Rights For Guantanamo [Archive]

The Cat-Tribe

22-11-2008, 01:24

At long last.

Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/21guantanamo.html?_r=1&hp)
What say the people of NSG?

About fucking time. The injustice leaves me speechless.

For those that are interested, here is a pdf (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2004cv1166-276) of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's 14-page memorandum order summarizing the case and why the petitions for habeas corpus were granted.

(Note: It took some time for my computer to download the pdf, so you may have to be patient.)

EDIT: Having read the order, I am fucking amazed, shocked, and outraged at how flimsy the "case" against these 5 men were. (Note: there were six petitioners, but one petition got denied and that guy will remain in US custody). I'll try to quickly summarize. (This is not a direct quote and emphasis has been added):

At the time of their arrest all six petitioners, who are native Algerians, were residing in Bosnia, over a thousand miles from the battlefield in Afghanistan. Petitioners hled Bosnia citizenship or lawful permanent residence, as well as their native Algerian citizenship. All six men were arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 for their alleged involvement in a plot to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo. Those charges have been withdrawn. On January 17, 2002, upon their release from prison in Sarajevo, petitioners were detaineed by Bosnian authorities and U.S. personnel and were transported to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay.

The Government argues that petitioners are lawfully detained because they are "enemy combatants." The following definition of "enemy combatant" governs the proceedings in this case:

An "enemy combatant" is an individusla who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of the enemy armed forces.

The District Court used the government's definition of enemy combatant and required only that the Government show by a preponderance of evidence that each petitioner is such an "enemy combatant."

As to five of the six petitions the only theory set forth by the Government was that they planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 and take up arms against U.S. and allied forces. The Court never reaches the question of whether a mere plan, unaccompanied by any concrete acts, is "supporting" al Qaeda within the meaning of the definition of "enemy combatant. Instead, the Court finds taht the Government failed to show by a preponderanc of the evidence that any of the five petitioners either had, or committed to, such a plan.

To support its claim that petitioners had a plan to travel to Afghanistan to engage U.S. and allied forces, the Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a single classified document from an unnamed source. This unnamed source is only evidence in the record supporting each petitioner's alleged knowledge of, or commitment to, this supposed plan. Further, the Court concluded that the Government did not provide the Court with enough information to adequately evaluate the credibility and reliability of this source's information. For example, the Court has no knowledge as to the circumstances under which the source obtained the information as to each petitioner's alleged knowledge and intentions.

In addition, the Court was not provided with corroborating evidence that the petitioners knew of and were committed to such a plan. The Court concludes:

Because I cannot, on the record before me, adequately assess the credibility and reliability of the sole source information relied upon, for five of the petitioners, to prove an alleged plan by them to travel to Afghanistan to engage U.S. and coalitions forces, the Government has failed to carry its burden with respect to these petitioners. Unfortunately, due to the classified nature of the Government's evidence, I cannot be more specific about the deficiencies of the Government's case at this time.

Suffice it to say, however, that while the information in the classified intelligence report, relating to the credibility and reliability of the source, was undoubtedly sufficient for the intelligence purpose for which it was prepared, it is not sufficient for the purposes for which a habeas court must now evaluate it. To allow enemy combatancy to rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this Court's obligation under the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi to protect petitioners form the risk of erroneous detention.

As the sixth petitioner, there were additional allegations and evidence, which the Court found sufficient to hold that he is being lawfully detained by the Government as an enemy combatant.

The Cat-Tribe

22-11-2008, 06:55

Redwulf

22-11-2008, 07:14

Are we so jaded that we are incapable of further outrage at the injustice of Guantanamo?

These 5 guys lost 7 years of their lives for completely bullshit reasons.

If these cases are typical of detainees at Guantanamo, IMHO it is even worse than most people thought.

Typical cases at Guantanamo involve torture. Just about all I can post on this subject without getting in deep legal shit is a deep desire that those responsible get brought up on charges. Preferably before the ICJ.

Hopefully everyone from the guards on up will get the same treatment as the LAST batch of jackasses who were "just following orders".

Non Aligned States

22-11-2008, 07:49

Are we so jaded that we are incapable of further outrage at the injustice of Guantanamo?

It's like this TCT. The law has been twisted and perverted into a quantum pretzel, and the ones responsible are so well protected with the powers that they used to pervert the laws, that the law cannot touch them.

The only way to redress the injustice is by going beyond the law. That is the only way, unless you prescribe to a cosmic all powerful sense of redress, that this kind of injustice can be corrected.

This is the way of the world, where the strong screw over the weak, and get away with it because there is no one else stronger who will stand up to it. Putting an end to it requires someone stronger than all the rest, and someone willing to dispense justice beyond legal systems. But since those are strictly comic book characters, I do not expect any such occurrence ever to happen.

Gauthier

22-11-2008, 07:55

Psychotic Mongooses

22-11-2008, 11:10

Typical cases at Guantanamo involve torture. Just about all I can post on this subject without getting in deep legal shit is a deep desire that those responsible get brought up on charges. Preferably before the ICJ.
ICJ is State to State, just for your own knowledge.

They might stand a chance just suing the United States Government. *muffles laughter*

If there was torture involved, then they'd have more chance bringing a case via the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, unless some country would be willing to act on their behalf via the ICJ (which is very, very, unlikely)

Hopefully everyone from the guards on up will get the same treatment as the LAST batch of jackasses who were "just following orders".
........ get off scot free? :wink:

The Alma Mater

22-11-2008, 11:20

Wow, if they weren't angry at the US before they were arrested I'll bet they're super pissed after 7 years of captivity.

And I can hear the Bush administration now:

"See - they hate the USA. I told you !"

The_pantless_hero

22-11-2008, 12:04

Clearly the judge is an UnAmerican Commie-Liberal Terrorist Sympathizer!!!!

:eek2:

But seriously, it's about damn time they started clamping down on The Madness of King George.
They already tried this with the Chinese Muslims. The Bush administration just issued an order overruling the court.

greed and death

22-11-2008, 12:51

Bush has released them..... in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
then shown the video to anyone else filing a petition .

Collectivity

22-11-2008, 14:58

Guantanamo HAS to go!

The Cat-Tribe

22-11-2008, 21:18

Typical cases at Guantanamo involve torture.

That too. But I look at the Guantanamo/"enemy combatant" injustice as involving at least 3 different (athough related) grounds for outrage.

First, there is the denial of habeas corpus. I've gone on about this at length in other threads, but the basic idea that one gets to challenge the grounds on which one is being detained is a fundamental concept both of international law and the U.S. Constitution.

Second, there is the flimsy grounds on which people have been detained -- as illustrated by this case. No matter how well treated, no one should be held for days, let alone years, based on such complete lack of evidence. To me, it is simply shocking.

Third, there is the poor treatment and/or torture of detainees. No matter how guilty someone may be, there are limits on how they can be treated.

So far, this case involves the first two grounds for outrage as these detainees were denied habeas corpus for so long and, when they finally got a hearing, the government's case against them was ridiculously unfounded.

Just about all I can post on this subject without getting in deep legal shit is a deep desire that those responsible get brought up on charges. Preferably before the ICJ.

Hopefully everyone from the guards on up will get the same treatment as the LAST batch of jackasses who were "just following orders".

Although I think the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction (and I don't know who does), you and I share the same general sentiments here.

The Cat-Tribe

22-11-2008, 21:23

It's like this TCT. The law has been twisted and perverted into a quantum pretzel, and the ones responsible are so well protected with the powers that they used to pervert the laws, that the law cannot touch them.

The only way to redress the injustice is by going beyond the law. That is the only way, unless you prescribe to a cosmic all powerful sense of redress, that this kind of injustice can be corrected.

This is the way of the world, where the strong screw over the weak, and get away with it because there is no one else stronger who will stand up to it. Putting an end to it requires someone stronger than all the rest, and someone willing to dispense justice beyond legal systems. But since those are strictly comic book characters, I do not expect any such occurrence ever to happen.

Meh. I obviously don't share your complete disdain and cynicism regarding law. The rule of law is what finally got these detainees there release. The law can be preverted, but usually only so much or for so long.

As to your suggestion that we abandon law for some other means of dispensing justice, this reminds of something I just posted in another thread relating to a passage from "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt: The hero, Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic and leading citizen, has refused to bless the annulment of the king's first marriage. King Henry, hoping to get even has sent a spy to More's household.

Recognizing him for what he is, More's daughter cries: "He's a spy. Arrest him, Father."

More answers: "There's no law against that."

But his son-in-law interjects: "There is God's law."

More replies: "Then God can arrest him."

Meanwhile, More's daughter is getting more and more exasperated as it becomes clear that the spy will be allowed to escape. "While you talk, he's gone," she complains.

"And go he should if he were the Devil himself," says More, "until he broke the law."

Sarcastically, his son-in-law inquires: "So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law?"

"What would you do?" More asks him. "Cut down a great road through the law to get at the Devil?"

"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that," his son-in-law replies.

"Oh?" More said, "and when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Saerlandia

23-11-2008, 00:33

Ashmoria

23-11-2008, 00:48

Took them long enough. Although justice won't be done until the entire prison is shut down and the prisoners dealt with through a justice system that doesn't blatantly violate international law. Hopefully Obama will make this one of his first acts as President.
the bushies keep saying that its easier said than done but im very hopeful that it will be closed very soon. wanting it closed makes it much more likely to be do-able.

Exilia and Colonies

23-11-2008, 00:57

the bushies keep saying that its easier said than done but im very hopeful that it will be closed very soon. wanting it closed makes it much more likely to be do-able.

A large part of the problem with existing released persons is they no longer have valid citizenship in their countries of origin. This means the U.S. has to extend citizenship to said people.

Which is likely to go down like a lead baloon with the guillible folk who think these people deserved to be there in the first place.

Still it must be done...

Quarkleflurg

23-11-2008, 00:59

I find it so hard to believe that the united states, one of the most free nations on earth, can be responsible for such a travesty as Guantanamo bay

it is truly sickening that the us government could sponsor an illegal torture camp and about time that people started to be released from this prison.

Ashmoria

23-11-2008, 01:00

A large part of the problem with existing released persons is they no longer have valid citizenship in their countries of origin. This means the U.S. has to extend citizenship to said people.

Which is likely to go down like a lead baloon with the guillible folk who think these people deserved to be there in the first place.

Still it must be done...
yes it does. we have to do whatever we can to make right what we have done so very wrong. if that means settling the uighurs somewhere in the US, then that is what we have to do.

Self-sacrifice

23-11-2008, 02:20

The Cat-Tribe

23-11-2008, 02:24

The people are all POW. They should be treated as such. If released they should be banned form possesing anything dangerous and monitored. These are far from inocent people.

Sadly the American government lowered themself with the torture and lack of plan at Guantanamo bay. Two wrongs dont make a right but believing these people did nothing wrong and will not have a future intention to cause harm is naive

Um. Perhaps you should read the District Court's opinion or my summary thereof (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14234515&postcount=17).

These five detainees WERE INNOCENT, did nothing wrong, and never intended to cause harm to the U.S.

That's why this is fucking outrageous.

Saerlandia

23-11-2008, 02:24

The people are all POW. They should be treated as such. If released they should be banned form possesing anything dangerous and monitored. These are far from inocent people.

Sadly the American government lowered themself with the torture and lack of plan at Guantanamo bay. Two wrongs dont make a right but believing these people did nothing wrong and will not have a future intention to cause harm is naive

That's exactly the point, though: in many cases they simply don't know whether the inmate is guilty or innocent, and they've locked them up just in case. There have been several people released because their lawyers have proved that there is no case to answer. Is it such a leap of faith to think that there are more like them still locked away? I'm not denying that there are some genuine baddies in there, and it's possible, if unlikely, that everyone in Guantanamo deserves to be in some kind of prison. The problem is that in many cases we simply don't know.

The Cat-Tribe

23-11-2008, 02:24

A large part of the problem with existing released persons is they no longer have valid citizenship in their countries of origin. This means the U.S. has to extend citizenship to said people.
Which is likely to go down like a lead baloon with the guillible folk who think these people deserved to be there in the first place.

Still it must be done...

I'm not sure that follows. Care to explain why this would be?

Self-sacrifice

23-11-2008, 02:46

These five detainees WERE INNOCENT, did nothing wrong, and never intended to cause harm to the U.S.

Well the sixth was found to be an enemy combatant. The rest were released (and prehaps they should have been earlier) because there was a lack of evidence to proseucte. Third world evidence gathering dosnt meet western world standards so there was a lack of evidence.

But this does not mean they are innocent. The courts only find people "guilty" or "Not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" We have no idea what the evidence presented was. There is no reson to believe they are innocent

During a war there will always be people held on weak evidence as the risk of them attacking you is considered the most important part. But holding too many people becomes a problem requiring that there is some kind of belief. They are not guilty to legal standards. That is all that is known for certain. They may still be guilty

The Cat-Tribe

23-11-2008, 02:51

Well the sixth was found to be an enemy combatant. The rest were released (and prehaps they should have been earlier) because there was a lack of evidence to proseucte. Third world evidence gathering dosnt meet western world standards so there was a lack of evidence.

But this does not mean they are innocent. The courts only find people "guilty" or "Not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" We have no idea what the evidence presented was. There is no reson to believe they are innocent

During a war there will always be people held on weak evidence as the risk of them attacking you is considered the most important part. But holding too many people becomes a problem requiring that there is some kind of belief. They are not guilty to legal standards. That is all that is known for certain. They may still be guilty

Actually, if you were paying attention, you would know that the government was not asked to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of any crime. All the government had to do was prove it was more likely than not that they were "enemy combatants."

The government only alleged a plot to travel to Afghanistan to take up arms AND had NO proof except one unnamed source.

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for even speculating that these detainees are guilty of anything.

Non Aligned States

23-11-2008, 03:17

Meh. I obviously don't share your complete disdain and cynicism regarding law. The rule of law is what finally got these detainees there release. The law can be preverted, but usually only so much or for so long.

The "only for so long" only works against heads of states and their beneficiaries if some other head of state who has a bigger army smacks them down and drags them to court.

Do you honestly believe that even one higher up responsible for the Guantanamo mess will spend even a single day in jail?

As to your suggestion that we abandon law for some other means of dispensing justice, this reminds of something I just posted in another thread relating to a passage from "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt: [INDENT]The hero, Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic and leading citizen, has refused to bless the annulment of the king's first marriage. King Henry, hoping to get even has sent a spy to More's household.

It is because the law is upheld, and that the law can be perverted, that people in power get away with their injustice.

Who went to jail for forming the Japanese internment act? Who went to jail for starting the era of McCarthyism and the House of UnAmerican Actions? Who went to jail for creating the "separate but equal" legislations?

Laws are human constructs, and as such, will always be pliable to those who make law, humans.

Self-sacrifice

23-11-2008, 03:18

Already you have dropped down from innocent to more likely. There is still a chance. The US government does not want to arrest innocent people and pay for their detention whilst recieving a bad rap for doing so. There was always a belief that they were millitants but there was not enough proof. We have no idea what the evidence was at all. Treating them like they are innocent is risky. they should be monitored upon release

Psychotic Mongooses

23-11-2008, 04:19

Gauntleted Fist

23-11-2008, 04:30

Treating them like they are innocent is risky....Does 'innocent until proven guilty' ring any bells?

Guantanamo needs to be dismantled. Sooner, preferably.

Redwulf

23-11-2008, 04:46

Quacawa

23-11-2008, 22:03

Guantanamo should be shut down.

Knights of Liberty

23-11-2008, 23:22

Thankfully, the highest legals minds have a mentality greater than a retarded 5 year old.

Really, I love when the ignorant on here lecture the lawyers on the Constitution and the law.

I LOVE Pinochet

24-11-2008, 00:26

At long last.

Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/21guantanamo.html?_r=1&hp)
What say the people of NSG?

Disgraceful. They should have been executed a lot sooner. Terrorists deserve neither justice nor compassion nor mercy.

Seathornia

24-11-2008, 00:31

Disgraceful. They should have been executed a lot sooner. Terrorists deserve neither justice nor compassion nor mercy.

Except, we don't know if they really are terrorists or not.

A large portion of them were just handed to the US military after sheep herders decided that "hey, I can get a bounty if I turn in that guy I always hated and just pretend he's a terrorist!"

And they took him in, no questions asked.

So tell me, where is this proof that they are at all terrorists or combatants for that matter?

I LOVE Pinochet

24-11-2008, 00:36

If they're not terrorists, then free them. Otherwise, shoot them.

AHSCA

24-11-2008, 00:42

Gitmo prisoners being set free, Hilary Clinton as Secy. State, yep we're officially screwed

The Cat-Tribe

24-11-2008, 00:44

Disgraceful. They should have been executed a lot sooner. Terrorists deserve neither justice nor compassion nor mercy.

Gitmo prisoners being set free, Hilary Clinton as Secy. State, yep we're officially screwed

Ah, cute little trolls. *pats on head*

I LOVE Pinochet

24-11-2008, 00:46

You love warmongers like Hillary? And they say I'm coldhearted. Shame on you.

Haplo Voss

24-11-2008, 01:03

Unfortunately I think a lot of you are missing the bigger picture. Not that I would wish years of unjust lockup on any human being, but the entire point of 'the big G' is wartime confinement and information gathering. It is not (well until recently they are pushing it towards that) and never has been a standard US court system prison. It is outside of a standard 'justice system' entirely. It is for Prisoners Of War.

It is hard for people to understand that have never been a part of war, and it doesn't necessarily make it right, but there are legitamate and necessary reasons for places like Guatanamo, and believe it or not Every single country that has defense capability has some place like it.

It is unfortunate and inhumane to think about, however what do you do to save millions of lives verses a 'few'? The evidence, or plausible lack of evidence I should say used to set them free was only allowed because of recent court status forced upon the facility.

There is something to consider from all of this. What would be your outlook *if* and it is a big *if* I grant you that... one of these released men takes a week or two off, then blows up a church, bank, or other building with lots of innocent people?

Do you just consider that justifiable revenge for years of lockup? Or perhaps reconsider the reason he was held in the first place? Just a thought for the possible future.

Anyway, I understand the frustration of those of you outraged by the treatment of these detainees, however having been in the midst of things like this, what would you do to protect your wife? Your child? Your family?

Oh and nobody in Guantanamo is there due to civilians in any country being paid off for pointing fingers. If there had never been any sort of intelligence follow up on the people, then they wouldn't be there. The gov't may not have a solid enough case to be keeping them there, but there was a good reason to hold them or they would never have been in the situation in the first place.

Honestly people, if you saw your new neighbors constantly walking back and forth across the street carrying boxes, then one of them was arrested for bombing someplace... would you call in the other neighbor that was carrying things to and fro from that persons house? I'm not saying that's what happened here obviously, but this is an example of what goes on a lot. Guilty by association? Maybe it isn't a fun thought, but during wartime... there has to be to some extent in situations like these.

My best to all of you.

Psychotic Mongooses

24-11-2008, 01:30

Unfortunately I think a lot of you are missing the bigger picture. Not that I would wish years of unjust lockup on any human being, but the entire point of 'the big G' is wartime confinement and information gathering. It is not (well until recently they are pushing it towards that) and never has been a standard US court system prison. It is outside of a standard 'justice system' entirely. It is for Prisoners Of War.
No it's not. It's for 'non combatants'. Prisoners of War have rights under law. The whole point about the outrage surrounding Camp X-Ray/Delta/whatever it's called now, is that the people there were classified as 'non combatants' specifically to avoid giving them any legal or human rights.

but there are legitamate and necessary reasons for places like Guatanamo, and believe it or not Every single country that has defense capability has some place like it.
They also have judicial oversight. Which that hellhole in particular was set up to avoid.

It is unfortunate and inhumane to think about, however what do you do to save millions of lives verses a 'few'? The evidence, or plausible lack of evidence I should say used to set them free was only allowed because of recent court status forced upon the facility.
'It is inhumane.... but..." doesn't work as a line of reasoning in any Western society.

And playing the 'numbers' game is a bullshit argument. It is not up to me to prove to you I am innocent. It is up to you to prove I am guilty.

There is something to consider from all of this. What would be your outlook *if* and it is a big *if* I grant you that... one of these released men takes a week or two off, then blows up a church, bank, or other building with lots of innocent people?
Then you can thank the people that shoved previously innocent people into a situation where they became radicalised and influenced by extremists in a confined, degrading and inhumane scenario.

Anyway, I understand the frustration of those of you outraged by the treatment of these detainees, however having been in the midst of things like this, what would you do to protect your wife? Your child? Your family?
I wouldn't sacrifice that which makes me human.

Oh and nobody in Guantanamo is there due to civilians in any country being paid off for pointing fingers. If there had never been any sort of intelligence follow up on the people, then they wouldn't be there.
You have a disturbingly high opinion of and confidence in the security and intelligence forces involved - including those is Pakistan, Iraq and other despotic regimes.

The gov't may not have a solid enough case to be keeping them there, but there was a good reason to hold them or they would never have been in the situation in the first place.
Erm, no.

Guilty by association? Maybe it isn't a fun thought, but during wartime... there has to be to some extent in situations like these.
"You have a penis. Ergo, you have the potential to be a rapist. There was a rape last week. You are under arrest."

My best to all of you.

No please, do come back.

Haplo Voss

24-11-2008, 01:50

No it's not. It's for 'non combatants'. Prisoners of War have rights under law. The whole point about the outrage surrounding Camp X-Ray/Delta/whatever it's called now, is that the people there were classified as 'non combatants' specifically to avoid giving them any legal or human rights.

You watch to much tv and read to much propoganda - that's actually a bunch of half-truths. There is much more to it than that.

They also have judicial oversight. Which that hellhole in particular was set up to avoid.

Yes, that's the same thing I was saying before. An unfortunately true situation, necessary in wartimes.

'It is inhumane.... but..." doesn't work as a line of reasoning in any Western society.

It may not work for you, and many other idealists. To *keep* Western civilization alive - it is an unfortunate necessity in rare situations.

And playing the 'numbers' game is a bullshit argument. It is not up to me to prove to you I am innocent. It is up to you to prove I am guilty.

No it isn't. In The US courts that is true. During wartime and you are suspected of terrorist or even treasonous activity, you are guilty until proven innocent. That is the way it has been since the inception of this country.

Then you can thank the people that shoved previously innocent people into a situation where they became radicalised and influenced by extremists in a confined, degrading and inhumane scenario.

That's precicesly what I said some of you would like to think, and could be a possibility, however trying to be self-righteous to prove someones horrible actions is self defeating. Why would this person be willing to give up what 'makes him human' any more than you?

I wouldn't sacrifice that which makes me human.

Bullshit. End of list. If you, your child, or your wife was in flat out state of death or no... you are obviously not married or do not have children. That is a ridiculous answer.

You have a disturbingly high opinion of and confidence in the security and intelligence forces involved - including those is Pakistan, Iraq and other despotic regimes.

I was not referring to Pakistan, Iraq, or other "despotic" regimes.

"You have a penis. Ergo, you have the potential to be a rapist. There was a rape last week. You are under arrest."

That's also a ridiculous argument and is not even a clost resemblance to the same argument. You are upset about human rights and humane treatment which is completely understandable, however I don't think you are looking at it situationally - however horrible it might seem.

No please, do come back.

After those remarks you're right. I don't mind a little goading and responding to it.

The Song of Joy

24-11-2008, 01:56

Hopefully everyone from the guards on up will get the same treatment as the LAST batch of jackasses who were "just following orders".
Colonel Jessup? The journalists who chased Princess Diana into that tunnel? Who could you possibly be referring to?

Seathornia

24-11-2008, 02:22

You watch to much tv and read to much propoganda - that's actually a bunch of half-truths. There is much more to it than that.

Except they could have chosen to have treated them as prisoners of war, but they didn't do so.

They could have chosen to treat them as actual criminals, but they didn't do so.

Instead, they chose to put them in limbo, so they didn't have to think about them.

Yes, that's the same thing I was saying before. An unfortunately true situation, necessary in wartimes.

No. In wartimes, people who are potentially a threat are taken in as prisoners of war. These prisoners of war have rights that these "combatants" were never given.

It may not work for you, and many other idealists. To *keep* Western civilization alive - it is an unfortunate necessity in rare situations.

Except, the moment we do it, we destroy western civilization. So much for keeping it alive.

No it isn't. In The US courts that is true. During wartime and you are suspected of terrorist or even treasonous activity, you are guilty until proven innocent. That is the way it has been since the inception of this country.

Eh, what? I'm pretty sure they aren't going to arbitrarily execute people for treason during wartime, without a trail. That would be an atrocity, even as an act of war. Heck, it was already considered an atrocity (albeit minor) to execute some of the less violent resistance fighters in WWII.

Bullshit. End of list. If you, your child, or your wife was in flat out state of death or no... you are obviously not married or do not have children. That is a ridiculous answer.

Not really. Some people have principles that they are willing to stand up for. How do you know he is not willing to stand up to his, even if it means risking something he holds dear? After all, the reasoning is that if he doesn't, then those same people he holds dear could arbitrarily be taken away and kept locked up for five years without trail or reason.

I was not referring to Pakistan, Iraq, or other "despotic" regimes.

These countries all assisted in capturing supposed combatants. Often, it's not necessarily the government supporting it, but rather just some agent wanting a bit of extra money. If you got a bounty on terrorists, hey, it's rather simple to blame that sheepherder who can't fight back, isn't it? Free money for you, and no one you know gets hurt.

That's also a ridiculous argument and is not even a clost resemblance to the same argument. You are upset about human rights and humane treatment which is completely understandable, however I don't think you are looking at it situationally - however horrible it might seem.

The situations does not change the atrocity.

Seathornia

24-11-2008, 02:24

Colonel Jessup? The journalists who chased Princess Diana into that tunnel? Who could you possibly be referring to?

The most notable would be a lot of the Wehrmacht soldiers who claimed to just be following orders, when they killed innocent civilians.

There is such a thing as an illegal order. Killing and torturing civilians is an illegal order.

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 02:24

If they're not terrorists, then free them. Otherwise, shoot them.

We did free those that arent terrorists. And here you are bitching.

Gitmo prisoners being set free, Hilary Clinton as Secy. State, yep we're officially screwed

Let me guess, Obama pals around with terrorists too?

You watch to much tv and read to much propoganda - that's actually a bunch of half-truths. There is much more to it than that.

No, there isnt. Unless youre privy to some top secret knowledge we dont have.

The One Eyed Weasel

24-11-2008, 02:41

If they're not terrorists, then free them. Otherwise, shoot them.

Um, call me ignorant, but I would think that in order to determine whether one is a terrorist or not would require a trial, and a fair trial is a right IIRC.

Self-sacrifice

24-11-2008, 02:44

Except they could have chosen to have treated them as prisoners of war, but they didn't do so.

They could have chosen to treat them as actual criminals, but they didn't do so.

Instead, they chose to put them in limbo, so they didn't have to think about them.

So a potentially dangerous person has been badly dealt with. It dosnt mean they should just be blindly released

No. In wartimes, people who are potentially a threat are taken in as prisoners of war. These prisoners of war have rights that these "combatants" were never given.

POW's can be held until the war it over. Sadly there is little end in sight. There is nothing illegal about holding a POW until the war has been declared over. Unless you think it is wise to release soldiers back to the enemy.

Except, the moment we do it, we destroy western civilization. So much for keeping it alive.

Torture is not justified but what is your plan for potential suicide bombers? There is no easy answer. One suicide bomber can kill over a dozen people. Should we take the risk that they are not and just say "oops" when they kill someone

Eh, what? I'm pretty sure they aren't going to arbitrarily execute people for treason during wartime, without a trail. That would be an atrocity, even as an act of war. Heck, it was already considered an atrocity (albeit minor) to execute some of the less violent resistance fighters in WWII.

Execution NO. Torture NO. Holding until war id declared over YES

Not really. Some people have principles that they are willing to stand up for. How do you know he is not willing to stand up to his, even if it means risking something he holds dear? After all, the reasoning is that if he doesn't, then those same people he holds dear could arbitrarily be taken away and kept locked up for five years without trail or reason.

Holding too many people without reason is expensive. The cost of holding them will always cause there to be some belief about their association to the enemy. It’s a lower standard than citizens of the country get but there are two important factors. 1 its war and 2 they are not citizens of America

These countries all assisted in capturing supposed combatants. Often, it's not necessarily the government supporting it, but rather just some agent wanting a bit of extra money. If you got a bounty on terrorists, hey, it's rather simple to blame that sheepherder who can't fight back, isn't it? Free money for you, and no one you know gets hurt.

So there should be no trust for foreign officials? No money given to poorer countries for successful work? If that is the case why should the courtiers even attempt to weed out terrorists. They can get bribes instead for allowing weapons to be smuggled and all is good.

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 02:45

So a potentially dangerous person has been badly dealt with. It dosnt mean they should just be blindly released

POW's can be held until the war it over. Sadly there is little end in sight. There is nothing illegal about holding a POW until the war has been declared over. Unless you think it is wise to release soldiers back to the enemy.

Torture is not justified but what is your plan for potential suicide bombers? There is no easy answer. One suicide bomber can kill over a dozen people. Should we take the risk that they are not and just say "oops" when they kill someone

Execution NO. Torture NO. Holding until war id declared over YES

Holding too many people without reason is expensive. The cost of holding them will always cause there to be some belief about their association to the enemy. It’s a lower standard than citizens of the country get but there are two important factors. 1 its war and 2 they are not citizens of America

So there should be no trust for foreign officials? No money given to poorer countries for successful work? If that is the case why should the courtiers even attempt to weed out terrorists. They can get bribes instead for allowing weapons to be smuggled and all is good.

You are utterly, utterly missing the point. These people were not POWs. They were not enemies.

Hence, they were released.

Self-sacrifice

24-11-2008, 02:51

They were released due to lack of evidence. The process worked. Altho slower than you may like. The only bad thing involved was the torture

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 02:53

They were released due to lack of evidence. The process worked. Altho slower than you may like. The only bad thing involved was the torture

The process didnt work. If it worked, they never would have been arrested due to the "lack of evidence". See, there is this thing called an arrest warrent, and in order to get one, you need to actually have evidence.

I dont know if Busheviks, wingnuts, and warhawks are just ignoring the law or if they really dont know how it works.

Self-sacrifice

24-11-2008, 03:05

Yes because there is never an arrest due to lack of evidence any where else is there.

There is no arrest warrant for war. There is none at all. You do undestand it is a war right?

In war it is capture/shoot first, ask questions later. You dont suspect someone for a moment of being the enemie and just monitor them until they start shooting at you. In war far less evidence is required

Haplo Voss

24-11-2008, 03:05

Except they could have chosen to have treated them as prisoners of war, but they didn't do so.

Again, you also need to do some more reading as to what exactly a prisoner of war is. You are not understanding the premise of your own argument.

They could have chosen to treat them as actual criminals, but they didn't do so.
Instead, they chose to put them in limbo, so they didn't have to think about them.

It wasn't a matter of 'choosing to treat them as criminals' - it was not nor was it ever intended to be a 'criminal institution'. Prisoners of War are not the same as 'criminals' - they are prisoners being held accountable for war crimes until such time as can be proven otherwise. Read the constitution as it pertains to war, not articles favoring / victimzing the first.

No. In wartimes, people who are potentially a threat are taken in as prisoners of war. These prisoners of war have rights that these "combatants" were never given.

First part correct, Second part is a direct conflict of the first. Again I urge you to read up on exactly what you are speaking about aside from blogs, articles, and mainstream media.

Except, the moment we do it, we destroy western civilization. So much for keeping it alive.

Except, the moment we refuse to protect it, it can be erased. No loved ones left, no 'civilization' left, no ideals to uphold. It is simply an awful catch 22.

Eh, what? I'm pretty sure they aren't going to arbitrarily execute people for treason during wartime, without a trail. That would be an atrocity, even as an act of war. Heck, it was already considered an atrocity (albeit minor) to execute some of the less violent resistance fighters in WWII.

Once again morality and humanity jump ahead of what was actually said. The United States is not in the habbit of just gunning down people on the spot. Guilty until proven innocent is not the same as 'Hi you're dead' now is it? You are an overreacting pacifist which is understandable and even admirable, but don't put words in my mouth.

Not really. Some people have principles that they are willing to stand up for. How do you know he is not willing to stand up to his, even if it means risking something he holds dear? After all, the reasoning is that if he doesn't, then those same people he holds dear could arbitrarily be taken away and kept locked up for five years without trail or reason.

You also either do not have close family, or are intentionally being argumentative in this regard. Neither invalidate your opinion, however I can guarantee put into a real life situation things change. I know - I've been there. You can have the best intentions and the most intense pacificstic nature in the world. When you are faced with the loss of what is in fact most dear, it is a whole different story. You have no idea. That is not an insult to you, simply a reality I know only too well to be true.

These countries all assisted in capturing supposed combatants. Often, it's not necessarily the government supporting it, but rather just some agent wanting a bit of extra money. If you got a bounty on terrorists, hey, it's rather simple to blame that sheepherder who can't fight back, isn't it? Free money for you, and no one you know gets hurt.

You've just made my point twice over. I was not referring to other governments or even sheep herders / agents wanting money. The only people the US government has *ever* put out actual bountys on are known state criminals and international known criminals or self-proclaimed threats. Rewards for information leading to those arrests, but never for simple finger pointing because of the very reason it creates nothing more than an absolute mess for intelligence. It is self-defeating.

The situations does not change the atrocity.
I never said it did. It is an extremely unfortunate necessity of life that protects you, the ones you love, and your way of life. No matter how horrific it seems to you and even myself.

Actually, I also have something to add here. Although it doesn't make it any better - I think you all need to keep something in mind here. The United States of America is still without question the most merciful nation on the face of this earth. Torture is wrong in any form I will grant you, but do you know what happens to *our* soldiers? Along with any other nations soldiers captured behind enemy lines? Many other nations still engage in repeated breaking of limbs, strapping you to the ground and letting bamboo grow into and *THROUGH YOU* while you starve a few days, electrical, rope burning, fire, fire and water (skin sluffing), nail pulling, beating you over and over within an inch of your life, then after you either have or haven't broken, you are usually 'dishonorably' killed in the eyes of that culture.

Whether you choose to see that as reality or not, it is the sore and unfortunate truth and current state of human nature in many, many places on this planet to this day.

I hate the idea that there is even a remote need for a place like Gitmo, but I am here to tell you... there is a need for such a place as unfortunate as that is. War is not the streets of NY or Chicago. It is war. It is the protection of this country and *all* of the people that live in and around its borders. We have done a damn good job of keeping the peace for a very long time. Unfortunately we've gone to war again and it is soon coming to an end thankfully. Hopefullly in the next year or so.

Think before you hate your own country, or parts of it anyway (not accusing you personally of this). Because even the people that hold the positions you hate so much, most likely dislike the positions they hold, but do it for you.

The Cat-Tribe

24-11-2008, 03:11

*Snip*.

*snip*

Beyond suggesting that you actually read Boumediene v. Bush (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-1195.html), 553 U.S. ___ (2008), in which SCOTUS explains at length the purpose and value of habeas corpus and why these detainees were entitled to that right, I offer the following food for thought:

Most Americans probably don't know the meaning of that creaky Latin phrase and have been left with the impression that it is some boutique legalism that just ends up coddling terrorists. Actually, habeas is perfectly straightforward. It is the ancient right of anyone seized by the king to cry out from the dungeon and say, "I've been wrongly jailed!" Then you get a chance to prove your claim before a neutral judge, or back to the pokey you go. Habeas puts a basic check on the most fearsome power of the state and any citizen's most primal fear—being locked away and forgotten, the civil equivalent of being buried alive.

This fundamental right was most famously codified in 1215 when, in the meadow of Runnymede, King John was forced to set his royal seal upon the Magna Carta, the seminal document that declared the rule of law above any man, including the king. The habeas hearing was among the first checks and balances. Habeas is an affront to the royalist impulse to consolidate all power under one king, or as Beltway ideologues call it these days, "the unitary executive."

The problem with opposing habeas now is no different than it was eight centuries ago: You're siding with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

link (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-pursuit-of-habeas.html)

And Federalist #84 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm), written by Alexander Hamilton:

"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone ... are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life ... or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the bulwark of the British Constitution.' "

EDIT: Also, your banal assurances that the government wouldn't hold someone without good reason is (1) contrary to history, (2) contrary to the whole concept of the right to habeas corpus, and (3) belied by the very facts of this case, which I summarized here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14234515&postcount=17).

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 03:13

Yes because there is never an arrest due to lack of evidence any where else is there.

When it happens, its corrected. Quickly. Not in a few years.

There is no arrest warrant for war. There is none at all. You do undestand it is a war right?

There are when its your own people your arresting. Hell, you realize that even during WWII we had to have evidence to arrest sabatours?

In war it is capture/shoot first, ask questions later. You dont suspect someone for a moment of being the enemie and just monitor them until they start shooting at you. In war far less evidence is required

Well, see, in the US, we have this thing called law. And, civillians are protected by that law.

Or, theyre protectd by the Geneva Convention if theyre not civies (and the Constitution says any treats we sign become the law of the land). So, then we'd have to be sure they were enemy soldiers.

What your Glorious Leader did was create a whole new class of people, "enemy combatants" and pretended like they werent protected by either set of laws. Hes now being told he was wrong, and he has to pick. Since they never were soldiers, they were by default civilians, and are now protected by US Civillian law.

Gauntleted Fist

24-11-2008, 03:14

Prisoners of War are not the same as 'criminals' - they are prisoners being held accountable for war crimes until such time as can be proven otherwise. Read the constitution as it pertains to war, not articles favoring / victimzing the first.Bullshit. Prisoners of War are not held specifically for that reason.

The Cat-Tribe

24-11-2008, 03:14

They were released due to lack of evidence. The process worked. Altho slower than you may like. The only bad thing involved was the torture

The "process" kept these men detained (in conditions we won't go into) for SEVEN YEARS based on essentially no evidence. That is "work."

And, I note, these prisoners have only been released because, despite the best machinations of the government, the detainees finally got a [I]habeas corpus hearing.

The Song of Joy

24-11-2008, 03:16

The most notable would be a lot of the Wehrmacht soldiers who claimed to just be following orders, when they killed innocent civilians.
That happened recently? You mean Germany has started invading Poland again? How terrible; someone should really ask them to stop.

Haplo Voss

24-11-2008, 03:45

Beyond suggesting that you actually read Boumediene v. Bush (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-1195.html), 553 U.S. ___ (2008), in which SCOTUS explains at length the purpose and value of habeas corpus and why these detainees were entitled to that right, I offer the following food for thought:

Most Americans probably don't know the meaning of that creaky Latin phrase and have been left with the impression that it is some boutique legalism that just ends up coddling terrorists. Actually, habeas is perfectly straightforward. It is the ancient right of anyone seized by the king to cry out from the dungeon and say, "I've been wrongly jailed!" Then you get a chance to prove your claim before a neutral judge, or back to the pokey you go. Habeas puts a basic check on the most fearsome power of the state and any citizen's most primal fear—being locked away and forgotten, the civil equivalent of being buried alive.

This fundamental right was most famously codified in 1215 when, in the meadow of Runnymede, King John was forced to set his royal seal upon the Magna Carta, the seminal document that declared the rule of law above any man, including the king. The habeas hearing was among the first checks and balances. Habeas is an affront to the royalist impulse to consolidate all power under one king, or as Beltway ideologues call it these days, "the unitary executive."

The problem with opposing habeas now is no different than it was eight centuries ago: You're siding with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

link (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-pursuit-of-habeas.html)

And Federalist #84 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm), written by Alexander Hamilton:

"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone ... are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life ... or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the bulwark of the British Constitution.' "

EDIT: Also, your banal assurances that the government wouldn't hold someone without good reason is (1) contrary to history, (2) contrary to the whole concept of the right to habeas corpus, and (3) belied by the very facts of this case, which I summarized here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14234515&postcount=17).

Quote documents all you like, until you read up on war crimes and how they are handled via the constitution of this country, you are simply acting upon your emotions, which I have already I stated that I can perfectly understand however you are simply cutting and pasting, and spouting text that although somewhat related, does not apply.

habeus corpus, until the law was *just recently passed* as applying to Gitmo, *did not apply* to it. How difficult is this for you to understand? The court system as laid out for the United States of America simply did not apply to it. The men and women working there were doing their jobs to protect you and the rest of this country.

It is your opinion and choice on how to interpret that, be outraged by it, or what not. But regurgitating stuff you've found around or someone else gave you as fun and petty ammo... get over it. None of that applied.

Your summary is wholly biased, the document which you based it on is also shaky at best if you read it in it's entirety, and as far as US History goes, you obviously need to take some more History classes.

What the media and papers tell you isn't what is necessarily happening true to life. That isn't conspiracy talking, that's life experience.

I'll give you a simple example of words and guilt going too far, and distorting *recent* history, as in the last 10 years.

I'm black, and I'm an American. I'm not "African American" any more than my friends are "Scottish American" or "Mexican American". The fact that many Americans freak out and try to hold it against white or other Americans for not using the term "African" is absolutely Ludicrous.

Most recently, there is a scientific phenomenon called a "Black Hole" that a white official referenced our budget and policies being 'sucked into' as a euphamism. Some friggin idiot actually had the balls to snap back with a comment about how saying that it was a *Black* hole was prejudice. The guy actually had to apologize for using a perfectly legitamate term!!! What the heck?!

It is things like this that 1) give black Americans a bad name and create unwarranted tension between our fellow Americans and 2) the exact same tactics used by media, politicians, activists, etc. to warp words and situations to create a state of either panic, remorse, outrage, or passion.

You want History? Start really reading, and then examining actual events, then get back to me.

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 03:49

habeus corpus, until the law was *just recently passed* as applying to Gitmo, *did not apply* to it. How difficult is this for you to understand? The court system as laid out for the United States of America simply did not apply to it. The men and women working there were doing their jobs to protect you and the rest of this country.

Wrong. Rasaul V Bush (2004). Supreme Court says that it did apply to Gitmo detainees and "enemy combatants".

No "law" was passed. The supreme court ruled that denying them that right was unconstitutional.

Now, I can take the words of the finest legal minds in the US, or some schmuck on the internet. Thats not a tough call.
You want History? Start really reading, and then examining actual events, then get back to me.

Take your own advice kid.

Listen kiddo. TCT is a lawyer. How do we know? He has a long enough posting history on here where he has demonstrated that he is. Stop throwing in shit like "the article you quoted is shaky at best!" and telling him to take more US history classes. Its not a good idea to get snarky when your bleeding ignorance.

Cameroi

24-11-2008, 04:01

i say what i understand, what i think i heard, desmond tuttu say. that bush really missed a bet by opposing rather then recognizing the international court of criminal justice.

september 11th, 2001, was not committed by a country, unless it was america itself. the perps were 20 guys who ripped off four airplanes.

NOT a legitimate excuse for destroying the infrastructure of three and a half countries and killing a million civilians who couldn't have had a damd thing to do with it if they had wanted to, and throwing away the lives of four thousand of america's own military in order to do so.

the only reason that makes sense that anyone is held at guantanimo is to keep the american public in the dark as to whatever truths those detainees actually know.

like how the cia, under rumsfield, funded the creation of al-cia-da, by way of using pakistan to launder the money, back under raygun.

little 'details' like that.

Haplo Voss

24-11-2008, 04:09

Wrong. Rasaul V Bush (2004). Supreme Court says that it did apply to Gitmo detainees and "enemy combatants".

No "law" was passed. The supreme court ruled that denying them that right was unconstitutional.

Now, I can take the words of the finest legal minds in the US, or some schmuck on the internet. Thats not a tough call.

Take your own advice kid.

Listen kiddo. TCT is a lawyer. How do we know? He has a long enough posting history on here where he has demonstrated that he is. Stop throwing in shit like "the article you quoted is shaky at best!" and telling him to take more US history classes. Its not a good idea to get snarky when your bleeding ignorance.

First of all, I don't care who is a lawyer and who is not. I am not arguing anyone's credentials. If anyone cares to actually read that document he keeps referring to, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Kid? Let me know the last time you were behind the lines and we can talk about being kids ok? Let me know the last time you were lit on fire, then doused, put back in your cell, then had it done to you the next day, and the next, and the next. I don't complain about it because I know what I went through was a part of life that had to be done and I was just an unfortunate person who got caught up at the wrong time in the wrong place. I'd rather it was me than one of my buddies. I certainly don't hold it against the government or the people of Iraq or my own government.

Like most people, a lot of you think that the Iraq war is some watered down, never needed to happen 'situation' in the middle east. Perhaps it could have been avoided I don't know. But I do know they are a much happier lot than when we first got there to this very day. People don't constantly look over their shoulders all the time. They actually have TV and radio, go dancing and hold hands, SMILE for cripe's sake. That was a rarity when we first got there let me tell you.

And, think about what was just said... Rasaul V Bush (2004) -- what is deafeningly obvious about that statement? UNTIL 2004 IT DID NOT APPLY.
Some lawyer. Until something is actually ruled on, it doesn't hold water now does it? Since it was upheld, it is now in place. The last 4 years is recent, I wasn't speaking about yesterday.

Take a pill. It's an ugly world, I don't like it any more than any of you, but it is a fact of life that there are people out there that for whatever reason really *are* out to kill / take down that which they hate. And for some of them that is unfortunately *us*.

Actually I want to add something to that... there are ugly *aspects* to this world, but there is so much beauty in it also. And although I've seen many places in this world, America is the most beautiful place there is. Everything you could possibly imagine is here. Moutains, beaches, plains, wetlands, forests, hills, valleys, rivers, streams, I can't tell you what it is like to come home. It is worth any cost to keep America free. Free to express your opinions, ideals, and so on. There is so much opression and pain in this world, I simply do not understand America's own citizens who hate Her so much.

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 04:13

First of all, I don't care who is a lawyer and who is not. I am not arguing anyone's credentials. If anyone cares to actually read that document he keeps referring to, you'll see what I'm talking about.

To anyone who can read legal documents, its not.

Kid? Let me know the last time you were behind the lines and we can talk about being kids ok? Let me know the last time you were lit on fire, then doused, put back in your cell, then had it done to you the next day, and the next, and the next. I don't complain about it because I know what I went through was a part of life that had to be done and I was just an unfortunate person who got caught up at the wrong time in the wrong place. I'd rather it was me than one of my buddies. I certainly don't hold it against the government or the people of Iraq or my own government.

Ooooh the "I was a soldier, RESPECT ME!" card. Let me spell this out for you. I dont give a shit what you are or did, or how old you are. I call you "kid" because you act, argue, and reason like a child. If you dont want to be called a "kid" dont act like one.

Like most people, a lot of you think that the Iraq war is some watered down, never needed to happen 'situation' in the middle east. Perhaps it could have been avoided I don't know. But I do know they are a much happier lot than when we first got there to this very day. People don't constantly look over their shoulders all the time. They actually have TV and radio, go dancing and hold hands, SMILE for cripe's sake. That was a rarity when we first got there let me tell you.

I dont believe you. But even if this is the truth, its irrelevent.

And, think about what was just said... Rasaul V Bush (2004) -- what is deafeningly obvious about that statement? UNTIL 2004 IT DID NOT APPLY.
Some lawyer. Until something is actually ruled on, it doesn't hold water now does it? Since it was upheld, it is now in place. The last 4 years is recent, I wasn't speaking about yesterday.

No, see, that means it should have been being applied. It means the correct interpertation of the Constitution means they should have been getting those rights. Do you know how this works, jarhead?

Take a pill. It's an ugly world, I don't like it any more than any of you, but it is a fact of life that there are people out there that for whatever reason really *are* out to kill / take down that which they hate. And for some of them that is unfortunately *us*.

Scaremongering doesnt work on me, try again.

If you really were ever a soldier, you wouldnt be standing here, defending the government taking away the rights youre supposedly fighting for.

Gauntleted Fist

24-11-2008, 04:13

Take a pill. It's an ugly world, I don't like it any more than any of you, but it is a fact of life that there are people out there that for whatever reason really *are* out to kill / take down that which they hate. And for some of them that is unfortunately *us*.But the United States couldn't prosecute them. Those people don't exist in our court system, remember?

Well, the exist now, but they did not at one point.

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 04:16

But the United States couldn't prosecute them. Those people don't exist in our court system, remember?

Well, the exist now, but they did not at one point.

But they wants to kill us and eats our babies!!111!

Gauntleted Fist

24-11-2008, 04:19

But they wants to kill us and eats our babies!!111!Seriously.
There are processes for dealing with people who are legitimate threats to the people of this country. Why can't we simply, you know, follow them? :p

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 04:20

Seriously.
There are processes for dealing with people who are legitimate threats to the people of this country. Why can't we simply, you know, follow them? :p

Because if we followed the rules we wouldnt be able to detain and torture people who arent legitimate threats.

Gauntleted Fist

24-11-2008, 04:22

Because if we followed the rules we wouldnt be able to detain and torture people who arent legitimate threats....Which, you know, makes perfect sense.
I wonder why.

Ssek

24-11-2008, 04:59

It is hard for people to understand that have never been a part of war, and it doesn't necessarily make it right, but there are legitamate and necessary reasons for places like Guatanamo, and believe it or not Every single country that has defense capability has some place like it.

Wait, so it doesn't make it right, but it does make it "legitamate and necessary?" That's sort of like telling someone you don't think they're ugly, you just think they're completely unattractive. Which I have actually done, but you know, they didn't buy it.

It is unfortunate and inhumane to think about, however what do you do to save millions of lives verses a 'few'?

I missed the part where the torture and unjust imprisonment of these people saved "millions of lives." You know why I missed that part? Cuz it's not there. You're not even arguing it, you're just asserting that magically, millions of people have been saved. Which is nonsense.

There is something to consider from all of this. What would be your outlook *if* and it is a big *if* I grant you that... one of these released men takes a week or two off, then blows up a church, bank, or other building with lots of innocent people?

My outlook would be that that guy is going to go to prison and deserves to go there. This time.

Do you just consider that justifiable revenge for years of lockup?

No.

Or perhaps reconsider the reason he was held in the first place?

No. It's not like if you accuse someone of X, and they're not guilty of it, but they later do Y, now somehow the accusation of X was justified.

Anyway, I understand the frustration of those of you outraged by the treatment of these detainees, however having been in the midst of things like this, what would you do to protect your wife? Your child? Your family?

Again the implication, without fact, that detaining them without trial or justice that somehow, my wife and child and family have all been saved. Millions of people! You're making the detainees out to be Jesuses - their crucifixion saves the rest of us. Well, they're not Jesus, and they're not saving anyone no matter how many nails you pound into them.

And there is nothing you're gonna say that sadistically making naked human pyramids and taking pictures with your buddies getting off on it is saving ANYONE. EVER. You can't even use your 'we tortured them for information that saved people' hypothesis here - many, at least, were tortured for simple sadistic and cruel pleasure.

Honestly people, if you saw your new neighbors constantly walking back and forth across the street carrying boxes, then one of them was arrested for bombing someplace... would you call in the other neighbor that was carrying things to and fro from that persons house?

This inane hypothetical example doesn't seem to have any bearing on the reality in question.

I'm not saying that's what happened here obviously, but this is an example of what goes on a lot. Guilty by association? Maybe it isn't a fun thought, but during wartime... there has to be to some extent in situations like these.

"It's OK in wartime" might be a justification to some people, but not me.

Haplo Voss

24-11-2008, 05:08

To anyone who can read legal documents, its not.

Ooooh the "I was a soldier, RESPECT ME!" card. Let me spell this out for you. I dont give a shit what you are or did, or how old you are. I call you "kid" because you act, argue, and reason like a child. If you dont want to be called a "kid" dont act like one.

I dont believe you. But even if this is the truth, its irrelevent.

No, see, that means it should have been being applied. It means the correct interpertation of the Constitution means they should have been getting those rights. Do you know how this works, jarhead?

Scaremongering doesnt work on me, try again.

If you really were ever a soldier, you wouldnt be standing here, defending the government taking away the rights youre supposedly fighting for.

For a lawyer you don't interpret writing very well. I don't need or care for your respect. The only one acting like a kid in here I've seen so far is you. I started out with, and have continued to be as polite as possible about this very touchy subject that is sensitive to both parties on both sides until you started being a dick. Even then I've been pretty reserved.

Point being, until something is signed into "law" or "upheld" whichever terminology you wish to use being a legal man as you are, prior to 2004, until the courts ruled otherwise - Gitmo was outside of the court's (and still is to a certain degree) standard legal system.

Before you go on an outrage saying "constiutionally no they weren't" seriously consider this. Although there is absolutely no Constitutional "right to vote" just by being in the US, There was a recent ruling to allow prison inmates the 'right' to vote. Although this is technically unconstitutional by every stretch of the imagination (yes I actually researched this until I was blue in the face before stating this) It was blatently stated by tons of people how "unconstitutional" it was that these poor inmates weren't being allowed to vote.

Now then, in regards to this situation with Gitmo. My point is that you keep flailing about your legal documents, shoving it in peoples faces that disagree with you, being a jerk at times and acting like a kid yourself. When in fact until that was enacted, it matters little whether or not it was "constitutional" the fact is that it was not upheld or recognized until said event, and that's when things started happening.

People can dissagree. And, bad things do happen. And if you take some sort of offense to me being ABGD and fighting for *YOUR* rights for survival then you have a twisted sense of reality. That's not a statement made in obligation, or pulling a respect card, that's a general statment made for all of this country's troops fighting for *everyone's* rights. No offense, but you're nobody special and if you take everything everyone says as some sort of personal act of intimidation then you've got other issues than posting about law on NationStates forums pulling your own respect card.

Think about it man. Seriously, you honestly believe every single word of this without any question whatsoever? How many unconstitutional items have been made 'constitutional' in the last year? But that's ok because it's not a humaitarian cause.

Anyway, I wish you well in your endeavors. I agree to disagree with you which is another reason this is such a great country.

My best

Gauntleted Fist

24-11-2008, 05:12

Knights of Liberty

24-11-2008, 05:18

For a lawyer you don't interpret writing very well. I don't need or care for your respect. The only one acting like a kid in here I've seen so far is you. I started out with, and have continued to be as polite as possible about this very touchy subject that is sensitive to both parties on both sides until you started being a dick. Even then I've been pretty reserved.

Well, actually you were a prick to TCT, but thats besides the point. Yeah, Im being a dick. You know why? Because what youre saying is wrong and frankly fucking stupid, and youre trying to pass it off as fact that we're just too stupid or blind to see. I believe you told TCT to "take more history classes" for example.

And Im not a lawyer. But that doesnt mean I cant read a legal document.

Point being, until something is signed into "law" or "upheld" whichever terminology you wish to use being a legal man as you are, prior to 2004, until the courts ruled otherwise - Gitmo was outside of the court's (and still is to a certain degree) standard legal system.

No, thats not really how it works. The Constitution says something. One side said "Nu-uh, thats not what says!" The courts verify that yes, indeed, that is what it says. The side claiming it wasnt there was wrong. That does not mean it wasnt there before hand.

Before you go on an outrage saying "constiutionally no they weren't" seriously consider this. Although there is absolutely no Constitutional "right to vote" just by being in the US, There was a recent ruling to allow prison inmates the 'right' to vote. Although this is technically unconstitutional by every stretch of the imagination (yes I actually researched this until I was blue in the face before stating this) It was blatently stated by tons of people how "unconstitutional" it was that these poor inmates weren't being allowed to vote.

Now then, in regards to this situation with Gitmo. My point is that you keep flailing about your legal documents, shoving it in peoples faces that disagree with you, being a jerk at times and acting like a kid yourself. When in fact until that was enacted, it matters little whether or not it was "constitutional" the fact is that it was not upheld or recognized until said event, and that's when things started happening.

Thats a nice little speech. But unfortunitally, its totally irrelevent. The Constitution explicitly grants certian rights. Saying someone doent get them doesnt make those rights go away.

People can dissagree. And, bad things do happen. And if you take some sort of offense to me being ABGD and fighting for *YOUR* rights for survival then you have a twisted sense of reality.

I missed the part were I took offense to what you chose to do for a living.

And by the way, blowing up Iraq was in no way a fight over my rights or survival.

That's not a statement made in obligation, or pulling a respect card, that's a general statment made for all of this country's troops fighting for *everyone's* rights. No offense, but you're nobody special and if you take everything everyone says as some sort of personal act of intimidation then you've got other issues than posting about law on NationStates forums pulling your own respect card.

What? Is this some conveluted way of telling me youre cranky that A) I dont really give a shit that you were in the military and B) I told you your opinion on whats going in here is really really wrong?

Think about it man. Seriously, you honestly believe every single word of this without any question whatsoever? How many unconstitutional items have been made 'constitutional' in the last year? But that's ok because it's not a humaitarian cause.

What are you on about? Do I believe every single word said about what? And wha "unconstitutional" items have been made "constitutional", especially in the last year? Give me an example, because I really cant think of one.

Seathornia

24-11-2008, 06:21

Again, you also need to do some more reading as to what exactly a prisoner of war is. You are not understanding the premise of your own argument.

It wasn't a matter of 'choosing to treat them as criminals' - it was not nor was it ever intended to be a 'criminal institution'. Prisoners of War are not the same as 'criminals' - they are prisoners being held accountable for war crimes until such time as can be proven otherwise. Read the constitution as it pertains to war, not articles favoring / victimzing the first.

The part in bold: No, that's not what a prisoner of war is. I suggest you read up on the term yourself.

A prisoner of war is a soldier who has been taken captive by the opposing side. There is absolutely no requirement that they have committed any crimes whatsoever.

Secondly, they had a choice between treating them as criminals or as prisoners of war. They choose neither. That's indefensible.

First part correct, Second part is a direct conflict of the first. Again I urge you to read up on exactly what you are speaking about aside from blogs, articles, and mainstream media.

There is no conflict. A prisoner of war has rights that the people in Guantanamo were never given.

And ehm, you're asking me to ignore mainstream media and blogs? You realize that's basically saying "Don't read the mainstream! Don't read the fringe!" so what, am I supposed to read nothing?

Except, the moment we refuse to protect it, it can be erased. No loved ones left, no 'civilization' left, no ideals to uphold. It is simply an awful catch 22.

I'm not refusing to protect it. I'm refusing to commit atrocities that would erase it. I can protect western civilization just fine without resorting to excessive violence, torture or human rights abuses. It's a shame that you cannot.

Once again morality and humanity jump ahead of what was actually said. The United States is not in the habbit of just gunning down people on the spot. Guilty until proven innocent is not the same as 'Hi you're dead' now is it? You are an overreacting pacifist which is understandable and even admirable, but don't put words in my mouth.

Except you said:
No it isn't. In The US courts that is true. During wartime and you are suspected of terrorist or even treasonous activity, you are guilty until proven innocent. That is the way it has been since the inception of this country.

Now, if you've committed treason and you're guilty until proven innocent and the punishment for treason is death, then what incentive would the government exactly have if it could just execute you on the spot?

You are still presumed innocent until proven guilty. There are other laws in place that allow you to jail people for public safety, but they can only do so for so long and definitely not for four+ years.

You've just made my point twice over. I was not referring to other governments or even sheep herders / agents wanting money. The only people the US government has *ever* put out actual bountys on are known state criminals and international known criminals or self-proclaimed threats. Rewards for information leading to those arrests, but never for simple finger pointing because of the very reason it creates nothing more than an absolute mess for intelligence. It is self-defeating.

This is false. There are plenty of news reports, BBC and other reputable sources among them, that have shown time and time again that the bounties were not put on any known criminals, but were rather just generic bounties on terrorists. Even if it wasn't ordained by the government, it has certainly happened enough.

Actually, I also have something to add here. Although it doesn't make it any better - I think you all need to keep something in mind here. The United States of America is still without question the most merciful nation on the face of this earth.

No, execution is still legal. That's not very merciful, is it now?

Torture is wrong in any form I will grant you, but do you know what happens to *our* soldiers? Along with any other nations soldiers captured behind enemy lines? Many other nations still engage in repeated breaking of limbs, strapping you to the ground and letting bamboo grow into and *THROUGH YOU* while you starve a few days, electrical, rope burning, fire, fire and water (skin sluffing), nail pulling, beating you over and over within an inch of your life, then after you either have or haven't broken, you are usually 'dishonorably' killed in the eyes of that culture.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I hate the idea that there is even a remote need for a place like Gitmo, but I am here to tell you... there is a need for such a place as unfortunate as that is. War is not the streets of NY or Chicago. It is war. It is the protection of this country and *all* of the people that live in and around its borders. We have done a damn good job of keeping the peace for a very long time. Unfortunately we've gone to war again and it is soon coming to an end thankfully. Hopefullly in the next year or so.

Think before you hate your own country, or parts of it anyway (not accusing you personally of this). Because even the people that hold the positions you hate so much, most likely dislike the positions they hold, but do it for you.

Except, the country I live in had been at peace for more than a hundred years (last war was because Bismarck managed to taunt them into attacking, resulting in the loss of Schleswig-Holstein) until the US decided to drag us into a pointless war. Granted, we were occupied for five years some sixty years ago, but we were still never part of the war - never sent soldiers and never fought in it, other than through a rather pathetic resistance (unfortunately).

I'd have to say the US record with regards to peace, since the creation of the US, is rather terrible compared to the country I come from.

So a potentially dangerous person has been badly dealt with. It dosnt mean they should just be blindly released

No one has argued this. The argument is that they deserve a fair trial. It just so happens that there is no evidence that they are even potentially dangerous, most of the time.

POW's can be held until the war it over. Sadly there is little end in sight. There is nothing illegal about holding a POW until the war has been declared over. Unless you think it is wise to release soldiers back to the enemy.

If they were actually prisoners of war, you'd be right, but then, they'd probably be treated better. It just so happens that they aren't/weren't prisoners of war.

Holding too many people without reason is expensive. The cost of holding them will always cause there to be some belief about their association to the enemy. It’s a lower standard than citizens of the country get but there are two important factors. 1 its war and 2 they are not citizens of America

Fuck your arrogance and learn your own constitution. It's protections with regards to the law also apply to foreigners. When I go to the US, I do actually have the right to free speech, to freedom of religion and many, many more, despite just visiting.

So there should be no trust for foreign officials? No money given to poorer countries for successful work? If that is the case why should the courtiers even attempt to weed out terrorists. They can get bribes instead for allowing weapons to be smuggled and all is good.

The issue is that they gave you suspects with little to no evidence and you just swallowed it whole. Great job there. You'd imagine they could have, you know, made sure that whatever weapons they had were seized and handed over along with the suspects, as well as whatever other kinds of evidence they could find.

That happened recently? You mean Germany has started invading Poland again? How terrible; someone should really ask them to stop.

What? Just because it happened sixty years doesn't change the argument.

An order to kill or torture innocent civilians is a crime and an atrocity and arguing that "I was just following orders!" Got you hanged sixty years ago. These days, in Europe, you'd only get jailed, since we got rid of the barbaric death penalty.

However, an illegal order is still an illegal order. Claiming some sort of defence because you were required to do it is weak and just shows that you didn't have the required principles to stand up for yourself and others.

Redwulf

24-11-2008, 07:00

Torture is not justified but what is your plan for potential suicide bombers?

What's you plan for potential serial killers? (i.e everyone)

Thimghul

24-11-2008, 08:42

...and fighting for *YOUR* rights...

Don't you dare presume to say that you were helping me (I'm a U.S. Citizen) by being a part of the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people who never attacked this country.

Self-sacrifice

24-11-2008, 11:00

What's you plan for potential serial killers? (

Well thats about the death penatly. A completly different topic. i am in favour of not releasing serial killers into society. I hope you are too

Seathornia

24-11-2008, 11:03

Well thats about the death penatly. A completly different topic. i am in favour of not releasing serial killers into society. I hope you are too

Potential

As in, you're a potential serial killer, so is everyone else.

Do you propose the death penalty for everyone?

Non Aligned States

24-11-2008, 11:04

Well thats about the death penatly. A completly different topic. i am in favour of not releasing serial killers into society. I hope you are too

Potential boyo, potential serial killers. That means they could be, but aren't. And since almost anyone can be a serial killer it seems, I suppose that means you advocate killing off the human race.

Well done.

Self-sacrifice

24-11-2008, 11:17

If you are after potential serial killers there is a difference in the type of laws applied. Millitary for the army and its actions to civilian for a potential serial killer in the neighbourhood.

There is a big difference between environments and the actions that can be taken. You could monitor a potential serial killer in the neighbourhood alot easier than you could monitor a potential soldier in the middle of a war.

Nodinia

24-11-2008, 11:27

Psychotic Mongooses

24-11-2008, 12:19

Awwww. This thread became full of win after I left.

Haplo Voss

24-11-2008, 12:36

Your faith is based on....?

First of all, you're responding to a post how far back now?
Secondly, how many people have gone through the court system, been convicted of even such a crime as murder - sentenced to death by a jury or their peers. Incarcerated for up to 20 years or even more I think in one instance I'd have to look it up. I'm sure veryone thought justice had been done only to find out - OOPS! Sorry dude, uhhhh we screwed up. We found the actual guy who did it so here's $100 to start out the rest of your life with and sorry you'll have a rap sheet from now on.

Ok, yes I see the difference, he got his trial. There is also the similarity of this: if the unfortunate person in question had not been somehow involved in the crime - no matter how insignificant (at the scene, possesion of a planted weapon, what have you) - then he would never have been in that situation in the first place correct?

I am making the same argument for the individuals in question. I do not think they would be there if they had not been in some way shape or form involved or associated with an activity warranting them being taken into custody.

That's it, end of list. I have no more faith in one instance than the other. Unfortunate things happen.

Nodinia

24-11-2008, 14:22

First of all, you're responding to a post how far back now?.

I wasn't aware there was a statute of limitations we were operating under.

The question was - why do you have faith in the US having actually good grounds to hold them?

Secondly, how many people have gone through the court system, (....)trial.
?.

I've no idea. There are however people who have gone though the courts and been cleared.

There is also the similarity of this: if the unfortunate person in question had not been somehow involved in the crime - no matter how insignificant (at the scene, possesion of a planted weapon, what have you) - then he would never have been in that situation in the first place correct? ?.

emmm...complete bollocks? Unless being the same ethnicity/Religon is somehow equivalent to being an accomplice.....

The Cat-Tribe

24-11-2008, 20:30

Quote documents all you like, until you read up on war crimes and how they are handled via the constitution of this country, you are simply acting upon your emotions, which I have already I stated that I can perfectly understand however you are simply cutting and pasting, and spouting text that although somewhat related, does not apply.

habeus corpus, until the law was *just recently passed* as applying to Gitmo, *did not apply* to it. How difficult is this for you to understand? The court system as laid out for the United States of America simply did not apply to it. The men and women working there were doing their jobs to protect you and the rest of this country.

It is your opinion and choice on how to interpret that, be outraged by it, or what not. But regurgitating stuff you've found around or someone else gave you as fun and petty ammo... get over it. None of that applied.

Your summary is wholly biased, the document which you based it on is also shaky at best if you read it in it's entirety, and as far as US History goes, you obviously need to take some more History classes.

What the media and papers tell you isn't what is necessarily happening true to life. That isn't conspiracy talking, that's life experience.
*snip*

You want History? Start really reading, and then examining actual events, then get back to me.

First of all, I don't care who is a lawyer and who is not. I am not arguing anyone's credentials. If anyone cares to actually read that document he keeps referring to, you'll see what I'm talking about.

*snip*

And, think about what was just said... Rasaul V Bush (2004) -- what is deafeningly obvious about that statement? UNTIL 2004 IT DID NOT APPLY.
Some lawyer. Until something is actually ruled on, it doesn't hold water now does it? Since it was upheld, it is now in place. The last 4 years is recent, I wasn't speaking about yesterday.

Take a pill. It's an ugly world, I don't like it any more than any of you, but it is a fact of life that there are people out there that for whatever reason really *are* out to kill / take down that which they hate. And for some of them that is unfortunately *us*.

*snip* It is worth any cost to keep America free. Free to express your opinions, ideals, and so on. There is so much opression and pain in this world, I simply do not understand America's own citizens who hate Her so much.

*snip*Point being, until something is signed into "law" or "upheld" whichever terminology you wish to use being a legal man as you are, prior to 2004, until the courts ruled otherwise - Gitmo was outside of the court's (and still is to a certain degree) standard legal system.

Before you go on an outrage saying "constiutionally no they weren't" seriously consider this. Although there is absolutely no Constitutional "right to vote" just by being in the US, There was a recent ruling to allow prison inmates the 'right' to vote. Although this is technically unconstitutional by every stretch of the imagination (yes I actually researched this until I was blue in the face before stating this) It was blatently stated by tons of people how "unconstitutional" it was that these poor inmates weren't being allowed to vote.

Now then, in regards to this situation with Gitmo. My point is that you keep flailing about your legal documents, shoving it in peoples faces that disagree with you, being a jerk at times and acting like a kid yourself. When in fact until that was enacted, it matters little whether or not it was "constitutional" the fact is that it was not upheld or recognized until said event, and that's when things started happening.

*snip*

Think about it man. Seriously, you honestly believe every single word of this without any question whatsoever? How many unconstitutional items have been made 'constitutional' in the last year? But that's ok because it's not a humaitarian cause.
*snip*

ROTFLASTC. The only thing more amusing than how wrong you are is how arrogant and condescending you are in your ignorance. Regardless, I'll try to stick to substantive comments.

1. I'll agree with you about one thing. It doesn't matter if I am a lawyer or if your were a soldier, the only thing that matters is the quality of our arguments. I'm perfectly willing to let my arguments speak for themselves.

2. Contrary to your assertions, I neither randomly cut-and-pasted nor used "petty ammo" that someone else gave me. Nor did I quote irrelevant material. I cited (and provided a link to) the most recent and most seminal U.S. Supreme Court ruling on habeas corpus -- one that happens to directly involve the detainees at issue in this thread. Knowing that few will follow a link to read a SCOTUS decision, I added a quote from (and a link to) a lay article describing the importance of habeas corpus AND a quote from (and link to) The Federalist Papers regarding the vital role of habeas corpus. (You may be unaware of that the Federalist Papers are considered a primary source of information concerning the meaning of the Constitution, given that they were written by the authors of the Constitution in defense of the Constitution.) Anyway, the SCOTUS case and the Federalist quote were relevant and should be persuasive both for thier pedigree and what they say. The lay article was to break things down more simply.

3. Other than boldy assert that my citations and quotes do "not apply," you offer no rebuttal to their relevance or their content. That speaks volumes.

4. I also linked to my summary of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's official memorandum order granting the habeas petitions of five of six detainees. Although this is an official summary of the case against the detainees and an official ruling on thier status, you make vague claims that the document is "shaky at best" without any support for such an assertion. Similarly, you claim my summary of the document is "wholly biased," but you provide no evidence that this is so. Again, this speaks volumes.

5. Contrary to your assertions the law regarding habeas corpus was not "just passed" or "did not apply" to Guantanamo. The right to habeas corpus is a fundamental right that preceeds the Constitution, but is enshrined in U. S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 2, which provides that "[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." As the Supreme Court has explained several times in recent years, the right to habeas corpus of these detainees has never gone away, it has just been unconstitutionally denied.

6. I agree with you that it is important to keep America free. Denying the writ of habeas corpus does not keep America free. To the contrary, it denies a basic right of human beings. That is the antithesis of protecting freedom.

7. I have little idea what all you are babbling about regarding recent constitutional decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled a few years ago that federal inmates had a right to vote in Canadian elections and some states and the District of Columbia allow convicts to vote, but I am unaware of any major federal court decision declaring that inmates have a right to vote. Feel free to enlighten us. While you are at it, you can share some of that detailed research you did into how allowing inmates to vote is actually itself unconstitutional "by every stretch of the imagination."

Gravlen

25-11-2008, 00:24

All I can say is what I've been saying for years: Guantanamo is a travesty and a black mark of shame for the US and a blow to American rule of law. It should be closed, and preferably several years ago!

Hotwife

25-11-2008, 17:30

Since Eric Holder is Obama's new pick as Attorney General, perhaps they should ask him what he thinks. This is a transcript from a 2002 interview with Holder.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4qGeuZu2G

ZAHN: When you have Secretary of State Powell saying, "Let's abide by the Geneva Convention," and then folks on the other side, we are told, saying "Wait a minute. If we hold them to that kind of status, then all they'll be required to give us is their name, rank and file number."

HOLDER: Yes, it seems to me this is an argument that is really consequential. One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we're going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.

ZAHN: So is the secretary of state walking a fine line here legally? He is not asking that the United States declare these men as prisoners of war right now. He's just saying let's abide by the Geneva Convention in the meantime.

HOLDER: Yes, and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention. You have to remember that after World War II, as these protocols were being developed, there seemed to be widespread agreement that members of the French Resistance would not be considered prisoners of war if they had been captured. That being the case, it's hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war.

And yet, I understand Secretary Powell's concerns. We want to make sure that our forces, if captured in this or some other conflict, are treated in a humane way. And I think ultimately that's really the decisive factor here. How are people, who are in our custody, going to be treated? And those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al Qaeda members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated.

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 19:25

Since Eric Holder is Obama's new pick as Attorney General, perhaps they should ask him what he thinks. This is a transcript from a 2002 interview with Holder.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4qGeuZu2G

Whats your point? That Holder may disagree with Obama? Oh well. Guess who has the final say?

I dont understand why people are objecting to the fact that Obama isnt building an echo-chamber.

EDIT: Besidies, from your own source, the part that you quoted-
HOLDER: Yes, and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention. You have to remember that after World War II, as these protocols were being developed, there seemed to be widespread agreement that members of the French Resistance would not be considered prisoners of war if they had been captured. That being the case, it's hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war.

And yet, I understand Secretary Powell's concerns. We want to make sure that our forces, if captured in this or some other conflict, are treated in a humane way. And I think ultimately that's really the decisive factor here. How are people, who are in our custody, going to be treated? And those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al Qaeda members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated.

So what exactly is your point Kimichi?

Neo Art

25-11-2008, 19:27

Whats your point? That Holder disagrees with Obama? Oh well. Guess who has the final say?

I dont understand why people are objecting to the fact that Obama isnt building an echo-chamber.

as I said before, to the right wing, Obama can do no right. If he stacked his cabinet with yes men, they'd scream about how he's just surrounding himself with liberal elites like him and scream "WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA??"

If he instead picks people who differ with him on some issues, and thus by default, tend to sound a bit more like the current administration, they'd scream about how he's not serious about instituting any policy reforms and scream "WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA??"

Hotwife

25-11-2008, 19:27

Whats your point? That Holder disagrees with Obama? Oh well. Guess who has the final say?

I dont understand why people are objecting to the fact that Obama isnt building an echo-chamber.

I'm not objecting. I'm saying that Obama had to know in advance that Holder doesn't share his view on this, and that apparently, not all non-Bush lawyers share the idea that the detainees are solidly protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 19:29

I'm not objecting. I'm saying that Obama had to know in advance that Holder doesn't share his view on this, and that apparently, not all non-Bush lawyers share the idea that the detainees are solidly protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Except, if they arent covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus arent military, guess what they default to? Civies. And guess what protects civillians?

Im really not seeing your point here. Besides, no one has said "OMG ONLY BUSHES LAWYERS!!!!'

No one.

Hotwife

25-11-2008, 19:31

Except, if they arent covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus arent military, guess what they default to? Civies. And guess what protects civillians?

Im really not seeing your point here. Besides, no one has said "OMG ONLY BUSHES LAWYERS!!!!'

No one.

Apparently, Holder disagrees with you.

Previously, this forum has been pretty consistent that only Bush lawyers and Bush have held this view.

Neo Art

25-11-2008, 19:33

Except, if they arent covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus arent military, guess what they default to? Civies. And guess what protects civillians?

Which is a solid point. The Bush administration has tried to place them in legal limbo, making them not protected by the Geneva Convention, but not afforded rights under the constitution either.

The argument has been that they're "enemy combatants". Not civilian enough to be tried in civilian court, and thus not granted the rights we give EVERYONE in civilian court, but not soldier enough to be protected by the Geneva Convention.

Unfortunately, as the courts seem to suggest these days, you can't really do that.

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 19:34

Apparently, Holder disagrees with you.

Holder hasnt said anything about the Constitution in that post you quoted. Just the Geneva Convention.

And Holder can disagree with me. He can also disagree with Obama. But again, guess who has the final say? The guy who agrees with me.

Previously, this forum has been pretty consistent that only Bush lawyers and Bush have held this view.

Id ask for a source, but I know you cant prove this.

Neo Art

25-11-2008, 19:35

Apparently, Holder disagrees with you.

Really? where in the piece you quoted does Holder address the idea of constitutional protection for them?

Hint. He doesn't.

Previously, this forum has been pretty consistent that only Bush lawyers and Bush have held this view.

I'm sure you'll have no problem substantiating that.

Hotwife

25-11-2008, 19:37

Really? where in the piece you quoted does Holder address the idea of constitutional protection for them?

Hint. He doesn't.

He seems to indicate quite clearly that the detainees are in a legal limbo. He doesn't say, for instance, that they deserve Constitutional protection. And he's quite clear that they aren't protected by Geneva.

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 19:38

He seems to indicate quite clearly that the detainees are in a legal limbo. He doesn't say, for instance, that they deserve Constitutional protection.

Youre reading into what you want to see. Not whats there.

Neo Art

25-11-2008, 19:38

He seems to indicate quite clearly that the detainees are in a legal limbo.

Really, where?

He doesn't say, for instance, that they deserve Constitutional protection.

Doesn't say they don't, either. Probably because that wasn't the topic of the question.

Hotwife

25-11-2008, 19:39

Youre reading into what you want to see. Not whats there.

No, you're reading in Constitutional protection where he doesn't mention it. See how that works?

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 19:42

No, you're reading in Constitutional protection where he doesn't mention it. See how that works?

I wouldnt be getting snide when youre so wrong DK.

I said- "If theyre not covered by the Geneva Convention, and they arent POWs they by default would civillians and should be covered by the Consitution"
You said - "Holder disagrees!!1"

And yet...no were in your source does it even hint that Holder disagrees. He may, but you havent shown that he does.

Neo Art

25-11-2008, 19:43

No, you're reading in Constitutional protection where he doesn't mention it. See how that works?

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well...fuck.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that they're not people. Which would be fairly par for the course for you.

The fact is, he made no specific statement one way or the other. Which can only be interpreted as "we don't know his beliefs". You can't create any implication therefrom, even though we all know how much you'd love to. Especially since YOU were the one who stated:

Apparently, Holder disagrees with you.

When there was no evidence what Holder believes on that particular topic. You fail.

Redwulf

25-11-2008, 20:33

So what exactly is your point Kimichi?

It's DK. His point is the same as it's always been. "Muslims are bad, we should kill them all."

The Cat-Tribe

25-11-2008, 20:51

No, you're reading in Constitutional protection where he doesn't mention it. See how that works?

Rather than reading an overturning of the Constitution into Holder's alleged silence, let's see what else he has said on the topic:

Top Obama adviser: Close Gitmo now (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=67094)
Says Bush has not been leader of Free World for last 6 years

Calling Guantanamo Bay an "international embarrassment," Eric H. Holder, Jr., one of the two remaining appointees on Barack Obama's vice presidential search team, said the next president must close the detention facility and transfer prisoners to military prisons.

In a speech given Friday evening to the American Constitution Society convention in Washington, D.C., Holder charged, "For the last 6 years the position of leader of the Free World has been largely vacant."

In his half-hour address culminating in a standing ovation from the 350 attendees in the audience, Holder made no reference to the scandals which have forced Washington insider Jim Johnson to resign from Obama' vice presidential search committee or to the controversial role he played as deputy attorney general pushing the Marc Rich pardon in the closing days of the Clinton administration.

Instead, in his Friday evening speech at the ACS convention, Holder devoted his entire time to criticizing the Bush administration on the conduct of the war on terror, strongly suggesting that a President Obama would pursue a rights-oriented approach to dealing with suspected terrorists and captured enemy combatants.

Holder charged the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was a "moral hazard," which he compared to the original constitutional flaw that permitted slavery to continue, to President Lincoln's decision to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War and to the decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to create the Japanese internment camps during World War II.

"We have squandered one of our greatest strengths as a nation," Holder said, taking a partisan swipe at the Bush administration.

He insisted it was disgraceful that the Supreme Court "had to order the president to treat detainees in accord with the Geneva Convention."

Here Holder referred to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last Thursday in the Boumediene v. Bush case, ruling that suspected terrorists such as those currently being held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their incarceration in federal courts.

Senator John McCain has called the court's decision "one of the most chilling legal rulings in my lifetime," charging alleged foreign combatants should not have the same rights as those fighting to protect our nation.

"In the months and years since 9/11, the Bush administration took many steps that were excessive and unlawful," Holder continued. "We authorized torture and we let fear take precedence over the rule of law, as we overreacted to perceived danger."

In addition to closing Gitmo, Holder insisted the next president should:

Declare without qualification a policy that the United States will not torture political detainees, engage in forced interrogations or submit people to degrading treatment in prison;

End all programs, covert or otherwise, to transfer detainees to nations that practice torture;

Stop domestic search and seizures without warrant and end wiretapping of citizens.

"We have lost our way before," Holder told the 350 attendees at the Friday evening session. "Now we must step back into the shining path envisioned by our founding fathers in such icons of liberty as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

"There is evil in the world and we face grave threats to our national security," Holder admitted, "but we must reclaim our moral leadership by no longer letting fear rule our reactions." (emphasis added)

South Lorenya

25-11-2008, 23:52

Too bad bush thinks jailtime should go first and THEN the trial...

Knights of Liberty

26-11-2008, 00:13

Rather than reading an overturning of the Constitution into Holder's alleged silence, let's see what else he has said on the topic:

Top Obama adviser: Close Gitmo now (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=67094)
Says Bush has not been leader of Free World for last 6 years

Calling Guantanamo Bay an "international embarrassment," Eric H. Holder, Jr., one of the two remaining appointees on Barack Obama's vice presidential search team, said the next president must close the detention facility and transfer prisoners to military prisons.

In a speech given Friday evening to the American Constitution Society convention in Washington, D.C., Holder charged, "For the last 6 years the position of leader of the Free World has been largely vacant."

In his half-hour address culminating in a standing ovation from the 350 attendees in the audience, Holder made no reference to the scandals which have forced Washington insider Jim Johnson to resign from Obama' vice presidential search committee or to the controversial role he played as deputy attorney general pushing the Marc Rich pardon in the closing days of the Clinton administration.

Instead, in his Friday evening speech at the ACS convention, Holder devoted his entire time to criticizing the Bush administration on the conduct of the war on terror, strongly suggesting that a President Obama would pursue a rights-oriented approach to dealing with suspected terrorists and captured enemy combatants.

Holder charged the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was a "moral hazard," which he compared to the original constitutional flaw that permitted slavery to continue, to President Lincoln's decision to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War and to the decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to create the Japanese internment camps during World War II.

"We have squandered one of our greatest strengths as a nation," Holder said, taking a partisan swipe at the Bush administration.

He insisted it was disgraceful that the Supreme Court "had to order the president to treat detainees in accord with the Geneva Convention."

Here Holder referred to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last Thursday in the Boumediene v. Bush case, ruling that suspected terrorists such as those currently being held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their incarceration in federal courts.

Senator John McCain has called the court's decision "one of the most chilling legal rulings in my lifetime," charging alleged foreign combatants should not have the same rights as those fighting to protect our nation.

"In the months and years since 9/11, the Bush administration took many steps that were excessive and unlawful," Holder continued. "We authorized torture and we let fear take precedence over the rule of law, as we overreacted to perceived danger."

In addition to closing Gitmo, Holder insisted the next president should:

Declare without qualification a policy that the United States will not torture political detainees, engage in forced interrogations or submit people to degrading treatment in prison;

End all programs, covert or otherwise, to transfer detainees to nations that practice torture;

Stop domestic search and seizures without warrant and end wiretapping of citizens.

"We have lost our way before," Holder told the 350 attendees at the Friday evening session. "Now we must step back into the shining path envisioned by our founding fathers in such icons of liberty as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

"There is evil in the world and we face grave threats to our national security," Holder admitted, "but we must reclaim our moral leadership by no longer letting fear rule our reactions." (emphasis added)

Silence. DK is a lawyer. He might sue you.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Rights For Guantanamo