NationStates Jolt Archive

As the title implies ... i suspect CanuckHeaven and a few others might already know about it.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-me-kar8jul08,1,5174305.story?coll=la-news-politics-supreme_court
Filmmaker Sues U.S. Over Iraq Detention
Cyrus Kar's civil case is said to be the first to test the legality of Pentagon policies on detainees.
By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
July 8, 2006


A Los Angeles filmmaker who was imprisoned in Iraq for 55 days sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials Friday, alleging that his detention violated his civil rights, the law of nations and the Geneva Convention.

Mark D. Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said the suit is the first civil action challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. government's detention and hearing policies in Iraq.

Cyrus Kar, 45, of Los Feliz was freed a year ago, just days after the American Civil Liberties Union sued seeking his release. The new lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, seeks damages for Kar and broad changes in the government's detention policies.

"The abuses experienced by Mr. Kar — prolonged arbitrary detention without charge, the systematic denial of access to counsel, and the absence of any court in which to challenge the legality of his detention — are the norm for thousands of persons held in U.S. military detention in Iraq," the suit asserts, citing reports by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International.

"Human rights monitors note that the vast majority of the over 15,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq have never been charged, tried, provided counsel, or allowed to challenge their detention in court, and over one-fifth of them have been detained for over a year in this manner," according to the suit.

In addition, the suit cites a 2004 Red Cross report that said military intelligence officers of coalition forces acknowledged "between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."

Kar, a U.S. citizen and Navy veteran, went to Iraq 14 months ago to make a documentary film about Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who wrote the world's first human rights charter.

On May 17, 2005, the taxi he was riding in was stopped at a Baghdad checkpoint and authorities found components in the trunk that are commonly used in improvised explosive devices. The taxi driver told military authorities that Kar and his cameraman knew nothing about the items, which the driver said he was bringing to his brother-in-law.

Kar also submitted to a polygraph examination and allowed the FBI to search his apartment. They found nothing incriminating, but he was held for many more weeks in various prisons around Iraq, including the notorious facility at Abu Ghraib.

Even after he was cleared by a military court at Camp Cropper, Kar was held another week. Eventually, the camp commandant gave him a letter stating that military judges found him to be an "innocent civilian" under the Geneva Convention.

While in confinement, the suit states, Kar was at various times hooded, restrained "in painful flexi-cuffs" and "repeatedly threatened, taunted and insulted" by U.S. soldiers.

At one point, according to the suit, a U.S. soldier slammed Kar's head into a concrete wall at Abu Ghraib.

"Mr. Kar was and remains traumatized by his indefinite and virtually incommunicado detention, in solitary confinement, by the U.S. military without charge," the suit says.

Since returning to the U.S., Kar has continued to work on his film. He said Friday that he is trying to raise money for postproduction editing.

What happened to him in Iraq was "a life-altering experience," Kar said. "I am not a left-wing liberal. I agree with many of George Bush's policies."

But, he added, "I don't think the Constitution has to be gutted to achieve our objectives" in the war on terrorism. "I felt it was my duty as an American to take a stand for the constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans."

The suit was filed by Rosenbaum and Ranjana Natarajan of the ACLU and volunteer attorney Dan Marmalefsky of the Morrison & Foerster law firm. In addition to Rumsfeld, the defendants include Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq; Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, who was in charge of detainee operations in Iraq at the time of Kar's detention; Lt. Col. Carol Haas, who was commandant of Camp Cropper when Kar was held there in solitary confinement; and Lt. Col. John Dunlap, who was president of the military's Detainee Status Board in Iraq.

On Friday, a Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department "does not discuss matters under litigation until the court has rendered a decision."

When Kar was released last July, military officials said he properly had been detained as "an imperative security threat" under the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution and that the matter had been handled and resolved appropriately.

"This case highlights the effectiveness of our detainee review process," Brig. Gen. Don Alston said in a prepared statement after Kar's release.

Good luck for Cyrus. He'll need it.

I wonder how much he's going to get.

I wonder how much he's going to get.
I'm not sure... I think 30 years for Treason.

Now watch as the government waves the magic wand called "National Security" and make this lawsuit go away in a poof.

If this amounts to anything at all, I suspect I'll go into shock.

I hope this guy wins. Seriously.

I'm not sure... I think 30 years for Treason.

Treason is suing your government for an uncharged arrest, denial of legal counsel and various things protected by the constitution is Treason now?

Don't you have a fascist camp to attend somewhere?

I suspect this will simply go away. It will come under "suing the state", which can be done, but only with the state's permission. Which is quite often given, oddly enough, but I don't think it will be in this case.

If this goes through, I'm putting the whole Current Government under Citizen's Arrest.

Gosh, Americans sue over everything, loss of civil rights, unlawful deaths, jesus

If this amounts to anything at all, I suspect I'll go into shock.

I'll be suprised if the 9th district appeals doesn't agree with the litigant. It will be the SCOTUS that Rules in favor of Rummy because the our wonderful new judges were handpicked for loyalty to Shrub.

In other words... Yeah, unless one of the moderates (I think Kennedy is the court's middle, right now) crosses over on the issue, nothing will come of it at the federal level.

It might hurt Bush's polls (If that is, indeed, still possible, given their somewhat lackluster appearance at the moment), assuming that spin alley doesn't turn this guy into a traitor and try to make it out as being about "Hating America"... If that happens our sheep moderates will be scared by the sheepdogs enough to get back in their pack for the deathmarch. =/

No matter what the court rules, Bush has made it clear he'll do what he wants anyway. :rolleyes:

Gosh, Americans sue over everything, loss of civil rights, unlawful deaths, jesus
Yeah, high time these frivolous lawsuits were all snuffed out so the courts can devote more time to pressing matters like whether fast-food customers found toenails in their bowls of chili or not - eh?

I'm not sure... I think 30 years for Treason.

Oh, sure, how dare him, being innocent, try to get some compensation over the unfair loss of civil rights?

Neocons are no better than pedophiles.

Now watch as the government waves the magic wand called "National Security" and make this lawsuit go away in a poof.
Indeed. It's happened with similar charges (such as that German guy).

"He's endangering our freedom to be arseholes!"

"No more lawsuit, then, and we'll prepare his plane to Gitmo!"

I think it's great. He served his country in the military, he embarked on a research visit to study some facet of the ancient world, and in a flash, he saw his country for what it is. Everything he thought he had fought for, taken away from him. The underlying reality, always there, exposed.

Pain. Disillusionment. May such understanding bless more people.

I think it's great. He served his country in the military, he embarked on a research visit to study some facet of the ancient world, and in a flash, he saw his country for what it is. Everything he thought he had fought for, taken away from him. The underlying reality, always there, exposed.

Pain. Disillusionment. May such understanding bless more people.

Well, yes, preferably the neocons OR preferably without 55 days of torture and unjust imprisonment. :p

<Snip>Sadly, I wrote what I did for the very same reasons. It basically comes down to being on the side of the PNAC or standing alone. The latter isn't a constructive career move & won't be for at least a generation.

If something was to comes from this, everyone involved in making it happen, would be blowing their legs off with a cannon - not many are willing to do that.

This suit probably won't get anywhere. But I wish him all the best because its about bloody time some tried to take that dolt down a peg or two.

I think it's great. He served his country in the military, he embarked on a research visit to study some facet of the ancient world, and in a flash, he saw his country for what it is. Everything he thought he had fought for, taken away from him. The underlying reality, always there, exposed.

Pain. Disillusionment. May such understanding bless more people.
...as much i'd bolded and italicized.
A-f*cking-men to that.

Pain. Disillusionment. May such understanding bless more people.

Not fast enough to make any difference. What we need are entire states having the Deluxe Disillusionment Package shipped to them. Texas first.

Not fast enough to make any difference. What we need are entire states having the Deluxe Disillusionment Package shipped to them. Texas first.

Kansas next! :D

Sadly, I wrote what I did for the very same reasons. It basically comes down to being on the side of the PNAC or standing alone. The latter isn't a constructive career move & won't be for at least a generation.

If something was to comes from this, everyone involved in making it happen, would be blowing their legs off with a cannon - not many are willing to do that.

Given what happened to the litigating military-lawyer in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, I'm inclined to agree.

Kansas next! :D
Seconded!

Gosh, Americans sue over everything, loss of civil rights, unlawful deaths, jesus

We can sue Jesus?!? COOL! :D

Should have just used him as pogy bait or hadji bait.

:p

We can sue Jesus?!? COOL! :D

Actually, I think Jesus would sue Christianity in general. What with how his words are being used, he might get a libel suit, maybe some defamation off too.

Mary Magdelene certainly could since it appears that she was never a prostitute.

Should have just used him as pogy bait or hadji bait.

:p
Rumsfeld? He was at one point. But our administration really liked him then too - and there ya go, Saddam's in power.

Actually, I think Jesus would sue Christianity in general. What with how his words are being used, he might get a libel suit, maybe some defamation off too.I guess he'd have a helluva time proving anything written by a bunch of people unconnected to him so many decades later had anything to do with what he said in the first place.
The suit wouldn't go far at all.
Further - if he had sense - he'd distance himself from it. I suspect he would.

Anywho, he's already come up here on NS about lawsuits.

Mary Magdelene certainly could since it appears that she was never a prostitute.
Not at all. She paid me!

Should have just used him as pogy bait or hadji bait.

:p
Holy fuck, that's racist.

Holy fuck, that's racist.Are you surprised?

Holy fuck, that's racist.

Have you met DM before? He once called all Arabs ragheads, and then got slammed by people disproving it. He says a lot of stuff like this...

Big deal. Until we improve the legal system with a "Loser Pays" policy, it's easy and not much of a risk to bring a lawsuit. However, I don't see where Rumsfield can be sued personally, neither can the government be sued. So it looks like more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

Have you met DM before? He once called all Arabs ragheads, and then got slammed by people disproving it. He says a lot of stuff like this...
That's right. We all know the proper term is "Camel Jockey".

Reminds me of a Mel Brooks movie I saw recently...

That's right. We all know the proper term is "Camel Jockey".

Reminds me of a Mel Brooks movie I saw recently...

You know, you never answered my question as to why people with lower back tattoo's are apparently 'sluts'.

You know, you never answered my question as to why people with lower back tattoo's are apparently 'sluts'.
You got the only answer I have. I don't know why, either. It just seems to be a common perception among people that are around the gulf coast.

I guess he'd have a helluva time proving anything written by a bunch of people unconnected to him so many decades later had anything to do with what he said in the first place.
The suit wouldn't go far at all.
Further - if he had sense - he'd distance himself from it. I suspect he would.

Well, he could issue a cease and desist can't he? Name brand theft and all that.


Not at all. She paid me!

To do what? And doesn't that make you the whore then? :p

Holy fuck, that's racist.
It suits "him". Have you, perhaps, perused other threads from "him"?

Well, he could issue a cease and desist can't he? Name brand theft and all that.
Perhaps - the patent issues would be a royal bitch though. I'm not really and truly convinced that his "press corps" :p were representing him and his best interests.


To do what? And doesn't that make you the whore then? :pOf course i hold different standards for my fantasies and literary heroes than i do myself. Gotta bring home da bacon, ya know? A clear conscience makes the best pillow! :)

You know, you never answered my question as to why people with lower back tattoo's are apparently 'sluts'.Whoa.. I'm a slut?! And my girl's a slut?!

Oh well.. At least we don't have "Les" in our nation names, so we aren't complete tossers.

I'll be suprised if the 9th district appeals doesn't agree with the litigant. It will be the SCOTUS that Rules in favor of Rummy because the our wonderful new judges were handpicked for loyalty to Shrub.I'm not so sure.

As an institution, the Supreme Court has historically backed down when it comes to "war"... but this so-called "war on terrorism" has been dragging on for so long without any signs of change that there are finally indications the Supreme Court wants to stand up for itself.

They may rule against the government just to show that they can... to retain some credibility as the defender of basic civil rights... because since they have "neither the purse nor the sword," credibility is basically their only kind of capital.

Moreover, the Bush Administration is not exactly dealing from a position of strength. Public support is flimsy at best, and this guy's story may be sympathetic to large numbers of Americans.

Moreover, in recent years the Court's "conservatives" have been (relatively) liberal when it comes to criminal defendant's rights. Remember when even good old Rehnquist decided to uphold Miranda (a decision he originally hated)?

At any rate, I don't think it's a given that they'll rule for the government. Should be interesting. :)

Treason is suing your government for an uncharged arrest, denial of legal counsel and various things protected by the constitution is Treason now?

Don't you have a fascist camp to attend somewhere?
I was assuming his tongue was planted firmly in cheek when he wrote that--I hope it was, anyway.

Should have just used him as pogy bait or hadji bait.

:p
So are you one of the folks talked about here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/07/MNG6TJRC1G1.DTL)?

Actually, I think Jesus would sue Christianity in general. What with how his words are being used, he might get a libel suit, maybe some defamation off too.

Mary Magdelene certainly could since it appears that she was never a prostitute.

Erm....libel is defamation...

Big deal. Until we improve the legal system with a "Loser Pays" policy, it's easy and not much of a risk to bring a lawsuit. However, I don't see where Rumsfield can be sued personally, neither can the government be sued. So it looks like more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

Incorrect. You fail civil practice. Try again.

Actually, I think Jesus would sue Christianity in general. What with how his words are being used, he might get a libel suit, maybe some defamation off too.

Mary Magdelene certainly could since it appears that she was never a prostitute.

Who Would Jesus Sue?

Who Would Jesus Sue?
If I were Jesus, I'd start with Fred Phelps and work my way through every single fundy and evangelical television preacher, and throw in Papa Ratzi and all the priests who ever diddled an altar boy for good measure.

And then I'd get to work on all the politicians who invoked my name while going for office.

If I were Jesus, I'd start with Fred Phelps and work my way through every single fundy and evangelical television preacher, and throw in Papa Ratzi and all the priests who ever diddled an altar boy for good measure.

And then I'd get to work on all the politicians who invoked my name while going for office.

I'd begin with pat robertson.

I'd begin with pat robertson.
He'd be the first in that second group I mentioned, only because Rotting Cryptkeeper Phelps is so absolutely disgusting. Robertson has no saving graces, to be certain, but he's not quite as loathesome as Phelps.

Incorrect. You fail civil practice. Try again.
I wouldn't practice law if it were the last profession on earth. Engineering and Physics are far more rewarding.

So what happened to the notion that one can't sue the government? I thought it had sovereign immunity.

He'd be the first in that second group I mentioned, only because Rotting Cryptkeeper Phelps is so absolutely disgusting. Robertson has no saving graces, to be certain, but he's not quite as loathesome as Phelps.

Not as loathsome? They're both the same, the only difference being in level of mainstream influence. Fred Phelps might be an insular cult leader who happens to be the real-life version of Reverend Henry Kane from the Poltergeist movies, right down to the cult family but he's not any more or less disgusting than PTL Pat.

They both celebrated human tragedy as divine wrath. Phelps claims the Swedes and Americans killed in the Tsunami and the Iraq occupation were God's Wrath™ against fags. Pat of course said Ariel Sharon's crippling stroke was God's Wrath™ for giving up the Gaza strip to the Palestinians.

Phelps brought his family to protest gay and military funerals; Robertsen called for the assassination of Hugo the Leftist Bogeyman Chavez. Pat also called Charles Taylor a Good Christian Man™ when he was deposed and replaced by Islamic rule.

Phelps has his collection of God Hates™ websites. Pat has the 700 Club and the PTL Ministries by default.

They're the same brand and flavor of crap packaged for different levels.

As the title implies ... i suspect CanuckHeaven and a few others might already know about it.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-me-kar8jul08,1,5174305.story?coll=la-news-politics-supreme_court
Filmmaker Sues U.S. Over Iraq Detention
Cyrus Kar's civil case is said to be the first to test the legality of Pentagon policies on detainees.
By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
July 8, 2006


A Los Angeles filmmaker who was imprisoned in Iraq for 55 days sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials Friday, alleging that his detention violated his civil rights, the law of nations and the Geneva Convention.

Mark D. Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said the suit is the first civil action challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. government's detention and hearing policies in Iraq.

Cyrus Kar, 45, of Los Feliz was freed a year ago, just days after the American Civil Liberties Union sued seeking his release. The new lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, seeks damages for Kar and broad changes in the government's detention policies.

"The abuses experienced by Mr. Kar — prolonged arbitrary detention without charge, the systematic denial of access to counsel, and the absence of any court in which to challenge the legality of his detention — are the norm for thousands of persons held in U.S. military detention in Iraq," the suit asserts, citing reports by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International.

"Human rights monitors note that the vast majority of the over 15,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq have never been charged, tried, provided counsel, or allowed to challenge their detention in court, and over one-fifth of them have been detained for over a year in this manner," according to the suit.

In addition, the suit cites a 2004 Red Cross report that said military intelligence officers of coalition forces acknowledged "between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."

Kar, a U.S. citizen and Navy veteran, went to Iraq 14 months ago to make a documentary film about Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who wrote the world's first human rights charter.

On May 17, 2005, the taxi he was riding in was stopped at a Baghdad checkpoint and authorities found components in the trunk that are commonly used in improvised explosive devices. The taxi driver told military authorities that Kar and his cameraman knew nothing about the items, which the driver said he was bringing to his brother-in-law.

Kar also submitted to a polygraph examination and allowed the FBI to search his apartment. They found nothing incriminating, but he was held for many more weeks in various prisons around Iraq, including the notorious facility at Abu Ghraib.

Even after he was cleared by a military court at Camp Cropper, Kar was held another week. Eventually, the camp commandant gave him a letter stating that military judges found him to be an "innocent civilian" under the Geneva Convention.

While in confinement, the suit states, Kar was at various times hooded, restrained "in painful flexi-cuffs" and "repeatedly threatened, taunted and insulted" by U.S. soldiers.

At one point, according to the suit, a U.S. soldier slammed Kar's head into a concrete wall at Abu Ghraib.

"Mr. Kar was and remains traumatized by his indefinite and virtually incommunicado detention, in solitary confinement, by the U.S. military without charge," the suit says.

Since returning to the U.S., Kar has continued to work on his film. He said Friday that he is trying to raise money for postproduction editing.

What happened to him in Iraq was "a life-altering experience," Kar said. "I am not a left-wing liberal. I agree with many of George Bush's policies."

But, he added, "I don't think the Constitution has to be gutted to achieve our objectives" in the war on terrorism. "I felt it was my duty as an American to take a stand for the constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans."

The suit was filed by Rosenbaum and Ranjana Natarajan of the ACLU and volunteer attorney Dan Marmalefsky of the Morrison & Foerster law firm. In addition to Rumsfeld, the defendants include Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq; Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, who was in charge of detainee operations in Iraq at the time of Kar's detention; Lt. Col. Carol Haas, who was commandant of Camp Cropper when Kar was held there in solitary confinement; and Lt. Col. John Dunlap, who was president of the military's Detainee Status Board in Iraq.

On Friday, a Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department "does not discuss matters under litigation until the court has rendered a decision."

When Kar was released last July, military officials said he properly had been detained as "an imperative security threat" under the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution and that the matter had been handled and resolved appropriately.

"This case highlights the effectiveness of our detainee review process," Brig. Gen. Don Alston said in a prepared statement after Kar's release.


Good for him and I wish him luck.

Good for him and I wish him luck.

Betcha you'd have said something else if he had been a brown-skinned Muslim.

So are you one of the folks talked about here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/07/MNG6TJRC1G1.DTL)?
Ha, he wishes. I'd put my money on DM being strictly a his-parents'-basement keyboard warrior.

Ha, he wishes. I'd put my money on DM being strictly a his-parents'-basement keyboard warrior.

You know what they say, youth, and extreme ultra fascism, is wasted on the young.

Mostly youth, but fascism too...

Betcha you'd have said something else if he had been a brown-skinned Muslim.



You would lose the bet . You just can't keep your preconcieved notions to yourself can you ?

In case you have not noticed living in your vile world ..the US military ..just like the US.. is made up of Black -Brown and white skinned Muslims and almost every other race or nationality or politics and religion...the're all Americans . just like the guy I sit and have coffee with every morning...he's a dun colored muslim...more on the tan side ..not quite " brown ' .

I doubt this will be a popular comment exactly, and moreover, do not even care. But my issue with the detainees being held at Guantanomo has always been that most all of them are not U.S. citizens and are not guaranteed rights automatically granted to our citizens by birth. Most of them are there for legitimate reasons, and they should indeed get their day in court with as little delay as possible. But make no mistake. They ARE NOT U.S. citizens, and do not have a right to an attorney, have no right to have their Miranda rights read to them. Foreign nationals do not have have American rights.

This case however is different. This man WAS a citizen, and has every right to do what he is doing now. Frankly, I hope he wins, if what he is saying is true.

But my issue with the detainees being held at Guantanomo has always been that most all of them are not U.S. citizens and are not guaranteed rights automatically granted to our citizens by birth. Most of them are there for legitimate reasons, and they should indeed get their day in court with as little delay as possible. But make no mistake. They ARE NOT U.S. citizens, and do not have a right to an attorney, have no right to have their Miranda rights read to them. Foreign nationals do not have have American rights.
Non-Americans are actually more upset about them not being afforded universal human rights.

I doubt this will be a popular comment exactly, and moreover, do not even care. But my issue with the detainees being held at Guantanomo has always been that most all of them are not U.S. citizens and are not guaranteed rights automatically granted to our citizens by birth. Most of them are there for legitimate reasons, and they should indeed get their day in court with as little delay as possible. But make no mistake. They ARE NOT U.S. citizens, and do not have a right to an attorney, have no right to have their Miranda rights read to them. Foreign nationals do not have have American rights.

This case however is different. This man WAS a citizen, and has every right to do what he is doing now. Frankly, I hope he wins, if what he is saying is true.

A trial, an attorney, and other rights are BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. America did not invent them, is not the only place with them and has to abide by them regardless of wether the person was born in Kansas City or in Kinshasa (Cities that are beginning to look more and more alike).

A trial, an attorney, and other rights are BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. America did not invent them, is not the only place with them and has to abide by them regardless of wether the person was born in Kansas City or in Kinshasa (Cities that are beginning to look more and more alike).
Yep. Those rights were made universal after a few interesting discoveries in wartime Europe.

Non-Americans are actually more upset about them not being afforded universal human rights.


The United States Supreme court also agrees with you . In fact I do believe orders have been issued to impliment the Supreme courts desicion..at least until they can get congress to come up with something equitable.

I'm pissed that they didnt already have congress involved..another mistake by Bush and co.

Its no wonder when they poll Americans as to who they would vote for if they had 2004 back ...Bush is in the thirty's and Kerry is in the low twentys..

It seems we have realised what ass munche's we had to choose from ..Athough I give Bush tons of credit for having the balls to fight back and stick with it ..I do agree with the decision to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan..and he's been doing a ffair job with the economy...lets face it his administration is loaded with assholes that cant find their own ass with both hands..and hhe's the boss ..so he gets no slack for his " hiring " pratice's ...I think Rice is a keeper and Gonzale's may prove to be ..but what a bunch of morons ...that leave's..

Sure lets wait a few years before we give the troops a little education on how to act in Iraq...:rolleyes: ...wait...no ...dont get me started...I could go on for pages....please I feel the tug of the darkside ....:eek:

Yep. Those rights were made universal after a few interesting discoveries in wartime Europe.

Tactic, I posted something in Moderation that might, yes, get me banned, but you'll see why, after Maimed's post.

On my possible last post for a while: What discoveries besides what Nazism did?

A trial, an attorney, and other rights are BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. America did not invent them, is not the only place with them and has to abide by them regardless of wether the person was born in Kansas City or in Kinshasa (Cities that are beginning to look more and more alike).

Unless you happen to be a terrorist, of course. In which case you should get what you deserve. And as for the U.N., we are only bound by what we choose to be bound by. Much like every country in the world, actually. Or are you under the delusion that each and every single U.N. member nation never intentionally ignores U.N. mandates whenever and wherever they decide to do so?

Unless you happen to be a terrorist, of course. In which case you should get what you deserve.
Only after due process, otherwise you can stop pretending to be better than the internet decapitators.

What discoveries besides what Nazism did?
That's what I was referring to. It was WW2 which made us realise that actually, detention without due process is pretty shit if allowed to go unchecked.

I hope this guy wins. Seriously.
Agr33d.

Only after due process, otherwise you can stop pretending to be better than the internet decapitators.

Nice high horse you have there. Go back and read ALL of my first post. I do recall saying that they should be given a speedy trial.

Nice high horse you have there. Go back and read ALL of my first post. I do recall saying that they should be given a speedy trial.
The Soviet Union was noted for its speedy trials and giving people "what they deserved".

It's due process, or you're not the good guys. Choose.

And damn right I'm on a high horse. I'm not dragging myself down to the standards of the people we are supposed to be fighting.

That's what I was referring to. It was WW2 which made us realise that actually, detention without due process is pretty shit if allowed to go unchecked.


If you ran a poll on how many Americans were ashamed at the treatment of prisoners in Abu Graib..you would get high 60 percent...face it there are those that think everyone in Abu Graib should have been shot ..or that the treatment they got was nothing compared to what they could or should have gotten... i mean this is the US ..you may have 10 percent that think Elvis lives ....and you STILL have those that think saddam was somehow tied into 9/11...depite contrary evidence .

So it should be no suprise that Americans ...most ..Americans want to see fair treatment of the detained of GTMO even if its a fair trial followed by a hanging . The thought of the government just being able to snatch people up and make them disapear doesn't sit well with most Americans.
most of us actually believe a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members....and how much weaker can you get than a guy captured and stuck on an Island with no one knowing where or who you are and no way to say " wait a minute " I was just oiling my goat ! then you guys blew up my shit ...next thing I know I have orannge pajama's and a sea breeze ...wtf happened ?

Rule of law and congressional oversite should have been anticipated and built into the detainment process.

Just another " my bad " by the idiots in charge .

The guy was in Iraq while he was caught in a Taxi that had bomb making materials in it, right about the time Fallujah was serious business... He's lucky to out of custody at all.


I think he will loose his case on merit and the lack of American civil court jurisdiction in a foreign war zone territory. However, if he can prove he was beaten severely while in custody, or something like that, then I wouldn't be surprised to see some more soldier/guards punished.

The guy was in Iraq while he was caught in a Taxi that had bomb making materials in it, right about the time Fallujah was serious business... He's lucky to out of custody at all.


I think he will loose his case on merit and the lack of American civil court jurisdiction in a foreign war zone territory. However, if he can prove he was beaten severely while in custody, or something like that, then I wouldn't be surprised to see some more soldier/guards punished.
Someone warn them they're in for a serious slap on the wrists. Possibly a note saying don't do it again if the court is feeling vindictive.

As the title implies ... i suspect CanuckHeaven and a few others might already know about it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-me-kar8jul08,1,5174305.story?coll=la-news-politics-supreme_court
Filmmaker Sues U.S. Over Iraq Detention
Cyrus Kar's civil case is said to be the first to test the legality of Pentagon policies on detainees.
By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
July 8, 2006

A Los Angeles filmmaker who was imprisoned in Iraq for 55 days sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials Friday, alleging that his detention violated his civil rights, the law of nations and the Geneva Convention.

Mark D. Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said the suit is the first civil action challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. government's detention and hearing policies in Iraq.

Cyrus Kar, 45, of Los Feliz was freed a year ago, just days after the American Civil Liberties Union sued seeking his release. The new lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, seeks damages for Kar and broad changes in the government's detention policies.

"The abuses experienced by Mr. Kar — prolonged arbitrary detention without charge, the systematic denial of access to counsel, and the absence of any court in which to challenge the legality of his detention — are the norm for thousands of persons held in U.S. military detention in Iraq," the suit asserts, citing reports by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International.

"Human rights monitors note that the vast majority of the over 15,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq have never been charged, tried, provided counsel, or allowed to challenge their detention in court, and over one-fifth of them have been detained for over a year in this manner," according to the suit.

In addition, the suit cites a 2004 Red Cross report that said military intelligence officers of coalition forces acknowledged "between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."

Kar, a U.S. citizen and Navy veteran, went to Iraq 14 months ago to make a documentary film about Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who wrote the world's first human rights charter.

On May 17, 2005, the taxi he was riding in was stopped at a Baghdad checkpoint and authorities found components in the trunk that are commonly used in improvised explosive devices. The taxi driver told military authorities that Kar and his cameraman knew nothing about the items, which the driver said he was bringing to his brother-in-law.

Kar also submitted to a polygraph examination and allowed the FBI to search his apartment. They found nothing incriminating, but he was held for many more weeks in various prisons around Iraq, including the notorious facility at Abu Ghraib.

Even after he was cleared by a military court at Camp Cropper, Kar was held another week. Eventually, the camp commandant gave him a letter stating that military judges found him to be an "innocent civilian" under the Geneva Convention.

While in confinement, the suit states, Kar was at various times hooded, restrained "in painful flexi-cuffs" and "repeatedly threatened, taunted and insulted" by U.S. soldiers.

At one point, according to the suit, a U.S. soldier slammed Kar's head into a concrete wall at Abu Ghraib.

"Mr. Kar was and remains traumatized by his indefinite and virtually incommunicado detention, in solitary confinement, by the U.S. military without charge," the suit says.

Since returning to the U.S., Kar has continued to work on his film. He said Friday that he is trying to raise money for postproduction editing.

What happened to him in Iraq was "a life-altering experience," Kar said. "I am not a left-wing liberal. I agree with many of George Bush's policies."

But, he added, "I don't think the Constitution has to be gutted to achieve our objectives" in the war on terrorism. "I felt it was my duty as an American to take a stand for the constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans."

The suit was filed by Rosenbaum and Ranjana Natarajan of the ACLU and volunteer attorney Dan Marmalefsky of the Morrison & Foerster law firm. In addition to Rumsfeld, the defendants include Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq; Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, who was in charge of detainee operations in Iraq at the time of Kar's detention; Lt. Col. Carol Haas, who was commandant of Camp Cropper when Kar was held there in solitary confinement; and Lt. Col. John Dunlap, who was president of the military's Detainee Status Board in Iraq.

On Friday, a Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department "does not discuss matters under litigation until the court has rendered a decision."

When Kar was released last July, military officials said he properly had been detained as "an imperative security threat" under the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution and that the matter had been handled and resolved appropriately.

"This case highlights the effectiveness of our detainee review process," Brig. Gen. Don Alston said in a prepared statement after Kar's release.
First I heard of this but it certainly is good that someone is seeking to hold the powers to be accountable for their inhumane actions. :D

I hope that this is the first of many such cases.

Treason is suing your government for an uncharged arrest, denial of legal counsel and various things protected by the constitution is Treason now?

Don't you have a fascist camp to attend somewhere?


Its called sarcasm dumbass.






People these days, jeeeeeeeeeze.

I hope that this is the first of many such cases.
Agreed. *bows*

Nice high horse you have there. Go back and read ALL of my first post. I do recall saying that they should be given a speedy trial.
Followed by an even speedier hanging? :rolleyes: What part of "human rights" do you not get? It doesn't matter what their crime is, or who they are, or where or how they were captured -- they have rights. The fact that the US signed the Geneva Conventions means that we have to honor those rights, even if they don't. Plus, the fact that US law says we have to honor those rights means we have to honor those rights, even if they don't. Period. Learn to cope. The good guys don't get to use the bad guys' tactics and still call themselves good guys.

<snip>

And damn right I'm on a high horse. I'm not dragging myself down to the standards of the people we are supposed to be fighting.
Ditto.

The good guys don't get to use the bad guys' tactics and still call themselves good guys.
Sigworthy.
*bows*

Followed by an even speedier hanging? :rolleyes: What part of "human rights" do you not get? It doesn't matter what their crime is, or who they are, or where or how they were captured -- they have rights. The fact that the US signed the Geneva Conventions means that we have to honor those rights, even if they don't. Plus, the fact that US law says we have to honor those rights means we have to honor those rights, even if they don't. Period. Learn to cope. The good guys don't get to use the bad guys' tactics and still call themselves good guys.

All I have to say in response to that is a rule for one is a rule for all or it means nothing. The Geneva Convention has been a shield that many nations continue to hide behind for convenience sake to this day. Many of the nations that report abuses of the Geneva Convention against the U.S. are the worst practitioners of what it purports to stand for. It has been a bad joke for years. You want to be moral and follow an agreement that very few if any nations have done any more than pay lip service to, particularly in the last few years, go right ahead. Have fun. Maintain that pretense. I say we are not bound by it. No one else pays any attention to it. Why should we?

That being said, I believe they should receive trials. Fair trials. And if they are found guilty, and the punishment is appropriate to the crime committed, then they should be hanged. And there is nothing wrong with that. And if they are found innocent, we send them home with profuse apologies. Though I doubt THAT will be a common occurance. The vast majority of the detainees are there for a very good reason, I am sure.

The "good guys" are that because they do not execute victims in cold blood without a trial, as have many of those detained at Guantanamo have done. They do not pander to them just because they have decided to stage a hunger strike to attract media attention. They do not back down because someone has decided to amp up for the upcoming elections by throwing hearts and flowers at foreign nationals that are probably criminals at best and murderers in the worst possible cases.

Learn to cope, indeed.

The vast majority of the detainees are there for a very good reason, I am sure.
For your sake, i'd suggest you look that one up, save the humiliation.
*nods*

Its called sarcasm dumbass.

This is called NS General noob. It's a place where you find people advocating the extermination of all people of Arabic descent, criticism of the government is an executable offence and where prisoners should be executed en masse without due trial.


People these days, jeeeeeeeeeze.

Stick around long enough on NS General sparky, and you'll find just what kind of peope hang around here.

For your sake, i'd suggest you look that one up, save the humiliation.
*nods*

Continuing pressure should be maintained against the Bush administration until the trials take place. And I repeat, FAIR TRIALS. And unless, you have a security clearance, I really doubt that you have very much more solid information than I do on it.

I doubt this will be a popular comment exactly, and moreover, do not even care. But my issue with the detainees being held at Guantanomo has always been that most all of them are not U.S. citizens and are not guaranteed rights automatically granted to our citizens by birth. Most of them are there for legitimate reasons, and they should indeed get their day in court with as little delay as possible. But make no mistake. They ARE NOT U.S. citizens, and do not have a right to an attorney, have no right to have their Miranda rights read to them. Foreign nationals do not have have American rights.

This case however is different. This man WAS a citizen, and has every right to do what he is doing now. Frankly, I hope he wins, if what he is saying is true.

Regardless of one being a US citizen or not, him being granted an attorney, and have their Miranda rights read to them are a given for basic human rights "All men are created equal." We are founded upon that line and if we don't follow it for all humans, we're hypocrites. So you just proved the hypocrisy of America.

Continuing pressure should be maintained against the Bush administration until the trials take place. And I repeat, FAIR TRIALS. And unless, you have a security clearance, I really doubt that you have very much more solid information than I do on it.You know you haven't posted info about what i noted AT ALL. Here's what you said:

The vast majority of the detainees are there for a very good reason, I am sure.
-translation:
"I like my answer even though i'm not going to bother qualifying it".

Unfortunately, this is even less substantial than "junkscience".

Anywho, there's already been a thread about how many actual trials vs. detained here. And i suspect i can repost if need be. I'm just saying that you're going on nothing here, and i'm calling you on that specific issue (not the rest).

You know you haven't posted info about what i noted AT ALL. Here's what you said:


-translation:
"I like my answer even though i'm not going to bother qualifying it".

Unfortunately, this is even less substantial than "junkscience".

Anywho, there's already been a thread about how many actual trials vs. detained here. And i suspect i can repost if need be. I'm just saying that you're going on nothing here, and i'm calling you on that specific issue (not the rest).

Frankly, I'm calling YOUR bluff, old man. I don't doubt that there has been a backlog of detainees. That should be addressed ASAP. My position was that most of the detainees are there for a good reason. These are not jaywalkers and bad check writers we have behind that fence. And you have done absolutely nada to prove that point to be incorrect. Post away with the actual trials vs. detained thread links if you like. It has nothing to do with that point. That would be simple misdirection.

You are sooooo good at that.

Frankly, I'm calling YOUR bluff, old man. I don't doubt that there has been a backlog of detainees. That should be addressed ASAP. My position was that most of the detainees are there for a good reason. These are not jaywalkers and bad check writers we have behind that fence. And you have done absolutely nada to prove that point to be incorrect. Post away with the actual trials vs. detained thread links if you like. It has nothing to do with that point. That would be simple misdirection.

You are sooooo good at that.

You're trying to tell us about something true. Straughn is debunking that. You're the affirmative, he's the negative. Affirmative holds the burden of proof.

So prove it.

Frankly, I'm calling YOUR bluff, old man. I don't doubt that there has been a backlog of detainees. That should be addressed ASAP. My position was that most of the detainees are there for a good reason. These are not jaywalkers and bad check writers we have behind that fence. And you have done absolutely nada to prove that point to be incorrect. Post away with the actual trials vs. detained thread links if you like. It has nothing to do with that point. That would be simple misdirection.

You are sooooo good at that.
Here is a list of detainees for you:

List of Guantánamo Bay detainees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees)

Frankly, I'm calling YOUR bluff, old man.;)
I don't doubt that there has been a backlog of detainees. That should be addressed ASAP. My position was that most of the detainees are there for a good reason. These are not jaywalkers and bad check writers we have behind that fence. And you have done absolutely nada to prove that point to be incorrect. Post away with the actual trials vs. detained thread links if you like. It has nothing to do with that point. That would be simple misdirection.

You are sooooo good at that.
Prisoners of conscience, then? Is that your point?
Further ... did you actually read the OP? I wouldn't say that makes an issue of redirection at all.

This is useful for perusal, here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-and-guantanamo-detainees.php
two lead lawsuits affecting the 460 detainees held indefinitely without charge and without due process are still pending in the District of Columbia Circuit
and
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-06/06-30-06/02world-nation.htm
The 10 detainees who had been facing trials were the only men charged with any crime among 759 suspects who have passed through Guantanamo. The court called the proposed trials illegal under both U.S. and international law.

Regardless the people in Gitmo are there because the government has reasonable suspicion or evidence that these people are terrorists or our enemies. The fact is that we are at war, bottom line.

You're trying to tell us about something true. Straughn is debunking that. You're the affirmative, he's the negative. Affirmative holds the burden of proof.

So prove it.

Impossible to prove. Impossible to disprove at this point. Do YOU have a security clearance and can produce the appropriate military records for the crimes charged against the detainees? I thought not. Next.

This is useful for perusal, here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-and-guantanamo-detainees.php

Good link. Nice and factual. Good job. The other one is pretty worthless, though.

I agree Bush has no leg to stand on in his stonewalling and preventing the detainees right to a speedy trial, and have never maintained otherwise.

Impossible to prove. Impossible to disprove at this point. Tautology. Hmmm, as if this were a religion thread or something?
Do YOU have a security clearance and can produce the appropriate military records for the crimes charged against the detainees?Corneliu might ... :rolleyes:

Impossible to prove. Impossible to disprove at this point. Do YOU have a security clearance and can produce the appropriate military records for the crimes charged against the detainees? I thought not. Next.

Then why must you insist on your lame proposal of 'most of them being held are there for good reasons'? Again, you were the affirmative here, and you failed to uphold your point. Do YOU have security cleance and can produce the appropriate military records for the crimes charged against the detainees to prove your point? I thought not. Next.

Then why must you insist on your lame proposal of 'most of them being held are there for good reasons'? Again, you were the affirmative here, and you failed to uphold your point. Do YOU have security cleance and can produce the appropriate military records for the crimes charged against the detainees to prove your point? I thought not. Next.

So you maintain that the detainees are all universally to a man to be guilty of nothing but misdemeanors, and that we would go through all that effort to transport them all the way across the world just to prosecute them for moving violations? Are you THAT naive?

Apparently so.

So you maintain that the detainees are all universally to a man to be guilty of nothing but misdemeanors, and that we would go through all that effort to transport them all the way across the world just to prosecute them for moving violations? Are you THAT naive?

Apparently so.

Do you even know that is coming through your mouth? I've never even went into depth about my opinion on the matter. I merely pointed out the severe flaw in your debating method.

What I'm maintaining is no matter why they are held in a secret base, they should have FULL rights. They are human beings and all human beings are equal. Regardless of they think so or not. Are you THAT naive to the fact that the all of these people are bad? Cut your losses and quit.