Camp Guantanamo

[CPL.Luke]

unfortunatly the US is under the jurisdiction of a commander and chief who at this moment we all hate (his approval ratings hover in the high twenties to low 30's right now) we all know every mistake he's made, and the terrible kinds of partisan politics that have been involved in the execution of the iraw war/detainee issues/ you name it.

 

The latest of these measures is the detainee bill which removes the right of habeus corpus for non-US citizens in the eyes of the US legal system. (ie if US authorities pick you up somewhere for doing something they don't likeyou don't get a trial or even the right to contact anyone).

 

 

 

 

I feel that this is changing though, these measures will be rolled back come the 08 election, and the we can be the country that we used to be.

 

 

^also in contradiction to what another poster stated The US set up a number of very nice camps to house German POWs during WW2, these camps followed every regulation set forth in the Geneva convention. Even the one stating that any captured general was to be given a cottage and a secretary.

[ParanoiA]

unfortunatly the US is under the jurisdiction of a commander and chief who at this moment we all hate (his approval ratings hover in the high twenties to low 30's right now) we all know every mistake he's made, and the terrible kinds of partisan politics that have been involved in the execution of the iraw war/detainee issues/ you name it.

 

That's what I'm talking about. Why hate him? I seriously don't get it. Do you think he hates his country? Does he make the decisions he does because he wants to destroy America? Did no one vote for him?

 

Come on man. No one has beaten this enemy - no one. But you're going to give GWB the personal hatred treatment?

 

You may not like his decisions, but they were advised by advisors and supported by voters - about half. Whether you agree or not, I don't see any sense in the rage.

 

I have a feeling some of you GWB haters are the same kind of people that would yell at your wife for getting you the wrong present on your birthday...

[Dak]

Again, if you have a criticism of the Bush/McCain bill, then I think we can discuss that. Our democracy faced an abrupt shock on 9/11 and has been dealing not only with that event but the reaction of a President who understandably has said, "not again on my watch." All of the checks and balances have come into play on this one, including the sometimes emotive reaction of the international community. These are not simple issues.

 

i believe it's been mentioned that they'll be vetoed.

 

Anyway, 'come into play' isn't 'in play'. not by a long shot.

 

I agree we shouldn't be stupid about any such operation. OTOH, many times there's going to have to a snatch and grab if we are going to catch terrorists in the countries where they reside.

 

yes. but, the fundimental problem is: are they actually terrorists? or have you just snatched a civvy/tourist?

 

So what is it you propose? Full and open trials in federal district court?

 

Maybe, maybe not. i've allready conceded that, based on how the evidence was obtained, it might not be practicle. "we know hes a terrorist, m'lud, because our agent, who's posed as osama bin laden's limo driver, took these photos"

 

however, it's not 'ensure their safety by full trial or just have no checks inplace' dichotomy. eg, in britain, we have a set of high-up lawyers/judges called the law lords (not sure of your us equivelent); they're the people who put the prime minister and the country itself on trial, desciding what our treaties bind us to, etc.

 

they're, obvioulsy, in very high positions of trust allready and are, amongst other things, trusted to be inpartial and good at law, so i don't really see the problem with making them sighn the official secrets act and having them review suspected terrorists' cases, and either descide that there's no risk in them having a normal trial, or that there is, in which case the law-lords can form a magistrate's court themselves -- safer (in terms of actually finding the innocent innocent) than a military court, and no real problem re:military secrets, as the law-lords are allready in a position of great trust.

 

another idea is that the president himself might have to review every single case, and take responsibility. again, he's allready privvy to secrets, so should be trustable, and if theres a possibility of him getting punished for incorrect imprisonment it might make him think harder before doing it, and add another layre of caution on.

 

either way, i think that as soon as it is safe for the information to be openly discussed, a full (and normal) trial should be afforded to the person, or at least the information of the trial made public, so that any 'mistakes' in the system can be identified (ie, so that we'd know the system needed fixing).

 

something along those lines, maybe? anything other than 'they're guilty of possibly being terrorists, so they get no safeguards so there :-p' which is the attetude that your country seems to be adopting atm.

 

First, I'm guessing you do concede that it would have been appropriate to go into Germany or occupied Poland to snatch Frank? The man, while an SS official, was an administrator not a soldier. He was known as "Hitler's lawyer" and later came to be the governor of occupied Poland.

 

depends. it's a tricky call. with hindsight, yes, definately; but, only having at-the-time knowledge, i'd like to think that the fact that Hanns could have been an innocent german civvy, with no knowledge of the holocaust, would have been taken into account. I also like to think that he'd have been given a means to prove his innocence if he was actually was.

 

anyway, as allready mentioned, this analogy is somewhat flawed.

 

I think everybody misunderstood what I was trying to say way back in post #14. The primary arguments in this thread seem to be going right past each other without noticing. One side says the U.S. governments actions are contrary to the spirit of a liberal democracy. The other side says they're a necessary pragmatism under the circumstances. I don't see why both statements can't be accurate. Being a global superpower and staying that way comes with a hefty price.

 

It can be both, but only if your confortable with "america: staying on top by abandoning it's principles, being hypocrites, and doing unto them what we certainly wouldn't tolerate being done unto us"

 

america's principles, as it stands, aren't stated 'liberal democracy when convienient'... it's made pretty clear that liberal democracy if for everyone, at all times, else you're tyranical...

 

or is that what you meant? that america had to either suffer with it's principles, or at lest slightly abandon them for power?

[Sisyphus]

 

or is that what you meant? that america had to either suffer with it's principles, or at lest slightly abandon them for power?

 

Yes, that's what I meant. I'm just trying to frame the debate in a way that makes sense. Shouting "we're hypocrites!" and "we need to!" back and forth at each other doesn't make any sense unless we understand how the two issues are related.

 

In this case, it seems to be a fairly typical balancing act between power and principle. Lots of societies throughout history have had to make that choice (although the "principles" in question have varied enormously), and they haven't all made the same choice. Each has its costs, and sometimes the costs are not what you would expect.

[John Cuthber]

I still don't understand how this is a war.

On whom was it declared?

Which are the neutral countries?

Probably most important are 2 related matters

How will you know when it ends?

Who will sign the armistice?

Until we have answers to those, all this talk of "all's fair in love and war" is irrelevant.

[Dak]

Yes, that's what I meant. I'm just trying to frame the debate in a way that makes sense. Shouting "we're hypocrites!" and "we need to!" back and forth at each other doesn't make any sense unless we understand how the two issues are related.

 

In this case, it seems to be a fairly typical balancing act between power and principle. Lots of societies throughout history have had to make that choice (although the "principles" in question have varied enormously), and they haven't all made the same choice. Each has its costs, and sometimes the costs are not what you would expect.

 

hmm... whilst i still think i'd be against it, i'd concede your point with reguards to torturing -- maybe a balance between ideology (don't do it) and realism (it'd be useful if we did) would be best, and maybe america's even got that balance right.

 

but I'm not convinced that a balance would be in american's best interests on the 'no fair trial' bit; should a law-abiding american ever fear his own govournment, even just a tiny bit, and even if it's 'only' fearing the outside chance that he'll fall under suspicion of terrorism and then not afforded a fair trial?

 

or, if that attitude is only to be adopted with non-americans, please try to shit on your own doorstep; dont let your policy desisions risk adversly affecting us

 

even if a balance is the best approach, america has this bit wrong as it stands, simply because there's no balance there at all atm. a military tribunal will be a farce; theres no chance at all, at this point, that a closed military tribunal will result in a verdict of innocent, even if the person is innocent. if a balance is to be sought, there are more 'balanced' alternatives.

[Haezed]

I still don't understand how this is a war.

On whom was it declared?

Which are the neutral countries?

Probably most important are 2 related matters

How will you know when it ends?

Who will sign the armistice?

Until we have answers to those, all this talk of "all's fair in love and war" is irrelevant.

 

When was the last time a war was officially declared? Your assumption is that wars can only be between countries. The US fought "wars" against pirates the past.

[Haezed]

Yes, that's what I meant. I'm just trying to frame the debate in a way that makes sense. Shouting "we're hypocrites!" and "we need to!" back and forth at each other doesn't make any sense unless we understand how the two issues are related.

 

In this case, it seems to be a fairly typical balancing act between power and principle. Lots of societies throughout history have had to make that choice (although the "principles" in question have varied enormously), and they haven't all made the same choice. Each has its costs, and sometimes the costs are not what you would expect.

 

What principles are being compromised? I've yet to have anyone actrually read the Hamden decision and tell me what is so bad about the ultimate resolution by the Supreme Court. I would say our system is doing a pretty good job of protecting security and principles although it is a truism that all of these decisions are balancing processes.

[John Cuthber]

"When was the last time a war was officially declared?"

Probably WWII but it hardly matters.

The US constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war and they have not done so.

[Haezed]

"When was the last time a war was officially declared?"

Probably WWII but it hardly matters.

The US constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war and they have not done so.

 

Actually, you are incorrect in your assumption that a President can't take a country into war based on a use of force resolution such as was given to Bush. Otherwise, we'd have lawsuits from coast to coast to stop the unconstitutional war.

 

I think part of the problem is both sides want to over-simplify the fight/war against "terrorism" into the "war" or "non-war" category. This is something entirely new as terrorists will be more and more able to capitalize on the historic exponential growth in technological power that has occurred in our lifetimes. We are obviously struggling with what the rules should be and I'm appalled at the lack of slack the international community has given the US. We deserve better from our allies besides whom we have fought and bled for common values.

 

Here to me is the problem with the "war"/"no war" dichotomy: If you say "war" and apply all of the traditional rules to an ongoing conflict against an ill defined enemy who will fight for generations, you erode our liberties.

 

If you say "no war this is a criminal justice exercise," you are giving up an American city some day with the resulting chaos and ultimate loss of liberty that would cause. We simply cannot allow terrorist organizations to hide behind nation states with impunity. We must be aggressive and go on the offensive and even then we may still suffer large losses.

 

The truth of this debate is in the middle - a balance must be struck that doesn't fit the legal pidgeon holes that arose from 20th century conflicts. Did GWB get this balance exactly right? No. Would Nancy Pelosi et al, have gotten it exactly right? No.

[John Cuthber]

I didn't make that assumption. I was pointing out that Congress could declare war and clarify the matter. They have not. Presumably that's for a reason. Their reason may actually be valid. This might not really be a war.

BTW, at camp Xray the American government doesn't seem to be struggling with the rules- it simply broke them.

 

There is, at least potentially, another way to avoid that theoretical city's destruction. Stop acting in such a way as to make it easy for terrorist organisations to recruit followers. For example, do not detain people indefinitley without trial apparently on the basis that they are Moslems.

[JohnB]

Haezed

Ummm:

Well if you had read the full article.

Also, section 1005, part (e) of the Act prohibits aliens detained in Guantananmo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.

The McCain Amendment cited the U.S. Army's Field Manual on interrogation as the authoritative guide to interrogation techniques. On December 14, the New York Times reported that the Army Field Manual had been rewritten by the Pentagon. Previously, the manual's interrogation techniques section could be read freely on the Internet. But the new edition's includes 10 classified pages in the interrogation technique section.

The Graham-Levin Amendment permits the Department of Defense to consider evidence obtained through torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and expands the prohibition of habeas corpus for redetainees, which subsequently leaves detainees no legal recourse if they're tortured.

I feel sooooo much better now. Yes I see where the US military is adhering to basic human rights principles.

 

What was Hicks doing in Afghanistan? Being a bloody twit, that's what.

 

I suppose part of the grey area here is exactly who was he fighting for? Was he an Al Queda fighter fighting in support of the Taliban, or a Taliban fighter trained by Al Queda? The Taliban, though a blight on the face of the planet, are not a terrorist organization.

 

As for his "Guilty" plea. Duh. What a choice he got. Two of the three defence counsels barred from the court, one because he wouldn't sign an agreement to adhere to rules that hadn't been worked out yet. You might sign blank cheques, but the rest of us generally don't.

 

So he was faced with a choice, he could either;

A) Plead "Not guilty" and face a rigged court that has no concept of justice, or due process, or

B) Plead "Guilty" and go home for some 270 days and be released by Christmas.

 

It really is a no brainer isn't it?

 

Haezed, nobody is denying that this is a thorny issue. Where I have the problem with the "WAr on Terrorism" is that it's jingoism, like a "War on Poverty" or a "War on Drugs". It is however a conflict and a grave one. It is a conflict of Ideologies; Liberal Democracy v Despotism.

 

The only way the west can win this conflict is to let people see the difference for themselves. We must do this without handing our enemies any more propaganda victories and Gitmo is the best advert for the other side that they can hope for.

 

"See, the Americans say they stand for justice, but they will throw you in jail for years and not give you a fair trial. They say they are for families but how many families have been allowed to talk to their loved ones? They say they will not torture, but if they aren't torturing your brothers, why won't they let you talk to them? They say they aren't like the Crusaders of old, yet all the prisoners held for so long are all Muslims."

 

We must stand by our principles and let all the world see that we are doing so. If we say one thing and do another, then we hand converts to the enemy. In many respects, Al Queda and their ilk are products of the west's failed foreign policies. We preach "Democracy" and "Rule of Law" and promptly go and support any POS that says he will lean our way. If the forces oppressing you are armed with M-16s marked "Made in America" and are trained by the US military, then the people will notice these little details and won't like you for it.

 

Gitmo also hands any rogue nation the perfect weapon. If say, Lebanon decided to declare the CIA a "Terrorist Organization" under their laws. They then get their friends in Palestine to round up some US citizens on "Suspicion of being associated with a terrorist organisation". Those people are then sent to Libya and held without trial for a year or two.

 

How could the US, or any other nation complain? See what I'm getting at? To win, we can't use any tactics that we don't want the other side to use and we musn't use some of the tactics we know they will use.

[Pangloss]

I didn't make that assumption. I was pointing out that Congress could declare war and clarify the matter. They have not. Presumably that's for a reason. Their reason may actually be valid. This might not really be a war.

 

Right, but that's about political gumption more than anything else. It's notable that they didn't even choose to declare war on Afghanistan and the Taliban.

 

 

There is, at least potentially, another way to avoid that theoretical city's destruction. Stop acting in such a way as to make it easy for terrorist organisations to recruit followers. For example, do not detain people indefinitley without trial apparently on the basis that they are Moslems.

 

This is putting the cart before the horse. I empathize with the sentiment, but a better example could have been selected. It also fails to acknowledge the point that people are responsible for their own behavior. But as I said, I empathize with the sentiment. We can do much better on this front, and it apears that we really have no choice but to do so, since we can't keep going on like this.

[Haezed]

Haezed

 

Well if you had read the full article.

 

I did.

 

I feel sooooo much better now. Yes I see where the US military is adhering to basic human rights principles.

 

My goal was not to make you feel better but to at least make the discussion informed.

 

What was Hicks doing in Afghanistan? Being a bloody twit, that's what.

 

Er... right. This just may not be a great time to be a bloody twit.

 

I suppose part of the grey area here is exactly who was he fighting for? Was he an Al Queda fighter fighting in support of the Taliban, or a Taliban fighter trained by Al Queda? The Taliban, though a blight on the face of the planet, are not a terrorist organization.

 

The lengths to which you will go to excuse this guy. Amazing. If he was fighting for the Taliban then he was an enemy combatant.

 

As for his "Guilty" plea. Duh. What a choice he got. Two of the three defence counsels barred from the court, one because he wouldn't sign an agreement to adhere to rules that hadn't been worked out yet. You might sign blank cheques, but the rest of us generally don't.

 

As I said, the rules are evolving and everyone is having to deal with this. This is a paradigm shift in terms of what the US and the rest of the civilized world is having to address. Has there been terrorism before? Yeppers, like for thousands of years and it didn't start with anti-US sentiment.

 

The problem is the confluence of this age old mind set of the underdog looking for a way to kick the big dog with the destructive power of tech ramping upwards along an exponential curve. I'm sure the advice being given to GWB is that the risk of city killing tech following into terrorist hands will only increase in the next twenty years.

 

It will be interesting to see what the next Pres will do when given the inside scoop.

 

So he was faced with a choice, he could either;

A) Plead "Not guilty" and face a rigged court that has no concept of justice, or due process, or

B) Plead "Guilty" and go home for some 270 days and be released by Christmas.

 

There you go again. "No concept of justice." "No due process." You'd make your case a lot better if you didn't degenerate into such extremes.

 

It really is a no brainer isn't it?

 

What his guilty plea? I don't know. A lot of factors would go into that.

 

Haezed, nobody is denying that this is a thorny issue. Where I have the problem with the "WAr on Terrorism" is that it's jingoism, like a "War on Poverty" or a "War on Drugs". It is however a conflict and a grave one. It is a conflict of Ideologies; Liberal Democracy v Despotism.

 

If you read my posts, you'll see that I also have problems with calling this a "war on terrorism." On the other hand, it's not "criminal justice as usual." Your last sentence presents a false choice. A balance has to be struck and institutions do not turn on a dime, particularly those bound by precedents. We're working on it.

 

The only way the west can win this conflict is to let people see the difference for themselves. We must do this without handing our enemies any more propaganda victories and Gitmo is the best advert for the other side that they can hope for.

 

So the way we win is... what??

 

"See, the Americans say they stand for justice, but they will throw you in jail for years and not give you a fair trial. They say they are for families but how many families have been allowed to talk to their loved ones? They say they will not torture, but if they aren't torturing your brothers, why won't they let you talk to them? They say they aren't like the Crusaders of old, yet all the prisoners held for so long are all Muslims."

 

You act as if the threat of a certain religion's extremists started hating the US because of Gitmo. This is not factual. Are they using Gitmo for propaganda purposes? Yeah, sure. Should we close it just to get rid of the symbol? I dont' know because we are still going to house those we think are suspected terrorists.

 

Are the rules today perfect? Probably not but ultimately the Supreme Court will have its say as it did in the Hamden decisison as will voters. Democracy in action is not always pretty to watch but those who are educated should understand that people are acting in good faith in addressing a helluva problem.

 

We must stand by our principles and let all the world see that we are doing so. If we say one thing and do another, then we hand converts to the enemy.

 

A nice platitude to which I agree. Our principles allow a process to deal with these issues. Let's see how it does.

 

In many respects, Al Queda and their ilk are products of the west's failed foreign policies.

 

That is a vast and irrelevant oversimplification. The history of what created Al Queda is centuries long.

 

We preach "Democracy" and "Rule of Law" and promptly go and support any POS that says he will lean our way. If the forces oppressing you are armed with M-16s marked "Made in America" and are trained by the US military, then the people will notice these little details and won't like you for it.

 

Kind of funny here because really you are advocating for GWB. Past presidents have been way too practical in propping up any POS that says he will lean our way and that has been the problem. GWB genuinely doesn't think that way IMO.

 

This is also not an easy issue you are trotting out.

 

Gitmo also hands any rogue nation the perfect weapon. If say, Lebanon decided to declare the CIA a "Terrorist Organization" under their laws. They then get their friends in Palestine to round up some US citizens on "Suspicion of being associated with a terrorist organisation". Those people are then sent to Libya and held without trial for a year or two.

 

Well, for starters, after the Church commission in the 1970s the CIA could not be accurately termed such. If they falsely labeled an arm of the US government a terrorist organization and took our citizens, there would have to be consequences for such stupidity. I don't think this compares with an Aussie who decides to be a bloody twit and go to Afghanistan and fight either with the Taliban or Al Queda.

 

How could the US, or any other nation complain?

 

With logic and force if necessary and practical.

 

See what I'm getting at? To win, we can't use any tactics that we don't want the other side to use and we musn't use some of the tactics we know they will use.

 

This is a strawman. I have never advocated using "any tactic."

[Haezed]

Now to discuss the specifics of the portions of the article you excise:

 

Also, section 1005, part (e) of the Act prohibits aliens detained in Guantananmo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.

 

I do not know the ramifications of this. Should a suspected enemy combatant be allowed to invoke habeas corpus? I really dont' know what that involves. Do you?

 

The McCain Amendment cited the U.S. Army's Field Manual on interrogation as the authoritative guide to interrogation techniques. On December 14, the New York Times reported that the Army Field Manual had been rewritten by the Pentagon. Previously, the manual's interrogation techniques section could be read freely on the Internet. But the new edition's includes 10 classified pages in the interrogation technique section.

 

You mean they didn't publically announce to the world exacdtly what to expect when captured. Shocking. These pages must allow castration.

 

The Graham-Levin Amendment permits the Department of Defense to consider evidence obtained through torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and expands the prohibition of habeas corpus for redetainees, which subsequently leaves detainees no legal recourse if they're tortured

 

I'd have to read the actual bill to see if this is an accurate assessment, i.e. that there is no legal consequence for violating the ban on torture. There may be consequences that are outside of the proceedings. The basic issue this presents is like with Miranda warnings. Should a confession obtained without a Miranda warning be admissable in court or should we just punish the policeman for not following practice. This was not an immediately obvious issue although now we are trained to believe the former.

 

Again, I sense a process wrestling with complex issues and none of the complete "lack of due process" you fear.

[Haezed]

I didn't make that assumption. I was pointing out that Congress could declare war and clarify the matter. They have not. Presumably that's for a reason. Their reason may actually be valid. This might not really be a war.

 

The reason may be that they want plausible deniability if the thing goes awry. Instead, they voted for an authorization of force resolution.

 

BTW, at camp Xray the American government doesn't seem to be struggling with the rules- it simply broke them.

 

Eh?

 

There is, at least potentially, another way to avoid that theoretical city's destruction. Stop acting in such a way as to make it easy for terrorist organisations to recruit followers. For example, do not detain people indefinitley without trial apparently on the basis that they are Moslems.

 

Your Aussie wasn't detained because he was Moslem.

 

I'm intrigued by your word "potentially." That's not a lot of confidence that we'll be able to stop a terrorist organization for destroying a US, British or Australian city. Of course, if they ever do take out a city, they can count on much of the world to say it must have been a CIA plot.

 

Part of the problem with this discussion is that we are using different time frames. You are wrapped up in the specifics of what the US is doing now, as if every war would not have atrocities and degredations. The difference with this "war" is that the press is far less pro-US than it was in WWII.

 

My perspective is long term. I want to make sure that my children grow up in a world with some Iota of liberty and that's not going to happen unless we keep terrorists from hiding behind nation-states and cooking up WMDs. I don't expect any "war" effort, or any human endeavor, for that matter, to be perfect but I see the democratic processes established hundreds of years ago from the founders of this country kicking in and addressing the problem. There are too many checks and balances for us to devolve into tyranny UNLESS we lose a city. If that happens, all bets are off. That threat is not immediate but will become more plausible in the next ten to twenty years.

[Haezed]

Right, but that's about political gumption more than anything else. It's notable that they didn't even choose to declare war on Afghanistan and the Taliban.

 

Or North Korea or N. Vietnam or Iraq in Gulf War I.

[JohnB]

The lengths to which you will go to excuse this guy. Amazing. If he was fighting for the Taliban then he was an enemy combatant.

I'm not trying to excuse him. Yes he was an enemy combattant, ( so were several thousand other people ) this however does not make him a terrorist.

There you go again. "No concept of justice." "No due process." You'd make your case a lot better if you didn't degenerate into such extremes.

Rather than pointing a finger, how about you produce something that shows a modicum of justice in the system you're defending? Or is it easier to point the finger and cry foul? Show where the system is just. Show where the "checks and balances" are.

Well, for starters, after the Church commission in the 1970s the CIA could not be accurately termed such.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The CIA and the nations mentioned were just for illustration. The US (as is it's right as a sovereign nation) is declaring various organisations as "Foreign Terrorist Organisations."

 

There is nothing to stop another sovereign nation passing laws to do exactly the same thing. Now if this nation then arrests US citizens and holds them without charge for years all the while telling you that they're "working on the process" how can you complain? To complain would show the US as a hypocrite. (And give more propaganda ammo to the enemy) See my point?

 

Yes I have great problems with how the US is behaving. But one of the big reasons I'm yelling loudly is so that if anybody does it to your citizens I can yell just as loudly in their defence.

So the way we win is... what??

I told you.

The only way the west can win this conflict is to let people see the difference for themselves.

To win, we can't use any tactics that we don't want the other side to use and we musn't use some of the tactics we know they will use.

We are actually both thinking about the long term. I think we both want the same end, we just differ as to the means. Terrorism has always been and probably always will be. (There would have to be some silly bugger somewhere who could get upset in Heaven. )

 

As I see it there are three steps for reducing the threat of terrorism worldwide.

1. Defeat the immediate danger.

2. Do so without generating too many more converts for the radicals.

3. Dry up most of their recruiting pool.

 

Gitmo does nothing to further any of these objectives, ergo it's a waste of time and effort. It does nothing for 1 and is in direct opposition to 2. You can't win a conflict by continually handing huge (and continuing) propaganda victories to your enemies.

 

As for

I'd have to read the actual bill to see if this is an accurate assessment,

You thought it accurate enough when you used the link in a vain attempt to prove your point.

 

WRT Habeas Corpus. Yes it has been withdrawn for certain periods and for very limited times. It's usual use is to prevent the abuse of power by authorities, in fact that is what it was written to prevent. You really do have to ask "Why?" when a government wants to remove the oldest and most powerful weapon against it abusing it's power, don't you? Habeus Corpus is the law from which almost all other civil rights comes from.

 

It actually means "You have the body." A quick Google provided these definitions.

"Latin for a court petition which orders that a person being detained be produced before a judge for a hearing to decide whether the detention is lawful. Habeas corpus is a basic individual right against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment."

an "extraordinary remedy" which requires anyone detaining a person to justify the detention to a superior court

A writ commanding that a person be brought before a judge. Most commonly, a writ of habeas corpus is a legal document that forces law enforcement authorities to produce a prisoner they are holding and to legally justify his or her confinement.

Or if you like, from http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

Habeas Corpus

habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [<Med. Lat., you should have the body]

 

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

 

Sorry mate, but the only reason I can really see for the removal of Habeas Corpus is that the authorities concerned can't show "just cause" and they bloody well know it. It's removal is an attack on the very basis of you rights and your legal system.

[Pangloss]

The Supreme Court fell short today of the four votes it needed to bring this case before it, voting 6-3 to reject the appeal from the Federal Appeals court, which decided that it lacked jurisdiction. Justice Breyer, writing for the three justices who dissented, said that the case raised "questions [that] deserve this court's immediate attention.''

 

Story here.

[John Cuthber]

I wrote "There is, at least potentially, another way to avoid that theoretical city's destruction. Stop acting in such a way as to make it easy for terrorist organisations to recruit followers. For example, do not detain people indefinitely without trial apparently on the basis that they are Muslims."

And got the reply that

"This is putting the cart before the horse. I empathize with the sentiment, but a better example could have been selected. It also fails to acknowledge the point that people are responsible for their own behavior. But as I said, I empathize with the sentiment. We can do much better on this front, and it appears that we really have no choice but to do so, since we can't keep going on like this."

 

I haven't seen the proof, but according to one of this morning's newspapers the British man released earlier because they noticed that there was no evidence against him (the official reason for his detention was "possession of a suspicious device"; it was a battery charger) doesn't give any hope that the American Government has learned a lot about building bridges.

Sure he was released as an innocent man against whom no charges had formally been made, and only 4 years late.

The authorities saw fit to lead him out of jail in handcuffs and a blindfold.

That's how they think one should treat the innocent (by their own admission) residents of a friendly country.

If that turns out to be true then it's shameful. I think it's indefensible, does anyone disagree?

[Haezed]

I'm not trying to excuse him. Yes he was an enemy combattant, ( so were several thousand other people ) this however does not make him a terrorist.

 

When you say he was just being a "bloody twit" as if this were just some bit of youthful hijinxs, you are excusing him.

 

If he's an enemy combatant, why can't we keep him till the war is over?

 

Rather than pointing a finger, how about you produce something that shows a modicum of justice in the system you're defending? Or is it easier to point the finger and cry foul? Show where the system is just. Show where the "checks and balances" are.

 

They are developing the rules after the Hamden decision. Some of the defense lawyers didn't want to sign onto this process and yippie for them but I've seen zero, nada, zippo evidence which warrents your hyperbole that there is no due process involved.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The CIA and the nations mentioned were just for illustration. The US (as is it's right as a sovereign nation) is declaring various organisations as "Foreign Terrorist Organisations."

 

You used an illustration which would be illogical. Yes, another country could declare that the Green Bay Packers are a terrorist organization but that would not make it even remotely arguably true. Compare and contrast that to your "bloody twit."

 

There is nothing to stop another sovereign nation passing laws to do exactly the same thing.

 

Except logic and force if necessary.

 

Now if this nation then arrests US citizens and holds them without charge for years all the while telling you that they're "working on the process" how can you complain? To complain would show the US as a hypocrite. (And give more propaganda ammo to the enemy) See my point?

 

Well, there are some advantages of being a big dog and, frankly, I don't care about being called a hypocrit when i'm fighting for the preservation of my country. That may sound like hyperbole, but it isn't - if we lose a city, my country is gone.

 

We aren't going to get a fair break in the arab media regardless of what we do.

 

Yes I have great problems with how the US is behaving. But one of the big reasons I'm yelling loudly is so that if anybody does it to your citizens I can yell just as loudly in their defence.

 

Goodie but I don't think yelling does much good either way.

 

I told you. The only way the west can win this conflict is to let people see the difference for themselves.

To win, we can't use any tactics that we don't want the other side to use and we musn't use some of the tactics we know they will use.

 

Hold the presses! Call the NSA! All the US need do is... (drum roll please) nothing!

 

We are actually both thinking about the long term. I think we both want the same end, we just differ as to the means. Terrorism has always been and probably always will be. (There would have to be some silly bugger somewhere who could get upset in Heaven. )

 

Your last sentence was one I can agree with finally.

 

As I see it there are three steps for reducing the threat of terrorism worldwide.

1. Defeat the immediate danger.

 

Umm... how?

 

2. Do so without generating too many more converts for the radicals.

 

How?

 

3. Dry up most of their recruiting pool.

 

By doing nothing? Righto.

 

Gitmo does nothing to further any of these objectives, ergo it's a waste of time and effort. It does nothing for 1 and is in direct opposition to 2. You can't win a conflict by continually handing huge (and continuing) propaganda victories to your enemies.

 

Ok, I have an idea. Let's move Gitmo and name it Hedonism IV.

 

Seriously, these enemies will make their own propaganda no matter what we do. They are offended by our very culture as, sometimes, am I.

 

 

You thought it accurate enough when you used the link in a vain attempt to prove your point.

 

I'm too tired tonight to look back and see what this refers to. Later on that one...

 

WRT Habeas Corpus. Yes it has been withdrawn for certain periods and for very limited times. It's usual use is to prevent the abuse of power by authorities, in fact that is what it was written to prevent. You really do have to ask "Why?" when a government wants to remove the oldest and most powerful weapon against it abusing it's power, don't you? Habeus Corpus is the law from which almost all other civil rights comes from.

 

It actually means "You have the body." A quick Google provided these definitions.

"Latin for a court petition which orders that a person being detained be produced before a judge for a hearing to decide whether the detention is lawful. Habeas corpus is a basic individual right against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment."

an "extraordinary remedy" which requires anyone detaining a person to justify the detention to a superior court

A writ commanding that a person be brought before a judge. Most commonly, a writ of habeas corpus is a legal document that forces law enforcement authorities to produce a prisoner they are holding and to legally justify his or her confinement.

Or if you like, from http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

Habeas Corpus

habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [<Med. Lat., you should have the body]

 

Yes, thank you. I knew that the term meant "bring the body before us" but I don't know, in practical terms, what that means in the context of an enemy combatant or suspected terrorist. If you grant Habeas corpus does that mean that you automatically give the accused the full panapoly of procedural rights granted to US citizens. You understand, I trust, that NO COUNTRY, does that for enemy combatants.

[ParanoiA]

If he's an enemy combatant, why can't we keep him till the war is over?

 

Because it's not a war. It's a forced regime change with military order. We must actually see it differently or else we'd bomb the cities like we did in WWII in Germany and Japan. I'm not arguing for the entire array of civil rights, seeing as how we're not even in our own country in which to grant such rights, but our actions over there are how they see us. Period. Right or wrong, actions speak louder than words and we should go to some trouble to weed out any innocents and process as many guilty as possible.

 

They are developing the rules after the Hamden decision. Some of the defense lawyers didn't want to sign onto this process and yippie for them but I've seen zero, nada, zippo evidence which warrents your hyperbole that there is no due process involved.

 

So you don't believe this "new" process should be obligated to prove itself - prove it is just and due process is present? I think the onus is on us...

 

You used an illustration which would be illogical. Yes, another country could declare that the Green Bay Packers are a terrorist organization but that would not make it even remotely arguably true. Compare and contrast that to your "bloody twit."

 

Well, but he makes a good point though. We're basically declaring groups as terrorists, which we feel strongly about and have evidence that we believe is quite sound. But other nations can do the same thing - nations like Iran, Syria, and etc. They could declare certain groups terrorists as well, and of course we'll be as suspicious of their evidence as they are of ours. They could use our own logic against us and at least fuel world opinion and support and wouldn't the anti-american crowd love that??

 

Hold the presses! Call the NSA! All the US need do is... (drum roll please) nothing!

 

Yeah, what's up with the pacifism? I understand resisting the battle urge, but some of these folks just seem like masochists. Or, maybe they feel guilty about being in an advanced, modern country under a government that doesn't choose guns over food.

 

If you grant Habeas corpus does that mean that you automatically give the accused the full panapoly of procedural rights granted to US citizens. You understand, I trust, that NO COUNTRY, does that for enemy combatants.

 

Yeah, I don't believe any country treats enemy combatants like that. If we went that far and turned gitmo into a circus of lawyers and media, they'd complain that we're making a mockery of ourselves and complain about bringing our american laws to foreign soil and blah blah blah...

 

We need to process those people and act like we give a damn with a ton of camera work. If we're going to fight against propaganda, let's use our assets, our advantage...technology. That ought to be a fight we can win. Look at the sheeple here in america...

[ParanoiA]

The Graham-Levin Amendment permits the Department of Defense to consider evidence obtained through torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and expands the prohibition of habeas corpus for redetainees, which subsequently leaves detainees no legal recourse if they're tortured.

 

I feel sooooo much better now. Yes I see where the US military is adhering to basic human rights principles.

 

Well you're missing the obvious. If you're at the point you're willing to torture somebody, then why would you provide any recourse for that somebody? They're obviously bad enough to have all of their basic human rights erased and abused, physically and mentally, for information. I say torture never should be signed into law in any form. Rather, be used discretely like it has in the past.

 

What was Hicks doing in Afghanistan? Being a bloody twit, that's what.

 

I suppose part of the grey area here is exactly who was he fighting for? Was he an Al Queda fighter fighting in support of the Taliban, or a Taliban fighter trained by Al Queda? The Taliban, though a blight on the face of the planet, are not a terrorist organization.

 

As for his "Guilty" plea. Duh. What a choice he got. Two of the three defence counsels barred from the court, one because he wouldn't sign an agreement to adhere to rules that hadn't been worked out yet. You might sign blank cheques, but the rest of us generally don't.

 

So he was faced with a choice, he could either;

A) Plead "Not guilty" and face a rigged court that has no concept of justice, or due process, or

B) Plead "Guilty" and go home for some 270 days and be released by Christmas.

 

It really is a no brainer isn't it?

 

The only thing you know about this dude is what the media has told you. The whole point of having courts where due process takes place is so people like you can't judge someone based on incorrect facts and biased storytelling. How can you be so sure he is just a twit?

[JohnB]

If he's an enemy combatant, why can't we keep him till the war is over?

When will it be over?

Who are you fighting?

Who will sign the Armistice?

Gee, are these questions familiar? You've been asked them a number of times before, but you seem incapable of providing any sort of answer.

They are developing the rules after the Hamden decision. Some of the defense lawyers didn't want to sign onto this process and yippie for them but I've seen zero, nada, zippo evidence which warrents your hyperbole that there is no due process involved.

Then what is the process? What are the rules of that process? These are simple questions, how about you try answering them?

You used an illustration which would be illogical. Yes, another country could declare that the Green Bay Packers are a terrorist organization but that would not make it even remotely arguably true.

It doesn't have to be true. It can simply be the law. And they would not have to justify it to you. ( As an aside, I read years ago in a set of "Silly Laws" about a legislature passing a law that pi=4. The story is here. )

Except logic and force if necessary.

So you will use force to influence the legal processes of other sovereign nations? You will use threats to influence what laws they pass concerning their internal security? And you wonder why nobody trusts you anymore?

Well, there are some advantages of being a big dog and, frankly, I don't care about being called a hypocrit when i'm fighting for the preservation of my country.

You won't be called a hypocrite, you will be one.

That may sound like hyperbole, but it isn't - if we lose a city, my country is gone.

Lose your principles and it's gone faster. What are you fighting for again?

Yes, thank you. I knew that the term meant "bring the body before us" but I don't know, in practical terms, what that means in the context of an enemy combatant or suspected terrorist.

It means they get the protection of the law against wrongful imprisonment. It means trial by law and not closed door commissions.

Umm... how?

Let the intelligence and security organizations do their job.

How?

Refrain from actions that blind freddy can see hand propaganda victories to your enemies.

By doing nothing? Righto.

If you can find a single example where I advocated that, quote it. Otherwise stop making a fool of yourself.

They're obviously bad enough to have all of their basic human rights erased and abused, physically and mentally, for information.

Oh yes, obviously. The US military would never ever detain an innocent person, would it?

The only thing you know about this dude is what the media has told you. The whole point of having courts where due process takes place is so people like you can't judge someone based on incorrect facts and biased storytelling. How can you be so sure he is just a twit?

The whole point is that you don't have courts where due process takes place in this case.

 

For a variety of reasons I have come to realise that the "Presumption of innocence" and "Habeas Corpus" are the two fundamental principles that the laws of civilised society are based on. Presumption of innocence is the easiest one to forget. How many times have you heard on the news that the cops arrested a suspect and you thought to yourself ( or said it ) "Good, they got the so and so that did such and such."? I know I used to.

 

Look at the crowds outside a courthouse when the guy goes to trial. They'd hang him right there and then. "Presumption of Innocence" is the only thing that protects due process and defends against lynch law.

 

Without Habeas Corpus, no individual is protected from the abuse of power by an authority. By removing it from Gitmo, the US has placed the military above the law. Think about that for a while, an organisation has been told that the law doesn't apply to them. Doesn't that frighten you? It scares the hell out of me.

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

To be totally honest, it saddens me to see how far you have strayed from the great ideals your nation was founded upon.

[ParanoiA]

JohnB, I think you may be dellusional at this point. We don't offer habeas corpus on the battlefield. We don't do due process in warfare. That doesn't mean that all democratic countries that go to war are now hypocrites.

 

War is force. Period. When you go to war, you're forcing your will onto someone else. There is NOTHING democratic about that.

 

All of your arguments are built around the "technicality" that we haven't formally decalred war - which hasn't been done since WWII. So, apparently we've murdered thousands of people, presumed their guilt without ANY due process whatsoever in Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf war...etc.

 

And - so have they. By your arguments, we were not given ANY due process during those conflicts - nor this current one. Everyone in this mess is NOT following due process of any kind.

 

You only seem to be obsessed with those we didn't kill. You don't seem to care about the lack of due process concerning the dead ones. So if we killed them all would you feel better?

 

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

 

And here, you're preaching to the choir. That's the argument I just used on you. You have presumed to know that Hicks is just a twit. I presume nothing - good or bad. Let the courts figure it out. They will presume him innocent, and then prove his guilt. What the hell do either one of us know in order to even have an opinion? You only know what you've been told from biased storytellers - you call them news media, I call them what they are.

 

It's so sad that you still insist on judging people absent due process. The "state" presumes his innocence, because the burden of proof of guilt is on them. The rest of us shouldn't be judging by what the news says. We all do it anyway, but it's wrong. And that's why we have courts.

 

Usually this is an argument used to defend someone against a lynching. I find it odd that no one sees the sense in protecting the opposite - assuming their innocence for reasons just as stupid as presuming their guilt.

 

To be totally honest, it saddens me to see how far you have strayed from the great ideals your nation was founded upon.

 

We haven't strayed at all. We still presume innocence until proven guilty. We still fight international conflicts with ZERO regard to the laws of our homeland. I don't know anyone who doesn't...