Yes, we certainly need our 'terror beach'-front property http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqP3hnSQLc ... It gives us a nose-thumbing toe-hold on Cuba (AT & T may someday reclaim the cost of its nationalized circa-1959 phone system) and allows us real estate upon which to treat our detractors in less than American-approved ways- G-Bay isn't America. If Cuba ever warrants restoration to Fly the Friendly Sky A-List status, G-Bay could revert to some anxious families: Napoli, Settineri, Santa Maria de Gesù and Corso.
It's funny (not), how Democrats were all outraged by the start of the Guantanamo Bay detention area by the idiot Bush, Darth Cheney, and that smug little turd Alberto Gonzales; but now that Obama says we can't shut it down as fast as he thought, it's not an outrage anymore. Hypocrites. Shut it down, try the people in a proper court, sentence them and carry it out, or take them back to the sandbox we found 'em in and turn them loose. On an aside, the water in Guantanamo Bay is the clearest I saw anywhere on earth. Beautiful.
I'm risking starting the same old argument with the same old people. I just can't stop. The issue of Guantanamo Bay's detention center isn't about whether it hurts the inmates, or whether we are gaining information, or really even about their rights. It's about US, it's about who we are as a nation and what our military people are really fighting and dying for. Holding people without charges,without a fair, speedy trial and torturing them is not fighting the cause of freedom. Period.
"which to treat our detractors in less than American-approved ways".
Thanks for clarifying that. Silly me. I thought these "detractors" were terrorist war criminals hell bent and sworn to the destruction of our nation and the annihilation of it's citizens. My bad.
I applaud you for your empathy for the types of "detractors" that voiced their concerns on 9/11.
Harker; "I thought these "detractors" were terrorist war criminals hell bent and sworn to the destruction of our nation and the annihilation of it's citizens. My bad."
Sure is: here's a reading assignment for you, do your homework (like C.M. has) then we'll talk.
Civilian courts should have no jurisdiction over these people. They should be tried in a military court. Anyone can play a game of semantics but at the end of the day the people being held in G-Bay are prisoners of war. The Civilian courts have no business trying any of them.
I use the term, "detractors," because shy of charges or convictions, the "detainees" are being held on a whim. The issue is not that we shouldn't hold these people or even questioning the value of intelligence derived. This is a case of contestable semantics and arguable legal process because our government has made it so...purposefully! No- they are not POWs; G W Bush made sure they were not called that to avoid international agreements on how to handle POWs.
We have created an island of immunity away from U. S. shores to avoid application of American jurisprudence- to evade the protections that our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence guarantee- not just to citizens of the United States, but proclaim as rights of all people.
6th Amendment to U. S. Constitution: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
U. S. Declaration of Independence, charges legitimizing separation from the Crown:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
Habeas Corpus- The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror.
In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held that detainees have the right to petition for habeas corpus, because their custodian – the Secretary of Defense – is subject to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal judge.
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 attempted to revoke detainees' right to Habeas Corpus, proclaiming no court has jurisdiction over non-citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay; alternatively establishing a procedure for status review limited by military law. The Supreme Court decided the limitation did not apply to habeas petitions that were pending at the time the DTA was passed.
Congress tried to circumvent the ruling by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but the Court again ruled petitions were valid. Under Article I § 9, only Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Congress has but one alternative: create procedures that are substantially equivalent to habeas. The proposed alternatives failed to allow review but for a pre-defined class of detainees – those tried by military commission whose sentences were less than ten years imprisonment.
It's not about WHY we do it- it's about HOW we do it. Americans stand for certain universal rights, yet conspire to deprive our enemies of same rights. There is no defending what amounts to "do as I say, not as I do." We have established an indefensible double-standard, a hypocritical application of unAmerican justice.
I feel that both CM Barons and Jeremiah are correct. While CM Barons makes a point that says
"It's not about WHY we do it- it's about HOW we do it. Americans stand for certain universal rights, yet conspire to deprive our enemies of same rights. There is no defending what amounts to "do as I say, not as I do." We have established an indefensible double-standard, a hypocritical application of unAmerican justice."
My problem with that is as Jeremiah points out, these people arent engaged in a war with us, they rent members of a single country, they haven't signed nor do they abide by the Geneva Convention rules for war. They have no set uniform to identify them as an enemy, no CLEAR declaration of intent except to kill Americans. They are NOT Citizens of the US and therefore not really entitled to the same rights. As a matter of fact their type of combat and tactics depend on them not being restricted by ANY definitions of legitimate conflict rules as they are defined internationally.
They are a new type of combatant, we followed as much as humanly possible in every war we are involved in the rules of conduct per se. When we fought the british for independance we engaged in regimental combat as was the way of battle back then. But we also learned from the indians a different way to fight as well, ambushes, targeting officers, hiding significant forces and basically ignoring the rules of regimental combat. Thats why we won. Even in the civil war we fought we still had some regimental frame of mind which when blended with more modern tactics lead to incredible carnage and death tolls. These terrorists are introducing the world to an entirely new type of combat that has been developed in the conflicts in the middle east during the last 30 - 50 years.
Therefore I think the best way to deal with them is what we have done....take them out of play, incarcerate them and try to develop a way to integrate our sense of justice to the situation. Its isnt gonna be perfect, its gonna have mistakes along the way but it is in fact.....very much an American way of doing things.
CM I just dont think that there is an indefensible double standard here because there is actually no standard to begin with. The military should be allowed to deal with this as civilian courts just dont apply here, these prisioners are far from civilized.
It would be akin to having a trial for a caged zoo tiger for killing a zoo keeper.
Jeremiah; it's not a game of semantics, it's the Constitution of the United States. If we circumvent the rules we have for ourselves on this, then what's next? Guantanamo is not OK
Dave, those rules are for ourselves not these pieces of crap. The Constitution does not apply to those who are not in our borders (and shouldn't apply to anyone who is not a citizen, veteran, or in the process of becoming a citizen). Thats why the prison was set up there. Its a creative solution to a problem that exists when you don't fight another country's military.
Until we are willing to take the shackles off our troops and allow them to do the job that is necessary without bullshit rules of engagement we aren't going to be finished.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison
Old Arab Proverb:
"One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.
A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.
Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself."
what this means is that if you give in a little to not following our Constitution, pretty soon, it and our way of life will all be gone. We will have done it to ourselves. The radical Muslims, in my humble opinion, understand this quite well, it's their story after all. The best way to fight this ideology is to stick to OUR principles, not bend to their level.
Keep the tent flaps closed
Problem with your little analogy Dave is that we ARE following the Constitution, do you know what the Constitution is?
Look at this:
"The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States."
While you argue that these detainees are withing the US they arent here of their own free will but as agressors to the United States.
And just as a side note, the Bill of Rights that everyone likes to hold up as inviolate, are actually the first 10 amendments....being amendments they CAN be removed as well, as was the 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol. Its not very likely but they are amendments nonetheless.
I'm sure our Muslim enemies are quite intelligent and depend on us and our quandries in persuing this conflict, so people like you who constantly cry to treat them like US Citizens actually helps their cause and continues the problems.
I'm not crying, Kyle. I never said anything about treating the detainees like US Citizens, I just want us to stick to our rule of law. If there's evidence against someone who has or is trying to attack the US and/or our military abroad, then arrest them, try them and sentence them, or have the country they were caught in do it. If not, toss 'em. We have rules for dealing with P O W's, if that's what we find they are, such as foot soldiers in the Taliban. They should be turned over to the respective country they were caught fighting in/against. Again, this isn't about the detainees or their rights, it's about us and who we are as a Nation.
All in all, I'd like us to end the whole war and Guantanamo, and close all foreign bases and stop trying to build an Empire, but that's another discussion.
One of my great pet peeves is people who say the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens.
The Declaration of Independence sets forth the founding principles of this country, and it says "all men are created equal." The entire premise of the DoI is that rights are universal.
The Bill of Rights merely codifies universal rights for the sake of creating a legal framework that both expresses these rights and bounds the government against intrusion of rights with in the natural restraints any government can (meaning, we can't impose our rights on a country that doesn't share our values).
We do great damage to ourselves when we don't apply the bill of rights and the principles therein for all people.
I can think of nothing more offensive to America than to deny basic, inalienable rights to any person, no matter the country of origin or the offense alleged. We make a mockery of our own ideals and spit on the graves of our founders when we do.
I am not trying to dimish the ideals we set in the constitution but our Founding Fathers were practical and worldly men not naieve idealists. Everyone knows the words but take note of the word "created"
___We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.____
But we forget that it continues beyond that point as well, because while all men ARE created equal with certain equal rights there is a reality factor included. While the intent of the document is specifically designed to speak to the conflict the colonies were having with the Monarch of Great Britan it seems to me (and I'm not saying absolutely but again the idea and concept is there) That it does speak to circumstances that the rights of the people supercede the rights of the select (if they be individuals, small groups or even Monarchs of their own mother country)and what can be done. Look at the next paragraph in the DoI
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —
In my view the path the detainees took against the US they represent a group looking to affect our safety, happiness and prudence and their actions qualify as a long train of abuses and usurpations designed to reduce us to despotism. This places them outside of the rules of reasonable men. We arent summarily executing them upon capture, even though they have done this not only to our military people, but to journalists there to cover stories and people in the very skies over our heads who have no power or authority to represent our Gov't other than just being citizens... but for them to have full expectation of rights that our own citizens expect to be treated the same is a bit much. We have even prosecuted our own soldiers for violating their dignity.
So while in principal Howard I dont dispute your pet peeve and in most cases you are entirely right...non citizens are emtitled to the same rights. I think that it is negated when you take up arms and actively, with intent work to destroy those rights for everyone under the mantle of that freedom the DoI is intended for.
Sorry for so long a writing but it is a complex opinion to impart to everyone.
I can think of nothing more offensive to America than to deny basic, inalienable rights to any person, no matter the country of origin or the offense alleged. We make a mockery of our own ideals and spit on the graves of our founders when we do.
Life Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness are all violated anytime we goto War Howard.
And nothing in the Declaration says that they have a right to be tried in a civil court, with a free lawyer, and jury of their peers.
I have no problem letting just about anybody come into the states who can be a contributing member of society (not a disrupter or leech) and affording them the protections of the Constitution. By it means something to be American. And to apply that standard to these dogs diminishes that standing in my eyes. We are better then them because we don't live in a society that is equivalent to the 12th century. We allow interest to be collected on loans. We allow women to be dressed mostly how they want. We don't stone them for being raped. We don't kill them for being seen in public with a man not of their family. They are savages and should be treated as such.
Peter lets not blur the line with generalizations, in the same rant you are combining foreign Govt policies with religious beliefs and local customs and then pinning them on the Taliban.....lets not forget the Taliban is an organization, it may have sympathy from some of the Govts and religions in that part of the world but they are not a full accounting of Muslims or Arabic countries.
No more than Al Sharpton, or Rev Phillips or the KKK represent the US military or our country.
Generalizations are dangerous, and the more broad they are the more dangerous they become.
Just as a historical note. The Declaration was a statement why we were in revolt against the government.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, written latter, did not agree that all men were created equal. Black slaves, Indians and women were left out. It took a very long period of time before that was changed and corrected.
Kyle, the primary assumption you make is that somebody detained as a suspected terrorist is actually guilty of being a terrorist. How is that known without due process?
Peter, a right to due process isn't just something on paper. It is a fundamental human right.
In denying due process to any person for any reason, we are sinning against ourselves, our principles, our Founders and everything this country should stand for.
John, a clear understanding of the history of the drafting of these documents makes clear that the wisest of the founders understood that they were creating a framework by which the highest principles of freedom and equality could be obtained.
Just off the cuff Howard, but to my understanding they were taken prisoner by american troops, or they were apprehended in the process of committing a terrorist act I.E. the shoebomer
Kyle the Islamic way of life is intolerant of infidels existence. I am not pinning just the Taliban, but all Muslims who believe in the writings of their faith and use as an excuse to eliminate people.
Kyle; only about 5% were actually captured by American troops. The rest were sold to us through bounties offered. Competing warlords sold out competitors members. This is from the Seton Hall report I referenced above. The data analyzed was from the D O D. Many of these detainees were not vetted much less allowed due process. Here's a couple more articles to read when you have time. Our hands are not clean on this. Just like the X-Files "The truth is out there"
Howard,
I don't believe that it is a fundamental human right. I believe it is a right granted by the government (because it is) and that it can be taken away (and has been).
Everyone is entitled to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can morally take that away without due process of the law. It is a fundamental human right. Just because governments violate that right, even our own, is not proof that it is not a fundamental human right.
I'm not saying its not deserved and something everyone should have but if it can be taken from me by a government that is the freest on earth, then I can't put it in that category. And until that changes I can't give it to the enemy. I distinguish Americans from the Enemy because of our way of life. Granting that way of life to them for trying to kill us is incentivising evil acts.
Peter; I don't know about you, but government grants nothing to me. We the people grant government it's power, and we should be concerned with limiting it., not allowing it to imprison and torture people without due process.
The fundamental idea behind libertarian thought is that the individual is sovereign. Rights and freedoms are not guaranteed or granted by government. They are yours to keep until by your own actions you surrender them, and only then you don't surrender them without due process, even voluntarily. The Constitution, or anything document, does not grant rights. It guarantees them, specifically for U.S. Citizens. But since rights are not something a government can give you (you already have as a birthright in the human race), then the fundamental principles of the Constitution apply to the entire human race.
In short, I agree with Dave, the government grants me nothing. As a citizen, I'm guaranteed certain things, but it is not the Constitution that gives me rights. Those are mine to keep with or without the Constitution. Thank God, though, there is a Constitution to help protect me from unjust usurpation of my rights. And it is my dream that someday the same enlightened understanding of fundamental rights are guaranteed for all human kind.
Which is why it is important that we stand by those principles even in the face of an enemy who seeks to devour the very notions of freedom and equality.
I no longer believe that we give government is power. It has swelled and manipulated the people to a point that we don't have the power or means to overthrow it. Weapons dictate power and in the days of the Revolution, the greatest single weapon was the cannon, which private citizens could purchase. That is not the case today. Which means governments power is no longer from the consent of the governed, but from the barrel of a gun, or the belly of a bomber.
So while its nice that your ideals are there, they don't mesh with the real world. The government is the authority, not lofty thoughts of inalienable rights.
I don't disagree that a world where those ideals are in practice is a great one. But I refuse to believe I have an inalienable right to due process, and I definitely don't want to give that to someone who believe I should be dead simply because I don't believe Allah is divine (or even in existence)
I can understand feeling powerless, Peter, I feel it too. I follow laws and rules that I don't necessarily agree with, because I don't care for the alternative. But I refuse to accept that government grants me freedoms. There's not much either of us can do about it, except voice our opinions, so let's just keep doing it.
Thanks Dave.... the articles have clarified a misconception I had on the detainees.
Howard I believe mankind has been striving for that ideal human awareness and maybe someday fundamental human rights will come about, in the meantime we do the best we can. Human nature also has shown us over time that we are warlike, selfish and petty pretty much most of the time. Not an excuse to be so now but hey change is an excruciatingly slow process.
As for the Govt granting us our rights or us ourselves, I do feel that feeling of powerlessness Dave. Right now Govt has the upper hand, it would take a very tragic or severe circumstance to allow us to regain control as Our reps have lost sight of the fact that we grany them their power.....not the businesses, not the lobbyist but us. And we wont band together until we absolutely have to....the 24 to 48 hours following 9/11 I think brought us the closest this country has ever been to unified in brotherhood feeling in my lifetime. So only time will tell but it's gonna be soon that the American People are gonna have to sit the Govt down like an unruly child and set it straight about the way things are supposed to be.
"As a citizen, I'm guaranteed certain things, but it is not the Constitution that gives me rights. Those are mine to keep with or without the Constitution."
I'll bet both Susette Kelo and Vicky Weaver used to think that as well.
Glad you read them Kyle, one important opinion of mine I'd like to add. There are, I believe, some very bad guys being held in Guantanamo, they're not all innocent dupes. All the more reason they should be brought to trial to answer for what they have done. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed truly is the "9-11 Mastermind" and I believe he is one of them, he needs to pay. The government has to do it's job and make the case for conviction. If guilty, his sentence ought to be: to be taken to the 80th floor of some building, stood out on a balcony, a fire built there and told, you get the same choice many people got on 9-11, jump or burn. Say hi to Allah for me.
Lol Dave mine was a little more creative....send him up in a plane, have the pilot parachute out with it aimed at an empty field.... after setting it on fire. Crash jump or burn....(I didnt think 80 stories was enough)
I think that old Arab proverb could be applied to the individuals trying to introduce Sharih law into the U.S. justice system. That aside, I never said these individuals had no rights under the Constitution. My beef is one of proper jurisdiction. A civilian court has no jurisdiction over these people. They are foriegn nationals, many of whom traveled to Afghanistan from their country of origin. They did so for the sole purpose of engaging American military members in combat or to join organizations that have hostile intent toward American citizens and interests. They were classified as enemy combatants. As such they were initially determined to fall under jurisdiction of military law. They still have the same rights to a trial by a jury of their peers, and a lawyer to be provided for them.
I think some people feel these enemy combatants should be treated like criminals. I think this is the wrong classification for them. The tactic of treating an opposing force as criminals instead of prisoners of war is a tactic that was common amongst communist countries. (ie. The Vietnam War) It was also used by the British in Northern Ireland. This is why I feel that we should be treating these prisoners of war as such and not as a common criminals. The military tribunals will still afford them the same constitutional rights that a civilian court will Dave. So you can rest easy at night. It's a funny thing how the oath of enlistment states that "I swear to protect and defend the constitution of the united states..." but there are people that assume wrongly that to have a trial by military tribunal will somehow circumvent the constitution.
The only issue I take with your stance on these particular individuals is the fact that they are not a traditional opposing force like we have fought in wars past. Even in Desert Storm we faced Republican Guard Units and such, in uniforms as clear opposing forces.
These types hide among an innocent population, using them as shields, they dont fight directly unless forced they prefer to pick and choose fights as to their best advantage and will engage only to draw our combatants into traps. They will use innocent civilians as sacrifices to increase their kills or to distract as they sneak off, and when they capture our combatants they torture them for nothing more than to videotape it to send to us to goad us on. They thumb their noses at the Geneva Convention and other conventional rules of war, but depend on us to adhere to them as part of their strategy.... Still even though they have been incarcerated overly long we have treated them fair, 3 hots and a cot, we have even prosecuted our own military members for mistreatment. So imho I have no problems with Guantanamo or its handling of these prisoners, I just hope we get to a point where thing stabilize enough on the front for us to progress with their prosecution, soon.
Wait a minute, didn't Obama
Wait a minute, didn't Obama say this was going to happen with his Dictates about 2 years ago? Oh sorry I mean executive orders.....
G-Bay is a necessity. plain
G-Bay is a necessity. plain and simple
Yes, we certainly need our
Yes, we certainly need our 'terror beach'-front property http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqP3hnSQLc ... It gives us a nose-thumbing toe-hold on Cuba (AT & T may someday reclaim the cost of its nationalized circa-1959 phone system) and allows us real estate upon which to treat our detractors in less than American-approved ways- G-Bay isn't America. If Cuba ever warrants restoration to Fly the Friendly Sky A-List status, G-Bay could revert to some anxious families: Napoli, Settineri, Santa Maria de Gesù and Corso.
It's funny (not), how
It's funny (not), how Democrats were all outraged by the start of the Guantanamo Bay detention area by the idiot Bush, Darth Cheney, and that smug little turd Alberto Gonzales; but now that Obama says we can't shut it down as fast as he thought, it's not an outrage anymore. Hypocrites. Shut it down, try the people in a proper court, sentence them and carry it out, or take them back to the sandbox we found 'em in and turn them loose. On an aside, the water in Guantanamo Bay is the clearest I saw anywhere on earth. Beautiful.
i was always for G-Bay. keep
i was always for G-Bay. keep america safe by any means necessary and if that means hurting the ones that want to destroy our way of life then so be it
"On an aside, the water in
"On an aside, the water in Guantanamo Bay is the clearest I saw anywhere on earth. Beautiful."
of course gotta use clean water for waterboarding
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judge Andrew Napolitano interviewing Congressman Paul about this, May of 2009. Still open. Also, the last minute or so sums up a lot very nicely.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qvT4FlbAVis?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qvT4FlbAVis?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
I'm risking starting the same
I'm risking starting the same old argument with the same old people. I just can't stop. The issue of Guantanamo Bay's detention center isn't about whether it hurts the inmates, or whether we are gaining information, or really even about their rights. It's about US, it's about who we are as a nation and what our military people are really fighting and dying for. Holding people without charges,without a fair, speedy trial and torturing them is not fighting the cause of freedom. Period.
Barons: "which to treat our
Barons:
"which to treat our detractors in less than American-approved ways".
Thanks for clarifying that. Silly me. I thought these "detractors" were terrorist war criminals hell bent and sworn to the destruction of our nation and the annihilation of it's citizens. My bad.
I applaud you for your empathy for the types of "detractors" that voiced their concerns on 9/11.
Very well said Bob.
Very well said Bob.
Harker; "I thought these
Harker; "I thought these "detractors" were terrorist war criminals hell bent and sworn to the destruction of our nation and the annihilation of it's citizens. My bad."
Sure is: here's a reading assignment for you, do your homework (like C.M. has) then we'll talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Profile_of_517_Detainees_through_Analysi…
http://www.bordc.org/threats/guantanamo.php
Have to agree with Bob. It
Have to agree with Bob. It doesn't matter if you think the place should be kept open or closed, these guys are not "detractors".
"these guys are not
"these guys are not 'detractors'"
How do you know? Which of them has had their day in court and their guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Civilian courts should have
Civilian courts should have no jurisdiction over these people. They should be tried in a military court. Anyone can play a game of semantics but at the end of the day the people being held in G-Bay are prisoners of war. The Civilian courts have no business trying any of them.
I use the term, "detractors,"
I use the term, "detractors," because shy of charges or convictions, the "detainees" are being held on a whim. The issue is not that we shouldn't hold these people or even questioning the value of intelligence derived. This is a case of contestable semantics and arguable legal process because our government has made it so...purposefully! No- they are not POWs; G W Bush made sure they were not called that to avoid international agreements on how to handle POWs.
We have created an island of immunity away from U. S. shores to avoid application of American jurisprudence- to evade the protections that our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence guarantee- not just to citizens of the United States, but proclaim as rights of all people.
6th Amendment to U. S. Constitution: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
U. S. Declaration of Independence, charges legitimizing separation from the Crown:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
Habeas Corpus- The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror.
In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held that detainees have the right to petition for habeas corpus, because their custodian – the Secretary of Defense – is subject to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal judge.
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 attempted to revoke detainees' right to Habeas Corpus, proclaiming no court has jurisdiction over non-citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay; alternatively establishing a procedure for status review limited by military law. The Supreme Court decided the limitation did not apply to habeas petitions that were pending at the time the DTA was passed.
Congress tried to circumvent the ruling by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but the Court again ruled petitions were valid. Under Article I § 9, only Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Congress has but one alternative: create procedures that are substantially equivalent to habeas. The proposed alternatives failed to allow review but for a pre-defined class of detainees – those tried by military commission whose sentences were less than ten years imprisonment.
It's not about WHY we do it- it's about HOW we do it. Americans stand for certain universal rights, yet conspire to deprive our enemies of same rights. There is no defending what amounts to "do as I say, not as I do." We have established an indefensible double-standard, a hypocritical application of unAmerican justice.
I feel that both CM Barons
I feel that both CM Barons and Jeremiah are correct. While CM Barons makes a point that says
"It's not about WHY we do it- it's about HOW we do it. Americans stand for certain universal rights, yet conspire to deprive our enemies of same rights. There is no defending what amounts to "do as I say, not as I do." We have established an indefensible double-standard, a hypocritical application of unAmerican justice."
My problem with that is as Jeremiah points out, these people arent engaged in a war with us, they rent members of a single country, they haven't signed nor do they abide by the Geneva Convention rules for war. They have no set uniform to identify them as an enemy, no CLEAR declaration of intent except to kill Americans. They are NOT Citizens of the US and therefore not really entitled to the same rights. As a matter of fact their type of combat and tactics depend on them not being restricted by ANY definitions of legitimate conflict rules as they are defined internationally.
They are a new type of combatant, we followed as much as humanly possible in every war we are involved in the rules of conduct per se. When we fought the british for independance we engaged in regimental combat as was the way of battle back then. But we also learned from the indians a different way to fight as well, ambushes, targeting officers, hiding significant forces and basically ignoring the rules of regimental combat. Thats why we won. Even in the civil war we fought we still had some regimental frame of mind which when blended with more modern tactics lead to incredible carnage and death tolls. These terrorists are introducing the world to an entirely new type of combat that has been developed in the conflicts in the middle east during the last 30 - 50 years.
Therefore I think the best way to deal with them is what we have done....take them out of play, incarcerate them and try to develop a way to integrate our sense of justice to the situation. Its isnt gonna be perfect, its gonna have mistakes along the way but it is in fact.....very much an American way of doing things.
CM I just dont think that there is an indefensible double standard here because there is actually no standard to begin with. The military should be allowed to deal with this as civilian courts just dont apply here, these prisioners are far from civilized.
It would be akin to having a trial for a caged zoo tiger for killing a zoo keeper.
Jeremiah; it's not a game of
Jeremiah; it's not a game of semantics, it's the Constitution of the United States. If we circumvent the rules we have for ourselves on this, then what's next? Guantanamo is not OK
Dave, those rules are for
Dave, those rules are for ourselves not these pieces of crap. The Constitution does not apply to those who are not in our borders (and shouldn't apply to anyone who is not a citizen, veteran, or in the process of becoming a citizen). Thats why the prison was set up there. Its a creative solution to a problem that exists when you don't fight another country's military.
Until we are willing to take the shackles off our troops and allow them to do the job that is necessary without bullshit rules of engagement we aren't going to be finished.
Peter; If Tyranny and
Peter;
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison
Old Arab Proverb:
"One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.
A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.
Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself."
what this means is that if you give in a little to not following our Constitution, pretty soon, it and our way of life will all be gone. We will have done it to ourselves. The radical Muslims, in my humble opinion, understand this quite well, it's their story after all. The best way to fight this ideology is to stick to OUR principles, not bend to their level.
Keep the tent flaps closed
Problem with your little
Problem with your little analogy Dave is that we ARE following the Constitution, do you know what the Constitution is?
Look at this:
"The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States."
While you argue that these detainees are withing the US they arent here of their own free will but as agressors to the United States.
And just as a side note, the Bill of Rights that everyone likes to hold up as inviolate, are actually the first 10 amendments....being amendments they CAN be removed as well, as was the 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol. Its not very likely but they are amendments nonetheless.
I'm sure our Muslim enemies are quite intelligent and depend on us and our quandries in persuing this conflict, so people like you who constantly cry to treat them like US Citizens actually helps their cause and continues the problems.
I'm not crying, Kyle. I never
I'm not crying, Kyle. I never said anything about treating the detainees like US Citizens, I just want us to stick to our rule of law. If there's evidence against someone who has or is trying to attack the US and/or our military abroad, then arrest them, try them and sentence them, or have the country they were caught in do it. If not, toss 'em. We have rules for dealing with P O W's, if that's what we find they are, such as foot soldiers in the Taliban. They should be turned over to the respective country they were caught fighting in/against. Again, this isn't about the detainees or their rights, it's about us and who we are as a Nation.
All in all, I'd like us to end the whole war and Guantanamo, and close all foreign bases and stop trying to build an Empire, but that's another discussion.
One of my great pet peeves is
One of my great pet peeves is people who say the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens.
The Declaration of Independence sets forth the founding principles of this country, and it says "all men are created equal." The entire premise of the DoI is that rights are universal.
The Bill of Rights merely codifies universal rights for the sake of creating a legal framework that both expresses these rights and bounds the government against intrusion of rights with in the natural restraints any government can (meaning, we can't impose our rights on a country that doesn't share our values).
We do great damage to ourselves when we don't apply the bill of rights and the principles therein for all people.
I can think of nothing more offensive to America than to deny basic, inalienable rights to any person, no matter the country of origin or the offense alleged. We make a mockery of our own ideals and spit on the graves of our founders when we do.
I am not trying to dimish the
I am not trying to dimish the ideals we set in the constitution but our Founding Fathers were practical and worldly men not naieve idealists. Everyone knows the words but take note of the word "created"
___We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.____
But we forget that it continues beyond that point as well, because while all men ARE created equal with certain equal rights there is a reality factor included. While the intent of the document is specifically designed to speak to the conflict the colonies were having with the Monarch of Great Britan it seems to me (and I'm not saying absolutely but again the idea and concept is there) That it does speak to circumstances that the rights of the people supercede the rights of the select (if they be individuals, small groups or even Monarchs of their own mother country)and what can be done. Look at the next paragraph in the DoI
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —
In my view the path the detainees took against the US they represent a group looking to affect our safety, happiness and prudence and their actions qualify as a long train of abuses and usurpations designed to reduce us to despotism. This places them outside of the rules of reasonable men. We arent summarily executing them upon capture, even though they have done this not only to our military people, but to journalists there to cover stories and people in the very skies over our heads who have no power or authority to represent our Gov't other than just being citizens... but for them to have full expectation of rights that our own citizens expect to be treated the same is a bit much. We have even prosecuted our own soldiers for violating their dignity.
So while in principal Howard I dont dispute your pet peeve and in most cases you are entirely right...non citizens are emtitled to the same rights. I think that it is negated when you take up arms and actively, with intent work to destroy those rights for everyone under the mantle of that freedom the DoI is intended for.
Sorry for so long a writing but it is a complex opinion to impart to everyone.
I can think of nothing more
I can think of nothing more offensive to America than to deny basic, inalienable rights to any person, no matter the country of origin or the offense alleged. We make a mockery of our own ideals and spit on the graves of our founders when we do.
Life Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness are all violated anytime we goto War Howard.
And nothing in the Declaration says that they have a right to be tried in a civil court, with a free lawyer, and jury of their peers.
I have no problem letting just about anybody come into the states who can be a contributing member of society (not a disrupter or leech) and affording them the protections of the Constitution. By it means something to be American. And to apply that standard to these dogs diminishes that standing in my eyes. We are better then them because we don't live in a society that is equivalent to the 12th century. We allow interest to be collected on loans. We allow women to be dressed mostly how they want. We don't stone them for being raped. We don't kill them for being seen in public with a man not of their family. They are savages and should be treated as such.
Peter lets not blur the line
Peter lets not blur the line with generalizations, in the same rant you are combining foreign Govt policies with religious beliefs and local customs and then pinning them on the Taliban.....lets not forget the Taliban is an organization, it may have sympathy from some of the Govts and religions in that part of the world but they are not a full accounting of Muslims or Arabic countries.
No more than Al Sharpton, or Rev Phillips or the KKK represent the US military or our country.
Generalizations are dangerous, and the more broad they are the more dangerous they become.
Just as a historical note.
Just as a historical note. The Declaration was a statement why we were in revolt against the government.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, written latter, did not agree that all men were created equal. Black slaves, Indians and women were left out. It took a very long period of time before that was changed and corrected.
Kyle, the primary assumption
Kyle, the primary assumption you make is that somebody detained as a suspected terrorist is actually guilty of being a terrorist. How is that known without due process?
Peter, a right to due process isn't just something on paper. It is a fundamental human right.
In denying due process to any person for any reason, we are sinning against ourselves, our principles, our Founders and everything this country should stand for.
John, a clear understanding of the history of the drafting of these documents makes clear that the wisest of the founders understood that they were creating a framework by which the highest principles of freedom and equality could be obtained.
Just off the cuff Howard, but
Just off the cuff Howard, but to my understanding they were taken prisoner by american troops, or they were apprehended in the process of committing a terrorist act I.E. the shoebomer
Not really an assumption if this is true.
Kyle, no matter how the
Kyle, no matter how the person is caught, they are innocent until proven guilty.
So until they've been to trial and convicted, it is an assumption that they are guilty.
It is a basic violation of human rights to punish somebody without first proving their guilt.
Kyle the Islamic way of life
Kyle the Islamic way of life is intolerant of infidels existence. I am not pinning just the Taliban, but all Muslims who believe in the writings of their faith and use as an excuse to eliminate people.
Kyle; only about 5% were
Kyle; only about 5% were actually captured by American troops. The rest were sold to us through bounties offered. Competing warlords sold out competitors members. This is from the Seton Hall report I referenced above. The data analyzed was from the D O D. Many of these detainees were not vetted much less allowed due process. Here's a couple more articles to read when you have time. Our hands are not clean on this. Just like the X-Files "The truth is out there"
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1004d.asp
Howard, I don't believe that
Howard,
I don't believe that it is a fundamental human right. I believe it is a right granted by the government (because it is) and that it can be taken away (and has been).
Everyone is entitled to the
Everyone is entitled to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can morally take that away without due process of the law. It is a fundamental human right. Just because governments violate that right, even our own, is not proof that it is not a fundamental human right.
BTW: I would expect
BTW: I would expect libertarians, especially Randians, to get this.
I'm not saying its not
I'm not saying its not deserved and something everyone should have but if it can be taken from me by a government that is the freest on earth, then I can't put it in that category. And until that changes I can't give it to the enemy. I distinguish Americans from the Enemy because of our way of life. Granting that way of life to them for trying to kill us is incentivising evil acts.
Peter; I don't know about
Peter; I don't know about you, but government grants nothing to me. We the people grant government it's power, and we should be concerned with limiting it., not allowing it to imprison and torture people without due process.
The fundamental idea behind
The fundamental idea behind libertarian thought is that the individual is sovereign. Rights and freedoms are not guaranteed or granted by government. They are yours to keep until by your own actions you surrender them, and only then you don't surrender them without due process, even voluntarily. The Constitution, or anything document, does not grant rights. It guarantees them, specifically for U.S. Citizens. But since rights are not something a government can give you (you already have as a birthright in the human race), then the fundamental principles of the Constitution apply to the entire human race.
In short, I agree with Dave, the government grants me nothing. As a citizen, I'm guaranteed certain things, but it is not the Constitution that gives me rights. Those are mine to keep with or without the Constitution. Thank God, though, there is a Constitution to help protect me from unjust usurpation of my rights. And it is my dream that someday the same enlightened understanding of fundamental rights are guaranteed for all human kind.
Which is why it is important that we stand by those principles even in the face of an enemy who seeks to devour the very notions of freedom and equality.
I no longer believe that we
I no longer believe that we give government is power. It has swelled and manipulated the people to a point that we don't have the power or means to overthrow it. Weapons dictate power and in the days of the Revolution, the greatest single weapon was the cannon, which private citizens could purchase. That is not the case today. Which means governments power is no longer from the consent of the governed, but from the barrel of a gun, or the belly of a bomber.
So while its nice that your ideals are there, they don't mesh with the real world. The government is the authority, not lofty thoughts of inalienable rights.
I don't disagree that a world where those ideals are in practice is a great one. But I refuse to believe I have an inalienable right to due process, and I definitely don't want to give that to someone who believe I should be dead simply because I don't believe Allah is divine (or even in existence)
I can understand feeling
I can understand feeling powerless, Peter, I feel it too. I follow laws and rules that I don't necessarily agree with, because I don't care for the alternative. But I refuse to accept that government grants me freedoms. There's not much either of us can do about it, except voice our opinions, so let's just keep doing it.
Thanks Dave.... the articles
Thanks Dave.... the articles have clarified a misconception I had on the detainees.
Howard I believe mankind has been striving for that ideal human awareness and maybe someday fundamental human rights will come about, in the meantime we do the best we can. Human nature also has shown us over time that we are warlike, selfish and petty pretty much most of the time. Not an excuse to be so now but hey change is an excruciatingly slow process.
As for the Govt granting us our rights or us ourselves, I do feel that feeling of powerlessness Dave. Right now Govt has the upper hand, it would take a very tragic or severe circumstance to allow us to regain control as Our reps have lost sight of the fact that we grany them their power.....not the businesses, not the lobbyist but us. And we wont band together until we absolutely have to....the 24 to 48 hours following 9/11 I think brought us the closest this country has ever been to unified in brotherhood feeling in my lifetime. So only time will tell but it's gonna be soon that the American People are gonna have to sit the Govt down like an unruly child and set it straight about the way things are supposed to be.
Peter, in reality, you're a
Peter, in reality, you're a statist.
"As a citizen, I'm guaranteed
"As a citizen, I'm guaranteed certain things, but it is not the Constitution that gives me rights. Those are mine to keep with or without the Constitution."
I'll bet both Susette Kelo and Vicky Weaver used to think that as well.
Glad you read them Kyle, one
Glad you read them Kyle, one important opinion of mine I'd like to add. There are, I believe, some very bad guys being held in Guantanamo, they're not all innocent dupes. All the more reason they should be brought to trial to answer for what they have done. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed truly is the "9-11 Mastermind" and I believe he is one of them, he needs to pay. The government has to do it's job and make the case for conviction. If guilty, his sentence ought to be: to be taken to the 80th floor of some building, stood out on a balcony, a fire built there and told, you get the same choice many people got on 9-11, jump or burn. Say hi to Allah for me.
Lol Dave mine was a little
Lol Dave mine was a little more creative....send him up in a plane, have the pilot parachute out with it aimed at an empty field.... after setting it on fire. Crash jump or burn....(I didnt think 80 stories was enough)
Dave- I think that old Arab
Dave-
I think that old Arab proverb could be applied to the individuals trying to introduce Sharih law into the U.S. justice system. That aside, I never said these individuals had no rights under the Constitution. My beef is one of proper jurisdiction. A civilian court has no jurisdiction over these people. They are foriegn nationals, many of whom traveled to Afghanistan from their country of origin. They did so for the sole purpose of engaging American military members in combat or to join organizations that have hostile intent toward American citizens and interests. They were classified as enemy combatants. As such they were initially determined to fall under jurisdiction of military law. They still have the same rights to a trial by a jury of their peers, and a lawyer to be provided for them.
I think some people feel these enemy combatants should be treated like criminals. I think this is the wrong classification for them. The tactic of treating an opposing force as criminals instead of prisoners of war is a tactic that was common amongst communist countries. (ie. The Vietnam War) It was also used by the British in Northern Ireland. This is why I feel that we should be treating these prisoners of war as such and not as a common criminals. The military tribunals will still afford them the same constitutional rights that a civilian court will Dave. So you can rest easy at night. It's a funny thing how the oath of enlistment states that "I swear to protect and defend the constitution of the united states..." but there are people that assume wrongly that to have a trial by military tribunal will somehow circumvent the constitution.
Jeremiah.... The only issue
Jeremiah....
The only issue I take with your stance on these particular individuals is the fact that they are not a traditional opposing force like we have fought in wars past. Even in Desert Storm we faced Republican Guard Units and such, in uniforms as clear opposing forces.
These types hide among an innocent population, using them as shields, they dont fight directly unless forced they prefer to pick and choose fights as to their best advantage and will engage only to draw our combatants into traps. They will use innocent civilians as sacrifices to increase their kills or to distract as they sneak off, and when they capture our combatants they torture them for nothing more than to videotape it to send to us to goad us on. They thumb their noses at the Geneva Convention and other conventional rules of war, but depend on us to adhere to them as part of their strategy.... Still even though they have been incarcerated overly long we have treated them fair, 3 hots and a cot, we have even prosecuted our own military members for mistreatment. So imho I have no problems with Guantanamo or its handling of these prisoners, I just hope we get to a point where thing stabilize enough on the front for us to progress with their prosecution, soon.