Obama Administration Secures Conviction of Khadr

[Coito ergo sum]

This fiction that a US military court can be unbiased is just ludicrous. Who could possibly defend it?

Maybe the United Nations, which allows for the use of military tribunals by detaining nations under the Geneva Conventions, including but not limited to ARticle 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.

Oh the irony the geneva convention was considered not applicable to people who were in gitmo but to defend the yankee way of doing things it is?!.

It's not ironic at all. Sections of the third Geneva Convention relate to determining whether someone is actually a "Prisoner of War" or not. A "Prisoner of War" is entitled to more things than a combatant who does not qualify as a "Prisoner of War."

Coito, your argument about precedents is crazy. So military tribunals have been used before. That makes it all right in your eyes?
Does the same logic apply to the jews? There is a precedent for mass murder, so it should be ok now then?
"Someone did it before" is a non-argument. You never cease to amaze me.
.

Right wing people especially the intellectual types are generally full of shit why does this amaze you?

At least I read the stuff we're talking about. Your blind ignorance of the Geneva Conventions is glaringly obvious.

You just like to sling labels like "right wing," which I'm not (I'm liberal on most issues), and then mutually masturbate with others about how it "amazes you."

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with the Obama Administration's military tribunal? If so, what? Is it illegal? Is it a war crime? Please - do enlighten us.

[eXcommunicate]

My feelings are hurt that you fail to acknowledge that I tacitly support your position, Coito. ;_;

[Coito ergo sum]

My feelings are hurt that you fail to acknowledge that I tacitly support your position, Coito. ;_;

Hadn't gotten to it - but, you didn't acknowledge that I also agreed with your position that precedent does not mean we can't change to something better....and, it was taking me a little time to recover my composure.....

[eXcommunicate]

Oh snaps. I see now that you did reply to my first post. I am a happy camper now.

So, right, I too have come to the conclusion that the demonization of the U.S. on this issue is somewhat unwarranted. I think we on the Left should have focused on pushing for new precedents based upon our purported ideals, instead of demonizing the Bush Administration over it. There was and is plenty to demonize Bushco for (torture, rendition, etc.), but this isn't one of them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh snaps. I see now that you did reply to my first post. I am a happy camper now.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, right, I too have come to the conclusion that the demonization of the U.S. on this issue is somewhat unwarranted. I think we on the Left should have focused on pushing for new precedents based upon our purported ideals, instead of demonizing the Bush Administration over it. There was and is plenty to demonize Bushco for (torture, rendition, etc.), but this isn't one of them.

Torture allegations which are denied by the "accused," and "legally" they have a pretty damn good argument based on international law and the decisions of various tribunals like the European Commission on Human Rights, which have actually upheld as "not torture" most if not all of the "enhanced measures" used by the Bush administration when those same methods have been used by other countries (Britain, France, Austria, etc.).

And, "rendition" is not illegal, and hence the reason why the Obama Administration still does it, and maintains the same position on it as the Bush Administration. Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/po ... ition.html (they've pledged that they will oversee it better, though...)

[eXcommunicate]

Well, again, your argument rests on precedent. Just because other western countries have interrogated their prisoners in "enhanced" ways does not mean the methods are above reproach. So, the Bush and Obama Administrations win on technicality. Not very satisfying.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, again, your argument rests on precedent. Just because other western countries have interrogated their prisoners in "enhanced" ways does not mean the methods are above reproach.

Of course not.

And, by the same token, just because methods are below reproach doesn't make them "torture."

There is a line somewhere. Some would suggest that we can't even speak harshly to prisoners. Others suggest that some violence is o.k. in certain situations.

International law has ruled in many instances that very extreme treatment did not amount to "torture." The idea was bandied about for the last several years that bad treatment of prisoners was an American invention and that somehow the Americans were the ones that reduced the level of treatment. That is not correct. All one need do is look to how the Brits treated IRA prisoners, and the French treated prisoners, and the Austrians, and other countries around the world.

So, it's not so much the objection to the treatment itself that bothers me. It's the self-righteous finger-pointing by Europeans claiming some moral high ground that history does not warrant them adopting.

[eXcommunicate]

So, it's not so much the objection to the treatment itself that bothers me. It's the self-righteous finger-pointing by Europeans claiming some moral high ground that history does not warrant them adopting.

Same.

[mistermack]

So torture is legal, so it's ok. And military sham trials are legal, so they are ok.
Sitting in helicopters machine-gunning women and children in Gaza legal, so it's ok.
It's legal to travel ten thousand miles to a far-off country and kill civilians, that's defending your country.
But it's illegal to throw a grenade at foreign troops who invaded your home soil.

I'm beginning to prefer sharia law. Throwing a grenade at US troops was perfectly legal. So was 9/11. Praise Allah.
.

[sandinista]

So torture is legal, so it's ok. And military sham trials are legal, so they are ok.
Sitting in helicopters machine-gunning women and children in Gaza legal, so it's ok.
It's legal to travel ten thousand miles to a far-off country and kill civilians, that's defending your country.
But it's illegal to throw a grenade at foreign troops who invaded your home soil.

I'm beginning to prefer sharia law. Throwing a grenade at US troops was perfectly legal. So was 9/11. Praise Allah.
.

That about covers it. It's american international law, you should recognize it. If the US does it, it's legal, if anyone else does the same thing, its illegal, and a war crime or crime against humanity. Also, you can blow people up legally, only it has to be from bombers and jet fighters. If it's done on the ground it's "cowardly" and "terrorism".

[Coito ergo sum]

So torture is legal, so it's ok.

No. Who said torture was legal? Torture is not legal. However, not everything unpleasant is torture.

And military sham trials are legal, so they are ok.

No. Shams aren't legal. But, military trials aren't necessarily shams.

Sitting in helicopters machine-gunning women and children in Gaza legal, so it's ok.

No. Nobody said that. That's not legal. However, it's also not true, and also not an allegation against the United States.

Lobbing rockets from Gaza into Israel is not legal or o.k. either.

It's legal to travel ten thousand miles to a far-off country and kill civilians, that's defending your country.

No. Nobody said that. It is legal to travel 10,000 miles to go after the terrorist organization that is being harbored in another country and after you've demanded that the country hand over the terrorists or assist in their apprehension, to militarily enter that country and get the job done. That's called self-defense. We don't have to tolerate Al Qaeta operating from Afghanistan and planning and carrying out attacks against the US.

But it's illegal to throw a grenade at foreign troops who invaded your home soil.

The guy pled guilty.

In my view, it's not illegal for Afghanis/Taliban to fight against US troops. That's why I wouldn't have tried the guy, absent some allegation that amounts to a war crime. If the guy was fighting as a soldier for the Taliban government, and was captured, like any combatant captured pursuant to the Third Geneva Convention he should be held indefinitely until hostilities end, without trial, and then released to his home country.

I'm beginning to prefer sharia law.

Good for you. There are plenty of places where Sha'ria is in force. Enjoy!

Throwing a grenade at US troops was perfectly legal. So was 9/11. Praise Allah.
.

I thought you said attacking civilians was not legal? So wouldn't 9/11 be illegal then?

[sandinista]

"The guy plead guilty"??? Really? Thats the closer is it. Look what he has been subjected to and for how long.

http://www.nationalpost.com/Stalin+woul ... story.html

look at this, even the fucking national post...first time I've ever quoted that shit rag.

The original communist torture techniques, which for a time inspired the standard operating procedures at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and the secret black sites, were not designed to elicit truth. They were designed to produce false confessions: That was the whole point. They were designed to force people to say what interrogators wanted to hear -- yes, I am a capitalist stooge, yes I am a Trostkyite, yes I am a terrorist.

And now Guantanamo's very first military tribunal has its first guilty verdict, thanks to those methods of coercion first perfected for the Soviet Bloc show trial. My God, what have we done? Somewhere in hell, Joseph Stalin is smiling.

[mistermack]

That about covers it. It's american international law, you should recognize it. If the US does it, it's legal, if anyone else does the same thing, its illegal, and a war crime or crime against humanity. Also, you can blow people up legally, only it has to be from bombers and jet fighters. If it's done on the ground it's "cowardly" and "terrorism".

Still, at least there are plenty of them going home in body bags, which is some justice. And it's getting more and more obvious they're going to lose the war.
I just hope they don't make loads of crappy films, once they've done a runner and left their "allies" to their fate, like vietnam.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

"The guy plead guilty"??? Really? Thats the closer is it. Look what he has been subjected to and for how long.

http://www.nationalpost.com/Stalin+woul ... story.html

look at this, even the fucking national post...first time I've ever quoted that shit rag.

The original communist torture techniques, which for a time inspired the standard operating procedures at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and the secret black sites, were not designed to elicit truth. They were designed to produce false confessions: That was the whole point. They were designed to force people to say what interrogators wanted to hear -- yes, I am a capitalist stooge, yes I am a Trostkyite, yes I am a terrorist.

And now Guantanamo's very first military tribunal has its first guilty verdict, thanks to those methods of coercion first perfected for the Soviet Bloc show trial. My God, what have we done? Somewhere in hell, Joseph Stalin is smiling.

Huh... I can't believe it....the Obama Administration would never have relied on that kind of testimony, would they? Surely, if the guy was tortured, the Obama administration would have not accepted a guilty plea coerced in that manner?