NationStates Jolt Archive

i know i'm less than shocked at the thought that secret military tribunals might be rigged against the people that we've been torturing for several years now, but it's still a story that needs to be spread. i can already hear the torture apologists busily trying to throw some mud up on this. perhaps they'll go with "those military prosecutors just hate america".


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426797.htm

Leaked emails claim Guantanamo trials rigged
By North America correspondent Leigh Sales

Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.

Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year - three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.

The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor.

Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.

"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Maj Preston wrote.

"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.

"I lie awake worrying about this every night," he wrote.

"I find it almost impossible to focus on my part of mission.

"After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."

Maj Preston was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.

Rigged?

The second email is written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department.

Capt Carr says the commissions appear to be rigged.

"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote.

"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.

"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he said.

Significant find

David Hicks' defence lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the documents are "highly significant".

"For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Maj Mori said.

David Hicks's father, Terry, says the latest revelations confirm what he has suspected all along.

"These commissions weren't set up to release people," he said.

"These commissions were set up to make sure they were prosecuted and get the time that they give them, and the other thing we've said all along, that we believe that this system has been rigged as they call it."

But the Pentagon's Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, who is a legal advisor to the military commissions, says an investigation has found the comments are based on miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts.

He says changes have been made in the prosecutors' office.

"I think what we did is work on some restructuring in the office, there was some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct, we found no evidence of any ethical violations," he said.

Brig Gen Hemingway says he does not know if the Australian Government has been informed of the claims.

"I can't tell you whether they were informed formally, I have so many contacts with representatives of your embassy here in town, the exchange of information has certainly been constant, open and significant but whether or not we got down into the details of this, I really have no recollection," he said.

"We certainly would have shared it with them if we found that there was any evidence of misconduct in the office of the prosecution, but we did not find any such evidence."

'Sufficient evidence'

Brig Gen Hemingway denies that the cases being prosecuted are low-level.

"All of the cases I have recommended that the appointing authority refer to trial, are cases upon which I thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant sending to a fact-finder," he said.

"In each of the four cases which have been referred, the appointing authority John Alterburgh made an independent determination that the evidence was sufficient to warrant trial."

He also denies that the commission panels are being hand-picked to insure detainees are not acquitted.

"I can tell you that any such assertion is clearly incorrect," he said.

"There is absolutely no evidence that it is rigged."

Guantanamo Bay Prison - The famous landmark of American stupidity

I wish I were surprised. I really do.

What part of "this 'torturing innocent people' nonsense is all leftist bullshit" do you not understand? Or are you too drugged out to understand that, you hippie?

WE DID NOT TORTURE ANYBODY WHO DIDN'T DESERVE IT.
Way to hold the moral and ethical high ground, America.

What part of "this 'torturing innocent people' nonsense is all leftist bullshit" do you not understand? Or are you too drugged out to understand that, you hippie?

WE DID NOT TORTURE ANYBODY WHO DIDN'T DESERVE IT.

sure... why should i believe you?

What part of "this 'torturing innocent people' nonsense is all leftist bullshit" do you not understand? Or are you too drugged out to understand that, you hippie?

WE DID NOT TORTURE ANYBODY WHO DIDN'T DESERVE IT.

I think this is sarcasm. I hope.

The last line was. I'm tired and can't think straight. I don't advocate torture, but I stand by my belief that the cries of "Stop torturing innocent Islamo-Fascists" are nothing but the products of anti-American leftists.

The last line was. I'm tired and can't think straight. I don't advocate torture, but I stand by my belief that the cries of "Stop torturing innocent Islamo-Fascists" are nothing but the products of anti-American leftists.

sure... why should i believe you?

ur getting burned

I wish I were surprised. I really do.

yeah, me too. but it does bring back the real question:

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/108261.jpg

The last line was. I'm tired and can't think straight. I don't advocate torture, but I stand by my belief that the cries of "Stop torturing innocent Islamo-Fascists" are nothing but the products of anti-American leftists.
And I stand by my belief that the bus will arrive at my stop every morning. The difference is that my belief is rooted in reality, whereas yours is based on supposition.
I'd be willing to take a bet on whose beliefs will be bourne out by the test of time, yours or mine. Would you?

You don't have to believe me. I never said you have to or you should.

I'm putting my opinions out there and that's all that matters. If everyone here calls me a racist, fascist, imperialist, or generic liberal insult for anyone who disagrees with them #65494219, I don't care.

You don't have to believe me. I never said you have to or you should.

I'm putting my opinions out there and that's all that matters. If everyone here calls me a racist, fascist, imperialist, or generic liberal insult for anyone who disagrees with them #65494219, I don't care.

ok Adolf Hitler

lol

You don't have to believe me. I never said you have to or you should.

I'm putting my opinions out there and that's all that matters. If everyone here calls me a racist, fascist, imperialist, or generic liberal insult for anyone who disagrees with them #65494219, I don't care.

You're like a caricature making fun of a caricature. Ironic.

ok Adolf Hitler

lol

Fuck you, scumbag. I had relatives I never knew who died in the Holocaust. My dad's older sisters never made it out of the concentration camps, so don't you dare call me Hitler.

And besides, I'm Polish, Russian and Cuban. Not even close to Hitler. In fact, 2/3 hated him for most of the war.

You don't have to believe me. I never said you have to or you should.

I'm putting my opinions out there and that's all that matters. If everyone here calls me a racist, fascist, imperialist, or generic liberal insult for anyone who disagrees with them #65494219, I don't care.

I haven't called you any names at all. Would you prefer it if I did? I can be most accomodating. I'm afraid I don't know the significance of "#65494219", perhaps you could elaborate on this?

I would like to point out that you're back-tracking, here. In this last post you say you're "putting (your) opinions out there", while in your previous post, you weren't talking about opinions, but beliefs. As in "standing-by-them". So, which is it? Opinion or belief?

I haven't called you any names at all. Would you prefer it if I did? I can be most accomodating. I'm afraid I don't know the significance of "#65494219", perhaps you could elaborate on this?

I wasn't directly implying that you would. You haven't even come close to name-calling.

I would like to point out that you're back-tracking, here. In this last post you say you're "putting (your) opinions out there", while in your previous post, you weren't talking about opinions, but beliefs. As in "standing-by-them". So, which is it? Opinion of belief?

I would like to restate that I am both tired and half asleep. Thus, the line between the two is blurred almost to the point of nonexistence.

Fuck you, scumbag. I had relatives I never knew who died in the Holocaust. My dad's older sisters never made it out of the concentration camps, so don't you dare call me Hitler.

And besides, I'm Polish, Russian and Cuban. Not even close to Hitler. In fact, 2/3 hated him for most of the war.
u get my apology
If everyone here calls me a racist, fascist, imperialist, or generic liberal insult for anyone who disagrees with them #65494219, I don't care.

And now u care.
Or are you too drugged out to understand that, you hippie?
I think you're drugged out to think before u post.

so about these rigged secret military tribunals for people who were kidnapped, held without charges or even an official status for years, tortured, etc...

What's with the trials anyway? I mean why bother. Milk them for the intel, then *blammo* send them to the firing squads. It's not like they have any legal rights in the first place.

What's with the trials anyway? I mean why bother. Milk them for the intel, then *blammo* send them to the firing squads. It's not like they have any legal rights in the first place.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Remember those rights? Freedom? Democratic values? It's what the US is feigning to be fighting for, at least.

What's with the trials anyway? I mean why bother. Milk them for the intel, then *blammo* send them to the firing squads. It's not like they have any legal rights in the first place.

everyone loves a good show trial. but then again americans already have "the people's court", so we don't even need to actually see these ones. we just like to think they are happening.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

OOOOH, a declaration. Well that must be binding. :rolleyes:

You'll be pulling out the UN charter next.

Remember those rights? Freedom? Democratic values? It's what the US is feigning to be fighting for, at least.

So you are saying we should free the detainees, and give them the vote?

And I thought you all said we were fighting for oil? So what's your problem here?

OOOOH, a declaration. Well that must be binding. :rolleyes:

You'll be pulling out the UN charter next.

Hey, the US is a notorious human rights abuser. I'm just showing you what you're paying lip service to.

So you are saying we should free the detainees, and give them the vote?

I'm saying that you should not violate their human rights, and that you should stand by the democratic principles you claim to have built your country on, and that you claim to be defending by these wars of yours.

And I thought you all said we were fighting for oil? So what's your problem here?

Oh, you most certainly are fighting for control over the supply of Middle Eastern oil, but if you're going to claim to be the good guys, I'm just going to expect that you behave like good guys. I'm not holding my breath until you do, though.

everyone loves a good show trial. but then again americans already have "the people's court", so we don't even need to actually see these ones. we just like to think they are happening.

Yes, but these would be secret in any case, so I can't see them being a hit with primetime news.

Meh. There are less than a thousand people at GITMO, and they were caught during hostilities. I don't see why anyone is getting bent out of shape about it; there are far greater injustices out there if you care to look.

The last line was. I'm tired and can't think straight. I don't advocate torture, but I stand by my belief that the cries of "Stop torturing innocent Islamo-Fascists" are nothing but the products of anti-American leftists.Ah, yes, but the left is decrying the torture of people that got picked up on the basis of accusations that may have been false, such as it happened in Yemen due to American pressure. Hundreds of people were detained and a lot of them are likely not to be "islamo-fascists". The Bush administration is also against a bunch of Muftis that are going into said Yemenite prisons to convince the "terrorists" that what they wanted to do was wrong because that might lead to letting suspects free.

What's with the trials anyway? I mean why bother. Milk them for the intel, then *blammo* send them to the firing squads. It's not like they have any legal rights in the first place.
The US could full well have them shot on the spot, but to do that now? That's not unlike a police officer subduing an armed criminal instead of killing him, then entering his cell and shooting the criminal point-blank.

Hey, the US is a notorious human rights abuser. I'm just showing you what you're paying lip service to.

Well according to your little declaration, so is just about everyone else. Including France, Germany and the UK. And I hardly think the US is notorious. An abuser, perhaps, but hardly notorious. A lot of people want to come here you know, so it can't be that bad.


I'm saying that you should not violate their human rights, and that you should stand by the democratic principles you claim to have built your country on, and that you claim to be defending by these wars of yours.

I fail to see how a non judicial approach to dealing with enemy combatants violates the democratic principles of the US. Personally, I think it was a dicks move to even talk about tribunals for them in the first place. It should have been handled in an administrative fashion by the millitary from the first instance.


Oh, you most certainly are fighting for control over the supply of Middle Eastern oil, but if you're going to claim to be the good guys, I'm just going to expect that you behave like good guys. I'm not holding my breath until you do, though.

Well, look, if you don't believe we are the good guys, why should you complain when you think we don't act like good guys. It makes no sense.

The bottom line is that you don't think that what the US is doing is right - regardless of GITMO. Even if we took all the detainees and gave them full and open trials in ordinary criminal court, you would still say that, because the war is obviously about oil &c. the US is still wrong and a still a hypocrite. Either you believe in what the US is doing or you don't. And if you don't there is no point in complaining about the details, because you still believe it is wrong in any case.

And as I said, there are far worse things to worry about, than what happens to these clowns.

Yes, but these would be secret in any case, so I can't see them being a hit with primetime news.

Meh. There are less than a thousand people at GITMO, and they were caught during hostilities. I don't see why anyone is getting bent out of shape about it; there are far greater injustices out there if you care to look.
You're forgetting the Kuwaiti tourists who were lured out to outlying areas for 'village feasts' who found themselves sold for five thousand dollars per head by the local Afghani warlords to American forces as 'terrorists'. They're also at Guantanamo Bay. They weren't caught during hostilities. They were sold during peacetime.

That's the sound of hot air leaking out.

You're forgetting the Kuwaiti tourists who were lured out to outlying areas for 'village feasts' who found themselves sold for five thousand dollars per head by the local Afghani warlords to American forces as 'terrorists'. They're also at Guantanamo Bay. They weren't caught during hostilities. They were sold during peacetime.

Hmm....let me think about it. Oh yes, that's it, I don't give a fuck. (Mind you I have been taking rather a lot of valium recently).

And "Kuwaiti Tourists"? Who in the hell vacations in taliban afganistan anyway? I am sure they were up to no good. I'll admit we screwed the pooch by giving that John Walker Lind (sp-?) fellow a trial. He should be down there too. But honestly, this whole thing is no different to any other type of collateral damage caused by war.

I honestly have no symapthy for the people at GITMO, by and large they are getting a lot less than they deserve. Maybe there are a *few* innocents that will get hurt along they way - though I doubt that - but hey, that's what happens with this type of thing.

That's the sound of hot air leaking out.

How's that again?

Well according to your little declaration, so is just about everyone else. Including France, Germany and the UK. And I hardly think the US is notorious. An abuser, perhaps, but hardly notorious. A lot of people want to come here you know, so it can't be that bad.
Notorious at least in the Developed World (or what I know about it, being Germany and Australia).
But how does the BRD abuse human rights?

Well according to your little declaration, so is just about everyone else.

Not really. Some countries have a cleaner record and actually work with the UN, by subjecting themselves to yearly reviews to mend the flaws in their systems.

Including France, Germany and the UK.

All subject to the European Court on Human Rights and have obeyed every ruling.

And I hardly think the US is notorious. An abuser, perhaps, but hardly notorious. A lot of people want to come here you know, so it can't be that bad.

A lot of people want to come to Europe, a lot of people want to come to Brazil. Doesn't say anything really about the areas themselves. Now, on your nation's notoriety, you are notorious for being the underachievers amongst first world nations in these matters, but you do remain a first world nation and you do project a view of yourselves ("land of the free, home of the brave," "we care about freedoms and rights," "we stand fast to democratic principles") that isn't all that truth worthy and doesn't fool those not desperate, but desperate people will buy it. So they come to you. Like they come to Europe, Canada, Brazil and so on.

I fail to see how a non judicial approach to dealing with enemy combatants violates the democratic principles of the US.

Do you even know what your democratic principles are? Because if you truly believe that summary execution without trial of prisoners you have surreptitiously tried to put into an artificial judicial vacume is something your democratic principles and values would support (your Supreme Court has fortunately come to a different conclusion not too long ago), then you truly are in a sorry state as a democratic nation.

Personally, I think it was a dicks move to even talk about tribunals for them in the first place. It should have been handled in an administrative fashion by the millitary from the first instance.

Well, then, your countrymen are fortunate not to have you in a leading position.

Well, look, if you don't believe we are the good guys, why should you complain when you think we don't act like good guys. It makes no sense.

I don't believe you are the good guys. Not in the sense that you wish to believe, if your media's projection of your own self-image is to believed, no. But you do project a self-image of being the good guys, and for wanting to spread democratic principles and not behave like a country that summarily executes prisoners without fair trials. Now, if you're going to claim it, I will expect that you back up those claims through actions. History this side of 1950, though, shows me not to hold my breath.

I'm not optimistic of your real motives, but I hold you to your professed ones. As the USA image would have us believe, you should have no difficulties living up to them.

The bottom line is that you don't think that what the US is doing is right - regardless of GITMO.

No, GITMO is a part of it. You could be doing the wrong thing in Iraq, and still be doing the right thing at GITMO. But, so far, you're doing wrong things in both places. I can separate and criticise both. That's not a herculean feat at all.

Even if we took all the detainees and gave them full and open trials in ordinary criminal court, you would still say that, because the war is obviously about oil &c. the US is still wrong and a still a hypocrite.

I would say that you would be doing the right thing by those people and by your principles in that instant. What you do to these people, though, without it having any sort of effect at what you did and are doing in Iraq, would not change my opinion of Iraq at all. Again, the possibility of me separating two distinct things and being able to see you do what is right in one, and what is wrong in another.

Either you believe in what the US is doing or you don't.

Spare me the simplistics. "Either with us, or against us" is a black and white doctrine so failed, you should all be thoroughly ashamed of it by now.

And if you don't there is no point in complaining about the details, because you still believe it is wrong in any case.

I recap here: You can do the right thing in one place and the wrong thing in another. Doesn't change the rightness of one or the wrongness of the other. Your "either or" vision is just inaccurate.

And as I said, there are far worse things to worry about, than what happens to these clowns.

I disagree. The standing of the victims of human rights abuses is not diminished by the labels you apply to them.

Notorious at least in the Developed World (or what I know about it, being Germany and Australia).
But how does the BRD abuse human rights?

Article 19, I would imagine. I don't really have a beef with it though. Just pointing out that the charter is not binding unless you accept that just about everyone is violating it in some respects.

Article 19, I would imagine. I don't really have a beef with it though. Just pointing out that the charter is not binding unless you accept that just about everyone is violating it in some respects.
Article 19 of what? Of the UN Charter? It has nothing to do with human rights.

Article 19, I would imagine. I don't really have a beef with it though. Just pointing out that the charter is not binding unless you accept that just about everyone is violating it in some respects.
Well it's close, but Germany doesn't actually stop anyone from having the opinion. It's about going out there and acting it out that there are laws.
And how does Luxembourg violate the charter?

Article 19 of what? Of the UN Charter? It has nothing to do with human rights.

I meant the declaration of Human Rights.

I meant the declaration of Human Rights.
The UDHR is not a binding international agreement, it is a wish list.

10.41 (am, I think USians would say - 24 hour clock is something you need to look into to) in the morning here and I haven't slept at all this night, so I'm kind of crashing out of exhaustion now. Will have to remember to return to this thread.

Bye all!

i know i'm less than shocked at the thought that secret military tribunals might be rigged against the people that we've been torturing for several years now, but it's still a story that needs to be spread. i can already hear the torture apologists busily trying to throw some mud up on this. perhaps they'll go with "those military prosecutors just hate america".
Keep in mind that the decision that the detainees have a greatly abridged set of rights, and may find what little due process available to them from tribunals as opposed to trials has it's roots in the warcrimes trials which followed World War II in the Philippines. Many of the Japanese prisoners were rushed swiftly to the gallows to the great offense with those in the military charged with preparing and presenting defenses and to the total appathy of the American public ultimately to be religated to the footnotes of history books.

This is what America is. Give the appearence that you're going to fuck with us, and we will end you, miserably. Oh we talk a lot about the merits of always wearing the white hat, ideals before all else. But at the end of the day if it takes a black hat and work gloves to get the job done, well it's not a whole lot different than Thunderdome. "Fair", "just", these concepts just aren't part of the equation those poor sons of bitches find themselves in.

It happened before. It's happening now. It will happen again. And just in case anyone out there thinks they'll find themselves on the business end of American hardware, when the guys with patches of "a chicken" on their arm knock on your door, the proper response is, "Come in come in. I love America. I want my son to go to Harvard and my daughter to work at Spearmint Rhino. McDonalds. Las Vegas. Very good."

Not really. Some countries have a cleaner record and actually work with the UN, by subjecting themselves to yearly reviews to mend the flaws in their systems.

I never said america was the "best". I just said it wasn't really notorious. I mean you don't wake up in the morning and think "OMFG more human rights atrocities in the US" - well most people don't. It's not like we are beheading gays, or burning women's faces with acids, or locking people up for praying.

So really, the label, "notorious" is just silly hyperbole. All the while there are countries with real human rights problems, that aren't on anyone's radar.


All subject to the European Court on Human Rights and have obeyed every ruling.

So muslim girls *can* wear headscarves to public school now? Face it - and I was pointing out - precious few nations measure up to the Declaration on Human rights, and never have.

A lot of people want to come to Europe, a lot of people want to come to Brazil. Doesn't say anything really about the areas themselves. Now, on your nation's notoriety, you are notorious for being the underachievers amongst first world nations in these matters, but you do remain a first world nation and you do project a view of yourselves ("land of the free, home of the brave," "we care about freedoms and rights," "we stand fast to democratic principles") that isn't all that truth worthy and doesn't fool those not desperate, but desperate people will buy it. So they come to you. Like they come to Europe, Canada, Brazil and so on.

Did it ever occur to you that the US conception of rights, and the European one may not be identical? The country I know the most about outside of the US is the UK, and I could level many same criticisms towards it in reverse. (Despite it being subject to the European Court of Human Rights).

Anyway, my point was, if the US was the pit of oppression you are painting, why would anyone come here? (And given our large immigrant population word would soon get out if it was otherwise). Indeed people would be leaving. The US still has free elections, freedom of speech, due process and a functioning judicary. You have more healthcare, we have more economic freedoms and guns. (But we like it that way).


Do you even know what your democratic principles are? Because if you truly believe that summary execution without trial of prisoners you have surreptitiously tried to put into an artificial judicial vacume is something your democratic principles and values would support (your Supreme Court has fortunately come to a different conclusion not too long ago), then you truly are in a sorry state as a democratic nation.

I probably have a better idea of those principles than you do. But the fact remains, the detains are not individuals that are swept of the street in the dead of night by secret police. And yes they are in a legal vacuum. Had the Taliban been a functioning state, they would have been uniformed soldiers, and treated according to the Geneva convention and there would be no problem in detaining them without trial and interrogating them until the cessation of hostilities. Instead however, it was a failed terrorist warlord state with uninformed combatants fighting for it. As such, these prisoners fall into a novel catagory. (Though I suspect we could shoot them as spies without trial if we chose; and it probably would be legal).

There seems to be a wrong-headed notion that they are prisoners in the "penal" sense. And this is simply not the case.

Well, then, your countrymen are fortunate not to have you in a leading position.

But......... I was going to establish a sinking government fund to hold huge sexy parties.


I don't believe you are the good guys. Not in the sense that you wish to believe, if your media's projection of your own self-image is to believed, no. But you do project a self-image of being the good guys, and for wanting to spread democratic principles and not behave like a country that summarily executes prisoners without fair trials. Now, if you're going to claim it, I will expect that you back up those claims through actions. History this side of 1950, though, shows me not to hold my breath.

Well now you are saying that the US should live up to this romanticized media ideal. That's just silly and unrealistic. You might as well complain that the british empire failed to live up to Ruyard Kipling.

Try and be realistic instead. After WWII, for better or worse there was a bi-polar world order, with two competing ideologies. On balance, the US did more good than not in the last half of the twentieth century. It's hardly fair to judge it by the hollywood's portrayal though.

I'm not optimistic of your real motives, but I hold you to your professed ones. As the USA image would have us believe, you should have no difficulties living up to them.

Again with the image? It's a completely unfair basis on which to judge a nation.

No, GITMO is a part of it. You could be doing the wrong thing in Iraq, and still be doing the right thing at GITMO. But, so far, you're doing wrong things in both places. I can separate and criticise both. That's not a herculean feat at all.

I would say that you would be doing the right thing by those people and by your principles in that instant. What you do to these people, though, without it having any sort of effect at what you did and are doing in Iraq, would not change my opinion of Iraq at all. Again, the possibility of me separating two distinct things and being able to see you do what is right in one, and what is wrong in another.

The point is, it doesn't matter if you are able to parse it out or not. It would not change your opinion of the US one iota.


Spare me the simplistics. "Either with us, or against us" is a black and white doctrine so failed, you should all be thoroughly ashamed of it by now.

I never suggested that you "should be with us". I suggested that whatever is done it GITMO, will not effect the way you think of the US at all. So stop being inflamatory. What Bush said is irrelevent.


I disagree. The standing of the victims of human rights abuses is not diminished by the labels you apply to them.

Now you are being simplistic. No-one is applying "labels", I am telling you who these individuals are. And because of what they are, they don't really deserve sympathy. They are not "victims" at all. They were assholes who got caught. If you are going to shed a tear about afghans, why don't you spare a thought for their victims occasionally instead.

The UDHR is not a binding international agreement, it is a wish list.

I know that. In fact, that is what I was pointing out.

I wish I were surprised. I really do.
My sentiment exactly. Guantanimo Bay is a testiment to the mindless panic and hatred that has come out of America since September 11th.

Who needs conspiracy theories?

bump

come on people, the prosecuters involved with the secret military tribunals say the thing was rigged. i demand outrage.

ABC shall now and forever be known as the Anti-American Broadcasting Company. Am I right? :p

ABC shall now and forever be known as the Anti-American Broadcasting Company. Am I right? :p
Because they dared broadcast something your government did that was inhumane, debasing and cruel? You know, in Britain patriots are loyal to their country, not to their Government.

Because they dared broadcast something your government did that was inhumane, debasing and cruel? You know, in Britain patriots are loyal to their country, not to their Government.

Exactly! How dare they dissent from our govt.'s stance on the issue. :p

Exactly! How dare they dissent from our govt.'s stance on the issue. :p

even worse are those goddamned unamerican american military people who wrote the emails in the first place

come on people, the prosecuters involved with the secret military tribunals say the thing was rigged. i demand outrage.
You won't get it. Sadly.

You won't get it. Sadly.


*outrage* :p

But yeah you won't get it from the conservatives. They are probably happy about it.

ABC shall now and forever be known as the Anti-American Broadcasting Company. Am I right? :p
Naah, the Busheviks will call it Allah's Bullshit Chanter. :D

the silence is deafening. so how about this:

republicans support torture. republicans support war crimes. republicans support indefinite detention. republicans support fucking kangaroo court show trials. republicans oppose their own gaddamned constitution, not to mention humans rights and enlightenment principles in general.

in other words, bump.

i know i'm less than shocked at the thought that secret military tribunals might be rigged against the people that we've been torturing for several years now, but it's still a story that needs to be spread. i can already hear the torture apologists busily trying to throw some mud up on this. perhaps they'll go with "those military prosecutors just hate america".


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426797.htm

Leaked emails claim Guantanamo trials rigged
By North America correspondent Leigh Sales

Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.

Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year - three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.

The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor.

Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.

"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Maj Preston wrote.

"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.

"I lie awake worrying about this every night," he wrote.

"I find it almost impossible to focus on my part of mission.

"After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."

Maj Preston was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.

Rigged?

The second email is written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department.

Capt Carr says the commissions appear to be rigged.

"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote.

"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.

"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he said.

Significant find

David Hicks' defence lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the documents are "highly significant".

"For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Maj Mori said.

David Hicks's father, Terry, says the latest revelations confirm what he has suspected all along.

"These commissions weren't set up to release people," he said.

"These commissions were set up to make sure they were prosecuted and get the time that they give them, and the other thing we've said all along, that we believe that this system has been rigged as they call it."

But the Pentagon's Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, who is a legal advisor to the military commissions, says an investigation has found the comments are based on miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts.

He says changes have been made in the prosecutors' office.

"I think what we did is work on some restructuring in the office, there was some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct, we found no evidence of any ethical violations," he said.

Brig Gen Hemingway says he does not know if the Australian Government has been informed of the claims.

"I can't tell you whether they were informed formally, I have so many contacts with representatives of your embassy here in town, the exchange of information has certainly been constant, open and significant but whether or not we got down into the details of this, I really have no recollection," he said.

"We certainly would have shared it with them if we found that there was any evidence of misconduct in the office of the prosecution, but we did not find any such evidence."

'Sufficient evidence'

Brig Gen Hemingway denies that the cases being prosecuted are low-level.

"All of the cases I have recommended that the appointing authority refer to trial, are cases upon which I thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant sending to a fact-finder," he said.

"In each of the four cases which have been referred, the appointing authority John Alterburgh made an independent determination that the evidence was sufficient to warrant trial."

He also denies that the commission panels are being hand-picked to insure detainees are not acquitted.

"I can tell you that any such assertion is clearly incorrect," he said.

"There is absolutely no evidence that it is rigged."

a)Not torturing them...

b)Feeding them well... (far better diet than most americans eat...)

c)It probably is some left-wing nut job just trying to blindly smear Bush/America...

How's that for a response? LOL.

the silence is deafening. so how about this:

republicans support torture. republicans support war crimes. republicans support indefinite detention. republicans support fucking kangaroo court show trials. republicans oppose their own gaddamned constitution, not to mention humans rights and enlightenment principles in general.

in other words, bump.

...democrats support baseless accusations and dead-wrong inferences...

or, since you started the name-calling game:

democrats are pussies who live in a dream world where terrorists should be appeased and that appeasing them will somehow lead to less terrorism.

although you're a communist, which is actually worse than being a democrat... so take the negative values attached to the above statements and double them.

Hey, that wasn't a bump.

a)Not torturing them...

b)Feeding them well... (far better diet than most americans eat...)

c)It probably is some left-wing nut job just trying to blindly smear Bush/America...

How's that for a response? LOL.

inadequate. a is just delusional, b is just irrelevant, and c is just stupid.

but i suppose that sums up the entire pro-torture camp's response to all of this shit for the past couple years.

the silence is deafening. so how about this:

republicans support torture. republicans support war crimes. republicans support indefinite detention. republicans support fucking kangaroo court show trials. republicans oppose their own gaddamned constitution, not to mention humans rights and enlightenment principles in general.

in other words, bump.
Almost every politician holding high office nowadays opposes the constitution, not just Republicans.
On a side note, torture of foreign fighters has nothing to with the constitution, the major parties violate it for other reasons.

That being said, while I do not support the war, I recognize that innocents will be hurt in war ,and as long as we are in it anyway, I want to win.
It’s all part of being loyal to my country, not the government. ;)