There are many who dismiss the suicides of the three detainees at Guantanamo with a kind of “good riddance” wave of the hand, a casual shrug of the shoulders denoting indifference to the fate of those who, if given half a chance, would kill us all.
But it is by no means clear that those detainees and the others being held there pose that kind of threat. And the reason we aren’t sure – sure enough to have a clear conscience as we lock them away for the rest of their lives – is because of the unconscionable foot dragging by the Administration on determining exactly what rights the prisoners will be granted before US courts.
The Justice Department last year passed the buck to Congress, giving them the opportunity to determine how to go about judging the detainees on a case by case basis The Congress demurred, believing the matter to properly belong to the courts. And while lower courts have granted the prisoners some rights like habeas corpus and the right to an attorney, the legal limbo of the detainees won’t be cleared up until the Supreme Court rules on the matter.
On Friday, the President acknowledged that Gitmo has got to be closed and offered his explanation as to why it still functions:
“We would like to end the Guantanamo — we’d like it to be empty,” Bush said. But he added: “There are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States.”Bush said his administration was waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on whether he overstepped his authority in ordering the detainees to be tried by U.S. military tribunals.
Even the President is now convinced Guantanamo needs to be closed and that the prisoners have their cases tried in American courts. The amazing thing about the President’s statement is that if indeed the Supreme Court rules that the President “overstepped his authority” in using military tribunals to detain the prisoners illegally, there’s a chance that there may not be any trials in US courts at all; that most if not all the prisoners will be released outright.
To forestall that possibility, the Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to be hazy enough so that the prisoners will not be released due to any technical violation of their “constitutional rights” – an incendiary term when applied to accused terrorists – but will grant the detainees a habeas corpus hearing that will force the government to reveal in open court some of the evidence compiled against them.
This is also problematic as apparently much of the evidence is of a sensitive nature and revealing it in open court would compromise intelligence methods and assets. This puts the United States government squarely behind the 8-ball; in order to keep the accused terrorists in jail, we may be forced to reveal sources, allowing the detainee to “face their accuser.” And since one study of detainee records shows that a sizable number of them were not captured on any battlefield in Afghanistan but rather handed over by warlords and tribal leaders, having the detainee “face their accuser” may indeed be a monumental problem resulting in the release of people who may very well pose a threat to the United States. As it stands now, only 10 detainees stand accused of any crime at all. The rest are being held as enemy combatants with evidence of a classified nature used to keep them in prison.
This has been the beef against military tribunals all along; evidentiary standards are much more lax than they are in any court in the United States. There have also been questions about the availability of defense counsel to the detainees during their hearings as well as other roadblocks which have made the tribunals seem more like drumhead court martials than legal proceedings in keeping with the honorable traditions of American jurisprudence.
Much as we loathe the men who have sworn to kill us all, we simply must come to grips with the idea that if we aren’t able to kill them on the battlefield, they must be granted some of the rights guaranteed by international law and our own constitution. To do any less cheapens our entire justice system. It isn’t a question of loving the terrorist. It is a question of loving liberty and the blessings granted by a constitution that recognizes value in every individual and equality before the law.
I don’t know if the suicides at Gitmo were the result of despair, as the New York Times says or whether it was a public relations ploy as Colleen Graffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy says. I do know that as long as the detention center remains open, it represents, in my opinion, a black stain on American justice and a sad chapter in the history of American jurisprudence that should be closed for good.
6:59 am
But what is the legal status of these people? If the terrorists come under the Geneva Conventions (the only possibly applicable International Law I’m aware of) they cannot be tried – no more than my father, a downed US airman could have been put on trial when captured by the Nazis. He was simply held prisoner until the end of the war in Europe.
I don’t think the terrorists do come under the Geneva Conventions – they are not uniformed soldiers of a signatory nation state.
So, the question becomes, how does civilized society deal with enemies who don’t play by the rules of civilized society? I don’t have an answer.
7:06 am
Juan:
You ask the right questions and draw the proper conclusion, although unlike your dad, the prisoners at Gitmo have no chance for release “at the end of the war” and hence, other arrangements must be made.
Also, it just isn’t clear that all of these people are terrorists. If you read that NJ piece I linked to, you’ll realize just how haphazard the standards of what constitutes a terrorist were applied here.
It is tempting to throw up our hands at this situation and just let it be but the fact is, there have already been at least 3 cases of people being held at Gitmo that were released after more than a year of detention after being judged innocent. It begs the question of how many more there might be.
7:27 am
Now compare and contrast this story with the situation at Gitmo.
On April 11, 2003, just four days after they tried to hijack a ferry boat out of Havana, a kangaroo court controlled by Castro sentenced Jorge Luis Martinez Isaac, Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo and Barbaro Leon Sevilla to death. Then Castro, with blood on his hands, had the gall to announce to the world that Jorge, Lorenzo and Barbaro had been allowed “an exhaustive appeals process.”
By Castro’s legal standards, these detainees would have been dead within the week of their capture.
7:47 am
I’m surprised to see you jumping on this bandwagon, Rick, without pointing out that some of these “detainees” faked suicide attempts in order to assault their captors just last month.
Try putting this incident in its proper perspective. Not once in the course of all the hand-wringing that has taken place in the press from the opening of Camp X-Ray to the Abu Ghraib scandal did anyone offer a valid point of reference for understanding these events.
I would venture a guess that far worse things happen EVERY SINGLE DAY in American prisons, and yet we don’t see the press screaming about penal reform 24/7, do we? They can only be bothered to write about this subject when it a) concerns foreign terrorists and b) can be used as a stick with which to beat the President.
8:11 am
Great post Rick,
I think this part of a larger problem – namely the lack of adequate domestic and international law to deal with the unique demands of a GWOT. This goes beyond what status to give detainees and affects many aspects the current war. The controversy surrounding “torture” or interrogation of captured terrorists is another example.
This even affects more arcane subjects like the kind of ammunition we can use. Although the US is not a signatory to some of the agreements limiting things like hollow-tip and exploding bullets, we have traditionally followed them anyway and limited our forces to full metal jacket ammunition. The exception to this was for fighting terrorists, which, before 9/11, wasn’t seen as subject to the laws of war. But with the war on terror we still use FMJ ammo, though I know some people in the military who think that policy needs to change. Of course, better ammo must be weighed against the downsides of terrorists using similar ammo and the bad press such a change would bring.
Also an issue is our perception among enemy and ally alike. Gitmo, waffling on what ‘torture’ is and other cases where the Administration has pushed the legal envelope certainly have negative consequences to us. If this is a ultimately a war of values then some of the things we’ve done have cost us dearly in that regard.
8:18 am
Sorry, but I don’t get the supposed connection between prisoners of war and the American Justice system. The Geneva convention should have been followed completely and all these prisoners should have been executed upon capture for being out of uniform. You can’t cherry pick the rules, you either follow them or you don’t.
8:21 am
One thing I forgot to mention,
This a huge stain on the leadership and administration of GITMO. If these people are as dangerous as claimed, they should be under surveillance 24/7. The fact that detainees could hang and kill themselves (a process that takes a few minutes) without being discovered is inexcusable, especially considering that GITMO knew prisoners were consistently attempting suicide. I know that in traditional military prisons anyone suspected of being suicidal is put on a “suicide watch.” They are monitored very closely to ensure they aren’t able to kill themselves. It’s frankly shocking that the GITMO staff allowed this to happen.
8:36 am
Rick,
This commentary should have been, Rick Moran takes the bait. You are getting soft, just like they want, democracy as Hitler said, is weak. This is why I like Ann Coulter, she says the obvious. We are a civil society, but being civil will not protect us. They should fear us, we can be just as brutal as they are when provoked. How many years did John McCain sit in desperate conditions? Club GITMO is a retention facility. There may be many detainees that were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, if they are cooperative, they are given many privileges. These guys killed themselves to bring attention to GITMO. Don’t fall for it. Next you are going to tell us that incarceration is cruel and unusual punishment! We did release some and they were captured or killed by US forces. The GWOT will not be settled by Courts, but with resolve. Remember, Brownie was doing a heck of a job.
8:50 am
Guantanamo Suicide
Funny how the evil, godless, infidel dar al-harb, Great Satan United States cares enough about the remains of terrorists to consult a cultural adviser and treat said remains “with the utmost respect.”
...
8:53 am
Andy,
You make the Katrina argument, a Six Sigma mentality. It becomes our fault they killed themselves, like they stayed during a hurricane becomes our fault. How do you know that these were trouble makers requiring greater surveillance? Perhaps these had been cooperative detainees, but were influenced to do this? That is the rub on all these characters down there, we just don’t know.
9:13 am
Fritz,
The difference is that Katrina victims had the choice to leave.
If you run a prison, especially one that houses the most dangerous people in the world, then controlling them 24/7 is the prison’s responsibility. Not only is this incident another PR black eye, but we’ve lost three sources of intelligence. I’m sorry, but if you know prisoners are consistently attempting suicide, then there is simply no excuse for allowing this to happen.
Some idiot on NPR just now said we don’t know for sure they were suicides. He actually suggested that in light of Haditha, it’s possible they were killed by guards! What an outrageous thing to say!
9:54 am
To my critics (which I guess is everbody):
While I think I say pretty much everything I wanted to say in the post above, I would like to stress one thing: We are not sure if all, most, or some of the detainees are in fact, a threat to the United States.
This is because, despite what we were told continuously, it appears that the overwhelming majority of the detainees were not “captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan” but rather handed over by warlords trying to curry favor with US troops or tribal leaders who also were seeking US help.
In addition, the “tribunals” that judged these prisoners were a travesty. What kind of legal procedure would not allow the defendent to see the evidence against him or face his accusers?
This could have been avoided years ago which is why I call it a stain on our justice system.
10:01 am
Someone here quotes Hitler’s comment about democracy being weak. So I guess that means she should just give up on it, and declare ourselves as fascists. That is the most treasonous, sickening think I have heard yet.
10:06 am
How Long Before Rick Moran Gets Attacked as Pro-Terrorist?
I want to congratulate Rick Moran for coming out of the “Rightwing Nuthouse” over the dentention center at Guantanamo Bay.
Apparently for the first time, Mr. Moran has realized that
Much as we loathe the men who have sworn to kill us a…
10:20 am
Fritz:
Sorry, you lost me right after “why I like Ann Coulter”. She is hardly a fit ambassador for “the american way”.
And I’m sorry you and Hitler think democracy is weak. Yes, compared to a totalitarian society it certainly is. Most of us want it that way. Perhaps you should move to a stronger, more macho country such as Cuba, Iran, or some petty dictatorship in sub-saharan Africa. In those countries we wouldn’t be having this pantywaist discussion about whether these are POW’s (geneva convention applies) or criminal prisoners (US legal system applies). They would have been garroted or had a bullet to the back of the head long ago.
10:30 am
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…..
The Declaration of indipendence, the United States Constitution and all that we stand for, we either live it, protect it, or drown in a sea of self denial, spin, and chaos.
10:38 am
and no, Democracy is not weak. We are strong, and just. No one can stop us if we hold to our principles and sacrifice when called upon. Today, we fight a regional war with too few troops and no sacrifice on the home front beyond some sound bites and yellow magnets on cars. Pure selfishness.
Rick- make no mistake about it. The people that are critical of this post, could care less if those being detained are guilty or innocent. They could care less about our national beliefs and values. They are looking for the boogyman, any scapegoat will do. Even you.
11:11 am
Wow. Rick Moran has written a post which i agree with completely. Careful Rick, you are in danger of loosing your membership card in the Loony League.
You see, this is why I bother. You really do have the capacity to think intellegently. Oh if only you would do that every day.
As a side comment re. Gitmo:
I have always found it to be amazing how the Bush administration got away with the logic they used to set up Gitmo in the first place. They made the explicit case that they wanted to house these people in a place that was outside the jurisdiction of American law – i.e. not on US territory. The notion that a US military base, on land that is part of a permanent US lease, is somehow not US territory is ludicrous, and yet, they got away with it.
And of course, the very notion that they wanted to set up this place outside of the jurisdiction of the courts should raise huge red flags in the first place.
It was good that you noted that many of the detainees were turned over to us by warlords in Afghanistan. Is it truly beyond the intellectual capacities of most Republicans to understand that there may well be many people there who are innocent of any aggressive intent against the US, and may simply have pissed off their local warlord? Having a scrupulous system of protections for the accused is vital, even here in the US where we can be pretty sure that almost all police are honestly trying to do their job, focusing on the truly bad guys. In Gitmo we have a system where detainees are given to us by people we have no reason to particularly trust, and the administration then turns around and tries to give those detainees no recourse whatsoever to a process whereby they can mount a defense of the charges against them. Shameful indeed.
11:22 am
Fritz,
Ann Coulter doesn’t even believe half of the BS that she spews…it’s just a marketing gimmick. And it works. She makes a lot of money. But the joke’s on people like you who believe her.
11:54 am
Juan #1: you raise a key question, one that I asked myself recently. I had an enlightening exchange with a blogger named Army Lawyer (AL). AL’s opinion is that the Geneva Convention Article 3 prohibitions extend to the Gitmo prisoners, regardless of whether they are illegal combatants. He wrotes:
I believe the US’ position is that both Afghantistan and Iraq are CA3 conflicts. Though I could be wrong.
Assuming they are CA3 conflicts, then yes, Gitmo detainees would be entitled to the protections of the provision.
My own opinion is that the Pentagon did not have to exclude CA3 from the Army Field Manual given how I read the language. That being said, the fact that the types of conduct prohibited by CA3 are already prohibited by US policy makes the exclusion of the language not that unreasonable.
AL may or may not be correct- but he provided me with some legal analysis of the issue- something I rarely see otherwise.
12:04 pm
Everybody and his pet dog wants Gitmo treated like any other prison, where the social engineers can weave their magic rehab spell on professional throat slitters. In case anyone hasn’t been looking, the International Red Cross, because they’re essentially European “hands in the air” operatives, charge $5.00 U.S. for their doughnuts. They are not selling well at Gitmo. And let’s make sure those flush toilets are not facing Mecca. And let’s also be real careful about the definition of “facing”.
12:04 pm
U.S. retreats from Guantanamo suicide rhetoric
Who cares if it’s true?
...
12:23 pm
Tano,
US military facilities on foreign soil are not considered US terroritory anywhere. Only embassy compounds qualify. That isn’t US “spin” but the internationaly recognized fact of the matter. There are a couple of reasons Gitmo was chosen over other bases. One, the lease is perpetual and can only be cancelled if both the Cubans and US agree, or the US abandons the base. Secondly, it’s on the soil of an enemy of ours, so there is no SOFA or other legal niceties that we have in other countries. 3rd, for the same reason, we don’t have to worry about angering allies, or jeopardizing an operational base as would happen if we had sent the detainees to the brig at Mannheim, Germany or kept them in Afghanistan / Iraq.
Many of the detainees are dangerous and should not be released. Several that we have released were later killed or recaptured in battle in Afghanistan. We don’t know how many of the prisoners are these warlord turn-ins. The process down there isn’t transparent, so we don’t know if the circumstances of their detainment are legitimate or not. I think that determination must be made through some kind of transparent process.
12:23 pm
Jim Smith:
I haven’t heard anyone, right or left, that wants to rehabilitate Gitmo prisoners. Most I hear want to try and appropriately incarcerate the guilty ones and free the innocent ones. You have a big problem with that? I mean, you are a “law and order” kind of guy, aren’t you?
12:34 pm
[...] Rick Moran, the conservative blogger at Right Wing Nut House, wrote a post yesterday titled “Guantanamo suicides a stain on American justice”. Mr. Moran gives several of the important details of the prison camp, noting that only 10 of the roughly 500 detainees have been charged with any crime. And those few that are charged with crimes are tried in military tribunals, where the accused are afforded very few, if any, of the basic rights of defendants tried in the U.S. justice system. [...]
1:12 pm
Andy,
It is not Gitmo’s status as a military base that I meant to focus on, but the fact that it sits on teritory that is ours, in perpetuity. Territory that is under the legal control of the US. To claim it is “cuban soil”, even though Cubans have no legal or practical control over it, and we do, is nonsense. You repeat the arguments for setting up the base there, but fail to come to grips with the fact that this entire exercise is one that purposely is trying to find some technical way around the law. Even if it could be authoritativly determined that Gitmo really is in some legal netherland, what does it say about this administration that they are so determined to establish this prison where they need not be accoutable for what goes on there – where they can hold people indefinitly with no chance for them to establish their innocence.
You claim these people are dangerous. That may well be the case, maybe for all of them. But we dont know that. We did NOT capture most of them on the battlefield in the process of carrying out aggression against us. Many are there simply because they were ratted out by people who we really have no valid basis for trusting. We have all seen the quality of “intellegence” that we have about the goings on in remote areas of Afghanistan and Iraq, havent we?
I have heard this phrase “several we have released have been killed or recaptured” many times, but never with any evidence to back it up. Many times I have heard it from people I have no trust in. Do you have any basis for saying that, other than that you have heard it making the rounds?
I’m glad you are for transparency down there. But you should come to grips with the fact that everything about the process of setting up that place, and maintaining it, was done for the explicit purpose of avoiding transparancy.
1:24 pm
It seems to me that five years is a long enough to have gotten all the information for the people as Guantanamo that is humanly possible. To continue to keep these people in limbo is wrong.When life becomes intolerable then death seems like a solution. Do I believe they committed suicide? You bet. What more effective way to call attention to their situation and to embarrass the U.S. before the world. This Administration deserves no less.
2:06 pm
That’s why military tribunals are best, believe it or not the military does have precedent and policy and laws for dealing with odd lots like this. Some of them cover non-uniformed combatants (Spy provisions), others are closer to what we used to do with Pirates…
2:07 pm
Much as we loathe the men who have sworn to kill us all, we simply must come to grips with the idea that if we aren’t able to kill them on the battlefield, they must be granted some of the rights guaranteed by international law and our own constitution.
Bingo, Rick. I never viewed this as a particularly close question of conservative principle. Irrespective of this, it’s a public relations nightmare with little apparent upside.
2:08 pm
Thanks for saying what I have always said: We have an oustanding military; an outstanding justice system; and the highest standards in human rights in the world.
We are honoring our military, our civilians, and our constitution when we demand that prisoners get fair trials or that our military personnel conduct themselves in a manner befitting the uniform they wear.
Unfortunately, everyone is so burned up about Iraq and the war on terror (on both sides) that one cannot make a reasoned statement such as yours without both sides shreiking hysterically. (some examples of what is sure to be delivered to you sooon – THE RIGHT: YOU HAVE GONE SOFT AND YOU LOVE THE TERRORISTS
! THE LEFT: YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO COVER YOUR ASS, YOU RIGHT WING APOLOGIST
!).....
Thanks for saying what many reasonable people are thinking but are too tired to say (who wants to say anything and risk an exhausting, pointless argument with a slobbering rightwinger or a frothing leftwinger.)
2:19 pm
Tano,
I can see your point with regard to Gitmo – I was making a legal argument. Certainly Gitmo is a legal netherland because of the unique nature of our lease there.
I think there are valid arguments on both sides. I know there are dangerous people there who were captured on the battlefield and ARE illegal combatants. I don’t know how many detainees fit that category out of the total. This is where the transparency issue comes in. I do think there needs to be some valid method to determine the illegal combatants from innocents who may have been sold out. However, I don’t agree with much of the left that say these people (the bona-fide illegal combatants) deserve the same rights and privileges as criminals in the US, or even as POW’s. The Geneva Convention is, unfortunately, somewhat vague on some of these issues and leaves them open for interpretation. However it is pretty clear that captured AQ and Taliban are illegal combatants and they are not afforded the rights of POW’s.
There is one case of a gitmo releasee going back and fighting that I personally know about. I know there are others. The one I’m sure of was a Taliban commander who was captured during the initial Afghan conflict in 2001-2002. He spent about a year at Gitmo and was released, then went back to Afghanistan. He was killed by Marines, if I remember correctly, in 2003, during an attempted ambush on a Marine patrol. The Marine unit, as part of their post-deployment summary, had his complete timeline along with a pictures from when he was originally captured, processed at Gitmo, released from gitmo, and finally, a picture of him dead back in Afghanistan. The brief I got this from was classified, but I will try to find out if his name and the details are unclassified somewhere. I suspect they are.
I don’t have a number on how many times this has happened, but there are about a half dozen that I’m vaguely aware of in addition to the instance above that I’m positive on. There have also been people who’ve been released and haven’t gone back and rejoined the fight – I think it’s important to point that out.
The intelligence we’re getting from the Gitmo people is not tactically valuable, but some of the individuals there have intimate knowledge of others in AQ and their networks and how they operate. This applies to probably only a few of the most senior/hardened AQ and Taliban at Gitmo. Obviously, the longer they remain captive, the less valuable their intelligence value. However, as we learn new information about AQ we can go back to them and they are able to provide important details, especially with regard to people.
This isn’t an easy problem. I don’t see how you can just close Gitmo. Where do all these people go? If they go to the USA, the ACLU and others will demand they be given the same rights as any criminal under our Constitution. If they can’t come to the US, then where to put them? If we send them back to their host countries, like Saudi Arabia, they’ll probably be executed and people will complain about that. It seems there aren’t many good choices. I do think that a valid, open process to determine if they are illegal combatants needs to occur. Those that aren’t should probably be released to their home countries – for good or ill.
2:23 pm
So exactly who would like these guys as house guests ?
Do I see any hands ?
2:30 pm
Andy (31). You write: however it is pretty clear that captured AQ and Taliban are illegal combatants and they are not afforded the rights of POW’s. Yet you fail to cite a single legal authority in support of this proposition. I’ve heard the same meme myself- but bothered to do some research and consult an expert, only to discover the contrary is true.
So please cite authority for your proposition. Simply stating the conclusion is insufficient.
2:32 pm
I should clarify. Illegal combatants are entitled to the protections of Article 3 of Geneva Convention. There are many other protections afforded under the GC for legal combatants- and they do not apply to illegal combatants. But Article 3 protections do apply to illegal combatants.
For your information, here’s Article 3’s protections:
“To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2:35 pm
In other words, Article 3’s protections are minimum standards of law that apply to all persons in custody- legal, illegal or otherwise. While additional rights are granted to legal combatants, the Article 3’s minimums apply to everyone.
2:40 pm
I think this news story better explains the situation:
6/11/06 Three ‘detainees’ were found dead at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, apparent suicides from choking to death on their Korans.
Military officials released a statement saying, “a cultural adviser is assisting the Joint Task Force to ensure that the remains are handled in a culturally and religiously appropriate manner.”
When asked what that manner might be the spokesperson said, “an older model Ford pickup truck is being flown in with bumper attached chain to drag and fishtail the corpses around detention facility grounds. After guard personnel are tired of dragging them, the bodies will be piled together, lit on fire, and poked and prodded.”
The cultural advisor spokesperson announced that U.S. Army Muslim psychotherapists will be available to console those suffering from separation anxiety at the terrible loss.
In response to a threatened civil rights lawsuit by the ACLU over the detainees’ right to suicide, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline has been contracted by the U.S. government to issue cyanide tablets to detainees along with their Islamic Halal meals.
“This will be our final attempt to appease them. We tried to be culturally correct with the arrows pointed to mecca, prayer rugs, Korans, muslim meals, and soccer practice. Maybe the international countries of the world will have more respect for us now,” Rear Admiral Ben D. Over bewailed.
Switzerland, Belgium, and Netherlands representatives will be consulted about the proper administration and ingestion of the cyanide pills.
Planned Parenthood expressed approval at the detainees’ many requests for a proper suicide, calling it a “convenient late term abortion.”
Detainee Akheemen Al Jahareetto Akna Bennahoujoud in an interview with Matt Lauer of NBC News said, “I saw [one of the detainees] stuffing the Koran down his throat and I could see the last page he had turned too. It was sura 56 verses 12 -40.”
Lauer reached in his back pocket and pulled out Sohaib Sultan’s The Koran for Dummies to verify the passage. “The 87 virgins are to be his in exchange for his blessed sacrifice against the infidels,” Akheemen intoned.
Lauer replied, “How do you know that’s what he’ll get?”
“......Well, we don’t …really. That’s just what they tell us.”
3:54 pm
Rick,
You read advocacy from liberal defense lawyers, three detainees score a coordinated suicide and it is our fault, a stain on us? 600 people out of a country of more than 20 million. These people are living comfortably, if they were all sent home, the goal posts would move and the US would be accused of sending them to countries that will torture them. Hostilities haven’t ended, their status remains in captivity until the conditions are safe to let them go. They needed death of detainees at GITMO to write high minded anti-US articles, you fell for it.
4:21 pm
Andy,
Here’s a link from 2004 re. your response to Tano.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04298/400174.stm
Here’s something of interest: “The most recent case is that of Abdullah Mehsud, a former Taliban commander released from the detention facility in March, who masterminded the recent kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan, one of whom was killed during a rescue attempt by the Pakistani military.” I’m guessing the two who were kidnapped, with one killed, aren’t in favor of releasing the Gitmo prisoners.
Additionally, the inmates that have been released are the ones, presumably, where we had the greatest confidence that they were innocents. In the story it says 202 were released and 8 (at least) later fought in Afghanistan. If we released the next 100, as an example, where we had the next greatest confidence (after the 202) that they would not re-emerge on the battlefield would we expect the ‘wrong rate’ to be higher or lower than the 4% we got with the first 202? And does that matter? Or maybe it makes a difference if your ass is actually on the line in Afghanistan? I’d imagine the ‘national shame’ of Gitmo would pale next to losing a buddy on the battlefield.
4:56 pm
If Gitmo is in fact a high security prison, wouldn’t there be cameras? To prove innocence or the guilt of those involved wouldn’t they release the tapes?
5:10 pm
Guantanamo: Kafkaesque, in a Good Way
This week three prisoners at the Guantanamo prison camp committed suicide by hanging themselves in their cells using bed sheets, an act the commander of the base called “asymmetrical warfare.”
5:26 pm
ACLU Calls For Investigation of Gitmo Suicides
Cross posted from Gribbit’s Word
Today the ACLU has posted on their website a press release calling for an “Immediate Independent Investigation into “Reported Suicides at Guantánamo Detention Facility” insinuating that our …
5:57 pm
Kriez,
You’re right about the GCIV article 3 stipulations. It says nothing in there about getting lawyers and the right of appeal under any law. Furthermore, as I stated above, this is where the GC vagueness causes problems. What is “cruel treatment and torture?” What are “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment?” One man’s torture is another man’s sexual fetish. Some consider the fact that they are detained at all an “outrage upon personal dignity.” Even the Red Cross seems positive on Gitmo:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1887485
Also, article 3’s provisions don’t apply to everyone. They don’t apply to non-signatories to the GC and mercenaries. A case could me made that foreign fighters are mercenaries, but it would be difficult to prove that they received payment.
The biggest complaint is that we are holding these people “indefinitely.” Well, that’s the idea. Germans we captured in 1942 were held “indefinitely” as well. That’s the whole idea. If WWII had gone on 20 years, those POW’s would have been held 20 years. They get released when a peace is signed provided they aren’t war criminals.
Sweetie,
Thanks for the link. A couple of those name sound familiar. I’ll have to check to see if my guy is one of them.
7:08 pm
They don’t apply to nonsignatories to the GC or to mercenaries.
That’s not my understanding but I could be wrong. Again, I’d love to see a citation, a statute, case law interpretation- something that evidences that you’re not just pulling a conclusion out of the air.
7:13 pm
You cannot stop someone from comitting suicide. Try as you might they will catch your back turned and do it anyway. I’ve ran a lot of suicide calls and picked up the pieces, some after running several ‘attempted’ suicides. After the first try i will provide the exact care required by medical rules, nothing less, but absutely nothing more. No i feel sorry for you and that BS. Everyone i know in the EMS world feels the same way.
7:31 pm
Right Wing Nut House goes sane
Bravo to Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House for taking the Gitmo suicides seriously
10:39 pm
Regarding the three “suicides”, the ineternational red crooss was instrumentantal on insisting that the terrorists housed there have privacy. This the inmates were covering the places from through they could be observed.
Our have a nice day attitude will only get more Americans killed. Evil Bushhitler will be looked upon fondly when we are forced to institute really harsh measures after a probable major attack here again…when we decide we need to kill out enemies as we did in bombing German and Japanese cities in World war II. Maybe that it was is regrettably necessary.
11:30 pm
Kreiz,
I did some more research and there is conflict on the issue. Mercenaries are specifically covered under protocol 1 (article 47) of the Geneva Conventions, but the USA has only signed, not ratified, that treaty. It states, in part: “A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.” I’m not sure if this means they are exempt for the protected person status in GCIV or not.
Speaking of which, I’ve read all of GC 1-IV and it is rather confusing. It’s no wonder there are arguments on both sides. With regard to wars between States, it’s very clear, but what about a “war” with non-state actors? The GC doesn’t address this at all. Protocol 1 does address it, but the US and many other countries have not ratified it.
Here is some interesting and conflicting reading:
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html
Pres Reagan’s letter and reasoning for rejecting Protocol 1:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/012987b.htm
The Naval Postgraduate School has a lot of interesting analysis, possibly by a distant cousin of Rick Moran:
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept02/law.asp
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/law.asp
And this is probably the best paragraph I’ve seen on the combatant civilian dichotomy. And its lessons can even be applied to a situation like Haditha:
11:38 pm
Sorry Rick, I think you’re totally wrong about this one, in more ways than I am willing to spend time deconstructing in the comments. It sounds “reasonable” and “fair” and MSM-like, but you’re being purely idealistic. This is exactly the kind of unrealistic armchair theorizing for which we all mock, ridicule, and blast the media.
Just one question though: you said,
This could have been avoided years ago which is why I call it a stain on our justice system.
Really? How exactly (and I do mean exactly) could this have been avoided?
And do you really think three scumbags who finally succeeded in their attempt to stir up trouble constitute a “stain on our justice system?” Might it not be considered yet another “stain” on their ideology/death cult? (OK, two questions.)
3:12 am
Beth:
1. If some arrangement could have been worked out between Justice and Defense over trying to figure out which of these detainees are a threat and which are taxi drivers who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time (or some other innocent bystander turned in by the warlords and/or tribal leaders in Afghanistan) Guantanamo would probably be closed.
2. I wasn’t referring directly to the suicides but rather a system that has allowed the issue to drift on for years without a resolution.
I disagree with about 90% of the NY Times editorial. I want to see the truly guitly placed in a dungeon for the rest of their lives. But about 2/3 of the people being held at Gitmo were not captured on any battlefield of this war. They were turned in by people with suspect motives – informants, warlords, and tribal elders.
Look at what happened in England last week with the chemcal vest raid. They had to let those guys go because the informant who passed along the info was dead wrong. What was the informants motive for turning those people in? Doesn’t it make you want to ask questions about the people being held at Gitmo on evidence of informants?
This is why some kind of judicial oversight is needed. If every single one of the detainees were captured carrying a gun on the battlefield I’d say fine, the military tribunals are adequate. But this is not the case – despite what the government told us, some of the top lawyers in the country (Republicans and Democrats I might add) are saying otherwise. And the documents released by the government on detainee cases prove that the lawyers, not the government, are telling the truth.
It begs the question: Is the Pentagon continuing to hold these people and resist judicial review for them because of national security or because the truth would be embarassing to them?
I tend to come down in the latter camp.
And I hope I get to continue to mock the MSM when I feel that they’re acting like a pack of fools – even though this piece has turned me into one of them (lol). Come to think of it…I have a peculiar desire to start wearing a fedora and smoke a pipe. Maybe there’s an antidote I can take before its too late!
7:44 am
[...] It seems that over time, some conservative stalwarts are going a little wobbly in the knees due to the Old Media’s constant drumbeat of gitmo-abu-ghraib-haditha-gitmo-abu-ghraib-haditha. It’s the left’s favorite hippie drum circle and God only knows why anyone would want to oil up with patchouli and jump in, but some have. [...]
4:50 pm
No, the suicides show that the terrorists will kill themselves to fight, which they have proven over and over! Ask any person who have survived or had loved ones lost in suicide bomber attacks. Now they use our system and MSM against us by killing themselves while in our prison. The hoards of Terrorist supporters wrapped in the protective hide of liberials will come to their aid to support them again!
10:52 am
As a self-described “liberal,” this is the most sane bit of commentary I have read about this issue yet.
I am beginning to wonder whether the conservative label really fits you . . . I am starting to see you as an honest, pragmatic, intelligent, independent thinker. And did I mention that you are an excellent writer?