casio watches? olive clothing? good grief. 

Tamar Raine
[log in to unmask]
Now serving tee shirts! and soon to come, Maui posters and other items;
www.cafepress.com/tamarmag


> [Original Message]
> From: Deri James <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 10/30/2006 4:40:20 PM
> Subject: Re: another black eye for the administration...
>
> On Monday 30 October 2006 16:56, ken barber wrote:
> > the trials will determine what is done to them. your
> > remarks about the not being proven killers ignores who
> > they are and where and how they were captured. but
> > they are going to get trials that will not ignore
> > these things.
> >
>
> Ken,
>
> How do you envisage these "trials" working?
>
> It doesn't seem to be like a normal trial, where the burden of guilt
proof is 
> on the prosecution, defendant gets told exactly the crime of which he is 
> accused, and, perhaps most important of all, proceedings occur in public.
>
> Perhaps you envisage something more in line with the Nuremberg Trials
after 
> WWII. Held in public, filmed, overwhelming physical evidence, multiple
eye 
> witness accounts, cast iron identification evidence. Noone was found
guilty 
> at Nurembourg just because they were an SS Officer, it was always tied to
a 
> particular criminal action which it could be proved beyond any doubt was 
> perpetrated by the person accused. Just being a soldier who had shot at 
> Allied soldiers would not have led to a prosecution.
>
> Are the Guantanamo prisoners in this sort of category? Lets look at the
facts 
> as released by the US Govt.:-
>
> The Govt says all the prisoners are "Enemy Combatants" and defines that 
> as "The definition of an enemy combatant is in the implementing orders,
> which have been passed out to everyone. But, in short, it means anyone
who is 
> part of supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces 
> engaging in hostilities against the United States or our coalition 
> partners.". So just aiding the Taliban/aQ gives the status of "Enemy 
> Combatant". Taking in, caring for, a wounded Talibani, would classify you 
> as "Enemy" - to be locked up for years.
>
> According to released US Govt information over 50% of the prisoners are
not 
> accused of "hostilities" but just "supporting" Taliban/Aq. The Govt says
that 
> only 8% have been classified as "fighters" and 60% are simply "Associated 
> with" Taliban/Aq.
>
> Now, what counts as "engaging" in hostilities? Again the US Govt have
told 
> us:-
>
> 1. The detainee fled, along with others, when the United States forces
>    bombed their camp.
> 2. The detainee was captured in Pakistan, along with other Uigher
>    fighters.
>
> (I think I'd flee my camp if bombed!!!) So "camp cook" is hostile act.
>
> Only 5% were actually captured by US forces so it seems most of the
prisoners 
> were just "handed over" by other Pakistanis or Afghans including Bounty 
> Hunters (since the US gave large bounties for prisoners received).
>
> The Govt admits that the following reasons were sufficient for accepting
the 
> prisoners from Bounty Hunters:-
>
> "Associations with unnamed and unidentified individuals and/or
organizations;
> Associations with organizations, the members of which would be allowed
into 
> the United States by the Department of Homeland Security;
> Possession of rifles;
> Use of a guest house;
> Possession of Casio watches; and
> Wearing of olive drab clothing."
>
> The number of "dangerous" detainees is surprisingly small, the vast
majority 
> should never have been incarcerated for this length of time. 
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy