The ninth circus in action again

[le Voyageur]

As I'm a bit of a historian, lets shift away from the law concerning the status of P.O.W.'s, enemy combatants

and etc to consider and think about this topic in a different light...

First, let's roll back the clock to the year 2002, to the time of the John Walker Lindh case (the American Taliban captured in Afghanistan).

 

After his capture (early December), he was held at Camp Rhino in a large metal cargo container. There were no light, heat source or insulation. He was kept in these conditions for three days, with mimimal food, medical attention and with his hands and feet handcuffed in such a way that his forearms were forced together and fully extended-making it impossible for him to sleep.

During later interagations Lindh would ask for a lawyer, this was denied being told by an FBI agent that none was available. He was not told that his parents had retained a lawyer for him who was ready and willing to see him in Afghanistan. The government had also prevented the Red Cross from delivering a note that Lindh's parents went to him on or about December 3, stating they had retained a lawyer.

After a Federal Grand Jury returned a 10 count indictment against Lindh, US Attorney General John Ashcroft, disregarding Justice Department rules barring statements that might influence the outcome of a trial began trying the case in the media....Ashcroft states, "Americans who love their country do not dedicate themselves to killing Americans", and further implied that Lindh was a key operative in AL Qaeda's operations....Lindh is now serving a very lengthy prison term.

 

Now, lets roll the clock back to 1942, the US has been in the war against the Axis powers for about 8 months, and filling up internment camps with American citizens of Japaneses ancestery. However, the real story that is happening, and is being buried very quickly is about the current President's grandfather Prescott Bush (elected U.S. Senator, 1952). The Bush-Harriman-Thyssen U.S. enterprises which operated out of a suite of offices at 39 Broadway (NYC) under the supervision of Prescott Bush was an enterprise that bankrolled the Nazi government....

 

New York Herald-Tribune, 30 July 1942, The banner headline reads, "Hitler's Angel Has $3 Million in U.S. Bank."

"The bank" founded in 1924 by W.Averell Harriman on behalf of Thyssen and his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. of Holland was Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York City. According to government documents, it was in reality a clearing house for a number of Thyssen controled enterprises and assest, including as many as a dozen individual businesses. UBC also bought and shipped overseas gold, steel, coal, and U.S. Treasury and war bonds. The company's activities were admistered for Thyssen by a Netherlands-born, naturalized U.S. citizen named Cornelis Lieense, who served as president of UBC. Roland Harriman was chairman and Prescott Bush a managing director."[John Buchanan, The New Hamphire Gazette, Vol 248, No. 1, Oct. 10, 2003]

"On Oct. 20, 1942, under authority of the Tading with the Enemy Act, the U.S. Congress seized UBC and liquidated its assets after the war. The seizure is confirmed by Vesting Order No. 248 in the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian and signed by U.S. Alien Property Custodian Leo T. Crowley.

In August, under the same authority, Congress had seized the first of the Bush-Hariman-managed Thyssen entites, Hamburg-American Line.....Eight days after the seizure of UBS invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act again to take contro of two more Bush-Harriman-Thyssene business - Holland-American Tradin Corp....and Seamless Steel Equpment Corp Silesian-Ameerican Corporation, which allegedly profited from slave labor at Auschwitz via partnership with I.G. Farben, Hitler's third major industrial patron and partner in the infrastructure of the Third Reich"[ibid]

After the seizures of the various businesses, the U.S. government quietly settled with Bush, Harriman and others after the war. Bush and Harriman each received 1.5 million in cash as compensation for their seized business assets...

 

John Lindh gets a prison cell, and Prescott Bush 1.5 million and later elected into the Senate. Kinda fascinating, hey...

 

 

[LovetoCamp]

What a load. The President's grandpa is now the target of the looney left and taliban johnny is a victim. What a load.

[eisely]

Numerous German owned businesses were siezed during WWII. If there were innocent US citizens harmed by these siezures, it makes sense that they be compensated in some way. Nobody ever charged these people with crimes of which I am aware.

 

Certainly Lindh was held under conditions that can most charitably be described as primitive. I don't think he has ever said that he was tortured. One has to mindful of the conditions under which that war was being fought at the time. Just because the military was not able to provide better accommodations doesn't mean that he was treated unjustly. The question of access to lawyers and the like is at this point moot. He did have excellent representation in the end and got the best deal he could get. Many Americans would have liked to have seen the death penalty for this young man. I save my sympathy for the US military people and the Iraqis and Afghans they are helping.

 

NJCubScouter,

 

Your input on the jurisdiction question is informative and helpful. I am not sure that I agree, but I suspect the issue will get a full airing again.

[ScouterPaul]

le Voyageur

Thank you for the information. I was not aware of this. I will however due a little research of my own.

 

Trail Pounder - "What a load" Can you prove any of the facts presented by le Voyageur to be false? If not how can you justify your statement?

 

Eisley - I may have missed the reference but the way I undstood the information was that the companies that had been siezed had been seized because they were trading with the enemy and were not German owned.

[LovetoCamp]

Merry Christmas!(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder)

[Fat Old Guy]

During WW II, the German Army drove Dodge trucks and bought explosives from DuPont and oil from Standard Oil. A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him.

 

[eisely]

I am not familiar with the circumstances described by leVoyageur or the "Trading with the Enemy Act." Many businesses were also siezed just be because they were German owned. Maybe the law referred to was the legal basis for the seizures. It makes sense that a German owned subsidiary of a German parent corporation would have been "trading with the enemy" at the time when Germany and the US formally declared war on each other subsequent to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Any trading relationships prior to that were perfectly legal.

[le Voyageur]

My interest in this part of the Bush's family history tends to lean into the "what if" category. That is, "what if" and in particular in referance to Prescott Bush, had the U.S. Government brought criminal proceedings against and prosecuted Prescott Bush for aiding and abetting the enemy, just as they would later do with Lindh. Makes for interesting speculations as to how this would of effected current history as it now unfolds...generally this would simply be the inane talk heard around a campfire (consider, would anyone dare write a book about the "Court Marshall of George Armstrong Custer", hey).

 

Trail Pounder - you have me chuckling. Me, Liberal Left...I make Ann Ryand look like a conservative...

 

[LovetoCamp]

Yeah, Okay. Ayn Rand, LOL!!! You take care!

 

(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder)

[RobK]

So, le Voyageur, this company was founded in 1924, 17 years before the US entered WWII, 9 years before the Nazi party (let's remember its full name: National Socialist German Workers' Party) took power in Germany. And this company managed a number of German/American buisnesses.

 

Having a stake in this company is equivalent in your eyes to taking up arms in common cause with a self-avowed mortal enemy of the US?

 

You're probably one of those who say we ought to "internationalize" the rebuilding of Iraq and let France and Germany take part, `cause you know, even though the UK, Poland, Italy, and many other nations are taking an active part, it ain't international without the French and Germans! Really, who cares if they were actively trading with Iraq (for nasty oil money which is OK to have if you're a socialist) despite all those UN sanctions? It's OK to trade with a dictator who runs living people through a chipper/shredder as long as it's for the people!

 

Am I wrong?

[le Voyageur]

eisely

Here's some rough thoughts on my reasoning. First, the detention and treatment of American citizens as ememy combatants may have already been decided by the Supreme Court in ex Parte Milligan (1865).

As for the Detainees at Gitmo, we need to referance the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of P.O.W.'s. In Part 1 Article 4 "Prisoners of war...are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces...as wellas members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resisance movements, fulfil the followin conditions:(a) that being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; ©that of carrying arms openly;(d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess alleginace to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaing Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany....

(5)......

(6) Inhabitants of a non occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated....In particular, no prisoner of war maybe subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind....prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acs of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

 

Article 14 Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.

 

Article 17

....No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unplesant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.."

 

As you see, those being held at Gitmo do fall into the category of P.O.W.'s However, the rub is Article 17 which our government is circumventing by relabeling P.O.W.'s as detainees, and other smoke and mirrors semantics. For those in uniform, this practise by our government should be a worry as to their own treatment should they become P.O.W.'s...

 

RobK, per your question, Yes, you are wrong on many counts. Sorry, I just don't have the time to give you a history lesson...maybe later when you've cooled down a bit, and able to think rationally.

[NJCubScouter]

RobK, when you talk about those bad countries who were trading with Saddam Hussein and otherwise helping him, are you talking about Europe over the past few years, or are you talking about the U.S. in the 1980's?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?

 

And before you say that that was before we knew how bad Saddam Hussein was, this article suggests otherwise. What it suggests is that the Reagan and Bush I State Departments were happy to be in bed with the guy as long as it served our interests. And I have nothing against our policies serving our national best interests, in fact I wish that were the case more often. (I am marginally ok with the latest war in Iraq though I am becoming less ok by the day as our lack of a real post-war strategy becomes clearer and clearer, and as more and more of our young people die by week.)

 

It's just that some of the righteousness I see and hear about Saddam Hussein, and those who dealt with him, seems pretty silly when you know the actual history. I keep hearing talk-radio voices saying how we had to get Saddam Hussein out of there in part "because he attacked two of his neighbors." They neglect to mention that when he was fighting against the first of those neighbors, we were helping him.

[scoutingagain]

le Voyager,

 

Thank you for the information on the Geneva Convention. I don't pretend to be too much of a historian or legal genious and after many references to the Geneva Convention it is interesting to see some of the information you provided.

 

Prehaps you or NJ, could comment on the phrase that appears several times in your reference, "... conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

 

It would seem to me that members of an organization that takes over civilian airliners to target civilian populations, openly acknowledges such activity, trains others to perform similar acts and those governments and their agents that harbor such an organization do not conduct "..their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." and lose their status as POWs.

 

Just my admittedly uneducated and biased interpretation. (I don't mean to be sarcastic, I truely have little knowledge or experience in these matters, but it doesn't prevent me from forming an opinion.)

 

SA

[NJCubScouter]

Scoutingagain, since you mentioned my name in your question, I will respond as best I can, which is not very well. I am not an expert in international law. For some reason, practicing law in suburban New Jersey has not brought me into contact with any prisoners of war, enemy combatants or military detainees, or their legal rights. I have represented a few citizens of other nations who mysteriously found themselves in this country with no authorization whatsoever to be here, and before anyone gets huffy about that, please realize that my job was essentially to help clear away all roadblocks to getting them deported as fast as possible (since, given the choice between being in jail here or being not in jail there, they'd rather be not in jail there.)

 

But I can say this: Having read what leVoyageur has posted, I agree with Scoutingagain, at least to the al-Quaeda-types. I don't see how any of those categories apply, perhaps if someone thinks one of them does and can explain which one, I could respond to that. And maybe change my mind, but it doesn't seem to me that any of the "POW" categories apply to the terrorists themselves. The Taliban fighters (if there are any still in our custody, I don't know) may be a different story. They were fighting for an established government. I don't know if they wore "marks" or if they fought "openly" or obeyed the "laws and customs of war." I'd have to wonder whether that phrase is applied literally in this age of guerrilla wars. So I don't know whether the Taliban would be considered POWs or not, but they would be the best candidates.

 

Personally I think that we should honor basic principles of humane treatment regardless of what category a prisoner falls into. But I'm not sure that in the case of someone who was an active member of al Quaeda and may have knowledge of their future plans, that we should have to stop questioning them when they give name, rank and serial number.

 

Which, just so it's clear, has little to do with the cases that this thread was started about. I don't think the Geneva convention is at issue in those cases, though in fairness I still have not had a chance to read all 30 or 50 pages of them. What was at issue in the Ninth Circuit case was not even the actual rights of those being held, though it may have been discussed in passing. All that was really at issue was whether the detainees could even ask a federal court to determine whether their rights were being violated, which would first require that the court determine what those rights are. The Ninth Circuit said that, yes, the detainees can ask, and I agree with that. And my guess would be that the Supreme Court will agree also, maybe by a 5-4 vote. But the question of what their rights actually are has NOT been decided.

[eisely]

As I think I noted earlier, the Geneva conventions are agreements among states to govern armed conflict among states. Al Queda is a stateless group of murderous loonies that objects to most governments in principle and clearly believes that the Geneva conventions do not restrict what they can and cannot do. Let's dissect what LeVoyageur posted a little more closely. The most relevant section is pasted below.

 

" Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resisance movements, fulfil the following conditions (a) that being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; ©that of carrying arms openly;(d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

 

One of the operative phrases governing militias and volunteer corps is "...belonging to a Party to the conflict..."

 

Our basis for invading Afghanistan was the inability and/or unwillingness of the Taliban regime to arrest and turn over the leaders of Al Queda to US authorities. Remember that the Taliban did not even exercise full control over its own territory, but Al Queda was operating openly in the territory controlled by the Taliban. I don't recall reading that Al Queda was a government or country somewhere. How does Al Queda count as a "party to the conflict" when Al Queda does not qualify as a state or government? Most of the Afghan people in the end hated the foreigners among them since the Al Queda were clearly supporters of an unpopular regime. Non Afghans like John Lindh had far less right to be there supporting the Taliban than we had to go into Afghanistan to pursue our vital national interest in running Al Queda to the ground when the Taliban would not do so.

 

Whatever you may feel about our invasion of Iraq, similar observations could be made about non-Iraqis now being captured in Iraq. What business is this of theirs? They cannot be said to be trying to liberate their own territory since what they are trying to do is reinstate the former regime.

 

Detained members of Al Queda also fail to qualify for POW treatment on other grounds, namely (a),(b) and © in LeVoyageur's post. I leave out (d) since the detainees by and large were not directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

 

Even so, if we were to grant POW status formally to these detainees, then they clearly are not entitled to attorneys, unless they are actually charged with specific crimes. As I noted earlier, being captured on the field of battle as an apparent fighter does not itself constitute a crime. In the case of the Marin Taliban (Lindh), if he had been captured actually attacking US personnel, he probably could have been charged with treason. In the event, he was not so charged, and copped a plea to a lesser offense.

 

Prudence may ultimately force the Bush administration to decide that the detainees should be formally considered to be POWs. I don't really think that would matter all that much. They are receiving humane treatment consistent with the requirements of the Geneva conventions. Representatives of various other real governments whose nationals are detained who have visited Guantanamo have pronounced the conditions to be satisfactory. I also doubt very much that those governments really want their people back. It is more convenient for them to pretend to be concerned and have these people kept off the street.

 

The more interesting and important cases are those who were not apprehended in Afghanistan during the fighting, but those picked up in places like Pakistan. Unless these people were actually captured in active fighting, it is not clear to me what their status is. Eventually such people probably should be charged or released, as in fact has happened to quite a few.