6/12/2008 9:15:46 PM

Quote :

"so now we care about what the rest of the world is doing??"

no i'm merely saying all prisons have flaws as do judicial systems, so if there are a decent number of people locked up, some are bound to be wrongfully locked up...its not right, and its not how its supposed to be but its reality...dont read too much into me saying all prisons around the world are like this...all prisons around our own country are like this, if that helps...all prisons in general...so again my point was that its not like all jails and prisons are just, except for Gitmo

6/12/2008 9:31:04 PM

so what happens to this KSM guy now?

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM. Reason : and the others in the military tribunal]

6/12/2008 9:32:15 PM

Quote :

"so again my point was that its not like all jails and prisons are just, except for Gitmo"

in other prisons a prisoner can not be held without a charge or without some mechanism for challenging their detention, indefinitely

6/12/2008 10:00:39 PM

^exactly. in the rest of the country, the criminal justice system has run its course and has convicted an innocent person. in Guantanamo, the criminal justice system hasn't even had a chance, those who are innocent don't even have the opportunity to be wrongly convicted much less freed because they are actually innocent.

6/12/2008 10:57:10 PM

Page 2 needs more convictions to justify indefinite detainment:

Quote :

"Gamecat: Have we even convicted anybody on terrorism charges?"

6/13/2008 12:11:15 AM

Quote :

"In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision 'will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.'"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5054515

President Bush's statement on the issue:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5056992

6/13/2008 12:52:44 AM

if minority opinions mattered, george w bush never would have been president

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 12:54 AM. Reason : and how will trying people make more americans die?]

6/13/2008 12:54:04 AM

I'm confused how holding trials of the detainees will cause the war to be harder. I mean what the fuck kind of excuse is that. Taking away freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution just because it will make war harder is certainly wrong.

The majority decision should have just been a single quote:

Quote :

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -Benjamin Franklin"

or

Quote :

"Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. -Harry Emerson Fosdick "

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 1:05 AM. Reason : a]

6/13/2008 1:04:30 AM

This is one rather compelling reason:

Freed Guantanamo inmates take up arms

Quote :

"AT LEAST 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release."

Quote :

"Commander Jeffrey Gordon said the detainees had, while in custody, falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan."

Quote :

"His comments follow the death this week of Taliban commander and former detainee Abdullah Mehsud, who reportedly blew himself up rather than surrender to Pakistani forces. In December 2001, Mehsud was captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay until his release in March 2004. He later became the Taliban chief for South Waziristan. Commander Gordon said the US did not make it a practice to track detainees after their release, but it had become aware through intelligence gathering and media reports of many cases of released detainees returning to combat."

http://tinyurl.com/2fac6p

6/13/2008 1:34:42 AM

so why not follow the geneva conventions with these detainees?

6/13/2008 1:57:14 AM

we should just allow the US gov't to imprision whoever they feel b.c as long as its for "national security" fuck human rights.

the future gov't in Minority Report had the right idea.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM. Reason : l]

6/13/2008 2:22:36 AM

^^one of the main issues is with the difference in uniformed soldiers in the armed forces on behalf of a country, versus rebel guerillas in "plainclothes" with no official nation that they're representing...some would say they're not exactly following the laws of war and therefore don't deserve the associated rights (ie geneva convention)

6/13/2008 2:27:45 AM

It's more appropriate to hold them until a war against an abstract reaches its conclusion except there are no clear obtainable goals. Great thinking.

6/13/2008 6:41:43 AM

Quote :

"so what do we do with them, then? let them rot in prison until they die without ever having been proven guilty or innocent all the while torturing them for information? "

Quote :

"That's a laughable position. You're saying that, by being alleged to have committed a crime, people who are not US citizens lose any right to a fair trial. What need for a trial would they have were they not already accused of a crime? (I say "accused of a crime" here in the loosest sense of the word, since most of the people in Gitmo have not and will never be actually charged with a crime.)"

you M'Fers never read a whole thread. you pick and choose what you want to debate instead of trying to understand a person's opinion.

I said, repeatedly, that every single person in Gitmo should be formally charged and the government should have to prove their case against that person...maybe to a panel of judges or an international panel. However, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME ACCESS AND RIGHTS TO OUR COURTS. They are not citizens of our country. They do, however, have basic human rights and therefore deserve some kind of hearing but NOT IN OUR COURTS.


Do not try and compare this with visiting aliens who enter our country legally. COMPLETELY different.

Quote :

"DaBird is an NCSU alum majored in PolySci, yet he still can't formulate a basic coherent political argument that has any basis in reality. how sad."

since I have not stalked your profile, I have no idea what your background is other than you are rabidly naive. get a clue about the real world.

6/13/2008 7:54:28 AM

Quote :

"some would say they're not exactly following the laws of war and therefore don't deserve the associated rights (ie geneva convention)"

bingo. To deserve the luxury of civil protection you have to put forth a modicum of civility.

Besides, gitmo is a picnic compared to many foreign prisons.

I don't think that citizens should ever be held without cause, but noncitizens can take it up with there own government. Of course if that government is hostile and the captive is a stealth soldier in effect then try them as enemy soldiers.

There is no clear resolution to these matters, but surely we don't want terrorists getting off on technicalities... that will certainly happen in domestic courts. Especially in the current political climate.

6/13/2008 9:08:10 AM

well said mathman...you did a better job of articulating that than I did.

who represents these guys in court? public defenders or high-powered attorneys looking to milk the government out of every penny possible? what kind of outrageous settlements would be sought? How many appeals would they get? What is the burden of proof? How does the government produce evidence acceptable to our court standards? Soldiers are not trained in the art of CSI.

in short, this is a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

6/13/2008 9:30:49 AM

^^As long as we aren't cutting people's heads off we a-okay then?

I'm sorry, but my moral standard is not based upon the actions of al Qaeda, or Egypt. It's based upon how the United States should act.

6/13/2008 10:25:14 AM

Quote :

"some would say they're not exactly following the laws of war and therefore don't deserve the associated rights (ie geneva convention)"

They're accused of not following the laws of war.

You do understand that this is over habeas corpus, right?

Do you know what habeas corpus is?

6/13/2008 10:46:38 AM

I agree with the premise of your post nutsmackr. its just that a lot of us are tired of seeing our own polices and good graces used against us. constituitional rights should be limited to US citizens and those visiting our country legally.

these people need to be tried in some form or fashion, but not in our courts as we know them. this ruling was a mistake.

6/13/2008 11:03:11 AM

Quote :

"They're accused of not following the laws of war. You do understand that this is over habeas corpus, right?"

habeas corpus is for the rights of US citizens. it should not apply with these guys.

you are going to have non-military judges, with no national security or military background, deciding if a person is or is not a threat to national security. I dont think they teach that in law school.

6/13/2008 11:07:36 AM

AGAIN. they could just follow geneva conventions and move on. but NO. they want this to be a war when convenient. and not, when it's not.

6/13/2008 11:09:16 AM

Quote :

"habeas corpus is for the rights of US citizens."

Habeas corpus is a feature of American justice. We don't (historically) restrict it to US citizens.

Quote :

"you are going to have non-military judges, with no national security or military background, deciding if a person is or is not a threat to national security. I don't think they teach that in law school."

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.

6/13/2008 11:14:15 AM

Quote :

"habeas corpus is for the rights of US citizens."

O Rly? 1679 England would like to have a talk with you.

6/13/2008 11:16:47 AM

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. "

this is true, but those people are arrested by law enforcement who have a chance to establish chains of evidence and build a case appropriate for our courts against the perps.

these are enemy fighters, taken prisoner on a battlefield by some private trying to keep his dick from getting shot off. he isnt reading rights. he isnt taking notes...all of this done while in a foreign country with different laws than our own. there is no chain of evidence appropriate for domestic courts.

HUGE difference that you can surely see. Apples and oranges.

6/13/2008 11:19:33 AM

Quote :

"O Rly? 1679 England would like to have a talk with you."

as it is guaranteed in our Constituition for US citizens and others INSIDE the US. the idea of it certainly isnt restricted to our soil, but our Constituition is.

these are enemy soldiers! big f'ing difference. some of you argue our right to try and spread democracy to these very people, yet you immediately extend the constituition to cover them by default.

6/13/2008 11:22:40 AM

Quote :

"O Rly? 1679 England would like to have a talk with you."

1679 England needs to have a talk with 2008 England, too

Quote :

"this is true, but those people are arrested by law enforcement who have a chance to establish chains of evidence and build a case appropriate for our courts against the perps."

I imagine the burden of proof will be different from normal trials. But yeah, it's possible we shot ourselves in the foot by playing loose with the law.

If nothing else, it'll be a lesson to future administrations.

Quote :

"these are enemy soldiers! big f'ing difference."

Yet we didn't have to develop make-believe court systems for Nuremberg.

This is a lesson in hubris.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 11:24:36 AM

Quote :

"Yet we didn't have to develop make-believe court systems for Nuremberg. "

True, but he also didnt send them to see Judge Judy. This is a special circumstance with a lot of grey area.

We have to think outside of the box and make a compromise. I agree innocents should not be held...but they dont deserve the same rights as our citizens. Therefore, we need a court and trial process specific to this situation to sort it out fairly.

6/13/2008 11:34:36 AM

Quote :

"I agree innocents should not be held...but they dont deserve the same rights as our citizens."

That's a contradiction when talking about habeas corpus.

Either they have the right, or innocents are held.

6/13/2008 11:40:05 AM

no it is not. it is an overlap in basic human rights and our constitution. big difference there.

they have basic rights as a human being.

they do not have rights as a US citizen.

6/13/2008 11:52:53 AM

Quote :

"I imagine the burden of proof will be different from normal trials"

Civil trials use the "preponderance of evidence" standard, far more loose than the "reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal cases.

This does not make it that hard to convict a terrorist if sufficient evidence can be presented. The quantification of this standard is that if the jury is over 50% sure the defendant is guilty, they are. Far from criminal cases (think OJ).

6/13/2008 11:55:48 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/13scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=washington

Check out the NYT article, which mentions that the Supreme Court had a similar ruling the same day - although unanimous - stating that 2 US citizens in GITMO were to be provided habeus corupus.

So despite being accused terrorists and enemy combatants, their citizenship outweighed their other status.

Basically, anyone on US soil and under control of the US military has that right, period.

6/13/2008 12:16:26 PM

WIN MAGNA CARTA IS WIN

6/13/2008 12:33:33 PM

DaBird just hates freedom and democracy.

6/13/2008 1:02:00 PM

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/mccain_slams_the_supreme_court.html

Quote :

"so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus"

lol what an asshole

6/13/2008 1:44:31 PM

scare quotes around a right fundamental to free society.

nice

6/13/2008 2:03:40 PM

any of you guys ever been detained without the right to a trial? i havent...but you know who has? mccain

6/13/2008 2:11:07 PM

and what does that matter?

6/13/2008 2:15:37 PM

^^Good thing he liked it enough to want to keep doing it I guess

6/13/2008 2:17:23 PM

Perhaps The McCain can explain how his experiences in Vietnam convinced him that we ought to emulate the judicial practices of our enemy...

6/13/2008 2:18:43 PM

maybe he knows that as a soldier if he had been released he would've gone back into the fight...

6/13/2008 2:24:13 PM

I'm sorry, but it is not within the realm of debate that indefinitely imprisoning someone with no legal recourse is wrong. If you can't agree that one should, at some point, have to be either charged with an offense and tried or released then you have issues with the very idea of a legal system, and not just ours in particular. What we were doing, when you boil it all down, was holding alleged prisoners of war (though we are not currently at war with anyone) without even the most basic Geneva rights or any form of legal recourse.

Either they are POWs and must be treated as such or they are prisoners and must be treated as such. To try to claim that they were in some kind of limbo as "enemy combatants" and had no legal standing is pure bullshit.

This decision was long overdue, and if SCOTUS had come down on the other side I think you'd see massive global outrage that, frankly, would endanger our soldiers more than the release of a few dozen alleged terrorists.

6/13/2008 2:26:52 PM

Quote :

"Either they are POWs and must be treated as such or they are prisoners and must be treated as such. To try to claim that they were in some kind of limbo as "enemy combatants" and had no legal standing is pure bullshit."

no its not pure bullshit, its guerilla warfare and not following the laws of war...i'm sure if they wanted to (hypothetically) band together on behalf of afghanistan and all wear the same military uniforms they would get the proper procedures

6/13/2008 2:29:19 PM

Quote :

"maybe he knows that as a soldier if he had been released he would've gone back into the fight..."

Fuck it then. McCain should've been summarily executed upon capture. Right?

Zero rights. Zero protections. Why are we even fighting Al Qaeda anyway? Seems like we should be their homeboys.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 2:30:04 PM

Quote :

"its guerilla warfare and not following the laws of war"

6/13/2008 2:30:18 PM

you guys love bending over backwards to defend our enemies since a few of them might be innocent

6/13/2008 2:32:30 PM

I think that every time somebody makes some shit up and rats out his buddy for a quick thousand bucks in afghanistan we totally have to throw the book at the poor guy and lock him up indefinitely with no indication of why we did it because that's the American way

6/13/2008 2:32:36 PM

Quote :

"you guys love bending over backwards to defend our enemies since a few of them might be innocent"

Classy.

You're cornered, so you call us terrorist sympathizers.

6/13/2008 2:35:00 PM

Quote :

"DaBird just hates freedom and democracy."

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.

6/13/2008 2:35:31 PM

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

DaBird, too.

Quote :

"yes. that is, for accused radical extremists that want to kill me, my family or my countrymen."

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 2:36:26 PM