Constitutional Law: Should Gitmo Detainees Have Constitutional Rights?

[Scooter]

It appears, if one can guess from the questions, that the Supremes are going to give Gitmo Detainees some Constitutional Rights. How do you guys feel about that?

[Sponsored Links]

[John Corley]

I say no, other than just basic human rights.

[ddmoit]

Forget about the Constitution for a moment. Think instead about the principles upon which it was founded.

Under what twisted sense of right and wrong is it OK to deprive other human beings of their liberty without some due process in regard to natural law?

If those detainees are guilty of something, charge them and prove it.

We don't have enough space for the number of "enemy combatants" that we are generating. I'm sure there are 10 new ones for every one we lock up.

[cx]

Just to clarify, Scooter, the Supremes can't give anybody any rights at all. People have rights. People at Gitmo, people in the US of A, people in all the rest of the world. All have rights. All have the same rights.

And best of my knowledge there are no "Constitutional Rights." The only difference in the rights we, as Americans, have is that we do have a Constitutional form of government that protects some of those rights from being violated by our own government. We didn't get the rights from the government, nor the Supreme Court, we already had'em. And we still have'em, they're just not as well protected as they were a couple hundred years ago.

People we're holding as prisoners in Guantanamo have all the same rights. If, in fact, they have committed crimes, they should be charged with them. But this business of calling them some made up name like "enemy combatant" and just putting them in jail is not a good idea.

Best I can determine from the few seemingly factual reports from that place is that we have absolutely no idea if 90+ percent of those guys have actually done anything that would qualify them as criminals.

And since we've allowed our spineless Congress to allow our out-of-control Executive to invade their country without a declaration of war, we can't even pretend they're prisoners of war so that there would be some reasonably acceptable method of dealing with them under that category of "detainee."

Pretty big mess we've made of the whole thing, eh?

So, in answer to what I think is your question, yes, I'm in favor of giving each and every one of them full access to our judicial system unless we want to admit that we have absolutely no defensible reason for holding them and just send them home, or back wherever they were "captured."

If we have a valid reason to have captured them, let them be tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced appropriately.

But, in any event, let's please stop pretending.

[river-wear]

C'mon, CX, tell us how you really feel! :rolleyes: ;)

While I agree with the gist of what you're saying, I'm afraid that not everyone enjoys all of those rights around the world.

[Shooter]

I say we free them ASAP!

Drop them off the end of a really long pier and let em swim home.

[ddmoit]

CX, you said what I meant - only better. :clap2: :bow:

[kate42]

I'm in favor of giving each and every one of them full access to our judicial system

Hopefully that means that these detainees are only entitled to what they can afford to pay for. If they can not afford an attorney, they will receive a court appointed attorney.

[HS345]

I think Antonin Scalia said it best:
Do you have a single case, in the 220 years of our country -- or, for that matter, in the five centuries of the English Empire -- in which habeas was granted to an alien in a territory that was not under the sovereign control of either the United States or England? In 220 years of our history, or five centuries of the British, do you have a single case in which it was not a citizen of England or a citizen of the United States in which a common law writ of habeas corpus issued to a piece of land that was not within the sovereign jurisdiction? You are appealing to a common law right that somehow found its way into our Constitution without -- as far as I can discern -- a single case, a writ ever issued to a noncitizen.

[ddmoit]

Where is the precedent for imprisoning "enemy combatants" in an undeclared war?

[John Bridge]

Korea, Viet Nam, to name a couple. :)

[ddmoit]

Oh... yeah, those. Sterling examples. :rolleyes:

I'm inclined to disqualify those since they at least had the general appearance of a declared war - uniformed troops of one country fighting uniformed (mostly) troops of another country.

[HS345]

Where is the precedent for imprisoning "enemy combatants" in an undeclared war?
Well, flawed premise aside, i.e. "undeclared war", that is not the issue before the court.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have us do with captured enemy fighters?

Perhaps we should just ask Al Quieda to wear uniforms. :rolleyes:

[ddmoit]

Greg,

Legal contortions aside, the United States has imprisoned other human beings, unconvicted and with little or no access to legal counsel for 6 years. How does that square with your Christian moral teachings? These people are imprisoned your your behalf.

[HS345]

the United States has imprisoned other human beings, unconvicted and with little or no access to legal counsel for 6 years. How does that square with your Christian moral teachings?

I never said it did.

I do believe these combatants are entitled to some sort of due process. However,I don't think they should have access to U.S. courts. I would be in favor of military tribunals.

[John Corley]

Ditto Greg :deadhorse

[Scooter]

Putting aside the issue of Iraq, I think the Court will certainly give them access to the US Courts via Habeus Corpus, and give them a modicum of US Constitutional Rights such as

--Right to Be Charged with Something
--Right to Confront or See Evidence Against Them In Advance
--Right to a Speedy Trial
--Right to Counsel of Their Choice
--Right to Present Witnesses on Their Behalf
--Right Not to be Tortured During Questioning

To date, none of them have been charged with anything, except being bad guys; None have seen evidence; Certainly 6 years just sitting there isn't speedy by anyone's definition; They've been denied counsel; and can't of course present witnsesses or evidence; And its unquestioned that they are routinely denied sleep, food, are waterboarded, and other fun stuff.

I don't believe they'll get the full slate of Consitutional rights that any criminal in the US would--I think they should--but assuming this "war on terror" is used to indefinitely imprison and torture these guys, that will be for another day.

Even Ron Huckleberry came out this week advocating closing Gitmo. Its become and institution of torture in world opinion and doing more harm than good. I say charge them with a crime and imprison them, or turn them loose and do it quickly. Pick 'em.

[ddmoit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402307.html

Just months after U.S. Army troops whisked a German man from Pakistan to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2002, his American captors concluded that he was not a terrorist.He was finally released in August of 2006.

[HS345]

No system is perfect, if this story is true then I feel genuinely bad for the guy.

Innocent people are sent to prison all the time. Does that mean we should abandon the pursuit of criminals?

Here's a story from three years ago out of the Washington Post also.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

[Splinter]

I do believe these combatants are entitled to some sort of due process. However,I don't think they should have access to U.S. courts. I would be in favor of military tribunals


Holy Crap! :sick: I agree with Greg!

[Scooter]

Innocent people are sent to prison all the time. Does that mean we should abandon the pursuit of criminals? No one here has advocated the abandonment of the pursuit of criminals. On the contrary, I think the discussion is that the guys ought to be treated as criminals, rather than torture opportunities. And the conversation is that while no system is perfect, the Supremes and the Legislature have an opportunity to improve this system. So maybe I should ask the question: "Just because no system is perfect, does that mean we should abandon the pursuit of improving it?"

Of course not. And I view these as improvements, don't you?

[HS345]

Wow, I have a sudden urge to sing Cumbiya.

Alex, my brother! :yipee: :dance:

[Splinter]

Alex, my brother!

Funny you should say that.. My only brother is actually named Greg... :)

[HS345]

Do do do do, do do do do. *Twilight Zone music*

You're kidding right?

My younger brother's name is...................Alex. :shades:

[river-wear]

C'mon you guys, get a room! :stick:

:D

[Dave Taylor]

I usually weigh into these discussions by not weighing into these discussions.

When I do weigh in here-a-bouts, I usually say "what CX said".... which is what I got to say again now.

'What CX said' in post #4 of this thread.

Them folks in Gitmo ought to be given the opportunity now to be measured by the wirl' famus' US of A "Deflecto" of law.

[HS345]

Them folks in Gitmo ought to be given the opportunity now to be measured by the wirl' famus' US of A "Deflecto" of law.
That's all well and good, Dave. But what would you put down under, "Joist material"? :confused:

[flatfloor]

Should we have tried all captured Germans and Japanese combatants during WWII on a daily basis? (please don't sidetrack this with the Japanese detainees that was reprehensible)

This war is like no other it is murky and obscured by the mists of religion.

BTW, how is it there is very little outcry from the Arab countries on behalf of their brethren?

Let them rot in jail before a penny of my money goes to pay for an attorney for them. They seem to find money buy weapons. Could it be we are the only ones who give a rat's ass?

[river-wear]

Here we go imposing our "culture" on other people again. The US is so full of imperialists, eh? (Jim, your post just made me think of the "justice" thread over here in the mud box.)

That makes an interesting point - if we aren't supposed to meddle in other countries' culture and beliefs by expecting them to behave like us, does that also carry over into the benevolent things? We can at least maintain control of our own actions and act on our beliefs, so then I suppose the answer is yes but it sure is a one-sided thing. We interrogate them, they execute us on television. At least they haven't done that in awhile, thank god.

Well, I'd say since they're technically on our soil and they aren't necessarily Iraqis (the only country we're supposed to be at "war" with) then we need to extend our rule of law to them. But I definitely like the military trial idea better than the regular old court system.

And on second thought I guess we'd extend the same rights to any prisoners of war too. Six years is more than enough time. Convict 'em or let 'em go; letting them rot in prison just doesn't make any sense.

[Dave Taylor]

Greg, I would describe the "joist material" as human flesh, human blood, human bones and tissue, fingers' toes, hair, arms, legs, feelings, fears, aspirations and Flat..... humans with wives, girlfriends, parents, relatives, childhood friends, many loved ones who care deeply for and about them but remain unheard by US because (at the very least) they remain unreported by and to US...... as are Gitmo inmates themselves.

[HS345]

Greg, I would describe the "joist material" as human flesh, human blood, human bones and tissue, fingers' toes, hair, arms, legs, feelings, fears, aspirations
It's their "aspirations" that worry me the most.

[MudMaker]

Under what twisted sense of right and wrong is it OK to deprive other human beings of their liberty without some due process in regard to natural law?
Dan, I think you give these detainees more credit than I...
I certainly can't acknowledge someone who would blow themselves up in a crowd of their own, where children are among them, as human.
Me thinks you give them more credit than they deserve..
Detainees some of whom would rather slit your throat as look at you.
Most of whom want you and ALL Christians deader than a doornail.. as HUMAN.. :devil:
always wanted to use that icon

[ddmoit]

Frank,

Do you somehow know that every detainee is actually guilty of something, or does it not matter to you? It matters to me.

I'm not willing to sacrifice the liberty of a single person, just because I am angry that some Arab criminals destroyed lives, property and themselves on our soil.

Changing my view on liberty would constitute a victory for our enemies.

[ITO]

There is some irony that in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, and the United States uses the same torture at Gitmo claiming they are enemy combatants and its not a war crime.

Human rights are human rights no matter who the human is and the people in gitmo either need to be charged or let go.

Take this step further Jose Padilla, is an American citizen and was arrested on US soil and held in a US prison, doesn't he deserve due process?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29

[sandbagger]

Saying that the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. is kinda like complaining that we only got Al Capone for tax evasion. Asano was a brutal animal. Our biggest mistake was actually capturing him alive. This is from the official case synopsis: (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm)
"Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward" Asano brutalized his prisoners for the entertainment value - that's why he was "tried" in what was essentially a kangaroo court. Equating Asano to what we do today is purely for political effect. :yawn:

[T_Hulse]

A few questions: When the Declaration of independance said "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal.." who did they mean by "all Men"? The right to be innocent until proven guilty, does that apply only to American men and not Arab men? Same thing for the right to a speedy trial?
When some of you make the argument that this is neccessary because of the type of crime or badness of the individual, who of you gets to decide which men are not worthy of the presumption of innocence? In other words, who of you gets to decide that they are guilty before being proved guilty? Who is that man and what are his qualifications to overide self-evident truths and inalienable rights of real men, some of whom are truly innocent?

Be honest here, is Gitmo really the most secure place to take these guys, more than even within the protected borders of the US, or is the location really just a sham to subvert a technical interpretation of US alien vs. citizen rights?
---------------------
That makes an interesting point - if we aren't supposed to meddle in other countries' culture and beliefs by expecting them to behave like us, does that also carry over into the benevolent things? We can at least maintain control of our own actions and act on our beliefs, so then I suppose the answer is yes but it sure is a one-sided thing. We interrogate them, they execute us on television. At least they haven't done that in awhile, thank god.What is the classic excuse for every wrong action related to war in the history of man? Isn't it the dehumanization of the individual? Once you lump one individual man in the "them" that is against "us", then isn't it easy as pie to take away every self-evident and inalienable right that he has? What are the rules that let us say to an innocent individual "you are part of them" and therefore not worthy of basic rights? Is it because of their skin color? Where they live?

An individual can be "declared" not worthy of the right to innocent-until-proven-guilty because he is part of the enemy, but he is only part of the enemy if he is guilty. Can't you see the circular reasoning there?

[John Bridge]

Well, you have to get back to whether the detainees are prisoners of war or not. If they are prisoners of war, they don't have to be charged, and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a party, take precedence. If they are not prisoners of war, then they should be charged or released.

When the founders signed the Declaration they certainly weren't talking about all people. I don't think there can be any doubt of that. They had no intention of freeing the slaves and granting them the same rights they themselves enjoyed.

I argued Padilla's case back when he was arrested and confined. Though he may well be a scum bag, he is a U.S. citizen and has been denied due process of law in contradiction to the U.S. Bill of Rights. He has not been charged, and he has been denied access to the U.S. legal system -- denied his right to an attorney. He is being held incommunicado in a military prison in Virginia (I think it's Virginia).If it can happen to him it can happen to any of us. It's an intolerable condition. I blame Congress and President Bush for allowing it to continue.

[T_Hulse]

John, and yet there are no slaves today, because it was discovered that all men truly are equal, despite what some of the framers thought. But forget what you think some of the framers thought for a minute, just tell me if it's a true, natural right or not: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal.."
If you really must decide if they're prisoners of war or not, then you have to go back to:An individual can be "declared" not worthy of the right to innocent-until-proven-guilty because he is part of the enemy, but he is only part of the enemy if he is guilty. Can't you see the circular reasoning there? because that is the heart of WHY there is a uniformed-army requirement in the Geneva Convention. They must prove themselves to be part of the enemy, otherwise it is just the actions of an unjust dictator that can summarily put any innocent man into the category of "them" and take away his natural rights.

[sgrandjean]

In reference to Mr. Padilla...I recall that the U.S Navy turned him over to federal authorities in Miami, FL a couple of years ago. I also believe he was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers in federal court....and sentencing was delayed until sometime in January 2008 due to death of a family member of the judge overseeing the trial.

[sandbagger]

mixing Padilla's case with the Gitmo "enemy combatants" may be a bit of apples and oranges, dontcha think? :scratch:

gotta go with JB on the "all men" thing, too. While that particular reference may indeed have been aimed at "all men," their interpretation was quite different in 1776 than today. Not only did they exclude slaves, but also women. When they said "men" they meant it quite literally. And there's no evidence they intended to speak for governments of other countries. Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant rights - those exist in there own right. Whether people in a certain region actually have them to exercise is another matter entirely. The Constitution was clearly designed to protect those rights for US citizens. They must prove themselves to be part of the enemy, otherwise it is just the actions of an unjust dictator... HUH? Better read them Conventions again. That "proof" requirement is necessay if you want the protections of the GC. HOWEVER - not having that proof - ie, uniform - does NOT mean you just release the guy. Hardly. The GC specifically address the non-uniformed/unidentified combatant by specifically excluding them from the protections of the GC. Rules go both ways - if you want the protections of the GC, you have to actually follow them. :shrug:

[river-wear]

Scott - you are correct. Padilla was released as an "enemy combatant" because, effectively, the Supreme Court found that G.W. overstepped his bounds and cannot hold American citizens on American soil without due process.

[sandbagger]

The Supreme Court never ruled against George Bush with regard to Padilla. :shake:

Padilla's initial petition for habeas corpus was actually thrown out by SCOTUS in 2004. The petition was re-filed and eventually found its way to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Bush's favor, affirming that the President did have the power to detain Padilla. That was the last decision on the matter. Before SCOTUS could take up the case the Feds filed charges in civilian court, and on January 3, 2006, SCOTUS granted a Bush administration request to transfer Padilla from military to civilian custody.

Finally, on April 3, 2006, SCOTUS declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision that the President had the power to designate him and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.

After a 3-month trial in civilian court it took the jury a whole day and a half to convict on all counts.

[T_Hulse]

Art please don't try to reframe the argument by claiming that anyone here said they should be just released.
You misunderstand what I'm saying about the GC. Not that it would ever apply to a non-uniformed combatant, but rather what are the reasons that it can never be applied to non-uniformed combatants? Certainly they do and have always existed, so why can't it apply to them? The main reason is because then it provides cover to move them away from civil authority, and military detention is then wide open to wholesale abuse: accusing, imprisoning, and holding without trial any old regular person, subject only to the whims of the dictator who abuses it. Then also, any military action can be renamed "war" and natural rights can be suspended selectively at the whims of the dictator.
Art some of the framers did get it wrong about slaves and about women. The fact that we've changed that now is more proof of what is truly right. Forget the biggoted, racist views of some two-hundred-year-old men, and tell me what you think is truly right. Tell me if it's a true, natural right or not: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal.." Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant rights - those exist in there own right.Exactly!:) So why does it seem you are saying that Arab men have less rights than American men?

[sandbagger]

So why does it seem you are saying that Arab men have less rights than American men?I never said that. In fact, I argued that all men have the rights because they exist. It is the ability to exercise those rights that I said is NOT equal - that is a function of the governing jurisdiction.

As far as releasing the prisoners, others here have suggested precisely that, though I'm not sure you did. The main reason is because then it provides cover to move them away from civil authority, and military detention is then wide open to wholesale abuse: ... well, by that token one might argue that it's better to fight as a "civilian" than as a uniformed soldier. I really don't think you mean to argue for that, but it could be implied. The whole point of the GC was to encourage warring parties to clearly distinguish combatants from civilians, and regulate behavior. You don't apply the same GC rules to non-uniformed combatants as you do uniformed soldiers precisely because the GC itself makes a clear distinction. Tell me if it's a true, natural right or not: "....that all Men are created equal.." Depends on how you define "equal." And I'm not picking nits - this simple question has been the subject of much legal debate. It was even a key component when that handicapped guy sued the PGA (Casey?) awhile back. Obviously all men are not "equal" in all attributes. :)

[Scooter]

Today it was announced yet another Habeus case. Try this one for size you right wingers:

Two American Citizens are being held and have been held for 6 years now in Iraq in an American military base. The argument is that you have to be citizen, per Justice Scalia. Well, sorry that one fits. And he says the area has to be a sovereign part of the US for the Habeus to work. Well, I know more sovereign place than an American Army base. It is about as sovereign as you can get.

Yet, these two American citizens are being held in Iraq and can not test their confinement. No charges have ever been filed. Under that logic they can stay there forever.

[sandbagger]

simple solution, scooter. If they were bearing arms against US soldiers - which I suspect they were - then it is legitimate to strip them of their US citizenship. I don't know why we've been so reluctant to do this and send a message to these idiots. Problem solved.

[Scooter]

Citizens are defined in the Constitution. I know of no way to "strip" someone of citizenship, without amending the Consitition, whether by Legislative action, Judicial Order, or int his case, by order of some officer. If you suggest that the Army has the Consititonal right to strip any citizen of their citizenship by fiat, well that is interesting.

In the Padilla case, he did not attack any Army nor any any battlefield--he was on a civilian plane, taken into custody by civilians, then the police, then the FBI. I think the FBI ultimately turned him over to the US Army. So by that logic, anyone whom the FBI wants to can be turned over to the Army and then magically, by an E-8, turned into "an enemy combatant".

I think the Bush administration decided the handwriting was on the wall, and unless they wanted some very bad legal precedent, they had better had try the moron in civilian courts, and as Art points out it took 12 guys an hour to convict. Thus, there was no point in him being an "enemy combatant.

Bush finally figured this out.

[T_Hulse]

Art you are avoiding the question of equal rights by playing word games. We are not talking about equal attributes, or handicaps developed later, but what are the natural rights every man is born with? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RightsFour score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
And what's with the word games over the difference between having the rights and the "the ability to exercise those rights"? Are you telling me it is right, it is just, for you and others like you, through the representatives that you decide to elect, to snatch away the right to the presumption of innocence from an Arab man just because of where he lives?
He's born with that right. He's not guilty until he's proven guilty. He's not even guilty of being part of "them" until he's proven guilty. No one in Gitmo has been proven of bearing arms against the US. Surely some have, but also surely some haven't and are completely innocent. That is why all are innocent until proven guilty, to protect those innocent men.
Enless detention is punishment. The executive branch has zero authority to punish without trial, even in war. It's rights to hold combatants come from the basic neccesity of not having the time & resources in the heat of battle. Which gets us back to another question you didn't answer:Be honest here, is Gitmo really the most secure place to take these guys, more than even within the protected borders of the US, or is the location really just a sham to subvert a technical interpretation of US alien vs. citizen rights?Arab law isn't being applied to them. They don't have the benefits of US laws. Who's law's apply? GW's made-up laws of punishment by endless detention even though some are innocent and even though all born with the natural right to prove their innocence?

[sandbagger]

Citizens are defined in the Constitution.Where? :shrug: There are a number of references to "citizenship" as a requirement for doing some things - like being elected to a Federal post. But the Framers left the how to be defined by Congress - which the did and periodically modify. I know of no way to "strip" someone of citizenship,...
The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:

* Becoming naturalized in another country
* Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
* Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
* Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
* Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
* Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
* By being convicted of committing treason
In the Padilla case,...Padilla? My comment was clearly in reference to the two fellas being held in Iraq on a US military base.

[sandbagger]

Art you are avoiding the question of equal rights by playing word games. Word games? Hard to do when we've already agreed (#40 & 41) that the Constitution doesn't grant rights - those exist in there own right. But while an Arab living in a Muslim country certainly has the same rights as Arab in the US, his ability to actually exercise those rights is another matter entirely. That's not word games, that's reality. Our Constitution did something very unique. It first recognized the existence of those "inalienable rights," then it sought to protect our ability to exercise those rights. All men may be created equal, but all Constitutions (or whatever they have) are not.

[T_Hulse]

But while an Arab living in a Muslim country certainly has the same rights as Arab in the US, his ability to actually exercise those rights is another matter entirely. That's not word games, that's reality.So is it right? Is it just? Is it honorable? You're making the case for me Art. :) You've acknowledge a clear difference between his true rights and the reality of what he is actually getting. Who's fault is that?

Yours.

This difference in rights is being done to him, at Gitmo, by the individuals that you, and others like you, elected. You put these people in office and you're defending what they're doing. How do you justify what you are doing to an innocent man who has the same natural rights as you?

[Scooter]

Where? My recollection of a citizen is that all persons born here or naturalized are citizens in the Constitution. Its interesting to note that none of the critera in that federal statute would apply to either Padilla or the two guys held in Iraq. At least under that list, they are still citizens. Moreover, at least under Title 18, the CRIMINAL Code, the citizens are citizens until they have a hearing before a Criminal Judge to strip them, which presumably would be a Federal Judge and/or Jury. I think you are skipping some steps.

They are citizens. They are caught in Iraq, allegedly doing bad things. They are never charged, but they don't have to be because an E-9 (not a judge) says they're not citizens, and we don't have to have a hearing, so now they have no access to courts, or habeus, we get to hold them indefinitely, waterboard and torture them. That is your world? Wow.

[sandbagger]

I'm confused, Tom - how is it my fault that an Arab in an Arab county can't exercise his "inalienable rights?" That was the context of my statement, if you would read it again. Asking whether it's "right" or "fair" that Islamic countries don't respect those rights is rather rhetorical. :deadhorse

I said nothing about Gitmo and I certainly don't vote in Saudi Arabia.

If you want to look at unequal rights you can find plenty of problems in this country. Like the 2nd Amendment. I'm far more concerned about that kind of thing than whether a bunch of thugs at Gitmo. Giving prisoners of war access to civil courts is unprecedented and needs to stay that way.

[Scooter]

Like the "War on Drugs"? Thats another slogan for an unending war. And the "War on Terror" is nothing more than that, a stupid slogan to justify torture, illegal imprisonment, and an invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq) that had nothing to do with terror.

[HS345]

Like the "War on Drugs"? Thats another slogan for an unending war. And the "War on Terror" is nothing more than that, a stupid slogan to justify torture, illegal imprisonment, and an invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq) that had nothing to do with terror.
To what end? :stupid2:

[T_Hulse]

Art this thread is about Gitmo detainees. No one is talking about legal rights in Islamic countries. Nowhere are these detainees having Islamic law applied to them. I'm confused, Tom - how is it my fault that an Arab in an Arab county can't exercise his "inalienable rights?" One of those rights is his ability to prove his innocence, another is the presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty (hence the right to a speedy trial). The detainees are not in an Arab country and it's laws are not being applied to him. So you're wrong in saying it's the Arab country that is taking away these rights. It's not. It's you. The detainees are in a US prison, put there by the people you elected and are defending.
You're still justifying it by making presumptions about their guilt (you called them "thugs"; some are innocent) to justify stripping them of the right to prove they are innocent. They're not thugs until you've proved them to be. You can't prove them to be if you won't try them. You still can't see the circular logic there?

If this is really a war, then you hold them until you've conquered the territory(done) and set up your government with laws (done), then you release them or try them for war crimes. Combatants after you've set up your government are tried based on those laws which you allowed to be in place.
The US is not trying to conquer the territory. This is not war. It is in a long, protracted police action that that has no defineable end. That is far different than war. The US conquered within days and civil authority, with laws, was set up shortly after that, a long time ago. Sure, you can help them enforce their laws (they're really your laws because the victors have the right to tolerate whatever laws they desire), but you don't get to pretend that it's war after you've set up civil law.
If this was really war, then the executive branch would have no trouble bringing them back to the homeland and keeping them until the war was over. And so you still haven't answered the big fat elephant in the room: Be honest here, is Gitmo really the most secure place to take these guys, more than even within the protected borders of the US, or is the location really just a sham to subvert a technical interpretation of US alien vs. citizen rights? The war is long over and these are not prisoners of war. These are mostly civilians suspected (but not guilty) of a crime during a police action after a war. There is no heat-of-the-battle here that is straining our resources so much that we don't possibly have the time to let them prove their innocence or we can't even manage the effort to bring them the rest of the way to the US mainland (battlefield jail, it's closer to the war zone! :uhh: ).

[river-wear]

The US is not trying to conquer the territory. This is not war. It is in a long, protracted police action that that has no defineable end. That is far different than war. The US conquered within days and civil authority, with laws, was set up shortly after that, a long time ago. Sure, you can help them enforce their laws (they're really your laws because the victors have the right to tolerate whatever laws they desire), but you don't get to pretend that it's war after you've set up civil law.

Thanks, Tom. That clarifies things for me. :)

Now as for the Gitmo detainees, I can see some justification for holding them if they are suspects in terrorist activities like 9/11. I see that as being quite separate from this so-called war in Iraq. Even so, it's time for them to be tried and sentenced or released. Personally I think a military trial is more appropriate than civilian court, particularly for non-citizens (or maybe only for non-citizens).