Streams

Hamdan Trial

Friday, July 25, 2008

Jane Mayer, staff writer for the New Yorker and the author of The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (Doubleday, 2008), is following the war crimes trial of Salim Hamdan, underway in Guantanamo Bay.

Guests:

Jane Mayer
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [30]

hjs from 11211

eva
there is always an up side.

here's another, when the armageddon comes the christian right wing will be left behind. (they failed to get the love thy neighbor message asked of them)

Jul. 25 2008 03:48 PM
eva

hjs,
if armageddon starts next week, I could at least avoid meeting with the tax lawyer in mid-August.
there's an upside to everything....

Jul. 25 2008 03:41 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
if u mean only men can be angry that's sexist. VERY

if u mean women write better, that might be true and not sexist.

Jul. 25 2008 03:25 PM
eva

wigs, funny!
I've never been able to think of megan as a woman. I don't know if that makes me sexist. She writes just like... who's that guy up in Canada? The pissed-off, super-smart college dropout guy who thinks Arabs are trying to take over the world. Mark Steyn, that guy. Smart does not equal rational.

Jul. 25 2008 03:15 PM
hjs from 11211

chris o
or maybe one of those born agains who are hoping for armageddon to start next week.

Jul. 25 2008 03:13 PM
chris o from New York City

hi eva #22,
i'd guess they are the same person, probably with a real first name closer to Adam or Moishe than Karen or Megan

Jul. 25 2008 03:09 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
as if she rebranded herself.

Jul. 25 2008 03:03 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
some think she is, in fact the same person, with a darker wig on.

Jul. 25 2008 03:01 PM
eva

does karen sound like megan because they are the same person, or because they post from the same right-wing talking points distribution list?

Jul. 25 2008 02:54 PM
chris o from New York City

lol hjs

Jul. 25 2008 01:22 PM
hjs from 11211

karen
lol

Jul. 25 2008 12:42 PM
karen from Village

lol hjs

please refrain from personal attacks...
or at least limit them to your usual public targets -- not to me...

thanks!

Jul. 25 2008 12:00 PM
Gabor Rona from United States

The notion that detainees in international armed conflict are not covered by the Conventions because they don't meet the conditions for PoW status is false, the result of government misrepresentation of the scope of the Conventions. The PoW (3d) Convention is just one of 4 Geneva Conventions applicable in armed conflict. If you’re not a PoW, then you are, by default, a civilian protected under the Civilian (4th) Convention, even if you have participated in hostilities.

The alternate designation invented by the administration, "unlawful enemy combatant," was created precisely to deny the application of the Geneva Conventions - to place detainees into a legal "black hole."

In a war against a non-state armed group, like al Qaeda, the drafters of the Conventions, including the U.S., presumed that domestic law, not international law, would govern detention and criminal trials.

A recent Human Rights First study, conducted by former federal prosecutors, analyzed the regular, federal criminal courts' handling of more than 100 pre and post-9/11 international terrorism cases. The study found that our regular judicial system can successfully handle the challenges of these cases, including protection of national security information, reaching conduct that occurs abroad, and covering conduct in preparation for terrorist attacks (something that military commissions are less capable of doing, since conspiracy and material support for terrorism are not legitimate war crimes).

Jul. 25 2008 11:59 AM
hjs from 11211

karen
take your pills please

Jul. 25 2008 11:52 AM
karen from Village

They are all freedom fighters.
US gov. is the enemy - those horrible neo-cons.
How dare US gov. even put any of the freedom fighters on trial.

Until it's prooven that they want to kill US citizens, as a democracy we have no right to stop them.

Ameircan gov. however is guilty until proven innocent especially Republicans, neo-cons and white males in general.

The Guantanmo detainees need to have been proven on tape before witneeses to have killed a few American citizens before we can even start to interrogate them in a human e manner befitting our global democratic leadership bla bla bla

Dissent is patriotism....is death.

Jul. 25 2008 11:47 AM
Ayanna from Brooklyn, NY

I don't much care about the legal intricacies; the whole concept of Gitmo is morally indefensible. It's amazing to me that there is even a "debate" about the issue of holding people without charges or trial for YEARS, psychologically and phycially torturing them, then "trying" them in kangaroo courts, all in the name of fighting terror. Is that the only way to fight terror? Really? Incredible.

Jul. 25 2008 11:39 AM
O from Forest Hills

Whatever happened to due process of law? We don't know these people are terrorists! They are being accused without evidence and trial and tortured which is not a way to treat humans!

Jul. 25 2008 11:32 AM
Lem from UES

If i follow the reasoning of the last caller then the men who fought against Great Britain in the Revolutionary War would have been labeled "terrorists" by today's standards. They dressed in nonmilitary garb, blended in with the populace and had a command structure that could hardly be called regimented.

Jul. 25 2008 11:31 AM
erick from Rochester, NY

Aren't people like Blackwater et.al. also considered to be enmy combatents by the administration's own definition of that term?

Jul. 25 2008 11:29 AM
O from Forest Hills

The Geneva Convention governs Guantanamo detainees and not the Constitution?

Where can I get more info about the Geneva Convention law and how this applies to Guantanamo and "enemy combatants?"

Jul. 25 2008 11:29 AM
John from Ho Ho Kus, NJ

Stop using the word WAR Brian. A WAR is one army facing off against the other. Period.

We're describing American in the crosshairs of triangulating snipers. Period.
Semantics ARE important.

Jul. 25 2008 11:27 AM
World's Toughest Milkman from the_C_train

You're kidding right, sounds like a book hawking segment to me. The Constitution, why do you think they are in Cuba, just like foreign missions here they are essentially sovereign regions. John Walker Lindh as an example, bad one there.

Jul. 25 2008 11:22 AM
Liz from Brooklyn

The fact that the judge has excluded some of Hamdan's statements because they were coerced is very important in regard to his status as an enemy combatant. Under U.S. case law, one of the reasons that coerced statements should be excluded is because they are inherently unreliable and untrustworthy. If so, how can the U.S. government continue to say that he is an enemy combatant when his statements may not have been true, but the product of a coercive interrogation? Could his statements have been made simply to please the interrogators?

Jul. 25 2008 11:19 AM
mgdu from hell's kitchen

once you've tortured a prisoner, nothing that he subsequently says, while he remains in your power, is freely given

Jul. 25 2008 11:19 AM
Christopher Deignan from Middle Village, Queens

Its so disturbing to see American values eroded so completely by the Bush administration. Unfortunately I can't help thinking that sooner or later a U.S. serviceman will be taken captive and treated the same way that the detainees at GITMO are. I'm sorry but the likely outrage that will occur when that happens will ring hollow. I wouldn't wish it on anyone but... Whoever is elected President, when it comes to foreign policy, repairing the U.S.'s image abroad is perhaps the most important firs task. Anyone know what McCain's or Obama's policy is on keeping GITMO open?

Jul. 25 2008 11:16 AM
chris o from New York City

I find the timing a bit, what's the word?, regarding the start of the trial of Hamdan and the capture of Karadjzic in Serbia. As we try Osama's DRIVER for war crimes (after holding him for over 6 years), they capture the President and prepare for his war crimes trial.

Sad. Superpower? Superlame.

Jul. 25 2008 11:13 AM
hjs from 11211

did the english think americans were terrorists c. 1776?

Jul. 25 2008 11:12 AM
John from Ho Ho Kus, NJ

Hi Jane:
Are they still dressing guys in garbage bags and/or leading them around naked? What's happening on that front?

Jul. 25 2008 11:11 AM
O from Forest Hills

Aren't these detainees afforded a speedy trial under our system per the Constitution or does that only apply to US citizens?

If you (generic) are arrested in the US aren't you afforded all the rights of the Constitution that protect you regardless of your citizen status (legal resident, illegal alien, tourist, etc.)?

I think 6 years is a bit overdue for speedy trial per 6th amendment.

Jul. 25 2008 11:03 AM
Steve Mark from NYC

If Jane Mayer doesn't get major awards for her book there's no justice for her either.

Jul. 25 2008 10:05 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.