Court: No habeas rights for prisoners in Afghanistan

[GarfieldtheCat]

Bush was a RINO. How does it shoot down the concept that both Bush and Obama are far left liberal nutjobs?

Are you serious? Bush was a RINO and "far left liberal nutjob"?

WTH is a "real" republican in you eyes then?

 

[drebo]

Are you serious? Bush was a RINO and "far left liberal nutjob"?

WTH is a "real" republican in you eyes then?

One with centrist-to-conservative social tendancies and conservative fiscal tendancies. Bush had neither.

I suppose you could call him a neocon. Either way, he was not, and never tried to be, a true conservative.

 

[EagleKeeper]

At what point can the people in Gitmo be airlighted to BAF?

 

[tk149]

This is wrong. Regardless of president, regardless of applicable law.

This is a violation of what America is supposed to stand for.

If there is proof that the prisoners should be detained, then PROVE it. After 7 years, I can't believe that they are a good source of intelligence any more.

 

[Patranus]

Why would they?
They are not Americans in custody of the United States.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

One with centrist-to-conservative social tendancies and conservative fiscal tendancies. Bush had neither.

I suppose you could call him a neocon. Either way, he was not, and never tried to be, a true conservative.

I would say in general Bush fits for social, he was/is an evangelical after all. As to fiscal responsibility, well, let's just say that I guess you haven't seen any "real" republicans for a long long time, right?

I mean really, Reagan, Bush I , and Bush II all were not fiscally responsible at all, with ballooning deficits.

And since when does only conservative = "true" republicans anyway? Neo-cons, as to which there are many now, are "true" republicans, at least in the minds of most people, just by looking at the tea baggers, palin-ites, and other congressional members.

Do you have any recent Presidents that are "true" republicans? Any?

 

[shira]

obama has not only continued bush policies, but expanded them exponentially.

the close gitmo campaign was merely a stunt to justify further drone activities in pakistan and more troops for afghanistan.

i mean, you can either house terrorists, or kill them.

Obama does "exponentially expanded" torture? Nope, sorry.

Obama does "exponentially expanded" domestic eavesdropping on American citizens? Nope, sorry.

Obama has "exponentially expanded" the prison population in Gitmo? Nope, sorry.

Obama has "exponentially expanded" tax cuts for the wealthy? Nope, sorry.

Why don't you provide us with links to the data that proves that Obama has "not only continued bush policies, but expanded them exponentially"?

 

[werepossum]

These people may not be being held merely for intelligence value. When you are in a war, there's a certain value in not releasing combatants (or their support personnel) until the war is over, lest they return to trying to kill you. No matter who is president, that's sound policy. I can even see SCOTUS' nuanced point about Gitmo, which was set up not as a EPW camp, but rather as a holding and interrogation camp for high value prisoners, many of whom were taken for terrorism activities rather than for war activities. I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the difference legally.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's wrong, regardless of President.

Disgusting for Bush, disgusting for Obama

Although, it will be interesting to all those trolls here that routinely spout off about Obama being a socialist or communist, and how he is a "far-left liberal". Guess this shoots that concept down.

Taking big government actions is somehow contrary to being a big government ideologue?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

These people may not be being held merely for intelligence value. When you are in a war, there's a certain value in not releasing combatants (or their support personnel) until the war is over, lest they return to trying to kill you. No matter who is president, that's sound policy. I can even see SCOTUS' nuanced point about Gitmo, which was set up not as a EPW camp, but rather as a holding and interrogation camp for high value prisoners, many of whom were taken for terrorism activities rather than for war activities. I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the difference legally.

Except for the fact that the US has decided that this is a "forever" war, so it will never end, so you may say we only hold them until the war is over, but that is only a fig leaf to fool people, what you are really saying is that we will hold them until they die, since the war will never be over.

So how will this "war" ever be "won"? It's impossible.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Taking big government actions is somehow contrary to being a big government ideologue?

I don't even understand what you are saying. Care to rephrase?

Are you saying he is a "big government ideologue"? That wouldn't be a "far left liberal" position.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

he has shut down (allegedly) the secret CIA prisons and gitmo is supposed to go at some point. i think it stopped accepting combatants awhile ago.

either way, for every cause there is an effect.

if you don't throw terrorists in some jail, what do you do? let them be free?

the "war on terror" is predicated on an indefinite conflict against infinite enemy combatants.

there are no military objectives either then kill a certain quota of taliban/al-qaeda/whatever to meet the defense industries needs.

It's not as deep as that, guys. They're just making new prisons in other places. Publicity.

 

[Atheus]

WTF has the Geneva convention got to do with American upholding its own constitutional principles?

Well, nothing, since the US law only applies to Americans, and the Geneva conventions apply only to warfare, which is by definition againt another nation... so yea... not only do the conventions have nothing to do with your constitution, your constitution equally has nothing to do with America's actions overseas...

But I've got a feeling this isn't quite what you meant...

Seriously though, it's really very clever what America has done with it's own citizens - by creating an air of supiriority and ignoring world opinion it has actually managed to make many people believe laws and treaties guaranteeing fair trials, free speech, guarding against the use of chemical weapons and torture etc, are somehow wrong or (lol) outdated! As if the nature of humanity changes acording to America's political situation! Americans will now talk about 'freedom' and 'justice' in the same sentance as the killing of foriegn civilians without a formal state of war and see no dichotomy whatsoever. I know the cliche is getting very old but this _is_ doublespeak and it is terrifying. The worst thing is the thought that perhaps this is not down meerly to stupidity and a concentrated brainwashing campaign, but that perhaps Americans really do believe they are better than other people - that others have no rights purely because they're not American - an idea I believe you were trying to communicate in your own crude way in the above post.

 

[SAWYER]

I have seen some big apologists in my day but Shira takes the cake!

 

[tk149]

Why would they?
They are not Americans in custody of the United States.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

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.

How does this act not violate the spirit of these documents?

If the government has proof that these prisoners should be kept locked up, why can't they hold a trial and seal the records? This is a dangerous precedent.

What will the U.S. say when China or North Korea or some tin dictator decides to detain American citizens indefinitely? The U.S. has lost whatever moral high ground it had.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What will the U.S. say when China or North Korea or some tin dictator decides to detain American citizens indefinitely? The U.S. has lost whatever moral high ground it had.

Unfortunately, the US, along with most of the posters here, will cry foul and argue for immediate release, since they firmly believe that the US is always right, and we have special rights that no one else has.

To note:
State Dept report on Venezuela's abuses:

Although the constitution states that no person shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, there were credible reports that security forces continued to torture and abuse detainees.

The constitution prohibits the arrest or detention of an individual without a judicial order; provides for the accused to remain free while being tried, except in specific cases where the laws of the state or individual judges can supersede this provision; and provides that any detained individual has the right to immediate communication with family and lawyers, who, in turn, have the right to know of the detainee's whereabouts.

State Dept link

Or how about condemning Russia for abuses?

State dept link

The law permits the government to monitor correspondence, telephone conversations, and other means of communication only with judicial permission and prohibits the collection, storage, utilization, and dissemination of information about a person's private life without his consent. While these provisions were generally followed, problems remained. There were accounts of electronic surveillance by government officials and others without judicial permission, and of entry into residences and other premises by Moscow law enforcement without warrants. There were no reports of government action against officials who violated these safeguards.

Or how about Libya?

The reported methods of torture and abuse included chaining prisoners to a wall for hours; clubbing; applying electric shock; applying corkscrews to the back; pouring lemon juice in open wounds; breaking fingers and allowing the joints to heal without medical care; suffocating with plastic bags; depriving detainees of sleep, food, and water; hanging by the wrists; suspending from a pole inserted between the knees and elbows; burning with cigarettes; threatening with dog attacks; and beatings on the soles of the feet.

Some of that sound familiar (yes some, not all) ?

State dept link

Nothing like total hypocrisy in the US nowadays. Gee, I guess it is OK for us to do these things, it's just not OK for anyone else to do it, and certainly not to us.

 

[Elias824]

How about the next person to complain gives one of these guys a room to live in your house if he is found innocent in court. There just isnt really any good solution for what to do with these guys, if you had a trial you'd end up have to release most of them back into Afghanistan/Iraq while were still fighting and possibly get someone else killed. There are already stories of this happening.
There is a huge problem with them being "enemy combatants" in a traditional war after it was over or sometime during the war the two countries could negotiate to have pows released and that country then would be liable for them. enemy combatants don't have any country sticking up for them, they are really not fighting on behalf of anyone else. They are fighting because they want to, we've really never delt with a situation like this before as far as I know no one else really has either.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

How about the next person to complain gives one of these guys a room to live in your house if he is found innocent in court. There just isnt really any good solution for what to do with these guys, if you had a trial you'd end up have to release most of them back into Afghanistan/Iraq while were still fighting and possibly get someone else killed. There are already stories of this happening.
There is a huge problem with them being "enemy combatants" in a traditional war after it was over or sometime during the war the two countries could negotiate to have pows released and that country then would be liable for them. enemy combatants don't have any country sticking up for them, they are really not fighting on behalf of anyone else. They are fighting because they want to, we've really never delt with a situation like this before as far as I know no one else really has either.

We do this already, and have been for 200 years. It's called our criminal justice system. There are plenty of people in the US that commit murder, rape, and other crimes, but are found not guilty by a court, and are released to live where they want without restraints, because they were not found guilty. Should we start locking up all of those people as well?

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't even understand what you are saying. Care to rephrase?

Are you saying he is a "big government ideologue"? That wouldn't be a "far left liberal" position.

Are socialist and communist not far left for you? We can talk apples and oranges all year long....

 

[tk149]

How about the next person to complain gives one of these guys a room to live in your house if he is found innocent in court. There just isnt really any good solution for what to do with these guys, if you had a trial you'd end up have to release most of them back into Afghanistan/Iraq while were still fighting and possibly get someone else killed. There are already stories of this happening.
There is a huge problem with them being "enemy combatants" in a traditional war after it was over or sometime during the war the two countries could negotiate to have pows released and that country then would be liable for them. enemy combatants don't have any country sticking up for them, they are really not fighting on behalf of anyone else. They are fighting because they want to, we've really never delt with a situation like this before as far as I know no one else really has either.

So the answer is just to lock up anyone who our government (which has never ever made mistakes) deems an enemy combatant?

If they are found guilty in an unbiased court, then I am all for locking them up and throwing away the key. But these guys haven't even had a chance to prove their innocence as far as I know. How is that fair in any way?

Our entire justice system is set up to err on the side of freeing some who are guilty in exchange for ensuring that very few innocents are convicted.

"innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven innocent."

"beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much greater prosecutorial burden than "preponderance of the evidence."

Just close your eyes and repeat "there is no slippery slope and government will never abuse this power."

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Are socialist and communist not far left for you? We can talk apples and oranges all year long....

Socialism and communism are left, but Obama is doing neither. So what is your point?

Did he nationalize the banks? no
Did he argue for a public option on health care? no
Is he arguing he has unlimited executive power? Yes
Is he ordering assassinations of US citizens? Yes
Is he supporting going after whistle-blowers? Yes

Doesn't sound socialist or communist to me.

 

[Rainsford]

How about the next person to complain gives one of these guys a room to live in your house if he is found innocent in court. There just isnt really any good solution for what to do with these guys, if you had a trial you'd end up have to release most of them back into Afghanistan/Iraq while were still fighting and possibly get someone else killed. There are already stories of this happening.
There is a huge problem with them being "enemy combatants" in a traditional war after it was over or sometime during the war the two countries could negotiate to have pows released and that country then would be liable for them. enemy combatants don't have any country sticking up for them, they are really not fighting on behalf of anyone else. They are fighting because they want to, we've really never delt with a situation like this before as far as I know no one else really has either.

So the solution is to just NOT deal with it? It seems like there should be a position that handles every concern more useful than just throwing up our hands and saying we don't know what to do, so we're just going to keep "detaining" everyone indefinitely.

I think a decent solution would be to come up with some reasonable trial format and actually try prisoners. If they're guilty, we can imprison them instead of just detaining them. And if they're innocent, we can let them go, freeing up detention resources for actual bad guys and stopping the crappy PR we're getting as a result of what we're doing now.