Republicans Suspend Habeas Corpus

Remember that constitutional provision that allows you to the ask the goverment why they threw in jail and then challenge them to prove their charge or free you?  You know, that liberty thingy? Well, the Republicans don't think we need that anymore: "In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them ? albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment ? beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html?ex=1160625600&en=d27aeb82916a46ea&ei=5070 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Bill Abandon hope all ye whom expect liberty!

> Remember that constitutional provision that allows you to the ask the > goverment why they threw in jail and then challenge them to prove > their charge or free you?  You know, that liberty thingy? > > Well, the Republicans don't think we need that anymore: Wow, my head is spinning 15 ways to Sunday now.  It is *amazing* to hear the debate on this issue, especially when it comes to the writt of habeus corpus. The truth of this issue can only be read from the text of the legislation itself.  I found it on Thomas at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109EbqVm9:: The specific link for the concerns about habeus corpus can be found on Thomas at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109EbqVm9:e116721: Here's the text that you're referring to, Gruss: SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.       (a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):       `(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.       `(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.       (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001. Note this: the entire section refers only to "aliens" not US citizens. This does NOT make any reference to US citizens. And just so you get the "neutral" summary: SUMMARY AS OF: 9/22/2006--Introduced. Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Authorizes the: (1) President to establish military commissions (commissions) to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other triable offenses; (2) commissions to impose upon any person found guilty any sentence appropriate to the offense, including death or imprisonment for life; and (3) Secretary of Defense to carry out such sentences. Prohibits a combatant under trial from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to codify and establish procedures governing the use of commissions to try such combatants for violations of triable offenses. Makes eligible to serve on a commission any U.S. commissioned officer on active duty. Requires to be detailed to each commission a military judge, trial and military defense counsel, and reporters and interpreters. Requires at least five members in each commission. Prescribes, with respect to each established commission, pre-trial and trial procedures, including charges, rules of evidence, pleas, opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence, and defenses. Requires: (1) a two-thirds commission member vote for conviction; (2) a three-fourths member vote for a sentence of life imprisonment or confinement of more than ten years; and (3) a unanimous vote by at least 12 members in a case in which the death penalty is sought. Prescribes post-trial procedures and reviews of commission actions, including appeal by the United States, rehearings, and review by the Court of Military Commission Review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Outlines offenses triable by commissions. Amends the federal criminal code to add certain actions to be considered violations of the War Crimes Act.

All I have to say that Jose Padilla is a US citizen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29#The_Legal_Battle_over_Habeas_Corpus He may not be a nice guy, but on the other hand we'll never know, unless he someday gets a day in court. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Dana wrote: > All I have to say that Jose Padilla is a US citizen. > Frightening to the point of being surreal.  And nobody seems to care. * Pulled over and you name is similar to a terrorist?  You're in jail forever. * Piss off Bush and now you're an "enemy"?  You're in jail forever. * "Hey, I can snap my fingers and you're in Levenworth for life.  Now give me your records.  Now!" It's the complete irony of the self-proclaimed moral being the most evil.  And what is more evil than the theft of liberty?

hey now. The American public cares about the important stuff. Like who hit on a teenager. And whether homosexuals can get married. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

And he got charged, he had a lawyer, and he was able to make his petitions. He was an American Citizen on American soil, and while it took too long, it happened. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

That's disengenuous. He was held for two years before he saw a lawyer and three years total before being charged with a crime. He was only ever actually charged because someone took an interest and got it on the Supreme Court Docket, where it was sure to be a big slap in the face to the administration. I am sure that you have the resources to do this if necessary, so you're right, why worry :/ Dana >And he got charged, he had a lawyer, and he was able to make his petitions. > >He was an American Citizen on American soil, and while it took too long, it >happened.

You can't be seriously saying that this is news to you. Do you ever read anything I post? It goes beyond standing the Constitution on its head, by the way. It overturns about a thousand years of legal history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- liberty!

But it doesn't, The Constitution doesn't deal with acts of war by foreigners. It deals with criminal acts. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

But it does. Trial by jury is an element of our culture that goes back to either Ethelred the Unready or to the Magna Carta, depending on who you ask. Either one is close enough to a thousand years ago for me. >But it doesn't, The Constitution doesn't deal with acts of war by >foreigners. It deals with criminal acts.

> >But it doesn't, The Constitution doesn't deal with acts of war by > >foreigners. It deals with criminal acts. > > But it does. Trial by jury is an element of our culture that goes back to either > Ethelred the Unready or to the Magna Carta, depending on who you ask. Either > one is close enough to a thousand years ago for me. But NEITHER one is the US CONSTITUTION. We are not goverend by the Ethelred or the Magna Carta.  Our framing documents may be able to trace their lineage back to either of those documents but that doesn't mean that they hold precedent over them!

you're right. Habeas Corpus, who needs it. >But NEITHER one is the US CONSTITUTION. > >We are not goverend by the Ethelred or the Magna Carta.  Our framing >documents may be able to trace their lineage back to either of those >documents but that doesn't mean that they hold precedent over them!

> >But NEITHER one is the US CONSTITUTION. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Now you're just being silly, Dana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus (Since you're so fond of Wikipedia) "This procedure, part of English common law, was considered important enough to be specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, which says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article One, section nine)." So the US Constitution *does* have a process for the writ.  The legislation passed simply dictates that it is only available to US Citizens.

> Hat wrote: > So the US Constitution *does* have a process for the writ.  The > legislation passed simply dictates that it is only available to US > Citizens. > Thus the evil part.  We are no longer a beacon of light but just another country who, during troubled times, crumbles our morals like an old piece of parchment. The message is this: our constitution is not a document of universal government truth nor a document to be copied, but just a minor set of laws we may revoke at any point. The constitution no longer defines our philosophy of human treatment and governance, but an exception to the normal way we treat people. Which is just a step away from removing the exception. Basically: do as we say, not as we do.

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- If you want to classify the law just passed as "evil" that's up to you - I have not tried to defend the legislation or it's intentions.  I am simply sick and tired of people saying that this is removing habeus corpus for US citizens. It is not. Now whether or not the US should extend constitutional freedoms, rights and requirements to people that have been detained during a military action in which they were firing upon our soldiers or plotting to kill our civillians is another discussion entirely.  If you want to work the "evil" concept back into this, let me give you two scenarios: 1. A "militia man" is captured by the enemy and is sent to a dention center.  In this detention center he is allowed to continue practicing his religion, fed and clothed better than he has ever been in his life and occasionally subjected to interrogations that cannot interfere with his prayers or meals. 2. A relief worker is kidnapped in the middle of the night, shoved in a closet and attempts are made to convert him to another religion.  He refuses and after three days is beheaded.  His body is dragged through the streets of the town that he was sent to provide aid for, ending up being hung and burned. Which of those two is more evil?

> Hat wrote: > two scenarios: Let me give you 2 scenarios: 1.) I raped your wife. 2.) I raped your wife and beat her for an hour. My point being that this is not some relative moralism, it's about whether or not the US wants to stand up for acceptable standards of human treatment.  This administration has declared "no" and have attempted to remove America's standing in that regard. It's a classic case of, "just give me more power and then I can REALLY help you." The problem with the "combatants on the field of battle" argument is that neither "combatant" nor "field of battle" are defined.  So, for example, you wind up with a taxi driver being imprisoned for 3 years for no apparent reason.  But that's just the immorality towards non-American citizens. How about the 20-something kid that was held for 8 months?  Was he stupid for being in Iraq?  yup.  But who's to say you're an American once you're in prison?  See, that's the point.  As a person you have no rights whatsoever.  Only external forces can be applied to release you. So it's all convenient to say, "the letter of the law says it only applies to aliens."  But in practice it can apply to any damn person they want because the process allows it and there's no recourse. You could be imprisoned today under this law and held legally for 10 years.  Should us CFers choose to prove your citizenship, then we could have you released.  But otherwise you'd rot. And that's the problem.

... > You could be imprisoned today under this law and held legally for 10 > years.  Should us CFers choose to prove your citizenship, then we > could have you released.  But otherwise you'd rot. > > And that's the problem. Naw, I liked what you said earlier.  America seems to have forgotten what it stands for.  What the hell is all this history for, man?!?! They've been doing specials on PBS about what a struggle it was to get rid of some of the "oh, we meant only us with souls" type shit, and yet, here we are, professing what's right is only right because we say so, not for some strange "unAlienAble right" or whatthefuckever. It's dis-cuss-ting.  And depressing.  And a bit... curious.  Eh. "It tolls for thee", or whatever.  Hang 'em all, so long as I ain't one of 'em. It's all a scheme to get Bush Jr. off the hook, if you ask me.  That dude has perpetrated some of the worst- ARRRRRRR! I think I'll blow a vessel. Time to go eat.  Be merry.  Yup.  I hope my vote and bitching is enough. Sheesh... the bitching is probably more powerful at this point... Bleh!! [=  Make Love!

Again, you keep saying that. But I repeat. We know of at least three US citizens it has been applied nonetheless. That's the problem when you keep tinkering with human right. We hold these truths to be self-evident, unless it is an election year. All men are created equal, except the ones that are enemy combattants. And the enemy combattants are who we say they are. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (We'll just brand them as terrorists instead) or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; (except that those who do not agree with the government are traitors) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, (except that in the fine print they will find that the free speech area is miles from what they are protesting) and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (except if they are enemy combattants). Bah. In years to come people will wonder how we could allow this to happen. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

why do you have to be validated as less evil than someone else? Both are evil. Of course. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Institutional Evil may be more evil than the random kind, actually. But I'm no mathematician! (unless you count all the crazy math we all do subconsciously, like catching a ball, or whatnot... ;) IANAM!  Heh... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

What it's laws were based on has no bearing in what it says. Trial by jury isn't an aspect of military action. Our Constitution sets up the form of government and lays some basic rules down. Alien enemies that seek to terrorize or bring down the government aren't criminals. They are a different group of people, and they are a group of people completely. This new law doesn't talk about American Citizens, and you can point to Padilla all you want, and while it took a long time, he was charged. It shouldn't have taken that long. But he was able to get a lawyer, and he was able to get his case heard. When it went through the courts, he was charged. NONE of this applies to the law that was passed. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I don't know why I bother arguning with people who don't care about the facts. He had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get charged with something. And you think that's ok? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Of course its ok. That is the system. It shows that the system works. It took a long time, which is the bad part. If the system didn't work, he still would be in jail with no charge. > I don't know why I bother arguning with people who don't care about the > facts. He had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get charged with > something. And you think that's ok? >

Oh I see. So when does it begin to not be ok in your book? >Of course its ok. That is the system. It shows that the system works. It >took a long time, which is the bad part. > >If the system didn't work, he still would be in jail with no charge.

I dunno, say when somebody isn't given their day court. ________________________________ Sent: Sun 10/15/2006 2:27 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Republicans Suspend Habeas Corpus Oh I see. So when does it begin to not be ok in your book? >Of course its ok. That is the system. It shows that the system works. It >took a long time, which is the bad part. > >If the system didn't work, he still would be in jail with no charge.

Alright, if they wait ten years for their day in court, is that still ok? WHat about if it's twenty? most of these people have not been charged with anything yet, you know. The one prisoner discussed in the articles I posted is twenty and has been at Guantanamo for five years. Is that ok? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Here for instance, is this ok? This is in today's paper. This guy apparently broke an immigration law and was sentenced to 175 days in custody. Fair nuff. But that was five years ago, and they still haven't gotten around to releasing him. He is still in jail for no apparent reason, is that alright with you? Unbelievable. 1 Man Still Locked Up From 9/11 Sweeps   By MARTHA MENDOZA | Associated Press October 16, 2006 In a jail cell at an immigration detention center in Arizona sits a man who is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society. But he has been in custody for five years. His name is Ali Partovi. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. There has been no full accounting of all of these individuals. Nor has a promised federal policy to protect against unrestricted sweeps been produced. Human rights groups tried to track the detainees; members of Congress denounced the arrests. They all believed that all of those who had been arrested had been deported, released or processed through the criminal justice system. Just this summer, it was reported that an Algerian man, Benemar "Ben" Benatta, was the last detainee, and that his transfer to Canada had closed the book on the post-9/11 sweeps. But now The Associated Press has learned that at least one person - Partovi - is still being held. The Department of Homeland Security insists he really is the last one in custody. "Certainly it's not our goal as an agency to keep anyone detained indefinitely," said DHS spokesman Dean Boyd. Boyd said the department would like to remove Partovi from the United States but that he refuses to return to his homeland of Iran. And so he remains, a curious remnant of a desperate time. --- Within hours of the Sept. 11 attacks - before it was even clear if they were over - the FBI was ordered to identify the terrorists who had managed to slip so smoothly into American society and to catch anyone who might have been working with them. The FBI operation was called PENTTBOM; it was swift and fierce, and the stakes couldn't have been higher. When in doubt, the orders came, arrest now and ask questions later. To make this easier, law enforcement officials were authorized to use immigration charges as needed. The risk of allowing terrorists to slip away just because there wasn't ample evidence to hold them on terror charges could not be tolerated. And thus hundreds of individuals who were not terrorists, nor associated with terrorists, were temporarily taken into city, county and federal custody. They were caught in their bedrooms while they slept, pulled from the restaurant kitchens where they worked, stopped at the border, even federal offices where they had gone to seek help. In the end, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's call for "aggressive detentions" in the unprecedented sweeps netted more than 1,200 individuals in less than two months. The initial reaction to the sweeps was confusion. Members of Congress, leading civil rights organizations, Arab and Muslim activists, even the Justice Department's internal watchdogs, didn't know how to react. "After 9/11, everyone was caught off guard. There was so much secrecy surrounding the government's policies that it took a number of months before the public and civil-liberties groups began unraveling what the government was doing," said Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney. Then came demands, from Congress, from the Justice Department's Inspector General, from the ACLU and Human Rights Watch and from Arab and Muslim activists, that these individuals must be accounted for. To date that hasn't occurred. "The fact is the United States has not come forward with information on what happened to these people, or released their names," said Rachel Meeropol, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, an advocacy organization that represents several detainees being held in Guantanamo. "Our understanding is that the majority of these people who were swept up on immigration violations were then held in detention until they were cleared of any connection to terrorism. We believe that accounts for the vast majority of people who were swept up." Here's what is known: 762 of the 1,200 PENTTBOM arrestees were charged with immigration violations at the behest of the FBI because agents thought they might be associated with terrorism. Partovi was one of these 762. Much as Partovi used a false passport, nearly all of these detainees had violated immigration laws, either by overstaying their visas, entering the country illegally, or violating some other immigration law. Unlike Partovi, almost everyone was either deported or released within a few months. There were still at least 438 other individuals who were not accounted for. Most of those individuals, said Justice Department officials, were released within days. But at least 93 were charged with federal crimes and processed through the courts, and an unknown number were deemed material witnesses. As the years passed, said the ACLU's Gelernt, public concern faded. "Initially there was a lot of attention on the 1,200 people, but we're still not sure exactly what happened to all of them," said the ACLU's Gelernt. The repercussions are still being felt, say advocates. "Those 1,200 were taken in on pseudo-immigration charges," said Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch. "It really is a black mark on the U.S. and it undermines our intelligence gathering because it creates distrust between law enforcement officials and communities where those officials should be building rapport and trust." "People lost years of their lives and families were ripped apart in the frenzy of fear," said Kerri Sherlock, director of policy and planning at the Rights Working Group, an advocacy organization in Washington D.C. "Do we really want to be a country that locks people up without guaranteeing their basic constitutional rights?" --- In June 2003, the Justice Department's inspector general, an in-house auditor, found widespread abuses in the way immigration laws were used to hold people suspected of terrorism in the months following 9/11. The inspector general made 21 recommendations aimed at protecting individuals' civil rights. Twenty of those recommendations have been adopted. The last recommendation calls for the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to formalize policies, responsibilities, and procedures for managing a national emergency that involves alien detainees. After the inspector general's report, the Justice and Homeland Security departments agreed with the recommendation and began negotiating over language. Officials at both departments say those negotiations are still going on. "The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice continue to work toward the development of formal joint policies and approaches for the handling of such national security cases during periods of national impact," said Homeland Security Department spokesman Dean Boyd. However, Boyd stressed that guidelines were set up in 2004 to make sure detainees' rights are being protected on a case-by-case basis. "We learned from the past," he said. "We evaluate each situation to make sure it's being handled fairly." Tim Lynch, a lawyer with the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, said guidelines are not enough. "I don't think the guidelines will mean very much in an emergency if they don't have the binding force of law," he said. "We shouldn't be surprised if those guidelines aren't followed if there's another massive attack." --- When the AP wrote Ali Partovi to ask for an interview, he called collect from the Florence Correctional Center, a privately run detention center in Arizona where he is held. Adamantly, he said he did not want to be interviewed and that he wanted to remain private, even though he said understood his case files, including litigation he files himself, are part of the public record. He later reportedly told a public affairs officer at the facility that he is too busy for an interview - perhaps preparing his many legal appeals. In his lawsuits - there have been seven so far - Partovi claims he is a victim of civil rights abuses and demands between $5 million and $10 million in restitution. The most recent was filed in July. The staff at the jail where he was first held "poured hot coffee on my body, they also poured cold ice water on my body," he wrote in one, claiming that staffers also cuffed his hands and feet, which caused "my ankle and lower extremities to swell abnormally." "It is my firm belief that I am constantly subjected to physical abuse (because) of my ethnicity, I am Iranian of Persian birth," he wrote in another, filed this summer. In that lawsuit he claimed that immigration officers forced him to kneel while handcuffed, and then kicked and punched his stomach and kidneys. "As you can imagine, this is very, very painful when you are cuffed from behind," he wrote. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney said that office was aware of the lawsuits but could not comment on them. A detention center spokesman said he was not aware of any lawsuits and could not respond. Partovi doesn't have a lawyer, and he told the AP he doesn't want one, choosing instead to represent himself, gleaning expertise from the prison library. He did have a lawyer once, when he was arrested in Guam in the fall of 2001, trying to enter the country on a fraudulent Italian passport. "Mr. Partovi came into Guam International Airport using a false passport. He explained about having been married to a Japanese women and the arrangement wasn't working out. He applied for political asylum, and I believe the federal government thought he might be a terror suspect," said Curtis Charles Van de Veld, who was hired by the federal government to represent him. Partovi was sentenced to 175 days in custody, which he had already served by the time he pleaded guilty in 2002. Then he was turned over to the Department of Homeland Security. Until the AP contacted him, Van de Veld didn't realize his former client was still in custody. "I'm surprised he hasn't contacted me," he said.   http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/50726.html

He's not a citizen, so I could care less. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Tim, I disagree. I don't care about him specifically, he took his chances, and gets what he gets. I do care that our government is so inept they don;t even know who is where. This DOES disturb me greatly. Who put him in jail? Who does that person report to? Who monitors these detentions? Every one of these people should be fired, and the process changed, and made more accountable to the public. Jerry ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

no kidding. How can you forget to release someone for five years in a row? He apparently did have a false passport and had a hearing about that. That's all fine. But he served his time and... never got released or deported or anything. When were they going to get around to him? Did they even know he was there? There seem to have been statements that everyone preventatively detained after 9/11 had been released. But there he is. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I'm off to a funeral, so short on time.  Is this for non-citizens only? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- n=d27aeb82916a46ea&ei=5070 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Bill Abandon hope all ye whom expect liberty!

Yes, non-citizens only. > I'm off to a funeral, so short on time.  Is this for non-citizens only? >

>Yes, non-citizens only. "Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109zmbxj4:e8595:

And your point is?  A tribunal is being assembled to determine the person's status under the MCA... What's the issue? >Yes, non-citizens only. "Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109zmbxj4:e8595:

> GarZaa wrote: > And your point is?  A tribunal is being assembled to determine the person's > status under the MCA... What's the issue? > It's pretty hard to prove your citizenship when you're in prison. It's also tough to have a moral high ground.

And the detainees at Gitmo are from where... California?  Maybe Nevada?  I honestly think that you all are grasping at straws here.  Like it or not, our constitutional rights do not extend to everyone on the planet.  Those rights are reserved for American citizens.  If you want those rights extended to everyone in the world, persuade them to adopt constitutions like ours.  Best of luck... > GarZaa wrote: > And your point is?  A tribunal is being assembled to determine the > person's status under the MCA... What's the issue? > It's pretty hard to prove your citizenship when you're in prison. It's also tough to have a moral high ground.

> And the detainees at Gitmo are from where... California?  Maybe Nevada?  I > honestly think that you all are grasping at straws here.  Like it or not, > our constitutional rights do not extend to everyone on the planet.  Those > rights are reserved for American citizens.  If you want those rights > extended to everyone in the world, persuade them to adopt constitutions > like > ours.  Best of luck... Our constitutional RIGHTS do not extend to everyone - of course that's true. However our constitutional RESPONSIBILITIES almost certainly do. For example the Fourteenth Amendment reads: "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." It does begin by expressly protecting the rights of citizens of the United States.  However it also clearly makes the states responsible, in conduct, to "any person" on several counts.  Not "any citizen" but "any person". As another example the Fifth Amendment reads: "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." Again it's broadly "No person" rather than "No citizen" or "No one of the people".  (The phrase "the people" is often used in the Constitution to indicate the general citizenry.) While the fifth amendment is nominally talking about the rights of the accused it can also be seen as defining the responsibility of the state when dealing with the accused. In that sense it's perfectly valid to say that our constitutional rights don't extend to every person on the planet.  However our constitutional responsibilities (at least in many cases) do seem to apply to anybody - citizen or not. A more eloquent way of putting it is that the constitution, in addition to defining our rights as Americans, also embodies (and codifies) ideals that govern our actions when dealing with non-Americans. Jim Davis

Again, you are talking about crimes. These are crimes, they didn't steal a car, they seek far more than that. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Constitutional responsibilities do not equal laws and rights.  Reading your response, the quotes you've provided actually make my case. First off, the states are not the ones trying and convicting these people. So the reference to "No state shall make or enforce any law.." does not apply as it's the Federal Government that is creating and enforcing the laws.  More importantly, the federal government is giving the right to military tribunals to actually try enemy combatants which brings me to the next point. The fifth amendment specifically states that these rights do not apply in cases arising from the land or naval forces or the militia.  Who is conducting these tribunals?  It's not the states and it's not the federal court systems.  If military tribunals are good enough for our own soldiers, I'm sure that they will suffice for enemy combatants. > And the detainees at Gitmo are from where... California?  Maybe > Nevada?  I honestly think that you all are grasping at straws here.   > Like it or not, our constitutional rights do not extend to everyone on > the planet.  Those rights are reserved for American citizens.  If you > want those rights extended to everyone in the world, persuade them to > adopt constitutions like ours.  Best of luck... Our constitutional RIGHTS do not extend to everyone - of course that's true. However our constitutional RESPONSIBILITIES almost certainly do. For example the Fourteenth Amendment reads: "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." It does begin by expressly protecting the rights of citizens of the United States.  However it also clearly makes the states responsible, in conduct, to "any person" on several counts.  Not "any citizen" but "any person". As another example the Fifth Amendment reads: "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." Again it's broadly "No person" rather than "No citizen" or "No one of the people".  (The phrase "the people" is often used in the Constitution to indicate the general citizenry.) While the fifth amendment is nominally talking about the rights of the accused it can also be seen as defining the responsibility of the state when dealing with the accused. In that sense it's perfectly valid to say that our constitutional rights don't extend to every person on the planet.  However our constitutional responsibilities (at least in many cases) do seem to apply to anybody - citizen or not. A more eloquent way of putting it is that the constitution, in addition to defining our rights as Americans, also embodies (and codifies) ideals that govern our actions when dealing with non-Americans. Jim Davis

> Garze wrote: > Constitutional responsibilities do not equal laws and rights.  Reading your > response, the quotes you've provided actually make my case. > First, it's shocking that any American would make your argument. You're actually willing to trust government to hold people indefinitely, but to always get it right.  Because there's no such thing as government error or abuse of power, right?   You must not have been a congressional page. Second, the problem is in *proving* you're an American.  It's hard to do that from a waterboard.  The piece you're missing, besides the moral responsibility part, is that if you can't prove your citizenship you have ZERO RIGHTS. That means the government could hold you forever and you have no recourse.  And let's say they did hold you, and tortured you.  And then we took pity on you and lobbied for your release.  The government would have to release you, but they'd owe you nothing and you'd have no recourse against them. Put another way, possession is 9/10ths of the law. Here are some rules of thumb for you: 1.) Give government nothing. 2.) Anything you give government will be used against you. 3.) Those who willingly give others the power to dominate them are fools and your enemy.* *Note - the exception to this rule is marriage.

> Grussinator wrote: > *Note - the exception to this rule is marriage. > Oh, ah, and Weeg's bedroom.  But that's it.

Where in that bill did it indicate that the military could hold people indefinately?  I must have missed that one.  The bill gave the authority to the military to convene military tribunals for non-citizen enemy combatants. Sounds to me like they are saying that these people will get trials though the military justice system.  When laws are broken inside the country, then trials at the state/federal level take place.  This is true for both citizens and non-citizens.  When the rules of war are broken, they are handled by military tribunal.  And now military tribunals are authorized to handle enemy combatants. Your provacative language here really cracks me up Gruss.  I think that is by far the funniest part of your posts in general.   Here are some rules of thumb for you to take home... 1) When in a foreign country, best not to try and raise arms against our deployed troops in the region when not your not part of a recognized uniformed fighting force (this makes you an enemy combatant). 2) When you are a non-citizen guest in this country, try obeying our laws. It's just a nice thing to do. 3) Understand that another's power to dominate you is mostly out of your control, especially if she's really cute. > Garze wrote: > Constitutional responsibilities do not equal laws and rights.  Reading > your response, the quotes you've provided actually make my case. > First, it's shocking that any American would make your argument. You're actually willing to trust government to hold people indefinitely, but to always get it right.  Because there's no such thing as government error or abuse of power, right?   You must not have been a congressional page. Second, the problem is in *proving* you're an American.  It's hard to do that from a waterboard.  The piece you're missing, besides the moral responsibility part, is that if you can't prove your citizenship you have ZERO RIGHTS. That means the government could hold you forever and you have no recourse. And let's say they did hold you, and tortured you.  And then we took pity on you and lobbied for your release.  The government would have to release you, but they'd owe you nothing and you'd have no recourse against them. Put another way, possession is 9/10ths of the law. Here are some rules of thumb for you: 1.) Give government nothing. 2.) Anything you give government will be used against you. 3.) Those who willingly give others the power to dominate them are fools and your enemy.* *Note - the exception to this rule is marriage.

> Garze wrote: > I think that is > by far the funniest part of your posts in general. > Well ya gotta give the peeps what they want. Back to the topic, the difference between us is that I'm a goverment conservative and you're a government liberal.  I don't trust government at all, but you do.  I want them to have as little power as possible, you favor more. I will remain firmly surprised that any American, who understands her history, would willingly give power away, but then, hey, some people don't save and drive Azteks.

How would you suggest we deal with people captured in a foriegn land fighting the US Government? ________________________________ Sent: Sat 10/14/2006 1:10 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Republicans Suspend Habeas Corpus > Garze wrote: > I think that is > by far the funniest part of your posts in general. > Well ya gotta give the peeps what they want. Back to the topic, the difference between us is that I'm a goverment conservative and you're a government liberal.  I don't trust government at all, but you do.  I want them to have as little power as possible, you favor more. I will remain firmly surprised that any American, who understands her history, would willingly give power away, but then, hey, some people don't save and drive Azteks.

> Nick wrote: > How would you suggest we deal with people captured in a foriegn land fighting the US Government? > If it's a declared war between nations they're entitled to prisoner of war status, Geneva Convention, Red Cross, Amnesty International, etc. If it's not, they are to be treated as international criminals.

But Gruss, this is not a declared war against a "nation".  It's an ongoing military operation against enemy combatants, guerrilla forces, non-uniformed persons.  The Geneva Conventions does not state much in the way of these types of forces, except that they are classified as sabateurs and may be summarily executed on the spot... So... What now? > Nick wrote: > How would you suggest we deal with people captured in a foriegn land fighting the US Government? > If it's a declared war between nations they're entitled to prisoner of war status, Geneva Convention, Red Cross, Amnesty International, etc. If it's not, they are to be treated as international criminals.

> Garze wrote: > But Gruss, this is not a declared war against a "nation". > So... What now? > I've already answered that: then they are international criminals.

Not under the Geneva Convention. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Wrong, they are saboteurs and spies. International criminals don't attack sovereign government's forces.  They don't behead American soldiers. F foreign fighters.  They get far more than they deserve. They killed some of my friends, and tried to kill me on more than one occasion.  I killed them.  I also "arrested" them. I prefer the former. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> tBone wrote: > Wrong, they are saboteurs and spies. > The problem is that we've created a whole brave new world.  Take Vietnam for example.  Same grey area, but when we left problem solved. The way this administration is defining the "War on Terror" it's both ageographical and timeless.  Put another way Bush is basically saying the US can grab anyone, anytime, anyplace and hold them forever for no reason and give them no recourse. That's simply amoral. So, regardless of the law, we need to come up with a solution that both respects liberty AND protects our troops.  If we don't it's a failure of leadership, a failure morality, a failure of good, and a failure of humanity.

> So, regardless of the law, we need to come up with a solution that > both respects liberty AND protects our troops.  If we don't it's a > failure of leadership, a failure morality, a failure of good, and a > failure of humanity. Tell me again how trying them in a military tribunal doesn't accomplish this? Weren't we all calling for tribunals for the Gitmo inmates for months, then Bush requested just that, and it was shot down? What else is there? WIthout a fair international court..the only other option is in a US civil court. I don't even think the Dana's of the world think these people deserve all the rights and procedures granted an American citizen in our civilian judicial system. -- "Lend our voices only to sounds of freedom. No longer lend our strength to that which we wish to be free from, and we shall live a life uncommon."

> gMoney wrote: > Tell me again how trying them in a military tribunal doesn't accomplish > this? It's fine as long as the prisoner has recourse and access. The problem is that we, as a country, have invaded and are occuping 2 countries in the Middle East and trying to win "hearts and minds".  We can't inspire anyone if we look similar or worse compared to those that oppose us.

I'd agree with that. A fair hearing is a fair hearing. But it's not a fair hearing when your advocate has to choose between his integrity and career suicide, or agreeing to rubber stamp a Kafkaesque process. It isn't a fair hearing when you aren't allowed to hear the accusations against you because they are classified. If they are true you know about them already, and the possibility that you are innocent can be accomodated by assigning you an advocate who has the requisite clearance. Most of all it isn't a fair hearing when it doesn't even take place. Dana >It's fine as long as the prisoner has recourse and access. > >The problem is that we, as a country, have invaded and are occuping 2 >countries in the Middle East and trying to win "hearts and minds".  We >can't inspire anyone if we look similar or worse compared to those >that oppose us.

The Danas of the world recognize hypocrisy when they see it ;) Look these detainees are either prisoners of war or they have been arrested for a crime or there is some security reason to hold them. Right? If they are prisoners of war then the Red Cross is entitled to talk to them. There is the question of what you do with a prisoner of war in a war currently scheduled to last all of our lifetimes, but let's just note that and move on. If they have been arrested for a crime, I don't know how to break this to you, but the normal procedure would be to send them through the courts. If they are found guilty then they get whatever sentence they get. Sometimes they get deported instead or as well. If they are found not guilty they are released. But here is the problem. You have to release then if they are found not guilty or if ther is unsufficient evidence. For whatever reason the administration does not seem to want to do this. So let's note that and move on. If they are being held for security reasons -- and this is what the government would have us believe -- then at what point does that stretch credulity? How many state secrets does a fifteen-year-old have access to? How do they expect us to keep a straight face when the ties to al_Qaeda consist of serving lunch to someone at the restaurant where you work as a waiter? More importantly, since self-interest seems to be the guiding principle of this group, once it is ok for one category of people to have no rights, then it may become ok for another category of people to have no rights. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. Most importantly, to me at least, if the fact that the government no longer even bothers to try to lie to us. We've already given it cate blanche. To whomever asked what was wrong with these military commissions, what is wrong with them is that they are exactly the same ones that the Supreme Court just said were unconstitutional, except that the defendants no longer have recourse to protest their detention or their treatment or their innocence. And a majority of Congress voted for this, in a decisions that I am sure will rank right up there with the Dred Scott decision. But pardon me for intruding on your first-person-shooter view of the world. I think I'll just go toast the Constitution, and the possibility it was. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

What court? What jury? If we pick somebody up of the battlefield in a foriegn country for trying to kill a soldier, then what court should they be sent to? ________________________________ Sent: Mon 10/16/2006 7:27 PM If they have been arrested for a crime, I don't know how to break this to you, but the normal procedure would be to send them through the courts. If they are found guilty then they get whatever sentence they get. Sometimes they get deported instead or as well. If they are found not guilty they are released. But here is the problem. You have to release then if they are found not guilty or if ther is unsufficient evidence. For whatever reason the administration does not seem to want to do this. So let's note that and move on.

> Nick wrote: > If we pick somebody up of the battlefield in a foriegn country Again, dude, the problem is what's passing for "a battlefield" these days.  That's a euphemism for "their home town". Let's say a sniper takes a shot at US forces who then surround a building.  A cook from the cafeteria happens to be ending his shift and is late for dinner so he runs out of the building into the hands of US forces.  They send him to GitMo as an enemy combatant captured on the field of battle. What do you think his family who hasn't seen or heard from him in 2 years going to think?  Sure, yours wouldn't care, but most people's would.  Do you think his family and friends will be US converts or US enemies? We, as an occupier, have to be twice as moral and twice as righteous as the citizens if we ever hope to gain anything from our investment in the Middle East. And that ignores the immorality of detention without due process.

well, that's someone trying to surrender on a field of battle. Slightly different problem. In my opinion that's where a military hearing might do some good -- some peoplot involved in the capture talk to him and if he protests that he is a taxi driver, they enquire right then and there. This has the advantage of translators and witnesses being available. It doesn't solve the problem of the incovenient neighbor someone commits perjury about -- as they say there are some of these too -- but it would be a start. Perhaps they already do this and I don't realizr this, but it doesn't sound like it. For the people who were kidnapped and sold to the Americans, if these people exist, then I think that the society that is detaining them should provide the hearings.The devil however is in the details. Being able to hear the evidence against you is always nice for instance. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Dana wrote: > It doesn't solve the problem of the incovenient neighbor someone commits perjury about The best part about this conversation is that it shows just how blindly stupid Bush and his team of numbskulls are!  These thorny issues are exactly why many of us said we shouldn't be invading Iraq in the first place. And that ignores the moronic strategic tomfoolery.  Here, just for fun, was the faith-based strategy again except using WWII for illustrative purposes: "Heh, heh, heh, I got a great idea Dick!  We'll invade Italy.  Sure they ain't Germany but the Italians will greet us a liberators and then get rich and build a Disneyland.  Once them Gerries get a-load-a that Disneyland they'll tell Hitler to skedaddle.  Problem solved. Plus we'll get rich on all that I-talian olive oil!"

If it walks like a duck.... C'mon Nick, if he is on a battlefield and trying to kill a soldier he is a combattant. Shoot him before his aim improves ;) If you are going to take him prisoner he'd be a prisoner of war. The hell with whether he'd do the same for you -- that's ethics at the lowest common denominator. Dana > What court? What jury? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

You still aren't answering my question, I'm assuming he is a criminal, now, what court? What jury? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I think you're talking to Gruss. But since I am agreeing with him, I'll give you my answer which is that they should be tried by the authorities in the country where they committed the crime. They're managing to try Saddam Hussein and that poses a whole lot of security issues. Don't come tell me they can't manage to try a fifteen-year-old who shot a soldier or someone accused of making a propaganda video. >You still aren't answering my question, I'm assuming he is a criminal, now, >what court? What jury?

I thought we got in trouble when we shipped our prisoners overseas to meet "justice"? If we took these fighters and returned them to afghanistan, they'd be summarily executed. Which I'm not necessarily opposed to...but we are constantly whining that the US must look like the moral entity in this fight. Returning a bunch of these guys to a foreign country for execution probably wouldn't fit that bill, would it? A three judge military tribunal should be convened. Each and every prisoner at Gitmo should be brought before this court. Evidence should be entered into public record by the military as to their guilt as enemy combatants. If the evidence warrants a conviction, they go back to Gitmo to serve out their term. If not, they are released and paid reparations. Wouldn't this be fair? Wouldn't this be more than they deserve, actually? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> gMoney wrote: > A three judge military tribunal should be convened. Each and every prisoner > at Gitmo should be brought before this court. > Wouldn't this be fair? Wouldn't this be more than they deserve, actually? > As long as there is a defense and evidence is able to be reviewed and contested, yeah.  If all of that seems difficult for some, then they should've thought twice before they tried to push democracy at the tip of a gun.

Most of these guys were picked up in Afghanistan. Let's not confuse our just revenge in Afghanistan with our bankrupt crusade in Iraq. > > As long as there is a defense and evidence is able to be reviewed and > contested, yeah.  If all of that seems difficult for some, then they > should've thought twice before they tried to push democracy at the tip > of a gun.

I don't know what they deserve and that's the heart of my issue with the current system. Nobody does. And we are asked to believe people that we well know lie to us all the time. What you are proposing seems fair to me, as long as there is some transparency and accountability to the process. You have a hearing before impartial parties and the chance to address the evidence. What is so hard about letting these guys have that? It's five years later and any of them that had critical security information demonstrably don't any more. I realize that a lot of them were picked up when we *were* the authorities in Afghanistan. So we have a hearing. Duh? Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> But pardon me for intruding on your first-person-shooter view of the > world. I think I'll just go toast the Constitution, and the possibility it > was. > > Dana > You do that, the rest of us will keep on truckin'. I want them tried, I don't want them tried in US civil court. They ARE prisoners of war, as far as I'm concerned, I have no problem giving them Geneva protections and the whole nine yards. I would then try them in a military court, and then lock em up for eternity...or kill them outright. Either way, I want justice...you want justice....so what's all this about the constitution? -- "Lend our voices only to sounds of freedom. No longer lend our strength to that which we wish to be free from, and we shall live a life uncommon."

> gMoney wrote: > eternity...or kill them outright. Either way, I want justice...you want > justice....so what's all this about the constitution? > (1.) Because we're not over there to smoke out a hole and leave, we're in a multi-country occupation.  Our goal (granted, stating any goal is wishful thinking) is to leave 'a beacon of hope', new functioning democracies, in place of the regimes we toppled. So what it has to do with our constitution is that we're occupying foreign countries telling them to build a government like ours - to have a constitution like ours - because it's the moral thing to do. It's hard to get that point across if we're busy ignoring the core liberties our country was founded on. (2.) Throughout the history of government we've seen hundreds of well meaning heads of state say, "if only I had more power, then I could really help you."  And when people are scared they give it to them. And it's quickly abused.  Cromwell comes to mind. In any event, that's exactly what we have with Mr. Bush, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.  Now just give me more power and then I'll REALLY help you." That's exactly the kind of slippery slope our constitution was designed to derail.

all this about the constitution is that the unconstitutional behavior of the administration has been "solved" by passing a law that says the behavior is ok and the people who are affected can't go to court anymore to get the Supreme Court to say it's unconstitutional. According to the law professors the law is pretty much bound to get overturned, but the process will take long enough that this administration can say it is being tough on terror by locking up innocent parties in the meantime. I am pretty much at the point of not caring where detainees get a hearing as long as it is fair. For instance, this morning I noticed a story on the front page of Sunday's New York Times. One of the detainees is there for allegedly fighting against the Americans in 2001 even though he can prove that he had at the time been a prisoner of the Taliban for several years. I don't think things like that should happen. >I would then try them in a military court, and then lock em up for >eternity...or kill them outright. Either way, I want justice...you want >justice....so what's all this about the constitution? > >-- >"Lend our voices only to sounds of freedom. No longer lend our strength to >that which we wish to be free from, and we shall live a life uncommon."

so kill them when you are fighting them. It's what soldiers do. This is something worse though. And you are more naive than I thought if you think there was no unconventional warfare in say world war 2 or Vietnam. I just don't buy the argument that this is some new and special type of war. It's the kind of war you get when youu vastly overestimate your military superiority. Napolean could tell you something about that, and so could Tony Blair. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> so kill them when you are fighting them. It's what soldiers do. true. > This is something worse > though. And you are more naive than I thought if you think there was no unconventional > warfare in say world war 2 or Vietnam. And in WW2, non-uniformed (unconventional) combatants were caught and summarily executed on all sides. The ARVN caught and executed many many many Viet Cong during Vietnam, but the NVA were treated differently as they were uniformed regulars of a standing army. Identifiable on the battlefield by a uniform and ID. > I just don't buy the argument that this is some > new and special type of war. Acts of sabotage and such carried out by non-uniformed combatants is covered in the rules of warfare. As Loathe has stated, spies, saboteurs, non-uniformed combatants caught can be summaril executed and were. By all sides. > It's the kind of war you get when youu vastly overestimate > your military superiority. No, this is the type of war you get when you don't adequately plan for or ignore the occupation that comes afterwards, when you plan to be greeted with flowers and parades, and don't plan for a contingency. This is the kind of war you wouldn't be seeing in Afghanistan had the administration not pulled out and gone for the gusto in Iraq. > Napolean could tell you something about that, Perhaps. But Napoleon wasn't beaten by Partisans or insurgency. Napoleon was beaten by slow supply trains winter and fleas. > and so could > Tony Blair. Blair? Thatcher maybe, but then, she only went after the disputed island, not the whole country... -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher

well, I don't know about you and perhaps it's easy for me to say, but I believe I'd prefer summary execution to indefinite detention in abusive circumstances. I think people believe I want us to me *nicer.* Actually I am after fairness, and summary execution in time of war of someone who has been trying to kill you bothers me not at all. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

From: "Dana Tierney" <dana.tierney@gmail.com> >and summary execution in time of war of someone who has been trying to kill >you bothers me not at all. Only Jesus has the right to take a life.

He's busy burying dinosaur skeletons.... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

From: "G Money" <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> > He's busy burying dinosaur skeletons.... Uh oh, you better watch out then!

Well when Jesus gave you bullets, he must be ok with it :) > Only Jesus has the right to take a life.

Damn, oh well, I already figured I was going to hell anyway, what's a few murders, right? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

From: "loathe" <loathe@speakeasy.net> > Damn, oh well, I already figured I was going to hell anyway, what's a few > murders, right? Sinner. :-)

Yes, yes I am. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

From: "loathe" <loathe@speakeasy.net> > Yes, yes I am. LOL. Fuck off Tim... this Jesus talk is fucking with my head. Back to regularly scheduled bantering.

I'd rather try to prevent future run ins with them so I'd rather get some information that would help us or somebody else get to the bad guys before they can do something. > well, I don't know about you and perhaps it's easy for me to say, but I > believe I'd prefer summary execution to indefinite detention in abusive > circumstances. I think people believe I want us to me *nicer.* Actually I > am after fairness, and summary execution in time of war of someone who has > been trying to kill you bothers me not at all. >

Like the information they got from Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, perhaps. That was was obtained through torture, and was real helpful ;/ and from what I understand is pretty typical for what you get with these types of tactics. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1318702,00.html >I'd rather try to prevent future run ins with them so I'd rather get some >information that would help us or somebody else get to the bad guys before >they can do something.

More like the info they got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24653 ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

a tabloid says torture helped prevent terrorism ::yawn:: Dana > More like the info they got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24653

The Guardian says it doesn't. Give me a break. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Sam wrote: > The Guardian says it doesn't. Give me a break. > So are you making a pro-torture argument?  If so are you in favor of torture before or after a trial?

Trial? My friends didn't get a trial. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Sam wrote: > Trial? > My friends didn't get a trial. > So you're proposing that the US torture people w/o a trial or case review?

Torture is such an ugly word. 1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him. Go for it! 2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear. Bitch slap him all you want. 3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage. Yeah, go on and make it glow. 4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions. Like waiting on line for concert tickets back in the day. 5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water. That's messed up. I might even consider this too cruel. But if I know the guy is al Qaeda then I say don't forget to piss in the bucket. 6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. This one only in extreme cases where you know they have timely info and won't give it up. Once they've been on trial the interrogation will be too late. Do you think we should have given Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his day in court before we started with the interrogations? > > So you're proposing that the US torture people w/o a trial or case review?

I forgot about the loud rap music. Emenim and 50 Cent is not considered cruel and unusual punishment. Coldplay on the other hand is. :) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Sam wrote: > Do you think we should have given Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his day in > court before we started with the interrogations? > If KSM is a prisoner-of-war, then the Geneva Convention applies.  If KSM is a war criminal, then international law applies.

What international law are you talking about? I thought the Geneva Convention was the international law on the subject. > If KSM is a prisoner-of-war, then the Geneva Convention applies.  If > KSM is a war criminal, then international law applies. >

> Nick wrote: > What international law are you talking about? > Think Hussein or Milosovic.  Or Mark Rich.

OK, i don't see how any of those in any way apply. Two were leaders of recognized nations, leading and ordering the things they were charged with. Mark Rich, best i can tell is wanted for a specific crime in the US, wanted by a US court. Which doesn't make him an international criminal, but a fugitive. ________________________________ Sent: Tue 10/17/2006 8:59 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Republicans Suspend Habeas Corpus > Nick wrote: > What international law are you talking about? > Think Hussein or Milosovic.  Or Mark Rich.

> Nick wrote: > OK, i don't see how any of those in any way apply. > So here's the deal.  Presuming the US is in Iraq as a guest of Iraq, then most if not all of those attacking US forces would fall under the jurisdiction of Iraqi law.  If the person in question is not Iraqi, then they'd need to be charged in one of 4 ways: 1.) By their country of origin. 2.) By Iraq. 3.) By an international court set up for such a purpose. 4.) By a US military court. Typically international treaties dictate how things are handled.  For example, if I'm smoking doobies in France, France can release me to US custody where I could also be charged. Note that not one of those options is: a.) Throw them in jail forever with no recourse. b.) Torture them. As a society, we have to decide if it's best for us to live under a legal structure (both domestic and foreign) that respects the rights of the citizen over the desires of the government. Mr Bush is asserting the rights of government over the rights of citizens.  He's telling the rest of the World that our Constitution is not a universal template for national governance, but merely a document that's more a rule of thumb; to be cast aside when it's no longer convenient. Further he's telling us that, as citizens, we should trust him with the sole discretion to decide a person's imprisonment and judgement. And that he can do anything to someone as long as it doesn't directly cause organ failure or death. For those of us that value freedom, these are not things we want our government aspiring to.

nicely put. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Did you see McCain's thoughts on this matter? It's hard to dismiss his opinion, considering he was TORTURED HIMSELF. He's against any law that sanctions torture....and I agree with him. He also believes, that in certain extreme cases, it may be necessary for a president to expressly break that law in order to save lives. He thinks that this case is so rare, and so extreme, that it should require a president to break a law in order to do it. Putting in a loophole that makes torture legal makes taking this step way too easy...and it shouldn't be. I agree with him. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I do too. I can conceive of it being necessary but then I have a pretty good imagination. My take on this: This is now who we are to the vast majority of the world's population. America, the country that doesn't mind locking up innocent people. That thinks due process is inconvenient. And that thinks it's ok to hit people as long as you don't kill them. And this is going to prevent attacks on America? Riiiight. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

You mean to the vast majority of the world's populations who live under regimes that have been doing this very same thing for decades? Yer right, the rest of the world's population is probably wondering what took those silly idealistic Americans so long to join the party. I don't give a shit about perception, i care about doing what is right. Torture is NOT right. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> gMoney wrote: > Torture is NOT right. > Nor is denial of liberty without recourse. The terrifying thing about this for me is twofold: (1.) I studied the just-give-me-power-and-I-will-help-you phenomena extensively in college - both history and literature.  Darkness At Noon and Heart of Darkness come to mind on the literature side.  I never thought I'd see such a blatant example in real life. (2.) Seeing such a obvious example of the slippery slope in one thing. But actually seeing it in my own country is stunning.  And then to see so many American agree with it is terrifying.

And what's going to happen in two years? Give it a rest. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Sam wrote: > And what's going to happen in two years? > I certainly have no idea, but here are a few guesses: 1.) Diebold rigs yet another election. 2.) Supreme Court elects yet another President. 3.) Elections cancelled due to War on Terror. 4.) The internets, which are not a truck, add more tubes. 5.) I can't post any longer as I'm in jail along with the rest of you.

great books. Though I don't remember Heart of Darkness enough to know what applies? Darkness at Noon gave me nightmares though. Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem may apply even more. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Dana wrote: > great books. Though I don't remember Heart of Darkness enough to know what applies? Well, so HoD was about the Belgian Congo, but it was the inspiration for Apocolypse Now which, of course, took place in Vietnam. The general idea is that someone begins trying to do good, slowly utilizes more and more power to do good, but the power turns them evil. From Wiki: "As the film continues, it becomes increasingly hallucinatory and unpredictable, to the point where Willard loses sight as to what he is supposed to be doing in the jungle, a clear and stated metaphor for what happened to the United States in Vietnam. Much like the novel on which it is based, many critics see the film's subtext as a journey into the darkness of the human psyche." And much like what US is doing in Iraq. Kurtz=Bush?

ah I see. I remembered it being very dark and wondering for the first half of the book what it reminded me of. Which was of course the river scenes in Apocalypse Now. Eichman in Jerusalem in a factual account of the man's trial, with a superimposed commentary as to how a seemingly ordinary if not limited individual can view the Holocaust as simply a problem in logistics. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

That's retarded > is so rare, and so extreme, that it should require a president to break a > law in order to do it. Putting in a loophole that makes torture legal makes > taking this step way too easy...and it shouldn't be.

Eloquent, Sam. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Under the Geneva Convention, if you do not honor it, it does not apply. It also states that if you are an enemy combatant you need a military court to determine that status. We had military tribunals but some judge stopped them. No we are applying the GC to enemy combatants and you're still upset. Now you suddenly have morals? This is life or death, we're not torturing people, we're smacking them in the belly to save thousands of lives. If you're man enough to kill thousands of civilians for no reason, you should be man enough to take a few girly smacks. He's telling the rest of the World that our Constitution is > not a universal template for national governance, but merely a > document that's more a rule of thumb; to be cast aside when it's no > longer convenient. You're telling people we won't do anything, come hurt us.

No, Sam. No we're not. The "some judge" you refer to was the Supreme Court, which declared the program unconstitutional. They fixed that by passing a law saying that it is in fact constitutional. Kinda like me saying you're an Eskimo. Saying it is doesn't make it so, but by the time this gets back up to the Supreme Court Bush the Lesser will be out of office and it will be someone else's problem. Dana >applying the GC to enemy combatants and you're still upset. Now you >suddenly have morals? This is life or death, we're not torturing >people, we're smacking them in the belly to save thousands of lives. >If you're man enough to kill thousands of civilians for no reason, you >should be man enough to take a few girly smacks.

The Court said the GC applies. So does this bill. Where's the issue? The bill sets up the military tribunals that the court said had to be authorized by Congress not the President. Done. What is your issue again? What program? > No, Sam. No we're not. The "some judge" you refer to was the Supreme Court, which declared the program unconstitutional. They fixed that by passing a law saying that it is in fact constitutional. Kinda like me saying you're an Eskimo. > > Saying it is doesn't make it so, but by the time this gets back up to the Supreme Court Bush the Lesser will be out of office and it will be someone else's problem.

That's what I am saying. An illegal combatant isn't a war criminal. They are an illegal combatant.  Under the Geneva Convention they do not have the same rights as a legal uniformed combatant.  However they are not always war criminals, which are generally reserved for serious crimes against humanity type issues. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

a tabloid vs a respected newspaper. Hmm. Tough choice ;) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

You thin the Guardian is respected? Wow. > a tabloid vs a respected newspaper. Hmm. Tough choice ;) > > >The Guardian says it doesn't. Give me a break.

Life is too short to argue this with you, Sam. It's a mainstream centrist paper. I will grant you that it might be somewhat left-center -- I can't keep the Telegraph, the Observer and the Guardian straight -- but next to to something called Front Page Mag? Which says that torture prevents terrorism but cites no special authority about this? As you say, give me a break. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Look on page 154 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf You think he sang because they said please? > Life is too short to argue this with you, Sam. It's a mainstream centrist paper. I will grant you that it might be somewhat left-center -- I can't keep the Telegraph, the Observer and the Guardian straight -- but next to to something called Front Page Mag? Which says that torture prevents terrorism but cites no special authority about this? As you say, give me a break.

man, can someone just declare this thread dead already? -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com

Not yet, we can milk another 20 posts out of it if we really really try > man, can someone just declare this thread dead already?

*feels for pulse* I pronounce this thread dead at....3:14pm =) > man, can someone just declare this thread dead already?

p 154 says the CIA received a report on BL's whereabouts and says nothing about who it was from or how it was obtained. In otherwords, it is completely beside the point. > Look on page 154 > http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf > > You think he sang because they said please?

are you looking p154 of the PDF? or page 154 of the document (which is on page 171 pf the PDF)? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher

I was looking at the link he sent. I am not going to print the whole honking thing just to find out what Sam is talking about ;) As I said before, life is too short. > are you looking p154 of the PDF? or page 154 of the document (which > is > on page 171 pf the PDF)?

ok I have looked at 171 as well now, and while it is talking about KSM's version of events it too does not discuss the circumstances in which is was received. In other words it too is irrelevant to the question of whether torture works. What a waste of time. I have things to do, Sam. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- please?

"Die thread! I'm killing you now! Die!" -Rob doing his best 3Jane impression... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

http://www.leximancer.com/gallery/9_11_Commission/Map/data/911Report.pdf~11.html Detainee Interrogation Reports Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process. We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.2 ... KSM has insisted to his interrogators that he always contemplated hijacking and crashing large commercial aircraft. Indeed, KSM describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coasts -- they included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington. KSM himself was to land the tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech .... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

in other words your own source isn't sure of the credibility of this story. Why is it hard to see that this is beside the point? And assuming what you seem to be trying to prove, that this man was tortured and is telling the truth when he says that he had planned to fly a plane on 9-11, in what way does the knowledge make us safer? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Dana wrote: > that this man was tortured and is telling the truth when he says that he had planned to Of course the very fact that anyone feels torture is needed for any reason shows the total failure of the foreign policy Bush has pursued. And, were Bush to stay in office, if would only be a matter of time before Americans were next. That's what failure looks like.

So if it weren't for Bush, Al Qadea members would be lining up to point us to bin Laden's secret hideout and tell us about the terror plots against this country. Right, that makes sense. ________________________________ Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 8:54 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Republicans Suspend Habeas Corpus > Dana wrote: > that this man was tortured and is telling the truth when he says that he had planned to Of course the very fact that anyone feels torture is needed for any reason shows the total failure of the foreign policy Bush has pursued. And, were Bush to stay in office, if would only be a matter of time before Americans were next. That's what failure looks like.

> Nick wrote: > So if it weren't for Bush, Al Qadea members would be lining up to point us to bin Laden's secret hideout and tell us about the terror plots against this country. > > Right, that makes sense. > Ha!  That's silly. If it weren't for Bush there'd be no Bin Laden, America would have an economy that would enable it to have a real foreign policy, and we'd still be a respected leader in the World. Ah, well.  A plurality voted for the dumb guy.  Stupid is, as stupid gets.

We are talking about the same bin Laden that was wanted for attacks before Bush took office? Are you suggesting that if it weren't for Bush we would have already found bin Laden? ________________________________ Ha!  That's silly. If it weren't for Bush there'd be no Bin Laden, America would have an economy that would enable it to have a real foreign policy, and we'd still be a respected leader in the World. Ah, well.  A plurality voted for the dumb guy.  Stupid is, as stupid gets.

The same Bush whose father was in a business meeting with Osama Bin Laden's brother when the planes hit the towers. Hmm. Me, I dunno what would have happened if W were not in office; he is. I have noticed though mentions here and there of information coming in from say Syria of things we need to know, like word an attack is planned on an embassy. eWasn't that last airplane plot stopped in large part due to information Pakistan gave Britain? Maybe it's just me, but I'd think these people might feel inclined to do that a little more often to people who weren't talking about how we need a crusade against them....   > We are talking about the same bin Laden that was wanted for attacks > before Bush took office? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Nick wrote: > Are you suggesting that if it weren't for Bush we would have already found bin Laden? > Ironic what happens when Bush gets out of the way, huh?  Baker's team will finally help us make some progress in Iraq.  Just took Bush getting out of the way.  Once he's out of office, then things will really start going America's way.  Just gotta be patient.

Huh. I was not aware of a Baker team so I Googled. What I found is not nearly that optimistic though. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1768933.htm >Ironic what happens when Bush gets out of the way, huh?  Baker's team >will finally help us make some progress in Iraq.  Just took Bush >getting out of the way.  Once he's out of office, then things will >really start going America's way.  Just gotta be patient.

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- You don't really believe the bullshit you just spewed do you? What's happened to you lately Gruss? You've been Dana'ized or something......there'd be no Bin Laden if there was no Bush? Won't even waste the one line needed to debunk that drivel..... -- "If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you an exotic pet...like a llama, or an emu."

Come on Gruss, OBL was around pre-bush and you know it. Thats silly. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> tBone wrote: > Come on Gruss, OBL was around pre-bush and you know it. > My mistake for being unclear here.  OBL wouldn't be around because a real leader would've captured or killed him long ago.  Instead Bush has depleted our military and diplomatic (not to mention financial) capital on Iraq. Further his deficit spending on crap has weakened our foreign policy to such an anemic point as to be irrelevant. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/829wydga.asp?pg=1 So, my point is, if we had a leader instead of a pastor-in-chief/spender-in-chief we'd be solving problems rather than creating new ones.

Clinton didn't kill or capture him when he had the chance, and I'm not really sure that anyone who gets to that level of US politics would either. Too much BS tied up with OBL. We just need to whack that dude, no trial, not interrogation, just death. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> tBone wrote: > Clinton didn't kill or capture him when he had the chance, and I'm not > really sure that anyone who gets to that level of US politics would either. I don't agree post-9/11.  We had the World behind us and we had Afghanistan as a forward base.  Had we not gone on our Iraq boondoggle I have no doubt Bin Laden would be captured or killed by now.  The pressure would've been too great. Instead we blew our diplomatic capital on a gamble in Iraq which didn't pay out. That's the interesting aspect to this: Iraq was a gamble and it's supporters should've viewed it as such.  They didn't. But it was, and they lost.  So they should quit whining and leave office.

> That's the interesting aspect to this: Iraq was a gamble and it's > supporters should've viewed it as such.  They didn't. But it was, and > they lost.  So they should quit whining and leave office. > The bargaining chips were are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Those are pretty goddam high stakes. -- "If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you an exotic pet...like a llama, or an emu."

> gMoney wrote: > The bargaining chips were are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters and > brothers. > > Those are pretty goddam high stakes. > Our relatives and most of our diplomatic capital.  All spent.  And out debt to China totally hobbles us in dealing with North Korea. So Bush's "we WILL NOT tolerate a nuclear Korea" is just a bunch of talk and now we're a joke. So prior to Bush foreign policy we were like a strong Marine.  Now we're the same Marine except hands bound behind the back, legs bound, one eye covered, in a dust storm. And rightly nobody takes us seriously.  Bush has laid all of our weaknesses out for all to see.

So much for killing this thread. I can't believe you're a neo-con now. Are you suggesting we attack NK rather then negotiate? We didn't lose no matter how many times you say it. When people like you and Jane Fonda convince enough people that we need to surrender and stop fighting for survival then we will lose. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Sam wrote: > We didn't lose no matter how many times you say it. Did we win?

> Did we win? We turned a corner. -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher

So black and white. Not yet. > > Sam wrote: > > We didn't lose no matter how many times you say it. > > Did we win?

> Sam wrote: > So black and white. > Not yet. > Which is exactly how you know we lost. Your lesson for today comes from Today's WSJ: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Critical-thinking skills are necessary for engaging in critical thinking, but they are not sufficient. You also have to want to think critically If you have good critical-thinking skills but for some reason are not motivated to deploy them, you will reach conclusions and make decisions no more rationally than someone without those skills.

You're weird ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> So prior to Bush foreign policy we were like a strong Marine.  Now > we're the same Marine except hands bound behind the back, legs bound, > one eye covered, in a dust storm. Interesting analogy....because a Marine with his hands bound, legs bound, one eye covered, in a dust storm...is still one lethal muthaphukka'. People dancing around in the streets because they think the US is weakened would be wise not to understimate her. W may be one incompetent asshole, but no one man is capable of keeping this country down for long. -- "If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you an exotic pet...like a llama, or an emu."

> gMoney wrote: > Interesting analogy....because a Marine with his hands bound, legs bound, > one eye covered, in a dust storm...is still one lethal muthaphukka'. Damn right.  We just have a LOT fewer options than we used to.  But poking sticks will provoke a reaction. > would be wise not to understimate her. W may be one incompetent asshole, but > no one man is capable of keeping this country down for long. > That's the hope.  I would argue that we're at our lowest point since Pres Carter and probably a lot lower.  That is, Pres Reagan had a military to work with.  The next Pres will have a hell of mess to clean up.  It'll probably take at LEAST one term just to restore our credibility. I wonder who that President will be ... Warner's out ... so it looks like: Democrats ------------------ * Biden * Ms. Clinton * Kerry * Gore (outside chance) * Obama (WAY outside chance) * ? Republicans -------------------- * Romney * Guilanni * McCain * Macaca's out, he'll be lucky to keep his seat ... * ?

Hooaah I'm saying, let so haji fuck reawaken the giant. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Just one more :) The Guardian had an anti-Bush letter writing campaign in 2004 to try to influence an American Presidential election. You call them respectable? > Life is too short to argue this with you, Sam. It's a mainstream centrist paper. I will grant you that it might be somewhat left-center -- I can't keep the Telegraph, the Observer and the Guardian straight -- but next to to something called Front Page Mag? Which says that torture prevents terrorism but cites no special authority about this? As you say, give me a break.

By guess is yes, yes she would ;) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Not only that, I already did ;) As far as I am concerned anyone can write any letters they want. Editorial positions are apples and reporting is oranges. Except perhaps in the publications Sam reads ;) But then he thinks listening to Rush means he is in the know... enough said. >By guess is yes, yes she would ;)

well yeah but I was trying to be nice to those here who are still in denial. > No, this is the type of war you get when you don't adequately plan > for > or ignore the occupation that comes afterwards, when you plan to be > greeted with flowers and parades, and don't plan for a contingency. > This is the kind of war you wouldn't be seeing in Afghanistan had the > administration not pulled out and gone for the gusto in Iraq. And poor planning, which is what I was going. As for Blair, ok, sloppy speech, I suppose I should have said the British. I was thinking more in terms of insurgents in Northern Ireland and in Afghanistan. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Fisher

yeah but you can't hold them indefinitely without a trial. Even Eichmann got a trial and he did quite a bit more than kill one soldier in the heat of battle. My god, if you are going to say you can't have combattants out of uniform you might as well lock up all of Northern Ireland and half the Middle East as well. If Britain and Israel can manage without whining about how the other side isn't playing by the rules, then I think perhaps the United States should do the same. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

You don't let them go until the conflict is over. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

that would work if we weren't at war with "forces of evil" or something >You don't let them go until the conflict is over.

He was a uniformed member of a military force, and therefore was given his rights under the Geneva Convention. I was NEVER shot at by a person in uniform. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I think this particular kid was signed on with the Taliban actually. I had never heard of him before this article so I am not sure of the details. However the whole point is that no he was not given his rights under the Geneva Convention. Did you even read the article? He is being beaten up and his advocate is risking his career by saying so. The administration says he has no rights under the Geneva Convention. >He was a uniformed member of a military force, and therefore was given his >rights under the Geneva Convention. > >I was NEVER shot at by a person in uniform.

Signed on with the Taliban does not a Legal combatant make. Was he in uniform?  Did he have an official ID card issued by a recognized government? I doubt it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I didn't say it did. I was correcting your assertion that he was in uniform and got his rights under the Geneva Convention. As to your questions, I have no idea and most likely neither does anyone else including his legal team. And that is the problem. Meanwhile he is very young and has spent a quarter of his life at Guantanamo, where there seems to be good evidence that he is being abused. There also seems to be no hope that he will ever get out. Now, he is alleged to have killed an American soldier, which if true certainly makes him a combattant. But how long do you hold him for this? And can you really say that he has valuable intelligence? He was *fifteen* ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I was talking about the Nazi when I talked about him getting his rights under the Geneva convention, not this kid. He killed an American?  Kill him. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I am not sure Eichmann was tried under the Geneva Convention. It doesn't matter though. I am saying that what he did was orders of magnitude worse. you seem to disagree however. There would be every reason to kill her there at the time if he was shooting at you. I am not sure why he wasn't. But, and I will say it again, you cannot create a clas of people who do not have human rights. You can't. >I was talking about the Nazi when I talked about him getting his rights >under the Geneva convention, not this kid. > >He killed an American?  Kill him.

I never said he didn't have human rights, I said he forfeited them when he fired on American soldiers. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Even so, the Taliban wasn't a recognized government. > Signed on with the Taliban does not a Legal combatant make. > > Was he in uniform?  Did he have an official ID card issued by a recognized > government? > > I doubt it. >

What rights did the Geneva convention give him? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

The right to die. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Yeah, that is what I thought. > The right to die. > > > What rights did the Geneva convention give him? > >

Anything else is gravy for him. We should now give him the choice - death or staying indefinitely at Guantanamo. We all know what he will choose. 'Cause there is always hope. And the "torture" they are recieving down there is better than many tax-paying American citizens are getting right now. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

really? So because some people are being beaten by authority figures it's ok if the prison guards do it? I tell you, I really worry about this country sometimes after reading thhe posts here. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

International Criminals? That's not their status under existing international law.  Their actual status would be that of spies and saboteurs, and therefore we can do with them as we see fit, up to and including summary execution. Why is this so hard for people to remember?  There is international case law that backs this up. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

it sort of depends on your definition of the word trial. >Sounds to me like they are saying that these people will get trials though >the military justice system.   http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/10/14/2025168-cp.html Khadr's lawyer under U.S. military gag order By BETH GORHAM      WASHINGTON (CP) - The U.S. military lawyer who represents Canadian Omar Khadr says he's been ordered not to speak to the media after his accusations of ongoing abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. "I'm not allowed to speak to anyone concerning the military commissions," Lt.-Col. Colby Vokey said in a telephone interview Saturday. Asked who issued the gag order, Vokey said: "I can't even tell you that." Vokey filed a military complaint about abuse last week. He attached a sworn statement from his paralegal, Sgt. Heather Cerveny, that said she talked to several Guantanamo guards who bragged about beating detainees. Muneer Ahmad, a criminal defence lawyer who also works on Khadr's case, said Vokey and Cerveny were ordered Friday by the U.S. marines not to speak to media organizations. A marines spokeswoman said Saturday she'd have to look into the matter before commenting. She later said the chief defence counsel of the Marine Corps, Col. Carol Joyce, directed Volkey not to communicate with the media on this case pending her review of the facts. "This is necessary to ensure all actions of counsel are in compliance with regulations establishing professional standards for military attorneys," said 1st Lt. Blanca Binstock. "This is a really troubling development," said Ahmad. "I think it really compromises his ability to represent his client. He needs to talk about it in order to do his job." Vokey could be facing jail for dereliction of duty if he doesn't obey the order, said Ahmad, adding he will likely talk next week with the ethics committee of the California state licensing board to determine his options. "At every turn, it's a kind of information control," said Ahmad. "It's revealing of the structural flaw in the system." Cerveny visited Guantanamo last month and said she spent an hour with some guards at the military club. "From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice," she wrote in her complaint. "Everyone in the group laughed at the others' stories of beating detainees." They stopped talking about it, she said, when they found out she worked on Khadr's legal team. Her allegations, said Ahmad, are consistent with Khadr's descriptions of abuse. "Here is strong evidence supporting the claim of Col. Vokey's client of ongoing abuse at Guantanamo," said Richard Wilson at American University's law college. "By ordering him to be quiet, the military is preventing Col. Vokey from fulfilling his ethical obligations as a lawyer," said Wilson, who's also on Khadr's legal team. Khadr, 20, has been in U.S. custody since he was picked up in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old. He's charged with murdering an American medic in a July 2002 firefight. He has told his lawyers he's been beaten, held for long periods in stress positions and locked up in solitary confinement for months at a time. The U.S. Southern Command based in Miami launched an investigation Friday into the abuse allegations. "I don't know if there's reason to have confidence in that or not," said Ahmad. President George W. Bush is expected to sign a new bill next week on the special military commission system for detainees in the war on terror held at the U.S. base in Cuba. "This is more than a coincidence," said Ahmad. "Sgt. Cerveny's sworn statement reveals exactly what is wrong with the new law. It permits the abuse of detainees to continue, it immunizes wrongdoers and it strips the courts of the power to ever hear complaints of such abuse. "The president wants us to believe there never was abuse at Guantanamo and that there isn't abuse now. Sgt. Cerveny's statement shows that just isn't true."

this one explains it better, and brings out an issue I had not even considered -- the conflic of interest of many of the advocates. Marine Corps Issues Gag Order in Detainee Abuse Case The action has lawyers worrying they could be punished for defending Guantanamo clients. By Carol J. Williams, Times Staff Writer October 15, 2006 MIAMI — The U.S. Marine Corps has threatened to punish two members of the military legal team representing a terrorism suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay if they continue to speak publicly about reported prisoner abuse, a civilian lawyer from the defense team said Saturday. The action directed at Lt. Col. Colby Vokey and Sgt. Heather Cerveny follows their report last week that Guantanamo guards bragged about beating detainees, said Muneer Ahmad, an American University law professor who assists in the defense of Canadian suspect Omar Khadr. The order has heightened fears among the military defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners that their careers will suffer for exposing flaws and injustices in the system, Ahmad said. "In one fell swoop, the government is gagging a defense lawyer and threatening retaliation against a whistle-blower," Ahmad said. "It really points out what is wrong with the detainee legislation that Bush is scheduled to sign on Tuesday: It permits the abuse of detainees to continue, immunizes the wrongdoers and precludes the detainees from ever challenging it in court." The Marine Corps said the gag order had been issued to ensure the legal team's actions were in compliance with professional standards. "The Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps, as Lt. Col. Vokey's direct supervisor, has directed him not to communicate with the media on this case pending her review of the facts," said 1st Lt. Blanca E. Binstock of the Marine public affairs office. Defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners say the personal stakes are high and point to the Navy's failure to promote Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift after he successfully challenged the legitimacy of the Pentagon's war-crimes commissions. Two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled the commissions unconstitutional and lacking in due process, Swift was passed over for advancement and will be forced by the Navy's up-or-out policy to retire by summer. At least three other military defense lawyers for the 10 charged terrorism suspects have also been passed over for promotion in what some consider a subtle reprimand of their vigorous defense of their clients. "We've all known that representing folks in these kind of circumstances would have consequences, but to actually see Charlie passed over after he takes his case to the Supreme Court and wins — that certainly put it in the forefront for me," said Army Maj. Tom Fleener, who represents Ali Hamza Bahlul of Yemen. As an Army reservist with a civilian law career in Wyoming to return to in a year or so, Fleener notes he is less susceptible to pressures being exerted on the military defense lawyers. "If I was active duty, where my livelihood depended on what my military superiors said of me, I would feel tremendous pressure," he said. Fleener says the mood in Guantanamo defense circles has deteriorated since the government's response to the high court ruling June 29 that President Bush overstepped his powers when he created the military war-crimes commissions. Those commissions would have allowed Pentagon prosecutors to use hearsay evidence and testimony obtained through torture, and barred defendants from seeing evidence against them that prosecutors deemed classified. Congress last month passed legislation creating a new military commissions process almost identical to the one rejected by the Supreme Court, with the added restriction that Guantanamo detainees have no right to submit writs of habeas corpus to U.S. civil courts to challenge their detention. It was such a writ filed on behalf of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, an alleged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, that brought the tribunal case to the Supreme Court. Swift declined to comment on not having received a promotion. "As a defense attorney, I don't like allegations without evidence," he says of the widespread view among his colleagues that he was punished for challenging the administration's tribunal process. "What you sought in any career was an opportunity to make a difference. I got that opportunity, and for that I will be forever grateful," Swift said. He said the new commissions legislation appears to preclude defendants' getting a fair trial. "A zealous defense is essential to any process that works," Swift said. "What has given the commissions any integrity so far is the ability of defense council to raise the case and concerns in all federal forums and the commissions themselves, and when necessary, in the media." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- carol.williams@latimes.com http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-gitmo15oct15,1,3884201.story?coll=la-news-a_section ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----      ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Isn't that also what is required by the Geneva Convention. ________________________________ Sent: Sat 10/14/2006 11:05 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Republicans Suspend Habeas Corpus Where in that bill did it indicate that the military could hold people indefinately?  I must have missed that one.  The bill gave the authority to the military to convene military tribunals for non-citizen enemy combatants. Sounds to me like they are saying that these people will get trials though the military justice system.  When laws are broken inside the country, then trials at the state/federal level take place.  This is true for both citizens and non-citizens.  When the rules of war are broken, they are handled by military tribunal.  And now military tribunals are authorized to handle enemy combatants. Your provacative language here really cracks me up Gruss.  I think that is by far the funniest part of your posts in general. Here are some rules of thumb for you to take home... 1) When in a foreign country, best not to try and raise arms against our deployed troops in the region when not your not part of a recognized uniformed fighting force (this makes you an enemy combatant). 2) When you are a non-citizen guest in this country, try obeying our laws. It's just a nice thing to do. 3) Understand that another's power to dominate you is mostly out of your control, especially if she's really cute.

>Isn't that also what is required by the Geneva Convention. which Geneva Convention? The one our Attorney-General has declared "quaint'? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks30jun30,0,339573.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions Rosa Brooks: Did Bush commit war crimes? Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld could expose officials to prosecution. June 30, 2006 THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention. But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act. ADVERTISEMENT The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration's arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo. This novel theory served as the administration's legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial. Perhaps most troubling, it allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as "waterboarding," placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation. Under Bush administration logic, these tactics were not illegal under U.S. law because U.S. law was trumped by the law of war, and they weren't illegal under the law of war either, because Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment were not applicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda. In 2005, Congress angered the administration by passing Sen. John McCain's amendment explicitly prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. But Congress did not attach criminal penalties to violations of the amendment, and the administration has repeatedly indicated its intent to ignore it. The Hamdan decision may change a few minds within the administration. Although the decision's practical effect on the military tribunals is unclear — the administration may be able to gain explicit congressional authorization for the tribunals, or it may be able to modify them to comply with the laws of war — the court's declaration that Common Article 3 applies to the war on terror is of enormous significance. Ultimately, it could pave the way for war crimes prosecutions of those responsible for abusing detainees. Common Article 3 forbids "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The provision's language is sweeping enough to prohibit many of the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. That's why the administration had argued that Common Article 3 did not apply to the war on terror, even though legal experts have long concluded that it was intended to provide minimum rights guarantees for all conflicts not otherwise covered by the Geneva Convention. But here's where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty. Don't expect that to happen anytime soon, of course. For prosecutions to occur, some federal prosecutor would have to issue an indictment. And in the Justice Department of Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales — who famously called the Geneva Convention "quaint" — a genuine investigation into administration violations of the War Crimes Act just ain't gonna happen. But as Yale law professor Jack Balkin concludes, it's starting to look as if the Geneva Convention "is not so quaint after all."

the issue is not that there will be military tribunals. The issue is that it has taken serious and prolonged litigation to arrive at the point where there will be military tribunals, at which the defendant will not be allowed to see the evidence against him, because it is classified. We are years into the process and still have not reached the point where the result can be seen as anything approaching justice, even by those who are sure the defendants are bad people. Perhaps they are, but you can't prove it by the way they are being handled. >court systems.  If military tribunals are good enough for our own soldiers, >I'm sure that they will suffice for enemy combatants.

They are also reserved for visitors of this country. However enemy soldiers trying to attack this country aren't criminals. They are something different. > And the detainees at Gitmo are from where... California?  Maybe Nevada?  I > honestly think that you all are grasping at straws here.  Like it or not, > our constitutional rights do not extend to everyone on the planet.  Those > rights are reserved for American citizens.  If you want those rights > extended to everyone in the world, persuade them to adopt constitutions > like > ours.  Best of luck...

ha. Please explain to me how the constitution of other countries affects the behavior of the United States government. For instance, at least one of the detainees is Australian, and Australia has a Constitution. A quick Google indicates that there's at least one Briton, and while Britain does not have a written constitution precisely, the Magna Carta embodies most of the same principles as the American Constitution, which was derived from it. So your argument is specious at best. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

How is it hard? You been in prison before and were unable to prove it? ________________________________ Sent: Sun 10/15/2006 2:38 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Republicans Suspend Habeas Corpus ha. Please explain to me how the constitution of other countries affects the behavior of the United States government. For instance, at least one of the detainees is Australian, and Australia has a Constitution. A quick Google indicates that there's at least one Briton, and while Britain does not have a written constitution precisely, the Magna Carta embodies most of the same principles as the American Constitution, which was derived from it. So your argument is specious at best.

I think you're actually answering Gruss' point that you might not be able to prove your citizenship. I'll let him answer this. Me, I am answering Jeff's notion that the problem is that the prisoners' country of origin does not have a Constitution. Let me add to this answer by pointing out that the kid mentioned in the first article is a Canadian citizen. Canada does have a Constitution. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

My point is that this is from the law. And it says that if they say you are anenemy combattant, you are. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

The bill only applies to non American Citizens. It doesn't even apply to uniformed members of an opposing army. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

they keep saying that, yes. So Jose Padilla is in jail why again? And what about the American Taliban kid? >The bill only applies to non American Citizens. > >It doesn't even apply to uniformed members of an opposing army.

> they keep saying that, yes. So Jose Padilla is in jail why again? And what about the > American Taliban kid? They are in jail under completely different charges. In the case of the "American Taliban" he is being charged with treason because he drew arms against his country in defense of another. His has been sentenced to 20 years... personally he got off light, he could have faced a firing squad. From what I can find on Padilla, he does not fall under the new law either.  He is a citizen that was charged in conjunction with terror activities or attempts.  In all honesty his case is one that doesn't pass my "smell test" on *either side*.  I will grant that he was held from 2002 to 2004 in a Navy Brig, charged as an enemy combatant, however I found an AP published timeline: http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/15598911.htm The following entry on *his* side don't pass my smell test: Aug. 2, 2006 - Cooke reluctantly agrees to delay trial from September until January 2007 after both sides ask for more preparation time. (this is after getting access to the classified mateiral to help defense preparation) 5 more months to prepare a defense?  What fails my smell test is the fact that if he's innocent of the charges and the government doesn't have enough evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, why do his lawyers want 5 months to prepare?? Especially after the fact that they've been working together (Padilla and his attorneys) for years now. That's all well, fine and good but it does not relate to the bill just passed and signed into law.  What was just passed is ONLY for those non-american enemy combatants being held at Gitmo.  Lindh was held in Gitmo until it was determined that he was a US citizen and Padilla was ne