Why Are We Letting Them Go?

[billythrilly7th]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm/us_yemen_guantanamo_usa

A classified Pentagon assessment shows one in five detainees released from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay has joined or is suspected of joining militant groups like al Qaeda, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
The disclosure comes amid revelations that former detainees were playing a leadership role in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- a Yemen-based group believed to be behind a failed plot to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day.

This happened under Bush and Obama. So it ain't political. It's common sense.

I don't understand why we let any of them go, ever. You don't end up at Gitmo because you were accidentally picked up on your way to the store to get a roll of toilet paper.

Keep them locked up forever or until there is a real, and almost total and complete dismantling of the terror networks including the death of Bin laden.

There's no reason to let them go. They aren't good people. And have no rights under the constitution.

Thank you.

[MacAllister]

They're still human beings whether they're citizens or not. Or perhaps you think only American citizens are human? You really want to live under a system whereby people are sold out for bounties (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm), shipped off to a camp with no trial, and imprisoned forever?

[Fokker Aeroplanbau]

Quite frankly, I'd as soon not criticize the men and women who have sacrificed live, limb and blood to capture these terrorists. Sure, you can sit on the sidelines and whine about "The System," and how unfair it is. But at the end of the day, they're doing the best they can with individuals perfectly acquainted with violence.

[Don]

Billy, look long and hard at the current administration before you decide any group should have the authority of indefinite detention. You, too, must occasionally shop for toilet paper.

And if nobody accidently gets picked up, how come only one in five of those released is joining a militant group? Anybody who was guilty and got released is almost guaranteed to hook back up with the gang, right?

[mscelina]

Human rights are universal and not just confined to American citizens.

Although I will totter out on a limb and opine that these detainees, IMO, need to go to trial and should have already gone to trial under our own laws. In that case, the ones who really pose a danger to American citizens would already be serving time for the resultant convictions of criminial wrong-doing. As it is right now, we're in HUGE violation of the 'innocent until proven guilty' clause that was one of the things we fought a war of Independence to achieve.

[William Haskins]

Human rights are universal and not just confined to American citizens... As it is right now, we're in HUGE violation of the 'innocent until proven guilty' clause that was one of the things we fought a war of Independence to achieve.

while i most certainly do not subscribe to the notion that suspected terrorists should be held indefinitely without trial, i do think it's important to draw the distinction between human rights and the rights of american citizens.

while they are not mutually exclusive, there are many aspects that do not, and should not, overlap.

[virtue_summer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm/us_yemen_guantanamo_usa



This happened under Bush and Obama. So it ain't political. It's common sense.

I don't understand why we let any of them go, ever. You don't end up at Gitmo because you were accidentally picked up on your way to the store to get a roll of toilet paper.

Keep them locked up forever or until there is a real, and almost total and complete dismantling of the terror networks including the death of Bin laden.

There's no reason to let them go. They aren't good people. And have no rights under the constitution.

Thank you.

You're reading the story but missing a big point because of the way the statistics are given:
A classified Pentagon assessment shows 80% of the detainees released from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay has not been found to have joined and is not suspected of joining militant groups like al Qaeda.

Another point:
The constitution may not legally apply to them but things like the right to actually be tried before being convicted of a crime aren't just legal issues. They're ethical ones. Ethically many people, myself included, believe it's wrong to convict someone without a fair trial. It doesn't matter what country you're a citizen of.

[Millicent M'Lady]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm/us_yemen_guantanamo_usa


I don't understand why we let any of them go, ever. You don't end up at Gitmo because you were accidentally picked up on your way to the store to get a roll of toilet paper.


Are you serious in this assertion? Because innocent people are never detained in error. :Wha:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/

[benbradley]

I've often wondered about the US Constitution and Amendments whether "the people" refers to only to US citizens or all people. No doubt some careful reading of the authors' other works would clear that up, but that wouldn't change what people today believe about how it SHOULD be interpreted.

I'm not saying non-citzens should have no rights whatsoever, or should not be treated humanely, but the US Government treats everyone equally, what's the difference whether one is a US citizen or not?

Billy, look long and hard at the current administration before you decide any group should have the authority of indefinite detention. You, too, must occasionally shop for toilet paper.
But surely one would get a fair and transparent hearing on C-SPAN...
And if nobody accidently gets picked up, how come only one in five of those released is joining a militant group? Anybody who was guilty and got released is almost guaranteed to hook back up with the gang, right?
Brainwashing reform whatever you want to call it can go both ways.*


* Personal experience.

[Romantic Heretic]

Rights have to apply to everybody. Or soon they apply to nobody.

[Magdalen]

Let's put them all on a plane to Slovakia!

[Noah Body]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm/us_yemen_guantanamo_usa



This happened under Bush and Obama. So it ain't political. It's common sense.

I don't understand why we let any of them go, ever. You don't end up at Gitmo because you were accidentally picked up on your way to the store to get a roll of toilet paper.

Keep them locked up forever or until there is a real, and almost total and complete dismantling of the terror networks including the death of Bin laden.

There's no reason to let them go. They aren't good people. And have no rights under the constitution.

Thank you.

There's also the very real chance that some of these fellows decided to join the opposition after experiencing such long-term captivity. Don't get me wrong, a substantial number of those incarcerated are bad people, but a lot of them probably are not -- or, at the very least, cannot be proven to be. But there's really no safe way out of the situation without some blood being spilled on either side, is there?

[Noah Body]

Let's put them all on a plane to Slovakia!

With explosives!

[dclary]

There's also the very real chance that some of these fellows decided to join the opposition after experiencing such long-term captivity. Don't get me wrong, a substantial number of those incarcerated are bad people, but a lot of them probably are not -- or, at the very least, cannot be proven to be. But there's really no safe way out of the situation without some blood being spilled on either side, is there?

Didn't that happen to that black dude in that South African movie with Tim Robbins?

[Noah Body]

Dunno, don't believe I ever saw it.

[Fokker Aeroplanbau]

Rights have to apply to everybody. Or soon they apply to nobody.

So you believe in invading every non-democratic country in the world?

Or do you just like spewing idiocy?

[dclary]

Dunno, don't believe I ever saw it.


Here we go: "CATCH A FIRE."

A political thriller: the real-life story of a South African hero's journey to freedom. In the country's turbulent and divided times in the 1980s, Patrick Chamusso is an oil refinery foreman and soccer coach who is apolitical - until he and his wife Precious are jailed. Patrick is stunned into action against the country's oppressive reigning system, even as police Colonel Nic Vos further insinuates himself into the Chamussos' lives.


Basically, he's an easy-going dude. He and his wife are thrown into jail, and while in jail he gets recruited by anti-apartheid revolutionaries.

[mscelina]

while i most certainly do not subscribe to the notion that suspected terrorists should be held indefinitely without trial, i do think it's important to draw the distinction between human rights and the rights of american citizens.

while they are not mutually exclusive, there are many aspects that do not, and should not, overlap.

I can agree with that. I think we're probably pretty much on the same page as far as this goes.

[billythrilly7th]

They're still human beings whether they're citizens or not. Or perhaps you think only American citizens are human? You really want to live under a system whereby people are sold out for bounties (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm), shipped off to a camp with no trial, and imprisoned forever?

I didn't before, but now that we have clear evidence that many of the people who apparently seemed worthy of release are now going back to fighting against us, yes.

Although like I said in the first post, I'd prefer instead of forever... "until there is a real, and almost total and complete dismantling of the terror networks including the death of Bin laden."

If we fought the Japanese for 20 years instead of four or whatever it was, we would have held on to the prisoners of war for 20 years.

I think we would at least. Maybe those who are sick or special circumstances or whatever can and would have been returned for humanitarian reasons, but there is no reason to be sending Gitmo detainees back at this juncture IMO.

Thank you.

[benbradley]

Rights have to apply to everybody. Or soon they apply to nobody.
So all six billion people in the world have the right to, say, health care?

[mscelina]

So you believe in invading every non-democratic country in the world?

Or do you just like spewing idiocy?

Dude. Please. This is hardly helpful.

I didn't before, but now that we have clear evidence that many of the people who apparently seemed worthy of release are now going back to fighting against us, yes.

Although like I said in the first post, I'd prefer instead of forever... "until there is a real, and almost total and complete dismantling of the terror networks including the death of Bin laden."

If we fought the Japanese for 20 years instead of four or whatever it was, we would have held on to the prisoners of war for 20 years.

I think we would at least. Maybe those who are sick or special circumstances or whatever can and would have been returned for humanitarian reasons, but there is no reason to be sending Gitmo detainees back at this juncture IMO.

Thank you.

Well, I think it's only some of the released detainees that are doing so, not all.

So all six billion people in the world have the right to, say, health care?

Wrong guy to ask that to, Ben.

[billythrilly7th]

Well, I think it's only some of the released detainees that are doing so, not all.

Well, if I told you we had 10 people held in a cell and we know that 9 of them are good but one of them will murder your family member within a week if we let all of them go, I'm pretty sure you'd say well hold on to all 10 until a week passes pretty please.

Until we can figure out who the bad guys are and who the good guys are which I don't think we really can, or we need to try MUCH harder at....hold them all.

Because it's someone, probably not yours, but someone's family member who gets blown up on a plane or dies from an explosion on a train.

I don't know why most people will be willing to do certain things to save people they love but not willing to do or accept the same things to save people other's love.

[Maxinquaye]

Amazing logic here...

"Yo, we fucked up when we kidnapped these guys from wherever they came from, and now they're REAL pissed at us, so because they're REAL pissed at us we should continue to illegally incarcarate them indefinitely."

As McCain so succinctly said. You don't follow the geneva convention out of the goodness of your hearts, you follow the geneva conventions so that when someone kidnaps and tortures americans you have the moral high ground to be able to do something about it.

[Use Her Name]

They are not unrepentant killers and keeping them in prison makes them martyers and radicalizes them more and more. I know if I were in jail for nearly a decade for a crime I didn't do, I would want to do that crime to justify my jail term.

[virtue_summer]

Well, if I told you we had 10 people held in a cell and we know that 9 of them are good but one of them will murder your family member within a week if we let all of them go, I'm pretty sure you'd say well hold on to all 10 until a week passes pretty please.

Until we can figure out who the bad guys are and who the good guys are which I don't think we really can, or we need to try MUCH harder at....hold them all.

Because it's someone, probably not yours, but someone's family member who gets blown up on a plane or dies from an explosion on a train.

I don't know why most people will be willing to do certain things to save people they love but not willing to do or accept the same things to save people other's love.

Okay. We all need to jump into prison cells. We've got this population of billions of people on the Earth. Some are good. Some are bad. We don't always know who is who. So everyone needs to be locked up. You can go first. And don't even ask for a reason or proof that you did something wrong. If other people don't deserve a fair trial, why should you?

[Don]

They are not unrepentant killers and keeping them in prison makes them martyers and radicalizes them more and more. I know if I were in jail for nearly a decade for a crime I didn't do, I would want to do that crime to justify my jail term.
I'm just guessin' here, but I bet billy would feel the same way if he were in those shoes. I know I sure as hell would.

[billythrilly7th]

I'm just guessin' here, but I bet billy would feel the same way if he were in those shoes. I know I sure as hell would.

Uh no.

If I were wrongly convicted of murder and in jail for 12 years and then freed when DNA evidence came out to clear me, I assure you, I'm not going to go out and murder someone.

I'd want to go out and murder someone because I was wronged so I'm gonna go make someone innocent pay?

Don't think so.

That's ridiculous. And when they have stories about people being released from jail, they are usually talking about love and forgiveness, not revenge.

Thank you.

http://themoderatevoice.com/56196/innocent-man-freed-after-35-years/

n 1974 James Bain, then 19, was sentenced to prison for the kidnapping and rape of a 9 year old boy. Bain protesting his innocence and said he was home watching TV with his sister at the time of the crime. The conviction was based largely on the testimony of the victim who said his attacker had sideburns and a mustache. Another man said he thought that it might be Bain.

Bain has taken an amazingly calm attitude towards the situation, saying that his faith means he does not hold grudges.

[Don]

So if the Chinese grab you on the way to get toilet paper and hold you for ten years as an enemy combatant, you're cool with that?

[billythrilly7th]

So if the Chinese grab you on the way to get toilet paper and hold you for ten years as an enemy combatant, you're cool with that?

Not cool with it, but when I get out, I'm not gonna blow up a Chinese restaurant.

Big difference between "being cool with it" and "plotting revenge" especially if the reason I got picked up while getting toilet paper was because so many of my countryman were committing horrible acts against the Chinese and I just got screwed because of it. I'd be more pissed at my own people for setting up an environment that messed up 10 years of my life.

And none of these guys were going to get toilet paper.

Ridiculous. They are bad bad people.

[MacAllister]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Maxinquaye]

Ridiculous. They are bad bad people.

Nobody knows that. They haven't been tried. They've been denied a fair trial, where the government must present evidence, and convince a jury that they are guilty. In fact, they are held on foreign soil for the specific reason that if they were brought to the United States, the government would be forced to put them on trial.

Until that happens, they are innocent, and each day they are held incarcarated the US government is breaching their fundamental human rights. The US is in breach of the Geneva convention, as well as a multitude of international treaties.

If you're cool with that, then you're also cool with Americans being captured, held without trial, and even tortured for the same reasons you espouse; they are illegal combatants in someone's eyes.

[billythrilly7th]

Is there anyone here who would be opposed to anyone being released being implanted with a tracking device so we can watch them for awhile?

[Zoombie]

Um...that sounds like setting a dangerous precedent.

[MacAllister]

If I object to the government implanting *me* with a tracking device -- and I most assuredly do -- then I'm certainly not going to attempt to justify implanting other human beings without any due process beyond "some guys in the government or military somewhere think maybe this is someone we ought to keep an eye on..."

[billythrilly7th]

If I object to the government implanting *me* with a tracking device -- and I most assuredly do -- then I'm certainly not going to attempt to justify implanting other human beings without any due process beyond "some guys in the government or military somewhere thinks maybe this is someone we ought to keep an eye on..."

So, you're up for just about anything as long as there is some due process? A little evidence, a hearing or two...and some people rule on the situation?

[MacAllister]

Not "some" due process. Due process.

But yes, essentially. I think if we're going to capture and hold people, they must be charged, tried, and sentenced if found guilty or released if found innocent.

I think "knowing some of the wrong sorts of people" isn't a crime. And I'm furious that this whole fucking mess has resulted in things like the TSA pounding on bloggers' front doors and demanding to know sources and seizing hardware (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger/) -- because it's all part and parcel of the same arrogant and out-of-control authoritarian mindset. I'm not seeing Obama's administration actually doing nearly enough to address this trainwreck, either.

If believing that this sort of criminal excess is insane, immoral, unethical, and wrong means that I'm less secure, then I'd much, much, MUCH rather be less "secure."

[William Haskins]

Not "some" due process. Due process.

But yes, essentially. I think if we're going to capture and hold people, they must be charged, tried, and sentenced if found guilty or released if found innocent.

that's one of those things that have become so convoluted, though. i mean you have other posters raving about geneva, but that's for prisoners of war, and you never release prisoners of war while the war is still going on.

so then one is tempted to take the civilian tact. but are they civilians?

it's a mess.

[Sarpedon]

The idea that all human beings are entitled to a fair trial is too precious to sacrifice for expedience.

If, for some reason, we are unwilling to bring them to trial for some reason, they MUST be let go. All other choices are immoral.

[MacAllister]

Eh. It's mostly just a mess because we want to be cowards and dickheads about something that's a lot less real of a personal, physical threat than climbing into a car with your spouse who had one too many drinks over dinner.

And I'm very much a subscriber to the idea that it's a stupid exercise in semantics to declare war on an abstract. If the "War on Terror" is really a war, then why aren't we scooping up people we sorta think know some of the wrong people in the "War on Drugs" and shipping them off to Gitmo for the rest of eternity?

[billythrilly7th]

Not "some" due process. Due process.

But yes, essentially. I think if we're going to capture and hold people, they must be charged, tried, and sentenced if found guilty or released if found innocent.

Fair enough.

I would have agreed 8 years ago, but now after releasing people that we didn't have any evidence on apparently and seeing that they are clearly going back to doing the things we suspected them of doing in the first place, I am a firm believer in better safe than sorry and I don't worry about what the world thinks or what's right or wrong while we are at war with these animals.

I will err on the side of saving American lives. I would have bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima the way Truman did to save lives even though hundreds of thousands of innocent people who did not get the "all men are created equal" treatment and didn't deserve to die, did die. It was still the right thing to do in a long term visionary way.The same way holding on to everyone we have in custody right now is. The United States didn't skip a beat. We were still held in high esteem for decades.

Better safe than sorry. And if somehow you were able to(not just you Mac, in general) divine that it was one of your own family members who were going to be killed by one of the releases in 2 years in a terrorist attack on a London train, I would guess you would want to err on the side of better safe than sorry. Or maybe you wouldn't. I don't know. Maybe your beliefs are so strong that you would sacrifice your child or daughter or husband or parent in order to say we shouldn't be holding these guys in Gitmo if we don't have concrete evidence against them. Not me.

:Shrug:

Anyway, thank you.

[MattW]

The idea that all human beings are entitled to a fair trial is too precious to sacrifice for expedience.

If, for some reason, we are unwilling to bring them to trial for some reason, they MUST be let go. All other choices are immoral.
That would be true if they were common criminals, but they are not. They exist in an uncertain state between POWs (which we have processes, treaties and regulations around) and violent civilian offenders (which we have other processes, laws, and structures for).

The conditions for release of POWs would be end of hostilities (which is very hard to ascertain in this case). And the combatants would need to be repatriated to the defeated nation, facing possible charges there as well (unlikely in the case of out of uniform, non-affiliated paramilitary groups).

As Haskins said - a mess.

[MattW]

And I'm very much a subscriber to the idea that it's a stupid exercise in semantics to declare war on an abstract. If the "War on Terror" is really a war, then why aren't we scooping up people we sorta think know some of the wrong people in the "War on Drugs" and shipping them off to Gitmo for the rest of eternity?
You never hear about the secret labor camps created during the War on Illiteracy...the forgotten war.

[benbradley]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Yeah, that's what the Declaration of Independence says, though with its historical significance and the overlap of writers I suppose it had its influence on the US Constitution...

Were they saying that the purpose of any particular government is to secure the rights of those it governed, or that a particular government is to secure the rights of all people, even non-citizens?

And if it's the second, where the hell were we (We, The USA) when the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur were (or still are) happening?

While I'm nitpicking little things, perhaps we could get rid of that age discrimination built into the main text of the US Constitution. Or if not, at least amend age discrimination laws to exclude that particular job (for all I know that might already be in there, but I rather doubt it). It would be nice to have consistent and non-contradictory laws.

[MacAllister]

Ben, for me, that goes back to a government of, by and for the people. It's not some alien entity set in opposition to the populace. It's not like the people are customers and the government is our cable or telephone provider and we're just stuck with their dumb policies and crappy customer service, because all the competitors are even worse.

We're supposed to step up to the plate and govern ourselves.

But, as a human being, yeah. I personally believed we--all of us as intelligent and supposedly self-governed human beings--completely screwed the pooch wrt the genocide in Rwanda, and ongoing. And it's to our eternal shame that we did so.

[Maxinquaye]

that's one of those things that have become so convoluted, though. i mean you have other posters raving about geneva, but that's for prisoners of war, and you never release prisoners of war while the war is still going on.

so then one is tempted to take the civilian tact. but are they civilians?

it's a mess.

They're either or, not something in between. That they're supposed to be inbetween is fairly obscene. Decide already. If they're POWs they fall under Geneva. If they're civilians, they fall under due process-laws.

In no way, shape, form or function should anyone be shipped to a third country, subjected to for instance waterboarding, and held indefinitely in a legalistic limbo that the previous administration conjured out of thin air in order to be able to waterboard said prisoners. If they are terrorists, put them in court as the criminals they are. Don't afford them a military status.

[Autodidact]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm/us_yemen_guantanamo_usa



This happened under Bush and Obama. So it ain't political. It's common sense.

I don't understand why we let any of them go, ever. You don't end up at Gitmo because you were accidentally picked up on your way to the store to get a roll of toilet paper. Actually, you're mistaken. Most of them were picked up because someone turned them in for a bounty, and were guilty of absolutely nothing.

Keep them locked up forever or until there is a real, and almost total and complete dismantling of the terror networks including the death of Bin laden. And throw the constitution out the window!

There's no reason to let them go. They aren't good people. And you know this how? And have no rights under the constitution. Why not?

[Autodidact]

A classified Pentagon assessment shows one in five detainees released from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay has joined or is suspected of joining militant groups like al Qaeda, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

I'm not surprised. Think about it: you're a young Muslim man who's been told America is Satan. You get snatched, imprisoned and tortured for no reason, without ever getting hearing, a lawyer or even told why you're being held. Then, just as suddenly, you're let go. I call it the "Bush-create-a-terrorist-program? If you weren't Al Qaeda before you were imprisoned, you sure are now. Also your 5 brothers and 17 cousins. I feel so much safer now, don't you?

[Autodidact]

I don't understand why we let any of them go, ever. You don't end up at Gitmo because you were accidentally picked up on your way to the store to get a roll of toilet paper.

Because the Bush administration has never made a mistake or anything--they have a perfect record for infallibility! So if they say someone had WMD, was planning to use them against the U.S. and was responsible for 9/11 is a terrorist, we should accept it as fact! Who needs that little old habeas corpus? It's just a legal technicality that our ancestors fought and died for, only the most central right of man for centuries. We can do without it.

[Autodidact]

So, you're up for just about anything as long as there is some due process? A little evidence, a hearing or two...and some people rule on the situation?
You know, like that, um, that thingy, whatzit, oh yeah, the constitution.

[Sarpedon]

That would be true if they were common criminals, but they are not. They exist in an uncertain state between POWs (which we have processes, treaties and regulations around) and violent civilian offenders (which we have other processes, laws, and structures for).


Though their legal status as combatants is disputable, their status as human beings is not. If we can strip a human being of his rights due to some technicality in classification, we do not truly believe in human rights. A person accused of a crime deserves a trial, regardless of his political status.

[MacAllister]

For the record, I'm not at all interested in Bush-blaming, with regard to this issue, either.

The Obama administration and the Dem-controlled Congress has had over a year to set this right.

[dclary]

You know, like that, um, that thingy, whatzit, oh yeah, the constitution.

Which deals with the due process afforded American citizens, not enemy combatants from a foreign land.

I think Haskins' forewarning that human rights and American civil rights are not the same thing, and shouldn't be.

[Don]

In no discussion is this more germane.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

[Roger J Carlson]

Actually, you're mistaken. Most of them were picked up because someone turned them in for a bounty, and were guilty of absolutely nothing.You don't know this any more than Billy knows they were picked up for a good reason.

[Maxinquaye]

You don't know this any more than Billy knows they were picked up for a good reason.

Which is excellent reason for putting them on trial so that evidence can be weighed. If there are no evidence, they should be unconditionally released, with a hefty punitive damage in their wallets as they head home - or to a place where they will be safe.

[Roger J Carlson]

Which is excellent reason for putting them on trial so that evidence can be weighed. If there are no evidence, they should be unconditionally released, with a hefty punitive damage in their wallets as they head home - or to a place where they will be safe.I can't disagree with that. I was just pointing out the inconsistancy.

[Roger J Carlson]

For the record, I'm not at all interested in Bush-blaming, with regard to this issue, either.

The Obama administration and the Dem-controlled Congress has had over a year to set this right.The fact that Obama and the Democrats have not corrected this immediately, as they claimed they would, leads me to believe they now find some advantage to continuing it. Which further makes me wonder if their outrage during the campaign was ignorance or simply disingenuous.

[Lyv]

For the record, I'm not at all interested in Bush-blaming, with regard to this issue, either.


Me either. I'm only going to mention Bush to make a point. One afternoon, I listened to Bush give a speech defending the war in Iraq. He was describing misdeeds of Saddam's, including torture and controlling the press (not long after we'd been caught paying to plant stories in the Iraqi press). As he went on and on, I felt physically ill. If you didn't know who was speaking and about which country and leader, it could have been the US and Bush. A few years earlier, it wouldn't have applied, but it did then. We were torturing, controlling the press, ignoring habeas corpus, performing renditions, doing the things that qualified for Bush's axis of evil when other countries did them.

The comparisons to an American being wrongly imprisoned for murder then murdering someone don't hold up either. It's apples and oranges to the US indefinitely holding suspected terrorists.

[Fran]

USA: You mustn't oppress people or deny them basic human rights!

Shady Lawless Country the US is trying to sell the idea of glowing democracy: Why not? You do.

[dclary]

Me either. I'm only going to mention Bush to make a point. One afternoon, I listened to Bush give a speech defending the war in Iraq. He was describing misdeeds of Saddam's, including torture and controlling the press (not long after we'd been caught paying to plant stories in the Iraqi press). As he went on and on, I felt physically ill. If you didn't know who was speaking and about which country and leader, it could have been the US and Bush. A few years earlier, it wouldn't have applied, but it did then. We were torturing, controlling the press, ignoring habeas corpus, performing renditions, doing the things that qualified for Bush's axis of evil when other countries did them.

The comparisons to an American being wrongly imprisoned for murder then murdering someone don't hold up either. It's apples and
oranges to the US indefinitely holding suspected terrorists.
Totally. Gassing our own people, bombing the shit out of mexico, setting up rape rooms for Jenna and Barbara, lying to the UN about our nuclear weapons caches.

Exactly the same.

[Lyv]

Totally. Gassing our own people, bombing the shit out of mexico, setting up rape rooms for Jenna and Barbara, lying to the UN about our nuclear weapons caches.

Exactly the same.
Bush was describing an evil dictator and defending his war of choice, and his words applied equally to us. It was uncanny.

[cethklein]

Billy, look long and hard at the current administration before you decide any group should have the authority of indefinite detention. You, too, must occasionally shop for toilet paper.

And if nobody accidently gets picked up, how come only one in five of those released is joining a militant group? Anybody who was guilty and got released is almost guaranteed to hook back up with the gang, right?

Agreed. I think this whole thing also goes to prove how horribly planned Gitmo was. While I didn't expect it to rehabilitate these lunatics, I also think that had we put more effort into preventing innocent people from being sent there, we'd have been able to keep Gitmo open for the REAL criminals. Instea Cheney and his goons basically said "if he's brown and has a towel on his head, lock him up." now we see what a horrible idea that was.

Here's an interesting thing to think about: I wonder how many of the 1 in 5 who went out and joined up ith terrorists were actually innocent before going to Gitmo?

[Romantic Heretic]

So you believe in invading every non-democratic country in the world?

Or do you just like spewing idiocy?

If you can perform physical leaps the same way you can perform logical leaps Superman has nothing on you. :ROFL:

[Romantic Heretic]

In no discussion is this more germane.

Originally Posted by Gerald Ford
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

By this logic, we have to disband the armed forces and all law enforcement. If a government goes authoritarian these are the tools it will use.

But revolutionaries are always eager to take their logic to its ultimate end.

[Don]

By this logic, we have to disband the armed forces and all law enforcement. If a government goes authoritarian these are the tools it will use.

But revolutionaries are always eager to take their logic to its ultimate end.
Srsly? A warning about the power of government is, of itself, an argument that it must all be disbanded?

The only person I see taking this logic to its ultimate end is you. Or were you simply jumping to my conclusion for me?

Where'd you get the authorization to read my mail to me? The Patriot Act?

That's a Jerry Ford Quote, not Lysander Spooner, btw.

If you can perform physical leaps the same way you can perform logical leaps Superman has nothing on you.


Mote. Eye. Just sayin...

[dclary]

Cheney and his goons basically said "if he's brown and has a towel on his head, lock him up." now we see what a horrible idea that was.



Yes. That's exactly what they said. :rolleyes:

[clintl]

Which deals with the due process afforded American citizens, not enemy combatants from a foreign land.

I think Haskins' forewarning that human rights and American civil rights are not the same thing, and shouldn't be.

I am not sure where this myth came from, but there's nothing in the US Constitution that reserves due process rights for US citizens. The actual language refers to all persons under its jurisdiction.

[benbradley]

I am not sure where this myth came from, but there's nothing in the US Constitution that reserves due process rights for US citizens. The actual language refers to all persons under its jurisdiction.
I've always considered this a question (I'm always a skeptic) as opposed to a myth. Can you document this? Are there other writings from the founders that support this? Are there legal rulings to that effect? What are they?

And what exactly is the jurisdiction of the USA? Any US land or its possessions? Anywhere that US citizens or soldiers are? Anywhere there are human beings?

Really, I've been wondering exactly to whom the United States Government must respect rights as written in the Bill of Rights. In response to asking this, some appear to say I'm against HUMAN rights for some people. Yeah, my questions are Politically Incorrect...

Are all human rights defined solely by the US Constitution? Or the United Nations? Should they be?

An answer of "you're not respecting people's human rights" is not only attacking me, it does not address any of these questions.

[Don]

Are rights defined by the US Constitution? Where? AFAIK, rights aren't mentioned until the Bill of Rights; and they're not defined there, either. The Bill of Rights mentions some rights, but primarily in relation to what government may not do in violation of those rights. It does specify some positive rights that must be provided for the citizens by the government, such as trial by jury.

The Bill of Rights would better be titled "A Bill of Limitations on Government." Read 'em, it's easy to see what I mean.

Rights were held as axiomatic by the founders, at least according to the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" sounds pretty axiomatic to me.

[clintl]

I've always considered this a question (I'm always a skeptic) as opposed to a myth. Can you document this? Are there other writings from the founders that support this? Are there legal rulings to that effect? What are they?



I damn well sure can. It's in the 14th Amendment.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) the equal protection of the laws.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

[William Haskins]

nothing in the 14th amendment specifically extends constitutional protection to non-citizens.

it's a matter of interpretation and somewhat disingenuous of you to peddle it as a "myth" when the supreme court was split 5-4 on it.

there is room for debate here.

[SPMiller]

I don't understand why we let any of them go, ever. You don't end up at Gitmo because you were accidentally picked up on your way to the store to get a roll of toilet paper.Then we need to charge them with crimes for whatever they were doing so that we have a justification for keeping them locked up. After all, if they were really doing something wrong, some criminal code, somewhere, should apply. If not, we had better look to encoding those crimes in federal and international law.

Keep them locked up forever or until there is a real, and almost total and complete dismantling of the terror networks including the death of Bin laden.How about not?

There's no reason to let them go.In fact, there are several.

They aren't good people.Then prove it.

And have no rights under the constitution.Not true. They have all the rights we've given them via international law, and some from our own government mandates as well.

[clintl]

nothing in the 14th amendment specifically extends constitutional protection to non-citizens.

it's a matter of interpretation and somewhat disingenuous of you to peddle it as a "myth" when the supreme court was split 5-4 on it.

there is room for debate here.

Show me in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments where citizens are referred to. It says, variously, "the people", "no person", "the accused." There is no room room for debate among people who can read English, and the Supreme Court justices who voted otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

If you want it to say something else, propose a constitutional amendment, but there is no support within the text of the Constitution for the interpretation that these rights are reserved for citizens, and I'd be willing to bet most of the Founding Fathers would be appalled by the notion.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
<hr title="Amendment 5"> Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOUBLEJ); nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
<hr title="Amendment 6"> Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPARTIAL) jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html).



http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4

[SPMiller]

And since international law falls under federal jurisdiction, the entire Bill of Rights can and does apply to international cases (where the language allows). This differs from the way in which the BoR must be applied piecemeal to the states.

This is the sort of stuff conservatives hate to hear.

[William Haskins]

This is the sort of stuff conservatives hate to hear.

oh please.

debating the gray area of enemy combatants isn't good vs. evil. get off your high horse.

the father of modern liberalism, franklin roosevelt, had german saboteurs tried before a military court, convicted and electrocuted within a month.

[SPMiller]

I've trashed both FDR and Lincoln in the past on these forums, and Don can probably back me up on that. So, if that was supposed to rile me up, it failed.

The whole "enemy combatant" issue also isn't as ambiguous, at least not to me, as I think you're trying to suggest.

I know you're a hawk, William. We're never going to agree on foreign policy. Can we move on?

[dmytryp]

Show me in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments where citizens are referred to. It says, variously, "the people", "no person", "the accused." There is no room room for debate among people who can read English, and the Supreme Court justices who voted otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

If you want it to say something else, propose a constitutional amendment, but there is no support within the text of the Constitution for the interpretation that these rights are reserved for citizens, and I'd be willing to bet most of the Founding Fathers would be appalled by the notion.




http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4
So, since US gov is supposedly the gov by the people and for the people (not citizens), than all non-citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections? How about "equal protection under the law"? Any non citizen should be allowed to work in US whether he has the appropriate visa or not? Whether you like it or not, laws of states extend to their citizens or to those non-citizens who broke the law under the sate's jurisdiction.

[dmytryp]

And since international law falls under federal jurisdiction, the entire Bill of Rights can and does apply to international cases (where the language allows). This differs from the way in which the BoR must be applied piecemeal to the states.

This is the sort of stuff conservatives hate to hear.
Actually, human rights and international law aren't the same. Not even close. And you might want to dig up anything in international law that says you have to try enemy combatants in a civilian court or even try them at all till the conflict is over. The international law gives pov's certain rights not to be mistreated. That's about it.

[Maxinquaye]

Well, since "enemy combatant" is something the previous administration in the US conjured out of thin air to get around the geneva convention, and have them subjected to waterboarding, it's not a term that has any actual value in international law.

It is not recognized by anyone else on the globe.

ETA: With the possible exception of the poodle in 10 Downing Street at the time.

[dmytryp]

Yaacov Lozowick had several interesting posts on international law vs. politics vs. human rights
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2009/12/us-administration-politics-not-lawfare.html
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/01/democracy-power-war-peace-law-etc-etc.html
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2009/12/primacy-of-politics.html

[dmytryp]

Well, since "enemy combatant" is something the previous administration in the US conjured out of thin air to get around the geneva convention, and have them subjected to waterboarding, it's not a term that has any actual value in international law.

It is not recognized by anyone else on the globe.

ETA: With the possible exception of the poodle in 10 Downing Street at the time.
Oh, tosh. At least be honest and admit that "anyone around the globe" encompasses states that include about 70% of the globe's population and don't give a toss about rights of their own citizens, much less those of their enemies. As for the rest, they either never faced similar battles conditions or conviniently forget their own actions from when they did (such as French). The fact that you think that this class of people is somehow new, doesn't make it so. Paramilitary groups aren't something new, they just hadn't faced a democratic enemy on a large scale till now.

Oh, and by the way, at least be accurate, the Bush admin didn't need to classify their enemies as "enemy combatants" to waterboard them. They had a legal opinion that they were not breaking any international law while doing it. Whether you agree with this opinion or not is immaterial to the question.

P.S. So there is no mistake here, I don't think the detainees should be locked up indefinitely. And they certainly have no business in a civillian court (for many many reasons, not the smallest of which is the confidentiality and the type of evidence agianst them that would usually consist of intelligence data that I doubt would stand to standards of evidence and especially means of obtaining it in a civillian court). What I do think is that they should be tried in a military court.

By the way, Billy, 20% is not unusually high. Israel faces, unfortunately about 60% of those released by it going back to terrorism

[clintl]

So, since US gov is supposedly the gov by the people and for the people (not citizens), than all non-citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections? How about "equal protection under the law"? Any non citizen should be allowed to work in US whether he has the appropriate visa or not? Whether you like it or not, laws of states extend to their citizens or to those non-citizens who broke the law under the sate's jurisdiction.

The 4th, 5th, 6th and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment are primarily talking about the rights of the accused, and it's clear that the Constitution in that respect does not make a distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Particularly the 14th Amendment, which specifically uses the word "citizen" in other clauses, but not in the due process and equal protection clauses.

[billythrilly7th]

The 4th, 5th, 6th and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment are primarily talking about the rights of the accused, and it's clear that the Constitution in that respect does not make a distinction between citizens and noncitizens.

When the constitution was written no one knew that there were people in other countries or anywhere else on the planet. Duh.

[dmytryp]

The 4th, 5th, 6th and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment are primarily talking about the rights of the accused, and it's clear that the Constitution in that respect does not make a distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Particularly the 14th Amendment, which specifically uses the word "citizen" in other clauses, but not in the due process and equal protection clauses.
So, does the phrase "the gov of the people, by the people and for the people" use the word citizen? Does a provision requiring equal protection under the law says such protection is reserved for citizens?

EDIT: Look, the very fact that the title is "The constitution of United States" at the very least implies that the position of people arguing it is related to US citizens only is not a myth, but a reasonable position to have

[SPMiller]

So, does the phrase "the gov of the people, by the people and for the people" use the word citizen? Does a provision requiring equal protection under the law says such protection is reserved for citizens?Dmytry, I know you're not an American, but I have to ask what Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has to do with codified government policy. This feels a lot thinner than your usual arguments.

[dmytryp]

The point is that the argument that just beause a phrase doesn't use a word "citizens" doesn't mean it isn't implied.

Nations make laws to govern themselves. They don't usually make laws to broaden them on others (unless caught doing a crime under their jurisdiction).

I understand the position that we should treat the terrorists as mere criminals. I understand the position we should treat them as POV's. I understand. I truely do. I may not agree with them, but at least I understand where they are coming from, and I try to understand what motivates the person making the statement. On the other hand, when people choose to simply sweep opposing arguments aside and say Supreme Court Justices "should be ashamed of themselves" for basically not seeing the issue the way the poster does, it doesn't promote understanding, it is poor thinking and it is pretentious and condescending as hell.

[clintl]

Perhaps you should read the Constitution yourself before asking these questions, because citizenship and elections are specifically discussed in the document.

From Article 1, Section 4, regarding elections:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

From Article 4, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

From the 14th Amendment, Article 1:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

There is a clear progression here that the Constitution explicitly gave Congress and (originally) the States the power to determine election rules and voting rights, and Congress has restricted those rights to citizens, as is their authority under the Constitution.

In fact, it took the 19th Amendment to grant women the right to vote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

and the 26th Amendment to set the national voting age to 18.
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Note that those last two amendments were ratified 52 years and 103 years after the 14th Amendment, respectively.

Does that answer your question now? Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to set voting rules that restrict voting to citizens. It does not have the authority under the Constitution to restrict the due process rights in criminal proceedings to citizens.

When the Founding Fathers meant citizen, they used the word.

[dmytryp]

Does that answer your question now? Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to set voting rules that restrict voting to citizens. It does not have the authority under the Constitution to restrict the due process rights in criminal proceedings to citizens.

When the Founding Fathers meant citizen, they used the word.
Really? Let's look at the quote you yourself provided
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
If you are correct, then a state can't tell non-citizens in their territory they can't work, because that would deny them equal protection under the law. On the other hand, I am not aware that Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fall under US jurisdiction. So, how does not giving them due process contradicts what you quoted.

Look, it is your prerogative to have a certain view, but don't insult others for having a different one on the issue. The fact is that there is a distinction between combatants and simple criminals. And there is a distinction between what a military can do as ooposed to what a police can do. Police isn't allowed any kind of colateral damage, while in combat it is inevitable. The army isn't required to get a warrant to arrest you, only intel. ETC. ETC.

[Bartholomew]

nothing in the 14th amendment specifically extends constitutional protection to non-citizens.

it's a matter of interpretation and somewhat disingenuous of you to peddle it as a "myth" when the supreme court was split 5-4 on it.

there is room for debate here.

Well, it says "any person," not, "any citizen."

Seems clear to me.

[clintl]

Really? Let's look at the quote you yourself provided

If you are correct, then a state can't tell non-citizens in their territory they can't work, because that would deny them equal protection under the law. On the other hand, I am not aware that Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fall under US jurisdiction. So, how does not giving them due process contradicts what you quoted.



They're not. But the whole rationale for holding these people at Guantanamo was so that the Bush Administration could avoid giving them due process rights. The Bush Administration knew that as soon as they brought them to the US, then they would have to give them due process rights under the US Constitution. And now, basically, a bunch of conservatives are trying to argue, in contradiction to the clear wording of the Constitution, that only citizens are guaranteed due process rights. And that's complete nonsense.

Oh, and enemy combatants was a phony category the Bush Administration made up to avoid giving these people rights under international law as well. It had no legal basis in either US or international law.

[Romantic Heretic]

When the constitution was written no one knew that there were people in other countries or anywhere else on the planet. Duh.

:Wha:

I honestly don't know what to say to this.

[Lyv]

Even if enemy combatants were not a bogus designation, it wouldn't apply to every detainee. Only the ones proven to actually be enemy combatants. Or "enemy combatants."

[dmytryp]

They're not.
They are not what? The very method of their captre already violated the due process. In many cases the reasons to their capture is intelligence that would never stand up in a civilian court, even if the state decided it is worth burning your intelligence gathering methods to convict them. This isn't some rocket science. The situation is in o way analogous to simple criminals. You can't escape this.
I am not clear as to why you aren't yet protesting outside that people with a tourist visa inside US aren't allowed to work if the wording is so clear as you claim.
But the whole rationale for holding these people at Guantanamo was so that the Bush Administration could avoid giving them due process rights. The Bush Administration knew that as soon as they brought them to the US, then they would have to give them due process rights under the US Constitution. And now, basically, a bunch of conservatives are trying to argue, in contradiction to the clear wording of the Constitution, that only citizens are guaranteed due process rights. And that's complete nonsense.
You are free to think whatever you want, that doe not make it true or makes the opposing view nonsense.

Oh, and enemy combatants was a phony category the Bush Administration made up to avoid giving these people rights under international law as well. It had no legal basis in either US or international law.
Bull. People had been fighting irregulars for years. The fact that "international law" doesn't reflect that is another sign that it needs to update itself. And this goes exactly to the root of the problem with international law. It is static. It 't have enough volume of operation to update itself and to be a living things. Anyway, the fact that you don't even make the basic effort to understand where your opponents are coming from and ascribe to them just bad faith and intentions is rather telling.

[dmytryp]

Even if enemy combatants were not a bogus designation, it wouldn't apply to every detainee. Only the ones proven to actually be enemy combatants. Or "enemy combatants."
Obviously. As I said, they need to be tried in military court.

[William Haskins]

this seizing upon the designation of "enemy combatants" is largely obfuscation.

both international law and the geneva conventions address "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants.

so we can fine-tune our terminology, but let's not play games pretending that there are only uniformed, organized combatants and innocent civilians.

[dmytryp]

And even if there weren't such distinctions in the convention, there certainly are in life. The convention was written when the war was between standing armies. It isn't the case now. The law hadn't updated itself because, as I said, the states who fought such a threat so far didn't care either way (such as in S. America, Afghanistan by Russians etc.) or didn't face such a threat (such as most European countries) or are in denial about their own tactics (such as French in Algir and other places)

[William Haskins]

Well, it says "any person," not, "any citizen."

Seems clear to me.

the person referenced might well be one of "the people of the united states of america" who "ordained and established" the "constitution for the united states of america."

[Noah Body]

this seizing upon the designation of "enemy combatants" is largely obfuscation.

both international law and the geneva conventions address "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants.

so we can fine-tune our terminology, but let's not play games pretending that there are only uniformed, organized combatants and innocent civilians.

This is correct.

[clintl]

the person referenced might well be one of "the people of the united states of america" who "ordained and established" the "constitution for the united states of america."

Only if you ignore the fact that when "citizen" was meant, the word "citizen" was used. It's crystal clear that due process rights were not intended to be reserved only for US citizens, but were intended for anyone charged with a crime under the jurisdiction of the US or any state within the US. It's amazing that people are trying to establish a twisted interpretation for language that is quite clear.

[clintl]

this seizing upon the designation of "enemy combatants" is largely obfuscation.

both international law and the geneva conventions address "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants.

so we can fine-tune our terminology, but let's not play games pretending that there are only uniformed, organized combatants and innocent civilians.

Not really, when the Bush Administration tried to argue that the Geneva Convention didn't apply at all.

[SPMiller]

It's amazing that people are trying to establish a twisted interpretation for language that is quite clear.No, it's not amazing at all. Look at the names next to the posts. We've all been around here long enough to know who's going to say what.

I guess it's fun to go through the motions.

[William Haskins]

i defy you to go back and find any place in this thread or any other where i ever said that non-citizens have no right to any type of due process.

i have simply said that there is a distinction between the rights granted to citizens of the united states and those granted to non-citizens.

[William Haskins]

No, it's not amazing at all. Look at the names next to the posts. We've all been around here long enough to know who's going to say what.

what a bullshit post, sir.

[SPMiller]

I have yet to be surprised by anyone on this forum in recent memory, not even Dmytry, so no, it's not bullshit from my perspective. Maybe I'm just that perceptive.

[clintl]

i defy you to go back and find any place in this thread or any other where i ever said that non-citizens have no right to any type of due process.

i have simply said that there is a distinction between the rights granted to citizens of the united states and those granted to non-citizens.

Not in terms of due process when charged with a crime.

[dmytryp]

Only if you ignore the fact that when "citizen" was meant, the word "citizen" was used. It's crystal clear that due process rights were not intended to be reserved only for US citizens, but were intended for anyone charged with a crime under the jurisdiction of the US or any state within the US. It's amazing that people are trying to establish a twisted interpretation for language that is quite clear.
Then I expect you to go and protest that non-citizens aren't allowed to work in the US, unless they have an appropriate visa.

I also expect you to go and voicefully protest this (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3827171,00.html). (I actually think that in political reality the admin isoing the right hting here, but if you want to be consistent). Or this (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243259515568&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull). These are by far clearer violations of explicit US laws.

[Kaiser-Kun]

They aren't good people.

They are bad bad people.

we are at war with these animals.


Am I the only one who finds these kind of comments scary?

[Don]

Am I the only one who finds these kind of comments scary?
Nope. If anything, scary is an understatement, IMO.

[billythrilly7th]

Nope. If anything, scary is an understatement, IMO.

Yeah, real scary. The guys at Gitmo are bad people who we are at war with.


Oooooooh.

:rolleyes:

[Kaiser-Kun]

Yeah, real scary. The guys at Gitmo are bad people who we are at war with.


Oooooooh.

:rolleyes:

Oh, that wasn't the scary part. The scary part was that you were willing to degrade them from humans to animals without even knowing if they are innocent or not. Intolerance is scar-y.

[EclipsesMuse]

It's like several people I have heard (no not on this thread) say that the terrorists resposible for 9/11 should be executed without a trial. They don't deserve it. Now, I'm being kind in their wording here.

Everyone deserves the chance to prove whether they were guilty or innocent.

[Kaiser-Kun]

It's like several people I have heard (no not on this thread) say that the terrorists resposible for 9/11 should be executed without a trial. They don't deserve it. Now, I'm being kind in their wording here.

Everyone deserves the chance to prove whether they were guilty or innocent.

I once heard a guy who said he was willing to admit that it might be a bit uncomfortable*, but the prisoners are much better in Guantanamo because they get free healthcare.

*Yes, with that wording.

[EclipsesMuse]

:Jaw:
Waterboarding is "a bit uncomfortable?" Riiiight.

[Kaiser-Kun]

:Jaw:
Waterboarding is "a bit uncomfortable?" Riiiight.

The dumbass guy in question claimed he was going to try waterboarding himself with the help of a few friends to prove that it isn't torture.

[EclipsesMuse]

So, how'd that turn out?

[Kaiser-Kun]

So, how'd that turn out?

Never saw 'im again. I stay the hell out of the Politics Area of that forum ever since.

Anyway, the point of this story is that some people are morons intolerance is bad.

[William Haskins]

So, how'd that turn out?

he ratted out bin laden.

[EclipsesMuse]

:ROFL:

[dmytryp]

This seems relevant
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/10/US-Supreme-Court-In-terror-war-to-hell-with-international-law/UPI-45561263112200/

[Roger J Carlson]

This seems relevant
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/10/US-Supreme-Court-In-terror-war-to-hell-with-international-law/UPI-45561263112200/Interesting how practices under the previous administration that were abhorant are no longer quite so bad.

[Manuel Royal]

I get tired of hearing the prisoners at Gitmo referred to as "terrorists". Most of them have never been charged with a crime.

They should be either: A) Classified as Prisoners of War, with all the rights apertaining thereto;

B) Classified as civilian criminal suspects, charged with a crime, and prosecuted in civilian courts with full due process; or

C) Repatriated if possible, or otherwise released, because they've been illegally held without rights for eight fucking years, and any cases we do have are probably irredeemably tainted.

Note that a lot of Gitmo detainees probably didn't even do anything. They weren't "captured on the battlefield".

Personally, if a foreign country locked me up for over eight years without charges, I just might become a terrorist.

The Bill of Rights is more important to me than anything that any stateless terrorist organization could ever do. A lot of people started shitting their pants on 9/11 and decided they didn't care about those principles so much after all. Fuck 'em. Candyasses.

[Gretad08]

I get tired of hearing the prisoners at Gitmo referred to as "terrorists". Most of them have never been charged with a crime.

They should be either: A) Classified as Prisoners of War, with all the rights apertaining thereto;

B) Classified as civilian criminal suspects, charged with a crime, and prosecuted in civilian courts with full due process; or

C) Repatriated if possible, or otherwise released, because they've been illegally held without rights for eight fucking years, and any cases we do have are probably irredeemably tainted.

Note that a lot of Gitmo detainees probably didn't even do anything. They weren't "captured on the battlefield".

Personally, if a foreign country locked me up for over eight years without charges, I just might become a terrorist.

The Bill of Rights is more important to me than anything that any stateless terrorist organization could ever do. A lot of people started shitting their pants on 9/11 and decided they didn't care about those principles so much after all. Fuck 'em. Candyasses.


Charging them and trying them in either military or civilian court is fine with me. Get the evidence out there and let a decision come down the pike so we can all stop arguing about them.

I disagree that they probably didn't do anything though. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but in my opinion, they didn't get picked up for jaywalking. Chances are good that there was a reason they've been detained.

Maybe I have too much faith, but I have to think that out of all the people that have investigated the prisoners, arrested them, guarded them, cooked their meals, etc. at least a few of these people might be decent human beings, and a few of them might have spoken up about innocence if it's presence was obvious.

I just don't envision all of the military personnel that have been involved with Gitmo as moustache twisting villians intent on imprisoning the innocent.

[Roger J Carlson]

I get tired of hearing the prisoners at Gitmo referred to as "terrorists". Most of them have never been charged with a crime.

They should be either: A) Classified as Prisoners of War, with all the rights apertaining thereto;

B) Classified as civilian criminal suspects, charged with a crime, and prosecuted in civilian courts with full due process; or

C) Repatriated if possible, or otherwise released, because they've been illegally held without rights for eight fucking years, and any cases we do have are probably irredeemably tainted.

Note that a lot of Gitmo detainees probably didn't even do anything. They weren't "captured on the battlefield".

Personally, if a foreign country locked me up for over eight years without charges, I just might become a terrorist.

The Bill of Rights is more important to me than anything that any stateless terrorist organization could ever do. A lot of people started shitting their pants on 9/11 and decided they didn't care about those principles so much after all. Fuck 'em. Candyasses.Opinions are awfully easy to have when you have no responsibility for the outcome of implementing them. Whether or not our leadership over-reacted (and continues to over-react) is a matter of reasonable debate. But the terrorist threat is not.

Deriding people for "shitting themselves" after thousands of innocent civilians were killed in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvannia, our Pentagon was attacked, and our White House was targeted is the height of arrogance. I wonder how you would feel if you or your loved ones were the ones targeted.

[Sarpedon]

I quite agree that international law should not apply in such cases:

The rules of warfare are based on the idea of reciprocity: You treat your prisoners decently, and I will treat my prisoners decently. Since terrorists do not uphold that arrangement, and are unclaimed by any legitimate national government, it certainly ought not to apply.

However, I feel that a trial is necessary to establish that someone is a terrorist. You can't just call someone a terrorist and deprive them of their rights; you must try them and prove them a terrorist, and only then do they lose their rights.

There was once an old adage, that I haven't heard said in a long time: "Better fifty guilty men go free, than one innocent man be unjustly hanged." That used to be a principle of justice in this country, and others. It is a shame that it no longer seems to be applied.

[Kaiser-Kun]

I think the terrorism goals have already been achieved, when the population started feeling so scared, it was ready to allow the government to implement politics that defy human rights (illegal incarceration, no trial or legal defense, torture) in the name of the "War against Terror".

It's a very worrying thing to see how people are scared to the point of accept anything if the government says there's a possible terrorist threat involved.

[dmytryp]

I think the terrorism goals have already been achieved, when the population started feeling so scared, it was ready to allow the government to implement politics that defy human rights (illegal incarceration, no trial or legal defense, torture) in the name of the "War against Terror".

It's a very worrying thing to see how people are scared to the point of accept anything if the government says there's a possible terrorist threat involved.
Well, let's see what the goals of AQ were and whether they achieved any of them:
1. Overthrowing the Saudi gov? Nope, no achievement there.
2. Throwing foreign influence out of Islamic lands? Nope. I'd say the opposite is true.
3. Creating an Islamic Chaliphate on all lands once Muslim (including parts of Spain)? Strike three.

In addition, AQ and its allies were thoroughly kicked in Iraq (not completely, but thoroughly). The Taliban are no longer in control of Afghanistan (though they still constitute a major threat), ad went too far even for the Pakistanis. There was no major operation against US interests (not counting the military in Iraq and Afghanistan) since 9/11 (the biggest one is probably Ford Hood shooting). And while Osama Bin Laden is relatively meaningless in strategic terms he is either dead or hiding in some deep cave together with the rest of AQ leaders.

So, I'd say that declaring them victorious is rather problematic.

[Kaiser-Kun]

Well, let's see what the goals of AQ were and whether they achieved any of them:
1. Overthrowing the Saudi gov? Nope, no achievement there.
2. Throwing foreign influence out of Islamic lands? Nope. I'd say the opposite is true.
3. Creating an Islamic Chaliphate on all lands once Muslim (including parts of Spain)? Strike three.

In addition, AQ and its allies were thoroughly kicked in Iraq (not completely, but thoroughly). The Taliban are no longer in control of Afghanistan (though they still constitute a major threat), ad went too far even for the Pakistanis. There was no major operation against US interests (not counting the military in Iraq and Afghanistan) since 9/11 (the biggest one is probably Ford Hood shooting). And while Osama Bin Laden is relatively meaningless in strategic terms he is either dead or hiding in some deep cave together with the rest of AQ leaders.

So, I'd say that declaring them victorious is rather problematic.

I never mentioned Al-Qaeda, just terrorists. And since the point of terrorism is to create terror, I'd say they are victorious indeed.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant) (civilians).

[Sarpedon]

The goal of terrorists is not to create terror.

Terror is the method they use to achieve their political goals.

[Kaiser-Kun]

The goal of terrorists is not to create terror.

Terror is the method they use to achieve their political goals.

By scaring the people until they can be easily manipulated? Sounds like many governments to me. I'm confused now. =S

[Sarpedon]

Part of your confusion probably lies with the widespread misuse of the term. It is used as a blanket term to describe any non government violent group, when it is most properly used to describe a group that has specific political goals, and vows to inflict attacks on the target group until that goal is achieved. The IRA was perhaps the classic terrorist group. These many islamic groups are so muddled in their goals and tactics that it is hard to figure out what they are in fact doing.

[billythrilly7th]

Well, let's see what the goals of AQ were and whether they achieved any of them:
1. Overthrowing the Saudi gov? Nope, no achievement there.
2. Throwing foreign influence out of Islamic lands? Nope. I'd say the opposite is true.
3. Creating an Islamic Chaliphate on all lands once Muslim (including parts of Spain)? Strike three.

In addition, AQ and its allies were thoroughly kicked in Iraq (not completely, but thoroughly). The Taliban are no longer in control of Afghanistan (though they still constitute a major threat), ad went too far even for the Pakistanis. There was no major operation against US interests (not counting the military in Iraq and Afghanistan) since 9/11 (the biggest one is probably Ford Hood shooting). And while Osama Bin Laden is relatively meaningless in strategic terms he is either dead or hiding in some deep cave together with the rest of AQ leaders.

So, I'd say that declaring them victorious is rather problematic.

Agreed.

They've accomplished little. We don't walk around in terror. Concern isn't terror.

And allowing our government to take the reasonable, common sense steps necessary to try and protect us gives them nothing.

America is just as free and awesome for all it's law abiding citizens as it always has been.

For someone picked up on a battlefield or "bountied" or calling or emailing terrorists maybe not so much.

[dmytryp]

I never mentioned Al-Qaeda, just terrorists. And since the point of terrorism is to create terror, I'd say they are victorious indeed.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)
I am sorry, you are mixing the purposes of the tactic and the overall goals. Terrorism doesn't exist for the sole purpose of terrorising the population. In the end it has overarching goals behind them. And I don't agree with your assesment as well. The general public continues with its life. Yes, there precautions. But it's only to be expected.

[dmytryp]

By scaring the people until they can be easily manipulated? Sounds like many governments to me. I'm confused now. =S

Part of your confusion probably lies with the widespread misuse of the term. It is used as a blanket term to describe any non government violent group, when it is most properly used to describe a group that has specific political goals, and vows to inflict attacks on the target group until that goal is achieved. The IRA was perhaps the classic terrorist group. These many islamic groups are so muddled in their goals and tactics that it is hard to figure out what they are in fact doing.
Well, the main confusion is because of the mix-up between the tactics, strategy and the political goals.

A terrrist act is an at against a cvillian population. It is a tactic.

A terroris group is a group that uses terrorist acts as a modus operandi (as a strategy). There is a debate to be had whether there is an additional subset of organisations that use terrorist acts from time to time, but do not make them their main modus operandi.

Political goals vary between the different groups, but AQ's goals are as described above.

[Don]

Well, let's see what the goals of AQ were and whether they achieved any of them:
1. Overthrowing the Saudi gov? Nope, no achievement there.
2. Throwing foreign influence out of Islamic lands? Nope. I'd say the opposite is true.
3. Creating an Islamic Chaliphate on all lands once Muslim (including parts of Spain)? Strike three.
...
So, I'd say that declaring them victorious is rather problematic.
That's one way to look at it.

Here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis176.html)'s another.

Bin Laden proclaimed his grand strategy in the 1990’s. He would oust the modern "Crusaders’ by luring the US and its allies into a series of small, debilitating, hugely expensive wars to bleed and slowly bankrupt the US economy, which he called America’s Achilles’ heel.

Bloody attacks would enrage the US and lure it into one quagmire after another.
...
Today, Osama’s words haunt us as we witness hysteria and chaos engulf America’s air travel system, the war party in Washington demands the US invade Yemen, and the drums beat for war against Iran.

US airport security officials will be even more panicked when they learn a jihadist recently tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s interior minister, Prince Nayef, by detonating a bomb secreted in his rectum. Will we soon bend and spread for security – just like in prisons?

The American colossus continues to stumble ever deeper into the Muslim world’s violent, tangled affairs at a time when Washington is bankrupt and only runs on Chinese loans. In 2009, the US deficit was US $1.4 trillion. But Washington managed to spend $200 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by loading the costs onto the national credit card.

American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. US Special Forces, air units and CIA mercenaries are involved in combat operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, West Africa, North Africa and the Philippines. A new US base at Djibouti is launching raids into Yemen, Somalia and northern Kenya.

"He would oust the modern "Crusaders’ by luring the US and its allies into a series of small, debilitating, hugely expensive wars to bleed and slowly bankrupt the US economy."

Sounds like he's pretty much on target to date.

[dmytryp]

That's one way to look at it.

Here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis176.html)'s another.

"He would oust the modern "Crusaders’ by luring the US and its allies into a series of small, debilitating, hugely expensive wars to bleed and slowly bankrupt the US economy."

Sounds like he's pretty much on target to date.
Well, an original quote would be nice.
Second, you know perfectly well that the wars have little o do with American economic troubles today. So, no, not on target. And you haven't refuted (and won't be able to) any of the points I made.

As for economy being US Achilles' heel. I beg to differ. US economy is what made her superpower. While there are problems, you just need to look at how others weathered the last storm to understand that US economy is a strength, not a weakness. On the other hand, Bin Laden also considers democracy and nationalism weaknesses. *shrug*

EDIT: About that bleeding dry of US economy
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
Watch the first column (Annual GDP in current dollars). 2002 -- roughly 10 tril $, 2008 (and that's in the year of the huge downfall) -- about 14.5 tril. That's 45% growth. Add in the fact that the cost of the wars so far is about 1 tril $, you still have a very healthy growth. So, your hypothesis doesn't add up in actual numbers.