収束ゾーンでのライフ: Life in the Convergence Zone

The people in Gitmo are prisoners of war, and illegal combatants. They're not entitled to the protection of our legal system. At all. Why do people have a hard time understanding this? Their protection comes from the UCMJ and the Geneva treaties. People who want to have them under our legal system really have no idea at all what they're talking about, or what can of worms they're getting into. Wars are not prosecuted by judges and courtrooms. That's just poor folly.

From:

Well, if you listened to the article, you'd find out that only about 5% were actually captured by US forces in the field, and not all of those were anything like combatants. The bulk of the rest were simply anyone who was not "one of us" or inconveinant to the locals (a $10,000 bounty for turning in "Taliban/Al Kiada/Terrrorists"), rounded up from their homes, places of business or simply off the street, well away from anything like the trouble spots.
The overall impression of the articles is that, other than maybe a couple dozen people, The whole Gitmo excersice has been a collosal cock-up, largely because due process (including UCMJ and Geneva rules) was NOT applied.

From:

I heard parts of it today too, and it reinforces my view that Bush and a number of other members of the administration will (or at least should) at some point in the future be facing prosecution for crimes against humanity, not to mention gross violations of the Constitution.

As far as the Gitmo prisoners are concerned, they are either prisoners of war or illegal combatants. They can't be both because Bushco has specifically invented the term "illegal combatant" to exclude them from being able to claim prisoner of war status. Since the term "illegal combatant" is a legal fiction created for the convenience of the administration (apparently to allow them to torture prisoners and deny them due process), it is very difficult to accept this as a valid classification.

If they are prisoners of war, they are protected by the Geneva Conventions, which very specifically prohibit things like torture.

Oh, and by the way, Congress has not declared war, which it has the sole power to do, under the Constitution (remember that little document?), so the United States is not legally at war. Therefore, those held under the authority of the U.S. government do have the right to due process of law and access to U.S. courts.

From:

Illegal combatent is not a legal fiction. Also Congress did declare war.

From:

Oh really? What was the date of that declaration of war?

And since the term "illegal combatant" appears nowhere in any law passed by Congress or any treaty that the U.S. is party to, that makes it a fiction invented for the convenience of the administration.

If the President wants to create a category of persons called "illegal combatants", he has to get Congress to pass a law that does that. The President doesn't get to create laws; his job is to enforce them, which is difficult to do when the administration is in fact breaking a number of laws in as brazen a manner as possible.

From:

If you don't recall when they declared it, don't ask me to go find it for you.

And your whole congress law argument has no bearing here. You really don't understand the applicable laws, at all. Of course what do I know? I'm just a former military officer.

From:

I am also a former military officer, and I do understand the applicable laws (apparently better than you do), and, (digressing slightly) I am thoroughly disgusted that things like Abu Ghraib happened and NO ONE was held accountable.

And the last time Congress declared war was on Dec. 8, 1941. The Congressional action you are apparently referring to was a resolution authorizing the use of necessary force to go after Al-Qaeda. It specifically was not a declaration of war.

From:

But these individuals are not illegal combatents either. They are SUSPECTS, at best, which means until they are CONVICTED or at least CONFIRMED to be illegal combatents, they are merely ACCUSED, often on the flimsiest pretext. And if you don't know the fundamental legal point of THAT, then the whole discussion of any legal process is going to be beyond you.

From:

No, it's going beyond you. I don't think you understand that the American legal system doesn't hold sway here. It's the Military's legal system. Which is different.

But I'm not going to argue with you people any longer. You don't understand what's involved here, and you really don't wish to learn.

From:

What is involved here is whether this country is going to continue to be governed under the Constitution of the United States, which is what you and I both swore an oath to uphold and protect. The current activities of the Bush regime indicate that the Constitution may be on its way to becoming a dead letter if he and his accomplices are not stopped. Since I figure my oath still applies even though I am no longer in the service, I am opposing the administration and its numerous attempts to subvert the Constitution.

From:

Hear Hear. I've been out for more than (eek!) 25 years and I still take my oath just as seriously. And as a history geek, I know all too well the reasons why things were done and what happens when they get undone. Dark days.

From:

Sorry, former UASF type here. An individual accussed of an act/crime/status has a right under all forms of lawful jurisdiction to a process to confirm that the individual is AT LEAST reasonablely suspect of actually being defined a suspect. You follow that? The problem with the bulk of the Gitmo people is that there was no effort to confirm that they were anything but unlucky smucks that got grabbed by local militias to be turned in for $10,000 a head.

All you have spouted has been merely Administration talking points, nothing factual.

From:

king-chiron.livejournal.com

You are aware that "prisoners of war" and "illegal combatants" are mutually exclusive terms and that the US has strongly denied that they're POW because then they *would* be afforded POW rights under the Geneva convention.

Anyway, by the US's own records a significant number(maybe the majority) were not picked up on the battlefield fighting the US but rather turned over by folks who may have been doing it to settle personal or tribal scores or even to gain bounties. So some guy is grabbed out of his house in Pakistan, someone claims he's an AQ member, and on that evidence alone he spends years in Gitmo. Sounds like justice to me!

From:

Yes I am aware. I said that the people there are those two things, I assumed you understood that it was it was an exclusive 'and' like saying: Boys and Girls. My bad for not being clear.

From:

king-chiron.livejournal.com

So you're saying that some of those at Gitmo are POWs? Which ones? Because the US governments take is that they are all illegal combatants.

And have you read the evidence that's come out showing that relatively few were actually "caught on the battlefield" as the US has characterized?

From:

I don't have all the facts, niether do you, niether do the people who are making these claims. So I'm sorry, but I'm going to give our government the benefit of the doubt. Remember that the AQ people have been trained to lie. And they do, about all sorts of things.

Yes there is the possiblity that some of the people who are there don't belong there, but I doubt it. Our soldiers are professionals and know a lot more about what they are doing than you do. And considering the number of flat out lies that have already been reported by certain 'press' organizations who have an agenda, well again, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt.

From:

king-chiron.livejournal.com

Hello? *You* just finished telling us that some of the people in Gitmo were POWs, so here you are questioning the US government yourself.

And the fact is the transcripts of some of these legal sessions have been released and they're a joke. When one prisoner is accused of being a former Taliban official and he asks the court to check with the current government in Afghanistan he's told that he can "write them a letter."

And the fact is that these *aren't* professionals, in some cases the interogators are army reservists without *no* background or experience in interogation, in other cases they're just contract civilians who happen to speak Arabic.

From:

solarbird

I really, really, really strongly recommend you listen to this show, because they're using US government data, and talking to people that the US government admits are not and were never illegal combatants, and, well, until you know what you're talking about in reference to this data, you're really just making yourself look deeply, deeply uninformed.

The archive should be up on the site by Monday, IIRC.

From:

Dar, who IS this guy? Sounds like he's simply reading a Rumsfeld script instead of actually having anything to say for himself.

From:

Unfortunately, in my time in the service, I ran into too many otherwise intelligent officers whose critical thinking faculties seemed to evaporate when it came to discussing the pronouncements of those above them in the chain of command, whether it was their Commanding Officer or the President.

Fortunately, that trend is nowhere near universal.

From: