6/13/2008 2:37:58 PM

i like how the assumption is that 100% of these people are innocent and they were all captured by guys prank calling the govt

6/13/2008 2:38:03 PM

^



a grand jury isn't a get out of jail free card.

If they're guilty, they'll stay in jail.

6/13/2008 2:39:02 PM

Quote :

"i like how the assumption is that 100% of these people are innocent and they were all captured by guys prank calling the govt"

Innocent until proven guilty.

Yeah, what a crazy fucking idea. At least it would be if it weren't the basis for the entire fucking legal system that separates us from the dickholes we fight...

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 2:39:46 PM

Quote :

"yes. that is, for radical extremists that want to kill me, my family or my countrymen. that said, it is ridiculous that these guys have been floating around in this ambiguous arena between POW and terrorist. as I said, they should be charged and tried in some fashion, just not along the same lines as US citizens. our courts are not set up for it. is this that difficult to understand? add: of course, our military could simply change their policy of taking prisoners and let justice be served on the field of battle. then no one is wrongly imprisoned."

I can agree with that. If they're trying to fucking kill you on the field of battle you should go ahead and shoot them. But, once you take them prisoner then there needs to be a set of rules that are followed.

If you have evidence to prove that they need to be detained then present them. I wish there was some kind of international tribunal for this and I'm a bit surprised we haven't tried to create one. Terrorist activity is not unique to the US, if we really gave a shit about the rule of law we'd have tried to pass some kind of international laws or treaties for this kind of situation.

You can't just go around the world black bagging people, then flying them to a military prison, and then detaining them with no evidence of wrongdoing made public.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 2:43 PM. Reason : quote]

6/13/2008 2:41:51 PM

i think if we capture someone who was just shooting at us, we should give them a lengthy trial

also they should be judged by a jury of their peers...that would be safe

6/13/2008 2:42:15 PM

Quote :

"I wish there was some kind of international tribunal for this and I'm a bit surprised we haven't tried to create one."

Why would we?

The International Criminal Court already exists and we don't participate. This was decided very early in Bush's first term.

---

Quote :

"i think if we capture someone who was just shooting at us, we should give them a lengthy trial also they should be judged by a jury of their peers...that would be safe"

You're not this dense. Eliminating an immediate and mortal threat is something you can do to other citizens on our own soil.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM. Reason : fee fi fo fum...]

6/13/2008 2:43:39 PM

Trials only exist so people can officially be declared innocent

6/13/2008 2:45:35 PM

^^probably because he's looking out for us...if you're outraged about people getting held in Gitmo, many of them who are guilty, I'd hope you'd be much much more outraged when the International Court decides to hold some Americans

6/13/2008 2:45:39 PM

Quote :

"i think if we capture someone who was just shooting at us, we should give them a lengthy trial also they should be judged by a jury of their peers...that would be safe"

Who's wanting this to happen?

A grand jury is not a lengthy trial.

At this point I really don't believe you understand what this argument is about.

6/13/2008 2:47:08 PM

^^ More like, "because it would subordinate US law to International Law."

I'm only moderately upset by this. I'd be less upset by it if we had our own legitimate process instead, for which this decision could provide the basis. Military Tribunals and Commissions seem logical enough. We're in the midst of precedent-setting for them at this stage--which is why more rulings like this and the Padilla ruling will continue to legitimize the process.

An American citizen in a Guantanamo Bay style facility would be an outrage. This is EXACTLY why we need a legitimate process.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 2:47:18 PM

I'm not in favor of flying them up to Raleigh and giving them a jury trial. They aren't US citizens, they don't get to don't have to receive a jury trial. I just want them to have some kind of legal process. The idea that our government can snatch people up (a lot of these people were not captured on the battlefield) and lock them away with no legal recourse or charge is absolutely terrifying.

6/13/2008 2:47:43 PM

Quote :

"More like, "because it would subordinate US law to International Law.""

I can see that, but first we'd have to start applying some sort of US law.

6/13/2008 2:48:57 PM

Habeas corpus is a key component of US law.

By far, no silver bullet, but it's a start.

6/13/2008 2:52:28 PM

Quote :

"I'm guessing TreeTwista10 thinks those sent to Guantanamo have received some form of due process first. DaBird, too."

[quote]

no, I do not. are you also a selective reader? although I would bet that most there were involved in some manner...some obviously a lot more than others.

my beef is not giving them some form of due process...its giving them the same due process afforded to US citizens in US courtrooms. AGAIN, our courts are not set up for this.

6/13/2008 3:22:11 PM

Quote :

"Military Tribunals and Commissions seem logical enough. We're in the midst of precedent-setting for them at this stage--which is why more rulings like this and the Padilla ruling will continue to legitimize the process. An American citizen in a Guantanamo Bay style facility would be an outrage. This is EXACTLY why we need a legitimate process. "

I do agree with this. I really dont think you and I are that far apart on this issue.

6/13/2008 3:23:15 PM

Quote :

"It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," Scalia wrote. He concluded his dissent with this warning: "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.""

And this guy claims to be an originalist.

What a joke.

6/13/2008 3:58:35 PM

Quote :

"hey aren't US citizens, they don't get to don't have to receive a jury trial."

So does Ackbar the foreign guy in my engineering class get black bagged and locked away at Gitmo if he's caught with a gram of cocaine??

6/13/2008 4:00:36 PM

Quote :

"DaBird: no, I do not. are you also a selective reader? although I would bet that most there were involved in some manner...some obviously a lot more than others. my beef is not giving them some form of due process...its giving them the same due process afforded to US citizens in US courtrooms. AGAIN, our courts are not set up for this."

Please differentiate your view from "somebody accused X a terrorist and gave us intel on his or her location, hence it is ok to detain X indefinitely without charge or the right to challenge that detention."

Salem became infamous this way.

Whether you believe it or not, our courts are set up to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused party.


[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 4:09:11 PM

Quote :

"Please differentiate your view from "somebody accused X a terrorist and gave us intel on his or her location, hence it is ok to detain X indefinitely without charge or the right to challenge that detention." Salem became infamous this way. Whether you believe it or not, our courts are set up to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused party. "

you are smarter than this. never have I said that is ok. are you seriously not reading anything that I post? every single innocent person at Gitmo should be immediately released.

our courts, however, are not set up determine national security threats from people taken prisoner from a battlefield. what is the burden of proof or chain of evidence?

6/13/2008 4:48:22 PM

Quote :

"you are smarter than this. never have I said that is ok. are you seriously not reading anything that I post? every single innocent person at Gitmo should be immediately released."

How do you propose we do this in the absence even of a habeas hearing? i.e., challenging the basic facts of the case at hand? Not even a full trial here - but simply whether we even know if this person is legitimately being held for a crime or just got rounded up with some other weirdos.

6/13/2008 4:53:58 PM

Quote :

"DaBird: every single innocent person at Gitmo should be immediately released. "

And how do you propose we determine their innocence? Divination?

Quote :

"DaBird: our courts, however, are not set up determine national security threats from people taken prisoner from a battlefield. what is the burden of proof or chain of evidence?"

Criminal, civil, and military courts all exist to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused...

The burden of proof, as I already explained, is "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case. It's the familiar "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal ones, which is a far stricter burden of proof. I'll confess ignorance on military courts. Maybe BEU or theDuke866 can clarify.

6/13/2008 5:13:04 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure this isn't a new concept to civilian courts. We put terrorists/drug cartels/organized crime through the justice system prior to GWB, you know."

Boone

On the other hand we used to kill these sorts of folks when we found them. Instead the Bush admin jails them in the interest of sparing innocents and gathering information. His reward, all ya all are outraged at his restraint. If he had instead ordered the execution of these folks when we found them then it would now be a non-issue.

I hope that future administrations learn this simple lesson; restraining action in the interest of political correctness is folly.

Also, this stupid label of "War on Terror" needs to forthwith be replaced with what it really is and needs to be: "The War Against Radical Islam". That is what it is. Bush's inability to clearly label it as such and to explain Iraq in that larger context is part and parcel of why the American populace is largely not supportive of the war these days.

Also, I am truly confused by the Bush administration's inability to man-up and support those unjustly punished border guards who shot the drug dealer in the buttocks. I mean, doesn't Bush see by now that he is not gaining any support by his restraint. In fact, he is just angering the base even more.

6/13/2008 7:26:51 PM

Quote :

"The War Against Radical Islam"

Or "The New Crusade"

6/13/2008 8:56:59 PM

Quote :

"And how do you propose we determine their innocence? Divination? "

i have already said panel of qualified, unbiased people.

6/14/2008 2:03:38 PM

Those sound an awful lot like judges...

6/14/2008 2:08:02 PM

DaBird has been making a lot of sense in this thread. Some of you won't accept his position no matter how well he argues it, though.

6/15/2008 12:29:50 AM

The United States (or any country, for that matter) detaining ANYONE without charge, without oversight, and without any observable access to some form of legal channels to protest said detention, that, my dear hooksaw, is something that makes NO sense.

6/15/2008 10:03:22 AM

One big question I have with this is how are we going to get people who are battling in Iraq to testify against one of the combatants? I havent seen anyone address this issue.

Also, did anyone notice how Obama called this a blow to McCain.

[Edited on June 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

6/15/2008 10:31:07 AM

Seeing as McCain referred to it as "one of the worst decisions in the history of the country", I can't disagree.

6/15/2008 10:42:59 AM

If we are truly at war with those islamic extremists, then dispensing mercy should be the last thing on our minds. It's ridiculous to include enemy combatants into our legal system for processing. They are prisoners of war, to be kept off the battlefield until said war is over. That is all they should expect.

As i said before- we fight the war first, and then prosecute the losers later under the appropriate legal system. But while the war is ongoing, prisoners of war have very few rights. As Scalia writes in his dissent:

Quote :

"The category of prisoner comparable to these detainees are not the Eisentrager criminal defendants, but the more than 400,000 prisoners of war detained in the United States alone during World War II. Not a single one was accorded the right to have his detention validated by a habeas corpus action in federal court—and that despite the fact that they were present on U. S. soil. See Bradley, The Military Commissions Act, Habeas Corpus, and the Geneva Conventions, 101 Am. J. Int’l L. 322, 338 (2007). The Court’s analysis produces a crazy result: Whereas those convicted and sentenced to death for war crimes are without judicial remedy, all enemy combatants detainedduring a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield over which the United States exercises “absolute and indefinite” control, mayseek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. And, as an even more bizarre implication from the Court’s reasoning,those prisoners whom the military plans to try by full-dress Commission at a future date may file habeas petitions and secure release before their trials take place. There is simply no support for the Court’s assertion that constitutional rights extend to aliens held outside U. S. sovereign territory, and Eisentrager could not be clearer that the privilegeof habeas corpus does not extend to aliens abroad. By blatantly distorting Eisentrager, the Court avoids the difficulty of explaining why it should be overruled."

6/15/2008 11:19:21 AM

I'll ask the question again, since it seems to be going conspicuously unanswered:

How do you know these people are enemy combatants in the absence of a habeas hearing?

It's one thing if we pluck them straight off the battlefield, but in a large number of cases, this is not what we are doing. The result is now we're stuck with a bunch of people that we have long since determined we had no business rounding up, but we've held onto them for so long that now they could be a threat - namely, because they're so pissed at being held unjustly for so long.

So, in the absence of a hearing to determine whether or not these people even belong in captivity, how do you plan on determining who actually belongs there or not?

6/15/2008 11:29:41 AM

I don't think everyone at Guantanamo was captured in the 'battlefield'

6/15/2008 4:22:22 PM

It seems like some people are completely missing the point here. The argument is not that terrorists have rights, or that terrorists deserve the same things as American citizens. No one is saying that. The argument is that people in general have rights. It is possible that, somewhere along the line, a mistake was made, and an innocent person was scooped up and thrown into Gitmo? Is there anything wrong with that premise? Are military personnel infallible?

The argument that we're somehow sticking up for terrorists is completely wrong. No one is sticking up for them, we're simply saying that people deserve to be proven guilty or innocent. That is a basic principle that should apply to any individual.

The idea that we're making America safer by detaining people without cause is pretty ludicrous. What's the difference between a terrorist and a serial killer, on a basic level? The serial killer is a citizen, okay. But he was picked up for murder. Should we just keep him in jail forever without trial, because he's a murderer, and therefore has forfeited his rights? I mean, you understand why that is circular reasoning, right?

6/17/2008 12:59:28 AM

Quote :

"The argument is that people in general have rights"

When you are at war, the enemy has no rights. They obviously have no regard for our people..cutting off heads etc. In war, you have to destroy the enemy's will to fight by bringing massive destruction down upon them.

Quote :

"we're simply saying that people deserve to be proven guilty or innocent."

Allowing our enemy access to the protections of our legal system is ridiculous. War is a horrible endeavor. People are required to do things which would normally be considered illegal. In war, everyone is guilty. It's just that usually the winners get to prosecute the losers for "war crimes."

Quote :

"It is possible that, somewhere along the line, a mistake was made, and an innocent person was scooped up and thrown into Gitmo?"

Sure it's quite possible. But you know what? War is messy. War is wasteful. War does not always make careful distinctions in who is slaughtered. I'm pretty sure we fire-bombed a bunch of "innocent" citizens during WWII. But the nazis and the japanese were also working on atomic bombs which I'm sure they would've dropped on us in a flash.

Quote :

"What's the difference between a terrorist and a serial killer, on a basic level? "

A serial killer is a lone monster. Muslim extremists have banded together in a united cause to strike terror into their perceived enemies. Their goal is the subjugation of all non-muslim people.

On a basic level war makes killers of us all.

6/17/2008 1:37:28 AM

Quote :

"In war, you have to destroy the enemy's will to fight by bringing massive destruction down upon them. "

i agree....i just wish we could hypnotize the rest of the iraqi citizens that hate us now more than they did in 2003 so in the future they wont attack us

6/17/2008 1:42:30 AM

Quote :

"When you are at war, the enemy has no rights. They obviously have no regard for our people..cutting off heads etc. In war, you have to destroy the enemy's will to fight by bringing massive destruction down upon them."

Quote :

"Allowing our enemy access to the protections of our legal system is ridiculous. War is a horrible endeavor. People are required to do things which would normally be considered illegal. In war, everyone is guilty. It's just that usually the winners get to prosecute the losers for "war crimes.""

Like I said, you're completely missing the point. The enemy has no rights, okay. I can agree with that. But we have to first determine if they are even an enemy at all. Right?

6/17/2008 2:10:30 AM

hes gonna say "wrong" and "war is the devil"

6/17/2008 2:13:09 AM

sorry for the double post...i saw a pic i liked




rofl george will kills this shit imo http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/was_it_really_the_worst_decisi.html

Quote :

"The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well. Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps? "

6/17/2008 3:14:43 AM

Quote :

"When you are at war, the enemy has no rights. They obviously have no regard for our people..cutting off heads etc. In war, you have to destroy the enemy's will to fight by bringing massive destruction down upon them."

How do you know everyone in there is a terrorist? Are you omniscient? Have you personally reviewed the circumstances of each of their capture?

You keep evading this question each time it is asked, assuming that each person there is a terrorist. Yet your argument that these people deserve no rights is predicated upon the assumption of verifiable knowledge that these people are who you assume they are.

How can you justify this assumption in the absence of any kind of habeas review, especially when the government itself has already admitted that your assumption is wrong?

Repeat: The government itself has already confirmed not everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist like you assert. Therefore, your assumption is wrong.

So, how do you know who is guilty and who is not in the absence of a habeas hearing?

6/17/2008 10:47:18 AM

In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Quirin that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus and tried by military commission, making a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants.

the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 11:00:05 AM

Yes, and you know what the difference in Ex Parte Quirin was?

We caught them red-handed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Quirin#Background

Quote :

"Burger, Dasch, Heinck and Quirin traveled from occupied France by German submarine U-202 to Amagansett Beach, Long Island, New York, landing in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942. The remaining four boarded German submarine U-584 which carried them from France to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness. All eight wore full or partial German uniforms, to ensure treatment as prisoners of war should they be captured on landing. The Long Island group was noticed by Coast Guard beach patrolman Frank Cullen, whom Dasch attempted to bribe with $260. Cullen returned to his station and sounded the alarm. The two groups promptly disposed of uniforms and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City and Jacksonville, Florida, respectively, and from there to other points in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. Upon landing, Dasch and Burger turned themselves in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation with some difficulty, since the FBI did not believe them immediately. They convinced the FBI that they were telling the truth and the remaining six were taken into custody in New York and Chicago, Illinois by FBI agents. The FBI had no leads until Dasch gave his exaggerated and romanticized version in Washington DC."

As the government has repeatedly shown, this is not the case in Gitmo. We have scores of detainees rounded up under highly questionable circumstances. Ergo, banning any one of you suddenly stepping forward with superpowers, I'd really like to hear how any of you would propose to sort through the stack of those who actually belong in there indefinitely and those who don't.

Or is your collective silence on the matter simply an indication now that guilt and innocence no longer matter?

6/17/2008 11:22:32 AM

Quote :

"Or is your collective silence on the matter simply an indication now that guilt and innocence no longer matter?"

From what I can gather, detaining innocent people indefinitely is acceptable, even if it bypasses justice completely.

6/17/2008 11:26:11 AM

chaos, I dont think anyone is claiming that they should be kept there indefinitely without trial. That is where I find blame with the Bush admin. If they would have made things happen quicker, with charges or a military trial I think people would understand. However, its the cases of people being held for years without being told what they are being held for that bother people.

However, is there any cases of people being held there for years that didnt take part in some aspect of attack on the US?

6/17/2008 11:29:52 AM

Quote :

"However, is there any cases of people being held there for years that didnt take part in some aspect of attack on the US?"

it's hard to tell because they keep it all secret. but didn't they release some recently who had been there ~5 years without charge?

yeah here you go:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E67BAB1D-FF13-4854-A91C-26DFA7E21ED0.htm

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 11:34:59 AM

It has happened with a few people. Many of whom had no where to go since their citizenship had been stripped by their home country.

6/17/2008 11:36:25 AM

sarijoul, you linked an aljazeera page. Im not saying it isnt accurate until I read: "He has been on hunger strike at Guantanamo for the past seven months in protest at his protracted imprisonment."

7 months with no food?

Nuts, im not saying I dont believe you. I just want to read about it.

6/17/2008 11:40:45 AM

Quote :

"However, is there any cases of people being held there for years that didnt take part in some aspect of attack on the US?"

Yes - in fact, we've got dozens of them in Gitmo right now. We kind of put some folks in there rather indiscriminately, without checking to see if they had actually done anything - much less could have done anything:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12555919
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120952.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html

82 were cleared of any charges and free to go home - of course, many of them can't go home now. And even the government admits it only even wants to try about a fifth of them - the rest it intends to just release.

Quote :

"Of the roughly 385 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. "

Particularly damning is this review of Gitmo prisoners by Seton Hall law professors Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux. A highlight of a few things they found:

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

Quote :

"1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. 3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified. 4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. 5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants."

That fourth point should be the most concerning one - we don't know what kind of slipshod work people handing us these detainees are doing, or who we're even getting.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 11:42:40 AM

found one from a united states source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/365233_boyd01.html

6/17/2008 11:46:47 AM

THanks for the links fellas.

I wonder why the countries wont take them back if they are truely innocent though.

I dont mind the idea of gitmo. I think we need to have a place to sort things out. What I oppose is the amount of time it has taken. I know we will make mistakes, but it shouldnt take the kind of time it is. I also blame, as you linked dr, just accepting detainees from other countries without any evidence..(that we know of, but that is the way it seems)

sarijoul, notice how no mention of the 7 month hunger strike. IM not sure what goes on during a hunger strike, but if he isnt eating in 7 months.. i call bs.

6/17/2008 12:02:59 PM