If You Get Busted for Terrorism, God Help You if You Didn't Do It

Phaedrus · Jan 2, 2005

See, if you did it, you can always cut a deal. You can provide intel. You can claim human rights abuses. You get a trial at some point, maybe. At least a tribunal.

But if you just got swept up in a dragnet, are considered guilty by association, and no charges can be filed against you due to a total lack of evidence of any crime having been committed, let alone whether or not you are the one who committed it, the Pentagon and CIA would like to hold you permanently, just in case of ... um ... you know ... something ...

And this is not simply isolated to Gitmo. This is what they are recommending be the implemented policy for all future terror investigations -- get arrested for suspected terrorist activity/sympathy/aid/etc. and be held indefinitely, in a facility designed for permanent detention without trial.

Irony of the new year:

[size=-1]the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, a senior administration official was quoted as saying.[/size]

(from the linked article.)

Because, you know, having a right to not spend the rest of your life in prison without so much as being charged with a crime is not a "human rights" issue.

Phaedrus

xpanda · Jan 2, 2005

The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share, the newspaper said.

In a thread on the same subject from another board, a poster reminds of this lyric:

First they came for the Communists,
but I was not a Communist,
so I did nothing.

Then they came for the Social Democrats,
but I was not a Social Democrat,
so I did nothing.

Then came the trade unionists,
but I was not a trade unionist,
so I did nothing.

And then they came for the Jews,
but I was not a Jew,
so I did nothing.

Then when they came for me,
there was no one left
to stand up for me.

-Pastor Niemöller

JDeuce · Jan 4, 2005

What exactly are we supposed to do with guys we've captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere fighting against us? There have been documented cases of guys that we've released going right back to fight again.

At whatever point we decide to keep these guys long term, we should declare them POW's. Since the Taliban, etc, are still fighting and haven't yet surrendered...we have every right to keep these guys until the groups to which they belong formally surrender. At that point they can be repatriated. Exact same thing we do with prisoners in every other war.

Of course, since it is very unlikely that the Taliban will ever "surrender", I suppose that means we can hold those guys indefinitely. Because the alternative (releasing them so they can take up arms against us again) is asinine.

xpanda · Jan 4, 2005

JDeuce said:
What exactly are we supposed to do with guys we've captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere fighting against us?

Did you even read the article? In cases where they know that the prisoner has no information to give, they will be sent to this new-fangled Socialite's Prison. If they don't know anything, is it at all possible that maybe they weren't picked up fighting, that maybe they were simply picked up??

There have been documented cases of guys that we've released going right back to fight again.

Throw my ass in Guantanamo for two years with no lawyer or charges against me and I'll be looking for a way to whup your ass, too. Common sense, my friend. And it's probably one of the reasons they don't want to release them. No doubt having former Guantanamo detainees, who may well be tortured under new SC and WH approval, yapping with the media upon release would be bad for business, too.

At whatever point we decide to keep these guys long term, we should declare them POW's.

Subject to Geneva?

Since the Taliban, etc, are still fighting and haven't yet surrendered...we have every right to keep these guys until the groups to which they belong formally surrender. At that point they can be repatriated. Exact same thing we do with prisoners in every other war.

This law won't just apply to suspected Taliban detainees, but to everyone. Including Americans. Google "Jose Padilla" for a taste.

docmercer--banned · Jan 4, 2005

I hope Jdeuce is the first one picked up for "looking like a potential" terrorist ...

The Bushies are in complete denial about what is going on in this country ... I find it hard to believe folks are either this stupid or dense

Amazing .. then again, didnt this pattern occur in Germany in the mid 30's ... the followers of a Little Man that belonged to the Skull & Bones Society .. a man who rose to Office via the standard route ... a man who believed in One World Domination ...

Heil Bush!

docmercer--banned · Jan 4, 2005

that was rose to Office "not via the standard route .."

Yep, give GWB a little Mustache and Nazi Rove free to fire when needed and the Bush Youth Rallies will be on every street corner ...

JDeuce · Jan 4, 2005

You didn't answer my ?, XP. What are we supposed to do with them?

Just to make it easy...would you agree that we can hold anyone we can prove we did seize while they were bearing arms against us in Afghanistan?

Is it enough to prove that they were fighting against us at one time...or do we have to prove that even if they did fight us at one time, we also have to prove that they are still a "threat"? I don't know which way you're going on this.

Secondly, can you show me one case where someone was picked up who was not fighting against us? I know about Jose Padilla, and he had known ties with Al Qaeda. Want a link, I'll get you one. He wasn't some guy we randomly yanked out of his house for the hell of it.

As far as Geneva, its in accordance with the convention to hold prisoners of war until the war is officially over (ie both sides cease fire). Since the Taliban won't ever do that, we're not violating GC rules. In fact, we've already been through that...we're not violating them anyways since they're not a fighting for country...remember?

Anyways, I'm just curious...where's the hand-wringing over Westerners left to rot in the hands of Islamic terrorists? We whine and b*tch about these prisoners, and the world casts disapproving looks our way, and the mullahs bemoan civilian casualties...but where is the concern about American casualties?

Why are those scumbags in Gitmo in the first place?

Why are we even fighting this war? The self-loathing Henny Pennys like lander and Doc Mullah will have you believe it's for profit and bloodlust. But it's actually for our national self-interest and defense.

People complained in every war that we were doing the wrong thing, that the other guy is right, we have secret motives, and other nonsense. BS. America was attacked, and decided to remake the entire Mideast as a reponse. The region was a horrid cesspool that needed cleaned up eventually. Who better than us to do it?

The only question that remains is how to do it. I think I'm with the Ayn Rand people who say we have to stop worrying about the lives of the poor enemy...and instead worry about the lives of American troops. Wipe out the insurgency in Iraq through a massive military and social campaign. I believe now we need to call up several reserve divisions and National Guard divisions, federalize them, and clean Iraq up. Unrelenting war until they capitulate entirely.

It's time to commit the nation to total war.

And btw, do yourself a favor and take USC -1 tonight.

xpanda · Jan 4, 2005

JDeuce said:
You didn't answer my ?, XP. What are we supposed to do with them?

I thought my answer was implicit. If you cannot prove that the detainee has ties to terrorism, or that the detainee was arrested trying to shoot your troops, then you have to let them go. Absent of your ability to prove their guilt, they're innocent of any crime, right? They're not POWs -- soldiers doing their job -- right?

Just to make it easy...would you agree that we can hold anyone we can prove we did seize while they were bearing arms against us in Afghanistan?

If you can prove they're trying to kill US troops, would you not be able to charge them with a crime, then?

Is it enough to prove that they were fighting against us at one time...or do we have to prove that even if they did fight us at one time, we also have to prove that they are still a "threat"? I don't know which way you're going on this.

I think my previous answers take care of this question.

Secondly, can you show me one case where someone was picked up who was not fighting against us?

A fifteen-year-old Canadian boy was held in Gitmo without charges or without access to an attorney. He was the nephew of an AQ operative, and had been working with the CIA until they deemed him no longer useful and threw him in Gitmo. It was only after the screaming by our gov't that he was finally granted access to an attorney and released.

I know about Jose Padilla, and he had known ties with Al Qaeda. Want a link, I'll get you one. He wasn't some guy we randomly yanked out of his house for the hell of it.

If any of this were true, he would have been charged, tried and convicted by now. Since he's an American citizen, I fail to see how you cannot apply 'innocent until proven guilty' as is his guaranteed right, until GW came along and used the WoT to toss that out the window.

As far as Geneva, its in accordance with the convention to hold prisoners of war until the war is officially over (ie both sides cease fire). Since the Taliban won't ever do that, we're not violating GC rules. In fact, we've already been through that...we're not violating them anyways since they're not a fighting for country...remember?

The 'War on Terror' will never be officially over no matter what the Taliban does or does not do. The fact that your gov't has even bothered to dub post-9/11 operations in the same manner as the 'War on Drugs' says much about their intentions to put this thing to rest. Besides, GW himself said you probably can't win this thing. And, since he can always label any Arab picked up as part of the WoT, ipso facto, life detainment.

It's all very cleverly worded spin to do whatever they want with detainees.

Anyways, I'm just curious...where's the hand-wringing over Westerners left to rot in the hands of Islamic terrorists? We whine and b*tch about these prisoners, and the world casts disapproving looks our way, and the mullahs bemoan civilian casualties...but where is the concern about American casualties?

If you're talking about American troops, I'm not the one to look to. These are people who volunteered to sign up, not draftees. If they die, that is the risk they chose to take. As for civilians beheaded, I find it fundamentally appalling. Religious fanatics are whackjobs, all across the board. But none of that makes indefinite detainment absent of charges okay.

America was attacked, and decided to remake the entire Mideast as a reponse. The region was a horrid cesspool that needed cleaned up eventually. Who better than us to do it?

Well, at least you're finally admitting your country is imperialist.

And btw, do yourself a favor and take USC -1 tonight.

I'm already on OK +1 and the ML. Besides, I saw that you were on Auburn last night ... I had the fortune of benefitting from that backdoor cover. Got VT at +6.5. Maybe fading you should be my newest hobby?

docmercer--banned · Jan 4, 2005

Jdeuce:

This war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with National Security ... flappin Bush had this war planned and finalized long before 9-11

This is a war over Religion ... PLAIN & SIMPLE ... our kids are dying in a country that had nothing to do w/9-11 .. NOTHING

Ya want to win this war?? Ya better focus on Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... doing the deal in Iraq has ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING

Again, the Bushies are SO FLAPPIN DENSE ... damn, are any of em able to see the big picture?

xpanda · Jan 4, 2005

doc mercer said:
Ya want to win this war?? Ya better focus on Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... doing the deal in Iraq has ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING

Actually, if you believe that Saudi Arabia is the sole problem, then you should think that the Iraq war is right on the mark. What better way to control the Saudis than to a) find an alternate, deep source of oil, thereby removing the tight grip the Saudis have on your consumption nuts and, b) throw up a few military bases in the region, thereby diminishing the need to rely on access through the Persian Gulf and SA?

Saudia Arabia is stuck between a rock and hard place now -- they've got the Yanks on one side and the Wahhabists on the other. It's only a matter of time before the House of Saud falls.

Sometimes I think you oppose Bush because it's trendy, not because of his policies.

PatPatriot · Jan 4, 2005

Actually, if you believe that Saudi Arabia is the sole problem, then you should think that the Iraq war is right on the mark. What better way to control the Saudis than to a) find an alternate, deep source of oil, thereby removing the tight grip the Saudis have on your consumption nuts and, b) throw up a few military bases in the region, thereby diminishing the need to rely on access through the Persian Gulf and SA?

Oh my god..pass me the smelling salts...MY toes are curling.

your consumption nuts

I don't know if thats helpful.

xpanda · Jan 4, 2005

Patriot said:
Oh my god..pass me the smelling salts...MY toes are curling.

Lol ... as I was typing it I figured one of you yahoos would make a comment like that. I still vehemently oppose the war, though. Geopolitics makes me sick.

PatPatriot · Jan 4, 2005

lol...well at least you see a tad of some reasoning in it...at least you wish for something positive to come of it.

Yahoo? Moi?...lol

xpanda · Jan 4, 2005

Patriot said:
well at least you see a tad of some reasoning in it...at least you wish for something positive to come of it.

I try to see the reasoning behind everything. That's what makes me a good liberal.

But, seriously, the reasoning is there, but it doesn't change the murderous act that invading Iraq was. They are not SA. They just happened to fit all the criteria of being a good country to invade. Geography, prior bad acts, ongoing UN bullcrap, oil reserves, no real defensive capabilities.

I certainly hope nobody gets it in their heads to follow your lead and invade Canada just to get to the US.

JDeuce · Jan 4, 2005

If you cannot prove that the detainee has ties to terrorism, or that the detainee was arrested trying to shoot your troops, then you have to let them go. Absent of your ability to prove their guilt, they're innocent of any crime, right?

No, we don't...and no, it doesn't.

It's really interesting that the left wants us to grant constitutional protection to these crazy ass terrorists, when they're the ones who are trying to destroy our constitution in the first place. Anyways...

The US Constitution protects our own citizens, but citizens of other countries are not guaranteed constitutional rights. If some foreigner came here and committed a crime, we'd probably detain them in our jail cells...and they are subject to the laws of the USA. Since they need to be tried, it'll wind up in our court system by default. But they aren't necessarily granted the same rights as us Yanks.

See the difference?

And think about this logically for a second. Why the hell would we randomly pull civilians into our prisons just for the fun of it? Would that not be a massive waste of time and resources when there are plenty of bad guys out there who we need to bring in?

The fact that your gov't has even bothered to dub post-9/11 operations in the same manner as the 'War on Drugs' says much about their intentions to put this thing to rest.

Jesus. He didn't mean we're going to use similar organizational structures or anything like that. He meant it'll be an ongoing battle...just like the war on crime. For a parallel, we can't close down our FBI offices because we'll "never win the war on crime." Crime will go on as long as there is civilization, and we need organizations who bring criminals to justice. Same applies for terrorists.

These are people who volunteered to sign up, not draftees. If they die, that is the risk they chose to take.

Same thing could be said about the terrorists. After all, they voluntarily join jihads...no?

Well, at least you're finally admitting your country is imperialist.

Nope. Imperialist nations conquer others. We liberate and give them their nation back when we're done.

I'm already on OK +1 and the ML.

Considering how wrong you are about almost everything else, its no surprise that you didn't break precedent here.

How's that crow taste?

JinnRikki · Jan 4, 2005

"And think about this logically for a second. Why the hell would we randomly pull civilians into our prisons just for the fun of it? Would that not be a massive waste of time and resources when there are plenty of bad guys out there who we need to bring in?"

You do know that after the Abu Ghraib mess broke they cut about half of the prisoners loose?
They were freed because they had been caught up in sweeps. Had the investigation into the "irregularities" there not happened, these Iraqis would still be detained and enjoying the U.S. hospitality there.

xpanda · Jan 5, 2005

JD, the fact that you are completely unable to imagine your gov't (and I presume this is the same gov't you right-wing types are suposed to be leery of in the first place) engaging in questionable or flawed behviours renders your point so biased it's moot. Why are you so cynical towards everything else but cannot direct it at your own country? It's naive and doesn't become you.

JinnRikki is right -- the fact that they have let both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo prisoners go, in large numbers, all at once, both following major PR disasters, is evidence that they've been wrong in their arrests. This is not speculation. Why in god's name would you give them the benefit of the doubt now? You've got to be off your rocker to let your gov't have that kind of power, and this is coming from someone who lives in a much more left-wing society than yours.

xpanda · Jan 5, 2005

JDeuce said:
I'm already on OK +1 and the ML.

Considering how wrong you are about almost everything else, its no surprise that you didn't break precedent here.

How's that crow taste?

I stopped watching at halftime, it was so ugly. All is well, though. I broke even with my play on my juniors tonight, too. And, well, I didn't take Auburn last night.

Woody0 · Jan 5, 2005

JDeuce said:
It's really interesting that the left wants us to grant constitutional protection to these crazy ass terrorists, when they're the ones who are trying to destroy our constitution in the first place. Anyways...

The US Constitution protects our own citizens, but citizens of other countries are not guaranteed constitutional rights. If some foreigner came here and committed a crime, we'd probably detain them in our jail cells...and they are subject to the laws of the USA. Since they need to be tried, it'll wind up in our court system by default. But they aren't necessarily granted the same rights as us Yanks.

See the difference?

No.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

JDeuce · Jan 5, 2005

Why are you so cynical towards everything else but cannot direct it at your own country?

I'm not, and I do. Plenty of things have happened under this administration that I'm not wild about. I don't care much for W's domestic spending policy, for example, but I think he's an excellent commander in chief. I dunno if we'll ever have a *perfect* candidate.

And Woody, Thomas Jefferson never watched people's heads get lopped off when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Sometimes the only way to fight evil is to employ evil's methods.

It reminds me of the darkest days of the American Revolution, when Washington knew we had to adopt the principals we were fighting against to be able to win...namely, a standing army, and dictatorial powers in the hands of one man.

The difference was that at the moment of victory, we returned to what made us better than our enemies. And therein lies the key to the Middle East: be as brutal and savage as they are only when required. And right now, with these diehards...only pure hate will stop them. We must hate the findamentalists as much as they hate us...there is no halfway, and no terrorist rehabilitation.

Remember a guy named Pablo Escobar? He was ruling Colombia violently for years until the Colombian government (and a group of rebels called Los Pepes) started to get pretty nasty in return. Los Pepes began killing all known associates of Escobar...one time even going so far as to kill an Escobar lawyer and his 16 year old son. That kind of relentlessness was a major reason for his downfall.

With that in mind, when we do capture Al Zarqawi and get all the info we can from him...they oughtta bathe him in bacon grease and toss him in a pit with live pigs rooting around him. Then have a female American soldier slap him with a shoe before sawing his limbs off and popping him in the throat with a .22. Then show him being buried (still barely alive) in a deep pit with pig entrails. Make sure those shoveling dirt on him are wearing IDF uniforms.

War is hell. Time to play by their rules. I'm beginning to think it's the only way to win. I fear that people just don't realize how critical it is that we win this war. If we do not, the pure evil of radical Islam will forever change our lives. It will come again to these shores.