McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling

[Psycho4Bud]

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain today called the U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantanamo detainees to challenge their status in civilian courts "one of the worst I've ever seen."

McCain made his comments while traveling on his campaign bus to a town hall meeting at Burlington County College in Pemberton.

"These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants," McCain said. "I think this is one of the biggest mistakes that's been made in terms of our ability to defend our nation in a long, long time."

He called Thursday's 5-4 ruling "a stunning reversal" of World War II precedents empowering the president, as commander in chief, to deal with enemy combatants.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling - Breaking News From New Jersey - NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/mccain_blasts_supreme_courts_g.html)

With McCain wanting to close Club Gitmo I'm suprised but pleased with his stance.

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

With McCain wanting to close Club Gitmo I'm suprised but pleased with his stance.

Have a good one!:s4:

I agree. I was infuriated with the ruling to give them the same Rights as American citizens. Even if these were not enemy combatants the fact of the matter remains that they are not Americans.

It's truely disgusting that we would attempt to give the same rights we get to enjoy to someone who attempted to harm our country.

whether you believe in Gitmo or not; you have to admit that giving terrorists or people that are not Americans the same rights that we have is just pain wrong.

[Psycho4Bud]

Obama, by contrast, went on the offensive against McCain in his response to the ruling. Forget about McCain's promise to close Guantanamo in the future, Obama observed -- remember that the former prisoner of war supported creating the military commissions system that the high court struck down today.

"The court's decision is a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain," Obama said.
Fallout from the Gitmo ruling | Deadline USA | guardian.co.uk (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html)

Is this the type of change people want? People like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the master mind of 9-11, having the same constitutional rights in our courts as our own citizens? I'm also sure they'll enjoy the media circus that'll be televised in the Middle East.

During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts? We now know what type of people Obama wants on our Supreme Court........NOT a good change.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Dutch Pimp]

"The needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few"-Spock

[dragonrider]

Everyone the US takes into custody needs to be given some kind of legal "status" and some kind of legal recourse. I don't know if full access to civilain courts is the answer, but the Supreme Court does not provide suggestions on what to do, they rule on the legality of esxisting laws and lower court decisions. Maybe there is a better answer, but it's not the job of the court to say what it is.

But I believe there absolutely needs to be some kind of legal status and legal recourse. If you capture a member of an enemy army during a war, that soldier has a legal status as a POW --- they don't have access to civilian courts, but they don't just disappear into a hole. If you take an accused criminal into custody, that criminal has a legal status too and doesn't just disappear into a hole. The administration has said basically that these accused terrorists are not members of a foreign army, so they are not POWs. And they are not accused criminals in the normal legal sense. Since they aren't either of those two things, they are some other class of prisoner "enemy combatant," and they have no rights at all. I think it's un-American.

If these detainiees are neither POWs nor accused criminals, then the governemnt needs to develop a legal definition for them and rules for processing them that are constitutional. You can't just leave it at, Oh heck, we're not sure what you are, so we're just going to lock you up forever with no access to lawyers or courts. We're not going to tell you why you're here. We're not going to tell your family or your government where you are. Too bad you are just so legally confusing!

The reason these people need some kind of legal recourse is that we know for a fact that some people have been held as "enemy combatants" WHO WERE NOT TERRORISTS! 60 Minutes had a feature a couple of months ago about a German guy who was picked up in Pakistan, accused of a bogus terrorism-related charge, held for several years in Gitmo and tortured during that time. Is that what this country is about? Tell someone he is German, so he doesn't get to enjoy the rights of an American citizen? Accuse him of terrorism without any proof, hold him incommunicado, and torture him? Doesn't sound American to me. That is a slippery slope to YOU losing YOUR rights, people!

When you ask, "During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts?" No, probably none of them had access to civilian courts, but at least in WWII they had a legal status as POWs. It's up to the government to develop a new legal status if one is needed.

EDIT: Before anyone gets on me for being "soft" on terrorists, let me just say I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If they are found to be terrorists, I'm OK with hanging them. I just don't think the US should be able to snatch someone up without even saying what they are accused of and hold them in prison indefinitely with no access to any legal status. It's been 7 years. We've had time to figure out what we are going to do with them!

[killerweed420]

Who knows what these people are guilty of. There needs to be some sort of a process. They can't be just locked up and left to die. This is a lot closer to Nazi Germany than it is America.
And now the bigger problem is. If these people weren't terrorists before they certainly will be now with the way we've treated them. Theyeither need to charged with something or released. If they are terrorists put the evidence before some sort of a military court and be done with it. If they are guilty kill them,if they're inncocent let them go.

[birdgirl73]

This is another example of really incredibly simple-minded, myopic stuff coming out of right-leaning surface-comprehension. Seriously incredible.

Of course there needs to be some process. Due process. The same things that we ask in other countries and even as a part of the Geneva conventions have to be afforded to those so-called enemy combatants. They're not convicted enemy combatants. They're alleged. It is an absolute no-brainer for there to be some sort of due process. If they're just locked up and alleged as criminals until the ends of their lives, then our so-called big talk about spreading Democracy and freedoms in the parts of the world they hail from is a complete joke.

The languishing-in-captivity-until-death approach is also precisely the sort of dark-ages judicial process we're expending millions of dollars to correct in Iraq and Afghanistan through our provincial judicial reconstruction teams. Go spend some time reading about provincial reconstruction if you don't believe me. This is why folks need to be better informed here. To say we shouldn't have to give Gitmo detainees the same rights as Americans when we're in Iraq and Afghanistan spending millions to give those countries the same sort of judicial freedoms we enjoy--and also to insist that, if Americans were in the same circumstances, we would have to be given those same rights as detainees in their prisons, either civilian or military--is an incredible form of hypocrisy.

What's particularly amazing to me about McCain's current stance--which I don't for a moment believe is about anything other than appearing to fall on the side he thinks is going to get him the most right-wing support, not about what he actually thinks about due process for alleged combatants, particularly considering what he's repeatedly said about Gitmo and torture and Geneva in the past--is how he, an alleged "enemy combatant" war criminal/POW in Vietnam for nearly 6 years, could have concluded otherwise in response to the Supreme Court ruling. I still maintain that this is more about partisan stance than it is about his actual response, however, and I have to keep in mind that he's not a lawyer or a judge, which probably affects his perception, too.

[dragonrider]

This is another example of really incredibly simple-minded, myopic stuff coming out of right-leaning surface-comprehension. Seriously incredible.

Of course there needs to be some process. Due process. The same things that we ask in other countries and even as a part of the Geneva conventions have to be afforded to those so-called enemy combatants. They're not convicted enemy combatants. They're alleged. It is an absolute no-brainer for there to be some sort of due process. If they're just locked up and alleged as criminals until the ends of their lives, then our so-called big talk about spreading Democracy and freedoms in the parts of the world they hail from is a complete joke.

The languishing-in-captivity-until-death approach is also precisely the sort of dark-ages judicial process we're expending millions of dollars to correct in Iraq and Afghanistan through our provincial judicial reconstruction teams. Go spend some time reading about provincial reconstruction if you don't believe me. This is why folks need to be better informed here. To say we shouldn't have to give Gitmo detainees the same rights as Americans when we're in Iraq and Afghanistan spending millions to give those countries the same sort of judicial freedoms we enjoy--and also to insist that, if Americans were in the same circumstances, we would have to be given those same rights as detainees in their prisons, either civilian or military--is an incredible form of hypocrisy.

What's particularly amazing to me about McCain's current stance--which I don't for a moment believe is about anything other than appearing to fall on the side he thinks is going to get him the most right-wing support, not about what he actually thinks about due process for alleged combatants, particularly considering what he's repeatedly said about Gitmo and torture and Geneva in the past--is how he, an alleged "enemy combatant" war criminal/POW in Vietnam for nearly 6 years, could have concluded otherwise in response to the Supreme Court ruling. I still maintain that this is more about partisan stance than it is about his actual response, however, and I have to keep in mind that he's not a lawyer or a judge, which probably affects his perception, too.

You have really put this point very well, Birdgirl. This is a much better explanation for the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure that we have settled what the due process will be for people who are not members of a foreign military or a criminal in the normal sense, but there must be SOMETHING.

And I also agree that McCain's statements on this issue seem very inconsistent with what I understood to be some of his CORE BELIEFS. Is it an extreme pander, or is he not the person I thought?

[BigWeed]

Obama, by contrast, went on the offensive against McCain in his response to the ruling. Forget about McCain's promise to close Guantanamo in the future, Obama observed -- remember that the former prisoner of war supported creating the military commissions system that the high court struck down today.

"The court's decision is a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain," Obama said.
Fallout from the Gitmo ruling | Deadline USA | guardian.co.uk (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html)

Is this the type of change people want? People like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the master mind of 9-11, having the same constitutional rights in our courts as our own citizens? I'm also sure they'll enjoy the media circus that'll be televised in the Middle East.

During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts? We now know what type of people Obama wants on our Supreme Court........NOT a good change.

Have a good one!:s4:
Hey Pyscho put it like this do you think a american that drives down a dirt road and shoots two little girls desevers due process and all the rights we have as law abiding citizens. I think you should strip him of all his rights and put him to death or even water board his ass untill he dies. The great thing this country is good for is that all people have due process and let their voices be heard and to defend themselves in a court of law.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[daihashi]

Hey Pyscho put it like this do you think a american that drives down a dirt road and shoots two little girls desevers due process and all the rights we have as law abiding citizens. I think you should strip him of all his rights and put him to death or even water board his ass untill he dies. The great thing this country is good for is that all people have due process and let their voices be heard and to defend themselves in a court of law.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

You're right.. that is the great thing.. All the People of THIS country have due process and can have their voices heard.

This is a privilige of the American People not for people suspected of terrorism. The people at GITMO do not deserve American rights. They obviously need some process there, but giving them American rights is not the way to go about it.

Like someone else said earlier.. maybe something similar to being a POW or the like, but having equal rights to an American who pays his dues to his country through taxes or through serving is just insane!!! These people have contributed nothing to America and you want to give away our rights to them? :wtf:

[BigWeed]

You're right.. that is the great thing.. All the People of THIS country have due process and can have their voices heard.

This is a privilige of the American People not for people suspected of terrorism. The people at GITMO do not deserve American rights. They obviously need some process there, but giving them American rights is not the way to go about it.

Like someone else said earlier.. maybe something similar to being a POW or the like, but having equal rights to an American who pays his dues to his country through taxes or through serving is just insane!!! These people have contributed nothing to America and you want to give away our rights to them? :wtf:

I hear what you are saying but all they want is to have there case heard and to prove that they are innocent. You said it yourself suspected terriorism dont they have a chance to defend themselves. They arent getting every right you and me have in the constitution their just getting there voices headr to state there case thats all. From what I been hearing on the news your boy Mccain didnt have a problem with it a few years ago but I guess with age you tend to forget things like that.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[painretreat]

Guess McCain liked his treatment in Viet Nam as an 'enemy combatant!" People, right or wrong, should have rights. They took our rights away right along with those guys! Why arent' they looking more at all the new laws we have to obey as a result of the terroist policies! I'd like to be able to jokingly say, I'd kill for that, without worrying about going 2 jail!
Example: Was having a garage sell; someone kept stealing a sign. Put a note on it requesting they not do so and I'd look them up! No threat, etc. Police came and threatened to take me to jail. I laughed at him and he got madder. Now, can you threaten someon u don't even know the identity of? Anyway, tit 4 tat went on for days. His Sarg. would talk to him! As a taxpaper here, all my life, that was not enough and I still went for it! Nothing came of it. That creep even phoned me later on the phone and was threatening to come to my home and take me to jail. Who are the real terroists? :( I imagine, he is only one of a few--I would hope! But, my faith in protection was diminished. Glad, I was having a garage sell to move from that city.

I was glad to hear the ruling!!

If we don't stand up for everyone's right's, we will lose our own! The day of 'minding your own business', in the realm of politics, has to change! Protect your fellow mankind, give them a voice!:thumbsup:

[daihashi]

I hear what you are saying but all they want is to have there case heard and to prove that they are innocent. You said it yourself suspected terriorism dont they have a chance to defend themselves. They arent getting every right you and me have in the constitution their just getting there voices headr to state there case thats all. From what I been hearing on the news your boy Mccain didnt have a problem with it a few years ago but I guess with age you tend to forget things like that.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

No, McCain is against Guantanamo bay completely. As far as I recall he always has been always been against GITMO. What McCain was for was for giving them trials.. not giving them constitutional rights.

And yes.. they do have full constitutional rights in court.

They are not Americans and should not get our rights. There needs to be another process for them.

While some of these people are suspected terrorists a LARGE NUMBER of them have admitted to terrorism and are proud of the fact. Yet now these people who have admitted to crimes are going to get constitutional rights. We are having our own privildges turned against us. Using our own judicial system to stick it to us.

Please research what rights come to constitutional court rights; because if you're unaware it's alot of protection and rights and they get all of them.

Our rights are not for just anyone. Why don't we start giving random rights to people from russia and china and mexico. Let's invite them to come here and murder people.. then let's give them full constitutional court rights.

Do you agree with that scenario? Allowing people who come in and murder US citizens to have full constitutional court rights? Or should they be treated as an enemy combatant.

Do you at least agree that there should be a process set for them that was fair given the situation but not the same constitutional rights as us?

Even the habeas corpus act does not grant rights to people who commit Treason. I feel that, AT BEST, the people at GITMO should have no more rights than a person who has committed treason.

[birdgirl73]

. . . .The people at GITMO do not deserve American rights. They obviously need some process there, but giving them American rights is not the way to go about it.

Like someone else said earlier.. maybe something similar to being a POW or the like, but having equal rights to an American who pays his dues to his country through taxes or through serving is just insane!!! These people have contributed nothing to America and you want to give away our rights to them? :wtf:
Yes, I'm saying we need to afford them the similar judicial rights. That's precisely what I'm saying.

As nonsensical as that may seem to some who cannot see past the hang-'em-high approach, it's not. Affording Gitmo's so-called enemy combatants the same due process Americans receive is the only logical approach we can take when we've spent all this time and money to inflict our American freedoms and democracy on their part of the world. If Bush and his cronies hadn't talked such a big game all this time and spent hours justifying the war(s) in the Middle East on the grounds that we're fighting the good fight to spread freedom and democracy, then this would be a totally different matter.

We've been talking the freedom-and-democracy talk now for years, however--and insisting, after the greatly embarrassing Abu Graib situation, for instance--that we must be exemplary in treating their prisoners in our U.S.-overseen Iraqi military jails with humanity and respect and due process. That being the case, then we damn well better set the example--just like we agreed to do under the Geneva conventions in our approach to torture and insistence that Americans not be tortured as war criminals in other parts of the world--and lead the way as examples of the freedom, democracy, and due process when we're holding alleged criminals or combatants in our jails.

We need to look, too, to what I mentioned earlier, which is the huge effort we're making to implement American-style judicial processes in both Iraq and Afghanistan through our provincial reconstruction efforts. Your tax dollars are doing that work this very minute and will be for many decades to come. If we're going to bring those parts of the world and their people out of the dark ages, then we need to lead the way with our exemplary treatment of their citizens in our detention facilities.

It's worth reminding everyone here that you first have to understand the basic differences between alleged criminals and convicted ones.

What I want to know is what makes you hang-'em-high/waterboard-'em-deep types think that we have possibly been 100% accurate in identifying and jailing only guilty combatants at Guantanamo. Because we say so? Well, that's a laugh a minute. We said we were going into Iraq on the basis of WMDs and we'd only be there for a year or 18 months. Then we said mission accomplished. Ooops! Then we said we weren't inciting further ire in that part of the world and weren't stirring up terrorists, but you've seen how accurate we were in our claim there by how subdued Al Qaeda in Iraq has been (to be read as sarcastic). Ooops! Then we said we could withdraw troops and begin a draw down. Then we had to about-face on that and do a surge instead. Had to replace the top guy at Defense along the way. Ooops! We promised adherence to the Geneva conventions and insisted that Americans not be tortured, yet we had those troubling photographs at Abu Graib and the convictions of those amazing American soldier-humanitarians (again, to be read sarcastically) who were their jailers. Ooops! I'm sorry, but if you're really so gullible as to think that our intelligence has been so infallible as to only result in the detention of 100% guilty parties at Gitmo, then I have some swamp land for sale in Florida.

If we hadn't made all the claims about spreading freedom and democracy and if we weren't working so hard to instill our justice freedoms in the Middle East, then judicial due process to the Gitmo detainees wouldn't be such an issue at all. I daresay there are probably plenty of real dangerous terrorist creeps in detention at Gitmo who don't deserve due process, but since we've been pretending with great piety for these years to be the arbiters of goodness and freedom and democracy in the world, then we pretty much have to give it to them so we can avoid the allegation of hypocrisy on this topic (even if we can't avoid it on many many others).

Here's some homework. No one will do it, but it'd still be worth your while:

1. Read about Iraqi and Afghanistan reconstruction efforts. There are provincial reconstruction teams and embedded provincial reconstruction teams. It's the ePRTs who're doing most of the legwork on justice, under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Use Google to do this.
2. Familiarize yourselves with the third and fourth Geneva conventions. Then read the first and second after that. Good agreements, those.

[daihashi]

What I want to know is what makes you hang-'em-high/waterboard-'em-deep types think that we have possibly been 100% accurate in identifying and jailing only guilty combatants at Guantanamo. Because we say so? Well, that's a laugh a minute. We said we were going into Iraq on the basis of WMDs and we'd only be there for a year or 18 months. Then we said mission accomplished. Ooops! Then we said we weren't inciting further ire in that part of the world and weren't stirring up terrorists, but you've seen how accurate we were in our claim there by how subdued Al Qaeda in Iraq has been (to be read as sarcastic). Ooops! Then we said we could withdraw troops and begin a draw down. Then we had to about-face on that and do a surge instead. Had to replace the top guy at Defense along the way. Ooops! We promised adherence to the Geneva conventions and insisted that Americans not be tortured, yet we had those troubling photographs at Abu Graib and the convictions of those amazing American soldier-humanitarians (again, to be read sarcastically) who were their jailers. Ooops! I'm sorry, but if you're really so gullible as to think that our intelligence has been so infallible as to only result in the detention of 100% guilty parties at Gitmo, then I have some swamp land for sale in Florida.

Were you talking down to me that entire reply? Because it sure felt like it. You treat me as if I'm uneducated. Furthermore you've judged me?? I'm a hang'em high / waterboarder am I?

Have you seen any of my posts on the forum aside from the politics forum?

I'm a chill lay back guy.. I definitely am not gung ho hang'em high and I don't support torture.

What I find odd is that no one looks at the Democrats. The democrats approved Afghanistan.. they approved Iraq and they approved guantanamo bay!!! The problem occured on both sides of the coin.

Just so you know I don't disagree with you on any of your points made in your thread. I don't like the Bush administration and I never have... I felt we never should've been in Iraq at all... I do feel we were right in going to afghanistan but feel we should've finished our job there and not left to go to Iraq.

I agree that the people at GITMO need to have some sort of process. While there are some people who are suspected terrorists there, remember that there are also many many more admitted terrorists there. People seem to ignore this fact as well.

I honestly found your post a little condescending. Maybe it's just the way I interpreted it but it was not appreciated. As a moderator I would think that you would practice better tact than that. If I'm simply misinterpreting the tone of your reply then I sincerely apologize. It simply feels that way since you quoted me.

ps: did you see the part where I said that I pretty much agree on you on all things? It's just from a different point of view, that's all. We're on the same side here. :thumbsup: :hippy:

[birdgirl73]

Daihashi, if you read my "attitude" as directed at you, please accept my apologies. It was not, I assure you, but as I look back and see that I quoted your question at the top, of course you would have read it that way. My first sentence and then the first two full paragraphs were in response to you, and then I went off in a general scoffing direction at the hypocrisy of the war itself. I have respect for you and you do seem to be better read on this stuff than most. You're also clearly literate and verbal, which is wonderful! The attitude you picked up on was a combination of disrespect I have for some of the other attitudes that have been allowed to go unchallenged too much in this particular area mixed with a huge amount of disdain and bitterness about the hypocrisy of an unjustified, lies-based war. All the "Oops!" comments were about that.

Normally during the school year, I don't have time to argue here, but I wish I did. When i do, though, I can be rough and I know that. I care a heck of a lot more about this stuff than I let on during non-vacation times. Please know that I wasn't directing my attitude at you, though, and try to forgive me if you can. These are important discussions we're having here. You're fairly new to these boards in comparison to some of the old stuff under the bridge here!

Lucky enough for everyone here, I have exactly one more week of vacation before I begin my third-year med school rotations. When that happens, I'll go back into "political remission" and you and Dragonrider and others will have to speak for reason and thorough understanding on much of this stuff and encourage people to base their arguments on facts and history rather than on editorial opinions and small electronic newsbytes. I'll be off starting to do pipsqueak medical procedures on patients at Parkland Hospital!

Peace? Here, at least? We aren't going to have peace in the Middle East for a long, long time to come. I have two cousins over there in the Army and an old law school friend from 23 years ago who's spent six years working on legal reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I feel this stuff more keenly than I should, I'm sure, because I get direct info from folks who're in the thick of it all every single day. We all need to be very concerned about the legacy we're leaving in Iraq. And we need to be very aware that the re-Talibanization of Afghanistan is a burgeoning problem as well. That's a topic for another thread, however.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Here's a Weekly Standard editorial, just published a couple of hours ago. My own opinion is that we have been spared more attacks thanks in part to the interrogations at Gitmo, so for this alone I would agree with Matthew Continetti. All the legal and political mumbo-jumbo (can't wait for a reaction to that expression :jointsmile:) in the world won't convince me that it wasn't worth keeping the detainees there.

The Gitmo Nightmare
Matthew Continetti
Fri Jun 13, 11:15 PM ET

It's hard to summarize a decision as long and complicated as the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling last week in Boumediene v. Bush. But we can try. Unprecedented. Reckless. Harmful. Breathtakingly condescending.

The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that non-citizens captured abroad and held in a military installation overseas--the remaining 270 or so inmates at the terrorist prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba--have the same constitutional right as U.S. citizens to challenge their detention in court. Furthermore, the current procedures by which a detainee's status is reviewed--procedures fashioned in good faith and at the Court's behest by a bipartisan congressional majority in consultation with the commander in chief during a time of war--are unconstitutional.

The upshot is the prisoners at Camp Delta can now file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. district courts seeking reprieve. Hence lawyers, judges, and leftwing interest groups will have real influence over the conduct of the war on terror. Call it the Gitmo nightmare.

As it happens, some of the most effective arguments against Boumediene come from the decision itself. For example, Justice Kennedy wrote that in cases involving terrorist detention, "proper deference must be accorded to the political branches." Then he overrode them.

Kennedy further noted that "unlike the President and some designated Members of Congress, neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people." They had better start, because the courts are about to be flooded with petitions to release terrorists sworn to America's destruction.

He also wrote that now the "political branches can engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism." But that is precisely what Congress and the president were doing when they passed legislation laying out a process for detainee review, one that in fact addressed concerns previously raised by the Court. The Court now says this process is inadequate. What would be adequate? Kennedy's answer: I'll get back to you on that.

In his opinion, Kennedy conceded that "before today the Court has never held that non-citizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution." Inventing rights seems to be what some of today's Supreme Court justices do best. In 1950 the Court ruled in Johnson v. Eisentrager that foreign nationals held in a military prison on foreign soil (in that case, Germany) had no habeas rights. But, without overruling Eisentrager, Kennedy said the Guantánamo detainees are different from the German prisoners 58 years ago.

Why? Kennedy wrote that Eisentrager had a unique set of "practical considerations," and the United States did not have "de facto" sovereignty over Germany as it does over Guantánamo Bay. That territory, "while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government." But these slippery distinctions only raise more questions. Doesn't the United States government exercise "complete and total control" over its military and intelligence facilities worldwide? If so, what's to stop foreign combatants held in those locations from asserting their habeas rights?

And what precise form will these habeas hearings take? What standards of judgment are the courts to apply? Will plaintiffs' attorneys be allowed to go venue shopping and file their petitions in the most liberal courts in the nation? Will they conduct discovery? Will they recall soldiers and intelligence agents from the field to testify? What happens when the available evidence does not satisfy judges who are used to adjudicating under the exclusionary rule? Will the cases be thrown out? Will the detainees be freed, able to return to the battlefield? That, after all, is what some 30 released detainees seem already to have done.

The Supreme Court does not worry about such things. Instead it piously reminded the people that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." No kidding. Has anyone ever argued otherwise?

Kennedy's sanctimony points to the ultimate tragedy of the Boumediene mess. In their visceral, myopic hatred of President Bush, liberals will see the ruling as a blow to the president and not the broad, foolish, and dangerous judicial power grab it is.

The New York Times's editorialists wrote that "compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats" allowed Bush to deny foreign enemy combatants during wartime "the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency."

Give us a break. One day soon Bush will be gone. But thanks to the Court, we'll still all be living the Gitmo nightmare.

--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors

[daihashi]

Daihashi, if you read my "attitude" as directed at you, please accept my apologies. It was not, I assure you, but as I look back and see that I quoted your question at the top, of course you would have read it that way.

No worries, that's why I asked because it seemed like it was directed at me because of the quote but at the same time it seemed like you were talking to a general group and not specifically me. That's why I was a little confused.

Sorry for the confusion. :hippy:

ps: I have fairly thick skin, no harm done here. We're all friends here on cannabis.com even when we Agree and/or disagree. That's the beauty of being human; we're all different :thumbsup:

[Reefer Rogue]

It's about human rights, not american citizen rights. Gathering information through water torture doesn't stand up in a real court which is why they wanted them trialed in a military tribunal where they could be sentenced to death and not appeal. Justice was served, you're wrong McCain.

[daihashi]

It's about human rights, not american citizen rights. Gathering information through water torture doesn't stand up in a real court which is why they wanted them trialed in a military tribunal where they could be sentenced to death and not appeal. Justice was served, you're wrong McCain.

I have to say first off I don't necessarily agree with torture; just incase someone wants to try to lash out at me.

The reason why habeas corpus was granted because in the court system they had in guantanamo the detainees were subjected to things such as having evidence brought out that they were not aware of. Not being allowed to see the evidence.. etc etc.

Previously to this they already had limited Habeas rights.

The problem is that these people are considered "enemy combatants" by our government. Which if you ask me sounds like a POW. They're in our prison camp, they're an enemy combatant and therefore should fall under the guidelines of POW.

Everyone is lashing out at McCain when McCain was one of the few people on both the Republicans or Democratic side who were against Guantanamo since DAY 1!!!

McCain is right, these people should not receive our rights... they should fall under the guidelines of POW which have their own set of rules.

but that's just my interpretation/opinion on it. :hippy:

[Psycho4Bud]

Hey Pyscho put it like this do you think a american that drives down a dirt road and shoots two little girls desevers due process and all the rights we have as law abiding citizens. I think you should strip him of all his rights and put him to death or even water board his ass untill he dies. The great thing this country is good for is that all people have due process and let their voices be heard and to defend themselves in a court of law.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Yes, he/she should have due process because they are citizens of this country. That's the key thing here...these people are not citizens of this country and don't deserve the same rights in our courts.

I would like provisions for cases of kidnapping children though. If some assclown has kidnapped children, has admitted to it, but won't disclose the location of where they're hid....I say do what has to be done in order to save the innocent instead of having them starve in some hole.


You're right.. that is the great thing.. All the People of THIS country have due process and can have their voices heard.

This is a privilige of the American People not for people suspected of terrorism. The people at GITMO do not deserve American rights. They obviously need some process there, but giving them American rights is not the way to go about it.

Like someone else said earlier.. maybe something similar to being a POW or the like, but having equal rights to an American who pays his dues to his country through taxes or through serving is just insane!!! These people have contributed nothing to America and you want to give away our rights to them? :wtf:

VERY well stated!:thumbsup: And I have to agree with your idea on treating them as POW's....how many past POW's have found safe haven in our court systems?

In the United States, at the end of World War II there were 175 Branch Camps serving 511 Area Camps containing over 425,000 prisoners of war. The camps were located all over the US but were mostly in the South because of the expense of heating the barracks. Eventually, every state with the exception of Nevada, North Dakota, and Vermont had POW camps.
List of POW camps in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_POW_camps_in_the_United_States)

Seems that the left wing can't decide whether these people's rights fall under the Geneva Convention or our own Constitution. I think this is where McCains stance is....these people SHOULD be treated as POW's and therefore have rights based on the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Also concerning the left wing....if I recall correctly during the New Hampshire debate, Clinton stated that torture should be reserved for Presidential discretion if there was imminant danger. Over 18,000,000 people apparently agreed.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

[Reefer Rogue]

How will these gained rights protect them if they're guilty? I don't see how they can, so go on, someone tell me the worst thing that can happen, now they have the rights, plead the
5th?

Well if you say McCain disapproved of Gitmo then i'll accept that.

[Psycho4Bud]

Keep in mind that some of the people that are being held could have been released but their own governments don't want them back....what do we do with these people? Turn them into U.S. citizens because of the mistreatment that they'll receive when the plane lands in their home country? If their own country won't take them back I'd hate to think that they'd be cruising the streets here!

As for the rest...why should they have the rights of appeals courts, etc...that drags on cases for YEARS? Waste of taxpayer money on a person that hates our system to begin with. How many people are currently on our death rows dragging it out with appeal after appeal?

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

As for the rest...why should they have the rights of appeals courts, etc...that drags on cases for YEARS? Waste of taxpayer money on a person that hates our system to begin with. How many people are currently on our death rows dragging it out with appeal after appeal?

Have a good one!:s4:

The general population does not realize that these things cost money and think that they are just a free resource.

This does nothing but hurt AMERICANS.

Another well put post. :thumbsup:

[THClord]

Guys, we have innocent until proven guilty here, and I preferred if it stayed that way.

I'd rather let 1000 "terrorists" get away without punishment, than 100 innocent people rot there for life. It's not like those who get away won't get on all sorts of government watchlists anyways.



AND the tribunals offered to US citizens were not due process. They were more like some communist law process. Many US citizens were stuck there without a fair trial too.

[daihashi]

Guys, we have innocent until proven guilty here, and I preferred if it stayed that way.

I'd rather let 1000 "terrorists" get away without punishment, than 100 innocent people rot there for life. It's not like those who get away won't get on all sorts of government watchlists anyways.


You're ignoring the fact that these people do not fall under the rules of habeas corpus.. and are not Americans for the most part.

Everyone seems to ignore that Bush's approval ratings at the time of 9/11 and going to afghanistan in 2001 was up between 85-90%. People further ignore the fact that Bush's approval rating was between 70-75% in 2003.. even at the capture of Saddam at the end of 2003/ beginning of 2004 was between 50-55%.

We as Americans need to take responsibility for ourselves. We need to at least take as much responsibility as we are finger pointing.

These people are classified as enemy combatants and are in a United States prison Camp. To me this shouts POW... which has it's own set of rules.

What you're suggesting.. we might as well extend rights to anyone who is not a citizen of the US.. Let's just walk into Al Queda's headquarters and just tell them they have rights under our laws..

sure they have a history of bombing embassies and terrorizing us.. Sure they have video tapes announcing attacks and taking credit for attacks against the US, but let's go ahead and give them rights that will further drain even MORE money out of us.

We've gone into major debt over this war.. we're paying inflated prices for oil which in turn effects the cost of everything: gas, food, clothing, luxuries, airline costs, delivery services costs etc etc... We have a candidate, Obama, who wants to increase income tax anywhere from 3-5% for his universal healthcare plan when 70% of americans are already recieving healthcare from their employers (which generally are blanket policies.. meaning you get covered regardless)... on top of that you want to throw away more of our money on enemy combatants who can just drag out the cases in our legal system.

Sorry but you don't have me sold at all. :wtf:


AND the tribunals offered to US citizens were not due process. They were more like some communist law process. Many US citizens were stuck there without a fair trial too.

What tribunals are you referring to. Be more specific.

I agree they need better due process, but not under our laws or at the cost of the United States. It should be handled differently all together.

[birdgirl73]

We have a candidate, Obama, who wants to increase income tax anywhere from 3-5% for his universal healthcare plan when 70% of americans are already recieving healthcare from their employers (which generally are blanket policies.. meaning you get covered regardless)... on top of that you want to throw away more of our money on enemy combatants who can just drag out the cases in our legal system.

Not sure where you got your 70% statistic, Daihashi, but it's inaccurate according to the National Coalition on Health Care and the Government Accountability Office (GOA).

At the time the last official stats went down on coverage/lack of coverage, the percentage of Americans with employer-provided health coverage was 59% and going down quickly. That 59% statistic was from 2006, the most recent stats available, and coverage was diminishing by about 9 million Americans each year, so it's lower now.

Those of us who do have employer-subsidized coverage, which isn't necessarily "blanket coverage" by any means in all circumstances, are increasingly shouldering a higher burden of that premium expense each year, as we are also shouldering more of the medical expenses themselves. To the tune of about 10 - 15% per year. About half of the uninsured population reside in households that earn more than $50,000 or more per year. So the "they-can-afford-their-own-coverage" argument doesn't hold water with health insurance expenses and medical expenses what they are. They cannot. Children, sadly, are vastly over-represented among the uninsured population. These stats apply to native or naturalized U.S. citizens, by the way, not to illegal immigrants (another common argument used against national health care).

You also failed to point out that Obama's tax plan isn't going to raise taxes for middle-class or low-income Americans. It's going to raise taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations, two groups who've had HUGE tax breaks under the Bush administration and will continue to receive such breaks under the McCain plan. This is one of the things that never fails to amaze me more than anything else--how anyone who falls into the low- or middle-income groups could ever think of voting Republican from a fiscal perspective.

This isn't throw-away money, by the way. Not for legal due process for foreigners who're not even convicted criminals or for health care for our citizens. It's for human lives. Iraqi war money could more accurately be described as throw-away money considering the justification the war was based upon. You can characterize it as such, but it is not.

Our taxes, by the way, are hugely affected by this war. We all pay an average of about $200 per month the support this war (some of us a lot more than that). If we can pay $250 million a day to support this war, then we can darn well find a way to cover our citizens with health care. That day is coming, too. Mark my words.

The sad truth is, according to the office of the United States Comptroller of Currency (The UCC at the Dept of Treasury, our chief accountants, basically), we really can't afford what we're doing now, from supporting this war to funding the VA and social security and Medicare/Medicaid, which, compared to Defense, are comparatively small expenses, without higher taxes. We're already on a trajectory of fiscal disaster, and neither party wants to honestly acknowledge that. The truth is taxes are going to have to go up under any circumstances, even McCain's. They can either go up so that wealthier people and corporations pay more, or they can go up on middle- and low-income folks.

This thread really has diverged into another topic, but I wanted to go on the record with those facts about insurance/lack of insurance since you were using that as an argument against due process for Guantanamo "combatants" and Obama.

[daihashi]

Not sure where you got your 70% statistic, Daihashi, but it's inaccurate according to the National Coalition on Health Care and the Government Accountability Office (GOA).

At the time the last official stats went down on coverage/lack of coverage, the percentage of Americans with employer-provided health coverage was 59% and going down quickly. That 59% statistic was from 2006, the most recent stats available, and coverage was diminishing by about 9 million Americans each year, so it's lower now.

Those of us who do have employer-subsidized coverage, which isn't necessarily "blanket coverage" by any means in all circumstances, are increasingly shouldering a higher burden of that premium expense each year, as we are also shouldering more of the medical expenses themselves. To the tune of about 10 - 15% per year. About half of the uninsured population reside in households that earn more than $50,000 or more per year. So the "they-can-afford-their-own-coverage" argument doesn't hold water with health insurance expenses and medical expenses what they are. They cannot. Children, sadly, are vastly over-represented among the uninsured population. These stats apply to native or naturalized U.S. citizens, by the way, not to illegal immigrants (another common argument used against national health care).

You also failed to point out that Obama's tax plan isn't going to raise taxes for middle-class or low-income Americans. It's going to raise taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations, two groups who've had HUGE tax breaks under the Bush administration and will continue to receive such breaks under the McCain plan. This is one of the things that never fails to amaze me more than anything else--how anyone who falls into the low- or middle-income groups could ever think of voting Republican from a fiscal perspective.

This isn't throw-away money, by the way. Not for legal due process for foreigners who're not even convicted criminals or for health care for our citizens. It's for human lives. Iraqi war money could more accurately be described as throw-away money considering the justification the war was based upon. You can characterize it as such, but it is not.

Our taxes, by the way, are hugely affected by this war. We all pay an average of about $200 per month the support this war (some of us a lot more than that). If we can pay $250 million a day to support this war, then we can darn well find a way to cover our citizens with health care. That day is coming, too. Mark my words.

The sad truth is, according to the office of the United States Comptroller of Currency (The UCC at the Dept of Treasury, our chief accountants, basically), we really can't afford what we're doing now, from supporting this war to funding the VA and social security and Medicare/Medicaid, which, compared to Defense, are comparatively small expenses, without higher taxes. We're already on a trajectory of fiscal disaster, and neither party wants to honestly acknowledge that. The truth is taxes are going to have to go up under any circumstances, even McCain's. They can either go up so that wealthier people and corporations pay more, or they can go up on middle- and low-income folks.

This thread really has diverged into another topic, but I wanted to go on the record with those facts about insurance/lack of insurance since you were using that as an argument against due process for Guantanamo "combatants" and Obama.

Sorry.. it appears I misread my data. Caught me :(


The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.4, 5

[daihashi]

At the time the last official stats went down on coverage/lack of coverage, the percentage of Americans with employer-provided health coverage was 59% and going down quickly. That 59% statistic was from 2006, the most recent stats available, and coverage was diminishing by about 9 million Americans each year, so it's lower now.

From nchc.org

The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006. I

n comparison in 1987; since you didn't mention it, the uninsured was at 15.6%. I have this in a pdf file. I can try to find a link for it if you want to confirm this. A rise of less than 6% in 20 years.

An 11% drop between 1987 and 2007 of people with employer provided insurance and a 6% rise in confirmed uninsured Americans is not much for a 20 year span. This would indicate to me that there is an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed; not the socialization of our health care system.










Those of us who do have employer-subsidized coverage, which isn't necessarily "blanket coverage" by any means in all circumstances, are increasingly shouldering a higher burden of that premium expense each year, as we are also shouldering more of the medical expenses themselves. To the tune of about 10 - 15% per year. About half of the uninsured population reside in households that earn more than $50,000 or more per year. So the "they-can-afford-their-own-coverage" argument doesn't hold water with health insurance expenses and medical expenses what they are. They cannot. Children, sadly, are vastly over-represented among the uninsured population. These stats apply to native or naturalized U.S. citizens, by the way, not to illegal immigrants (another common argument used against national health care).


I'm not sure if you're talking specifically to me or just in general but I've never said it was ok. I never said "they can afford it" as if I'm so callous; I fall in the middle class like most of America, but I don't agree with the socialization of our health care system.


You also failed to point out that Obama's tax plan isn't going to raise taxes for middle-class or low-income Americans. It's going to raise taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations, two groups who've had HUGE tax breaks under the Bush administration and will continue to receive such breaks under the McCain plan. This is one of the things that never fails to amaze me more than anything else--how anyone who falls into the low- or middle-income groups could ever think of voting Republican from a fiscal perspective.

How do you think this will effect the middle class? Think about this, Obama wants to increase the income tax to provide everyone insurance. Let's assume there's a pay hike.. we'll make it a signifigant amount like a 15% increase; it would have to be signifigant to provide healthcare for 300 million Americans.

Sure you can factor in the super rich which is about 0.7 percent (yes ZERO point SEVEN percent), and you can factor in the rich; which I can't find a figure but we'll say 10% and I feel I'm being generous here.

Do you think 10.7% of Americans with money are going to be able to support the remaining 89.3% of Americans and the cost it will take to maintain their health. Especially considering that the majority of our government officials will fall into the "Rich" category? In reality that's not that much money.

Insurance/Healthcare is a calculated risk business. If everyone is insured the the risk goes up dramatically. Do you honestly think insurance companies will be able to stay in business at a 15% tax increase on 10.7% of the population? Do you think the hospitals are going to be able to lower their operating costs? Things cost money. There is a reason why other governments with socialized health care has tax upward of 50%. Healthcare is expensive, even if you do regulate the insurance companies and regulate the hospitals and the doctors. Healthcare is still expensive.

How do you think this will Impact the doctors? How do you think they'll react. Being accustomed to getting paid well, and rightly so, for what they do.

Any different way I look at this plan I see it just setup to fail.

Think logically.. how is this plan going to work with the income tax increase he suggests... and let's assume he does get it passed somehow. Now we're paying 15% more income tax increase to go to overcrowded hospitals (if everyone has insurance then ALOT more people are going to go for even the most MINOR of problems.) where you're not sure if you're going to be seen in a timely manner if you have a legitimate issue. Doctor's pay would have to drop dramatically, staffing cut because hospitals simply can't operate on the cost of 15% tax increase on whatever 10.7% of the rich provide.

There is electricital costs, insurance costs for both the hospital and the doctors, there is payroll for all the staff of the hospital, stock for the hospital ie: needles, sheets, scrubs etc etc, maintenance and purchasing of new medical equipment, providing meals for patients etc etc. I don't know the in's and outs of a hospital but i know it is an expensive business to run.

Let's factor in getting the money from Large corporations. How do you think this will effect the middle class? Now these corporations are getting heavily taxed. They are naturally going to want to protect their profits and revenue. Less people = less money paid by payroll and less people that they have to be taxed on for this universal healthcare system. Really it's a win/win situation for them. Yes let's create the conditions to breed a unemployment rate increase. :thumbsup:


This isn't throw-away money, by the way. Not for legal due process for foreigners who're not even convicted criminals or for health care for our citizens. It's for human lives. Iraqi war money could more accurately be described as throw-away money considering the justification the war was based upon. You can characterize it as such, but it is not.

You have to admit that there are a number of people there, a signifigant number of people who are there for crimes they genuinely did commit. Should we pay for their trial? Should we allow them to drag it on and on. It is throw away money. Also if you've read any of my posts you would realize that I've never been in support for GOING to Iraq. So there is no argument on the us just throwing away money by us going to Iraq. If you were hoping to stupify me by hoping I would realize the Irony then you've failed here. I've never supported the United States going to Iraq and can agree that it's "throw-away money" as you've termed it.




Our taxes, by the way, are hugely affected by this war. We all pay an average of about $200 per month the support this war (some of us a lot more than that). If we can pay $250 million a day to support this war, then we can darn well find a way to cover our citizens with health care. That day is coming, too. Mark my words.

Domestic Economy in general is effected by foreign Policy. This is pretty obvious and I'm surprised you brought it up; but there are people who are unaware of this fact so I guess it's good information to have in this thread regardless. Again I've never supported the United States going to war in Iraq; but there is a need for us to remain there. I've used it as an example several times but look at Afghanistan/Russia... more specifically the formation of the Taliban in Afghanistan and how the country fell after Russia removed their presence. Very similar situations and we would just be creating oppurtunity for extremists who HAVE voiced their hatred towards us to overtake a vulnerable country. If that happens then everything we've done there, the money wasted, the lives lost, everything would have been for nothing. So even though I did not want to go to war, I will GLADLY pay that $200 a month to ensure that country is safe after we went in there and created a mess. I will gladly pay that fee to ensure we don't create yet another Hostile enviorment like with Russia and Afghanistan or even like with the US/Iran during the Carter administration. I'm half Iranian and I'm saying this :wtf:




The sad truth is, according to the office of the United States Comptroller of Currency (The UCC at the Dept of Treasury, our chief accountants, basically), we really can't afford what we're doing now, from supporting this war to funding the VA and social security and Medicare/Medicaid, which, compared to Defense, are comparatively small expenses, without higher taxes. We're already on a trajectory of fiscal disaster, and neither party wants to honestly acknowledge that. The truth is taxes are going to have to go up under any circumstances, even McCain's. They can either go up so that wealthier people and corporations pay more, or they can go up on middle- and low-income folks.

This I cannot argue with because I whole heartedly agree with you here. It's sad but pretty much true. The only thing is that as weird and backwards as it sounds; even if you tax the corporations and rich the middle class are still going to be the people that suffer. It's a snowball effect.



This thread really has diverged into another topic, but I wanted to go on the record with those facts about insurance/lack of insurance since you were using that as an argument against due process for Guantanamo "combatants" and Obama.

I actually thank you. I don't want to be the source of misinformation. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

[dragonrider]

Lucky enough for everyone here, I have exactly one more week of vacation before I begin my third-year med school rotations. When that happens, I'll go back into "political remission" and you and Dragonrider and others will have to speak for reason and thorough understanding on much of this stuff and encourage people to base their arguments on facts and history rather than on editorial opinions and small electronic newsbytes.

No, Birdgirl! Don't go! It get's lonely sometimes...

[Reefer Rogue]

You're correct, this will waste a plethora of money and that's unfortunate. Can we put a price on these people's heads? If one is innocent and is saved because of that money, perhaps that's the only way justice can be truly served.

[rockyraccoon]

Guys, we have innocent until proven guilty here, and I preferred if it stayed that way.

I'd rather let 1000 "terrorists" get away without punishment, than 100 innocent people rot there for life. It's not like those who get away won't get on all sorts of government watchlists anyways.

AND the tribunals offered to US citizens were not due process. They were more like some communist law process. Many US citizens were stuck there without a fair trial too.

exactly...we're supposed to believe that we're going around liberating people...so how is swooping into a country, rounding up a bunch of goat herders and calling them terrorists and locking them up forever without being able to face their accusers, know their charges, have a trial, etc. amount to liberation?

you can't just call them a terrorist and say they were going to do something bad, you have to prove it, it's insane to say otherwise.

the scary thing is that mccain says that habeas corpus is a privilege given to us by the almighty dictatorship...he, along with the rest of the anti-constitution freedom haters and neocons need to read the declaration of independence.

McCain: Habeas Corpus a Privilege not a Right

Scott Ritsema
Prison Planet
Saturday, June 14, 2008

By now, it is widely known that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the debate over the rights of the prisoners at Gitmo. The court has stated that the detaineesâ?? habeas corpus rights (the protection against an indefinite detention without charges and a trial) ought to be respected.

Referring to the human beings who are still being detained at Guantanamo Bay, McCain stated, â??These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country haveâ?� (emphasis added).

So our rights are given to us? Interesting.

I might ask McCain at the out-set, since you apparently believe that only citizens have rights (presumably â??givenâ?� to them in the Constitution) where exactly in text of the Constitution does the Constitution give this right the right of habeas corpus?

(Article continues below)

You wonâ??t find it. The Constitution only puts limits on the removal of habeas corpus, which implies that human beings possess this right naturally, and that habeas corpus is not some peculiar civil privilege, such as welfare, or some right that only citizens have, such as voting in our elections.

Similarly, human beings possess the rights in the Bill of Rights naturally, and as such, government is prevented from infringing upon them in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But the rights are not granted by the government or the Constitution; we already had the rights as human beings!

I recommend that McCain read the Declaration of Independence. He has admitted that he is ignorant of economics, so perhaps he needs to brush up on his political theory and History, as well.

The Declaration of Independence declares the self-evident truth that God gave us our rights and that we are â??endowed by our creatorâ?� with â??unalienable rights,â?� such as, â??life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.â?�

Unalienable. Canâ??t be taken away. God-given natural rights. This is extremely important. Pay attention.

You see, if governments have â??givenâ?� you â??rights,â?� well then guess who can take them away at their will. Governments! McCainâ??s dangerous philosophy of rights as privileges is a recipe for tyranny. Government gives us our liberty? Is he serious? Well then that makes the state our god.

In reality, when something is granted, it is not a right at all. Something that is granted is, by nature, a mere privilege that can be revoked upon the whim of the entity which granted it--in this case, government...a scary notion, indeed.

A right, on the other hand, is unalienably possessed by somebody because he is the rightful owner of his life, liberty, and property. His own body, his thoughts, his decisions to move about, his money and possessions, etc.

These rights are his naturally. They are his property.

Rights are rooted in ownership of the property in question, and this very concept is God-ordained, thus we say that our rights are â??God-given.â?�

They are NOT granted by government. They are NOT merely a privilege of citizenship.

Under the American philosophy of government where our rights are natural, or God-given, we have the power of free action that is limited only by the equal rights of others. And only when we impede upon the rights of others can government legitimately intervene to punish the criminal aggressor...and it can only do that through due process (they have to prove your guilt in a fair, speedy, jury trial).

The right of habeas corpus has been recognized as a basic right since the Magna Carta.

McCain is reversing the progress of human rights 800 years.

It doesnâ??t take the great mind of an ACLU liberal to figure this out.

As Ronald Reagan said, â??The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.â?� McCain, once again, betrays conservative values of limited government and God-given property rights. His is the view that the state is supreme.

Liberty and justice for all. But for McCainâ?¦just the privileged few. Just pray that you stay in the good graces of an arbitrary McCain government, because where the government grants â??rights,â?� it can take them away. So watch yourself dissenters...especially because McCain has a "volcanic temper." Will the American people let this man be the next 'decider'?

[Scott Ritsema teaches Economics, Government, and Advanced Placement U.S. History at a Christian high school, and possesses a master's degree in those three disciplines. Visit his new site CIVICS NEWS.com ...news with a conscience.]

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Is this the type of change people want?of course it is. we want to be better than we are, better than we need to be and better than the world allows us to be. it is a delicate balancing act being performed by ham handed stooges with no desire to understand its intricacies. one side demands that we attain the required empathy immediately while the other declares it can never be done. half-way measures are unimaginable to either position, that would be to admit that there might be some small merit to the other side.

[dragonrider]

The problem is that these people are considered "enemy combatants" by our government. Which if you ask me sounds like a POW. They're in our prison camp, they're an enemy combatant and therefore should fall under the guidelines of POW.

Everyone is lashing out at McCain when McCain was one of the few people on both the Republicans or Democratic side who were against Guantanamo since DAY 1!!!

McCain is right, these people should not receive our rights... they should fall under the guidelines of POW which have their own set of rules.

but that's just my interpretation/opinion on it. :hippy:


VERY well stated!:thumbsup: And I have to agree with your idea on treating them as POW's....how many past POW's have found safe haven in our court systems?

Guys, the Bush administration has argued that these people are NOT POWs. That is the whole point of calling them "enemy combatants," so that they don't have to be afforded the Geneva Convention rights of a POW! The "enemy combatant" designation is something the government came up with so that these people can be considered something other than a POW but not quite a criminal.


Seems that the left wing can't decide whether these people's rights fall under the Geneva Convention or our own Constitution. I think this is where McCains stance is....these people SHOULD be treated as POW's and therefore have rights based on the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution. I don't think this is a left-wing vs right-wing issue. It is an argument between people who believe in the rule of law and those who would rather sacrifice the rule of law for safety. And I think that is a false choice.

You aren't going to make yourself safer by sacrificing your rights. It seems foolish to me to say we need to protect our way of life from these terrorists by giving up the way of life that make us different from them. The Bush adminstration would have us remake our legal system to be closer to what they had in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we go very far down that path, the terrorists won't have to destroy our way of life, we'll do it ourselves.

[dragonrider]

The general population does not realize that these things cost money and think that they are just a free resource.

This does nothing but hurt AMERICANS.

Another well put post. :thumbsup:

It does cost money to keep our legal system running. If it is just to costly to have due process these days, then I suggest we just skip all the pretending with the detention camps, torture and secret tribunals. We should just shoot suspects on sight. No costly trials and appeals. No coslty detention system. Just the price of bullets. Then maybe we can afford some more tax cuts, and we can enjoy all our extra money knowing we are perfectly safe.

[daihashi]

Guys, the Bush administration has argued that these people are NOT POWs. That is the whole point of calling them "enemy combatants," so that they don't have to be afforded the Geneva Convention rights of a POW! The "enemy combatant" designation is something the government came up with so that these people can be considered something other than a POW but not quite a criminal.

Did I ever Argue this.. I said I FEEL they should be considered POW's. Because if you look at the terminology used, logically you come to the conclusion that they are POW's. I know what they are and how our government views them. You're stating fact against opinion. Do you make it a habit to slam someone's opinion, something they've admitted to not be fact?

I don't think anyone is going to argue or debate this with you because it is fact and everyone; from what I can tell; are discussing opinions on how they feel in regards to this ruling passing.


What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution. I don't think this is a left-wing vs right-wing issue. It is an argument between people who believe in the rule of law and those who would rather sacrifice the rule of law for safety. And I think that is a false choice.

The Left Voted for Guantanamo

Senate Democrats went on record Tuesday to support the war in Iraq and the continued operation of the US concentration camp at Guantánamo Bay. A large majority of the 44 Senate Democrats lined up with the Republican majority and the Bush administration in key amendments to the defense appropriations bill. The Senate session culminated in a bipartisan 98-0 vote to approve the nearly $500 billion budget for the Pentagon.

In the two most critical votes, the Democrats gave their support by a 37 to 6 margin to a Republican amendment tacitly supporting the Bush administrationâ??s policy on the Iraq war; and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.


You aren't going to make yourself safer by sacrificing your rights. It seems foolish to me to say we need to protect our way of life from these terrorists by giving up the way of life that make us different from them. The Bush adminstration would have us remake our legal system to be closer to what they had in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we go very far down that path, the terrorists won't have to destroy our way of life, we'll do it ourselves.

What rights am I sacrificing? Last I've checked, in this great Country that I'm proud to be in, I have not sacrificed my rights due to the operations of GITMO.

You're wanting to combat enemies, who video tape beheadings of innocent CIVILIANS/expressed great disdain for us/have claimed responsibility for 911, bombing of US embassies and countless other acts, with compassion. Do you think they are going to respond with compassion to us? I seriously doubt that.

While there may be a number of people in Guantanamo who may be innocent I feel a good number of people there are probably there for the correct reason.

And as stated before the quote above; the left is equally as guilty as the right:

and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.



In addition I stand by my STATEMENT; which is *MY* opinion, that we need a seperate process for these detainees. Maybe something supervised by a UN council. Although admittingly the UN is useless. It's outdated and no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally created.

Stop your finger pointing and look on both parties sides. It only takes a few moments to verify that you have data to back your statements. Information is key; don't fall for the hype that the entertainment based media (let's face it there is less information in news these days and more drama) and go research for yourself!! The more we fall prey to them the more ignorant we all become. :hippy:

fyi: I was in no way defending the Bush administration. Simply pointing out the obvious; that the Dems in addition to the republicans and Bush were all for Guantanamo. Everyone is to blame here; even the American people who turned a blind eye for years and years.

[daihashi]

And for people who bash McCain. Maybe you should read the following:


The amendment affected the United States Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 ("DOD Act"); the amendment is commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. It became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ("DTA") as Division A, Title X of the DOD Act.[3] The amendment prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining interrogations to the techniques in FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation. Also, section 1005(e) of the DTA prohibits aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.[1][4] Certain portions of the amendment were enacted as 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd.

Amendment 1977 amended the defense appropriations bill for 2005 passed by the United States House of Representatives. The amendment was introduced to the Senate by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on October 3, 2005 as S.AMDT.1977.

I bolded one word that I felt was key to this entire thing. I didn't want someone taking my own information that I put in here and try to turn it against me. Notice he says ALIENS.. it would not apply to citizens held in guantanamo.

Which further indicates that McCain isn't against human rights.. he put this ammendment up to stop inhumane treatment. He simply does not believe that American rights should be given to non Americans.

That's not to say he might not think they should fall under some other type of rights or process. However I have not looked up his position on Guantanamo beyond this. If you like I can try to dig up even more information.

Since you decided to come at me with fact I felt it only fair that I place more fact in this thread as well.

Everyone needs to open their eyes. Both political parties have issues and both political parties have good people in them. :hippy: you take the good with the bad I guess

[daihashi]

It's about human rights, not american citizen rights. Gathering information through water torture doesn't stand up in a real court which is why they wanted them trialed in a military tribunal where they could be sentenced to death and not appeal. Justice was served, you're wrong McCain.

I posted this recently but felt the need to follow up on this particular post:


The amendment affected the United States Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 ("DOD Act"); the amendment is commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. It became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ("DTA") as Division A, Title X of the DOD Act.[3] The amendment prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining interrogations to the techniques in FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation. Also, section 1005(e) of the DTA prohibits aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.[1][4] Certain portions of the amendment were enacted as 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd.

Amendment 1977 amended the defense appropriations bill for 2005 passed by the United States House of Representatives. The amendment was introduced to the Senate by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on October 3, 2005 as S.AMDT.1977.

McCain is all for Human rights, he just doesn't believe in giving American rights to non Americans (thus the reason for me putting in bold "aliens"). But I would never expect anyone here who just chooses to blindly bash the Right (this is not directed at you; this is a general message to the board members as a great number of you refuse to look at the flaws on both sides of the table. Too much fingerpointing here.) without even looking up to see if they are justified in their attack.

Good day. :jointsmile:

edit: Just want to reitterate that this was not an attack on you Reefer. I simply felt it was a good example on how alot of people on the board tend to yell misinformation. You are not in the US (at least judging by your listed location) and I don't expect you to know all the happenings in our country; but some of the other people on here who are in the US I would hope to get a little more from. This isn't meant as an insult to ANYONE... but rather I'm trying to encourage people to read and research before blindly crying wolf. I feel it's important regardless of what your political stance is. No hard feelings reefer? :thumbsup:

[Psycho4Bud]

daihashi...as usual, great informative posts.:thumbsup:

dragonrider...Bush this and Bush that? The comments were from current candidates and what we have to contend with for the next 4 years. Face it brother, the Bush whipping days are about done. We can let the bleeding hearts give these terrorists the same rights as a U.S. citizen OR be treated as a POW like they should be! Seems like the choice between the two parties for the future.

Once again, how many POW's from wars gone by had the same rights in our court system as our own people?

And AGAIN...what do we do with the assclowns that their own countries won't take back?

About 70 prisoners have been cleared for release, but their home countries either wonâ??t take them or havenâ??t given reliable assurances that the men wonâ??t be mistreated.
Guantanamo Criticism Intensifies - CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/11/9559/)

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

Did I ever Argue this.. I said I FEEL they should be considered POW's. Because if you look at the terminology used, logically you come to the conclusion that they are POW's. I know what they are and how our government views them. You're stating fact against opinion. Do you make it a habit to slam someone's opinion, something they've admitted to not be fact?

I did not slam your opinion or make any personal attack on you. I don't understand why you would percieve that as a slam. I'm pointing out the inconsistency between what you feel should be done and what the Bush adminsitration has argued should be done. If you feel that the Guantanamo detainees should be treated as POWs, then that is great and I applaud your desire to see them have the recognied legal status of POW as apposed to the legal limbo of "enemy combatant." Perhaps if the Bush administration had treated them as POWs, then we would not be in this situation of having them afforded the rights of a civilian trial.



What rights am I sacrificing? Last I've checked, in this great Country that I'm proud to be in, I have not sacrificed my rights due to the operations of GITMO.

Well, here now we are talking about MY opinon. And MY opinion is that the government has attempted to create a legal limbo in which a person can be designated an "enemy combatant" and afforded no legal status whatsoever, neither a POW nor a criminal. MY opinion is that by creating such a legal designation, the governemnt has weakend the right to due process in general and has diminished MY rights to due process. If you create a system where you can put someone in prison without charging them, without any access to the legal system, or even the right to have their government or family notidfed of their detention, then how do you KNOW that YOU won't someday find YOURSELF in that hole? Do you just take it on faith that the government will never make that kind of mistake, and wrongly put YOU in prison for something they suspect YOU did? And if it did happen, what would YOU do? What recourse would you have?

I don't want to expand the scope of this debate any further, but I do want to say that the legal status of prisoners in GITMO is only one area in which I think the Bush adminsitration has diminsihed the rights of Americans. I agree that the legal battle around the legal status of GITMO detainees may have little practical affect on the rights of Americans. I am far more worried about other erosion of rights that do DIRECTLY apply to Americans on American soil, such as warantless wiretapping and othe kinds of surveilance. Again, I'm not trying to expand the scope of the thread, but I see the GITMO detainee issue as part of a larger pattern of the erosion of American rights.


You're wanting to combat enemies, who video tape beheadings of innocent CIVILIANS, with compassion. Do you think they are going to respond with compassion to us? I seriously doubt that.

Don't telll me what I want to do. I dislike someone else putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss what I want to do, ask me, don't tell me.

I have no compassion whatsoever for anyone who beheads a civilian or practices any other kind of attack on civilians. My opinion is that in a war zone if we thnk we have the coordinates for someone who is suspected of this kind of thing, or any kind of terrorist activity, then we should drop a bomb on them or send in a sqaud to kill them in combat. I'm not in favor of trials for enemies in a war zone. However, my opinion is that if we capture people we suspect are eneimeis in a war zone, then we need to treat them as POWs. If we capture people outside a war zone that we suspect are terrorists, then we need to afford them some legal status so that we can prove those charges. And once those charges are proven, we can apply the maximum legal punishment --- death if possible. I have no comapssion for terrorists --- I just believe in the rule of law.


While there may be a number of people in Guantanamo who may be innocent I feel a good number of people there are probably there for the correct reason.

Well, there it is. That is the real nut of the matter. That's why these people need some kind of legal status. I agree that nearly all of the suspects in GITMO are probably there for the correct reason. I also think that almost all civilians who are arrested by civilian police for routine crimes are guilty of the crimes they are charged with. However, I still believe in due process.


In addition I stand by my STATEMENT; which is *MY* opinion, that we need a seperate process for these detainees. Maybe something supervised by a UN council. Although admittingly the UN is useless. It's outdated and no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally created.

Earlier you said that your opinion is that the detainiees are POWs, but here you say that your opinion is that there should be a separate process for them. That is not a consisitent opinion. However, I do agree that there may be a need for a different kind of process. It may actually be legitimate to create a separate legal status of "enemy combatant" that applies to a person who is not part of a foreign army but takes up arms against the US. However, my opinion is that so far the governemnt has not managed to create such a status in a way that satisfies either inernational law or the Constitution with regards to due process.


Stop your finger pointing and look on both parties sides. :hippy:

I disagree that I am doing any finger pointing. I especially am not pointing the finger at anyone on these boards if that is what you mean. I am however very critical of the Bush adminsitrtion for its diseragard for due process.

[Psycho4Bud]

I did not slam your opinion or make any personal attack on you. I don't understand why you would percieve that as a slam. I'm pointing out the inconsistency between what you feel should be done and what the Bush adminsitration has argued should be done. If you feel that the Guantanamo detainees should be treated as POWs, then that is great and I applaud your desire to see them have the recognied legal status of POW as apposed to the legal limbo of "enemy combatant." Perhaps if the Bush administration had treated them as POWs, then we would not be in this situation of having them afforded the rights of a civilian trial.

POW's are held until the end of a war with NO trial as to their guilt. I don't recall hearing of 425,000 court hearings in the U.S. during WW2.

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

POW's are held until the end of a war with NO trial as to their guilt. I don't recall hearing of 425,000 court hearings in the U.S. during WW2.

Have a good one!:s4:

Yes, you are right. POWs are not given trials. They have a recognized legal status as a POW, but they are not given trials. If the government had decided to treat them as POWs, we would not be in this legal mess. However, the government did not want to afford them the Geneva Convention rights of POWS, so they argued that they are NOT POWs. My interpretation is that the court is saying, if they aren't POWs, then you need to treat them as civilians and give them trials.

The whole problem is that the governemtn is trying to have it both ways. They want to say that they are not POWs so that the Geneva Convetnions do not apply. And at the same time say that they are not normal civilian criminals who have a right to due process. They need to pick one or the other OR create a third legal status that the court will recognize as legitimate. Right now, it seems the court does not think the third legal status is legitimate.

[stinkyattic]

The whole problem is that the governemtn is trying to have it both ways. They want to say that they are not POWs so that the Geneva Convetnions do not apply. And at the same time say that they are not normal civilian criminals who have a right to due process. They need to pick one or the other OR create a third legal status that the court will recognize as legitimate. Right now, it seems the court does not think the third legal status is legitimate.Excellent point.
But as for the third status- I'd expect that a court would not accept it retroactively. You can't change the rules of the game after it has been played, and then declare yourself the winner.

[dragonrider]

Excellent point.
But as for the third status- I'd expect that a court would not accept it retroactively. You can't change the rules of the game after it has been played, and then declare yourself the winner.

I think you are probably right about the third status not being something the court would accept at this point. I think the governemnt missed it's chance to define a legal status for a foreign person who is not a member of a foreign army (with a name, rank and serial number) but who is still part of an organization waging war against the US.

There are legitimate problems with calling them POWs, becasue they aren't members of a recognized army, and there is no government with which to negotiate their eventual status. Although, I do not think these are the reasons the government did not want to call them POWs --- I think it had more to do with not wanting to afford them rights under the Geneve Conventions. If the governemnt did not want to treat such people as civilians, then the governemnt should have set about creating a new legal definition in a way that would have been acceptatble. My feeling is that they did not do that in good faith, and now after 7 years the court is saying, "Enough already. They're civilains. Get on with it." It's probably not a very good solution, but the court will not tolerate the legal limbo any longer.

[daihashi]

I did not slam your opinion or make any personal attack on you. I don't understand why you would percieve that as a slam. I'm pointing out the inconsistency between what you feel should be done and what the Bush adminsitration has argued should be done. If you feel that the Guantanamo detainees should be treated as POWs, then that is great and I applaud your desire to see them have the recognied legal status of POW as apposed to the legal limbo of "enemy combatant." Perhaps if the Bush administration had treated them as POWs, then we would not be in this situation of having them afforded the rights of a civilian trial.

Maybe it wasn't a slam; I'll give you credit. But what was the point in posting fact against opinion. Everyone knows what you already stated. So in that regards; it appeared as if you were trying to "rub my nose" in it so to speak. As if you found some damning information to prove me wrong. When there was no right or wrong to what I said. I am glad that you agree that they should be given some status. However I notice that you failed to acknowledge that the Left did vote for Iraq, they did vote for Afghanistan and they did vote for Guantanamo bay and the military Tribunal hearings that were being held ther with overwhelming support.

Are these facts you are just going to ignore? Seems convenient.




Well, here now we are talking about MY opinon. And MY opinion is that the government has attempted to create a legal limbo in which a person can be designated an "enemy combatant" and afforded no legal status whatsoever, neither a POW nor a criminal. MY opinion is that by creating such a legal designation, the governemnt has weakend the right to due process in general and has diminished MY rights to due process. If you create a system where you can put someone in prison without charging them, without any access to the legal system, or even the right to have their government or family notidfed of their detention, then how do you KNOW that YOU won't someday find YOURSELF in that hole? Do you just take it on faith that the government will never make that kind of mistake, and wrongly put YOU in prison for something they suspect YOU did? And if it did happen, what would YOU do? What recourse would you have?

It's funny now that your opinion has changed from blaming the Bush administration to now blaming the Government. Your rights have not been infringed. The courts ruling does not even effect you. It effects the detainees of Guantanamo bay by extending OUR rights to them. If you feel that your rights have been trampled upon than I suggest you talk to the Liberals as well as the Republicans. Write or call your congressman and voice your beliefs.

Again you've conveniently changed your wording here.. From your last post:

What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution.

Hrm.. nice subtle change of words that slightly contradict your last statement. Previously placing all blame on the administration and now after my posts saying it's the Government. Which I take to be an all encompassing term for the organization that runs our Country and not specifally pointing fingers at a group. Maybe this was an error and you said "government" when you meant to say the Bush Administration. If that were the case then I apologize and you've stayed true to your previous statements.



I don't want to expand the scope of this debate any further, but I do want to say that the legal status of prisoners in GITMO is only one area in which I think the Bush adminsitration has diminsihed the rights of Americans. I agree that the legal battle around the legal status of GITMO detainees may have little practical affect on the rights of Americans. I am far more worried about other erosion of rights that do DIRECTLY apply to Americans on American soil, such as warantless wiretapping and othe kinds of surveilance. Again, I'm not trying to expand the scope of the thread, but I see the GITMO detainee issue as part of a larger pattern of the erosion of American rights.


We're we expanding the scope of this debate? I'm fairly certain that we have remained on topic throughout the course of this thread. Here you contradict yourself again moving away from the word Government and make it seem as if the Bush administration made it happen all by themselves, but again like above maybe when you said "government" you meant to say Bush Administration.. incase you missed the post let me put an excerpt I included in one of my previous posts:


In the two most critical votes, the Democrats gave their support by a 37 to 6 margin to a Republican amendment tacitly supporting the Bush administrationâ??s policy on the Iraq war; and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.


Don't telll me what I want to do. I dislike someone else putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss what I want to do, ask me, don't tell me.

Please show me where I said what you want to do? Here is what my response was to.. this is from your own post:

It seems foolish to me to say we need to protect our way of life from these terrorists by giving up the way of life that make us different from them.

To me, we have a compassionate way of life in comparison to a large portion of the world. This is my own opinion and I stick with it; so to me you're suggesting we should practice our "way of life" on many of whom are known terrorists. I'm sorry that i don't believe in being compassionate to a majority of people who wish and attempt/succeed in doing harm to us.



I have no compassion whatsoever for anyone who beheads a civilian or practices any other kind of attack on civilians. My opinion is that in a war zone if we thnk we have the coordinates for someone who is suspected of this kind of thing, or any kind of terrorist activity, then we should drop a bomb on them or send in a sqaud to kill them in combat. I'm not in favor of trials for enemies in a war zone. However, my opinion is that if we capture people we suspect are eneimeis in a war zone, then we need to treat them as POWs. If we capture people outside a war zone that we suspect are terrorists, then we need to afford them some legal status so that we can prove those charges. And once those charges are proven, we can apply the maximum legal punishment --- death if possible. I have no comapssion for terrorists --- I just believe in the rule of law.

Define War Zone.. Here I'll do it for you:


Main Entry:
war zone
Function:
noun
Date:
1914

1: a zone in which belligerents are waging war; broadly : an area marked by extreme violence

So by that definition a War Zone an occur anywhere making your statement rather vague and unclear. Majority of this paragraph I can agree with. Some things I don't but they are not even worth touching on. So we'll just say we're pretty much in agreement here.


Well, there it is. That is the real nut of the matter. That's why these people need some kind of legal status. I agree that nearly all of the suspects in GITMO are probably there for the correct reason. I also think that almost all civilians who are arrested by civilian police for routine crimes are guilty of the crimes they are charged with. However, I still believe in due process.


Again here we see Eye to Eye but we see different approaches to the matter. I'm assuming since this post is in regards to the supreme courts ruling to grant habeas corpus to the detainees of Guantanamo, that you are for this. I on the other hand would like my Government.. both left wing and right wing.. to do the correct thing and recognize these individuals as POW. I think you can agree with this also? We seem sort've on the same page when it comes to regards of getting them some sort of due process.




Earlier you said that your opinion is that the detainiees are POWs, but here you say that your opinion is that there should be a separate process for them. That is not a consisitent opinion. However, I do agree that there may be a need for a different kind of process.


Here you're arguing semantics and it seems to me that you are bringing things up just to argue them. Yes I believe there should be a seperate process from what they have currently. Yes I believe that process should be the same as that of a POW. Is it wrong for me to bundle these as one in the same?


It may actually be legitimate to create a separate legal status of "enemy combatant" that applies to a person who is not part of a foreign army but takes up arms against the US. However, my opinion is that so far the governemnt has not managed to create such a status in a way that satisfies either inernational law or the Constitution with regards to due process.

I think this is a GREAT idea and feel you've really hit upon something here.


I disagree that I am doing any finger pointing. I especially am not pointing the finger at anyone on these boards if that is what you mean. I am however very critical of the Bush adminsitrtion for its diseragard for due process.

no no. I never meant anyone on this board. We're all friends here. I meant finger pointing at political parties, at Individuals in office, at the media.. etc etc.

The Bush administration often times got much support from the Democratic party. This is where I feel you're finger pointing. You don't seem to acknowledge that it takes two to tango. If you want to blame President Bush then you need to Blame the democrats as well.. dating back at least to 1998.

That is what I meant by finger pointing.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting but you seemed to take my post as a personal attack and it wasn't. I apologize if it came across that way. I've advocated for people to gain as much knowledge as possible regarding circumstances they wish to choose a stance on. There is no point in saying you are FOR or AGAINST something when you have half the information.

Which; no offense. I feel you only have half the information as you keep looking to the right to blame as opposed to acknowledging that both parties are responsible for Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay and the processes that occured there.

[daihashi]

Excellent point.
But as for the third status- I'd expect that a court would not accept it retroactively. You can't change the rules of the game after it has been played, and then declare yourself the winner.

Not retroactively, you're probably right but I think dragonrider has hit upon something to avoid future messes. I think it would be in our nations best interest to consider something similar like this for future incidents. It would solve so many problems that we as Americans and the Detainees have with Guantanamo.

Wishful thinking? Probably so :(

[dragonrider]

So in that regards; it appeared as if you were trying to "rub my nose" in it so to speak. As if you found some damning information to prove me wrong. When there was no right or wrong to what I said.

Not my intention to "rub your nose" in it.



I am glad that you agree that they should be given some status. However I notice that you failed to acknowledge that the Left did vote for Iraq, they did vote for Afghanistan and they did vote for Guantanamo bay and the military Tribunal hearings that were being held ther with overwhelming support.

Are these facts you are just going to ignore? Seems convenient.

I had already stated that I do not see this debate as left vs. right. Here is my quote:


I don't think this is a left-wing vs right-wing issue. It is an argument between people who believe in the rule of law and those who would rather sacrifice the rule of law for safety. And I think that is a false choice.



It's funny now that your opinion has changed from blaming the Bush administration to now blaming the Government. Your rights have not been infringed. The courts ruling does not even effect you. It effects the detainees of Guantanamo bay by extending OUR rights to them. If you feel that your rights have been trampled upon than I suggest you talk to the Liberals as well as the Republicans. Write or call your congressman and voice your beliefs.

Yes, I changed the wording because you objected to it before. How would you have me refer to the poeple in our government who have made these decisions or taken these positions? I am trying to be accomodating here. I've already said I do not view this as a left vs. right issue. I think there are plenty of people on "The Right" who are as concerned about due process as those on "The Left." Certainly there are many on "The Right" who have voiced concern about constitutional issues with the way the War on Terror has been conducted. So, to parse it as finely as possible: I think the Bush Administration took the lead in attempting to define these detainees as something other than POWs or civilian criminals. Anyone on "The Left" or "The Right" who voted for any legistlation supporting that position deserves some criticism as well. They can all share the blame together, Bush, "The Left" and "The Right."



Again you've conveniently changed your wording here.. From your last post:

What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution.

Hrm.. nice subtle change of words that slightly contradict your last statement. Previously placing all blame on the administration and now after my posts saying it's the Government. Which I take to be an all encompassing term for the organization that runs our Country and not specifally pointing fingers at a group. Maybe this was an error and you said "government" when you meant to say the Bush Administration. If that were the case then I apologize and you've stayed true to your previous statements.

That sounds like you trying to rub my nose in it. If you're going to take the high road, you gotta stick with it, man. Gloating over someone taking your point of view is poor form.


We're we expanding the scope of this debate? I'm fairly certain that we have remained on topic throughout the course of this thread.

When I was said I didn't want to expand the scope of the debate, I was referring to the fact that *I* was bringing up an off-topic subject like warrantless wiretapping. I didn't want to get way off topic, and debate warrantless wiretapping, just bring it in as what I view as part of a pattern. If you feel it is on topic and wish to discuss it, then carry on. I thought someone might feel I was getting a bit far afield with that.



Please show me where I said what you want to do?

You were chartacterizing what I want to do. I though it was pretty clear. When I said this:


Don't telll me what I want to do. I dislike someone else putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss what I want to do, ask me, don't tell me.


It was a direct reference to the quote in which you said this:


You're wanting to combat enemies, who video tape beheadings of innocent CIVILIANS/expressed great disdain for us/have claimed responsibility for 911, bombing of US embassies and countless other acts, with compassion.

I was objecting to you saying I want to combat enemies, who video tape beheadings of innocent CIVILIANS/expressed great disdain for us/have claimed responsibility for 911, bombing of US embassies and countless other acts, with compassion. I never said I want to combat these terrorists with compasion, and I objected to you saiying that's what I want.


Again here we see Eye to Eye but we see different approaches to the matter. I'm assuming since this post is in regards to the supreme courts ruling to grant habeas corpus to the detainees of Guantanamo, that you are for this. I on the other hand would like my Government.. both left wing and right wing.. to do the correct thing and recognize these individuals as POW. I think you can agree with this also? We seem sort've on the same page when it comes to regards of getting them some sort of due process.

I am in favor of them having a recognized legal status with due process. If that means they are processed as POWs or as civilians, then there are problems with both approaches, but they at least have a recognized legal status. My main objection has been to 7 years of waiting for some acceptable method of due process. I think the court made the right decision in rejecting the status quo.



Here you're arguing semantics and it seems to me that you are bringing things up just to argue them. Yes I believe there should be a seperate process from what they have currently. Yes I believe that process should be the same as that of a POW. Is it wrong for me to bundle these as one in the same?


No, there is nothing wrong with that, if that is what you meant. And I was not just arguing for the sake of argument. I interpreted your idea as being a new process, not the one for POWs as you had suggested before. I thought you meant something separate from how POWs are processed, not separate from what they have now. I agree with you and the court --- what they have now is unacceptable.

[daihashi]

All I have to say Dragonrider.. is for someone who claims it's not an issue between left and right you sure took the baton and started darting off towards placing Blame solely on the Bush administration

You can not say that it's not an issue between Left and Right and then only point out the short comings of the Bush administration and not show the short comings of all groups/individuals involved.

Say what you like; we're simply commenting on each other's opinions at this point and I don't see this conversation going anywhere but down. So I'm taking this oppurtunity to gracefully bow out since I sense the potential for this to turn into a flame war.

for the most part we agree; but at the same time we disagree. I think this is the closest we're going to come to a conclusion.

Admittingly I really would've liked for you to address the facts I posted on the democrats position on Guantanamo and McCain's position on it. Unfortunately it looks like that is just not going to happen.

Enjoy sir. :smokin:

[dragonrider]

All I have to say Dragonrider.. is for someone who claims it's not an issue between left and right you sure took the baton and started darting off towards placing Blame solely on the Bush administration

You can not say that it's not an issue between Left and Right and then only point out the short comings of the Bush administration and not show the short comings of all groups/individuals involved.

Say what you like; we're simply commenting on each other's opinions at this point and I don't see this conversation going anywhere but down. So I'm taking this oppurtunity to gracefully bow out since I sense the potential for this to turn into a flame war.

for the most part we agree; but at the same time we disagree. I think this is the closest we're going to come to a conclusion.

Admittingly I really would've liked for you to address the facts I posted on the democrats position on Guantanamo and McCain's position on it. Unfortunately it looks like that is just not going to happen.

Enjoy sir. :smokin:


Well, I certainly agree this discussion is going nowhere. However, I don't think it would have devolved into flaming --- I do not engage in flaming.

And I do not agree that *I* framed this discussion as being a left vs. right partisan debate or ran with the partisan baton. If you look back at my posts, they were consistently focused on the need for Due Process. It was some of the various mods who weighed in who initially opened the partisan aspect of the debate, and I did finally respond when P4B said, "Seems that the left wing can't decide whether these people's rights fall under the Geneva Convention or our own Constitution." That realy irritated me becasue it is not the left or the right who had trouble deciding the status of these detainess. It is my opinion that it was the Bush administration who intentionally attempted to muddle the status of the detainees by arguing that they were neither POWs nor civilians, and I did not want to leave unchallenged the idea that it was The Left who had done so. In the same post where I challenged that notion, I intended to clarify that my blame for the Bush administration did not indicate I felt this was a Left vs Right partisan debate --- I said, "I don't think this is a left-wing vs right-wing issue. It is an argument between people who believe in the rule of law and those who would rather sacrifice the rule of law for safety. And I think that is a false choice."

And then you responeded.
And then I responeded.
And then you responeded.
And then I responeded.
And then you responeded.
And then I responeded.
And then you responeded....

And here we are. I'm all for closing it off.

But just to be clear before I sign off:


I support the right to Due Process and the rule of law.
I do not see Due Process to be a Left vs Right partisan issue.
I blame the Bush Administration for leading the fight to muddle the status of these detainees so that thye could not be processed according to the Geneve Conventions or through civilian courts and for failing to find a viable third option. However, my criticism of the Bush administration on this is not motivated by Left vs Right partisanship.
I blame anyone on both the left and the right for any legistaltion they voted for that helped to pursue this policy of denying due process.
I think the court was correct in deciding this case, even though I think the results will be problematic.

[Dave Byrd]

Man, y'all went back and forth so much here that it exhausts me to read it. I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider. Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.

The one person who'd still be in here fighting the good fight with you, Dragonrider, and speaking truth to misperception, is MIA till Wednesday or Thursday. My better half, Mrs. (Birdgirl) Byrd, is cooling her heels in the hospital. We put her in there last night to start her on some new medicine to slow down her heart rhythm. I'll tell her what she's missing.

Not sure how long everyone here in this discussion besides P4B and Birdie and Breukelen Advocaat have been reading this forum. It certainly stands out now compared to what it once was. Major improvement in the tone. Civil debate like this used to be unheard of here. The factthat it exists now really has smartened up the place.

[daihashi]

Man, y'all went back and forth so much here that it exhausts me to read it. I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider.

The one person who'd still be in here fighting the good fight with you, Dragonrider, and speaking truth to misperception, is MIA till Wednesday or Thursday. My better half, Mrs. (Birdgirl) Byrd, is cooling her heels in the hospital. We put her in there last night to start her on some new medicine to slow down her heart rhythm. I'll tell her what she's missing.

Not sure how long everyone here in this discussion besides P4B and Birdie and Breukelen Advocaat have been reading this forum. It certainly stands out now compared to what it once was. Major improvement in the tone. Civil debate like this used to be unheard of here. The factthat it exists now really has smartened up the place.

Eh... actually I think Dragonrider and I have come to the conclusion that we both essentially agree with each other for the End Goal Results (due process or process of some sort) but we just view it differently on how we need to get there.

I hope Birdgirl is alright. Give her my best wishes. I don't know her well but I thoroughly enjoy her posts/discussions as they are typically well written and well informed/educated. Something I greatly admire in people.


Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.

I think this would be true of anyone in that situation. Self preservation is a natural instinct. To say that someone wouldn't insist upon it or try to get it is a little bit silly. Of course we would, but what we want and what is *right* are two different things. And what is right or wrong is different from place to place, country to country and from person to person.

Again give the Misses my best Wishes. (damn.. I should become a rapper. My rhymes are so awesome.. lol j/k). :thumbsup: :hippy:

[dragonrider]

Man, y'all went back and forth so much here that it exhausts me to read it. I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider. Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.

The one person who'd still be in here fighting the good fight with you, Dragonrider, and speaking truth to misperception, is MIA till Wednesday or Thursday. My better half, Mrs. (Birdgirl) Byrd, is cooling her heels in the hospital. We put her in there last night to start her on some new medicine to slow down her heart rhythm. I'll tell her what she's missing.

Not sure how long everyone here in this discussion besides P4B and Birdie and Breukelen Advocaat have been reading this forum. It certainly stands out now compared to what it once was. Major improvement in the tone. Civil debate like this used to be unheard of here. The factthat it exists now really has smartened up the place.

Man, you think it was exhausting to READ it, imagine what it was like to WRITE it!

I'm really sorry to hear about Birdgirl. Give her my best wishes. It's probably best she wasn't reading this at the time, because I doubt it would have helped with the heart rhythm!

Thanks, and let Birdgirl know we are thinking of her.

[FreshNugz]

Pardon my interruption into this quarrel, but on the note of the original topic:

Why are you both(hashi and dragonrider) arguing over prisoners being afforded Geneva convention rights? The United States did not ratify the Geneva convention...so they never have to allow or follow those rules.
Just something to consider.:cool:

[daihashi]

Pardon my interruption into this quarrel, but on the note of the original topic:

Why are you both(hashi and dragonrider) arguing over prisoners being afforded Geneva convention rights? The United States did not ratify the Geneva convention...so they never have to allow or follow those rules.
Just something to consider.:cool:

Kind of.. It's unclear to me as right now but very good point. Here's an excerpt from a website discussing the united states and the geneva convention.

It sounds to me as if we would still have to abide by the prisoners of war (assuming we could somehow categorizes these 'detainees'/'enemy combatants' as such) because that part was not amended in 1977?

But to be honest I'm really not sure. Here's what's written. Maybe you can read it and tell me what you think?



The Red Cross movement (later renamed the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) spearheaded the first Geneva Convention in 1864. The purpose of this first treaty was to protect wounded soldiers and those caring for them during times of war. Twelve nations signed the initial document. Over the following decades, more countries agreed to the convention.

In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).

The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.

[Reefer Rogue]

I posted this recently but felt the need to follow up on this particular post:



McCain is all for Human rights, he just doesn't believe in giving American rights to non Americans (thus the reason for me putting in bold "aliens"). But I would never expect anyone here who just chooses to blindly bash the Right (this is not directed at you; this is a general message to the board members as a great number of you refuse to look at the flaws on both sides of the table. Too much fingerpointing here.) without even looking up to see if they are justified in their attack.

Good day. :jointsmile:

edit: Just want to reitterate that this was not an attack on you Reefer. I simply felt it was a good example on how alot of people on the board tend to yell misinformation. You are not in the US (at least judging by your listed location) and I don't expect you to know all the happenings in our country; but some of the other people on here who are in the US I would hope to get a little more from. This isn't meant as an insult to ANYONE... but rather I'm trying to encourage people to read and research before blindly crying wolf. I feel it's important regardless of what your political stance is. No hard feelings reefer? :thumbsup:

Well McCain is entitled to his opinion whether non americans have the right to american rights but the fact is, that 5-4, they are allowed the rights. Majority rules and thus can lie a problem with democracy, do you feel this is a tyranny of the majority? I don't recall when i've ever yelled out misinformation and when i do i'm more then happy to concede. I've said that the US government (bush administration) allows or allowed for water torture, i find this unacceptable, i don't know how McCain feels. They wouldn't have been allowed to even appeal their sentences in the military tribunals so i support the decision. I have no hard feelings i just believe in justice, a consistant and fair process, regardless of nationality, race, sex, wealth because we are all eqaul and should be innocent until proven guilty, not being allowed to be held in captivity like an animal without charge or evidence.

[FreshNugz]

Kind of.. It's unclear to me as right now but very good point. Here's an excerpt from a website discussing the united states and the geneva convention.

It sounds to me as if we would still have to abide by the prisoners of war (assuming we could somehow categorizes these 'detainees'/'enemy combatants' as such) because that part was not amended in 1977?

But to be honest I'm really not sure. Here's what's written. Maybe you can read it and tell me what you think?

Well they signed it of course, as did most countries. However before they are subject to it, it must be ratified....and the US never did this. Same with the International Criminal Court, etc....they do not participate in international law because they refuse to let the fate of their people be decided by international judges. AKA. they want protection for the abusive guards and soldiers.

[FreshNugz]

Sorry for the double post but I couldn't edit, waited too long. Now that I've found coffee I can articulate a bit

Your excerpt is true, the US signed and ratified all four of the original protocols.
Here is a link which provides info on that.

Geneva Conventions 1949 - United States of America reservation text (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument)

In reference to topic at hand, whether or not guantanomo prisoners should be subject to it, or prisoners from this war...whichever..
The parts you referred to in 1977 are commonly known as the additional protocols - the US did not ratify these.

They are:

I. Protection of victims in armed conflicts to situations where people are fighting in the exercise of their right of self determination against colonial domination, foreign occupation, or racist regimes.

II. Protection of victims of internal conflicts in which armed opposition controls enough territory to enable it to carry out sustained military operations.

Source for ^^: Geneva Conventions - MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762529232/Geneva_Conventions.html#s3)

So, the cases of Gunatanamo, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and pretty much every single colonial war are not applicable to the Geneva protocols.
By not ratifying these protocols, the US is essentially open to disregard protection of victims in armed conflicts surrounding colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes...Last I checked, Al Quaeda, and many fanatical groups are fighting because they don't like foreign invaders on their land, disrespecting their sovereignty. Just the same as Vietnam and Korea..
Therefore these "enemy combatants" are not even close to being afforded protection, because the protocol which would offer it to them is not ratified. Basically its a loophole, allowing them to be subject to torture, as we have seen.

[Psycho4Bud]

I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider.

LOL...since when did the rule of law or due process in a U.S. Court have ANYTHING to do with a POW during a time of conflict? ONCE AGAIN, how many of the 435,000 Germans detained in the U.S. during WW2 made their way into a U.S. court?


Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.

As for myself I kind of like it here in the U.S. where my rights as a citizen are granted....some of which you lose when you travel in distant lands.

Now my brother is an exception, due to his job he is a world traveler. Now lets say I were to get the 3:00A.M. wake up call stating that he was caught in the middle of an Al-Quada camp cleaning his AK-47; hell ya I'd feel bad for him but I'd tell the caller to tell him from me, "enjoy the complimentary breakfast....dumbass!".

So what rights under U.S. law OR the Geneva Convention did either Nick Berg or Eugene Armstrong have just to name a few? NONE...both were beheaded! Giving people from this group rights under the Geneva Convention is one thing; giving them the rights of a U.S. citizen is completely wrong!

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

LOL...since when did the rule of law or due process in a U.S. Court have ANYTHING to do with a POW during a time of conflict? ONCE AGAIN, how many of the 435,000 Germans detained in the U.S. during WW2 made their way into a U.S. court?

P4B, you keep going back to the idea that these detainees are prisoners of war, and while I might tend to agree with you on that, the government has claimed that they are not POWs. So just forget it -- they aren't POWs.

And even if they were considered POWs, the rule of law and due process do apply to POWs. You are wrong if you are saying it doesn't. The definition of a POW is a legal definition and there are laws that apply to the treatment of people with a legal status of POW. So POWs receive due process in accordance with their status as POWs. You are right that they do not get their day in court, but that doesn't mean they don't have protections under the law or receive due process as POWs. Both civilians and POWs recieve due process, but under different rules.

The reason that they are being given their day in court is because the governemnt has chosen not to process them as POWs, so the court has said they must be given due process under civilian rules. It's the government's blunder, not the court's.

When I refer to the breakdown of the rule of law, I am referring to the government's attempt to designate these people as neither POWs nor civilians. They were attempting to create a situation in which the detainee could not recieve due process as a POW nor as a civilian. They wanted to create a legal black hole in which they could do whatever they wanted with these people, subject to neither set of rules. That is an attempt to circumvent the rule of law by creating a situation in which no laws apply.


So what rights under U.S. law OR the Geneva Convention did either Nick Berg or Eugene Armstrong have just to name a few? NONE...both were beheaded! Giving people from this group rights under the Geneva Convention is one thing; giving them the rights of a U.S. citizen is completely wrong!


Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong did have rights. Thier rights were incorrectly taken from them and they were beheaded. It's an atrocity, and everyone the world over knows it was wrong. What makes us different from the terrorists is that we respect the rule of law and don't do that kind of thing. I think that is what this court ruling is about --- keeping us from taking a step toward ignoring the rule of law and just doing whatever the hell we want to people.

[Psycho4Bud]

I agree with ya on what the government, Bush, "wanted" to do but this thread isn't about that; it's about what we have in store for the future. McCain has stated, more/less, that these people should be treated as a POW and the other camp wants these people to have the same rights in a U.S. court as a civilian. Once again, out of 435,000 Germans in U.S. POW camps I can't find anything in regards to their due process in a U.S. court as to whether or not they should be held.

I think when the court made this decision they should have stated just that....these people have rights under the Geneva Convention and will be treated as such.

But once again, what do we do with the people that we are now ready to release but their own homelands won't take them back or when they do return they'll face a fate worse than that of Gitmo?

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

Sorry for the double post but I couldn't edit, waited too long. Now that I've found coffee I can articulate a bit

Your excerpt is true, the US signed and ratified all four of the original protocols.
Here is a link which provides info on that.

Geneva Conventions 1949 - United States of America reservation text (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument)

In reference to topic at hand, whether or not guantanomo prisoners should be subject to it, or prisoners from this war...whichever..
The parts you referred to in 1977 are commonly known as the additional protocols - the US did not ratify these.

They are:

I. Protection of victims in armed conflicts to situations where people are fighting in the exercise of their right of self determination against colonial domination, foreign occupation, or racist regimes.

II. Protection of victims of internal conflicts in which armed opposition controls enough territory to enable it to carry out sustained military operations.

Source for ^^: Geneva Conventions - MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762529232/Geneva_Conventions.html#s3)

So, the cases of Gunatanamo, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and pretty much every single colonial war are not applicable to the Geneva protocols.
By not ratifying these protocols, the US is essentially open to disregard protection of victims in armed conflicts surrounding colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes...Last I checked, Al Quaeda, and many fanatical groups are fighting because they don't like foreign invaders on their land, disrespecting their sovereignty. Just the same as Vietnam and Korea..
Therefore these "enemy combatants" are not even close to being afforded protection, because the protocol which would offer it to them is not ratified. Basically its a loophole, allowing them to be subject to torture, as we have seen.

Thanks for looking into that. I was not feeling good last night and couldn't clearly interpret it myself. It seems that you are correct in your interpretation, at least it makes sense to me but that doesn't mean that the court couldn't of ruled in favor of the Geneva convention instead of giving them American rights. It would be up to the choice of the Supreme Court. No one is actually stopping us from giving them rights under the Geneva Convention (aside from the Bush administration) and I feel the Supreme Court had the right idea but went in the wrong direction

Again thanks for clearing that up.. It's very hard for me to think when my entire body is firing off in pain. :(

[dragonrider]

Once again, out of 435,000 Germans in U.S. POW camps I can't find anything in regards to their due process in a U.S. court as to whether or not they should be held.

No, I'm sure that none of the German POWs of WWII had their day in a US court. Due process for a POW does not involve a trial. I think due process for a POW has more to do with their treatment, living conditions, protection from torture, and release at the end of hostilities.

Probably there is not any one-size-fits-all way to handle all of the detainees anyway. For those that were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq, it makes sense to me that they would be considered POWs. But then you have poeple like the German guy who was picked up in Pakistan for traveling to some religious schools. He was not on the battlefield and not carrying weapons --- turns out he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever. He gets sent to Afghanistan, tortured, sent to GITMO, tortured some more, and is finally released after 5 years when the German Chancellor finally made a personal request to Bush. A person like that is not a POW. He is someone captured in more of a police-type operation outside of the battlefield. He should have had his day in court. I'm sure there are more people who have been captured in that way who should not be processed as POWs. They may all be guilty, but they should be processed properly. This country is coming off like a bunch of hypocrits when we tell the rest of the world the RIGHT way to do things, and we don't even follow those rules ourselves.

I've got no idea what should be done with the people whose countries don't want them back. I haven't really heard much about that.

[FreshNugz]

This country is coming off like a bunch of hypocrits when we tell the rest of the world the RIGHT way to do things, and we don't even follow those rules ourselves.


Indeed. And the sooner more people realize this, the sooner it can change.:jointsmile:

[Dave Byrd]

AP: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainees_rights_report)

Reason number 1,0001 that validates the high court decision on Guantanamo and 10,001 why we're not held in high regard in the part of the world we're allegedly saving (or the rest of it). We cannot let this sort of thing go on or even be a rare occurrence. Not if we're pretending to be the arbiters of freedom and democracy.

Human rights and justice/due process. That's all it's about. The alternative is nothing more that idiocy and hypocrisy.

Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo

WASHINGTON - Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group.

For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examine 11 former prisoners. The group alleges finding evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes and accuses U.S. military health professionals of allowing the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators that they then exploited.

"Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred," said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. "It's a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was."

Continued: Refer to link for complete story
AP: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainees_rights_report)

[rebgirl420]

I agree. I was infuriated with the ruling to give them the same Rights as American citizens. Even if these were not enemy combatants the fact of the matter remains that they are not Americans.

It's truely disgusting that we would attempt to give the same rights we get to enjoy to someone who attempted to harm our country.

whether you believe in Gitmo or not; you have to admit that giving terrorists or people that are not Americans the same rights that we have is just pain wrong.

Very nicely written. I agree completely.

These are not American citizens! The constitution covers Americans. These people would kill you in a second and we want to give them the same rights as me or you.

Crazy.