Quote :

"Senate Committee Approves Bill for Detainee Hearings By Josh White Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 8, 2007; Page A03 The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a bill that would give detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, part of a renewed effort by the Democratic-controlled Congress to challenge the Bush administration on its wartime policies. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) joined all 10 Democrats on the committee in approving the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, which aims to counteract a law passed hastily in October that stripped detainees of their ability to bring their cases to court under the centuries-old legal principle of habeas corpus. The Republican majority passed the Military Commissions Act in October over strong objections that it was unconstitutional and that it inappropriately allowed the government to hold detainees at Guantanamo indefinitely without court challenge."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702205.html

I personally find the suspension of habeas corpus, even just for the Gitmo detainees, to be one of the most frightening things that has gone on during the current administration. It's one of the most fundamental rights in civilized nations' legal systems, and, while being a white American non-Muslim, meaning I have no reason to believe it will ever affect me personally in its current form, the current state of the law absolutely scares the shit out of me.

Everybody deserves the right to be given the reason for their detention and the ability to challenge said detention in a court of law. EVERYBODY.

6/8/2007 11:32:48 AM

Quote :

"Everybody deserves the right to be given the reason for their detention and the ability to challenge said detention in a court of law. EVERYBODY."

6/8/2007 11:33:39 AM

This just begs for a TreeTwista appearance and his regurgitating FNC talking about suicide bombers and blah blah blah.

6/8/2007 11:35:50 AM

THANK YOU FOR YOUR VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

6/8/2007 11:38:11 AM

It's a crucial bit of legislation that hopefully can be pushed forward.

But does it have enough support to beat a veto?

6/8/2007 11:39:23 AM

I was reading somewhere that they have a good chance of getting a veto-proof majority. I'll try to find a link if I can.

6/8/2007 11:42:21 AM

But is there anything to debate, really?

And will a "[fundamental right] Restoration Act" really fail?

6/8/2007 11:43:50 AM

^ The real debate can't start until / if the bill fails...

6/8/2007 11:44:43 AM

Rights for immigrants, rights for POW's........now if we can just get the government to stop taking rights away from U.S. born citizens, we'll be getting somewhere.

6/8/2007 11:45:28 AM

Quote :

"Everybody deserves the right to be given the reason for their detention and the ability to challenge said detention in a court of law. EVERYBODY."

6/8/2007 11:45:47 AM

Quote :

"And will a "[fundamental right] Restoration Act" really fail?"

The [fuindamental right] Removal Act did just fine.

6/8/2007 11:50:14 AM

Well it had a much snazzier name.

6/8/2007 11:51:16 AM

Tru dat.

6/8/2007 11:57:28 AM

Quote :

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION "

anytime you see "Blind Hate" under usernames...skip over it to the next post.


but yeah, i agree...this is one of the worst things done by this administration. All they have to do is label you an enemy combatant with no proof and your rights are flushed down the toilet.

sound like the beginnings to a new era. Civilizations are like a sound wave....you have your highest points and your lowest....the US is on its way if not already there to its lowest point.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : fda]

6/8/2007 12:25:28 PM

Quote :

"Everybody Americans deserves the right to be given the reason for their detention and the ability to challenge said detention in a court of law in the united states. EVERYBODY. just americans"

6/8/2007 12:32:54 PM

^ By that logic, Americans have no rights internationally, and vice versa... So much for that whole "inalienable rights endowed by their creator" bit.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2007 12:40:15 PM

I'm fine with a non-us citizen that is suspected of shady activities given less due process than we are. But I'm not talking about holding them for years, either. If we are really scared that they are up to something, put them in jail for awhile until we can sort out if there really is a case, then let them go after some period of time (not to exceed a couple of months) if we don't find anything. If they are non citizens and are dealing with possibly shady people, they better know to stay the fuck out of our country.

6/8/2007 12:45:41 PM

its a two way road. If you do this then you forfeit all rights to bitch and complain when one of your own is held captive on foreign soil. And don't think for a second you haven't just empowered terrorist organization with this ideal. They will use it against you time and time again...and the only ones who suffer for it are the innocent.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason : fda]

6/8/2007 12:52:20 PM

I was a correctional officer at a prison that housed Ronald Cotton--I knew him. He was falsely accused of rape and imprisoned for over a decade before eventually being set free based mostly on DNA evidence. You can look up his case on Google--it was a travesty of justice.

That said, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try defendants captured on the battlefield and use evidence collected by soldiers in the same manner as routine criminal cases in America--it just doesn't work. I do think, however, that some system--and legitimate military tribunals seems the most logical mechanism--needs to be implemented immediately to move these cases forward. We shouldn't hold people indefinitely without convictions and some form of due process.

V Um. . .if that's directed at me, I'm not babbling, asshole. Re.: Guantanamo Bay. But most people got that from context, I'm sure.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2007 12:53:38 PM

What are you babbling about? Outside of Iraq/Afg, when was the last time a US citizen was held captive by anyone?

I can't feel too much sympathy (empathy?) for a US citizen that gets snagged by some rogue group while they are visiting a less than safe country.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/8/2007 12:55:24 PM

we are talking about enemy combatants. This is how the other side views you.

and the fact that most of these detainees are innocent...its no different then you or me being snagged up and held indefinitely in some foreign country while you were 'site seeing' or on vacation because you are American and could be a CIA operative...therefore they must gather evidence...or pretend to at least to hold you without due process or any charges.

you are only viewing Iraq/Afghan as a problem. this is a global problem now.

and last time i checked...the US is less than safe. Not all tourists know what areas they can and can't visit in the US. Just like any other country. I'm sure a tourist lost in a bad area in LA is at as much risk as a lost contractor in Iraq.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 12:59 PM. Reason : fda]

6/8/2007 12:57:46 PM

^^ That's a pretty terrifying position to take.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2007 12:58:25 PM

Can either of you read?

Quote :

"V Um. . .if that's directed at me, I'm not babbling, asshole."

Do you see the edit with the two arrows?????? That means my post was not directed at you.

And

Quote :

"its no different then you or me being snagged up and held indefinitely in some foreign country while you were 'site seeing' or on vacation because you are American and could be a CIA operative"

Did you not read this

Quote :

"I can't feel too much sympathy (empathy?) for a US citizen that gets snagged by some rogue group while they are visiting a less than safe country."

Quote :

"and last time i checked...the US is less than safe. Not all tourists know what areas they can and can't visit in the US. Just like any other country. I'm sure a tourist lost in a bad area in LA is at as much risk as a lost contractor in Iraq."

What the bloody hell are you rambling about dude? LA? Tourists?

6/8/2007 1:10:20 PM

Quote :

"and last time i checked...the US is less than safe. Not all tourists know what areas they can and can't visit in the US. Just like any other country. I'm sure a tourist lost in a bad area in LA is at as much risk as a lost contractor in Iraq."

you really are scared of black people, aren't you?

6/8/2007 1:22:37 PM

you really are scared of black brown people, aren't you?

Needed a broader definition

6/8/2007 1:24:43 PM

^^um no. That does not change the fact that there are very dangerous places in the united states. You should remove those blinders so you can see the bigger picture a little clearer.

6/8/2007 2:22:47 PM

What is the bigger picture, why don't you break it down for us.

6/8/2007 2:33:20 PM

Quote :

"By that logic, Americans have no rights internationally, and vice versa... So much for that whole "inalienable rights endowed by their creator" bit."

well unless the guarantee that inalienable rights will not be infringed in other country's constitutions then they dont

that whole sovereignty thing is a bitch isnt it

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 2:43 PM. Reason : 

6/8/2007 2:39:52 PM

could someone post the definition of "inalienable" or

6/8/2007 2:41:18 PM

Quote :

"defendants captured on the battlefield"

Nope.

Quote :

" REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data [...] 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."

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

6/8/2007 2:46:00 PM

Quote :

"That said, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try defendants captured on the battlefield and use evidence collected by soldiers"

The vast majority of detainees at Gitmo were NOT picked up by soldiers on a battlefield (something around 5% were), the rest were turned in to the US by people wanting to get some of the money we were handing out for turning people in. Bush and Cheney have both made very deceiving (lying) comments regarding Gitmo on this issue.

Radio Program: http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/331.mp3
Radio Program Transcript on the issue: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf

Quote :

" That’s Badr’s version of why we jailed him; here’s President Bush’s: PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: These are people that got scooped off a battlefield, attempting to kill U.S. troops. And, uh, I want to make sure before they’re released that they don’t come back to kill again. HITT: The administration has never wavered on this point. Here’s Dick Cheney on Guantanamo: VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: The people that are there are people we picked up on a battlefield primarily in Afghanistan. They’re terrorists. They’re bomb makers, they’re facilitators of terror, they’re members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban. HITT: We’re told over and over that these prisoners are so terrible, that we need an offshore facility, away from U.S. laws, to hold them... Only 5% of our detainees at Guantanamo were “scooped up” by American troops, on the battlefield or anywhere else. Five percent. The rest? We never saw them fighting. ... Only 8% of the detainees in Guantanamo are classified by the Pentagon as Al Qaeda fighters. ... out of nearly 600 men at Guantanamo, the number who could give us useful information about Al Qaeda was “only a relative handful.” Some put the number at about a dozen. Others more than two dozen. ... 86% of the detainees were handed over to us by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance. ... The problem was, we were offering bounties, you know, $5,000 or $10,000 (Al Qaeda brought more than Taliban did) and so “ok, fine, here’s your money” and they take them to Gitmo [referring to people turning in people just to spite them] ... We all know this is a new war with new rules. But what were the old rules?... In the Gulf War of 1991, we captured 982 people, released 750 of them right away, and the remainder were POWs. Like in the old war movies, they gave name, rank and serial number, and they got certain things: everything from a pledge they wouldn’t be tortured, to a promise they’d be released once the war ended, and even the right to send letters home. "

I just realized I practically posted the same thing as boone but I have an audio file

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/8/2007 3:10:14 PM

Quote :

"um no. That does not change the fact that there are very dangerous places in the united states. You should remove those blinders so you can see the bigger picture a little clearer. "

baghdad is one of the most dangerous places ON EARTH right now. (probably the most dangerous city). nowhere in the united states comes close. sure a tourist might get robbed in LA. they don't have a very good chance of getting blown up or kidnapped and tortured.

6/8/2007 3:23:32 PM

i'm glad some people in congress still beleive in the constitution and not turning the USA into the First Galactic Empire.

I think the federal government in the last 30 years being further accelerated by 9/11 has severely over stepped its bounds when it comes to abuse of power all under the flag of "national security."

If England had today's technology the American Revolution would have never been successful b.c all the founding fathers would have been locked away in some secret prison.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 3:30 PM. Reason : l]

6/8/2007 3:27:41 PM

^dead is dead. Doesn't matter how you got to that end. Getting shot by some gangbangers in LA or getting beheaded in Iraq still leaves the same result. I didn't rank any cities or countries. I just said this country is not safe by any means. There are other forms of danger that threaten citizens of a society then rebels

6/8/2007 3:28:53 PM

I'm not really sure what point you are arguing now. Or, having not really made one from the beginning, now you're just responding to whatever you feel is appropriate?

6/8/2007 3:47:40 PM

^^:

Quote :

"I'm sure a tourist lost in a bad area in LA is at as much risk as a lost contractor in Iraq. "

decidely not true.

6/8/2007 5:04:26 PM

^the point is, they're going to get shot or experience the violent side of life regardless.

6/8/2007 5:17:09 PM

What does that have to do with habeas corpus and inalienable rights?

6/8/2007 5:25:00 PM

I'm very glad we took this step. the suspension of habeas corpus was an awful step to take and hold on to for this long.

Quote :

"That said, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try defendants captured on the battlefield and use evidence collected by soldiers in the same manner as routine criminal cases in America--it just doesn't work. I do think, however, that some system--and legitimate military tribunals seems the most logical mechanism--needs to be implemented immediately to move these cases forward. We shouldn't hold people indefinitely without convictions and some form of due process."

Quote :

"What are you babbling about? Outside of Iraq/Afg, when was the last time a US citizen was held captive by anyone?"

the EP-3 crew that went down over China a few years ago immediately comes to mind. Somalia also. I don't know about Bosnia, but Scott O'Grady came about an inch away from it before being rescued.

Quote :

"we are talking about enemy combatants. This is how the other side views you"

yep. besides the fact that it's the right thing to do, it's in our best interest strategically.

Quote :

"and the fact that most of these detainees are innocent...its no different then you or me being snagged up and held indefinitely in some foreign country while you were 'site seeing' or on vacation because you are American and could be a CIA operative...therefore they must gather evidence...or pretend to at least to hold you without due process or any charges."

maybe. I have my doubts about that, but have no doubt that there are innocent people being held there.

Quote :

"I can't feel too much sympathy (empathy?) for a US citizen that gets snagged by some rogue group while they are visiting a less than safe country."

have you completely lost your mind?

maybe you should spend a little time as a prisoner without receiving international rights...and maybe some strongarm interrogations would be good medicine for you.

Quote :

"dead is dead. Doesn't matter how you got to that end. Getting shot by some gangbangers in LA or getting beheaded in Iraq still leaves the same result. "

L.A. is not even on the same order of magnitude as Baghdad.

6/8/2007 5:47:53 PM

^you are only looking at it as comparing bombs and IED's vs gang bangers. The end result of killing innocent people is still the same. Are you saying the death of a person or child in LA is less significant then the death of someone in Iraq or another country?

6/8/2007 6:22:10 PM

no

i'm saying that your odds of getting whacked in Baghdad are a lot higher than your odds of getting whacked in L.A.

6/8/2007 9:02:14 PM

true, but your odds of getting killed in LA are still very high in the wrong neighborhood. thats my point.

6/8/2007 9:16:54 PM

yeah if i wore a confederate flag t-shirt in Compton my chances of survival would probably be like 10%

6/8/2007 10:31:19 PM

kinda like if you wore anything with the US flag on it in Iraq. glad someone picked up on that.

or hell, don't need the flag, just look white enough to be American.

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 11:02 PM. Reason : fda]

6/8/2007 11:02:27 PM

^ You still have no clue, and have yet to state it if you do, why you are attempting to argue this point. Do you even know why you got off on this tangent?

Quote :

"have you completely lost your mind? maybe you should spend a little time as a prisoner without receiving international rights...and maybe some strongarm interrogations would be good medicine for you."

Have you read the entire thread or do you read what people have responded to small quotes and come to some sort of obtuse conclusion. Christ duke, you act all enlightened about certain subject matter, but half the time you don't read shit, you just spout your 2 cents and hope that it applies to whatever section you quoted, because you were too lazy to read it all.

6/8/2007 11:59:43 PM

A large percentage of the detainees are guys who were narced on by pakis or afghanis who have the ear of US officials. A lot of the times, they haven't actually done anything wrong to the US. Someone is just trying to get revenge on them for a grudge and are using the hapless US military as a tool.

6/9/2007 11:19:18 AM

bttt by request

9/19/2007 10:51:18 PM

Quote :

"That said, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try defendants captured on the battlefield and use evidence collected by soldiers in the same manner as routine criminal cases in America--it just doesn't work. I do think, however, that some system--and legitimate military tribunals seems the most logical mechanism--needs to be implemented immediately to move these cases forward. We shouldn't hold people indefinitely without convictions and some form of due process."

I couldn't agree more.

Quote :

"and the fact that most of these detainees are innocent"

care to back that up with facts?

Quote :

"i'm glad some people in congress still beleive in the constitution and not turning the USA into the First Galactic Empire."

hardly, but that's another topic of conversation entirely

9/19/2007 11:02:10 PM

The cloture motion failed today by four votes. Both senators from NC were among the 43 who voted against it.

9/19/2007 11:03:53 PM

ahhhh, the joys of a two party system. Polar opposites are the only choices. The reasonable solutions in the middle get ignored. And the people get fucked

9/19/2007 11:05:29 PM