Originally posted by murrowSuspected criminal, possibly then interned criminal: one class
Wrong: you could also be a suspected criminal, but innocent. Maybe you meant "suspected criminal"? To be a criminal, you have to be charged, prosecuted and found guilty (something about innocent until found guilty, yada yada...) This is relevant in this case, of course, as all charges against BM were dropped.
(Or, of course, you could be unlawfully detained.)
Suspected POW, possibly then interned POW: another class
You treat the "suspected" status even better than the final status (if it occurs).
There is no "third class" of "suspected enemy combatant/terrorist, possibly then interned enemy combatant/terrorist." Bush's administration scrambled to create such a class to cover the fact that they were detaining people arbitrarily (and arguably in violation of UDHR) -- but it didn't fly and was never accepted internationally.
We in the US should never have tolerated such a move by our own Executive because it flies in the face of Western Democratic thinking about what liberty is and means.
Originally posted by zeeblebotDo you think spies can be legally tortured?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy#Risks
Risks
The risks of espionage vary. A spy breaking the host country's laws may be deported, imprisoned, or even executed. A spy breaking his/her own country's laws can be imprisoned for espionage or/and treason, or even executed, as the Rosenbergs were. For example, when Aldrich Ames handed a stack of dossiers of ...[text shortened]... n for espionage—and died there—as he was operating without diplomatic cover and immunity.
Originally posted by no1marauderyou were the one that brought up "US service personnel". what degree of interrogation of uniformed personnel is permitted?
Is it your claim that in defining what is or isn't torture whether the person is in uniform or not is a relevant factor?
----
Originally posted by zeeblebot
torture bad, interrogation good.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo he was released without ever being prosecuted?
when the charges were dismissed in Oct 2008, against Binyam M and others, the chief prosecutor made it clear that it was for the purpose of filing new charges.
charges were similarly dismissed against another prisoner in May 2008, and the new charges in his case were filed in Nov 2008, 8 months later. (wiki Mohammed al Qahtani)
in Binyam M's case, ...[text shortened]... hich is that Binyam M agrees never to travel to the US.
none of this indicates exoneration.
What makes you think he was guilty, then?
Do you agree that it would be a bit odd if the US authorities did not have enough evidence to prove his guilt but you, zeeblebot, do?
You look only at the allegations made against someone in order to decide?
His (US military, security cleared) lawyer at gitmo said around this time last year: "The greatest injustice I fear is that Binyam Mohamed is still being held at Guantánamo only to suppress evidence of his torture".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/11/binyam-mohamed-guantanamo-torture
Originally posted by murrowdidn't you read my post? i answered your question there!
So he was released without ever being prosecuted?
What makes you think he was guilty, then?
Do you agree that it would be a bit odd if the US authorities did not have enough evidence to prove his guilt but you, zeeblebot, do?
You look only at the allegations made against someone in order to decide?
His (US military, security cleared) lawyer at git ...[text shortened]... ure".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/11/binyam-mohamed-guantanamo-torture
you can't take what defense lawyers say at face value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques
Enhanced interrogation techniques or alternative set of procedures were terms adopted by the George W. Bush administration in the United States to describe interrogation methods used by US military intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to extract information from individuals captured in the "War on Terror" soon after the September 11 attacks in 2001.
Some of these techniques are regarded by many in the international press as torture.[1] The New York Times chose to refer to them as "harsh" and "brutal" but do not call them "torture" in their news articles.[2] Paul Kane of the Washington Post explained that they do not call it torture out of fear of litigation.[3] The British government has determined some techniques would be classified as torture under European law.[4]
In December 2005, the United States eliminated use of these techniques by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, and limiting interrogation methods to those explicitly authorized by the United States Army Field Manual.
The Obama administration completed the formation of the High-Value Interrogation Group in January 2010 to interrogate high-value terrorist suspects.[5]
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes I read it.
didn't you read my post? i answered your question there!
you can't take what defense lawyers say at face value.
So, if I understand you right, you're saying-- yes, he was released without charge, but to hell with "innocent until proved guilty" and all that, you, zeeblebot, know he was guilty because you've read a wikipedia post summarising the prosecution case against him (the one that was dropped for some reason).
So, although I can't take what defense lawyers say at face value, you *can* take at face value what the prosecuting lawyers say (second hand via wikipedia). Even though they didn't believe it themselves enough to actually prosecute the case.
Irony much?