Gitmo?

[IvanKaramozov]

I’m listining to Laura Ingraham(no class earlier than 11:00 this semester, envy me), and she is furious over a canidates support for closing Gitmo and giving trials to the inmates.

I just don’t understand, why is there such fanatical demand that Gitmo stays open in the conservative branch?

 

[Meathead]

Because its great.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Because its great.

why?

 

[Meathead]

Because we get to waterboard terrorists.

Why isn’t that great?

 

[roanoker]

Those who are there are cold-blooded, trained killers. Where would you put them? They’re in an off-shore facility because that way we don’t have to afford them U.S. constitutional privileges. Do you want your tax dollars going to our lawyers fighting the ACLU over about 200 cases that would be our court system for decades? That’s why they’re there. They’re ruthless pigs of the worst kind.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Those who are there are cold-blooded, trained killers. Where would you put them? They’re in an off-shore facility because that way we don’t have to afford them U.S. constitutional privileges. Do you want your tax dollars going to our lawyers fighting the ACLU over about 200 cases that would be our court system for decades? That’s why they’re there. They’re ruthless pigs of the worst kind.

That’s they claim, considering they haven’t gotten a trial, that seems presumptisious.

To answer your question, yes, we are not at war and this is not a regular army, I want them to know the charges aghinst them, to be able to try and exonerate themselves and the whole nine yards, if tax payer money can go to fund the Indonesians while they slaughter people in East Timor, we can shell out some money to support the principles were are supposed to stand for.

 

[Timmy_Z]

That’s they claim, considering they haven’t gotten a trial, that seems presumptisious.

They should get/have gotten military tribunals. We cannot have enemy combatants in civilian courts airing confidential intel to the public. Despite what any liberal will tell you, this is a serious war the West very well may lose.

Because we get to waterboard terrorists.

To save an American city or your family would you dunk a terrorist in some water? I hope so.

-Tim

 

[Mirdath]

Those who are there are cold-blooded, trained killers. Where would you put them? They’re in an off-shore facility because that way we don’t have to afford them U.S. constitutional privileges. Do you want your tax dollars going to our lawyers fighting the ACLU over about 200 cases that would be our court system for decades? That’s why they’re there. They’re ruthless pigs of the worst kind.

Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

Sure, I’d want my tax dollars spent on getting everybody in Guantanamo into court. I think that restoring habeas corpus (a legal right we’ve pretty much taken for granted since June of 1215) is a far better use of that large fraction of my hard-earned wage than yet another military spending increase.

 

[Hastrman]

Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

You do know that there is no due process in military law, right?

And that they come under the heading, “combatants not in the uniform of any recognized state?” Which is to say, “spies?”

Which is to say, “They can actually be bayoneted or shot upon capture, as long as a high-enough ranked officer is present.”

See, legally, we have the right to simply butcher them like pigs. It’s entirely legal–so there is no question of due process or civil rights.

We’re not doing that, though, because we are in fact better people than they are–and we’re catching this nonsense because of it, from idiots who suffer from the delusion that terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. Private citizens who commit acts of war are, in international law, basically fair game. Legally speaking, they largely forfeit their *human *rights, let alone civil rights; and yet, rather than do everything we could legally get away with, we respect their human rights, and also several civil rights they certainly don’t merit.

Besides, what do you care, you don’t believe in natural law. If there’s no natural law there’s no natural rights either. Only those rights states extend to their citizens, which don’t apply here anyway.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

You do know that there is no due process in military law, right?

No due process for whome?

And that they come under the heading, “combatants not in the uniform of any recognized state?” Which is to say, “spies?”

If they were in Afghanistan. and we invaded and captured them how, may I ask, does that make them spies?

Which is to say, “They can actually be bayoneted or shot upon capture, as long as a high-enough ranked officer is present.”

Based on what? What exactly are you deriving this from? I don’t see anything about this in UCMJ(though I just checked through it, and you may well be refering to another source)

See, legally, we have the right to simply butcher them like pigs. It’s entirely legal–so there is no question of due process or civil rights.

I’m going to need that cited.

We’re not doing that, though, because we are in fact better people than they are–and we’re catching this nonsense because of it, from idiots who suffer from the delusion that terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. Private citizens who commit acts of war are, in international law, basically fair game. Legally speaking, they largely forfeit their *human *rights, let alone civil rights; and yet, rather than do everything we could legally get away with, we respect their human rights, and also several civil rights they certainly don’t merit.

Again, source please

Besides, what do you care, you don’t believe in natural law.

excuse me?

I sure thought I did

If there’s no natural law there’s no natural rights either. Only those rights states extend to their citizens, which don’t apply here anyway.

alright

 

[Hastrman]

Did I quote your post, Ivan Karamazov? I was responding to Mirdath. He’s some flavor of secularist who’s done his penance, as Nietzsche put it, by giving nearly awe-inspiring demonstrations what a moral fanatic he is–but he doesn’t believe in natural law.

But it’s been the tradition of international law that “concealing your colors is like to spying in wartime” for hundreds of years, and the rules haven’t changed. We usually extend more rights than that to unconventional combatants, but it’s not legally necessary.

I admit I’m not a legal scholar, but that is the interpretation I’ve heard from several writers who are. And it makes sense–how else do you classify them?

 

[Timmy_Z]

Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

A constitutional right granted to Ameican citizens. Not those warring against our nation.

-Tim

 

[IvanKaramozov]

A constitutional right granted to Ameican citizens. Not those warring against our nation.

-Tim

***If ***they were waring

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Did I quote your post, Ivan Karamazov? I was responding to Mirdath. He’s some flavor of secularist who’s done his penance, as Nietzsche put it, by giving nearly awe-inspiring demonstrations what a moral fanatic he is–but he doesn’t believe in natural law.

My mistake

But it’s been the tradition of international law that “concealing your colors is like to spying in wartime” for hundreds of years, and the rules haven’t changed.

I think international law has changed preaty dramatically in the last 100 years.

We usually extend more rights than that to unconventional combatants, but it’s not legally necessary.

Well so you keep claiming

I admit I’m not a legal scholar, but that is the interpretation I’ve heard from several writers who are. And it makes sense–how else do you classify them?

As enemy combatants, they certianly are not spies if they were not spying.

 

[markomalley]

I’m listining to Laura Ingraham(no class earlier than 11:00 this semester, envy me), and she is furious over a canidates support for closing Gitmo and giving trials to the inmates.

I just don’t understand, why is there such fanatical demand that Gitmo stays open in the conservative branch?

First of all, let’s look at who Gitmo (or other such places) is supposed to house:

It is supposed to house people who are captured terrorists or “combatants”. It is only supposed to house those who are a) captured outside of the borders of the US b) are not US citizens or nationals. To my knowledge, there are none of either category of person housed there. (I could be wrong, so don’t shoot me if I am, please)

To say that the US doesn’t have the right to detain those individuals is ludicrous. International Law would disagree with you. In fact, if you were to look up the Hague Conventions, you would find that the US has a complete right to do so (you can find the applicable document here). This is furhter clarified in Geneva (1949) III.

However, the Hague Convention does not exactly apply in this situation: as, if you look at the annex to Hague (1907) IV, you will find that the terrorists captured do not meet the qualifications of ‘lawful belligerents.’ Neither do they meet the requirements for protection under Geneva III. Nor are they “Protected Persons” under the auspices of Geneva IV.

Unfortunately, there is no provision for how to properly treat a person who is an non-uniformed member of a transnational group who do not openly acknowledge a formal rank structure and who do not act, themselves, in accord with the law of war. After all, is Osama bin Laden going to sign the Geneva and Hague accords?

The bottom line is that International Law doesn’t cover this situation.

So, then, what protections do you give these detainees? While it is unacceptable to use measures to gain information from a member of the enemy military, these folks aren’t members of the military. It IS OK to try to get information from the civilian populace, but it’s not OK to use torture to do so. You are allowed to have tribunals in secret, if national security demands it, but you have to notify the “Protecting Powers” that you are doing so.

So what do you do?

a) Release the folks back? There’s still a war going on. International law does NOT require you to do that.

b) Try them in secret, for national security reasons, and then punish them, as if they were “protected persons.” Well, that won’t work for a number of reasons. But let’s say it would. See Geneva IV, Section III, article 68.

c) Hold them in the US as prisoners of war? That would likely be OK, except for the fact that they have no military structure nor military discipline. But, even so, do you believe that the US courts would allow the internment of non-military folks for the “duration” without convicting them of a crime? (That’s what happens with EPW camps…they are held for the duration)

or

d) Just kill them on the battlefield and be done with it. (I wouldn’t want that on my conscience, would you?)

The problem is that there’s no international law covering this situation (I’ve said it before and will likely say it again).

I, personally, think that there should be some sort of international convention covering the treatment of international terrorists and members of non-state aligned and trans-national paramilitary organizations. But until such a thing happens, they’ve got to come up with some sort of hodge-podge arrangement from existing international law.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating any type of Abu-Graib type of humiliation. I am also not big on the concept of torture to gain information, as well. But I do think that we have the right to detain these people. I also think that we have the right to try to gain information from them (as they do not meet the qualifications for EPW protection)…not using torture, but using more conventional interrogation methods (to include favorable treatment during their detention vice barely meeting international standards of humane treatment). I do think that we have the right to censor incoming and outgoing communication (that is even allowed with EPWs). And, unless and until our courts acknowledge the fact that the State has the right to detain the enemy for the duration (which they’ve given no indication they will do), they should be detained outside of the US. Whether that is Gitmo or another location is really sort of a tangent.

But since you asked the question, what do YOU think we should do with these folks who have been detained?

 

[Meathead]

***If ***they were waring

I thought blowing up our soldiers in the streets was an act of war… I must be mistaken.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

A constitutional right granted to Ameican citizens. Not those warring against our nation.

-Tim

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not granted but guaranteed. This is an essential distinction because it comes with the understanding that all rights come from God and that it’s part of the government’s job to protect, not violate, them. Perhaps a reading of the Declaration of Independence is in order?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

ALL men are created equal, in spite of the irony of slavery remaining legal in this country until 1863. If ALL men are created equal, then ALL men have, in their very nature, the SAME rights; particularly those enumerated in the Constitution.

Of course, we can dehumanize the detainees held at Guantánamo, but that is not something inspired by any being I want anything to do with. They are all human persons whom God loves enough to die for. Maybe we should reflect on that as the holy season of Lent approaches quickly?

 

[BillP]

Those who are there are cold-blooded, trained killers. Where would you put them? They’re in an off-shore facility because that way we don’t have to afford them U.S. constitutional privileges. Do you want your tax dollars going to our lawyers fighting the ACLU over about 200 cases that would be our court system for decades? That’s why they’re there. They’re ruthless pigs of the worst kind.

Except for the ones that aren’t, of course…

More detainees have been released or transferred than remain in Guantanamo, underscoring the fact that the United States has put in place processes to assess each individual and make a determination about whether they may be released or transferred during the course of ongoing hostilities. This process is discretionary, administrative and is not required by the Geneva Convention or by U.S. or international law.

** In 2006, 111 detainees were either released or transferred from Guantanamo resulting in a cumulative total of approximately 390 releases and transfers since 2002.** The number of detainees currently at Guantanamo is approximately 385, of which more than 80 have been designated for release or transfer, pending discussions with other nations or pending resolution of litigation in U.S. courts.

defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=10582

So the MAJORITY of those locked up in Gitmo were, in the end, innocent, but that’s what happens when you “round up the usual suspects”.

 

[BillP]

A constitutional right granted to Ameican citizens. Not those warring against our nation.

-Tim

Uh, that would be incorrect.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS
The U.S. plans to prosecute some detainees at Guantanamo for war crimes before military commissions. Military tribunals are the recognized way to try enemy combatants during wartime under the Geneva Convention, and they have been used by many countries in past wars, e.g. by the Allies in WWI and WWII. The military commissions will be fair and open, and will include:
– Presumption of innocence.
– Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
– Right to counsel.
– Right to present evidence/witnesses in one’s behalf.
– Right to cross-examine evidence/witnesses of prosecution.
– Right not to testify, with no adverse inference to be drawn.
– Right to exculpatory evidence known to prosecution.
– Right to appeal.
– Prohibition on double jeopardy.
– Proceedings must be open to maximum extent practicable.

usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Mar/17-718401.html

 

[Meathead]

What about all of the ones who arent innocent?

Most of the prisoners at GITMO would decapitate you without a second thought, and you want to defend them? Are you completely stupid?

Most of the people there are murderers, not just of our soldiers, but of their own people. They care nothing for civil liberties, and given the chance they would destroy everything we know in order to further the Muslim cause.

I dont care what we do to those people. Waterboarding, Sleep Deprivation, hell breaking them on the wheel would be fine for me. I just want these people to know that we wont tolerate their terroristic actions.