07-16-2004, 11:58 PM | #1 (permalink) |
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
Location: UCSB
|
The DOD has officially lost its damn mind.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/16/gi...iew/index.html
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Military officers next week will begin meeting with the more than 600 prisoners being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to determine the legality of their detentions, Pentagon officials said Friday. Called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, the three-member panels are a response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June. That court decision gave "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo the right to challenge their detentions in federal court. But the panels are not a part of the federal court system, and that is part of the reason opponents of the review tribunals say they don't satisfy the high court's order. Several groups are challenging the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists. "The [Department of Defense] takes the view that all of the detainees have already been determined to be enemy combatants by using a definition of the term different from the courts, and that it may exercise its discretion to release some of them," said Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights, an organization representing several of the detainees. There will be three review tribunals with three military officers sitting on each. The tribunal will conduct one-time-only reviews to determine whether a detainee is correctly being held as an enemy combatant. If a panel determines a detainee is not an an enemy combatant, the the case will be sent to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who will work with the secretary of state to arrange that detainee's trip back to his home country, officials said. Detainees judged to still be a threat to the United States would remain in detention. Reviews will occur at Gitmo, with each team striving to complete 72 cases per week. Detainees will have access to interpreters and military assistants -- not lawyers -- to help in their cases. Pentagon officials said Friday that the military assistants would have to pass any information received from detainees to the tribunal officials. "The Supreme Court ruling requires access to legal representation. This process is elaborate window dressing and an attempt to subvert that ruling and the rule of law," said Jeffrey E. Fogel, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights. The panels will apply only to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo, Pentagon officials said. Most of those imprisoned on the naval station's grounds are captives from the war in Afghanistan. About a dozen of the Guantanamo detainees are accused of participating in terrorist attacks or of being members of al Qaeda. Pentagon officials said the review panels will eventually be open to the media. But the first few are likely to start before coverage guidelines are settled. The Supreme Court ruled in late June that U.S. citizens and foreign nationals held as terror suspects in military custody have the right to challenge their detentions. In reviewing the constitutionality of the administration's war on terror policies, the justices upheld the right of the executive branch to hold such suspects. The military notified the detainees of their rights during the past week, officials said. About 95 percent of the detainees reacted positively to the notification, meaning they were interested in going through the process, Pentagon officials said. Five percent of the detainees were not pleased and did not acknowledge the notifications, said Pentagon officials." I could swear the the SCOTUS said that the prisoners were to have a hearing in FEDERAL COURT to determine their status. I guess this means the President and Attorney General have to step in and inforce the SCOTUS's ruling.
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt." |
07-17-2004, 12:56 AM | #2 (permalink) | |
Like John Goodman, but not.
Location: SFBA, California
|
McMahon: You are correct, sir!
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/s...03-334.ZD.html Quote:
|
|
07-17-2004, 02:52 AM | #3 (permalink) |
Huggles, sir?
Location: Seattle
|
I don't understand how enemy combatants who aren't US citizens have any constitutional rights at all. Wasn't the ruling only concerning US citizens who were captured and held as enemy combatants?
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames |
07-17-2004, 03:16 AM | #4 (permalink) | |
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
Location: UCSB
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt." |
|
07-17-2004, 03:16 AM | #5 (permalink) |
Right Now
Location: Home
|
Nanofever, your post leaves me puzzled. You claim that the DOD has lost it's mind, then you post an interesting article, yet you have nothing to say on the topic. I'm left wondering what your opinions are based on. In fact, I'm left wondering what your opinions really are.
It's difficult to join a discussion that was never started. |
07-17-2004, 03:24 AM | #6 (permalink) | |
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
Location: UCSB
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt." |
|
07-17-2004, 07:17 AM | #8 (permalink) |
Banned
|
I see this as the continuation of a horrifying policy that runs counter to American ideals of justice and fairness. Unlimited detention and interrogation with no due process is a scary thought, even when applied to "enemy combatants." Do we really want to be a country that "disappears" their enemy?
|
07-17-2004, 09:10 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
You can tell a lot about a nation by how they treat their enemies. I, for one, think that we deserve a society with higher standards than Pinochet's Chile. The fact that any American administration is trying to define some legal oubliette in which to throw both US citizens and non-citizens is a chilling thought and evokes memories of the Star Chamber. |
|
07-17-2004, 09:54 AM | #11 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
What I always like to do is put myself in someone else's shoes.
If you were in another country and go arrested by a forgien power that then took you to a territory they owned what would you want to happen? What if they didn't give you access to lawyers or judges. What if they didn't even let you tell your side of the story. You could be innocent but no one would know. Your family would think you are dead. These guys should be given lawyers and trails no if ands or buts. I seriously doubt they could do much terrorism by talking to lawyers. They have been out of their countries for a couple years, their ties are all but lost. Give them a trial or set them free. My theory is the only reason our government won't let them talk to anyone is because of how we treated them there. They don't want people to find our dirty underware. It is time we got back on the highroad and realized we have libirties that many men have died to aquire and protect. Why should we take those very same libirties away from others? They deserve due process. And we need to start questioning our administrations actions because things are not right. |
07-17-2004, 09:58 AM | #12 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
They are not US citizens. They have no Constitutional power. They are being treated fairly according to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by declaring they have constitutional rights, for that to happen it would take the Legislative branch to start a bill. The DoD (or possibly executive branch) told them to fuck off. Good for them.
|
07-17-2004, 10:04 AM | #13 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
It doesn't matter if they are US citizens. Just because one of them is a farmer in afganastan who is trying to support his family doesn't make him any less than you or me.
Quote:
|
|
07-17-2004, 11:29 AM | #14 (permalink) |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Rekna has a point in that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution talk about UNIVERSAL human rights, which we formed a government to protect. It may be less convenient, but we ought to hold those rights as universal in all cases - maybe that would help our public image. At any rate, I think that applying the stated American principles of human rights in all cases would be the patriotic thing to do - sort of a statement that we stand for something, and that ideal cannot be defeated, nor will we compromise what makes America American because we are afraid.
Or shoot them if they are combatants that are really that threatening to us - but this stripping of rights by default through waffling is not in the spirit of American greatness.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
07-17-2004, 11:40 AM | #15 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
07-17-2004, 12:21 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
The Declaration of Independence is not what is the basis for our government, our Constitution is. It would be nice to treat everyone the same but it's different when they belong to a differnet country, and want to kill everyone in ours as well as all the ideals that we hold on to so dearly.
I'm sorry but they dont sweep up people like cattle over there, they are captured if they are in a firefight against US forces. |
07-17-2004, 12:32 PM | #17 (permalink) | |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Quote:
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
|
07-17-2004, 12:54 PM | #18 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
07-17-2004, 12:59 PM | #19 (permalink) | ||
Like John Goodman, but not.
Location: SFBA, California
|
Quote:
Swept up like cattle? http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Sa...76495581&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161 Quote:
|
||
07-17-2004, 01:14 PM | #20 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
while were at it
Quote:
|
|
07-17-2004, 01:31 PM | #21 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
It just feels like the government organizations are not being responsive to the people who comprise it. I feel that behavior like this actually engenders more hatred of US citizens and that my long-term interests will suffer the consequences.
Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-20-2004, 09:36 AM | #22 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
Great, we've become our enemy. I hope we are all proud of ourselves.
Why don't most people get that we are running around justifying our wars on the basis of human rights while we go around and treat people in very similar ways? Last edited by kutulu; 07-20-2004 at 09:38 AM.. |
07-20-2004, 10:18 AM | #24 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
Rekna... you overlooked a VERY important part.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Since when have POWs counted as US citizens? Oh and everyone please research the Geneva Convention, they apply only to uniformed combatants. If you research it terrorists dont fall into that. Just like the werewolves in WWII they are not included and can legally be shot on sight... so Guetmo doesnt sound that bad now does it? |
07-20-2004, 10:29 AM | #25 (permalink) | |
Like John Goodman, but not.
Location: SFBA, California
|
Quote:
Since when have they not counted as people? And concerning being shot on sight, yeah, I'd rather spend 10 years in a Cuban cell than get gunned down. But then again, not every Gitmo detainee has made it these past 2.5 years. |
|
07-20-2004, 10:39 AM | #26 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-20-2004, 10:52 AM | #28 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
I acknowledged the passage I posted didn't extend to them not because of citizenship but because of state juristiction. The question i asked is why do we assume the executive branch can have that power when the states cannot?
In addition you skipped over these parts Quote:
|
|
07-20-2004, 10:57 AM | #29 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
...there are three (3) clauses. Read them all. If you need help parsing the sentence or interpreting a semi-colon, grab a basic comp handbook.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-20-2004, 11:00 AM | #30 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
Quote:
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
|
07-20-2004, 11:06 AM | #31 (permalink) |
Like John Goodman, but not.
Location: SFBA, California
|
Well the issue seems to be the Supreme Court attempting bring a form of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees, and the Administration cut the knees off of it by inserting appointed executive-branch-judges.
Art would consider it +1 for seperation of powers, whereas I feel it's -1 for checks and balances. To grow on that, the executive branch does need a certain amount of wiggle room in times of war, to ensure expedient action against those who would do us harm. I see nothing that would detract from that by having District of Columbia judges determine the justifications for holding each of the detainees. They're off the "battlefield," now it's time to figure out what to do with them (read: Not time to let them rot in a cage for the rest of their natural life). |
07-20-2004, 11:12 AM | #33 (permalink) | |
Like John Goodman, but not.
Location: SFBA, California
|
Quote:
Also, while the distinctions may be blurry, there is, as far as I know, a difference between a Taliban soldier and an al Qaeda terrorist. Fuck'em both for sure, but in terms of the geneva convetion, Taliban soldiers ought to have been uniformed combatants. Changing "uniformed" to "enemy" doesn't change much about the nature of who they were: Soldiers in the military of a government that A) We had recognized as legitimate (prior to 9/11) and B) Were at war with. Like I said, fuck'em both, but unlike al Qaeda, Taliban soldiers fall under the umbrella of the Geneva convention according to your terms. I think. I couldn't tell you what a Taliban uniform looks like. |
|
07-20-2004, 11:41 AM | #34 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: nyc
|
Quote:
|
|
07-20-2004, 12:16 PM | #36 (permalink) |
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
The problem, as I see it, is one of classification. The prisoners do not fit nicely into any predetermined pigeon hole. The are not U.S. citizens...nor are they Prisoners of War, as defined by the Geneva Convention. We have to define them. They are our prisoners, and we have to dispense with them in some fashion.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
07-20-2004, 12:46 PM | #37 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
This whole thing is bullshit. Out of all the people that are at Gitmo, surely some must be reletively or fully innocent. Taleban, AQ, or whatever the reasons for detaining them need to be clear. We should only be holding those who posess usefull knowledge or can be identified as credible threats to US security.
If we decide to use these sneaky tactics to keep them indefinitely we are no better than those we are fighting. |
07-20-2004, 02:14 PM | #38 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
Also keep in mind what we do to our prisoners sets a precidence for what the rest of the world does with theirs... What would happen if tomorrow China grabbed all American citizens and declared them all illegal combatants then put them in a prison with no trial and no defense. Then on top of that they informed no one of what they did and who they did it to. Now what if you were one of these people?
Yeah it is a lot of what ifs but all these what ifs are what has happend to the people in Gauntonimo. Some are guilty for sure but there is a good chance that some are not. Should we at least let these people defend their innocence? |
08-05-2004, 02:07 AM | #39 (permalink) | |
Like John Goodman, but not.
Location: SFBA, California
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ional/Americas
Quote:
It's strange that the lawyers dunno why the three were in Afghanistan, but their current freedom says something of it. |
|
Tags |
damn, dod, lost, mind, officially |
|
|