Guantanamo Bay: Shame on you, United States

[Buffbro]

The Guantanamo "residents" are not citizens accused of crimes in our country. They are enemy combatants captured (not "arrested") on the field of battle in a war, and they do not wear the uniform of a country. They are not entitled to the rights of citizens in our civil/criminal court system.

[Kayra]

The Guantanamo "residents" are not citizens accused of crimes in our country. They are enemy combatants captured (not "arrested") on the field of battle in a war, and they do not wear the uniform of a country. They are not entitled to the rights of citizens in our civil/criminal court system.

 

Of course they are not provided the rights of citizens. No, they were not "Arrested". The term "enemy combatant" is a carefully crafted artifice used to evade existing laws.

 

I understand what you are saying. Do you understand the consequences to your way of life (assuming you are American) that this position threatens? not the immediate threat of terrorism, but the long term fundamental shift in power within your government?

 

Bush (and lets face it, Cheney specifically) used every political twist and tactic to evade the basic premises the country was founded on. It is clearly understood that a country can not afford to apply it's laws to an enemy. If they did, every single soldier that fired a weapon would have to go to court and be tried for either attempted murder or murder. This is why they are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other statutory provisions.

 

The United States Congress found a way to allow it's own laws to be superseded in order to deal with the situation of war. They did so in a manner that maintained the 3 branches of government in appropriate balance and did so within the framework of it's own constitution. They ensured the enforcement a different set of laws that still followed the basic tenants of the country's foundation. It took time, effort, disagreement, and frustration, but they did it.

 

Bush and Cheney perverted and subverted the process by using crafted terminology so that they would not would not have to go through that (absolutely necessary) grief in order to get what they wanted. Broader powers then any sane person would grant someone in that position.

 

That my friend is a terrorist threat that truly gives me a cold flush.

[Buffbro]

I assume then, Kayra, you have experienced staring down the barrel of an AK-47, as a fanatic with an explosive vest runs for a group of rescue workers unloading an ambulance with victims of a previous cowardly attack. That chill seems a bit more dramatic to me.

 

The rule of law assumes a basic foundation of civility and manners of acting in the general populace. When wholesale violations of that basic foundation are extant and growing, extraordinary measures are called for. A majority of our citizens must exercise the vigilance called for by Jefferson in order to defeat enemies of liberty, and excesses by our leadership when crisis has passed. Today in the USA, that degree of involvement does not exist.

[pgrmdave]

The Guantanamo "residents" are not citizens accused of crimes in our country. They are enemy combatants captured (not "arrested") on the field of battle in a war, and they do not wear the uniform of a country. They are not entitled to the rights of citizens in our civil/criminal court system.

 

I agree, but I do not think that means that they have no rights. I do believe that they have a right to humane treatment (whether or not they've been treated humanely may be a point of contention, though I've gotten the impression that they have not been). I do believe that they have a right to know why they were captured and are being held. I do believe they have a right to appeal to the military (not the civilian government) if they believe that they have been captured in error. When an American is held as a POW, the US military is their advocate and will attempt to secure their release. If there is no organization attempting to secure the release of these captured people, then we should let them represent themselves.

 

They should not have the right to a full civilian court, nor should they have the right to sue for their interment (though I do think that they should be able to sue if they were tortured).

[Kayra]

I assume then, Kayra, you have experienced staring down the barrel of an AK-47, as a fanatic with an explosive vest runs for a group of rescue workers unloading an ambulance with victims of a previous cowardly attack. That chill seems a bit more dramatic to me.

 

An interesting assumption, and while I have 5 years of military service, I was never "At the front lines" so does that rule me out for voicing any sort of opinion in this matter, or invalidate any opinion I may have?

 

That sort of a scenario really is chilling. I am certain, with a little effort , dozens more can be crafted, each more chilling and horrific then the next. They would all threaten a life (or many lives) but none would threaten a way of life. None threaten an entire country. Not even a nuclear event. Except in how we allow it to. Even given these scenarios, does that justify an entire country bringing into law (or moving it outside of it's laws) the right to detain and torture people without due proccess? Fear mongering statements like that do not make your point.

 

The rule of law assumes a basic foundation of civility and manners of acting in the general populace. When wholesale violations of that basic foundation are extant and growing, extraordinary measures are called for. A majority of our citizens must exercise the vigilance called for by Jefferson in order to defeat enemies of liberty, and excesses by our leadership when crisis has passed. Today in the USA, that degree of involvement does not exist.

 

The rule of law assumes that man is incapable of holding himself to a basic foundation, that he will generally act in his own best interests, and so the law seeks to hold him to it for his own good (and that of the country). Otherwise, there would be no need of law.

 

Jefferson called for greatest vigilance against his own government, recognizing it as the single greatest threat to liberty. Now that the pallor of fear is beginning to pass (a decade after the towers no less) the vigilance of the citizens is beginning to return, and they want the government to answer for the decisions it made in their name.

 

Thomas Jefferson was a profoundly deep thinker and strong reasoner. (is that a word?) I have always enjoyed his perspective on things and usually found myself in agreement.

 

Some Jefferson quotes. I suspect you may like the first one here.

 

It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.

 

Here are some I particularly like.

 

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.

Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

 

And finally

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

[Michaelangelica]

I assume then, Kayra, you have experienced staring down the barrel of an AK-47, as a fanatic with an explosive vest runs for a group of rescue workers unloading an ambulance with victims of a previous cowardly attack. That chill seems a bit more dramatic to me.

Emotive clap which is not relevant

The rule of law assumes a basic foundation of civility and manners of acting in the general populace. When wholesale violations of that basic foundation are extant and growing, extraordinary measures are called for. A majority of our citizens must exercise the vigilance called for by Jefferson in order to defeat enemies of liberty, and excesses by our leadership when crisis has passed. Today in the USA, that degree of involvement does not exist.

What is that supposed to mean?

[REASON]

The Guantanamo "residents" are not citizens accused of crimes in our country. They are enemy combatants captured (not "arrested") on the field of battle in a war, and they do not wear the uniform of a country. They are not entitled to the rights of citizens in our civil/criminal court system.

 

How do you know that they were enemy combatants?

 

I think this is an unconfirmed assertion. Of the 775 detainees that were brought to the Guantanamo Detention Camp, 90% have either been released without charge or will be soon. Only 60-80 are expected to be tried in our rinky-dink military tribunals.

 

 

I assume then, Kayra, you have experienced staring down the barrel of an AK-47, as a fanatic with an explosive vest runs for a group of rescue workers unloading an ambulance with victims of a previous cowardly attack. That chill seems a bit more dramatic to me.

 

Are we to believe that all the so called "enemy combatants" that have been housed at Guantanamo are guilty of such transgressions? If so, why have we released as many as 500 or more back into society without charge?

 

It appears you are unaware of the fact that we were offering rewards to people who handed over "terrorists" to the US, meaning we didn't necessarily have any evidence that those who were being handed over were actually guilty of anything. And since we denied their ability to challenge their detention, they were left with no recourse. This is not indicative of the type of justice that the United States of America has stood for throughout it's history.

 

 

The rule of law assumes a basic foundation of civility and manners of acting in the general populace. When wholesale violations of that basic foundation are extant and growing, extraordinary measures are called for.

 

Highly vague. What extant and growing wholesale violations of civility and manners have called for some sort of extraordinary measures? What does this have to do with Guantanamo?

 

 

A majority of our citizens must exercise the vigilance called for by Jefferson in order to defeat enemies of liberty, and excesses by our leadership when crisis has passed. Today in the USA, that degree of involvement does not exist.

 

I think the results of this election may prove otherwise.

[questor]

Why not let all prisoners go free? Why should we have to pay to keep them housed, fed and healthy? We are spending millions on their upkeep and court appearances. Obviously no one thinks these people have done any wrong and are not dangerous, let them go. If they return to kill more westerners, maybe we can shoot at them.

[REASON]

Why not let all prisoners go free? Why should we have to pay to keep them housed, fed and healthy? We are spending millions on their upkeep and court appearances. Obviously no one thinks these people have done any wrong and are not dangerous, let them go. If they return to kill more westerners, maybe we can shoot at them.

 

qusetor, you are rapidly decending into the world of trolls. I'm gonna say it, these comments of yours are outright stupid. The ultimate in strawman fallacies.

 

Dealing with you on this site has become like walking the dog. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling like I have to follow you around and pick up all the feces you leave behind.

[questor]

Reason you are losing it. My comments are not addressed to you, so you don't have to read them or comment on them. Why don't you take a break and calm down? You are becoming increasingly hostile with your attacks. I guess free speech only applies to you?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Reason you are losing it. My comments are not addressed to you, so you don't have to read them or comment on them. Why don't you take a break and calm down? You are becoming increasingly hostile with your attacks. I guess free speech only applies to you?

Actually there are several posts pertaining to "free speech" on Hypo. the gist of them ""free speech" doesn't apply to anyone here". If the Mod's or Admin's don't approve of what you have to say they have the right to inform you of their disaproval, delete your post (or any portion there-of), or suspend/ban you if it is deemed necessary. (see rules)

[questor]

You're kidding.. you mean we all have to think the same way? How do we learn anything?

[freeztar]

You're kidding.. you mean we all have to think the same way? How do we learn anything?

 

No, if we all thought the same way there would be no sense in discussions.

 

DefDisturbd is correct in his post above yours. There is no free speech here as this is a private forum (with no taxpayer dollars used in its operation).

 

Mind you, anyone is free to say whatever they wish, but the approval of posts are based on the site rules and the moderators administration of those rules. Egregious violation of the rules may warrant infractions, suspension, or a permanent ban. Posts may be deleted at our discretion.

 

If any of this is still unclear to anyone, please send me, or another mod, a PM. In the meantime, let's stick to the subject of the thread please.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Why not let all prisoners go free? Why should we have to pay to keep them housed, fed and healthy? We are spending millions on their upkeep and court appearances. Obviously no one thinks these people have done any wrong and are not dangerous, let them go.

I agree to the extent of what's quoted above.

 

Either give them a fair trial preferably as soon after the are captured as humanly possible. Or release them.

 

But the real issue here is the treatment of the detainees, Which cannot be justified by any reasonable or humane person.

[Kayra]

I actually understand Bush's perspective on this.

 

I get that the terrorists do not play by the rules and it sucks when he has to.

I get that it is frustrating as hell when you KNOW someone is guilty, but lack the proof necessary to press the full weight of justice on them.

I can see how tempting it is to use any means necessary to get the information you need to head off these threats.

 

What I also get is that the President's are human, and with that comes all of the human faults and frailties.

 

The system of government in the US was designed with this understanding in mind. To specifically remove the accumulation of to much power in a single persons hands. The voice of the many acts as a great leveler in this respect, with an overall tendency to stand on principle devoid of personal needs or wants.

 

Bush and his administration have found ways to ignore what was never ever to be ignored, those voices of the many. In this silence they have unfettered many of the limitations of the presidency that they saw as hindering their ability to "keep the country safe", ignoring the profound fact that those limitations in fact served that very purpose. To keep it safe from the Presidency.

 

So what is the greater threat to freedom in the US, terrorists with bombs, or a President whom through judicious use of loopholes in the law can enact policies and actions that are as completely counter to basic founding principles of the country as to be considered seditious by the founding fathers, and do so without the checks and balances of the common voice?

 

I actually understand Bush's perspective on this.

I just do not agree with it.

[modest]

It appears you are unaware of the fact that we were offering rewards to people who handed over "terrorists" to the US, meaning we didn't necessarily have any evidence that those who were being handed over were actually guilty of anything. And since we denied their ability to challenge their detention, they were left with no recourse. This is not indicative of the type of justice that the United States of America has stood for throughout it's history.

This has me thinking...

 

Unfortunately the US has historically disregarded the kind of Justice that's mentioned here (including habeas corpus) whenever such liberties have become inconvenient.

 

Slavery is a pretty obvious example. In 1860, some 15% of the US population was held captive without trial or recourse. The civil war may have changed that, but at the same time Lincoln locked up Northern newspaper editors, journalists, rioters, "peace democrats", and even an Ohio congressman. These people were held for months with no trial or lawyer. This was not legal for Lincoln to do (or so said the Supreme Court at the time), but there's really no way for the Supreme Court to stop the army from arresting and detaining citizens.

 

In fact, the same situation played out with Native Americans. President Jackson was ordered by the Supreme Court to honor a previous treaty with the Cherokee. Jackson ignored the Court and sent thousands of troops to force the Cherokee from their homes (and many to stockades) at bayonet point... In the '40s, more than a hundred thousand innocent Japanese-Americans were forced into "internment camps"... There are other examples I will omit for the sake of a succinct post.

 

Considering the history, I don't find it surprising that 65 out of 100 senators would vote to pass a law denying habeas corpus to anyone Bush decides is a potential evil-doer. It seems to me like nothing more than history repeating itself. As much as we want to say America is the land of the free and land of liberty and all that - what does that really mean? Is it the land of liberty when convenient?

 

~modest :shrug:

[REASON]

Considering the history, I don't find it surprising that 65 out of 100 senators would vote to pass a law denying habeas corpus to anyone Bush decides is a potential evil-doer. It seems to me like nothing more than history repeating itself. As much as we want to say America is the land of the free and land of liberty and all that - what does that really mean? Is it the land of liberty when convenient?

 

~modest :shrug:

 

Excellent points, modest. And worthy of rep from me. :naughty:

 

It is by my nature as an American to consider that we are a society of fairness and justice, or at least that it is our intention to be. It sure comes out that way in our patriotic rhetoric.

 

Maybe what I should have said in my post above was:

 

"This is not indicative of the type of justice that the United States of America claims to stand for."