I don't want to imply that I think Gitmo was a good idea. I think it was as bad as going into Iraq. There was no need to create a separate identity for combatants who don't fight under a country's flag. We've always had them, and we've always treated them as spies/saboteurs.

I think that the innocent should be freed, and the rest should be executed. Sorry, but 7 years is small potatoes compared to the lifetimes they've ruined.

Well, if he's attacking US forces and he's not in uniform, then he fits the definition. When you go to war, you'd better know what you're getting into, and you'd better wear a uniform.

Yep, hanging on the spot works wonders!
You better believe wise men - life has never been black or white, good versus evil. And it never will be in spite of people efforts.

The Germans have had during the 2nd World war quite a few countries under occupation. Even today, those people being in the resistance (enemy combatants against German invaders of their home lands) are more often than not highly decorated post war veterans. Openly appraised for their courage to fight against the Germans under the full risk of losing their lives, in POW camps and Gestapo torture cellars.

Now, putting those well honored people into perspective, what is from your point of view not comparable to the enemy combatants here in question?

Except, that in case of Germany the Allied Forces wrote their view of the hiostory, and the US in this war has not yet been defeated and calling the shots and allowing themselves to judge these poor souls.

These are in both cases men of the Resistance, trying to free their country from an invading aggressor.

Don't you feel that both cases resembling the same act of fight for freedom and independence?

Cheers,
Michael

Just for kicks and giggles, I'm going to reiterate what I said before. This is why we need to make it an international undertaking. Everyone needs to have some sort of say in how the prisoners at Gitmo are going to be treated, and how they are going to be tried.

I would assume it will be a long and difficult process. I doubt everyone who is in there is there for the same reasons. Perhaps some of them are being held unjustly, perhaps others really did plot atrocities against non-combatants. Who knows? Nobody! And that's why I feel this needs to be moved out into the international public sphere...

Have we considered outsourcing this problem.... to a nation that understands how to deal with criminals? I could name a few.

Neither have we considered how we are going to handle future "enemy combatants" that are captured in battle without establishing another Gitmo? Should we read them their rights upon arresting them and then hire an attorney to defend them if they cannot afford one? That might interfere with other priority matters going on at the time.... like getting medical attention for their wounds incurred during the battle for which they have not yet been convicted of participating in.

Our GIs have enough to worry about.

It's absurd to compare the US Military with that of Nazi Germany, but since you have:
Many of those people who fought against the Germans were executed legally by the Germans.
My view is that they're combatants who have willingly put their lives at risk. Now they're facing the consequences of their decisions.
Once again, whether or not they are right to fight against the US is NOT at issue. The issue is that when you choose to fight against a country you should be prepared to lose, not only the war, but your life and/or your freedom. You should expect that you could lose both, and in painful, slow motion. It's the very idea that war is hell that deters most people from engaging in it. We should not do anything to make war palatable. Especially freeing people who've killed or tried to kill our citizens. It simply does not matter if they are right to try.

If you can't take the heat, don't start a fire.

No one said life was simple, but facts are simple. The accused either is an enemy combatant, or is not. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

Wow, I've been waiting for someone else out there to remember the old concept of "franc-tireur", meaning someone shooting at you and not in uniform. Under the old laws of war, you can summarily execute them.

However, what you could not do under the old laws of war was torture a franc-tireur for five years.

However, again, I'm not sure that the concept of "spies" applies to someone on their own soil. Not the same thing at all as finding an al-Qaida guy microfilming documents in your Pentagon office. If someone invaded your town, what sort of action on your part would constitute spying? Eyeballing the school where their troops are billetted?

However a third time, what I would like to know is how many of the people left in Gitmo fall into the category of "turned in by their neighbour for his fields and a whopping great bounty from the infidel". They let a lot of the obvious cases out years ago, including the guy who was nabbed in Tanzania for refusing to counter-bribe a policeman not to finger him for the reward. I think it was interesting that the four UK citizens that Blair managed to extract were released and not charged with anything. (And Tony who was so soft on terrorists and all..... yeah, right.)

Thought experiment: I pay one of you several million dollars to name another participant on this Forum as a terrorist. Any takers? Good. Now, I torture this fellow until he tells me all about his conspiracy. If he doesn't tell me, then the only explanation is that he must be a very hardened terrorist indeed, so I gotta torture him some more. And if I let him go, why, he may do bad things to me! For some strange reason, he doesn't love me any more. :eek: Better keep him......

You've added a meaningful aspect. Some of theses prisoners are subject to a modern witch hunt. How can you prove your innocence without a fair trial while being tortured for your confession?

The Supreme Court has ruled and the prisoners will get their day in court or be released. I personally think this is a mistake, but so be it. Bush's plan to try them in military tribunals seemed like a better idea than giving them full access to the US justice system.... military gains nothing by holding innocents (if there are any being held) and would, I think, be quick to release them.

What the Supreme Court has said (sorta) is we cannot hold enemy combatants without trial..... so what do we do with the future prisoners? Secret prisons? Again? Exactly how does one maintain a chain of evidence on a battlefield? Just not reasonably doable.

As always, the guys with the most guns will make the rules, and the winner's historians will write the account. Have we forgotten they are trying to kill us?

This is one example of why the military hates civilian involvement in wars. The lawyers and politicians can have their say after the killing has stopped... but only if we win.

Tell that to the French Resistance, many of whom were executed legally in France.

I agree that it is possible, even likely, that many are innocent. That's what needs to be determined. Of course, if a detainee tries to claim that fighting US troops was/is justified, then that's basically an admission of guilt. Guilt and innocence are not the same as right and wrong. Right and wrong can be debated until the cows come home, but guilt and innocence are simple matters of fact.

I think I'd want to distinguish between a member of the Resistance riffling through the general's papers or pillow-talking him out of the location of the next operation, and a guy out hunting rabbits and bumping into a patrol (c.f. Pan's Labyrinth). The first category, I see your point. But legally under which code? French law? German military law? I don't myself know, do you?

Now how about the second point; was it the case that people were Gitmo-ised for the equivalent of being out hunting rabbits? Without a trial, we can hardly know.

Actually, no. In our law, you have to prove mens rea, which is not simple. But I'll grant you that this isn't relevant to the battlefield. I also grant you that the franc-tireur's political opinions are not relevant.

OTOH, it seems to me that the Administration was arguing that they wouldn't have a trial because they were prisoners of war not criminals, and that they weren't covered by the Geneva Conventions because they were criminals not prisoners of war. One can't have it both ways. You can indeed keep a POW for the duration of hostilities -- but you don't get to torture him. Name, rank and number!

Bin Laden's master plan was, of course, to provoke the US into acting in such a way that they would outrage Muslim opinion and thus serve as his recruiting-sergeant. Worked like a charm, didn't it?

The Saudis are having great success in converting jihadis. They give them one-on-one counseling with an alim, and social rehabilitation. The recividism rate is very low. It turns out that jihadis often don't know much about their own religion -- just like some Christian culture warriors......:D

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_in_bello
Bold added for emphasis.

As for the rest, I don't want to defend the current administration's policies. I'm only saying we need to determine the guilt or innocence of Gitmo detainees, execute the guilty, and free the rest.

Sure, but I don't see what this quote has to do with spying. The spy isn't in uniform, naturally, but he isn't in combat either. So what, in specific terms, do you have to do in order to be guilty of "spying" -- in your own country? Overdiagnosis of spying has to me a sort of Soviet flavour.....

BTW, what a lovely old word, "perfidy". You don't often see it these days.[/QUOTE]

The people who drive fuel trucks for tanks aren't directly in combat either, but they are battling the enemy and can be taken prisoner, even killed. The same is true of spies.

The basic point here is that if you aren't willing to accept the fact that you might be killed, you shouldn't go to war. The farmer who doesn't like the US being in his country has four choices:

1) He can do nothing.

2) He can protest peacefully with no fear.

3) He can fight openly, risking his life while in battle, and potentially long-term imprisonment if captured.

4) He can fight as a spy/saboteur, risking his life while in battle and face near certain death if captured.

There are no other options, and there shouldn't be any.

By the way, I believe that in proving some one is a spy or saboteur, you automatically prove mens rea. You don't accidentally become a spy/saboteur. Intent is required.

Isn't that sweet - let's look at my little role play somewhere in rural Iraq or Afghanistan:

US Military bloke:

"Hey farmer, I feel you are guilty for having an intention of spying at US military secrets. Men of me have seen you staring all day long at us, while we are parking our military trucks in those crop fields over there. Besides, you are wearing a beard, what do you have to hide? In addition I can see notes, taken in Arabic on your desk ... Gosh, better we get you in for further interrogation."

Here we go, years later, the poor chaps finds himself still in GIZMO. And yes, those concerned US military blokes actually found 2 guns on the compound ... the usual things a farmer in a rual area have to have ... but a strong indication for him being an illegal combatant.

In other words - How do you decide in the middle of nowhere, that such a loke guy has the intend of spying on the US?

This accusation comes quite handy, am I right? Nothing needs to be proved, just the US military bloke has to have the feeling about the poor chap in guts. Then his capture on his own soil, and deporting into a remote torture and concentration camp is justified.

Your logic is dangerous, because a person is not innocent until proven and found guilty.

I have a lovely peace of historical logic in your favor: The Witch hunt ...

Declare a person a witch.
Torture her to confess.
She refuses to admit being a witch (must be stubborn, deeply possessed one - no more hope for her eternal soul, she is certainly devil's loyal subject - otherwise she could show some remorse right? Am I still within your logic?)
Well, her life has to end by a trial, where she can be proven innocent!

We all know that witches won't sink under water. Right - this was common sense during the middle ages. Proven 1.000 times by inquisitors. So called best practice back then.

Now we take our reluctant witch to the next pond, put a heavy stone around her neck as ballast, and throw her into the pond.

If she sinks, she was no witch. Praise god, her eternal soul is still untouched, and she'll be welcome in Heaven, sitting besides whomever made it there before her. Ok, she dead, but then this is due process ... am I right? (matching your fine sense of right and wrong?)

Well, then lets look at the opposite outcome. For reasons, unclear to me and the torturer, she wont sink. That's a crystal clear indication of being a witch per prior definition. Now no further confession is necessary, due process in those days was - Burn the witch on the stakes, to give her a last chance to repent in style. (You must be drooling by now, finding that your fine sense of right and wrong has such a long tradition... be proud of yourself bro!)

In any case a true Catch 22 - The girl is dead in the end. Even if due process has taken place.

Ah, and the church has just received her family's grounds and property. Not bad either ... as tiny reward for all the hard work they have had unmasking an terminating the witch.

I don't say the US is stealing from the farmer his property, but I am saying once you have been accused and ended up in GIZMO, you barely have a chance to get things right in your sense any more. Because you have all the perception of the wardens against you. And they are at the relevant end when it comes to your fair trial (to which you are not entitled to)

Hoping you'll never find yourself in a position where you are accused but innocent and then tortured for a confession. This would let you feel what happened to many of the GIZMO prisoners from my understanding.

Cheers,
Michael

And here's hoping we never find ourselves on the USS Cole or in the Trade Center when the terrorists strike.

Gitmo detainees are there because they potentially are a valuable intelligence source or represent a clear threat to the the western nations. That is, they are there to protect the western world from future strikes. Farmer John would be quickly weeded out and sent on his way, if indeed he would have ever been taken into custody in the first place. Give our troops a little credit... they are not terrorists.

I would deny they are tortured in the traditional meaning of the word. Certainly they were not beheaded with the atrocity displayed on the internet for their families to see. Their families were not killed. There was no infliction of intense pain over long periods of time. They are well fed with a diet that meets their religious and cultural norms. They are allowed to worship as they choose. Their limbs have not been severed nor their eyes poked out nor their bodies branded with a hot iron. In fact, their treatment has been down right civilized.

This is a life and death struggle for our existence, not a time to play nice.

I would allow the possibility that an innocent may have been detained. But, that's going to be the case after the trials, too. It is the case for US jails even with a fair trial and a jury of peers.

Go back and reread my post, but this time read it as I wrote it and not as you believe it to be written. I said that to prove mens rea, all you have to do is prove that the accused is a terrorist. Where in that or any other post have I said that it isn't necessary to prove guilt? Where have I implied any predisposition towards anyone's guilt or innocence?

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: A fair trial results in the innocent going free or the guilty being punished. That means that it is just as unfair to release the guilty as it is to punish the innocent. IE: OJ Simpson did not get a fair trial in 1995.

So the ends justify the means; is that it? Don't you see that precisely that reasoning led to Iraq and to numerous other outrages throughout history? Do your really believe that a small, well-funded group of like-minded crazy people threaten the existence of the USA? That's the politics of fear, and Gitmo only reinforces their beliefs.

PS: I think this thread runs the risk of getting entirely out of hand. Perhaps best to can it. Sorry I raised the issue.