GITMO Show Trials

[mike777]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25730678/

 

I read this story and think where is the crime?

 

 

Once again our government and media has failed to explain what is going on. In this case these GITMO trials.

 

These prisoners may or may not be guilty of some crime, I have no idea but I assume they are guilty of no crime.

 

Listening to the news I fail to see what crime they may be guilty of; killing people, millions in fact, is horrible but not a crime. Trying to kill people, is not an automatic crime, in fact it may often be legal, if still horrible.

 

Listening to the media it seems our government is trying to turn people engaged in war and trying to kill USA citizens, into criminals. Again perhaps they have committed some crime but simply having bombs, guns or airplanes and trying to kill is not a crime in war. This all sounds like some sort of communist show trial or Kafka story.

[vuroth]

I'm deeply, deeply confused.

 

The US Goverment's original stance on GITMO was that the prisoners were NOT criminals, and that they were NOT entitled to due process. They took this point of view to the Supreme Court, and my limited understanding is that they lost on this point.

 

So how can the government now be accused of trying to turn the GITMO prisoners into (criminal law) criminals? That was NEVER their point of view in the first place.

 

V

[mike777]

I'm deeply, deeply confused.

 

The US Goverment's original stance on GITMO was that the prisoners were NOT criminals, and that they were NOT entitled to due process.  They took this point of view to the Supreme Court, and my limited understanding is that they lost on this point.

 

So how can the government now be accused of trying to turn the GITMO prisoners into (criminal law) criminals?  That was NEVER their point of view in the first place.

 

V

I do not think the Supreme Court has said that the GITMO prisoners are entitled to "due process" per "criminal law" cases but I may be wrong.

 

In point of fact my best guess is the due process they are entitled too is a complete and random guess...see Kafka......

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

 

 

"Another way to interpret The Trial is to consider what Jean-Paul Sartre has to say about it in his book Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate. As the title suggests, the book relates the way Jews receive a world marred with anti-Semitism. Jewish life in such a world, Sartre argues, is similar to the way K. experienced it, and the way Kafka may have experienced it as well. According to Sartre:

 

"This is perhaps one of the meanings of The Trial by the Jewish Kafka. Like the hero of that novel, the Jewish person is engaged in a long trial. He does not know his judges, scarcely even his lawyers; he does not know what he is charged with, yet he knows that he is considered guilty; judgment is continually put off -- for a week, two weeks -- he takes advantage of these delays to improve his position in a thousand ways, but every precaution taken at random pushes him a little deeper into guilt. His external situation may appear brilliant, but the interminable trial invisibly wastes him away, and it happens eventually ... that men seize him, carry him off on the pretense that he has lost his case, and murder him in some vague area of the suburbs." [88, Schocken Books].[citation needed]

 

[edit] Human existence"

[PassedOut]

In point of fact my best guess is the due process they are entitled too is a  complete and random guess...see Kafka......

Yes, I too think that Kafka best expresses the plight of most of those held at gitmo.

 

Prosecutors said Hamdan was first hired to work on the terrorist leader's farms, then won a promotion to driver, doubling as a bodyguard.

Since when does being a driver make one guilty of war crimes? This absurdity trivializes the whole idea of war crimes.

[kenberg]

I have read both Kafka and Sartre, I find them both confusing, but nonetheless I think that describing the situation that these prisoners are in as Kafkaesque is about right. I don't much recall Sartre's No Exit, but the title is also suggestive here. These guys are in deep stuff.

 

We have something of a tiger by the tail but it's past time that we release our grip and hope for the best. And prepare for the worst. I doubt that they mean us well.

[blackshoe]

Since when does being a driver make one guilty of war crimes? This absurdity trivializes the whole idea of war crimes.

Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the driving. For example, if you and your buddies get together and decide to rob the local bank, and you get elected to be driver, and you are parked outside while your buddies go in to do the deed, and one of them kills somebody, you are guilty of felony murder. Didn't pull the trigger, didn't expect it to happen, weren't even inside, didn't even have a gun. Doesn't matter. You're guilty.

 

OTOH, "war crimes" is an ill-defined term. Unfortunately.

[blackshoe]

We have something of a tiger by the tail but it's past time that we release our grip and hope for the best. And prepare for the worst. I doubt that they mean us well.

They don't. They never have. That's the whole point.

[PassedOut]

Since when does being a driver make one guilty of war crimes? This absurdity trivializes the whole idea of war crimes.

Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the driving. For example, if you and your buddies get together and decide to rob the local bank, and you get elected to be driver, and you are parked outside while your buddies go in to do the deed, and one of them kills somebody, you are guilty of felony murder. Didn't pull the trigger, didn't expect it to happen, weren't even inside, didn't even have a gun. Doesn't matter. You're guilty.

 

OTOH, "war crimes" is an ill-defined term. Unfortunately.

Of course everyone knows about felony murder. War crimes are a different category entirely, and many things that would be crimes otherwise are not considered crimes during war. For instance, soldiers routinely kill people that they reasonably consider to be threats.

 

Do you think that Hitler's drivers were guilty of war crimes? (They overlooked those people at Nuremberg, for some reason.)

[onoway]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

 

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

 

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

 

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

 

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

 

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

 

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

 

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

[blackshoe]

Do you think that Hitler's drivers were guilty of war crimes? (They overlooked those people at Nuremberg, for some reason.)

I have seen no evidence either way, so I have no opinion. I do suppose that if the prosecutors at Nuremburg had evidence that Hitler's drivers had committed "war crimes" they would have been charged and tried.

 

"Murder" has a narrow legal definition. Killing in war does not, generally, fit it.

[PassedOut]

I do suppose that if the prosecutors at Nuremburg had evidence that Hitler's drivers had committed "war crimes" they would have been charged and tried.

Of course, in the gitmo cases, the crimes are not only ill-defined, but the prosecutors claim that they have secret evidence against the imprisoned that cannot be revealed, even to those charged.

 

Similarly, before the US attacked Iraq, the Bush administration claimed to have evidence that Iraq threatened the US with weapons of mass destruction. When Colin Powell, in his presentation to the UN, failed to produce evidence for that claim that would convince anyone with common sense, many folks then thought that the "evidence" was too secret to reveal.

 

This despite the fact that Scott Ritter, the tough American who headed the UN Inspection Team for seven years, emphatically stated that Iraq did not have the capability to threaten the US.

 

I believe that the "secret evidence" against the people held in concentration camps by the US, including gitmo, is secret simply because revealing it would make clear how flimsy (or non-existent) it is. In fact, we can be sure that if the administration did have good evidence against those imprisoned, that evidence would be made public, one way or another. The Bush administration has done so in the few cases where they've captured truly dangerous men.

 

I concede that people might be found guilty of not meaning the US well -- especially after being imprisoned without trial for several years -- but surely no one with a brain considers that a crime of any kind, let alone a war crime.

[kenberg]

It seems the legal situation is very much in need of clarification. McVey brought down a building in Oklahoma city. That was a crime. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. That was war. Bin Laden had his followers fly planes into buildings. That is what? It certainly feels like war. But if we are at war with Bin Laden and his followers, and it seems reasonable to say that we are, who actually gets counted as the enemy? What are the rules? They do not wear uniforms, they do not represent a country, and they prefer to not attack our military in direct combat (they are crazy, but not that crazy).

 

Mostly it seems that old definitions simply do not fit. Our laws don't fit, the Geneva conventions don't fit, our military traditions don't fit, nothing fits. We need to think this through to defend both our values and our country. Not easy I think.

 

Osama's driver is not, imo, exactly equivalent to Hitler's driver. Nor is he exactly equivalent to the wheelman in a bank stickup. Hard situation to pin down.

 

In my youth I was once stopped by a cop who wrote out a ticket with my name on it but then realized he couldn't think of anything to actually charge me with. An interesting situation.

[luke warm]

It seems the legal situation is very much in need of clarification. McVey brought down a building in Oklahoma city. That was a crime. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. That was war. Bin Laden had his followers fly planes into buildings. That is what? It certainly feels like war. But if we are at war with Bin Laden and his followers, and it seems reasonable to say that we are, who actually gets counted as the enemy?

i agree that it would be a war and i think we are at war with those responsible and any who give them succor

[Al_U_Card]

Whether war = survival or conquest or protection or vengeance, it ALWAYS = profits.

 

Monetary, hubristic, patriotic, fanatical....someone always gets something out of it at the expense of human lives and suffering.

 

End war. Be(come) human. Stop the insane from pulling us into their delusion.

[mike777]

Whether war = survival or conquest or protection or vengeance, it ALWAYS = profits.

 

Monetary, hubristic, patriotic, fanatical....someone always gets something out of it at the expense of human lives and suffering.

 

End war. Be(come) human. Stop the insane from pulling us into their delusion.

Too late...Canada has been in the War for years and if anything may spend even more in 2008 than in 2007.....see NATO. They are even at GITMO.

[pigpenz]

question is Bush has been responsible for many innocent people being killed in Iraq, what would the USA do if he were charged with war crimes?

[mike777]

question is Bush has been responsible for many innocent people being killed in Iraq, what would the USA do if he were charged with war crimes?

War crimes are war crimes but let us please stop calling so many 'innocents". One can very well be a civilian and not be an innocent. Not doing something or even not caring may very well make one a "guilty" not an "innocent". :)

 

If the USA firebombing, using NUkes, and bombing city after city makes us guilty, fair enough but holding only FDR or Truman guilty of war crimes is a bit unfair.

[hrothgar]

question is Bush has been responsible for many innocent people being killed in Iraq, what would the USA do if he were charged with war crimes?

I suspect that the US would ignore the charges

 

The US refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC (unless of course, its in our own interest to do so). Its all fine and dandy to try Radovan Karadžić for genocide, but don't expect to ever see Bush, Cheney, or the like brought up on charges.

 

Please note: Many Americans - myself included - would LOVE to see Bush brought up on War Crime's trials. Its possible (but not at all probable) that Bush might go overboard with Presidential pardons, forcing the the next President to rely on an International Tribunal to charge folks like Cheney.

 

I doubt that Obama would choose to waste politcal capital in this manner (but it sure would be satisfying to watch)

[Al_U_Card]

Whether war = survival or conquest or protection or vengeance, it ALWAYS = profits.

 

Monetary, hubristic, patriotic, fanatical....someone always gets something out of it at the expense of human lives and suffering.

 

End war. Be(come) human. Stop the insane from pulling us into their delusion.

Too late...Canada has been in the War for years and if anything may spend even more in 2008 than in 2007.....see NATO. They are even at GITMO.

***** Mike, the day I say "My country, right or wrong." I guess that the US will have invaded and conquered us (for our oil/water/poutine) and I'll be "proud" to be an American.

[kenberg]

I see two competing wants in my mind:

 

A. I really do wish that both I and my country can do good rather than harm. I think much of the history of humanity has been brutal and horrible, and I hope we can contribute to the greater good.

 

B. I live, in materialistic terms, about as well as the average American. This means I live, again in materialistic terms, much better than the average Mexican, and incomparably better than the average African. I wish to continue living as well as I am living. As near s I can tell, the Canadians that I have known and the Europeans I have known are not noticeably less selfish than I and my fellow Americans are. Of course it would be great if every family in the world had two cars, a nice home, fresh groceries nearby and so on. While we are waiting for this paradise, we have to live with the world as it is. And that means strife.

 

 

As long as I, and my Canadian friends, European friends,and fellow Americans maintain out lifestyle there will be people who will hate us for doing so. Throw in a little religion and there we are.

 

Many argument positions seem to emphasize A, ignoring B, or emphasize B, ignoring A. Any set of laws that protect our lifestyle will, to at lest some extent, be unfair to those who have little. I do not favor torturing people. I don't think any US government, Republican, Democratic or otherwise, should be given Carte Blanche to just say "We are protecting you, don't worry about civil liberties".

 

So yes, we need to bring the GITMO episode to an end and we need to not repeat it. We also need to figure out how to effectively deal with a very real threat. Actually, with many threats and problems. I hope we can.

 

 

PS I do not favor trying Dick Cheney for war crimes. I think that sort of talk is crazy.

[blackshoe]

***** Mike, the day I say "My country, right or wrong." I guess that the US will have invaded and conquered us (for our oil/water/poutine) and I'll be "proud" to be an American.

I daresay the US has no interest in invading Canada. What would be the point?

 

As for the quote, perhaps you should contemplate the whole thing:

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

[Al_U_Card]

***** Mike, the day I say "My country, right or wrong." I guess that the US will have invaded and conquered us (for our oil/water/poutine) and I'll be "proud" to be an American.

I daresay the US has no interest in invading Canada. What would be the point?

 

As for the quote, perhaps you should contemplate the whole thing:

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

The largest petroleum reserves in the world?

 

The largest fresh-water reserves in the world?

 

The most "american" country on the planet?

 

The easiest to control and exploit?

 

The only downside is that it would be harder to keep down the negative press (overtly). In Iraq they have it pretty much made in the (lack of) shade. :ph34r:

[jtfanclub]

The only downside is that it would be harder to keep down the negative press (overtly). In Iraq they have it pretty much made in the (lack of) shade. :ph34r:

There wouldn't be any negative press. It wouldn't be an invasion, after all. We'd just come in to "protect Canadian interests" and later we'd have a "merger".

 

If you think that you'd see any North American (or even European) mainstream negative press, I think you have an overly sunny view of our 1st Admendment.

[luke warm]

The only downside is that it would be harder to keep down the negative press (overtly).  In Iraq they have it pretty much made in the (lack of) shade.  :ph34r:

There wouldn't be any negative press. It wouldn't be an invasion, after all. We'd just come in to "protect Canadian interests" and later we'd have a "merger".

 

If you think that you'd see any North American (or even European) mainstream negative press, I think you have an overly sunny view of our 1st Admendment.

i think the planning is already in the works, and it includes mexico... union of north america coming soon to a theater near you

[Al_U_Card]

The duality inherent in our existence allows for the inclusion of both good and evil in all circumstances.

 

Hybridization is always more viable and vigorous than inbred sameness.

 

Homogenization, for the purposes of uniformity and the maintenance of control are the downside.

 

We can resist and even convert this as long as we have an open approach to the situation. Flexibility and action result in an overwhelming tide of events that can only bring about our eventual evolution to a state that surpasses our current situation.

 

Do not accept the status quo. Don't accept things as they are presented if their face value belies their underlying reality. Be strong and resolute.