U.S. Government: "U.S. Citizen 'Enemy Combatants' Have No Legal Rights.

[Truth Seeker]

The U.S. Government filed a brief arguing that any person designated an "enemy combatant" by the government has no legal right to legal representation and can be held indefinitely without a hearing and without charges, even if the 'enemy combatant is a U.S. citizen.

Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14203-2002Jun19.html)

Currently, there are two U.S. citizens to whom the U.S. seeks to apply this doctrine. One of them, Yaser Esam Hamdi, is a Saudi captured in Afganistan. He is a U.S. citizen essentially by accident, having been born in the U.S. but having lived his entire life in Saudi Arabia. The second is Jose Padilla. Jose Padilla spent his entire life in the U.S. but converted to Islam while in prison. The U.S. has alleged he was attempting to build a "dirty" bomb but has refused to charge him or present evidence. He was declared an "enemy combatant" and transferred to military custody when a federal judge indicated that the government had better charge him or cut him loose.

John Walker Lindh, while also an "enemy combatant" has been treated like any other criminal defendant.

In my opinion, this is completely outrageous. If the U.S. government want to charge a U.S. citizen with treason, that's fine. However, allowing the government to create a precedent for holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely without access to a court or an attorney is infinitely more dangerous than any number of terrorist organizations. Has the U.S. government already forgotten the Japanese internments?

The U.S. political and judicial system is built on a system of checks and balances. The idea of allowing the government to simply declare some particular person beyond that bounds of those protections is deeply chilling. What's worse, the government's theory is that the military has this authority.

"The court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination. Going beyond that determination would require the courts to enter an area in which they have no competence, much less institutional expertise, intrude upon the Constitutional prerogative of the Commander in Chief . . . and possibly create 'a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States,' " the brief said, citing a 1950 Supreme Court ruling.

I know it's incredibly trite to say, "if we allow X, the terrorists have already won." But if one attack results in the short-circuiting of the entire system of constitutional protections in the U.S., perhaps they have.

[Colinito67]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
.
I know it's incredibly trite to say, "if we allow X, the terrorists have already won." But if one attack results in the short-circuiting of the entire system of constitutional protections in the U.S., perhaps they have.

Good post. I definitely agree. I'd say we lose whenever our constitutional rights are infringed upon. If the US is so confident that these people are "combatants," I do not see the problem in allowing them to have representation and have a fair and speedy trial. If you have a good case, why not go to trial and get him behind bars? If you don't have a good case, why have you arrested him/them?

colin

[msmith537]

Just to play devils advocate, what happens if one of these "enemy combatants" is released for lack of evidence and then denonates a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago?

I am not an expert on all things Ashcroft. But one thing he said made sense. Our legal system is designed to apprehend and prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime. It isn't designed to deal with suicidal criminals delivering weapons of mass destruction.

[Max Harvey]

It shouldn't matter if you're accused of killing every single person on earth. If you're a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.

It's very frustrating to say these things nowadays, with a lot of hypocritical "patriots" accusing those who do say them of treason. How demanding that the Constitution be followed to the letter is treasonous is beyond me.

I hate to sound paranoid, but I honestly think this could be the first step in the Bush administration chipping away at the rights of the accused. What can stop them from declaring that, say, robbing a bank is an act of terrorism, the people arrested are therefore "military combatants", and since precedent has been set with the Padilla case, they can toss them in a cell somewhere and lose the key without that tedious business of "trials" and "witnesses" and "juries"?

[Tedster]

Terrorists have absolutely no rights whatsoever under any law, US or international. Treason is hard to prove, what is more likely (Rosenburgs were executed for Espionage, not Treason) that a lesser charge that will 'stick' is used. It's also very prudent to keep these jokers out of the "normal" judicial system as it has proved time and again ineffective and very "leaky" from a national security standpoint. Crooked lawyers don't help, either. Treating the first WTC bombing as criminal matter is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot. Being locked up, even indefinitely, is probably superior than that. They have intelligence value, so we are keeping them alive at least. All the human "rights" people (strangely silent on 9/12, what about the poor people who were roasted in their offices, only to find relief by jumping from 90 stories? I watched this live on TV, it took around 8 to 10 seconds of free falling)

FDR and then governor Earl Warren of California are largely responsible for the japanese internment. Post 9/11 you should be able to figure out why they did that. No, it wasn't "right" but it sure was tactically sound. Would that we had "liberals" with balls like that today, sadly they are extinct.

[minty green]

Just to play devil's advocate, I have it on good authority that msmith537 is planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago. Since I have now informed our Infallible Leaders of this fact, he has been arrested and is now to be imprisoned indefinitely. No evidence of his crime can be revealed, and no other entity may interfere with his perpetual detention.

God, how I detest this administration.

[glee]

Originally posted by Tedster
Terrorists have absolutely no rights whatsoever under any law, US or international.

Us silly Europeans, spending years negotiating a trial for the Lockerbie bombers when we could have asked you for a simple legal precedent. :smack:

Originally posted by Tedster
It's also very prudent to keep these jokers out of the "normal" judicial system as it has proved time and again ineffective and very "leaky" from a national security standpoint.


Yes, fancy letting all those innocent people go free. Much safer to lock them up. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tedster
Treating the first WTC bombing as a criminal matter is what got us into this mess in the first place.


I expect you were one of those who called for Muslims to be punished for that outrage. Then the judicial system you despise showed it was a white American...

Originally posted by Tedster
Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot.

I suppose that enemies of the US who define American civilians as enemy combatants could benefit from this well-thought out doctrine of yours. :wally

[Max Harvey]

Originally posted by Tedster
FDR and then governor Earl Warren of California are largely responsible for the japanese internment. Post 9/11 you should be able to figure out why they did that. No, it wasn't "right" but it sure was tactically sound. Would that we had "liberals" with balls like that today, sadly they are extinct.

Tell me about it. Everybody knows all those children with Japanese grandparents were planning to infiltrate U.S. bases while wearing their Li'l KamakazeTM Dynamite Kits.

Do you think we should have locked up every militia member after Timothy McVeigh was arrested? Better safe than sorry, right?

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by msmith537
I am not an expert on all things Ashcroft. But one thing he said made sense. Our legal system is designed to apprehend and prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime. It isn't designed to deal with suicidal criminals delivering weapons of mass destruction.

Ever heard of the criminal offence of Conspiracy ? Not always easy to prove but it's better than the thought police.

[pldennison]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tedster
Treating the first WTC bombing as a criminal matter is what got us into this mess in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I expect you were one of those who called for Muslims to be punished for that outrage. Then the judicial system you despise showed it was a white American...

Um, no. You're thinking of Oklahama City.

[Truth Seeker]

Minty, Thank goodness you caught him in time! :eek:

mssmith537 Two points.

1) If there is a complete "lack of evidence," he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. A "lack of evidence" means that the U.S. government does not have a good reason to believe that he is actually a terrorist. If the U.S. government does not have a good reason to believe someone is a terrorist, then it would be monstrous to keep him or her locked up just because some military officer or civilian prosecutor has a "hunch." The more troubling case is where the government does have evidence but need to protect their sources, e.g. an agent inside a terrorist organization. This, however, shouldn't be that novel of a situation. There are ways to address the government's concerns short of denying the accused (who is innocent until proven guilty -- remember that?) even the barest hint of due process.

2) Just because the government can't hold someone incommunicado idefinitely without a hearing doesn't mean the alternative is to do nothing. If the government is convinced someone is a terrorist, follow them around, gather evidence, investigate.

[wring]

let's all remember when we all 'knew' Richard Jewell was the Olympic bomber, then the FBI ended up having to publically admit, well, no, he wasn't.

not to mention people who've had criminal trials, found guilty and have had their convictions overturned 'cause they were actually innocent (reference the Innocence project).

So, no, I'm really not at all comfortable about one branch of our government deciding that the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be tossed out when they 'know' some one is a bad guy.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
2) Just because the government can't hold someone incommunicado idefinitely without a hearing doesn't mean the alternative is to do nothing. If the government is convinced someone is a terrorist, follow them around, gather evidence, investigate.

And there lies the rub. How does an Intelligence community at (turf) war with itself say to a politician; "Actually, in our experience it would be a much better thing for the country if we followed this guy around for awhile in order to try and discover who he may hook up with. And maybe even gather a little evidence." when it's politically expedient to arrest the individual the moment they return to the US. Bush had them over a barrel because of the turf war.

That notwithstanding, party political imperatives have no place in pragmatic Intelligence matters. IMHO, Bush interfered with operational standard practice for his own short-term ends and that, ultimately, may not be in the national interest.

[msmith537]

London_Calling - There are obviously laws already on the books against planning crimes. I'm talking about the way our law enforcement agencies investigate and solve crimes and punish criminals. It doesn't do any good to figure out who hijacked the airplanes after they crashed into their targets. Figure out a way to find out who the criminals are before they commit the crimes without violating anyones rights and we'll all be happy.

Truth Seeker - 2) As you probably know, the CIA was following two of the suspected 9/11 terrorists before 9/11. We definitely two things 1) better cooperation between the law enforcement and intel agencies and 2) a better way to sift through all that intel data (I heard a typical listening post receives 2 million peices of data an HOUR).

That said, what would we be able to do to the suspected terrorists under existing law had we picked them up?

[wring]

deport them as being undesireable aliens.

[minty green]

No need to deport, wring. Just pick 'em up, hold 'em on their myriad visa violations, investigate the plot, and charge 'em with conspiracy to do a whole host of things that would result in them never again seeeing the outside of a SuperMax detention facility.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by msmith537
London_Calling - There are obviously laws already on the books against planning crimes. I'm talking about the way our law enforcement agencies investigate and solve crimes and punish criminals. It doesn't do any good to figure out who hijacked the airplanes after they crashed into their targets. Figure out a way to find out who the criminals are before they commit the crimes without violating anyones rights and we'll all be happy.


IMHO, the first thing you do is keep politicians the hell out of Intelligence matters.

Can you imagine how all this very public headless chicken stuff looks to the terrorists ?

[minty green]

I imagine it looks like the inside of a cave or the closet of a crappy apartment in Jalalabad. Open democracy may look messy to us, but it's damn well effective against these losers.

[jayjay]

Originally posted by wring
deport them as being undesireable aliens.

How does one deport a U.S. citizen, like the men in the OP? Not a hostile question, just confused.

jayjay

[wring]

jayjay that response was in reply to the posting about "gee, we had certain of those hijackers under watch/whatever before 9/11, what could we have done..." to which my answer is keep 'em out of the country, but of course, minty goes one better.

WRT those who are citizens, charge 'em w/a crime or let them go. IT's done every single day in this country. If you don't have evidence sufficient to hold them in custody (keeping in mind that the threashold for being held for trial is substantially less than it is for conviction), you must not detain them. THE FF thought that they protected our citizens from the government detaining w/o trial.

[jayjay]

wring, gotcha. I was just confused about the subject of the deportation.

I agree with the folks who are a bit nervous about the "have no rights" thing...erode, erode, erode...

jayjay

[Duckster]

Originally posted by Tedster
Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot. Being locked up, even indefinitely, is probably superior than that. They have intelligence value, so we are keeping them alive at least. All the human "rights" people (strangely silent on 9/12, what about the poor people who were roasted in their offices, only to find relief by jumping from 90 stories? I watched this live on TV, it took around 8 to 10 seconds of free falling)

So you have no qalms that an American citizen (by birth none the less) is now locked up in his own country without warrant, arrest, etc.? And that he will be held indefinitely without trial, never having been charged, let alone convicted, of breaking any law pertaining to his current incarceration?

Have you ever read the US Constitution? :)

FDR and then governor Earl Warren of California are largely responsible for the japanese internment. Post 9/11 you should be able to figure out why they did that. No, it wasn't "right" but it sure was tactically sound. Would that we had "liberals" with balls like that today, sadly they are extinct.

Bear in mind that FDR's Executive Order ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans was later upheld by the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, that court decision has yet to be reversed.

I am not saying I am in agreement with what FDR did, nor the Court's decision, but there is a difference between one's moral opinion and the still existing legal decision on this issue.

Besides, FDR's EO restricted US citizens. The current war on terrorism is dealing with non-US citizens, notwithstanding Jose Padilla in this thread, who seek not just to commit terrorism against the USA, but attack and ultimately destroy the USA as a country, a people and as a culture.

As much as I loathe terrorists, and support the Constitution, American citizens still have rights in their own country. However, I am no so sure that non-US citizens committing terrorism against the USA, bent on attacking and ultimately destroying the USA as a country, a people and as a culture be accorded the same rights as US citizens.

[Apos]

----It shouldn't matter if you're accused of killing every single person on earth. If you're a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.----

And then, when that fails, you should sue for damages because the government wasn't able to find a jury of your peers, seeing as they're all dead.

[sailor]

So the government can deprive you of life, limb or liberty without due process of law if you may be a terrorist and the government gets to decide who may be a terrorist and needs not explain it or justify it to anyone? Wow. The Soviets and the Chinese were so far ahead of us.

I suppose the military should also take matters into their own hands and not follow lawful orders if they believe they are not for the good of the country. Maybe they *should* have staged a coup and installed Gore in the White House? The ends would justify it?

Where do you stop? When you have a country like Afghanistan where the rule of law comes out of an AK47?

[Czarcasm]

If he is to be held until this "war" on terror is over, then we know exactly how long he'll be held without trial.
Forever.

[Apos]

---Bear in mind that FDR's Executive Order ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans was later upheld by the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, that court decision has yet to be reversed.---

A San Fran federal judge overturned Korematsu's conviction, and his decision was uncontested. The U.S. Government has apologized for the dententions, awarded medals to victims, and even paid some civil restitution.

---I am not saying I am in agreement with what FDR did, nor the Court's decision, but there is a difference between one's moral opinion and the still existing legal decision on this issue.---

Only once in my knowledge has the Court ever violated its own code of ethics in conferring with the executive branch on what its decision should be. Korematsu was that case. Both the majority and dissenting opinions bend the law over backwards to reach their desired results: the majority to defend the honor of the U.S. military in allowing nutty General Pickering to put his proud racist beliefs into action, and the dissenters to defend principles, without much legal backup.

The Korematsu case was a tragic and extremely upseting travesty. I cannot think of it without it bringing tears to my eyes.

Fred Korematsu so desperately just wanted to be an American that he went to a "plastic surgeon" to try and get English features. When he didn't have enough money to pay, the surgeon offered to "cut you up real good so it won't make much difference." Fred's face has been horribly scarred since, and this comically tragic attempt to fit in did him no good: he was still thrown into a camp. He fought for his case, but when the SC threw it back in his face, he gave up completely. His own grandchildren never learned who he was until they learned about his case in school and made the connection to their own names.

But was the case decided incorrectly, on the law? I don't know. That's one reason I can't sleep soundly at night, among others.

[capacitor]

There will be those who say that since we were born, Black people have always been treated like 'enemy combatants'. That's why we have to fight for our rights that were supposed to be granted by the Constitution with eternal vigilance. Witness what happened in Florida as an example

Now White America whose sons get caught in terrorist propaganda will know how it feels. Great, now militancy will sharply rise because of the legal limbo that has been created.

[Duckster]

Apos thanks for the update.

However, there is a difference between a federal judge overturning the conviction of the case, and the US Supreme Court upholding the EO the original arrest/conviction/overturning rests. Only the SC can reverse an earlier decision it makes. Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.

Additional clarifications:

1) On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, deciding that no one of Japanese ancestry could live on the west coast of the United States, while people of Italian and German ancestry could remain.

2) In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians was established by Congress. This commission reviewed the impact of Executive Order 9066 on Japanese-Americans and determined that they were the victims of discrimination by the Federal government.

3) On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act was passed by Congress to provide a Presidential apology and symbolic payment of $20,000.00 to the internees, evacuees, and persons of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory action by the Federal government during World War II. The Act also created the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund to help teach children and the public about the internment period.

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/crt/redress.htm

Notice that 1980 Commission's finding has no force of law in the context of overturning the original SC decision. With no disrespect here, but it was a feel good decision based upon the hue and cry at the time. There was/still is no legal obligation to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans.

Whether we like it or not, the SC decision still stands and could very well be used by the Bush Administration as a basis to incarcerate US citizens in their own country who have broken no law.

That we haven't even brought up any relevance of the dangerous USA Patriot Act may show we haven't even explored the tip of the slippy slope iceberg on this one.

[Apos]

---Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.---

Yet, the convictions got thrown out, including the one that MADE the SC case. The SC is the ruling court, but I'd say the ruling precedent is now with the federal courts that nixed those convictions. If the SC considered this sort of case again, it could hardly ignore the weight of those decisions.

[pldennison]

IMHO, the first thing you do is keep politicians the hell out of Intelligence matters.


Heavens to Murgatroyd! Can you be more specific? Surely you aren't advocating a completely independent intelligence apparatus--that can only make things worse. At the end of the day, somebody who's directly answerable to the public has to be in charge.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by capacitor
There will be those who say that since we were born, Black people have always been treated like 'enemy combatants'. That's why we have to fight for our rights that were supposed to be granted by the Constitution with eternal vigilance. Witness what happened in Florida as an example

Now White America whose sons get caught in terrorist propaganda will know how it feels. Great, now militancy will sharply rise because of the legal limbo that has been created. [/B]

Yeah!! Kill Whitey!!!


Just a point of clarification:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14203-2002Jun19.html

The document signals the government's intent to assert broad presidential authority in the cases of terrorist suspects apprehended overseas.

"That is true with respect to enemy combatants who are captured and detained on the battlefield in a foreign land; enemy combatants who are captured overseas and brought to the United States for detention . . . and enemy combatants who are captured and detained in this country."


I don't have a problem with prisoners being given enemy combatant status overseas. That's the way its always been done in previous wars. I would like to see a better definition of what is considered an "enemy combatant" on US soil, and how that it not already covered by existing laws on espionage, treason, etc.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Apos
---Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.---

Yet, the convictions got thrown out, including the one that MADE the SC case. The SC is the ruling court, but I'd say the ruling precedent is now with the federal courts that nixed those convictions. If the SC considered this sort of case again, it could hardly ignore the weight of those decisions.

You would?

What is it you mean by "ruling precedent"? Are you suggesting that a federal district judge can make "ruling precdent"?

- Rick

[nahtanoj]

When I heard that we had captured and detained Al Qaeda members, I was hoping that we would show to all the world just how much we valued the principles which we claim our country stands for. I was hoping that we would hold open trials and hearings to demostrate justice. I was quickly disillusioned. And now this. American citizens denied legal counsel and a trial by peers. Precedent for unjustified arrests, jail time without proof of crime.

Franklin did say it best:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I am unsure whether I wish to remain an American citizen. Do you think England would take me, glee? Or perhaps I should run to Canada.

I hearby declare myself the Sovereign Nation of Jon, with myself as the ambassador to the world.

nahtanoj

[sailor]

>> I don't have a problem with prisoners being given enemy combatant status overseas.

Wait a minute! They were called "prisoners of war" and had certain rights. The whole "illegal enemy combatant" thing is a (shameful and disgusting) way to get around all legality and say "we have him and we'll do whatever we fucking please with him". By doing this the US is sinking to the level of Saddam Hussein. Where did the rule of law go?

[Monty]

sailor: You need to quit picking and choosing what parts of the Geneva Convention you're willing to have the government follow. "Illegal Enemy Combatants" are a class of combatants in that convention, IIRC.

[Apos]

---What is it you mean by "ruling precedent"? Are you suggesting that a federal district judge can make "ruling precdent"?---

That's probably a poor way to put it, but what I meant is that the Court would have to take seriously the experience of the aftermath of Korematsu and what happened with the various convictions they had declared were kosher. Remember that the original majority decision was, if it was based on good law at all, based on the idea that the state had a compelling interest for arresting a RACE. Do you really think that the same logic would make sense to be argued by the court today, in light of the huge change in attitude on such matters, and the overturning of the related convictions?

[sailor]

Monty, you are right but the rule of law means they should be accorded whatever status they objectively fall into and not just classified at the discretion of the government for their own ends and without due process. If someone is objectively a prisoner of war, then classifying him as something else just to deny him his rights is a travesty and immoral. The whole point of what this administration has been trying to do from the beginning is to deny people their rights and I find that sickening.

[minty green]

What the Geneva Convention has to say on this matter is essentially irrelevant, [b]Monty[b]. GC rights are not in lieu of all other rights under the law. The question is whether these two guys--both American citizens, and both located on American soil and held by the American government--are entitled to due process of law under the American Constitution. Whatever rights they have under the GC are cumulative, not exclusive.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Tedster
Terrorists have absolutely no rights whatsoever under any law, US or international.
Just to join in the inevitable pile-on of this eye-rolling message of yours, but what about American citizens who are accused of being terrorists, but whose guilt is not yet proven?

That whirring sound you hear is this Administration putting the Bill of Rights through the shredder...

[erislover]

What we need now is solid gun control.

[xenophon41]

Bad erl!

[erislover]

:p

[Henry B]

I am new at this site. And very astonished!

“held indefinitely without a hearing and without charges”
“I like that!” says Adolf and Josef from their graves.

“Our legal system is designed to apprehend and prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime.”
“It shouldn't matter if you're accused of killing every single person on earth. If you're a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.”
(I would like to have the words “U.S. citizen” written “human”).
Here I hear Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and others that I admire.

"Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot.”
I see with my minds eye how Adolf and Josef is drinking to this.

“I have it on good authority that msmith537 is planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago. Since I have now informed our Infallible Leaders of this fact, he has been arrested and is now to be imprisoned indefinitely.”
This is what happened in Adolf-country and was made to a system in Josef-country.
Is this what You wish????

I have never believed that “the Adolf-thing” nor “the Josef-thing” could happened ever again among civilized people. I am sorry to say: Now I believe and it scares the shit out of me.

I am very glad I found Your site and I am very sad I find a site like this. Go figure...
Anyhow, now You have to endure even me.
Oh, whatta bunch we will make.

[Monty]

sailor: You continue to ignore the Convention. Said Convention stipulates who constitutes a lawful armed force and who constitutes unlawful combatants.

[minty green]

Monty: You continue to ignore the Constitution. Said Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Please address why the heck you think the Geneva Convention overrides the United States Constitution.

And oh yeah, the GC says fuck-all nothing about illegal enemy combatants or anything similar to your purported category. Just so you're clear.

[Monty]

minty:

You can't be serious! I'm not about to ignore the Constitution. The way I understand it, GITMO's not part of the United States--it's a chunk of land in Cuba. The US Constitution doesn't apply to the prisoners held there because they're not in the United States.

IIRC, the Geneva Convention actually does address classes of combatants.

[Monty]

And evidently, I do recall correctly:

From Geneva Convention III (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/1595a804df7efd6bc125641400640d89/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument):

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Also from the same source:

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Since the detainees in GITMO did not have any enjoyment of the US Constitution prior to their capture and they are not on US soil, they are not being denied anything.

[Truth Seeker]

Just to keep this on track, the issue in the OP isn't what rights "illegal combatants" should have. The issue is whether the U.S. government can cancel a U.S. citizen's constitutional rights with the stroke of a pen simply by declaring someone to be an "illegal combatant."

[Guinastasia]

Tedster, apparently you've never heard of the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty."

No, terrorists do not deserve a thing. However, until we know beyond a reasonable doubt that they are terrorists, they have rights.

Don't like it? Too bad. You could always move to say, Saudi Arabia. I think there the laws are more to your liking.

:mad:

[minty green]

Monty, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with Gitmo. These are American citizens who are detained, without even a pretense of due process, in America.

You may also recall that I argued quite vigorously with certain posters who thought the Geneva Convention applied to the detainees in Guantanamo. It does not. The threads aren't here any longer, but they're archived on boardreader.com--just do a search on my name and Geneva Convention, and they'll pop right up.

Finally, your citation to Article 4 fails to address the issue of illegal enemy combatants, or whatever you want to call them. Article 4 simply establishes the categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. Article 4 and the rest of the Convetion are completely silent on the treatment of people who are not prisoners of war. Silence in the Geneva Convention does not override all other applicable law--most especially not the Constitution of the United States.

[Monty]

minty:

Granted that a US citizen continues to have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution; however, the prisoners of war appellation only applies to those who are prisoners of war. The GC specifies who those are, and by the simple process of elimination, those who don't qualify aren't. My contention isn't with you, it's with sailor's ludicrous comments about the US government above.

[chula]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
...Jose Padilla spent his entire life in the U.S. but converted to Islam while in prison... Why the "but"? It's funny how these unconscious prejudices come out. I'm not calling you a racist, so please don't get all bent out of shape.

[Lissla Lissar]

Wow, they apologized for the internment in the States, too? I didn't know that. I just knew the Prime Minister Mulroney publicly admitted that interning all us Japanese people (including small children) was a Bad Thing To Do. The money helped, too, although there wasn't that much of it spread around.
My dad was interned. We Nissei (Japanese-Canadians) as still a little bitter about the whole thing.

[Lissla Lissar]

Oh, yeah, 'guilty until proven innocent' is a great way to go. After all, my grandfather was seriously considering rowing to Japan in his fishing boat to give important top secret information to the Japanese. And so were all the little kids who'd been born in Canada. With kamikaze death packs, as mentioned before.

[minty green]

I don't think sailor was asserting these guys were p.o.w.'s, but maybe I'm misreading his post. Rather, I think his complaint is the unilateral decision of the administration to classify U.S. citizens as beyond the reach of law. That decision is reprehensible and indefensible, IMO.

[Satyagrahi]

Just for fun, let's toss in a couple historical examples, keeping in mind Twain's comment, "History doesn't repeat itself...but it does rhyme."

First:

In 1861, soon after taking office as President, Lincoln, arbitraily and unConstitutionally, suspended habeus corpus. He did this for what he considered a very good reason: He had arrested by the military most of the members of the Maryland state legislature in order to keep them from voting for Maryland to secede from the Union, thus isolating the national capitol. These legislators were held in prison, without being charged and without being brought to any kind of trial, in spite of protests from the Supreme Court, until Lincoln felt it was safe to let them go, some months later.

Yes, Lincoln defied the law and, yes, Lincoln took action to "erode our rights," just as Bush and Ashcroft have been accused of doing in this thread. Lincoln, a man of solid integrity and moral to the core, dropped the extraordinary measures as soon as possible and returned to the strict rule of law.

Second:

In 403 BCE, shortly after its defeat in the Peloponnesian War, Athens was ruled, under the name of democracy, by a sordid oligarchy commonly called the "Thirty Tyrants," led by an individual named Kritias. The Thirty Tyrants ruled arbitrarily and with much personal corruption; accusing, murdering, and then seizing the property of non-citizen residents. Athenian citizens did not like what was going on but felt safe enough because of Kritas' pledge that no citizen would be punished until legally tried and convicted.

After a year or so of this, one of the Thirty, a moderate named Theramenes, grew enough disenchanted with this government that he ventured to criticize Kritias in a public debate. In response, Kritias held up for all to see the Roll of Citizens and calmly drew a line through Theramenes' name. Later that day, the ex-citizen Theramenes was arrested and quietly executed.

This, and other murders, alienated enough of the citizenry to bring on a bloody civil war which decimated the population. Kritias and his followers died...but so did many good men. Athens then faded into political degeneracy and insignificance.


So...which do Bush and Ashcroft more closely resemble? Lincoln...or Kritias? And, based on that, what lies ahead for the United States?

[minty green]

Oh and chula? Lighten up a bit there. It is surprising that a Puerto Rican street thug from Chicago would convert to a militant form of Islam. Truth Seeker's comment is perfectly appropriate, just as if a guy from Riyadh "but" converted to Catholicism.

[chula]

Originally posted by minty green
Oh and chula? Lighten up a bit there. It is surprising that a Puerto Rican street thug from Chicago would convert to a militant form of Islam. Truth Seeker's comment is perfectly appropriate, just as if a guy from Riyadh "but" converted to Catholicism. First of all, I was clearly not getting worked up about it. Second, that's a completely inaccurate analogy because Saudi Arabia requires that all citizens be Muslim, and the United States is supposedly a free society that embraces a diversity of religions. Third, it's not unusual at all for someone to convert to Islam in prison. Ever heard of Malcolm X? This website (http://www.islamamerica.org/history.html) estimates that 35,000 prisoners a year covert, and a total of 135,000 Americans covert each year. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/national/22CONV.html) cites the figure at 25,000 per year, noting the there has been a drastic increase since 9/11.

Apologies for the hijack.

[minty green]

If you don't care, don't accuse another poster of "unconscious prejudice" on such flimsy evidence. It's a cheap shot, and not redeemed by simultaneously saying you're not accusing anyone of racism . . . as if there's any other way to interpret "unconscious prejudice."

[chula]

"Prejudice" is not a synonym of "racism." To be prejudiced is to misjudge/ to hold preconceived ideas. For whatever reason, the poster considers "American" and "converted Muslim" to normally be separate categories.

[minty green]

As they indisputably are. That's the point: conversion to Islam--particularly nutso militant fundie Islam--is quite rare. 25,000 per year is nothing in a population of 280,000,000.

[Truth Seeker]

Originally posted by chula
Why the "but"? It's funny how these unconscious prejudices come out. I'm not calling you a racist, so please don't get all bent out of shape.

Thanks for raising my consciousness but if you're going to cast aspersions, at least cast them correctly. "I hate Lutherans. They should all be deported." isn't "racism."

For whatever reason, the poster considers "American" and "converted Muslim" to normally be separate categories.
:confused:

For the record, to the extent I consider it at all, I do consider "converted Muslim" and "Hispanic American" to generally be separate categories. I consider the categories of "Hispanic American" and "people born into Muslim families thirty-plus years ago" to be mutually exclusive.

[chula]

Originally posted by minty green
As they indisputably are. That's the point: conversion to Islam--particularly nutso militant fundie Islam--is quite rare. 25,000 per year is nothing in a population of 280,000,000. There are at least 6 million Muslims in the United States, but only 2.5 million Native Americans. By your logic it would be appropriate to say "he's American but Indian."
Originally posted by Truth Seeker
Thanks for raising my consciousness but if you're going to cast aspersions, at least cast them correctly. "I hate Lutherans. They should all be deported." isn't "racism." :confused: Did you misread my post? I didn't accuse anyone of being racist. Does everyone think prejudice = racism??

[erislover]

This isn't even an argument.

[sailor]

The fact is this administration has been treating the laws like a hindrance in their need to fight terrorism and they have been breaking them, if not from a purely technical POV (which I think is quite possible) at least they have been breaking the spirit of the law. Rather than treat the laws of the land as the valued principles which they are trying to defend, they are treating them as a hindrance in their work. In Irak you can be detained indefinitely at the discretion of the rulers. This should not happen in the US or in any civilised country.

The constitution is the supreme law and it does not provide for it to be suspended under any circumstances, much less on unsupported accusations of "being a terrorist". Every single person is entitled to due process of law and that means everybody, everywhere, every time. When you try to skirt the great moral principles contained in the constitution by saying it does not apply if you are not an American citizen or it does not apply if you are in Guantanamo or it does not apply if the government thinks it should not apply, you are implying that the constitution is not a a great rule which should be interpreted as widely as possible but it is merely an obstacle to good government. The rule of law is what we are trying to defend in all this, it is not an obstacle to effective government. Governments are instituted to serve the people and not the other way around.

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Period. That should apply to every single person on this planet on every single square inch of this planet. The US government is not and should not be free to decide when this rule applies.

Prisoners of war can be held prisoner but they are entitled to certain rights contained in the Geneva convention.

Those who say the great moral principles contained in those laws should be ignored when it is expedient to do so do not realise that they are defending what the US is supposed to be fighting against: the arbitrary and unlimited use of power by the state.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by pldennison
Heavens to Murgatroyd! Can you be more specific? Surely you aren't advocating a completely independent intelligence apparatus--that can only make things worse. At the end of the day, somebody who's directly answerable to the public has to be in charge.

Murgatroyd Calling - Nay, ney and thrice nay. For sure, it's the function of the Intelligence community to inform Executive decision-making. The problem here, for me, is that short-term political expediency appears to have overridden what would have been the normal reaction of the Intelligence community in a circumstance such as this: i.e use survellience and other means to see where they could go with this guy.

We can readily see how the party political interest was served in this matter but where was the national interest in arresting this guy before he did anything other than, 'allegedly' speak about the possibility of doing something. As we might say 'round 'ere; A little previous that, init ?

BTW, I thought Jimmy Carters' EO No. 12333 was quite a nifty document:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html

- Nice document.




Originally posted by minty green
As they indisputably are. That's the point: conversion to Islam--particularly nutso militant fundie Islam--is quite rare. 25,000 per year is nothing in a population of 280,000,000.


minty – How about using something a little more relevant. Like, for example, the men of minority groups born in working class inner city environments and within the prison system at the time of their conversion ?

Anyone know this guy's IQ because, with the little info we have, he reads as if he could be pretty malleable.

[Monty]

Originally posted by sailor
The fact is this administration has been treating the laws like a hindrance in their need to fight terrorism and they have been breaking them, if not from a purely technical POV (which I think is quite possible) at least they have been breaking the spirit of the law.

Got news for you, sailor: breaking whatever you think the spirit of a law isn't a crime. Actually breaking the law is. Just because you don't like the way someone's not breaking a law doesn't give you proof that they're breaking the same law.

Rather than treat the laws of the land as the valued principles which they are trying to defend, they are treating them as a hindrance in their work.

That's the rub, isn't it? You're accusing the administration of breaking the Constitution where it doesn't apply.

In Irak you can be detained indefinitely at the discretion of the rulers. This should not happen in the US or in any civilised country.

Iraq. Actually, I kind of thought Iraq was a civilized country, well except for the dictator and his cronies.

The constitution is the supreme law and it does not provide for it to be suspended under any circumstances, much less on unsupported accusations of "being a terrorist".

Nor does it provide for its application to the entire planet. I agree that chucking a US citizen (or any other person) actually located in the US into jail just for the heck of it is unconstitutional.

Every single person is entitled to due process of law and that means everybody, everywhere, every time.

I'd love for that to be so. Problem is the US Constitution doesn't apply all over the planet to every person on the planet. There's this nifty thing called sovereignty that most countries like to apply to themselves.

When you try to skirt the great moral principles contained in the constitution by saying it does not apply if you are not an American citizen or it does not apply if you are in Guantanamo

Simple fact: the US Constitution doesn't apply to the entire planet to all residents of the planet. It does, on the other hand, apply to all persons within the sovereign territory of the United States. Guatanamo Bay is not located therein.

or it does not apply if the government thinks it should not apply, you are implying that the constitution is not a a great rule which should be interpreted as widely as possible but it is merely an obstacle to good government.

Please try not to string unrelated items into the next list of "or" constructions. This last one of yours is actually almost a valid point. There are, after all, a group of jurists who consider the Constitution to be ironclad and thus not to be interpreted liberally ("Constructionists") and another group who consider the same document to be quite open to interpretation ("Interpretationists?"). Both sides see the same document as being the great law it is. They merely differ on how it is to be interpreted.

The rule of law is what we are trying to defend in all this, it is not an obstacle to effective government. Governments are instituted to serve the people and not the other way around.

And I'm not aware of any input whatsoever, any voting rights, any application of the rule of the US Constitution to any foreign resident still residing outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Period. That should apply to every single person on this planet on every single square inch of this planet. The US government is not and should not be free to decide when this rule applies.

Except for the little, but quite important, matter of sovereignty.

Prisoners of war can be held prisoner but they are entitled to certain rights contained in the Geneva convention.

The United States of America has not declared war.
The detainees in Guatanamo Bay are not prisoners of war.
They are unlawful combatants, because
They did not belong to an armed military force as designated in the Geneva Conventions.

Those who say the great moral principles contained in those laws should be ignored when it is expedient to do so do not realise that they are defending what the US is supposed to be fighting against: the arbitrary and unlimited use of power by the state.

I'm not saying that the Constitution should be ignored. I am saying, unlike you, that it does not rule the entire population of this planet. There is, in case you haven't noticed it yet, the issue of sovereignty.

[Truth Seeker]

monty
This point is a bit of a hijack. However, I think you're missing sailor's point. Sailor is a child of the enlightenment. He knows that the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply in foreign countries, however, he thinks that the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution represent fundamental human rights that everyone should have, even if they don't. When the U.S. government argues that people it has captured or arrested have no rights at all so long as they aren't, technically, on U.S. soil, they create a very bad precedent.

U.S. Government: Hey, tin-pot dictator! Stop arresting and detaining people incommunicado without a hearing. That violates basic human rights!

Tin-pot dictator: What are you talking about? These people are terrorists! They want to overthrow the government! They have no rights. You do exactly the same thing yourself, when it suits you.

[erislover]

Did I miss where it was re-spoken that this guy is in the United States and not a foreign country? Fuck.

Secondly, and this is a question asked for clarification, but I always thought the Constitution was meant to limit what the government may do period. We must give everyone a fair trial, citizen or not, if they come under our power.

[Monty]

You didn't miss it, eris. As is wont on this board, sailor and I are talking about a bit of a hijacked, yet related, topic: the detainees on GITMO.

Truth Seeker: I disagree that such a precedent is set by the US government.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by erislover
Did I miss where it was re-spoken that this guy is in the United States and not a foreign country? Fuck.

Secondly, and this is a question asked for clarification, but I always thought the Constitution was meant to limit what the government may do period. We must give everyone a fair trial, citizen or not, if they come under our power.

So, by that logic, did Japanese soldiers on Tarawa deserve a trial, rather than a flame thrower?

The problem here is everyone wants to treat illegal acts of war as criminal matters -- the first WTC bombing was treated as such, and disastrously so. At least we can observe that the government sometimes learns from its mistakes.

[erislover]

I see, Monty.

Ted, I said nothing about war. Congress also has the power to declare war. Either the government's behavior is limited by the constitution, or it is at war.

Congress did not declare war. By any logic.

[erislover]

And even at war it is still limited by the constitution in many respects.

[sailor]

monty, I know full well that the US Constitution applies only to the US. My point is that it should apply in letter and in spirit. The US respecting the letter at home and applying contrary principles in Guantanamo which may not be technically US territory but is, in effect, under US control is a very bad thing. It means "we do not do this at home because there is a law which prevents us from doing it, not because we believe in the spirit which inspired the principles of the law". I suppose, technically, you could have slavery and torture in Guantanamo and it would not be illegal but it would still be immoral and contrary to the spirit of the US constitution. The US government should try to expand and promote those principles everywhere, not limit them and erode them. Is it enough for the US government to just barely respect racial antidiscrimination laws and get away with what discrimination it can? Or do we expect it to fully assume the spirit of the laws and fully promote the values on which the laws are founded?

It is my opinion that the establishment of military tribunals and now these detentions of American citizens *do* in fact violate the letter of the law but I am not here to argue their illegality, I am here to argue their immorality. I am not a lawyer but I know right from wrong which is more important. The USA doing things which are morally wrong on the grounds that they are legal does not enhance the moral standing of the US. When the USA scolds China for human rights abuses the Chinese can say "fuck off and leave us alone because *here* it is legal" to which the US may say "it may be legal, but it ain't right". My whole point is that, even if what the US is doing is legal, it ain't right.

During the cold war many people saw just two equal blocks striving for dominance but many people saw the US and the west as morally superior and that is invaluable. The US should live up to that morality. If the USA is a country with no morality, only ends that have to be achieved at any cost, moral or immoral, then the USA is no better than the Soviet Union and is not worth defending.

>> the US Constitution doesn't apply all over the planet to every person on the planet. There's this nifty thing called sovereignty that most countries like to apply to themselves.
>> Simple fact: the US Constitution doesn't apply to the entire planet to all residents of the planet. It does, on the other hand, apply to all persons within the sovereign territory of the United States. Guatanamo Bay is not located therein.

I am not asking the US to go into other countries to enforce this principle. I am asking the US to respect it where *it* has effective control like in Guantanamo. Slavery is illegal and wrong on US soil and if the US allowed it on land where it would be, technically, not illegal but under US control, I would call that pretty shameful, even if legal. In Cuba it may be legal to hold people without cause and I will criticise this and tell Castro what I think of him for doing this. But in Guantanamo it is the USA who has efective control and who is responsible for what happens there.

>> And I'm not aware of any input whatsoever, any voting rights, any application of the rule of the US Constitution to any foreign resident still residing outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

I am not saying that legally it does, but I am saying that the principles contained in the Constitution should be respected and promoted by the US government, not skirted as soon as they can get away with it. It may not be illegal in China to hold someone and torture them but legality is not the ultimate yardstick; morality is. The US constitution represents some moral principles and when the US breaks those principles it loses moral authority before the rest of the world and before itself.

>> The United States of America has not declared war.

Totally irrelevant. War is war whether declared or not. The North Vietnamese could say in all truth that the USA had not declared war so the US prisoners were "illegal combatants". It was still wrong for them to torture them.

>> The detainees in Guatanamo Bay are not prisoners of war.
>> They are unlawful combatants, because
>> They did not belong to an armed military force
>> as designated in the Geneva Conventions.

Again, I am not here to argue legality but morality. I am not going to argue specifics about these detainees because I do not know enough about their cases but, if they were denied humane treatment, and a fair judicial process, then that is wrong. It is wrong if China does it and it is wrong if the US does it even though it may well be technically legal in both cases. I am not arguing specific cases of specific people, I am arguing principles. The establishment of military tribunals was wrong, holding civilians indefinitely without any process of law is wrong. The US has great moral standing around the world as a nation that, although sometimes mistaken, stands for what is fair and right and this gives it great moral authority. To lose this for short term expediency would cause great damage in the longer run. When the US acts like this it just proves right all those who accuse the US of being hypocritical.

You cannot defend right by doing wrong, you cannot defend the truth by lying, you cannot defend morality by immoral means. What we are defending is right from wrong, and if the US does wrong then it is just at the level of its attackers and not worth defending.

[Monty]

sailor: One can't define "morality" as it applies to law without defining "legality." There are other laws (such as treaties), besides the Constitution, which prevent slavery from being practiced on GITMO.

[sailor]

Yeah, I am sorry if I involuntarily went a bit off a tangent. I did not mean to sidetrack this to the issue of Guantanamo which I have covered extensively in earlier threads. What I was trying to do is widen the scope to show why I believe *this* particular act mentioned in the OP is wrong. So, to counterbalance my earlier posts I will remind everybody we are discussing American citizens on American soil.

Regarding war, there are also rules. It is not Ok, just because it is war, to needlessly kill innocent civilians. Those here who argue that in war anything goes I suppose are ready to defend Palestinian terrorists because "that's the only way they have of defending themselves". Sorry but I do not share that feeling.

A Japanese enemy soldier can be subject to killing as long as he is fighting, but once he is no longer fighting and in custody he cannot be killed for no reason without committing the crime of murder. Even WWII people understood this and it is appalling that some people here would not understand this. The difference between the allies and the axis was that the allies took war prisoners to camps and treated them humanely while the Japanese and Germans tortured their prisoners. There is a huge moral divide there. That war was not just two sides equally right fighting for supremacy. It was right against wrong. And the US should continue to stand for right not for doing anything to achieve its ends.

[Monty]

You could've summed up that last post with:

"The Axis Powers didn't follow the Laws of War; however, the Allies did."

[sailor]

Monty, you might want to explain that to Tedster who does not seem to understand the difference between a fighting soldier and a prisoner. My post was a commentary on his flamethrower comment. But thanks for your editing anyway. If I ever think of becoming a writer I'll ask for your advice. :p

[Monty]

:)

Tedster's not the only one who doesn't understand the difference between a fighting soldier and a noncombatant: look at the suicide/homicide bombers in the MidEast.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by sailor
If the USA is a country with no morality, only ends that have to be achieved at any cost, moral or immoral, then the USA is no better than the Soviet Union and is not worth defending.


So, could you justify not reporting a terrorist who planned to attack US citizens because you felt his rights might be violated by our government?

[Truth Seeker]

Monty you have a different conception of the nature of "rights" than does sailor. he believes that there are innate human rights that exist outside of a legal framework. You believe that human rights are a purely legal creation. While an interesting discussion in itself, it's not really relevant to the OP because in the U.S. there is an established framework of rights. The issue is whether it's a good idea for the U.S. government to be able to ignore that framework at will.


The real issue in my mind is not so much that it is an extremely bad idea, regardless of the the reason, for the U.S. government to be able to detain its citizens incommunicado without a hearing. The real issue is how the government can even advance such a position. To me it is a forceful reminder that it is institutions and the rule of law that protect freedom in the U.S., not the good intentions of individuals, even democratically elected individuals. This is something to keep in mind the next time some well-meaning politician or bureaucrat wants to institure a national ID system or some other convenient, yet potentially oppressive, increase in governmental authority. A U.S. federal appellate judge, Alex Kozinski, said it best.

Liberty . . . is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.

[erislover]

I guess what it comes down to is, do we apply the constitution to american citizens because they are american citizens or because they are people?

[Apos]

I think the world has long since given up on thinking that the United States has uniquely consistent moral principles. When these principles get too inconvienient, they go out the door.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is necessarily making the _wrong_ decisions here, but I do think that we should realize that there are long term costs to such actions, some of which include our right to brag about being morally superior. People don't appreciate how profoundly choices in the past affect people's moral opinions in the present.

If you look over Osama Bin Laden's ravings, you'll see that he draws a very scary _moral_ principle directly out of past U.S. actions.

He concludes that when you want to win a fight against a nation without risking too many lives in direct confrontation (in his case, attacking and forcing out the U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia): or at least to get them to back down, it is okay to kill masses of their citizens in a single act of destruction in order to convince those citizens and their leaders that the cost of their continued resistence to demands is too high.

Where does he draw this principle from? Obviously: Hiroshima.

And you know what? If I except Hiroshima as justifiable, I'm not sure how I can claim that WTC is not. Obviously, I do not agree with his cause, or think that it is a just one. But we are talking about the moral acceptability of TACTICS here, not of who is using them for what and whether it's justified (since both sides will disagree on that anyway, getting us nowhere).

[erislover]

Obviously?

[Monty]

The attacks on WTC are the same as the bombing of Hiroshima? WTF?

[Apos]

---Obviously?---

Yes, since I was reffering to a particular U.S. action described in detail, I figured it would be no surprise that it was that that I was referencing. I didn't mean to imply that my conclusion was obviously true, just that the direction of my argument was obvious.

---The attacks on WTC are the same as the bombing of Hiroshima? WTF?---

The same? Where do you get that idea?

Rather, they simply follow the same reasoning in regards to what is an acceptable military tactic to attain a given end of importance. Whether that is morally justifiable is a matter of debate between fanatics like Osama and us. Clearly we think that we've won that debate, hands down, and don't think that his ends are worth even a single civilian life. But he evidently does think so. That's almost always the case in violence.

The question I'm considering is one of what tactics are acceptable, no matter WHAT the cause.

People argue that terrorism is never acceptable. I don't know how I feel. But I do know that Hiroshima was terrorism in every important sense, and indeed many DO think it was justifiable, and I might be convinced that it was.

But if so, then we cannot say that terrorism is unacceptable as a tactic. But don't confuse that with no longer being able to say that we can say a _particular_ usage is wrong. Clearly, we still can, and do, the exact same way we can argue that some instances of violence are not justifiable.

The problem is that that ground is a little weaker as a position, because obviously its no longer a single principle of means (no terrorism!) but rather one of the justifiability of ends (WTC was an insane and horrible act of depravity... but then some people feel the same way about Hiroshima, and the point is debatable)

Personally, as a matter of foriegn policy, I would much rather keep the universal principle that terrorism is never justifiable for any reason (just like the POW rules).

[Monty]

Well, that's exactly where we disagree, Apos. I think it's disingenuous at best to call the bombing of Hiroshima terrorism.

[Apos]

--- I think it's disingenuous at best to call the bombing of Hiroshima terrorism.---

How so?

It's purpose was to demonstrate that the costs of not surrendering would be prohibitively high. It was not to achieve a military objective: it was to send a message to the Japanese people: submit, or we will exterminate you.

In the end, that strategy worked to acheive our objective. More debatably, it saved millions of lives to boot.

But whether a particular tactic is terrorism or not should not depend on whether you approve of it or not. What sort of definitional standard is that? If there are some usages of terrorism which one can agree are good, then it is silly to demand that terrorism is always wrong.

Further, in response to a common objection, I don't see what difference it makes that a government was or was not involved in deciding to do it, or whether war had been officially declared or not.

[Tedster]

"And you know what? If I except Hiroshima as justifiable, I'm not sure how I can claim that WTC is not."

You've been reading Chomsky, again, haven't you....

[sailor]

I am sure Chomski would know the difference between "accept" and "except".

[Apos]

---You've been reading Chomsky, again, haven't you....---

Nope.

Hilarious how you seem to think that counted as an argument, isn't it?

---I am sure Chomski would know the difference between "accept" and "except".---

Clearly, my mistype demonstrates that I am not "Chomski." Bravo.

[erislover]

Apos, if I justify one act of violence I don't automatically justify all acts of violence. If I vow to eat one type of ice cream, I am not obligated to try all types of ice cream.

Almost any two events can be considered "the same" when we are allowed to pick and choose the context and ignore what was happening. The context of Hiroshima was a world war. The context of the WTC attack was not a world war. This alone should give one pause in trying to link them.

"If we justify our past, then the terrorists have already won." :confused:

[yojimbo]

Originally posted by nahtanoj

I am unsure whether I wish to remain an American citizen. Do you think England would take me, glee? Or perhaps I should run to Canada.


Well if you're that principled I'd give the UK a miss. They did collude with terrorists and actually helped one terrorist organization with their targeting and intelligence. A Licence to Murder : A BBC Panorama episode (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/panorama/newsid_2019000/2019301.stm) . I'm too busy to start and get involved in a thread about this but it is of great interest.

Sorry for the hijack

[glee]

Originally posted by yojimbo
Well if you're that principled I'd give the UK a miss. They did collude with terrorists and actually helped one terrorist organization with their targeting and intelligence. A Licence to Murder : A BBC Panorama episode (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/panorama/newsid_2019000/2019301.stm) . I'm too busy to start and get involved in a thread about this but it is of great interest.

Sorry for the hijack

If true, this is indeed a shameful episode in British history. I don't want to get too deep into Northern Ireland, but the British Government certainly used internment (without jury trial) and improper interrogation procedures (which verged on torture).
Remember they were faced with decades of terrorism, and many other Government have reacted far more violently in such situations.

What lessons can the US draw from this?

1. This was trying to deal with continuing terrorism when the British required help from only one foreign Government (Eire).
N.B. The US needs far more international co-operation.

2. Since we stopped using these illegal techniques, there has been a considerable improvement, although there is still some way to go.
N.B. I don't believe the illegal detention is helping the US.

3. It was noticeable that misguided foreigners, especially in the US, used to send the terrorists money.
N.B. Creating martyrs prolongs the agony by provoking funding.

So I believe that if the US breaks the law (and introduces new levels of paper-shufflers/ intelligence decisions) purely to enhance Bush's chances of re-election, then it will certainly jeopardise the international alliances it needs, plus encourage misguided support for these terrorists.

Monty,

perhaps you could clarify the status of the area where these detainees are held.
Is it some Cuban land the US rents (despite having an embargo with Cuba)?
Have the Cubans ever accepted the US rent?
If the Cubans attempted to reclaim the area, would the US use deadly force to repel them?

Is this area the only place in the world where the US can hold people and deny them their legal rights?
(If deposited in Britain, for example, they would have to be given a hearing before a court pretty quickly. As you know, already at least one 'terrorist' has been released by a UK court through a complete lack of evidence.)

You quoted the Geneva Convention:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

So if these detainees are Taleban fighters (the previous Afghan Government), the US is breaking the Convention.
Luckily we know that they're not because that's been proved in a court of law.... :rolleyes:

[yojimbo]

What happened in NI.

Internment led to a big upsurge in support for the nationalist cause and the IRA both nationally and internationally.

Refusal to even entertain prisoners POW requests (they should not have been POW's IMO BTW) lead to the hunger strikes and more martyrs to the cause. More support for the IRA.

Civil Rights were held back from a section of society leading to marches leading to Bloody Sunday leading to, yes you guessed it more support for the IRA.

It was only when the British Government moved away from their stringent views and started to accept that everything was not black and white that things started to move.

Situations in the US and Israel are vastly different from NI but IMO the administration and a lot of the population are still in Black Hats and White Hats mode. While in this mode there is only one way to stop a terrorist threat. Kill'em all. This is a impossible goal.

This thread could be hijacked to b'jaysus by me so I'll shut up now :)

[Pjen]

1/ Denying GC rights to Gitmo detainees

2/ Arresting and holding in-communicado, Muslims with visa irregularities

3/ Denying US citizens their rights under the constitution

4/ ?

5/ ??

6/ ???






First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller


Still watching and still speaking out

pjen

[minty green]

I'm not Monty, but I can answer glee's questions.
Originally posted by glee
Is it some Cuban land the US rents (despite having an embargo with Cuba)?Leased, actually, as a result of the Spanish-American War.Have the Cubans ever accepted the US rent?Yes, but not since Castro took over. The rent payments are very small anyway.If the Cubans attempted to reclaim the area, would the US use deadly force to repel them?All those machine guns emplacements are there for a reason, I'm sure.

You quoted the Geneva Convention:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.The highlighted provisions are all unfulfilled (although the third might be arguable). Therefore, GC Article 4(6) does not apply.

[Hamlet]

Here's a little legal tidbit for the debate. In 1942, 8 German saboteurs were caught on American soil. One of the saboteurs was, most likely, a citizen of the United States. These saboteurs were tried and convicted by a military tribunal, and then filed an appeal that went to the United State's Supreme Court. The defense argued that the President had no authority to, by Presidential Proclamation, order that these people didn't have to be tried by a federal court, but could be tried in a military tribunal, and that certain Constitutional rights, like the rights to trial by jury, or to a Grand Jury indictment, did not apply to these saboteurs. They were considered unlawful combatants and, as such, were not afforded all the rights granted in the Constitution. It's all in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

Now, I think part of the logic and reasoning in Quirin is applicable to the administration's actions. I don't believe the United States is required to give every person it detains a jury trial, complete with all that entails. I have a bit of a problem getting my mind around the fact that non-citizens of Al Queda would be afforded the protections the Constitution grants to U.S. citizens, citizens that they wholesale slaughtered on September 11, 2001. And historically, I cannot imagine the requirement that any POW the US captured in any war, should get a jury trial. It's dangerous and unworkable.

Of course, when the enemy belligerent is an American citizen (although I would think that their actions act as in fact denouncement of their citizenship), the lines are much more blurry. I believe that if certain conditions are met, the President would have the power to order military tribunals to try even citizens of the United States, if they are acting as enemy combatants. Quirin again becomes a guidepost, because in that case, there was: 1) A Congressionally Declared War; 2) the President's actions were specifically allowed by statute; 3) The Courts held some authority of review.

In this case, Bush is missing/arguing against all three, which, in my view, makes his actions a violation of the Separation of Powers. Until Congress formally declares war, and grants Bush power to establish military tribunals "in a time of war.", and Bush allows the Courts the power to review the Executive Branch's determination of who is an "enemy combatant", then Bush is acting in violation of the Constitution. However, if these pre-requisites are met, I have no problem with enemy combatants, even if they are United State's citizens, being tried in military tribunals rather than in federal court. Bush has skipped some major steps in his grab for more power.

Boy, I really missed pjen. Oh, wait. No I didn't. I was thinking of someone else. Maybe that case of strep throat combined with the stomach flu, that I had in 8th grade. I missed that more.

[sailor]

minti, what I have a problem with is that the government and military of the USA are unilaterally deciding that these people are not POW, are not entitled to any due process, are not subject to any protections and *nobody* has any say in this matter. They are obviously trying to circumvent both law and morality.

Also, the fact that war was not declared, that they were not wearing uniform etc may be a technically correct way to deny them POW status but it would benefit the US to interpret things more leniently. The Geneva convention was done with a different type of war in mind; a war where gallant soldiers faced each other on the battlefield. The Talibans did not fit this description but neither did many of the allied special forces which were not fighting openly or wearing uniform. It would benefit the US to enlarge the definition of legal combatant as much as possible. Forst it would benefit them if and when any American soldier finds himself in the same situation but also it would greatly enhance the image of the US as a country subject to the rule of law and not a hypocritical and bloodthirsty nation which preaches one thing and practices another when it suits them.

[sailor]

oops, sorry minty.

Hamlet you seem to be missing a point which many others seem to be missing as well. A POW is *not* a criminal. A lawful combatant can be held for the duration of the hostilities but he is not a criminal and there is no need for any judicial proceeding of *any* kind.

The problem I have is that the US is just dancing around definitions. They are not POW so they are not entitled to the protections of POWs. They are not common criminals so they are not entitled to the protections of common criminals. They are not on US soil so they are not entitled to the protections afforded to those on US soil. They are not on foreign soil so they are not entitled to the protections of those on foreign soil. It is a big farce. The US could just as well build a floating platform in the middle of the ocean, declare it has no jurisdiction there, put the prisoners there, their hands bound behind their backs, and let a few Americans take care of them. Technically it may be not a crime. In every moral sense it is circumventing the spirit of the law.

[glee]

minty green,

thanks for the info on the Cuban land.
Does the US claim this area in perpetuity?

My point about the detainees was that we only have the statement by the US military that these people are terrorists.
If any of them are Taleban militia, then the Geneva Convention certainly applies. (Or are you saying the Taleban don't count as a legal army?)

As I've posted, I think the US is storing up trouble by acting in this way, even if these detainees are terrorists.

The fact that the US have gone to incredible lengths to keep them out of court suggests to me that there is no evidence which organisation they belong to.

[minty green]

First, allow me to say that I agree with Hamlet's excellent analysis of Quirin, especially the point that the case arises out of a declared war. I cannot fathom how the administration is relying on Quririn in the absense of a declared war. I think I've mentioned this before, but I really believe these cases are finally going to force the courts to do some separation-of-powers analysis when it comes to the president as commander in chief versus Congress and its sole authority to declare war.

Second, sailor, I don't want to reopen the Geneva Convention debates (especially now that pjen has been summoned from the grave), but the Geneva Convention only requires proceedings to determine a prisoner's status as a POW if doubt has arisen about their status. To my mind, nobody has adequately demonstrated facts that show the Guantanamo prisoners fall within any of the enumerated categories of POWs; hence, no status adjudication is legally required. Whether they are desireable as a matter of policy is a somewhat different issue, of course.

I think you participated in some of the Geneva Convention debates that were swallowed in the board crash. If not, just do a search on my name and "Geneva Convention" over at http://www.boardreader.com and plenty will appear. I think my best explanation of the applicable treaty provisions was in the last couple pages of the "Kidnapping" thread.

Note to pjen: I am not interested in reopening that discussion.

[minty green]

glee, I do not believe that the Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention (although the argiment there is much closer than for the al Qaeda prisoners, who are indisputably not eligible for POW status). Again, I don't want to open that particular can of worms, so I invite you to do the boardreader search I just described to sailor. The debates are no longer on the SDMB server, but are still available on the boardreader archives.

[Truth Seeker]

Of course, when the enemy belligerent is an American citizen (although I would think that their actions act as in fact denouncement of their citizenship), the lines are much more blurry. I believe that if certain conditions are met, the President would have the power to order military tribunals to try even citizens of the United States, if they are acting as enemy combatants.

Therein lies the rub. "We don't have to accord these U.S. citizens any due process rights because they were acting as "illegal enemy combatants." "Ok, go to court and prove it." "We don't have to. Since they were acting as 'illegal enemy combatants' they have no due process rights."

This is as embarrassing an example of assuming the conclusion as you'll find anywhere.


The basic problem here is that the U.S. government is trying to shoe horn this situation into a set of rules that simply don't fit. There is no "war" in the sense the word is used in international treaties. From the perspective of international law, the U.S. intervened in favor of the recognized government in a civil war. As far as traditional international law goes, the U.S., therefore, has no business deporting combatants from Afghanistan. Their fates ought to be simply a matter of Afghan law, such as it is.

That is, of course, not really the post 9/11 situation. The complexities of the new situation have no prior parallel. The only even vaguely similar problem with a legal framework is piracy.

The U.S. government is making up convenient rules as it goes along and opting for expediency over principle. This is fine as long as you're the unchallenged top dog. But when you're not, or even if you have a credible rival, sauce for the goose becomes sauce for the gander and the expedient rules you made up come back to bite you. Remember the good old cold war days when proxy freedom fighters fought proxy governments. Or was it proxy governments valiantly resisting proxy terrorists? I forget. How soon we all forget.

[Apos]

---Apos, if I justify one act of violence I don't automatically justify all acts of violence. If I vow to eat one type of ice cream, I am not obligated to try all types of ice cream.---

Which was exactly my point. If one act of terrorism is justified, others may not be. But creatively defining "terrorism" to exclude all the cases we woudl consider justified is disingenuous.

---Almost any two events can be considered "the same" when we are allowed to pick and choose the context and ignore what was happening.---

However, in this case, we are not discussing "events" but tactics.

---The context of Hiroshima was a world war.---

Right, and this context can do a lot to tell us whether a particular act was justified or not. But it can't tell us whether a particular act was terrorism or not!

---The context of the WTC attack was not a world war. This alone should give one pause in trying to link them.---

When discussing what is and is not terrorism, I don't see what that context changes as far as the _definitions_ of things, anymore than war/not war changes the fact that killing someone is killing someone. Are you really arguing that whether something is terrorism or not depends on whether the perpetrator is a government or not and has passed a resolution declaring war? A group of people gets together, be it called a government or not, and decides to, instead of attacking a military target in order to win a conflict, attack civilian targets in order to "send a message."

[sailor]

I agree with Hamlet's analysis also. I have never said that in times of emergency special measures should not be available. In the thread about the military tribunals I said i had two main objections to them and one of them was that they were only for non-citizens. This is patently unfair. If the American people are in an emergency that requires such measures those measures should be acceptable for citizens who are accused of the same crimes. Citizenship should not be a permit for terrorism and whatever measures are necessary for the defense of the country should be applied equally to all who attack it. At any rate, there's no need to redo that thread here.

I do not remember participating substantially in a thread about the Geneva Convention although I may have posted. These matters can get very technical and I tend to see more the morality of the issues and the practicality. As I say, something may be technically legal but it oes not necessarily mean it is moral and it does not mean it should be done or that it is in the long term interest of the US to do it.

So, no need to rehash military tribunals or geneva convention, I agree. I think those may be just particular examples of the larger picture which we are discussing here.

The way *I* look at it is quite simple. It may not be *technically* exact from a legal standpoint but it is the way things should be.

Prisoners of war are not criminals. They can be held for the duration of the hostilities and should be afforded the rights and protections of the Geneva convention.

Ok, so the US government has a bunch of guys and says they are not POWs. minty says they are not POWs and I have no reason to dispute that. The only other reason *any* government on the face of the Earth has to hold a human being prisoner is that he is suspected or accused of committing a crime. In this case the detained person should be afforded due process of law which can mean different things but should not depend on whether the accused is of a certain nationality, race, religion or whatever. There *should* be at least minimal guarantees regarding separation of powers, judicial review, etc. Anything else is just autocratic rule, not rule of law.

As I said, POWs are not criminals and are not subject to any criminal proceedings or punishment. They are just prisoners for the duration and are entitled to their POW status. Anyone who is not a POW, must then be an "illegal combatant". An illegal combatant is a criminal and subject to due process of law. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are a POW and immune from criminal prosecution or you have committed a crime and are subject to punishment after due process of law.

To say the executive has the power to hold people at will, to punish people, without any judicial process is horrendous. I am just saying there *should* be separation of powers. A judge *should* be able to review the case. I am not saying it should be an open jury trial. I am saying that, whatever it is, it should be the same process for anyone accussed and should be reasonably speedy. Holding people prisoners without accusation, whether they be citizens or not, is an abomination that we thought happened in the Soviet Union and China and Cuba but not in the USA.

If the government has evidence which is so damning, what's wrong with letting a judge see it? Are judges not to be trusted?

So, I am not discussing the military tribunals or the geneva convention. I am discussing whether the government of the USA is and should be subject to the rule of law. And just saying the law is such that the government can do as it sees fit, can hold anyone prisoner without trial, that is no law, that is autocracy.

[minty green]

Originally posted by sailor
If the government has evidence which is so damning, what's wrong with letting a judge see it? Are judges not to be trusted? Duh. Some of them were even appointed by that other President. :D

[glee]

Let's look ahead.

Presumably there are only 5 alternatives for the detainees:

1. They are released without charge.
2. They are eventually brought before a court.
3. They confess without a trial.
4. They die in custody without a trial.
5. They are executed without trial.

1. is rather embarrassing for the US Government. Why were there all these extraordinary measures taken, when there was no evidence that would stand up in court?

Only a sceptic would suggest that they will all be released without publicity the day after Bush is re-elected. :rolleyes:


2. is going to lead to legal challenges about the original detention conditions before the trial even starts.

SDMB defence lawyers are welcome to offer their strategy. :cool:


3. is reminiscent of dictatorships all over the world (previously condemned by the US).

It also sets an unhealthy precedent for any captured Americans.


4. qualifies the detainee for martyrdom.

I can't think of anything more likely to produce further terrorist attacks against the US all over the world - except of course for 5.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker


Therein lies the rub. "We don't have to accord these U.S. citizens any due process rights because they were acting as "illegal enemy combatants." "Ok, go to court and prove it." "We don't have to. Since they were acting as 'illegal enemy combatants' they have no due process rights."

This is as embarrassing an example of assuming the conclusion as you'll find anywhere.

That is the position this administration has taken in their latest brief; basically saying that the court system has no power to review the decisions of the Executive in this area. However, if you read my post, you would see that I agree with the Supreme Court in Quirin that held that the judiciary CAN and SHOULD review the determination that a person is an "enemy belligerent", but allowing that determination to be made doesn't mean that the person then gets all the rights under the Constitution.

I agree that this kind of "war" is completely new, and we are left fumbling through old cases, old treaties, and old Conventions and we try and fit the current situation into them. It isn't going to work. In America, we are at a crucial time of history in determining major issues regarding the powers of the 3 branchs of government. And the executive branch is off and running and trying to grab as much of it as it can, before the judiciary gets involved.

But don't think the International Community is in any better shape, because the Geneva Convention is really tough to apply in this case, and the Al Qaeda are not an internationally recogized organization, complete with uniforms, and a basis in land, etc. Until now, most groups that were like Al Qaeda were involved in Civil Wars in whatever country, but now AL Qaeda is entering the realm of an international war, and the treaties and conventions in place are ill equipped to deal with it too.

[glee]

Originally posted by Hamlet
But don't think the International Community is in any better shape, because the Geneva Convention is really tough to apply in this case, and the Al Qaeda are not an internationally recogized organization, complete with uniforms, and a basis in land, etc. Until now, most groups that were like Al Qaeda were involved in Civil Wars in whatever country, but now AL Qaeda is entering the realm of an international war, and the treaties and conventions in place are ill equipped to deal with it too.

Which groups are you comparing Al Qaeda to?
The IRA, ETA, Shining Path etc don't wear uniforms and are not internationally recognised.

I'm also not sure what you mean by Al Qaeda entering the realm of an international war.
I'm not well up on their aims, but I thought one was to get the US military bases out of Saudi Arabia. Presumably they see themselves as resistance fighters, not an army.

(Obviously I don't support them in any way, but it's important to understand your enemy.)

[sailor]

i do not agree with the idea that "this is new". There have been in the past pirates and other groups which were not recognised nations. At any rate, for my analysis this is irrelevant. I say that the only valid reasons a country has to keep and individual prisoner are that he is a prisoner of war (which, as I have said, is not a criminal) or that he is suspected or convicted of commiting a crime. A person suspected of commiting a crime should be subject to a reasonably speedy trial to determine his guilt or inocence. This legal process should be done in accordance with internationally recognised standards (cursory trials, with no possibility of defense and no appeal are not acceptable) and the accused should be set free if he is determined to be not guilty of the accused crime. If he is convicted he can be sentenced to prison time but not to cruel punishment. This should be universal, regardless of what government is doing the trying and the nationality of the accused. The power of *any* government should be limited and it should not have absolute, unlimited power, over any person's life regardless of nationality.

[sailor]

The idea that the government can act without regard to law or limitation when the good of the country requires it is very old and has been called "reason of state". Already in the sixteenth century it was being discussed whether it was acceptable or even convenient. http://www.ragiondistato.it/introe.html
Half-way through the sixteenth century, we come across the expression reason of state in an important document which is both literary and political: namely the Orazione a Carlo V, almost certainly written in 1547 by Monsignor Giovanni Della Casa to the Spanish Emperor in support of the restitution of Piacenza to the Duke, Ottavio Farnese, son-in-law of the Emperor himself. Della Casa distinguishes the barbaric and fierce voice of reason of state from that of civil reason. Reaffirming the principles of Cicero which are at the basis of the political ideology of the Renaissance, Della Casa argues that it is not possible for two conflicting practices to exist side by side, usefulness as opposed to honesty, morals separated from politics: «Thus, those who succeed in supporting two reasons are striving in vain; the one, bad and false and dissolute, and prepared to steal, and to carry out harmful actions; and they have given this the name of reason of state; and to it is they entrust the government of kingdoms and of empires; the other, straightforward, and unswerving, and constant; this one is banished from the authorities and from the government of the Cities and of the kingdoms, and put out to beg, and to struggle among the litigants». They are two different reasons, irreconcilable, the first of which conceals «under the name of reason the works of fraud and violence»; Della Casa then exhorts Charles V not to allow his great and marvellous undertakings, inspired by honesty and justice, to be contaminated by that usefulness «which today is called Reason of State» Those who say the end justifies the means just do not know how bad things get when societies think like that. You can look at communist and totalitarian regimes to see what happens when it is OK to trample over the rights of one person to benefit that vague notion called "the group". Nobody is safe.

[Pjen]

Thought that I'd bump this thread because of this:


"Supreme Court to Hear Guantanamo Appeals
43 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will hear its first case arising from the government's anti-terrorism campaign following the Sept. 11 attacks, agreeing Monday to consider whether foreigners held at a U.S. Navy (news - web sites) base in Cuba should have access to American courts.


The appeals came from British, Australian and Kuwaiti citizens held with more than 600 others suspected of being Taliban or al-Qaida foot soldiers. Most were picked up in U.S. anti-terrorism sweeps in Afghanistan (news - web sites) following the attacks of two years ago.


The court combined the men's appeals and will hear the consolidated case sometime next year.


Lower courts had found that the American civilian court system did not have authority to hear the men's complaints about their treatment."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20031110/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_prisoners_9

Additionally, BBC news Ceefax today was carrying a story that another British citizen has possibly been kidnapped in Pakistan and abducted to Guantanamo. The Pakistan government is being presented with a writ of habeus corpus to prove that the person has not been illegally transferred to Guantanamo.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by glee
Or are you saying the Taleban don't count as a legal army


They don't. They are a massive gang of francs tireur who happened to temporarily displace the UN recognized government of Afghanistan. The UN recognized government then formed the Northern Alliance.

Thus, the Northern Alliance was a legal army. The Taliban were simply a gang.