[Gerben42]

Quote

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?
How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

Irony is not a plan of action. 

Luckily all the hard work has been done already for us, for example the Geneva convention.

(Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

If we don't adhere to this we are just as bad as they are. And the "It is not in the US so it does not fall under any laws so we can do with our prisoners whatever we like" attitude is unacceptable.

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 08:49 AM, said:

Quote

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?
How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

We have had them in custody for years. We have intensively questioned and investigated them, and in many cases tortured them. We should bring them to trial, or release them.

Keeping people imprisoned without a trial indefinitely is fascist. Ample historical precedent doesn't change this one bit. If they are guilty, try them.

Peter

So any prisoner we have anywhere we put on trial. How and after how long? We are not only talking Gitmo here.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on May 4 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

Quote

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?
How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

Irony is not a plan of action. 

Luckily all the hard work has been done already for us, for example the Geneva convention.

(Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

If we don't adhere to this we are just as bad as they are. And the "It is not in the US so it does not fall under any laws so we can do with our prisoners whatever we like" attitude is unacceptable.

You seem to miss the point, the Geneva Convention is hotly debated on what it means and to whom? It is far from clear who this applies to and in any event what do you want to do with the prisoners. Your quotes are far from specific. In fact they are so vague you could drive a truck through them.

I do not disagree we should use the G/c just tell us how.

Example who and how can we get information out of prisoners, you keep saying what we cannot do,what can we do? What are the limits?

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on May 4 2007, 08:49 AM, said:

Hmmmnn what about due process?  Human rights?  Innocent until proved guilty?
Where are your country's values?  They have been flushed down the crapper by the overlords in power.  Yours will be following right behind.....now THAT is IRONY...

Again what do you want us to do? These comments are so vague and mean anything.

If we capture anyone we fly them to USA and put them on trial, is that what you suggest with full citizen rights?

[pbleighton]

Quote

So any prisoner we have anywhere we put on trial. How and after how long? We are not only talking Gitmo here.

U.S. citizens should be tried in a normal court, unless they are members of the military, in which case they may be tried in a military court. For foreigners who are accused of being terrorists, I am flexible as to the *how*, as long as they receive a fair trial, with full access to counsel. For foreigners who are in an army of a country we are at (decalred) war with, and who are taken as prisoners of war, they should be treated as prisoners of war (the Bush administration doesn't view any of the Gitmo prisoners this way).

All prisoners should receive a *speedy trial*. This can vary (as it does in normal criminal cases), but certainly the government should be able to present a case within a year, maybe two at the outside.

Mike, I really don't think that this is complicated. We live in a dangerous world, but at the same time we have to behave decently (and don't invade countries which haven't attacked us, either...). This may occasionally cause us to incur greater risks than if we use imperialist/fascist tactics, though I'm quite skeptical of these claims, but think of the consequences:

By our actions over the last four years, we have greatly increased Muslim hostility towards us, and thus increased the threat of terrorism. As to the political and cultural changes which need to occur in the Muslim world, our moral credibility in the world is now zero. The next President will start off in a very weak position, thanks to the idiocy and immorality of the Bush administration

Peter

[Gerben42]

If you capture someone he is not immediately a suspect of anything. He could just be an innocent kind of guy who happens to be on the other side of what you are doing.

If you charge someone with a crime, put him on trial.

What you CAN do is interrogate them like you would interrogate any other crime suspect. So this does not give the same results as inhumane treatment? Tough luck! At least you have kept your dignity. I don't think I would respect anyone who actively participated in such torture. They are not "heroes" even if the government would like you to believe it.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on May 4 2007, 11:06 AM, said:

If you capture someone he is not immediately a suspect of anything. He could just be an innocent kind of guy who happens to be on the other side of what you are doing.

If you charge someone with a crime, put him on trial.

What you CAN do is interrogate them like you would interrogate any other crime suspect. So this does not give the same results as inhumane treatment? Tough luck! At least you have kept your dignity. I don't think I would respect anyone who actively participated in such torture. They are not "heroes" even if the government would like you to believe it.

ok you want to fight a war as if it is a crime, fair enough.

None of these guys are in uniform ok...none.

You either want to give them a lawyer and full rights or let them go. Fair enough.

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 11:05 AM, said:

Quote

So any prisoner we have anywhere we put on trial. How and after how long? We are not only talking Gitmo here.

U.S. citizens should be tried in a normal court, unless they are members of the military, in which case they may be tried in a military court. For foreigners who are accused of being terrorists, I am flexible as to the *how*, as long as they receive a fair trial, with full access to counsel. For foreigners who are in an army of a country we are at (decalred) war with, and who are taken as prisoners of war, they should be treated as prisoners of war (the Bush administration doesn't view any of the Gitmo prisoners this way).

All prisoners should receive a *speedy trial*. This can vary (as it does in normal criminal cases), but certainly the government should be able to present a case within a year, maybe two at the outside.

Mike, I really don't think that this is complicated. We live in a dangerous world, but at the same time we have to behave decently (and don't invade countries which haven't attacked us, either...). This may occasionally cause us to incur greater risks than if we use imperialist/fascist tactics, though I'm quite skeptical of these claims, but think of the consequences:

By our actions over the last four years, we have greatly increased Muslim hostility towards us, and thus increased the threat of terrorism. As to the political and cultural changes which need to occur in the Muslim world, our moral credibility in the world is now zero. The next President will start off in a very weak position, thanks to the idiocy and immorality of the Bush administration

Peter

I think this is extremely complicated.

All these guys, gals, fathers, grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers and teenagers we catch are not in uniform.

How we put them on trial, where we hold them and what we can do to get information on the battlefield out of them is extremely complicated.

Head of CIA, FBI, Defense, State, and President say we do not torture. Yet many posters and in fact millions around the world think the USA uses torture often.
Are these leaders lying or simpy stupid? Millions seem to say yes.

Anyway I agree we should not torture and we should close down Gitmo. What and how and where we handle the prisoners no one seems to say except with vague comments.....such as rights, and trial or something....very vague...

What kind of trial and where we put them and who pays for it and all the other details who knows. How we can get information, who knows...I guess only use legal police tactics, which of course the police are always sued over anyway. :0

[pbleighton]

Quote

Head of CIA, FBI, Defense, State, and President say we do not torture. Yet many posters and in fact millions around the world think the USA uses torture often.
Are these leaders lying or simpy stupid? Millions seem to say yes.

Some are lying, some are stupid.

Quote

Anyway I agree we should not torture and we should close down Gitmo. What and how and where we handle the prisoners no one seems to say except with vague comments

What's vague about try or release? It's very specific.

Quote

What kind of trial and where we put them and who pays for it and all the other details who knows.

Mike, you murmur darkly about how complicated it is. I don't think it is complicated at all:

The government pays for the trial. The accused is entitled to representation if he/she can't afford it. Either a military tribunal or regualr courts can serve as the *where*. The government can apply for closed hearing if they feel national security would be jeopardized, this has been done before.

We play by the rules. I know you don't like it, but what is complicated about it?

Peter

[skjaeran]

mike777, on May 4 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

Winston and Al I understand your concern for civil rights, but assuming we are at war what do you want to do with the guys and gals captured in other countries?

That one is easy. Just treat them as POW, according to the Geneva Convention. How can the leaders of a democracy even think of anything else?

[Al_U_Card]

You have a neighbour. You would like to be on good terms with them (you are generally a nice person and the friendly neighbour philosophy often provides useful benefits too) but one of their acquaintance's car parks and causes some damage to your property.

So, do you get in their face and take over part of their yard and start stealing their belongings all the while criticizing them openly?

The arab nations still remember the crusades for crying out loud. We would be way better off developing a perpetual motion machine to replace the oil. At least no lives would be lost and those in power would still think that they are fooling us. The end result would be similar except for the part about taking away all of your rights etc.

[mike777]

You keep using examples assuming there is only one or a hundred prisoners at anyone time in a war. There are tens of thousands. Sometimes a million or more.

Let me use a simple example and yet a common everyday one to show you how complicated this is?

The marines storm into fallujah and capture prisoners. They have a gun battle but are not sure which houses are firing at them. They storm a house and capture someone and point a gun at him and ask who is firing at us and where are they?
Sometimes they may storm a house and find a 50 year old grandma there with no men in the house and a closet full of bombs. Must they offer the grandma a lawyer and trial if she demands one before they can ask her any questions? How much force or threat of force can they use, none? Does anyone really think that a closet full of bombs is at least some evidence against the grandma and her support/conspiracy for killing Americans?

Again I am against torture but this is complicated and just saying use the G/C or send them to trial or release them seems insane.

Many would say pointing a gun and screaming at a 50 year old grandma or 18 year old kid in an empty house is torture. This is war.

Just how does the G/C apply to those not in uniform, it seems complicated and yet you just say give them a trial, but after how long, where is the trial, do they get a lawyer, do we stop the war and call in the soldiers to testify, what is legal evidence at the trial?

Do we just do nothing and get no information from prisoners in the middle of a war if they demand a lawyer and trial?



You guys want to try him, give him a lawyer and send him to POW camp.
This happens thousands if not tens of thousands of times. Do we even have enough lawyers and judges in Iraq, afganistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, etc?

[pbleighton]

Quote

Must they offer the grandma a lawyer and trial if she demands one before they can ask her any questions?

No. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Even in the U.S., with a U.S. citizen, the police can ask questions. Grandma can refuse to answer the questions. If so, they can take her into custody.

Quote

How much force or threat of force can they use, none?

Yes, none.

Quote

Does anyone really think that a closet full of bombs is at least some evidence against the grandma and her support/conspiracy for killing Americans?

It may be excellent evidence. If so, it may introduced at grandma's trial.

Quote

You guys want to try him, give him a lawyer and send him to POW camp.

No, Mike, if someone is declared a POW in a declared war, they can be held without a trial, but must be released (unless, of course, they ARE charged) when the war is over.

Bush is trying to have it both ways. They are not POWs, and they are not entitled to a trial. This is fascist doublespeak.

Mike, do you think we should renounce the Geneva Conventions, follow them, or not renounce them, but not follow them either?

Were you in favor of Saddam being tried under them for war crimes (I was, though the *execution* was botched)?

Do you think the Geneva Conventions only apply to *bad countries*, and that *good countries* should do whatever they want, becasue they are, after all, *good*? This is the number one question to see if someone is a neocon. Do you pass the test

Peter

[mike777]

I said I think we should apply the G/C just not sure how. I think it is extremly complicated.
1) Apply GC, how I do not know in many cases with nonuniform and numerous citizen prisoners.
2) No torture but define it someway, in complicated detail
3) Close Gitmo, I have no idea where to send them...SingSing they would get raped and killed/stabbed. Cook County Jail may be a good start. Ask any twenty something year old who spent a few days there.

[mike777]

This reminds of Pension plan rules that I work with. The Professors/PHDs covered by them do not understand them, the Univ/Board of Trustees who approve and make them up do not and senior management at my Pension Plan company that runs it and deals with all these confused prof and college presidents do not.

Heck I do this all day long and get confused at times and need to step back and start all over.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Close Gitmo, I have no idea where to send them...SingSing they would get raped and killed/stabbed. Cook County Jail may be a good start. Ask any twenty something year old who spent a few days there.

So you don't think these people have a right to a trial? The main point of closing Gitmo is that they do.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

This reminds of Pension plan rules that I work with. The Professors/PHDs covered by them do not understand them, the Univ/Board of Trustees who approve and make them up do not and senior management at my Pension Plan company that runs it and deals with all these confused prof and college presidents do not.

If George Bush ran a pension plan the way he runs the country the plan would be broke and he'd be in prison.

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 03:03 PM, said:

Quote

Close Gitmo, I have no idea where to send them...SingSing they would get raped and killed/stabbed. Cook County Jail may be a good start. Ask any twenty something year old who spent a few days there.

So you don't think these people have a right to a trial? The main point of closing Gitmo is that they do.

Peter

I would start with closing GITmo and sending them somewhere next week.

As for the prisoners in GITMO and a trial whatever the Supremes or Congress says if fine with me.

As for the ones oversees, whatever the Supremes or Congress say is fine with me.

As I said enforce the GC but to be honest I have no idea what that means for many of these folks/civilians.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I would start with closing GITmo and sending them somewhere next week.

As for the prisoners in GITMO and a trial whatever the Supremes or Congress says if fine with me.

As for the ones oversees, whatever the Supremes or Congress say is fine with me.

As I said enforce the GC but to be honest I have no idea what that means for many of these folks/civilians.

Sounds like *No*, if it's fine with you that they all stay in prison without a trial, if our government says so.

Peter

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 4 2007, 08:30 AM, said:

1) I agree close Gitmo, now.
2) I agree, I want limited government and not Big Brother 1984 or a fascist ruling government.


So what Laws on prisoners do you want and what do you want done with them? Do you want government to do anything proactive to stop those who want to harm your family, if so what?

This is not directed at you or any forum members but the constant sarcasm aimed at the leaders in government is not a plan of action.

Even listening to the Dems on this pullout issue is confusing, pull out who, out of what, when and for how long?

Anyway I agree close Gitmo now, but I have no idea what to do with the prisoners or future ones now. Any prison we sent them to will make Gitmo look like summer camp in the Hamptons.

Thanks for the directness, Mike. Easier for me to understand you that way.

I am not completely opposed to the military tribunals - there is precedent for them in times of war. Although I myself do not classify this as "war", I think that discussion is important, as court rulings, Congress, and the President have made rulings, laws, and claims due "war powers". Is is therefore important to determine if we are at a state of war.

I would be in favor of any now held or arrested in the future to be brought before a Federal Court, with full rights intact, who then holds an evidentiary hearing on whether the case is strong enough to warrant a military tribunal or if the Federal courts would have jurisdiction. This would be like the preliminary hearing that is now in criminal law to see if the evidence is strong enough to bind someone over for trial. It could also be done with a grand jury.

Those who have strong cases against them for terrorism would go to tribunal, while the others would be introduced into our standard justice system.

I agree that no one is doing anything to stop the present system - which only reinforces to me that there is no true distinction between parties other than who holds power. Neither party will argue for a reduction in federal power - they will only argue about who gets to wield it.