2 of 2
2
Handling Terrorism USA vs. Great Britain
Posted: 14 August 2005 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2004-09-06

But the thing is, this is a war, not just general criminal activity. Is it customary to speedily try and convict enemy prisoners captured in war? I thought they were generally held without being tried until things were sorted out?

From my perspective, it would seem as though there is a limit to how transparent these things can be.

They weren’t arrested by police officers who we can put on the stand to discuss the circumstances, they were “arrested” by special forces guys who as far as I know don’t really like to be public about what they do.

There was no warrant issued by a judge before any searches were conducted, so how do they deal with evidence?

There may have been some sort of “secret” processes used to locate the person. The tip could have come from a covert agent. How do we handle that?

What I’m trying to say here is that it doesn’t seem to me as though it is as black and white as “the government should be doing this in the open, what are they trying to hide?” or as easy as just saying “make it transparent and try/convict them” There are a lot of extenuating circumstances here.

But it’s exactly the same situation Britain had with the IRA, Spain had with the Basques etc. They are essentially the same kind of wars, you are fighting insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters, whatever. And they all use the same policing methods, intelligence services, special forces/CRW and informants, we succesfully tried and imprisoned IRA terrorists without any compromise of security, only after we found internment didn’t work. The key is to make the legal process work, the ‘we are at war’ argument doesn’t hold, didn’t Rumsfeld recently declare we weren’t at war? What happened in New York/Madrid/Bali and London is terrorism, not war, what happening in Iraq isn’t war, it’s terrorism, and as such should be tried accordingly. So what happens at Gitmo? You throw people in jail, and don’t ever let them out, because according to Bush the struggle is a long way from being over (and bear in mind the IRA were active for over 100 years, and ETA aren’t far behind), do you not see how this current system isn’t working?

 Signature 

’’Because you didn’t understand the article, you decided that it was the linker who was at fault, as opposed to you or the writer of the article, or even the MOD. Far from shooting the messenger, you appear to have shot both the postman and the envelope, plus the inventor of the postal service. ‘’

Deus to LD. 31/10/05.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2005 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9119
Joined  2005-07-14

Some stats:

Deaths in Custody: 108 People Have Died in U.S. Custody, U.S. Government Acknowledges

The U.S. government has acknowledged 28 confirmed or suspected homicides of detainees in U.S. custody.  Only one of these homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib.[1]

At least 45 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004.[2]

63 of the 108 detainee deaths occurred at locations other than Abu Ghraib.[3]

Abu Ghraib – One Prison in a Wider Network

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are two of the most well-known prisons, but they are just two sites in a much larger network of at least two dozen U.S. detention facilities.

There are six main acknowledged U.S. detention facilities worldwide—three in Iraq, two in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay;[4]

There are also approximately 25 transient facilities – field prisons designed to house detainees only for a short period until they can be released or transferred to a more permanent facility – in Afghanistan and Iraq.[5]

As of February 2005, roughly 65,000 people have been screened for possible detention, and about 30,000 of those were entered “into the system,” and assigned internment serial numbers in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan.[6]

Secret Prisons, “Ghost Detainees”

In addition to Abu Ghraib and the five other acknowledged U.S. detention facilities worldwide, there are a number of other “secret” detention locations at which the United States has held, and continues to hold, prisoners. These have included CIA facilities in Afghanistan and Jordan, detention facilities in Alizai, Kohat and Peshawar in Pakistan, and detentions of prisoners on U.S. ships, particularly the USS Peleliu and USS Bataan.[7]

The United States continues to hold detainees in these and other “secret” facilities, not registering them with the International Committee of the Red Cross or allowing independent Red Cross observers to access and examine these detainees to make sure they are not being mistreated.[8]

A U.S. official, General Paul Kern, estimated that CIA has held as many as 100 ghost detainees in Iraq alone.[9]

The U.S. transferred at least one dozen prisoners out of Iraq in late 2003 and early 2004 for further interrogation in violation of the Geneva Conventions.[10]

Detentions Are On the Rise

The detainee population in Iraq has doubled in the past five months; the prison population today is at the same level it was when the abuses documented in the Abu Ghraib photos occurred. The rising numbers of detentions have strained the capacity of the main detention facilities in Iraq, a factor now-concluded Pentagon investigations identified as contributing to abuse such as that at Abu Ghraib.

More than 11,000 people are currently in U.S. detention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

As of March 2005, there were 8,900 detainees in main facilities and 1,300 in transient facilities in Iraq.

The U.S. was holding approximately 600 detainees in Afghanistan.

There are approximately 520 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.[11]

Torture Policies Still In Place

The numbers alone make clear the role that policy decisions have played – and continue to play – in facilitating the torture and abuse of U.S.-held detainees.  Beyond the numbers:

In an April 16, 2003 directive, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approved for use at Guantanamo interrogation techniques including prolonged solitary confinement and “environmental manipulation.” The April 2003 directive, authorizing treatment in violation of U.S. and international law, is still in effect.  FBI memos released since the April 2003 directive was made public have charted the effects of this policy, describing detainees in frigid temperatures left chained to the floor, lying in their own excrement, in one case pulling his own hair out in response.[12]

The Administration ruled in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions do not generally apply in
Afghanistan; that policy remains in place.  In addition, there are at least 325 foreign fighters detained in Iraq to whom the Administration says the Geneva Conventions do not apply.[13]

The Administration also takes the view that the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment does not apply to non-citizen prisoners the U.S. holds abroad.  Attorney General Gonzales asserted incorrectly that “there is no legal obligation ...  on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas.”[14]

A draft version of revised Army detention rules circulated last month maintains the Administration’s equivocal commitment to abiding by the Geneva Conventions; in one section, the draft implies that even the fundamental legal obligation to treat so-called “enemy combatants” humanely may be avoided at will in the general interest of “military necessity.”[15]

While Pentagon investigators cited the vagueness and confusion of these policies – if Geneva doesn’t apply, what does? – as contributing to the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, there remain at least three different sets of still ambiguous interrogation guidelines for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.[16]

The policy of outsourcing torture to other nations continues.  An estimated 100 to 150 individuals have been rendered from U.S. custody to a foreign country known to torture prisoners, including to Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan.[17]

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/statements/abu-yr-042605.htm

 Signature 

My soul smells like a dead pigeon after three weeks,
I shut my window and go to sleep.
In my dream, I eat corn with my eyes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2005 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9119
Joined  2005-07-14

NYT article on the unreleased photos/videos

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/politics/12photos.html

 Signature 

My soul smells like a dead pigeon after three weeks,
I shut my window and go to sleep.
In my dream, I eat corn with my eyes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2005 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Lives here
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2900
Joined  2005-07-25

http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/050822/internet.html?cnn=yes

The answer is obvious: you can’t, at least not completely. A quick surf through English-language Islamic websites and chat rooms in the weeks after the London bombings uncovered some disturbing postings: on the U.K. website ummah.com, a poem purportedly put up by al-Qaeda operative Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi glorifying insurgent attacks in Iraq (elsewhere on the site, a user writes that ”killing Americans is not murder, it is retaliation”); on islamicawakening.com, also based in Britain, a paean to last year’s attack on a school in Beslan, Russia, which killed more than 300 people, half of them children. And that’s a tiny sample of the English-language sites hosted in Britain. Dozens of Arabic websites are devoted to the conflict in Iraq. One of them, qal3ati.com, published the first claim of responsibility for the July 7 London bombings, from an outfit calling itself the Secret Organization Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organization in Europe. The site quickly disappeared and has yet to resurface. Finding site operators or preventing them from setting up under new domain names in far-flung outposts is an unending — and often hopeless — task.

a poem. by al-zarqawi.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2005 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1654
Joined  2005-07-09
Englander - 14 August 2005 03:29 PM


But it’s exactly the same situation Britain had with the IRA, Spain had with the Basques etc. They are essentially the same kind of wars, you are fighting insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters, whatever. And they all use the same policing methods, intelligence services, special forces/CRW and informants, we succesfully tried and imprisoned IRA terrorists without any compromise of security, only after we found internment didn’t work.

Were these terrorists being captured in country? Were they citizens? Or were they foreign nationals captured on a foreign battlefield? Unless the answers are no no yes, I don’t see how a comparison can really be drawn. Iraq and Afghan are wars. Padilla arrested at an airport is law enforcement, the shoe bomber is law enforcement, if we had gotten the hijackers prior to 9/11 it would be law enforcement. If we’re talking about a guy with an AK47 shooting at US soldiers on a battlefield, that’s war.

The key is to make the legal process work, the ‘we are at war’ argument doesn’t hold, didn’t Rumsfeld recently declare we weren’t at war? What happened in New York/Madrid/Bali and London is terrorism, not war, what happening in Iraq isn’t war, it’s terrorism, and as such should be tried accordingly. So what happens at Gitmo? You throw people in jail, and don’t ever let them out, because according to Bush the struggle is a long way from being over (and bear in mind the IRA were active for over 100 years, and ETA aren’t far behind), do you not see how this current system isn’t working?

Did you not see when I said (typed) that I don’t think the system is perfect, I just have yet to see an alternative that I believe is reasonable?

I don’t believe that putting every terrorist with a machine gun that we capture by the pakistani border in a courtroom with all the rights of an american citizen, all the normal processes/procedures of a civillian court and placing them in a US penitentary upon conviction, is a reasonable alternative.

 Signature 

I’m not clever enough to have a signature

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2005 10:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2005-07-21

the police blew it with the brazilian...that awful incident wins it for the usa

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2005 10:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2004-09-06

Were these terrorists being captured in country? Were they citizens? Or were they foreign nationals captured on a foreign battlefield? Unless the answers are no no yes, I don’t see how a comparison can really be drawn. Iraq and Afghan are wars. Padilla arrested at an airport is law enforcement, the shoe bomber is law enforcement, if we had gotten the hijackers prior to 9/11 it would be law enforcement. If we’re talking about a guy with an AK47 shooting at US soldiers on a battlefield, that’s war.

Actually we captured Republican terrorists in the Republic of Ireland, so they were neither our citizens nor in out country, but that’s largely irrelevant to this particular point, what is relevant is that were held in the same regard (enemy combatants) that you hold for the people currently being detained.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan ‘being’ wars, I think you’ll find they ‘were’ wars, given that both countries are now governed by new regimes perhaps an option would be to hand over the prisoners to the country they were captured in, obviously that depends how confident you are that you’ve created stable regimes, ultimately that’s the litmus test, is it not?
If you don’t hand them over, how long do you anticipate hanging onto the 12,000 people currently in custody? Until they die of ‘natural’ causes? Part of the issue of wars is repatriation, trial or sentancing of POW’s, but again this doesn’t fit into the world view, because they aren’t POW’s at all, they aren’t allowed the treatment allowed by the Geneva Conventions. So what system is exactly in place to deal with them?
Do you not see my confusion over the way these detainees are being dealt with? They seem to be in no-mans land.
And also, a quantity of those detained weren’t captured on battlefields, a lot were picked up leaving and entering countries and deported to the US, without any concrete evidence, a la the recently released Brits, and they were only released because we have a persistent PM.

Did you not see when I said (typed) that I don’t think the system is perfect, I just have yet to see an alternative that I believe is reasonable?

I don’t believe that putting every terrorist with a machine gun that we capture by the pakistani border in a courtroom with all the rights of an american citizen, all the normal processes/procedures of a civillian court and placing them in a US penitentary upon conviction, is a reasonable alternative.

So lets see, the Afghan ‘terrorist’ (I’d dispute that term, they are possibly a misguided sheep herder trying to repel an invading force who’s blowing the bejesus out of his village, hardly a suicide bomber) who’s crime is defending his homeland (I am sure there are some dangerous types amongst the detained, but I’ll bet there’s a large number who’s just a local Joe looking out for his community) isn’t afforded a criminal trial/repatriation, or even a legal hearing, and is denied council of any description. The ONLY alternative is to try them, the only fair, honest and civilised way is to afford them a hearing, otherwise what? We lock ‘em up and throw away the key?
You took them from their country to your country, after you invaded their country. Is it me, or does that seem a little harsh?

I am not saying all these people are harmless misguided sheep herders, but bear in mind the US invaded THEIR country, chances are all of them aren’t Taliban or Al Queada, sadly given the current procedure (or lack of it) it seems unlikely we’ll know how that actually breaks down. If it breaks down they are all guilty, fine lock ‘em up, I am not bothered about the result, only that there is a process that determines their guilt or innocence.

 Signature 

’’Because you didn’t understand the article, you decided that it was the linker who was at fault, as opposed to you or the writer of the article, or even the MOD. Far from shooting the messenger, you appear to have shot both the postman and the envelope, plus the inventor of the postal service. ‘’

Deus to LD. 31/10/05.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2005 10:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2005-07-21

hey england ...i’m a little tiddly...so forgive me....you had a draw on saturday i believe....did you go?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2005 10:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2004-09-06
Arsenalman - 16 August 2005 10:07 PM

hey england ...i’m a little tiddly...so forgive me....you had a draw on saturday i believe....did you go?

Wrong thread Arse, I’ll answer in the hangout.

 Signature 

’’Because you didn’t understand the article, you decided that it was the linker who was at fault, as opposed to you or the writer of the article, or even the MOD. Far from shooting the messenger, you appear to have shot both the postman and the envelope, plus the inventor of the postal service. ‘’

Deus to LD. 31/10/05.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2005 11:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Lives here
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2005-07-21

we keping that old football thread alive are we....sorry about that to all

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2