NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://presscue.com/node/39281)

Basically, I am wondering what other peoples views on this topic are.

To save you all clicking on the link above, it is all represented below. However, I have provided the link in case people wanted my source for this information.

Fri, 01/11/2008 - 19:51 - Wire Services

On the sixth anniversary of the imprisonment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, a United States judge threw out lawsuit brought by four former British detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse, ruling that the detainees are not "Persons" under U.S. Law, which according to another judge, means that they are less than "human beings".

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also ruled that torture is a "foreseeable consequence" of military detention in dismissing the action brought by Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith, who spent more than two years in Guantánamo and were repatriated to the U.K. in 2004.

In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

The Court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants,” and ruled that even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantánamo had any constitutional rights.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown agreed with the result but attacked the majority for using a definition of person “at odds with its plain meaning.”

“There is little mystery that a ‘person’ is an individual human being…as distinguished from an animal or thing.” she added and concluded that majority’s decision “leaves us with the unfortunate and quite dubious distinction of being the only court to declare those held at Guantánamo are not ‘person[s].’ This is a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human.”

“We are disappointed that the D.C. Circuit has not held Secretary Rumsfeld and the chain of command accountable for torture at Guantánamo," Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, co-counsel on the case, commented. "The entire world recognizes that torture and religious humiliation are never permissible tools for a government. We hope that the Supreme Court will make clear that this country does not tolerate torture or abuse by an unfettered executive.”


My opinion is that controlled torture is an acceptable eventuality and need in some situations such as war, but classing these individuals as 'not persons' is abuse of their rights as human beings. Considering that the detainess are merely 'suspected' of the allegations set against them, surely proof is needed before resorting to methods of torture and/or taking away their human rights.
Wheras I am in full agreement that people guilty of terrorism should be punished, I cannot help but view the above information as a breach of ethics.

Oh, and lets see if we can discuss this rationally and like adults. :D

Wow. So you can do anything you want to anybody you want as long as you designate them as non-people. That's. Just. Great.

Source (http://presscue.com/node/39281)

Basically, I am wondering what other peoples views on this topic are.

To save you all clicking on the link above, it is all represented below. However, I have provided the link in case people wanted my source for this information.



My opinion is that controlled torture is an acceptable eventuality and need in some situations such as war, but classing these individuals as 'not persons' is abuse of their rights as human beings. Considering that the detainess are merely 'suspected' of the allegations set against them, surely proof is needed before resorting to methods of torture and/or taking away their human rights.
Wheras I am in full agreement that people guilty of terrorism should be punished, I cannot help but view the above information as a breach of ethics.

Oh, and lets see if we can discuss this rationally and like adults. :D

I am dismayed that it seems even some esteemed judges can't follow the meaning of the ruling without trying to make it some kind of political statement. If a person is semi-intelligent it is not clouded at all that the meaning of "person" is simply that the detainees are not considered such for our civil rights laws to apply to them. It has no real meaning that they are not "persons" in the realm of human beings.

The extremes that some go to to prove how dense they can be always amazes me. Drama, drama, drama.

These are prisoners of war, and their actions were suspect. I have no problem whatsoever with them being detained and I agree they are not "persons" with regards to our civil laws.

My opinion is that this is another very dark day in the US. I hope this decision will be recorded in history books properly, as a crime against the US Constitution, an abandonment of the responsibilities of jurisprudence, a crime against humanity, and one that was eventually punished in an appropriate manner.

Also, I absolutely disagree with your stance regarding torture, "controlled" or otherwise. In my view, torture is always unacceptable for both practical and ethical reasons: (A) its results are so unreliable as to render it useless (i.e. it doesn't work), and (B) it is an unethical violation of US law and social philosophy so egregious that it negates the very reason we claim to be fighting terrorism by reducing us to the same level as terrorists.

I do not fear my enemy so much that I will become him. I am not so driven by fear or hatred that I will erase all of my own sense of right and wrong just to get at "the bad guy." I will not waste time and resources on failed techniques, when I should be out getting practical work done. I reject all hypotheticals that claim to set up scenarios in which torture is an acceptable choice as self-serving fantasies.

There. I've staked out my territory, in case something worthwhile comes of this thread.

well yes gitmo is a travesty I doubt you will get much argument here

to be honest of course the court case won't be heard can you imagine the damage that would do?!

I am dismayed that it seems even some esteemed judges can't follow the meaning of the ruling without trying to make it some kind of political statement. If a person is semi-intelligent it is not clouded at all that the meaning of "person" is simply that the detainees are not considered such for our civil rights laws to apply to them. It has no real meaning that they are not "persons" in the realm of human beings.

The extremes that some go to to prove how dense they can be always amazes me. Drama, drama, drama.

These are prisoners of war, and their actions were suspect. I have no problem whatsoever with them being detained and I agree they are not "persons" with regards to our civil laws.
"Prisoners of war" are covered by the Geneva Conventions which expressly require them to be treated as "persons." Your view is at odds with the Bush admin's, which declares that they are not prisoners of war (even though they claim to have captured them in the course of fighting a "war").

so apparently on our way back to the pre-magna carta era, we stopped along the way to pick up dredd scott. wonderful.

These are prisoners of war, and their actions were suspect. I have no problem whatsoever with them being detained and I agree they are not "persons" with regards to our civil laws.

Yes, but they are prisoners of war detained without the POW status. Thus, technically, NOT prisoners of war but simply 'detainees'.
Human Rights Watch page, dated 28th Jan 2002 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm)

"Prisoners of war" are covered by the Geneva Conventions which expressly require them to be treated as "persons." Your view is at odds with the Bush admin's, which declares that they are not prisoners of war (even though they claim to have captured them in the course of fighting a "war").

Good point and you are exactly right, thank you for correcting me. Though they are not technically prisoners of war, I am fine with them being held as NOT such, therefore they can be tortured for information. I do not have a problem with this decision.

Wow. So you can do anything you want to anybody you want as long as you designate them as non-people. That's. Just. Great.

It's nothing new. In fact, 60 years ago, it was all made nice and industrial what with, the creation of the classification of Untermensch. The US judges are just borrowing a bit of outdated European culture.

Well, this certainly proves that the US government and judiciary is composed of subhumans.

I hope that Bush and his gang of cronies get thrown into Gitmo soon, lets see if a couple of years of torture change their perspective on things a bit...

I find it deeply, deeply saddening that we've regressed so far as a society that we're back to having to argue against torture.

Good point and you are exactly right, thank you for correcting me. Though they are not technically prisoners of war, I am fine with them being held as NOT such, therefore they can be tortured for information. I do not have a problem with this decision.

You do realise that this means that the US government can detain and torture anyone without trial or even charging them with a crime?

Even you.

I think I'm going to begin petitioning my government to wall off our southern border.

You do realise that this means that the US government can detain and torture anyone without trial or even charging them with a crime?

Even you.
See, this is why I think Al Qaeda should surrender themselves en-masse (and I'd join them if they did) if they really wanted to bring down the US. At the minute, we're all like "it's just 4 guys, and we need the information", and there are some people who see it as special circumstances and let it slide, but if it was "5000 guys have been denied personhood so they can be tortured for information", suddenly the weight of what's going on hits home, the very real threat to liberty is exposed, and America instantly loses all global credibility.

See, this is why I think Al Qaeda should surrender themselves en-masse (and I'd join them if they did) if they really wanted to bring down the US. At the minute, we're all like "it's just 4 guys, and we need the information", and there are some people who see it as special circumstances and let it slide, but if it was "5000 guys have been denied personhood so they can be tortured for information", suddenly the weight of what's going on hits home, the very real threat to liberty is exposed, and America instantly loses all global credibility.

I suppose after the dust and rubble settle over scientology, you could try and point out the "lulz" of the idea to Anonymous. :p

Wow. So you can do anything you want to anybody you want as long as you designate them as non-people. That's. Just. Great.

Even non-people have rights. Torture a dog, and you would have animal rights activists on your doorstep with burning torches.

I feel I should explain my claim to agree with torture in the OP.
I do not agree with physical torture, but controlled and milder forms of torture which many would not deem worthy of the title. For example, sleep deprivation, which has even been used on television reality shows.
I also believe it should only be used in circumstances where the detainee is proved to have information which is needed.... for example, plans of another major attack on civilians. I would sleep much better having saved a thousand people from a bomb blast if the information was gained via tactics such as sleep deprivation, interrogation and mind-games, than if I had ignored the fact that a detainee had information which could have saved them.
To clarify, I am not condoning torture such as racks, thumb-screws or physical torture of any description.

Looks like the court of appeals is tossing a potato sack on the slide so that American can more easily ride down the slop the White House greased up for it.

Even non-people have rights. Torture a dog, and you would have animal rights activists on your doorstep with burning torches.

I feel I should explain my claim to agree with torture in the OP.
I do not agree with physical torture, but controlled and milder forms of torture which many would not deem worthy of the title. For example, sleep deprivation, which has even been used on television reality shows.
I also believe it should only be used in circumstances where the detainee is proved to have information which is needed.... for example, plans of another major attack on civilians. I would sleep much better having saved a thousand people from a bomb blast if the information was gained via tactics such as sleep deprivation, interrogation and mind-games, than if I had ignored the fact that a detainee had information which could have saved them.
To clarify, I am not condoning torture such as racks, thumb-screws or physical torture of any description.

If it's legally classed as torture, then it's fucking torture, regardless of whether it involves "OMGBLOOD!"

As far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as "nasty" torture and "okay" torture. And you enter a very, very dark place when you start advocating otherwise.

A song is in order, I think.


The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars

Even non-people have rights. Torture a dog, and you would have animal rights activists on your doorstep with burning torches.

I feel I should explain my claim to agree with torture in the OP.
I do not agree with physical torture, but controlled and milder forms of torture which many would not deem worthy of the title. For example, sleep deprivation, which has even been used on television reality shows.
I also believe it should only be used in circumstances where the detainee is proved to have information which is needed.... for example, plans of another major attack on civilians. I would sleep much better having saved a thousand people from a bomb blast if the information was gained via tactics such as sleep deprivation, interrogation and mind-games, than if I had ignored the fact that a detainee had information which could have saved them.
To clarify, I am not condoning torture such as racks, thumb-screws or physical torture of any description.

I think torture should only be used for entertainment purposes. *nod*

While sensational, this post is an inaccurate misinterpretation of what the court really said (though the ruling is still wrong, it is not quite as bad as Dred Scottesq ruling that they are literally not people)

While sensational, this post is an inaccurate misinterpretation of what the court really said (though the ruling is still wrong, it is not quite as bad as Dred Scottesq ruling that they are literally not people)

Now that you're here, can you clear something up?

Upthread, I made quite the statement:

You do realise that this means that the US government can detain and torture anyone without trial or even charging them with a crime?

By thios I mean that the US govt. can detain you as an 'enemy combatant' or whatever the term is, and then you cannot contest anything they do to you, because of this ruling.

Am I correct?

While sensational, this post is an inaccurate misinterpretation of what the court really said (though the ruling is still wrong, it is not quite as bad as Dred Scottesq ruling that they are literally not people)

Then maybe you can provide what the court 'really' said.

While sensational, this post is an inaccurate misinterpretation of what the court really said (though the ruling is still wrong, it is not quite as bad as Dred Scottesq ruling that they are literally not people)
It is strongly reminiscent of Dred Scott. "The terms 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous, and mean the same thing" [which is redundant, and also repetitious] -- my favorite quote from Dred Scott v. Sanford (too lazy to look up the cite right now).

Non-person huh?.. I hope they are at least tattooing numbers on their forearms and cutting their hair before they give them a shower!. the classics never go outta style.....


WAKE UP AMERICA!

Then maybe you can provide what the court 'really' said.

"Because the plaintiffs are aliens and were located outside sovereign United States territory at the time their alleged RFRA claim arose, they do not fall with the definition of 'person,'"

Translation: RFRA was only meant to apply to those 1) inside the US and/or 2) who are US citizens. As such, the application of the statute is limited to those who fall within one of those catagories. Because the statute was only designed to protect those classes, the statute can not be read to be more expansive than that. They do not meet the cataogires that the statute was intended for, ergo the statute provides them no protection.

It's a wierd state of legal "whatsis now?" when a statute that says "persons" is held to not apply to someone. One of two possibilities arise, either they are not really people, or persons doesn't really mean persons.

In this case, the court found the second, however a rather..poorly written article makes it appear they found the first.

It is strongly reminiscent of Dred Scott. "The terms 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous, and mean the same thing" [which is redundant, and also repetitious] -- my favorite quote from Dred Scott v. Sanford (too lazy to look up the cite right now).

for the purposes of the 14th amendment perhaps (which doesn't really apply to dred but whatever), but not for RFRA

Indeed, if "persons" and "citizens" mean the same thing, then these folks, not being citizens, would have no leg to stand on. Rather, I do believe the law has often made quite clear distinctions between "person" and "citizen". If not, the clause "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" would be meaningless.

Now that you're here, can you clear something up?

Upthread, I made quite the statement:

You do realise that this means that the US government can detain and torture anyone without trial or even charging them with a crime?

By thios I mean that the US govt. can detain you as an 'enemy combatant' or whatever the term is, and then you cannot contest anything they do to you, because of this ruling.

Am I correct?

Well, it's more complicated than that. The majority through out the case on two grounds:

1) the statute they were suing under didn't apply to them

2) there was an immunity problem.

There was a concurring opinion that disagreed with #1, arguing that RFRA did apply because "persons means persons", but still agreed with #2, that there was a problem with immunity.

However the argument was that, even wrongly, the defendands could not have reasonably known the plaintiffs had rights to be violated. A very "huh?" sorta argument and I need to read up on this further. However it's worth noting that's a thing only worth while back in time, if a court were to find they DID have rights, as SCOTUS did some time ago, to a limited extend, that argument doesn't fly anymore, moving forward.

Source (http://presscue.com/node/39281)

Basically, I am wondering what other peoples views on this topic are.

To save you all clicking on the link above, it is all represented below. However, I have provided the link in case people wanted my source for this information.



My opinion is that controlled torture is an acceptable eventuality and need in some situations such as war, but classing these individuals as 'not persons' is abuse of their rights as human beings. Considering that the detainess are merely 'suspected' of the allegations set against them, surely proof is needed before resorting to methods of torture and/or taking away their human rights.
Wheras I am in full agreement that people guilty of terrorism should be punished, I cannot help but view the above information as a breach of ethics.

Oh, and lets see if we can discuss this rationally and like adults. :D
My views on the subject exactly. It's one thing to talk about torturing of those who are convicted, (not saiyng I necessarily agree with it) and another entirely to talk about that of those who aren't. No human right is more important than the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; all other rights depend on it.

Well, this certainly proves that the US government and judiciary is composed of subhumans.

I hope that Bush and his gang of cronies get thrown into Gitmo soon, lets see if a couple of years of torture change their perspective on things a bit...
Reminds me of a rhetorical(?) question Keith Olbermann posed more than a year ago... (paraphrased)

"Did it ever occur to you once, [Bush], that [when the time comes that] you leave office, some irresponsible future president [and] his lackeys would be entitled by the actions of YOUR OWN HAND to declare the status of 'Unwanted Enemy Combatant' for... George Walker Bush?"

for the purposes of the 14th amendment perhaps (which doesn't really apply to dred but whatever), but not for RFRA
The analogy to Dred Scott is not in the technicalities of word-usage, but in the denial of all rights. Guantanamo Bay isn't under US "jurisdiction", that is, US courts will not hear cases from there, because it is Cuban territory? I suppose that means the officers there would obey an order from a Cuban court? Yeah, right. What it means is that the officers there could slice up one of the prisoners (excuse me, "detainees") and serve the meat to the guard dogs, and no court anywhere would have any right to say that was wrong?

Wow. So you can do anything you want to anybody you want as long as you designate them as non-people. That's. Just. Great.

Maybe the US will do them the favor of "evacuating" them, Waffen SS style. This whole business conjures up ugly memories of Stalin's "non-persons".

*sighs*

Gitmo. Really pretty sad.

Wow. Another sad day for America.

http://www.great-victory1945.ru/stalin_victory.jpg


/approves

The AP report say it... less sensationally :p
Appeals Court Rules Against Ex-Detainees


WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Friday against four British men who contend they were systematically tortured and their religious rights abused throughout their two-year detention at Guantanamo Bay.

In a suit against ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and individual U.S. military officials, the four British men argued that the defendants had engaged in criminal conduct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 3-0 that the four men should have invoked a different law when they filed their lawsuit.

``Criminal conduct is not per se outside the scope of employment,'' a requirement for bringing a claim under the Alien Tort Statute, said the decision by appeals judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of President Bush's father.

The four men challenge the methods Rumsfeld and the military officers used, but the former detainees don't allege that the defendants ``acted as rogue officials or employees who implemented a policy of torture for reasons unrelated to the gathering of intelligence,'' the court said.

``Therefore, the alleged tortious conduct was incidental to the defendants' legitimate employment duties,'' the ruling added.

The four also brought constitutional claims and claims under the Geneva Conventions and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Rejecting all of the men's allegations, the appeals court overturned the only part of a lower court decision that had gone in the detainees' favor. That was the alleged violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

``Because the plaintiffs are aliens and were located outside sovereign United States territory at the time their alleged RFRA claim arose, they do not fall'' within the definition of those allowed to invoke the law, the court ruled.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-7217944,00.html

Link to the decision here. (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200801/06-5209a.pdf)

So... Nothing about them not being human... Seems some of it was a bit exaggerated ;)

While sensational, this post is an inaccurate misinterpretation of what the court really said (though the ruling is still wrong, it is not quite as bad as Dred Scottesq ruling that they are literally not people)

When you're right, you're right. :)


*Offers chocolate*

They have zero rights under international law. Zero. The Geneva Conventions have requirements for being classified a POW and it's already been established that they meet none, let alone all of them. This was accepted until it started being the US who held prisoners. I would have no problem with any label they give them. The fact that they are still alive is the disgrace.

What was the last count? I think it was 18 who were released and then recaptured fighting against coalition forces. People who let them go are just as much responsible for any they killed.

Though it doesn't really matter if that wasn't the case, which it is.. What was ever done about the way our prisoners were treated in Korea or Vietnam? Nothing. No protests, no intervention or prosecutions. The international laws regarding prisoners mean nothing.

Translation: RFRA was only meant to apply to those 1) inside the US and/or 2) who are US citizens. As such, the application of the statute is limited to those who fall within one of those catagories. Because the statute was only designed to protect those classes, the statute can not be read to be more expansive than that. They do not meet the cataogires that the statute was intended for, ergo the statute provides them no protection.

It's a wierd state of legal "whatsis now?" when a statute that says "persons" is held to not apply to someone. One of two possibilities arise, either they are not really people, or persons doesn't really mean persons.

In this case, the court found the second, however a rather..poorly written article makes it appear they found the first.

<snip>...ruling that the detainees are not "Persons" under U.S. Law, which according to another judge, means that they are less than "human beings".
<snip>
In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.
<snip>
Judge Janice Rogers Brown agreed with the result but attacked the majority for using a definition of person “at odds with its plain meaning.”

“There is little mystery that a ‘person’ is an individual human being…as distinguished from an animal or thing.” she added and concluded that majority’s decision “leaves us with the unfortunate and quite dubious distinction of being the only court to declare those held at Guantánamo are not ‘person[s].’ This is a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human.”

(note - all bold highlighting added by myself)

I understand fully that the term 'person' was alledgedly used to differentiate whether they were included by U.S. law or not. However, Judge Janice Rogers Brown seems to have been under the impression that they were being classified as "less than human beings" also, so maybe it is not merely the source I have quoted which has been unclear.
Regardless, the whole notion that these people are only suspects and not convicted, yet they are eligible for torture and denied any form of human rights, regardless of their nationality, is an abomination and travesty. The original quote does seem to indicate a justification for torturing people who may very well be guilty of nothing, with a hint of "and there's nothing you can do about it."

(note - all bold highlighting added by myself)

I understand fully that the term 'person' was alledgedly used to differentiate whether they were included by U.S. law or not. However, Judge Janice Rogers Brown seems to have been under the impression that they were being classified as "less than human beings" also, so maybe it is not merely the source I have quoted which has been unclear.

What Judge Brown, who, it is worth noting, was in dissent with the other justices on this matter, interpreted RFRA literally, that "persons" literally meant "persons", not "citizens of the US or aliens in the US." By her interpretation of the law, RFRA protections extended, literally, to all persons and, using her definition, denying RFRA protections can only mean that they are not persons.

The majority on the other hand clearly did not believe that they were not persons, but rather believed that RFRA did not apply, literally, to all persons. I am not sure Judge Brown really believed her fellow judges actually believed that they were not, literally, persons, but rather she believed that all persons were afforded protection under RFRA, and denying them these protections, effectivly treated them as if they were not persons.

Where I find issue with this article is this specific passage:

found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

No, that's not what they ruled. They ruled that "persons" in RFRA doesn't literally mean all persons, but rather a specific class of persons. That's where the error in the article is.



Regardless, the whole notion that these people are only suspects and not convicted, yet they are eligible for torture and denied any form of human rights, regardless of their nationality, is an abomination and travesty. The original quote does seem to indicate a justification for torturing people who may very well be guilty of nothing, with a hint of "and there's nothing you can do about it."

In this, we are in agreement. What is important however is to note what the AP said, that their claims were not valid under that law. Whether their claims would be valid under a different law is another question, and one their lawyer should carefully consider.

What is important however is to note what the AP said, that their claims were not valid under that law. Whether their claims would be valid under a different law is another question, and one their lawyer should carefully consider.

Yes, I noticed that also.
If these ex-detainees are truly innocent, then I wholeheartedly believe they are due some form of compensation for the 'questionably unethical' manner in which they were held and the things they were subjected to.
However, I have a skeptical side of me which has a sneaking suspicion that it is pre-determined that they will get nothing, as to pay any form of compensation or (in the quoted case) to follow proceedings against the US officials whom the accusations were made, would be akin to unethical conduct.

They have zero rights under international law. Zero. The Geneva Conventions have requirements for being classified a POW and it's already been established that they meet none, let alone all of them. This was accepted until it started being the US who held prisoners. I would have no problem with any label they give them. The fact that they are still alive is the disgrace
I hope you are only referring to the ones who are actually guilty. I mean, for an innocent person to be 'still alive' is hardly a 'disgrace'.

Innocent is a point of view.

I am not one of those people who believe that those muslim men, most with numerous ties to terrorist groups simply went on vacation in the middle of a war zone, stumbled onto a battlefield and picked up a weapon before being captured. The fact that Mamdouh Habib is breathing today, is a national disgrace. Far, far worse than any accusations from abroad. He should have been shot in the back of the head as soon as they got all the info they could from him. It sickens me that people like him have been released.

I don't believe they should be released or alive because there isn't concrete evidence that they killed anyone. Though in many cases, like Omar Khadr, there is.

It seems that an awful lot of people around the world are really aiming for these people to all be released because they don't like the US government. You can try and deny it, but you know it's true. They want these terrorists released for political reasons, despite anything they did. And anyone that actually cares about how these people view our national image is worse than them.

I recommend simply ignoring HSH, he's just one of our resident trolls. What's worse he's one of our "I know what I'm talking about because I took a political science class in college!" trolls.

Wow. So you can do anything you want to anybody you want as long as you designate them as non-people. That's. Just. Great.

Worked for the Nazis. Why wouldn't it work for others?

Completely sick and disgusting.

...The fact that Mamdouh Habib is breathing today, is a national disgrace.
...
... And anyone that actually cares about how these people view our national image is worse than them.
lol your doing it rong

I recommend simply ignoring HSH, he's just one of our resident trolls. What's worse he's one of our "I know what I'm talking about because I took a political science class in college!" trolls.

I will take your advice, seeing as though the rest of your posts have debated the OP sensibly and in an adult fashion. I have agreed with about 90% of what you have said thus far, so the above quote makes it 91%.

Okay, I will take your advice after this...
I have never claimed that the guilty do not deserve punishment. As someone who has lived through the London Bombings by the IRA (which were incidentally funded by American individuals, so the irony is that loosely americans taught the English how to combat terrorism.:rolleyes:), I am perfectly aware that terrorism is a crime against innocent civilians. My worry is that innocent civilians are the ones who suffer from both sides.
I would be amazed if there was not a single innocent person being wrongly accused of terrorism, and in the case of Guantanamo that would be one innocent civilian too many, imho.

Okay... now I will take your advice Neo-Art :D

oh no. Can they not see by taking away the threat of torture upcoming enthusiasts for terrorism will have less incentive to commit horrific crimes. By ignoring the human rights of people is a dark day for democracy.

Translation: RFRA was only meant to apply to those 1) inside the US and/or 2) who are US citizens. As such, the application of the statute is limited to those who fall within one of those catagories. Because the statute was only designed to protect those classes, the statute can not be read to be more expansive than that. They do not meet the cataogires that the statute was intended for, ergo the statute provides them no protection.

It's a wierd state of legal "whatsis now?" when a statute that says "persons" is held to not apply to someone. One of two possibilities arise, either they are not really people, or persons doesn't really mean persons.

In this case, the court found the second, however a rather..poorly written article makes it appear they found the first.

The AP report say it... less sensationally :p

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-7217944,00.html

Link to the decision here. (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200801/06-5209a.pdf)

So... Nothing about them not being human... Seems some of it was a bit exaggerated ;)

What Judge Brown, who, it is worth noting, was in dissent with the other justices on this matter, interpreted RFRA literally, that "persons" literally meant "persons", not "citizens of the US or aliens in the US." By her interpretation of the law, RFRA protections extended, literally, to all persons and, using her definition, denying RFRA protections can only mean that they are not persons.

The majority on the other hand clearly did not believe that they were not persons, but rather believed that RFRA did not apply, literally, to all persons. I am not sure Judge Brown really believed her fellow judges actually believed that they were not, literally, persons, but rather she believed that all persons were afforded protection under RFRA, and denying them these protections, effectivly treated them as if they were not persons.

Where I find issue with this article is this specific passage:

No, that's not what they ruled. They ruled that "persons" in RFRA doesn't literally mean all persons, but rather a specific class of persons. That's where the error in the article is.

The debate over what the decision means has resolved itself, with Gravlen and Neo Art explaining things correctly.

For those that wish to judge for themselves, look at pages 35-43 and 47-50 of this pdf (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200801/06-5209a.pdf).

I do think Judge Brown has a point. The majority points to nothing in RFRA that excludes the plaintiffs. To the contrary, the statute applies to all persons. In the mental gymnastics of the majority, "persons" does not mean "persons." Thus, although they do not reach this point directly, the majority is effectively saying that the plaintiffs are not persons.

Like Judge Brown, I look at either the Merriam Webster Dictionary
or Black's Law Dictionary and find that the usual meaning of "person" is "a human being." The majority's conclusion that Congress didn't intend this ordinary meaning of the word "person" is little more than sophistry.

I am dismayed that it seems even some esteemed judges can't follow the meaning of the ruling without trying to make it some kind of political statement. If a person is semi-intelligent it is not clouded at all that the meaning of "person" is simply that the detainees are not considered such for our civil rights laws to apply to them. It has no real meaning that they are not "persons" in the realm of human beings.

The extremes that some go to to prove how dense they can be always amazes me. Drama, drama, drama.

These are prisoners of war, and their actions were suspect. I have no problem whatsoever with them being detained and I agree they are not "persons" with regards to our civil laws.

This is mostly dealt with above, but it is worth noting that you appear to be reaching exactly the conclusion that the article warned against.

It is one thing to say, as the majority erroneously did, that the plaintiffs are not persons as that term is used in one statute, RFRA. It is an altogether different thing to say that the plaintiffs "are not 'persons' with regards to" any of "our civil laws." One is to say that a specific statute was not intended to protect the plaintiffs. The other is to say the plaintiffs are not persons as that term is generally used in the law.

For those that wish to judge for themselves, look at pages 35-43 and 47-50 of this pdf (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200801/06-5209a.pdf).

Thankyou for this link. This is precisely what I was looking for. I will browse through it more thoroughly tomorrow, as it is rather late here (or early) and I would hate to torture myself with sleep deprivation :D
However, I notice at first glance it contains everything including the 'detainees' alibis. This looks to be a good read.

See, this is why I think Al Qaeda should surrender themselves en-masse (and I'd join them if they did) if they really wanted to bring down the US. At the minute, we're all like "it's just 4 guys, and we need the information", and there are some people who see it as special circumstances and let it slide, but if it was "5000 guys have been denied personhood so they can be tortured for information", suddenly the weight of what's going on hits home, the very real threat to liberty is exposed, and America instantly loses all global credibility.

already happened americas credibility is shattered IMO.

Thankyou for this link. This is precisely what I was looking for. I will browse through it more thoroughly tomorrow, as it is rather late here (or early) and I would hate to torture myself with sleep deprivation :D
However, I notice at first glance it contains everything including the 'detainees' alibis. This looks to be a good read.

You are welcome. But I should note that Gravlen provided the link before I did. :cool:

Thank you Neo Art, Gravlen and Cat-Tribe. Thanks to you, yet again, the day is saved. You're like the Power Puff Girls. :)

I feel a lot better now that I can stop being angry at the court.

Thank you Neo Art, Gravlen and Cat-Tribe. Thanks to you, yet again, the day is saved. You're like the Power Puff Girls. :)

I feel a lot better now that I can stop being angry at the court.

Just call me "Buttercup" :cool:

If they were convicted under an accepted internation legal code, I would have little trouble then treating the convicted as "detainees" rather than "persons". However, if I am correct in my belief that due judicial process is not followed where Guantanamo bay is concerned, I see little justification for the stance of the United States.