Pentagon Gags Aussies: US Free Society Double-Standards

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Posted by kat:
"I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy."
Bull****

"..if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant."
A traitor to who?
Not to me, I'm Australian, you're not.
"..who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this.."
Which organisation?
What war?

Show me the transcript, or go back to LAH-LAH Land...

 

[hughes johnson]

Freedom of Speech (thought) in the US (sorry, Cuba) is well and truly dead.

Freedom of speech (thought) in the US is alive and well. Check out our newspapers, and our television and radio stations and you will see how wrong you are. You are badly misinformed.

 

[kat]

Posted by kat:
"I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy."
Bull****

"..if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant."
A traitor to who?
Not to me, I'm Australian, you're not.
"..who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this.."
Which organisation?
What war?[/QUOTE[

Apparently people in YOUR government think it was Al Queda.

Journalist: Reports that David Hicks was trained as a suicide bomber ...(inaudible)...

Downer: Well I don't know about suicide bomber, but I do know that David Hicks trained with al-Qaida. And this was something we ourselves were aware of. This is something that has been confirmed by David Hicks' father. And this is something that has now been confirmed by an investigating officer apparently. But the fact is that David Hicks trained with al-Qaida, which is the world's most evil terrorist organisation. And he of course has got himself into a great deal of trouble as a result of that. We hope that his hearing before the military commission will take place soon, and that's a work in progress. But it's merciful if it's true that he was asked to be a suicide bomber he said he wouldn't. That at least is a merciful thing.

Journalist: What's your understanding of the nature of the training?

Downer: Well I don't have the details with me now, and I would have to recheck. But as I understand it, it was broadly speaking terrorist training with al-Qaida, and there were various components of that - weapons training and training for urban activities and so on.

Show me the transcript, or go back to LAH-LAH Land...

Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

There's at least one US citizen in Gitmo, correct?

 

[hughes johnson]

pray for American justice - which is dead.

David Hicks is still illegally interned in a Concentration Camp in Cuba.

When American treats it's allies like this, what hope it's enemies?

American justice is alive and well. The vast majority of the people on our streets do not belong in prison, and the vast majority of the people in our prisons do not belong on our streets. American justice works very well, thank you very much.

No court has ruled that the terrorist Hicks is imprisoned illegally, as far as I know.

We don't consider terrorists like Hicks to be our allies.

 

[Nereid]

American justice is alive and well. The vast majority of the people on our streets do not belong in prison, and the vast majority of the people in our prisons do not belong on our streets. American justice works very well, thank you very much.

No court has ruled that the terrorist Hicks is imprisoned illegally, as far as I know.

We don't consider terrorists like Hicks to be our allies.

How do you know he's a 'terrorist'? Because John Ashcroft/GW/Rummy said so? How do they know?

Unless I'm mistaken, a US citizen in the US cannot be held indefinitely in Gitmo without any charges being made against her, and an opportunity (however proscribed) to defend herself against those charges. Further, if a US citizen is held indefinitely by the authorities in some non-US country, without charges, I am sure John, Dubya, and the boys would raise all kinds of fuss. And doesn't the State Department castigate regimes quite harshly for lack of due process? In fact, isn't that an element in the reason given by Wolfie, today, why Saddam just 'had' to be overthrown??

Remind me again how you spell 'hypocrisy'

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Posted by kat:
"Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete."
You never present anything at all.

Next time Olly North (can easily be applied to ANY American citizen, with a bit of "spin") takes a holiday to a foreign country, I hope some rogue nation's terrorists (Intelligence Agencies) pick him up, charge him with "picking some daisies from a garden", make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations, lock him in a cage (you wouldn't keep a dog in", and withhold all info from the public.

Like Nereid said, you'd all be crying like babies if it was of your own. In fact, you'd probably lob a couple of Crusie Missiles and use your Veto.

 

[Adam]

"Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete."
You never present anything at all.

Oh, that's not entirely true. If you say black is black, white is white, she'll argue that it's open to interpretation until she's blue in the face.

Anyway, the international law has been covered extensively. Even the USA's own civil rights groups know it. The ONLY group on the opposing side is the USA govermnent, which just happens to have all the guns and money.

 

[kat]

Oh, that's not entirely true. If you say black is black, white is white, she'll argue that it's open to interpretation until she's blue in the face.

And adam hominem the king of ad hominem chimes in.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Kat's Wasted Posts

Hey kat, out of 703 posts, have you EVER had 1 idea of your own?

Feel free to prove me wrong, by posting something original (ie. a thought of YOUR OWN).

You logged off pretty quickly, after I posted that Kat. Ha ha...

 

[Adam]

Woohoo! Bite that worm!

 

[hughes johnson]

Next time Olly North (can easily be applied to ANY American citizen, with a bit of "spin") takes a holiday to a foreign country, I hope some rogue nation's terrorists (Intelligence Agencies) pick him up, charge him with "picking some daisies from a garden", make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations, lock him in a cage (you wouldn't keep a dog in", and withhold all info from the public.

"Can easily be applied to ANY American citizen"? You hope that "ANY American citizen" is picked up by terrorists and locked up in a cage? Is this what you really hope for? This would make you feel good?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

rotfl. okay come on somebody answer my little question please?
BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

 

[kat]

There's at least one US citizen in Gitmo, correct?

something original for you ...no, there are not any there that I am aware of. I believe early on there were a few who were naturalized citizens but they are not there any longer.


*edit: actually, the more I think about this..I don't think there were actually any americans held at Gitmo. Someone else can chime in and help me out...John Lindh was the only American? Although there was prescedence from Ex Parte Quirin that could have allowed the United States to claim he had renounced his citizen ship and then treat him the same as other the other combatants.

 

[kat]

BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

It's interesting that WW2 vets would say this about Gitmo setting a precedent when the precedent was set because of a case involving German combatants during the ww2 era.

 

[hughes johnson]

BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

This is the way that American POWs have always been treated. It didn't seem to bother Jane Fonda.

 

[Nereid]

This is the way that American POWs have always been treated. It didn't seem to bother Jane Fonda.

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?) and are making up the rules as they go along.

IIRC, there are no US citizens held at Gitmo for precisely the reason that that would allow a serious and expedited challenge before the Supreme Court, and the treatment meted out to such citizens would immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

Without any US citizens in Gitmo, Bush&Co are relatively unfettered.

I'll be the first to admit a lack of understanding of the US Constitution, so this may be quite inappropriate (my emphasis): "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

 

[kat]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?)

Neried-Unlawful combatant is not a new concept..it is an old concept..based upon precedence set with Ex Parte Quirin ...during the WW2 era...specificly 1942..I think.. ...that's pretty darn old, dontcha think?

 

[Adam]

Yet, amazingly, the law remains the same, as has been shown before. Those people are POWs.

 

[kat]

Yet, amazingly, the law remains the same, as has been shown before. Those people are POWs.

Your constant repeating of this lie does not make it true.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The WWII case involved German infiltrators who were landed on Long Island, I believe it was, from a submarine. They were quickly captured, all wearing civilian clothes. One of them had been born in the US and so was a US citizen. They were tried and convicted; the citizen's case went to the Supreme Court and was decided against him, and he was executed along with the others. It was determined that they were not prisoners of war because, among other things, they were not wearing uniforms. What they were was spies, and spies have never been part of the Laws of War.

At the hearings in the Supreme Court yesterday, according to Dahlia Lithwick's account in Slate, several justices seemed uncomfortable with the simple extension of the 1942 decision to the present day. One of them noted that the German infiltrators did get a real trial in an ordinary courtroom.

 

[kat]

a little mix up

Self adjoint-
You have the two cases mixed up. O'conner was referencing Eisentrager 1950. The Germans in that particular case were caught, tried and convicted by a military trial in China. And although they did get a trial..it was not as you seem to infer...The court found that the prior rejection of their petition for a hearing was correct and that they had no immunity from military trial or punishment.
The case concerning the German Infiltrators was Ex Parte Quirin in 1942.

 

[pelastration]

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

... within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. They fly in on US planes ... thus within standard US jurisdiction ... then dropped on a spot again out of that jurisdiction.

 

[Adam]

Once again... the law:

I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding POWs. Thus I supply again this information:

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Once again, in terms of pure logic: POW = A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2

This Boolean statement shows precisely which are POWs.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?) and are making up the rules as they go along.

IIRC, there are no US citizens held at Gitmo for precisely the reason that that would allow a serious and expedited challenge before the Supreme Court, and the treatment meted out to such citizens would immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

Without any US citizens in Gitmo, Bush&Co are relatively unfettered.

I'll be the first to admit a lack of understanding of the US Constitution, so this may be quite inappropriate (my emphasis): "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

There you go: bring out the Constitution and suddenly things become crystal clear:
"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

if Gitmo is the jurisdiction of the state, (what other jurisdiction is it possibly under!) what they're doing is unconstitutional. BTW, there was one US citizen held in Gitmo, but as soon as they found out his nationality they sent him out, so I've heard.

 

[Adam]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

 

[kat]

There you go: bring out the Constitution and suddenly things become crystal clear:
"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

if Gitmo is the jurisdiction of the state, (what other jurisdiction is it possibly under!) what they're doing is unconstitutional. BTW, there was one US citizen held in Gitmo, but as soon as they found out his nationality they sent him out, so I've heard.

What state is Gitmo a jurisdiction of?
Who was the citizen? I don't think there was ..John Lindh was not brought to Cuba.

 

[Nereid]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'

 

[pelastration]

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'

These guys - for sure not kind and fully innocent people - are the show-case that the 'war' is not over. They are shown form time to time like red monkey's in 'zoo'-conditions. Animals. That's the picture the administration tells implicite. "But ... see we bring them to justice ...". Except - as far as we know - there are in that zoo no female spieces. Maybe some of Cheney's friends can organize tourist tours to observe them and take photo's. And throw peanuts. Imagine ... eye in eye with real terrorists. Yeah, I forgot the Love boats. Bring them on!

 

[russ_watters]

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'

I actually think Adam is right on this one: territory under lease (bases, embassies, etc.) are under federal jurisdiction.

I don't think there are any jurisdictional issues here, but keeping them at Gitmo avoids the issue altogether. Plus there is the practical benefit of keeping them on an isolated military base away from meddling hippies.

As far as the status of these prisoners, we've had the discussion before and Adam is still wrong: they are illegal combatants, not POWs. Adam provided the relevant part of the Geneva convention that shows this quite explicitly. Adam knows this too, since being a member of the Australian military, he certainly would have been issued a Geneva Convention ID card and been briefed on what it means and how to be eligible for Geneva Convention protection (things like you must be a uniformed, open combatant). He was likely even briefed on what happens to special operations troops in combat: depending on the mission, they may not necessarily be covered under the Geneva Convention.

But let's get right to the point: Adam, tell me which one of those 8 criteron the prisoners at 'Gitmo meet.

 

[Adam]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

 

[Adam]

As far as the status of these prisoners, we've had the discussion before and Adam is still wrong: they are illegal combatants, not POWs.

Russ_waters, I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided.

 

[hughes johnson]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs.

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'?

Here is how I spell hypocrisy:
When someone is aware that these "various conventions and protocols" have not been applied to American POWs, and says nothing, and then complains that these same "various conventions and protocols" are not afforded to terrorist illegal combatants, who are our enemies, that is EXACTLY how I would spell hypocrisy.

It would be a very good idea for you to talk to an American POW. If you can find one who will tell you his story, make sure that you're sitting down. I assure you, you will NEVER forget it.

 

[hughes johnson]

I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided.

The laws do fit. These terrorists are illegal combatants. In other words "you're just wrong!". I think that maybe you might have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[Adam]

hughes johnson, please read the laws again. Then again, and maybe a few more times. The laws specifically identify those who are considered POWs.