NationStates Jolt Archive

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003476629_detainees14.html

Looks like for now, it will be unconstitutional for legal immigrants (and the rest of us) to be denied access to federal courts, but if you're an alien captured abroad, well, you're fucked.

Considering Robertson's stance on Hamdan in the past, if he could have found a way out of this, he would have.

And considering the current makeup of the Supreme Court, if it gets to that level, Hamdan is fucked there, too.

And thus continues the US's descent into tyranny.

And thus continues the US's descent into tyranny.

Well, at this point, tyranny over those we capture abroad who are not US Citizens.

Well, at this point, tyranny over those we capture abroad who are not US Citizens.

Habeas corpus is a human right, and should be limited as rarely as possible, if ever. At this point, we're descending into gulag territory.

Habeas corpus is a human right, and should be limited as rarely as possible, if ever. At this point, we're descending into gulag territory.

Not quite yet for all of us. Just for some people.

Not quite yet for all of us. Just for some people.
So I should celebrate because my kind hasn't been targeted yet? Kinda shortsighted.

So I should celebrate because my kind hasn't been targeted yet? Kinda shortsighted.

Well, you're not posting from Guantanamo yet...

Habeas corpus is a human right, and should be limited as rarely as possible, if ever. At this point, we're descending into gulag territory.

Yes, let's compare a bunch of terrorists having their rights restricted to millions of innocent people put in Siberian camps and worked to death :rolleyes:

Well, you're not posting from Guantanamo yet...

Yet is the key word there (though I imagine my NS time would be somewhat limited at Gitmo).

Yes, let's compare a bunch of terrorists having their rights restricted to millions of innocent people put in Siberian camps and worked to death :rolleyes:Get your head out of your ass--there are innocents in Gitmo who have no way to prove it thanks to this law. The differences are of scale, not type.

Get your head out of your ass--there are innocents in Gitmo who have no way to prove it thanks to this law. The differences are of scale, not type.

The other difference is that the Soviets put their own citizens into the gulag - not foreigners captured abroad.

Yes, let's compare a bunch of terrorists having their rights restricted to millions of innocent people put in Siberian camps and worked to death :rolleyes:

Newsflash: Not everyone taken to Gitmo or foreign torture camps are terrorists. There's a reason we say "innocent until proven guilty" - just in case we accidentally punish those who have done nothing wrong.

millions of innocent people put in Siberian camps and worked to death :rolleyes:

what about the un-innocents?

Newsflash: Not everyone taken to Gitmo or foreign torture camps are terrorists. There's a reason we say "innocent until proven guilty" - just in case we accidentally punish those who have done nothing wrong.

Newsflash - they're going to get trials by military tribunal as soon as the details can be worked out.

The other difference is that the Soviets put their own citizens into the gulag - not foreigners captured abroad.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of dead Germans who will disagree with you...

what about the un-innocents?

There weren't many.

Newsflash - they're going to get trials by military tribunal as soon as the details can be worked out.

Military tribunal trials are hardly fair, especially to those suspected of terrorist activity.

Newsflash - they're going to get trials by military tribunal as soon as the details can be worked out.

how long has that been said?

There weren't many.

1 million German war criminals (though they hardly had trial for such things)

Newsflash - they're going to get trials by military tribunal as soon as the details can be worked out.

Ah, the naiveté of youth!

So, according to the article in the OP, habeas corpus is suspended for any non-citizen of the USA captured and held by US forces outside of the USA. So, the USA has given itself the right to arbitrarily and indefinitely detain everyone in the world outside its own borders.

But if a terrorist is caught in the US, (s)he gets a trial. If the terrorist is a US citizen, (s)he gets a trial. Or if the terrorist is brought into the States at any point while imprisoned by US forces, (s)he gets a trial.

Does anyone know enough about law to tell me what the proceedings are for US trials that are not held on US soil? Because that's the only way to try them without giving them the full rights that are accorded to US citizens, as far as I can tell. If there is no such precedent or procedure, and since the USA is not obligated to give them any trial whatsoever, I doubt any such trial would occur.

1 million German war criminals (though they hardly had trial for such things)

Regular German soldiers were not war criminals.

There weren't many.

Prove it?

Pretty sure you can't. Regardless, even if just one person is wrongly tortured for information he doesn't have and for crimes he didn't commit, and wasn't protected by the constitutional rights given to citizens, it's a kangaroo camp just waiting to pounce on anyone that gets thrown inside.

It's not lawful, it's not moral, it's horrible.

Regular German soldiers were not war criminals.

they were in Russia and Poland at least

how long has that been said?


They would have had the trials a while back, had it not been for suits filed against such tribunals in Federal court.

they were in Russia and Poland at least

No, they weren't. Atrocities were generally carried out by specialised units.

Yes, let's compare a bunch of terrorists having their rights restricted to millions of innocent people put in Siberian camps and worked to death :rolleyes:

3 words: Japanese Internment Camps.

No, they weren't. Atrocities were generally carried out by specialised units.

While they watched and did nothing. Morally, they were criminals - just as much as the ones pulling the triggers and throwing the switches.

3 words: Japanese Internment Camps.

Held to be legal at the time.

Did the US work them to death? Experiment on them with biological weapons? Hold kangaroo courts and hang them?

Held to be legal at the time.

Did the US work them to death? Experiment on them with biological weapons? Hold kangaroo courts and hang them?

The fact that they were held at all is a shameful stain upon the nation's history.

While they watched and did nothing. Morally, they were criminals - just as much as the ones pulling the triggers and throwing the switches.

And you would have done something?

Besides, I'm sure the Allies were SO much better. *cough*Red Army*cough*

The fact that they were held at all is a shameful stain upon the nation's history.

I'm not arguing that. Reprehensible, yes.

Equal to what was done in the Soviet gulags, no.

3 words: Japanese Internment Camps.

Which were no less wrong, and were apologised for.

No, they weren't. Atrocities were generally carried out by specialised units.

Oh, come now. Must you trot this crap out all the time? Wehrmacht units in Russia were often implicated in massacres and other atrocities against Russian soldiers or peasants.

And you would have done something?

Besides, I'm sure the Allies were SO much better. *cough*Red Army*cough*

Yes, I'm saying I would've done something. Even if it got me killed, I would've at least made an attempt. God damned conscience, huh?

The other difference is that the Soviets put their own citizens into the gulag - not foreigners captured abroad.

Something the us is now empowered to do to their own citizens...

Oh, come now. Must you trot this crap out all the time? Wehrmacht units in Russia were often implicated in massacres and other atrocities against Russian soldiers or peasants.

And the US Army or the Red Army did any less?

Something the us is now empowered to do to their own citizens...

Apparently not. The judge in this case ruled that part unconstitutional.

And the US Army or the Red Army did any less?

That's kind of beside the point, considering you said that normal german soldiers weren't war criminals.

Newsflash - they're going to get trials by military tribunal as soon as the details can be worked out.
Like that'll be anything resembling a fair trial. :rolleyes:

And here I was thinking the other day that we should be able to say...deport and revoke someone's citizenship, and then arrest them and try them without that person having any rights at all.

Justice for all!

That's kind of beside the point, considering you said that normal german soldiers weren't war criminals.

I don't think they are, but they do, which makes their own armies war criminals anyway.

Apparently not. The judge in this case ruled that part unconstitutional.

Well then thank god for them "Activist judges"

And the US Army or the Red Army did any less?

It always amuses me that you trot that out. Yes, the Russian Army commited atrocities in the fight to Berlin, and I'm sure the Yanks weren't squeaky-clean either. But that doesn't mean you can simply ignore what the Wehrmacht did on the Eastern Front by saying 'Yeah but they did it as well!"

It is interesting to note that this law theoretically only applies to non-citizens captured and held abroad.

But since these camps have been formed, and there is no way of knowing who is there, what their citizenship status is, or where they were captured, the practical reality of such a law is different.

For all practical purposes, anyone in these camps can be held indefinitely without a trial, regardless of their citizenship or location of arrest.

Like that'll be anything resembling a fair trial. :rolleyes:
Well, I'm sure that for the accused, regardless of their guilt, it's not "fair" unless they get to go free.

What would be fair to you?

It is interesting to note that this law theoretically only applies to non-citizens captured and held abroad.

But since these camps have been formed, and there is no way of knowing who is there, what their citizenship status is, or where they were captured, the practical reality of such a law is different.

For all practical purposes, anyone in these camps can be held indefinitely without a trial, regardless of their citizenship or location of arrest.

I guess that explains why John Walker Lindh isn't in there.

It is interesting to note that this law theoretically only applies to non-citizens captured and held abroad.

But since these camps have been formed, and there is no way of knowing who is there, what their citizenship status is, or where they were captured, the practical reality of such a law is different.

For all practical purposes, anyone in these camps can be held indefinitely without a trial, regardless of their citizenship or location of arrest.

It also explains how the ICRC has visited every prisoner, and spoken to every prisoner there.

Gee, I guess the ICRC would have noticed if someone said they were a US Citizen... or do you think they're in on it?

It always amuses me that you trot that out. Yes, the Russian Army commited atrocities in the fight to Berlin, and I'm sure the Yanks weren't squeaky-clean either. But that doesn't mean you can simply ignore what the Wehrmacht did on the Eastern Front by saying 'Yeah but they did it as well!"

Well, since the German atrocities make up 98% of all history textbooks on the planet, while Allied atrocities are barely known, I don't think we're even.

Newsflash - they're going to get trials by military tribunal as soon as the details can be worked out.

woooooohoooooo

I'm sure thats a great comfort to them.

Well, I'm sure that for the accused, regardless of their guilt, it's not "fair" unless they get to go free.

What would be fair to you?

Standard criminal procedure--the right to see evidence gathered against you, the right to face your accuser, no hearsay evidence. You know--something that at least resembles a justice system. Now, are you going to quit pretending to be dense?

It also explains how the ICRC has visited every prisoner, and spoken to every prisoner there.

Gee, I guess the ICRC would have noticed if someone said they were a US Citizen... or do you think they're in on it?

You make a lot of unsupported claims.

I guess that explains why John Walker Lindh isn't in there.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Lindh was captured, tried and sentenced before these laws were passed.

Well, since the German atrocities make up 98% of all history textbooks on the planet, while Allied atrocities are barely known, I don't think we're even.

Hmmm. Exaggerate much? Researching GCSE and A-Level textbooks that dealt with the Second World War a few months ago at my old school, I found that all but one of them had either a combined chapter or two seperate ones on war atrocities - usually Eastern Front massacres alongside Dresden.

And I suppose I'm just imagining the mass resurgence in historical writing on Dresden, the Russian atrocities of '44-'45 and even several books on Allied warcrimes during the conflict. Not to mention the mass of journal articles being written on the subject.

So please, spare us your whining; it's not true anymore, and hasn't been for years.

No, they weren't. Atrocities were generally carried out by specialised units.

utter tosh German troops where given free reign in occupied eastern territories the fact that Russian medics where also attacked is a further war crime

Besides, I'm sure the Allies were SO much better. *cough*Red Army*cough*

The Soviets will be the Soviets alas after a country rapes its way across your nations western half you will be a tad pissed off

Equal to what was done in the Soviet gulags, no.

So because the Soviets done something far worse with there gulags it makes it alright?

You make a lot of unsupported claims.

Maybe you wish that the ICRC hadn't posted this:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/951C74F20D2A2148C1256D8D002CA8DC

The same standard working procedures have been put into place in Guantanamo that the ICRC demands in every place of detention it visits in the world. That is:

* ICRC delegates insist on speaking in total privacy to each and every internee held; teams should be able to inspect all cells and other facilities
* Visits should be made at a frequency of the ICRC's choice and for as long as the people are held in detention
* All detainees should have the opportunity to write to their families using the Red Cross message system
* Delegates conduct confidential discussions with the camp authorities before and at the end of each visit to raise concerns and make recommendations where appropriate
* Any internee about to be transferred out of Guantanamo is interviewed privately before his departure to ensure he agrees to be repatriated.

Well, I'm sure that for the accused, regardless of their guilt, it's not "fair" unless they get to go free.

What would be fair to you?

Fair would be giving them citizen's constitutional rights, considering they're human beings and deserve to be treated as such - until proven guilty in a normal court of law. If they have such a lack of faith in our justice system to where they have to make special instances for people suspected of terrorism, maybe the justice system simply needs to change.

Well, since the German atrocities make up 98% of all history textbooks on the planet, while Allied atrocities are barely known, I don't think we're even.

Who's we? Have you gone back in time and joined the Axis powers?

And the US Army or the Red Army did any less?

yes there are allot of veterans out there who do deserve some sort of punishment for what they did (its why Russia has yet to apologise for what there troops did considering the trials that would come about)

What would be fair to you?

trail by Jury would be good (though considering your regular Joe American there as good as dead*shrug*)

Maybe you wish that the ICRC hadn't posted this:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/951C74F20D2A2148C1256D8D002CA8DC

Got anything newer than January 2004? The situation has been rather, ahem, fluid over that period. :rolleyes:

Yes, Gift-of-God doesn't believe the ICRC visits the prisoners at Guantanamo.

What does the ICRC say?

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/951C74F20D2A2148C1256D8D002CA8DC

The US agreed to let ICRC teams visit Guantanamo as an extension of work the organization had already begun in detention facilities in Afghanistan during and after the conflict in 2001.

And how does the ICRC visit?

The same standard working procedures have been put into place in Guantanamo that the ICRC demands in every place of detention it visits in the world. That is:

* ICRC delegates insist on speaking in total privacy to each and every internee held; teams should be able to inspect all cells and other facilities
* Visits should be made at a frequency of the ICRC's choice and for as long as the people are held in detention
* All detainees should have the opportunity to write to their families using the Red Cross message system
* Delegates conduct confidential discussions with the camp authorities before and at the end of each visit to raise concerns and make recommendations where appropriate
* Any internee about to be transferred out of Guantanamo is interviewed privately before his departure to ensure he agrees to be repatriated.


:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Got anything newer than January 2004? The situation has been rather, ahem, fluid over that period. :rolleyes:

Actually, if it's been fluid, it's been fluid in the direction of giving the ICRC more of what it asks for.

They've been involved since 2001. Or are you going to question that?

Seems you won't believe any of it, even if the ICRC posts it on their own website, because it conflicts with your unchangeable world view.

Maybe you wish that the ICRC hadn't posted this:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/951C74F20D2A2148C1256D8D002CA8DC


Good. You finally figured out how to use a search engine.

The ICRC theoretically visits each detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and if a USian citizen is detained there, or someone claims to have been detained within the USA, the ICRC can then make this known.

Well, that assumes that the ICRC can report to someone who can then hold the US Executive accountable, right?

Except they don't:
By design, concerns that arise during visits with prisoners are always discussed directly and confidentially with the detaining authorities only. The recent publications of ICRC reports were not authorized by the ICRC and the organization was disturbed to see their reports made public. The ICRC does not discuss specific findings, nor share confidential matters with the public, except in exceptional circumstances.
http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_332_3806,00.html

And I will also mention that the ICRC only visits Guantanamo detainess, not the people held in the infamous black sites.

For the disbelieving Nazz:

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/usa-detention-update-121205?opendocument

From 9-30-2006

The ICRC has been visiting detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since January 2002. There are currently about 450 detainees from roughly 40 countries. As of December 2005, the ICRC had facilitated the exchange of nearly 20,800 Red Cross messages between the detainees and their families in more than 30 countries.

Are you going to say now that the ICRC doesn't visit detainees, doesn't have access to them, can't help them send messages, etc.?

Good. You finally figured out how to use a search engine.


You asserted that they didn't visit Guantanamo. Couldn't.

I guess you'll use a search engine next time.

The ICRC theoretically visits each detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and if a USian citizen is detained there, or someone claims to have been detained within the USA, the ICRC can then make this known.

They've made protests public before. I'm sure they would make it publicly known if a US Citizen were there.

And I will also mention that the ICRC only visits Guantanamo detainess, not the people held in the infamous black sites.

Moving the goalposts? Or should we constrain ourselves to Guantanamo.

Oh, BTW, we've moved everyone from the "black" sites to Guantanamo...

Maybe you should Google that one, too.

Actually, if it's been fluid, it's been fluid in the direction of giving the ICRC more of what it asks for.

They've been involved since 2001. Or are you going to question that?

Seems you won't believe any of it, even if the ICRC posts it on their own website, because it conflicts with your unchangeable world view.

Oh I've never questioned whether or not the ICRC was visiting Gitmo. I know they were. But let's just say that you're making it sound better than it actually is. Also from the Red Cross website (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/usa-detention-update-121205?opendocument) (and a bit more recent than yours):
Legal issues

The detention of persons captured or arrested within the context of the "global war on terror" must take place within a clear and appropriate legal framework and the relevant procedural safeguards. Any person deprived of liberty cannot be detained and interrogated outside of an appropriate legal framework.

People held in connection with armed conflicts such as in Afghanistan fall under the regime of international humanitarian law (IHL) and should be treated accordingly. (See the relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism.)

Those persons detained outside of a situation of armed conflict have rights enshrined in a number of other bodies of law, such as international human rights law and relevant provisions of domestic law. The ICRC has adopted a case-by-case approach to qualifying situations arising from the "global war on terror" as an armed conflict or not and believes that the status of detainees should be determined based on the relevant rules. There are currently two broad strands of legal thinking: according to one, detainees in the "global war on terror" are all criminal suspects and should be treated as such. According to the other, they are all prisoners of war and should be treated as such. The ICRC does not share either of these views. It is clear that States may also detain persons for imperative reasons of security.

While the ICRC welcomes any development that leads to a clarification of the future of the detainees at Guantanamo, it does not believe that there is presently a legal regime that appropriately addresses either the detainees' status or the future of their detention.

Due to changed factual and legal circumstances since the launching of the "global war on terror", persons currently in US hands who are not released or tried must be put in another legal framework: i.e. provided an independent and impartial review of whether their continued detention for security reasons is justified.

People suspected of having committed war crimes or any other criminal offence can and should be prosecuted. But these individuals must be afforded essential judicial guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, the right to be tried by an impartial and independent tribunal, the right to qualified legal counsel and the exclusion of any evidence obtained as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
And then there's this:

Detention at undisclosed locations

Beyond Bagram and Guantanamo Bay, the ICRC is concerned about the fate of an unknown number of people detained at undisclosed locations. For the ICRC, obtaining information on these detainees and access to them is a priority and a logical continuation of its current detention work in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Although no agreement has as yet been reached on the notification of these detainees to the ICRC and ICRC access to them dialogue continues with the US authorities on this issue.

So obviously they haven't been able to contact everyone rounded up in the "war on terror." Fluid toward the prisoners? Only in your Bizzarro world, Eve. Or should I say, Deep Kimchi?

I love it when you guys go from: "the ICRC doesn't visit" or "the US doesn't allow ICRC to visit Guantanamo" to "well, they visit, but they don't visit everyone there" to "well, they visit everyone at Guantanamo, but not at the black sites"

Keep moving.

Are you going to say now that the ICRC doesn't visit detainees, doesn't have access to them, can't help them send messages, etc.?


That's not the point, at least for me. The point I am making is that the ICRC does not have the power to act as a check or balance to ensure that the government does not abuse this law.

You may think it does through the process you outlined above, but I disagree. If you wish to convince me, then please describe to me the process by which the ICRC can hold the US Executive accountable.

I love it when you guys go from: "the ICRC doesn't visit" or "the US doesn't allow ICRC to visit Guantanamo" to "well, they visit, but they don't visit everyone there" to "well, they visit everyone at Guantanamo, but not at the black sites"

Keep moving.
Show me where I said they don't visit. Go ahead--here's your chance to pwn me for once.

Oh wait--you can't. Keep trying. Maybe I'll slip up one day.

Oh I've never questioned whether or not the ICRC was visiting Gitmo. I know they were. But let's just say that you're making it sound better than it actually is. Also from the Red Cross website (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/usa-detention-update-121205?opendocument) (and a bit more recent than yours):

And then there's this:

So obviously they haven't been able to contact everyone rounded up in the "war on terror." Fluid toward the prisoners? Only in your Bizzarro world, Eve. Or should I say, Deep Kimchi?


None of your post concerns the visitation done by the ICRC at Guantanamo, which you denied by saying my post was out of date. I then posted a more recent one before you posted, which you ignored.

And no, I'm not Deep Kimchi, whoever that is.

Why don't you ask the mods to look to see what my IP is.

There seems to be the interesting conclusion by Nazz that anyone who disagrees with Nazz or posts something contrary to Nazz' worldview is the same person...

By that logic, I could make a list of 30 or so people who are Nazz...

None of your post concerns the visitation done by the ICRC at Guantanamo, which you denied by saying my post was out of date. I then posted a more recent one before you posted, which you ignored.

And no, I'm not Deep Kimchi, whoever that is.

Why don't you ask the mods to look to see what my IP is.

I didn't deny the ICRC visit. I was talking about how the situation described in the 2004 report was outdated, and that much had changed in the conditions--which I showed by posting the 2006 report.

And looking at your IP would prove nothing, as I'm sure you know.

I didn't deny the ICRC visit. I was talking about how the situation described in the 2004 report was outdated, and that much had changed in the conditions--which I showed by posting the 2006 report.

And looking at your IP would prove nothing, as I'm sure you know.

Sure it would. Otherwise, the rules the mods use to forumban people wouldn't work.

I didn't deny the ICRC visit. I was talking about how the situation described in the 2004 report was outdated, and that much had changed in the conditions--which I showed by posting the 2006 report.

And looking at your IP would prove nothing, as I'm sure you know.

The conditions at Guantanamo didn't change in what you posted.

There seems to be the interesting conclusion by Nazz that anyone who disagrees with Nazz or posts something contrary to Nazz' worldview is the same person...

By that logic, I could make a list of 30 or so people who are Nazz...
Still trying to dodge the topic you began with, I see, which is that the law you seem to be celebrating is just another step toward further tyranny and away from individual liberty.

By the way, the ICRC report that I quoted gave a pretty good description of what I would consider a fair trial, a point you sort of glossed over a ways back. I wonder why you didn't address that? Is it because you know the tribunals are a farce? Or because you figure as long as you're in DC, you're safe from that kind of shit and who cares about a bunch of sand niggers anyway? You're despicable.

The conditions at Guantanamo didn't change in what you posted.


The conditions you posted about Guantanamo do not explain to me how the ICRC could possibly ensure that this law is not abused. I hate to keep repeating myself to you, but you seem to be unable to reply to my concern.

Still trying to dodge the topic you began with, I see, which is that the law you seem to be celebrating is just another step toward further tyranny and away from individual liberty.

Where am I celebrating? Or are you putting words in my mouth?

Obviously, the latter.

By the way, the ICRC report that I quoted gave a pretty good description of what I would consider a fair trial, a point you sort of glossed over a ways back. I wonder why you didn't address that? Is it because you know the tribunals are a farce? Or because you figure as long as you're in DC, you're safe from that kind of shit and who cares about a bunch of sand niggers anyway? You're despicable.

We were talking about visits - if you'll notice, I wasn't arguing that they would get a fair trial.

Your smear tactics are pretty despicable. Why don't you post where I say they are getting what you would consider to be a fair trial?

While you're at it Nazz, link to a quote where I say this:

Or because you figure as long as you're in DC, you're safe from that kind of shit and who cares about a bunch of sand niggers anyway?

We were talking about visits - if you'll notice, I wasn't arguing that they would get a fair trial.

Your smear tactics are pretty despicable. Why don't you post where I say they are getting what you would consider to be a fair trial?
What you said was that they were going to get military tribunals, and that seemed to be okay with you. When I pointed out that military tribunals were likely to be biased, you made a stupid remark about how a fair trial, to the accused, would result in freedom, and wondered if I agreed with that. I replied that no, a fair trial would incorporate the traditions of the justice system, and then later showed how the ICRC is calling for the same thing.

But this whole thread was started because you were, if not joyful, at least unconcerned about the way this law and decision affects one of the most sacred of human rights--habeas corpus. So any "smearing" I've done is justified and is backed up by the facts. I don't think it's smearing--smearing denotes using inaccuracies to make someone look bad.

While you're at it Nazz, link to a quote where I say this:

Link to where I said you said it. I'm asking about your state of mind there.

Link to where I said you said it. I'm asking about your state of mind there.

You aren't asking, you're saying - when you end the sentence with "you're despicable".

But this whole thread was started because you were, if not joyful, at least unconcerned about the way this law and decision affects one of the most sacred of human rights--habeas corpus. So any "smearing" I've done is justified and is backed up by the facts. I don't think it's smearing--smearing denotes using inaccuracies to make someone look bad.

Being neutral about a topic isn't "unconcerned". Nor is it joyful.

Hardly justified. It looks like you're someone who likes to react first and fudge it later.

Being neutral about a topic isn't "unconcerned". Nor is it joyful.

Hardly justified. It looks like you're someone who likes to react first and fudge it later.You've got a fucked up sense of what it means to be neutral.

You've got a fucked up sense of what it means to be neutral.

Well, neutral means that I bring it up - and note it. I didn't pass any judgment on it.

I guess to you, neutral means I bring it up, and then pass judgment that agrees with your moral viewpoint.

Maybe you should watch more news - reporters claim to be neutral.

Well, neutral means that I bring it up - and note it. I didn't pass any judgment on it.

I guess to you, neutral means I bring it up, and then pass judgment that agrees with your moral viewpoint.

Maybe you should watch more news - reporters claim to be neutral.

Actually, they don't. They claim to be objective (and they often fail). But that's a subtlety lost on you, I'd imagine.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003476629_detainees14.html

Looks like for now, it will be unconstitutional for legal immigrants (and the rest of us) to be denied access to federal courts, but if you're an alien captured abroad, well, you're fucked.

Considering Robertson's stance on Hamdan in the past, if he could have found a way out of this, he would have.

And considering the current makeup of the Supreme Court, if it gets to that level, Hamdan is fucked there, too.

It's a sad, sad state of affairs... One can only hope that it will be reversed when it reaches SCOTUS...

Oh, BTW, we've moved everyone from the "black" sites to Guantanamo...

Maybe you should Google that one, too.
This I don't believe. The only thing I've seen reported is that some high-level AQ operatives have been moved to Guantanamo - not all of them. I still believe there are people being held at undisclosed locations.

Actually, they don't. They claim to be objective (and they often fail). But that's a subtlety lost on you, I'd imagine.

There isn't a difference between neutrality and objectivity.

Case in point.

When Peter Jennings and other reporters were asked hypothetically, if they were accompanying enemies of the US, and they were about to ambush US troops, would the reporters warn the US troops, or not?

The emphasis was, by most of the reporters, on remaining neutral.

That is, not interfering with the situation.

Not that they're any good at not interfering, but at least I'm not interfering.

WOW.
You get called on it and still you persist.
Just because someone is attempting to be both Nuetral and Objective does NOT make them the same thing. I try to be/am both a student and a nice guy, does that make student and nice guy the same thing? A country can objectively look at a war and say, we stand to gain more by joining the fight here, and on this side, Objective yes? Neutral, most definetly not. (I realize that this is unrealistic today, but think Bismark era Europe, or a computer game, its a legit hypothetical) and more importantly, it points out how objectivity and neutrality are quite different things. Nazz was right, the subtlety was absolutely lost on you.

Italy

Suspected terrorist or not, their human and deserve a fair chance to prove their innocence. The detaining of a potential innocent man for years then subjecting to a military tribunal is not justice. Give them the right to a fair public trial with a lawyer so it can be proven with some objectivity whether or not they are guilty. Anything less is barbaric and brings us to the level of these terrorist pigs.

Eve online are you completely confused by yourself, or just utterly dishonest to the point of absurdity?

Nazz suggests the US is slipping into tyranny. You respond by pointing out that it's directed at foreigners. Nazz points out that the share number of people violated by internment in Soviet gulags being greater than the number currently violated by US internment practises is a relevent difference between the two. Your response is that 'the other difference' is the Soviets werent 'only doing it to foreigners'. Nazz points out again that the suspension of habeus corpus is a step downward in the descent towards gulag territory. Again your response is to point out that it's not everyone, only some - the referrent of some is of course 'foreigners'.

When Nazz directly asked if he should celebrate because he isnt the current target, your response cannot be reasonably interpreted other than as in the affirmitive:
So I should celebrate because my kind hasn't been targeted yet? Kinda shortsighted.
Well, you're not posting from Guantanamo yet...

Then you object when Nazz (unavoidably) concludes that you dont care as long as you're safe and it's just the foreigners! You try to obfuscate the matter by asserting that you never said this and never said that outright....honey you didnt need to. What you said was clear and repugnant enough.



Szanth points out that not everyone in foreignly located US detention camps is necessarily guilty of any crime. You respond with;
Newsflash - they're going to get trials by military tribunal as soon as the details can be worked out.
Latter you state;
if you'll notice, I wasn't arguing that they would get a fair trial.
So what then did your response to Szanth's concerns mean? Only fair trials would address the concern Szanth raised. So were you dissembling when you appeared to suggest military trials addressed Szanth's concerns about innocent people being locked up in these camps (which such trials could only do if they were fair)? Or were you dissembling when you told Nazz that you'd never argued 'they' would get a fair trial? Either way, such dissembling is just fancy lying.

In another post, Nazz points out that the trials you directly refered to would probably not be fair. Why would you post anything other than agreement unless you disagree? If you agree the trials wouldnt be fair then why post this;
Well, I'm sure that for the accused, regardless of their guilt, it's not "fair" unless they get to go free.

What would be fair to you?
You went out of your way to posit military trials as a solution to innocent people being detained, but they are only a solution if they are fair. You went out of your way to post a comment that implies disagreement when Nazz stated directly that they might not be fair. Now you want to claim that you never argued they were fair?

So please, explain the meaning of your comments about these military trials in regards to innocent people and Nazz's doubt about their fairness, because unless the arguments include the assumed (but not explicitly stated) premise that the military trials will be fair, your comments in response to both Szanth and Nazz make no sense other than nonsense.

Gift-of-God (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12083794&postcount=43) argues that we do not know that some US citizen(s) is (are) not being held in some camp(s) somewhere. You respond (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12083807&postcount=46) as though Gift-of-God had made the different and weaker argument that we dont know that US citizens are not being held at Gitmo.

When Gift-of-God redirects you to the actual argument Gift-of-God made (and that you ignored, choosing instead to argue against a weaker argument that was not made by anyone) you accuse Gift-of-God of moving the goalposts (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12083916&postcount=63). That you chose to ignore what Gift-of-God argued and instead responded to some weaker point that no one argued, doesnt constitute movement of goal-posts on someone else's part, but rather cruelty to strawmen on your part.

You then ironically accuse everyone else of 'moving' their arugments about (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12083931&postcount=65)....

So you respond to 'what about innocent folk' with 'military trials' but assert that you've never argued those trials are (will be) fair. You harp about the fact that it's only foreigners, but imply that you reject Nazz's assesment that you dont care so long as you're safe and it's just the foreigners. You respond to concerns that US citizens might be held in undisclosed prison camps somewhere in the world as though only Gitmo had been refered to. When the poster reiterates their original argument, you pretend that the strawman you constructed to beat-up on was their original argument, even though that still doesnt address the argument concerned.

Then you accuse others of putting words in your mouth (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12083970&postcount=75), all the while still failing to answer or address the original argument put forward by Gift-of-God.



Why do you need to dissemble, weasle and obfuscate (especially so numerously and to such an extent all in a single thread/discussion) if you are not arguing what is either empiracally wrong or morally dispicable? Why would anyone who doesnt believe they are arguing a lie, or the morally indefensible, need to systematically play hide and seek with the truth as you do throughout this thread?

Is there a single good reason to view you as anything other than dishonest, discredited and worthy of nothing but a contempt equal to that with which you treat the truth?

And thus continues the US's descent into tyranny.

Let's see!

Captured abroad in a foriegn country. Not a US citizen, and caught in action against the US. descent into tyranny? Does not look like it for me.

Let's see!

Captured abroad in a foriegn country. Not a US citizen, and caught in action against the US. descent into tyranny? Does not look like it for me.

You know, you could read the thread. It's only 6 pages.

Let's see!

Captured abroad in a foriegn country. Not a US citizen, and caught in action against the US. descent into tyranny? Does not look like it for me.

Bigger issue than that--the right to challenge your detention and face your accusers is one of the oldest in common law. It predates the US and the Constitution. It is a human right, and the US has decided that it applies only to US citizens. That is a step toward tyranny, no matter how you try to justify it.

You know, you could read the thread. It's only 6 pages.

Yea I could but what's the fun in that :p

Bigger issue than that--the right to challenge your detention and face your accusers is one of the oldest in common law.

He did and lost rd number 1.

He did and lost rd number 1.

:confused:

Bigger issue than that--the right to challenge your detention and face your accusers is one of the oldest in common law. It predates the US and the Constitution. It is a human right, and the US has decided that it applies only to US citizens. That is a step toward tyranny, no matter how you try to justify it.
Does stepping toward tyranny mean that you will definitely run the rest of the way? Is that your position?

Does stepping toward tyranny mean that you will definitely run the rest of the way? Is that your position?

Nope--there's time to turn it around. But the first step, in my view, has to be the repeal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in its entirety. This case is only the first of the egregious issues I have with that act--there will no doubt be more of them.

I believe this to be a tyrannical law that can be, and most likely will be, used against opponents to the powers that be in the USA.

There is no accountability.

Nope--there's time to turn it around. But the first step, in my view, has to be the repeal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in its entirety. This case is only the first of the egregious issues I have with that act--there will no doubt be more of them.

You mean the one that both Democrats and Republicans voted for?
The one that a judge has ruled, in part, constitutional?

Who is going to repeal it?

You mean the one that both Democrats and Republicans voted for?
The one that a judge has ruled, in part, constitutional?

Who is going to repeal it?
Damned if I know, but I have to hope that part of the reason people of both parties voted for it was because of political pressure. If the public can reverse that political pressure, then perhaps it can be repealed. That's what I'm hoping for, anyway.

And by the way, just because a law is, in part, constitutional, doesn't make it a good law. The part that was ruled constitutional was ruled that way because the Congress took the power of habeas review out of the hands of the courts. Since the Congress controls what the courts can hear to a large extent, the court said that section of the law was constitutional. But it's still a shit law.

:confused:

It was a federal judge, there's always the process of appeals.

Damned if I know, but I have to hope that part of the reason people of both parties voted for it was because of political pressure. If the public can reverse that political pressure, then perhaps it can be repealed. That's what I'm hoping for, anyway.

And by the way, just because a law is, in part, constitutional, doesn't make it a good law. The part that was ruled constitutional was ruled that way because the Congress took the power of habeas review out of the hands of the courts. Since the Congress controls what the courts can hear to a large extent, the court said that section of the law was constitutional. But it's still a shit law.

I know you're steamed that Republicans voted for it, that's a given.

Aren't you steamed that so many Democrats voted for it?

I know you're steamed that Republicans voted for it, that's a given.

Aren't you steamed that so many Democrats voted for it?
Yeah. I'm working with some local Democrats to get a primary challenger for my current Democratic Senator when he runs for re-election because of it. And any Senator who voted for it and is running for President is off my list of candidates I'll support in the primaries.

Yeah. I'm working with some local Democrats to get a primary challenger for my current Democratic Senator when he runs for re-election because of it. And any Senator who voted for it and is running for President is off my list of candidates I'll support in the primaries.

I take it you'll be working on Kucinich's campaign?

I take it you'll be working on Kucinich's campaign?

Not a chance. I haven't made a choice yet--plenty of time for that--but definitely not Kucinich.

It is interesting to note that this law theoretically only applies to non-citizens captured and held abroad.

But since these camps have been formed, and there is no way of knowing who is there, what their citizenship status is, or where they were captured, the practical reality of such a law is different.

For all practical purposes, anyone in these camps can be held indefinitely without a trial, regardless of their citizenship or location of arrest.

It also explains how the ICRC has visited every prisoner, and spoken to every prisoner there.

Gee, I guess the ICRC would have noticed if someone said they were a US Citizen... or do you think they're in on it?

Maybe you wish that the ICRC hadn't posted this:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/951C74F20D2A2148C1256D8D002CA8DC

You know Eve...I think you are being slightly disingenuous with regards Gitmo...seeing as its you that brought it up with regards the ICRC meetings...

You know Eve...I think you are being slightly disingenuous with regards Gitmo...seeing as its you that brought it up with regards the ICRC meetings...

How so?

Gift-of-God implied that ICRC access to Gitmo was wishful thinking - when they've had access since the place opened.

And more and more access over time. Apparently, they have been in the position of having full access to all Gitmo detainees since 2004, according to their own website.

What's disingenuous about that? Want to change the topic to fair trials? Is it disingenuous to change the topic to fair trials?

How so?

Gift-of-God implied that ICRC access to Gitmo was wishful thinking - when they've had access since the place opened.
How so? By doing stuff like this. You know pretending that other posters argued something other than what they argued even after other posters have pointed out to you that they didnt post what you keep trying to pass them off as having posted.

And more and more access over time. Apparently, they have been in the position of having full access to all Gitmo detainees since 2004, according to their own website.

What's disingenuous about that? Want to change the topic to fair trials? Is it disingenuous to change the topic to fair trials?
What's disingenious about it is that everyone can read for themselves what was actually said earlier in the thread, and there is nothing your dishonest and silly antics can do to change that. We can all read for ourselves exactly what Gift-of-God argued from the outset, and so easily see that you have been avoiding what was argued, positing strawmen and accusing everyone else of changing their arguments, and conclude from such desperate attempts that you're obviously doing so because you quite simply cannot counter address Gift-of-God's point, and because you got nothing.