Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Topic Author
Posts: 2968
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:24 am

According to an article in today's New York Times, Australia is considering accepting Guantanamo Bay detainees, while government of The Netherlands has decided to not. France is non-committal on the detainess at this point, but the governments of Germany and Portugal said they may accept some detainees.

"The Australian government might accept some detainees who are released from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for resettlement at the request of the United States, but only after a rigorous case-by-case assessment, an Australian newspaper reported on Saturday.

“Australia, along with a number of other countries, has been approached to consider resettling detainees from Guantánamo Bay,” a spokesman for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told the newspaper, The Weekend Australian. “Any determination for an individual to come to Australia would be made on a case-by-case basis,” the spokesman was quoted as saying. “All persons accepted to come to Australia would have to meet Australia’s strict legal requirements and go through the normal and extremely rigorous assessment processes.”

President-elect Barack Obama has promised to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility after taking office next month, which has raised the question of what to do with the remaining 250 inmates who are being held without charge or trial.

Some of the prisoners are no longer considered a threat by American authorities and will be resettled. The prisoners come from various countries, mostly in the Middle East, and some may want to return home. Others, however, face arrest in their homelands and could be subject to torture or lengthy incarceration."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/asia/27gitmo.html?ref=world

I wonder if the U.S. is willing to allow detainees to relocate here - of course, if any of the detainees are open to living in the U.S.   

[Edited 2008-12-26 23:25:20]
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:13 am

You know what they say: once a prison colony....  duck 

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:31 am



Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
of course, if any of the detainees are open to living in the U.S.

They have likely already satisfied the residency requirements!!  Wink
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!....well that might have changed!!!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:24 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
You know what they say: once a prison colony...

I think we should agree on a case by case basis as long as the US makes a payment to cover resettlement costs including future health problems, shall we settle for about USD50 million a head. Cheap at twice the price. Well make it twice the price.

After all, in the market economy, everything has a value AND a cost.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:27 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
You know what they say: once a prison colony....

Bloody cheek!  Smile Don't forget that the guards settled here as well! And that the present Queensland Premier is descended from Captain Bligh of the 'Bounty.' She'll know how to deal with any mutineers....... Smile

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 2):
They have likely already satisfied the residency requirements!!

LOVE it, StealthZ.  Smile And their conduct will have been impeccable, of course - they'll just have lived quietly in their solitary-confinement cells........

Nice to know that the USA has locked these poor sods up for around six years and only now reckons that they are 'no longer considered a threat'...........

On the serious point - I'd take my chances on letting some of them in here. Someone has to do something about them......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:02 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 4):
And their conduct will have been impeccable, of course - they'll just have lived quietly in their solitary-confinement cells........

I understand too that some of them are deeply religious. Therefore, the US with its much more obvious religiosity would be a far more suitable place to settle them rather that hedonistic Australia. And those bikini clad girls that adorn our beachs (and shopping centres) make for no sort of place to put those with deep conservative religious convictions. Er sorry, they do not have any convictions do they, beliefs, that must be what I mean.

No, the bible belt is the place for them.

Added to which, with Haneef as a precedent, I think that big compo payments for those locked up without good cause is going to be the way of things. So in addition to the USD50 million a head for general medical expenses, we had best add a rough, oh about USD30 million a head to meet future compensation awards for wrongful arrest. I am sure wrongful arrest must still have some meaning somewhere - Dougloid, help us out on that little technicality!!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:19 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 4):
Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
You know what they say: once a prison colony....

Bloody cheek!

And a selective view of history... HM North American colonies served as destinations for convict transport for twice as long as Australia.  sarcastic 

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!....well that might have changed!!!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:30 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Added to which, with Haneef as a precedent, I think that big compo payments for those locked up without good cause is going to be the way of things.

Just on that point, Baroque, I have it on good authority that ALL detainees released from Guantanamo are required to sign a long, carefully-drafted document (after all, the US government can afford to hire the best lawyers in the world) completely relinquishing any rights which they might otherwise have had to sue for damages.

Of course, they can refuse to sign it. But if they do, they'll stay in Gitmo for the rest of their lives.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:39 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Of course, they can refuse to sign it. But if they do, they'll stay in Gitmo for the rest of their lives.....

But maybe not with Obama in the WH? It is one bet Obama will have a problem avoiding. Either close Gitmo, and do it on terms acceptable to its residents, or deal with the US court system. Of course the cards played well could be a burr under the GOP saddle for many a long day if that turns out to be what the little grey donkey wants to do to the white elephant.

You could be right Nav and certainly Hicks was put under unconscionable duress from what can be gathered, but perhaps the full meaning of his (or rather Maj Mori's) plea bargain has yet to play out.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:49 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
But maybe not with Obama in the WH?

Agreed, 'maybe.' But how many years would it take to scare up habeas corpus pleas, and fight them right through to the Supreme Court, and finally win?

Bearing in mind that Guantanamo is a military base and that the US Marine Corps is capable of (and IS) managing to cut people off from any kind of legal representation (or even ANY visitors or contact with their families) for years on end..........

It's a simple bargain for the poor sods, really. "OK, either you sign - or you face up to another seven or eight years in here - just hoping you'll win in the end......."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21834
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:33 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
You know what they say: once a prison colony....   

-Mir

...always a fancy new resort! No, seriously, there are a number of prisons that have been turned into 5-star hotels.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:22 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Just on that point, Baroque, I have it on good authority that ALL detainees released from Guantanamo are required to sign a long, carefully-drafted document (after all, the US government can afford to hire the best lawyers in the world) completely relinquishing any rights which they might otherwise have had to sue for damages.

Of course, they can refuse to sign it. But if they do, they'll stay in Gitmo for the rest of their lives.......

Makes no sense, if any of these individuals sue or bring the US to court it will be in a third country, and the govt. and court systems of those countries will not give the paper the time of day.If there is a document it will only be effective within the US, thats the reality even if somthing else is written.

As for resettlement, are these individuals going to be free in the country or in some sort of prison? A lot of other countries have what I call non-integration immigration, societies more segmented or not fully inclusive economically, most of these individuals are devout muslims, will this create problems and is it something they are prepared for, long term?
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Topic Author
Posts: 2968
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:56 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
No, seriously, there are a number of prisons that have been turned into 5-star hotels

Like most of the minimum-moderate security federal country clubs...um, correctional facilities?  spit 
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
hercppmx
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:25 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:13 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
Bearing in mind that Guantanamo is a military base and that the US Marine Corps is capable of (and IS) managing to cut people off from any kind of legal representation (or even ANY visitors or contact with their families) for years on end..........

The Marine Corps may have a presence there, As well as members of the NAVY, ARMY, AIRFORCE, and Possibly COAST GUARD, As well as other "government agencies" but they are only acting on orders from the head shed. Remember the Military is only an instrument of foreign policy, that gets it's orders from washington. So i don't think saying the U.S. Marine Corps is doing such things is a fair statement, without at least saying amongst other U.S. agencies.
C-130; it's a love-hate relationship
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21834
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:03 pm



Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 12):

Like most of the minimum-moderate security federal country clubs...um, correctional facilities? spit

You're a bad person. Funny as hell. But you're a bad person.  duck 
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Elite
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:31 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Well, apparently, Australia has changed her mind...

"Australia unlikely to take U.S. detainees"
Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/02/asia/gitmo.php
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:42 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 3):
I think we should agree on a case by case basis

Whhhaaat? I thought these people were just sitting there minding their own business when our evil government swooped in and snatched them off to Cuba? Why would you have look at any of their cases since they are just harmless bafoons that got caught up in something not of their own making?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 3):
as long as the US makes a payment to cover resettlement costs including future health problems,

Wwhhaaaat?? You mean the Australian medical care system is not capable of taking care of a few misguided souls? It will collapse if 200 more or so are added to the roles?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 4):
Nice to know that the USA has locked these poor sods up for around six years and only now reckons that they are 'no longer considered a threat'...........

Let's see, a German soldier or airman caught in 1939 spent how many years in lockup before being considered non-threatening and released? Of course if they were caught out of uniform they didn't spend nearly that long in a camp did they?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:01 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 16):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3):
as long as the US makes a payment to cover resettlement costs including future health problems,

Wwhhaaaat?? You mean the Australian medical care system is not capable of taking care of a few misguided souls? It will collapse if 200 more or so are added to the roles?

I never thought to see you object to user pays.

How times change!!
.

Quoting DXing (Reply 16):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3):
I think we should agree on a case by case basis

Whhhaaat? I thought these people were just sitting there minding their own business when our evil government swooped in and snatched them off to Cuba? Why would you have look at any of their cases since they are just harmless bafoons that got caught up in something not of their own making?

Of course, some might deserve more compensation than others. We need to know which is which. We do not want to repeat the casual lock em up and throw the key away efforts heretofore.

Added to which, probably most have confessed to some major crime or other and we probably want to know which confessions were forced and desirably if any were actually true.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:05 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
I never thought to see you object to user pays.

I don't object to them (the detainees) paying at all if that's what you want them to do.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
We do not want to repeat the casual lock em up and throw the key away efforts heretofore.

I fully agree, they should be free to roam your streets and neighborhoods with no supervision. They are obviously sweet and gentle people who have no desire whatsoever to harm anyone. I think they should be given positions in your schools so they can pass on their charms and insights in to how beautiful the world is and what special customs are practiced in their home countries.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
Added to which, probably most have confessed to some major crime or other and we probably want to know which confessions were forced and desirably if any were actually true.

Whhaatt...Why none of the confessions could possibly be true. We beat them within an inch of their lives every day starting right after their moldy bread and slimy water breakfast. After a lunch of stale cheese and dumpster juice we waterboarded the taste out of their mouths. Then it was off to a healthy dinner of rotten potatos and seawater fresh from the Carribean. You should just assume immediately that any confession was forced and could not possibly be true. They were just simple goat herders that some evil people rounded up and turned in for a fee.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:54 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
Added to which, probably most have confessed to some major crime or other and we probably want to know which confessions were forced and desirably if any were actually true.

Whhaatt...Why none of the confessions could possibly be true. We beat them within an inch of their lives every day starting right after their moldy bread and slimy water breakfast. After a lunch of stale cheese and dumpster juice we waterboarded the taste out of their mouths. Then it was off to a healthy dinner of rotten potatos and seawater fresh from the Carribean. You should just assume immediately that any confession was forced and could not possibly be true. They were just simple goat herders that some evil people rounded up and turned in for a fee.

The really worrying thing is you think that is funny.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:17 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 16):
Let's see, a German soldier or airman caught in 1939 spent how many years in lockup before being considered non-threatening and released?

Usually between one and two weeks in 'solitary,' DXing. After that they were sent to camps in which they were treated in strict accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

It's important to realise two things:-

1. These guys have been kept in 'solitary' the whole time.

2. The vast majority of them were not captured by US forces - they were handed over by US-funded groups like the Northern Alliance in exchange for big cash rewards. That's the main reason why they had to be tortured - there was no 'evidence' whatever of them even having been involved in fighting; unless they could be persuaded to 'admit' it themselves.

In any case, the issue is over and done with as far as Australia is concerned:-

"AUSTRALIA will not take any former inmates of the US' Guantanamo Bay detention centre, acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.

"Ms Gillard said the Federal Government advised the US lat night that Australia would refuse the American request.

"It was the second time the administration of US President George W. Bush had asked Australia to resettle detainees from the War on Terror camp.

"We have considered that request and last night Australian time, Friday US time, we advised the US Government that we would not be agreeing to those resettlement requests," Ms Gillard said.

"Those resettlement requests were considered on a case by case basis against Australia's stringent national security and immigration criteria.

"Assessing those requests on a case by case basis (they) have not met those stringent national security and immigration criteria and have been rejected.

"(As) for the future, we will consider any future requests on a case by case basis against these stringent criteria for both national security and immigration."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...story/0,25197,24868838-601,00.html

Confess to being a little disappointed. But I suppose that, even though I doubt that many of them were 'terrorists' before they enjoyed six years of 'Gitmo TLC,' there's quite a good chance that they will be NOW.

The USA made 90% of this mess. Looks as if, on present form, it'll have to clear up 100% of it.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:26 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 20):
Confess to being a little disappointed. But I suppose that, even though I doubt that many of them were 'terrorists' before they enjoyed six years of 'Gitmo TLC,' there's quite a good chance that they will be NOW.

Equally disappointed and listening between the lines of the explanation, I think that is the likely reason for the decision.

Not forgetting that our previous government with its illegal lockings up of citizens and residents has given us some insight of what this does to "clients' of such procedures. It will all be on the files.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 20):
The USA made 90% of this mess. Looks as if, on present form, it'll have to clear up 100% of it.......

Sad but true. Even sadder but also true is that the results of the policies could be predicted in advance and were predicted in advance and the Bushites just accused those with a realistic view of the results of being traitors. Well if a traitor is one who does not act in the best interests of their nation, we can see clearly who was behaving in a traitorous fashion.

Arrest combatants and if you can find them arrest terrorists. But do not contract the process out to a bunch of thugs probably with lower standards of morals than your intended targets. All you are buying is trouble.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:32 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
The really worrying thing is you think that is funny.

Funny or not, that is what you have been espousing for a long time. Put your money where your mouth is. You shouldn't have any problem accepting these people as is. If 80% of them just happened to be netted walking down the street minding their own business then you shouldn't have any problem with them walking down your streets. Yet all of the sudden you want a caveat of checking them out on a "case by case" basis.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 20):
Usually between one and two weeks in 'solitary,' DXing. After that they were sent to camps in which they were treated in strict accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Yes, because they were captured in uniform fighting with a recognized countries armed forces. Quite different than these individuals.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:53 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 20):
Confess to being a little disappointed.

I'm with you, NAV20. I understand all the reasons for it, but I am still a little disappointed, at least in the case of those whom the US has cleared for repatriation, but cannot be repatriated without threat to their own lives.

I suppose I understand the view expressed in The Australian today, that it is a US problem:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...tory/0,25197,24866330-7583,00.html

And I understand the (Australian) politics behind it, but it doesn't sit right with me.

I haven't read anywhere if NZ has been asked to take any, and I would be interested to see how NZ would react to it.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:37 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 21):
Even sadder but also true is that the results of the policies could be predicted in advance and were predicted in advance

You and others have been predicting that the U.S. would be in Iraq for years of if not decades keeping the peace. With every turning over of another piece of the country to Iraqi security control you have to dig deeper and deeper into the past or point to smaller and smaller events to justify that position. What is sad is that you can't admit that despite the earlier problems the country is starting to coalece and function as a democracy. Do they still have problems to work out, sure, but given that they have been under totalitarian rule for decades I'd say the Iraqis are doing a bang up job of getting their political act together.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 21):
and the Bushites just accused those with a realistic view of the results of being traitors.

Source? Quotes?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:12 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 22):
Yes, because they were captured in uniform fighting with a recognized countries armed forces. Quite different than these individuals.

Don't know how often I've explained this on here, DXing. The whole Abu Ghraib/Gitmo thing is, and has always been, in flagrant breach of the Geneva Conventions. The relevant Geneva Convention lists six categories of prisoner, all of whom must be treated as prisoners of war.

One of those categories is as follows:-

"Article 4/6 - Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

So people don't have to be in an army, or in uniform, to receive protection under the Convention.

In case any doubt arises, the Convention further provides:-

"Article 5 - Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

So it is obvious, and beyond doubt, that all persons captured should have been treated as prisoners of war unless evidence that they were not in fact fighting as a resistance movement was presented to a 'competent' court.

The expression 'enemy combatants' does not appear anywhere in the Convention. It was presumably invented in the White House.

You are completely wrong to think that wearing a uniform grants anyone any special rights. The Convention (as you'll see if you read it) requires all concerned to treat all prisoners properly:-

Article 13 - Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."


This is an interesting article, too, remembering those Abu Ghraib pictures:-

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The fact that these men have been in solitary for years on end is also in breach of the Articles. Solitary can be imposed for disciplinary reasons but the period is strictly limited:-

"Article 90 - The duration of any single punishment shall in no case exceed thirty days. Any period of confinement awaiting the hearing of a disciplinary offence or the award of disciplinary punishment shall be deducted from an award pronounced against a prisoner of war."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:55 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
Don't know how often I've explained this on here, DXing.

And just as many times I've shown where the Convention does not protect them.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
So people don't have to be in an army, or in uniform, to receive protection under the Convention.

But they do have to be inhabitants which would rule out those detainees that are from countries other than Afghanistan that showed up only to fight. Also included in that article was:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

Are you seriously going to say that AQ carries their arms openly as well as respects the laws and customs of war?

Both of those render article 5 meaningless in this case.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
The Convention (as you'll see if you read it) requires all concerned to treat all prisoners properly:-

Yes I've read it several times, it does not pertain to all the enemy combatants since they do not fit the descriptions in article 4.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
Article 13 - Prisoners of war

Again, the majority of these are enemy combatants, not POW's.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
Article 90

Refers to punishments for breaking the rules in the POW camp, not the laws they broke or the combat they made against U.S. Armed Forces that got them into Gitmo.

No, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the majority of those in Gitmo. Even so we decided several years ago to afford them that treatment. BTW, if you are going to insist that they be treated under those rules, then the following article should be of interest and it's one you never hear the liberals trying to apply when they do insist that we treat the detainees as POW's under the convention:

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.


I won't post article 105 as it is pretty lengthy but one thing it does not contain is any reference to not being able to use secret military tribunals or making any such court open to the public at large.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:44 am

The reason why our discussions make no progress, DXing, is that you are making lots of assumptions for which htere is no evidence at all.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
But they do have to be inhabitants which would rule out those detainees that are from countries other than Afghanistan that showed up only to fight.



Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
Are you seriously going to say that AQ carries their arms openly as well as respects the laws and customs of war?



Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
the laws they broke or the combat they made against U.S. Armed Forces that got them into Gitmo.

There appears to be no 'evidence' against any of the detainees except things they have admitted under duress, or even torture. Such 'evidence' would not be admissible in any court in the civlised world, civilian or military. If you know of some, please post it.

The general picture appears to have been that US and Coalition forces did not do much fighting at all in Afghanistan, and occupied the place without much opposition. The Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban groups did most of the fighting. It appears that a very high proportion of the detainees were handed over by the Alliance in exchange for cash rewards. So none of us can have the faintest idea of what they did or did not do, because there was never any evidence of what they had been doing.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
No, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the majority of those in Gitmo.

Another total misunderstanding. The Conventions lay down rules that all armies should obey, and apply to ALL prisoners. They cut both ways, too - they operate to protect our OWN soldiers as well as enemy ones.

Even leaving aside the unsolvable problem of the detainees, there's an even chance that one of the 'guests' at Guantanamo - the known architect of 9/11 - may get clean away with it. Because the evidence against him is known to have been obtained by water-boarding and other torture. It's very possible therefore that no US court will be able to convict him; or that, if one did, that the verdict would be set aside on appeal.

The whole detainee business has been totally mis-handled from the start, from the White House down, and I doubt that the mess will ever be properly sorted out.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:37 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 27):
There appears to be no 'evidence' against any of the detainees except things they have admitted under duress, or even torture

And your facts that back up that assumption come from?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 27):
The general picture appears

Appears if there aren't many facts to back up your statements.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 27):
The Conventions lay down rules that all armies should obey, and apply to ALL prisoners.

First you say:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
The relevant Geneva Convention lists six categories of prisoner, all of whom must be treated as prisoners of war.

One of those categories is as follows:-

"Article 4/6 - Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

So people don't have to be in an army, or in uniform, to receive protection under the Convention.

Which pretty much leaves out the majority of individuals that are at Gitmo and when I show you where the Convention leaves them out you come back with all prisoners which is not what the Conventions say at all. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Same with the trials, we'll never really know what was coerced and what wasn't since there won't be a trial for any of them as long as sources and means are at risk of being divulged which is as it should be. As I have said, let them go on the condition of parole. We catch you on the battlefield or planning a terrorist strike against us there will be no surrender, you'll just be shot on capture.

Again though, if these people are as innocent as you portray them to be, your country should be duty bound to take them and release them inside your borders.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5196
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:58 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
And your facts that back up that assumption come from?

try asking the guy who was released in Australia late last year, he spent 6 years in Gitmo, fairly certain he, along with others released can give you a good account of what happened.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28):

Again though, if these people are as innocent as you portray them to be, your country should be duty bound to take them and release them inside your borders.

most have been released...what's that tell you? btw, I hear Crawford has plenty of room so let the Bush family house them. Its not our new governments issue, Gitmo was accepted by the former govt of Australia.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:15 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
Which pretty much leaves out the majority of individuals that are at Gitmo and when I show you where the Convention leaves them out you come back with all prisoners which is not what the Conventions say at all. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

See the problem, DXing. You reckon that if someone is not covered by the Conventions you can do what the hell you like with them. That's the same mistake that guy in the White house (whatisname?) made.

All the Conventions say is that if someone does not fit their criteria, they should be treated as civil prisoners rather than prisoners of war. It does NOT mean that you (particularly the armies of Convention signatories) can torture them etc., or hold them in solitary for years without trial.

If you'd like an even earlier reference:-

"(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."


That's from Magna Carta, 1215; and remains just as relevant to US law as it does to British Commonwealth law. As reflected in the Bill of Rights:-

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:05 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
Quoting DXing (Reply 22):
Yes, because they were captured in uniform fighting with a recognized countries armed forces. Quite different than these individuals.

Don't know how often I've explained this on here, DXing. The whole Abu Ghraib/Gitmo thing is, and has always been, in flagrant breach of the Geneva Conventions. The relevant Geneva Convention lists six categories of prisoner, all of whom must be treated as prisoners of war.

One of those categories is as follows:-

"Article 4/6 - Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

So people don't have to be in an army, or in uniform, to receive protection under the Convention.

In case any doubt arises, the Convention further provides:-

"Article 5 - Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

So it is obvious, and beyond doubt, that all persons captured should have been treated as prisoners of war unless evidence that they were not in fact fighting as a resistance movement was presented to a 'competent' court.

The expression 'enemy combatants' does not appear anywhere in the Convention. It was presumably invented in the White House.

You are completely wrong to think that wearing a uniform grants anyone any special rights. The Convention (as you'll see if you read it) requires all concerned to treat all prisoners properly:-

Article 13 - Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

This is an interesting article, too, remembering those Abu Ghraib pictures:-

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The fact that these men have been in solitary for years on end is also in breach of the Articles. Solitary can be imposed for disciplinary reasons but the period is strictly limited:-

"Article 90 - The duration of any single punishment shall in no case exceed thirty days. Any period of confinement awaiting the hearing of a disciplinary offence or the award of disciplinary punishment shall be deducted from an award pronounced against a prisoner of war."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

You are talking about the 1949 version of the Geneva convention, which was drawn to include the WW2 experiences of partisan units and resistance by the population against invading forces.
AFAIK this version of the Geneva convention was never signed by the US, only the more restrictive one, which does not recognise resistance movements, of the 1920s.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:34 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 31):
AFAIK this version of the Geneva convention was never signed by the US, only the more restrictive one, which does not recognise resistance movements, of the 1920s.

Fair point in a way, MD11Engineer - they signed it in 1949, but didn't ratify it until 1955. The reason being that they wanted to retain the option of the death penalty. In 1955 the USA signed it subject to the following proviso:-

"The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of this Convention.

"I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following reservation to Article 68:

"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins."


http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

As far as I know they didn't enter any 'provisos' about being allowed to torture people, or deny them a fair trial, or lock them up in solitary for five or six years.....  

[Edited 2009-01-04 07:05:18]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:08 pm



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 29):
try asking the guy who was released in Australia late last year, he spent 6 years in Gitmo, fairly certain he, along with others released can give you a good account of what happened.

Yes, just like there are no "guilty" people in our civilian prisons if you listen to the prisoners. I'm sure the story they tell will be completely accurate and devoid of bias.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 29):
most have been released...what's that tell you?

That you shouldn't have any trouble accepting the rest, they must be just as peaceful and non violent as those already released.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
You reckon that if someone is not covered by the Conventions you can do what the hell you like with them.

I reckon if they aren't covered by the Conventions then they don't get those protections. Still trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
All the Conventions say is that if someone does not fit their criteria, they should be treated as civil prisoners rather than prisoners of war.

No, that's not what they say. Section 5 covers this.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Most of the detainees were found to not have been Afghan nationals nor part of any regular army abiding by the recognized laws of war. Therefore they are considered enemy combatants and do not automatically get the protection of the Conventions. After several years though the Bush administration did cave and grant them those rights even though they did not fit any of the catagories listed.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
As reflected in the Bill of Rights:-

The Bill of Rights applies to citizens of the United States and foreigners that break the laws of the United States while within our borders. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights have no standing elsewhere.

Continue to try and find every excuse under the sun to give violent people every break you can save taking these people in yourselves. What you can't do though is pick and choose just which articles of the Convention suit your needs at the moment and apply them which is what you have attempted to do several times now. Again, if you feel these people have been so wronged you should feel it your duty to accept them into your country to relieve them of the stress and pain you feel they are unnecessarily going through at our governments hands.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:12 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
Most of the detainees were found to not have been Afghan nationals nor part of any regular army abiding by the recognized laws of war. Therefore they are considered enemy combatants and do not automatically get the protection of the Conventions. After several years though the Bush administration did cave and grant them those rights even though they did not fit any of the catagories listed.

References?

Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
excuse under the sun to give violent people every break

Evidence that they were violent? References please.

You are making unsubstantiated statements.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:41 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 34):
References?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/20/ap/world/mainD8H3LAAO0.shtml

In all, the detainees on the list came from 41 countries. The largest number _ 132 _ came from Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan followed with 125, then Yemen with 107.

The combatant status hearings at Guantanamo Bay were held from July 2004 to January 2005.
All detainees at the prison during that period had such a hearing. Of the 558 detainees who received one, the panels classified 38 as "no longer enemy combatants" and the military later released 29 of them from Guantanamo.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...67414-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

According to a study on the remaining detainee population by US think tank Brookings, there are 248 detainees in Gitmo from more than 30 countries.

More than 70 per cent of the detainees are citizens of Middle Eastern and North African nations, including 94 Yemenis, the study said. Guantanamo also houses 20 Saudis, 10 Algerians, 10 Tunisians, nine Syrians, eight Libyans, six Kuwaitis, six Iraqis, three Palestinians, three Egyptians, two Moroccans and one detainee each from the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon.


Quoting Baroque (Reply 34):
Evidence that they were violent? References please.

From the same story as above:

General Altenburg yesterday said there was a significant degree of reoffending among the detainees who had been released from the Cuban prison.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...2008-12-29-Guantanamo_N.htm?csp=34

Terrorism experts and two recent analyses of unclassified information on the prison population indicate the men who remain there are either committed, highly skilled al-Qaeda operatives too dangerous to ever free, or Islamists whose native countries would do little to prevent them from rejoining the jihad.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:10 pm

Sorry, can't resist a joke about this bit:-

"Thomas Joscelyn, a terrorism analyst and senior editor of The Long War Journal, has studied public information released by the Pentagon about the remaining Guantanamo detainees.

"He established four red flags to gauge how dangerous each detainee was: if they participated in an al-Qaeda or Taliban training camp, stayed at special Islamist guesthouses where terrorists are shuttled to the front or to training, participated in recruiting networks across the Middle East or engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

"Joscelyn found that at least 46% engaged in hostilities, 48% participated in the recruiting network, 60% stayed in a guest house, and 72% attended training camps. These men have knowledge and skills that would be critical to al-Qaeda again, he said.

"You have some guys who are a first-order threat," Joscelyn said."


Just makes me visualise the evidence being presented in a US District Court. Maybe a corporal and three 'other ranks' MPs taking the oath and declaring that they had all clearly heard Detainee X admit that he'd stayed at an 'Islamist guesthouse.' And the defence counsel, on impulse, asking the last one whether it was normal for four men to conduct interrogations.

And the feller answering, "Yessir! That was SOP, sir. One guy to ask the questions and three more to hold the prisoner down........"
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:11 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 35):
General Altenburg yesterday said there was a significant degree of reoffending among the detainees who had been released from the Cuban prison.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...2008-12-29-Guantanamo_N.htm?csp=34

What your reference says is:
Still, the Pentagon has said several of those freed did return to jihad. One man released to his native country of Kuwait blew himself up in Iraq in May, killing six people.

Folk who have been physically and mentally abused often commit suicide. Should we be surprised?

How many is several. What is significant. ONE? two??

Re the Nav approach, what is the likely number who met OBL - hundreds of thousands I would surmise. If they were real meetings, he must have been physical wreck from all the courteous bowing to those thousands of folk who "met" him. My guess is that in most cases there was a cloud of dust in the distance and someone said what is that, and the reply was Osama is visiting. Yep, I met Osama.

With Hicks the US had the story that Osama asked him to translate manuals into English - unfortunately Hicks knows a minimum of Arabic to recite bits of the Koran.

My father had a photograph of his division out on a parade ground being inspected by the King of Italy. He always called it his photograph of him and the King of Italy - well him and the whole of 23rd Division.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:04 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
Folk who have been physically and mentally abused often commit suicide. Should we be surprised?

Of course they never would have entertained the thought prior to going to Gitmo would they? Tell me, what abuse did any of the 4 pilots on 9/11 suffer at the hands of American intelligence? How about the ones that blew themselves up attacking the U.S.S. Cole? Or the embassies in Africa? Please spare me the sob stories of how they had a hard life growing up. There are plenty of African-Americans that went through extrme hardships growing up and they aren't blowing themselves up or flying airplanes into buildings.

You have yet to answer the question of why your country shouldn't welcome these misunderstood individuals with open arms and allow them to walk freely on your streets if they are so unjustly accused of being violent people.

BTW I provided mine, time for you to show'em or fold'em.

Quoting DXing (Reply 24):
Source? Quotes?


[Edited 2009-01-06 00:24:21]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detai

Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:18 am

DXing:
So what is your solution then?
Keep them locked up without public trial forever?

IMO, if there is enough hard evidence against an individual that he indeed was committing crimes against the Geneva convention or other laws existing BEFORE the arrest, punishable in Afghanistan, try them, sentence them and throw away the key. If the evidence is as good as you say, then it wouldn't need special secret courts of law, any normal US criminal court would do.

If not they'll have to be released in any case. And in civilised nations it is customary topay a person who has accidentally been arrested, imprisoned and then aquitted a compensation to help him to get started in life again.

Jan

edit for typos

[Edited 2009-01-06 00:45:44]
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:39 am



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 39):
Keep them locked up without public trial forever?

As I have stated in various threads in various fashion, including this one:

Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
As I have said, let them go on the condition of parole. We catch you on the battlefield or planning a terrorist strike against us there will be no surrender, you'll just be shot on capture.



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 39):
If the evidence is as good as you say, then it wouldn't need special secret courts of law, any normal US criminal court would do.

Also as I have stated in various threads as in this one:

Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
Same with the trials, we'll never really know what was coerced and what wasn't since there won't be a trial for any of them as long as sources and means are at risk of being divulged which is as it should be.

I would rather release them then divulge sensitive sources and means. If the evidence does that then the trials should be scrapped although the Geneva Convention allows for military tribunals and does not specify that they have to be public in any form. In any case, as several terrorism experts have made plain, these individuals are incorrigble, it won't be long before we catch them at it again and then following my suggestion above, we should just administer summary justice on the spot. It's not like they wouldn't have been warned.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 39):
And in civilised nations it iscustomary topay a person who has accidentally been arrested, imprisdoned and then aquitted acompensation to help him to get started in life again.

Yeah, good luck with that, of course to be aquitted there has to be a trial which most likely is not going to happen. But considering the bail out frenzy in this nation their chances are just as good as anyones.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:45 am

1. "We" bought most of them.

2. "We" generally have no idea of the provenance of the captives.

3. The problem of tainted evidence could be why a highish proportion of the lawyers in the US do not hold the procedures followed with much in the way of regard.

4. There probably are sensitive sources and methods, but the hype over many of the Gitmo prisoners has destroyed the credibility of those trying to use those reasons for secrecy.

5. Hicks the "worst of the worst" (words of Howard, Chaney and Bush on various occasions) - what a sick joke.

Pip pip.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:57 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 41):
1. "We" bought most of them.

We have a bounty on OBL's head, guess we should just drop that and hope that someone in the region has a change of heart and turns him in.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 41):
2. "We" generally have no idea of the provenance of the captives.

They have been before one board as outline in reply 35. Through completely legal yet time consuming appeals the detainees and their advocates have delayed their trials for years. If you are a detainee you can't complain about a delayed trial if you are the one causing the delay.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 41):
3. The problem of tainted evidence could be why a highish proportion of the lawyers in the US do not hold the procedures followed with much in the way of regard.

Or it could be that they aren't going to get their chance at a cut of whatever defense funds there are. Either way the military tribunal has been in use for centuries.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 41):
4. There probably are sensitive sources and methods, but the hype over many of the Gitmo prisoners has destroyed the credibility of those trying to use those reasons for secrecy.

Source? How do you know that the sensitive source and methods used to capture any detainee has been compromised or has lost credibility?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 41):
5. Hicks the "worst of the worst" (words of Howard, Chaney and Bush on various occasions) - what a sick joke.

Worst of the worst in what context? That covers a lot of ground. According to the experts such as in reply 35 the worst of the worst remain in Gitmo.

Lots of speculating in your post and no sources or quotes. I guess that means you fold. Goodnight.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:58 pm

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/05/opinion/oe-wizner5

Tribunals of the absurd

By Ben Wizner April 05, 2007

I traveled to Guantanamo to observe the Hicks proceedings, and to say that they lacked the dignity and gravitas of Nuremberg is to engage in colossal understatement. The military commissions have been a profoundly unserious legal exercise from the start. The prison at Guantanamo was fashioned as an island outside the reach of U.S. law, and the commissions were devised to provide an illusion of legal process.

If that sounds extreme, consider the Hicks case. The defendant traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, joined with extremists and was captured in December 2001. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later said he was among the world's most dangerous terrorists.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-revi...8/1178995388310.html?page=fullpage
The US President and his immediate coterie had sold the dispirited gaggle rounded-up in Afghanistan as the most evil and dangerous people in the world. The Australian Government was happy to oblige with the same sort of overblown nonsense.

So when in 2002 and 2003 the US Office of Military Commissions cast about to find people to send to trial there was an embarrassing disparity between what was available on the menu and what the politicians were spruiking out the front of the eatery.

Sales points out that the authorities were keen to serve up prisoners who spoke English and that two potential cases being readied for trial were those of the British detainees Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi, who had "confessed" and wanted to plead guilty. Hicks was also considered a likely contender at this time, because it was believed that he, too, wanted to plead guilty.

This slight offering of English-speaking guilty-pleaders hardly amounted to the worst of the worst and Sales tells us that it was here the Pentagon decided to slow things down, putting trials on the back-burner. Instead, "intelligence" gathering became more pressing than trials, even though the intelligence was so thin as to be worthless. Consequently, the administration in Washington began fobbing off hapless Australian Government requests for details about the timing of charges against Hicks and his trial.

The high point of Sales's book is the story of the disintegration within the prosecution team at the Office of Military Commissions. Some of the best and brightest members of the team were convinced the system was rigged for convictions and that the US would pay dearly for this miscarriage. In particular, they felt that the case against Hicks was "weak" and an unworthy way to kick-off the trial process.

Colonel Fred Borch, the chief prosecutor, tried to dispel the tensions at a staff meeting in early 2004. In doing so he blurted out, "Stop worrying about it. These people are going to be found guilty" because the judges had been "hand picked" just for that task. [The recollection of the precise form of words varies and Borch has since tried to put a gloss on what he said.]

http://www.australiansall.com.au/dav...ernment-needs-a-verdict-of-guilty/
Repeatedly the Government had before merely supported US statements that Hicks was "one of the worst of the worst" and that there were "very serious charges" against him under US law on which he should be tried.

In recent times, the Chief US military prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, continued the process of describing David Hicks in terms strongly suggesting that he is guilty and attacking his military lawyer, Major Mori. If David Hicks were being tried in Australia, conduct of this kind would constitute a serious contempt of court. Mr Wran, then Premier of NSW, was fined $25,000 for just such a contempt of court in 1986.

To be fair to Mo Davis, he later turned on the Commission and attacked it in even more unequivocal terms.

A high proportion of the lawyers who did work for both Hicks and Habib did the work pro bono.

I am not sure what proportion of the total of US lawyers could have hoped for work defending Gitmo detainees, perhaps 1000 at most. At a guess a much greater number has objected to the tribunals. Even the military's own lawyers have done so - do they take many private briefs from prisoners?
http://agonist.org/chickadee/20081106/why_are_the_prisoners_so_gloomy
At Guantanamo Bay, or "Gitmo," the U.S. naval base in Cuba, some 660 alleged
al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists have been indefinitely detained without
hearings. Now the Supreme Court is joining the debate over their legal
status, and some of the military's own lawyers are opposing the tribunal
process scheduled to begin early in 2004. Investigating the cases of three
apparently innocent prisoners -- and discovering that some of Gitmo's toughest
critics are inside the Pentagon -- DAVID ROSE wonders if the camp may be a
graver threat to what America stands for than the terror it is meant to
contain.


Bringing Gitmo detainees before boards tells you very little of the provenance of the prisoners. You have a nationality, you think you know where they were first caught by those selling them, but you have no real idea of what they were doing when caught or what the motives were of those who sold them to you.

Back to Dilawar. He was beaten to death. And he was not the only one so treated. That fixed his provenance. Not much he could say in his defence.

The bounty on OBLs head has been remarkably productive - then again, perhaps 7 years not a long enough test?
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:19 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 41):
1. "We" bought most of them.

We have a bounty on OBL's head, guess we should just drop that and hope that someone in the region has a change of heart and turns him in.

I assume that there is enough evidence against OBL to guarantee a guilty verdict against him in any court of law in ANY democratic country. Bad example. In his case a bounty is justified.
Remember the example of the Uigurs? They just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (the human traffickers whom they paid to get them to Europe decided to smuggle them through lawless Afghanistan due to the lack of police patrols). They got arrested by the Afghani militiamen, who claimed to the US troops that they were BAAAAD Taliban supporters and cashed the bounty. Unfortunately nobody there spoke Uigur, so to GITMO they went. After a fewyears there, they got dumped on Albania.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:07 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 43):
Tribunals of the absurd

On opinion piece.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 43):
The US President and his immediate coterie had sold the dispirited gaggle rounded-up in Afghanistan as the most evil and dangerous people in the world.

A book review

Quoting Baroque (Reply 43):
Repeatedly the Government had before merely supported US statements that Hicks

And a blog are not source material but merely opinion. As with any opinion piece the facts can be presented any which way the opinion writer wishes to present them as the fundemental rules of journalism don't apply to opinion and editorial.

The final piece has the header:

"Is it still too soon for an update to the ICC trial schedule?)

By David Rose

January 2004: (Vanity Fair: Pg. 88)


Which again supports my opinion that you have to go farther and farther back in time to find any kind of supporting evidence to your claim of what is happening today. It still does not address the issue, as a matter of fact should support it even more so, that the people who are in Gitmo are just some harmless misunderstood individuals and you should feel duty bound to get them out of our evil grasp and allow them the freedom to walk your streets and get on with their lives. If they are as you wish to describe them they should not be a threat to anyone.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 44):
I assume that there is enough evidence against OBL to guarantee a guilty verdict against him in any court of law in ANY democratic country.

All you would have to do is play the video made approximately one year after 9/11 where at the meeting with several heads of AQ along with the Taliban and some Pakistan indivduals he admits his role in sponsoring the attacks and his foreknowledge of what date they would occur on.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 44):
Unfortunately nobody there spoke Uigur, so to GITMO they went. After a fewyears there, they got dumped on Albania.

Sweden and Canada have refused to offer them aslyum, they don't want to return to China, the United States doesn't want them, here's another wonderful opportunity for the Australians to step up to the plate. So where are they?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:23 pm

If you buy a Uigar in a poke, you own it - to rephrase Colin Powell.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detai

Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:54 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 45):
Sweden and Canada have refused to offer them aslyum, they don't want to return to China, the United States doesn't want them, here's another wonderful opportunity for the Australians to step up to the plate. So where are they?

You continually trot out this BS as though it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to clean up after the mess created at Guantanamo. The US indiscriminately pays bounties for a bunch of people of varying backgrounds, varying locales, and undetermined political allegiances. It has no evidence whatsoever against these folks, and locks them up with nothing beyond the say-so of the people to whom they paid the bounties -- a fine group of upstanding Afghani citizens with no axes to grind, of course.

Then, after abuse and torture, it keeps these people against whom there is no credible evidence in a legal limbo for six years, safely away from US (or any other civilized country's) legal system so they can't be sprung for that lack of evidence. And now you want Australia et al to take them in carte blanche?

To properly serve justice, they should all be given condos in Crawford, as close to the ranch as possible. A new car each would also be nice. It is beyond me how you think any other country has a responsibility here, beyond repatriating its own citizens. The US created this problem, the US needs to solve it. Good luck to Obama, because it won't be easy.

It will take years to restore the US reputation as a country that lives by the rule of law and guarantees a high level of civil rights for all in its care. January 21 is the first day of the rest of your life, and we can only hope that opportunity is seized before the damage becomes irreparable.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:47 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 43):
To be fair to Mo Davis, he later turned on the Commission and attacked it in even more unequivocal terms.

And how!  Smile Even before he resigned. Australia as well........

[Excerpts)

"Still in the military, he has irritated the Administration, claiming in articles and interviews that Pentagon officials interfered with prosecutors, exerted political pressure and approved the use of evidence obtained by torture.

"He alleged this month that general counsel to the Pentagon William Haynes, who resigned this week, pressured him to charge Hicks last year before the military commission system was properly constituted and that it smacked of political expediency to help out a loyal ally, Australia's then prime minister, John Howard.

------------------

"Colonel Davis says Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England wanted terrorism suspects convicted in the months immediately before the 2006 mid-term elections. Mr Haynes later told him acquittals would not be acceptable, after Colonel Davis said acquittals in cases where the evidence was weak would "validate the process", the former prosecutor alleged.

"His eyes got big and he said, 'We can't have acquittals. We've been holding these guys for some time and we can't have acquittals,' " Colonel Davis said.

"He said there "is a potential for rigged outcomes" and he had "significant doubts about whether it will deliver full, fair and open hearings".


http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...itic/2008/02/28/1203788536058.html
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Australian Gov't Might Accept Some Gitmo Detainees

Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:34 am



Quoting Arrow (Reply 47):
should all be given condos in Crawford, as close to the ranch as possible. A new car each would also be nice.

Not to mention that it would be consistent with the need to stimulate:
A. The US house construction industry, and
B. The considerably woes of the US car industry.

A very constructive solution Arrow.  bigthumbsup 
BTW, a very neat summary of the flawed process. Amazing that anyone would defend it.  banghead 

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 48):

Physically they were better treated, but in the end I would not be too surprised to find that the defending military lawyers and the dissenting prosecuting lawyers did not have as bad a time in terms of mental treatment as some of the prisoners.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, Bing [Bot], Kent350787, olle, TTailedTiger and 47 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos