Rekna

So they were prisioners of war?

Mojo_PeiPei

He suspended it in 1861' & 62'

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

Sounds to me like lincoln was wrong to do what he did and SCOTUS agrees. So why do we want to allow Bush to do the same?

Mojo_PeiPei

To again reiterate, the president is delegated certain powers in time of war, therefore he isn't acting illegally.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

sounds like they ruled it illegal here.

It is our duty as citizens to speak out against this government and if such a time occurs that our government is no longer serving us we are to overthrow it and start a new government. When the president starts throwing our constitional rights out the window it has stopped serving us.

Mojo_PeiPei

Lincoln was acting Illegally, Bush is not. Habeas Corpus can be denied to illegal combatants, they are willing unlawful belligerents and as such they are subject to military control. As President, stated in the constitution, he is Commander in Chief of the millitary. As president, he is afforded the right to appoint Tribunals to those subject as party to military law, again read unlawful combatants.

I have yet to see any intrusion on my rights.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

But Mojo how do you know they are unlawful belligents. You are assumeing guilty until proven innocent only you are at the same time taking away the ability to be proven innocent. So you are simply assuming guilty.

Mojo_PeiPei

You are assuming that they are innocent because you dislike the administration. Chances are if they get picked up by the military, it was with reason, they know what they are doing, and it's not like they have vendettas to settle, hence the population of Gitmo is not alarmingly high.

There are what, under a thousand, 500ish (maybe) people being detained. For everyone of those people, how many do you suppose were in military custody and let go? How many hundreds? How many thousands? Since they aren't in custody there is nothing to write about, not like there is a way to know.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

No i'm assuming that there is a possibility of an innocent person being caught up in this. I am not assuming they all or a lot of them are innocent, only that some may be.

As for everyone picked up being guilty how about the 2 14 year old afgan farmer boys that were held in guantanamo and then finnaly let go after a year with no charges?

Mojo_PeiPei

Happens, what about people being released years after sentencing in our regular common law here in the states? If anything it should go to show that the military's system works for they are now free.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

I'm sorry I won't settle for "It happens" That is a bunch of bull. We need to do everything in our power to stop it from happening. We have checks and balances for a reason. Why are you so afraid to put these people on trial?

Mojo_PeiPei

I'm not afraid to put them on trial, all I'm saying is the system allows for the status quo. I know that all of these men will go before a judge to have there status decided, from there it is in Allah's hand.

This is a time of war, and there is an enemy out there. I would rather error on the side of caution when it comes to guys who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... where Al qaeda and Taliban suspects just happen to be.

Could anyone answer this one for me, have these guys been before Tribunals?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

host

On what basis do you assert that "this is a time of war"? Does a one day event that occurred in three specific domestic locales, 39 months ago,
apparently carried out by 19 now deceased individuals (although the Bushco
government has never confirmed the identities of the supposed perpetrators
to the american people.....see <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1495701&postcount=21">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1495701&postcount=21</a> ) with no assertion by the Bushco of any discernible, continued hostilities directed at the U.S. or it's interests, except in an unrelated incursion in Iraq?

My observation is that all we have seen from Bushco is "error" on the side of
deceit and incompetence. Here is just one quote referenced in the link above:
Your trust in Bushco is misplaced. Read the quote above and the quotes in
my post linked earlier and rebut my referenced points with some that result
from your own research.

My research provides a persuasive argument for those who rely on facts to
form opinion about matters as important as identifying real imminent threats
to our "freedom" and to our constitutional government. Through their own
words and actions, the Bushco represent a threat much greater in magnitude
to the bill of rights and to the constitution than do any of the declarations
of war or the "terrorist triggered", pathetic distractions bleated out at us in the form of color coded warnings by the Dept. of Homeland Security. All of
Bush's actions and rhetoric are designed to lull and distract us from resisting
the actual Bushco goals of solidifying power and wealth for themselves.

If you don't believe me, just listen to Ashcroft......war's over !!!!

Pacifier

The US tries again to use its newly created term "illegal combantant" to violate human right. But I'm not surprised.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Mephisto2

There's been an awful lot of hair-splitting over whether this is legal or not, whether the Constitution applies to non-citizens or not, whether these "enemy combatants" forfeited their rights (WTF?!!) or not, whether the CIA has freedom of action in the US or not and so on.

But there has not been much debate on whether this action is morally appropriate.

Hitler came to power via legal constitutional means. Hiding behind the law is no automatic defence that the actions are right and/or righteous.

What we have here is an abandonment of the values for which the United States used to stand. America has always been (until recently) a beacon for freedom, the rule of law, for "what is right" (rather than nitpickingly "legal") and has stood as a shining example of what a country can achieve when it embraces democracy and freedom.

Now, we have the same US simply bending, or breaking, these rules, these "shining examples" just because they don't suit the current Administration's policies.

You may argue it's legal (though many will argue otherwise.
I, however, will simply argue that it's wrong.

Slavey was legal once. Who here is going to defend that?



Mr Mephisto

roachboy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...382362,00.html

a guardian recap of the same questions tht prompted the thread, with a bit more context.

you would think that this kind of recourse to the features of martial law by the mayberry machiavellians would seriously hamper any attempt to spin american occupation or actions as being geared toward "democracy" in any meaningful sense.

what i find most curious in the conservative defenses of the bush people here is that this problem seems not to bother them. following a kind of crackhead legalism, the arguments are being floated that the suspension of the most basic legal/human rights in the name of the "war on terror" is not only legal, but just dandy. you even have mojo making kafkaesque arguments about the Law being drawn to the Guilty....one result is that i have no idea of the conception of "freedom" the right actually endorses.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

energus

Law does, in my opinio, not make right. There are several laws I find morally tainted at best (both in my own country and abroad). Whether legal or not I find this morally disgusting. To take away the basic right of being innocent until prove guilty is repulsing in my book.

However besides that, how would this work in normal society? If a police officer suspects you of being guilty can he hold you for as long as you draw breath?

I can not see any way someone with a decent core of moral values can take this as normal. If they are found guilty sentnce them and be done with it. But this is silly and not worthy of a nation with the esteem and values such as the USA.

__________________
Somnia, terrores magicos, miracula, sagas,
Nocturnus lemures, portentaque.
Horace

dksuddeth

I find it quite disconcerting that we are now taking a document that was originally intended to limit the governments authority over the nations citizens and reversing it to limit the citizens rights and freedoms it has over its government.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

pan6467

I was taught to believe in certain things about my country that are within inches of becoming fallacies and pipedreams. Before these laws pass Bush has to make sure that he gets rid of those pesky Libs on the SCOTUS. Which it looks like he shall be able to do.

1) ALL MEN are created equally and deserve to be treated equally, it doesn't just say "citizens" are created equally, or just "Christians" or whatever. And before anyone refutes that by saying the founding fathers did not include slaves in there....Yes, they did, slaves were entitled to trials and we amended our Constitution so that we eliminated any question, thereby making sure that the Constitution guaranteed ALL MEN equal rights under the law.

2) EVERY PERSON is innocent until PROVEN guilty. ALL MEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (EVEN SPIES (WALKER FAMILY), AND MILITARY).

This was the reason many MAFIA, such as Capone, Giancano, Luciano, Bonnano, Gambino, Lansky, Gotti, and so on, were able to stay out of prison as long as they did. We KNEW they were evil, we KNEW they killed, robbed, conspired, and took part of many crimes.... but we lacked evidence to prosecute. For Gotti, it took giving another evil man, Gravano, immunity. For Capone, it took a power struggle and MAFIA turning him over for income taxes. BUT with Lansky and Luciano we deported them because we never had "proof" to convict. ALL these men, no matter how evil, no matter how many they killed, extorted, maimed or bullied, WERE GIVEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ENJOYED BY ALL MEN.

3) The US MUST BE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS IF WE ARE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW OTHER COUNTRIES THE VALUE OF FREEDOMS AND EQUALITY.

Sounds to me like the Bush administration got rid of any CIA that may oppose their plans and those plans are to tromple and destroy the 3 canons of the American justice that I was taught so firmly to believe in. And to say that a Bush stacked Supreme Court would disallow and call any law he passes denying those rights unConstitutional, is a pipedream and an excuse to let it happen, so that you don't have to worry about it.

McCarthy tried to do the same thing, and unless, you are Ann Coulteresque, you agree with the vast majority, that McCarthy was totally nuts, paranoid and had too much power.

It was very wrong in WACO and Ruby Ridge (even though we offered them fair trials and they refused to surrender), and most of you Conservatives slammed Clinton for what happened, yet you are now willing to say, that this is ok.

We are not a perfect country and we make mistakes, but what is being proposed is wrong, evil and the beginning of our ending. Look how some of you are so quick to defend and support these laws. WHY? Are you truly that scared of terrorism? If that is the case, is not holding people without a fair trial cause for anger, hatred and the making for more hostility. Would it not be better to show how our system works and perhaps, win back the respect of other countries that would be willing to help in this "War on Terrorism".

Because what we are going to do is promote more terrorism and bully enough countries into hating us and supporting the terrorist over us. (But then again some of you are so truly egotistical that you believe like Bush and his goons, that we do not need any other countries to help us.)

Do you notice that most of the countries that pledged to help us in Iraq are still trying to overcome the effects of the Iron Curtain and have few rights for their citzenry yet? And those countries that are more free, and preach equality are more vocal against our being there?

We are planning to make a very HUGE mistake. The people need to stand up before the old WW2 addage truly becomes a present day US addage: (amended to present day)

First, they came for the Muslems, saying they had no rights for they were terrorists. I was not Muslem and believed them so I said nothing.

Then, they came for Arabs, saying that they were all terrorists. I was not Arab, again I believed and I said nothing.

Then they came after Liberals and free thinkers, saying they belonged to militias and plotted against the State. I was not a Liberal and from all sources I listened to the State was right.

They came after my friends, who just passed petitions around to end what they believed to be wrongful detentions and said they were dissidents and part of the underground that wanted to destroy the State. I believed them because I was happy, the State was eliminating all threats agianst my liberties and lifestyle.

But then they came for me, saying I was on one of those lists and a friend of a dissident. I cried for help and my rights, but there was noone left to help me, for they believed as I once did, this would never happen in the USA.

(PS: FOR THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE CIA ONLY HANDLES EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE FBI AND HOMELAND SECURITY HANDLE THE INTERNAL... THAT IS BECOMING A MYTH NOW. THEY ARE ALL COMBINING AND BECOMING THE "POLICE FORCE OF THE NATION".)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Very true, very very true.

PS love your sig.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

That was one hell of a post, pan. My hat is off to you.

Manx

This is straight up guilty until proven innocent, and as Rekna said, with that added aspect that all means of proving innocence are eliminated.

Assuming they are innocent? Most certainly!

Chances are? You're taking away lives over your perception of some ethereal chance?

Mojo_PeiPei

First off Pacifier again you couldn't be more wrong, the term illegal combatant has merit dating back over 100 years to the treaty at Hague. Secondly as far as America and it's usage goes has precedents dating back to the 40's in dealing with Nazi spies.

Pan.
1) Slaves were considered property, most of the time it was by consent of their master that they were able to be put on trial. Dred Scott???

2) All men may have the right to a fair trial, doesn't mean they are allowed Habeas Corpus or trial by peers or jury, if they are illegal combatants or legal combatants they are subject to Executive/military power.

And comparing Gitmo to Hitler's Germany, nice. Again no one has showed me any evidence of an average American citizen who was not determined to be an illegal combatant that has been detained indefinitly.

And lastly Host I assert that this is or was a time of war in that Congress gave approval to President Bush, Commander-in-Chief of the Military of the United States, to wage military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

So all men are given a right to a fair trial then why can we hold "illegal combatants" to be held indefinatly without a trial?

Mojo_PeiPei

Because they are subject to military law, not common law.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

that makes no sense... Here is the thing every person is equal. No one should be placed above another. An american citizen should be valued no higher than any forgiegner. We should not place ourselfs on pedistools. If we start to think of ourselfs as better than others then we are arrogant and egotistical. To say we deserve something but someone else doesn't is silly. And the people who are pushing the hardest for this (the conservitives) should understand this the best because it is what the bible teaches us. Humble yourself or God will humble you. Mathew 20 1-13 is a great example of equality in God's eyes. While I don't expect people who don't believe in God to follow my last few statements I do expect anyone who calls themself a christian to.

Mojo_PeiPei

Rekna, it has nothing to do with placing someone over anyone else.

One last time since you really don't seem to be grasping this concept. These guys were apprehended by the military, after congress gave consent to the president for military action. As a result they are subject to the law of the military, not common civil law such as myself or you. Furthermore in time of war the President is afforded certain rights by the constitution, such as appointment of tribunals, hence these guys could never see the inside of a proper courtroom and it would be perfectly legal.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Manx

Mojo_PeiPei, your position, and the position of the White House could not be more deplorable. Dozens and dozens of people detained in Gitmo have been released (after years of detention with no communication with anyone outside) because they were innocent. The position of the White House from the begining has been that these people were defacto denied Habeous Corpus because they were not on U.S. soil. SCOTUS found that to be a crock, and forced the Executive to begin trials to determine status - i.e. the people ARE NOT illegal enemy combatants (whatever THAT means).

So your position that it is acceptable that they are held indefintely is false.

And let's not forget Hamdi - a U.S. citizen, held for two years under the guise of an "Enemy Combatant" for which the SCOTUS (all with the exception of the neo-nazi Thomas) determined was illegal. Eventually forced to renounce his citizenship and accept deportation.

Your justification for the classification "Enemy Combatant" is also weak. Simply because there is historical precedent does not make it acceptable today. There is historical precedent for slavery, historical precedent for the disenfranchisement of women - historical precedent does not equal justifiable.

But really, this is all OBVIOUS. And the fact that it even recieves the debate that people like you require is astoundlingly sad.

Mojo_PeiPei

Illegal combatant is a legal binding status. It is applicable to asshats like Al Qaeda who are not a regular sanctioned state army who engage in combat. You dismissal of it because of historical precedents is ridiculous, the term has merit because we ratified it in treaties for the laws of war both foreign and domestic.

Secondly, great I'm glad that men determined to be innocent have been sent free. It sucks that it took years, but the process is different because again THEY ARE SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, IT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BALL GAME THEN COMMON CIVIL LAW.

As far as the SCOTUS putting the status to trial is nothing new. Again I refer to Ex parte Quirin, the samething happened. The SCOTUS found it was acceptable to deny them Habeas Corpus because as unlawful enemy belligerents, they had no claim to it in the name of common defence, something the president and congress are afforded through the constitution.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

Mojo and you are missing my point. Nothing should give any country the right to kidnap innocent people from their native land, transport them accross the world, and hold them in secret. The fact that there has been innocent people who this has happend to shows that the system doesn't work. If these people were granted rights to attorneys and a defense right away they would not have spent 2 years in there having God knows what happen to them.

I'm saddend by the fact that you think this is acceptable actions. If China came to US soil and took some of our citizens, didn't tell anyone, and didn't let them talk to anyone. Then held them for years. All the while questioning/interrogating/torturing them to gather information how would the US react?

Willravel

Mojo, you are yet to reveal your MORAL, ETHICAL, and PHILOSOPHICAL beliefs on this. After all, what are laws but representations of what we believe to be right, fair, and true?

Unless you are a beliver in legal positivism, or see the law as having developed independently of morality, from rules created by political leaders and law-makers whose authority has been accepted in the past.

Fourtyrulz

pan6467,

Long days and pleasant nights to you wordslinger! I would find it hard to justify Mojo's position after reading your post, but you've got to respect him for not losing his cool (which could happen easily in this environment ) and always coming back with a provoking argument.

Hats off to you both!!!

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Mojo_PeiPei

We were openly attacked on 9-11, it was an act of war. The Taliban was party to that war by siding with Al Qaeda. When we LEGALLY declared war and wiped the floor with those fucks, we had every right to take those deemed illegal out of there. Notice how the majority of those we combated with are still in Afghanistan, yeah those are the treaties of Geneva and Hague at work, the proper legal warriors were afforded POW status, as a result they weren't trekked half way across the world boo fucking hoo by the way because many of those in Gitmo were foreign terrorists to begin with.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

Mojo if we legally declared war on them wouldn't that make them prisoners of war?

Fourtyrulz

Surely that alone is proof that Bush's tired line about fighting terrorists in Iraq is all a lie. You can't say the terrorists are hiding in the outlying countries now because they were in Afghanistan and Iran to begin with!

Besides, who are we to cross oceans with guns and deem people illegal?

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Mojo_PeiPei

Ask any legal or moral authority, they will tell you Afghanistan was a legal moral miltary campaign, it was legally and morally justified. That is why we are allowed to go over there, we deem people illegal who don't fit this (legal vs. illegal)

Hague Convention of 1899

Or better yet the interpreters of the constitution, the SCOTUS

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

so what it looks like is that you, mojo, are comfortable with a state of emergency and its legal consequences, which would include the suspension of basic civil liberties? a state of war is a state of emergency, is it not?
you are also aware that the use and abuse of the state of emergency is an old favorite of authoritarian regimes that rise up from within whatever you prefer to call regime like the american....
this linkage---state of emergency and authoritarian rule--is worked out theoretically by carl schmitt (amongst others, but schmitt is the most prominent these days, for some reason)---it has a long history. even if you accept the arguments for suspension of civil liberties following from a state of emergency (which i have extreme trouble doing myself) you must be aware of the sorry history of this move and maybe on the basis of that regard the whole of it with suspicion.

or are you in fact not bothered by this?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mojo_PeiPei

When I said that they are still in Afghanistan, I was saying how they weren't taken to Gitmo, as in they are in prisons in Afghanistan. Iraq has little to do with this.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

When my civil liberties have been suspended, I will be alarmed. Our civil liberties are not afforded to terrorists, hell I am of the school that thinks they are not even afforded in the same way to foreign citizens, that is a different arguement.

No I am not comfortable with a state of emergency, but since that isn't the case in America, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

We were attacked on 9/11. According to the release to the press, 12 al-Qaeda members hijacked planes and slammed them into the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon. All conspiracy arguments aside (as they would not serve any purpous in this duscussion), that's all we really know for sure. We don't know who planned the attacks (anyone who says they do is full of shit), we don't know who in the al-Qaeda supported or even knew about the attacks. There are over 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. How many of them were involved with 9/11? How many people who will be laying in the 200 bed prison do you think were involved?

You can't keep pulling the 9/11 card. They tried to pull the 9/11 card for Iraq. That didn't fly and neither will this.

EDIT: America can't go to war with terror. We can use our military to try and stop cells and disarm terrorist groups, but there is no leagal declairation of war against an ideal.