Supreme Court declares US Guantanamo tribunals illegal

[xiannaix]

No evidence, huh? More like you never looked for any. Watch this link - about the involvement of doctors in torture in Iraq and Gitmo.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/30/1334236

most of the people with whom I've gotten into this discussion with (elsewhere) eventually come up with a definition of torture as being any coercive act - which would leave interrogators with the tried, true and effective technique of pleading with the detainee for information

in any event, regarding Iraq (I suspect you're tlking Abu Ghraib - I'd refer you to the favct that those involved were tried for crimes and are serving prison terms

Gitmo - you and I would disagree. You're relying on an article from a group who is opposed to the war as a whole I'm relying on the accounts of Senators who also oppose the war who visited the camp. So, its a dispute. I'll concede that its possible that torture is occuring if you'll admit that it might not be. Further, there is no doubt that it has occurred - that is fact - just as those charged and convicted for it are in the brig. And, just so we're clear and you needn't make the silly allegation - torture shouldn't be used and if it is those who do so deserve severe punishment for it - it is morally repugnant and practicly speaking the tortured confesson is inherently unreliable - - meaning that torture as a common practice makes little sense and interrogators know this

 

[ZAMB]

As for priosoners being taken to other countries. 1) you must be sure to unerstand that this procedure was one initiated by Clinton not Bush - he's just using an already established policy sowith that regard - aim your anger in the right area 2) that those foreign detentions are not subject to any kind of transparency is deeply troubling and although I don't sure your apparent certainty that unspeakable horrors are being committed either by or for or at the direction of Americans I can agree that the policy requires either our complete disengagement or transparency to ensure that there is nothing nasty going on - so you've no beef with me on that and you needn't attempt to suggest or think I'm defendiong such a program - I'm not and won't.

The American fascination with torture goes back a long way further than Clinton - see link below for a lot more detail.

33. URUGUAY 1964 to 1970

Torture -- as American as apple pie


"The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect."{1}
The words of an instructor in the art of torture. The words of Dan Mitrione, the head of the Office of Public Safety (OPS) mission in Montevideo.
Officially, OPS was a division of the Agency for International Development, but the director of OPS in Washington, Byron Engle, was an old CIA hand. His organization maintained a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under OPS cover, although Mitrione was not one of them.{2}

Dan Mitrione did not introduce the practice of torturing political prisoners to Uruguay. It had been perpetrated by the police at times from at least the early 1960s. However, in a surprising interview given to a leading Brazilian newspaper in 1970, the former Uruguayan Chief of Police Intelligence, Alejandro Otero, declared that US advisers, and in particular Mitrione, had instituted torture as a more routine measure; to the means of inflicting pain, they had added scientific refinement; and to that a psychology to create despair, such as playing a tape in the next room of women and children screaming and telling the prisoner that it was his family being tortured.{4}
"The violent methods which were beginning to be employed," said Otero, "caused an escalation in Tupamaro activity. Before then their attitude showed that they would use violence only as a last resort."{5}
The newspaper interview greatly upset American officials in South America and Washington. Byron Engle later tried to explain it all away by asserting: "The three Brazilian reporters in Montevideo all denied filing that story. We found out later that it was slipped into the paper by someone in the composing room at the Jornal do Brasil."{6}
Otero had been a willing agent of the CIA, a student at their International Police Services school in Washington, a recipient of their cash over the years, but he was not a torturer. What finally drove him to speak out was perhaps the torture of a woman who, while a Tupamaro sympathizer, was also a friend of his. When she told him that Mitrione had watched and assisted in her torture, Otero complained to him, about this particular incident as well as his general methods of extracting information. The only outcome of the encounter was Otero's demotion.{7}

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/uruguay.htm

 

[ZAMB]

just as those charged and convicted for it are in the brig.

You're joking, right - Bushco should be in the brig for violations of international and federal law, instead of a few low-rank patsies who did what they were told.

And I'd rather take the word of human rights doctors and lawyers than that of any American politician - and I will NOT agree that torture might not be happening. There has been ample evidence from multiple sources - we have even had numerous TV documentaries made about it here in the UK. I think you can find some of the C4 programmes online.

 

[xiannaix]

You're joking, right - Bushco should be in the brig for violations of international and federal law, instead of a few low-rank patsies who did what they were told.

These are the types of charges and assertions that make for sort discussions

And I'd rather take the word of human rights doctors and lawyers than that of any American politician - and I will NOT agree that torture might not be happening.

more support for brevity

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So why go against the rule of law?

Govts, just like people, sometimes think they can get away with it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's a compilation of US government documents regarding torture, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html

 

[Dandred]

Here's a compilation of US government documents regarding torture, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html

nice.......

 

[Bernie Gunther]

nice.......

Check out the autopsy reports of people who died in US custody, particularly those listing cause of death as 'homicide'

 

[TAE]

Gevena III Article 4 discusses who is classified at a prisoner of war http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

"persons belonging to one of the following categories" - The bit you quoted is only part of the definition. There are others which are combined in an 'OR' clause. Secondly, the person who's case I quoted was not captured on the battlefield. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and accused of committing terrorist acts against the US. If the US accuse him of crimes, then they should put him on trial and stop this nonesense of designating him (and others) as an 'illegal combatant'.

 

[TAE]

Planes are not subject to being prisoners of war afaik - only people.

Nice try but not good enough.

By that logic, soldiers could drive around in civilian looking vehicles with no external markings at all. Or they could wear a boilersuit over their uniform!

 

[xiannaix]

"persons belonging to one of the following categories" - The bit you quoted is only part of the definition. There are others which are combined in an 'OR' clause. Secondly, the person who's case I quoted was not captured on the battlefield. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and accused of committing terrorist acts against the US. If the US accuse him of crimes, then they should put him on trial and stop this nonesense of designating him (and others) as an 'illegal combatant'.

He should - according to US court decisions...

1) be permitted to challenge his designation as an illegal combatant

1a) if determined an illegal combatant he should stand trial within reasonable period of time or be released

2) if determined a POW held until cessation of hostilites (according to my understanding of the rules for POWs) - if that's wrong - well - whatever Geneva says we should do with POWs

I have no beef with that - which - it would appear - puts us in agreemwent does it not?

Nice try but not good enough.

By that logic, soldiers could drive around in civilian looking vehicles with no external markings at all. Or they could wear a boilersuit over their uniform!

Nope.

Disguising a uniform, as I understand it, would disqualify one for the protections opf Geneva.

As for ground vehicles - I'm not familr enough to give you any reasonable argument. Your point does sound reasonable and is interesting though.

As for airplanes... I'm thinking their marking are of little value in identifying them as friendly in the current circumstances. I'm going to guess that the uniform of the flyer is the point at issue but this is a guess.

However, again, you don't take planes or jeeps or truckas etc prisoner such that Genva applies to them... the people driving/flying etc you do. So, I'd bet that the uniform of the operator is going to be important and probable dispositive. Would you require tanks and planes to stop by enemy lines for inspection prior to engaging in combat to make sure all was according to hoyle?

Check out the autopsy reports of people who died in US custody, particularly those listing cause of death as 'homicide'

homicide means death caused by a human - it does not mean murder and can - in times of war - easily mean death from combat wounds afiak

if homicide is distinguished from death by combat wounds - please provide evidence? - that would be useful information

Main Entry: ho·mi·cide
Pronunciation: 'hä-m&-"sId, 'hO-
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin homicida, from homo human being + -cida -cide; in sense 2, from Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin homicidium, from homo + -cidium -cide
1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another

http://webster.com/dictionary/homicide

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, let's take a closer look at one of those cases. About 2/3 of the way down the autopsy list, we have ME04-14, a case for which we have more info.

The victim's name was Manadel al-Jamadi. We've already seen his picture.

source

Which was one of many

Here's how he died.

Dr. Michael Baden, who is the chief forensic pathologist for the New York State Police, told me, “What struck me was that Jamadi was alive and well when he walked into the prison. The SEALs were accused of causing head injuries before he arrived, but he had no significant head injuries—certainly no brain injuries that would have caused death.” Jamadi’s bruises, he said, were no doubt painful, but they were not life-threatening. Baden went on, “He also had injuries to his ribs. You don’t die from broken ribs. But if he had been hung up in this way and had broken ribs, that’s different.” In his judgment, “asphyxia is what he died from—as in a crucifixion.” Baden, who had inspected a plastic bag of the type that was placed over Jamadi’s head, said that the bag “could have impaired his breath, but he couldn’t have died from that alone.” Of greater concern, he thought, was Jamadi’s position. “If his hands were pulled up five feet—that’s to his neck. That’s pretty tough. That would put a lot of tension on his rib muscles, which are needed for breathing. It’s not only painful—it can hinder the diaphragm from going up and down, and the rib cage from expanding. The muscles tire, and the breathing function is impaired, so there’s less oxygen entering the bloodstream.” A person in such a state would first lose consciousness, he said, and eventually would die. The hood, he suggested, would likely have compounded the problem, because the interrogators “can’t see his face if he’s turning blue. We see a lot about a patient’s condition by looking at his face. By putting that goddam hood on, they can’t see if he’s conscious.” It also “doesn’t permit them to know when he died.” The bottom line, Baden said, is that Jamadi “didn’t die as a result of any injury he got before getting to the prison.”

Even more troubling is the possibility that, under the Bush Administration’s secret interrogation guidelines, the killing of Jamadi might not have broken any laws. Jeffrey Smith says it’s possible that the Office of Legal Counsel’s memos may have opened too many loopholes for interrogators like Swanner, “making prosecution somehow too hard to do.” Smith added, “But, even under the expanded definition of torture, I don’t see how someone beaten with his hands bound, who then died while hanging—how that could be legal. I’d be embarrassed if anyone argued that it was.”

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm away for a couple of days, and hence can't respond until later. Meanwhile, here's a useful report from the ACLU.

Evidence from a range of sources, including government investigations, as well as over 100,000 government documents produced to the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") litigation, show a systemic pattern of torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, the U.S. Naval Base Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq, and other locations outside the United States.[6] In many instances the harsh treatment was ordered as part of an approved list of interrogation methods to "soften up" detainees.

Reported methods of torture and abuse used against detainees include prolonged incommunicado detention; disappearances; beatings; death threats; painful stress positions; sexual humiliation; forced nudity; exposure to extreme heat and cold; denial of food and water; sensory deprivation such as hooding and blindfolding; sleep deprivation; water-boarding; use of dogs to inspire fear; and racial and religious insults. In addition, around one hundred detainees in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and Iraq have died. The government has acknowledged that 27 deaths in U.S. custody were homicide, some caused due to "strangulation," "hypothermia," "asphyxiation," and "blunt force injuries." These techniques constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and when used in combination or for prolonged periods of time may amount to torture.

The well-documented systemic and widespread abuse against detainees was the direct result of policies promulgated by high-level civilian and military leaders and the failure of these leaders to uphold their legal duty to prevent and prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by subordinates. Thousands of detainees remain in U.S. military custody or control in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and other locations, and remain subject to unlawful policies and practices in violation of the Convention and other international human rights treaties.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25354pub20060427.html

 

[ZAMB]

What of the civilian contractors in Iraq employed as torturers by the US army, too?

But what of the civilian contractors who worked hand in glove with the military at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison? Will the atrocities they committed be, at most, bad for their careers - a source of negative letters in their employment files? Or will the civilians who shared responsibility for the criminal abuse meted out to detainees at Abu Ghraib be tried, convicted, and sent to prison?

The most likely option, under the rules crafted by the U.S. occupation authority, is prosecution in U.S. civilian courts. Although the victims of abuse were Iraqi, the civilian contractors will probably not be punished in Iraq. Under an order issued last year, civilian contractors enjoy protection from local criminal prosecution, even for crimes such as murder, torture, and rape.
Last Thursday, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department had jurisdiction to prosecute civilians implicated in crimes in Iraq. But whether these prosecutions will actually take place is far from clear.
"Sadistic, Blatant and Wanton Criminal Abuses"

The Army probe at Abu Ghraib prison found "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" inflicted on detainees there. It also found that civilian contractors were working at the prison as interrogators and interpreters, and shared responsibility for abuses.

One civilian interrogator, for example, was accused of allowing or instructing military police to take unauthorized measures to "facilitate interrogations." The interrogator, the report stated, "clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse." And the report found, in general, that civilian contractors were not properly supervised, enjoying unmonitored free access to detainees.

Besides torture and ill-treatment, civilian contractors are also accused of involvement in wrongful deaths. Last week, the Justice Department announced that was examining the responsibility of CIA officials and contract employees in three suspicious detainee deaths, two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20040510.html

 

[mears]

Should the US follow the Geneva convention? Does the enemy, Islamic radicals who have killed thousands of innocents around the world follow the Geneva convention? What does one do when your adversary doesn't follow the perscribed standards of waging war? If at one time Native Americans attacked British Red Coats not in proper formation, but in ambushes not perscribed under the terms of warfare at the time, what do British offiers do at that point? Adapt to the enemy or just plow along with the conventional standadrs of the day while your boys are slaughtered.

Or is the war on terrorism a figment of my imagination? Terrorits didn't kill people in New York, Washington, Bali, Ankara, Madrid and London. They didn't try to strike in Canada. Its all something else?

I wonder if the boys who were planning the attacks in Canada signed up to the Geneva convention? Did Richard Reid sign up? What about those nice middle class boys in Britian who killed civilians in the underground. Did they sign up to the Geneva convention?

 

[ZAMB]

Should the US follow the Geneva convention? Does the enemy, Islamic radicals who have killed thousands of innocents around the world follow the Geneva convention? What does one do when your adversary doesn't follow the perscribed standards of waging war? If at one time Native Americans attacked British Red Coats not in proper formation, but in ambushes not perscribed under the terms of warfare at the time, what do British offiers do at that point? Adapt to the enemy or just plow along with the conventional standadrs of the day while your boys are slaughtered.

If I broke into your house, as a good American, you would probably shoot me, and expect to get away with it, OK.

The war on Iraq is an ILLEGAL invasion, where the US have no qualms against killing, destroying property, appropriating land etc. Should the people just lie down and take it or protect their country?
Contrary to US propaganda, the majority of the fighters are Iraqi citizens pissed off by being bombed to bits.

As for the WOT and the Geneva convention, Bush didn't declare war on another UN country, he declared it on a concept [terror] and, while the US is bound by the geneva conventions [although it just ignores them anyway], I've yet to meet a concept that can sign anything.

 

[xiannaix]

So why go against the rule of law?

It is Congress' job to make the law.


If a current law doesn't comply with constitutional standards in attempting to address a policy need then a new law that does conform with consitutional standards should be drafted if the issue that previously struck law addressed still exists.

 

[mears]

If I broke into your house, as a good American, you would probably shoot me, and expect to get away with it, OK.

The war on Iraq is an ILLEGAL invasion, where the US have no qualms against killing, destroying property, appropriating land etc. Should the people just lie down and take it or protect their country?
Contrary to US propaganda, the majority of the fighters are Iraqi citizens pissed off by being bombed to bits.

As for the WOT and the Geneva convention, Bush didn't declare war on another UN country, he declared it on a concept [terror] and, while the US is bound by the geneva conventions [although it just ignores them anyway], I've yet to meet a concept that can sign anything.

Saddam was not letting in weapons inspectors into Iraq as mandated under UN resolutions. That was ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL actions were taken during the oil for food scandal. ILLEGAL actions were perpetrated by Iraq, Syria, and various western companies dealing with Saddam prior to 2003 invasion.

So it seems illegality was rampant.

And what do you do when your enemies don't ascribe to your version of proper warfare? You don't adapt or react? When you have people fighting an asymetrical war and not bound by the Geneva convention, what do you do?

Stay in formation like the British troops fighting Native Americans in the 18th century.

Don't think so. Because, you know Islamic terrorist don't bind themselves with the Geneva convention.

 

[TAE]

He should - according to US court decisions...

1) be permitted to challenge his designation as an illegal combatant

1a) if determined an illegal combatant he should stand trial within reasonable period of time or be released

2) if determined a POW held until cessation of hostilites (according to my understanding of the rules for POWs) - if that's wrong - well - whatever Geneva says we should do with POWs

I have no beef with that - which - it would appear - puts us in agreemwent does it not?

Yes, we seem to be in agreement, though I have grave reservations about him having been taken half way around the world before his real status is determined and I'd like to see a definition for 'cessation of hostilites' in this conflict.

Nope.

Disguising a uniform, as I understand it, would disqualify one for the protections opf Geneva.

I could be fesicious and claim that any camouflage is a disguise, but I won't.

As for ground vehicles - I'm not familr enough to give you any reasonable argument. Your point does sound reasonable and is interesting though.

As for airplanes... I'm thinking their marking are of little value in identifying them as friendly in the current circumstances. I'm going to guess that the uniform of the flyer is the point at issue but this is a guess.
[...]
However, again, you don't take planes or jeeps or truckas etc prisoner such that Genva applies to them... the people driving/flying etc you do.

The pilot/driver is surrounded by the plane/tank, so that his uniform is obscured. Hence he does not have a clearly visible uniform. That is why they need external markings.

 

[xiannaix]

Yes, we seem to be in agreement, though I have grave reservations about him having been taken half way around the world before his real status is determined and I'd like to see a definition for 'cessation of hostilites' in this conflict.

especially that - that issue has been the one that I've harped on since day one... there need be no specific date but there is no reason not to have defineable criteria for this

 

[TAE]

Should the US follow the Geneva convention? Does the enemy, Islamic radicals who have killed thousands of innocents around the world follow the Geneva convention? What does one do when your adversary doesn't follow the perscribed standards of waging war?

Do the gangsters in the US follow the Geneva convention? No.
How does the U.S. police deal with them? Do they pick up random people from the street, declare them to be gangsters, and then deny them a fair trial because gangsters don't deserve fair trials ?

Saddam was not letting in weapons inspectors into Iraq as mandated under UN resolutions.

What do you think Blix was doing, standing at the border shouting 'let me into the country' ?

 

[ZAMB]

Saddam was not letting in weapons inspectors into Iraq as mandated under UN resolutions. That was ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL actions were taken during the oil for food scandal. ILLEGAL actions were perpetrated by Iraq, Syria, and various western companies dealing with Saddam prior to 2003 invasion.

The inspectors were there and didn't find anything. Bush had to order the inspectors out in order to commence bombing.

So it seems illegality was rampant

.

Saddam was by no means the worst leader formerly supported by the US at that time. The genocide in Cambodia made Saddam look like an amateur, and yet the US supported the Khmer Rouge steadfastly - who killed about 2M people, around the same time that Bush1 was first going after Saddam. They even put pressure on the UN to deny aid to Cambodia and to supply Pol Pot with food - the US supplied him with money and weapons. So don't go all self righteous to me about illegal actions. The US were directly [and morally] responsible for the Cambodian genocide.

Don't think so. Because, you know Islamic terrorist don't bind themselves with the Geneva convention.

If the US had ever given a damn about the Geneva convention, your argument might be more convincing.

 

[laptop]

War on Terror Ruling Worries GOP Lawmakers

By PETE YOST

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Republican senators said Sunday that Congress must rein in the Supreme Court ruling that international law applies to the Bush administration's conduct in the war on terror.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision embracing Article 3 of the Geneva Accords in the military commission case of Osama bin Laden's former driver strikes at the heart of the White House's legal position in the war on al-Qaida.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the second-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, said the 5-3 court decision ``means that American servicemen potentially could be accused of war crimes.

``I think Congress is going to want to deal with that,'' McConnell said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' He called the ruling ``very disturbing.''

more

Aw diddums. That's the whole fucking point of international law: that people should be prosecuted even if they're a US citizen.

The US administration's determination not to be part of the world is getting more alarming,

 

[mears]

Aw diddums. That's the whole fucking point of international law: that people should be prosecuted even if they're a US citizen.

The US administration's determination not to be part of the world is getting more alarming,

Than how does one conduct a war against an enemy, Islamic terrorists like al Queda, who follow no international laws such as the Geneva accords?

How do you deal with a group that conducts war by hijackings and train bombings, suicide bombers, the weapons of asymetrical warfare. A type of warfare intentionally targeting civilians and therfore illegal under the Geneva convention.

You people don't want to touch this do you

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Do the gangsters in the US follow the Geneva convention? ?

How did the Sept 11 attack conform to the Geneva Convention?

 

[G. Fieendish]

Re:Mears last comment
Considering that the U.S Armed forces regularly uses such devices as Directed Energy weapons (Laser Dazzlers/ Bllnders),anti personnel landmines, & chemical weapons which as I seem to recall, are currently banned under the various amendments/protocols of/to the Geneva Convention, one could argue that your argument is basically of "pot calling kettle black"....
(Besides did'nt the U.S train, arm & fund the so called "Contras" to do exactly what you are condemning, to the democratically elected Nicuragran government in the mid 80's...).
As to Johnny Canuck2's comment, I suggest you look up the use of explosive stuffed, time expired B-17's, during World War II, under the codename "Project Aphrodite" or the Japanese Kamakazi's.
They were considered "semi suicidal", by the hapless ferry pilots....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As to Johnny Canuck2's comment, I suggest you look up the use of explosive stuffed, time expired B-17's, during World War II, under the codename "Project Aphrodite" or the Japanese Kamakazi's.
They were considered "semi suicidal", by the hapless ferry pilots....

Difference was, that was during a war. Last I looked, there was no war going on as of Sept 10, 2001.

Also, the kamikaze thing probably didn't conform to the Geneva convention either. I'm not aware of any US kamikaze, in B17s or otherwise.

 

[TAE]

Than how does one conduct a war against an enemy, Islamic terrorists like al Queda, who follow no international laws such as the Geneva accords?

How do you deal with a group that conducts war by hijackings and train bombings, suicide bombers, the weapons of asymetrical warfare. A type of warfare intentionally targeting civilians and therfore illegal under the Geneva convention.

You people don't want to touch this do you

sigh

Do the gangsters (drug dealers etc) in the US follow the Geneva convention? No.
How does the U.S. police deal with them? Do they pick up random people from the street, declare them to be gangsters, and then deny them a fair trial because gangsters don't deserve fair trials ?

 

[TAE]

How did the Sept 11 attack conform to the Geneva Convention?

It didn't.

It was a criminal act - mass murder (3000 people), theft of property (air-craft), destruction of property (air-craft & buildings).

That's why the US wanted the Taleban to extradite Bin Laden.

 

[ZAMB]

Than how does one conduct a war against an enemy, Islamic terrorists like al Queda, who follow no international laws such as the Geneva accords?

How do you deal with a group that conducts war by hijackings and train bombings, suicide bombers, the weapons of asymetrical warfare. A type of warfare intentionally targeting civilians and therfore illegal under the Geneva convention.

You people don't want to touch this do you

This was not a war - 9/11 was a single act of terrorism by "19" young Saudi religious fanatics. America is used to domestic terrorism , think of Mcveigh, the unabomber etc. The only difference was that 9/11 gave Bushco. the chance to lie their way into a war that they'd been planning since before Bush took office.

If they wanted to retaliate, why did they not bomb Saudi Arabia, the home of the terrorists and Bin Laden?
Why, instead, did they spirit Bin Laden's family and other Saudis out of the country at a time when all planes were grounded? Why did they not think keeping his family in the US might have been a useful tactic in tracking him down? But then, they were members of the Carlyle group with Daddy Bush and co - can't mess with Daddy's friends, can you?

Why bomb Afghanistan? The Taliban offered more than once to hand Bin Laden over - all they asked was some proof that he'd been involved. But you never had any proof, had you? Don't you think that's why Bush now says that his capture is not a priority? Because him being free somehow gives you 'licence' to bomb every country in the ME [bar Saudi Arabia, of course, your great ally in the WOT?]

What about the question that Gore Vidal, among others, keeps asking? Why were US warplanes not scambled within 4 minutes of the hijacks being spotted, as demanded by law? Why did they wait until 3 of the 4 planes had already crashed? I remember seeing how one of the brave 9/11 widows is attempting to sue the govt. over this under the RICO laws.

Talking of conducting war outside the Geneva convention, let's look at Cambodia again, the country with the largest number of amputees in the world [though I suspect Iraq will finally catch up at the rate you're going] due to mines, weapons and training given to the Khmer Rouge by the good old USA - where there has been a genocide of millions that the US was complicit in. Or Palestine, where the US supports attacks on civilians and land grabs illegal under the geneva convention. There are tons of other examples, if you just would open your eyes.

You can't ignore international and even federal law when it suits you and then expect it to be applied in a partial way to people you don't like - but that's what the US have done ever since the convention was signed - they've thumbed their noses at it except when they want it applied to their enemies. That was why 9/11 happened - because of US hubris in their foreign policy - their willingness to prop up dictators and interfere in the affairs of other countries [to the detriment of the indigenous population of those countries] - just because they can, and there is profit to be made from it.

I guess 'you people' don't want to touch the causes of 9/11 though, do you?