Guantanamo Bay

[sebbysteiny]

My contention was that GB was designed to hold accused terrorists forever - I provided evidence that that was the intent of the Bush Administration. My contention was that GB could add prisoners. Clearly prisoners were added to Gitmo. I am not sure if prisoners are STILL being added to Gitmo.

 

I also don't think that imprisoning someone for life is the same as murdering them.

 

Nobody desputes that Bush wishes to maintain GB forever (which you have supported with evidence). However that is very different to wishing to hold suspected terrorists there forever; an aligation you have still not supported with evidence. Presumably, they will be held as long as they can be verified not to be a threat and not a day more. It would be great to have some kind of judicial or impartial tribunal making such a decision but all attempts to give the courts authority over such a procedure have been rejected since anything but 'full process' (ie a partial process) 'violates human rights'.

 

I do not contest that Bush also plans to hold new 'illegal combatants' there as it makes little difference to the 'big picture'.

 

Also, you say that you do not believe life imprisonment is the same as murder. But what else did you mean by "until they are dead possibly KILLING others along the way". You could have said 'imprisoned for life' and you used the specific word of 'killing' which is a sudden act to take someones life. If you were not accusing Bush of murder, then why use these two phrases? Melodramatic impact?

 

the rights of the innocent and patriotic are worth more than terrorist murderers.

The rights of one person are by definition of the same value as the rights of another person - whether both people are fine upstanding citizens, or whether one of them is a terrorist.

I cannot stand this rediculous assertion that the rights of a brutal terrorist murderer are as important as the rights of the innocent victims who he kills.

 

It is a well established principal that human rights have limits and qualifications. Even the right to life is not absolute and it can lawfully and morally be taken away in war or other acts that pose a direct danger to a nation's security. The right to liberty is similarly restricted for criminals etc. Why should the right to fair trial (which is not necessary for POW's) have special status beyond all other human rights thus denying our governments the ability to lock up proven terrorists simply because the source is more important than delivering justice to those dangerous men?

 

Cedars, you have made it abundantly clear from your posts that you have little regard for due process. You have clearly decided that your government has the right to:

Arbitrarily decide whom they can jail

Hold them without trial

Hold them indefinitely

Force them to give evidence against themselves. (torture)

Deny them basic rights granted mass murderers, rapists, and child molesters in your own country.

You accept and even applaud your governments attempts to circumvent their own laws and even basic internationally established human rights.

 

You have agreed with me that the United States will feel justified in using methods that circumvent almost every aspect of what makes them a free country, and happily so.

 

All so long as they do not apply to US citizens.

 

Well, speaking as one of those non-US citizens… The US government, and more specifically the Bush Administration, can Bite me.

 

Sleep well Cedars… Sleep well indeed.

 

I'm sorry Kayra, but your response to Cedars genuine points was complete melodramatic nonsense and if I were Cedars, I would probably be quite offended. Responding to a clear reasoned argument with an unsubstantiated 'I hope you can sleep at night' was totally unnecessary and frankly desparate. He could equally say to you 'I hope you can sleep at night for trying to doom innocent people to death'.

 

However you have presented a counter argument but one with a clear logical flaw.

 

You have said "You have clearly decided that your government has the right to:

1. .

That statement misrepresents Cedars argument. He is saying that the governments have those rights but ONLY IN TERRORISM CASES. However, your statement implies that he is saying the government should have a blank cheque to replace the entire legal system with totalitarianism. You may try the linguistical slight of hand and say that you did not mean the latter. However, if you did not, your argument loses all of its logical and moral impact. After all, how could somebody who has helped keep a terrorist off the streets find difficulty sleeping soundly? Thus you are relying on trying to pretend Ceders said something he did not: a logical falicy.

 

You accept and even applaud your governments attempts to circumvent their own laws and even basic internationally established human rights.

Again you make the same logical falicy. One should add that every time a government makes a new law, they are circumventing their own laws and also if the laws are immoral then the laws should be changed, not morality (including human rights law).

 

All so long as they do not apply to US citizens.

This is not the correct qualification.

 

Your list of factors could also be better explained to appeal to the reasoned.

Force them to give evidence against themselves. (torture)

. Your definition of torture, and 'force' are so ambiguous it seems like no thought has gone into the matter. Many people reasonably believe that non-physical forms of 'torture' (eg mind games and mental pressure) are legitimate whist other physical types are not. You seem to have delibarately adopted a one sized fits all approach to increase emotional impact at the expense of your logical credibility.

Deny them basic rights granted mass murderers, rapists, and child molesters in your own country.

You are right. Ciders is stating that 'unlawful combatents' do not fall into the catagory of 'criminals' and the 'due process' required for criminals is inappropriate for 'unlawful combatents'. Simply listing shocking crimes to increase emotional impact on an irrelivent point does not undermine Ciders argument and it undermines the implied assertion that you have an intellectual grasp of the issues.

[sebbysteiny]

It is not what the government is doing that is at issue, but what the new precedents it is trying to set will allow it to do that is the real danger here. The precedents would give the military, and by chain of command, the executive branch of the government, powers that are in no way consistent with the US scheme of government. They allow the President to act without congressional authority, even in the face of statutory restrictions.

 

Anyone that can not see how insane it is to allow this has completely lost perspective in my opinion.

A good point ... until the conclusion. The key word here is 'safeguards'. All processes must have one. From your argument one concludes that if GB has sufficient safeguards to prevent it from being used in cases where no evidence of terrorist links exists, then GB would be fine. Here there are two key safeguards: the limitation to terrorist cases; and the media. A third might be that were the government to get caught abusing its powers, GB would cirtainly be closed and the administration would fall, but this is not technically a safeguard, just a consequence. Some kind of judicial supervision would improve matters but the judiciary are strongly against playing such a role. So the question is, are the existing safeguards enough?

 

Thusfar, I have seen only two decent arguments against GB: Potentially insufficient safeguards and that democracies must be prepared to fight terror with one hand behind its back or risk losing the values it is trying to protect. Against this lies the argument that GB saves many innocent lives by keeping dangerous men of our streets in a way that no other 'process' can. I'm still undecided which way I swing.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Anyway - here's what I said:

 

There is every bit of evidence that the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way.

 

Nothin' in there about killing. Your straw man shows it's bones.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Nothin' in there about killing. Your straw man shows it's bones.

Your right, I think I did misquote you. But there is something about 'until they are all dead'. That phrase is a little ambiguous and could either mean 'murder' or 'life imprisonment'. It also has no evidence. Remember the crucial issue here is whether they will be held until they are no longer a threat to society (what I consider to be a legitimate aim) or whether they will be held until they die regardless of whether they are a threat to society anymore (which I consider to be illigitimate).

[Kayra]

I'm sorry Kayra, but your response to Cedars genuine points was complete melodramatic nonsense and if I were Cedars, I would probably be quite offended.

 

Cedars, sebbysteiny is correct in that I overstepped appropriate decorum. Quoting you out of context was out of line, and I apologies for the indiscretion. I will try to keep my passion on this subject in check.

 

Simply put though, a statement like:

I do not care how long a few gun toting 'idealists' end up waiting in a prioritized line to have their day in court. I think Gitmo is a good place to keep these people until the courts can catch up with the idea of terrorism and how to handle it.

shows precisely what Cedars perspective is on this subject. He has little regard for Due Process when it does not involve Americans. It also shows a certain level of ignorance in equating a tribunal with a court. (As I will clarify below)

 

Responding to a clear reasoned argument with an unsubstantiated 'I hope you can sleep at night' was totally unnecessary and frankly desparate. He could equally say to you 'I hope you can sleep at night for trying to doom innocent people to death'.

 

The post substantiated the statement. Your opinion of his statements as “Clear and reasoned” argument as you called it made exactly the points I summarized. Being dismissive of me (as I sadly was of him) does not change this.

 

 

It would be great to have some kind of judicial or impartial tribunal making such a decision but all attempts to give the courts authority over such a procedure have been rejected since anything but 'full process' (ie a partial process) 'violates human rights'.

 

It would NOT be great to have a tribunal (impartial or otherwise) looking over this situation and making decisions on it. A tribunal has the rights of all three arms of the government. Not only are they judge, Jury, and executioner, they have the right to make these decisions outside the laws of the government. They are aloud to create the rules of the trial DURING the process of the trial.

They are under direct command of the “Commander in Chief”, the President of the United States.

Don’t believe it?

Lets review a certain bit of history then, one in particular pointed out just a few posts ago.

 

In 1942, 8 Germans landed in America intent on causing as much destruction as possible.

 

One German, George Dasch, decided to turn himself in. He made a deal with the government and agreed to give up his countrymen and help locate them. The government agreed that George should not be charged for his part in this.

The Government (under Roosevelt) was ecstatic. They quickly rounded up the other saboteurs and the FBI took complete credit for it. The initial intention was to arraign them before a district court judge, and try them in civil court. It was at this point that George informed them that he intended to stand up in that court and “Tell the whole story”. This included his decision to turn himself in, and help find his countrymen. (quite the fellow this George). The administration, having taken credit for rounding up the bad guys so handily, did not want it known that one had turned himself in, and helped find the others.

 

Secondly, since none of the saboteurs had yet committed the crime of sabotage, a civilian court would likely have imposed a sentence of 2 years and a fine of $10,000.

Roosevelt would have none of this. He wanted the death penalty, referring to is at “almost obligatory”, and he was going to get it.

On July 2, 1942, he made a proclamation that all 8 men were to be tried by military tribunal.

On that same day, he appointed personally the members of the 7 man tribunal, the prosecution, and the defense counsel. All men subordinate to him.

Knowing that typically a 7 member tribunal needed to be unanimous in order to give someone the death sentence, Roosevelt took advantage of the fact that a tribunal could define its own rules as the “Trial” proceeds. In his proclamation, he declared that only a 2/3’s majority would be required in this case.

Typically a tribunal allowed for a review to be called for by the defense, but this was also shut down by Roosevelt. The review was to be performed by himself.

On August first, 1942, all 8 men were found guilty. 7 were shot the next day, and one (George) imprisoned for life.

 

 

The “Framers” of the constitution were opposed to a government that placed in the hands of one man the right to make, interpret, and enforce laws. The very heart of the government is designed to prevent this exact thing. (hence the 3 arms of the government)

 

Roosevelt did not break the law simply because congress has consistently refused to define the law in this area.

 

Military Tribunals, with VERY few exceptions (General Winfield Scott during the war against Mexico would be a perfect example of an exception if someone cared to argue the point) almost invariably leads to abuse.

 

This was the ONLY "Court" that President Bush attempted to engage or allow sebbysteiny.

 

It is a well established principal that human rights have limits and qualifications. Even the right to life is not absolute and it can lawfully and morally be taken away in war or other acts that pose a direct danger to a nation's security. The right to liberty is similarly restricted for criminals etc. Why should the right to fair trial (which is not necessary for POW's) have special status beyond all other human rights thus denying our governments the ability to lock up proven terrorists simply because the source is more important than delivering justice to those dangerous men?

 

 

Perhaps because it is that fair trial that determines which rights should be removed from the defendant??? That rights are not arbitrarily removed by individuals based on …. nothing.

 

 

However you have presented a counter argument but one with a clear logical flaw.

You have said "You have clearly decided that your government has the right to:

1. .

That statement misrepresents Cedars argument. He is saying that the governments have those rights but ONLY IN TERRORISM CASES. However, your statement implies that he is saying the government should have a blank cheque to replace the entire legal system with totalitarianism. You may try the linguistical slight of hand and say that you did not mean the latter. However, if you did not, your argument loses all of its logical and moral impact. After all, how could somebody who has helped keep a terrorist off the streets find difficulty sleeping soundly? Thus you are relying on trying to pretend Ceders said something he did not: a logical falicy.

 

My statement implies no such thing. Anywhere. At all. If it did, I am certain you would have happily quoted it for us.

OK, lets work on my linguistic skills a bit then, for the sake of clarity.

Should Due process apply to Gitmo prisoners. Yes or no.

Cedars has made it abundantly clear that he says no. Abundantly clear. Repeatedly. (look, nothing up my sleeve).

If no due process, what process then. A military Tribunal? A PROVEN method that allows a “Blank cheque.” for the government. (I did not “imply” it, I stated it unequivocally).

 

Lets see if I can get this straight. You said that he said that governments have these rights ONLY IN TERRORISM CASES, but preclude a process to determine if they are terrorists. <blink blink> The argument caves in on it’s own lack of merit without this.

 

An unabashed effort to discredit my statementwithout using logic or facts. There is no “Logical fallacy”, at least in what I said.

 

You accept and even applaud your governments attempts to circumvent their own laws and even basic internationally established human rights.

Again you make the same logical falicy. One should add that every time a government makes a new law, they are circumventing their own laws and also if the laws are immoral then the laws should be changed, not morality (including human rights law).

Same lack of logical fallacy. His statements regarding this are quite clear. He supports due process for Americans, and does not for non-Americans.

When your government makes a law, it follows it’s own due process, and measures that new law against the constitution. No circumvention? (Where in the world did you pull that from?) Laws that do not measure up to the constitution are eventually struck down.

 

All so long as they do not apply to US citizens.

This is not the correct qualification.

Yes it is. Cleary and unequivically so. It applies to my statement about what Cedars's perspective actually means. Seperating my statement like this is ... interesting but meaningless (I think).

 

Your list of factors could also be better explained to appeal to the reasoned.

 

I appreciate the tip. That is so cute how you dismiss an entire statement, smear the person making it, and at no point address the facts the statement made. Quite an elegant and baseless retort. Cudos.

 

. Your definition of torture, and 'force' are so ambiguous it seems like no thought has gone into the matter. Many people reasonably believe that non-physical forms of 'torture' (eg mind games and mental pressure) are legitimate whist other physical types are not. You seem to have delibarately adopted a one sized fits all approach to increase emotional impact at the expense of your logical credibility.

 

True, I did not distinguish the differences, and they are considerable. Does that change in any way the validity of the statement? (Emotional impact aside of course).

 

Is it considered a valid tactic for a police officer to step on a prisoner’s neck (careful to not cause permanent injury), jam a gun in his eye, and demand a full confession or he will kill him? Would that confession be admissible? Would you consider what the officer is doing to be fair and appropriate treatment of his prisoner? Does it depend on the circumstances?

 

Answer the question carefully.

 

Those are the tactics used on the prisoners, but with considerably more art then I can present here. Not only that, the coerced confession can actually be used against them in a tribunal.

 

Simply put, if you believe that the police officer is out of line, and at the same time would not be out of line to interrogate anyone the U.S. deems to be an “unlawful combatant”, then the statements I made are accurate.

 

I cannot stand this rediculous assertion that the rights of a brutal terrorist murderer are as important as the rights of the innocent victims who he kills.

 

You are right. Ciders is stating that 'unlawful combatents' do not fall into the catagory of 'criminals' and the 'due process' required for criminals is inappropriate for 'unlawful combatents'. Simply listing shocking crimes to increase emotional impact on an irrelivent point does not undermine Ciders argument and it undermines the implied assertion that you have an intellectual grasp of the issues.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. Ceders perspective (and yours) is abundantly clear. The consequences of that perspective I have made abundantly clear.

The "Shocking Crimes" served nicely to show the extremes of the situation and completely destroyed Cedars argument, simply because once again (with my limited intulectial grasp of the situation) I ask... "How do you determine who is an illegal combatant without due process"?

 

Understand this as well. Article 5 of the Geneva Convention only allows for the use of a tribunal to determine if an unlawful combatant is to be tried under military court martial, or civilian court. (Either is or is not a POW)

 

A POW is not granted the full rights of a US citizen under the constitution as congress has determined that that would be unfair and hampering to the soldiers of the United States Military, that their enemy would be afforded vastly more rights then they are. (Soldiers are subject to the laws defined in the articles of war (hence they can kill the bad guy) and the arena of trial is the court martial.). To this end, POW’s are considered soldiers, and as such are granted access to the court marshal process.

 

Bush’s careful application of the turn “unlawful combatant” was specifically designed to ensure that these people would not be subject to the laws of the Geneva Convention, Military Court Marshal, or civilian courts. The thinking was that this would give free hand in dealing with them, without being hampered by law. It worked… for a few years anyway.

 

Lastly, on a personal note, I am mostly ambivalent about the status and treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo. It has little impact and evokes little emotional response in me, even when I watch the video’s of the mistreatment. I truly believe, for the most part, that the government has acted in the best interests of the U.S. people, and that those detained are likely there for a good reason. If every one of them was tried by Military court marshal, found guilty, and executed, I would not lose any sleep over it. There is a considerable difference between what I believe is occurring, and what the law allows to occur.

 

What makes me so passionate about this issue though is the unmitigated gall that President Bush has in pursuing every single avenue he can find around laws specifically designed to keep the President in check, instead of making even reasonable efforts to work within the system.

 

I understand that being a US citizen you have nothing to fear from this situation. You are protected from your President by your own constitution.

 

The question is, can US Citizens understand that the rest of the world might have concerns about a President of a country as powerful as the United States with a means of circumventing his own peoples wishes, laws, and processes without consequence? (Until the next election that is) As a non-US citizen, I can tell you right now that this is what really scares the crap out of me. (and no, it will not scare the religious fanatic one iota.)

[pgrmdave]

I must say, I don't understand those of you who are arguing against providing the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay due process. They are not known terrorists, most (if not all) have not been charged with anything, let alone convicted. It is as though you assume that because they are held, they are guilty until they prove their innocence...a scary position to hold indeed.

[TheFaithfulStone]

There is a considerable difference between what I believe is occurring, and what the law allows to occur.

 

Reference Fundamental truth - The outrageous act only "technically allowed" by the law will eventually be perpetrated.

 

I understand that being a US citizen you have nothing to fear from this situation. You are protected from your President by your own constitution.

 

Yeah, I have something to fear. I'm losing my country.

 

 

You make another interesting point Kayra, in that Americans tend to mythologize World War II as "The Perfect War" the one where we fought the undeniable and unequivocal evil of the Nazi's with the perfect moral virtue of the agricultural citizen solider. That's not the case - as you pointed out Roosevelt skirted the constitution here to convict German saboteurs, he interned Japanese citizens and the armed forces were segregated by race. Not good stuff.

 

The impossibility of success at something doesn't excuse you from trying. We should always strive to uphold our principles - even when it's not easy to do so.

 

TFS

[Kayra]

Reference Fundamental truth - The outrageous act only "technically allowed" by the law will eventually be perpetrated.

 

Point

 

Yeah, I have something to fear. I'm losing my country.

 

Really good Point

 

 

You make another interesting point Kayra, in that Americans tend to mythologize World War II as "The Perfect War" the one where we fought the undeniable and unequivocal evil of the Nazi's with the perfect moral virtue of the agricultural citizen solider. That's not the case - as you pointed out Roosevelt skirted the constitution here to convict German saboteurs, he interned Japanese citizens and the armed forces were segregated by race. Not good stuff.

 

All countries have, in their histories, events they are not proud of. It is how they deal with them that helps to define what they will be.

 

The impossibility of success at something doesn't excuse you from trying. We should always strive to uphold our principles - even when it's not easy to do so.

 

ooh, another quote to steal..

 

BTW, that was a monster post... even for me. I cannot believe you read even most of that.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You ever see "Slums of Beverly Hills?"

 

"I write your signatures! I write your signatures!"

 

:angel:

 

You should quote somebody worthy of the honor, Kayra.

 

TFS

[mysterious001uk]

This is sebbysteiny. Unfortunately I have been banned (he he, not the first time) because i have got on a spat with a junior monitor's chrony. Nevertheless I shall not let this effect our search for truth. They didn't even give me an opportunity to give my version. Lol, so much for due process.

 

I wish you had said something like that first time. It makes much more sense.

 

I do not care how long a few gun toting 'idealists' end up waiting in a prioritized line to have their day in court. I think Gitmo is a good place to keep these people until the courts can catch up with the idea of terrorism and how to handle it.

 

shows precisely what Cedars perspective is on this subject. He has little regard for Due Process when it does not involve Americans. It also shows a certain level of ignorance in equating a tribunal with a court. (As I will clarify below)

 

From reading it, he did seem to restrict GB to terrorism cases only, not non-americans so my original argument that you misrepresented the qualification Cedars made still holds. The truth is those supporting GB wish it to be restricted to terrorism cases. All the facts suggest this is exactly the use it has been put to. However, as Hydrogen bond very correctly stated, any measure that can be abused as it has insufficient safeguards will be abused. It is just a question of time. Thus the question that really matters in this debate is, if sufficient safeguards exist, is GB suitable for dealing with terrorism cases?

 

I appreciate the tip. That is so cute how you dismiss an entire statement, smear the person making it, and at no point address the facts the statement made. Quite an elegant and baseless retort.

 

The reason I made no address of the facts in the statement was because I agree with those facts. All sides agree that 'due process' is not applied in GB. The question is, is that right? What I was uncomfortable with was the emotional emphasis you put on points that were not in despute. I have no objection to making a passionate point, but, in my opinion, where one uses emotion to emphasise an irrelivent (ie non disputed) point, it puts emotional pressure on the reader to believe the relevant point be true even without any logical basis. In other words, I believe it to be an argumentative magic trick.

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. Ceders perspective (and yours) is abundantly clear. The consequences of that perspective I have made abundantly clear.

The "Shocking Crimes" served nicely to show the extremes of the situation and completely destroyed Cedars argument, simply because once again (with my limited intulectial grasp of the situation) I ask... "How do you determine who is an illegal combatant without due process"?

 

Excellent point but Ceders argument still stands. Cedars argument is that terrorism cases are not suitable for the criminal justice system. Criminals do not work in international organisations that are experts at covering tracks regardless of how shocking the crime is. I still say that listing shocking crimes does nothing and my objections to this argumentitive technique are as above. However, your good point is that any alternative sytem must somehow distinguish between terrorism and normal crimes so that a normal murderer can never be put under the same process as a terrorist simply because it is easier to get a conviction. This will require safeguards which is a point we have already discussed and agreed is an undesputable objection to GB.

 

Interestingly, nobody has discussed whether the safeguards I have previously suggested are sufficient, which is fundamental to this debate.

 

Lastly, I think there is a dispute as to what 'no due process' is. 'Due process' means all of the rights given to normal criminals including the right to know and inspect all evidence against them and communicate that information to whoever they wish. 'no due process' as is suggested for GB simply means that one or two of the rights given to normal criminals must be denied, but not all. Thus one must go throught them one by one and decide what rights a terrorist suspect can have and if even one must be restricted for reasons of national security then the normal 'due process' cannot be applied.

 

Bush’s careful application of the turn “unlawful combatant” was specifically designed to ensure that these people would not be subject to the laws of the Geneva Convention, Military Court Marshal, or civilian courts. The thinking was that this would give free hand in dealing with them, without being hampered by law. It worked… for a few years anyway.

Personally, I like the term 'unlawful combatent'. It correctly states that terrorists are neither normal criminals nor POWs and thus fall into a gap within the law. The question is what to do with them. Due process under normal court or court martial will cause innocent people to die.

 

It would NOT be great to have a tribunal (impartial or otherwise) looking over this situation and making decisions on it. [further arguments distinguishing a tribunal from a normal criminal trial]

 

I think we are disagreeing on symantics here. By an impartial tribunal, I mean a court, or a court like body, that is independant of the government. I used the word 'tribunal' because the word 'court' would imply full 'due process' which many believe to be insufficient to protect society from terrorism.

 

You later talk about Geneva conventions for POWs. The point is that terrorist suspects are a uniqe catogary outside POWs and the criminal law. Thus all existing laws were not made to deal with this, and where morality and new circumstances conflicts with the existing law, it is the law that should be changed not morality.

 

You also talked about a particular trial on July 2, 1942. However one corrupt court does not a corrupt judiciary make. There have been tens of thousands of cases since and before 1942 that have not been corrupted. Thus America is more than capable of creating tribunals independant of the government and the judiciary still could help in creating an extra and well needed safeguard.

 

Lastly, on a personal note, I am mostly ambivalent about the status and treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo. It has little impact and evokes little emotional response in me, even when I watch the video’s of the mistreatment. I truly believe, for the most part, that the government has acted in the best interests of the U.S. people, and that those detained are likely there for a good reason. If every one of them was tried by Military court marshal, found guilty, and executed, I would not lose any sleep over it. There is a considerable difference between what I believe is occurring, and what the law allows to occur.

 

What makes me so passionate about this issue though is the unmitigated gall that President Bush has in pursuing every single avenue he can find around laws specifically designed to keep the President in check, instead of making even reasonable efforts to work within the system.

 

I believe with this we seem to be reaching a consensus. This has been drawn simply by listening to all sides and agreeing with both of them.

 

It is all about the safeguards. You do not object to GB per se. Neither do you think Bush is using it against the interests of America (unlike many conspiracy theorists). What you do object is that, even though there is no evidence of the government acting simply to subvert the law rather than keep Americans safe, there is a theoretical possibility of this happening which could pose a later danger. Thus although one can reasonably and morally agree with GB in practice right now, one can also reasonably and morally disagree with it in theory and fear for what it can become. And as Hydrogen Bond said, if there are insufficient safeguards, it is a matter of when, not if, the process is abused.

 

Perhaps we should try and determine what safeguards we should use for GB to make it work without the theoretical risk and whether those safeguards are being (or attempted to be) used.

[Cedars]

While I think you wanted to make an effort to keep it in check, I feel a need to address some things you have implied.

 

Cedars said: I do not care how long a few gun toting 'idealists' end up waiting in a prioritized line to have their day in court. I think Gitmo is a good place to keep these people until the courts can catch up with the idea of terrorism and how to handle it.

 

Kayra believes this,

shows precisely what Cedars perspective is on this subject. He has little regard for Due Process when it does not involve Americans. It also shows a certain level of ignorance in equating a tribunal with a court. (As I will clarify below)

Actually, the above quote showed I fully expect due process for these people in Gitmo and I indicated no preference on nationality. I also placed no time limits on that expectation. Personal experiences and daily news viewing assure that expecations on time limits are often thwarted by the system itself.

 

I have little doubt that these persons will face more of our idea of courts than the military tribunal Bush desires, hence the use of the term Court. So far, it is the correct term to use being as the actions taken have been via SCOTUS and other mainstream judicial branches. It is not via ignorance I chose this term.

 

Perhaps because it is that fair trial that determines which rights should be removed from the defendant??? That rights are not arbitrarily removed by individuals based on …. nothing.

Actually as I posted before, American courts have been removing rights from people for many years now. Most often in drug cases, most recently with DNA databases on people who are arrested. The DNA is kept in a database whether the person is innocent or not, regardless of the crime being contemplated by the system (before their day in court). It seems you have a perception of American justice that has doesnt always measure up in reality.

 

Should Due process apply to Gitmo prisoners. Yes or no.

Cedars has made it abundantly clear that he says no. Abundantly clear. Repeatedly. (look, nothing up my sleeve).

 

Actually I said no such thing. Look back on my posts and show me where I said that. You will find exactly the opposite. I do think Gitmo needs some kind of due process for the prisoners and I have stated that.

 

Same lack of logical fallacy. His statements regarding this are quite clear. He supports due process for Americans, and does not for non-Americans.

Again, I said no such thing. Read my posts again.

 

When your government makes a law, it follows it’s own due process, and measures that new law against the constitution. No circumvention? (Where in the world did you pull that from?) Laws that do not measure up to the constitution are eventually struck down.

 

You must not realize the government exempts itself from many laws it creates for the average american. On both the federal and state level. Such as exemption from licensure (state level). It was only in the last 5 years that social workers needed to be licensed to work as social workers on the federal level in Veterans Hospitals. You would not believe how many persons deciding child custody issues have a degree in English or History because of the exemptions for state/county workers written into state laws. There are many more such 'exemptions' written for the military.

Bush’s careful application of the turn “unlawful combatant” was specifically designed to ensure that these people would not be subject to the laws of the Geneva Convention, Military Court Marshal, or civilian courts.

Yes it is being used to allow more latitude in dealing with the terrorists. Even with all this effort, as a previously posted link show, they did turn loose some of the guilty, unintentionally, and they began their killing again. No system is perfect, even with the absolute power granted upon the operators of Gitmo. So there you have it, your dozen guilty people back out there killing, maiming and all the things terrorists do to the innocent.

The question is, can US Citizens understand that the rest of the world might have concerns about a President of a country as powerful as the United States with a means of circumventing his own peoples wishes, laws, and processes without consequence?

And to think this (my participation) all started because of a promotion to release David Hicks, whos own government is saying 'face the Americans first, then we will see what we can do'. You imply that the reason these persons are in Gitmo is singulary the wishes of the Bush administration when the nations of these individuals are not eager to receive them back either.

 

There are consenquences for GWBush actions as the courts have revealed several times as of late. This is no fast food drive thru, it is the courts, military, actions during war and a host of other factors that make how the system works painfully slow at times.

 

There are alot of talks between governments that will never be revealed to the general public for very good reasons. And dont be so sure that this (Gitmo) is circumventing his (GW Bush) peoples wishes.

 

You border on a personal attack and should spend a bit more time proofing your responces. While you may not agree with my perception of the events going on, that is no reason to distort and out right misrepresent what I have written.

[Michaelangelica]

This is good news

 

US detainees to get Geneva rights

Guantanamo detainee

Rules at Guantanamo have been unclear in the past

All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.

 

This is not so good

Daniel Dell'Orto, a defence department lawyer who was the first to testify, said there were about 1,000 detainees in US military custody around the world.

 

Guantanamo Bay holds an estimated 450. Mr Dell'Orto did not say where the others were being held.

 

The new Pentagon policy applies only to detainees being held by the military, and not to those in CIA custody, such as alleged mastermind of the 11 September attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

 

The Geneva Conventions, which were passed in the wake of World War II, are meant to guarantee minimum standards of protection for non-combatants and former combatants in war.

 

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm

 

It seems obvious that no amount of arging will change the intrenched opinions here so I give up .

I am reminded of an intrenet wit who said

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded.

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

:thumbs_up

[mysterious001uk]

It seems obvious that no amount of arging will change the intrenched opinions here so I give up .

I am reminded of an intrenet wit who said

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics.

Even if you win you're still retarded.

 

Lol. That's a great face saving way of abandoning ship whilst your argument sinks.

 

Perhaps you [or anybody else] might state if you agree with my statement which I think all sides can agree on and if not, what you disagree on.

 

You [michaelangelica] do not object to GB per se. Neither do you think Bush is using it against the interests of America (unlike many conspiracy theorists). What you do object is that, even though there is no evidence of the government acting simply to subvert the law rather than keep Americans safe, there is a theoretical possibility of this happening which could pose a later danger. Thus although one can reasonably and morally agree with GB in practice right now, one can also reasonably and morally disagree with it in theory and fear for what it can become. And as Hydrogen Bond said, if there are insufficient safeguards, it is a matter of when, not if, the process is abused.

 

Also note that Cedars agrees. Your original argument was logically flawed because you misrepresented Ceders argument with the wrong qualifier.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, stebby seems to have left us.

 

I can't decide if he's going to be the worlds best lawyer, or the worst.

 

In any case - I'd say that's a reasonably fair assessment - although it misses the mark a little. Although I disagree with Gitmo right now, I think the real danger is in the precedent it sets - that there are people who are not covered by Geneva, that this classification is entirely up to the President, and once they are classified as such, then their treatment is entirely up to him.

 

In other words, once George Bush designates you as an "unlawful combatant" you are well and truly screwed. That's a lot scarier than a few mistreated terrorist.

 

"The problem with defending freedom is that you spend most of your time defending scoundrels" HL Mencken

 

TFS

[Kayra]

You border on a personal attack and should spend a bit more time proofing your responces. While you may not agree with my perception of the events going on, that is no reason to distort and out right misrepresent what I have written.

 

 

You make a considerable number of valid points here Cedars, and again I apologize if my statements seem to be a personal attack. It is by no means intentional, but in rereading them myself they do come across that way. I have nothing but the greatest respect for you. Again, please accept my apologies.

 

Unfortunately though, part of due process is the right to a speedy trial. Without this, a government could arrest you, hold you for 60 years, give you your trial, and then release you. All within the law.

 

Without including that aspect of due process everything else is meaningless.

 

Repeated comments from you like

 

I do not care how long a few gun toting 'idealists' end up waiting in a prioritized line to have their day in court. I think Gitmo is a good place to keep these people until the courts can catch up with the idea of terrorism and how to handle it.

 

made it clear. With that in mind, can you see how your statements look like you discourage due process for non-Americans? (nothing racial in the comment, only national)

 

As they are now recognized as POW's under the GC, they no longer have that right. They do, however have the right to a court marshal proceeding, one far less susceptible to abuses from the executive branch of the government then a tribunal.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, today in congress some military guy with a lot of metal on his shoulders was talking about how having to inform the detainee that they had the right to a lawyer, and that anything they said could be used against them could hamper intelligence interrogations.

 

Well, I have an idea - why not have a separate intelligence interrogation. Have CIA agents interrogate the people once, as a intelligence gathering operation (wherein, I admit, due process need not apply) and then have them interrogated again by lawyers or whatever.

 

The intelligence interrogation could happen first.

 

Just say that the CIA agent couldn't testify at the trial, and any evidence obtained at the "intelligence interview" couldn't be used.

 

You don't even have to tell them that.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

It is by no means intentional, but in rereading them myself they do come across that way.

Its not always easy dealing with tough issues such as Gitmo. Maybe in a face to face conversation those same remarks would have come off a bit differently. Such is the risk of text! I just saw a need to slow it down a bit. So onwards we go.

With that in mind, can you see how your statements look like you discourage due process for non-Americans? (nothing racial in the comment, only national)

Honestly, I dont see how the remarks could be seperated by nationality being as I made no comment as such. But back to the issue, as Big Dog pointed out in post 101 there are exceptions to the rules for the military and those encountered in battle. Its not about nationality.

 

Speedy trial is a right granted to Americans charged with a crime committed in America. Gitmo detainees are a different aspect of law to be dealt with. Those ideas may or may not apply to the people in Gitmo. That is currently an unresolved issue as I understand it. I dont think war criminal applies because they are not soldiers of a government. Maybe it should. Maybe every taliban participant should be charged with crimes against humanity due to their abhorant position on women alone.

 

As they are now recognized as POW's under the GC, they no longer have that right. They do, however have the right to a court marshal proceeding, one far less susceptible to abuses from the executive branch of the government then a tribunal.

 

What I would like to see is a review of the Geneva convention to determine exactly how to handle terrorists such as we are seeing with these factions from other countries going to support people like bin Laden, without having their government declare its intention of making war. It not unlike the gang mentality/gang terrorism we see in big cities in America but then it is different. If the crips (for example) were to take off for Columbia to fight for the drug cartels against the Columbian government, would that be a similar scenario? Or is Dafur a better example? Maybe Sierra Leone?

 

Anyways... these people (the crips) in an imagined scenario are neither soldiers nor non-combatants but it is very much like a war in Columbia. Yet charging them with simply being in Columbia without a visa seems to minimize their intent, to kill Columbian police/soldiers or even civilians. So are the right charges for these people in Gitmo conspirasy to commit murder, and/or attempted murder and how many counts should they be charged with? One for every citizen in the respective countries? One for every soldier in these countries? And what if DEA agents are involved with busting these people? How do we protect the identity of the agents? (exchange for spys/informants, domestic or foreign to see comparison to Gitmo and the situation similarity)