US wants others to deal with its problems

[PainRack]

You are working hard to push together two vectors of argument, related only tangentially: my comments to Lord of the Abyss, and my original point that intelligence material cannot sustain criminal prosecution.

Actually, no, your "tangential" argument was that the US don't build up an conviction against terrorists because US forces are too busy to do so.

we already shown you that's a nonsensical stance.

Now, you're attempting to argue that such intelligence data cannot be used in a successful criminal prosecution.
To which, the rebuttal is simple. If there is inadequate intelligence to show that a man is a criminal terrorist, then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SUPPORTING DETAINING HIM?

The United States does not have a special judicial competency that deals with terrorism or other cases in which prosecution depends on classified intelligence. Deciding the fate of the folks at Guantanamo Bay also involves making determinations about where we were going to release them - something for which we don't have a working adjudication process. These aren't bog-standard criminals. These aren't U.S. citizens. These aren't prisoners-of-war.

Red herring. You're arguing that the US does not have the capability to create an conviction in a court of law. There is NO reason why this court of law must be a domestic US court, this when other examples ranging from a US military tribunal, the ICJ in Europe exist.

You're setting nonsensical standards.

While what investigation runs its course? Prove that investigations are ongoing.

Once again: intelligence is educated guesswork collected by parties who are unidentifiable, and therefore not easily held accountable.

If there is no fucking attempt by the US to even conduct some form of intelligence effort here from even simple interrogrations, then the US government is even more fucked up than can conceivably believed. What the hell do you think the US does when it captures said detainnes? Twirl their mustaches and then gloat about their malicious plans to take over the world?

Wait. Maybe they introduce Big Bobba and talk about having a huge mansandwich.

Much of the argumentation in this thread deals with the reason why: nobody quite knows what to do with a population that we may very well have radicalized through our mistakes.

If so, you done a piss poor job of suggesting that you have a problem in settling said prison population. Your arguments ranges from the "they're hardcore terrorists" and "US forces can't convict them because we don't do anything to glean intelligence and prove they're guilty".

[Axis Kast]

Actually, no, your "tangential" argument was that the US don't build up an conviction against terrorists because US forces are too busy to do so.

Actually, no. That's your strawman. You know, the false construction of my argument which you have created in order to avoid the admission that you made an error first in interpretation, and later in judgment.

Now, you're attempting to argue that such intelligence data cannot be used in a successful criminal prosecution.
To which, the rebuttal is simple. If there is inadequate intelligence to show that a man is a criminal terrorist, then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SUPPORTING DETAINING HIM?

I have explained to you precisely why intelligence data is not the same thing as an open-and-shut criminal case. Intelligence is often guesswork. Actionable intelligence is not the same thing as proof. Even more important, intelligence is collected by people whose identities must remain a secret. Therefore, they cannot be called to testify, or their character questioned, in a court of law.

As for what I think ought to be done when there is inadequate intelligence, I've been very clear. Either we need to create a special judicial competency to try these individuals under a coherent set of rules (and this will be significantly inferior to our domestic arrangements), or we need to figure out how to release them so as to cause least potential backlash to American interests.

Red herring. You're arguing that the US does not have the capability to create an conviction in a court of law. There is NO reason why this court of law must be a domestic US court, this when other examples ranging from a US military tribunal, the ICJ in Europe exist.

You are ignoring that I have explicitly suggested that we build a competency similar to what is found in France. You, sir, are dishonest.

If there is no fucking attempt by the US to even conduct some form of intelligence effort here from even simple interrogrations, then the US government is even more fucked up than can conceivably believed. What the hell do you think the US does when it captures said detainnes? Twirl their mustaches and then gloat about their malicious plans to take over the world?

"It should be there!" isn't a sound rebuttal of my argument.

Once again, please address my points about why intelligence is different from evidence presented in a criminal court of law.

If so, you done a piss poor job of suggesting that you have a problem in settling said prison population. Your arguments ranges from the "they're hardcore terrorists" and "US forces can't convict them because we don't do anything to glean intelligence and prove they're guilty".

That problem was made clear earlier in the thread.

I have not said, "They're hardcore terrorists." I said to Lord of the Abyss that I had trouble believing that the U.S. filled Guantanamo with people it simply pulled off the street for no good reason except that we're "evil" and malicious.

[PainRack]

Actually, no. That's your strawman. You know, the false construction of my argument which you have created in order to avoid the admission that you made an error first in interpretation, and later in judgment.

Actually, no, I'm not. Its just your attempt to create a false dilenma.

However, our military forces aren't collecting case material on every single prisoner. An AAR isn't the same thing as a carefully-crafted dossier. These people must either become prisoners of war, or criminal detainees. I'm pointing to our lack of an effective system for processing prisoners aside from an indefinite/summary detention process.

I think that the men and women of the United States Armed Forces do not go about building cases of the sort that would guarantee the conviction of their detainees in a court of law.

"What happened on your fire mission?" and, "Prove to me that this man should be treated differently than the other detainees we keep in Iraq or Afghanistan and presumably administer differently," are not the same things. Please do stop frothing at the mouth over things I've never said, and which you have only imagined.

Just because your words are rephrased to show exactly what you stated in non-equivocal terms is NOT my fault.

I have explained to you precisely why intelligence data is not the same thing as an open-and-shut criminal case. Intelligence is often guesswork. Actionable intelligence is not the same thing as proof. Even more important, intelligence is collected by people whose identities must remain a secret. Therefore, they cannot be called to testify, or their character questioned, in a court of law.

I have also told you countless times that such evidence as gathered in the field or via orders have been used in multiple legal cases, ranging from war crimes trials to trials for the case of negligence and the like.

And frankly, fuck it, since I have the fucking free time,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathur_Rahman_al-Ghozi

Oh look, a JI member who was arrested after a chain of events leading from US intelligence in Afghanistan led to the collapse of a JI network in Singapore, and the later regional networks.
Suck it.

You are ignoring that I have explicitly suggested that we build a competency similar to what is found in France. You, sir, are dishonest.

You sir are an idiot. I'm telling you that in all likehilood, the existing legal infrastructure to convict said criminals already exist in the US. Afterall, the US has already convicted multiple Al Queada criminals and suspected mastermind in the 90s under Bill Clinton, including the disruption of other terrorist cells and locking up of several other Al Queda cell members after the first WTC attack.

Once again, please address my points about why intelligence is different from evidence presented in a criminal court of law.

You mean my earlier point about how such intelligence is used to convict war criminals doesn't count?

[Axis Kast]

Actually, no, I'm not. Its just your attempt to create a false dilenma.

You have had quite a lot to say about how I am supposedly defending the perpetual imprisonment of individuals against whom cases cannot be made, on the basis of faith in the United States to "get the evidence."

I also invite you once again to explain to us all how intelligence products, which often involve guesswork, meet the same standards of proof as the evidence typically admissible at criminal trials. Frequently, the defending attorney will be unable, for reasons of national security or impracticality, to consult the authors or address the sources of this information and analysis.

What you have done here is to artfully draw on cases in which specific intelligence products were used, and then pretend, irrespective of all the evidence that has been provided of the fact that people were routinely put away in Guantanamo for very hazy offenses, that detailed information is available on all of these people. Sometimes, it is. Sometimes, it isn't. Either way, when we do collect information, the standards are going to be inconsistent with criminal trials as we know them.

Oh look, a JI member who was arrested after a chain of events leading from US intelligence in Afghanistan led to the collapse of a JI network in Singapore, and the later regional networks.
Suck it.

Is this a bad joke? The man was arrested based on intelligence. He later confessed to being a terrorist. Where is the discussion of his trial?

You seem to be ignoring my point: that we can try these people, but according to standards different than those of domestic criminal proceedings. We have to come to terms with that, if we want to give them something approaching a fair process. We can work toward the good, but the ideal is impossible thanks to the unique circumstances at work here.

You sir are an idiot. I'm telling you that in all likehilood, the existing legal infrastructure to convict said criminals already exist in the US. Afterall, the US has already convicted multiple Al Queada criminals and suspected mastermind in the 90s under Bill Clinton, including the disruption of other terrorist cells and locking up of several other Al Queda cell members after the first WTC attack.

The first WTC attack was committed on American soil.

You mean my earlier point about how such intelligence is used to convict war criminals doesn't count?

And it has been explained to you, again and again, that intelligence is sometimes unavailable, and cannot be contested in the same way as "regular" evidence. I implore you to stay focused.

[banquetbear]

You'll post evidence for this claim, right?

If you want. USG breaks down detainees at Gitmo into six categories:

1. al Quaeda (32%)
2. al Quaeda & Taliban (28%)
3. Taliban (22%)
4. al Qaeda OR Taliban (7%)
5. Unidentified Affiliation (10%)
6. Other (1%)

Even if we assume like Denbeaux that 4 isn't provable; that still leaves 82% of people having picked the wrong side in the war against the US.

Even if we play further semantic games and limit things to Al Quaeda operatives (groups 1 and 2); that still leaves 60% of Gitmo's population as Al Q scumbags.

ROFL!!!

...first you condemm the report based on the author, then you confidentally use their analysis as evidence. Conceed: the report is sound and the details it provides are accurate. Isn't it unfortuante that you have to rely on a third party to find out the "alleged" breakdown of detainees and that this information isn't readily supplied by your government?

And seriously: there are people detaineed where the evidence clearly shows that they are classified as "either Taliban or al Quaeda." Nothing is more clearer than this to show just how indiscriminate the US detention policy is and was. Pathetic.

[PainRack]

You have had quite a lot to say about how I am supposedly defending the perpetual imprisonment of individuals against whom cases cannot be made, on the basis of faith in the United States to "get the evidence."

Actually, no, Ｉhad a lot to say against your inane argument that somehow, the US does not possess the ability nor the ability to actually conduct an actual criminal conviction against terrorists. We already know they DO have the ability to do so because President Bill Clinton did that during the 1990s. The failure of the US adminstration to do so now rests purely on the inane policies followed by Presidet Bush.

I also invite you once again to explain to us all how intelligence products, which often involve guesswork, meet the same standards of proof as the evidence typically admissible at criminal trials. Frequently, the defending attorney will be unable, for reasons of national security or impracticality, to consult the authors or address the sources of this information and analysis.

Except this has been done before in US history, ranging from criminal convictions against the Mob which require delicate protection of the witnesses and sources, convictions against Communist spy networks which involve the protection of US counter-episionage abilities and etc etc etc.
Gosh. It has even been done before against terrorists, such as the folks who comitted the first WTC attacks and Bill Clinton even successfully disrupted several terrorist attacks later....... and jailed said terrorists.

What you have done here is to artfully draw on cases in which specific intelligence products were used, and then pretend, irrespective of all the evidence that has been provided of the fact that people were routinely put away in Guantanamo for very hazy offenses, that detailed information is available on all of these people. Sometimes, it is. Sometimes, it isn't. Either way, when we do collect information, the standards are going to be inconsistent with criminal trials as we know them.

This is an indictment against the US idiotic policy of detaining anyone and everyone without building up a convincing case, NOT the fact that the US can't do so.
Oh wait. I forgot, according to you, the two points aren't related, although in the eyes of everyone else here on the board, it is.

Is this a bad joke? The man was arrested based on intelligence. He later confessed to being a terrorist. Where is the discussion of his trial?

You mean you ignored the fact that GOSH, the Americans actually used intelligence gleaned from informants and video tapes in Afghanistan to allow for the arrest of a terrorist by some other government DOESN"T UTTERLY DESTROY YOUR FUCKING IDIOTIC STANCE THAT US FORCES DO NOT CONDUCT INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS THAT CAN LEAD TO THE ARREST OF TERRORISTS AS OPPOSED TO THE UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF INNOCENTS?

You seem to be ignoring my point: that we can try these people, but according to standards different than those of domestic criminal proceedings. We have to come to terms with that, if we want to give them something approaching a fair process. We can work toward the good, but the ideal is impossible thanks to the unique circumstances at work here.

Such capabilities already exist, from special procedures used against the Mob in criminal law, in which it is possible to indict any member of an organisation for the organisation deeds, from a military tribunal in which the court is not held in public and etc etc etc.

The first WTC attack was committed on American soil.

And so? How does this prevent the US from actually creating a criminal conviction against them in the Iraqi OR the American court of law? The US had effectively over 8 years of occupying Iraq. The FAILURE of the Bush adminstration to create a legal process is not an excuse, its an convincing indictment against their idiocy.

And it has been explained to you, again and again, that intelligence is sometimes unavailable, and cannot be contested in the same way as "regular" evidence. I implore you to stay focused.

And the point has been made over and over again. This is the FAILURE of the US adminstration when it captures innocents and put them in detention for too long a period. Its not an EXCUSE. And it certainly DOESN"T justify detaining them further.

[Guardsman Bass]

It appears that Palau may be taking them, at least for a while:

The Pacific nation of Palau says it has agreed to a US request to temporarily resettle up to 17 Chinese Muslims.

The 17 men are ethnic Uighurs, now being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre on Cuba, and the US has asked for help to re-settle them.

Their fate was problematic due to fears for their safety if they were repatriated to China.

Palau, a former US trust territory, grants diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, not China.

Palau President Johnson Toribiong said his government had "agreed to accommodate the United States of America's request to temporarily resettle in Palau up to 17 ethnic Uighur detainees ... subject to periodic review."

'Humanitarian'

In a statement, he said his tiny country is "honoured and proud" to resettle the detainees, who have been found not to be "enemy combatants."

He said the agreement was a "humanitarian gesture", which had nothing to do with the upcoming review of the Compact of Free Association under which the US gives large sums to Palau.

US officials asked Mr Toribiong on 4 June to accept some or all of the 17 Uighur detainees due to strong US congressional opposition to releasing them on US soil.

Guantanamo Bay officials have been attempting to fulfill US President Barack Obama's order to close the detention facility by early next year.

Palau, with a population of about 20,000, is an archipelago of eight main islands plus more than 250 islets that is best known for diving and tourism and is located some 800 km (500 miles) east of the Philippines in the Pacific Ocean.

The US will not send the Uighurs back to China for fear they will be tortured or executed. Beijing says Uighur insurgents are leading an Islamic separatist movement in China's far west and wants those held at Guantanamo to be returned to China.

Analysts said the fact that Palau is an ally of Taiwan, not China, could have helped the negotiations.

In 2006, Albania accepted five Uighur detainees from Guantanamo but has since balked at taking others, partly for fear of diplomatic repercussions from China.

Australia has already twice rejected US appeals to resettle the Uighurs.

Palau has retained close ties with the United States since independence in 1994 when it signed a Free Compact of Association with the US. It relies heavily on the US for aid and defence.

I'm guessing that, in addition to a complete guarantee of renewal for the Free Compact, Palau probably got some other incentives in the forms of resettlement money to take the refugees.

[Sea Skimmer]

Palau might as well be US territory. They, Micronesia and the Marshall islands are all independent but have a formal treaty with the US saying that are ‘associated states’. The US gives them billions of dollars, since hell they don’t exactly have much basis for modern economies, and in return we get to use airfields all over, not to mention some rather huge missile ranges. We also defend them, and they pledge not to grant any basing or support rights to any foreign power. The US gets some other rights too I don’t remember offhand.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, that's a rather weird place for them to end up, but altogether very nice. Though I wonder how they'll handle a sunny tropic paradise where clothing standards are not modest.

[Alyeska]

Well, that's a rather weird place for them to end up, but altogether very nice. Though I wonder how they'll handle a sunny tropic paradise where clothing standards are not modest.

That might be good for them. Only time will tell.

[Wing Commander MAD]

LMSx, I was more or less trying to state that I have some doubts about just how well a job witness protection would do in this case. Face it, the people who run it are human and American. They are probably just as likely to consider these guys terrorists as your average person on the street, which is unfortunate. I could easily see some people getting lax in there duties. Look at how vigilantism tends to be treated when its against people in groups severly disliked by the populace (ie pedophiles, supposed muslim terrorists), they recieve the tacit approval of both society and those responsible for enforcing the law and won't be brought to justice. If they are prosecuted, good like finding a jury to find them guilty. This is a case where an unfortunately large number of the populace doesn't give a damn enough to know whats going on or if they do they don't care anyway, remember they are being branded as terrorists in the repubilard leaning media. I also don't really get what you mean by the imprisoned for your own safety comment, though I would think they would rather take their chances being free considering what they've been through.

Its good to see someone taking them in. Does anyone know how the Paluans will react to them in general? If Palua is politically so close to the U.S., I wonder if people there buy into U.S. media/propaganda regarding the whole War on Terror more easily than a more neutral party?

[Axis Kast]

Actually, no, Ｉhad a lot to say against your inane argument that somehow, the US does not possess the ability nor the ability to actually conduct an actual criminal conviction against terrorists.

And you are going to prove this to us ... when, exactly?

Ihad was arrested on the basis of intelligence work. An arrest is not a conviction in a criminal court of law. Ihad later plead guilty to the charges against him. A guilty plea precludes the need for prosecutors to obtain a 'guilty' verdict.

We already know they DO have the ability to do so because President Bill Clinton did that during the 1990s. The failure of the US adminstration to do so now rests purely on the inane policies followed by Presidet Bush.

Cases in which terrorism was perpetrated on American soil lent themselves to painstaking investigation.

Except this has been done before in US history, ranging from criminal convictions against the Mob which require delicate protection of the witnesses and sources, convictions against Communist spy networks which involve the protection of US counter-episionage abilities and etc etc etc.

And yet we may not be able to secure witnesses to the acts which prosecutors assess to the incarcerated. Intelligence products may not be freely available for circulation or review. There is a different standard of evidence here, different from that which applies (1) when the identity of individuals is being hidden from the parties on trial, and (2) when incidents occur within the domestic jurisdiction.

This is an indictment against the US idiotic policy of detaining anyone and everyone without building up a convincing case, NOT the fact that the US can't do so.
Oh wait. I forgot, according to you, the two points aren't related, although in the eyes of everyone else here on the board, it is.

The United States cannot conduct investigations against the thousands of people it detains in Iraq and Afghanistan. These individuals would often be prisoners of war in other contexts. The ability to prosecute even dozens of cases successfully over a period of years is not evidence that the United States possesses the manpower or access to go and built criminal cases even against hundreds of accused terrorists. We therefore require some other mechanism. I don't even believe that you disagree with me. It appears that you are continuing this argument for no better reason than that you are stubborn.

You mean you ignored the fact that GOSH, the Americans actually used intelligence gleaned from informants and video tapes in Afghanistan to allow for the arrest of a terrorist by some other government DOESN"T UTTERLY DESTROY YOUR FUCKING IDIOTIC STANCE THAT US FORCES DO NOT CONDUCT INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS THAT CAN LEAD TO THE ARREST OF TERRORISTS AS OPPOSED TO THE UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF INNOCENTS?

Please consult your dictionary. An intelligence operation that leads to an arrest is not equivalent to a thoroughgoing, transparent search for evidence sustainable in a criminal court of law.

Such capabilities already exist, from special procedures used against the Mob in criminal law, in which it is possible to indict any member of an organisation for the organisation deeds, from a military tribunal in which the court is not held in public and etc etc etc.

Once again, you need to come to grips with the fact that building a case against many of these people will often be impossible. Some mechanism is needed such that we either release detainees in Iraq or Afghanistan, or adjudicate the futures of individuals already in custody, and whom it is believed might have been radicalized during their time in incarceration.

And so? How does this prevent the US from actually creating a criminal conviction against them in the Iraqi OR the American court of law? The US had effectively over 8 years of occupying Iraq. The FAILURE of the Bush adminstration to create a legal process is not an excuse, its an convincing indictment against their idiocy.

Iraq is a battleground. Soldiers are not police, even if the military has some legal competency. What about, "The events of war do not readily lend themselves to follow-up investigation" do you not understand? Nitpicking about After Action Reports and the JAG Office isn't making your case.

Heck, by referring to the failure of the Bush administration to apply a legal process, you imply the failings of the existing one, and echo my point: we haven't got a satisfactory one.

And the point has been made over and over again. This is the FAILURE of the US adminstration when it captures innocents and put them in detention for too long a period. Its not an EXCUSE. And it certainly DOESN"T justify detaining them further.

So we can agree that the Bush administration did not handle things well. Terrific. I never argued that they had, in the first place.

As for detaining them further, the Bush administration's negligence is not the justification. The possibility that these individuals might be an imminent danger to U.S. lives and interests, is.

[Guardsman Bass]

Palau might as well be US territory. They, Micronesia and the Marshall islands are all independent but have a formal treaty with the US saying that are ‘associated states’. The US gives them billions of dollars, since hell they don’t exactly have much basis for modern economies, and in return we get to use airfields all over, not to mention some rather huge missile ranges. We also defend them, and they pledge not to grant any basing or support rights to any foreign power. The US gets some other rights too I don’t remember offhand.

No surprise there. It's a series of islands with a population of approximately 20,000, of which the main economy is made up of US aid to the Palau government and tourism, with fishing a distant third. All in all, not a bad place to be exiled.