Guantanamo Bay

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by me

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.

 

Up to a point yes, but I do not agree that the USA is acting within any idea of a "lawful" action. Who's law? Not international, Not congress, so Who's? Bush's? Where does that come from?

 

I don't morally agree that it is OK to detain people with out trial for long periods. I also disagree with my own Government when it does this.

I believe in "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum" if you like, which should be a foundation/cornerstone of any democratic system

[sebbysteiny]

Well, stebby seems to have left us.

 

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

 

It may not be clear if I will be the worlds best lawyer or the worlds worst, but I certainly know how to pull some strings ;). I'm in a pretty vicious spat with someone who turned out to be a moderator (who was disrespectful and who I've lost all respect for). But my ban was cut short and I'm still posting.

 

You [michaelangelica] do not object to GB per se.

 

I think it is flatering that you are trying to pass off my words as your own. For that reason, I will not sue you in copyright :shrug:.

 

Up to a point yes, but I do not agree that the USA is acting within any idea of a "lawful" action. Who's law? Not international, Not congress, so Who's? Bush's? Where does that come from?

 

I don't morally agree that it is OK to detain people with out trial for long periods. I also disagree with my own Government when it does this.

I believe in "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum" if you like, which should be a foundation/cornerstone of any democratic system

 

I am particularly interested in seeing if we have reached a consensus. I think that one side is arguing one thing and misrepresenting the other as arguing a different thing just so that they can say they disagree and vice versa. I think however there is very little disagreement.

 

I think all sides agree America is not acting within the 'law'. However GB supporters say that the law is wrong and the Governments breaches of the law are to keep us safe and have not been misused and I think GB opponents agree with that. This creates a theoretical risk but one that has not materialised into anything in practice yet. I think we all agree with that.

 

Your second point may cause some disagreement. Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by 'long periods'. Would you also disagree with such detentions even if you knew that they were a danger to society but the evidence, if released, would pose a danger to national security?

 

Also, what do you mean by "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum". I never studied Latin. However you should be very weary of putting one principal above all others. I have learned the world is never so black and white for one principal to be a 'cornerstone' of Western Society.

 

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.

 

Interesting. You are one of the few people here actually trying to put forward suggestions to solve the problem of 'illegal combatents'.

 

However what would you do if the CIA interrigation led to undisputable conclusion of guilt but the softly softy legal questioning did not. Would you let him go and be a danger to society?

 

I also note with interest that you have approved of psycological torture.

[Michaelangelica]

. I think however there is very little disagreement.

 

I think all sides agree America is not acting within the 'law'.

However GB supporters say that the law is wrong and the Governments breaches of the law are to keep us safe and have not been misused and I think GB opponents agree with that. This creates a theoretical risk but one that has not materialised into anything in practice yet. I think we all agree with that.

No, this is not logical. You can't have a "wrong" law. It is law or it isn't

 

One "theoretical risk" that has materialised is torture & abuse of human rights and the Genevra convention. keeping someone (like Hicks) in a cell for 23 hours of the day is inhumane treatment.

 

Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by 'long periods'. Would you also disagree with such detentions even if you knew that they were a danger to society but the evidence, if released, would pose a danger to national security?

In most civilised countries it is days.A week is a long period, so to is a month. Five years is criminal behaviour on the part of the authorities.

Let the courts decide what is "national security" not some half-witted, running-scared, corrupt, war-mongering politician. That's why we have the "division of powers" (something else for you to look up)

 

Also, what do you mean by "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum". I never studied Latin. However you should be very weary of putting one principal above all others. I have learned the world is never so black and white for one principal to be a 'cornerstone' of Western Society.

How can you live in a ""democracy"" and know nothing about why it is called this?

By habeas corpus i mean anyone charged with an offence should be bought before a judge and his accusers.

habeas corpus

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

 

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

 

 

. Would you let him go and be a danger to society?

 

I also note with interest that you have approved of psycological torture.

China uses this argument all the time. We locked-him-up/ executed him because he was a 'danger to society'. Nelson Mandela was a 'danger to society'. Gandhi was a 'danger to society'.

The "danger" is to those that are abusing their 'power'

The only "danger to society" is when Society gives in to these scared, little bullies.

 

I do not approve of psychological torture .I note however that the best proponents of it was/is the USA. There are a number of very scared ex-Uni-psychology students still receiving medical treatment 30 years after experiments of sensory deprivation on them.

Sensory deprivation was shown to be the quickest and best form of torture.

What do you call 23out of 24 hours in a cell other than sensory deprivation?

[sebbysteiny]

You can't have a "wrong" law. It is law or it isn't

I notice you are getting quite aggressive in your answers. No doubt you are passionate. However sometimes, again, I sense you are willfully misunderstanding me. Nobody is debating that law is either law or it is not. However you can still have a 'wrong' law, in the sense that it is morally unjustifiable or insufficient and if the law contradicts with morality, it is the law that must change, not morality. There is a footnote point that bad law should still be respected or good law might be undermined, but I seriously doubt law and order will fall apart simply because of GB. But really, most of this answer could have been extracted simply by making an effort to understand my points.

 

China uses this argument all the time. We locked-him-up/ executed him because he was a 'danger to society'. Nelson Mandela was a 'danger to society'. Gandhi was a 'danger to society'.

The "danger" is to those that are abusing their 'power'

The only "danger to society" is when Society gives in to these scared, little bullies.

 

This argument is a logical falicy. A uses argument z to justify crimes y. Therefore B's use of argument Z is a crime y.

 

Bin Laden also justified his attacks as 'self defence'. Does this mean that anybody who says they acted in self defence is suddenly a terrorist?

 

Truth. Almost all people in GB are a danger to society regardless of how the Chinese discribes its political prisoners.

 

I do not approve of psychological torture .I note however that the best proponents of it was/is the USA. There are a number of very scared ex-Uni-psychology students still receiving medical treatment 30 years after experiments of sensory deprivation on them.

Sensory deprivation was shown to be the quickest and best form of torture.

What do you call 23out of 24 hours in a cell other than sensory deprivation?

Answer: Prison. What do you want, luxury 5 star accomodation? You have a strange version of 'sensory deprivation' if you think standard or slightly harsh prison conditions amount to psycological torture.

 

In most civilised countries it is days.A week is a long period, so to is a month. Five years is criminal behaviour on the part of the authorities.

Let the courts decide what is "national security" not some half-witted, running-scared, corrupt, war-mongering politician. That's why we have the "division of powers" (something else for you to look up)

It is a (ad hominem) logical falicy to say that I have no understanding of the issues simply because I have not learned latin. I probably understand division of powers better than you.

 

Nobody is disputing that the courts should have some kind of role in GB. The question is what? In particular, the question you have ducked not once but about 3 or 4 times is what do you do with a person who you know to be a danger to society but the evidence proving guilty would cause a danger to national security if released? Current law, or the courts, demand either the evidence is released or the suspect is. Only those willing to break with the rule book can keep us safe under these conditions: an undisputable and I believe unanimously agreed fact.

 

Thus, the debate comes down to which is more important, bad law or human life. You have admitted that as things stand, GB is making people safe and is not being abused but you and all those supporting GB agree that the legal black hole and lack of safeguards is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

 

So please stop giving us stuff about law and how great it is, or due process and how great it is. We all agree and by repeating this like a broken record you imply you have little else to say. The real issue is whether the law, or due process, is sufficient to deal with terrorists, which is not really an issue because we all agree it is not.

 

Also, I kind of thought democracy was more of a cornerstone of Western Society. The idea that one principal only describes Western society is like saying that only one ingrediant creates Coke's taste.

[Michaelangelica]

Yes I am not expressing myself properly re wrong law. My apologies I just meant to say that this sentence of yours

I think all sides agree America is not acting within the 'law'. However GB supporters say that the law is wrong and the Governments breaches of the law are to keep us safe and have not been misused and I think GB opponents agree with that.

does not make sense

 

Yes I am angry because I see what my grandfather and father fought and died for being abused by governments that should know better. I and a lot of Australians are VERY angry.

I am only frustrated with you.

Perhaps we could reach some consensus if you could define what you understand as Democracy and human Rights?

 

This is a sample of some of the Australian Anger.

Last week a petition with 70,000 names was sent to Parliament-re Hicks. It took two weeks to collect those names

Bush’s Guantanamo Bay torture centre: Free David Hicks!

 

Pip Hinman

 

Alfred McCoy, an expert on the CIA and its history of torture and a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, slammed foreign minister Alexander Downer on the ABC’s June 13 Lateline program for claiming that Australian prisoner David Hicks was being treated humanely at the US prison camp in Guantanamo Bay.

 

“Guantanamo is not a conventional military prison. It’s an ad hoc laboratory for the perfection of the CIA psychological torture”, McCoy said. Asked by the ABC’s Tony Jones to comment on the suicides of the three prisoners on June 10, McCoy said that the prison was designed to “break down every detainee” and “produce a state of hopelessness and despair that leads, tragically, sadly in this case to suicide”.

 

Downer was asked by the ABC whether he was concerned that Hicks may attempt suicide. Downer’s deadpan response: “I’m satisfied that his health and welfare are fine.” The only complaint the minister said he had heard of was that Hicks had a sore back.

 

“To say that David Hicks has not been tortured ... represents an ignorance of what torture is, particularly what psychological torture is”, McCoy told Jones.

 

Given the time Hicks has spent in solitary confinement, McCoy said that there was no doubt he is suffering “untold psychological damage”, and that he will need “a great deal of treatment” for the rest of his life. “[Hicks] was put in an extreme form of solitary confinement for 244 days ... His contact [was] limited to once a week visits with his military chaplain ... That’s an extreme form of sensory disorientation. That leads to tremendous psychological damage.”

 

McCoy said that Hicks’s civilian attorney, Joshua Dratel, recently found him to be in “a severely damaged and stressed psychological state”. David’s father, Terry, told Green Left Weekly that David’s Pentagon-appointed lawyer Major Michael Mori had told him his son spends 22 hours a day locked up. “From what I can gather he can’t talk to anyone”, Terry told GLW. He added: “He’s not well; he’s not eating because he’s lost the desire to eat, and mentally he’s not very well. Just being in Guantanamo Bay is a form of torture.”

 

His son has been imprisoned since December 2001 after he was captured in Afghanistan. He has been charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder and “aiding the enemy”. He has pleaded not guilty on all counts. Terry isn’t surprised his son may have “incriminated” himself given the torture he has had to endure, including being injected with unknown substances. “They say he did these things, but he had no lawyers present when his statement was taken. Let’s see them prove it”, he told GLW.

 

Hicks is the sole Australian imprisoned at Guantanmo Bay after Mamdouh Habib was released in January 2005 without being charged.

 

Hicks’s legal battle to be freed has proven very difficult. However he had a win when the US Supreme court ruled that Guantanamo Bay was US territory, so prisoners do have a right to have their cases heard by civilian courts. The Bush administration wants to try the prisoners it charges before military commissions. So far, only 10 detainees have been charged.

 

Another landmark case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, tests the legality of the US military commissions. Hicks is a co-litigant in the case. The commissions have been roundly criticised for being illegitimate, including by the United Nations Committee Against Torture (which has called for Guantanamo to be closed) and the British attorney-general, as well as a host of Australian judges led by John Dowd, a former NSW attorney-general.

 

However, in an unexplained move following the Guantanamo suicides, the US defence department announced it was suspending the military tribunals “until further notice”. Terry has mixed feelings about this: it’s a blow against the attempt to use kangaroo courts to try the prisoners at Guantanamo, but it may also extend the time his son stays there.

 

Hicks, whose mother is British, is trying to gain British citizenship in the hope that the Blair government will pressure the US to release him, as it did last year for nine Britons who were imprisoned at Guantanamo.

 

In January, the British High Court ruled that Hicks was entitled to citizenship and the British Court of Appeal reaffirmed this in May. However, Hicks’s lawyers lost their High Court case seeking a mandatory order for the Home Office to register Hicks as a citizen on June 15. The case will now go to the Foreign Office, which successfully got the nine Britons released last year.

 

Meanwhile, the Howard government continues to bury its head in the sand. “I’m sick of hearing them say that David is 'fit and well’”, Terry said. However he believes think that the international and domestic pressure is beginning to have an effect on Canberra. “Soon after the suicides, Australian consular officials rang me to say David was not one of them. Previously, they would take weeks to report on David’s health after a visit.”

 

Campaigns in several states have helped prick the consciences of some MPs, although not enough to support the Greens’ Senate motion on June 12 calling on the federal government to pressure Washington to close Guantanamo Bay and return Hicks to Australia for a fair trial. The motion was lost by six votes, with the Liberals, Nationals and Family First voting against.

 

McCoy believes that David’s “persistence” and “refusal to capitulate” have been critical to the campaign to close Guantanamo Bay. Terry says that could be an overstatement, but is proud of the fact that his son is “a thorn in Bush and Howard’s side”.

 

From Green Left Weekly, June 21 2006.

Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/672/672p24.htm

[sebbysteiny]

I just meant to say that this sentence of yours

 

I think all sides agree America is not acting within the 'law'. However GB supporters say that the law is wrong and the Governments breaches of the law are to keep us safe and have not been misused and I think GB opponents agree with that.

 

does not make sense

 

Erm, what part of that sentence do you not understand?

I made 5 claims which I believe constitute what all sides agree.

1) GB is not acting within the law.

2) The law and 'due process' for dealing with terrorists is inadequate and must be changed significantly.

3) The American Government's breaches of the law have resulted in us (the whole Western World) being safer.

4) GB is potentially open to obuse.

5) The American Government has not actually abused GB yet for improper purposes.

 

Does this make it easier to understand?

 

Yes I am angry because I see what my grandfather and father fought and died for being abused by governments that should know better. I and a lot of Australians are VERY angry.

I am only frustrated with you.

Perhaps we could reach some consensus if you could define what you understand as Democracy and human Rights?

I'm not disputing that some Australians and nationals of other countries are angry about GB. Quite frankly, who cares? What matters is whether morality can back GB when one bothers to look at all the issues, and morality is not a popularity contest.

 

Definitions.

Democracy: the process whereby the constituants of one constituancy is able to choose their leaders by free and fair democratic elections in which every constituant has an equal right to vote.

 

Human Rights: a package of individual rights that each citizen is entitled to and it is a primary responsibility of a state to secure the human rights of their citizens in so far as is possible and a secondary duty of a state to secure the human rights of citizens of other nations in so far as is possible unless it hinders their primary responsibility.

 

These rights are covered by the EU Convention of Human rights and includes: the right to life; the right to a fair trial; the right to liberty; and the right to free thought and political associations.

 

Human rights were develped in the wake of the holocaust as a way of describing oppressive and barbaric acts by a state. When human rights were written, issues like euthenasia or terror were not properly considered.

 

The difficulty with human rights as a moral tool is applying them in any given situation.

 

Morally, human rights can be deprived if more important considerations come along. This can be viewed in two ways. Either very important issues arise, eg a threat to national security, where it becomes clear that the world will be worse place unless human rights are given only secondary consideration. This is what is meant by 'Human rights are not the most important consideration'.

 

However, I prefer the view that in all the above circumstances, what is actually going on is that human rights are conflicting with each other and it is just a matter of looking a little deeper to find the exact rights that are conflicting.

 

For example, the right to liberty only applies if the citizen is not, say, a dangerous criminal (using the first version of analysis). However by my analysis, the right to liberty of one person is overrided by the right of the many potential victims for ownership of property, the right to life and the right not to suffer abusive treatment. Either way you spin it, human rights do not stop us from locking up dangerous criminals. The advantage of my method is that one does not need to ever abandon human rights as a moral compass.

 

With GB, the conflicting rights are the right to a fair trial of terror suspects with the right to life of innocent citizens. You may say terror suspects have the right to be tried with full due process. However you cannot deny innocent people have the right to life. GB protects the innocent people's right to life, whilst the angry Austrailians (and others) are trying to protect the terrorist suspects right to a fair trial. Unfortunately one cannot get both. If you don't like that, blame god.

 

 

Lastly, on your melodramatic point about the values your forfathers fourght for (and mine died for) being under threat. Even if you are right, all it amounts to is one irregularity in a society of rightousness. The phrase 'one swallow does not a summer make' comes to mind. Perhaps when people start rounding up ethnic groups for beatings or murder and when people in every street start disappearing under suspicious circumstances and when people are too scared to oppose our leaders, your statement might be more accurate. Until then, it sounds like a brat complaining of child abuse because his favourite toy was taken away due to bad grades. Further, some might consider it an insult to compare GB and American society to Nazi deathcamps and Nazi society.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Erm, what part of that sentence do you not understand?

I made 5 claims which I believe constitute what all sides agree.

 

You keep trying that - saying "we all agree on Point X, therefore we can move on" when in fact Point X is not settled, and when you get to it you misrepresent it ANYWAY.

 

1) GB is not acting within the law.

 

Agreed.... or at least settled by the Supreme Court for now.

 

2) The law and 'due process' for dealing with terrorists is inadequate and must be changed significantly.

 

Not agreed. The language "must be changed significantly" is problematic.

 

3) The American Government's breaches of the law have resulted in us (the whole Western World) being safer.

 

Not agreed.

 

4) GB is potentially open to obuse.

 

The double qualifier is unnecessary - GB is open to abuse.

 

5) The American Government has not actually abused GB yet for improper purposes.

 

Not agreed.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Another point about human rights law that is fresh from the oven.

 

If we go into, say Euthanasia, we discover that there are conflicting rights (using my method of analysis). The right to life of the patient verses the right of the patient not to suffer from degrading treatment. The GB example in my previous post also came down to a conflict of different Human rights.

 

So has the idea of human rights actually helped resolve these issues? In my view, not one iota. All it does is rephrase the moral question into a different language.

 

Human rights can be very useful where no matter how you spin it, no two human rights conflict. For example, the right to life, posesion of property etc of Hutu's in the Ruandan genocide was not balanced by any human rights of the Tootsis. It therefore amounts to a grave violation of human rights and is totally morally deplorable.

 

But they can be a hinderence to understanding when one tries to talk about human rights without ever trying to identify exactly which human right(s) is/are effected. For example, the Palestinian propaganda coup justifying the destruction of Israel by demographic means as 'every refugee has a "right" to return home'. Here, the apparant "right" acts as a fog to hide that there is no rational moral or legal justification for their demand (as I have not found that particular "right" anywhere in human rights law and the granting of that demand would ruin all chances of peaceful coexistance between the two sides thereby depriving both sides of the right to life).

 

So human rights are just values that a respectful 1st world government always considers and balances when they make decisions whist they are ignored in a dictatorship. This is what separates the West from the disgusting dictators.

[sebbysteiny]

2) The law and 'due process' for dealing with terrorists is inadequate and must be changed significantly.

 

Not agreed. The language "must be changed significantly" is problematic.

 

The difference is superficial. The actual intellectual point is agreed. Would

2) The law and 'due process' for dealing with terrorists is inadequate and needs to be changed.

make you happier?

 

3) The American Government's breaches of the law have resulted in us (the whole Western World) being safer.

Not agreed.

Do you disagree that there are dangerous men in GB? Do you disagree that there are dangerous men who would either be released onto the streets or would require a fair trail in which information important to national security would be revealed to obtain the conviction were GB not to exist?

 

4) GB is potentially open to obuse.

The double qualifier is unnecessary - GB is open to abuse.

I'm not sure. There are safeguards. These safeguards include leaks, the media, and investigations by NGOs. The issue is whether they are sufficient. The use of the word 'potentially' includes this issue. If you think the safeguards ARE DEFINATELY insufficient and that GB IS open to abuse then by definition you agree it is 'potentially open to abuse'. Consensus therefore includes the world 'potentially'.

 

5) The American Government has not actually abused GB yet for improper purposes.

 

Not agreed.

 

Perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting your view that the American Government has used GB otherwise than to protect its (and other) citizens from terrorists. Evidence of political oponents transferred to GB, or any petty non-terrorist criminals transferred there would be just fine.

[Kayra]

. Would you let him go and be a danger to society?

I also note with interest that you have approved of psycological torture

 

China uses this argument all the time. We locked-him-up/ executed him because he was a 'danger to society'. Nelson Mandela was a 'danger to society'. Gandhi was a 'danger to society'.

The "danger" is to those that are abusing their 'power'

The only "danger to society" is when Society gives in to these scared, little bullies.

 

This argument is a logical falicy. A uses argument z to justify crimes y. Therefore B's use of argument Z is a crime y.

Bin Laden also justified his attacks as 'self defence'. Does this mean that anybody who says they acted in self defence is suddenly a terrorist?

 

 

Assuming that falicy = fallacy, then your argument is either a logical fallacy or one who’s logic completely escapes me. If the purpose was to confuse, it clearly hit the mark for me. If not, perhaps you could attempt to unravel it for those of us that are intellectually challenged and have such poor logic skills. She was drawing an analogy to your use of the term "Danger to society" and how that statement can be used to justify just about anything the government desires. I think she was right on the mark. Restating your comment to A uses argument Z to justify crime Y. Therefore B's use of argument Z also justifies crime Y would be more appropriate

 

BTW, every American that died (emotional ploy? Perhaps, but one well justified) for his country did so to ensure that a man that is considered to be a "Danger to society" by the US government would have to be proven so in a court of law before any lawful action could be taken against them. So, the answer to your question is a resounding "YES"! If you can not prove him guilty, let him go.

 

 

Truth. Almost all people in GB are a danger to society regardless of how the Chinese discribes its political prisoners.

 

Truth? So you regard belief, unbounded by fact, as truth? We know only what information they release to us as there is no due process granted them. While I personally agree with you, I can not claim it as truth and back it up with facts, therefore it is belief.

 

 

Answer: Prison. What do you want, luxury 5 star accomodation? You have a strange version of 'sensory deprivation' if you think standard or slightly harsh prison conditions amount to psycological torture.

 

I guess we should determine what is an acceptable level of torture for non-Americans first?

 

It is a (ad hominem) logical falicy to say that I have no understanding of the issues simply because I have not learned latin. I probably understand division of powers better than you.

 

 

Sheesh. I spend most of my counter posting with you pointing out the subtle and not so subtle shots against me that have no supporting logic.

 

Lets look at that Wikipedia entry you quoted.

(ad hominem) A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

A makes claim X.

There is something objectionable about A.

Therefore claim X is false.

 

She at no point invalidated your argument based on you, but only on the "Logic" you bring to bear on the subject.

 

If you understand the division of powers so much better then her, perhaps you could explain why it is in anyone's best interests (besides the President of the United States that is) to grant to the President, in these circumstances, the very powers that every founding father, every sitting judge, and anyone who truly understands the reasoning behind the separation of powers, knew to be a complete antithesis to a democracy?

In other words, how is allowing the Democracy to act in a manner that is unaccountable to the people, keeping Democracy safe?

 

 

Nobody is disputing that the courts should have some kind of role in GB.

 

Have you been reading this thread? Your own posts perhaps? Like the last sentence in the post below.

 

The question is what? In particular, the question you have ducked not once but about 3 or 4 times is what do you do with a person who you know to be a danger to society but the evidence proving guilty would cause a danger to national security if released? Current law, or the courts, demand either the evidence is released or the suspect is. Only those willing to break with the rule book can keep us safe under these conditions: an undisputable and I believe unanimously agreed fact.

 

“an undisputable and I believe unanimously agreed fact” ??

 

Interesting that you refer to the Constitution of the United States as a rule book. I guess at some level, it is not even that. I think it should be considered as more of a guide or ruler used to measure the validity of new and existing laws.

If you can not see how completely wrong and dangerous your last sentence is, and on how many levels, then there is no longer any sense in attempting to use logic in discussions with you.

 

In effect what I think you are saying is:

“America has the right, despite what the rest of the world believes, to detain indefinitely any non-American we determine to be a danger to us, regardless of due process or burden of proof. We of course will not do this to American citizens as they deserve the right to due process.”

 

 

Thus, the debate comes down to which is more important, bad law or human life. You have admitted that as things stand, GB is making people safe and is not being abused but you and all those supporting GB agree that the legal black hole and lack of safeguards is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

 

The debate was about the moral and legal validity of GT, and it comes down to the fact that GT has no moral justification, and no legal boundaries (not truly illegal by US law).

 

As to your reference to “Bad law or human life”, bad law inevitably (and often quickly) faces the challenge of meeting the burden of the Constitution. Don’t you think your statement might be more aptly phrased as “The debate comes down to which is more important, Democracy or human life”?

 

Answer that question carefully.

 

 

So please stop giving us stuff about law and how great it is, or due process and how great it is. We all agree and by repeating this like a broken record you imply you have little else to say.

 

<grin> Thanks Sebby. It always amuses me when you throw out statements like “you imply you have little else to say”, but could you please refrain from using them in discussions on this board? Unless, of course, you can substantiate that I have “Little else to say”

 

 

The real issue is whether the law, or due process, is sufficient to deal with terrorists, which is not really an issue because we all agree it is not.

 

You’re contradicting yourself again.

The point about Due Process (sorry for the repetition) being insufficient pretty much sums up something. I would hope that it is not the application of Due process that is at issue, but rather the process that is applied that is seen as insufficient by you. The difference is that the process applied (the law in this case) can be changed, but that act of applying it (Due Process) should never be.

 

Also, I kind of thought democracy was more of a cornerstone of Western Society. The idea that one principal only describes Western society is like saying that only one ingrediant creates Coke's taste.

 

 

You are correct in that no single principle describes the United States. There are 27 Constitutional amendments (some repealing others so actually there are fewer) that define the principles that the US purports to binds itself to.

 

You either are a Democracy, or are just pretending to be one when it is convenient. There really is no middle ground.

[InfiniteNow]

Assuming that falicy = fallacy, then your argument is either a logical fallacy or one who’s logic completely escapes me.

Okay, listen here. While this thread has gone tangential every once in a while, it's not appropriate to take it to this unsavory realm. Please keep comments clean and acceptable for children.

 

Oh, wait...

 

You said "fallacy," not "phallicy." Never mind... Carry on... :cup:

[Kayra]

Do you disagree that there are dangerous men in GB? Do you disagree that there are dangerous men who would either be released onto the streets or would require a fair trail in which information important to national security would be revealed to obtain the conviction were GB not to exist?

 

Do you agree that it is better to release 10 guilty men then imprison wrongly even one?

If not, your living in the wrong country. I am not trying to be facetious here, it is absoulutely one of the founding principles of your country.

 

I'm not sure. There are safeguards. These safeguards include leaks, the media, and investigations by NGOs. The issue is whether they are sufficient. The use of the word 'potentially' includes this issue. If you think the safeguards ARE DEFINATELY insufficient and that GB IS open to abuse then by definition you agree it is 'potentially open to abuse'. Consensus therefore includes the world 'potentially'.

 

As stated, the qualifier was not required and only served to lessen the impact of the statement. So you consider "Leaks" and the media to be safeguards?

 

 

Perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting your view that the American Government has used GB otherwise than to protect its (and other) citizens from terrorists. Evidence of political oponents transferred to GB, or any petty non-terrorist criminals transferred there would be just fine.

 

<looks back through the posts>

His view? Anyone's View? I believe he was referring to the acts of interrogation, holding prisoners without charging them, denying them any form of due process (there I go repeating myself again :cup: )what so ever, Etc. All of these are either evident (admitted to) or self evident.

How is it you keep missing that point?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Do you disagree that there are dangerous men in GB? Do you disagree that there are dangerous men who would either be released onto the streets or would require a fair trail in which information important to national security would be revealed to obtain the conviction were GB not to exist?

 

I do not, but that's not what you said. You said "Because the American Government broke the law, we are now safer."

 

That's not even remotely the same thing as "There are dangerous terrorist held at Gitmo who the criminal justice system does not adequately address"

 

Perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting your view that the American Government has used GB otherwise than to protect its (and other) citizens from terrorists. Evidence of political oponents transferred to GB, or any petty non-terrorist criminals transferred there would be just fine.

 

It is always an abuse of government power to hold any individual for any purpose without recourse, or certainty of release.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

However what would you do if the CIA interrigation led to undisputable conclusion of guilt but the softly softy legal questioning did not. Would you let him go and be a danger to society?

 

Them's the breaks, yeah.

 

I also note with interest that you have approved of psycological torture.

 

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position that due process need not apply during "intelligence" interviews.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

This argument is a logical falicy. A uses argument z to justify crimes y. Therefore B's use of argument Z is a crime y.

Bin Laden also justified his attacks as 'self defence'. Does this mean that anybody who says they acted in self defence is suddenly a terrorist?

Assuming that falicy = fallacy, then your argument is either a logical fallacy or one who’s logic completely escapes me. If the purpose was to confuse, it clearly hit the mark for me. If not, perhaps you could attempt to unravel it for those of us that are intellectually challenged and have such poor logic skills. She was drawing an analogy to your use of the term "Danger to society" and how that statement can be used to justify just about anything the government desires. I think she was right on the mark. Restating your comment to A uses argument Z to justify crime Y. Therefore B's use of argument Z also justifies crime Y would be more appropriate

 

Your too hard on yourself. I think 'intellectually challenged' is a touch too strong a phrase to descibe yourself.

 

I'll happily try to explain the fallacy a bit more clearly.

 

A uses argument Z to justify crimes y. B uses argument Z to justify action X. THEREFORE action X is crime Y.

 

A(nother) vivid example of this false logic in action. Left wing parties use the argument of redistributing wealth more fairly to increase taxes. The communists used the argument of redistribution of wealth more fairly to torture and murder people. THEREFORE increasing taxes is torture and murder.

 

Truth? So you regard belief, unbounded by fact, as truth? We know only what information they release to us as there is no due process granted them. While I personally agree with you, I can not claim it as truth and back it up with facts, therefore it is belief.

 

Well, you can't even prove that anybody (other than yourself) exists. But ignoring a massive distortion of reality, it is truth. It is also highly improbably that if it was false, it could be covered up.

 

Only those willing to break with the rule book can keep us safe under these conditions: an undisputable and I believe unanimously agreed fact.

 

If you can not see how completely wrong and dangerous your last sentence is, and on how many levels, then there is no longer any sense in attempting to use logic in discussions with you.

It is defintately dangerous, but not wrong. The rule book has its purpose but when the law is inadequate, then the law must be changed. Until it is changed, only those prepared to throw away the rulebook can keep us safe.

 

But is it worth throwing away the rule book to save a few lives, since once it has been, it is very difficult to get it back.

 

If there is some kind of perfect solution, it would involve using GB in the interim until the 'rule book' can be rewritten correctly. However, what would one rewrite it to?

 

Thanks Sebby. It always amuses me when you throw out statements like “you imply you have little else to say”, but could you please refrain from using them in discussions on this board? Unless, of course, you can substantiate that I have “Little else to say”

I know you always have loads of good stuff to say and you don't need me to tell you this. I was trying to eliminate issues we agree on but for some reason have not been dropped. I was saying that continuing to argue an issue once it has been agreed might look like you have little else to add to an outsider who does not know you as well as I do.

 

The point about Due Process (sorry for the repetition) being insufficient pretty much sums up something. I would hope that it is not the application of Due process that is at issue, but rather the process that is applied that is seen as insufficient by you. The difference is that the process applied (the law in this case) can be changed, but that act of applying it (Due Process) should never be.

I agree. I think we just got our definitions crossed. However you say the law can be changed. I'm not so convinced. Certainly in England, Blair has been trying like crazy to change the law to make it compatible with terrorism. The courts have been unwilling to go along citing the Human Rights Act. The idea that a judge (not a jury) will be able to use information that the defendant cannot see or even know about to decide a serious criminal conviction understandably creates panic in the Judiciary and the Judiciary are unwilling to go along with it. However it is either that, GB, or innocent lives lost.

 

I believe my friends over the pond have been having similar problems.

 

You either are a Democracy, or are just pretending to be one when it is convenient. There really is no middle ground.

 

For a left winger that is surprisingly black and white :cup:.

 

I beg to differ. There is plenty of middle ground. How about Lebanon. One has a democratic government ruling half the country but Hezbollah rules the other half and syria still has some control (often via Hezbollah) on events. The Palestinian government also has had some kind of democratic elections and their leaders certainly have democratic legitimacy (even if they totally lack moral legitimacy) but the media and campaigning system is anything but free and fair.

 

Also, you shouldn't confuse democracy with human rights. They are two entirely separate concepts. The right to fair trial is a human right, not a democratic one. Just because most democratic nations also support human rights does not fuse the two concepts together.

[sebbysteiny]

Do you disagree that there are dangerous men in GB? Do you disagree that there are dangerous men who would either be released onto the streets or would require a fair trail in which information important to national security would be revealed to obtain the conviction were GB not to exist?

 

Do you agree that it is better to release 10 guilty men then imprison wrongly even one?

If not, your living in the wrong country. I am not trying to be facetious here, it is absoulutely one of the founding principles of your country.

Absolutely great point. This is the point that our entire criminal justice system and the principal of 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' comes from. For most crimes, it is true.

 

However, this assumption breaks down with terrorism. It is not better to let 10 potential suicide bombers go (who could cause total casualties of about 50 people and 500 wounded) just to stop one innocent person from being wrongfully imprisoned. The entire equation must be recalculated. Having said that, any benefits of keeping that equation (such as image) must also be factored in. This point is one about what one should change about the existing law for terrorism offences.

 

I do not, but that's not what you said. You said "Because the American Government broke the law, we are now safer."

 

That's not even remotely the same thing as "There are dangerous terrorist held at Gitmo who the criminal justice system does not adequately address"

 

Well we agree on the intellectual point, but our disagreement is about the superficial phrasing (again). If I said 'we are now safer from terrorism, would you be happier?

 

So you consider "Leaks" and the media to be safeguards?

. Absolutely yes. Is it sufficient? Don't know.

 

Perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting your view that the American Government has used GB otherwise than to protect its (and other) citizens from terrorists. Evidence of political oponents transferred to GB, or any petty non-terrorist criminals transferred there would be just fine.

 

His view? Anyone's View? I believe he was referring to the acts of interrogation, holding prisoners without charging them, denying them any form of due process (there I go repeating myself again )what so ever, Etc. All of these are either evident (admitted to) or self evident.

How is it you keep missing that point?

It is always an abuse of government power to hold any individual for any purpose without recourse, or certainty of release.

Our disagreement here is about the definition of 'abuse'. I believe an abuse of power is when the government stops looking after it's peoples interests and begins looking after its own personal interests. You believe an abuse is simply when the government acts beyond its legal powers.

We have all agreed that it is acting beyond its legal powers. However, the next question is 'so what?'. The answer is that it creates a potential for our government to stop acting in our own interests (ie become totalitarian and / or corrupt) which is an existual threat to a democratic system.

My point is that we all agree that no such abuse of power (according to my definition) has occured yet. Therefore in practice, GB has not actually been harmful to America's interests and has probably helped. Once that changes then there can be no further argument and GB must be shut immediately. Until then, it is possible to agree with GB for the positive work it has done thus far, whist opposing it for the future danger it poses to American (and therefore world) society.

 

In an attempt to appeal to the geeky side of people, it's like the clone army in starwars. They were very useful at the immediate time they introduced, but, once taken over by the emperor, they were a major danger.

[Edella]

Sebby,you responded to my PM requesting you to to correct a post in which you misquoted me.You havn't done so after two days.This is the second time you have misquoted me.Fix it.