Things to do in Guantanamo when you're dead
Three Guantanamo prisoners committed suicide. Good -- three fewer jihadists we have to worry about.
"The remains were being treated 'with the utmost respect,' an issue important to Muslims." Throw the bodies on a garbage pile, for all I care. Where was the "utmost respect" for the bodies of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Kim Sun-il, Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Shosei Koda and Margaret Hassan?
"The remains were being treated 'with the utmost respect,' an issue important to Muslims." Throw the bodies on a garbage pile, for all I care. Where was the "utmost respect" for the bodies of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Kim Sun-il, Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Shosei Koda and Margaret Hassan?
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
5:08 PM
9 Comments:
Since they never had a fair trial, let's just hope they were guilty. Let's also hope that it really was suicide.
Remember, we don't know these people from random civilians picked off the battlefield. There was little judicial oversight because everything was teh sooper sekret. We don't even know their names.
Presumed innocent until proved guilty.
I'm willing to presume they were guilty and that it was suicide.
But we treat them with respect because we are a better society, because we're decent whether or not they reciprocate.
We treat them with respect not because they deserve it, but because we're engaged in 4GW, and world-wide perception in stuff like this, whether we like it or not, is important.
Personally, my feelings are that we ought to bury the bodies in pigskin, but I know that this would be ultimately counter-productive in the war we are engaged in, which is fought just as much in the newspapers and internet as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mischief, your implication that these terrorists were murdered by U.S. personnel is sickening. If you bothered to do any digging into Gitmo, you would find that things are quite as bad as the media makes out. Here's a primer...http://noangst.blogspot.com/2006/02/gitmo.html
In any case, the suicide is far more likely to be something like this...
"They are smart, they are creative, they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
From a USN Admiral, found here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/11/GITMO.TMP
Mischief, there's no legal process in war. It's completely different from civilian life: when you find someone on the battlefield, you must presume he's an enemy. If you go around presuming someone's an innocent civilian, you had better expect to lose the war.
I like the idea of pigskin, Mike. That's like the urban legend of Pershing suppressing Muslim rebels in the early 19th century Philippines, burying their bodies with pig intestines.
Mischief, your implication that these terrorists were murdered by U.S. personnel is sickening.
Isn't suicide against Islam? Aren't these people religious fanatics? (I know some twisties have concluded that suicide via semtex is okay, but that's with the fanatic taking out several of the enemy)
I never implied murder.
http://fishorman.blogspot.com/2006/03/coverup-uncovered.html
Plus I think this guy was a citizen, not an “enemy-combatent”.
It's still a state secret who hanged themselves in gitmo, so I guess there's no way to inform the next of kin. They have become un-persons.
Mischief, there's no legal process in war. It's completely different from civilian life: when you find someone on the battlefield, you must presume he's an enemy. If you go around presuming someone's an innocent civilian, you had better expect to lose the war.
Agreed. On the battlefield at least. Yes, we are fighting an enemy that does not wear a uniform, Uniformed enemy soldiers do have certain rights and for the most part we observe them. However when a large part of the enemy we fight wears no uniform, you are just going to have to expect a larger share of civilian casualties. Unarmed women make dandy spotters and lookouts. I can forgive a large amount of mistakes when the enemy is not playing by the rules. (But maybe not children shot neatly in the back of the head) If the innocent bystanders fear being mistaken for the enemy, they are also more likely to rat them out rather than risk being mistaken for the enemy.
Once we have them in custody, however, as distasteful as it seems, they have rights, and we ought to respect them. That means that they are either POWs or prisoners being held for crime. If they are held as criminals, they need access to the courts, they need to have a trial date set, and access to their lawyers.
Yes that makes our job that much harder, but remember, we are the people that have the nation of laws, and not of men.
Would you have a problem sending Timothy McVeigh to gitmo, holding him in secret, forever, without a trial?
Or do we really want to give a man that won an election (D or R) the power, without judicial review, to declare any person, citizen or not, a terrorist, and then automatically strip that person of his civil rights like access to a lawyer, access to his funds to pay for a lawyer, a fair and speedy trial, and right to face his accused?
"It's still a state secret who hanged themselves in gitmo, so I guess there's no way to inform the next of kin. They have become un-persons."
Not true. DoD released the names today.
I'm confused about that link you provide, but isn't saying "Let's also hope that it really was suicide" tantamount to saying that their deaths were something other than suicide? (Which would imply that they met an untimely demise...aka, murder.)
"That means that they are either POWs or prisoners being held for crime. If they are held as criminals, they need access to the courts, they need to have a trial date set, and access to their lawyers."
Again, not true. They aren't POWs because they aren't fighting in an organized Army, aren't in uniforms, etc etc. They aren't criminals because they were engaged against U.S. armed forces on the field of battle. Under the Geneva Convention they are "unlawful combatants" and as such, have absolutely no rights. Actually, it would be completely in our rights to summarily execute them, but for obvious reasons, we chose not to.
(Little historical sidelight, as part of the Battle of the Bulge, German soldiers dressed up in American uniforms to help spread disinformation and disorder behind Allied lines. Since the soldiers were dressed in American uniforms, they were not obeying the established rules of the Geneva Convention and as such, were considered "unlawful combatants." Every single one of those soldiers that was captured was lined up against a wall and shot.)
"Would you have a problem sending Timothy McVeigh to gitmo, holding him in secret, forever, without a trial?"
Yes. Which is why, if you read what the Administration is saying, those being held will be given a trial just as soon as the Supreme Court decides whether the Administration can try them in military tribunals or if they must be tried in civilian courts.
Finally, "Isn't suicide against Islam? Aren't these people religious fanatics? (I know some twisties have concluded that suicide via semtex is okay, but that's with the fanatic taking out several of the enemy)"
A common misconception. The basic established premise is that Muslim extremists are allowed to do anything needed to accomplish their mission. As just one example, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs and drank prodigous amounts of alcohol. If committing suicide was done in an attempt to wage an asymmetrical warfare campaign, then it was completely justified in the eyes of the Islamists.
I'm confused about that link you provide, but isn't saying "Let's also hope that it really was suicide" tantamount to saying that their deaths were something other than suicide? (Which would imply that they met an untimely demise...aka, murder.)
I'm saying that they could have accidentally been killed during interrogation and the suicide was a cover-up. With everything being so sooper sekret, I'm going to have to see a bit more evidence of fair treatment than a turned down cot with orange jammies on them.
Again, not true. They aren't POWs because they aren't fighting in an organized Army, aren't in uniforms, etc etc. They aren't criminals because they were engaged against U.S. armed forces on the field of battle. Under the Geneva Convention they are "unlawful combatants" and as such, have absolutely no rights. Actually, it would be completely in our rights to summarily execute them, but for obvious reasons, we chose not to.
So why did you put "unlawful combatants" in quotes? Isn't that a wholly fabricated term invented by the Bush administration. Is it actually in the text of the Convention?
(Little historical sidelight, as part of the Battle of the Bulge, German soldiers dressed up in American uniforms to help spread disinformation and disorder behind Allied lines. Since the soldiers were dressed in American uniforms, they were not obeying the established rules of the Geneva Convention and as such, were considered "unlawful combatants." Every single one of those soldiers that was captured was lined up against a wall and shot.)
I actually do not have a problem with this. I think I said as much. I would not approve of indefinite detention and torture deliberately overseas as an attempt to circumvent the reach of the courts. Again, the term "unlawful combatants" had not been invented yet.
The basic established premise is that Muslim extremists are allowed to do anything needed to accomplish their mission. As just one example, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs and drank prodigous amounts of alcohol. If committing suicide was done in an attempt to wage an asymmetrical warfare campaign, then it was completely justified in the eyes of the Islamists.
I partly agree. I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers figured they had so much “extra credit”, that they knew they could still get the 72 virgins and 28 young pre-pubescent boys even with a bit of booze and skin. The “suicide as asymmetrical warfare” is such obvious USA propaganda, I'm amazed you are taking that seriously.
SM:Would you have a problem sending Timothy McVeigh to gitmo, holding him in secret, forever, without a trial?
Mike:Yes. Which is why, if you read what the Administration is saying, those being held will be given a trial just as soon as the Supreme Court decides whether the Administration can try them in military tribunals or if they must be tried in civilian courts.
Got a cite for this? Is there absolutely no evidence that the bush administration is merely trying to hold these people for as long as possible? Didn't the administration argue at one point that the detainees could be held indefinitely?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe103.html
In an 8-1 decision, the justices found that U.S. citizens detained as "enemy combatants" were entitled to full due-process rights under the Constitution, including the right to an attorney. In another 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that foreign "enemy combatants" held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to go to court to argue that they should never have been detained.
The rulings amounted to an almost total rebuff of the administration's assertions that the president, as commander-in-chief, had the right to indefinitely detain individuals whom it designated "enemy combatants" without charges and without access to counsel or the right to review their status before an independent court
It took them two years to establish the right to even go to court. As a counter-example, those congressonal laws against flag burning were struck down by the supremes within 24 hours. Are you sure things aren't being dragged out on purpose?
What with the bacon? Why the we grind up the worthless carcasses and feed them to the pig. At least no pig would be harm in the process.
Foreign national have not right. For every country that want their foreign national back, asked them if they can warrantees that the detainee would not be a threat, if not let them take back their terrorists in little doggie bags.
The president should stop letting the court interfere in this war. Take every terrorists with case in any US court out, invite the justices involved over, and hang the terrorists to make the justices understand that they have no constitutional power to undermine this war.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home