One of the reasons I like to listen to Democracy Now is because so much of what they investigate and bring to light eventually makes it to the mainstream news as fact. I think they try to be very accurate in their reporting. And they don't hesitate to question or criticize either major party or any candidate on issues.

No Iraqis are in Gitmo.



We don't know what the military knew and what they didn't.



We are talking about a book written by liberal Jane Mayer. She cites an alleged CIA report. Everything we know about this report is according to her. I don't suspect that she is making things up but given her known bias I certainly am not going to place much confidence in her perspective. That would be like trusting Rush Limbaugh's interpretation of a report on Clinton that only Rush Limbaugh has seen.



Please don't spit on these men and women when they come home and call them baby-killers or terrorist torturers.

I agree Neil. This is not be good.

Shane quotes me:
And responds:
You excised my own answer to my own rhetorical question: we don't know because there was no trial. This is not about multiple sources of news, and it's not about liberal and conservative. Natural justice says prisoners have the right to hear and respond to the charges against them in a timely manner, and those proceedings should be public so that justice is seen to be done. If there had been open trials we would know.

And we never knew how many of the German POWS were actually Nazis, because they were enemy combatants. If they were combatants but were not wearing uniforms, they could be summarily shot as spies. And all under the "Geneva Convention."

Oh, and we didn't grant them trials either.

Since Al Qaeda abjures uniforms as a tactic, it would be an option to execute them all. No one, of course, is advocating that.

In war, it can be difficult to distinguish the perpetrators from the accessories. When the combatants refuse to wear uniforms, or worse, disguise themselves as civilians, this makes matters worse. But any confusion is the fault of those who choose to hide among the civilians. They intend it, they choose it, they use it.



Natural justice? Well, it wasn't natural for thousands of years of Earth's history. Or perhaps you're an advocate of 'natural law,' as are Justices Scalia and Thmoas.

The idea of natural justice coincides with the Declaration of Independence where rights are endowed by the Creator, NOT by governments, and that governments are responsible to "Nature, and Nature's God."

But that strikes socialism at its heart.

Here's an interesting interview from today. Some of it sounds more reassuring, while other things remain concerns. Keep in mind that this is the former chief prosecutor - not a defense attorney.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/fmr_chief_guantanamo_prosecutor_says_military

Interesting. Bravus says:



And what does this fellow "DemocracyNow" finds so interesting have to say:



Since the Gitmo detainees were in fact detained because they were found in battlefields, the U.S. has "an inherent right, that goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia, to detain" them. The only reason for them to get any sort of trial is if they are charged with a violation of the law of war.

That throws Bravus' assertion out the window. They were detained in a war zone. No further charges are necessary to keep them "from causing harm today and tomorrow."

And thus, the title of this thread is invalidated. Whether or not they are 'innocent' of war crimes has nothing to do with whether they can be detained. In most past wars, the vast majority of combatants were not guilty of war crimes--but their detention was quite lawful.

Don't know what you are talkin' about, Shane...No one here in my neck of the woods, and there are a lot of rednecks around here, and peaceniks, who are NOT saying anything of what you are claiming. Maybe in YOUR neck of the country, but not here. We appreciate what the military is doing....But we also know that there are oppertunities for bad apples to come to fruition in the military....

That is why I hold MY American military to a higher standard. They play fair, even to thier detriment. They get the job done, and if they need to do it ruthlessly, they do so according to the Geneva convention, and other principles that apply to the rules of war.

But if they are out to maim and murder people, then they are out to harm mankind, and as far as I am concerned, they can be tried as war criminals....

What exactly is the "battlefield"? The entire country of Iraq? The entire Middle East? The entire world?

Anyway, it seemed to me that the main point of the interview was showing that even the chief prosecutor (not a defense attorney) felt so strongly that the detainees will not get a fair trial, that he resigned over the issue:

AMY GOODMAN: Except the CIA is saying that perhaps up to a third have been held mistakenly, not even enemy combatants, as Bush has defined it.
COL. MORRIS DAVIS: Right. And that, I’ll agree with. I mean, I—I guess I drank the Kool-Aid on that one, as well, believing that the CSRT process and the administrative review boards were a robust process where the individuals did get, you know, a significant look at whether they were being properly detained. And I think that’s what the Supreme Court has done in Boumediene, is say there’s some doubt about the validity of that process and that these individuals are entitled to some meaningful review. But I think if a person gets meaningful review and they’re determined to be an enemy combatant and we’re engaged in armed conflict, that we have the right to detain them and keep them off the battlefield.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think they got meaningful review at Guantanamo?
COL. MORRIS DAVIS: Well, it certainly appears that that’s doubtful in many cases.

Oh, let me quote it again.



Please show me, tell me, amaze me with stories of other nations with military in combat situations that has acted more ethical and more just than the American men and women in uniform.

Prisoner abuse takes place in nearly every prison, civilian and military, that I am aware of. That is not to excuse it. That is not to say it is acceptable. But if it takes place in county jails and state prisons, why would we expect it not to take place in military prisons? Why would anyone "expect" more from "their" military than they get from their state and federal civilian prisons?