Pentagon official suggests blacklisting lawyers representing detainees

[Titan6]

How quickly we forget...

I always find it fascinating when people refer to WWII and it's aftermath as the way a war should be fought and the peace won. Of course it was easier then because the bad guys were well... bad. We overlook inconvenient facts like the half a million German POWs that Eisenhower allowed to starve to death in 1945-6 in the camps in a human rights violation that make Gitmo look like a suite in the Hilton by comparsion.

I also find it interesting that the detainees that have never been charged with a crime do require a US lawyer. One would think that the country of origin would be interested in getting their citizens back and protecting them, but of course most are not. This is quite telling given the circumstances.

It is difficult to judge.

These people have rights but the rights are not recognized. The issue here as many have pointed out is not the large numbers in the camps that should be there but the smaller remaining numbers who should not. But until we have trials we will never know.

And how will we have trials? How can we? Unless we torture someone into a confession as is now allowed under the evil laws passed by congress, there is really no effective way to follow rules of evidence and cross examination and discovery at this point. And the laws allowing torture make a mockery of the whole judicial process anyway.

So where does that leave us? With nothing but bad choices.

1. We let everyone go- The ones that are just happy to be gone will just go away. The terrorists that hate us will take up terror again and a fair number will try to sue. This is the most likely... after change of power...

2. We kill all or most of them. Either with discretion or without. Either through some type of accidental convenient death or with subterfuge. This would be very hard to pull off, but not impossible...

3. We beat confessions out of them. This would have already happened by now if it were going to. It has worked with a few. The problems with the witch trials is it was awfully hard to confess to being a witch if you are not one...

4. We keep them forever (literally). This is second most lkely. Let us assume that the dems are smart enough to realize that letting people go, some of whom might come back later and blow up US cities is a bad idea and they don't want get caught holding the bag. Remember many of those held in the camp are terrorists. They will be more than happy to go right back to work as soon as they are free.

 

[wooderson]

You are remarkably trusting of your government's ability to tell terrorist from not-terrorist, bowfin. One wonders if you advocate that the state have such unchecked power in all realms.

 

[wooderson]

We overlook inconvenient facts like the half a million German POWs that Eisenhower allowed to starve to death in 1945-6 in the camps in a human rights violation that make Gitmo look like a suite in the Hilton by comparsion.

This is hardly an accepted version of history, much less an incontrovertible one. Widely accepted estimates on both sides put the number of dead at one-tenth the number you state, numbers moving into the million range are generally only accepted in white nationalist literature.

 

[Titan6]

I estimate 500,000 not a million. There are many studies that back this, but go with your numbers 100,000. This makes it okay???

This is not my point anyway. My point is the US has not been as kind to it's prisoners in even the recent past as we would like to think we have been. We can moralize all we want but the truth is the government protects it's interests at the expense of human rights all the time. In fact the constitution was orginally written with that in mind.

The scary thing is that there are few challenges to this from the opposition party. This means near full aggreance. Who is the advocate for freedom?

 

[57Coastie]

Bowfin says,

The Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights do not cover them.

In his scholarly stark contrast to what we see too often here, Richmond never once suggested that the Geneva Convention or our Bill of Rights apply to prisoners confined without charge or trial in Gitmo. Indeed, his position on this is not stated, undoubtedly because he understands more about the issue here than many, if not most, people do.

In the way of so many in Washington these days you have neatly generated a straw man and then struck him down. I would suggest that Richmond pleads his case based on two concepts, both broader than the written documents to which you refer -- Due Process and the Rule of Law.

Jim

 

[bowfin]

You are remarkably trusting of your government's ability to tell terrorist from not-terrorist, bowfin.

Figuring out the innocents from the bad guys is akin to sorting with a sieve. Some are going to get through that shouldn't, some are going to get caught up that shouldn't. I am sure that many POW camps have held guys that weren't enemy combatants, but that's war for you.

NATO and U.S. troops have already shot and killed former Gitmo detainees in gun battles. Guys that we thought WERE innocent, but took up right where they left off. I guess that means in those cases, we let people loose we shouldn't have. I don't know if I am ready to go to a coarser sieve to relieve our collective conscience that one or two innocent people might still be in jail. You might be willing to free three hundred bad guys to make sure two or three innocent people go free, but I'm not, and I'll sleep okay with that. Innocent people can suffer by letting someone bad go free, just the same as keeping someone innocent locked up.

 

[bowfin]

...that Richmond pleads his case based on two concepts, both broader than the written documents to which you refer -- Due Process and the Rule of Law

.

Sounds fine, but first we must all buy into the presumption that these detainees are nothing more than average criminals and deserving access to "Due process and Rule of the Law". I don't. We aren't conducitng law enforcement in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are conducting a war.

At best, one might consider Gitmo detainees POWs. At worst, they can be considered equals of Al Zarqawi, or Otto Skorenzy's troops dressed as American MPs during the Ardennes offensive. I don't believe in either case, there is a precedent for a trial in an American courtroom with civilian judges, juries, and lawyers to prove beyond reasonable doubt, is there?

Did we infringe on Al Zarqawi's rights and access to due process when we dumped a couple of 500 pounders on him? Was it okay for Al Zarqawi to be sorted into the guilty pile by a Sergeant hiding outside with a laser designator, and then being arbitrarily and summarily sentenced to death with no right to appeal and no counsel present at his side? <INSERT LAWYER JOKE HERE> I know, I am being silly, Al Zarqawi was waging war, not committing a crime.

Well, I say it's the same with the guys at Gitmo. We weren't conducting a law enforcement sting in Afghanistan, we were waging war. These are not criminals, these are people captured on the battlefield during times of hostilities. They are lucky they weren't presorted by some other sergeant with a laser designator, or a Marine with a Mossberg Trench gun.

"Fortunes of War" isn't fortunate for a lot of people. Gitmo detainees, Iraqi police recruits standing in line, and airliner passengers, amongst others.

 

[Titan6]

Strange it always comes down to the choice between supporting the enumerated rights in the Constitution for Americans only vs. these being the rights of all men.

Odd. I wonder if those same people would support the US government if the constitution were legally changed to eliminate the second or fourth ammendment in this country. We can be as nationalistic and ethnocentric as we like. But to deny that these rights as laid out in the constitution are the g-d given rights of all men means that they are granted by the government and not a true right but a privilege. This means that they could be eliminated by the government for us as well. This is not a position I would like to try to defend.

I don't see a lot of middle ground here.

We are in a difficult spot with these detainees. However the idiot offical was fired. Normally this means he was headed in the wrong direction or not following policy instead of enforcing it. This makes more sense than the opposite.

 

[STAGE 2]

Without reading most of these posts, I say good for them. Its one thing if there were american citizens being detained at gitmo, but to my knowledge there aren't. These people have NO rights under our constitution, or at least they shouldn't.

As an attorney, I have NO problem with people blacklisting attorneys who take up the cases against these terrorists. Its one thing to defend a murderer who is entitled to a defense under our constitution (though you won't find me volunteering anytime soon) but its a whole other animal to use your services in defense of our enemies. Thats treason in my opinion.

 

[wooderson]

Figuring out the innocents from the bad guys is akin to sorting with a sieve. Some are going to get through that shouldn't, some are going to get caught up that shouldn't. I am sure that many POW camps have held guys that weren't enemy combatants, but that's war for you.

So because it's difficult, we just shouldn't bother. Automatically assume that anyone rounded up is a terrorist and wash our hands of them?

You simply don't care about innocent lives being destroyed?

Always glad to see we've seized the moral high ground in this war on Terra.

 

[Titan6]

Wooderson,

You don't get it. You can't fight willful ignorance such as Stage2. I would say a majority of people in this country agree with him. They do not care if they are terrorists or not. Why take the chance? These are just garbage people that have no value so why should we be concerned? Especially since there is a good chance that many of them would cause harm to the country if released.

So long as his rights are not threatened he cares not. Can you blame him?

 

[nobody_special]

This discussion can be distilled to two viewpoints:

• Do what is right, and observe due process and fundamental fairness for all people
• It's "us" against "them"... kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

The "us" vs. "them" argument is, at its heart, bigotry.

BTW, the claim that Eisenhower starved German prisoners is pretty well debunked here.

 

[wooderson]

Sadly I do get it, I just don't deal with 'it' very well.

 

[wooderson]

Do what is right, and observe due process and fundamental fairness for all people

Just remember, as conservative operatives will tell you every single day: we're moral relativists who lack a basic sense of right and wrong.

 

[Titan6]

I thought the liberals were moral relativists and the conservatives were picked by g-d to cleanse the world and convert everyone. Or is it the neocons? I get them all mixed up sometimes....

 

[STAGE 2]

You don't get it. You can't fight willful ignorance such as Stage2. I would say a majority of people in this country agree with him. They do not care if they are terrorists or not. Why take the chance? These are just garbage people that have no value so why should we be concerned? Especially since there is a good chance that many of them would cause harm to the country if released.

So long as his rights are not threatened he cares not. Can you blame him?

If by my rights you mean the rights of all american citizens you're right. I could care less what happens to other people in other countries. They have theor own government, their own elected officials and their own system. Its not for me to tell them what they should value and what they shouldn't.

Regardless, there is no possible way that even the biggest raving liberal could construe the constitution to apply to foreign citizens captured in a foreign country while fighting our troops. Thus since the constitution doesn't apply they don't have any rights to violate.

As a result, you are either suggesting that we extend the protections of the constitution to terrorists, or adhere to some sort of "natural law" in which we grant our freedoms to others willy-nilly.

Which is it.

 

[shootinstudent]

Stage 2,

Okay...

1. US citizens have been tossed in Guantanamo, and they have been held under the "enemy combatant" theory without right to trial. Witness the treatment of Eric Padilla as an example.

2. The Constitution restrains the Federal government. Treaties and Interantional law also restrain the government when it acts outside of the territory of the United States. There is no such thing as "person to whom no set of laws applies." This theory that captured terrorists on someone else's land have no rights is a legal fiction, and a thin one at that.

3. "Terrorist" is a brand that you should want applied only after some reasonably sound fact-finding process. If you're presuming that these people are terrorists, you're giving the government the green light to label anyone it wants a terrorist and then deny them all rights to review of that classification....and that's already happened, to US citizens.

I'm suggesting that we apply the law as it exists, instead of inventing cheap and sometimes ludicrous legal theories to justify illegal treatment and indefinite detention without any sort of process to determine guilt or innocence.

 

[STAGE 2]

1. US citizens have been tossed in Guantanamo, and they have been held under the "enemy combatant" theory without right to trial. Witness the treatment of Eric Padilla as an example.

Every US citizen has a right to a trial. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that there are US citizens rotting away in Gitmo. Show me something that says there are a bunch of US citizens sitting in Gitmo and I'll be the first to advocate for their release.

2. The Constitution restrains the Federal government.

Wrong. The constitution is a listing of the powers given up by the people to the government. It restrains nothing. Its a BIG difference.

Treaties and Interantional law also restrain the government when it acts outside of the territory of the United States. There is no such thing as "person to whom no set of laws applies." This theory that captured terrorists on someone else's land have no rights is a legal fiction, and a thin one at that.

I never said that there were people to which no law applies. What I said was the the US constitution does NOT apply to foreign citizens caught in a foreign country. Again a BIG difference. They may have rights under their own legal system, but not ours.

3. "Terrorist" is a brand that you should want applied only after some reasonably sound fact-finding process. If you're presuming that these people are terrorists, you're giving the government the green light to label anyone it wants a terrorist and then deny them all rights to review of that classification....and that's already happened, to US citizens.

Terrorist is a brand that I apply to people that fit the profile. If its a US citizen, then I have to presume their innocence. If its anyone else than I have the luxury of being presumptive.

 

[shootinstudent]

Stage 2,

Esam Hamdi was sent to Guantanamo. He had to fight a legal battle to get out-the government arguing that his US citizenship shouldn't protect him from being held without trial. That is what this "enemy combatant" theory allows-detaining US citizens without trial.

I never said that there were people to which no law applies.

Okay, please tell me which laws apply to individuals of non-US citizenship captured outside the US.

Terrorist is a brand that I apply to people that fit the profile. If its a US citizen, then I have to presume their innocence. If its anyone else than I have the luxury of being presumptive.

Okay, ignoring the obvious moral problem with this premise (other people don't have any rights, they don't matter...)...is it consistent with any, even minimal, concept of due process (something guaranteed by international law) to presume guilt and keep people without a chance to challenge their presumed guilt?

 

[MacEntyre]

I heard that Duke Univ. required law students to work pro bono for detainees...

 

[nobody_special]

Every US citizen has a right to a trial. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that there are US citizens rotting away in Gitmo. Show me something that says there are a bunch of US citizens sitting in Gitmo and I'll be the first to advocate for their release.

Of course, you do understand that the detainee bill allows any agent designated by the President or Secretary of Defense to declare a person to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." There is no reason this can't be done to a US citizen. After that, you get a military tribunal which can allow secret evidence (which you can't examine or refute) as well as confessions given under duress (including torture).

Furthermore, the DoD wasn't exactly forthcoming about who they are holding at Gitmo. They only released a complete list of names under court order. And if you believe there aren't people being secretly held elsewhere, I have a bridge to sell you.

Furthermore, I am aware of at least 3 US citizens who were detained for some substantial time without recourse or access to a lawyer. Hamdi and Padilla are still in custody, I believe (and may well be guilty). Another (a lawyer in Oregon) was in no way connected to terrorists and was eventually released.

 

[Titan6]

Stage2 - What I am suggesting is the same thing I have always said. The rights laid out in the BOR and Constitution are the rights of all men. We merely alliterated them to protect ourselves from an oppressive central government. You said that the constitution defines what rights we 'give up'. If this were true, than you indeed make an implication that everyone (not just Americans) have these rights to begin with. After all the state does not exist without a constitution.

For me extending the rights to all men is merely my beliefs. There is no legal premise or 'natural law' that prescribes it either, although there is a fair ammount of historical documentation that this is what the founders intended. This is a belief I have no different than capitalism or that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Certainly one can make the argument that if you capture someone, drag them to the other side of the world and imprison them forever without trial while torturing them you have no moral duty towards that person. You have already dismissed them as human beings. Your actions have already defined your ethics. These fit nicely hand in glove with yours which is willful ignorance at absolute best. And a whole lot of other nasty things at worst. What you keep saying is that these people have no rights under US law. If true I ask you what rights do they have? And if they have none and they are being held forever than they have been dehumainized. And then of course I find this evil. There is no law defining evil. This is just my op.

When you imply that they have rights allowed to them by their country than the implication is that they belong to that country as say property. This is not a good thing to imply if you are interested in freedom.

Regardless, dehumanzing people is merely a good start when dealing with people the state suspects of being unfriendly. The more classes of people that the state can include means less hassel for the state when exerting it's power.

 

[bowfin]

So because it's difficult, we just shouldn't bother.

No. I am refuting your assertion that if we can't fight terrorism perfectly, then we shouldn't fight it at all. Would you be against the U.S. Navy sinking every Japanese ship they saw in World War II if they couldn't prove that 100% of the passengers and crew were actively engaged in the war against us? How about firebombing Tokyo? How about nuking Nagasaki? Weren't God given rights taken away in every instance mentioned?

You simply don't care about innocent lives being destroyed?

I'll repeat this again, S-L-O-W-L-Y:

Innocent lives can also be destroyed by mistakenly letting dangerous people go, just the same as they can be destroyed as locking innocent people up. You demand absolute 100% guarantees that no innocent person will be locked up, but I am sure you would be the first to shrug your shoulders and say "Stuff Happens" if we let someone go we shouldn't, and he wears a suicide belt into a crowd. YOU SIMPLY DON'T CARE THAT INNOCENT PEOPLE MIGHT BE BLOWN UP, DO YOU!? ;-)

If you have acess to an ACME Novelty Company "Automatic, Surefire, Everready, Never Miss, Good Guy/Bad Guy Sorter" that we can pass everybody detained at Guantanamo through to make it a perfect process, I'll pay the freight to ship it overnight.

If not, then you should deal with the fact that there has to be a balance between the risks and advantages of locking people up who were already caught as terrorists.

 

[wooderson]

No. I am refuting your assertion that if we can't fight terrorism perfectly, then we shouldn't fight it at all.

An assertion that exists only in your mind?

What you said: "Some are going to get through that shouldn't, some are going to get caught up that shouldn't"

To wit: "There probably are innocent people being detained and tortured, but I don't care. Them's the breaks."

Would you be against the U.S. Navy sinking every Japanese ship they saw in World War II if they couldn't prove that 100% of the passengers and crew were actively engaged in the war against us?

Sinking ships filled with Japanese civilians because they may or may not have been 'engaged in war' would have been a war crime, yes.

Sinking military ships - quite obviously not an issue, nor relevant to the discussion. You're trying to draw a parallel between military forces, flying under the flag of Japan, and your assertion that all detainees are enemy combatants. You haven't met any burden of proof that detainees are, in fact, analgous.

How about firebombing Tokyo? How about nuking Nagasaki? Weren't God given rights taken away in every instance mentioned?

It's interesting that you refer to attacks on civilian populations - which are, by all definitions of the term, terrorist acts - in order to justify stripping people of basic rights in the war on Terra.

To paraphrase Robert McNamara (involved in the planning), had we lost WWII, firebombing Tokyo most certainly would have been called a war crime. More specifically and germanely, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and firebombing Dresden were immoral if not openly criminal acts.

Did you expect me to get all gung ho for detainment and torture of innocent people because bad things happened in the past?

You demand absolute 100% guarantees that no innocent person will be locked up

You have an active imagination. As with your first statement, I said no such thing.

Your assertion is that the government can do no wrong, we need no safeguards, and detainees should be treated as terrorists without hesitation or question.

My assertion is that the government can and will do wrong if its power goes unchecked and that we must have safeguards such that those detained are treated humanely, fairly and that we ensure, to the best of our abilities, that they are, in fact, 'enemy combatants.'

 

[STAGE 2]

Esam Hamdi was sent to Guantanamo. He had to fight a legal battle to get out-the government arguing that his US citizenship shouldn't protect him from being held without trial. That is what this "enemy combatant" theory allows-detaining US citizens without trial.

While I disagree with any US citizen being denied their right to trial, this doesn't really address the issue. Hamdi was a US citizen who had his rights violated, he went through the courts for redress of his grievances and he prevailed. Thats pretty much how the system is designed to work. That says nothing about the hundreds of non-citizens sitting at gitmo. Again, show me something that ther are hoardes of us citizens being deprived of their rights over there.

Okay, please tell me which laws apply to individuals of non-US citizenship captured outside the US.

Probably some bastardized combination of the geneva conventions and international law. There really isn't a legal precedent for these people because they don't really have a home country, and they aren't uniformed troops. What is true however, is that our constitution does not apply. Thats really the only thing I care about.

Okay, ignoring the obvious moral problem with this premise (other people don't have any rights, they don't matter...)...is it consistent with any, even minimal, concept of due process (something guaranteed by international law) to presume guilt and keep people without a chance to challenge their presumed guilt?

Is it consistent with due process, certianly not. Do these people have any due process rights, certianly not.