SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus
Article
here.
Personally, I think this will be a good thing in the long run.
I agree. A victory for the rule of law is a good thing.
If the bad guy's goal is to destroy our way of life, dismantling/ignoring/disrespecting our legal system is doing their work *for them*, right?
If they're a bad guy, then there should be evidence to prove it. If there isn't evidence to prove it then you can't say they're a bad guy. If you can prove it then you have no reason not to allow them a proper defence. If by allowing them a proper defence the evidence fails.....then so be it.
I can't agree more. Lets just bag the trials and send them all to their home countries immediately, whether they want to go there or not, and close the place. Burn it down.
If they're a bad guy, then there should be evidence to prove it. If there isn't evidence to prove it then you can't say they're a bad guy. If you can prove it then you have no reason not to allow them a proper defence. If by allowing them a proper defence the evidence fails.....then so be it.
Mark today on your calendar. DanaC and I agree on something. I agree with everything she said other than the spelling of the word "defense". These people should be taken to an American court and given access to American defense lawyers, and get all of the same due process as anyone born in America.
Yea, setting the first precident for illegals. But hey, now that the system is working in your favor you want to take advantage of it. What happened to the reams of discussion how the SCOTUS should not exist? But they have spoken. I support them in their decision making process.
Now this is something the Supreme Court has done right, alluding to a title on a thread on this board! If they ruled otherwise, Americans abroad, and every diplomat, is fair game for any despot, anybody who has a grudge. And the US couldn't do squat.
These people should be taken to an American court and given access to American defense lawyers, and get all of the same due process as anyone born in America.
This is a third time that a Supreme Court has ruled against this administration on Guantanamo - and almost nothing changed.
Well something like 450 of the 800 prisoners in Guantanamo were released as innocent after being imprisoned without judicial review for many years. Question remains how many are guilty. Typical numbers are 14 of 800 were guilty. How will the White House again subvert a Supreme Court ruling?
Now this is something the Supreme Court has done right, alluding to a title on a thread on this board! If they ruled otherwise, Americans abroad, and every diplomat, is fair game for any despot, anybody who has a grudge. And the US couldn't do squat.
Diplomats have diplomatic immunity because of treaty agreements. The most any foreign government can do to diplomats is expel them from the foreign government’s country.
Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo. But since Congress has the constitutional power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations and to make laws governing capture on both land and sea, anyone whom we have captured in Iraq or Afghanistan would be under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts (if we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would kick in but I don’t know if POWs would have automatic access to U.S. civil courts- we have tried enemy espionage agents in civil courts during times of war).
Furthermore, there is something inherently dangerous about any government that takes it upon itself to lock-up someone indefinitely without charge or trial. The rightwing media pundits that are hinting that the President/military should ignore the court and continue to keep people jailed at Gitmo are little different than the SS and Gestapo that routinely took criminal defendants into “protective custody” after they had been acquitted by German courts.
I loved Bush's comment on this. He said he agreed very strongly with the judges that dissented! lol
I loved Bush's comment on this. He said he agreed very strongly with the judges that dissented! lol
Did ya expect something different?:rolleyes:
Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo.
An additional point. George Jr attempted to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. That right can be suspended only during war. George Jr's presidential signings (that we know about) have essentially declared America at war. This Supreme Court ruling says the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended - implying that America is not at war.
Interesting question remains: what will the administration do this time to subvert the court's ruling.
This court ruling has suspended the July trial of Hamdan. This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.
and routine use of torture.
Supporting facts please for "routine".
An additional point. George Jr attempted to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. That right can be suspended only during war. George Jr's presidential signings (that we know about) have essentially declared America at war. This Supreme Court ruling says the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended - implying that America is not at war.
Interesting question remains: what will the administration do this time to subvert the court's ruling.
This court ruling has suspended the July trial of Hamdan. This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.
Habeas corpus is not an absolute right, and a declared state of war isn’t the only reason for suspending habeas corpus:
U.S. Constitution Article I
“The 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.”
9-11 could be construed as an invasion and thus habeas corpus could be suspended. But the problem here is how do we know when the invasion is over? The way GWB is fighting his so-called war on terror means that victory parameters don’t exist. Thus we could theoretically be perpetually in danger and habeas corpus could be suspended indefinitely.
Supporting facts please for "routine".
Does this means that you support
occasional torture?
Any act of torture on the part of the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. is deplorable.
Supporting facts please for "routine".
Why bother? Your extremist wacko politics ignores facts anyway. You never provide supporting facts for what you post. You blindly believe what George Jr decrees. You have admited your intelligence does not comprehend anything beyond the first paragraph - sound byte logic. Why bother?
So TheMercenary still denies America was routinely performing torture and extraordinary rendition? Routine from anyone who worships George Jr.
Why bother? Your extremist wacko politics ignores facts anyway. You never provide supporting facts for what you post. You blindly believe what George Jr decrees. You have admited your intelligence does not comprehend anything beyond the first paragraph - sound byte logic. Why bother?
So TheMercenary still denies America was routinely performing torture and extraordinary rendition? Routine from anyone who worships George Jr.
Correct. You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.
tw="You blindly believe what George Jr decrees."
You cannot support that satement either.
Further you have not answered to your statement:
Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…
So I would like you to post your facts surrounding this allegation. Like I said Tommy ole boy, put up or shut the fuck up. :D
Correct. You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition.
Again TheMercenary denies that torture and extraordinary rendition was ongoing. After all, that is the George Jr administration line. His storm troopers will repeat that lie forever. Extremists - a threat to the American culture, American way of life, and stability of the world. TheMercenary is again exposed spouting Cheney's political agenda. Was America torturing in Guantanamo? Then when General Miller was transferred to Abu Ghraib, torture did not happen there - according to TheMercenary. Denial is the wacko extremist line that even includes changing the definition of torture to justify it. But why rehash well published history. TheMercenary is so wacko extremist as to still deny it.
This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.
ORLY - Proof please, again - We can't take all your unfounded accusations as gospel. You keep stating things as fact then never back them up.
Does this means that you support occasional torture?
Occasionally.
Again TheMercenary denies that torture and extraordinary rendition was ongoing.
Wrong again, you are the wacko. I quoted you and as you have done with other who try to nail you down and get you to post original source supporting documents you have failed.
You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.
tw, note your use of the word
ROUTINE. This is what I expect you to prove. Since you seem so sure of yourself it shouldn't be to hard.
:
tw="You blindly believe what George Jr decrees."
You cannot support that satement either.
Further you have not answered to your statement:
:
Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…
So I would like you to post your facts surrounding this allegation. Like I said Tommy ole boy, put up or shut the fuck up. :D
What would be a reasonable amount of time that habeas corpus could be suspended due to war, invasion or insurrection?
If 9-11 is defined as an invasion and habeas corpus is suspended as a consequence, how could we alter the Constitution so that this invasion can be declared to be over so habeas corpus cannot be suspended indefinitely? As it stands now, what safeguards do we have to keep a president from using something like 9-11 as an excuse for suspending habeas corpus and locking up his political opponents?
You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.
Define 'routine'. If there are procedures in place for it and it is being done under the color of law, isn't that routine?
Everyone talks about Jack Bauer from '24'. If Jack Bauer needed to kill a 9-year-old girl to save a million lives, he might do it. Does that mean that someone needs to add a page to every manual on the methods and circumstances for killing 9-year-old girls?
The North Vietnamese were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. In theory, US prisoners had the same rights we grant detainees, which is whatever we decide and think we can get away with. Any intelligence the North Vietnamese could get could save lives, including civilian lives, so they considered themselves justified in their behavior. Do we consider that an excuse? I don't, and I don't think anyone else does except the North Vietnamese and their allies.
At this point there are probably as many people in the world who agree with the U.S. interrogation/rendition/detention policy as agree with North Vietnam's treatment of American POW's, and for pretty much the same reasons. Of course these aren't the same people.
We've already released prisoners from Guantanamo without charges. This was either a huge security breach or an admission that there was not enough evidence to find the suspects guilty even under a military tribunal.
A few decades from now, history will judge us. Unlike the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war and the Alien and Sedition Act, or the Japanese-American detentions, this is not an internal issue. It involves foreign nationals and affects our standing in the world.
I consider it simpler to allow prisoners and their lawyers to make nuisances of themselves than to give traction to the idea that America has lost it's values. A lot of talk has been made of civil suits. The fact is that the burden of proof is much lower in civil suits. OJ Simpson is an example of this. I can only assume that if we have detained these people for years, we must have enough evidence to at least deflect a civil suit. If this isn't the case, then the question becomes how flimsy was the case for their detention?
Define 'routine'. If there are procedures in place for it and it is being done under the color of law, isn't that routine?
Everyone talks about Jack Bauer from '24'. If Jack Bauer needed to kill a 9-year-old girl to save a million lives, he might do it. Does that mean that someone needs to add a page to every manual on the methods and circumstances for killing 9-year-old girls?
The North Vietnamese were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. In theory, US prisoners had the same rights we grant detainees, which is whatever we decide and think we can get away with. Any intelligence the North Vietnamese could get could save lives, including civilian lives, so they considered themselves justified in their behavior. Do we consider that an excuse? I don't, and I don't think anyone else does except the North Vietnamese and their allies.
At this point there are probably as many people in the world who agree with the U.S. interrogation/rendition/detention policy as agree with North Vietnam's treatment of American POW's, and for pretty much the same reasons. Of course these aren't the same people.
We've already released prisoners from Guantanamo without charges. This was either a huge security breach or an admission that there was not enough evidence to find the suspects guilty even under a military tribunal.
A few decades from now, history will judge us. Unlike the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war and the Alien and Sedition Act, or the Japanese-American detentions, this is not an internal issue. It involves foreign nationals and affects our standing in the world.
I consider it simpler to allow prisoners and their lawyers to make nuisances of themselves than to give traction to the idea that America has lost it's values. A lot of talk has been made of civil suits. The fact is that the burden of proof is much lower in civil suits. OJ Simpson is an example of this. I can only assume that if we have detained these people for years, we must have enough evidence to at least deflect a civil suit. If this isn't the case, then the question becomes how flimsy was the case for their detention?
The mere fact that we can have a discussion about the legitimacy of torture as a law enforcement/national security tool in the United States shows how far America has sunk when it comes to respecting the Constitution and the rights and liberties that we have fought and died to maintain for hundreds of years. America is not long for this world.
Let's not confuse the civil rights of American citizens with the Geneva protections of prisoners of war, which is what these fellows are de facto. The Geneva Conventions protections are also what they are getting.
What SCOTUS did was, well, really bending over backwards. I'm not sure I see the need, myself. Looks like some Justices see it my way too.
Let's not confuse the civil rights of American citizens with the Geneva protections of prisoners of war, which is what these fellows are de facto. The Geneva Conventions protections are also what they are getting.
What SCOTUS did was, well, really bending over backwards. I'm not sure I see the need, myself. Looks like some Justices see it my way too.
GWB’s war on terror has no defined victory parameters so it is for all intents and purposes a perpetual war. Under the Geneva Convention being a POW is not supposed to be a life sentence.
Furthermore, the Geneva Convention requires that POWs be encamped in a region that resembles the climate of the battlefield where they were captured. I doubt tropical Cuba is all that similar to Afghanistan.
And the Geneva Convention requires any country that holds POWs to give them the same pay that they holding country pays its own military personnel of the same rank. Is the U.S. paying salaries to anyone it is holding at Gitmo?
And the Geneva Convention prohibits torture, so any act of torture on the part of the U.S. or by any other country at the behest of the U.S. violates the Geneva Convention.
And under the Geneva Convention POWs are not required to give anything but their name, rank and serial number. They are not supposed to be interrogated for intelligence purposes. If the people we have locked up at Gitmo are really POWs, then we have no right to interrogate them about past, present or future terrorist operations.
Let's not confuse the civil rights of American citizens with the Geneva protections of prisoners of war, which is what these fellows are de facto. The Geneva Conventions protections are also what they are getting.
What SCOTUS did was, well, really bending over backwards. I'm not sure I see the need, myself. Looks like some Justices see it my way too.
I'm not sure these guys are getting full Geneva protections. If I remember correctly, the administration argued their status as 'enemy combatants' did not afford them full protection. Waterboarding is not allowed under the Geneva protocols.
Diplomats have diplomatic immunity because of treaty agreements. The most any foreign government can do to diplomats is expel them from the foreign government’s country.
Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo. But since Congress has the constitutional power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations and to make laws governing capture on both land and sea, anyone whom we have captured in Iraq or Afghanistan would be under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts (if we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would kick in but I don’t know if POWs would have automatic access to U.S. civil courts- we have tried enemy espionage agents in civil courts during times of war).
Furthermore, there is something inherently dangerous about any government that takes it upon itself to lock-up someone indefinitely without charge or trial. The rightwing media pundits that are hinting that the President/military should ignore the court and continue to keep people jailed at Gitmo are little different than the SS and Gestapo that routinely took criminal defendants into “protective custody” after they had been acquitted by German courts.
If the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, diplomatic immunity, Geneva conventions, treaties, etc are considered null and void, under the banner 'unlawful combatant.'
Let the record show that none of the anti-Guantanamo faction here -- anywhere really -- has any likelihood of winning the war any better if they do it their way. Which seems neither to be a way, nor a doing.
If the Democrats have a better war plan than the Republicans, it's a well kept secret. The leftists are explicit in their desire that the nation lose the war so they, the irresponsible left, could say we would and that we should have listened to them. As part of this, they're trying to con people into thinking that it's criminal to conduct foreign policy while being Republican, in conditions of war and conflict.
Crazy.
I think tw is gwb in disguise. I think it's all a plot to see what he can get away with among a group of 'readers'.
Geneva Convention applies to soldiers representing foreign countries and fighting for them. Which country is Osama bin Laden and company representing? What climate conditions represent the home country of an international band of murderers? Geneva doesn't apply to anarchists who murder and torture their own countrymen as well as everyone else.
I thought all the romantic creative writing in this genre was in the Cold Warrior Nominations thread, Ali! ;)
I don't think I've read that one.
Cold War Warrior of 2008 nominations. I'm trying, with little success, to stay out of that one. So far all I'm managing is to avoid is any substantive remark that might, um, influence the selection process. :cool:
I've just read it. So far you're the only official nominee. I think someone should nominate Radar personally.
If the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, diplomatic immunity, Geneva conventions, treaties, etc are considered null and void, under the banner 'unlawful combatant.'
A Supreme Court ruling in this country would not keep a U.S. diplomat from being expelled from a foreign country if he violates the law. And whether or not a U.S. diplomat is an enemy combatant or a criminal in another country depends on what that country's courts say, not ours.
Let the record show that none of the anti-Guantanamo faction here -- anywhere really -- has any likelihood of winning the war any better if they do it their way. Which seems neither to be a way, nor a doing.
If the Democrats have a better war plan than the Republicans, it's a well kept secret. The leftists are explicit in their desire that the nation lose the war so they, the irresponsible left, could say we would and that we should have listened to them. As part of this, they're trying to con people into thinking that it's criminal to conduct foreign policy while being Republican, in conditions of war and conflict.
Crazy.
How can you lose a war when the people that are in favor of fighting it haven’t determined what constitutes victory? Will the war be won if we manage to pacify Iraq- or would the GWB’s the world find another country to invade in the name of fighting terrorism?
As long as we fight “terrorists” we will not win. Our enemy is not terrorists, but rather Islam, which is inherently hostile to American ideals. Killing a terrorist will simply mean another Moslem is waiting to take his place.
Geneva Convention applies to soldiers representing foreign countries and fighting for them. Which country is Osama bin Laden and company representing? What climate conditions represent the home country of an international band of murderers? Geneva doesn't apply to anarchists who murder and torture their own countrymen as well as everyone else.
It isn't the POW's home country's climate that must be duplicated, but rather the climate of the place where the POW was captured. Germany is neither subtropical or arid, but some places in the Mediterranean are so the U.S. had POW camps for Germans in subtropical Florida and the arid West.
Chances are the closest classification that someone like Bin Laden could have under the U.S. Constitution is pirate. Congress can make laws to punish piracy as well as laws to both define and punish offences against international law. It can also make laws regulating captures made on land and water. Some of Congress’ power has been delegated to the Geneva Convention by treaty. If our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are considered acts of war under international treaties that the U.S. has signed, then the people we capture in Afghanistan and Iraq are POWs as far as the international community is concerned. But if these people don’t have POW status, then they are under the regulation of Congress because of Congress’ enumerated powers. This status would put them under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts and this would give them U.S. legal due process rights.
Our enemy is not terrorists, but rather Islam, which is inherently hostile to American ideals. Killing a terrorist will simply mean another Moslem is waiting to take his place.
Excellent point. All 1 billion or so followers of Islam are basically just terrorists-in-waiting. Let's switch to indiscriminately killing "moslems" until they all decide to love America.
Geneva Convention applies to soldiers representing foreign countries and fighting for them. Which country is Osama bin Laden and company representing? What climate conditions represent the home country of an international band of murderers? Geneva doesn't apply to anarchists who murder and torture their own countrymen as well as everyone else.
How quick we are to deny rights to others.
I would rather the US take the moral high ground instead of gerrymandering around who deserves rights and who doesn't.
Our enemy is not terrorists, but rather Islam, which is inherently hostile to American ideals. Killing a terrorist will simply mean another Moslem is waiting to take his place.
Placing the blame on all members of a particular religion didn't work out so well for the Nazis.
Yes. I know about Godwin. It's still a valid analogy.
How quick we are to deny rights to others.
I would rather the US take the moral high ground instead of gerrymandering around who deserves rights and who doesn't.
Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government? They especially do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.
Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government?
Because that's one of the principles that America was founded on. You don't know that any given person incarcerated in Guantanamo is guilty of murdering anyone unless and until they have a chance to a fair trial.
It often seems to me that those who are loudest in wanting to protect our country are the quickest to forget what made it worth protecting in the first place.
There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.
Actually, the wimps here would be the people who would be afraid to try them openly in a court of law. Either you have evidence against them or you don't.
They especially do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
I realize there's no context here in this quote, but I want to ask, do you mean they don't have the same 'inallienable' rights as US citizens, or do you mean the same 'legal' rights? The two are obviously very different and need some clarification.
My reason for suggesting this is that if it's inallienable rights you're talking about, then surely every human being has the same rights. It's just that some nations/religions/races don't acknowledge them.
Sigh. 'Unlawful combatant' status override diplomatic immunity. The way the Bush administration had it, once you are declared an unlawful combatant, no diplomatic immunity, no US citizenship, nor right to habeas corpus can save you. The SC at least granted a hearing regarding habeas corpus.
Excellent point. All 1 billion or so followers of Islam are basically just terrorists-in-waiting. Let's switch to indiscriminately killing "moslems" until they all decide to love America.
I don't care one bit whether or not the Moslems love America as long they fear America to the point that they do not attack America or its allies.
BTW: Following the American Revolutionary War this country's first military encounter (apart from fighting Indians and a quasi-war with revolutionary France) was with the pirates of the Barbary Coast, i.e., Moslems.
Placing the blame on all members of a particular religion didn't work out so well for the Nazis.
Yes. I know about Godwin. It's still a valid analogy.
The Nazis classified Jews according to their ethnicity, not their religion. If you had so much as a single grandparent that was Jewish you were considered to be Jewish under German law regardless of what religion you practiced.
The Arabs are the only people that could possibly have an ethnic beef against the Jews (and this is assuming that the Arabs are really descended from Abraham through Ishmael). Islam is not limited to Arabs, but Moslems in general the world over tend to hate the Jews (and by extension the U.S.). The Arabs, “Palestinians”, Syrians, Iranians etcetera are anti-Semitic and anti-American not because they are Arabic, “Palestinian”, Syrian or Iranian, but because they are Islamic.
Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government?
Would you like to comment on the allied fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo? Women and children are often legitimate targets in a defensive war. The trouble with Islamic terrorists is that they believe they are fighting a defensive war.
They especially do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.
U.S. Constitution
5th Amendment
“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; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
The Constitution makes no distinction between a citizen of the United States and all other persons. If we are holding the people at Gitmo under a treaty that the U.S. has signed, then these people must be treated in accordance with the treaty. If we are holding these people under U.S. law, they are entitled to the same legal due process that our own citizens are entitled to.
Islam is not limited to Arabs, but Moslems in general the world over tend to hate the Jews (and by extension the U.S.). The Arabs, “Palestinians”, Syrians, Iranians etcetera are anti-Semitic and anti-American not because they are Arabic, “Palestinian”, Syrian or Iranian, but because they are Islamic.
You do realise you have a sizable moslem community in the US right? Do you think they hate the US as well?
I realize there's no context here in this quote, but I want to ask, do you mean they don't have the same 'inallienable' rights as US citizens, or do you mean the same 'legal' rights? The two are obviously very different and need some clarification.
My reason for suggesting this is that if it's inallienable rights you're talking about, then surely every human being has the same rights. It's just that some nations/religions/races don't acknowledge them.
“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.”
The Declaration of Independence makes no distinction between American citizens and everybody else. Americans cannot claim rights from God that we won’t allow others to have without being the biggest hypocrites on earth.
You do realise you have a sizable moslem community in the US right? Do you think they hate the US as well?
Back in the 1980s my neighborhood was becoming a majority black neighborhood and Moslems began infiltrating the black churches in the neighborhood with the full intent of preaching hatred for all things America in hopes that someday there would be a black/Muslim uprising in this country.
I’ve seen it claimed on the internet that Barak Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, used to be a Muslim. And let’s not forget the Islamic Louis Farrakhan.
The Nazis classified Jews according to their ethnicity, not their religion. If you had so much as a single grandparent that was Jewish you were considered to be Jewish under German law regardless of what religion you practiced.
The Arabs are the only people that could possibly have an ethnic beef against the Jews (and this is assuming that the Arabs are really descended from Abraham through Ishmael). Islam is not limited to Arabs, but Moslems in general the world over tend to hate the Jews (and by extension the U.S.). The Arabs, “Palestinians”, Syrians, Iranians etcetera are anti-Semitic and anti-American not because they are Arabic, “Palestinian”, Syrian or Iranian, but because they are Islamic.
Ok. Hmmm. I'm starting to think you are just flinging stuff on the wall to see what will stick.
All of the above has nothing to do with categorizing people strictly based on their religion -- which you did in your original post, nor with my analogy, which was mostly to say "it's bad to do that".
First of all, Arabs and Jews are ethnically the same. As Bobby Fischer said when asked if he was anti-Semite, 'I'm not anti-Arab.'
I don't care one bit whether or not the Moslems love America as long they fear America to the point that they do not attack America or its allies.
BTW: Following the American Revolutionary War this country's first military encounter (apart from fighting Indians and a quasi-war with revolutionary France) was with the pirates of the Barbary Coast, i.e., Moslems.
The radical Muslims are beyond fearing anybody. They are in the 'I don't give a fuck' mode.
You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.
Anyone with basic intelllgence has read the numerous facts that the United States government authorized torture. Today, another source states facts again and cites names - senior George Jr administration officials. From the Washington Post of 17 Jun 2008:
Report Questions Pentagon Accounts
Officials Looked Into Interrogation Methods Early On
A Senate investigation has concluded that top Pentagon officials began assembling lists of harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002 for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and that those officials later cited memos from field commanders to suggest that the proposals originated far down the chain of command, according to congressional sources briefed on the findings.
The sources said that memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.
... military lawyers raised strong concerns about the legality of the practices as early as November 2002, a month before Rumsfeld approved them. The findings contradict previous accounts by top Bush administration appointees, ...
"Some have suggested that detainee abuses committed by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and at Guantanamo were the result of a 'few bad apples' acting on their own. It would be a lot easier to accept if that were true," ... "Senior officials in the United States government sought out information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
... memos and e-mails obtained by investigators reveal that in July 2002, Haynes and other Pentagon officials were soliciting ideas for harsh interrogations from military experts in survival training, according to two congressional officials familiar with the committee's investigation. By late July, a list was compiled that included many of the techniques that would later be formally approved for use at Guantanamo Bay, including stress positions, sleep deprivation and the hooding of detainees during questioning. The techniques were later used at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq.
Haynes was General Counsel for the Defense Department and Rumsfeld.
Haynes and other senior administration officials also visited Guantanamo Bay in September 2002 to "talk about techniques," said one congressional official. Also on the trip was David S. Addington, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. ...
The Senate committee's findings echo earlier claims by many congressional Democrats, human rights groups and other administration critics who have maintained that responsibility for the controversial interrogation practices lies at the highest levels of the administration.
Wacko extremists approve of extraordinary rendition, torture, and even lie about it. TheMercenary, for the glory of his political agenda, again denies what was well known. Personal attacks on anyone who challenges their immorality is also expected since TheMercenary never has facts (that would also require an education).
Nobody decent doubts what the Senate investigation again confirms. Wacko extremists will deny it to defend a despicable George Jr. Since torture and other civil rights violations were authorized by the mental midget administration, wacko extremist must deny another report that says same. To dispute the Senate investigation, wacko extremists (ie TheMercenary) must again attack the messenger.
Ok. Hmmm. I'm starting to think you are just flinging stuff on the wall to see what will stick.
All of the above has nothing to do with categorizing people strictly based on their religion -- which you did in your original post, nor with my analogy, which was mostly to say "it's bad to do that".
I know that I categorized Moslems according to their religion, and I meant to do so. But when you said that the Nazis categorized the Jews according to their religion, you are flat wrong.
First of all, Arabs and Jews are ethnically the same. As Bobby Fischer said when asked if he was anti-Semite, 'I'm not anti-Arab.'
Other than historical tradition, your proof that Jews and Arabs are the same ethnicity is what?
The Arabs are the only people that could possibly have an ethnic beef against the Jews (and this is assuming that the Arabs are really descended from Abraham through Ishmael). Islam is not limited to Arabs, but Moslems in general the world over tend to hate the Jews (and by extension the U.S.). The Arabs, “Palestinians”, Syrians, Iranians etcetera are anti-Semitic and anti-American not because they are Arabic, “Palestinian”, Syrian or Iranian, but because they are Islamic.
I disagree. Singapore is an Islamic country but they do not display a great deal of anti-American sentiment. The Middle-Eastern countries have a beef against Israel and this can often lead to a wider sense of anti-semitism. Their problem with Israel is based, however, on a territorial dispute.
I find it rather disturbing that you feel so confident in ascribing specific, racist views to a religion which is so widely followed in the world. There are many moslems who are anti-semitic. There are many Christians who are anti-semitic. There are also many of both who are not.
You accuse them of anti-semitism and in doing so display your own anti-islamic prejudice.
I’ve seen it claimed on the internet that...
ha ha ha that's classic ... best argument ever
The Constitution makes no distinction between a citizen of the United States and all other persons.
I believe it does.
"
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.
Sigh. 'Unlawful combatant' status override diplomatic immunity. The way the Bush administration had it, once you are declared an unlawful combatant, no diplomatic immunity, no US citizenship, nor right to habeas corpus can save you. The SC at least granted a hearing regarding habeas corpus.
Although I am not sure I ever agreed with it I can see why they did it at the time and there was some value in using the term Unlawful Combatant in a legal sense. If you look at the Law of Land Warefare there is a bit about uniformed organized armies and others. We encountered something all together different.
Like O.J.
[COLOR="Yellow"]But not R. Kelly![/COLOR]
We encountered something all together different.
True. However, just because there are new types of combatants, doesn't mean we get to ignore the law. Why not come up with workable definitions that didn't come skirt legal lines? Or, for that matter, that we some built-in checks and balances (like, you know, the REST of the goverment) to make sure that even if we were detaining really bad people, that we were sure they were, in fact, really bad people. I don't think anyone really wants the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks running around Washington D.C. However, we imprisoned people from Afghanistan that were working on our side and were ratted out as 'terrorists.'
Is that too much to ask to make sure that we've got the right people?
I disagree. Singapore is an Islamic country but they do not display a great deal of anti-American sentiment.
Get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore
Singapore is not an Islamic country. 51% of the population is Buddhist or Taoist. Only 13.9% is Islamic.
ha ha ha that's classic ... best argument ever
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a74fca23-f6ac-4736-9c78-f4163d4f25c7&p=8
Would you believe
The New Republic?
“…Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist…”
I've seen it claimed on the internet that my bananaphone is cellular, modular, interactive-oldular.
I believe it does.
"We the people of the United States,
Did we the people include women people who could not vote in America until 1920? Or did this country routinely fine, jail and execute women without giving them their due process rights? Women had no role in preparing the Constitution and thus could not be construed as being any part of “We the People”, but women still had the same legal due process rights that citizens of the United States enjoyed.
So what makes you so certain that the Persons to which the 5th Amendment is applicable is limited to U.S. citizens?
Although I am not sure I ever agreed with it I can see why they did it at the time and there was some value in using the term Unlawful Combatant in a legal sense. If you look at the Law of Land Warefare there is a bit about uniformed organized armies and others. We encountered something all together different.
What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?
Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?
True. However, just because there are new types of combatants, doesn't mean we get to ignore the law. Why not come up with workable definitions that didn't come skirt legal lines? Or, for that matter, that we some built-in checks and balances (like, you know, the REST of the goverment) to make sure that even if we were detaining really bad people, that we were sure they were, in fact, really bad people. I don't think anyone really wants the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks running around Washington D.C. However, we imprisoned people from Afghanistan that were working on our side and were ratted out as 'terrorists.'
Is that too much to ask to make sure that we've got the right people?
If terms like unlawful combatant can be defined by the people in power at the moment for the sake of their own convenience, what happens if a president someday decides to classify people as unlawful combatants simply because they picket the White House or do something like going to church?
As soon as our political leaders decide that they are above the law, the law will cease to protect all of us. You may not be on the great leader’s enemy list today, but what about tomorrow?
Did we the people include women people who could not vote in America until 1920? Or did this country routinely fine, jail and execute women without giving them their due process rights? Women had no role in preparing the Constitution and thus could not be construed as being any part of “We the People”, but women still had the same legal due process rights that citizens of the United States enjoyed.
So what makes you so certain that the Persons to which the 5th Amendment is applicable is limited to U.S. citizens?
It is obvious things have morphed since the beginning, no doubt. The situation was the same for blacks and American Indians. But the Constitution was never intended to address people not in the US.
What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?
Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?
I'm sorry but I don't buy your examples from 200 years ago. Much has changed as a direct result of each successive conflict, esp in the 20th Century. What happened at Lexington and Concord is interesting but not as relevant. L&C was in April of 1775 and the Constitution was written in its final form in Sept of 1787, 12 years later. The Constitution is a living breathing document. We have been through this with another poster on here and if you are going to assume a dogmatic position and not take into account any of the changes over the past 200 years then we can't continue to debate the merits of any decision made or event that has occured since.
Get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore
Singapore is not an Islamic country. 51% of the population is Buddhist or Taoist. Only 13.9% is Islamic.
You are right lol. I meant Indonesia *rolls eyes*.
Funny thing is that when I read your post, I thought "Indonesia" not "Singapore." I guess I was trying to understand you.
Same here!
Must be the region and the capital punishment stance.
I tell you this: if Britain declared the US revolutionaries in 1776 'illegal combatants', or the like, there would be no United States today.
I tell you this: if Britain declared the US revolutionaries in 1776 'illegal combatants', or the like, there would be no United States today.
More or less they did, and it was their downfall as they failed to recognize, initally and prior to 1776, that it was an organized event.
I believe it does.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.
Merc, perhaps you missed my point in my post which asked the question about inalienable rights. Are these particular rights only applicable to American citizens or do they apply to all human beings?
What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?
Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?
They were 'unlawful combatants' in British eyes, as were the Texas volunteers during the war with Mexico. Santana certainly thought so after the
Battle of the Alamo.
When the firing ended, Santa Anna joined his men inside the Alamo. According to many accounts of the battle, between five and seven Texians surrendered during the battle, possibly to General Castrillon. Edmondson speculates that these men might have been sick or wounded and were therefore unable to fight. Incensed that his orders had been ignored, Santa Anna demanded the immediate execution of the survivors. Although Castrillon and several other officers refused to do so, staff officers who had not participated in the fighting drew their swords and killed the unarmed Texians.
There's always someone willing to do the job.
Merc, perhaps you missed my point in my post which asked the question about inalienable rights. Are these particular rights only applicable to American citizens or do they apply to all human beings?
I did not miss your point. This is a good discussion:
On second thought that link went into some Religon BS that I don't support
Certainly "all" men (and women for you people who want to split hairs) have certain rights. But all those rights are not guaranteed by our, the US Constitution, which I believe only pertains to US citizens. I am spit on a number of these issues. I have wrestled with a number of them in my head over the years as I have been involved in much of that as a member of the Armed Forces. The concepts are simple, the application is more difficult.
Well surely if an American citizen believes in their constitution, then the idea of inalienable rights must extend to all human beings. If they're inalienable then there really can't be an argument against those rights unless you want to appear to be living by a double standard.
Just because your government guarantees them to your citizens surely doesn't mean that other non US citizens don't have them.
I think the issue is that if the people of the US live under the assumption or idea of inalienable rights, then surely anyone who has any dealings with the US regardless of the nature of those dealings, must be assumed to have those very same rights simply because they are inalienable. They're natural or 'God given' if that's your preferred wording.
It is obvious things have morphed since the beginning, no doubt. The situation was the same for blacks and American Indians. But the Constitution was never intended to address people not in the US.
Then why does the Constitution grant Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"?
If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?
I'm sorry but I don't buy your examples from 200 years ago. Much has changed as a direct result of each successive conflict, esp in the 20th Century. What happened at Lexington and Concord is interesting but not as relevant. L&C was in April of 1775 and the Constitution was written in its final form in Sept of 1787, 12 years later. The Constitution is a living breathing document. We have been through this with another poster on here and if you are going to assume a dogmatic position and not take into account any of the changes over the past 200 years then we can't continue to debate the merits of any decision made or event that has occured since.
In other words you have no respect for the rule of law if it doesn’t mean what you personally want it to mean.
Well the way I see it is that we do guarantee them to our citizens but there is no way that we can gurantee them to others who are outside of our borders. And if you are here illegally you are afforded some protections, but not all of them since by being here illegally you have broken our laws and are by all rights a criminal, and if you are captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers you are not guanteed them either. I am not all into the "God given" approach, although I believe that was the intent at the time. Sure I have a double standard when it comes to non-citizens. Just because you have "dealings" with our country in no way affords you all of our rights. That, I believe, is patently ridiculous. If I deal with your country are you going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? If I go to Pakistan or the Sudan or Nigeria, are they going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? Hell no. So why should we?
In other words you have no respect for the rule of law if it doesn’t mean what you personally want it to mean.
No, it means you can't twist around my words or the Constitution, current law, or advancements in law so it can mean what you want it to mean.
Then why does the Constitution grant Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"?
If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?
Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.
But if those rights are in fact 'inalienable' then surely that means you have no right to restrict them, if in fact you can.
I think we might need to define the term 'inalienable' because that seems to be the issue although we have had this discussion here several times in the past.
Inalienable is interchangeable with natural as far as rights are concerned. If right is natural, then how can you possibly say that everyone is not entitled to them?
If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?
Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.
Do you see the double standard here Merc? If your country (any country, not just the US) makes laws concerning non citizens, then there must be some recourse for those non-citizens. It's ok to say that people must live by the law of the land etc, but if there's two sets of laws, that seems a little bit unbalanced and unstable.
"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."
No where does it say that you are in some way guarenteed the right to happiness, only that you can pursuit them. It is quite evident that any and all governments selectively take away individual rights when they are abused for criminal acts. Ours included.
Do you see the double standard here Merc? If your country (any country, not just the US) makes laws concerning non citizens, then there must be some recourse for those non-citizens. It's ok to say that people must live by the law of the land etc, but if there's two sets of laws, that seems a little bit unbalanced and unstable.
I just do not agree, every country in the world has two sets of laws for citizens and non-citizens. Why should the US be different. We have allowed people to take advantage of the loop holes in our society for to long. IMHO, since 9/11 all that was changed and the gloves are off, permanently. It is the price of doing business in this ever changing world. If we do not adapt to the ever increasing threats we shall perish.
Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?
I tell you this: if Britain declared the US revolutionaries in 1776 'illegal combatants', or the like, there would be no United States today.
Why?
More or less they did, and it was their downfall as they failed to recognize, initally and prior to 1776, that it was an organized event.
The combat at Lexington and Concord was pretty much not an organized event. Even if every American that was shooting at the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord were part of the Massachusetts militia, they were not under the command of the colonial governor. They did not have any legal sanction.
After the British made it back to Boston, armed men from other colonies went to Massachusetts to help with the siege. And even when these armed men were adopted as the colonial army by the Continental Congress in June of 1775 they were still illegal because the Continental Congress did not have any legal standing in the international community at that time.
I did not miss your point. This is a good discussion:
On second thought that link went into some Religon BS that I don't support
Certainly "all" men (and women for you people who want to split hairs) have certain rights. But all those rights are not guaranteed by our, the US Constitution, which I believe only pertains to US citizens. I am spit on a number of these issues. I have wrestled with a number of them in my head over the years as I have been involved in much of that as a member of the Armed Forces. The concepts are simple, the application is more difficult.
So on what grounds do we have the people at Gitmo locked up? Are they not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Well the way I see it is that we do guarantee them to our citizens but there is no way that we can gurantee them to others who are outside of our borders.
Then perhaps our troops should stay within our borders?
Is Gitmo not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If it is under U.S. jurisdiction, can we not guarantee the detainees we have there the same rights that the U.S. government guarantees its own citizens?
And if you are here illegally you are afforded some protections, but not all of them since by being here illegally you have broken our laws and are by all rights a criminal, and if you are captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers you are not guanteed them either.
How do you know that illegals are here illegally before you give them at least a hearing in court to ascertain their status? You seem to be in the habit of presuming people to be guilty, which is anathema to U.S. jurisprudence.
So on what grounds do we have the people at Gitmo locked up? Are they not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I am not about to defend all of the enemy combatants captured and sent to Gitmo. Many should go home. If I have my way they will all go home to their home countries and let their own govenments do as they want with them. The way I understand it is there is only a handfull that should and will stand trial under US law, even if it is by Military Tribunal. Enemy Combatants are not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness any more than a serial killer in the US or anyone else who is accused of a crime is entitled to such rights. You lose them when you take up arms against me.
No, it means you can't twist around my words or the Constitution, current law, or advancements in law so it can mean what you want it to mean.
I haven’t twisted anything. You are the one trying to make the Constitution mean something that its plain wording does not mean.
BTW: Can you cite anything in Madison’s Notes or the Federalist Papers to show that the people who actually prepared the Constitution thought it means what you say it means regarding restricting legal due process to citizens?
Then perhaps our troops should stay within our borders?
Is Gitmo not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If it is under U.S. jurisdiction, can we not guarantee the detainees we have there the same rights that the U.S. government guarantees its own citizens?
No, I do not buy that they are afforded the same rights.
How do you know that illegals are here illegally before you give them at least a hearing in court to ascertain their status? You seem to be in the habit of presuming people to be guilty, which is anathema to U.S. jurisprudence.
How could they be illegals if they are not here illegally? Who says illegals are not given a hearing? Why do you need a hearing if you are caught by the Border Patrol jumping a fence? Such anathema to US jurisprudence is practiced legally everyday.
I haven’t twisted anything. You are the one trying to make the Constitution mean something that its plain wording does not mean.
BTW: Can you cite anything in Madison’s Notes or the Federalist Papers to show that the people who actually prepared the Constitution thought it means what you say it means regarding restricting legal due process to citizens?
No, no one can including you. This is an area where there is much discussion. Plain wording? Please. People which much greater credentials than you or I have been having these debates for 200 years.
You have mistaken me for someone who is here to convince you of my position. I am not. I certainly don't support your position and you are not going to change my mind on my view of it.
btw, you still have not answered this question, "Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?"
Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.
You are the most obtuse person that I have encountered on the net in quite a while. The 5th Amendment says person, it does not say citizen. You have yet to present anything other than your own opinion as evidence that the Constitution limits legal due process to citizens.
You are the most obtuse person that I have encountered on the net in quite a while. The 5th Amendment says person, it does not say citizen. You have yet to present anything other than your own opinion as evidence that the Constitution limits legal due process to citizens.
Most certainly I did. It is in black and white post #62. It is written on paper on the Constitution itself:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.
"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."
No where does it say that you are in some way guarenteed the right to happiness, only that you can pursuit them. It is quite evident that any and all governments selectively take away individual rights when they are abused for criminal acts. Ours included.
By locking people up at Gitmo has our government not taken away their right to liberty and to pursue happiness? And just how do know that these people deserve to have these rights taken from them for criminal activity if we have proven in a court or tribunal that they are in fact criminals?
Why don’t you give us a list of countries that take away inalienable rights of non-citizens without American-style legal due process?
I just do not agree, every country in the world has two sets of laws for citizens and non-citizens.
Your documentation for this claim is what?
By locking people up at Gitmo has our government not taken away their right to liberty and to pursue happiness? And just how do know that these people deserve to have these rights taken from them for criminal activity if we have proven in a court or tribunal that they are in fact criminals?
Why don’t you give us a list of countries that take away inalienable rights of non-citizens without American-style legal due process?
Why don't you give me a list of countries that do not? Do some research and get back to me. Have you been to any third world countries. How about Africa. I can name quite a few. American-style due process is just that, American. Some other countries have similar laws but they are not the same. Look up Miranda Warnings, what other countries have those?
Just how do you know that these criminals have the rights afforded to them?
Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?
What has this to do with the topic under discussion? If you agree that inalienable rights exist, it does not matter what the source of these rights is.
Your documentation for this claim is what?
Name those that do not. A very simple search on google will yield you thousands of searches.
I am not about to defend all of the enemy combatants captured and sent to Gitmo.
Without a trial with legal due process rights, how do you know which, if any, of the people held at Gitmo are enemy combatants?
The way I understand it is there is only a handfull that should and will stand trial under US law, even if it is by Military Tribunal.
You say that non-citizens have no legal due process rights in America, so why bother to give anyone at Gitmo a trial? Why not simply authorize you to go down there and bash all of their heads in because they are not U.S. citizens?
Enemy Combatants are not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness any more than a serial killer in the US or anyone else who is accused of a crime is entitled to such rights.
You’d make a good Nazi since you would willfully deprive anyone who is merely accused of a crime (and I would presume by your statement that you include citizens and non-citizens alike) of their due process rights just because they have been accused.
How could they be illegals if they are not here illegally? Who says illegals are not given a hearing?
No one, but this is my entire point. We don't know that an illegal is an illegal without giving them legal due process whereby they are proven to be illegal.
What has this to do with the topic under discussion? If you agree that inalienable rights exist, it does not matter what the source of these rights is.
Because if you are using our Constitution as an example of "inalienable rights", and you want to use literal examples of such a right, then you must agree that some form of a higher power gives them to you:
"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."
You can't cherry pick the bits you want to agree with if we follow your track of literal translations.
No, no one can including you. This is an area where there is much discussion. Plain wording? Please. People which much greater credentials than you or I have been having these debates for 200 years.
Amazing. The only thing you know of me is what has transpired on this board. But yet you presume to know what my credentials are.
No one, but this is my entire point. We don't know that an illegal is an illegal without giving them legal due process whereby they are proven to be illegal.
Well are they illegals or not? I am using your terms. Either you are here legally or not. So by your reasoning if we capture people who have jumped our border we have to give them a hearing? Hmmm, I think not.
Amazing. The only thing you know of me is what has transpired on this board. But yet you presume to know what my credentials are.
Amazing. So far I know that I do not agree with your statements, that much is clear. I am not really interested in your credentials. This is a discussion on a forum, not really all that important in the greater scheme.
Does this means that you support occasional torture?
Any act of torture on the part of the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. is deplorable.
So far this is not a discussion about torture. That would be another discussion. Don't change the subject. Answer my previous questions if you want to continue.
Without a trial with legal due process rights, how do you know which, if any, of the people held at Gitmo are enemy combatants?
I don't have all the answers. So far as they are not US Citizens I do not believe they have the same rights as the rest of us. What part of that did you miss? I am not asking you to agree with me.
You say that non-citizens have no legal due process rights in America, so why bother to give anyone at Gitmo a trial? Why not simply authorize you to go down there and bash all of their heads in because they are not U.S. citizens?
Because I would rather send them directly to their home countries and let them do with them as they wish, not my problem.
You’d make a good Nazi since you would willfully deprive anyone who is merely accused of a crime (and I would presume by your statement that you include citizens and non-citizens alike) of their due process rights just because they have been accused.
Amazing. The only thing you know of me is what has transpired on this board. But yet you presume to know what my credentials are.
Most certainly I did. It is in black and white post #62. It is written on paper on the Constitution itself:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.
Amendment V
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; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…
Amendment V
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; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…
The Constitution is for US citizens alone.
"
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.
I am still waiting for you to cite where the United States Constitution applies to all people of the world who are not citizens of the United States.
Well, flaja, you could start by reading up on the Semitic language family and their internal resemblances. And be very careful about bellowing "Nazi!" -- this lot will invoke Godwin's Law of Flame Fights at the drop of an eyeshade (come to think of it, an eye
patch), let alone the drop of a hat.
LookLex
Semitic Languages (and Phoenician)flaja: from the New York Times article you linked to -
The protests, in at least four cities, remained relatively small, but radical Muslim groups said they were preparing larger demonstrations and repeated their warnings that they might attack foreigners here.
Indonesia is a largely moderate Muslim country and President Megawati Sukarnoputri has announced her qualified support for the United States in its campaign against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. But the anger of the fringe groups that are holding demonstrations reflects a broad resentment of the United States and opposition to its bombing of Afghanistan.
So far violent opposition to America is comparitively small. Beyond the hardline moslem fringe, anger at America is felt by ordinary people, because of America's actions not because those ordinary people are moslem. The same can be said of Britain, where there have been noisy demonstrations accompanying every visit by Bush. The demonstrations over here have involved a handful of extremists but mainly it's been ordinary people, many non-moslems, protesting America's foreign policy.
Do you really believe Moslems hate America, because they are moslem? Do you really believe all moslems are anti-jewish, because they are moslem? You are generalising about a huge percentage of the global population. Not only that you are over-simplifying the reasons why someone might hold those views. America is active in the world, and as such her actions have effects and consequences. Israel's actions also have an effect on the world and the way in which she is viewed by some.
Just to underline the point, here is a quote from the bottom of the article:
Christina Widyaningsih, 24, a university student who is a Christian, said: ''I don't really understand the Islamic movement, but I can definitely sympathize with their restlessness, their feeling that they have to do something. Yes, innocent lives were lost in the attack on the World Trade Center. But do the Americans really think their retaliation will solve the problem? I think resentment toward the United States and its Western allies will only grow.''
The same can be said of Britain, where there have been noisy demonstrations accompanying every visit by Bush. The demonstrations over here have involved a handful of extremists but mainly it's been ordinary people, many non-moslems, protesting America's foreign policy.
Not really different from here.
The Constitution is for US citizens alone.
Give me something other than your opinion as proof of this fact.
I am still waiting for you to cite where the United States Constitution applies to all people of the world who are not citizens of the United States.
Amendment 5 where it says “no person" rather than "no citizen".
Well, flaja, you could start by reading up on the Semitic language family and their internal resemblances. And be very careful about bellowing "Nazi!" -- this lot will invoke Godwin's Law of Flame Fights at the drop of an eyeshade (come to think of it, an eyepatch), let alone the drop of a hat.
LookLex
Semitic Languages (and Phoenician)
I guess by your logic everybody that speaks English must be a German because both languages are in the same language family. And then the French, Spanish and Italians must all be one and the same people because they all use a Romance Language.
So far violent opposition to America is comparitively small.
But it still exists, thus negating any claim that Indonesia is not anti-America.
In that case, Britain is anti-American, because such opposition exists here. You cannot characterise a country as anti-american because it contains anti-american elements.
You'd also have to say America is anti American, because there are those types here.
Amendment 5 where it says “no person" rather than "no citizen".
Show me where the intent was to include all peoples of the world who are not US Citizens. You can't. That is only your opinion.
srsly?
How much closer to "intent" can you get than the original text? You're right. You can't be shown. But not because *flaja's* opinion is the obstacle.
In that case, Britain is anti-American, because such opposition exists here. You cannot characterise a country as anti-american because it contains anti-american elements.
Why not?
Show me where the intent was to include all peoples of the world who are not US Citizens. You can't. That is only your opinion.
I will accept your opinion that Constitutional legal due process rights do not apply to non-citizens if you can document that the government did not recognize such rights when the first non-citizen (whoever he was) was charged with violating U.S. law under the Constitution.
BTW: You still haven’t clarified whether or not the U.S. can deny non-citizen their inalienable right to life and liberty without extending them legal due process rights.
srsly?
How much closer to "intent" can you get than the original text? You're right. You can't be shown. But not because *flaja's* opinion is the obstacle.
How could the Constitution make a distinction between citizens and all other persons, in 1787 when it did not define what a citizen is until the 14th Amendment?
And if Constitutional rights applied only to citizens, why does the document have to specify that only citizens can hold federal elective office?
In that case, Britain is anti-American, because such opposition exists here. You cannot characterise a country as anti-american because it contains anti-american elements.
Why not?
You'd also have to say America is anti American, because there are those types here.
It's true.
The
whole world is anti-American.
Even the uncontacted tribes in Brazil/ Peru shake their sticks at you.
Even the water on Mars hates you.
Everybody now:
"Nobody loves me, everybody hates me
Think I'll go and eat wooooorms..."
It's true.
The whole world is anti-American.
..."
Yeah...even me. Just ask anyone in 'the clique'.
Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by DanaC
In that case, Britain is anti-American, because such opposition exists here. You cannot characterise a country as anti-american because it contains anti-american elements.
Why not?[/QUOTE]
I have no answer to that.
I hate to say this, but where is Radar????
hmmmm
I hate to say this, but where is Radar????
hmmmm
Imagine that....:rolleyes:
How could the Constitution make a distinction between citizens and all other persons, in 1787 when it did not define what a citizen is until the 14th Amendment?
And if Constitutional rights applied only to citizens, why does the document have to specify that only citizens can hold federal elective office?
Ok, follow me here, because I know you want to believe it to be something other than what it says.... The opening statement sets the precedent for the document. Everything after this statement follows. You cannot cherry pick each piece and determine it to be something it is not. It begins with an opening statement which sets the stage for the rest of the document. They did not write it to apply to the Brits who were trying to kill them. They did not write it to apply to the black African slaves. They did not write it to apply to the Chinese who came and built our Rail Roads. They did not write it to apply to the Mexicans they had war with..... no.... they wrote it for the people whom they deemed to be people who were to form a new country, a new land, under a new rule of law. Not for the King of England if he came to visit, not for anyone else. Get it?
The Constitution is for US citizens alone.
"
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.
Sure... our friends in England at the time felt like this applied to them....:rolleyes: Give me a frigging break... the answer is NO.
You are correct that the Constitution governs only the United States. Specifically, the United States government. Wherever and with respect to whoever it operates.
You are correct that the Constitution governs only the United States. Specifically, the United States government. Wherever and with respect to whoever it operates.
Nice try.
Only pertains to legal citizens.
If you think otherwise prove me wrong.
Show me where it states all people of the world outside of the United States. Or anywhere that the govenment operates outside of the US.
Here's what it comes down to for me: Do you want our service men and women who become POWs (in this war or the next) treated the way we're treating the Guantanamo prisoners? If not, then we shouldn't be doing it.
Here's what it comes down to for me: Do you want our service men and women who become POWs (in this war or the next) treated the way we're treating the Guantanamo prisoners? If not, then we shouldn't be doing it.
Different from what? WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Name one war in the last 100 years where US prisoners were treated as well as we have historically treated enemy prisoners.
Ok, follow me here, because I know you want to believe it to be something other than what it says.... The opening statement sets the precedent for the document. Everything after this statement follows. You cannot cherry pick each piece and determine it to be something it is not. It begins with an opening statement which sets the stage for the rest of the document. They did not write it to apply to the Brits who were trying to kill them. They did not write it to apply to the black African slaves. They did not write it to apply to the Chinese who came and built our Rail Roads. They did not write it to apply to the Mexicans they had war with..... no.... they wrote it for the people whom they deemed to be people who were to form a new country, a new land, under a new rule of law. Not for the King of England if he came to visit, not for anyone else. Get it?
The Constitution is for US citizens alone.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.
Sure... our friends in England at the time felt like this applied to them....:rolleyes: Give me a frigging break... the answer is NO.
The Preamble to the Constitution was not prepared until the document’s final draft was being made by the Committee on Style. The Preamble is practically an afterthought. The Delegates to the Constitutional Convention had no definite idea what We the People meant when they starting debating what the Constitution would say and whom it would apply to.
Also, if were to examine the Notes that James Madison prepared at the Constitutional Convention, you would find repeated references to the citizens of such and such state, but I have yet to find any reference to the citizens of the United States. The Delegates had no formal understanding of what a citizen of the United States was, so how could they have had any intent of denying any rights to non-citizens?
But at any rate, the 5th Amendment is just that- an amendment. It was meant to alter the document’s original meaning. Even if We the People had originally intended to deny legal due process rights to non-citizens, by saying no person instead of no citizen, the 5th Amendment altered what you We the People had intended to do and thereby gave legal due process rights to all persons and not just citizens.
Furthermore, since the Articles of Confederation did not define citizenship or grant the Confederation government any power to make naturalization laws, there was no legally recognized way for someone to be a national citizen of the United States.
The only way someone who was born outside of the original 13 states could even remotely become a citizen of the United States was to become a citizen of one of the states; foreigners like Baron von Steuben were given citizenship in several different states by legislative acts, but it is questionable whether or not state citizenship meant automatic national citizenship since no one had the formal legal authority to define what a national citizen was, although the Constitution does assume that such national citizens existed (Article II, section 1, clause 4).
I would assume that anyone living in what became the United States who was born a British subject or who became a nationalized British subject prior to July 2, 1776 was given automatic citizenship in the state where they lived once the separate states were independent of Great Britain. But if this was not the case, then there could have been people living in the United States who were not citizens thereof.
And then there are James Wilson, Robert Morris, Thomas Fitzsimons, Alexander Hamilton, William Patterson, James McHenry and Pierce Butler- all of whom were born outside of what became the United States and all of whom signed the Constitution. They were all British subjects living in what became the United States prior to July 2, 1776, but if U.S. citizenship for the foreign-born was not automatic, did every one of these men go through the process to be a naturalized citizen of a state so they could claim to be a national citizen of the United States? Or did they put their name to a document that, as you claim, would have denied them legal due process rights because they were not citizens?
You are correct that the Constitution governs only the United States. Specifically, the United States government. Wherever and with respect to whoever it operates.
If the Constitution applies only to the United States, how can Congress punish piracies committed on the high seas? And how can Congress define and punish offenses committed against the law of nations, i.e., how can Congress can make laws governing the international community?
Nice try.
Only pertains to legal citizens.
If you think otherwise prove me wrong.
Show me where it states all people of the world outside of the United States. Or anywhere that the govenment operates outside of the US.
The people who are outside of the United States are subject to U.S. law because Congress can punish them if they commit piracy on the high seas or if they do something that Congress says is against the law of nations, i.e., international law.
Different from what? WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Name one war in the last 100 years where US prisoners were treated as well as we have historically treated enemy prisoners.
Just because the United States has had to go to war against thugs, does not justify the United States itself acting like a thug.
BTW: I cannot recall ever hearing about ill-treatment for U.S. POWs held by Germany in World War I. Furthermore, up until 1944, when the Germans decided they had nothing left to lose, Germany went out of its way to observe the Geneva Convention for British and American POWs because Germany wanted to insure that German POWs held by the British and Americans were given good treatment.
and your source for that bit of information is?
Different from what? WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Name one war in the last 100 years where US prisoners were treated as well as we have historically treated enemy prisoners.
So we should be no better than they were? Is that the kind of American values you want your kids to live up to?
Nice try.
Only pertains to legal citizens.
If you think otherwise prove me wrong.
Show me where it states all people of the world outside of the United States. Or anywhere that the govenment operates outside of the US.
Because it list things that the government must, or must not, do, and doesn't say "except outside our borders".
If the Constitution applies only to the United States, how can Congress punish piracies committed on the high seas? And how can Congress define and punish offenses committed against the law of nations, i.e., how can Congress can make laws governing the international community?
The Constitution applies to the US government, wherever it operates, including the high seas. Treaties governing maritime law are recognized by the Costitution. Our power gives us leverage when making treaties, which has been used positively and negatively.
and your source for that bit of information is?
I've always heard the same thing, so I looked it up.
Germany and Italy generally treated prisoners from the British Commonwealth, France, the U.S. and other western allies, in accordance with the Geneva Convention (1929), which had been signed by these countries.[11] Nazi Germany did not extend this level of treatment to non-Western prisoners, such as the Soviets, who suffered harsh captivities and died in large numbers while in captivity.
Hey mercy.... What law does apply at Guantanamo?
Be forewarned, an answer like "the military is in charge" will precipitate another question like this one, "What laws apply to the military?"
So, what do you think? What laws apply?
Just because the United States has had to go to war against thugs, does not justify the United States itself acting like a thug.
BTW: I cannot recall ever hearing about ill-treatment for U.S. POWs held by Germany in World War I. Furthermore, up until 1944, when the Germans decided they had nothing left to lose, Germany went out of its way to observe the Geneva Convention for British and American POWs because Germany wanted to insure that German POWs held by the British and Americans were given good treatment.
Note I did not list WW1.
So we should be no better than they were? Is that the kind of American values you want your kids to live up to?
What are you talking about dar? Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.
Because it list things that the government must, or must not, do, and doesn't say "except outside our borders".
And no where in the document does it say it includes all peoples outside of our borders any more than any other countries constitutional documents apply to US citizens while in their countries. It does not follow logic. All constitutions of all countries do not apply to everyone. All constitutions of all countries are applicable to the people who are citizens of each country. Why are you trying to make the US Constitution a world document? Maybe you think the UN should adapt our Constitution and make it the worlds.
Hey mercy.... What law does apply at Guantanamo?
Good question. I don't have the answer. Hence the pickle we are in now going back and forth with the courts. A better question is how do we catagorize the prisoners who are there? Some are known terrorists, others less so. Like I have said plenty of times on this forum in plenty of places, with some exceptions, if I had my way I would close it tomarrow and send them all back to their host countries and make it not our problem anymore. What their host countries choose to do with them is their business.
Note I did not list WW1.
But you said within the last 100 years. World War I went from 1914 to 1918 and the U.S. was involved from 1917 to 1918. The last time I checked 1918 was within the last 100 years.
What are you talking about dar? Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.
When you said that legal due process rights under the U.S. Constitution do not apply to non-U.S. citizens.
Good question. I don't have the answer. Hence the pickle we are in now going back and forth with the courts. A better question is how do we catagorize the prisoners who are there? Some are known terrorists,
By whose standards? If none of the people at Gitmo have been given a fair trial, how do you know which ones are terrorists?
And what right do we have to hold the ones that are not terrorists?
By whose standards? If none of the people at Gitmo have been given a fair trial, how do you know which ones are terrorists?
Excellent question.
By whose standards? If none of the people at Gitmo have been given a fair trial, how do you know which ones are terrorists?
Flip a coin, perhaps?
Flip a coin, perhaps?
Justice should be reduced to a coin toss?
Ever heard of the word factitious?
Ever heard of the word factitious?
I looked it up, but what’s your point?
Why are you trying to make the US Constitution a world document? Maybe you think the UN should adapt our Constitution and make it the worlds.
It's not a world document. It's a US. Government document, and it applies to the US Government wherever in the world it operates.
Ever heard of the word factitious?
I looked it up, but what’s your point?
There was no point - it was a joke.
But you said within the last 100 years. World War I went from 1914 to 1918 and the U.S. was involved from 1917 to 1918. The last time I checked 1918 was within the last 100 years.
Yea, but like I said I left WW1 off the list on purpose.
When you said that legal due process rights under the U.S. Constitution do not apply to non-U.S. citizens.
I stated:
Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.
Any jump you made was your own, not one that I supported or made. Nice try. You fail.
It's not a world document. It's a US. Government document, and it applies to the US Government wherever in the world it operates.
Wherever in the world it operates with US Citizens and it applies to those legal citizens only. So a US citizen captured in the Sudan while in the service of USAID for smuggling hash is subjected to our Constitution?
There was no point - it was a joke.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factitious
1: produced by humans rather than by natural forces
2 a: formed by or adapted to an artificial or conventional standard b: produced by special effort : SHAM <created a factitious demand by spreading rumors of shortage>
So what is the joke?
Yea, but like I said I left WW1 off the list on purpose.
Because it doesn’t support your claim that American POWs are always mistreated.
I stated:
Any jump you made was your own, not one that I supported or made. Nice try. You fail.
What have your values and your family to do with legal due process rights for non-citizens? By denying these rights to non-citizens you make torture a legal option.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factitious
1: produced by humans rather than by natural forces
2 a: formed by or adapted to an artificial or conventional standard b: produced by special effort : SHAM <created a factitious demand by spreading rumors of shortage>
So what is the joke?
You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."
You are going out of your way to be obtuse.
Wherever in the world it operates with US Citizens and it applies to those legal citizens only. So a US citizen captured in the Sudan while in the service of USAID for smuggling hash is subjected to our Constitution?
Where in the Constitution does it expressly say that legal due process rights are given only to U.S. citizens and not to anyone else who is subject to U.S. law?
What proof do you have that only citizens are included in We the People and that the expression “no person” in the 5th Amendment means “no citizen”? None. You have no such proof because no such proof exists. You have been shown time and time again that legal due process rights are and have been extended to non-citizens that are subject to U.S. law. You are either too dense to see or too obstinate to admit that you are flat wrong. You are not here to discuss, but rather to argue. You are little more than a bully.
What are you talking about dar? Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.
Are you honestly trying to tell me you did not get the gist of my post?
Wherever in the world it operates with US Citizens and it applies to those legal citizens only. So a US citizen captured in the Sudan while in the service of USAID for smuggling hash is subjected to our Constitution?
The person isn't subject to the Constitution, the government is. Wherever, and with respect to whoever, it operates. If the US citizen is captured in the Sudan by the Sudanese government, they are subject to the Sudanese government. If they are captured by the US government (putting aside the idea of the US government capturing people in Sudan), they are subject to the US government, which is itself subject to the US Constitution, no matter where it is acting.
You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."
You are going out of your way to be obtuse.
LOFL - my spellcheck changed it - Holy crap thats really funny.
thanks Glatt!
You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."
You are going out of your way to be obtuse.
No I am not. The so-called joke simply bombed. I did not know the meaning of factitious, and before I looked it up I thought maybe it had something to do with political factions.
BTW: The spellchecker for MS Word does not change factitious to something else.
BTW: The spellchecker for MS Word does not change factitious to something else.
But in the Firefox web browser, the user is prompted to change "facitious" to "factitious."
only immoral people would fall for that glatt. don't believe me? ask flaja.
What were we talking about again??? Did anyone find a coin yet to flip?
Where in the Constitution does it expressly say that legal due process rights are given only to U.S. citizens and not to anyone else who is subject to U.S. law?
What proof do you have that only citizens are included in We the People and that the expression “no person” in the 5th Amendment means “no citizen”? None. You have no such proof because no such proof exists. You have been shown time and time again that legal due process rights are and have been extended to non-citizens that are subject to U.S. law. You are either too dense to see or too obstinate to admit that you are flat wrong. You are not here to discuss, but rather to argue. You are little more than a bully.
BS. You have no proof either.
What proof do you have that only non-citizens are included in We the People and that the expression “no person” in the 5th Amendment means “no citizen”? None. You have no such proof because no such proof exists. You have been shown time and time again that legal due process rights are and have been extended to citizens only that are subject to U.S. law. You are either too dense to see or too obstinate to admit that you are flat wrong. You are not here to discuss, but rather to argue. You are little more than a bully.
What have your values and your family to do with legal due process rights for non-citizens? By denying these rights to non-citizens you make torture a legal option.
BS.
That is a jump you made to make your political points and show your displeasure at current policy and previous history. My values and my family have nothing to do with this discussion. You are nothing more than a dense bully.
:lol2:
Nobody has answered this yet.
If the people at Gitmo are not protected by the constitution 'cuz they arent citizens
and arent protected by the geneva convention cause they arent soldiers
then what law ARE they protected under? none?
thats bull.
I am still waiting for you to cite where the United States Constitution applies to all people of the world who are not citizens of the United States.
TheMercenary was expected to obtain an education. TheMercenary did not even attend college even though it was paid for by his military service. Now he is a Constitutional expert?
Constitutional guarantees apply to all people within American jurisdiction. Citizens and non-citizens alike. Whereas some laws apply differently, still, Constitutional guarantees apply to all.
You are not here to discuss, but rather to argue. You are little more than a bully.
TheMercenary - due to minimal education - routinely uses bully tactics. When he cannot defend himself, as any bully would do, TheMercenary then attacks the poster. The bully here is TheMercenary - who also must be told by extremist talk show hosts how to think.
Why not just quote from the Constitution? Oh. TheMercenary cannot. TheMercenary just knows without reading from the Constitution. He knows non-citizens have no rights only because a political agenda told him so.
Where is that Constitutional phrase that says only citizens have rights? Oh. No such phrase exists except where extremists invent both new legal principals and mythical enemies.
Why are most all Guantanamo prisoner released? Because most all prisoners in Guantanamo - also victims of torture - were guilty of nothing. Now that judicial review must apply, no charges ever existed. TheMercenary also knows this is not true because he was told how to think. How will he prove himself. He attacks other - even accusing others of being a bully when the bully here is TheMercenary. So, TheMercenary - where is quote that proves your point. You have none which is why you attack the messenger - you dumbfuck.
Again, TheMercenary demonstrates why he has no college degree. Not smart enough. Let's see. With military service, he had a free ride and still could not get educated.
Where does TheMercenary cite a source? Mental midget supporters don't need to. TheMercenary tell us how we must think. TheMercenary says any foreign national can be held in America jails for life without judicial review at any time. That is TheMercenary's interpretation of the Constitution.
I'm just asking here, but still...
If these people at Guantanamo were all innocent, then why did we put them there??? and tortured them so we could???? What was the point of it again?? Just for fun? For what?
Oh BS - so we round up a bunch of nobodies and torture them because we are afraid? Sorry, I think not. There had to be some reason - probably not a good one, if there is one, but still...
Not suffer fear, instill fear.
Ok let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say that president Barack Obama turned to Barack Mugabe and declared John McCain an 'illegal combatant', saying he discovered 'classified evidence' that McCain is a plant of the terrorist wing of the Vietnemese Comunist party. If Bush administration rules continued under president Obama, McCain has virtually no defense. His citizenship is stripped without due process, and he is sent to Guantanamo Bay with the rest, without a habeas corpus hearing. Would the pro-no due processers be happy then?
Or have it the other way around.
Wouldn't work. McCain is white. and has money. and has already been tortured worse than they do at Gitmo. so he'd probably just sit around playing cards with the guards while he waits for his next campaign to start.
wait! I thought the American POW's weren't tortured.
wait! I thought the American POW's weren't tortured.
Stop!;)
Oh BS - so we round up a bunch of nobodies and torture them because we are afraid? Sorry, I think not. There had to be some reason - probably not a good one, if there is one, but still...
We weren't the only ones doing the rounding up.
When you offer a reward or considerations for the capture of "terrorists" a lot of people get turned into terrorists overnight.
Neighbor down the street, the one with the loud goats? Yeah, he's a terrorist, damn those goats of his...
You have been shown time and time again that legal due process rights are and have been extended to non-citizens that are subject to U.S. law.
The flaw in the argument here is that POW non-citizens (these being de facto if not altogether de jure POWs) aren't reckoned by anyone anywhere as being actually subject to their captor nations' laws.
That's true, and the reason POWs treatment was addressed by the Geneva Convention. The wrinkle is Bush saying these are not POWs but a new class, called "illegal combatants". Being non-POWs, that makes this new class civilian criminals and subject to the laws of the "host":rolleyes: nation.
Would have been a damn sight easier to just adhere to the Geneva Convention and accept them as POWs.
Would have been a damn sight easier to just adhere to the Geneva Convention and accept them as POWs.
Just send them all back to their "home countries."
Just send them all back to their "home countries."
second.
Just send them all back to their "home countries."
Truth and the Gitmo Detainees
Is every prisoner at Guantanamo really a terrorist?
Steve Chapman | July 7, 2008
"Islamic terrorists have constitutional rights," lamented one conservative blog when the Supreme Court said Guantanamo inmates can challenge their detention in court. "These are enemy combatants," railed John McCain. The court, charged former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy of National Review, sided with foreigners "whose only connection with our body politic is their bloody jihad against Americans."
The operating assumption here is that the prisoners are terrorists who were captured while fighting a vicious war against the United States. But can the critics be sure? All they really know about the Guantanamo detainees is that they are Guantanamo detainees. To conclude that they are all bloodthirsty jihadists requires believing that the U.S. government is infallible.
But how sensible is that approach? Judging from a little-noticed federal appeals court decision that came down after the Supreme Court ruling, not very.
The case involved Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim who fled to Afghanistan in May 2001 to escape persecution of his Uighur ethnic group by the Beijing government. When the U.S. invaded after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Uighur camp where he lived was destroyed by air strikes. He and his compatriots made their way to Pakistan, where villagers handed them over to the government, which transferred them to American custody.
You might think you would have to do something pretty obvious to wind up in Guantanamo. Apparently not. The U.S. government does not claim Parhat was a member of the Taliban or al-Qaida. He was not captured on a battlefield. The government's own military commission admitted it found no evidence that he "committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition partners."
So why did the Pentagon insist on holding him as an enemy combatant? Because he was affiliated with the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a separatist Muslim group fighting for independence from Beijing. It had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks but reputedly got help from al-Qaida.
But the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after reviewing secret documents submitted by the government, found that there was no real evidence. It said the flimsy case mounted against Parhat "comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true." And it ruled that, based on the information available, he was not an enemy combatant even under the Pentagon's own definition of the term.
Is this verdict just another act of judicial activism by arrogant liberals on the bench? Not by a long shot.
Of the three judges who signed the opinion, one, Thomas Griffith, was appointed in 2005 by President Bush himself. Another, David Sentelle, was nominated in 1985 by President Reagan—and had earlier joined in ruling that the Guantanamo detainees could not go to federal court to assert their innocence (a decision the Supreme Court overturned).
The administration could hardly have asked for a more accommodating group of judges. Yet they found in favor of the detainee on the simple grounds that if the government is going to imprison someone as an enemy combatant, it needs some evidence that he is one.
Parhat may not be an exceptional case. Most of the prisoners were not captured by the U.S. in combat but were turned over by local forces, often in exchange for a bounty. We had to take someone else's word that they were bad guys.
A 2006 report by Seton Hall law professor Mark Denbeaux found that only 8 percent of those held at Guantanamo were al-Qaida fighters. Even a study done at West Point concluded that just 73 percent of the detainees were a "demonstrated threat"—which means 27 percent were not.
The Parhat case doesn't prove that everyone in detention at Guantanamo is an innocent victim of some misunderstanding. But it does show the dangers of trusting the administration—any administration—to act as judge, jury, and jailer. It illustrates the need for an independent review to make sure there is some reason to believe the people being treated as terrorists really deserve it.
If any particular detainees are as bad as the administration claims, it should have no trouble making that case in court. But there is nothing to be gained from the indefinite imprisonment of someone whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Keeping innocent people behind bars is a tragedy for them and a waste for us.
snip~ Parhat may not be an exceptional case. Most of the prisoners were not captured by the U.S. in combat but were turned over by local forces, often in exchange for a bounty. We had to take someone else's word that they were bad guys. ~snip
Because Bush&Co decided that the Afghanistan war against the Taliban would be carried out by local warlords, with US support, the warlords' forces did most of the capturing Taliban/illegal combatants.
Now I know not all the detainees came that way, but that would explain why the majority were not captured by US soldiers.
If they're a bad guy, then there should be evidence to prove it. If there isn't evidence to prove it then you can't say they're a bad guy. If you can prove it then you have no reason not to allow them a proper defence. If by allowing them a proper defence the evidence fails.....then so be it.
Hundreds were held in Guantanamo while innocent and without due process because wacko extremists needed bogeymen to lie and remain popular. Hundreds have already been released to their home nations because, after being tortured and held for years in violation of laws, suddenly they are guilty of nothing.
Today another five have had charges dropped because (from the NY Times of 21 Oct 2008)
U.S. Drops Charges for 5 Guantánamo Detainees
All five of the cases had been handled by a prosecutor who stepped down in September, saying there were systemic problems with the fairness of the military prosecutions there. ...
The dismissal was a retreat by the government facing an aggressive defense in the case.
It came in the same week that administration lawyers changed course in another highly publicized terrorism case, abandoning efforts to prove that six other Guantánamo detainees took part in a 2001 plan to bomb the United States Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Long time Cellar dwellers can confirm, I have never been so critical of any politician ... ever. But we never had a president so obviously corrupt. We have never had a president who lies so much. We have never had a president so stupid as to almost get us in a hot war with China over a silly spy plane. Who was calling that ignorant back when George Jr almost got us into war?
We are now starting to suffer the economic consequences of a mental midget president supported by people who must be told how to think daily by Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Pat Robertson. (Europeans just cannot appreciate how widespread the propaganda that tells Urbane Guerrilla types what to know. Europeans were lesser people who could even be kidnapped at any time if the US felt threatened.)
Guantanamo is the perfect example of what anti-patriots have done to America.
Five more completely innocent people released because America has too many who are so wacko extremist.
The best known of the five men whose charges were dismissed Tuesday is Binyam Mohamed, ... accused in the “dirty bomb” case. He has claimed he was tortured while in American custody or in countries to which he said the United States sent him. His lawyers argued Tuesday that the government was trying to avoid having to answer his accusations.
How many were patriotic enough to see Saddam did not have WMDs? No other politician has ever earned or received from me so much criticism - including their routine use of torture. Why are Americans so sheepish as to not demand the impeachment of this nation's worst president ever? Because to many Americans even still approve of torture ... and who also call for the murder of Obama. I have even heard it discussed in low voices. Wacko extremism in its many condoned forms (hate, racism, demagoguery) is alive and well and far more embedded in America that most Europeans would realize.
We held and tortured some 800 innocent people for years. And then say, “Sorry about that.” When do we Get Smart?
after being tortured
cite.
cite.
First, define torture. This administration has had a more difficult time defining torture than Bill Clinton did defining 'sex'. It would be humorous if the stakes weren't so high. A simple definition of 'torture' is 'treatment you would not want inflicted on your soldiers if they were captured'.
By this definition, stress positions, sleep deprivation, fake executions, and waterboarding are all 'torture'.
In 2004, the Justice Department attempted to set as the
legal policy of the US an incredibly narrow definition of torture.
In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."
Of course the Justice Department, unlike the Army, had the luxury of knowing that their personnel would never be in a situation where that definition could be used against them.
Since it's inception, the US has maintained the legal fiction that the detention facility at Guantanamo is some legal Limbo. The laws of the US do not apply, because it is in Cuba but is not an embassy. The laws of Cuba do not apply, because it is under US control via the disputed
Cuban-American Treaty of 1903. So the US has basically created a legal space in the cracks between the laws of two sovereign nations and dropped the detainees into it.
The Supreme Court at first went along with this to a degree, sort of like the lifeguards at a pool allowing a certain amount of roughhousing in the water. At some point, matters became so severe that the court intervened to apply some legal boundary before the water got bloody.
While nowhere near as brutal as the "Hanoi Hilton", there is not a lot of doubt that even "Class B" torture like sleep deprivation over a period of years would render any confession inadmissible in a normal American court, or even a military court trying members of its own service.
The challenge is that even if any of these defendants are found guilty, the moment that they are shipped back to their own countries or the United States for imprisonment, they will reenter the normal world and be able to appeal their convictions. Fortunately for the US, some of these countries are not democratic but are allies of the US, so they might be safely transported to another legal black hole which will prevent their physical and legal treatment from being examined in detail.
I asked for a cite that torture occurred at Guantanamo. You quoted my request and then wrote a long post that does not contain a cite.
wiki
Then search for the word torture.
OK. There are a few pretty damning things in there, especially regarding the
treatment of the suspected 20th hijacker.
The section that claims Cheney admitted waterboarding at the facility was wrong, and I have edited that and removed it. (I know, I know!) The article that they cited was missing, but I found
the same article on Common Dreams. Cheney admitted that waterboarding was used, but
not that it was used at Guantanamo. The CIA later admitted it too, but the subjects were not at Guantanamo. And none of the prisoners mention it, and the Red Cross doesn't mention it. I cannot connect Guantanamo and waterboarding.
Also, though there are some prisoner complaints of sleep deprivation (and it might be the only thing the prisoner complaints have in common), nobody said sleep deprivation "over a period of years". People just seem to make stuff up sometimes.
Yeah also the FBI Freedom of Information document is chock full of "class B" stuff during interrogations.
(but also, no waterboarding mentioned)
eh. not completely heart broken.
I asked for a cite that torture occurred at Guantanamo. You quoted my request and then wrote a long post that does not contain a cite.
We are well beyond needing citations for torture. Documents now define approval for torture in the White House. Recent revelations report that the CIA was so concerned about their own safety for doing torture as to demand written documents from the White House that approved it.
Current questions are specifically who authorized torture. For example, currently under investigation is AG Gonzales. You can argue these silly needs for citations all you want. At this point, America tortured prisoners in Guantanamo. The recently discovered documents from the CIA state that the White House authorized it in writing. Question now is who in the White House authorized it.
What is just a few rogue plumbers bugging the Watergate? Investigators are now asking the same questions about torture in Guantanamo - and elsewhere.
Bad enough we tortured them, kept them in solitary confinement, denied them due process, and even refused to let the Red Cross tell their families where they were. Worse - hundreds (probably all but maybe 16) were completely innocent. This is the moral and religous George Jr? Torture of innocent people happens when only god tells a leader what to do. A damning reality.
Current questions are specifically who authorized torture. For example, currently under investigation is AG Gonzales. You can argue these silly needs for citations all you want. At this point, America tortured prisoners in Guantanamo.
So you can't site it. Ok.
While you may have doubts that Guantanamo prisoners have been waterboarded, there is no doubt that prisoners have been tortured.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa
I don't get the defense of this behavior. If it's legal to do against POWs how soon will we see it used against citizens? How soon will a citizen be declared a POW so that torture can be used?
One of the objectives of the law is to prohibit abuses of power. This is the sort of thing that should be specifically prohibited.
Well the first link says nothing about waterboarding at GITMO. After that, none of the links are original source documents. I disregard anything written by the Huffington post. So where is the proof that it happened at GITMO. The liberal press have long used a broad definition of "torture" which is not supported by the facts.
While you may have doubts that Guantanamo prisoners have been waterboarded, there is no doubt that prisoners have been tortured.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa
I don't get the defense of this behavior. If it's legal to do against POWs how soon will we see it used against citizens? How soon will a citizen be declared a POW so that torture can be used?
One of the objectives of the law is to prohibit abuses of power. This is the sort of thing that should be specifically prohibited.
I am not defending it as much as I am getting those who believe it to prove their assertions in these discussions. Most of you can't. Did it happen, sure, most likely, but not at GITMO. Was it a standard practice, no I don't believe it. But hell, if I was locked up in GITMO for as long as some of those poor saps I would claim it too. What defense attorney would not tell their defendant in GITMO to make such a claim, I would.
I am not defending it as much as I am getting those who believe it to prove their assertions in these discussions. Most of you can't. Did it happen, sure, most likely, but not at GITMO. Was it a standard practice, no I don't believe it. But hell, if I was locked up in GITMO for as long as some of those poor saps I would claim it too. What defense attorney would not tell their defendant in GITMO to make such a claim, I would.
Well it's going to be very hard to get evidence considering how tight they have Guantanamo locked up, isn't it.
In any case, the very fact that the current administration has
policy that allows this kind of torture is reprehensible.
Well it's going to be very hard to get evidence considering how tight they have Guantanamo locked up, isn't it.
And isn't that the point. You choose to believe everything you hear or read. I do not.
And isn't that the point. You choose to believe everything you hear or read. I do not.
No doubt all wisdom will die with you, Merc.
I don't believe everything I read, but I don't close my eyes either.
In any case, the very fact that the current administration has policy that allows this kind of torture is reprehensible.
No doubt all wisdom will die with you, Merc.
I don't believe everything I read, but I don't close my eyes either.
But you don't question anything that disparages the military, the Bush administration, the military, or people on the front line of fighting terrorism in the world, and that speaks volumes. I question everything. I doubt much, but I do not buy into the reports of the otherwise liberal press. You seem to me to suck it up lock, stock, and barrel in an effort to support your position. I refuse to accept "the first report".
But you don't question anything that disparages the military, the Bush administration, the military, or people on the front line of fighting terrorism in the world<snip>
Nonsense. I fully support the invasion of Afghanistan and the continued presence of the military there. I respect and admire the courage of the men in Iraq, but I do not support their presence there. The men are not at fault, the blame lies with the administration (which is not solely Bush).
I respect your opinion but we disagree on much. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and you are only fed your information from the liberal left-wing web sites. The reality as you see it is not what it seems. You can discount me and ignore my statements as you see fit. I have no problem with it nor do I think you are a lesser person because of it. But give me the same respect.
Merc, you'e starting to sound like UG....except for the respect part, obviously...
Well, I am just not willing to assume that same line of thinking. I am not UG.
I asked for a cite that torture occurred at Guantanamo. You quoted my request and then wrote a long post that does not contain a cite.
I wanted to be clear if I needed to find only waterboarding or if you agreed that the other methods are also torture.
How about the
New York Times? It appears we took examples of torture that our military was being taught to withstand and turned it into a "howto" guide.
WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”
What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.
The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Some methods were used against a small number of prisoners at Guantánamo before 2005, when Congress banned the use of coercion by the military. The C.I.A. is still authorized by President Bush to use a number of secret “alternative” interrogation methods.
In 2002, the training program, known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, became a source of interrogation methods both for the C.I.A. and the military. In what critics describe as a remarkable case of historical amnesia, officials who drew on the SERE program appear to have been unaware that it had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners.
I have been through SERE training. It is not what you think.
I have been through SERE training. It is not what you think.
I think it's to learn how to evade capture and withstand torture. The point of the article is that they took the "watch out for this" presentation and turned it into "here are some nifty new techniques" for interrogators.
Actually it is not about "withstanding torture". It is about a delay, long enough for those who know that you are missing to change the data that you may know. After that you can tell them anything you want because all the data will have changed. So all you are taught to do is hang on for about 24 to 48 hours, after that it really does not matter.
Actually it is not about "withstanding torture". It is about a delay, long enough for those who know that you are missing to change the data that you may know. After that you can tell them anything you want because all the data will have changed. So all you are taught to do is hang on for about 24 to 48 hours, after that it really does not matter.
So I guess if they can isolate you for a couple of years you're pretty much screwed.
I would say yes, you are basically fucked.
Actually it is not about "withstanding torture". It is about a delay, long enough for those who know that you are missing to change the data that you may know. After that you can tell them anything you want because all the data will have changed. So all you are taught to do is hang on for about 24 to 48 hours, after that it really does not matter.
I won't challenge your assertion that you've experienced this training. I won't challenge the fact that our military believes this is an effective policy. But, given that you yourself have first hand experience with this training and that the point of the training is to resist one's interrogators for, say, a couple days, after which the information you could possibly reveal would no longer be uselessly outdated, could you please tell me why we've detained these people at Gitmo for *weeks*?
I won't challenge your assertion that you've experienced this training. I won't challenge the fact that our military believes this is an effective policy. But, given that you yourself have first hand experience with this training and that the point of the training is to resist one's interrogators for, say, a couple days, after which the information you could possibly reveal would no longer be uselessly outdated, could you please tell me why we've detained these people at Gitmo for *weeks*?
Actually, I do not believe that the 'military' believes that it is an effective policy. Also, we have detained some individuals for
years before releasing them without charges.
The policy in question here is SERE training, not the detention policies at Gitmo.
"years"? orly?
note to self, get new batteries for sarcasm generator
I won't challenge your assertion that you've experienced this training. I won't challenge the fact that our military believes this is an effective policy. But, given that you yourself have first hand experience with this training and that the point of the training is to resist one's interrogators for, say, a couple days, after which the information you could possibly reveal would no longer be uselessly outdated, could you please tell me why we've detained these people at Gitmo for *weeks*?
Good question. I don't know. IMHO I would close it down the day I took office, let the majority of them off scott free and send them immediately back to their home countries regardless of their eventual disposition when they get there. Not our problem. But all they would get from me is a free ride on a C-17. Problem over. Take the ones we know are bad players and put them in a Federal Prison and give them lawyers. Hold trials under secret conditions with enough representatives from the civilian court system to be sure all the trials are fair and that the defendants have been duly represented in accordance with our laws. After that they are at the mercy of the courts.
My guess is they think some of them are still a threat coupled (so we will hang on to those) with the fact that the Military did it's job and now they have these people that they don't know what to do with and no one (from the government) is giving them any guidance as to what to do next.
Actually, I do not believe that the 'military' believes that it is an effective policy.
I agree. Many people I have spoken with think they should have either not been taken there or left in home country.
Am I the only one who sniggers at the acronym SCOTUS?
I find myself agreeing with Merc :P not exactly unheard of, but not a right common event either :)
I find myself agreeing with Merc :P not exactly unheard of, but not a right common event either :)
Keep hope alive. Yes we can.;)
How long do you think it will take for Obama to completely close Gitmo? Or do you think he can close it at all any time soon?
How long do you think it will take for Obama to completely close Gitmo? Or do you think he can close it at all any time soon?
Since almost everyone in Gitmo was not guilty, transfers the few guilty ones should not take long. Transfer to the US where they would be if the president was an honest man. Why Guantanamo? Then we might have learned about the hundreds of innocent men held without any judicial review.
Stalin had gulags. Hitler had his concentration camps. George Jr had Gitmo.
Since almost everyone in Gitmo was not guilty, transfers the few guilty ones should not take long.
Since you have no evidence to support that I will just have to ignore you.
On further note, Obama was quoted on 60 min tonight as saying he will close it. I am really happy. Now they need to send all those folks back home immediately. Only the most violent offenders need to be sent to a federal pen in the US.
On further note, Obama was quoted on 60 min tonight as saying he will close it. I am really happy. Now they need to send all those folks back home immediately.
Where hundreds of Gitmo prisioners have been sent AND remain free. But that too is a fact probably never reported on Fox News.
I heard on the news that the problem is that many countries won't take them back. I'm not sure how true it is, but it was from an interview with a senator.
I heard on the news that the problem is that many countries won't take them back. I'm not sure how true it is, but it was from an interview with a senator.
I would tell those countries, to bad. They will be on the next flight home. Cause we ain't keeping them any longer. Do what you want with them. That is not our problem.
If only it were that easy.
I would tell those countries, to bad. They will be on the next flight home. Cause we ain't keeping them any longer. Do what you want with them. That is not our problem.
Imagine the movie. People routinely shuttled back and forth between countries, living most of the time on airplane, learning where to brush their teeth and take showers in airports. All because some wacko extremist politician lied and because the judicial system was subverted.
Let's see. What would any decent person then do? Become a terrorist - living in airports and on airplanes. Who would be the antagonist and protagonist?
How many are left there - Does anyone know? Are we talking thousands, hundreds...?
How many are left there - Does anyone know? Are we talking thousands, hundreds...?
Ballpark numbers. We held about 800 prisoners in Guantanamo. At least 400 have recently been released. There may be 250 still imprisoned. Maybe 8 or 20 were dangerous.
Of course, we have created another problem. So many people held inhumanly and criminally by the US - we have now created new terrorists. Which ones? We have no idea. Once you start torturing people, then interrogators say nothing useful can be obtained. We probably do not even know how many terrorists - people inspired to hate Americans - we have created.
In that case just make them "disappear" - there, problem solved.
Err, Classic, do you want to add a ;) or a :p or something to that last post, or is that serious?
Yeh, I should have - too late now. Thats what I get for posting way past bedtime. Oh well. here it is now. ;)
Ahh, good, moderately right-wing I can get along with ... mass murder is a little more troubling.
Yeh, I'm not into the murder thing.
The Bosnian government already has agreed to take back the detainees, all of whom immigrated there from Algeria before they were captured in 2001.
Put all six of them on the next plane out.
The cases of more than 200 additional Guantanamo detainees are still pending, many in front of other judges in Washington's federal courthouse.
That answers my question from earlier regarding a rough figure of how many are still there.
The control order on David Hicks (the Australian who was held at X-ray) is soon lapsing. He is allowed to speak to the media, and soon will no longer have to report to police three times per week etc.
He is allowed to speak to the media, and soon ...
A man that dangerous ... even his tongue can massacre Americans.
Meanwhile, last I read, the conditions in Guantanamo did such bad things to David Hicks that rumored suggest he cannot conduct a coherent conversation. We should be so proud that we destroyed another dangerous man.
I think he was never terribly bright, but was able to read a statement for a youtube release competently. He was at the very most a very small pawn on the board.
Meanwhile, last I read, the conditions in Guantanamo did such bad things to David Hicks that rumored suggest he cannot conduct a coherent conversation. We should be so proud that we destroyed another dangerous man.
You have no evidence that Hicks was damaged in such a manner by being at Gitmo. I guess he should have thought better of his conscious decision to go and fight the US.
Conscious decision to go and fight the US?????????
He was in Afghanistan on a "self-discovery" thing, and as a Muslim was living with a Muslim organisation, when September 11 happened and the US invaded.
I know of no evidence that he ever made a conscious decision to "go fight the US". Maybe you do, though. Wanna share it?
But...but...surely he'd never have been put in Gitmo if there was no reason, right?
Oh yeah, they were all innocent Muslim tourists discovering Islam... they just happened to all choose the shittiest possible freezing cold ugly remote location, where there were lots of weapons, rocks and caves, and not so many elite mosques or troubling electricity or even roads to get where they were.
Conscious decision to go and fight the US?????????
He was in Afghanistan on a "self-discovery" thing, and as a Muslim was living with a Muslim organisation, when September 11 happened and the US invaded.
I know of no evidence that he ever made a conscious decision to "go fight the US". Maybe you do, though. Wanna share it?
Lashkar-e-Toiba
On 11 November 1999, Hicks travelled to Pakistan to study Islam[13][19] and began training with Lashkar-e-Toiba in early 2000[20][21]
In the U.S. military commission charges presented in 2004, the U.S. accused Hicks of training at the Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces".[22]
In a March 2000 letter to his family, Hicks wrote:
don't ask what's happened, I can't be bothered explaining the outcome of these strange events has put me in Pakistan-Kashmir in a training camp. Three months training. After which it is my decision whether to cross the line of control into Indian occupied Kashmir.
In another letter on 10 August 2000, Hicks wrote from Kashmir claiming to have been a guest of Pakistan's army for two weeks at the front in the "controlled war" with India:
I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally.[23]
During this period, Hicks kept a notebook to document his training in weapon use, explosives and military tactics, in which he wrote that guerilla warfare involved "sacrifice for Allah". He took extensive notes on, and made sketches of, various weaponry mechanisms and attack strategies (including the Heckler & Koch submachine gun, the M16 assault rifle, RPG-7 grenade launcher, anti-tank rockets and VIP security infiltration).[24]
Letters to his family detailed his training:
I learnt about weapons such as ballistic missiles, surface to surface and shoulder fired missiles, anti aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid fire heavy and light machine guns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives. After three months everybody leaves capable and war-ready being able to use all of these weapons capably and responsibly. I am now very well trained for jihad in weapons some serious like anti-aircraft missiles.[25]
In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introduction letter from Lashkar-e-Toiba. He then travelled to Afghanistan to attend training at Al-Qaeda camps.[22]
[edit] Afghanistan
Upon arrival in Afghanistan, Hicks went to an al-Qaeda guest house where he met Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a high ranking al Qaeda member. He turned over his passport and indicated to them that he would use the alias "Muhammad Dawood".[22] Hicks allegedly "attended a number of al-Qaeda training courses at various camps around Afghanistan, learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods.[21] He also allegedly participated in an advanced course on surveillance, in which he conducted surveillance of the U.S. and British embassies in Kabul, Afghanistan." On one occasion when al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden visited an Afghan camp, Hicks questioned bin Laden about the lack of English in training material and subsequently "began to translate the training camp materials from Arabic to English".[21] Hicks wrote home that he'd met Osama bin Laden 20 times but later told investigators he had exaggerated, that he had seen bin Laden about eight times and spoken to him only once.
There are a lot of Muslims who want to meet Osama Bin Laden but after being a Muslim for 16 months I get to meet him.[25]
Prosecutors also allege Hicks was interviewed by Muhammad Atef, an al-Qaeda military commander, about his background and "the travel habits of Australians". In a memoir that was later repudiated by its author, Guantanamo detainee Feroz Abbasi claimed Hicks was "Al-Qaedah's 24 [carat] Golden Boy" and "obviously the favourite recruit" of their al-Qaeda trainers during exercises at the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar. The memoir made a number of claims, including that Hicks was teamed in the training camp with Filipino recruits from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and that during internment in Camp X-Ray. Hicks described his desire to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews... crash a plane into a building", and to "go out with that last big adrenalin rush"..[26]
On 9 September 2001, Hicks travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan to visit a friend.[10] A US Department of Defense statement claimed that, "viewing TV news coverage in Pakistan of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States" led Hicks to return to Afghanistan to "rejoin his al-Qaeda associates to fight against U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan, and other coalition forces".[21][13] Hicks arrived in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar where he reported to Saif al Adel, who was assigning individuals to locations, and "armed himself with an AK-47 automatic rifle, ammunition, and grenades to fight against coalition forces". Hicks was given a choice of three locations and chose to join a group of al-Qaeda fighters defending the Kandahar airport. After Coalition bombing commenced in October 2001, Hicks began guarding a Taliban tank position outside the airport. After guarding the tank for a week Hicks, with an LET acquaintance, traveled closer to the battle front in Kunduz where he joined others including John Walker Lindh.[22][21]
Colonel Morris Davis, chief prosecutor for the US office of Military Commissions said "He eventually left Afghanistan and it's my understanding was heading back to Australia when 9/11 happened. When he heard about 9/11, he said it was a good thing (and) he went back to the battlefield, back to Afghanistan, and reported in to the senior leadership of al-Qaeda and basically said, 'I'm David Hicks and I'm reporting for duty'". Davis also compared Hicks' alleged actions to that of those who carried out terrorist attacks such as Bali, the London and Madrid bombings and the Beslan school siege.[27]
Terry Hicks, however, claimed that his son seemed at first unaware, then skeptical, of the September 11 attacks when they spoke on a mobile phone in early November 2001. He also noted David Hicks commented about "going off to Kabul to defend it against the Northern Alliance".[28][12]
In October and November 2001 Hicks wrote multiple letters to his mother Sue King back in Australia. He asked that replies were to be directed to Abu Muslim Australia, a pseudonym he used to circumvent non-Muslim spies he believed intercepted correspondence. In these letters he detailed the validity of Jihad and his own prospect of "martyrdom".
As a Muslim young and fit my responsibility is to protect my brothers from aggressive non-believers and not let them destroy it. Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war it is jihad. One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?[25]
In November 2005, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Four Corners broadcast for the first time a transcript of an interview with Hicks, conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in 2002 and other material including a report that Hicks had signed a statement written by American military investigators stating that he had trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, learning guerrilla tactics and urban warfare.[13] The program also reported that Hicks had met Osama bin Laden. That he claimed to have disapproved of the September 11 attacks but to have been unable to leave Afghanistan. He denied engaging in any actual fighting against US or allied forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_HicksYou have no evidence that Hicks was damaged in such a manner by being at Gitmo.
Statements attiributed to people who know Hicks easily trump your post based in zero facts and no knowledge.
But the people that know Hicks, don't know if he was damaged when he got there. They hadn't seen him in a long time and he'd been through a lot.
Actually, that's a good point Bruce.
Though, having heard some of the stories that have come out from people who've left Gitmo (particularly the three lads from Tipton and the Manchester lad) I am inclined to think that the prisoners have been treated appallingly.
Actually, that's a good point Bruce.
Though, having heard some of the stories that have come out from people who've left Gitmo (particularly the three lads from Tipton and the Manchester lad) I am inclined to think that the prisoners have been treated appallingly.
Solitary will do strange things to people. It does not mean they were tortured or physically harmed. Sucks to be those guys who got caught up in the dragnet. Others should probably stay til death, but given the state of affairs I would even release those to their host countries whether they wanted them or not.
Host countries or home countries?
Host countries or home countries?
Thank you, home countries.
OK, where they came from and not where they were caught. At least for the ones that it's not the same.
Correct, I would send them back to their home countries and let the government do with them as they pleased.
I think they should all be sent back to their home countries.
I'm glad Hicks was sent home. He's been a free man for almost a year now and hasn't blown anything up yet. After being held for such a long time with no charges laid and then bullshit ones laid in the end, it's no wonder he went a bit nuts...just like all the others in Gitmo. I'd be inclined to say most of them are probably more dangerous coming out than they were going in. They certainly have more reason to hate America after the experience.
I'd be inclined to say most of them are probably more dangerous coming out than they were going in.
Right... kill 'em.
Yeah well, I'm sure there are plenty who'd support that notion.
I wouldn't though, not that it matters, even if the prisoners are Australian citizens.
The problem with sending them back to their home countries is that those countries are often far less squeamish about using torture than the USA. Prolonged solitary confinement and waterboarding are kid's stuff compared to what goes on in some places.
I'll be very curious to see what happens to any repatriatees after they are sent home (and whether any start begging to be let back into Guantanamo Bay!)
The problem with sending them back to their home countries is that those countries are often far less squeamish about using torture than the USA. Prolonged solitary confinement and waterboarding are kid's stuff compared to what goes on in some places.
I'll be very curious to see what happens to any repatriatees after they are sent home (and whether any start begging to be let back into Guantanamo Bay!)
To bad... so sad. Tough shit. You can't have it both ways. I say we pass them off and make them some one else's problem and then judge them like the US has been judged on how they deal with them. Personally I can't wait....
I'll be very curious to see what happens to any repatriatees after they are sent home (and whether any start begging to be let back into Guantanamo Bay!)
We'll never know. If they do anything to them not only are they not afraid to do much worse than waterboarding, but they won't tell anyone about it either. Those repatriotees will vanish.
Seriously. You bleeding hearts want to end GITMO, fine, most of us fully support it. Just don't whine when these guys have their heads chopped off as they get off the airplane when they get home. That blood will be on your hands. I welcome the chance to say I told you so.
Would you prefer the situation remain as it is? Should we keep it open indefinitely? At what cost, both politically and financially? The current situation is untenable - something has to change. what???
Close it. Immediately and send them all home but for the few bad guys whom are known to be such. The rest go free. Put them up in Pico's house for good measure and to show them good faith.
Oh here you are anyway.
It's like deja vous
Seriously. You bleeding hearts want to end GITMO, fine, most of us fully support it. Just don't whine when these guys have their heads chopped off as they get off the airplane when they get home. That blood will be on your hands. I welcome the chance to say I told you so.
Seems like you've been doing most of the talking about sending them home, so why isn't the blood on
your hands?
All I ever promoted was a fair trial in a fair amount of time without being mistreated in the meantime.
We grabbed these people and that means we now have the responsibility of doing the right thing by them. For some I assume that means incarceration. For others that would mean sending them home. For still others, it would mean letting them find a host country.
Just because you're tired of the situation doesn't mean that you get to make a bulk decision for individuals.
Oh, and the last I checked my heart is just fine.
Seems like you've been doing most of the talking about sending them home, so why isn't the blood on your hands?
Now that is funny as hell...
All I ever promoted was a fair trial in a fair amount of time without being mistreated in the meantime.
We grabbed these people and that means we now have the responsibility of doing the right thing by them. For some I assume that means incarceration. For others that would mean sending them home. For still others, it would mean letting them find a host country.
Just because you're tired of the situation doesn't mean that you get to make a bulk decision for individuals.
Oh, and the last I checked my heart is just fine.
I see bleeding... You can't have it both ways.
I see bleeding... You can't have it both ways.
I see. fairness = bleeding. Will there be a ministry of peace, soon?
We grabbed these people and that means we now have the responsibility of doing the right thing by them. For some I assume that means incarceration. For others that would mean sending them home. For still others, it would mean letting them find a host country.
...
Just because you're tired of the situation doesn't mean that you get to make a bulk decision for individuals.
Well said.
I see. fairness = bleeding. Will there be a ministry of peace, soon?
Fairness? Where? I see a majority of people caught up in a dragnet and mix in with a few very bad actors. Let the mass go home, put the few bad actors in prison for life after the tribunals. So far they have done a pretty good job.
send them all home but for the few bad guys whom are known to be such. The rest go free.
Free to do as they please . . .
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – As a prisoner at Guantanamo, Said Ali al-Shihri said he wanted freedom so he could go home to Saudi Arabia and work at his family's furniture store.
Instead, al-Shihri, who was released in 2007 under the Bush administration, is now deputy leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that has claimed responsibility for the Christmas Day attempted bomb attack on a Detroit-bound airliner.
His potential involvement in the terrorist plot has raised new opposition to releasing Guantanamo Bay inmates, complicating President Barack Obama's pledge to close the military prison in Cuba. It also highlights the challenge of identifying the hard-core militants as the administration decides what to do with the remaining 198 prisoners.
Like other former Guantanamo detainees who have rejoined al-Qaida in Yemen, al-Shihri, 36, won his release despite jihadist credentials such as, in his case, urban warfare training in Afghanistan.
He later goaded the United States, saying Guantanamo only strengthened his anti-American convictions.
"By God, our imprisonment has only increased our persistence and adherence to our principles," he said in a speech when al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula formed in Yemen in January 2009. It was included in a propaganda film for the group.
Link
I'm not picking on anyone here, but I'm still concerned about how many of these situations we are gonna have. Should this guy have gone free? Was his time spent there a contributing factor?
Were/are their options? There is only one know to me - This situation sux.
Well people wanted it closed... this is only the beginning.
al-Shihri, who was released in 2007