The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[Universe Prince]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/washington/01gitmo.html

In the first case to review the government's secret evidence for holding a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a federal appeals court found that accusations against a Muslim from western China held for more than six years were based on bare and unverifiable claims. The unclassified parts of the decision were released on Monday. With some derision for the Bush administration's arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents. The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark": "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." [...] The court said the classified evidence supporting the Pentagon's claims included assertions that events had "reportedly" occurred and that the connections were "said to" exist, without providing information about the source of such information. "Those bare facts," the decision said, "cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant." Some lawyers said the ruling highlighted the difficulties they saw in civilian judges reviewing Guantanamo cases. [...] The decision was written by Judge Merrick B. Garland, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. It was joined by Chief Judge Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a 2005 appointee of President Bush.

[Michael Tee]

<<The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark": "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.">>

Hilarious.  Who remembers Bob "Say It Thrice" Dole, whose trademark was repeating the most absurd nonsense ("The U.S. has the best health-care system in the world.  The U.S. has . . . . ")?

<<The decision was written by Judge Merrick B. Garland, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. It was joined by Chief Judge Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a 2005 appointee of President Bush.>>

Oh shit, that's gonna really cut into my ability to lambaste the decisions of Reagan and Bush appointees as coming from the knee-jerk advocates of creeping fascism.

[BT]

guess the system works.

[Plane]

A document being classified does not prove it is true in any respect, I agree with this decision.


At least this part of this decision.

[_JS]

guess the system works.

Well, after six years of someone's life has been stolen from them.

No big deal though. Hurrah for the system!!

[BT]

Well, after six years of someone's life has been stolen from them.

No big deal though. Hurrah for the system!!

At least this man got his life back.

The same can't be said for victims of terror.

Would you have the authorities do nothing?

[Plane]

We don't really know that he is innocent either , just that the evidence won't convict him.

It would not be strange to find his body on the battlefeild later , it has happened fifty times already.

I really like better, treating the captured as POWs they would all get their lives back at the end of the conflict , we would not need to keep any of them.

[Universe Prince]

It would not be strange to find his body on the battlefeild later , it has happened fifty times already.

According to whom?

I really like better, treating the captured as POWs they would all get their lives back at the end of the conflict , we would not need to keep any of them.

But then they cannot be interrogated. All that loud music, sleep deprivation and water boarding would be off limits, at least as I understand the matter. You willing to give that up?

[Plane]

I really like better, treating the captured as POWs they would all get their lives back at the end of the conflict , we would not need to keep any of them.

But then they cannot be interrogated. All that loud music, sleep deprivation and water boarding would be off limits, at least as I understand the matter. You willing to give that up?

As criminal offenders we can interrogate them this way?

[Universe Prince]

As criminal offenders we can interrogate them this way?

The government says we can. But all that changes if the detainees become prisoners of war.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As criminal offenders we can interrogate them this way?


The government says we can. But all that changes if the detainees become prisoners of war.


============================================
No, nothing changes. If they have not extracted all the useful information from the detainees in the three to six years they have been held, they will not extract any more. It is like beating the proverbial dead horse.

I would imagine that for them to be prisoners of war, there has to be an actual war. No war has been declared.
What should they do? Declare war on Terrorism, and list its residence as the dictionary?

The geniuses on the Supreme Court are happy to tell them what they can't do, but not even legal geniuses like Thomas or Scalia will tell them what they can do.

They can try them and let them see the evidence so as to defend against it.

They can let them go.

It's not really a difficult decision.

[kimba1]

  Re: The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark
? Reply #5 on: July 02, 2008, 10:58:09 PM ? Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Well, after six years of someone's life has been stolen from them.

No big deal though. Hurrah for the system!!

At least this man got his life back.

The same can't be said for victims of terror.

Would you have the authorities do nothing?


------------------------------------------
uhm isn`t that 2 separate issues?
and I find it interesting how a person can lose unlimited amount of time of his or her life and people will still think as long that person is released it`s of little issue of the time loss

[hnumpah]

At least this man got his life back.

Less the years spent in custody for something he apparently  had nothing to do with.

The same can't be said for victims of terror.

Which has what to do with the guy being wrongly imprisoned?

Would you have the authorities do nothing?

I would have them behave as they would in any criminal case - arrest someone, charge them, and present the evidence to back it up before denying them their habeas corpus rights.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

(But three lefts do.)

[Universe Prince]

No, nothing changes.

Not true. Unlawful enemy combatants can be interrogated. Prisoners of war cannot. (At least that is my understanding of the Geneva Convention.) Which is why the detainees had to be designated as unlawful enemy combatants, not prisoners of war.

[Plane]

When the enemy is met on the feild the first shot counts most , I think our guys are going to go to war and have to read a Miranda warning to peoiple who willbe shootinmg more than listening.