"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann
So do you believe that it's OK for the President of the United States to order the indefinite incarceration of anyone, anywhere in the world, with no oversight, simply because he deems them to be a terrorist? If not, what do you suggest?Originally Posted by JMak
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism
Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining "the fight" because they spoke out against the U.S. government.
Affiant further sayeth not.
What kind of jerk-off, are you? You one of the Holacaust deniers?
Sorry, but combatants picked up on the battlfield are not entitled to the innocent until proven guilty concept. They are not ordinary citizens.
So not only are you foolish enough classify Bush as Hitler, but to totally bastardize the word, "fascist," too?Also it seems to me, that you are willing to give a child rapist, a mass murder and other criminals far more legal rights and access to the legal system, than you are a bunch of men that you have only the word of a fascist Bush administration that they are "dangerous"..
Secondly, yes, I am ready to grant ordinary American citizens the consitutional rights and protections that they are entitled to. If there are greater than those rights and protections available to non-citizens picked up on a battlefield engaged in killing American soldiers, so be it. I'm not sure why you want to treat such combatants as ordinary citizens, though, when, by their own free actions, have completely disregarded the laws and customs of war to kill civilians, intentioanlly place civilian's in harms way, or kill Amrican soldiers.
I'm not ignoring them. I do acknowledge, though, that due process was granted to these individuals to challenge their detainment and, ultimately, be released without prejudice if they successfully challenged that status.Fact is that out of the 500+ men and boys held at gitmo (yes there have been children held there and still are), a majority, yes a majority have been released, without charge but also labelled as innocent of any "terrorist activities". It is funny how this, to a right winger, who supposedly is the staunch defender of the rule of law and the ideals of the USA, suddenly totally ignores these facts.
On trial where? They were granted combatant status review tribunals to challenge their combatant status. These were the CSRT's set up by the Detainee Treatment Act in 05.Yes there are bad men at Gitmo, but if the US has proof that they are bad.. put them on trial.
Maybe we're talking about different groups of people here, I don't know.
First of all you're arguing then that the US should not have ever become a signatory to Geneva as Geneva permits nations to detain combatants, without trial, for the duration of hostilities.If you believe in the principles of the USA, then you should never ever accept that your government hold people of any nationality, in prison without charge, without any legal access or any access at all for long periods of time, and let alone let them be tortured by your own government.
Second, the problem with your torture statement is that we're all arguing different concepts of torture. Some have declared waterboarding, varying the room temperature, blasting loud music, using female interrogators, using dogs as torture while others, like me, say that such treatment neither satisfies the definitions in US law nor is equivalent to unquestioned torture like murder, rape, amputation, mutilation.
Oh, please, enough emotional pleas.You should be up in arms defending the very principles that your troops, your father, grandfather and others died defending in WW2 and other wars.. and yet you are not only silent, but actually supportive of such fascist acts by your own government.
zYou've not established what these principles, hence, you're appealing to undeclared principles and demanding that I adhere to them. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
I see your point. No justice system is perfect. But terrorists and enemy combatants are not ordinary civilians being prosecuted in ordinary civilian courts. No international agreement requires that combatants be treated as ordinary civilians in civilian courts. Military commissions have been the traditional venue for combatants to challenge their detention.As for this guy. This happens in a world where we believe in the principle of the rule of law. Murders do get off free because we can not prove they did it. It is the price we have to pay for not having a dictatorship that locks up undesirables in gulags for most of their lives. It is the price of freedom and the difference between us and them..
So what are you arguing for? That combatants and terrorists be prosecuted in civilian courts or that they be treated as combatants as international law expects?
You can fool yourself into thinking that we are at war with a extremist ideology if you want. I know Bush did, at least as he talked to the American people about it. On the other hand, we are prosecuting an aggressive war against those groups who commit acts of terrorism against the US and the two primary battlefields are Iraq and Afghanistan where they are flocking to fight us.Yes the US is at war with this mythical no discript thing called terror.. but where is the limit of what terror is and what you can do to not only prevent terror but punish those that are suspected of this terror.
What principles? I'm not going to concede a point to unknown principles that fail to id.Do you give up the very principles that so cherish because of fear?
No.This is what the US has done.. today a woman slapping her own children on an air plane can be charged and convicted of terror... is that right?
No.Is that what the US has come too?
No.A person robbing a bank.. is he now a terrorist and can be held under terror laws?
No.A person smuggling drugs.. is she a terrorist and be held under terror laws? Where do you stop?
Hence, since there is no start, there is no stop.
Now we know that you are a bad faith participant in this debate. Please do not make up the facts you need to present your perverted perception of what the US has become.
We call people terrorists because they think differently than we do?
And we don't call them terrorists because they use airliners to bomb skyscrapers, use cars to bomb embassies, use men and women to conduct suicide bombings, etc., etc., etc.?
Where do you get off reinventing history here?
I always like the cliched Orwell stuff, it's so much easier for you people to speak in cliches rather than address actual issues and arguments.