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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Have a good one!:s4:
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyattic
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Are these facts you are just going to ignore? Seems convenient.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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:Quote:
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.
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.
Please show me where I said what you want to do? Here is what my response was to.. this is from your own post:Quote:
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 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.
Define War Zone.. Here I'll do it for you:Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
I think this is a GREAT idea and feel you've really hit upon something here.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyattic
Wishful thinking? Probably so :(
Not my intention to "rub your nose" in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I had already stated that I do not see this debate as left vs. right. Here is my quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
You were chartacterizing what I want to do. I though it was pretty clear. When I said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
It was a direct reference to the quote in which you said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
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.
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.