SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to the New York Times the Obama administration has submitted its plan to close the controversial Guantánamo Bay Prison:
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday sent Congress a long-awaited plan for closing the Guantánamo Bay prison, beginning a final push to fulfill a campaign promise and one of his earliest national security policy goals in the face of deep skepticism from many Republican lawmakers.
takyon: The President's plan faces opposition from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and the prison is unlikely to close before he leaves office. Additionally, the plan wouldn't technically "close" the prison, but would move any indefinitely detained people to the United States:
Legal observers note the White House wouldn't truly "close" the prison, but rather move people who may need to be detained indefinitely into the United States — to the chagrin of human rights groups. [...] Even people who unequivocally endorsed the plan sounded equivocal: Former Rep. Jane Harman called it "the least bad option under the circumstances."
Harman, now director of the Wilson International Center for Scholars, urged Obama last year not to close the prison until there was a way to house detainees who can't be tried under any circumstances because evidence against them was gathered through torture, but who are considered too dangerous to release. (About 46 detainees fall under that category.) She and Jack Goldsmith, a Bush-era Justice official, outlined a plan to periodically review how dangerous detainees are, holding out the possibility of release if they're deemed safe. Obama adopted that approach in the plan released Tuesday.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:07AM
Oh hells no! No pansy assed nigga gonna immigrate those brownskinned terrists into My Murica! Not in my fucking back yard, ya hear! Dig 'em a mass grave and pave over the mother fuckers!
Keep Merica #1! Keep Out Teh Terrrrist Sandniggas!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:16AM
It seems to me that the "issue" is the folks currently held at Gitmo who can't be released because they're "too dangerous" to be allowed to leave.
If these folks are, in fact, stone killers who really are enemy combatants ready to kill Americans when and wherever they can, the only real solution is to subject them to summary execution.
This, of course, hangs on the idea that we know they are evil killers who can no more stop killing than a shark (with or without fricken lasers on their heads) can stop feeding. Do we really know this? If so, why be squeamish?
If we can't produce evidence to support that position, then there's a big problem.
Since these guys have been imprisoned at Gitmo for ten years or more, clearly they don't have any actionable intelligence or knowledge of the current activities of any groups that the US classifies as "terrorists."
So. Since any intelligence used to identify and detain these people is completely stale, an alternative to a bullet in the back of the head could be to try them for whatever "crimes" that got them locked up in the first place and punish them accordingly.
Either way, we've washed our hands of this blight on the constitution and the rule of law.
The saddest part is that the former is more likely to garner support from our "leaders" than is the latter.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:21AM
Nuke gitmo now. It's the only way to sweep the Bush era under the rug forever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:44AM
That'll work, until the radioactive mutant terrists invade the mainland.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:29AM
Better still, keep if for Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo once the European courts finish with their trials [ecchr.eu].
(if you think it's pretty much the same as the toothless conviction in Kuala Lumpur [wikipedia.org], consider the fact that Bush cancelled trips in Switzerland [ecchr.eu] because of the opened cases against him).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:51PM
President Trump needs Gitmo as a detention center for Mexicans who'd refuse to build his wall.
you don't need to nuke Gitmo. Castro would like to have it back. He surely can deal with the people left behind by the marines.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:47AM
You consider that washing your hands of it? Freedom doesn't really mean anything, eh? Just a slogan. Pathetic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pogostix on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:51AM
You consider that washing your hands of it? Freedom doesn't really mean anything, eh? Just a slogan. Pathetic.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 24 2016, @08:55AM
You consider that washing your hands of it? Freedom doesn't really mean anything, eh? Just a slogan. Pathetic.
Note that the subject was "An Idea That the Ds And Rs Can Both Get Behind." The Ds and Rs I was referring to were those in Congress who seem to have no problem with wiping their asses with the constitution.
Those folks, as I noted, would be much more likely to support summary executions than to give these people due process.
Apparently, my cynicism and sarcasm weren't up to Swiftian standards.
What I'd like to see is all of these folks go through the courts and get some modicum of due process. Something that's been denied to them for far too long. Which is what I suggested as an alternative (but not very popular among our bloodithirsty elected "representatives") course.
As for "washing our hands" of the situation, belatedly giving these people their day in court and closing down Gitmo would be a good start, IMHO.
Oh, and what's pathetic is that we've allowed this to go on for so long. What have *you* done to get these people their day in court. If it's not more than busting people's balls online, then that moniker applies to you too, buster.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:40PM
We're in agreement there. I got an email from my congress critter this morning. "ZOMG! Obama wants to bring turr'sts to Murica!"
I plan on visiting his site in the near future (this weekend) and tell him a few things about Gitmo, and the morons who decided to use it as a POW camp, minus the privileges enjoyed by POW's.
Like you, I insist that each person there should get his day in court. An acquittal means he goes free - a conviction means he serves some time (probably already served) and a conviction of a truly heinous crime merits execution. I've not heard that any of them are accused of heinous crimes. Waging war against a foreign invader isn't exactly a heinous crime, unless you happen to be true believer Crusader. In which case, you wouldn't have taken prisoners to start with.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Thursday February 25 2016, @04:52AM
Just a Canadian sitting up here being judgmental. (I threw that 'eh' in there as a hint ;) )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:51AM
Lobotomize them and have them work as a janitor somewhere.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:21AM
Whoa, that is not Sanguine.
I agree with your comments to a certain extent, but this one got me:
"Either way, we've washed our hands of this blight on the constitution and the rule of law."
Do you mean to say, if we close Gitmo, then we will have washed our hands of it?
If the closure happens, which is overdue IMO, it is still going to be a political thorn which the rest of the world won't think of as a hand-washing.
I'd like to know what you think the repercussions might be.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 24 2016, @09:05AM
I'd like to know what you think the repercussions might be.
Repercussions? Holding these people without charge or trial shows us to be hypocritical bullies. If we have the evidence to do so, then we should try them in our courts. Which is something we should have done a decade ago.
Closing Gitmo would be a small sign that we're moving away from being aggressive, authoritarian scumbags uninterested in the rule of law. If that's a "repercussion" I'd be glad to have it.
That would be a start. Not murdering civilians with UAVs would be a go a lot further, methinks. And leading by example that we can have a free and open society without pervasive surveillance would be an excellent idea too.
Sadly, just closing Gitmo seems to be way too much to ask our "representatives" apparently.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Wednesday February 24 2016, @10:37PM
Hi again Sanguine, (are you Not, or are you really?),
I agree whole-heartedly that the UAV implementation is very problematic. Depending upon who you get your statistics from, there's evidence that it's not really sparing civilians. In fact, they may be dying in a greater percentage than so-called enemy combatants. You raise the issue again of our 'representatives,' and that is my cue to go get another beer, laugh at that terminology, and rail against the impossibility of it all to my cat.
-Cheers
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @12:39PM
Typical uninformed loud mouthed 'murican who doesn't know shit and isn't afraid to let the whole world know it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 24 2016, @01:04PM
That's right. 'murica! Fuck yeah!
Where are you AC? Once our new God Donald Trump is President For Life, we're gonna bomb your mangy little country back to the stone age.
Actually, it doesn't matter where you are. You'll get some anyway. Because we 'muricans don't take any shit from anybody. Especially faggot foreigners* like you.
We rule this world. You and your bitch country ain't worth the dog shit on my shoe. Which you'll find out when Fuhrer Trump nukes your worthless asses!
Am I over the top enough yet, AC? Or am I not laying it on thick enough for you to get it yet?
*Who, apparently, aren't familiar with (or bright enough to understand) the concept of sarcasm [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:21PM
Modded Informative, because thats what will happen and the attitude that will become exceedingly prevalent if Hitle-Trump manages to get elected.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:41PM
Why not just deport them to ISIL-controlled territory? Then you can just drop bombs on them and no one will care.
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:37AM
The use of the term "gulag" was dumped on very strongly by the American administration, but it really fits. Prisoners not charged with any crime, not held as Prisoners of War during a recognized conflict under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, that only leaves illegal incarceration in violation of the Magna Carta, and all laws national and international since then. There is no debate about this. It is a legal fact. The United States of America has violated international law, its own laws and Constitution. And yet Dick Cheney is not before the International Criminal Court, nor the United States government before the International Court of Justice. This is very bad, for the world at large. Rule of law, not of men, and certainly not of scaredy-pants Republican men. Almost all of the Republican candidates have called for the commission of war crimes, and so are defacto war criminals even before they might be elected. Fortunately, that is no likely, but they should be charged and tried, just on principle. No one should be able to openly call for genocide, violations of human rights, or war, with out having to take personal responsibility for their statements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:00AM
No one should be able to openly call for genocide, violations of human rights, or war, with out having to take personal responsibility for their statements.
Total genocide will fix your stupid viewpoint. All humans must die. All of them. Right now.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:46AM
This AC does have a point. It would solve a lot of problems. I can't tell how many others it would create, but since I wouldn't be in a position to care, I don't, or won't, or can't, or something.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:04AM
Let me get this straight: You are saying "Game over, man, those things will kill us all!" And Ripley says: "This little girl survived all by her self." And the other guy says: "Let's take off and nuke them from orbit, it is the only way to be sure." Of course we all saw how that ended up in the Third Movie! (Things always go south in the Third Movie!)
But it is worse than you know. For millenia victor's justice was meted out. "To the victor belong the spoils!" Andrew Jackson, I believe. But after the horrors of World War Second, there were some who said, "never again, and this time we mean it!" One such was an American Supreme Court Justice, back when such people were honorable. Robert H. Jackson took a sabbatical from the US Supreme Court to serve on the Nuremberg Tribunal. Americans were the ones who insisted on a tribunal, and pushed the concept of a crime against humanity: Whosoever starts a war is responsible for all the wrongs resulting therefrom. The Bloody Brits just wanted to take all the Nazis out behind the shed and come back without them. Americans stood up for justice, international law, and the prosecution of war criminals. If only there were Americans like Robert H. Jackson, or Dwight Eisenhower, or even Atticus Finch. Judge Judy and Alberto Gonzales, and Jay Bybee, are not cutting it. A lawyer who defends a war criminal whom he knows damn well is guilty is himself a war criminal.
(Score: 4, Informative) by lentilla on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:40AM
Your last sentence appears to disagree with the rest of your argument. If we are to convene a tribunal both sides need lawyers. That means that somebody has to represent the "bad guy" - perhaps in full knowledge that they are indeed bad. (In fact this is a requirement of the sentencing phase: the defendant's guilt has already been determined and now it becomes a question of the level of punishment applied.) If we already know beyond a reasonable doubt who the war criminals are then we should dispense with the whole circus and simply march them out the back of the shed.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @08:23AM
Analogy to Mafia lawyers: a Consigliere is a lawyer whose specific intent is to advise his client on how to commit criminal acts and avoid prosecution for the same. Many, if not all, of the lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration fit this description. Gonzales, who had been W's personal attorney, committed a de facto conflict of interest by accepting the position of Attorney General of the United States of America. Everyone knows these facts, and most are very cognizant of the implications for the rule of law and the international legal order. This does not apply, of course, to ethical lawyers. Yes, I just said "ethical lawyers", and I believe such things are possible, as in the case of the previously mentioned Robert H. Jackson. A real American Justice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @09:08AM
I don't know of any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @01:30PM
If only there were Americans like Robert H. Jackson, or Dwight Eisenhower
I think you forgot that Eisenhower was a War Criminal and a murderer of innocent civilians. And he loved it.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:47PM
That is complete and utter bullshit. There were only two movies. They never made a third one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @08:02AM
The word you're looking for is humanicide.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:12AM
Just fucking incredible... "detainees who can't be tried under any circumstances because evidence against them was gathered through torture, but who are considered too dangerous to release"
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This is some sick version of precrime, people are incarcerated not based on whether they have done something illegal but instead how "dangerous" they are..! I guess the US will start picking people off the streets under this logic. And as anybody can imagine, any "confession" after torture is absolutely rubbish. There comes a point when one will say or do _anything_ to make the pain go away. Curiously people will also develop a dislike for you when you torture them... And while this cutesy scheme of taking people to other countries to be tortured might be legally ok (probably ignoring international law) it certainly is morally rotten to the core.
Shame on you USA.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:03AM
Well said, aristarchus.
The problem with all your sane cites is that there are no real bounds on what the powerful can and want to do.
They should be bound by the founding documents, but as a practical matter, do any of us really think they are? Exhibit One is the perversion of the vote through $$$ via media influence on the populace, right?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:30AM
Errol Harris, a South African philosopher, put it best. "All power is based on the consent of the governed." This is what makes non-violent resistance powerful, because all the "people" have to do is withhold obedience, which is entirely within their power. No doubt the "powerful" will attempt to assert their "power" by means of force, or what we would call "terrorism", but this is just the point: if the people refused to be terrorized, whether by domestic tyrants or wannabe Californiates, they have no power over anyone. Even to nastiest dictatorship relies on the tacit consent of its populace. And of course, if they turn, bye bye Ceaușescu, Khadafi, Mussolini, Bush family.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:43AM
You bring up some relevant points. I've got a movie bent so I relate it to the seven samauri. but the concepts are the same. Who controls who, and who gives tribute and why?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:52PM
"All power is based on the consent of the governed."
Sadly, far to few people understand that concept. A few hundred elites, or royals, or whatever, cannot possibly impose their will on a nation of millions, unless the millions submit, ie, consent.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 24 2016, @07:47AM
In some respects, Gulag was better: the people could contact other inmates, had a (hefty) daily dose of physical activity, many had families with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday February 25 2016, @02:36AM
Better or not is mute, but the fact is that every one of Gulag prisoners had a court and the paperwork is available. Soviets were very bureaucratic and any member of the force would go to Gulag himself for violations. Germans I believe did the same. This Guantanamo thing goes way back to medieval times.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25 2016, @03:28AM
Were you trying to say "Better or not is a cow's opinion"?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 24 2016, @08:35AM
Prisoners not charged with any crime, not held as Prisoners of War during a recognized conflict under the Hague and Geneva Conventions,
The latter holds here. There is a recognized conflict.
No one should be able to openly call for genocide, violations of human rights, or war, with out having to take personal responsibility for their statements.
It's worth remembering that some of the worst conflicts have come from people who were trying to avoid them. To use a recent example, the US left Iraq in 2011, but it didn't stay out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @08:56AM
There is a recognized conflict.
Perhaps I was not precise enough. Recognized conflict, maybe, but not a state of war as required under the laws of war. In fact, war was effectively outlawed by the Charter of the United Nations, so as to preclude any more of the nastiness as occurred in the Second World War. The only legitimate use of force by one member nation against another is in immediate self-defense against aggression; a concept that the Bush administration has stretched beyond all conceivable meaning. (See: Cheney, "One Percent Doctrine") The "War on Terror" is not a war, and even if it was, it would have been over already, and a new one begun. Prisoners of war are to be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities (this is the principle of international law, despite notable violations, some in Poland). To continue to hold persons because some cowards in the intelligence community are really sure that they may commit crimes in the future smacks of "pre-crime", and I saw the movie with Ted Cruise, and it did not work out well.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday February 24 2016, @09:04AM
Yeah, I've watched the doco as well. Tom Cruz was a terrible actor, wasn't he?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 24 2016, @09:36AM
I saw the movie with Ted Cruise, and it did not work out well.
Yeah, I've watched the doco as well. Tom Cruz was a terrible actor, wasn't he?
(grin)
While slightly off-topic, that brings up an interesting question:
Which one is more bat-shit crazy? Tom Cruise or Ted Cruz?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 24 2016, @12:07PM
The way I see the two:
Ted Cruz wouldn't dare, he's just stupid. Too stupid to do crazy things. Why do you think Trump is well ahead of him?
On the other side, Tom Cruise is only a bit crazy but has a total lack of inhibition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 24 2016, @01:32PM
Perhaps I was not precise enough. Recognized conflict, maybe, but not a state of war as required under the laws of war.
You said the Geneva Conventions. They allow for that situation.
The only legitimate use of force by one member nation against another is in immediate self-defense against aggression; a concept that the Bush administration has stretched beyond all conceivable meaning.
And that works too.
Prisoners of war are to be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities
No such "conclusion" has happened yet.
To continue to hold persons because some cowards in the intelligence community are really sure that they may commit crimes in the future smacks of "pre-crime", and I saw the movie with Ted Cruise, and it did not work out well.
You do have a point here at last. "Cowards in the intelligence community" don't make that determination. But I gather a military tribunal can make that determination. The Obama administration has tried to avoid such things despite promises from Obama to the contrary.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday February 24 2016, @01:02PM
Everyone should be able to openly call for genocide. Because there's a difference between saying something and doing something. If you can't see the difference, might I suggest the line on the left?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:53PM
Everyone should be able to openly call for genocide. Because there's a difference between saying something and doing something. If you can't see the difference,
may I suggest that you time-travel yourself to Rwanda in the Spring of 1994, you cockroach! Also, look into the conviction of Nazi Propagandists. And Fox News. Just saying. Oh, but that is your point, isn't it! Not doing, just saying!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 24 2016, @02:46PM
I'm also going to have to call out the language about "indefinitely detained people": Isn't it amazing how so much of the American media has decided that "prisoners locked up forever" have become "indefinitely detained people" (a term that has no legal meaning whatsoever, the Bush administration just made it up)?
It's also blindingly obvious that Obama would like the symbolism of closing Gitmo, without actually addressing the reasons so many people called for Gitmo to be closed:
1. We were torturing people there, in violation of US and international law. The US government has many current and former personnel that are guilty of crimes against humanity, and the US is obligated by treaty to prosecute these people. This required prosecution has never happened, and Obama made it abundantly clear that it would never happen under his administration due to his "look forward, not look backward" policy. About the only thing I can say in Obama's defense is that he's at least stopped the torture.
2. We decided to lock people up forever without ever holding a trial to determine whether they were actually bad guys in the first place. This is a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment protections, as well as international law (albeit somewhat less serious than the torture). Obama has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't intend to fully rectify this either.
My strong suspicion is that the reason that these guys can't be released has nothing to do with their risk of them becoming some kind of terrorist mastermind, and a lot more to do with the risk of them identifying people who tortured them. After all, there's no shortage of fanatics in ISIS, so another 50 gunmen running around Syria or Iraq will probably not make much difference.
I hope the next president, whoever it is, takes this problem seriously rather than symbolically. That would mean (1) sending the torturers and anyone involved in making the decision (including George W Bush and many other top officials) to the ICC where they belong, and (2) releasing anybody we can't prove is guilty of something warranting a life sentence in a proper trial.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:26PM
Not surprising considering they're all fascists. Not "Herp derp, that fucking communist Bernie Sanders is such a fascist" fascists, but real, honest to god, non-hyperbolic fascists. There's only a single candidate this time around who isn't a fascist.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:47AM
As I recall (but don't quote me), the reason why those at Gitmo have not been able to successfully use habeas corpus to challenge their confinement is because they were not being held on American soil. Being moved to the United States means they can use habeas corpus to cause the government to defend its illegal behavior.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:51AM
Magna Carta: And the "US soil" argument is completely bogus. American Constitutional rights apply to persons, not citizens. If you are detained under US authority, you have rights, either under the laws of war, or under the laws of the detaining nation. There is no such thing as a person without rights under international law. Any nation that pretends such is rogue.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday February 25 2016, @02:56AM
I am not trying to challenge or troll you, but what about a simpler case of say foreigners entering the US at JFK. I believe it is prohibited by the US constitution to fingerprint them all. Is it allowed under international law whatever it may be? It's just an example - there are other things that would not be permitted inside the US.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday February 25 2016, @06:01AM
A good and interesting point. It is obvious you are not trolling, which is good since it seems to be an internet crime!
But to the point: I am not a lawyer, I have an interest in the laws of armed conflict, but nothing I say should be taken as definitive, especially if your freedom depends on it. Always seek competent counsel. My point was more after the detention. Nations can, I guess, require things like fingerprints and other biometric data, based on the fact that if you do not want to provide it, you can simply stay out. We may think that some nations are more demeaning that others in treating their visitors as potential criminals and terrorists, but that is their perogative. Of course, once they actually detain someone, rather than just denying them access to their sovereign soil, then a different set of legal requirements kicks in. This is my point. If you are detained by a nation, you are under the laws of that nation, and you should be so lucky if it was the laws of the United States, if they were followed. You are also under the international agreements that nations have entered into to the extent that your embassy should be notified of your detention, and the international laws of detention must be followed. This means no torture, no "disappearing", no extraordinary anything. Requests for extradition for crimes committed in other countries is not a complicated area of law, unless we are talking about the bastard who killed 73 people, Luis Posada Carilles. Or the bastard who killed over a million Iraqis, George W. Bush. One might take the war in Afghanistan as an example of a failed extradition request. The US asked the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden, they said no. War on. Of course that did not go so well, so it was Obama that managed to extridite (wait, they just killed the bastard! How will we ever know if he was actually guilty, since there was no trial? And... slipping silently into conspiracy mode with all tin=foil filters engaged. . . Losing signal ; . . . which is not the same as "loosing" signal, you illiterates. Hope I answered your question. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the DuBois Club of America. The goats, stare at them. Thanks for not trolling, it is so rare these days...............
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 26 2016, @02:41AM
Even a US citizen entering the US is often asked about his employment. I do realise that about 30% of unemployed are criminals and the border agents are simply trying to filter them out, but still... Yes, police could ask this on the street, I guess, but is being abroad should automatically trigger suspicions? Another example, everybody, citizens or not, riding Harley into the US is usually sent for an extended interview. I do realise that there are motorcycle gangs, but also Vietnam veterans. Harley September 11 ride is huge and such a practice at entry points looks strange and counterproductive. What I am saying, it appears to me that people abroad, citizens or not, have less rights. Armed conflicts cases are simply more extreme examples.
BTW, I totally agree with you especially on "you should be so lucky if it was the laws of the United States". That's because the best enemy is a captured one. The easiest way to win is to accept a surrender. We should have advertised how comfortable our prisoners are, while now any reasonable enemy would rather die than to surrender to the US. This is especially true with foreign leaders, who, based on the fate of Hussein and Gaddafi, would do anything to avoid any deal with the US.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 26 2016, @05:39AM
. I do realise that there are motorcycle gangs, but also Vietnam veterans.
Motorcycle gangs started with veterans. PTSD's vets before there was a name for it. People who had looked into the abyss, and it looked back. So after WWII was over, they came home, and started a nihilistic movement known as motorcycle gangs. Not usually very bright, or socially adept. Prone to shootouts in Waco Texas eateries. So I do not see why you would want to distinguish between the gangs and the vets.
(very different, of course, for Sailors! Hi, Runaway!! For many of them, their port of discharge at the end of WWII was San Francisco. But what with the new ways they had learned shipboard, they choose to stay there instead of going home. And that is why San Fran is the center of. . . Motorcycle gangs? What was your point, anyway? )
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:52AM
Hi mendax,
You are right about the technicalities of Habeas Corpus w/r/t sovereign ground. (which is why extraordinary rendition is a practice)
But I am taken aback that this issue has not been at the forefront in American consciousness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @08:58AM
Oxymoron. In their majority, Americans have consciousness no more.
And neither jobs. Only McDonald fat asses, mortgages to pay and FB circus (oh, look at the shiny thingy).
I can't blame them, these last kick out the consciousness in no time.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @09:04AM
Close, Patella:
(which is why extraordinary rendition is a practice)
It is actually why extraordinary rendition is a crime. It is kind of like "extra-ordinary execution", which is more correctly termed "murder".
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday February 24 2016, @09:48AM
While it is true that extraordinary rendition is a crime, believe it or not, American law recognizes that even if the law was broken in order to get a person into a courtroom to be tried, that fact does not prevent the court from putting that person on trial.
I learned about this fact while reading the transcripts of the Adolf Eichmann war crimes tribunal in Jerusalem in 1961. The Israelis had up to that point never had to deal with such a point of law, so the court relied upon American and British court precedents brought up by the prosecution when deciding to allow the trial to proceed. This is a case where the logic of the law is difficult to understand and has a logic of its own. Essentially, if an arrest warrant is issued for a person in one jurisdiction and that person is kidnapped in another jurisdiction by law enforcement of the first jurisdiction, the person kidnapped is not harmed by the kidnapping but rather the second jurisidiction.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @01:47PM
The Israelis had up to that point never had to deal with such a point of law
When did the Israelis care about the Law?
Their country was founded on stolen land and mass murders because they could back then. They are still doing it now.
And when you read the Adolf Eichmann trial transcripts, did you notice that Eichmann mentioned "fountains of blood" and other ridiculous "information"? Farmers sheds to be used as death chambers using exhaust gases from a "DIESEL" engine from a captured Soviet Submarine? Did you notice any issues there?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:59PM
Large difference in kidnap to submit to a trial, and extraordinary rendition (or Gitmo-ing) to avoid bringing a person to a trial. And in the Eichmann case, the country whose sovereignty was violated did not have real good grounds to object, since they were harboring known Nazi war criminals.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday February 24 2016, @10:11PM
You get no argument from me there.
Incorrect. Argentina's national sovereignty was violated, it did have grounds to object, it did object, Israel was brought to account for its actions by the UN, and was properly chastised. Israel and Argentina came to an accommodation, and that was the end of the matter as far as Argentina was concerned. Oh, Argentina was harboring many German war criminals but that's no excuse for one country to violate their sovereignty and break their laws.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mth on Wednesday February 24 2016, @08:14AM
detainees who can't be tried under any circumstances because evidence against them was gathered through torture, but who are considered too dangerous to release
This is not a technicality: evidence from torture is unreliable, so these are suspects against who there is not enough evidence to convict them. The only moral thing to do would be to set them free. Detaining them indefinitely is like sentencing them for life without trial.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 25 2016, @05:28AM
Let me tell you, though: if someone did to me what happened to those people, even if I didn't start out a terrorist I would fucking well become one after that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...