I'm not trying to go off on a conspiracy tangent, but am I the only one that thinks this will do very little practical good? Am I the only one who thinks there will always be secret CIA/NSA/DIA/whatever operations regardless of who is in power and what they've been officially told?

In the same sense, my feelings on this might explain why I wasn't as completely appalled as some of you all with some elements of the Patriot Act. Basically I've always thought that high level government intelligence and military agencies aren't operating in the public eye anyway...in other words, the government could've and would've easily tapped your phones well before the Patriot Act made it legal, if they felt the need

1/23/2009 4:56:30 PM

^ probably and i do not always have a problem with it.

I honestly would not be suprised if Osama Bin Laden is hidden in some CIA dungeon. The leaders in charge figuring it would be safer to keep discrete his incarceration to prevent a radical islamic backlash or some other reason.

Quote :

"other words, the government could've and would've easily tapped your phones well before the Patriot Act made it legal"

you are probably right but now with the patriot act is there it acts as short circuit to allow leaders to perform wire tapping and other privacy invading activities without any fear of punishment or question.



[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Reason : a]

1/23/2009 5:05:06 PM

Quote :

"I am for FAIR and impartial military/intel panels reviewing the cases of those detained."

I got an idea. Lets about just have the police departments hold bail hearings for everyone they arrest.

and maybe the policemen can form a panel to determine guilt or innocence while they're at it.

1/23/2009 6:19:37 PM

Quote :

"I honestly would not be suprised if Osama Bin Laden is hidden in some CIA dungeon."

you wouldn't be surprised if osama bin laden was captured and hidden in a CIA prison?

really?

REALLY?

1/23/2009 8:39:47 PM

dude.

that's HUR you're talking to.

1/23/2009 9:44:00 PM

Quote :

"I got an idea. Lets about just have the police departments hold bail hearings for everyone they arrest. and maybe the policemen can form a panel to determine guilt or innocence while they're at it."

your point is made. however if you use "police" from other departments and there is sufficient oversight you can ensure fairness.

1/23/2009 11:30:48 PM

becasue Cops from San Fran are so much different than Cops from Detroit?

1/24/2009 6:04:11 PM

what makes a judge in the sake city as the arresting cops ( who most likely works with these cops on a fairly regular basis) any more impartial than cops from another stAte would be in determinjg whether there is reason to hold someone ?

1/24/2009 6:32:41 PM

I just dont trust or expect judges versed in US law, procedures and standards of evidence to be able to switch gears, with little or no background, into judging the potential danger a captured enemy combatant poses to the United States.

the majority of the hearings of the men from gitmo will be a lot more about their potential to be terrorists once released moreso than their "guilt" or "innocence." I dont know the exact numbers but I bet the majority of the men still held are little more than low-level foot soldiers who were not involved in any planning or operational activities. I would prefer a panel of intel/military, who know what they are doing, to determine this 'potential' rather than some civilian judge.

the few that are actual conspirators (like khalid sheik muhammed) who are actually on trial for specific charges I am fine with regular federal judges trying their cases.

1/24/2009 8:42:42 PM

you really have no problems imprisoning people based on what they may do in the future? this would go against the ideals of freedom and justice that our country has been built on. you can't just toss out the criminal model and war model of justice because someone is a "bad dude". those detained either fall under the war model of justice or the criminal model of justice. the criminal model of justice is based on punishing people for crimes commited, not what they could potentially do. the war model is based on being involved in a war, and affords those detained certain rights and the assurance that outside certain war crimes they will be released after the conclusion of the conflict. what you are suggesting is some hybrid war/law model of justice that strips those detained of their rights under both models because they are bad people. its a shitty situation, but your opinion is going to be different than people who believe in what our country has been built on, an idea that people have certain rights that can not be removed just because they are horrible people.

1/24/2009 9:05:56 PM

Quote :

"you wouldn't be surprised if osama bin laden was captured and hidden in a CIA prison? really?"

Is it really that hard to believe?

1/24/2009 10:08:05 PM

Quote :

"you really have no problems imprisoning people based on what they may do in the future? this would go against the ideals of freedom and justice that our country has been built on. you can't just toss out the criminal model and war model of justice because someone is a "bad dude". those detained either fall under the war model of justice or the criminal model of justice. the criminal model of justice is based on punishing people for crimes commited, not what they could potentially do. the war model is based on being involved in a war, and affords those detained certain rights and the assurance that outside certain war crimes they will be released after the conclusion of the conflict. what you are suggesting is some hybrid war/law model of justice that strips those detained of their rights under both models because they are bad people. its a shitty situation, but your opinion is going to be different than people who believe in what our country has been built on, an idea that people have certain rights that can not be removed just because they are horrible people."

I think we both can agree that the majority of these 'bad guys' fall under a gray area of the law, so it is not as simple as a war model or a criminal model.

I think there are certain players that do fall under the criminal model...some men (sheik muhammed) who have been charged specifically with breaking US law. their situation is not ambiguous. they should be tried accordingly.

there are many others who are merely pawns. they fight against the US because that is all they know. they have no desire to carry out future attacks. they only want to repel the invaders from their land. these guys are akin to foot soldiers of any army and should probably be detained until the end of hostilities...or until they have no desire to fight due to the fact US forces have moved out of their area, etc...like any normal POW. federal judges have no place determining their fate. they have no frame of reference.

I do agree that they have basic human rights, which they are provided. I do think they are essentially POWs and should be imprisoned until the end of hostilities unless they are found to be some of the unfortunate captured falsely.

1/25/2009 2:32:53 AM

that's a pretty simplistic view.

but you know, whatever. everybody has to sleep at night.

1/25/2009 3:05:05 AM

Quote :

"what makes a judge in the sake city as the arresting cops ( who most likely works with these cops on a fairly regular basis) any more impartial than cops from another stAte would be in determinjg whether there is reason to hold someone ?"

jesusfuckingchrist. are you people stupid? or do you intentionally hold these fundamentally anti-American beliefs?

I mean, listen to yourselves. why dont we ust get rid of the independent judiciary. and lets get rid of the legislature, too, while we're at it. Because both the lawmakers and the judges are obviously incompetent tools.

that way, we'll just have one big happy executive branch that will determine who can be free and who can't, because OBVIOUSLY they're the only ones who know what the hell is going on.



I really can't believe we share the same country.

1/25/2009 3:11:31 AM

Quote :

"esusfuckingchrist. are you people stupid? or do you intentionally hold these fundamentally anti-American beliefs? I mean, listen to yourselves. why dont we ust get rid of the independent judiciary. and lets get rid of the legislature, too, while we're at it. Because both the lawmakers and the judges are obviously incompetent tools. "

Easy on the vitriol there buddy, I never said that the lawmakers and judges are incompetent tools. I simply pointed out that being a judge doesn't magically make you any more or less impartial than any other uninvolved third party. I see no reason why, when talking about enemy combatants in an ongoing conflict, you can't have an impartial judgement from a pool of people who are better versed in the issues at hand than your average federal appeals judge or "the internet is a series of tubes" senators.

1/25/2009 5:33:34 PM

^ I guess that could happen, but maybe we're all still thinking like we're under the Bush era when Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney were giving a wink and a nod that they didn't care how the detainees were actually handled. And when you have the president telling military officials they can do what they want, that practically eliminates any possibility for oversight.

Vs having civilian judges take care of things, where it's easier for congress/interest groups to stick their noses.

1/25/2009 5:38:24 PM

Quote :

"I simply pointed out that being a judge doesn't magically make you any more or less impartial than any other uninvolved third party."

well, once again, I ask "what's the fucking point of having judges? what's the point of having an independent judiciary?"

lets just let cops write the laws and interpret the laws AND enforce the laws.

I mean, hell, if it works in Mega-City, i don't see why it can't work here.

1/26/2009 10:42:25 AM

Quote :

"well, once again, I ask "what's the fucking point of having judges? what's the point of having an independent judiciary?""

The point of judges is to have an uninvolved third party act as a mediator and in many cases a final say in a dispute, however, this task can be performed by many people, and not merely someone bestowed with the magical title of "judge". For example, in a jury trial, the "judge" does not determine guilt or innocence, a selection of the population does that. Are you suggesting that a jury trial is not fair because a "judge" didn't make that decision? Again, being a "judge" doesn't confer any magical powers of impartiality on you, and I see nothing wrong with wanting the people that act as a judge or moderator for a dispute to have at least some familiarity with the issues involved.

Quote :

" lets just let cops write the laws and interpret the laws AND enforce the laws. "

You're as bad as hooksaw with the damn straw man arguments aren't you?

1/26/2009 4:18:06 PM

i AM hooksaw

1/26/2009 4:55:09 PM