Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Terrorism suspects may be held forever

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Terrorism suspects may be held forever (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/79989-terrorism-suspects-may-held-forever.html)

Terrorism suspects may be held forever

Quote:

Terrorism suspects may be detained forever
By Dana Priest in Washington
January 3, 2005

Bush Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the US or other countries.

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counter-terrorism operations.

A senior Administration official involved in the discussions said the current detention system has strained US relations with other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into new US-built jails in their home countries. These would be operated by those countries but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognised human rights standards and would monitor compliance.

In addition, the Pentagon, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $US25 million ($32 million) to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely ever to go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence. The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners who the US Government believes have no more intelligence to share. It would be modelled on an American jail and allow socialising among inmates.

"Since the global war on terror is a long-term effort, it makes sense for us to be looking at solutions for long-term problems," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "We are at a point in time where we have to say, 'How do you deal with them in the long term?"'

The Administration considers its toughest detention problem to involve the prisoners held by the CIA. The CIA has been scurrying since September 11, 2001, to find secure locations abroad where it could detain and interrogate captives without risk of discovery, and without having to give them access to legal proceedings.

Little is known about the CIA's captives, the conditions under which they are kept or the procedures used to decide how long they are held or when they may be freed. That has prompted criticism from human rights groups, and from some in Congress and the Administration, who say the lack of scrutiny or oversight creates an unacceptable risk of abuse.

The CIA is believed to be holding most, if not all, of the senior captured al-Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida and the leading South-East Asia figure Hambali.

Places of detention include Afghanistan, ships at sea and Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean.

The Washington Post
REF:http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Ter...601243473.html

What do you think about this? It seems to me to be a bit unfair to hold people forever, when it "does not have enough evidence to charge [them] in courts."

I'm also confused as to how they could even ensure this would happen. What would stop a later President from simply over-ruling Bush's decision as too draconian?

Either way, I hope it doesn't eventuate as I believe it wouldn't solve much and could be used by America's enemies as an excellent example of its hypocracy and double-dealing; which of course, it would be.

Mr Mephisto

Seems like more of the continuing trend where every right a person has in this country is being appended with a footnote: "Unless we think your a terrorist". Its a bit troublesome to me. We have created a new class of criminal that exists outside the normal safeguards that are built into justice system. Safeguards that are there to protect inocent people from abuse. Successfully classify someone as a terrorist, and they have no rights left, whether you have proof or not.

They don't have to append that footnote if the patriot act 2 goes forward. They will just say you are no longer a citizen and then you loose all your rights.

This is bullshit. Guess what? American citizens can be arrested and heald under this. Remember when we used to have a Constitution and Bill of Rights? I sure miss those.

It's called checks and balances guys, SCOTUS. Every suspect will be given a hearing to determine there status, where it goes from there...

Also willravel why don't you take that bullshit to paranoia because it is simply not true. This situation with gitmo and "illegal combatants" has precedents dating back more then +150 years. If you read up on the history of it, as well as the context and old cases you would know how it is possible for these guys to be held in such a fashion.

Maybe you guys should invest more in reality and less in Orwellian fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Seems like more of the continuing trend where every right a person has in this country is being appended with a footnote: "Unless we think your a terrorist". Successfully classify someone as a terrorist, and they have no rights left, whether you have proof or not.

It's like the witchcraft trials, really.

"Witch! Wiiiiiitch!!!!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

"American citizens can be arrested and heald under this." So this isn't true? Have you seen a copy of the request from the CIA and the Pentagon, yet? Or are you just assuming that I am a crazy paranoid Orwellian? If you say I'm brining "bullshit" to the table, you had better be able to back it up (otherwise, you're attack is baseless). There are several reported members of the al-Qaeda who are officially American citizens. That means that, yes, American citizens can be arrested and heald under this. The "Orwellian" part of this is just how far this rule can and will be applied.

"...hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." What does this mean? This means that someone who aparently can't be convicted can be guilty before being given the chance to be proven innocent. There is not enough evidence to prove that they are guilty, so they might actually be innocent. Possibly innocent people being heald indefinatally. That's the bottom line.

EDIT: I will not apologize or be spoken down to because of my posts in Paranoia. There is a reason I post some of my stuff there. Everything in Paranoia is considered just that, paranoia. When people post in Politics, however, we should be shown the same respect as anyone else. When you stop being respectful in TFP, you cheapen it. Please don't cheapen TFP.

paragraph two from Mophisto's article-

Quote:

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counter-terrorism operations.

Toal bull shit. Not enough evidence to go to court, so we let them rot in prison?

If the American people had a half a nut in their pants, they would bustin' these guys out themselves. Read that last sentence. Your grandkids will thank you for your kind consideration.

How the hell does any society, culture and even nation degrade to the point where it collapses? Just like this. Small steps that seem harmless when enacted, but eventually grow out control. Laws are not often removed from the books, so don't think a repeal will be forth coming. If this goes through we are fucked! We are seeing history take place here, folks. Open your eyes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's called checks and balances guys, SCOTUS. Every suspect will be given a hearing to determine there status, where it goes from there...

Quote:

In addition, the Pentagon, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $US25 million ($32 million) to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely ever to go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence.

There is no mention of sending them through a hearing here. It does however specifically mention not going through a tribunal because they have no evidence.

Dismiss it as orewellian finction if you must but I don't take my freedoms so lightly. I don't believe anyone should be denied the rights to a fair trial. Love your enemy as yourself. Now ask yourself if you were one of the people being held indefinatlly what would you want?

no one is above the law, no one is below it.

this is all shades of wrong.

Even worse - most, if not all, of these guys at Guatanamo were fighting in Irag and Afghanistan. Since when do we have any right taking people from their home land, or even from the lands of another, moving them elsewhere and detaining them at all. Under what circumstances where these guys fighting? Doesn't everyone have the moral right, even the obligation to shape their country into that which they believe to be right and just?

I'm not saying bad guys don't exist, but it is a fucking war for God's sake. If these guys are so dangerous why are they even here? Shouldn't their blood be food for poppies and their bodies nothing but ashes blowing across the Afghan desert?

I wonder how long it is before some of our troops get deemed illegal combatants by other nations and as such are denied the geneva conventions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I wonder how long it is before some of our troops get deemed illegal combatants by other nations and as such are denied the geneva conventions.

Right on.

Stuff like this is the reason I was afraid Bush would be reelected.

Ok guys chill out and put 1984 down.

The CIA is relegated to only externalk affairs. They dont have any authority inside the US.

Do you think that stops them from acting within the US? What is stopping the US government from transfering you from custody in the US to custody outside of the US?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The CIA is relegated to only externalk affairs. They dont have any authority inside the US.

Do you seriousally believe this?

I think alot of you guys are definitly(sp) over reacting. Read up on the delegation of powers as laid out by our constitution, everything the Bush Administration is legal.

You know why they are able to hold those American citizens in Gitmo without Habeas Corpus? Because of there combat status, they forfeited their rights, I've posted it here before, here it is again...

Quote:

PER CURIAM.

In these causes motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942....

The Court holds:

(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.... T

Mr. Justice MURPHY took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases are brought here by petitioners' several applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court...The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.

In view of the public importance of the questions raised by their petitions and of the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty, and because in our opinion the public interest required that we consider and decide those questions without any avoidable delay, we directed that petitioners' applications be set down for full oral argument at a special term of this Court, convened on July 29, 1942. The applications for leave to file the petitions were presented in open court on that day and were heard on the petitions, the answers to them of respondent, a stipulation of facts by counsel, and the record of the testimony given before the Commission....

The following facts appear from the petitions or are stipulated. Except as noted they are undisputed.

All the petitioners were born in Germany; all have lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship. For reasons presently to be stated we do not find it necessary to resolve these contentions. After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, petitioners received training at a sabotage school near Berlin, Germany, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing. Thereafter petitioners, with a German citizen, Dasch, proceeded from Germany to a seaport in Occupied France, where petitioners Burger, Heinck and Quirin, together with Dasch, boarded a German submarine which proceeded across the Atlantic to Amagansett Beach on Long Island, New York. The four were there landed from the submarine in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942, carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices. While landing they wore German Marine Infantry uniforms or parts of uniforms. Immediately after landing they buried their uniforms and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City.

The remaining four petitioners at the same French port boarded another German submarine, which carried them across the Atlantic to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness wearing caps of the German Marine Infantry and carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses, and incendiary and timing devices. They immediately buried their caps and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to Jacksonville, Florida, and thence to various points in the United States. All were taken into custody in New York or Chicago by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at the sabotage school and had received substantial sums in United States currency, which were in their possession when arrested. The currency had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States.

The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation, the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.

The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts.

Pursuant to direction of the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation surrendered custody of petitioners to respondent, Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who was directed by the Secretary of War to receive and keep them in custody, and who thereafter held petitioners for trial before the Commission.

On July 3, 1942, the Judge Advocate General's Department of the Army prepared and lodged with the Commission the following charges against petitioners, supported by specifications:

1. Violation of the law of war.

2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.

3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.

4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.

The Commission met on July 8, 1942, and proceeded with the trial, which continued in progress while the causes were pending in this Court. On July 27th, before petitioners' applications to the District Court, all the evidence for the prosecution and the defense had been taken by the Commission and the case had been closed except for arguments of counsel. It is conceded that ever since petitioners' arrest the state and federal courts in Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia, and in the states in which each of the petitioners was arrested or detained, have been open and functioning normally....

Petitioners' main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses. In any case it is urged that the President's Order, in prescribing the procedure of the Commission and the method for review of its findings and sentence, and the proceedings of the Commission under the Order, conflict with Articles of War adopted by Congress-particularly Articles 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70-and are illegal and void.
The Government challenges each of these propositions. But regardless of their merits, it also insists that petitioners must be denied access to the courts, both because they are enemy aliens or have entered our territory as enemy belligerents, and because the President's Proclamation undertakes in terms to deny such access to the class of persons defined by the Proclamation, which aptly describes the character and conduct of petitioners. It is urged that if they are enemy aliens or if the Proclamation has force no court may afford the petitioners a hearing. But there is certainly nothing in the Proclamation to preclude access to the courts for determining its applicability to the particular case. And neither the Proclamation nor the fact that they are enemy aliens forecloses consideration by the courts of petitioners' contentions that the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutionally enacted forbid their trial by military commission. As announced in our per curiam opinion we have resolved those questions by our conclusion that the Commission has jurisdiction to try the charge preferred against petitioners. There is therefore no occasion to decide contentions of the parties unrelated to this issue. We pass at once to the consideration of the basis of the Commission's authority.

We are not here concerned with any question of the guilt or innocence of petitioners. Constitutional safeguards for the protection of all who are charged with offenses are not to be disregarded in order to inflict merited punishment on some who are guilty. But the detention and trial of petitioners-ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and of grave public danger-are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted.

Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution. But one of the objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to 'provide for the common defence'. As a means to that end the Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'provide for the common Defence', Art. I, 8, cl. 1; 'To raise and support Armies', 'To provide and maintain a Navy', Art. I, 8, cls. 12, 13; and 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces', Art. I, 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water', Art. I, 8, cl. 11; and 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations', Art. I, 8, cl. 10. And finally the Constitution authorizes Congress 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Art. I, 8, cl. 18.

The Constitution confers on the President the 'executive Power', Art II, 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. Art. II, 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, 3, cl. 1.

The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.
By the Articles of War, Congress has provided rules for the government of the Army. It has provided for the trial and punishment, by courts martial, of violations of the Articles by members of the armed forces and by specified classes of persons associated or serving with the Army. But the Articles also recognize the 'military commission' appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court martial. Articles 38 and 46 authorize the President, with certain limitations, to prescribe the procedure for military commissions. Articles 81 and 82 authorize trial, either by court martial or military commission, of those charged with relieving, harboring or corresponding with the enemy and those charged with spying. And Article 15 declares that 'the provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions ... or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions ... or other military tribunals'. Article 2 includes among those persons subject to military law the personnel of our own military establishment. But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals' and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article 15 by military commission....
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war his invoked that law. By his Order creating the present Commission he has undertaken to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Congress, and also such authority as the Constitution itself gives the Commander in Chief, to direct the performance of those functions which may constitutionally be performed by the military arm of the nation in time of war.

An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions. We are concerned only with the question whether it is within the constitutional power of the national government to place petitioners upon trial before a military commission for the offenses with which they are charged. We must therefore first inquire whether any of the acts charged is an offense against the law of war cognizable before a military tribunal, and if so whether the Constitution prohibits the trial. We may assume that there are acts regarded in other countries, or by some writers on international law, as offenses against the law of war which would not be triable by military tribunal here, either because they are not recognized by our courts as violations of the law of war or because they are of that class of offenses constitutionally triable only by a jury. It was upon such grounds that the Court denied the right to proceed by military tribunal in Ex parte Milligan, supra. But as we shall show, these petitioners were charged with an offense against the law of war which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury.

It is no objection that Congress in providing for the trial of such offenses has not itself undertaken to codify that branch of international law or to mark its precise boundaries, or to enumerate or define by statute all the acts which that law condemns....Congress had the choice of crystallizing in permanent form and in minute detail every offense against the law of war, or of adopting the system of common law applied by military tribunals so far as it should be recognized and deemed applicable by the courts. It chose the latter course.

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution, and during the Mexican and Civil Wars....

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.

Specification 1 of the First charge is sufficient to charge all the petitioners with the offense of unlawful belligerency, trial of which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the admitted facts affirmatively show that the charge is not merely colorable or without foundation.

Specification 1 states that petitioners 'being enemies of the United States and acting for ... the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United States ... and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress ... for the purpose of committing ... hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States'.

This specification so plainly alleges violation of the law of war as to require but brief discussion of petitioners' contentions. As we have seen, entry upon our territory in time of war by enemy belligerents, including those acting under the direction of the armed forces of the enemy, for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war, is a hostile and war-like act. It subjects those who participate in it without uniform to the punishment prescribed by the law of war for unlawful belligerents. It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States.... The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces. By passing our boundaries for such purposes without uniform or other emblem signifying their belligerent status, or by discarding that means of identification after entry, such enemies become unlawful belligerents subject to trial and punishment.
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.

Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations. The argument leaves out of account the nature of the offense which the Government charges and which the Act of Congress, by incorporating the law of war, punishes. It is that each petitioner, in circumstances which gave him the status of an enemy belligerent, passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose. The offense was complete when with that purpose they entered-or, having so entered, they remained upon-our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification. For that reason, even when committed by a citizen, the offense is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other.

But petitioners insist that even if the offenses with which they are charged are offenses against the law of war, their trial is subject to the requirement of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and that such trials must be by jury in a civil court...In the light of this long-continued and consistent interpretation we must conclude that Section 2 of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be taken to have extended the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission, or to have required that offenses against the law of war not triable by jury at common law be tried only in the civil courts....We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.

Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement of this Court in the Milligan case that the law of war 'can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed'. Elsewhere in its opinion, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan, a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts before it. From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as-in circumstances found not there to be present and not involved here-martial law might be constitutionally established.

The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the present record. We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission....

Also willravel, I apologize for the way my statement came out, sincerely. But perhaps you could show me documentation of an average American such as myself or you, has been arrested by secret police in the middle of the night never to be heard from again. You guys constantly say how there are all these erosions, show me a case that doesn't involve an illegal combatant.

The supreme court also came up with the Dred Scott Decisions. This idea of the white house is out being tested, like a nation wide focus group, if we don't object now, this may come about. Remember this is the same white house that said some torture is ok...

But what if some of these guys weren't fighting mojo? What if they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time? Did they forfit anything?

Just because SCOTUS says something is Constitutional doesn't make it so. This is the same court that gave us Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scott. The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

Detained because they don't have evidence to prove guilt. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It's not "guilty until proven innocent".

As for this being for "illegal combatants" and possible terrorists, I believe that they are just doing it this way to get the public used to this kind of action, so when they start doing it more often it isn't just one sudden step that gets people up in arms.

i do not see much paranoia in the reactions in this thread against this move on the part of the bush squad.

what i do see is an attempt to use tried and true conservative "argument" tactics, which tries to dismiss an uncomfortable interpretation of something done by a republican by labelling it pathological.

what seems to underpin these tactics in this case is the assumption that it makes sense to trust the bush administration.
why in gods name would anyone do that?
the reasons not to do so are legion: start with the arguments floated to justify the war and move in any direction...supporters of the administration might not enjoy the fact that there is every reason not to trust george w bush, but the fact remains that it is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt relative to an administration that has shown real contempt for the public, for the international community, and for existing law.

the paranoia talk does nothing in this context except perhaps to point to a certain level of hysteria amongst supporters of the war on this matter...hysteria that would probably be unnecessary if the arguments behind their positions were strong. so far, they are other than totally convincing.

Quote:

The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

You're right. Because the Consitution only applies to Citizens, with certain exemptions for those allowed in the US legally.

The constitution mskes no reference to "enemy combatants", However isn't this still America?, Land of the free... example for the world. Strange way to exhibit our freedoms to the world, by restricting those freedoms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

You guys constantly say how there are all these erosions, show me a case that doesn't involve an illegal combatant.

This one involves a Canadian citizen. This man was detained in New York, then sent to a Syrian prison for a year because the U.S said he was Al Queda.

Now the Canadian government is withholding info and the Americans have washed their hands as to why they deported a Canadian citizen from U.S soil in the first place.

Rights? Pretty fucking scary when someone is falsely accused of something and tortured for it. And this is only public because his wife had the gumption to keep the pressure on daily to work for his release and subsequent inquiry( although that is a coverup as well)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar

http://maherarar.ca/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

You're right. Because the Consitution only applies to Citizens, with certain exemptions for those allowed in the US legally.

ok time for me to rehash this missconception again

Quote:

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

All men, not all citizens

Quote:

Amendment XIV

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

any person, not any citizen

Quote:

mendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

A speedy trial would require a trial of some sort wouldn't it?

Seaver:
Please point out to me where the Constitution states that Constitutional protections are only to be applied to citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The Constitution makes no exception for "Enemy Combatants."

Actually it does, because they don't have American citizenship. Also, if you think that the American constitution applys to all, all the "illegal war" rhetoric would be wrong; the American congress voted for it so that should be the last word.

And as for the suspects, honestly I don't really care about what rights they might have deprived. It allows the US government to eliminate people who are dangerous to the citizens. I have no sympathy for them, and I honestly think this is a good first step. This is the first time that America has faced a true threat against its citizens, and we are feeling our way through dealing with it. Of course we take them from their countries, because if and when they would choose to come themselves, it'll be with a bomb strapped to their body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Actually it does, because they don't have American citizenship.

Please see my post above

Once again:
Please show me where the Constitution states that its' protections are only to be had by Citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Please see my post above

I read your post, the first quote was from the declaration of independance, which isn't a legal document. In the second, the bolded section is obviously refering to American citizenry as the earlier statements show. Honestly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the AMERICAN constitution would apply to non-americans.

no alan it says any person, (notice the semi colon?) it is not refering to citizenship at all. As for the decleration of independence it is there to show the intent of our forefathers to give you a context when reading other legal documents from that period. This topic has been rehashed so many times on this forum.

As passed down by the Supreme Court, the body that interprets the constitution.

Quote:

Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution. But one of the objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to 'provide for the common defence'. As a means to that end the Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'provide for the common Defence', Art. I, 8, cl. 1; 'To raise and support Armies', 'To provide and maintain a Navy', Art. I, 8, cls. 12, 13; and 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces', Art. I, 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water', Art. I, 8, cl. 11; and 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations', Art. I, 8, cl. 10. And finally the Constitution authorizes Congress 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Art. I, 8, cl. 18.

The Constitution confers on the President the 'executive Power', Art II, 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. Art. II, 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, 3, cl. 1.

The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.
By the Articles of War, Congress has provided rules for the government of the Army. It has provided for the trial and punishment, by courts martial, of violations of the Articles by members of the armed forces and by specified classes of persons associated or serving with the Army. But the Articles also recognize the 'military commission' appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court martial. Articles 38 and 46 authorize the President, with certain limitations, to prescribe the procedure for military commissions. Articles 81 and 82 authorize trial, either by court martial or military commission, of those charged with relieving, harboring or corresponding with the enemy and those charged with spying. And Article 15 declares that 'the provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions ... or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions ... or other military tribunals'. Article 2 includes among those persons subject to military law the personnel of our own military establishment. But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals' and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article 15 by military commission....
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war his invoked that law. By his Order creating the present Commission he has undertaken to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Congress, and also such authority as the Constitution itself gives the Commander in Chief, to direct the performance of those functions which may constitutionally be performed by the military arm of the nation in time of war.

Mojo please point out where that passage says we can hold people without a trial? Everything in that passage refers to granting trials/tribunals not holding people forever without granting them trials.

Just to expand for you alan

Quote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Notice the subject that the law is being applied is the citizens.

[Quote]
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
[/Qnote]
Now notice this time the subject is "any person"

Quote:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finnally we once again have any person.

Now ask yourself a question. Have we become so arogant that we believe that we deserve more rights than everyone else? Isn't this the reason our forefathers created this nation in the first reason? (See the decleration of independence)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Actually it does, that is the powers that were delegated to the SCOTUS. I Think you would be more accurate in saying just because the SCOTUS says something is legal, doesn't make it moral, there is a big difference. Not to sound rude, but this was probably one of the more ridiculous and false statements I have ever read here on the board.

Also the constitution does make exception for enemy combatants through various articles of war and treaties that were passed as law by our great country, as well as powers delegated to the POTUS whether they be in time of peace or war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I suppose Lincoln was evil like Bush when in trying to preserve the Union he suspended Habeas Corpus and had over 1,000 American citizens detained.

I am not familiar with that specific part of history. Explain more. I guess it depends on what is meant by detained. How long were they held for? Did they get trials or where they held till they died?

Quote:

Lincoln enacted nationwide Martial Law. And they were detained until the end of the war.

So they were prisioners of war?

He suspended it in 1861' & 62'

Quote:

Here's the story:

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

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?

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

Quote:

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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:

Quote:

04-19-02 FBI Director Mueller said, "The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot" <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm">http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm</a>

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 !!!!

Quote:

“The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved,” <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6446454/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6446454/</a>

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

Quote:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

[...]

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Very true, very very true.

PS love your sig.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

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?

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.

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 :D ) and always coming back with a provoking argument.

Hats off to you both!!!

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.

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

Quote:

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

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?

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)

Quote:

Those terms thus divide people in a warzone into two classes, each of which is further subdivided into two. There are first armies and militias and then those not in armies and militias. Those in armies and militias have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. The distinction of combatant and non-combatant is then applied. Those in armies and militias, whether combatant or non-combatant have the right to be treated as prisoners of war. An army chaplain or doctor is a non-combatant, whereas an ordinary soldier is a combatant. For those outside of armies and militias, by convention known as civilians, the right of being treated as a prisoner of war does not apply. However, the definition of combatant then becomes critical. A civilian who is a non-combatant is not eligible for the protections of prisoner of war status, but is eligible for protection under other statutes. Those are, for example, not being deliberately targetted by military action and other traditional protections. A civilian who is a combatant on the other hand has neither the protection of being able to be a prisoner of war, nor the protection of being a civilian non-combatant.

Hague Convention of 1899

Or better yet the interpreters of the constitution, the SCOTUS

Quote:

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

It will fly, because we know Al Qaeda was involved in 9-11, OBL being the man behind it. The Taliban gave material aid and comfort to an enemy of America, that's why we were justified for going in there, they were party to an act of war against the United States of America. It's not about 9-11, I didn't try and make it be, I inferred 9-11 because it gives context to everything that happened after the fact. As for the 500 who weren't part of 9-11, which I don't argue, they were party to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, they were accessories, they are therefore culpable because of their actions after we were on the ground in Afghanistan, again nothing to do with 9-11.

Mojo,

I believe all Dred Scott proved was that slaves were property. They were still afforded trials, as were free black men. Doesn't mean those trials were more than a prejudiced jury that was ready for a lynching, BUT they were allowed trials in most cases.

As for your arguments on terrorists, Luciano and Lansky were far far more dangerous and created far more havoc in the US during their day than any of those supposed "terrorists" we hold now. Hell, the Columbians, Russians and gangs are doing far worse things to our country today than any terrorist can dream of. Yet we afford those organized crime figures rights.

It's one thing to argue they are legally being held because of some war, it is another to prove it. Which our government is saying they do not have to do.

Therefore, the government can hold ANYONE they deem as a terrorist with no proof for as long as they like. I'm sorry that is wrong. If we are holding them because they are terrorists then where is our proof? OOO the same government that lied about why we went into Iraq and would change the lie every time the previous one was found to be a lie, says these people are terrorists and we should recognize our virtuous sinless all knowing always right government and have groups where these people can have rights.... but that group over there has no rights at all.

Why not just deport these people back to their home countries? Why are we going to spend millions of our tax dollars to house and feed these people for the rest of their lives. (Or until the Cubans decide they truly don't want us there and start a skirmish and free those hostages.)

Mojo, the argument you make, makes no justification for what we are and what we plan to do. Granted, we have not yet heard of any "US" citizen being held yet, but we have seen a party claim the other unpatriotic, and rile up enough right winged whacks to start movements against speaking out against Bush, peacefully demonstrating against the government, and so on. ALL RIGHTS GUARANTED TO US (CITIZENS ONLY, IF YOU LIKE) BY THE US CONSTITUTION. Hell, I have seen posts on this board that have said in perhaps different words but the meaning is very much the same: "if you disagree with the president and MY politics and our views, then you aid and comfort the terrorists and therefore you are guilty of treason"

It is just a matter of time before WE DO start throwing our innocent neighbors we grew up with in prisons, simply for speaking out and using the rights GUARANTEED THEM.

This is a slippery slope MOJO, once we start sliding down it, we end in the sewer. The madness has to end now, and the recognition that ALL MEN have equal rights needs to be preserved and upheld, or we become no better than the evil we fight.

Actually, we become worse than the evil we fight, because we are showing ourselves to be hypocritical.

how do you know that though mojo? How do you know some of them wern't in the wrong place at the wrong time? Give them a trail is all i'm saying. Either you can prove they are an enemy or you can't if you can't then let them go.

It takes more then unsubstantiated rhetoric and hypotheticals to convince me guys, sorry, I'm done with this "debate".

i understand (but do not agree with) the arguments that you have put forward, mojo, but i confess that i am confused by the underlying position you work from.

i assume that you do not feel that the category of terrorist could at any point be turned on yourself or anyone close to you: which i assume means that you are not yourself a member of any of the groups that bushworld has designated (in pragmatic terms) a priori "suspect" not are connected to anyone who is--i can assure you that if your situation were otherwise, you would view this kind of move askance.

second, you seem to have a touching faith in the bush administration itself--that it is competent, that it is acting in the context of a "war on terror" and not simply using it as a pretext--i am myself totally unconvinced about the question of basic competence relative to this administration, and am not sure about motive. but i am predisposed to not trust george w bush. you do not lie to a country about war and then expect people to trust you. (no need for a rehash of arguments about the legitimacy of this absurd adventure in iraq: if you support it, you will not convince me to follow your lead--so this is little more than an indication of fundamental divergences of views)

i think this administration is dangerously fond of authoritarian-style actions. to do not think them authoritarian as yet--but i think the tendencies are evident and that they do not require a paranoia to be noted. again, check out the ways in which states of emergency have been used in the past to gut basic freedoms from the inside. usage of it is the primary legal avenue through which such regimes have emerged from within pseudo-democratic context like the american.

Does anyone else feel like this discussion has hit a brick wall and no matter how much we talk about it we won't get anywhere? I feel like i'm banging my head against a brick wall and constantly repeating myself.

I'm right there with ya, Rekna. Mojo, you believe that this is legal and moral. You have that right. As for basically the rest of us (the rest of those who have posted), we think this is wrong. Agree to dissagree?

Now, let's all go grab some McDonalds and talk about how much "Alexander" sucked.

Quote:

Now, let's all go grab some McDonalds and talk about how much "Alexander" sucked.

Wasn't "Alexander" already torn a new one on the entertainment board?

I must admit......the entertainment value of this thread has been wonderful. I am equally impressed that we managed to remain civil and thoughtful through its entirety, Congratulations to all. Mojo was a lone wolf in this defense, and did an admirable job in presenting his case, as did his detractors. If only all debates transpired in this way, this politics board would benefit greatly.

Great Job Mojo...my hats off to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Wasn't "Alexander" already torn a new one on the entertainment board?

Oddly enough, I started the Alexander thread, and was one of the first to tear it apart. A movie that bad can't have enough torn out of it. :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

As far as Gitmo and the context of this thread goes no, maybe one day it could be turned on me, but again I'm not investing any merit in Orwellian conspiracy at this point. Again I don't think this discussion is merely about "terrorists", that's why I kept referencing "illegal combatants". Anyone that has been arrested state side and accused of links to terrorism has been given proper trials (Oregon, buffalo, Michigan?).

Quote:

second, you seem to have a touching faith in the bush administration itself--that it is competent, that it is acting in the context of a "war on terror" and not simply using it as a pretext--i am myself totally unconvinced about the question of basic competence relative to this administration, and am not sure about motive. but i am predisposed to not trust george w bush. you do not lie to a country about war and then expect people to trust you. (no need for a rehash of arguments about the legitimacy of this absurd adventure in iraq: if you support it, you will not convince me to follow your lead--so this is little more than an indication of fundamental divergences of views)

I have faith in my government, it's not blind faith by any means, I would like to consider myself one of the more educated people who support the Bush administration. I don't agree with everything this man or his administration does, but I would like to be able to trust my government for the most part, I don't know how much good it does questioning there every move. I think you should question there moves and motives, but again I have faith that they are looking out for me. I see where you are coming, and I know you know where I stand, so agreed I won't rehash any dead ponies.

Quote:

i think this administration is dangerously fond of authoritarian-style actions. to do not think them authoritarian as yet--but i think the tendencies are evident and that they do not require a paranoia to be noted. again, check out the ways in which states of emergency have been used in the past to gut basic freedoms from the inside. usage of it is the primary legal avenue through which such regimes have emerged from within pseudo-democratic context like the american.

This all could be true, I don't think it only comes down to the administration though, I think it is a depressing evolution of the country and politics in general. To be fair, everything has been ratified by congress, both republican and democrat, the blame can't be solely on Bush's shoulders, I would be equally angry that the Democrats are playing politics and trying to stay afloat by endorsing some of his more questionable actions. If anything as bad as all of you cats say comes to pass it won't be because Bush made it happen, it would be because the congress and the SCOTUS let it happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Haven't seen Alexander, but am willing to go and talk of baseball and the awesome greatness of LeBron and the Cavaliers.

Talk about how the week I am facing the number one team in my fantasy league (me being second thanks to BronBron), a guy who has KG going 4 nights, Bron might only play 1 game, cruel fates.

Quote:

Why not just deport these people back to their home countries? Why are we going to spend millions of our tax dollars to house and feed these people for the rest of their lives.

I've stopped posting on this thread because I forsaw a long time ago that no one would budge on it. But this quote is just retarded. Sure, send them home, hell while you're at it give them their guns back so we can fight them tomarrow. I no time in history has any army been required to put to trial every person captured in battle, why would you expect that now?

well this is interesting: in what way is this "war on terror" really a war? it does not involve conflict between nation states---there is no entity against which to declare war--because there is no discrete state/entity against which war can be declared, it follows that there can be no "front" really (between what and what?)--so it seems that the analogy of suspending basic legal rights in teh context of a conventional military conflict does not apply here.
it is also obvious that the administration is more than willing to stretch to meaninglessness the notion of the "war on terror" to include places like iraq--so obviously they feel little bound by the rules that might have obtained in a conventional war in the present context.

what kind of war is this then?
and if you cannot define the war in any conventional sense, how do you define a combattant?
i mean, if nothing is clear, really--not the parties, not the theater, not the status of actor within it, etc,--how do you do it?
it seems what the bush people want to do is simply make a declaration and not be bothered by proof.
given that the old-school notion of war is tangential here at best, why would it follow that it would be ok for this administration to arrogate this power to itself?
you already know that they are kinda arbitrary in application of their own notion...
you already know that the administration has a strange understanding of evidence (witness the "case" they tried to make for the iraq war)
you already know that they have shown themselves willing to create and fill legal black holes (gitmo, say) and to use these black holes as spaces within which most of the other rules of war do not apply (like restrictions on torture, or on outsourcing torture--cant remember the quaint cia term for it--relegation or something like that...)

it seems that another way to see the problems with the article at the outset of the thread lay here. mojo was talking mostly about questions of whether the notion was formally legal or not--to do this he had to stick to a very narrow understanding of what was at stake--but now other questions are on the table, yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

And in what "battle" were these people being held in Guantanamo Bay captured in? I seem to have missed the "Great US vs Terrorist" battle where they took up guns and started shooting at us.

Why is deportation so out of the question? We deported Luciano, we deported Lansky.... I truly believe those 2 had far more resources and connections to cause major trouble (unions, the MAFIA, politicos they bought, etc.) than some suspected terrorists we have no proof against and have only been told that they are terrorists, by a government that lied about why they went to Iraq.

If Clinton had been doing this the GOP would have been all over him. Just as they condemned his actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco. 2 situations he inherited from Bush I, who had refused to do anything. But I digress. I was against Ruby Ridge and Waco and I am against the actions Bush is taking now.

See, it isn't necessarily what Bush is doing now, the question is how far is he, the next president and every president that follows going to go. Once precedent is set, the limits get tested. And this is a case where when the limits get tested it could all be over.

Quote:

I suppose Lincoln was evil like Bush when in trying to preserve the Union he suspended Habeas Corpus and had over 1,000 American citizens detained

Just because Lincoln did it, does not make it right...

Quote:

And in what "battle" were these people being held in Guantanamo Bay captured in? I seem to have missed the "Great US vs Terrorist" battle where they took up guns and started shooting at us.

You're kidding right? What do you think we've been doing in Afghanistan for the past 3 years? Who do you think have been on the other side of gunfights throughout that region? We dont just charge into random homes and drag their sons out for no reason.

Seaver wouldn't these people fighting in afganastan be considered prisoners of war if they were captured in battle?

Quote:

Seaver wouldn't these people fighting in afganastan be considered prisoners of war if they were captured in battle?

Al Quaeda fighters in Afghanistan fall under the same category as the Werewolves in Germany after WWII. They fight in civilian cloths, and under the Geneva Convention are illegal combatants. Thus, just like the werewolves, we are 100% legally able to shoot them on sight... sitting in prison is a little bit better than that, yet we still have people complaining that each individual deserves a trail with a lawyer?