GITMO: Peace loving left ready for some responsibility?

[quote]One of the most wanted Taliban militants in Pakistan killed himself when troops raided a hideout in Baluchistan Province, government officials said Tuesday. An Interior Ministry spokesman, Javed Iqbal Cheema, confirmed the death of the militant, Abdullah Mehsud, a local tribesman from the South Waziristan tribal area. “He was an active Taliban commander and a supporter of Al Qaeda,” Cheema said. Mehsud, who was 32 and was missing a leg, was known for his daredevil personality and bravado.
He spent 25 months in American custody at the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, before being released in March 2004.

He returned to a senior Taliban leadership position,” Cheema said. The United States has been pressing the Pakistani government to deal forcefully with the militants in the tribal areas near the Afghan border, where they have found a relatively safe haven. Statements by American officials hinting that the United States may take military action of its own in the region have drawn a strong protest from the Pakistani government. On Monday, a Foreign Ministry press officer said any action by the United States in the territory would be unacceptable. Pakistani officials maintain that any counterterrorism operations inside Pakistan would be conducted solely by its security forces.

Mehsud was believed to have been involved in a number of attacks on the security forces in Waziristan, his home district, as well as militant activities in Helmand Province in Afghanistan. But the crime for which he was most wanted was the 2004 kidnapping of two Chinese engineers, their Pakistani driver and a security guard in South Waziristan, near the border with Afghanistan. Mehsud was accused of masterminding the attack. The men were working on a hydroelectric dam project. One engineer was later killed and the other freed in a raid by government troops.[/quote]

So. Who on the left is going to take responsibility for the rights of those killed, kidnapped, attacked by this man and his leadership? Who is going to take responsiblity for the economic and development projects that they have delayed? the insecurity that they have caused? idiots, fucking idiots…

More correctly, who in the arse biting right will accept that even when they have these dangerous clods in their midst they still can’t discern friend from foe?

Nice try Fred, but it’s just more grist to the mill on what a horrible failure Gitmo has been. To think, if your mob hadn’t tried to short-circuit due process this idiot might be sitting in a real prison right now and all those victims supping tea with their friends.

HG

On the other hand.

[quote]The trial of Australian national David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay was a charade that served to corrode the rule of law, Australia’s top legal body has said.

The Law Council of Australia called government support for the US military tribunal process shameful. [/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6913374.stm

All that says is not only are we paying the price for having something like Gitmo, but where getting no benefit either since we can’t run it properly.

Has Hicks denied that he had connections with Muslim extremists? Or has he just stated that he now understands the error of his ways? He can sit there and rot for all I care. It will give the Australian lager louts something to exercise their boozed brains and something to rant about other than the perfidious English. At least, we can do this small bit for our British allies. Absent Hicks, it is back to the old chip-on-the-shoulder, “I ain’t a felon, mate! Say it one more time or even look like you think that I am and I am going to beat the tar out of you, steal your car and burn your house down.”

Of course, the irony tends to get lost…

Perhaps we should be considering whether his cause might not be just.

Remind me: exactly why do members / supporters of the Taliban, but not the U.S. military or government, deserve to be treated as criminals? Is there any moral basis here, or is it all just power politics? (Sure there was 9-11, but by now the U.S. has killed hundreds of thousands to Osama’s thousands.)

Why is it that THEY kidnap and torture people while WE “rendition” prisoners, detain them indefinitely without trial as “unlawful combattants,” and use “harsh methods of interrogation” on them?

[quote]“I ain’t a felon, mate! Say it one more time or even look like you think that I am and I am going to beat the tar out of you, steal your car and burn your house down.”

Of course, the irony tends to get lost…[/quote]

Shows how little you know. Having the distant rels arrive in chains is a badge of honour, among thieves, of course.

HG

Why?

Um…and this is a tough one… because the US forces are wearing uniforms, have a policy to minimize not maximize civilian deaths, and are fighting for governments that abide by treaties. The forces opposed do not grant trials or consular access; they slit the throat and drag burned bodies through the streets. They seek to maximize civilian deaths to achieve political aims. There is a very big and recognizable difference. The fact that you do not recognize this shows just how uninformed and unintelligent the average “citizen” in the West has become.

You are right. We are all the same. Let moral confusion reign supreme.

Again, the Geneva Convention is very clear about who is NOT covered. Why is it that Protocol 3 failed to pass in the 1970s? It was an attempt to grant the same rights to terrorist and insurgent organizations. It failed to pass and this therefore it can be argued set a precedent that these people would NOT be covered by Geneva. To be covered by Geneva, you have to be in uniform or fighting in recognizable units, you have to abide by the treaty commitments. Again, I fully recognize that this is a gray area but not in the ways that you have suggested. While 911 may be an interesting “read,” the facts in this regard are quite clear. Those who do not subscribe to the treaty nor respect its terms and conditions are not granted its protections. It is that simple. You are aware, are you not? of Protocol 3? Do you know why it failed to pass? Are you aware of what a failure to pass means in terms of setting a precedent in terms of international law? Look, you people cannot have this both ways. Either you subscribe to international law or you don’t? Most of you claim to think that it is the cat’s meow. I am less certain. But don’t invoke it on the one hand and then decry it on the other.

Fred, you seem to continually get stuck on this kind of point. Just 'cause it is legal, doesn’t mean you should do it. Just because it is not covered by Geneva, doesn’t mean you should flout it.

[quote=“fred smith”]

Again, the Geneva Convention is very clear about who is NOT covered. Why is it that Protocol 3 failed to pass in the 1970s? It was an attempt to grant the same rights to terrorist and insurgent organizations. It failed to pass and this therefore it can be argued set a precedent that these people would NOT be covered by Geneva. To be covered by Geneva, you have to be in uniform or fighting in recognizable units, you have to abide by the treaty commitments. Again, I fully recognize that this is a gray area but not in the ways that you have suggested. While 911 may be an interesting “read,” the facts in this regard are quite clear. Those who do not subscribe to the treaty nor respect its terms and conditions are not granted its protections. It is that simple. You are aware, are you not? of Protocol 3? Do you know why it failed to pass? Are you aware of what a failure to pass means in terms of setting a precedent in terms of international law? Look, you people cannot have this both ways. Either you subscribe to international law or you don’t? Most of you claim to think that it is the cat’s meow. I am less certain. But don’t invoke it on the one hand and then decry it on the other.[/quote]

Hmm, CIA in Italy. Uniforms? Aah, no. Following international law? Aah, no. I guess we can dispense with the GC for these agents and expect rendition to be used to transport them to a nice, safe prison. Somewhere like Egypt maybe.

[quote=“fred smith”]Has Hicks denied that he had connections with Muslim extremists? Or has he just stated that he now understands the error of his ways? He can sit there and rot for all I care. It will give the Australian lager louts something to exercise their boozed brains and something to rant about other than the perfidious English. At least, we can do this small bit for our British allies. Absent Hicks, it is back to the old chip-on-the-shoulder, “I ain’t a felon, mate! Say it one more time or even look like you think that I am and I am going to beat the tar out of you, steal your car and burn your house down.”

Of course, the irony tends to get lost…[/quote]

A lot of what took place with Hicks will probably never be known, due in large part to the sham that was the tribunal, and his 5 years incarceration at Gitmo before the tribunal.

What is known is that pre-911 he was in the Taleban military, the same Taleban that was given $40 million by the US in May 2001. After 911, it’s hard to say exactly what status he had, as there are so many conflicting stories floating around. It is known that he was handed over to the US by the Northern Alliance. How the NA captured him is widely disputed. Some reports say that he was found by the NA in a Taleban prison, having been put there for either being a spy for the NA, or for trying to leave the Taleban post-911. Other reports say he was picked up at a bus stop. Still others say different things. It’s generally believed that he wasn’t caught on a battlefield, and he never fought against any US troops.

As to what’s true and what’s not, none of us can say with any certainty. It’s all speculation.

But there under treaty agreements with the Italian government. Sorry, you lose.

True. THESE agents, if captured, would not be allocated the same rights. BUT they are in Italy and therefore are under the protection of the Italian government which fully knows and understands that they are there, BUT if terrorists were to capture them, then THESE agents would not be entitled to those rights as detailed under Geneva.

That is the nature of covert operatives and their actions. So? What’s your point? I think that you are not very knowledgeable about this treaty and who it covers…

As to CFImages. The US does not allow torture. It has banned it. During the interrogations, waterboarding (now banned as torture) was used perhaps six to 10 times in very unique situations that required the highest authority. Sleep deprivation and provocative treatment like smearing menstrual blood (not real) on prisoners was used but harshly criticized but I can guarantee you that the interrogation methods in Israel are designed (on all travelers) to be as offensive as possible to provoke a reaction. These would be roughly akin to these measures though perhaps not to the same level or to the same duration. Shall I complain during my next visit? to Israel? or to any other country that uses tough tactics to question arriving passengers? I had the same experience in New Zealand. Why is questioning for an hour acceptable but five hours not? What about the local police in Taiwan? If you get taken to the station late at night, they will keep you there with lots of questioning and no access to a lawyer. Is that sleep deprivation? torture? abuse? I think that the concerns of most are “precious” in the extreme. These people were not picked up in situations that would lend themselves to “misunderstandings.” What about the right of people who are innocent civilians to expect protection from their governments? Lots of people have been released from Gitmo only to be captured later after having killed others. Who speaks for the victims in these cases? Let’s be honest here. Regardless of how they got to Gitmo, ain’t nobody a victim there if you get my drift… Gee. I am an Australian citizen who just happened to be deep in Taliban territory and we all know how welcoming the Taliban were of Westerners and their corrupt influences and I just happened to get through hundreds of miles of hostile terrain and just happened to have fallen in with the Taliban who were treating me for heat stroke and, er, that is, um, how I ended up in Gitmo. Someone sold me to the CIA and claimed that I had been fighting with them but really officer, I was just out for a walk with my dog and ended up hundreds of miles from Kabul among some of the most notorious killers in the country who just this once decided to allow me to live rather than slit my throat as they would have done with anyone else. Sound plausible?

Yawn … . and where is the scratching balls emoticon?

You lost this round from the outset, Fred, of course that won’t stop you bleating on ad nauseum.

HG

Fred, the CIA in uniforms and rendition to Egypt was written with sarcasm. You obviously lack a sophisticated sense of humour that is ingrained in us Aussies (and most Brits).

As to torture. I’m fully aware that the US has banned it, and that US personnel can’t participate in it. But there’s nothing that says that they can’t witness it while it’s being done by agents from a 3rd party. And there’s nothing to say that they can’t tell said 3rd party what questions to ask. Just as long as the US agents don’t ask the questions themselves, or actively participate in torture, they remain within the bounds of the ban.

And didn’t you spend umpteen pages recently in another thread telling us how waterboarding wasn’t torture? Changed your tune, have you?

Really? Then, you will have no trouble explaining how I have lost this round from the outset?

[quote]
of course that won’t stop you bleating on ad nauseum. [/quote]

What was the $40 million for? After all, the US was the No. 1 source of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan under the Taliban supplying 75 percent of its food aid. Right? How then does that signify that the US was wrong to fight the Taliban after 911? Why would it be wrong to arrest foreign nationals seen as abetting such a force particularly when the Australian national in question would be fighting not only against the US government but his own government as well? Let’s face it. We all know that David Hicks is a piece of shit with a long history of involvement with these types of organizations and suddenly because the legal framework is not yet in place to prosecute these individuals, he should get out on legal technicalities? I disagree. Anyway, he has gotten off with far less than he deserved. I am glad that he is back in Australia. Let HCG and the other descendants of felons welcome him warmly as he will be a new “badge of honor” for them to brandish in the face of the non-felon Brits and Yanks.

[quote=“fred smith”]Regardless of how they got to Gitmo, ain’t nobody a victim there if you get my drift… [/quote]And this is known how? Do they have special guards with W’s ability to look into detainees’ souls as they’re brought in?
“Evil. Evil. Evil. Wait! This one’s ok. Evil. Evil…”

Why so little faith in due process, fred?

Was it? I think not. I think that you are embarrassed by your lack of knowledge of who and what this treaty covers and were not expecting me to state that the treaty does not cover “undercover” US operatives like CIA agents.

I doubt that.

Good. Glad to see that you recognize that.

Well, given the delight with which most of the anti-American left revels in using loopholes and esoteric interpretations of treaties to beat up US government policy and actions, I would say, “right back at ya!”

It was not considered torture by the US government initially. The US government changed its position. I respect that change though I would still fully support use of waterboarding in these cases. So if you call that changing my tune fine. I call it dealing with new realities. Again, to me, waterboarding may be vastly unpleasant but not to the degree that CIA agents were not unwilling to test it out on themselves. A bit different I should think from having your fingernails pulled out, your hands smashed with a hammer or being strung up with electric shocks administered to your genitals, but then I am sure that I just don’t understand the subtle nuances involved here.

And now sleep deprivation to be torture? think of all the police forces and immigration officials and such that will be in line next for “unpleasant” and “abusive” questioning. I shall submit my complaint to the Israeli and NZ governments in the mean time… Where does it all end? Parents going to jail for sending little Susie to her room for “quiet time?” Others for sending their kiddies to bed without supper? My boss for making me work through the night to finish a project? haha How precious.

Why so eager to protect the “constitutional” and “civil” rights of those who flout them? Why so eager to bash the US for attempting to deal with a very difficult problem of barbarians who subscribe to no civilized rules whatsoever?

Why not get back to the original discussion of who should take responsibility for the fact that this killer was released? Who will be responsible to the family of the Chinese engineer and perhaps even of the kidnapped 24 Koreans? others who have been killed? kidnapped? threatened? had their “constitutional” and “civil” rights taken away by this man and others of his organization? We have been through all these other debates before. I want to know who is responsible NOW for this man being OUT where he has killed and hurt others.

The $40 million was a “reward” for ending opium cultivation. I wonder how much of it ended up being used by al Quaeda?

Lern to spel (deliberate just in case you don’t get this irony). It is al Qaeda.

Well, then prove how much ended up going to al Qaeda. You made the assertion so show us, prove it. Hardly a strong point for your argument, though. What was your argument by the way… Something like the US gave $40 million to the Taliban (then the legitimate and recognized government of Afghanistan for most nations) and thus it follows that David Hicks (like the US) was supporting the Taliban (in his own special way) so ergo the US does not have the right to prosecute David Hicks? Let me know if that is essentially what you are saying or is this that wonderful British and Australian sarcasm again that “I don’t get?”