Oh the horror!

Luck of the Draw · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: Re: Legal horror

You didn't address wether there were instances that the United States could be brought up on war crimes charges?

"After September 11, 2001 attacks, the US and some of its allies have suggested that those who do not meet the “lawful combatant” category but do not fall into the non combatant category, should be determined to be "unlawful combatants." By this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse puts the detainees beyond the reach of treaty law.

Could this also have applied to the Viet Namese? Iran-Contras/Sandanistas? They weren't/didn't all come under visible uniforms/could be mistaken for civilian garb also, no?

F---Second, if we brought them to our own country they would become protected by our legal system.

SWEET JESUS, NOT THAT!!!!

LoTD

"If the truth ever wins ask which lie fought for it"--Nietzche

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Edited by: Luck of the Draw at: 2/18/06 11:33 pm

Luck of the Draw · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: legal horror.....

so let me get this straight. We invaded Iraq and called it the "War On Terror". Why wouldn't those taken off the battle field of Iraqs soil come under the same rules of war and as the plain clothes Vietnamese?

Also, when asked war crimes United States not simply this war, were there past wars we could've been charged with war crimes?

Thus the reason for the stipulation/non compliance Geneva Conventions?

Edited by: Luck of the Draw at: 2/19/06 1:17 am

Frank 013 · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: Re: Legal horror

[Luck: You didn't address whether there were instances that the United States could be brought up on war crimes charges?]

There are no instances that stand out as illegal. The terrorists being detained are NOT protected by treaty law. No laws were broken so no charges are possible.

[Luck: Could this also have applied to the Vietnamese? Iran-Contras/Sandinistas? They weren't/didn't all come under visible uniforms/could be mistaken for civilian garb also, no?]

Correct, we could have and most likely did, torture some of these people. The simple answer is that they were answerable to their governments or leaders, in those situations the individuals would have been accountable unless we could show that the government was ordering such actions.

Terrorists on the other hand have no government to answer to. They are all individuals with no protection from international treaties.

F---Second, if we brought them to our own country they would become protected by our legal system.

[Luck: SWEET JESUS, NOT THAT!!!!]

Yes exactly, this touches on another subject altogether but we are talking about the legal system that let OJ and Michael Jackson loose, where the average juror reads at the 3rd grade level and attractive means lighter sentencing.

Later

Frank 013 · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: Re: legal horror.....

[Luck: so let me get this straight. We invaded Iraq and called it the "War on Terror". Why wouldn't those taken off the battle field of Iraq’s soil come under the same rules of war and as the plain clothes Vietnamese?]

They were not protected by the UN treaties, for several reasons.

1. They had no government left that could prosecute them for war crimes. So as the victor we had the reasonability.

2. Their leaders decided that they did not want to be included in the UN treaties, thus no protection.

3. We wanted/needed to question them.

[Luck: Also, when asked war crimes United States not simply this war, were there past wars we could've been charged with war crimes?]

I don’t know for sure but I think past offences would be grandfathered out with the signing of the new documents.

[Luck: Thus the reason for the stipulation/non compliance Geneva Conventions?]

It seems to be more of a “something we might do” or a “some thing we were doing” line of thought that would lead to stipulations in the document, not something we did before.

But like I said I do not know for sure.

Later

Luck of the Draw · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: legal horror......

As mentioned, Bush and Gonzales did attempt to circumvent the law.....the goal was to deny them any rights and keep them in a state of limbo....some going on 4yrs.

By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems designed to to put detainees beyond the reach of any law.[1]

Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

That which came to pass is that the courts finally ruled they did have rights all along.....

It means that the Supreme Court has held that U.S. law applies even to Gitmo, a region that the Bush Administration had insisted was outside the jurisidction of American justice.

www.warblogging.com/archives/000884.php

It has to do with honor/ethics....that which Bush and Co fall so short.

Frank 013 · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: Re: legal horror......

[Luck: As mentioned, Bush and Gonzales did attempt to circumvent the law.....the goal was to deny them any rights and keep them in a state of limbo....some going on 4yrs.]

I do not see any evidence of anyone attempting to circumvent the law, push it to its limits certainly, but not circumvent. There is a difference.

[Luck: Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.]

Yes there is legal doubt; the court decision does not change the fact that the detainees are not from any country that has signed the international treaties they can still be denied protection for this reason alone but their attacks on civilian targets also make them exempt from protection regardless of other findings. Also there is still the risk to national security exception in article 5, if persons are even suspected of being a risk they may be denied protection. Therefore the tribunal and the other rules of war do not apply.

For now, the high court said only that the men can take the first legal step in contesting U.S. authority to hold them.
The men can now presumably take their complaints to a U.S. federal judge, even though they are physically held beyond U.S. borders.

I agree with this unless the detainees are denied POW status for the other reasons mentioned above.

[Luck: That which came to pass is that the courts finally ruled they did have rights all along.....]

No, the courts did not say that the detainees had rights all along, it was determined that they have rights now, as per the “competent tribunal” rule. The detainees were legally held as neither, Legal combatants POWs or civilians until then. and they may still be denied POW status.

I also believe that you may see this decision overturned for the reasons I specified earlier. If they don’t than the administration had better get their act together on this matter because they can’t twist the US laws as easily.

[Luck: It means that the Supreme Court has held that U.S. law applies even to Gitmo, a region that the Bush Administration had insisted was outside the jurisdiction of American justice.]

Anyone who reads the UN charters can see that detainees held outside of our direct control are not our responsibility under the Treaties; the charters are very clear on the matter it is not the administrations insistence, it is legal interpretation.

Later

Greg Neuman · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

Quote:
ADO15

Of course, all those fanciful plots that Murad et al blurted were verifiable, as you state? Of course not. This is propaganda to keep you supine as your rights are stripped away and your Constitution is raped, as you cheer and wave a tattered flag.

The problem with accusing your political enemies of being party to (or victims of) a conspiracy is that such tactics are quite easily turned around on you. I know conservatives who believe that US efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East are being actively hampered by a coalition of European governments, American leftists, and the international media. Their goal? To enact a transnationaist, socialist agenda by hindering and discrediting America's ability to act unilateraly.

Their conspiracy theory ends with the rape of the Constitution too, by the way.

Honestly, I can't convince ADO15 that there isn't a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy trying to strip away our rights any more than I can convince Bart Sibrel that astronauts actually landed on the moon. Regardless of what evidence I offer, there will always be suppositions and ways to interperet events that can look like an attempt to subvert the constitution or fake a moon landing.

For the rest of you, though, I'd urge some research into men like Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed, Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi, and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. Understanding their goals - and the kinds of things they're willing to do to achieve them - might start to convince you that in certain rare cases things like torture and wiretapping are unfortunately necessary. Even if you'd never admit it here on the BookTalk forums.

G

"Dear Buddha: Please bring me a pony and a plastic rocket."

- Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

AD015

1995 Murad was sent to Camp Crame, a military installation that was on the outskirts of Manila. Murad at first taunted investigators. For sixty-seven days, he endured a torture process that Filipino investigators called "tactical interrogation", or "TI".

Murad confessed that he was on a quest to be a martyr. He confessed to being the hijacker as part of Phase II of his plan. Murad extradited to the United States on April 12, 1995. His testimony helped convict Yousef.

You wanted evidence that the Murad case was not just a bunch of tortured ramblings, here is what was found when Murad told investigators to look. This is all on record and many lives were saved.

The evidence…

When the officers returned to Suite 603 at 2:30 a.m. on January 7, they found street maps of Manila with routes plotting the papal motorcade, a rosary, a photograph of the pontiff, bibles, crucifixes, papal confessions, and clothes similar to those worn by a priest, including robes and collars. A phone message from a tailor reminding the occupant that the cassock was ready to be tried on suggested to the senior inspector that an assassination attempt was going to be placed on the Pope. A search warrant was granted by 4 A.M on January 7.

More chemicals, such as gallons of sulfuric, picric, and nitric acid, pure glycerin, acetone, sodium trichlorate, nitrobenzoyl, ammonia, silver nitrates, methanamine, and ANFO were found. Several cans of gasoline and two large Welch's grape juice bottles containing nitroglycerin were found. Some of those chemicals were concocted into a smoking mixture of explosives in the kitchen sink. Equipment such as thermometers, graduated cylinders, large cooking kettles, funnels, fuses, filters, soldering irons, beakers, mortars, pestles, different electronic fusing systems, timers, switches, circuit breakers, and a box of Rough Rider lubricated condoms were found. A finished remote control brass pipe bomb and another pipe bomb that was about to be packed were found. A chemistry textbook and a chemical dictionary were found. A TIME magazine with the cover story on international terrorism was found.

Also found was a pharmacy receipt and a bottle of contact lens solution.
The most damning piece of evidence found so far was a manual written in Arabic on how to build a liquid bomb.

A finished time bomb was placed in a cupboard under the sink. Other Casio watches were found in the apartment.

Stacks of 12 false passports, including false Norwegian, Afghan, Saudi, Pakistani and other faked passports "issued" by other countries were also found in the apartment. Investigators found a business card from Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. Saeed was found to possess five telephone numbers from Khalifa. They found phone numbers from Rose Masquera, Mohammed's girlfriend.

Yousef's Computer
Yousef's pet project was discovered on four floppy diskettes and an off-white Toshiba laptop personal computer inside his apartment, two weeks before the plot would have been implemented. Several encrypted files on the C: Drive contained flight schedules, calculations of detonation times, and other items. [14] The first string of text in one of the files states, "All people who support the U.S. government are our targets in our future plans and that is because all those people are responsible for their government's actions and they support the U.S. foreign policy and are satisfied with it. We will hit all U.S. nuclear targets. If the U.S. government keeps supporting Israel, then we will continue to carry out operations inside and outside the United States to include ..." and the text ends.
A file named "Bojinka" lists the eleven flights between Asia and the United States, which were grouped under five codenames. Strings were found, such as "SETTING: 9:30 PM to 10:30 PM. TIMER: 23HR. BOJINKA: 20:30-21:30 NRT Date 5" (for United flight 80), and "SETTING: 8:30-9:00. TIMER: 10HR. BOJINKA: 19:30-20:00 NRT Date 4" (for Northwest Flight 30).

The laptop had names of dozens of associates, including some photographs of a few of them and including contact information for Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. They contained records of information about five-star hotels, dealings with a London trading corporation, a meat market owner in Malaysia, and an Islamic center in Tucson, Arizona. Information about how money moved through an Abu Dhabi banking firm was found.

A communication signed "Khalid Shaikh + Bojinka" was also found on Yousef's computer that threatened to attack targets "in response to the financial, political and military assistance given to the Jewish state in the occupied land of Palestine by the American Government." The letter also said that the bombers claimed to have "ability to make and use chemicals and poisonous gas... for use against vital institutions and populations and the sources of drinking water."

The letter also threatened to assassinate Fidel Ramos, the President of the Philippines at the time, as well as attack aircraft if the United States did not meet the group's demands. The letter said that the group claiming responsibility was the "Fifth Division of the Liberation Army".

The evidence found at the Doña Josefa filled three police vans.

Oh, by the way, take a close look at the dates, who was president in 1995?

Later

ADO15 · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

This information is from which independent source?

Later

_________________________________________________________

Il Sotto Seme La Neva

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: Horror?

Filipino investigators, Pakistani police and the Clinton administration.

Later

ADO15 · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

Quote: Filipino investigators, Pakistani police and the Clinton administration

Ah, THOSE 'independent' sources! :lol

_________________________________________________________

Il Sotto Seme La Neva

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

I’m glad you find the Clinton administration laughable, I do too.

::100

But there are no other sources, if you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence from 3 different sources you might as well believe in a flat earth.

::73

After all your beloved media believed it.

Later

Edited by: Frank 013 at: 2/22/06 5:17 pm

ADO15 · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

MY beloved media? What? Faux News? Bill O'Reilly? MSNBC? Express & Star? News International? the Barclay Brothers? The Daily Mail? ITN? What? All those communist organisations?

Get real. The media believed Powell's bullshit and Blair's 45 minutes claim. I think they're on your side.

However, there are plenty of independent sources on the efficacy of terror. There's the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, EU, etc. Any of them give the support that the torturers you cited do?

_________________________________________________________

Il Sotto Seme La Neva

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

And then there's this, reported by Human Rights First, passed along by the Associated Press, and printed by the NYT. Maybe not as independent as you'd like, but I'm pretty suspicious of claims that independence is equivalent to unbiased. All sources have a point-of-view; all sources have an agenda.

ADO15 · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Horror?

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

_________________________________________________________

Il Sotto Seme La Neva


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT