[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 22 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

Quote

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

Neocon tactic.

Disgusting.

maybe you're right but i need to know what you mean by this, al... how exactly is this a neocon tactic?

[Lobowolf]

"What you guys over there do is wrong!"
"Oh. Well, what do you guy over THERE do?"



I have to admit, I wouldn't have picked that out on a multiple choice question entitled: Which of the following is a disgusting tactic?

I guess this is the only thread in the cooler that's not even supposed to run a spot-check for hypocrisy.

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on Jan 22 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

The Netherlands is a small country where only small things happen.

In the late 1970's there were a couple of hostage takings by militants from the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands. I don't know the definition of terrorism, but to me these were obviously terrorist acts (even though I had and have sympathy for the South Moluk point of view since I grew up in a South Moluk neighborhood). The motives were entirely political.

I recall that twice a train was hijacked and the passengers taken hostage, once an elementary school was occupied and children and teachers were taken hostage, once the provincial administration building was occupied and there was a hostage taking in the Indonesian consulate. There was also an attempt to kidnap the Queen (but this was prevented).

The point for this thread (and the answer to your question):
All trials took place in the regular criminal courts. All sentences were served in regular prisons.

Since you asked to be specific, and for those who are interested, here are some details that I found on the Dutch Wikipedia. I left out the names of the people involved since I don't consider it important, but if you really want to know you can find some references at the end:

Train 1 (at Wijster): 7 hijackers held a train hostage for 12 days. During this, the train engineer and two passengers were killed. The hijackers surrendered and got prison sentences up to 14 years.

Train 2 (at De Punt): 9 hijackers held the train hostage for 20 days. There were a little less than 100 passengers. The hijacking was ended by military force. Six out of nine hijackers lost there lives as well as two passengers. The remaining 3 hijackers were sentenced to 6 to 9 years inprisonment.

Elementary school: 4 hostage takers, a 3 week hostage situation, no loss of life. The hostage takers surrendered after an armored car attack. I don't know the sentences.

Province administration building: 3 hostage takers held 16 women and 55 men. 1 killed and 1 injured who died a few weeks later from his injuries. The military intervened when the hostage takers were litterally standing ready to execute more hostages (the man who died from his injuries was the first to be executed). Sentences: 15 years inprisonment.

Plan to kidnap the queen, but they were caught while preparing for the kidnapping: 39 people involved. Seventeen stood trial and were convicted to different sentences. The longest sentence was 5 years in prison.

I hope that this is specific enough. I would say the Dutch prosecuted "in a manner that was consistent with their values and ideals" (to quote some important guy on the West side of the Atlantic).

Rik

1. Wijster
2. De Punt
3. Elementary school
4. Province administrative building
5. Kidnap attempt Dutch Queen

You can count me in as one of the people who are interested in this. I do have a question. The culprits were from "the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands". Can you pin it down a little more? Where were they born? Where did they grow up? Of which country did they claim citizenship? You can see where I am going with this. Here, in the US, I am pretty confident that we treat US citizens who commit crimes differently than we treat foreign nationals, even if they commit the same acts. If the Netherlands' legal system treats foreign nationals exactly as it treats Dutch citizens this would surprise me, as it would with any country. But I have been surprised before.

Roland suggested above that Americans could learn something from Europeans. I completely agree. I don't think we should decide our course of action by calling up the Netherlands, or the British, or Germany, or whoever,and then just doing exactly that, but learning is good.

[Winstonm]

Quote

more problematic areas pertain to people who train or associate with terrorist groups, participate in training activities outside the country then return (or come) to the USA in a "sleeper cell" type of situation, plan to participate in terrorist acts (but towards which acts to steps have yet been taking, and thus no criminal conspiracy has yet taken place), etc.

The question that must be answered is whether or not the criminal burden of proof and rules of evidence change when dealing with would-be terrorist tacticians or whether it may be best to treat them as captured enemy and grant the protections provided by the Geneva conventions.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Quote

more problematic areas pertain to people who train or associate with terrorist groups, participate in training activities outside the country then return (or come) to the USA in a "sleeper cell" type of situation, plan to participate in terrorist acts (but towards which acts to steps have yet been taking, and thus no criminal conspiracy has yet taken place), etc.

The question that must be answered is whether or not the criminal burden of proof and rules of evidence change when dealing with would-be terrorist tacticians or whether it may be best to treat them as captured enemy and grant the protections provided by the Geneva conventions.

There are sort of multiple issues (at least legally; possibly morally/philosophically as well) that get conflated. Before you even have to think about burden of proof and rules of evidence, there's an issue of whether "crimes" (from a pure USA criminal justice perspective) have been committed in American jurisdiction- let alone are provable.

Secondly, assuming they haven't committed crimes that would subject them to American criminal jurisprudence but the "enemy combatant" rules apply, there are (long standing) distinctions between legal and illegal enemy combatants, and not all captured enemy combatants (particularly those who are not state actors*, but represent a faction within a foreign political system) fall under the Geneva convention.


*Edit: For instance, though Afghanistan and Iraq, among other countries, are parties to the Geneva Convention, Al Qaeda is neither a party to the GC or a representative for a country that is. My understanding is that a signing party (USA) is only bound under the GC as applied to a non-signing party if that non-signing party operates in accordance to the GC. If the non-signing party does not operate by the GC, then by the terms of the GC, that party is not entitled to its protections.

[Winstonm]

I think it would be in our best interests to rethink whether or not to follow Geneva for illegal enemy combatants. One of the gross injustices of the Guantanemo detentions was in not allowing a Geneva-like tribunal to determine if there was enough evidence to warrant a suspect being held.

This is an area where I am grateful that the President is now a constitutional attorney with a much better personal grasp of law than the previous felllow had.

Quote

If the non-signing party does not operate by the GC, then by the terms of the GC, that party is not entitled to its protections.

In my view, the question is above one of legality and becomes one of what should we do rather than what can we do.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

 

"This is an area where I am grateful that the President is now a constitutional attorney with a much better personal grasp of law than the previous felllow had."

Strongly agree; these are complex issues that he is extremely well-equipped to deal with.





"I think it would be in our best interests to rethink whether or not to follow Geneva for illegal enemy combatants. One of the gross injustices of the Guantanemo detentions was in not allowing a Geneva-like tribunal to determine if there was enough evidence to warrant a suspect being held."

I suspect it will be re-thought, though I'm not sure it will (or should) be changed. The GC (in my understanding; I know a lot less about international law than domestic law) is not a "mere" general human rights declaration, but a quid-pro-quo - You do this for our guys, we'll do it for your guys. Extending the same courtesy to groups that feel no similar compunction and do not offer the same consideration to our troops isn't a no-brainer.

[mycroft]

You know, I don't think hypocrisy is necessarily wrong here - that doesn't make the other side right, of course. It's just that the "land of the free", "leader of the free world" should do it right, no matter what the less free, "follower" countries do, Isn't that the definition of "leader", in contrast to "tyrant"?

"I'm no worse than HIM OVER THERE" is a tactic designed to not have to admit wrong by changing the topic of discussion away from the speaker to a (safer, more advantageous) target of his choice. Fine, as long as one is okay with being no worse than somebody else (it gets better when one needs be no worse than pick-and-choose; no worse than A over topic alpha, no worse than B over topic beta,...), but it doesn't play well with "you should emulate us, and follow where we lead".

And it's labelled a neocon tactic because it's a rhetorical trick that is common among the New Model Republicans. I notice the New Model anti-Republicans are playing it more and more, too; I guess because it works, and it's easier than thinking.

But I look at the British reaction to The Troubles - there were excesses, to be sure, and the laws became rather pointed, especially where using army battalions as police came into it; but it was handled as "crime", not as "war". Gerben talked about Baader-Meinhof, and could talk about the Neo-()s - again, criminal, not "war, but by non-warriors, so we don't have to follow the rules either". In this century, even in the U.S., I can compare Khadr and Arar to Ivins...

[mycroft]

And, strangely enough, the first time I stated that position (to my knowledge) was in reaction to someone who said (to my best recollection):

"[expletive] the Geneva Convention. You know who the last country we fought that followed the Geneva Convention? The [expletive] Nazis. Why should we be bound to rules that they don't follow?"

And the answer was, and is, "because you claim to be better than them."

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jan 22 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

 

"This is an area where I am grateful that the President is now a constitutional attorney with a much better personal grasp of law than the previous felllow had."

Strongly agree; these are complex issues that he is extremely well-equipped to deal with.





"I think it would be in our best interests to rethink whether or not to follow Geneva for illegal enemy combatants. One of the gross injustices of the Guantanemo detentions was in not allowing a Geneva-like tribunal to determine if there was enough evidence to warrant a suspect being held."

I suspect it will be re-thought, though I'm not sure it will (or should) be changed. The GC (in my understanding; I know a lot less about international law than domestic law) is not a "mere" general human rights declaration, but a quid-pro-quo - You do this for our guys, we'll do it for your guys. Extending the same courtesy to groups that feel no similar compunction and do not offer the same consideration to our troops isn't a no-brainer.

I agree that it is not clear cut. I think Obama has us thinking the right way on this issue, though - that we have to respect our way of life and our humanitarianism and not allow ourselves to adopt tactics simply because we can.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jan 22 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 22 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

Quote

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

Neocon tactic.

Disgusting.

maybe you're right but i need to know what you mean by this, al... how exactly is this a neocon tactic?

Deflect (not answer) and then attack. If caught, feign lack of recollection...

[Lobowolf]

That's a bi-partisan tactic. I think that in some cases (as here), it's not entirely inappropriate, either. I'm not a Christian, myself, but I do see a fair amount of wisdom and common sense in the admonition about worrying about the beam in your own eye before the splinter in your neighbor's.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Jan 22 2009, 07:41 PM, said:

You can count me in as one of the people who are interested in this. I do have a question. The culprits were from  "the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands". Can you pin it down a little more? Where were they born? Where did they grow up? Of which country did they claim citizenship? You can see where I am going with this. Here, in the US, I am pretty confident that we treat US citizens who commit crimes differently than we treat foreign nationals, even if they commit the same acts. If the Netherlands' legal system treats foreign nationals exactly as it treats Dutch citizens this would surprise me, as it would with any country. But I have been surprised before.

Roland suggested above that Americans could learn something from Europeans. I completely agree. I don't think we should decide our course of action by calling up the Netherlands, or the British, or Germany, or whoever,and then just doing exactly that,  but learning is good.

Hi Ken,

The South Maluku* problem is a remnant of Dutch colonialism, WWII and American interference in international politics. Over the past 30 years, the problem has more or less faded away since the South Maluku people are well integrated in Dutch society. But I will try to describe the history of the situation below:

Before WWII, the part of the world that now is Indonesia was a Dutch colony. In WWII, the Japanese occupied this. Indonesia is a large country with a divers background in culture and religion.

After WWII, Indonesia fought for independence. I will put it somewhat black and white: On one side of the conflict were Indonesian freedom fighters who were predominantly Muslims (the vast majority in Indonesia). On the other side were the Dutch colonists, joined by the native Christian population. As you can imagine the cultural/religious make up of the population was different for each island in the archipelago.

The South Maluku islands were predominantly Christian. (They still are, even though there has been an influx of Muslims leading to recent tensions on these islands.) Therefore, they were on the Dutch side of the conflict. On top of that, the Dutch had promised the South Maluku islands independence when the conflict was over. The Americans put a lot of pressure on the Dutch to give Indonesia independence. An ugly war broke out. Under heavy pressure from the USA, the Dutch government agreed to Indonesian independence with the South Maluku islands as one of the provinces within the state of Indonesia. (Since queen Wilhelmina could not support this decision, she abdicated.)

After that, a significant part of the South Malukuns (particularly the Malukan freedom fighters) fled to The Netherlands. There they lived in refugee camps until they could move to new built neighborhoods. These new built neighborhoods had a predominantly Malukan population. They held the Dutch government to their promise of creating an independent South Malukan Republic (Republik Maluku Selatan, RMS), but what could the Dutch do? They could only offer them Dutch citizenship.

Out of principle, most of these refugees (and certainly the militant ones) refused Dutch citizenship, which meant that they now had no recognized citizenship at all. They weren't recognized by Indonesia (and they would have refused anyway) and they didn't want to be Dutch. This went on relatively calmly without much attention for the Malukan cause until the second generation of Malukans were young adults. Convinced that their parents were wronged and unhappy with their situation, some of these young adults radicalized. In the Malukan neighborhoods, it was easy to get radicalized and organize. As a (white) kid I lived in one of these neighborhoods and at night, I could hear the rifles that they were using in their practice. In the second half of the 1970's this led to the violence that I described.

Summarizing: Their ethnic background was lying in what is now a province of Indonesia. They were fighting for their independent republic (RMS). They were second generation and born in The Netherlands. (Maybe a few of them were born on the Malukan islands but moved when they were very young.) The Malukans did not have any recognized citizenship. They claimed to be citizens of the RMS, a country that is not recognized by the UN. Still today, the RMS has a government in exile. Their current president is Frans Tutuhatunewa. Their prime minister is John Wattilete. The fact that John Wattilete has a South Malukan father and a Dutch mother may be an illustration of how well these people integrated into Dutch society.

Rik

* I did some searching on Wikipedia and found that the correct English spelling is Maluku, so I will keep using that from here on.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Jan 22 2009, 07:41 PM, said:

If the Netherlands' legal system treats foreign nationals exactly as it treats Dutch citizens this would surprise me, as it would with any country. But I have been surprised before.

Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution:
"Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan."

(My) Translation:
"All who are in The Netherlands, will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination on the basis of religion, personal convictions, political affiliation, race, gender or on whatever ground, is not permitted."

The crucial part is "All who are in The Netherlands". This means anybody on Dutch soil, not anybody with Dutch citizenship. Citizenship is completely irrelevant to how you are tried for crimes committed on Dutch soil. If you steal someone's wallet in Amsterdam, you will get the same trial and punishment as I do if I would steal someone's wallet in Amsterdam.

I had the idea that the US Constitution (or one of the other founding documents, forgive me for not knowing the details of US Law) had a similar phrase. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Rik

[helene_t]

Ken and Lobowolf: OK you say that these terrorists suspects must be treated "differently" than ordinary criminals - may I ask, in what way different? Surely neither of you favor torture.

I am surprised that you think it can be relevant what citizenship a suspect has, Ken. OK, foreign citizens can be deported, and there may be an option for them to serve part of their jail sentence in their home country, but except for that the trial and punishment are identical. That must be true in the US too.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 22 2009, 08:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 22 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 22 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

Quote

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

Neocon tactic.

Disgusting.

maybe you're right but i need to know what you mean by this, al... how exactly is this a neocon tactic?

Deflect (not answer) and then attack. If caught, feign lack of recollection...

i think your attack was unjustified, it appeared to me that mike was looking for alternatives while granting gerben's point ("... fair enough ...")

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on Jan 23 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

Ken and Lobowolf: OK you say that these terrorists suspects must be treated "differently" than ordinary criminals - may I ask, in what way different? Surely neither of you favor torture.

I am surprised that you think it can be relevant what citizenship a suspect has, Ken. OK, foreign citizens can be deported, and there may be an option for them to serve part of their jail sentence in their home country, but except for that the trial and punishment are identical. That must be true in the US too.

Someone once wrote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal []."

I think he was American.

And I don't think he meant that only Americans are created equal.

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jan 23 2009, 05:55 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 22 2009, 08:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 22 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 22 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 22 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

Quote

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.
1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

Neocon tactic.

Disgusting.

maybe you're right but i need to know what you mean by this, al... how exactly is this a neocon tactic?

Deflect (not answer) and then attack. If caught, feign lack of recollection...

i think your attack was unjustified, it appeared to me that mike was looking for alternatives while granting gerben's point ("... fair enough ...")

You're right Jimmy. I have a sensitive spot when it comes to those "individuals" that have sucked us all down with them.

My apologies to Mike if I offended you.

Seen Faux News lately? O'Reilly, Hannity et al (let's not forget (Bull)Rush Limbaugh) are on the prowl. Fear and hate. Ignore the issue and attack.
Glad I am for fair and equal treatment. It makes sure that we get to see just how reprehensible they are.

[awm]

My impression is that a lot of the people being held captive:

(1) Were captured in foreign countries, having never been on US soil.
(2) Are not American citizens, or citizens of any US ally.
(3) Were captured by the US military, their "crime" being fighting against the US military.
(4) May or may not be members of groups like Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The problem is that there's no real way to try these people. Their "crime" is self-defense. They may be members of some terrorist group, but in many cases it's hard to prove that they actually did anything terrorist (and group affiliations are hard to prove, and not necessarily a crime under US law). There is no country we really want to deport them to.

Yet letting them go is not a great solution either. They are likely to go right back to the middle east and start trying to shoot American soldiers. At least one guy we released is apparently now a major leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen.

On the other hand, some of the people we've imprisoned are likely just civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Holding them indefinitely with no trial and no rights isn't a good solution either (and it doesn't make the US look good internationally).

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on Jan 23 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 23 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

Ken and Lobowolf: OK you say that these terrorists suspects must be treated "differently" than ordinary criminals - may I ask, in what way different? Surely neither of you favor torture.

I am surprised that you think it can be relevant what citizenship a suspect has, Ken. OK, foreign citizens can be deported, and there may be an option for them to serve part of their jail sentence in their home country, but except for that the trial and punishment are identical. That must be true in the US too.

Someone once wrote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal []."

I think he was American.

And I don't think he meant that only Americans are created equal.

Rik

I am sure no one construes that as meaing that the legal system if a country should make o distinctions between citiens and non-citizens of tghat country so I won't pursue that line of thought.

But of course at Guantanamo, as Adam above and others elsewhere point out, were not on US territory when they were captured. Absolutely correct.

unmless we can resurrect John Lennon and make him president, I think we will be involved in some miltary action for a while. We need to discuss this.

We also need to discuss how we will deal with foreign natinoals on US soil who in fact are engaged in acts of sabotage.

We need to protect ourselves, we need to act with respect for human rights. The problems are to a large extent new to us. I seriously doubt that just reading what the Geneva conventios say will be adequate.

I seriously am interested in how Europeans deal with this, partly because I think they have had more experience and partly because I am just interested. To start with, I would like to know what sort of distinctions they make in their legal systems between their own citizens and others. We need ot copy their ideas, but we might well be able to learn something.