Zey say zis same about ze brave German soldiers in the Great War, who after all, were just trying to help ze Polisher dumkopfs, ja? Zees polacks, und Russians, resisting ze help…zey deserve a little torture, do zey not?

Sometimes it’s best to say nothing. I should do that more often, too.

Responding to some of these apes is often more than they deserve, Paulie.

Re: Steve 6, a declaration of war would imply an actual, measurable endpoint at which time the “war” could end, and there would be no more billions of federal dollars poured into propping up (and then occasionally blowing up) scary Emmanuel-Goldstein style “terrorist groups,” much less into the sate universities to “study terrorism.” There’s no rational self-interest in undermining the terror-industrial complex.

Hope this helps.

Starting with the folks we discuss political issues with is as good a place as any.

It would be well if the world had more people who agreed.

I was speaking from a purely academic and legal basis. Certainly emotion, politics and ethics will change the dynamic of any sort of debate. Everything you state relating to ethics is absolutely debatable.

But going back to following the law pursuant to military law and international agreement, a hearing is required to determine the status of any prisoner that may be prosecuted or detained under the military code within the confines of the US. The reason is that there are certain rights afforded POWs that may not be afforded to others in detention. This doesn’t mean you can be cruel to one over the other, but it does have other legal ramifications.

Again, your ethics argument has merit for debate purposes. The legal arguments are complex as well. There are many ethical and policy reasons for treating prisoners well, but my personal experience in dealing directly with detainees was dictated simply by the fact that treating all people, no matter what, with dignity and respect is merely the right thing to do.

So, no, the USA military doesn’t have to do anything to establish that these men are prisoners in the custody of the military. That’s obvious. And, as such, they should accord these men the standards of treatment provided to prisoners of war as a matter of course. They should know that it is wrong to inflict cruel and unusual punishment, because every military person has sworn an oath to serve and protect the constitution, and that language is in the constitution.

There really aren’t that many people involved. Putting them through any sort of process to sort out the ones who have actually done things from those who have not shouldn’t take this long. Most of the problems have arisen from the compromised legal status that arises from torture and other abuse. Plus the Bush administration couldn’t dream of ever admitting a mistake, or releasing anyone.

It is all incredibly tedious and stupid. At least now that there is a regime change in DC, the blame can all be laid at Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld’s feet.

The war on terror, like the war on drugs, is treason. Both of these are wars on the American people, and the people are the United States. Making war on the United States is treason.

As you know, our mutual friend Ron Paul tried to get Congress to declare war, in each case. It seems that Congress doesn’t do that any longer. If they were to repeal the 1933 emergency, and the 1861 emergency, maybe they could.

I think Kansans should not be underestimated. The Free State was founded by people who traveled a long way on principle, the anti-slavery principle. Nevertheless, I don’t believe any part of the press release says dick about what all Kansans believe or think or want. Why should their feelings be given any regard? People who would give up freedom for some imagined security can go to hell.

Some of these people, Steve, were picked up on battlefields, but some were not. Some were victims of large bounties given out to bounty hunters without regard to who was captured. Some of these people didn’t commit any crime, and they should be released.

Given the very large population now in the USA whose forebears were brought to this country against their will, I don’t think there is anything to fear from people who are released from custody just because they may resent having been brought over. Now that there is a new administration, they can move quickly to release those who cannot be charged with anything, and blame it all on the previous administration.

The underlying issue is that we are dealing with stateless actors, and not a war against a state. The Geneva Conventions, which are included in US military law, require that a military tribunal determine the status of detained enemy people. This process became muddled, and when you throw politics into the equation, you get to the point we are at now. The stateless actor portion comes into play because the portions of the Geneva Conventions that the US is signed onto focuses on state vs. state conflicts in the more conventional sense.

There is some legal basis for the Gitmo prison idea that the Bush administration helped set up. However, the legality aspect was never meant to handle such indefinate detentions.

Your question regarding declaring war is a good one. My opinion is that a Congressional declaration of war would be interpreted to be limited to specific state entities. A Congressional War on Terror would be so broad, and so open to interpretation, that it could create a very chaotic situation (much worse than what we have now) from legal and political standpoints.

Might be interesting to find a law review article on the subject.

I think Mr. Dondero is trying to point out how ridiculous and offensive this would sound to the average Kansas voter who might happen across it, and he’s right in that regard, but I don’t believe that anyone thinks of the inmates at a federal prison as their “next door neighbor.”

Kansas is likely not the proper location because Leavenworth is geared toward military prisoners. The Gitmo detainees will likely no longer be deemed enemy combatants and instead be charged under various terrorism/conspiracy laws. This means that they will be considered dangerous federal prisoners, similar in some respects to Charles Taylor’s son in Florida and the first WTC bombers as mentioned above. Others will be released.

National security law rules will need to be put in affect to protect covert sources, and numerous pretrial motions will be made by the defense to remove vast amounts of evidence against the accused.

Overall, it is fascinating from an academic, legal standpoint.

I have some experience in this field and advise various organizations on such topics, so as your party continues to advocate on this issue, I am more than happy to get with you offline and provide some insight to assist in your efforts.

What prison — if any — they belong in is the last, not the first, consideration. It’s the consideration that comes after actually charging them with crimes and convicting them in real trials in real courts with real juries.

As far as pre-trial disposition is concerned, if they are not eligible for bail I do agree that a regular prison rather than a military prison is preferable. ADC Florence seems to be a bit overkill, though.

The Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri sounds like a good bet. They have experience holding terror-related prisoners (the Blind Sheikh), large groups of foreign prisoners (after the mass boatlift from Cuba), prisoners backed by powerful criminal organizations (Gotti and other mobsters), etc.