More On Murat Kurnaz

I previously linked this 60 Minutes bit scheduled for March 30th. Then I checked into the story of Kurnaz. It doesn't even qualify as news. The disputed story has been well reported as far back as 2005. Kurnaz wrote a 285 page book in 2007. Why 60 Minutes thinks this is now news is inexplicable.

(CBS) A German resident held by the U.S. for almost five years tells 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley that Americans tortured him in many ways - including hanging him from the ceiling for five days early in his captivity when he was in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The U.S. Pentagon responding by e-mail says, "We treat all detainees humanely… and all credible claims are investigated thoroughly…. The abuses Mr. Kurnaz alleges are not only unsubstantiated and implausible, they are simply outlandish."

Along with making unsubstantiated claims against the German military for abuse, Kurnaz wrote a 285 page book published back in April of 2007. Also see here.

Over the past few weeks, the German Defence Ministry has been at pains to present Kurnaz as a confused person making fantastic claims, while denying any contact between him and German soldiers. Then two weeks ago the ministry suddenly conceded that KSK units were involved in guarding the camp in Kandahar, following a request from the US, and that they had met with Kurnaz.

Evidently, a "man without a country" he just headed off to Pakistan with a digital camera and appears to have sold his cell phone to someone with a dubious reputation. There's only so much to be learned as much of the material and process is classified.

In the initial interrogations he was confronted with details which indicated knowledge of his background: where he purchased his digital camera before setting off for Pakistan, to whom he sold his cell phone, etc. �I had no doubt they were cooperating with German authorities,� Kurnaz declared.

Point being, his story has been well documented as far back as 2005. Sixty-Minutes is simply recycling old news from a guy with a two year old book deal.

Comments

[jharp]

"I doubt whether King George is taking away the rights of non-citizens here in the US to have a lawyer, a trial or charges filed against them."

As a matter of fact he is. And worse yet he has taken away the rights of an American citizen. Held without charges and not a allowed a trial for 4 years.

Jose Padilla.

[jharp]

seeker,

Your post is wrong in so many ways.

Your reasoning is because another country might not give someone a fair trial has nothing to do with our behavior.

We're back to the two wrongs don't make a right.

Because you have strong, strong doubts about Mr. Kunaz doesn't mean a dam thing. He is a human being as has rights just as you and I.

[seekeronos]

He may have those rights as a human being, but our Constitution does not guarantee him the same rights he would enjoy as a US citizen.

I am not at all concerned with Tibetans or the Chinese, although I believe the Chinese response to the Tibetans is quite heavy-handed. Knowing how the Chinese government likes to fudge numbers (way up when they are the "victims", per the Nanking Incident, and way down as in Tienanmen Square and recently in Tibet) it wouldn't be surprising to find out that things have been pretty bloody there.

What China does is irrelevant. The reality is that American nationals captured overseas will either rot in foreign jails (and many do) unless there is some financial gain the foreign nation can realize by the sweet-talking that might happen should interested parties parly for the release of said citizens.

Other cases might simply punish Americans just to prove a point (like the boy who got caned in Singapore some years ago).

As for our practice with "enemy combatants" and others detained as non Geneva-entitled aliens (Gitmo) ... I see that it has its problems, but once again, these folks are in a grey area: they have no expectation of Geneva or UN protection, certainly no rights under the Constitution or Federal Code, and in some cases like Mr. Kurnaz, not even their home government has any interest in recovering their captured nationals.

So, unless the POTUS chooses to pardon/release/subject to the scrutiny of the US court system any of the Gitmo detainees - or unless the SCOTUS forces the matter, or Congress passes a law requiring the enemy aliens to be tried under constitutional / US courts...

...them boys ain't going nowhere.

I'm not saying that it is right, I'm just saying that is the way things are.

[jharp]

"I'm not saying that it is right,"

That's good and I agree it is wrong. That is the point I was trying to make.

"I'm just saying that is the way things are."

Also true since King George took things over. And what gets me it the right wingers try to justify his lawbreaking.

Can you imagine Hilliary Clinton wiretapping and imprisoning folks with no judicial oversight?

[seekeronos]

"--- Can you imagine Hilliary Clinton wiretapping and imprisoning folks with no judicial oversight? ---"

I could - rather easily.

Actually, the legacy of the Clintons was much more lethal: Mrs. Randall Weaver, young Master Samuel Weaver, and 17 small children in Waco TX come to mind, among others.

And Carnivore (that internet traffic-sniffing software used by the FBI and instituted under the Clintons' regime) circumvented a lot of the laws against un-warranted wiretapping and functioned below the radar of judicial oversight.

What we should do is follow the Constitution, disentangle ourselves from unnecessary and undeclared wars, and bring a swift and certain trial to the detained enemy combatants (preferably by military tribunal to avoid the certain mess of litigation and almost certain release of jihadists), and then criminal trials for any citizens who were detained as unlawful or enemy combatants under appropriate US laws.

In my opinion however, the application of summary justice is probably the most expedient for dealing with francs-tireurs such as is the case of most of the Gitmo detainees.

Fair? Most likely not. But neither are terrorists in their choice of targets - most often people who are unable to fight back.

[IslamoLlama]

Seek, the US Government is not legally allowed to snatch foreigners off the street and hold them indefinitely. This isn't a matter of Constitution Rights or Citizen Rights, this is a matter of executive power. The President cannot detain foreigners indefinitely without giving them a trial or some form of recourse. Kurnaz was arrested and imprisoned without any cause or due process. He was, effectively, kidnapped by the US Government. Just because Turkey and Germany let him get kidnapped does not mean the US has the legal authority to keep him locked up.

"-- What we should do is follow the Constitution, disentangle ourselves from unnecessary and undeclared wars, and bring a swift and certain trial to the detained enemy combatants (preferably by military tribunal to avoid the certain mess of litigation and almost certain release of jihadists), and then criminal trials for any citizens who were detained as unlawful or enemy combatants under appropriate US laws. --"

Yes. Good. Horray. Thank you.

"-- In my opinion however, the application of summary justice is probably the most expedient for dealing with francs-tireurs such as is the case of most of the Gitmo detainees.

Fair? Most likely not. But neither are terrorists in their choice of targets - most often people who are unable to fight back. --"

No. Bad. Boo. Incorrect Answer.

We are not trying to be "fair to terrorists" here, Seek. We're trying to run a competent and confidence-inspiring judicial system. Why would I want my tax payer dollars going to Gitmo if I knew it was just a warehouse for verbal dissidents of foreign countries? America has no compelling interest in paying bounties for random angry citizens of other countries so we can throw them in cages and torture them for half a decade. Simply rustling up a bunch of loud-mouth vagrants and caging them like cattle costs us billions of dollars without making us one wit safer.

So "summary judgment" in kangaroo courts that are designed to find defendants de facto guilty is not the correct move. Actual judgments by certified courts that determine legitimate guilt or innocence - and recompensation to those innocent people who were indefinitely detained for the trouble we have caused them - is the advisable corrective action. We'll never wash our hands of this travesty as long as a single soul is locked away without cause.

[Fred Beloit]

Ah, the defenders of the imprisoned Muslims are at it again. Such passion for justice. Such devotion to the sons of Allah detained in highly humane conditions, conditions entirely unavailable for prisoners in any Muslim country. Harpo, who loves muddy water brings King George, for heaven's sake, into the discussion.

And Moe, more moral than most persons, gets all misty-eyed on us. "We'll never wash our hands of this travesty as long as a single soul is locked away without cause." But, Moe, where is this holy outrage of yours for the victims of Muslim rage boys. I've never seen you show the least bit of concern over Daniel Perle, for example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/09/wpearl09.xm

Will you join me then, Moe, in endorsing this sentiment, before I consider endorsing yours above?

Because the terrorist Muslims pose a threat to every non-Muslim American, may our country never rest until all those people like those who killed Daniel Pearl are destroyed or until we have completely destroyed their will to resist us.

[jharp]

"--- Can you imagine Hilliary Clinton wiretapping and imprisoning folks with no judicial oversight? ---"

"I could - rather easily."

That's good. So now is a good time to stop it. Whether it's W or Hilliary or Obama or McCain, let's end it now.

[jharp]

Fred,

Again, your post is nonsense.

So, in your world the religion you practice matters whether or not you can be imprisoned without charges?

[jharp]

HARARE (AFP) - A New York Times correspondent who has been covering Zimbabwe's elections was among two foreign journalists arrested on Thursday for operating without accreditation, police and the newspaper said.

OK guys,

What do you think? No charges? No trial? Just imprison him indefinitely?

Lets' hope they didn't go to the Republican school of due process.

[templar knight]

Uh, I hate to break the news to you, jharp, but there has never been due process in Zimbabwe, just so you know.

As for your moral eqivalence, pathetic.

[jharp]

"Uh, I hate to break the news to you, jharp, but there has never been due process in Zimbabwe, just so you know."

I didn't know that and thanks.

So I guess the United States is no worse than Zimbabwe.

Proud moment for all Americans.

[seekeronos]

Moe said:

"--- So "summary judgment" in kangaroo courts that are designed to find defendants de facto guilty is not the correct move. Actual judgments by certified courts that determine legitimate guilt or innocence - and recompensation to those innocent people who were indefinitely detained for the trouble we have caused them - is the advisable corrective action. We'll never wash our hands of this travesty as long as a single soul is locked away without cause. ---"

You misunderstand the meaning of "summary justice", and especially so when I used it in the context of the US Army or Marines running into francs-tireurs - in simpler language, people who operate not merely as folks defending their homeland and property from an army in the process of invading and conquering it, but rather un-uniformed asymmetric warriors who terrorize non-combatants (like sawing off of newsies's heads like Daniel Pearl, or detonating bombs made with nails and other such shrapnel inside of busloads of innocent moms and kids) or even attacking military assets with harrying attacks but quickly disappearing into the crowd when they are about to be overwhelmed by a military response.

Summary justice, as applied to those original francs-tireurs during the Franco-Prussian war of the 1870s and later in WW1 and WW2, would include capturing said combatants, and according them a swift and certain death upon capture.

Y'know, the sort of thing where they are passed to the back of the lines, for about 150 meters... and then given a gut-shot at point blank range for their trouble.

And wanna know the nasty truth about that practice? It would be perfectly legal under the LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) and applicable under the Geneva Conventions. Fred or TK had posted that detail either upthread here or on another thread a few days ago.

So to lay it out simply: Summary Justice = Battlefield Execution. Bearing in mind, of course, that the vast majority of the Gitmo detainees aren't there just because they spoke mean things about the USA. If that were the case, you'd have to imprison about 35% of the world's population besides.

No, the typical Gitmo detainee was captured in combat operations against the US military during the Iraq and mostly during the Afghan invasions, with a few there on account of being rather notorious and wanted terrorists.

It's already way too late for that for the folks holed up in Gitmo, and the moment we release them and put them on the first plane back to Saudi Arabia, will be the moment they begin plotting their next great plan to avenge themselves and their god of the indignities their wickedness had visited upon them in the first place.

Speedy and transparent tribunals for these folks followed by the appropriate judgments - death by firing squad or hanging, or release upon determination of non-guilt should have been effected years ago. Any possible intelligence that could have been mined from these people has got to be way out of date by now, and all they exist for now is to make noise and siphon away valuable tax dollars.

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

jharp said:

"--- So I guess the United States is no worse than Zimbabwe.

Proud moment for all Americans. ---"

I wouldn't say so. The newsie with the NYT will have likely known the risk he was taking when he accepted the assignment to go to Zimbabwe. That land isn't exactly a haven for human rights.

A foreign newsie operating here, or more likely, as an independent, non-embedded (i.e. non-credentialed, unvetted) journalist in Iraq might get detained - but unless he was on the short list of terrorist or some how linked with a terrorist group, he'd most likely be turned loose after a few days at most.

[jharp]

"A foreign newsie operating here, or more likely, as an independent, non-embedded (i.e. non-credentialed, unvetted) journalist in Iraq might get detained - but unless he was on the short list of terrorist or some how linked with a terrorist group, he'd most likely be turned loose after a few days at most."

This is the point of our entire debate.

Who makes this decision?

Our judicial process?

Or King George?

[jharp]

...Speedy and transparent tribunals for these folks followed by the appropriate judgments - death by firing squad or hanging, or release upon determination of non-guilt should have been effected years ago.

Speedy and transparent is a good choice of words.

It's the imprisonment without charges that is a huge problem.

Oh, and also torturing them.

[Fred Beloit]

Here, Harpo. This should help you feel so much better, poor old sod.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3672067.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=555465&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

[Fred Beloit]

Here, Harpo. This should help you feel so much better, poor old sod.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3672067.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=555465&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

[Fred Beloit]

Here, Harpo. This should help you feel so much better, poor old sod.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3672067.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=555465&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo, here is some war news from the home front. I thought would would be interesred"

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=71E533E2-AE2F-487B-9B41-3A36FF1C5308

[Fred Beloit]

...interested.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo: "before it was revealed they were breaking the law.

"Harpo, when, where and by whom was "it" proven to be against the law?

[jharp]

Harpo: "before it was revealed they were breaking the law.

"Harpo, when, where and by whom was "it" proven to be against the law?

I really don't know what you are referring to and couldn't find the where I posted the quote you attributed to me.

If you are talking about warrant less wiretaps it hasn't been proven.

Yet they are fighting tooth and nail for retroactive immunity for the telcos who participated. To the point that Bush has promised a veto without immunity.

You tell me. Why would they feel a need to do this?

[jharp]

Fred, here is some war news from the home front. I thought would would be interesred"

More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week, a senior Iraqi government official said Thursday. Iraqi military officials said the group included dozens of officers, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Summary justice, as applied to those original francs-tireurs during the Franco-Prussian war of the 1870s and later in WW1 and WW2, would include capturing said combatants, and according them a swift and certain death upon capture.

Y'know, the sort of thing where they are passed to the back of the lines, for about 150 meters... and then given a gut-shot at point blank range for their trouble. --"

Except Kurnaz and many of the other Gitmo detainees weren't picked up in the heat of battle. They were picked up by mercenaries or local police who were specifically head-hunting for informants to sell to the US.

For those Gitmo combatants who were captured on the field of battle, their indefinite detention was ment to extract information. You can't get info from a dead guy, so suggesting we commit summary execution on them is counter to the entire purpose of their capture.

In fact, this entire suggestion is the equivalent of claiming we should have never held the Hague War Crimes Trials and just started shooting every guy accused of being a Nazi Officer. Summary judgment might be more practical and expedient in the heat of battle, but it is absolutely useless in a modern guerrilla campaign. This isn't to say the technique hasn't been tried - in Vietnam and Korea, we'd round up local guerrillas and execute them en mass or simply firebomb them without looking at them. But if you recall, Vietnam dragged on for over a decade and Korea ended rather badly when China jumped into the fray. In the meantime, such techniques did nothing to "win the hearts and minds" of the citizenry. We made plenty of enemies in Vietnam in our first few years who haunted us long after.

So, in short, your idea is non-applicable. Even if it was applicable, it's been time tested as a rather bad way of doing business.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo, I'm aware of that rumor. Unfortunately, so much false unfavorable news reports from Muslim sources have been featured by the MSM that I am very slow to believe them. I refer you to Little Green Footballs for stories about Photoshoped images, just for example. I prefer to wait a while, so the bloggers can do some verification and fact checking on this item. The MSM seem to be unable or unwilling to do it themselves.

[Fred Beloit]

"They were picked up by mercenaries or local police who were specifically head-hunting for informants to sell to the US."

Or they were doing their patriotic duty to their various countries. You, madame, have no way of knowing which.

[Fred Beloit]

By the way, Harpo. That surprisingly round number should give you pause.

"More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts..."

Let's examine this report rationally, shall we? Do you suppose the numbers were counted like this:

Police abandoned post = 276 Soldiers abandoned post = 2 Police refused to fight = 975
Soldiers who refused to fight = 0.

Or would you say it was more like:

Police who refused to fight and then abandoned their post = 1345
Police who did not refuse to fight but who nevertheless abandoned their post = 12
Police who refused to abandon their post but chose to fight elsewhere = 3427.

Well, Harpo, you get the idea. The idea is the MSM simply repeats what the local Muslim stringers report. See why I'm skeptical?

[Fred Beloit]

Moe writes: "For those Gitmo combatants who were captured on the field of battle, their indefinite detention was ment[sic] to extract information."

That is reasonable, Moe, to a point. Combat prisoners can be a source of information. But that is NOT why they are interned indefinitely. There is only so much a rifleman knows about a battle and about his unit, and this fountain of knowledge soon runs dry. No, the combat prisoners are kept indefinitely so that they will not rejoin this battle or join another battle and continue to be a danger to our forces.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe: "Except Kurnaz and many of the other Gitmo detainees weren't picked up in the heat of battle."

How many others Moe? 3, 7, 47, 53 ????

[seekeronos]

"--- No, the combat prisoners are kept indefinitely so that they will not rejoin this battle or join another battle and continue to be a danger to our forces. ---"

Which is why a good case can be made for hastening the hearing of military tribunals and the speedy execution of these detainees.

"--- Moe: "Except Kurnaz and many of the other Gitmo detainees weren't picked up in the heat of battle."

How many others Moe? 3, 7, 47, 53 ???? ---"

Yes, inquiring minds wanna know.