Even more Gitmo Detainees Acquitted

[bevin]

Even more of the detainees, once they get tried, get declared innocent. With this failure-to-convict rate, no wonder the Bush Administration is doing everything it can to deny them fair trials.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_re_mi_ea/kuwait_guantanamo_trial

Quote:

A criminal court on Saturday acquitted two former Guantanamo Bay prisoners of joining al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Omar Rajab Amin and Abdullah Kamel al-Kundari denied any terror connections at the start of their trial. Their lawyers argued there was no evidence against them and the case was "political." Defense attorneys said the accused were in Afghanistan for charity work — not to fight.

...

Six other Kuwaitis formerly held in Guantanamo have been acquitted here of terror charges. Another four are still imprisoned there.

[there buster]

Interesting but irrelevant.

Very few German or Italian soldiers in WWII could have been convicted of joining their country's fascist parties. Might even have been conscripts. But when captured, they got held to the end of the war anyway.

[Dr. Shane]

Whatever the Bush Administration is doing, it seems to be working. We haven't been attacked in five years now. News like this shows how our American system works.

The primary focus of the police and district attorney is not normally on giving the defendant a fair trial, although they have rules they must play by so as not to prevent such a trial. Their role is primarily to collect and exam evidence in order to make a case against the suspect.

The defense attorney's primary focus isn't on a fair trial either. They focus on defending their client which sometimes actually means suppressing evidence which is not favorable to their case.

It is the judge and jury that are to make sure the defendant receives a fair trial.

In the War on Terror, the President and the military play a role similar to that of the police and district attorney. Unlike President Lincoln during the Civil War, President Bush has not defied the Supreme Court. President Lincoln actually locked people away and refused to give them a trail even after the Supreme Court ordered him to do so!

[bevin]

Let's see

(a) It is not legally a war

( The Bush administration is claiming the Gitmo detainees are worth detaining indefinitely, but many that has actually been let out has actually managed to demonstrate in some nations court that they should never have should have been there in the first place

No wonder the Bush Administration has lost the hearts-and-minds of just about the entire world population

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Congress has the right to declare war according to the US Constitution. In 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Act which gave them two ways of declaring war. One way is an official declaration of war. The second way is by passing a resolution to use force. Since 1973 Congress has passed three resolutions to use force. Two of them have been during this Administration. To say we are not legally at war is disingenuous at best or simply misleading. Prior to 1973 the US was involved with conflict and Vietnam, Korea and many disputes with native Indian tribes which were not legally wars.

Quote:

The Bush administration is claiming the Gitmo detainees are worth detaining indefinitely

I have not heard any administration official say that. I would be interesting on who said such a thing and in what context it was said.

Quote:

President Lincoln actually locked people away and refused to give them a trail even after the Supreme Court ordered him to do so!

Is it that hard to admit President Bush is a fairer President than Lincoln was?

[Bravus]

Quote:

Whatever the Bush Administration is doing, it seems to be working. We haven't been attacked in five years now.

So you missed the article I posted here the other day that has shown a significant *increase* in terrorist activity since the beginning of the war in Iraq? And while it's true that there have been no attacks on American soil, Bin Laden (who Bush failed to capture) is definitely and clearly threatening them, and the very dodgy decisions made in homeland security mean it's likely he will succced at some point in the future.

Quote:

News like this shows how our American system works.

Well, not really, since Guantanamo is in contravention of most of the major features of your American system. And these guys are released now, after 5 years in jail, found to be innocent. How is that fair and a vindication of a system. Imagine losing 5 years of your life and your family for someone else's mistake.

On indefinite detention, they haven't said it directly as far as I know, but they've acknowledged that it's an indefinitely long war and wanted to hold them until the end of it, so...

[bevin]

Quote:

Whatever the Bush Administration is doing, it seems to be working. We haven't been attacked in five years now.

How many years BEFORE 9/11 was the previous attack?

You can hardly claim Bush's actions caused no attacks during those years, yet there weren't any. So why can you claim that the lack of attacks now proves his actions have been successful?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So you missed the article I posted here the other day that has shown a significant *increase* in terrorist activity since the beginning of the war in Iraq?

I believe I commented on that.

Shane's Post #114281:

Quote:

Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor increased the size of the US Navy considerably too. Obviously it is easier to recruit soldiers during a war than during a time of peace.

Actually, one would have expected more attacks on the US directly by terrorists like what we have seen in Spain and the UK. Since we are at war, these attacks are to be expected. It is hard to believe that Homeland Security has done as good of a job as they have.

On the issue of bin Laden... how do we know he isn't recieving safe harbor in Iran? And if he is and the power that be (Bush, Blair, Howard, etc.) knew about it, would they share it with us? Maybe the reason bin Laden has escaped capture is because he has safe haven in Iran and we really aren't willing to go to war with Iran to get him. ...just a thought.

Quote:

since Guantanamo is in contravention of most of the major features of your American system.

If only things were that black and white.

Let's consider:

• President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, even in defiance of the Supreme Court
• During WW1 The Espionage Act allowed a 20 year prison sentence for anyone who "shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag."
• During WW2 nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps.
• 1941 FDR created the Office of Censorship to censor communications between the United States and foreign countries and to prevent news organizations from publishing information the enemy might be interested in.

Now let's read Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Quote:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

Now the way that reads, it sounds like President Bush had the right to hold these suspected terrorists. Once the Supreme Court ruled these suspects could not be held indefinitely without an indictment, the Administration changed its policy. That is how the American system works. That is an example of our checks and balances. It is not a fair system, I have been caught up in it and know how bad it is. But it is our system.

It is also note worthy to point out these terrorist suspects have not been found "innocent'. Innocent is a powerful word. The US justice system does not find anyone innocent. Suspects are assumed innocent until found guilty but are never found innocent. The government must bare the burden of proof, if it cannot, the suspect is released. That doesn't mean they are innocent. It means the government could not prove their guilt.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

How many years BEFORE 9/11 was the previous attack?

Not years, months. 11 of them. Two years before that was another.

[bevin]

You are thinking of the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

If you are going to count attacks against US servicemen, then Bush's policy is a dismal failure - because those have increased dramatically.

The previous attack against US civilians on US soil was 1993, also against the WTC.

/Bevin

[Nan]

Has any one read or seen anything about the recent book Ghost Plane by Stephen Grey, about the US's "rendition program"? I saw an interview with the author this morning - and assuming what he says is accurate, the scenario is disgusting, frightening and appalling. And I would have to assume that my own country - or those in charge thereof - knowingly went along with the program.

One point Grey made was that some misinformation was elicited from subjects under torture, which was not particularly helpful to the US cause.

[Dr. Shane]

Since 9/11 was an attack by al Queda, I was thinking about the previous attack by al Queda. That was in October of 2000. Since 9/11, they have been on the offensive, not the defensive. We have been calling the shots. They are playing on our terms, not theirs.

If we want to talk about civilians and US soil, which would obviously be SPIN (because we would be ignoring the USS Cole), then we would be talking about the al Queda attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in August of 1998.

It is unbelievably incredible that al Queda hits us in 1998, 2000, then 2001 and it comes to an abrupt halt. No more offensive hits on the US since 9/11. They have hit Spain and the UK, not the US... at least not yet. But we know it isn't because they haven't tried.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

some misinformation was elicited from subjects under torture

The CIA has, and I believe still does, use water-boarding. From what I understand, this is a process of dunking someone under water for enough time that they believe they are going to drowned. There are various ways to do it and I am not sure the specific method used by the CIA. Congress has approved of this although, personally I wish it wouldn't have.

Misinformation comes from all kinds of interrogation. Regardless if torture is used or not. If the authorities are misled by misinformation it is because they are not confirming it.

[Nan]

Grey makes the point that the rendition program is approved/authorised from the top. Practices which apparently are not suitable for mainland USA are contracted out to countries where torture is a part of their routine. The CIA planes ferry the prisoners/victims to where ever is most convenient to have them interrogated.

All might be fair in love and war - I find this totally abhorent and I am ashamed if my country has condoned it.

[bevin]

The big problem with torture is the victims tell you what they think you want to hear

The big problem with the Bush administration is that they only hear what they want to hear - and Bush is the instigator of this style ("you are doing one helluva job Brownie")

No wonder they are so incompetent and so frequently acting on the bad intelligence and bad analysis

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Criminals being interrogated by police often tell the police what they want to hear. That is not limited to torture. It is believed that Pakastani interrogation (torture) was largely responsible for getting information which stopped stopped 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. That is not to say I support torture - I don't - but to say it doesn't work is simply to ignore the facts that say otherwise.

[bevin]

Quote:

It is believed that Pakastani interrogation (torture) was largely responsible for getting information which stopped stopped 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.

Believed by whom? Why do they believe it? Is there any evidence their belief is correct? Why should we use such rumors to set policy?

I know GWB does - but look at the mess it has got the country into...

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Believed by whom?

News agencies (if they are to be believed). Pakistan caught and interrogated Rashid Rauf, which led to the arrests of 20 or so suspects in London. However I am not sure we always get the true story on these issues that involve intelligence.