U.S. Releases Iraqis

Remove all ads!

New York Times Online

It appears that the assumptions were incorrect. America is only holding Iraqis suspected of carrying out attacks. We have no desire to imprison people that had nothing to do with the murders against our people.

Wouldn't any responsible country do the same?

We're also planning to release detainees who pose "Just Some Risk", but the source for that is a premium site and I doubt any of you want to start paying just to see these articles. It's also the NY Times, if anyone cares to look.

 

CNN is free

I don't think there's near as much concern for the Iraqi detainees as the ones in Guantanimo. I'd like to see some progress made with them as well, but this is still good news. I hope it has the positive effect on the Iraqi people they intend it to, but somehow I think the Iraqis are still going to hate us anyway. In fact, if it's meant as a "good will" gesture, it may backfire. If we're releasing them now, then they may deduce that we shouldn't have held them in the first place and ignite more protest. I do hope it's the former, though.

 

The problem was iirc, that the US had detained family members of a suspect resistance member, to force him to surrender himself to US forces - even when they eventually set them free later, that were Nazi methods. Period.

"If you want your wife and kids free, just surrender" Ethically questionable. Wasn't that Saddam's modus operandi?

And that report is from the Pentagon.

 

Death Rabbit, that article was the exact same one that I posted. It is only about releasing the "no-risk" people, not medium risk ones.

This is intended as a gesture of goodwill. The United States has never wanted to hurt anyone that was not directly involved in the support of terrorism.

 

I realize that, Rastor. But what I'm saying is I have doubts that's how the Iraqis are going to see it, and it may backfire.

And I posted the CNN link because you have to sign up for the NY Times to read it, IIRC. Just offering a second source.

 

I find that sort of amating. A gesture of goodwill Had they had due process, they'd perhaps never be detained, of course, there was no such a thing.

And as they were innocent, and despite that detained without trial, maybe for a month or three, under not-so-nice conditions and in camps named like "Ground Zero" (so that the guards don't forget what they're ... avenging? ... who they were guarding?) ... the Iraqis didn't get anything less than they deserved - their freedom.

"Well, after holding you prisoner for three months, even though you were innocent, I will show my goodwill, and ... set you free - isn't that a nice of me?" Cheese please, everyone ... The Iraqis, especially those released, will love the US for such a soft-heartedness, and become collaborateurs, immediately "Thank you America for the great time I had! Now I really owe you one!"

I see it more as the correction of a mistake, or worse, a deliberate act of injustice - and to sell that as a big gesture of goodwill, well, that's spin, to use a mild word.

If I blow up your house, and compensate you, that's not goodwill but simply an obligation.

 

...And it still leaves you homeless.

Meeting an obligation, especially when dodging that obligation with compensation (which is not even included here), is not atonement. It is simply what is required of you, you are not doing anything exemplary by meeting it, all you do is avoid nefarity.

 

Ragusa, due process has nothing to do with it. In most democratic societies, it is acceptable to detain people suspected of comitting a crime until their trial. We're not even requiring these people to have a trial.

 

I'm confused about what you mean here, and you seem to contradict yourself. If it's acceptable to hold people until their trial, and we're not giving them a trial, how is it acceptable that we are detaining them?

 

I was aiming on the goodwill part: The US ghave declared only to let them go who "don't have blood on their hands", that is, who didn't attack US troops, or fought with the resistance. Leaves those who weren't ... and therefor are ... innocent.

Again, to sell their release as goodwill IMO is daft. Not to mention to add insult to injury, and humiliate them further by demanding them to swear oath not to attack the US, their beloved captor. Who, besides, might have razed their home in the meanwhile.

 

@ Everyone

Under the law, a person can be legally retained if there is sufficient evidence to suggest a crime, yet not enough to yet charge the individual.

This prevents the suspect from fleeing the jurisdiction of the course.

This is basic law. First year law students learn this.

Its not goodwill, its basic law.

 

Under whose law? Does the US have the right to detain those of other nationalities not on their soil?

 

Currently the police force in Iraq is too weak to police the country. The "old" police is gone. Many of the "old" police members have been arrested for Saddam-era crimes or have been killed by the Iraqi people.

The Interim government has granted us authority to make arrests.

 

And the interim government derives its authority from the US, so again, what gives the US the right?

 

Blackhawk,

They learn too, that the acceptance of a judge is necessary to hold a person longer than - and that's how it is in germany - 48 hours. If the judge disagrees with the police on the charges the person is free.

Here we are speaking about periods up to 9 months - no charge, no judge, no attorney, no trial, no information to the family and harsh prison conditions.

And it is sold as "goodwill", Bremer speaks of reconciliation - which implies "We don't need to but we are so kind ... for now". This isn't even military law, it's, well, "we do what ever we want because we are in power".
As Sojourner hinted on (good point) one core issue is that neither the CPA, nor the IGC are legally legitimate, thanks to Bush's blatant violation of international law. It is a little bit as if the burglar in your home takes you hostage and then prepares to stay - and sells your car, decrees a new house order or arrests you.
That has serious consequences for the contracts and sales of Iraqi property the CPA conducted - pretty likely they are null and void, just as, as likely, the CPA law exempting US contractors from Iraqi (and iirc US) jurisdiction while operating in Iraq. Try this: Operation Iraqi Lawsuit.

The whole measure came thanks to british officials who were alarmed when they realised how many Iraqis the US forces detained along the way, and about the effect it has on the Iraqi public.

Here's another interesting article from the Los Angeles Times.

/final edit

[ January 09, 2004, 19:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I agree with Ragusa. Claiming to defend righteousness doesn't place you above its demands. Proper trial is proper trial. Speaking of goodwill here, instead of repairing a wrong is not quite appropriate here, in my humble opinion.

The government ad interim doesn't predate the arrests. It's US-appointed, so what difference would it be even if it did?

Have heard about Guantanamo? You know, an American base but after all not American territory. Therefore US constitution doesn't apply, no rights do apply. Brilliant logic, isn't it?

They also learn how great an abuse it is, if the person is detained for longer than a certain given period without the consent of a judge and in order for the person not to flee from justice or sabotage the investigation. Also 48 hours here.

 

I am no law student but here in the states 48 hours I beleive is only the amount of time to level a charge.We can hold people until trial.

Of course this is case by case as we have bail to get people out before trial but the amount is set by a judge.