Reply With Quote
yeah, he gets his period and strafes the forum with a bunch of threads.Holy !
Yonivore still posts here?!?
edit:
I wasn't aware that our Sec of Defense was a loony leftie.
yeah, he gets his period and strafes the forum with a bunch of threads.Holy !
Yonivore still posts here?!?
edit:
The man knows how to follow orders and he serves at the pleasure of the President. If your bosses position is Guantanamo Bay will be closed, that's your position or, if it's an issue over which you wish to take a stand, you do and lose your job.
It's quite possibly Gates knew there'd be no way in , Gitmo was going to be closed or, that if it were, everyone there would be moved to a similarly secure facility -- outside the U.S.
I'd say I was in favor of closing Gitmo if I knew there was no risk.
Of course there's going to be risk. But it's unAmerican to just throw people away without any sort of legal recourse. Tyrannical, really. This isn't like a normal war, where a president could surrender and then we'd turn them back over to their country.
I was stating my hypothesis on why Gates -- a conservative appointee -- might appear to support closing Gitmo.
And they aren't normal enemy combatants where -- for the mos part -- they lose interest in the fight after they've been captured.
It's not our fault they decided to take up arms without the cover of uniform or a sovereign nation to surrender in order for them to be free. Maybe next time, they'll slap a flag on themselves.
But you're declaring all enemy combatants captured to be guilty, ipso facto. However, the evidence tends to show that some of them, at least, were innocent of wrong-doing.
Do you think each person in GTMO is guilty? And if this is the case, why not try them in a court of law? If the evidence for their capture is overwhelming, then we have nothing to fear.
Apparently sometimes the government is always right... and they don't even need to show they are.
inalienable (human) rights apply only the American humans.
When have we ever tried enemy combatants in a U. S. court of law?
Have we ever had to deal with thousands of unlawful enemy combatants before?
If they are all guilty, then we should have the evidence to prove it, shouldn't we? And if we don't have the evidence, but are keeping them there on a hunch/gut feeling/etc, is that very American?
We're denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to thousands, of which we have no idea how many are actually guilty. That doesn't sound very American to me.
As well, in the former SCOTUS cases that dealt with unlawful enemy combatants, the defendants had the right to access info harmful to them, retain counsel, etc etc.
Yes. In every major war. They were usually tried in the field and either executed or placed in P.O.W. camps.
The delay in justice is as much a fault of Democrats as anything. The Bush administration was ready to move forward with the military tribunals, after all the whining about indefinite detention but, Democrats then changed the narrative and started demanding they be tried in U. S. Courts.
I'm placing my trust in the American soldiers and intelligence taking them in. If they say they were involved in enemy activity, I'm good with that.
Many of those released have gone right back to terrorism. I'm not good with that.
Never before the Bush adminstration.
Are you talking about lawful or unlawful enemy combatants?
And the Supreme Court agreed that the military tribunals weren't strong enough for due process.
You don't think intel can be wrong?
You don't think that the people arrested should have their day in court?
You might as well say, "I'm placing my trust in the American police force arresting those citizens. If they say they were involved in breaking the law, I'm good with that."
And many haven't. Do you have the numbers of those who have gone back to terrorism as opposed to those who haven't?
From wikipedia.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirin
The validity of this case as a basis for use of military tribunals in the War on Terrorism as permitted by the Geneva Conventions has been disputed.[8][9][10] A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states:
The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, "The question for decision is whether the detention of pe ioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Cons ution of the United States." Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are en led to review under the cir stances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[11]
Interesting how this thread evolved. My dad was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII (Corsair) and although he wasn't a ground troop he was a marine officer who had other designated responsibilities besides flying on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and I've heard a lot of stories. In WWII they wouldn't have needed Guantanamo because none of them would have ever made it there.
It's one thing to kill someone on a battlefield, another to hold them without legal recourse. I assume our soldiers aren't going out and killing people in a bloodthirsty rampage. I do think, however, that it's far more likely they arrest someone who turns out to be innocent.
I'm talking about enemy combatants. Unlawful ones deserve fewer considerations than lawful ones.
The whole process, which had worked just fine since 1789, was politicized. Dealing with our enemies had, until most recently, been the purview of the Executive Branch.
Sure it can.
When they violate criminal laws in the United States, absolutely. When they're captured in a military environment or as a foreign agent (whether stateless or not) intending to do us harm, no.
No, Criminal Law and military justice have two separate aims and burdens.
It got silly when they started employing lawyers to make ROI decisions.
Nope.
So, like I asked, have we ever had to deal with a great nmber of UNLAWFUL enemy combatants in our history before?
Until the scope recently expanded greatly, due to 9/11 mostly. There's a much greater chance of abuse/mistakes in the system when so greatly expanded. Wouldn't you say that of other gov't programs?
Again, you're assuming that all those captured intended to do us harm. You're in effect saying, "We shouldn't bother to put a civilian trial on for those who are already guilty".
But the logic behind your quote is the same. You trust the soldiers, so you believe what they do must be correct.
Then how do you know? For instance, if they released 1,000, and 20 of them went back to terrorism, does that justify the prolonged detention of all 1,000?
Just sayin the rules of engagement were a lot more fluid. Right or wrong in a lot of cases they just let God sort them out.
LnGrrrR, we've had this argument before without getting far.
My bottom line is, yeah, I don't believe those being held at Guantanamo deserve the privileges of our criminal court system. Certainly not that scrote Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Pe ion your President to do due diligence in making sure those he's holding are legitimate combatants but, I don't think giving them the cons utional protections of a U. S. citizen is the answer.
Besides, their cir stances already defy the constraints placed on a prosecutor in a criminal court of law.
Fortunately, I think our President now understands this. I think he understood it on January 21, 2009. He's doing the right thing.
True true.
It's not about whether they deserve the rights, frankly, but whether we as Americans should be upholding our belief that all men should be held innocent until proven guilty. I would say that belief is a core value of America.
Do child rapists deserve the right to trial? What about mass murderers? How about that guy who just shot the Congresswoman? Does he deserve the privileges of our court system?
That's a fair statement. I feel that the American system of justice is one of the best, if not the best, in the world. It is time-tested, and by putting such stringest requirements on guilty verdicts, we remain moral and committed to our values.
Agree to disagree. For a country that places such high value on liberty, lockign away people without the right to a trial even, for YEARS, is an hetical to the very nature of America.
Does it not say in the Declaration of Independence that ALL MEN have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And yet, we take that away from thousands, without even letting them look at the evidence against them. If you or I were dropped into GTMO, I think the least we could ask for is a chance to defend ourselves, fairly and competently.
Yes, but that was back before there was such a thing as the internet.Fairly or not, America as the world's superpower has massive sway on the actions of other countries. Unless we hold ourselves to the highest standards, other countries will use us as an example of why they should be able to commit atrocities/wrongdoings. Some already have.
You failed to address what I think is the linchpin of the argument.
You're right, we have a great criminal process, tried and true. Unfortunately, many of these combatants were captured before anyone imagined they'd be subject to the same rules of evidence. I'm sure not much thought was given to preserving chains of evidence or mirandizing combatants in the heat of battle.
How do you go back and fix problems that would get an American criminal case thrown out on day 1?
What if key witnesses were killed in battle?
Do you subpoena soldiers to testify? Bring them back from Afghanistan to sit on the stand?
I'm sure there are a hundred other problems with trying to criminalize acts of war but, I'm tired.
I agree. Definitely quite an oversight, wouldn't you say?Given its age, I don't think the Geneva conventions imagined a war in which thousands of people might be captured, that pled no loyalty or allegiance to any country.
We should probably get a new convention going.
Certainly, the issue is not black and white.
A toughie. One would happen to think that, if witnesses were killed in battle, evidence might be able to be collected. That's no given in a warzone though. The soldiers arresting the person would likely have to be called in, and they might be away on another deployment.
A very thorny situation.
I'm not saying it would be easy. But I think that what they've come up with, military tribunals where defendants can't choose their counsel and can't see the evidence against them, isn't up to the standards of what cons utes a fair trial. (And SCOTUS seems to agree.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
