Does Iraq deserve Due Process?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-10 04:26pm

Right now there are something like 43,000 Iraqi prisoners in the prison system of Iraq, held by Americans since the invasion who have not been told what their crimes are (or at least their family has not been told) and who have not been allowed visits by their families and loved ones and have not been scheduled for trial. (Only about 600 of that larger group have been referred to the new Iraqi Ministry for trial or even charged.)

If Iraq is supposed to be a new vibrant democracy in the Middle East, held as a shining examples for others and one whose very concept has terrified the terrorists, you would think that Due Process would be right up there as one of the things we want to make sure Iraqis get right.

If Iraq is truly sovereign and not simply words to make people feel like something positive is going on in Iraq why are US soldiers running the prisons, holding thousands prisoner without charges and Iraq stands by and says and does nothing.

Unfortunately, most Americans can truly give a shit what happens to Iraqi prisoners. You would think the Abu Graid scandal would have caused a massive uproar here. Instead a couple of people are court martialled and not much else happens.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-10 04:35pm

Last time I checked POWs aren't put on trial. I think the vast majority of them are being held simply because they're the enemy and we captured them. Now the ones that are going to be tried should be at the first practical and safe oppurtunity. That's only reasonable and we ought to give them due process.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-10 04:38pm

Stormbringer wrote:Last time I checked POWs aren't put on trial. I think the vast majority of them are being held simply because they're the enemy and we captured them. Now the ones that are going to be tried should be at the first practical and safe oppurtunity. That's only reasonable and we ought to give them due process.

Many of these people have been seized dureing the occupation for suspicion of helping the insurgents. From many of the family members' stories some were taken away in the middle of the night and one father held up a stub that allowed him to see his son in April 2005?!

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-10-10 04:46pm

Stormbringer wrote:Last time I checked POWs aren't put on trial. I think the vast majority of them are being held simply because they're the enemy and we captured them. Now the ones that are going to be tried should be at the first practical and safe oppurtunity. That's only reasonable and we ought to give them due process.

Aren't POWs typically released when the war is over? And the war in Iraq, officially, at least, has been over for quite some time now.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-10 04:50pm

Stravo wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Last time I checked POWs aren't put on trial. I think the vast majority of them are being held simply because they're the enemy and we captured them. Now the ones that are going to be tried should be at the first practical and safe oppurtunity. That's only reasonable and we ought to give them due process.
Many of these people have been seized dureing the occupation for suspicion of helping the insurgents.

Which again, would make them prisoners of war. Since that war is ongoing we're under no obligation to release them.

Stravo wrote:From many of the family members' stories some were taken away in the middle of the night and one father held up a stub that allowed him to see his son in April 2005?!

Boo fucking hoo. Just because they have family and friends doesn't mean they can't be terrorists and insurgents. I fail to see what relevance a bunch of weepy stories of "we can't see daddy" has on this at all. I'm sure the Nazi POWs we had all had family that missed them and wanted to see them too. It doesn't change a damn thing as far as the reasons we're holding them.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-10 04:54pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Stravo wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Last time I checked POWs aren't put on trial. I think the vast majority of them are being held simply because they're the enemy and we captured them. Now the ones that are going to be tried should be at the first practical and safe oppurtunity. That's only reasonable and we ought to give them due process.
Many of these people have been seized dureing the occupation for suspicion of helping the insurgents.

Which again, would make them prisoners of war. Since that war is ongoing we're under no obligation to release them.

I distinctly recall Bush announce the war was over. On an aircraft carrier. With a giant banner in back of him.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-10 05:45pm

Stormbringer wrote: Boo fucking hoo. Just because they have family and friends doesn't mean they can't be terrorists and insurgents. I fail to see what relevance a bunch of weepy stories of "we can't see daddy" has on this at all. I'm sure the Nazi POWs we had all had family that missed them and wanted to see them too. It doesn't change a damn thing as far as the reasons we're holding them.

Yes, I'm sure also that with their lack of due process in Iraq, there is only a slim chance that the US Army is taking away innocent people.

Do you even know what the purpose of due process is? As of right now, is there any need for evidence it order to arrest someone in Iraq and hold them indefinitely? That doesn't sound like the bastion of Democracy that Bush's crowd make it out to be.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-10-10 06:46pm

I've heard stories of suspect's families been taken into custody if the person on the warrent wasn't home at the time. During the abuse scandel, didn't it come out that 80 - 90% of the folks in prison acutally had nothing to do with the insurection?

Without due process, anyone can be imprisioned and held indefinetly. Anyone with a grudge can falsely accuse a neighbor and get them put away. America is justifibly proud of its legal system, too bad it isn't applied outside of america.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-10 07:07pm

The Kernel wrote:
Do you even know what the purpose of due process is? As of right now, is there any need for evidence it order to arrest someone in Iraq and hold them indefinitely? That doesn't sound like the bastion of Democracy that Bush's crowd make it out to be.

Kind of hard to be a bastion of democracy if you haven't had any elections yet. And given Afghanistan's recent clusterfuck of an election, I have zero hope for a successful election in Iraq. One that includes every elligible Iraqi, not the 70% that the USA is pushing.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-11 12:43am

Cpl Kendall wrote: Kind of hard to be a bastion of democracy if you haven't had any elections yet. And given Afghanistan's recent clusterfuck of an election, I have zero hope for a successful election in Iraq. One that includes every elligible Iraqi, not the 70% that the USA is pushing.

Yes, but you can still take steps towards Democracy. As of right now, Iraq is under military occupation and, for all intents and purposes, martial law. Bush has been clamoring for months that the Iraqis are free and happy when they were probably a LOT happier under Saddam (with the exception of the Kurds anyways).

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-11 12:47am

Of course they deserve due process, how can the US claim to be establishing a democratic state when it denies even the most basic rights to the new states citizens. *Looks at Guantanamo Bay*, oh, bugger it, never mind.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-10-11 01:07am

Of course they deserve due process, but no one here has yet to offer how it should be given to them. Should the US try them in military courts, or should we throw them to the nonexistant Iraqi legal system? Perhaps we should just let everyone go so they can blow up more market places and police stations. Of course the obvious answer is either A. we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, or B. we should have fucking planned for a realistic occupation, but those options are a little too late.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-11 03:24am

Wicked Pilot wrote:Of course they deserve due process, but no one here has yet to offer how it should be given to them. Should the US try them in military courts, or should we throw them to the nonexistant Iraqi legal system? Perhaps we should just let everyone go so they can blow up more market places and police stations. Of course the obvious answer is either A. we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, or B. we should have fucking planned for a realistic occupation, but those options are a little too late.

You're right, maybe it's impossible at this stage to give them due process anytime soon. What CAN be done though is to be upfront about the state of things in Iraq so that we at least know that change is coming. If the Bush Administration were to say "Yes, the people in Iraq are being shortchanged from a legal standpoint, but we have a plan to deal with it and things are getting better" then at the very least there would be a concentrated effort to try to turn things around. Sadly we know the chances of the current administration being forthright about the state of affairs in Iraq is about as likely as an original Rat Pack reunion.

It isn't just the current state of the Iraqi legal system that worries me, it's the fact that I don't see any change for the better since the occupation began.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-11 03:28am

Drooling Iguana wrote: Aren't POWs typically released when the war is over? And the war in Iraq, officially, at least, has been over for quite some time now.

No actually, when you invade a nation its quite common hold onto the POW's you capture for quite some time, even if the nation surrenders. This happened after both WW1 and WW2. Many Germans got to enjoy Russian camps until 1955 or even later in a few cases.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-11 04:47am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote: Aren't POWs typically released when the war is over? And the war in Iraq, officially, at least, has been over for quite some time now.
No actually, when you invade a nation its quite common hold onto the POW's you capture for quite some time, even if the nation surrenders. This happened after both WW1 and WW2. Many Germans got to enjoy Russian camps until 1955 or even later in a few cases.

Things in the US are pretty fucked up if you have to use the behavior of Stalinist Soviet Russia as justification for current US practices.

Edi

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-11 10:22am

Edi wrote: Things in the US are pretty fucked up if you have to use the behavior of Stalinist Soviet Russia as justification for current US practices.

Good thing that's not what I was doing, because the US and Britain both held onto their German POW's in camps in Germany several years.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-10-11 10:58am

Drooling Iguana wrote:Aren't POWs typically released when the war is over? And the war in Iraq, officially, at least, has been over for quite some time now.

No not realy, they tend to be released when their captor think it is safe to do so. SOP in most conflicts and IIRC not prohibited in any treaty.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-10-11 11:05am

The Kernel wrote:Bush has been clamoring for months that the Iraqis are free and happy when they were probably a LOT happier under Saddam (with the exception of the Kurds anyways).

LOL! Yeah sure. The only Iraqis who miss Saddam is his Baathist thugs. The Kurds and Shiites hate him with passion. With the exception of Sadr's little insurrection almost all terrorist & resistance activity in Iraq is Sunni based (Baathists or A-Q)

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-10-11 11:07am

Edi wrote:Things in the US are pretty fucked up if you have to use the behavior of Stalinist Soviet Russia as justification for current US practices.

France held WWI prisoners well into the 1920'ies.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-11 01:12pm

CJvR wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Bush has been clamoring for months that the Iraqis are free and happy when they were probably a LOT happier under Saddam (with the exception of the Kurds anyways).
LOL! Yeah sure. The only Iraqis who miss Saddam is his Baathist thugs. The Kurds and Shiites hate him with passion. With the exception of Sadr's little insurrection almost all terrorist & resistance activity in Iraq is Sunni based (Baathists or A-Q)

Proof of this? It was a lot better to live under Saddam for the average citizen so long as you weren't a Kurd or an anti-Saddam militant. At least while under Saddam citizens could still get jobs and feed their families and they didn't have to bribe government officials. Apparently you subscribe to the school of thought that just because Saddam was taking punitive action against the Kurds and anyone that spoke openly against him, that must mean that life sucked for everyone in Iraq who wasn't a Saddam loyalist which is utter bullshit.

The most important factor in happiness is being able to feed you goddamn family and thanks to US mismanagement, the Iraqi economy is shattered well beyond what it needed to be, the rebuilding is being done by American contractors, the reconstruction funds are being ciphoned away by unscrupulous Iraqi and Americans trying to take advantage of the huge influxes of cash, and corruption is absolutely abhorrent.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-11 01:29pm

Back in March, BBC reported that 57% of Iraqis felt that life was better after the invasion, which means that 43% didn't. That's an awful lot of "Baathist thugs", and there have been a lot of killings of Iraqis since then which have apparently not done much for the happiness of the population.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-10-11 03:41pm

The Kernel wrote:Proof of this? It was a lot better to live under Saddam for the average citizen so long as you weren't a Kurd or an anti-Saddam militant. At least while under Saddam citizens could still get jobs and feed their families and they didn't have to bribe government officials.

That terrorism is mainly concentrated to Sunni regions. Jobs? Are you joking? The Iraqi economy was a complete disaster, if it even existed!! Have you signed on the myth that Iraq was a happy little prosperous place under it's mainly benevolent despot?

The Kernel wrote:The most important factor in happiness is being able to feed you goddamn family and thanks to US mismanagement, the Iraqi economy is shattered well beyond what it needed to be, the rebuilding is being done by American contractors, the reconstruction funds are being ciphoned away by unscrupulous Iraqi and Americans trying to take advantage of the huge influxes of cash, and corruption is absolutely abhorrent.

Strangely the Iraqi's don't agree with you. Their main concern is security so either their priorities or their reality differs from your point of view. The Iraqi economy... yeah it was real prosperous before the war - just look at all the splendid palaces Saddam built. US contractors, well who else? Corruption might be bad but at least the biggest criminal is no longer in charge of the state.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-11 06:15pm

CJvR wrote: That terrorism is mainly concentrated to Sunni regions.

Which happen to be both the most lawless regions AND the groups that are more heavily religious. Remember, the Shi'ites have decades of a secular government behind them.

Jobs? Are you joking? The Iraqi economy was a complete disaster, if it even existed!! Have you signed on the myth that Iraq was a happy little prosperous place under it's mainly benevolent despot?

The US embargo tooks its toll, no question. But that was all the more reason for the Iraqis to hate the US, not Saddam. Or did you forget that before the '91 Gulf War, Iraq was considered the most prosperous nation in the Middle East and had public education and health care second to none in that region? I'm not going to argue that the '91 war was wrong (it wasn't) but the fact remains that the US was blamed for much of Iraqs problems during that period.

Besides, when we went into Iraq it was considered a top priority to get the economy jump started but instead of hiring local workers for the reconstruction, we through the bulk of the contracts to American companies like Halliburton and Bektol. Worse, much of the money that is being spent locally is being mismanaged (widespread reports of massive corruption are hardly isolated) and there are also reports that many of the people that are responsible for hiring Iraqis are corrupt themselves and insisting on bribes (did you forget about the police station riots?).

The Kernel wrote: Strangely the Iraqi's don't agree with you. Their main concern is security so either their priorities or their reality differs from your point of view.

Got a source besides Rush Limbaugh for this tripe?

The Iraqi economy... yeah it was real prosperous before the war - just look at all the splendid palaces Saddam built.

The UN thought highly enough of him during the 80's. They considered him a pioneer in civil development and so did the US. The Iraqi people, despite a decade and a half embargo, have not forgotten that.

US contractors, well who else?

Local Iraqi workers moron. Do you subscribe to the mistaken belief that they are unskilled?

Corruption might be bad but at least the biggest criminal is no longer in charge of the state.

Yeah, things are much better with fucking hospital administrators ciphoning money into their own offshore bank accounts instead of treating patients. And need I remind that corruption was very low under Saddam because of the fact that his government was so strictly controlled? Saddam was a bastard, but moving from one extreme to an even worse extreme is not an improvement.

It is a fucking Red Herring anyways to say that the Iraqi people are better off under US occupation (which is bullshit anyways) as a reason for why the US is doing a good job in Iraq.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-11 07:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:Back in March, BBC reported that 57% of Iraqis felt that life was better after the invasion, which means that 43% didn't. That's an awful lot of "Baathist thugs", and there have been a lot of killings of Iraqis since then which have apparently not done much for the happiness of the population.

Just for clarification, this poll had no "no change" choice?