Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:56 pm

To say the policy mandates this conduct, you'd have to believe it applies universally.

What?

If the White House delegates responsibility for intel gathering to Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld delegates it to Cambone, and Cambone says 'cool. I know just what to do' and proceeds to order mass torture, how is that not policy?

I have a feeling we're talking past each other. Either I'm missing something, or you are, or we both are.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:32 am

Rotku wrote:I don't see how you come to this conclusion, cipher. Should it have been the opposite way around, an American been held unlawfully in Canada (or anywhere else for that matter in the western world) for five years, I am sure there would be just as much outrage.

I have serious doubts about that Rotku. Let's take the fairly recent abduction of 3 American soldiers in Iraq. At least one turned up dead showing signs of torture. Consider the abduction of 2 Israeli soldiers by Hamas last year, who I think are still missing but presumed long dead. Consider the four American contractors that were burned, mutilated, and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, two of which were strung up on a bridge. Was there any outrage expressed over any of these incidents by the folks that are routinely outraged when Americans cross that line?

I wonder if you polled this community how many people would actually sympathize with Omar Khadr and resent America even though, in all likelihood, this is a family that supports Islamic extremism?

(1) America is THE world power - the spotlight is on them; and (2) as a result, and the fact that they claim to be a force of good, upholding freedom and democracy, should they slip from that themselves people are going to question them.

I don't mind the criticism. In some cases, it's rightfully deserved. But you have to realize that selective criticism skewed against America isn't going to be well received by many Americans.

MXLM:

I think we're clearly misunderstanding each other.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:44 am

ç i p h é r wrote:Was there any outrage expressed over any of these incidents by the folks that are routinely outraged when Americans cross that line?

Yes. I'm not sure how familiar you are with international media apart from BBC, but there usually is a lot of sympathy for the victims and condemnation of such acts here in Germany, both in media as well as in public - minutes of silence in commemmoration being the most common. And that in a nation in which 70% of the population opposed your war in Iraq.

I would not call it "outrage" perhaps, but then again it is pretty clear that rage has never been a good counsellor for policy and one's reaction to a threat.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:22 am

ç i p h é r wrote:If that grenade had somehow killed a Canadian soldier, wouldn't that be construed as an act of treason?

So which is it? On one hand you argue about him being a POW and on the other a terrorist. He was labelled an enemy combatant by the US military and SHOULD have been treated as a POW. What he did happened on the battlefield, not from a terrorist attack and if a Canadian was killed in the same manner he still should have been classified the same way... because that's what actually happened. To debate a different scenario is pointless.

I guess what irks me Kate is that you (and many others) rail against American overzealousness but have very little to say about people like these so called citizens of Canada. There's an "inequity" in the moral outrage, certainly on these forums.

Now here you've just proven how little you know or care about what happens outside the US. First off, there is only ONE Canadian in custody for fighting in Afghanistan and terrorist cells have been disrupted on Canadian soil and those citizens rightfully charged and held for actual trials. There is certainly outrage here in Canada over what was being planned. This moral inequity you speak of is BS.

I'll also say that Canada learned a hard lesson in Somalia back in 1993 about torture and abuse. It's the lessons learned that makes most Canadians sensitive on the subject of torture because of the blowback to our international reputation that's still felt to this day.

Kate

KalevD · Post by **KalevD** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:00 am

Personally, I find that there is too much emphasis on his Canadian citizenship in this matter. The focus should be on his crime as well as his legal standing rather than whether or not he should be returned to Canada.

My concern is if he is returned home...what then? Will we arrest him and send him to trial? If so, then would his age at the time of the incident place him under the Young Offenders Act? If so, would not the matter then be dismissed now that he is over the age of 18?

I'm not saying his legal status is anything close to ideal, but I do believe the nature of his crime would be more appropriately handled by the US legal system as it was against one of their citizens in a theatre of war.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:12 am

I do agree that it seems a little cheesy that people with a citizenship from one of the western nations seem to get special treatment compared to the other shmoes locked up in Gitmo, of whom I'm sure some are actually more innocent than that Canadian.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:34 pm

MorbidKate wrote:So which is it? On one hand you argue about him being a POW and on the other a terrorist. He was labelled an enemy combatant by the US military and SHOULD have been treated as a POW. What he did happened on the battlefield, not from a terrorist attack and if a Canadian was killed in the same manner he still should have been classified the same way... because that's what actually happened. To debate a different scenario is pointless.

Am I explaining this poorly? I'm not arguing both points. I'm saying that I believe either CAN be argued legitimately. The US picked one. You've picked another. Whichever one sticks would be fine by me. Regardless of what you want to call him, my question was if he had killed a Canadian soldier (ergo took up arms against his own country), wouldn't that be an act of treason? If yes, what does Canada do with traitors?

Kate/Alara:

I'm using this forum as my barometer - I think it's a pretty good indicator of international sentiment given the makeup of our community, if somewhat left leaning. Is it unfair to say that the complaints on these forums are almost exclusively about US abuses? It doesn't seem so but I certainly don't read everything that's said.

sgould72 · Post by **sgould72** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:31 pm

Is it unfair to say that the complaints on these forums are almost exclusively about US abuses?

Can't speak for all, obviously, but I do understand your point, which I take to be "Why is everyone so riled up about the crappy things America is doing and seemingly not concerned about the crappy things the other side is doing?"

For me, it is not a matter of not being concerned about the barbaric things that a terrorist group does. Their actions are outrageous and should be condemned and punished. But I think in many ways the reason some of us are so vocal against the abuses on our side boils down to differences in expectations. I expect a terrorist to act like...a terrorist. I expect him to try and blow things up, or behead an innocent if he gets the chance. On the other hand, I expect better from my own country. I expect that if we, as a society, are to be taken seriously in condemning and combating terrorist behavior, then we can not act as terrorists ourselves. There are certain values that are very plainly evident in both the Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution. Two documents that I think we can agree are major pillars in the formation of the US and its "self-identity" if you will. Those documents are both very well reasoned, and clearly work to establish us as a nation of laws, and to eliminate abuses of governmental power and authority. Torture does not fit into that framework very well. Unlimited detention without charge doesn't either. Of course, I realize that non-citizens are not covered by those documents. However, for myself, I can not escape the thought that if we truly value freedom, justice, and equality under the law, then we have to apply those values to everyone equally. Even our enemies. That means, to me, it is no more right for a non-citizen to be held without charge, representation, or trial for 5 years, then it would be for me. That does not mean I think terrorists should be glibly released to cause more mayhem. It does mean I think they should be lawfully tried, the evidence against them presented, and a sentance passed. Vengence is an ugly thing. It allows for people to be assumed guilty because of what they look like or where they live. And when we allow ourselves to conduct our affairs that way, it makes us no different than the terrorists we claim to be saving the world against. But if we have to act like them to win, then ask yourself...who will save the world from us when this is over? The path to totalitarianism can be a remarkably short and smooth one. All it takes is a little fear, and a "leader" to take advantage of that fear, tell you who is to blame for it, and say "I can protect you, if you will allow me to." Ask the Germans.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:32 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:Kate/Alara:

I'm using this forum as my barometer - I think it's a pretty good indicator of international sentiment given the makeup of our community, if somewhat left leaning. Is it unfair to say that the complaints on these forums are almost exclusively about US abuses? It doesn't seem so but I certainly don't read everything that's said.

Well, I think we all agree here on how outrageous most of the committed atrocities are. So what is the point in discussing them? The audience here is almost entirely made up from western democracies. Were there muslims and middle eastern people, I'm sure heated debates about the root of extremist fundamentalism and what is acceptable as resistance would be just as plentiful.

Apart from that, with Calis mostly in hiding now I'm the only german actively posting here, and I think I never joined in "outraged" finger pointing at the Bush administration (I don't believe they're evil...), while having made it pretty clear I do not agree with terrorism. So if you use me as a barometer, I think you'll get a pretty even-handed picture, and I'd be a bit saddened if you accused me of hypocrisy here. Even if you don't read everything, this thread alone should give you a different picture than that I am willing to tolerate terror while crying foul at the US legal system.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 am

Short version of what sgould said: 'We're supposed to be the Good Guys, they're supposed to be the Bad Guys'

sgould72 · Post by **sgould72** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:38 am

Short version of what sgould said: 'We're supposed to be the Good Guys, they're supposed to be the Bad Guys'

Castano · Post by **Castano** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:12 am

nobody wants these people released, not their home countries who would have to decided what to do with these Taliban madrassa trained (or brainwashed) guys who want to continue their jihad as soon as possible and not the US which would see huge outcry if they let these 800 go and they ended up killing american soldiers.

the debate above shows our civilized system doesn't really cover this situation where there is no country to fight and no possibility they will ever surrender (will we hold them forever, build a little ex-taliban prison in the desert someplace?). (the only real way to win is to find some way to eliminate radical Islam - but that is another debate)

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:27 pm

Or radical westernism.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:08 pm

Apparently at a Republican debate that I missed, Ron Paul actually laid some of the cause for 9/11 at our own feet by referencing our past actions in the Middle East. Rudy tore him a new one, to much applause, refuting that we had *anything* to do with 9/11.

9/11 and this war on terror have been quite a tragedy, but another tragedy is that at least a third of the country hasn't learned a damn thing from it, other than to increase their fear and hate.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:11 pm

Mulu wrote:9/11 and this war on terror have been quite a tragedy, but another tragedy is that at least a third of the country hasn't learned a damn thing from it, other than to increase their fear and hate.

Yes, fear and hate seem to be the motivators for a lot of current responses to the threat.