Judge Orders Release of Gitmo Detainee With Ties to 9/11 Attacks [Archive]

spursncowboys

03-22-2010, 07:46 PM

Judge Orders Release of Gitmo Detainee With Ties to 9/11 Attacks Monday , March 22, 2010
A suspected Al Qaeda organizer once called "the highest value detainee" at Guantanamo Bay was ordered released by a federal judge in an order issued Monday. Mohamedou Ould Slahi was accused in the 9/11 Commission report of helping recruit Mohammed Atta and other members of the Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany, that took part in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Military prosecutors suspected Slahi of links to other Al Qaeda operations, and considered seeking the death penalty against him while preparing possible charges in 2003 and 2004. U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's petition for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him. The order was classified, although the court said it planned to release a redacted public version in the coming weeks.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,589769,00.html

Winehole23

03-22-2010, 08:33 PM

U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's petition for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him.As has happened in 32 of forty or so habeas cases involving irregular detainees.

Winehole23

03-22-2010, 08:33 PM

In case after case, our government fails to present adequate evidence for the detention.

Winehole23

03-22-2010, 08:40 PM

In six or seven years time, the USG failed to create a legally usable record against Mohamedou Ould Slahi.

DMX7

03-22-2010, 09:15 PM

I'm so scared.

Winehole23

03-22-2010, 09:22 PM

Hard to tell what SnC's intention was in posting it, but fear-fapping sounds about right to me.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 04:16 AM

He wants to show just how much he hates America.

LnGrrrR

03-23-2010, 04:36 AM

Obviously, SnC finds fault with America needing a legal reason to imprison someone. Shouldn't our say-so be enough, evidence be damned?

spursncowboys

03-23-2010, 05:46 AM

Obviously, SnC finds fault with America needing a legal reason to imprison someone. Shouldn't our say-so be enough, evidence be damned?bingo
we should not have to worry about evidence when capturing people we are at war with.

LnGrrrR

03-23-2010, 06:26 AM

bingo
we should not have to worry about evidence when capturing people we are at war with.

Whottt answered this in another thread; will you?

When will the war be over? I'd like some defined metrics, in your mind, please.

Also, please define where a "battlefield" is. For instance, would you be kosher if they locked up a friend of yours who had been declared a terrorist suspect, resulting in limited access to legal resources?

ElNono

03-23-2010, 06:33 AM

bingo
we should not have to worry about evidence when capturing people we are at war with.

If you have no evidence, how do you know he's the enemy in the first place?
Hearsay?

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 02:10 PM

They should have gotten all information they could have from him then put a bullet behind his ear.

"Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit! "

DarrinS

03-23-2010, 02:11 PM

Hopefully he wasn't tortured.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 02:13 PM

They should have gotten all information they could have from him then put a bullet behind his ear.For what?

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 02:25 PM

For what?

Why put a bullet behind his ear?

Umm... because he is guilty and some stupid fucking judge wants to let him out because the army isn't good at police work?

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 02:31 PM

Why put a bullet behind his ear?

Umm... because he is guilty and some stupid fucking judge wants to let him out because the army isn't good at police work?Of what is he guilty?

FromWayDowntown

03-23-2010, 02:43 PM

Why put a bullet behind his ear?

Umm... because he is guilty and some stupid fucking judge wants to let him out because the army isn't good at police work?

So you know he's guilty simply because he was captured?

So if our military chooses to capture a goat farmer on the outskirts of Kabul and detain him as an enemy combatant (perhaps he refused to allow our military to use his land in pursuing other suspected terrorists), he should be incarcerated, interrogated, and then executed?

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 03:13 PM

So you know he's guilty simply because he was captured?

So if our military chooses to capture a goat farmer on the outskirts of Kabul and detain him as an enemy combatant (perhaps he refused to allow our military to use his land in pursuing other suspected terrorists), he should be incarcerated, interrogated, and then executed?

It's cheaper than giving them a briefcase of 100's.

Kill a few and see if the next one refuses.

Spurminator

03-23-2010, 03:14 PM

Rawr Internet tough guy

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 03:16 PM

It's cheaper than giving them a briefcase of 100's.

Kill a few and see if the next one refuses.Kill a few for that?

You're quite evil and have no regard for human life.

Winehole23

03-23-2010, 03:33 PM

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

spursncowboys

03-23-2010, 04:11 PM

Whottt answered this in another thread; will you?

When will the war be over? I'd like some defined metrics, in your mind, please.

Also, please define where a "battlefield" is. For instance, would you be kosher if they locked up a friend of yours who had been declared a terrorist suspect, resulting in limited access to legal resources?

In the past we would return majority of POWs to their country after the war is over, because they will no longer be a threat. Since this is different in the fact that we are not at war with an actual state, but groups. But we can still determine which ones are more likely to not be a threat and which ones are will. The military commission is a good way of deciding which detainees stay and which go.
The GWOT will probably never end unless a president and congress decide to push terrorism back to a nuisance. However in the GWOT, there are battlefields, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Iran. All are completely different SOPs.
If I had a friend who was an unlawful enemy combatatent ( non-citizens whom the government deems to be, or to have been, members of the al Qaida organization or to have engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States or its citizens, or to have knowingly harbored such individuals, are subject to detention by military authorities and trial before a military commission), then I would be ok with the three man military commission he were to receive.

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 04:12 PM

Kill a few for that?

You're quite evil and have no regard for human life.

Nope have plenty of regard for human life... just not all of it.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 04:17 PM

Nope have plenty of regard for human life... just not all of it.Why do you consider the people in your hypothetical worthy of death?

Winehole23

03-23-2010, 04:30 PM

I would be ok with the three man military commission he were to receive.Not everyone is used to taking orders and sitting still, SnC. And you're talking about legal process for so-called POWs that we have never treated like POWs from the very beginning, and very possibly for American citizens in the future.

If we'd limited ourselves to indefinite confinement without the torture, that still would've been very heinous, but the world would probably have forgiven it already, if we had already given it up.

Frankly, I see zero chance of that happening.

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 04:31 PM

Human life defies the laws of economics...

In human history... as there becomes more of it... it has become valued more...
There is a big "human life bubble" going on right now... and I fear before too long it is going to burst.

I value the life of my friends and my countrymen. Outside of that... if someone else stands in the way of my life or liberties... or threatens them by their actions I have no problem with their termination.

That's human nature then, now and forever... It's a social animal thing... tribal.

You say I'm evil and have no regard for human life. I value mine very much, and to protect it, I would be willing to take others.

If someone gave me a button and told me I (Or someone I loved or cared about) would die unless I pushed it... and in that case some random would die in my place... I would push it every time.

I'm not some internet tough guy... I'm not saying I'm going to be out there guns a blazing. I'm just being honest about my nature. I know who I am and what I care about.

It doesn't make me evil... it just makes me human...

clambake

03-23-2010, 04:38 PM

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 04:43 PM

The terrorists have already won as far as Sec24Row7 is concerned.

FromWayDowntown

03-23-2010, 04:49 PM

I value the life of my friends and my countrymen. Outside of that... if someone else stands in the way of my life or liberties... or threatens them by their actions I have no problem with their termination.

That's human nature then, now and forever... It's a social animal thing... tribal.

But I'm not sure how someone who cannot be proven to be a threat to your way of life or liberties and who hasn't actually threatened them by their actions is in any way a threat to your way of life or liberties.

You're essentially saying that you agree that people who happen to be in Afghanistan and who happen to be near areas of fighting and who happen to be suspected of wrongdoing (on the say-so of whomever and without a definable standard for what constitutes wrongdoing) and who happens to look the way we think a terrorist should look (a view that has changed radically since 9/11), then they should die. No proof, no defenses. Just guilty of being an Afghani.

If we fight terrorists because they hate our freedoms, why do we so readily deny basic freedoms (such as due process of law) to those who we fight?

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 04:50 PM

looks like their terror has affected you successfully.

Other than philosophically there is really no reason to have this argument at this point in our society...

But if things ever go to shit and we all end up in trenches again charging machine guns... write your name down and I won't go out of my way to save you. My willingness to take life is incorruptibly bound to the need to save it.

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 04:53 PM

But I'm not sure how someone who cannot be proven to be a threat to your way of life or liberties and who hasn't actually threatened them by their actions is in any way a threat to your way of life or liberties.

You're essentially saying that you agree that people who happen to be in Afghanistan and who happen to be near areas of fighting and who happen to be suspected of wrongdoing (on the say-so of whomever and without a definable standard for what constitutes wrongdoing) and who happens to look the way we think a terrorist should look (a view that has changed radically since 9/11), then they should die. No proof, no defenses. Just guilty of being an Afghani.

If we fight terrorists because they hate our freedoms, why do we so readily deny basic freedoms (such as due process of law) to those who we fight?

Ahhh... but you said that our hypothetical goat farmer was hindering our progress, hence an obstacle to our goals.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 04:58 PM

Ahhh... but you said that our hypothetical goat farmer was hindering our progress, hence an obstacle to our goals.So killing him and anyone else who didn't initially cooperate would have no potential negative effect on our progress or goals?

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 04:58 PM

The terrorists have already won as far as Sec24Row7 is concerned.

Yeah because I'm dead and in my place the people are speaking Arabic, breaking out a compass 5 times a day and attend a weekly stoning.

What are you smoking man? What do you think their goals are?

They don't want us afraid... they want us GONE.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 04:59 PM

Yeah because I'm dead and in my place the people are speaking Arabic, breaking out a compass 5 times a day and attend a weekly stoning.

What are you smoking man? What do you think their goals are?

They don't want us afraid... they want us GONE.I think the goat herder probably just wants to raise goats and be left alone.

FromWayDowntown

03-23-2010, 05:03 PM

Ahhh... but you said that our hypothetical goat farmer was hindering our progress, hence an obstacle to our goals.

But not a terrorist; at least not proven to have been one. He's just a guy who wants a foreign army off of his land.

That's relatively American of him, one might think.

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 05:08 PM

So killing him and anyone else who didn't initially cooperate would have no potential negative effect on our progress or goals?

We have concentrated for the last 70 years on perfecting our military to win military victories, when no true victory is possible without defeating OR WINNING the spirit of the population.

PICK ONE and the problem of the Goat farmer is solved....

FromWayDowntown

03-23-2010, 05:10 PM

We have concentrated for the last 70 years on perfecting our military to win military victories, when no true victory is possible without defeating OR WINNING the spirit of the population.

PICK ONE and the problem of the Goat farmer is solved....

So if the military was fighting this war in the United States and an orange grower in Florida objected to the army crossing his orchards, he should be executed?

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 05:23 PM

Yonivore

03-23-2010, 05:27 PM

So if the military was fighting this war in the United States and an orange grower in Florida objected to the army crossing his orchards, he should be executed?
Depends. Why is he objecting?

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 05:28 PM

Bad example. To be correlative he should be aiding the enemy... In which case, yes , he should be.

spursncowboys

03-23-2010, 05:29 PM

Not everyone is used to taking orders and sitting still, SnC. And you're talking about legal process for so-called POWs that we have never treated like POWs from the very beginning, and very possibly for American citizens in the future.

If we'd limited ourselves to indefinite confinement without the torture, that still would've been very heinous, but the world would probably have forgiven it already, if we had already given it up.

Frankly, I see zero chance of that happening.
it is clear that us citizens do not apply to anyone's definition. To say that it would happen in the future, would begin from a different circumstance or you are fear mongering.

Since we are at war, we should not have to give habius corpus, which isn't in the constitution, at the time we give a citizen. Jstice Roberts' dissent with the (detainees name) v. Bush explained this pretty well. It was also precedent when we kiilled Nazi's who were POWs.

spursncowboys

03-23-2010, 05:31 PM

Not everyone is used to taking orders and sitting still, SnC.
The most liberal of the military are the Officers, IMO. This is a judge panel. ALthough it is not the most perfect answer, it is the better of all others.

spursncowboys

03-23-2010, 05:33 PM

So if the military was fighting this war in the United States and an orange grower in Florida objected to the army crossing his orchards, he should be executed?
US citizens are protected by the constitution and all other laws and regulations.
FTR, the IRS and Game Warden can go into anyone's house without any reason and they are both federal agencies.

spursncowboys

03-23-2010, 05:35 PM

Bad example. To be correlative he should be aiding the enemy... In which case, yes , he should be.
He would be arrested and the Army probably would not have anything to do with it. Contrary to popular belief, the military does not want to be a police force, even those druggie MPs.:greedy

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 05:35 PM

So if the military was fighting this war in the United States and an orange grower in Florida objected to the army crossing his orchards, he should be executed?Actually, a foreign army that is claiming to work in the interest of the farmer's government.

Jacob1983

03-23-2010, 05:38 PM

How many Gitmo detainees have gone back to terrorism after they were released from Gitmo? If the number is high, that probably means that they shouldn't be released in the first place.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 05:43 PM

How many Gitmo detainees have gone back to terrorism after they were released from Gitmo? If the number is high, that probably means that they shouldn't be released in the first place.Definitions on recidivism vary, but the last numbers I saw were between 4 and 11 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/gitmo.detainees/index.html

clambake

03-23-2010, 05:43 PM

But if things ever go to shit and we all end up in trenches again charging machine guns... write your name down and I won't go out of my way to save you. My willingness to take life is incorruptibly bound to the need to save it.

amazing how terrorist have created such a kickass military machine in your mind.

yep, their terror has definite control over you.

clambake

03-23-2010, 05:44 PM

Definitions on recidivism vary, but the last numbers I saw were between 4 and 11 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/gitmo.detainees/index.html

provided they were terrorist to begin with.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 05:45 PM

provided they were terrorist to begin with.True enough.

FromWayDowntown

03-23-2010, 05:46 PM

Depends. Why is he objecting?

Because he doesn't want a bunch of soldiers on his property; the harvest of his grove, which provides 100% of his annual income, is a week away, and trampling by soldiers will prevent him from earning any income.

Kill him?

FromWayDowntown

03-23-2010, 05:47 PM

Bad example. To be correlative he should be aiding the enemy... In which case, yes , he should be.

But that's the point. He's not aiding the enemy, at least not in any way that we can prove. He just happens to be in the wrong place and not 100% compliant.

You'd summarily execute him?

clambake

03-23-2010, 05:47 PM

i think farmers that sell navel oranges with seeds in them should be killed.

is that the same thing?

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 05:52 PM

amazing how terrorist have created such a kickass military machine in your mind.

yep, their terror has definite control over you.

You can't bluff someone that doesn't know how to play poker, and you can't argue with someone that can't have rational thoughts (or doesn't think we are worthy of his sharing of them).

I have no response to you, other than to tell you that I'm not responding.

clambake

03-23-2010, 05:56 PM

You can't bluff someone that doesn't know how to play poker, and you can't argue with someone that can't have rational thoughts (or doesn't think we are worthy of his sharing of them).

I have no response to you, other than to tell you that I'm not responding.

i don't consider anyone being rational that says american citizens will end up charging terrorist bunkers.

let us know when you land.

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 06:03 PM

But that's the point. He's not aiding the enemy, at least not in any way that we can prove. He just happens to be in the wrong place and not 100% compliant.

You'd summarily execute him?

I'd leave the option open to the commander in the field. It's a judgment call I would like to let him be able to make, which is illegal for them to make now...

Look at the scenario the SEAL team found themselves in in "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Lutrell

From Wiki:
"On June 28, 2005, Luttrell and SEAL Team 10 were assigned to a mission to kill or capture Ahmad Shah (nom de guerre Mohammad Ismail), a high-ranking Taliban leader responsible for killings in eastern Afghanistan and the Hindu-Kush mountains.[5] The SEAL team was made up of Luttrell, Michael P. Murphy, Danny Dietz and Matthew Axelson.[5] Luttrell and Axelson were the team's snipers, with Lutrell also being the team Medic; Dietz was in charge of communications and Murphy the team leader.

Three goat herders stumbled upon the hiding spot of the four SEALs. The men were detained by the team but the SEALs were unable to verify any hostile intent.[6] Murphy, the officer in charge of the SEAL team, put the fate of the goatherds to a vote. Axelson voted to kill the Afghanis, and Dietz abstained. Murphy told Luttrell that he would vote the same as him so with his vote it was decided to let the Afghans go.[5][7]

The released herders disappeared and likely immediately betrayed the team's location to local Taliban forces and within an hour the SEALs were engaged in a fire-fight against a force of 80-150 enemy fighters. The SEAL team engaged the Taliban for over two hours in a running fire-fight through the region's hills and valleys.[8]

Team leader Lt. Michael P. Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor for exposing himself to enemy fire to reach higher ground from which to transmit a call for backup. The four-man SEAL team had killed around 70 of the Taliban despite most of them being shot several times but still carried on with the fight, however, Axelson, Deitz and Murphy were eventually killed . Luttrell barely survived after being blown off a cliff by an RPG.

An MH-47 Chinook helicopter was hastily dispatched upon receiving Lt. Murphy's distress call with a force consisting of eight SEALs and eight 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment "Nightstalkers" to rescue the team, but the helicopter was shot down by an RPG upon reaching the site of the battle. All 16 men on the Chinook were killed, including Shane Patton, whose place on Operation Red Wing had been taken by Danny Dietz.[9]

Luttrell was the only survivor of the SEAL team. Badly wounded, he managed to walk and crawl seven miles to evade capture, during which he killed six more Taliban fighters. He was given shelter by tribesmen from Sabri-Minah, a Pashtun village. (This was done because of "Lokhay Warkawa", a Pashtun belief that any stranger in need of shelter must be given it.) [10] The villagers sheltered him and provided medical aid, and refused Taliban demands that Luttrell be turned over to them. After several days one of the village elders trekked twenty miles to a US base to reveal Luttrell's location, and he was finally rescued six days after the battle by US forces.[9]"

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 06:08 PM

Well, if a foreign army came to your house and took a vote to kill you, I'm sure you would greet them as liberators.

clambake

03-23-2010, 06:10 PM

how do you know the terrorist hadn't taken control of the herders families and brutally beat them for being late and threatened to kill them if they didn't explain where they were?

other than that, go get your rocks off on a movie.

FromWayDowntown

03-23-2010, 06:20 PM

I'd leave the option open to the commander in the field. It's a judgment call I would like to let him be able to make, which is illegal for them to make now...

Nothing wins hearts and minds like summary executions.

But it's interesting that you wouldn't even take the guy in for waterboarding . . . er, questioning, and risk the possibility that there would be no evidence to support further detention. . . . and then executing the guy anyway.

Sec24Row7

03-23-2010, 06:22 PM

Marcus Luttrel voted to not kill those 3 goat herders... and as a result... his 3 teammates died.

I bet he wishes he had that one back.

clambake

03-23-2010, 06:24 PM

you mean the same villagers that protected his life.

got it.

ChumpDumper

03-23-2010, 06:28 PM

Marcus Luttrel voted to not kill those 3 goat herders... and as a result... his 3 teammates died.

I bet he wishes he had that one back.

Well, if a foreign army came to your house and took a vote to kill you, I'm sure you would greet them as liberators.

ElNono

03-23-2010, 10:23 PM

But I'm not sure how someone who cannot be proven to be a threat to your way of life or liberties and who hasn't actually threatened them by their actions is in any way a threat to your way of life or liberties.

You're essentially saying that you agree that people who happen to be in Afghanistan and who happen to be near areas of fighting and who happen to be suspected of wrongdoing (on the say-so of whomever and without a definable standard for what constitutes wrongdoing) and who happens to look the way we think a terrorist should look (a view that has changed radically since 9/11), then they should die. No proof, no defenses. Just guilty of being an Afghani.

If we fight terrorists because they hate our freedoms, why do we so readily deny basic freedoms (such as due process of law) to those who we fight?

On that note, why bother sending troops and risking soldier's lives when you can simply launch a nuke and level the entire place. I mean, they look like terrorists and some of them might actually be!
Those pesky civilians are just stopping us from progress and achieving our goals!

Stringer_Bell

03-23-2010, 11:31 PM

I don't understand...if we have pictures of these people, and catch these people, and call them terrorist organizers, how do we not have enough proof to hold them? Why does it take so long to charge them and try them? Isn't this whole system that we set up for them devoted simply to them, so it's not like we have to worry about the long line of Marijuana/Theft/Drunk cases holding up the legal process? It's a giant bin full of "alleged" terrorists...how can we not have proof??!?!?!

Furthermore, after giving them "enhanced" interrogation and holding them for 5+ years...why would we want to set them free? They'll be angry and if they weren't terrorists before, there's a decent chance they'll be terrorists now. Oh wait, I get it, the idea is that if they get released and sent back to the middle east, the terrorists will be suspicious of them being double agents and AQ and the Taliban won't want anything to do with them. That's cool yo, I get it now.

Nbadan

03-23-2010, 11:36 PM

According to torture supporters, the 'formally accused' should go back to their home countries, sing kumbaya and praise the US for its eventual 'humanity'...

Winehole23

03-23-2010, 11:39 PM

Nothing wins hearts and minds like summary executions.You might not be not far off with this. It does win hearts and minds, in the USA. A theme like this might already be an electoral wedge. Americans like torture to a significant degree, and they seem to like the separate tier of justice in principle.

An outraged and insecure public cries out not only for justice but for bloody vengeance and even cruel and sadistic countermeasures like torture, indefinite detention and Presidentially defined assassinations.

Why not summary battlefield executions too?

(boom)

Sorry, you got too close.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:00 AM

I don't understand...if we have pictures of these people, and catch these people, and call them terrorist organizers, how do we not have enough proof to hold them? Why does it take so long to charge them and try them? Isn't this whole system that we set up for them devoted simply to them, so it's not like we have to worry about the long line of Marijuana/Theft/Drunk cases holding up the legal process? It's a giant bin full of "alleged" terrorists...how can we not have proof??!?!?!I'd like to know the answer to that question too.

Furthermore, after giving them "enhanced" interrogation and holding them for 5+ years...why would we want to set them free? Because they didn't do shit, they have zero intelligence value for us and they deserve their freedom back. The USG is losing 4/5 Habeas cases against these guys, forty guys in. Bush-appointed judges are setting them free.

They'll be angry and if they weren't terrorists before, there's a decent chance they'll be terrorists now. So what? Such is the situation of every man who is wrongly detained. One would think anger would be a natural, even predictable emotional response

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:10 AM

You can't just take the guy back into custody because you fear he has been radicalized by the conditions of his wrongful detention. You have to set him free.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:19 AM

You can't use abusive detention as an excuse not to release the guy, after the court says you have no grounds to detain.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:26 AM

There will be hard feelings.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:29 AM

Criminalizing the hard feelings expressed during a long, hard and unjust captivity, is a wuss move. JMO.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:40 AM

You can't jail him just because you fear he'll take it too hard that you jailed him, etc., in the first place, when he finds out you have no legal basis to detain him at all.

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 03:08 AM

If I had a friend who was an unlawful enemy combatatent ( non-citizens whom the government deems to be, or to have been, members of the al Qaida organization or to have engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States or its citizens, or to have knowingly harbored such individuals, are subject to detention by military authorities and trial before a military commission), then I would be ok with the three man military commission he were to receive.

Really? So you're just willing to trust the word of the government? What kind of conservative are you?

Don't you have certain rights, SPECIFICALLY LISTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? What type of conservative is willing to forfeit the rights of his friend?

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 03:17 AM

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 09:34 AM

I'm pretty sure that all these people who are saying it's kill or be killed, wouldn't be so cavalier if they weren't living in the one hyperpower the world currently has.

If Afghanis were in our country, snatching away people in the middle of the night and possibly confining them for years with little to no legal recourse, there'd probably be more outcry. Empathy is not a universal trait though, sadly.

You're damn fucking right I wouldn't be. I would be whining about human rights and equality and money for climate change for Africa... BECAUSE I WOULD WANT TO BE ON TOP.

When you are on top EVERYONE ELSE wants to knock you off. All of you can guys can throw them bread from this vantage point. But me and people like me will be the ones beating them the fuck off when they start charging up the hill... and I'm not sorry nor will I feel guilty that I was born in the most powerful country on earth.

My father and my father's father worked and fought and bled to make this country what it was... and what it still can be. It is a slap in their face and in my grandfather's memory to give it all away so other people around the world can feel good and "like" us more.

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 09:41 AM

Power means summary executions of those who haven't been proven to have done anything wrong, other than live in a different country?

clambake

03-24-2010, 09:46 AM

But me and people like me will be the ones beating them the fuck off when they start charging up the hill...

:lmao

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 09:47 AM

clambake

03-24-2010, 09:50 AM

what a stupid motherfucker.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 09:59 AM

Clambake I don't think you will find a single time in history where anything in my above statement would be considered false.

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 10:10 AM

The military needs to be allowed to kill people.

That is what military's do.

If it is logistically more beneficial to execute prisoners, that is what happens... you are trying to win a war... and no one on the winning side gets executed for war crimes.

It's not right, it's not fair.. but that is the way it is and always has been.

We value human life and the concept of liberty, other than the lives and liberties of those who happen to have been born in the wrong country -- for them, we use suspicions that we cannot substantiate as the sole criteria for execution!

Hooray!

I'm not sure how the military's need to kill people applies when the people who are to be killed have been taken into custody, interrogated, investigated, and as to whom we've been unable to prove anything. But I'm sure that the bully pulpit of superpowerdom somehow contemplates killing even in those circumstances. Goat herders beware!

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 10:23 AM

The released herders disappeared and likely immediately betrayed the team's location to local Taliban forces and within an hour the SEALs were engaged in a fire-fight against a force of 80-150 enemy fighters.

Of course, the best solution is just to kill everyone. Shoot, why not just advocate dropping a nuke?

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 10:26 AM

Of course, the best solution is just to kill everyone. Shoot, why not just advocate dropping a nuke?

Honestly?

I'm worried about what the radiation would do to the Snow Leopards and Markhor.

:lol

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 10:29 AM

My father and my father's father worked and fought and bled to make this country what it was... and what it still can be. It is a slap in their face and in my grandfather's memory to give it all away so other people around the world can feel good and "like" us more.

And praytell, what is this country supposed to stand for?

You do more disservice to this country when you claim that we are "giving it all away" by standing true to the values espoused by many who founded this nation.

George Washington knew that respect can go a long way towards winning over your enemy, for one. In fact, he specifically stated that soldiers had to be decent to POW's... why? So they would see the righteousness of our cause.

Giving up the moral high ground is not an effective strategy.

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 10:30 AM

Honestly?

I'm worried about what the radiation would do to the Snow Leopards and Markhor.

:lol

Are you familiar with LOAC? If not, maybe you should read up on it. A code of chivalry would be decent reading material as well.

Tell me, if we drop a bomb on any country we like, what would be the reasoning stopping another country from bombing us?

Have you ever heard of MAD?

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 10:50 AM

Are you familiar with LOAC? If not, maybe you should read up on it. A code of chivalry would be decent reading material as well.

Tell me, if we drop a bomb on any country we like, what would be the reasoning stopping another country from bombing us?

Have you ever heard of MAD?

Of course I'm not a big fan of the nuclear option that was a joke. I'm not a "nuke em all" type guy.

Chivalry is what got us in this predicament. It only works when both sides go by the same code. Ask the marines in the Pacific how well Chivalry worked with the Japanese.

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 10:56 AM

Of course I'm not a big fan of the nuclear option that was a joke. I'm not a "nuke em all" type guy.

Chivalry is what got us in this predicament. It only works when both sides go by the same code. Ask the marines in the Pacific how well Chivalry worked with the Japanese.

Do you feel America stands for liberty? Freedom? The basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Do you agree with those beliefs?

clambake

03-24-2010, 11:11 AM

still fightin the japs, huh?

welcome to the 40's ladies and gentlemen!

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 11:26 AM

Do you feel America stands for liberty? Freedom? The basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Do you agree with those beliefs?

Of course I do. And I can tell your next step is to tell me that I am infringing on their life and their liberty and freedom... but go back to my earlier post and you will get the answer to your next question.

"My willingness to take life is incorruptibly bound to the need to save it."

This statement applies to all of Jefferson's (well really Locke's except for property) fundamental rights.

In order to protect my liberty, I will take away another man's.

In order to protect my freedom I will take away the freedom of someone else.

Do not infringe upon my liberty and I will not infringe upon yours.

And before the goat farmer comes back, he is an unfortunate casualty. It's not an easy choice to make to kill the guy so he doesn't report your position or ruin the integrity of your mission.

But you cannot deny in Luttrel's scenario that a case can be made to kill him in self defense. It wouldn't stand up in any court of law if it ever got there, but at least the 3 SEAL's that died on that mountain that day would be alive to stand trial.

When you give people a choice to be war criminals or face almost certain death all you do is make a whole lot of war criminals.

in2deep

03-24-2010, 11:28 AM

releasing prisioners due to lack of evidence!

what is this country coming to??? :pctoss

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 11:31 AM

In order to protect my liberty, I will take away another man's.

In order to protect my freedom I will take away the freedom of someone else.

Do not infringe upon my liberty and I will not infringe upon yours.

And before the goat farmer comes back, he is an unfortunate casualty. It's not an easy choice to make to kill the guy so he doesn't report your position or ruin the integrity of your mission.

Do you have the right to kill a person based on a hypothetical? Are you morally justified in denying a man's life and liberty in REALITY when the chances that he could deny you life are HYPOTHETICAL in nature?

Heck, what about other liberties we grant to people. Should we grant people the right to defend themselves? There is a possibility that the man IS a murderer and we might be letting him go. That does damage to our society as well. Should we kill all suspects, to be safe, secure and sure?

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 11:33 AM

still fightin the japs, huh?

welcome to the 40's ladies and gentlemen!

You need to learn how to argue. All you do now is write the contents of a protest poster down in the little white box and hit submit.

I don't agree with LnGrrr or FWD but I respect their intelligence and ability to make points and try to trap.

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 11:33 AM

Of course I do. And I can tell your next step is to tell me that I am infringing on their life and their liberty and freedom... but go back to my earlier post and you will get the answer to your next question.

"My willingness to take life is incorruptibly bound to the need to save it."

This statement applies to all of Jefferson's (well really Locke's except for property) fundamental rights.

In order to protect my liberty, I will take away another man's.

In order to protect my freedom I will take away the freedom of someone else.

Do not infringe upon my liberty and I will not infringe upon yours.

And before the goat farmer comes back, he is an unfortunate casualty. It's not an easy choice to make to kill the guy so he doesn't report your position or ruin the integrity of your mission.

But you cannot deny in Luttrel's scenario that a case can be made to kill him in self defense. It wouldn't stand up in any court of law if it ever got there, but at least the 3 SEAL's that died on that mountain that day would be alive to stand trial.

When you give people a choice to be war criminals or face almost certain death all you do is make a whole lot of war criminals.

You've distorted the goat herder hypothetical to suit your own ends. This discussion started with your assertion that after interrogating a detainee, we should simply execute him, no matter the proof (or lack thereof) obtained through his interrogation.

My suggestion of the goat herder was meant to inquire about whether he, after being taken into custody and detained, should be summarily executed even if, while in custody and interrogated, we could develop no proof of his involvement in any terroristic conduct.

I've indulged the SEAL rabbit trail to this point without insisting upon returning to the real question of the goat herder's fate after being taken into custody, where there are no exigent circumstances (revealing a tactical position or ambushing soldiers) at play. Supposing that the facts in the paragraph above applied to my goat herder -- he has been taken into custody, he has been detained, he has been interrogated, and we can't prove anything -- are you telling me he still gets executed, just because we have suspicions that we cannot corroborate and he happens to have been picked up in Afghanistan?

clambake

03-24-2010, 11:40 AM

You need to learn how to argue. All you do now is write the contents of a protest poster down in the little white box and hit submit.

I don't agree with LnGrrr or FWD but I respect their intelligence and ability to make points and try to trap.

to this point, you're not worth the catch. you think you live in another time.

however, you are an obedient follower thats void of critical thinking.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 11:41 AM

Do you have the right to kill a person based on a hypothetical? Are you morally justified in denying a man's life and liberty in REALITY when the chances that he could deny you life are HYPOTHETICAL in nature?

Heck, what about other liberties we grant to people. Should we grant people the right to defend themselves? There is a possibility that the man IS a murderer and we might be letting him go. That does damage to our society as well. Should we kill all suspects, to be safe, secure and sure?

#1 bolded: If we are at war, the chance that he could deny life may become more than a Hypothetical. That's why I am for giving commanders the option of making a judgment call in the field.

Paragraph #2: I think you misspoke. Life is an unalienable Right so protection of it isn't something that can be granted... it is inherent to the right. I have never once promoted the killing of any suspects. This man, nor the goatherd is a criminal. I don't believe they should be subject to the courts.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 11:54 AM

You've distorted the goat herder hypothetical to suit your own ends. This discussion started with your assertion that after interrogating a detainee, we should simply execute him, no matter the proof (or lack thereof) obtained through his interrogation.

My suggestion of the goat herder was meant to inquire about whether he, after being taken into custody and detained, should be summarily executed even if, while in custody and interrogated, we could develop no proof of his involvement in any terroristic conduct.

I've indulged the SEAL rabbit trail to this point without insisting upon returning to the real question of the goat herder's fate after being taken into custody, where there are no exigent circumstances (revealing a tactical position or ambushing soldiers) at play. Supposing that the facts in the paragraph above applied to my goat herder -- he has been taken into custody, he has been detained, he has been interrogated, and we can't prove anything -- are you telling me he still gets executed, just because we have suspicions that we cannot corroborate and he happens to have been picked up in Afghanistan?

If he is TRULY innocent and he serves us no tactical advantage as a detainee I have no problem letting him go. If our "lack of evidence" presented to the court is a result of our inability to release classified information, I would rather keep him as a detainee or have him dead.

This whole damn thing is a hypothetical, so I guess you got me. My tendency in these matters is to have faith that the government has held someone for some tangible reason. Others of you have no such faith.

By your assumptions, if we cannot present any evidence, we don't have any.

By mine, if we have people in the know with "strong suspicions" that he is involved without de-classifiable proof... it's a war keep him locked up or get rid of him before the courts can free what is a known (to some) threat.

That got me in trouble with WMD's, but I wanted to grab hold of the population of Iraq and re-educate two generations of kids to be Western Friendly so it seemed like a good talking point.

I always had my doubts about the ability of our population to stomach an occupation for more than a few years. Sadly my doubts were realized and we have proved yet again that America with its 4-8 year leadership turnover is an untrustworthy ally, just as Nasser was saying 50 years ago in a region with a thousand year memory.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 12:07 PM

to this point, you're not worth the catch. you think you live in another time.

however, you are an obedient follower thats void of critical thinking.
:lol

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 12:08 PM

Really? So you're just willing to trust the word of the government? What kind of conservative are you?

Don't you have certain rights, SPECIFICALLY LISTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? What type of conservative is willing to forfeit the rights of his friend?

habeas corpus isn't in the constitution. Like I said though, having a seperate type of habeus corpus for detainees should be acceptable. If not we would not have been able to go to war with loyalists in the revolutionnary war, or be able to execute german pows.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 12:11 PM

What kind of libertarian is accepting of the us govt taking over college loans, and the healthcare industry but against non citizen enemies of the state being detained? I could understand the normal "how do we know all the ones in gitmo are terrorists?" but that isn't the case. This guy is a HVT.

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 12:17 PM

habeas corpus isn't in the constitution.

You sure about that?

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 12:21 PM

You sure about that?

Yeah I wasn't going to say anything :p:

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 12:22 PM

I'm just wondering who told him habeas corpus wasn't in the constitution. I'd say there's a good chance they reside on Fox News. Possibly talk radio.

ChumpDumper

03-24-2010, 12:24 PM

habeas corpus isn't in the constitution.
:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin
I'm just wondering who told him habeas corpus wasn't in the constitution. I'd say there's a good chance they reside on Fox News. Possibly talk radio.SnC is one of those guys who carries a copy of the Constitution in his wallet to wave around and harangue cops with when he gets pulled over.

Doesn't mean he knows what's in it.

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 12:45 PM

If he is TRULY innocent and he serves us no tactical advantage as a detainee I have no problem letting him go. If our "lack of evidence" presented to the court is a result of our inability to release classified information, I would rather keep him as a detainee or have him dead.

This whole damn thing is a hypothetical, so I guess you got me. My tendency in these matters is to have faith that the government has held someone for some tangible reason. Others of you have no such faith.

By your assumptions, if we cannot present any evidence, we don't have any.

But I think your tendency is contrary to the fundamental belief that those who are detained are innocent until proven guilty. I realize it's quaint to take that American tenet and apply it to those who live halfway around the world and who are involved in a war that was not of their choosing. But it sure seems to me that if we're to act as a moral leader, the very least we can do is ensure that we have some actual proof of wrongdoing before we summarily execute individuals.

I'll admit to not having the abiding faith in our government that you have in matters of detention related to this "war" because that same government has steadfastly refused to explain to anyone what the basis for its suspicions are -- at least it refused to offer anything more than generalized accusations.

I don't buy that classified information is available to substantiate suspicions but is not being used by the government in response to habeas petitions. And surely if the specifics of classified information could be dangerous to release, some generalizations from such classified information could be furnished to at least support continued detention. I don't imagine that any federal judge particularly relishes the idea of having signed off on the release of a suspected terrorist and, from that, I suspect that when habeas is issued to those individuals it is truly because the government has presented no case whatsoever to support continued detention.

So, yes, I'm fairly convinced that when habeas is issued to our detainees in Guantanamo, it is issued because there is no evidence. By contrast, your assumption seems to be that because he was picked up, he must have a link to terrorism. I don't know that its a particularly sound assumption.

I don't have specific facts, so you'll have to indulge me another hypothetical, but I think it makes my point:

Take our old friend the goat herder. He's had a long-running dispute with the guy who owns the farm next door -- his goats have long enjoyed feasting on the crops of the hard-working farmer and the goat herder is unmoved to do anything about it. Pissed at his neighbor, the farmer finds an American solider and tells him "Hey, that goat herder is a terrorist. I heard him talking to another guy down in the marketplace yesterday and he said he was going to build IED's and take out a bunch of Americans. He also said that he sat in on some meetings at a terrorist training camp and I've seen him hand cash to an associate of Osama bin Laden." He's got no proof of any of this, but he knows that such allegations are going to get his neighbor detained. So, the goat herder is taken into custody and detained at Gitmo. Several years of this detention pass and there is no actionable intelligence to support any of the farmer's allegations. I suppose that: (A) you'd find that there was nevertheless sufficient basis to detain him; and (B) in your view, he should not be granted habeas relief and will be fortunate to not be executed. Certainly, though, the assumption that forms the basis of your opinions would be debunked, I would think.

I always had my doubts about the ability of our population to stomach an occupation for more than a few years. Sadly my doubts were realized and we have proved yet again that America with its 4-8 year leadership turnover is an untrustworthy ally, just as Nasser was saying 50 years ago in a region with a thousand year memory.

King Bush?

jack sommerset

03-24-2010, 12:48 PM

Let him go, we will kill him later.

George Gervin's Afro

03-24-2010, 12:54 PM

Let him go, we will kill him later.

more infinite wisdom by jackie sommerset.. thanks for nothing jack!

clambake

03-24-2010, 01:38 PM

King Bush?
:lol

jack sommerset

03-24-2010, 01:39 PM

Gitmo has become a 5 star hotel. Let them all go.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 01:47 PM

But I think your tendency is contrary to the fundamental belief that those who are detained are innocent until proven guilty. I realize it's quaint to take that American tenet and apply it to those who live halfway around the world and who are involved in a war that was not of their choosing. But it sure seems to me that if we're to act as a moral leader, the very least we can do is ensure that we have some actual proof of wrongdoing before we summarily execute individuals.

I'll admit to not having the abiding faith in our government that you have in matters of detention related to this "war" because that same government has steadfastly refused to explain to anyone what the basis for its suspicions are -- at least it refused to offer anything more than generalized accusations.

I don't buy that classified information is available to substantiate suspicions but is not being used by the government in response to habeas petitions. And surely if the specifics of classified information could be dangerous to release, some generalizations from such classified information could be furnished to at least support continued detention. I don't imagine that any federal judge particularly relishes the idea of having signed off on the release of a suspected terrorist and, from that, I suspect that when habeas is issued to those individuals it is truly because the government has presented no case whatsoever to support continued detention.

So, yes, I'm fairly convinced that when habeas is issued to our detainees in Guantanamo, it is issued because there is no evidence. By contrast, your assumption seems to be that because he was picked up, he must have a link to terrorism. I don't know that its a particularly sound assumption.

I don't have specific facts, so you'll have to indulge me another hypothetical, but I think it makes my point:

Take our old friend the goat herder. He's had a long-running dispute with the guy who owns the farm next door -- his goats have long enjoyed feasting on the crops of the hard-working farmer and the goat herder is unmoved to do anything about it. Pissed at his neighbor, the farmer finds an American solider and tells him "Hey, that goat herder is a terrorist. I heard him talking to another guy down in the marketplace yesterday and he said he was going to build IED's and take out a bunch of Americans. He also said that he sat in on some meetings at a terrorist training camp and I've seen him hand cash to an associate of Osama bin Laden." He's got no proof of any of this, but he knows that such allegations are going to get his neighbor detained. So, the goat herder is taken into custody and detained at Gitmo. Several years of this detention pass and there is no actionable intelligence to support any of the farmer's allegations. I suppose that: (A) you'd find that there was nevertheless sufficient basis to detain him; and (B) in your view, he should not be granted habeas relief and will be fortunate to not be executed. Certainly, though, the assumption that forms the basis of your opinions would be debunked, I would think.

King Bush?

That's a great hypothetical and it has every chance of happening. But what do you do? Look at the Constitution. "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." If you free everyone some of the guilty will go free. If you keep everyone detained some innocent will be detained (or executed).

In my opinion there is wiggle in habeas corpus to keep them detained. But that's my opinion. Someone else can read that phrase and say... nope... no invasion... no suspension. I choose to look at the public safety wording.

As to the king bush thing...

my response to that is "King Obama?"

I'm not lamenting the end of the Bush presidency. I'm regretting our lack of consistency.

I didn't offer a solution. I pointed out a problem.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 01:56 PM

The military needs to be allowed to kill people.

That is what military's do.

If it is logistically more beneficial to execute prisoners, that is what happens... you are trying to win a war... and no one on the winning side gets executed for war crimes.

It's not right, it's not fair.. but that is the way it is and always has been.Moral conscience suffers the results in a way expedience worshippers do not, and believe you me: the military has tacit permission to kill from I would guess a solid majority of so-called moral people..

What, you want that we should have to swear it out to you in public, or something?

Maybe you would have us forswear bitching? What?

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 03:10 PM

You sure about that?

any evidence to the contrary?
EDIT: my bad, I meant it is not a right to habeas corpus.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 03:14 PM

any evidence to the contrary?

Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2

Section. 9.

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 2: 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.

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 03:15 PM

HIghlight privilege for me.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 03:23 PM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 03:39 PM

That's a great hypothetical and it has every chance of happening. But what do you do? Look at the Constitution. "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." If you free everyone some of the guilty will go free. If you keep everyone detained some innocent will be detained (or executed).

In my opinion there is wiggle in habeas corpus to keep them detained. But that's my opinion. Someone else can read that phrase and say... nope... no invasion... no suspension. I choose to look at the public safety wording.

You can focus on the public safety part of it, but if you do, you're misconstruing that sentence, and rather blatantly so.

The sentence permits a concern for public safety to trump the privilege of habeas corpus ONLY in cases of rebellion or invasion. It doesn't say "in cases of rebellion or invasion or where the dictates of public safety require." It does say that when there is a rebellion OR an invasion AND the public safety may require it, habeas could be suspended.

As to the king bush thing...

my response to that is "King Obama?"

I'm not lamenting the end of the Bush presidency. I'm regretting our lack of consistency.

I didn't offer a solution. I pointed out a problem.

I understand. I hope you'll know that my retort was entirely tongue-in-cheek.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 03:41 PM

You can focus on the public safety part of it, but if you do, you're misconstruing that sentence, and rather blatantly so.

The sentence permits a concern for public safety to trump the privilege of habeas corpus ONLY in cases of rebellion or invasion. It doesn't say "in cases of rebellion or invasion or where the dictates of public safety require." It does say that when there is a rebellion OR an invasion AND the public safety may require it, habeas could be suspended.

I understand. I hope you'll know that my retort was entirely tongue-in-cheek.

And that is exactly the reason they were kept as enemy combatants. To keep them away from the courts... because you, I and everyone else that reads the sentence knows there isn't an extra "or" in there and it would be one hell of a fight that my side would eventually lose. (without the whole evidence faith/lack of in government blah blah we talked about earlier)

Which is why you are pissed.

I get it... I just come from a different angle and don't agree with it.

And I know your response was completely tongue in cheek. That response was for the automatons... which now that I think about it... doesn't make much sense... it's not like they would absorb it anyway.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 03:45 PM

That is no excuse for not building case files sufficient to justify detention.

clambake

03-24-2010, 04:11 PM

he's saying that justification isn't a requirement.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 04:15 PM

well, it is now.

clambake

03-24-2010, 04:21 PM

yeah, because people like you insist on ruining the country that his father and grandfather built.......where they could make their own rules........wrapped in the flag.

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 04:25 PM

And that is exactly the reason they were kept as enemy combatants. To keep them away from the courts... because you, I and everyone else that reads the sentence knows there isn't an extra "or" in there and it would be one hell of a fight that my side would eventually lose. (without the whole evidence faith/lack of in government blah blah we talked about earlier)

Which is why you are pissed.

I get it... I just come from a different angle and don't agree with it.

I suppose, as is ever-so-true around here, we'll agree to disagree on the underlying policy considerations. It is clear now that habeas relief is available to detainees, that the government has to demonstrate a basis to maintain the detention when challenged, and that our government likely isn't dealing frequently in summary executions of those who are likely innocents.

I think, to your side of the quarrel, the courts are probably holding the government (from a practical standpoint) to lesser burdens of proof to sustain detentions and that habeas relief is being afforded ONLY where there is a complete lack of evidence to support the detention. .

By the way, I do appreciate the entertaining and fair debate that didn't devolve into name-calling or anything like that.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 04:28 PM

HIghlight privilege for me.Try high-lighting the verb, and pay close attention to the tail -- two exceptions are attached to the prohibition, Rebellion and Invasion.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 04:45 PM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html
allito's dissent
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZD2.html

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 04:47 PM

Try high-lighting the verb, and pay close attention to the tail -- two exceptions are attached to the prohibition, Rebellion and Invasion.

No focusing on the term Privilege and Right in the Constitution will do fine.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 04:48 PM

Until the SC says otherwise, Hamdan is the law. You're just underscoring that.

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 04:48 PM

allito's dissent
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZD2.html

And?

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 04:49 PM

No focusing on one word that suits my idiotic earlier statement will do fine. Derrrr.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 04:51 PM

No focusing on the term Privilege and Right in the Constitution will do fine.Go ahead. Focus on that.

I don't think you know what what the language means. The privilege was much esteemed at the time, and the language that follows that word stresses that it is not to be removed, except in case of rebellion or invasion.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 04:51 PM

Enemy combatants are given a permitable (to the situation) alternative to habeas corpus. like alito wrote, they are given an alternative that should be allowed. The idea that these guys are in gitmo with no ability to challenge their imprisonment is made of straw.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 04:52 PM

Until the SC says otherwise, Hamdan is the law. You're just underscoring that.

Oh that's right, because it is a living and breathing document. Good consistency WH.

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 04:55 PM

It smells like someone doesn't understand how the Supreme Court works.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:01 PM

It smells like someone doesn't understand how the Supreme Court works.

http://static.open.salon.com/files/barack-obama-21232458043.jpg He was a constitutional law professor. So what was he teaching?? IDK.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Harry-Reid.jpg maybe him??

http://cinie.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/nancy_pelosi.jpg

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 05:03 PM

Keep guessing :tu

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 05:05 PM

Oh that's right, because it is a living and breathing document. Good consistency WH.I'm not a doctrinaire "originalist" (whatever that means after Raich) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html) but I wouldn't be too sure originalism supports you here.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:06 PM

http://www.nndb.com/people/850/000022784/john-paul-stevens.jpg
????????
http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.jpg

http://www.bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-nominee-photo.jpg

ChumpDumper

03-24-2010, 05:09 PM

habeas corpus isn't in the constitution.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:10 PM

http://vickyanddre.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/sean_penn_11.jpg?w=354&h=533

http://homepage.mac.com/catservants/iblog/C2042420000/E20080912021402/Media/Keith%20Olbermann%20Countdown%20368X278.jpg

http://carouselcakechic.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rosie-odonnel2.jpg

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 05:11 PM

any evidence to the contrary?

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 05:12 PM

:rollin

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 05:12 PM

I'm pretty sure all those people have a basic understanding of it. It seems to give you some trouble though.

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 05:15 PM

Curious why you didn't post this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/HarrietMiersFlagpin.jpg/225px-HarrietMiersFlagpin.jpg

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:16 PM

I'm pretty sure all those people have a basic understanding of it. It seems to give you some trouble though.

I know there is a difference between a right and a privilege. Do you?

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:17 PM

Do you have any evidence that a right and a privilege are the same thing?
:guin

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 05:19 PM

I know there is a difference between a right and a privilege. Do you?

Absolutely. Do you know how to differentiate between those in the statement including habeas corpus in the Constitution? That is if you do in fact believe habeas corpus is in the Constitution.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 05:21 PM

I know there is a difference between a right and a privilege. Do you?Lay it out for us, profe. What's the difference?

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 05:24 PM

What's funny is that it's pretty clear he didn't think it was in the Constitution at all. Then, after the actual words were posted here, he scanned through and noticed his ace in the hole. Problem for him is that his ace in the hole is paired with a deuce and we've all got pairs.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 05:27 PM

Like, look it up in the dictionary, is a real retort. Amazing.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 05:30 PM

The obliviousness to utter pwnage is as plain as it is amusing.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 05:32 PM

http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/super-weeble-jason-chase.jpg

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:51 PM

:rollin
this is pwnedge???
Now I know. Thank you WH and Shasta,we are all better off reading your well articulated comments.
Check the time of when I edited my comments.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:52 PM

Like, look it up in the dictionary, is a real retort. Amazing.

It's not? :lol
I understand you more.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 05:56 PM

Lay it out for us, profe. What's the difference?

name calling. Nice:toast

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 06:01 PM

:rollin
this is pwnedge???Yeah, it really is.

Now I know. Thank you WH and Shasta,we are all better off reading your well articulated comments.I wish that were the case. Then you would realize the level of your stupidity.

Check the time of when I edited my comments.
And?

Shastafarian

03-24-2010, 06:02 PM

I shall dodge this question because I can't answer it.

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 06:10 PM

Initially, I giggled at the notion that spursncowboys knows more about the Constitution than John Paul Stevens.

Then I laughed. Heartily.

spursncowboys

03-24-2010, 06:13 PM

Initially, I giggled at the notion that spursncowboys knows more about the Constitution than John Paul Stevens.

Then I laughed. Heartily.
you mean how the sc works?

FromWayDowntown

03-24-2010, 06:16 PM

you mean how the sc works?

That, too.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2010, 06:26 PM

I suppose, as is ever-so-true around here, we'll agree to disagree on the underlying policy considerations. It is clear now that habeas relief is available to detainees, that the government has to demonstrate a basis to maintain the detention when challenged, and that our government likely isn't dealing frequently in summary executions of those who are likely innocents.

I think, to your side of the quarrel, the courts are probably holding the government (from a practical standpoint) to lesser burdens of proof to sustain detentions and that habeas relief is being afforded ONLY where there is a complete lack of evidence to support the detention. .

By the way, I do appreciate the entertaining and fair debate that didn't devolve into name-calling or anything like that.

Likewise. It's always a pleasure to talk to a rational intelligent human being about important issues with an open mind. Hell, if I didn't talk to people like you I would have never learned anything. I feel like the yellow journalism (i know that term isn't technically correct but it serves the point) that is so prevalent now by both sides makes it much much harder for people like you and me to talk because you have to wade through so many parrots to get to a person.

I think we can agree to disagree... but in no way do I think that it should halt further debate. People have changed my mind before and I've changed some myself.

I remember my sister asking me a question that really made me drop my jaw once.

It was about gay couples adopting kids... I thought it would put them at a disadvantage...

She asks me... so they would be better off growing up in the orphanage than in a loving home with a gay couple?

Got me there.

Mind Changed.

clambake

03-24-2010, 07:25 PM

Winehole23

03-25-2010, 01:25 AM

name calling. Nice:toastBy lay it out for us profe I just meant show your work. You're just pointing at your own point, SnC. You really haven't even made it yet.

In your own words, what's the difference between a right and a privilege, and what the hell does that have to do with the conversation we're having right now? Or were having?

(The honorific was surely facetious, but surely it not the worst conceit in the world to pretend someone else is your teacher, and let some other random jackass play the Maestro for a change.):toast

Winehole23

03-25-2010, 01:26 AM

(drinks can of Lone Star)

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 03:20 AM

habeas corpus isn't in the constitution.

You've GOTTA be kidding me, right? You HAVE to be a troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States

The Suspension Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_Clause) of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) specifically included the English common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) procedure in Article One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution), Section 9, clause 2, 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.”

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 03:23 AM

Winehole23

03-25-2010, 03:28 AM

For all those guilty until proven innocent, we have a whole separate tier of justice now.

Sec24Row7 would seem to have the point here. JMO.

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 03:36 AM

I also know that SnC has no flipping idea how important the Founding Fathers thought habeas corpus was.

Eh, I'll throw him a bone. two, in fact.

"A bill of rights [should provide] clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny." - James Monroe

Winehole23

03-25-2010, 03:37 AM

The wiggle room isn't in Habeas at all, it's in the power of the President to do certain things.

Winehole23

03-25-2010, 03:41 AM

To have his own jails, for example.

Winehole23

03-25-2010, 03:42 AM

Where even US citizens can be placed beyond any ordinary legal recourse, and tried before special military tribunals.

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 03:43 AM

The wiggle room isn't in Habeas at all, it's in the power of the President to do certain things.

Many argue that the President doesn't even have the right to suspend habeas corpus, and that power actually lies in the legislature, since the provision is listed under Article 1 of the Constitution.

ChumpDumper

03-25-2010, 04:04 AM

Worth repeating.
habeas corpus isn't in the constitution.

spursncowboys

03-25-2010, 06:18 AM

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 06:34 AM

the detainees under the three person military commission recieve a form a habeas corpus.
I know that the founding fathers kept it in a high light. i also realize that they meant to put privilege, and not right.
Assumptions and name calling can be put away. I have done alot of work in this exact subject.

If you've done the work, please explain the distinction between 'privilege' and 'right', and the legal theory behind the two terms' distinction.

If you could also, please explain why some of the Founding Fathers considered habeas corpus the surest way of preventing tyranny, and then decided to consider it a 'privilege' instead of a 'right'.

Thanks.

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 06:36 AM

Oh, and wasn't habeas corpus originally denied to detainees until a court ruled that they must have some form of it? I believe that is the case.

spursncowboys

03-25-2010, 06:44 AM

Oh, and wasn't habeas corpus originally denied to detainees until a court ruled that they must have some form of it? I believe that is the case.

which case are you talking about?

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 07:13 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy) wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus) under the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

spursncowboys

03-25-2010, 07:21 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Read Scalia and Robert's dissent. That is what I have been argueing.

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 07:34 AM

Read Scalia and Robert's dissent. That is what I have been argueing.

You know their dissent really has nothing to do with whether habeas corpus is a "privilege" or not. It mainly is resting on whether or not habeas corpus must be applied at GTMO since it's not sovereign territory, backed up by lesser claims as well (that the judicial branch is the least qualified to make national security decisions, that the provisions of the MCA are good enough to 'count' as habeas corpus).

Nothing in their dissent talks about a distinction between "privilege" and "right" that I'm aware of.

spursncowboys

03-25-2010, 07:47 AM

You know their dissent really has nothing to do with whether habeas corpus is a "privilege" or not. It mainly is resting on whether or not habeas corpus must be applied at GTMO since it's not sovereign territory, backed up by lesser claims as well (that the judicial branch is the least qualified to make national security decisions, that the provisions of the MCA are good enough to 'count' as habeas corpus).

Nothing in their dissent talks about a distinction between "privilege" and "right" that I'm aware of.

the habeas corpus not being a right was just one sentence in everything I was writing about in that response to you.

FromWayDowntown

03-25-2010, 08:45 AM

Likewise. It's always a pleasure to talk to a rational intelligent human being about important issues with an open mind. Hell, if I didn't talk to people like you I would have never learned anything. I feel like the yellow journalism (i know that term isn't technically correct but it serves the point) that is so prevalent now by both sides makes it much much harder for people like you and me to talk because you have to wade through so many parrots to get to a person.

I think we can agree to disagree... but in no way do I think that it should halt further debate. People have changed my mind before and I've changed some myself.

If you've backed off of your stance that all detainees should be summarily executed, I'm satisfied. Not an I win, you lose sort of thing; please understand that.

You and I are unlikely to ever reach full agreement as to the the merits of detaining those we capture in foreign lands, the means of questioning them, the rights afforded to them, and the ultimate respect of their right to life (once defined to be an inalienable right, bestowed upon all men by their creator -- not specifically reserved to Americans) until forfeited by conduct. I have said before in this forum, and will repeat here again, that I fundamentally believe that if we fight a war to preserve our way of life, we should at the very least abide by that way of life in prosecuting the war. To me, that doesn't mean that we should find exceptions and loopholes that save us from the consequences of the choices that comprise our way of life. If we believe in due process, the nationality of a person should have no bearing upon whether or not we afford that right to anyone within the United States' adjudicatory systems. If that leaves me labeled and despised, so be it.

I remember my sister asking me a question that really made me drop my jaw once.

It was about gay couples adopting kids... I thought it would put them at a disadvantage...

She asks me... so they would be better off growing up in the orphanage than in a loving home with a gay couple?

Got me there.

Mind Changed.

It's good to hear. My mind is sometimes changed too. I've never really understood the reprisals that our society seems to impose upon those who publicly change their minds on substantial subjects. There was plenty to ridicule John Kerry about in 2004, but the fact that he changed his mind on the propriety of fighting a war never really struck me as one of those things. I'd hope that anyone who is elected to political office would reconsider positions in light of new evidence or better arguments. I'd hope that those of us who do not hold or seek office would reconsider our positions when we learn more. That doesn't mean I think everyone who sees things differently than I do should change his mind and see things my way. It does mean that I don't think it's a bad thing to change your mind.

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 11:13 AM

the habeas corpus not being a right was just one sentence in everything I was writing about in that response to you.

You seemed to stress the privilege/right distinction, but have yet to provide the legal acumen to support that distinction.

If you agree with Scalia, well, great. However, he was overruled by the rest of the court (and rightfully so). And even Scalia didn't say that the prisoners could be denied habeas corpus, really. He was arguing more about the territorial jurisdiction of the US, as I understand it.

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't like many of Scalia's rulings. He touts his proclaimed Originalism (or whatever it's called), but when it suits him he's more than willing to reinterpret the Constitution.

Shastafarian

03-25-2010, 11:30 AM

Also worth repeating since he keeps dodging

If you've done the work, please explain the distinction between 'privilege' and 'right', and the legal theory behind the two terms' distinction.

spursncowboys

03-25-2010, 12:08 PM

You seemed to stress the privilege/right distinction, but have yet to provide the legal acumen to support that distinction.

If you agree with Scalia, well, great. However, he was overruled by the rest of the court (and rightfully so). And even Scalia didn't say that the prisoners could be denied habeas corpus, really. He was arguing more about the territorial jurisdiction of the US, as I understand it.

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't like many of Scalia's rulings. He touts his proclaimed Originalism (or whatever it's called), but when it suits him he's more than willing to reinterpret the Constitution.
the stressing was due to having to deal with three trolls and yourself wanting to make this an issue. Privilege was used specifically in that situation. It isn't interchangable with right in the context of a constitution.
here are some links I got real quickly on the diff of right and privilege:
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/lawful-arrest/3-7-What-is-a-right-vs-a-privilege.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-prvrgh.html
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/rights-vs-privileges-an-essay-on/

I haven't read enough of any justices' opinions, but liked this one.

roberts' dissent
Chief Justice Roberts' dissent focused on whether the process afforded the Guantanamo detainees in the Detainee Treatment Act were an adequate substitute for the Habeas protections the Constitution guaranteed. By arguing in the affirmative, he implied that the issue of whether the detainees had any Suspension Clause rights was moot (since, if they did, he found that those rights were not violated anyway). This line of reasoning was arguably more in line with the plain reading of Johnson v. Eisentrager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager) (which denied German prisoners of war Habeas rights primarily due to both practical logistical concerns and the determination that they had been afforded an adequate substitute: traditional military war crimes trials, which complied with the Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions)) than that of Justice Scalia, and also avoided the more controversial and complicated issue of whether the detainees were entitled to file Habeas petitions in the first place. However, the claim of the Chief Justice that the Court has struck down generous procedural protections afforded 'enemy combatants' and replaced them with a set of "shapeless" procedures to be defined by federal courts, has been described as disingenuous by some commentators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Shastafarian

03-25-2010, 12:23 PM

Did you read through any of those links?

A right is something you are born with, and you will
die with, granted to you by your "Creator" (whatever you
imagine He/She/It/Them to be). A privilege is granted to
you by the King, General, Church, or the State, and may be
revoked at any time, if one loses favor. This is usually
caused by a failure "consider the king", a failure to pay
the "royalty", tax, indulgence, tithe, license fee, etc.

Clause 2: 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.

Also how did you manage to move the goal posts of "habeas corpus isn't in the constitution" to "they're given something just as good"? Why can't you just admit you said something incredibly stupid?