietnam: Under the Wheels

NOTEBOOK

Philippines: The Wrong Guys?

Japan: Character Asassination

Person of the Week

Milestones

TRAVEL

Trincomalee: Where Tourists Feared to Tread

CNN.com: Top Headlines







In the summer of 2001, Khan, 28, was pining for his young Afghan bride, who had gone to Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan to show off the couple's new baby to relatives. So Khan set off after them, traveling for a week by hitching rides on buses and trucks that were headed over icy, 4,800-m mountain ranges. But soon after he arrived, the war swept him away. After the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance captured Mazar-i-Sharif from the Taliban, his parents stopped hearing from him. "We were sure he'd been killed," says Azeem. Khan was a Pashtun, and the Uzbek conquerors of the city hated Pashtuns.

But the Uzbeks didn't shoot Khan. They scored points with their American overlords by turning him over as a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist. "Issa isn't a Taliban or al-Qaeda," says his dad. "He's a doctor who maybe likes to smoke too much hashish and laze around." Like all prisoners, Khan was shorn of his beard, stripped, forced into a bright orange jumpsuit, clapped into earmuffs so he couldn't hear and black goggles that obscured his eyesight. In chains, he was led onto a plane for the longest, strangest trip of his life—to Guantánamo Bay.

"Don't worry about me," Khan later wrote, trying to cheer up his family. "I'm happy. I've even given up smoking." Like all Guantánamo inmates, he lives in a 2-m by 2.5-m cell with a copy of the Koran for company. For 30 minutes every week, he is allowed out of this cage to exercise with his feet shackled. He and all the other so-called "enemy combatants" were recently moved from Camp X-Ray to the larger Camp Delta several kilometers away, where the Army is busy building an extra 204 cells for future captives.

Most of Guantánamo's 598 detainees are indeed al-Qaeda terrorists. But, as U.S. authorities are finally conceding, the lovelorn Khan—and perhaps as many as 100 other captives—simply aren't. They were grabbed by mistake in the chaos of battle. And last week U.S. officials for the first time reluctantly admitted that this was the case. As Rumsfeld said last Tuesday: "If you don't want them for intelligence, and you don't want them for law enforcement ... then let's be rid of them."

Mixed in with genuine terrorists are a 16-year-old boy, two 90-year-old Afghans ("They look 110," remarked one of the camp's few visitors), a Sudanese TV cameraman from the al-Jazeera network, and scores of hapless Pakistani youths who heeded the cry of jihad and found themselves abandoned and robbed on the battlefield by their fleeing Taliban brethren. Others were packed off to Guantánamo because they failed to pay extortion money to a Kandahar city secret policeman—a supposed American ally—who then denounced them as Osama bin Laden's henchmen.

Guantánamo has, in fact, turned out to be a windfall for America's Afghan confederates. According to Pakistani detainees, the U.S. military paid the Northern Alliance $5,000 for each captive who confessed to being a Taliban and $20,000 for each purported al-Qaeda fighter. With that incentive, the prisoners claim, the allied commanders grabbed any Pakistani wandering dazed around the battlefield, then extracted confessions by force.

After visiting Guantánamo twice and interrogating the prisoners themselves, officials from Islamabad contend that only eight of the 58 Pakistani detainees had genuine links with al-Qaeda. Most, they say, were wannabe jihadis who were recruited from Pakistani mosques and crossed the frontier last October to join the Taliban after the war began. Their average age is between 20 and 22. "They broke down and cried when they saw us," says one Pakistani official. In Guantánamo, the Pakistani envoys say they asked the American jailors: "Why did you waste your time and money bringing them to Cuba when you could have interrogated them first in Pakistan? Most of them don't have any clue about al-Qaeda." And it is not only the Pakistani government that feels an injustice has been done: Kuwait is demanding the U.S. free 12 of its citizens, whom it claims were relief workers in Afghanistan.

At first, Guantánamo wardens kept the Arab and Pakistani prisoners in adjacent cages. But they were segregated when shouting matches broke out, with each group blaming the other for its misfortune. The Arabs harangued the Pakistanis for allowing the U.S. to launch its attack against Afghanistan; the Pakistani prisoners yelled back that if the Arabs hadn't used Afghanistan as a terrorist base, the Americans would have left everyone alone.

With hindsight, of course, the U.S. military should have screened its al-Qaeda suspects more rigorously and relied less on Afghan bounty hunters before doling out one-way tickets to Cuba. But the Bush Administration was desperate to avert another terrorist attack, and to catch bin Laden. This haste, say human rights activists, led the Administration to disregard Geneva Convention rules for the proper treatment of war prisoners. Meanwhile, a year on, the Guantánamo process has bogged down. Every suspect has been interviewed dozens of times by U.S. intelligence and antiterrorism agencies. Yet not a single prisoner has been brought before a U.S. military tribunal. The Pentagon insists this will happen soon, but mid-level officers say privately that the Bush Administration is moving slowly to avoid high-profile legal proceedings that would reveal a sorry fact: the U.S. mostly netted Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters of only low to middling importance, bagging few of the real bad guys.

Soon, however, a batch of mistakenly detained captives is likely to be sent home. Among the first to "come down the chute," as Rumsfeld put it, are three or four Pakistanis. Back in the village of Kotka Miralam Daud Shah, Issa Khan's family waits hopefully for his return. "We'll send a convoy of cars from the village to pick him up, with music and everything," promises his father Azeem. "Then we'll help him find his wife and baby in Afghanistan." Clutching a photo of his son, Azeem says, "No, I don't hold any grudge against the Americans." Then he adds with a grin: "But after all this trouble, the Americans should give him a job there. Please write this."

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501021104-384884,00.html

if his mom and dad say he's okay, I guess we just better let him go then.

more lies from the Left.

The photo was obviously not taken at Gitmo.

what would your mom and dad say if your were incarcerated? The inocent do get imprisoned. Some even get executed in the us. Dont be so quic to doubt people's inocence: these me have not been tried in a caoiutr of law. Their guilt is not established.

One day it might be you behind bars protesting your innocence. Then what willk you think if some jackass jeers.

Oh so you're 100% sure that in the entire history of the USA not one mistake was EVER made applying the death penalty?

Well, how about this?

-David Wayne Spence "almost certainly was innocent," according to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who has reported that both the police lieutenant who supervised the 1992 investigation and the detective who conducted it are persuaded of Spence’s innocence. "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent," the detective, Ramon Salinas, told Herbert. "Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." For details, see Herbert’s columns of July 25 and 26, 1997, in the New York Times.

Girvies Davis, age 37, was executed at the Stateville penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois, on May 17, 1995, for the 1978 murder of 89-year-old Charles Biebel at his home near Belleville. "This is the kind of case that gives the death penalty a bad name," former Chicago Police Superintendent Richard J. Brzeczek, an ardent supporter of capital punishment, proclaimed a few days before Davis’s execution.

There was no physical evidence linking Davis to the crime. No witness placed him at the murder scene. But Davis, an African-American, was convicted of the murder by an all white jury almost solely on the basis of a written confession, which Davis had signed at a time when he was illiterate. While in police custody, Davis had signed similar confessions to virtually every major unsolved crime in a two-county area including three murders the authorities acknowledged he could not have committed.-

http://www.macarthurjusticecenter.com/wrong.html

-Earlier this week, an Illinois State Commission issued an unprecedented report calling for 85

reforms in the administration of the death penalty. Their recommendations include banning the execution of people with mental retardation and improving the mechanism for appointing competent attorneys. This report mirrors nationwide developments that have exposed fundamental flaws in our system of capital punishment, such as last week's release of the 100th innocent person sentenced to death-

http://www.fountainoflight.net/publish/printer_147.shtml

-Since 1972, 78 men and two women in the United States have been sentenced to death and then freed from death row -- in some cases more than a decade later -- when it became clear they were innocent, or at least wrongly convicted because of flawed evidence, prosecutorial misconduct or other problems.-

http://www.truthinjustice.org/13survivors.htm

Buckhead, you are without doubt the quintessential lefty idiot. You think it's cute to show a decapitated infant from Bosnia or Kosovo and pass it off as having anything to do with the Marines guarding Guantanamo? You are a cretin.

Those don't look like BDUs they are wearing.


BTW, what is a U.S. military base doing on

the soil of an "enemy" country if not in hostile

occupation? Are Castro and Bush having a circle

jerk? Castro seems to have enormous stamina.

Well done. it's clear that the americans will have made mistakes with the death penalty in the past. however moving away from that what about the innocent afgans that got killed when bush decided he was going to bomb the al'queda bases and missed. i'd say that was innocent deaths. America can make mitakes aswell they are not infallable and some of them need to remember this fact.

"The U.S. Government is continually criticizing Fidel Castro for failing to respect basic due process, and yet transports these prisoners to a U.S. base on Cuba in an effort to deprive them of any rights," said British capital defense attorney Clive Stafford Smith. "That is pure hypocrisy."

Center for Constitutional Rights Legal Director William Goodman said, "From the abuses of the Alien and Sedition Acts to Haymarket Square to the Palmer Raids to the McCarthy period, fears of foreigners and of real and imagined dangers, have fueled attempts to do unreasonable and unnecessary harm to the Bill of Rights."

For starters, Sacco and Vanzetti in the 20's

Numerous cases resolved in the 90's because of DNA analysis released dozens of people from death row.

Ilinois recently put a moratorium on the Death Penalty because THIRTEEN people on death row were found to be innocent!

From this page:



read the following:

http://web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/ff6dd728f6268d0480256aab003d14a8/46e4de9db9087e35802568810050f05f!OpenDocument

9. Execution of the Innocent

As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Since 1973, 102 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.

The Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed.

Announcing the moratorium, Governor Ryan said: ''I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.''



000

-If we were to line them up and machine gun the lot of them it would be justice served.-

In a society where the rule of law applies, the above statement would alert the people to obvious criminal intent.

And it would warrant close observation to protect the safety of the general population from this kind of mentality.

Reminds me or the rhetoric prevalent of Nazi Germany.

Next; kangaroo courts for enemies of the state.

(Opps; they're here already) Is everyone ready for their shots?

Next; camps for anti-americans and other thought criminals.

Some death penalty opponents still claim that 23 "innocents" have been executed in the US since 1900. The authors of that 1987 study, in response to a deconstruction of their work, stated, in 1988, that "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had."(25).

Barry Scheck, cofounder of the Innocence Project and featured speaker at the National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty (11/13-15/98), stated that he had no proof of an innocent executed (in the US since 1976) (26).

Not even the nation's leading, biased source for anti death penalty information, the DPIC, says there is proof of an innocent executed. They list 5 "doubt" cases (27): Gary Graham, Joseph O'Dell, Roger Keith Coleman, Leo Jones and David Spence. A review shows how deceptive the DPIC case descriptions are (28) and how lacking any proof of innocence is.

The Texas case of Lionel Herrera, like others, nationally, has been labeled, by many death penalty opponents, as an innocent executed. I believe that Herrera, once upon a time, was also included in a previous incarnation of the DPIC list. A comment from Supreme Court Justice O'Connor. "[T]he proper disposition of this case is neither difficult nor troubling.... The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner [Herrera] deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent." Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390, 421(1993)(O'Connor, J.,concurring)

Of all the world's social and governmental institutions, that do put innocents at risk, I am aware of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent killed since 1900. Can you name another?

It’s not so much that I disagree with the concept of the death penalty but rather the idea that the selective enforcement

principal stands to discredit it.

Is someone who kills an innocent person (being poor or otherwise

a second class individual) subject to the death penalty less guilty than another who has the resources of wealth who thereby is able to enlist the best legal assistance available? While some public defenders are professionals who take their jobs as a sacred trust, there are the incompetent or unmotivated ones who can’t or don’t. Don’t tell me rich or powerful people don’t commit crimes.

We both know better. I’m not God and neither is anyone else to perceive the truth and meet out justice as if they were.

petition against death penalty



moratorium

O J. The media circus.

With the manipulation of evidence I am not sure of anything except that he was pretty funny in Naked Gun.

I don’t pretend to know one way or the other. Screw that anyway.

The POWs in Cuba are not criminals ( presumption of innocence) or animals no matter what the POTUS says, unless we have given him divine rights as the kings used to enjoy. I haven't, nor will I ever

even if you have.

More than 600 detainees held in the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay remain in legal limbo, without access to the courts or lawyers. Some have been held for almost a year, with no prospect of release or trial. Others may face military commissions which would flout international standards for fair trial. Conditions of confinement, in small cells for up to 24 hours a day, with minimal opportunity for exercise, may amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and raise serious concern about the well-being of the detainees.

update

Cuba.....

"The island of Cuba is nearly as long as the distance between Valladolid and Rome; it is now almost completely depopulated. San Juan [Puerto Rico] and Jamaica are two of the largest, most productive and attractive islands; both are now deserted and devastated. On the northern side of Cuba and Hispaniola he the neighboring Lucayos comprising more than sixty islands including those called Gigantes, beside numerous other islands, some small some large. The least felicitous of them were more fertile and beautiful than the gardens of the King of Seville. They have the healthiest lands in the world, where lived more than five hundred thousand souls; they are now deserted, inhabited by not a single living creature. All the people were slain or died after being taken into captivity and brought to the Island of Hispaniola to be sold as slaves. When the Spaniards saw that some of these had escaped, they sent a ship to find them, and it voyaged for three years among the islands searching for those who had escaped being slaughtered , for a good Christian had helped them escape, taking pity on them and had won them over to Christ; of these there were eleven persons and these I saw.

More than thirty other islands in the vicinity of San Juan are for the most part and for the same reason depopulated, and the land laid waste. On these islands I estimate there are 2,100 leagues of land that have been ruined and depopulated, empty of people."

What, pray tell, do a franciscan monk's views of Cuba during the Renaissance have to do with the imprisonment of terrorists in the 21st century? You are starting to wander...

update

"For America to Live Europe Must Die"

update

update

bush admirer, whether these people are guilty or not guilty what gives people the right to treat other humans as animals. what you are doing to these people is no better than what they did to your country, it is stooping to their level. And that only counts for the guilty ones, how do you know which ones these are? You don't none of them have had a fair trial. And in all this aren't we forgetting those terrorists oh so close to home the americans who are in on the plan don't forget those. In all of this one thing becomes apparent Bush does not think his plans through, he acts on impulse, and if it wasn't for all the epole around him who have some grip on sanity the whole world would be trashed by now.

only a homo would have a name like "bush hater". what a stupid choice for a name. you'd have gotten more respect with something like "fuck bush" or "bush reeks" or "fat stanky bush" or any number of choices but "bush hater"?? c'mon, who's gonna take a closet homosexual seriously. gimme a break.

...someone with a name of Bush Admirer sounds like

a real mental giant.

Bush Hater;

You make the insinuation that these people are being treated like animals. On what do you base this accusation? On these photographs? Undated and unauthenticated, they could very well be from a C-130 moving them internally in Afghanistan. They were restrained from moving and communicating while they were on board, prudent choice considering these people have a penchant for wrecking aircraft. Upon arrival at Guantanamo they are given humane treatment, culturally-sensitive meals, copies of their precious Koran, and opportunities to exercise their bodies and their religion. None of these perks are available to non-Muslims anywhere in the Mideast except for Israel.

Did you really just say that restraining these shitbirds is the equivalent of what they did to my country? You are without doubt the most ignorant jackass that has posted to this board, and that, I assure you, is saying something. These ‘humans’ are responsible for the intentional murder of thousands of my countrymen, they are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Afghanistan, they are responsible for the murder of Russian theater-goers and American diplomats in Jordan. They fire heat-seeking missiles at passenger jets. They drive explosive-laden trucks into resort hotels. They bomb discos. They avoid making attempts at defended targets and instead massacre defenseless innocents wherever they find them. And our capturing them and incarcerating them is no better than what they did to my country? Brilliant.

To say that Americans planned and executed the attacks on September 11th 2001 is an ignorant canard believed only along the banks of the Seine (and in whatever jerkwater you reside). The plotters have admitted their role, even boasted about it on Al jazeera television, and yet the cheese-eating surrender monkeys of France are not convinced. The hate America first crowd has its collective head firmly up its collective rear ends and ignores all evidence to the contrary. How insulting it must be to the terrorists to see their efforts and their announcements shrugged off as just another ‘black op’ by the CIA. May I suggest, my ignorant Gallic friend, that you visit www.memri.org and read what the priests and pundits of the Arabic world say daily.

You argue that President Bush doesn’t think his plans through. Why don’t you give me an example so I can eviscerate you a second time?

Ya gotta love the CIA.

Yeah, that’s more of our tax money well spent. Let’s see..we trained and funded these fighters either directly or through our client states and then we dropped a but load of H.E. on these folk; for reasons no court of law would consider evidence of involvement and now we got some of the armed resistance in cages. Sorry; that’s my take on it. Slice it anyway you want, it’s still baloney.

Something about our POTUS's focus on priorities.

...stop teasing Pvt. Fido...it just gets him all frothy....

...try teaching him some new tricks, so far he has "fetch" and "speak" down, work on "roll over 'n' play dead"....

Sheepdog, a little Shakespeare for you:

"So, if a son that is by his father sent about merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a servant, under his master's command transporting a sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the business of the master the author of the servant's damnation: but this is not so: the king is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of his servant; for they purpose not their death, when they purpose their services."

Henry V (act 4 scene 1)

So, you see Sheepdog, even if we had in the past entertained a relationship with some of these people (and that has yet to be proven), and even if we armed some of them, this in no way absolves them of their sole responsibility for their actions. If I hand you a gun and tell you to shoot KPC (he he), it is still your crime should you do so. I understand that concepts of individual responsiblity may be hard for Socialist Collectivists to understand, but I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out.

It is a long stretch from those that argue that we are indirectly responsible for what occured on Sept 11th (such as yourself), and those who say that the acts of Sept 11th were authored and intended by people in our country (such as Bush Hater). The former people have a point, however stretched, but the latter are either lunatic conspiracy theorists or idiots or French. But then I repeat myself. Hi KPC.

I LOVE these guys. Smart but stupid, forgetful yet possessing a memory of convenient ‘facts’. Educated yet lacking fundamentals of logic, alert yet senile; forgetting many previous posts. Sometimes grunting a response other times going into quotetating Shakespeare. What law office writes this stuff?

Baloney.

Accord these prisoners their rights according to standard legal conventions or quit trying to then turn and say we are a righteous country.

What a ponderous arrogant pompous self image you have. Arrogating to yourself the right to pronounce on someone's intelligence, and pretending to know the first thing about logic.

Leftists never use logic. Their strong suit has always been a reliance on emotionalism, and should that fail, forced coercion.

As far as the prisoners in Guantanamo are concerned, let us charge them. Only they don't seem to fall into any of the relevant categories. See :

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The most relevant passage is printed here:

"Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

The detainees don't fall into any of these categories. In fact they specifically are excluded if for no other reason then they do not "respect the laws and customs of war". They are terrorists. Taken under arms against the forces of the United States. They are not soldiers, so they are not due the protections of the Geneva Convention. They are not criminals (nor American citizens) so they are not due the protections of our Constitution. They are terrorists and should be held until we squeeze the last bit of useful information we can from them, and thereafter disposed of, preferably by hanging.

Or better yet, let's pour them in with the cement for the foundation of the new World Trade Center.

Down boy, Down!...Heel!

Bad doggie!! Baaad!

Forget the semantics involved in your trimmed

view of reality.

These are POWs ( prisoners taken under arms ) and the tap dance with delicate definitions is pure BS. Asscroft is another little tin judge for the king and you're his sofant.

"....pretending to know the first thing about logic.

Leftists never use logic. Their strong suit has always been a reliance on emotionalism, and should that fail, forced coercion. As far as the prisoners in Guantanamo are concerned, let us charge them. Only they don't seem to fall into any of the relevant categories. See...."

the demand since day one has been to EITHER treat the detainees as prisoners of war OR to charge them with crimes.

if "they don't seem to fall into any of the relevant categories", they must be charged with crimes.

this is of course old news to the Bush administration, if not to 'Simple Simon'

---------------------------------

"Shakespeare's editing of the less honorable episodes of the historical French campaign enhances Henry's achievements..... In truth, the siege of Harfleur was a catastrophe...."

And I forgot to get you a card

-What a ponderous arrogant pompous self image you have-

Thank you for noticing. I am dog.

Boys, boys.

First of all, Link the little elf in Zelda, how did you put it?

"if "they don't seem to fall into any of the relevant categories", they must be charged with crimes."

Really. Where does that requirement exist in law or in the Geneva Convention? Why don't you link to it? I'll wait.

Next, my old buddy Sheepdog. Well, you did sound rather full of yourself there old boy, so I guess I came across a little stridently. Sorry about the intemperate speech. Anyway, shall we about it?

To make the argument that these men are prisoners of war, there must be some definition of the term. The Geneva Convention, linked above, clearly defines who may and may not be classified a POW. The terrorists who are our guests in Cuba do not pass muster on the Geneva scale. They do not behave in accordance with the laws and practices of war, hence they are outside of the protections afforded to POWs. This is not a loophole or a dodge. The authors of the Convention wanted to be sure that murderers in or out of uniform would not find a sanctuary in POW status. Yes, these men were taken under arms. But so are thousands of common criminals on the streets of America every year. Neither pass the test for POW status.

Gee whiz what a load.

A great steaming load of groat clusters (sorry one tub per customer) Peddle it somewhere else. Even a fool would know the smell dispite the label that says ‘rose water’

Type your little fingers away, I don’t buy it.

criminals ( presumption of innocence ) or POWs, not undermen or animals.

Hey BushBlower, buckin' for and aka of SimpletonBlower...

...why don't you two take your mutual masterbation session over there...

an exercise:

1. go to the search engine of the Henry Hazlitt Foundation.

2. enter the word -- habeas

3. one of your search results should be this article from the Cato institute.

4. supplement your reading with some background on the origins of the U.S. Constitution.

5. read more generally after a quick search for "habeas corpus" using a popular search engine

6. re-read category #1 of POWs: "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members

of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"

7. re-read the Center for Constitutional Rights' grounds for advocacy

You have of course failed again, Link, and miserably.

You were asked to provide evidence that the government is legally compelled to accept the detainees as POWs or prosecute them as criminals. You have said that such a condition exists. Your links do not support your argument.

First: Your Cato piece. This case is that of Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan fighting for Al Qaeda. The piece does not make any argument that the Non-American detainees are being illegally held; only that Mr. Hamdi, based on his American citizenship, should be either indicted or released. There is a broad river between the rights of American citizens and that of foreign terrorists captured under arms. The piece you reference also contains this little gem which bolsters my argument and scuttles yours:

“Unlawful combatants are different. When unlawful combatants are captured, they can be tried by a military tribunal”

Second: You quote me and ask me to re-read the following: "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces” This really is a stretch. One can make the argument that members of the Taliban are “members of militias or volunteer corps” but the same cannot be said of the members of Al Qaeda, who are our guests. This band of terrorists used Afghanistan as a safe haven and training ground, and propped up the repressive regime of the Taliban with financial assistance, but they were at no time incorporated into the armed forces of Afghanistan. They are a criminal terrorist organization comprised of non-Afghanis.

Third: Your article from CCR refers to the cases of Australian and British nationals who are among the detainees. The application for a writ of Habeas Corpus applies to them specifically, not to the vast majority of the detainees (ie Arabs). The CCR tries in this article, as you do in your argument, to blur the lines between what is permissible and what is legally compelled, making the specious argument that laws that apply to American citizens should apply equally to non-citizens. Ultimately, despite the usual Leftist soapbox-standing, all the article says is that the United States is holding an Aussie and a Brit and should either charge them or release them. Now, when the Australian and British governments make their formal applications for a writ of Habeas Corpus, I am sure our government will consider the matter. As of this writing, the Governments of Australia and Britain have not asked for their nationals. I wonder why.

In conclusion Link, you have

A: Misread the Geneva Convention which clearly lays out who shall be and who shall not be considered a POW. The members of Al Qaeda are not soldiers and not militiamen. Al Qaeda is an international terror organization which specifically violates the Convention by failing to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Even if they were considered part of the armed forces of Afghanistan, their behavior voids the protections afforded to soldiers captured under arms.

B: Attempted to claim that American laws should apply to the detainees, whereas even the CCR is only attempting to assert the primacy of American law in the specific case of citizens of two Western democracies. Not a little irony is found here in that those clamoring for writs of Habeas Corpus are attempting to use the humanity of Western law in an attempt to free those who wish to destroy Western society and eradicate Western law, to replace it with Sharia law. Pray tell, why don’t we try them under such a system as they employ themselves?

C: Failed miserably in your attempt to prove that the government MUST either charge or release these detainees. For the umpteenth time: They are not covered by the Geneva Convention, hence they are not POWs. They are not (excluding Mr. Hamdi, who by the way is in Virginia, not Cuba) American citizens, hence they are not afforded the same legal rights and protections as American citizens. They are detainees.

And with luck, soon they will be foundation supports.

If they are not criminals, they are POWs, and vice versa. There is no other category. Simple.

Brilliant analysis. So well-researched and backed up with so many citations in English Common Law, historical examples, and contemporary periodicals. Your razor-sharp analysis is hard to refute.

Oh, wait. No it isn't.

Either a person is a criminal or a POW? Why don't you read the posts above? The fact is that these people are "Unlawful Combatants". As such they are not POWs. They are not American citizens, (nor are they residing on American soil) so they are not due the Constitutional protections that are afforded to such citizens. As "Unlawful Combatants" they are subject to Military Justice. They should be, and will be militarily tried, militarily found guilty, and militarily hung. Not criminals. Not POWs. Dead Terrorists.

Well gee whiz do you expect anyone but

Bush Admirer to read more than one of these

repetitive parrot droppings about “unlawful” combatants? The only unlawful thing about this is the terrorist attacks against a country for crimes yet to be investigated.

"Unlawful Combatants" is not supported by english common law, or by any other law! It is a term invented only recently and never heard before this case came up! There are no historical examples.

But,........... , if you have a real king, you can accept new words and other divine creations

without bothersome thought or questions.

There is no precedent of any kind for the term 'unlawful combatants'. You will be totallly, completely and utterly incapable of referencing one, since the term was invented at the last moment to explain the illegal situation we are discussing.

You're going to make Link mad if you don't read his links, boys.

Here is the Cato Institute article that Link references above.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-30-02.html

You will note, oh-shrill whiners, that there IS precedent and that I have whupped yer collective butts yet again.

And The Two Towers is awesome.

‘for example, terrorists’ was inserted beyond the original written decision.

These prisoners are hardly espionage suspects. Still drifting I see...

Let's call them POWs (pretend they had matching socks )

and treat them as such.

Still waiting for the post card from friendly Kandahar.

(old news.... ancient)

"the legal mechanism despotism hates most"

-----------------------------------

"originated in the 12th century and the Magna Carta, the habeas corpus is one of the greatest achievements of humanity in defense of arbitrary infringement of basic rights."

------------------------------------------------------

"a year of loss"

----------- ------------------

"It is important to note that the framers of the Constitution for the United States of America choose to include in the body of the Constitution the Writ of Habeas Corpus while other important individual rights, arguably as an afterthought, were included in the first ten amendments which were popularly called the Bill of Rights. The “afterthought”, that is to say the Bill of Rights, was not included even as amendments until James Madison single handedly, but persistently and successfully, argued before congress for its adoption and passage on 15 December 1791, some two years after the constitution was ratified. This fact sheds light on the importance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus as viewed by the framers of the American Constitution at the time it was established."

------------------------------

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

-------------------------------

....Concerned about.. (the).. potential rebound effect against American servicemen, Secretary of State Colin Powell asked in mid-January ('02) for a review of the administration’s policy on the Geneva Conventions.[147] According to a leaked memorandum, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales indicated that Powell:

had contended that the Geneva rules “apply to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” and added, “I understand, however, that he would agree that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters could be determined not to be prisoners of war (P.O.W.s) but only on a case-by-case basis following individual hearings before a military board.”

-- Katherine Q. Seelye, New York Times, Jan. 27, 2002

Why Sheepdog, are you suggesting that we flout international conventions? You, who no doubt bemoans our non-compliance with the Kyoto Accords? You, who is doubtless outraged at our failure to participate in the UN anti-racism conference, annual jew-bait and barbeque in South Africa? You who will unquestioningly bleat on and on about the primacy of UN resolutions, and how we cannot act unilaterally? Now you're suggesting we ignore the very specific wording of the Geneva Convention? I'm positively scandalized.

Despite your most sincere wishes, our detainees are not POWs. The Geneva Convention is very specific in its wording. Our guests in Cuba are not members of a military outfit or a militia. They are terrorists. They plan and train in shitholes like Afghanistan, then rain death on women and children around the world. And moral midgets like yourself want to prevent the civilized world from aprehending them in the first place, and punishing them in the second. You'd rather let them run free or treat them as if they were domestic criminals.

We are not fighting crime. We are fighting a war. Well, some of us are. As for myself and my unit, no word on deployment yet, though it looks like we may find ourselves on the Korean Penninsula should something occur.

Mr. Powell's opinion, Mr. Link, is not law. He is the Secretary of State. You still have presented zero evidence to back your claim that the government MUST either charge these people as criminals or confer upon them the status of POWs. All your references to the great works of dead white European men are appreciated, however. They bring into sharp focus how inferior our opponents are.

Most of us have no desire to hear about your "unit", SS, no matter how many excuses you must make for it.

Child, Silence. Men are discussing things here. Sheepdog asked a question and I gave him an answer. So unlike your anonymous pasting of whiny one-liners. Back to class junior.

quit whining.

crybaby.

Terrorists,freedom fighters, patriots, and POWs.

Depends on who has captured whom. Still waiting for the

post card from Kandahar. Otherwise uninterested in your verbiage or opinion. Push your view where it might

be taken seriously, say, over lunch with Bush Admirer.

I have once again decimated you old man. You and your lackeys have been routed and now resort to insults and jeers. Oh well, what am I to expect from the Left? Lacking the letter of the law they argue the spirit. Lacking the spirit of the law they argue the letter. Lacking either, they attack their opponent.

Check Mate.

Don't stuff yourself too full of humble pie, simpleton. You might not leave any room for the know-it-all soup.

(on 12/17/02) who wrote the following sentence?

"As far as the prisoners in Guantanamo are concerned, let us charge them."



---------------------------------------

for contrast check this out: "The US administration maintains that the detainees are enemy combatants, who may be held without charge until the end of hostilities ­ which, it argues, means until the war against terrorism is over."

---------------------------------------

Yes I said let us charge them. Let us charge them before a military tribunal. Then let us convict them and then let us hang them.

"The lawyer also wants to know why the correspondence from the prisoners has stopped for the past six months particularly after rumors that some of them were dying of severe torture."

( more old news)

U.S. Officials Misstate Geneva Convention Requirements

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Or better yet, let's pour them in with the cement for the foundation of the new World Trade Center." --'Simple Simon'

This is taken from your link, Link.

"The Geneva Conventions presume that a captured combatant is a prisoner of war, unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on a case by case basis. While members of al-Qaeda would probably not meet the Geneva Conventions' requirements for POW status, members of the Taliban's armed forces mostly likely would."

Now despite the fact that they are reading the Convention incorrectly, even they say that members of Al Qaeda are not POWs.

And I still want the terrorists poured in with the cement.

Of course they're POW's, everybody knows that, even you Pvt. Fido..."enemy non-combatants"...give us reasoning folk a fuckin' break, asshole, you look like a bootlicking moron , well , at least a more OBVIOUS bootlicking moron than you usually look like, when you go through these flaccid fuckin equivocations...

...have some balls, say the truth, "we do it because we can"...grow some hair you fuckin' eunuch. Typical ballless weaselly fuckin' Republicans, talk tough at a circle jerk with you buddies, but no balls when barkin'. I've got more respect for a sheet wearin' Wizard than for pukes like you, at least he'd have the balls to say what's on his mind.

Balls!

You're weird.

latest from Joseph Margulies, lawyer for petitioners in Rasul et al. v. Bush et al., which is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

latest from Thomas Wilner, lawyer for the families of 12 Kuwaitis detained at Guantanamo Bay

War crimes? No problem.

Yes it would be a great idea to get rid of the evidence the old fashioned way. You know, kill all the witnesses.

You folk would have impressed Fritz Kramer.

"The sooner we march them into the ocean the better as I see it."

OK, Hitler.

Don’t just blame Hitler, he had a great deal of support from Very dedicated campers like you know the moron admirer and the simple one selling their contempt and superiority.

We know the parrots are camped here for

background noise and disruption.

Their message is hateful reflexive and cruel. I propose that being self-serving and closed minded produces such views that I find a threat to survival.

Either / or logic is childish and simple

kinda like our POTUS and his supporters.

It’s the mindset of law and order types that

can with blithe disregard for humanity or

rule of law, advocate mass murder for

captured (defending their homes) alleged members of an organization with connections to a CIA funded operation. Or not, we sure don’t know. Take their WORD for it? Hardly.

This entire rout of the remaining pretense of

government of the people for the people and by the people under the rubric of terrorism is

a transparent and lethal sham triggered by an event reeking with stupidity or treason by

our ‘leaders’ or both. I want to know what really hapened

not what they ( meat puppets ) are telling me or not telling me.

I know we are being lied to.

"....farmers, taxi drivers, cobblers and laborers...." (update)

the casual headcount from the corporate mainstream:

"at least 59 (detainees)....have no meaningful connection to al-Qaida or the Taliban"

Detainee Al-Kaabi had nothing to do with Afghanistan, says cousin

CCR

updates:

12/27/02 HRW statement: Reports of Torture of Al-Qaeda Suspects

arab news editorial from 12/28/02: "lawlessness"

"We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them." --US Official

Campaigners demand US 'torture' probe



Sagheer said he was given a hundred dollar bill at the time of his release on 27th October and was told that another hundred dollars will be received in Pakistan.

"I have decided to move the court against the US government for compensation," Mohammad Sagheer said in Islamabad on Sunday.

Sagheer, 51, belonging to Kohistan district of North West Frontier Province, was freed along with three Afghan prisoners after one-year detention in Guantanamo.

"My release shows that I was innocent and the Americans kept me in illegal detention," Sagheer said.

"http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/4830905.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp>Such acts are `grave breaches,' or war crimes, under the 1949 Geneva Conventions"

These men are not being held under the Geneva Convention. Your point is moot. And tedious.

"As Washington's anti-terrorist campaign rolls into 2003, it appears increasingly clear that the administration of President George W. Bush has decided to ignore both the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and the most basic tenets of international law against torture."

Still waiting for your evidence that the government MUST either charge these men as criminals or declare them POW's. Guess I'll keep on waiting while you choke the board with useless and irrelevant quotes. Yawn.

dorsal?

(The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.)

new Chomsky interview (12/28/02)

"Right now a lot of people could end up in Guantanamo Bay and people are aware of it."

not to be a 'terroist supporter' as you put it but surely by stating their need to be killed, are you not just stooping to their level?

I'm not really seeing lynx as supportive of terrorists or terrorism, only noting that when we fall outside the rule of law, or make rules of law which have haphazard or narrow applications, we are putting ourselves in the slaughterhouse, as well. The rule of law, or the mere impression, is one of the major things which distinguishes America from the pantheon of most other nations. When America says that we ca capture and indefinitely inter "persons of interest" or "enemy combatants" without ever declaring war, yet DEMAND that US soldiers not be held to the same high standards when overseas (note: US refuses to allow our boys to be tried for war crimes by the World Court), we are exposing our duplistic nature. This has the detrimental quality of emboldening nations which might otherwise engage in dialogue, and not tactics of fear or bullying, which seem to be the only reaction America responds to (N. Korea, anyone). We've now set a dangerous paradigm that says "We can bomb the hell out of you without fear of reprisals, but if you've already got the bomb, hello detante." If we (the US) are so rich, and wise, and powerful, is it not incumbent upon us to set the standard for other nations to adhere and strive towards?

I, for one, think terrrorists, whether they be IRA, PLO, Al Quaida, or better yet CIA, should be prosecuted before the world. But that opens the Pandora's Box of A LOT of dastardly and unscrupulous activites undertaken by former ambassadors, advisors, and yes, heads of state. And that, sadly, is why we will probably never see the US engage the world on anything outside of Imperialistic posturing.

Marc I understand where you are coming from, but I must disagree. These 'men' are not common criminals or felons, they are terrorists. Much like the pirates of the 16th through 19th centuries, they exist outside of the realm of civilized behavior, and cannot be deterred from their actions. The only way to deal with them is to exterminate them. You say you would like to see them tried before a World Court? How silly. After a lengthy trial where they will spout all their anti-Americanisms as justification for their crimes and the 'morally superior' Europeans will nod their heads gravely, they will be found guilty and sentenced to what? Twenty years? Out on the street after the end of their time, or even sooner should one of their compatriots hijacks another Air France jet or seizes another theater? No thanks.

Death to Terrorists.

...but without purporting to some adjudicating body (be it the world court, or something new?) we are exposing ourselves to living by the play by our own rules doctrine. By eliminating any and all of these terrorists (which has only been established by our military - and they've never been know to fabricate or stretch the truth) we are unable identify and stop future terrorist acts. I, for one, would be very concerned if we were to merely execute anyone without clearly and convincingly establishing their culpability in whatever act they are alleged to have committed. Would some sort of trial, or what have you, potentially expose influences that might lead up the very corridors of power in major superpower nations? Conspiracy theory, maybe, but be executing even the henchmen and lapdogs of these acts without establishing or disproving such notions, we would be furthering the cause of such extremists and anti-authoritarians. Despite our claims of "liberating" Afghanistan, we have done nothing but solidify the power base of a very well heeled and oil firendly (albeit somewhat moderate) despot, while at the same time yielding substantial power and autonomy (and money!) to the Warlords who have seized what remains. Will this also be the outcome in Iraq, with no clearly defined exit strategy?

I'm not defending any particular terrorist, or individual. If there is evidence of transgressions (not rhetoric), than their fate has already been sealed. I don't know of a facility or nation which would actively house and incarcerate them, as the likelihood of reprisals would be great (probably why they are in Guantanamo, aside from the murky legal status). I am saying let's establish that they are terrorists outside the narrow scope of military and pentagon hawks. If such is the case, most of the arguments will fade away.

The karzai "regime" represents the realization of a 30+ year old plan to constrcut, safeguard, and maintain a permanent oil pipeline to the Caspian Sea.

http://www.iacenter.org/afghan_warcr.htm

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qfpip.html

http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column70a.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/afghan.html

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1149

...however, I would not narrowly define progress as securing an oil pipeline. What about the lofty issues the government purported to be protecting?

http://www.unicef.org/noteworthy/afghanistan/

http://www.developmentgateway.org/node/134111/

http://www.who.int/disasters/emergency.cfm?emergencyID=2&doctypeID=2

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLCE/Afghanistan?OpenDocument&StartKey=Afghanistan&Expandview

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/index.htm

A win for Karzai, certainly. A win for the Warlords, most definitely. A win for GWB, indeed. A win for the Afghanis, that's a stretch. And after all our blubber and buster about rooting out terrorism whereve it may be, we have forced the Taliban and Al Queda even further down the rabbit hole. No capture of O.B.L., but was that ever the goal?

The positioning of US military bases is certainly worth contemplating.

http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1808

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm

http://www.afgha.com/?

http://www.cacianalyst.org/2002-05-22/20020522_GAS_PIPELINES.htm

Marc, these gentlemen were taken under arms against the forces of the United States. They are not members of the Taliban, the majority of them are not Afghans. They are members of an international terrorist conspiracy. Disavowed publicly by all governments, they exist outside of legal authority. There is no provision for their treatment under the Geneva Convention, and no reason to give them the benefits of Western jurisprudence when they themselves would destroy such jurisprudence. I believe we should follow the example of our Russian friends and execute them and then bury them in pig skins. We should use their primitive belief system against them.

More good links.

Even a 36 gig hard drive has its limits.

Time to burn some CDs.

Again, thanks.

What I am saying is that when we, the good ole U.S. of A. sink to such levels we have lost all semblance of any moral authority. These are the remnants of a massive buildup of mujaheddin which we, the US, trained and even directed extensively for the last 15+ years when we still considered Russia nee the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire."

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Anatomy.asp - I'm sure you're only too familiar with this.

Much as we would like to (and are trying to), we can not erase history and wash our hands of this. We bear a great burden of responsibility and exterminating/eliminating them does not solve the issue. Same goes for Osama bin Laden. Evil - yes. Murky alliances with US foreign interests (curent and past), some of whom are in the current administration - yes. Bad choices from the era of the cold war, or even deeper? Trying to head an "independent" commission with someone exempt from War Crimes and crimes against humanity doesn't help to expose the truth, as sordid as it may be. This shroud of secrecy only advances the notions of vast conspiracies in OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Some accountibility and honesty should not be too much to ask for from OUR government.

...and if we, the mighty US do not recognize such things as the Geneva conventions, or brush them aside because we are not "really" at war, even though we publicly say we are, we have opened the hornets nest for future blowback/retaliation.

So, if I follow your point, we shouldn’t act to defend ourselves from terrorists because we may have armed other terrorists at some point in our history? I seriously doubt that members of Al Qaeda are the same people we armed in the 1980’s. Perhaps members of other Afghan militias have the odd veteran from those times, but due to the fact that the country has been a battle zone since 1979 and the Soviet Empire began to unravel in 1989, I would bet very few of the US supported Muhajideen are still around.

Even if we accept your premise that we are guilty of arming these people in the first place (and again, this is not so), using your reasoning we shouldn’t have expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait because we previously armed Saddam. Further, we shouldn’t have opposed the Soviet Union in the Cold War because we gave them all that lend lease equipment during the Second World War. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have a moral obligation to ensure that those we arm are acting in the interests of the United States, and should they stray from that path, we are bound to correct our mistake. We are, in effect, cleaning up our mess.

But no, the sad truth is that the creatures who make up the international terrorist operation known as Al Qaeda are funded by themselves, armed by themselves and motivated by a burning hatred of America and all infidels not because of what they have done, but because of what they are. All the hand-wringing and teeth gnashing in the world will not deter these people from their announced goals: Establishment of a pan-Arabic Caliphate, and the eradication or forced conversion of all to their version of Islam. Against such a philosophy there can be no compromise, no half measures. The path that these men follow leads to death. Not paradise, but death. All will be made to understand this. We cannot live in fear of reprisal or retaliation. This path leads to inertia and doubt. We must act extraordinarily to deal with an unconventional foe. If this means that certain laws are suspended, so be it. History has shown the necessity to do just such a thing in wartime. We will not let our Western values of humanity and respect for life and justice prohibit us from killing the Eastern snake that threatens us.

I actually do believe it should be a universal imperative cooperatively shared amongst as many nations as possible to root out and dismantle terrorist organizations. But I also believe there should be some coming clean by many nations of their prior acts and how they influence current world policies. There seems to be (and not necessarily by you) a blurring of history into such a context that creatures such as Osama bin Laden appeared out of thin air. That is utterly false. He was trained by CIA field officers in how to organize, mobilize, arm, and train the mujaheddin against our then-enemy the Soviet Union. The US used massive propoganda sweeps to convince the mujaheddin of the evils of the Soviets (which they already knew) and to bolster the radical fundamentalism that they now so fiendishly espouse. Those caves weren't just made by him and his cronies, you know? The US (with the CIA & School of Americas, amongst others) did engage in organizing, mobilizing, arming, and training "counter-revolutionary" forces, or as Reagan mis-named them "freedom fighters" to overthrow governments in Central and South America. Or to use influence with former Government agents and interlocutors to promote coups and ousters of democratically elected Presidents in Venezuela.

What I am getting at is that you will have to search high and low to find countries without dirty hands, and to portray America as the bastion of moral authority is hogwash! We need to set the example (with iraq, with Israel/Palestine) and start acting honestly and out in the open about the activities performed in yours and my name. We need to show the world what they are asking for: evidence - not rhetoric.

Marc- you've put up a lot of links there re Afghanistan.

However, I do believe that Hamid Karzai is his own man, a diplomat, well educated, and a good hearted guy who really wants to make Afghanistan a decent place to live. He's also someone who is comfortable with the West and with Islam. In other words, I think he's the ideal guy for the job at hand.

No question that the people of Afghanistan are much better off now than they were under the Taliban or before the Taliban (when warlords were constantly fighting one another). There is a fragile peace now and some definite progress.

Afghanistan isn't out of the woods by any means. The bad guys are still around. But the progress is heady to say the least.

i had to do some cae study works on mid & far East Oil, a few years back, so I am somewhat familiar with the players involved. I agree that it is a good thing the Taliban have been removed, but feel we waited FAR TOO LONG. Unfortunately, as bad as the Taliban were (and are), there was a lot of negotiating with them by a numerous individuals in our current (and previous) administrations. Rice, Cheney, even visits to Crawford Texas for these notorious human rights violators - all to hammer out the old plan of realizing the dearth of gas (oil but mostly natural) in the region.

Unfortunately, oil seems to be the opiate of choice in the corridors of power, and it forces (or we are given the appearance of forces) us into deals and alliances with some criminally abhorrent regimes. Until we (the west, but mainly the US) ween ourselves off this rich, but inherently temporary fuel source, we will be engaged in conflicts throughout the world, making pacts with murderers, fanatics, and genocidal regimes, and obfuscating the numerous beneficial works that America is otherwise notorious for.

update -- 01/09/03:

"....Federal public defender Frank Dunham Jr. said he plans to take the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi to the U.S. Supreme Court within 90 days."

update -- 01/09/03:

"Other experts questioned the court's rejection of arguments that Hamdi should be either treated as a prisoner of war, subject to rights under the Geneva Convention, or prosecuted for crimes using traditional methods.

``This decision condones government's creation of a constitutional no man's land,'' said Susan Herman, law professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Some compared it to the decisions upholding internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, when the government was given broad latitude and later was forced to apologize for mistreating citizens..... "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Another victory for common sense, as a Federal Court finds a person acting as a combatant for an enemy to be an enemy combatant. Much like finding Link the annoying hyperlink poster to be Link the poster of annoying hyperlinks.

01/11/03:

"No access to the courts, lawyers or relatives; the prospect of indefinite detention in small cells for up to 24 hours a day; the possibility of trials by executive military commissions with the power to hand down death sentences and no right of appeal. Is this how the USA defends human rights and the rule of law?” asked Amnesty International....

01/10/03:

"The longer the time passes, it becomes more important from a humanitarian prospective at least, that the fate of the people is clarified in Guantanamo," said Amanda Williamson, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

01/10/03:

"US accused of persistent rights violations at Camp X-Ray"

01/10/03:

Amnesty International News Release

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Now that's funny.

Tuesday Jan. 14th, '03:

"Group: U.S. Inconsistent on Human Rights"

World Report 2003 (from Human Rights Watch):

"In asserting that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to alleged members of al-Qaeda, the Bush administration undercut any legal basis for holding al-Qaeda suspects without trial. If al-Qaeda combatants are mere common criminals, as the administration contended, then under international human rights law they should have been charged with a criminal offense and prosecuted as well as given the opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. The United States had not given clear indication that it planned to prosecute any of the Guantánamo detainees."

Wednesday, Jan.15th, '03:

"Lawyer vows to fight US extradition"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Still waiting for your evidence that the government MUST either charge these men as criminals or declare them POW's. Guess I'll keep on waiting while you choke the board with useless and irrelevant quotes. Yawn.

01/18/03 update:

"The Red Cross says they should be classed as prisoners of war and treated as individuals, subject to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Many international agencies, including Amnesty International, have called on the US Government to either release the men being held or to charge them with a crime.

The ICRC steers clear of such public criticism but stresses that it is continuing to put pressure on the US authorities to give each prisoner a fair tribunal."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

01/25/03 update:

"Wayne Madsen, a former US navy intelligence officer.... now a commentator on intelligence-gathering, said he understood that prisoners who were believed to have information had been taken to countries including Egypt, Morocco and Syria where.... full-blown torture techniques were used."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Im a British Lawyer, I like good law abiding Americans who are happy to co-exist with me on my terms........what?

Otherwise I can always be irresponsible with the power I have......know what i mean?

Friends in America, you really need to get Bush out and watch those Neo-cons

--------------

The black letter of the law is one thing, but isn't it supposed to enshrine the moral values of the society and world we live in regardless of the constant shift in social attitudes?

Without doubt this is a constitutional no-mans land. However, hiding behind the letter does not constitute any breach as far as the law of man is concerned. But, it poses significant questions with regards to the morality of CIVILISED society.

You can call them terrorists, POW's or unlawful combatants but they are being detained by an accuser who has yet to charge. Bush Admirer I do commend you on your ability to research and apply the BLACK LETTERof the law. But, your reasoning is flawed for the simple lack of an appreciation of the world outside of your little tin hut and a failure to apply one of the greatest gifts that all humans have... common sense. This is symptomatic of the the BUSHISt/ neo-conservative cultural DIVERSION!!. Im still looking for OBL, and SH and the good ol' WMD.....just like Bush, said, Powell said, Rumsfeld said...they're there, we'll find them....irrefutable evidence...ZZZZZZ they couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery - but I'm sure they'll find ways to say they can, or did or will!

Now, if you, Bush Admirer tar the prisoners with the same brush and regard them all as terrorists, I sincerely question you're abilty to deal with the notion of justice at least natural justice.

'Common sense'..in law is usually a concept applied by juries and of course NON-POLITICALLY motivated judges (unlike those in Florida a few years back), who have a purpose - and that is administering justice.

Ofcourse, you have the proponents of each side of the coin, defence and prosecution...each will dazzle you with citing law and giving their strict interpretation of the same. Yet, it always SHOULD come to one thing - what is the truth...who is pulling the wool over who's eyes , even when the law fails equity should prevail. Yes, there's the old English Common Law notion of 'He who comes to equity must come with clean hands'. Well, I say this.....these people in GBay (yes, people, no matter how much you or I may take a dislike to them), should see due process and not the pitter patter of feet around the rule of law that CIVILISED countries supposedy adhere to. Some of their hands may be awash with blood, but some may be clean...imagine for more than one moment you are there and you're innocent, uncertain of what the future holds, execution or even abandonment....I know its difficult, but try...then when you come back down to your comfortable tin hut....say the words, "I'm glad I'm not in their shoes...'

Would you care about the technicalities of convention law, or what BUSH says or even what is on an internet posting site...you want due process and out of there. The latter regardless of your guilt.

Itis typical, the way in which the govt is circumventing the GC, but it is a thin veil of legality and not that of humanity, for the innocent and guilty. I suppose that's what you come to expect from a BUSh and his cronies which has the perverted idea that it is civilised to smell the burning flesh of another human in the electric chair.

The presumption of guilt is not the way to go about it BUSH admirer.

Bush Admirer, really find out what happened over in Florida; you have an unelected President over there. It's just the same tricks but on an international stage. I fear there will be further Anti-american sentiment, if the US continues to floutand undermine international conventions, laws and even courts (oh, you're not party to the World Court, hmm). There are real concerns beginning to take shape that the good people of the US will be painted in the same light as the tyrants THEY sincerely want rid of, because of the methods employed covertly and now very much openly.

First of all, Muuu, we don't have an unelected President. Educate yourself with regard to the electoral college system in the United States. If you're so big on following the law, then you might start by finding out what the law is re our Presidential elections.

FYI the Electoral College was established to prevent control of our federal government by a few states with extremely high populations. That's as it should be. Most of the screwed up liberals in America are located in populous states like California, New York, and Massachussetts. You can see that they're screwed up by looking at the losers they regularly elect such as Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Grey Davis, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, etc.

With respect to the terrorists in Cuba, you're thinking like a lawyer and, as a rule, lawyers don't do that very well. Lawyers are trained to find out what someone decided yesterday (precedent and do that). Lawyers are trained to look up a rule in a book written years ago and do whatever that says. Lawyers are not real big on common sense and following the situation on the ground. I'd rather have someone who graduated from a military college like West Point calling the shots rather than a law school graduate.

The normal court process would be an ineffective method for dealing with the Guantanamo detainees (laughable actually). How are you going to call witnesses as to what happened on a battlefield in Northern Afghanistan? Are you going to let terrorists walk because the prosecution can't provide sufficient evidence and witnesses? These guys were captured while fighting for the Taliban. That's sufficient.

"With respect to the terrorists in Cuba, you're thinking like a lawyer and, as a rule, lawyers don't do that very well."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

The New York Times has a front-page story titled "Inmates Released from Guantánamo Tell Tales of Despair." The crybaby combatants complain that things were so bad, some inmates tried to kill themselves. "In the 18 months since the detention camp opened, there have been 28 suicide attempts by 18 individuals," the Times reports. Somehow it's hard for me to work up much sympathy. I'm just happy they didn't kill themselves by flying planes into skyscrapers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/international/asia/17PRIS.html?pagewanted=all

7/16/03 update:

In particular, the Second Amended Complaint added claims alleging: Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs with timely notice of the charges on which they were being held in violation of due process (Claim 17); a blanket policy to deny Plaintiffs’ release on bond without regard to evidence of danger or flight risk in violation of due process and equal protection (Claims 18 and 19); assignment of Plaintiffs to extremely restrictive prison conditions without any procedural safeguards in violation of due process (Claim 20); and a “communications blackout” and other measures that interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain counsel and petition the courts for redress in violation of the First Amendment and due process (Claims 21 and 22). In addition, the new complaint asserted new allegations that further buttress the claims already asserted concerning lack of access to family and counsel, physical and mental abuse, and religious harassment.

The Department of Justice now has one week to file its Reply. We anticipate that the Court will rule on the validity of the claims without much delay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

How about reporting on the vast majority of the guilty there?!

Why the hell hasn't someone loaded these camel fucking terrorist into a plane and crashed it into mecca yet!?

Get a brain moran, hahahahahahah.

Oh look it's Larry, Curley and Moron.

July 25th, 2003

Lawyers Steering Clear of US Military Tribunals

by Matthew Hay Brown in The Orlando Sentinel

"The rules have been drafted, critiqued and revised. A courtroom has been built. The first candidates have been selected.

But as the Bush administration prepares to try some of the 660 terror suspects held at the U.S. Navy base here in the first tribunals of their kind since World War II, officials are having difficulty finding attorneys willing to participate.

"We cannot advise any of our members to act as civilian counsel at Guantanamo," Lawrence S. Goldman, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, wrote in the association journal. "The rules regulating counsel's behavior are just too restrictive to give us any confidence that counsel will be able to act zealously and professionally."

Under Pentagon guidelines, the defendants are to be provided military lawyers. But officials had hoped the participation of civilian attorneys would burnish their legitimacy.

They have found few takers. Lawyers say rules that allow evidence they may never be allowed to see, permit the government to eavesdrop on their conversations with clients, and require them to get official permission before discussing the case with witnesses or other attorneys make it impossible to prepare a meaningful defense.

Only 10 lawyers have submitted credentials."



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USA Encouraging Lawless Oppression Everywhere:

July 25th, 2003 Guardian (UK)

"We have statistics that 20% of the Palestinian population has been in prison or detained by the Israelis. There's hardly anyone not touched by it. Then there's the sense of injustice. Palestinians are often tortured in prison. There are no visitation rights. And if there is a trial, it's a mock trial."

The bulk of the prisoners have never been tried and many are not even told the accusations against them.

Israeli officials decline to discuss specific cases, but defend administrative detention by pointing out that the US is doing much the same in Guantanamo Bay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

updates:

9/7/03: Free prisoners, Riyadh tells US

CCR Asks Supreme Court to Review Detentions of Guantanamo Detainees

center for constitutional rights newsroom

New Legal Bid Made for Australia Al Qaeda Suspects

search guantanamo at la-imc

The Convention Against Torture prohibits torture carried out at the “instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence” of officials. Handing someone over with to a foreign intelligence service with the knowledge that the person will be tortured would certainly fit within the prohibitions of the Convention. One U.S. official who is involved with sending detainees to foreign countries admitted he knew they were likely to be tortured: “I …do it with my eyes open.” Torture is also a violation of U.S. criminal law and is punishable by death or life in prison. It also appears that U.S. officials engage in the treatment of detainees that may constitute torture. Witnesses have reported that captives are “softened up” by the U.S. military. The detainees are “blindfolded and thrown into walls, bound in painful positions, subjected to loud noises and deprived of sleep.

Michael Ratner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

lynx

latest comments

The Baltimore Sun reports on America's harsh treatment of al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay:

American interrogators here have come up with a few new weapons as they try to pry loose the secrets of prisoners captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

"It could be cupcakes, it could be Twinkies, it could even be a McDonald's hamburger," says Warrant Officer James Kluck, who, as the ranking food service officer, helps supply some of the unlikely ammunition.

"Sometimes, they go up on the base and get [the prisoner] a Happy Meal."

A McDonald's Happy Meal?

"Oh, yes, from what I'm told. It's got a toy and everything."

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.camp07sep07,0,6370963.story

Amnesty International complains that Guantanamo detainees are subjected to "conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." This seems overstated, though I'd have to agree with Amnesty that Burger King has better sandwiches than McDonald's.



http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-190803-background-eng

9/10/03: "Recently top U.S. military officials announced we're thinking that maybe we'll release three children, aged 13 to 15, that we've been holding in our camp for "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

--------------------------------------------

9/10/03: "....US military coroners ruled that the deaths of two [U.S.] prisoners [in Bagram] in mysterious circumstances were homicides. Just before the invasion, I met an American who is attached to a shadowy military/espionage operation; I asked him about the rumours of torture. He replied with a look of astonishment, "Are you crazy? Of course. That's the war we've got on our hands. We didn't ask for it this way."

--------------------------------------------

9/10/03: A leading international jurist has slammed the Federal Government's decision not to demand the repatriation of two Australians the United States is holding at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - a detention he describes as a "travesty of justice".

Fali Nariman is a member of the International Bar Association's Task Force on International Terrorism. He's also the senior advocate for the Indian Supreme Court, a position he's held for the past 52 years, and he's also an Upper House member of India's Parliament.

But Mr Nariman supports the Federal Government's new ASIO legislation, which allows the detention and questioning of a person for seven days if he's suspected of knowing about an imminent terrorist act, and he also says that the individual's right to privacy will have to be scaled back to ensure effective policing of terrorism.

Mr Nariman explained to Nick Mckenzie why he feels so strongly about the situation at Guantanamo Bay.

FALI NARIMAN: I don't know how they are justifying it: the very fact that it is beyond the United States, the territorial limits of the United States - some constitutional thing that the law doesn't apply and so on, but to have them subjected to this, I personally think that it is a total travesty of justice and I think that's the view of most people around the world.

---------------------------------------------

9/11/03: "Lawyers Optimistic About Release of Saudi Guantanamo Prisoners - - The lawyers working for the release of some 120 Saudi prisoners in Guantanamo have said they are optimistic that their mission will be successful. Kateb Fahd Al-Shammary, a member of the team, said the lawyers were in continuing talks with US officials to secure the release of all prisoners."

---------------------------------------------

center for constitutional rights

---------------------------------------------

forgotten at guantanamo

---------------------------------------------

anticrisis

lynx

latest comments