I will wait until Ms. Merkel presents her proposals for eliminating Guantanamo, but detainees should not be rewarded for flouting existing Geneva Convention rules. In a previous thread, Thomas expressed concern for the poor stupid tourist in Mexico who was mistakenly swept up in an area rife with terrorists. If the terrorists were abiding by the Geneva Convention there wouldn’t be any difficulty in separating the terrorists from the tourists. Rewarding terrorists for making it difficult to separate them from tourists doesn’t seem wise.

You point to the Observer article that criticizes the US for force-feeding detainees. What alternatives do you propose?

The Observer article also mentions the law president Bush signed limiting detainee habeas corpus rights. Why should the detainees be eligible for trial in US courts? They are not US citizens, have never been in the US, and the current tribunal process seems more than fair:

“After the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of last year, the military created a special tribunal to decide if each detainee was properly captured. The government informs the detainee why the military is holding him and gives him an opportunity to respond and present his evidence. Some detainees waive their right to participate. In addition, the military created another level of hearings (not required by the U.S. Supreme Court) that determines if the detainee, even if a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban, should nonetheless be released because he is no longer dangerous.

Through these two proceedings, the military has released several hundred detainees from Guantanamo. Some of these releases are mistakes: about 5 percent to 10 percent of them are later recaptured or killed in battle. Others will return to battle but we will never know that. One released detainee later killed a judge leaving a mosque in Afghanistan. Another detainee, Abdullah Meshoud, bragged that he fooled interrogators into releasing him, so he could return to battle.

In other cases, the government will release someone wrongly held. For example, the military stopped a truck in Afghanistan holding about 21 people, all dressed like local farmers, along with many weapons. One of them said that he was not part of the group and was just a farmer hitching a ride on the truck. The other 20 refuse to talk to the Americans because they are infidels. They were all taken to Guantanamo and, after several months, some of the people, impressed by their treatment, started talking and confirmed the first person’s story. The military released that person. Given the fact that the terrorists masquerade as civilians, these mistakes are both very unfortunate and unavoidable.”


I think the justification for not accepting Murat Kuratz back into the country is especially delicious given Germany’s history. If Kuratz is such a threat after four years at Guantanamo, Germany should not complain if Israel totally destroys Germany because the Jews were so traumatized by the holocaust. In fact they should encourage it as therapy.

Thomas, the only reason we would be punishing tourists is because the terrorists are not following the Geneva Convention and wearing uniforms.

RE: NY Times article and constitutionality of Guantanamo Tribunals.

I did ask someone who does know something about the issued raised in the NY Times article:

The primary legal issue mentioned in the article was the fact that the
tribunals, as constituted, represent "a historic and unconstitutional
presidential power grab. As Hamdan's lawyers and other critics see it, the
administration, by unilaterally creating the tribunals, defining the
offenses and handpicking the panels, is not only denying detainees fair
trials, it is also violating bedrock principles of the American government.
To put an even finer point on it, they say the Bush administration is
undermining the very values it purports to be defending in its war against
Islamic extremism. They would like to see Hamdan and other enemy combatants
tried before a traditional military court, a pre-existing legal system
approved by Congress with built-in provisions for the complications that
arise during wartime."


This is the answer I received:

President Bush copied what President Roosevelt did during World War
II, when FDR created the military commissions in Ex Parte Quirin. The
Supreme Court upheld the panels in Ex Parte Quirin. In the Hamdan case, Justice O'Connor says that Quirin is "the law today." In response to Justice Scalia's dissent arguing that the Government cannot detain an American citizen without judicial process unless it suspends the writ of habeas corpus, she says that even if Scalia is right, even if these earlier cases say "that the military does not have authority to try an American citizen accused of spying against his country during wartime-Quirin makes undeniably clear that this is not the law today." Hamdi, 542 U.S. at ___, 124 S.Ct. at 2642 (O'Connor plurality).

If you add her plurality (4 votes) with Thomas, you get 5 votes, and that's a working majority.

Of course, Quirin applied to at least one U.S. citizen. No U.S.
citizen is subject to military trials, because President Bush's order only applies to non-US citizens. The Government contends that it can detain US citizens until the end of the conflict; it does not have to try them. Quirin, and O'Connor's opinion seem to agree. The 4th Circuit so held in Padilla, which is now pending before the US Supreme Court. We don't know yet if the Court will grant cert.

There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding the law of detainees, but
little scholarly analysis, at least from an historical perspective. During WWII, the United States held over 400,000 POWs in the US and another million abroad. Between 30 and 300 were US citizens and none were ever charged in the civil courts. After the way, the Government did charge a few with war crimes. The Administration, relying on the Geneva Convention, says that the detainees are not POWs, because they don't wear uniforms, do not have a recognized command structure, and do not agree to abide by the rules of law (they, e.g., attack civilians). If the Administration is correct, these non-POWs surely do not get more rights than POWs.

David, I didn't know that. I just finished Ambrose's "Eisenhower, Soldier and President" and thought it was very good, so I placed a library request for the book you mentioned. Thanks.

Chancellor Merkel has done the impossible. Her interview with Spiegel Online caused David’s Mediankritik to write a favorable post. Will miracles never cease?

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/merkel_criticiz.html

Thomas:

Before I disagree with you on Schroeder and Iraq I would like to say that I definitely agree with what you said on a previous thread about Americans needing to be more proficient in foreign languages. If it were in my power, I would have you make a presentation to a joint session of Congress to repeat what you said. I don’t know how many US diplomats are not fluent in the local languages, but there is no excuse for any of them to be.

It amazes me that language proficiency has not become a higher priority in Congress. Democrats would be fore it because it allows them to spend money on education, which they love to do. Republicans would love it because it is actually one of the most effective things we can do in the “war on terror.”

One of the things about the discussion of troop levels in Iraq is that no one has asked how many troops would we need if they all spoke Arabic? I do think the military understands this and is making a big push to increase the number of soldiers who are proficient in multiple languages.

Back to Schroeder: You said the US was mad at Schroeder because he was right about Iraq. You mean he said Iraq was negotiating with North Korea for medium range missiles; that France, Russia and China were violating the sanctions and the UN had no plan concerning what to do about Iraq?

Excellent!