Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, Doug wrote:

600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?))

there was a TV documentation on a German TV station about Guantanamo Bay.
They interviewed 2 (or more) released people in Afghanistan. Both have been
imprisoned while there was collected headmoney for them paid by US folks
(CIA, military, ??)

in German: http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0...260710,00.html

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:46:20 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote:

in German: http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0...260710,00.html

Interesting. For free, the usual unsupported dreck. For a couple of
bucks (for me, that would be the charge for the articles plus the bank
charges to process dollars into euros) you can have the full context.

I'll offer a translation, best I can, in all cases the word
translation choices are mine:

(begin translation)

660 prisonsers now subsist in the high-security prison called "Camp
Delta" at the Guantanamo Bay Marine base. Among them is a Turk, Murat
Kurnaz, who was born and raised in Bremen (Germany). Without the
chance for a trial, he waits for his release, or at least some
official charge.

AP

Prisoners in an apparantly disenfranchised place: Camp Delta Inmates

This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
that could mean the death penalty.

68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
Guantanamo from the inside.

(end translation)

Go ahead, Spiegel, tell us how you *really* feel!

I note that for a holding prison which (I'm told, and those pictures
seem to show) feeds and clothes the inmates, and gives them
opportunity to exercise their religion (note that those flourescent
prison outfits come with *head cover*), within the constraints of the
prison.

Perhaps SPIEGEL TV would serve us all better by examining something
like the French prison system, or that of, say, Saudi Arabia. In
Saudia Arabia, I'm told, the prisoners give law enforcement a hand
from time to time. Literally.

And in any case, the term is "enemy combatant," and is a *correct*
term for a combatant who operates against an army outside the
strictures of the Geneva Convention.

None of that page, of course, makes the claim that Martin made, namely
that there were bounty hunters involved in collecting the enemy
combatants. Presumably the allegations are made in the TV program? If
so, by whom? And what would be wrong with that in a war zone?

Es geht schon, Martin. Ein paar hier koennen auch Deutsch, auch wenn
unsere Tastaturen es nicht koennen!

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

In article ,
Robert Perkins wrote:

This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
that could mean the death penalty.

68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
Guantanamo from the inside.

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.

(Barring the possible use of a procedure sometimes used in earlier wars
-- including our Civil War, I think -- in which prisoners give their
word and bond not to fight again in the conflict, and are released to go
home to their farms and families.)

What's not to like? Did prisoners of war on either side in WW II have
the right to demand trials and due process? (including prisoners from
neutral nations who might have volunteered to fight on either of the
sides)

The current war is obviously an unusual war, but equally obviously it's
a war. Does the fact that the other side's mode of fighting it falls
miles outside the Geneva Convention somehow give them the right to
increased, rather than perhaps reduced, protections when taken prisoner?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.



So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?

This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
side."

In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.



So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?

This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
side."


That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.


So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

I'm all for having a safe and secure country, but not if it means stuff like
that, because giving a government infinite power like that will lead to some
very bad things.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

Well, the purpose of a trial is to estabish the guilt or innocence of persons
accused of committing crimes. None of the people at Guantanamo have been accused
of committing crimes. They were found fighting against the US forces. That makes
them hostile combatants, and there is no question of or need for a trial, since
they are not criminals. Evidence of commision of a crime is also completely
unnecessary, since that is not the issue here.

There is also no limit on the amount of time they may be detained. Many of the
combatants in WWII were not released until years after the cessation of hostitilies, and this is in
complete accordance with the pertinent laws and
treaties. The people at Guantano are not military personel dedicated to any
particular country, which basically means they are armed civilians, which
basically means (under the Geneva convention) we can execute them. Without
trial.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Robert Perkins wrote:

This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
that could mean the death penalty.

68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
Guantanamo from the inside.

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.

(Barring the possible use of a procedure sometimes used in earlier wars
-- including our Civil War, I think -- in which prisoners give their
word and bond not to fight again in the conflict, and are released to go
home to their farms and families.)

What's not to like? Did prisoners of war on either side in WW II have
the right to demand trials and due process? (including prisoners from
neutral nations who might have volunteered to fight on either of the
sides)

Sorry dude, they are not POWs. Our government has said that numerous times.

The current war is obviously an unusual war, but equally obviously it's
a war. Does the fact that the other side's mode of fighting it falls
miles outside the Geneva Convention somehow give them the right to
increased, rather than perhaps reduced, protections when taken prisoner?

Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and now
expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that approach is
going to work.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message


Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and
now expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that
approach is going to work.

Are you suggesting that we should be fighting by their rules?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message


Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and
now expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that
approach is going to work.

Are you suggesting that we should be fighting by their rules?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________


I suggested nothing. Nice try anyway.