Abolition of habeas corpus (long)

[Dunderman]

I started this Pit thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=291429&page=1&pp=50) to rant about the US abolishing habeas corpus worldwide (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo2dec02,1,5616918.story) (registration needed but available at bugmenot.com), bestowing itself with the right to detain anybody indefinitely, anywhere in the world, for any reason or without a reason altogether, without allowing access to a lawyer or allowing the detainees any rights whatsoever. Of all the people who responded, I believe only two were positive. One was Ryan_Liam, a self-confessed troll (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5609806&postcount=120) to whom I find it pointless to respond, and the other was Brutus, who seems to be steadfastly ignoring any and all difficult questions put to him. He has also complained that the Pit is the wrong place to conduct such a discussion, which is obviously correct, so I'm starting this thread instead. Call it a reverse Pitting of Brutus if you will.

One would think that the value of habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial and so forth is self-evident, but apparently it isn't. Therefore, I will now list my main reasons for opposing the policy described in the link above.

1. Giving government and military this ability makes everybody less safe. Even if everybody in the government and the military is a good, honest, well-meaning person (which is a pretty big fucking IF both in the US and in the rest of the world), there is still the capacity for mistakes. A mistake can now lead to absolutely anybody being whisked away to some prison in an undisclosed location, granted no rights and no ability to protest the detention. This is obviously unsafe and a reason for fear.

Furthermore, even if no mistakes are made, and everybody in the government and the military is a good, honest, well-meaning person (two big ifs), it can still happen to innocents, including the hypothetical lady in Switzerland mentioned in the article. She donated money to an Afghan orphanage and without her knowledge some of it ended up in al-Qaida hands. Wham, she's a candidate for indefinite incarceration without even knowing why she's there. No-one's required to tell her or show her any evidence. We're in Kafka territory here, folks.

2. The justification for this move is the so-called War on Terror. I'll support nothing that has no justification besides that war, as it doesn't exist. The US got hit once, and that was a terrible fucking thing, but that doesn't make it a war. It's not an excuse to make the world less safe, curtail civil liberties and abolish legal rights. If you're going to "solve" the problem of terrorism in that way, why bother? Why fight them, when we are them?

It is also naïve in the extreme to believe that you can destroy terrorism by hunting down and killing individual terrorists. It's the same kind of logic that led to the creation of those "paramilitary" units in South America, trying to solve the problem of homeless orphans by killing homeless orphans. There are problems behind it that need to be solved. AK47s just aren't going to do it.

3. You never know who'll end up in the seat of power. Even if I were an absolutely rock-hard Bush supporter, believing with all my heart and soul that he could do no wrong, nor could anybody in his administration, I'd still be worried about this, because some day Bush isn't going to be in the White House but someone else will be, and the powers to detain anybody will remain. No matter how much you like the current administration, some day someone you don't like will be in power. Do you want them to be able to pick you up and label you a terrorist because you don't agree with their political views? Now, it can happen.

This is why I and World Eater asked Brutus in the aforementioned Pit thread if he would support this policy in the hands of countries like China, the Soviet Union or North Korea, provided they were the sole superpower in the world like the US is know, and thus had the ability to enforce it. He has refused to answer, and I believe it's because he'd be forced to answer no, which would in turn force him to realise that the policy is a bad idea.

Finally, and this isn't really a reason to oppose this policy as a source of amazement for me, how come a certain subsection of Americans can be so attached to their freedoms when it comes to issues like gun control (freedom to carry guns) and taxes (freedom to decide what to do with my own money) and use the word "freedom" as a political argument in itself, and then be so ready to give up their most basic freedoms, as well as those of the rest of the world?

[Aldebaran]

I remember I asked in that thread for the text of all the international treaties between the USA and all the countries of the world, confirming their permission for the USA to enter their sovereign territory and abduct their civilians.

Salaam. A

[Dunderman]

You did, and you're still missing the point. The US wasn't allowed to go into Iraq either, but did. They can do these things, they are doing them, and the absence of such treaties is completely irrelevant. That's the significance of the "sole superpower" qualifier in my third point.

[Aldebaran]

Forgot to say:
For the rest I agree with all the objections you make in your OP.

Yet I am waiting for the texts by which all the sovereign nations in the world give the USA permission to act as if the USA governs all the world's nations and all the world's citizens. Implicating that the sovereignty, governments, laws, citizenship of all these nations are of no account for the USA.

Salaam. A

[Dunderman]

I have already provided the answer. They can do it and are doing it. At this point, whether it's legal in the country they're doing it is a moot point, as the US is the biggest kid on the block by far.

[Aldebaran]

You did, and you're still missing the point. The US wasn't allowed to go into Iraq either, but did. They can do these things, they are doing them, and the absence of such treaties is completely irrelevant. That's the significance of the "sole superpower" qualifier in my third point.

What they eventually can (and I think you look at these things a bit simplified) does not mean that other nations will allow the USA to abduct their citizens.
Crimes remain crimes. Abducting people is a crime everywhere, as far as I know.
What they can do is ask governments to cooperate = exchange information on certain citizens and eventually bring them under arrest.
I can detect quite a few who will not be ready to even think about letting the USA interfere with their internal affairs in such an arrogant,open, direct way.
Bush and crew can dream all they wants. Dreams are far from the reality, as they should know by now. Unfortunately this bunch of arrogant lunatics are not of the type that never learns or wants to know.

Salaam. A

[GomiBoy]

Priceguy - I agree with you in the broad strokes, but would take a few exceptions with some of your comments:

1. Giving government and military this ability makes everybody less safe.
Yes and no. Giving the military and the government this power with no oversight makes everybody less safe. Whilst it is a slipper slope, it is also a means of capturing and detaining those who you wouldn't normally be able to get your hands on who are intent on doing harm to US citizens and interests. I don't have a problem with people being captured outside the US being brought to the US and tried under our justice system if they have commited crimes against the US (think of Manuel Noriega). I just have a problem with those captured not being tried and not being allowed to avail themselves of the legal system at all.

Furthermore, even if no mistakes are made, and everybody in the government and the military is a good, honest, well-meaning person (two big ifs), it can still happen to innocents, including the hypothetical lady in Switzerland mentioned in the article.
IF the little old lady from Switzerland could avail herself of the legal system, she would be shortly released with a massive apology, as her case would never stand up in court. Again, it is the lack of oversight and the denial of legal rights that is worrying.

The US got hit once, and that was a terrible fucking thing, but that doesn't make it a war.
Sure it does - this is one thing Brutus has right. They declared war on us and attacked us, not just once but several times. We are absolutely right to respond. What we are doing wrong is responding badly.

It is also naïve in the extreme to believe that you can destroy terrorism by hunting down and killing individual terrorists.
Sure you can; you just have to kill all of them. And that we are unwilling to do.

3. You never know who'll end up in the seat of power.
yep, which is why you need built-in oversight, and why these types of actions are utterly flawed.

But, to play the devil's advocate for a bit, there really is no right for non-US citizens to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. SCOTUS proved this repeatedly, in regards to the US Citizens detained, telling the military to effectively put up or shut up. But they remained mum on any foreign citizens held in the same conditions.

Of course, I believe that if we truly support freedom we must support it everywhere and lead first and foremost by example, but that apparently is a foreign concept to those currently in power.

[Dunderman]

Aldebaran, it has already happened (http://www.metimes.com/print.php?StoryID=20041110-082639-7407r). Even if the US cannot secure the cooperation of the government in the country in question, they can just do a covert operation. Probably better for them in the long run anyway.

And besides, it doesn't matter for this thread nor the other thread. What we're discussing is Bush and company giving themselves these powers and the implications of that, not whether they'll be able to enforce them.

Yes and no. Giving the military and the government this power with no oversight makes everybody less safe. Whilst it is a slipper slope, it is also a means of capturing and detaining those who you wouldn't normally be able to get your hands on who are intent on doing harm to US citizens and interests. I don't have a problem with people being captured outside the US being brought to the US and tried under our justice system if they have commited crimes against the US (think of Manuel Noriega). I just have a problem with those captured not being tried and not being allowed to avail themselves of the legal system at all.
Then I don't see what our disagreement is. I haven't said that the government/military shouldn't be allowed to detain anybody at all, just that the detainees should be given a fair trial, access to a lawyer and so forth.
Sure it does - this is one thing Brutus has right.
No. It's not a war. That's just propaganda.
Sure you can; you just have to kill all of them. And that we are unwilling to do.
And the ones who are pissed off because you killed the first ones? Kill them too? What about the ones that pisses off? How do you deal with them? What about the ones who are pissed off because you accidentally killed innocents? What do you do when they start killing?
But, to play the devil's advocate for a bit, there really is no right for non-US citizens to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
OK. So? Who said anything about the Constitution?

[Aldebaran]

Priceguy, it is not because they succeed now and then to commit now and then such a crime involving citizens of other nations, they can commit these crimes unseen and under cover everywhere at any given time.
What I find amazing is that the US citizens always seem so convinced that the USA "can do it all" and "on its own".

The CIA is a joke. 90 + % of the time they have no clue what they are dealing with, especially in this region.
The only ones I see doing such "operations" succesfully here is the Mossad, and they don't/would not even do it "undercover". Only now and then blame it on the other side when politically convenient.
The CIA on the other hand has a constant tendency to believe they are "undercover" when they only put the blame on some "other side". Especially when they once again killed a whole lot of people missing for miles and miles the "target". Next hours you see the birth of once again an unheard of, suddenly popping up, "terrorist cell" (nowadays mostly with "direct link" to Al Qaeda". It is quite a fashion).

As for example in Europe:
In the country of my mother the distinct police forces and secret service departments can't even cooperate efficiently inside their own nation. I know they have contacts with CIA agents (who for 99% of the time don't speak one single other language but English. Which is just a little bit of a handicap to start with. Not the whole world and not every potential terrorist has a habit of making all his conversations in US English).
I know what Belgians involved in this type of work think of them (cowboys is not the right word but it comes close).

Salaam. A

[Dunderman]

And yet they're doing it, as shown in my link. Also, of course, this is beside the point, as I've pointed out before.

[GomiBoy]

Then I don't see what our disagreement is. I haven't said that the government/military shouldn't be allowed to detain anybody at all, just that the detainees should be given a fair trial, access to a lawyer and so forth.
I didn't read that in your OP; if it was there and I didn't see it, I apologise. But it seemed to me in your OP you are incensed by the US detaining anyone at all.


No. It's not a war. That's just propaganda.
Since it's moved from the Pit to GD - cite? The US fought a pretty major war against German based on their declaration of war against the US whilst we never declared war on them (at least in part). How is this any different?


And the ones who are pissed off because you killed the first ones? Kill them too? What about the ones that pisses off? How do you deal with them? What about the ones who are pissed off because you accidentally killed innocents? What do you do when they start killing?
It does work, exactly as you describe, which is where it turns into a lack of the will to do so and the investigation of other means to accomplish your mission. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I am saying it works.


OK. So? Who said anything about the Constitution?
Habeas Corpus, a right detailed in the Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html), does not pertain to non-US citizens as no codes or articles of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically pertain to non-US citizens. Summary of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is here (http://dui.findlaw.com/articles/1476.html).

Quick quote:
A writ of habeas corpus (literally to "produce the body") is a court order to a person (prison warden) or agency (institution) holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned individual to the court issuing the order. Many state constitutions provide for writs of habeas corpus, as does the United States Constitution that specifically forbids the government from suspending writ proceedings except in extraordinary times -- such as war.

Known as "the Great Writ," habeas corpus gives citizens the power to get help from courts to keep government and any other institutions that may imprison people in check. In many countries, police and military personnel, for example, may take people and lock them up for months -- even years -- without charging them, and those imprisoned have no avenue, no legal channel, by which to protest or challenge the imprisonment. The writ of habeas corpus gives jailed suspects the right to ask an appellate judge to set them free or order an end to improper jail conditions, and thereby ensures that people in this country will not be held for long times in prison in violation of their rights. Of course, the right to ask for relief is not the same as the right to get relief; courts are very stingy with their writs.

Even Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was later overturned by the SCOTUS, so I don't imagine Bush's will hold up (and in fact has already been overturned partially in this ruling by SCOTUS (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-334).) Basically, it says that contrary to statements by the DoD, it is not beyond the power of Federal courts to tell them what to do, even if they are in Cuba.

[Aldebaran]

Princhester, you article is only reporting a case where 3 countries (Sweden, Egypt, USA) were involved in bringing back to Egypt 2 men who obviously were sought after by the Egyptian government.

Egypt asking assistance and the forces involved in this case acting like in a Hollywood movie is a whole other thing then for example the US going to play Hollywood Hero in Egypt for abducting Egyptians to lock them up in Guantanamo. Completely with private plane for transport landing on Egyptian soil, unnoticed, the US heros looking all-Egyptian and talking fluently Egyptian Arabic while searching for their target unnoticed, getting hold of him unnoticed, way back to the waiting unnoticed plane and taking off again unnoticed.

Now we all know the Middle East is not the prime example of efficiency and insh'allah is often to be taken as meaning : if not today, maybe tomorrow or maybe... who know when, insh'allah.
But a private plane landing, deliver a few US heros to the Egyption Arabic speaking environment, waiting for the heros to come back with their lute and then taking off again is however something that risks to be noticed.
Or maybe they think about flying in under the radar, land it on top of a pyramide hoping that during the day the blinding sun prevents it to be noticed. And then sabotage some flashy lights directed at the pyramide so that it stays in the dark in the evening. You never know how that works.

Salaam. A

[Quartz]

If you think the US is bad, try the UK's Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040036.htm). Suspension of all rights - including habeas corpus - except those granted under the Human Rights Act simply on the sayso of a Minister.

[GomiBoy]

Princhester, you article is only reporting a case where 3 countries (Sweden, Egypt, USA) were involved in bringing back to Egypt 2 men who obviously were sought after by the Egyptian government.

Egypt asking assistance and the forces involved in this case acting like in a Hollywood movie is a whole other thing then for example the US going to play Hollywood Hero in Egypt for abducting Egyptians to lock them up in Guantanamo. Completely with private plane for transport landing on Egyptian soil, unnoticed, the US heros looking all-Egyptian and talking fluently Egyptian Arabic while searching for their target unnoticed, getting hold of him unnoticed, way back to the waiting unnoticed plane and taking off again unnoticed.

Now we all know the Middle East is not the prime example of efficiency and insh'allah is often to be taken as meaning : if not today, maybe tomorrow or maybe... who know when, insh'allah.
But a private plane landing, deliver a few US heros to the Egyption Arabic speaking environment, waiting for the heros to come back with their lute and then taking off again is however something that risks to be noticed.
Or maybe they think about flying in under the radar, land it on top of a pyramide hoping that during the day the blinding sun prevents it to be noticed. And then sabotage some flashy lights directed at the pyramide so that it stays in the dark in the evening. You never know how that works.

Salaam. A

Can I be the first to ask for a cite of any of the above ever happening? If it is common knowledge in the Arab world, perhaps Al-Jazeera might have gotten the story?

Or perhaps this was posted to the wrong forum as it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of the suspension of Habeas Corpus?

[Dunderman]

Since it's moved from the Pit to GD - cite? The US fought a pretty major war against German based on their declaration of war against the US whilst we never declared war on them (at least in part). How is this any different?
For starters the enemy isn't a country and, as far as I know, hasn't declared war on you.
Habeas Corpus, a right detailed in the Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html), does not pertain to non-US citizens as no codes or articles of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically pertain to non-US citizens.
The concept of habeas corpus existed before the US Constitution and still exists independently of it.

[Aldebaran]

The above whas of course not for poor innocent "Princhester" who even has no idea about this thread so far :).

[treis]

For starters the enemy isn't a country and, as far as I know, hasn't declared war on you.

Does attacking a city, destroying some of its buildings and killing over 3000 people not constitue an act of war?

[GomiBoy]

I didn't read that in your OP; if it was there and I didn't see it, I apologise. But it seemed to me in your OP you are incensed by the US detaining anyone at all.


I just re-read and you do say exactly that. I apologize and retract.

Further -
For starters the enemy isn't a country and, as far as I know, hasn't declared war on you.
This matters? The War Powers Act has been voted on by Congress and passed; the Supreme Court has allowed in no less than two rulings that a State of War currently exists. Face it - whether you and I support it or not, the US is at war. It is a new kind of war, against a 'stateless' enemy, and the legal language has yet to catch up to that, but catch up it will.

The concept of habeas corpus existed before the US Constitution and still exists independently of it.
Of course it does; nothing in the Constitution was new when it was written. It was just the first time it was ever written down all together, and in that precise way.

If you are not speaking of the Writ of Habeas Corpus as described in the Federal code and the US Constitution, then there is no framework to your OP and absolutely nothing can be done about defending a vague and tenuous principle of legal philosophy. We can, however, defend the Constitution and the interpretive findings of the Supreme Court on how it applies.

[Dunderman]

This matters? The War Powers Act has been voted on by Congress and passed; the Supreme Court has allowed in no less than two rulings that a State of War currently exists. Face it - whether you and I support it or not, the US is at war. It is a new kind of war, against a 'stateless' enemy, and the legal language has yet to catch up to that, but catch up it will.
I know that the US, including the Supreme Court, is calling it a war. I just don't agree that it is, any more than the "war on drugs" is really a war. For a war to exist, I at least think there must be two sides fighting each other. I don't see that here. I see one unusually successful act of terrorism and the vastly overrated reaction.
If you are not speaking of the Writ of Habeas Corpus as described in the Federal code and the US Constitution, then there is no framework to your OP and absolutely nothing can be done about defending a vague and tenuous principle of legal philosophy. We can, however, defend the Constitution and the interpretive findings of the Supreme Court on how it applies.
If you find it impossible or pointless to discuss anything but the US Federal Code or the US Constitution, then so be it. I think it's highly interesting to discuss the right to not be detained without due process no matter what the Constitution or Supreme Court say.

[Brutus]

This is why I and World Eater asked Brutus in the aforementioned Pit thread if he would support this policy in the hands of countries like China, the Soviet Union or North Korea, provided they were the sole superpower in the world like the US is know, and thus had the ability to enforce it.


How utterly irrelevant. But no, if one of those three countries had such a policy, I wouldn't 'support' it. If it were, say for example, Great Britain, France, and Germany we were talking about, though, I would. Not all nations are alike, you know.


He has refused to answer, and I believe it's because he'd be forced to answer no, which would in turn force him to realise that the policy is a bad idea.


Damnit, leave your stupid drama-queen bitching in the Pit, would you? It's bad enough that you pollute the hell out of that Pit thread, but to do the same to your own GD thread?

[Dunderman]

How utterly irrelevant. But no, if one of those three countries had such a policy, I wouldn't 'support' it. If it were, say for example, Great Britain, France, and Germany we were talking about, though, I would. Not all nations are alike, you know.
Good, now we're getting somewhere. So, you agree that this power would be a bad thing in some people's hands. To support it in the US government's you must therefore:

1. Trust the US government to a very large degree.
2. Trust your own judgment in deciding who should and who shouldn't have this power to a very large degree.
3. Believe that it is impossible for the US to one day be led by people in the second category.

Agree?
Damnit, leave your stupid drama-queen bitching in the Pit, would you? It's bad enough that you pollute the hell out of that Pit thread, but to do the same to your own GD thread?
Actually, that Pit thread is mine too, and I'm really hard put to see how asking you to answer some simple questions is equivalent to "stupid drama-queen bitching". Using language like that is also, I think, utterly inappropriate for Great Debates.

[Shodan]

Exactly how far are you willing to go in insisting that the US follow due process and so forth?

Would you accept, for example, if we captured a bunch of enemies who were fighting against us (even though they weren't uniformed) and held them in a prison camp without offering them lawyers?

How about if they aren't citizens?

What do you think the rules ought to be?

Regards,
Shodan

[Brutus]

1. Trust the US government to a very large degree.


They already have several thousand nuclear weapons, and they seem pretty responsible with those. Obviously, you must trust them as well, for the same reason. After all, the ability to destroy the world trumps the ability to snatch up old Swiss grannies or whatever, and I don't see you guys freaking out on a daily basis over those.

But sure, I trust our gov't to a large degree with certain matters. It's not binary, you know. I can distrust the pig-eyed little bastards when it comes to taxation or social policy, but I can trust them when it comes to prosecuting a international counter-terrorism war. So far, I have seen nothing that raises concern that their new powers are being used for anything but counter-terrorism.


2. Trust your own judgment in deciding who should and who shouldn't have this power to a very large degree.


Of course I trust my own judgement.


3. Believe that it is impossible for the US to one day be led by people in the second category.


Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08...), it's not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause.

Besides, we are treading on old ground. Habeas corpus has been suspended before, during the Civil War. As the need declined, it was reinstated, and we are more free, as a nation, now than we were then, you must agree.


...I think, utterly inappropriate for Great Debates.

But calling people a troll in your OP is appropriate? Funny that.

[Dunderman]

Exactly how far are you willing to go in insisting that the US follow due process and so forth?
Pretty far.
Would you accept, for example, if we captured a bunch of enemies who were fighting against us (even though they weren't uniformed) and held them in a prison camp without offering them lawyers?
Depends on the circumstances. Did you attack their home town and they took up arms in defense? Then I think they should be released. Do you have some sort of legitimate grievance against them? Then present it and give them lawyers as soon as you can.
How about if they aren't citizens?
Of where? The US? Doesn't matter.
They already have several thousand nuclear weapons, and they seem pretty responsible with those. Obviously, you must trust them as well, for the same reason. After all, the ability to destroy the world trumps the ability to snatch up old Swiss grannies or whatever, and I don't see you guys freaking out on a daily basis over those.
I'd feel better knowing there were no nuclear weapons in the US or anywhere else, but the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't mean I want the US to get more powers. Besides, what's the incentive to destroy the world? There isn't one. I "trust" them not to do that because they have no reason to. As for the little old lady in Switzerland, apparently anything done in the name of the "war on terror" is fair game, mistakes are made, and I don't want to have to risk being disappeared just because I disagree with somebody.
Of course I trust my own judgement.
You don't think you can be deceived, have incomplete information or be unable to interpret it perfectly?
Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08...), it's not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause.
Ah. So basically you're saying that you can give government any powers whatsoever, because "good" governments will use them for good and "bad" governments will do what they want anyway, legal powers or no?
Besides, we are treading on old ground. Habeas corpus has been suspended before, during the Civil War. As the need declined, it was reinstated, and we are more free, as a nation, now than we were then, you must agree.
So they did something wrong during the Civil War, it accidentally came out all right, and that somehow justifies doing the same thing again (for less reason, I might add)?
But calling people a troll in your OP is appropriate? Funny that.
I didn't call Ryan_Liam a troll, I pointed out that he is in fact a self-admitted troll and provided a link to that effect.

[Brutus]

I'd feel better knowing there were no nuclear weapons in the US or anywhere else, but the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't mean I want the US to get more powers. Besides, what's the incentive to destroy the world? There isn't one. I "trust" them not to do that because they have no reason to.

And the 'incentive' for our forces to have a go at little old Swiss grannies is...?


You don't think you can be deceived, have incomplete information or be unable to interpret it perfectly?


As unlikely as it is, I suppose it's possible.

But it's still irrelevant; I don't see why a goverment that was going to follow the laws of the land would lie and scheme their way into office. I mean, once you get into office through plotting and mischief, it's happy hour, well-intentioned laws be damned.


Ah. So basically you're saying that you can give government any powers whatsoever, because "good" governments will use them for good and "bad" governments will do what they want anyway, legal powers or no?


Not hardly. But note that the Presidency already carries great powers. Always has, probably always will. Executive Orders, for one. Quite amazing what those can do, and all a President needs is just over 1/3 of Congress to back him, and he is in like Flynn. Besides, if a majority of the electorate (and EC) decides that said powers are being abused, the near-worst case scenario is that you have 4 years of dealing with it. And if things are uber-bad, you know, man-the-ramparts bad, be grateful for the 2nd Amendment.

But ridiculous melodrama aside, we recently had an election. The majority of the American electorate didn't see a need to change leaders, so it doesn't look like you guys are making a compelling case for abused powers or whatnot.


So they did something wrong during the Civil War, it accidentally came out all right, and that somehow justifies doing the same thing again (for less reason, I might add)?


The Civil War showed that there were times and instances where applying protections to the 't' would have been detrimental; When the danger was removed, so were the enhanced powers. Nothing accidental about it.


I didn't call Ryan_Liam a troll, I pointed out that he is in fact a self-admitted troll and provided a link to that effect.

You most certainly did, and your link doesn't save you from that. There was no confession of guilt in that link. You and World Eater seem to have a fetish with Ryan and calling him a troll and goading him; Why not just leave that in the Pit thread instead of bringing it up in your OP?

[Dunderman]

And the 'incentive' for our forces to have a go at little old Swiss grannies is...?
Once again: mistakes can be made. Even if they aren't made, the possibility brings fear. I'm afraid that someone will make a mistake or that someone will decide I'm a good person to not have around. I wouldn't trust anyone with those kinds of powers. Anyone who runs an entire country must be sorely tempted to abuse that power.
But it's still irrelevant; I don't see why a goverment that was going to follow the laws of the land would lie and scheme their way into office. I mean, once you get into office through plotting and mischief, it's happy hour, well-intentioned laws be damned.
Not really. If you don't follow the laws, you need a much larger part of the apparatus of society on your side and cooperating.
Not hardly. But note that the Presidency already carries great powers. Always has, probably always will. Executive Orders, for one. Quite amazing what those can do, and all a President needs is just over 1/3 of Congress to back him, and he is in like Flynn. Besides, if a majority of the electorate (and EC) decides that said powers are being abused, the near-worst case scenario is that you have 4 years of dealing with it.
So, because the President is already powerful, giving him more powers doesn't matter?
The Civil War showed that there were times and instances where applying protections to the 't' would have been detrimental; When the danger was removed, so were the enhanced powers. Nothing accidental about it.
So if the powers had been abused back then (in your opinion), you would be against instating them now? If not, what is the relevance of the Civil War comparison?

Besides, what's the enormous danger that didn't exist before and does exist now? That there are 11 fanatic terrorists less in the world?
You most certainly did, and your link doesn't save you from that. There was no confession of guilt in that link.
Since you obviously didn't read it, I'll quote it for you:I know what I write is dumb, but I like to piss you all off.Clear admission of trolling, as Lynn Bodoni and others saw.
You and World Eater seem to have a fetish with Ryan and calling him a troll and goading him In fact, I soon learned to ignore him.

[GomiBoy]

Exactly how far are you willing to go in insisting that the US follow due process and so forth?

Would you accept, for example, if we captured a bunch of enemies who were fighting against us (even though they weren't uniformed) and held them in a prison camp without offering them lawyers?

How about if they aren't citizens?

What do you think the rules ought to be?

Regards,
Shodan

Speaking only for myself, yes, I would find that satisfactory. Obviously, the US government is not doing this, and that is the problem.

[Dunderman]

You and World Eater seem to have a fetish with Ryan and calling him a troll and goading him
This bit somehow disappeared from my post. I meant to ask when I ever referred to him as a troll prior to this thread, and when I goaded him.

[GomiBoy]

Of course I trust my own judgement.
Good for you; I just don't trust yours. And by all that's holy I shouldn't have to. The law should exist for both of us, not just for you.


Besides, we are treading on old ground. Habeas corpus has been suspended before, during the Civil War. As the need declined, it was reinstated, and we are more free, as a nation, now than we were then, you must agree.
Re-read your history. The Supreme Court overturned Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. He didn't do it voluntarily. And he was one of the best presidents this country has ever had. What is Bush going to do?


And the 'incentive' for our forces to have a go at little old Swiss grannies is...?
Apparently it's got nothing to do with incentive, only with will. And the will of the US is apparently enough to trump whatever international law we see fit to ignore. Read the article quoted in the OP - that is an exact quote from a US district attorney.


But calling people a troll in your OP is appropriate? Funny that.
He called himself a troll, and was cautioned by a mod. You are personally insulting someone, which is not allowed in this forum.

[marky33]

Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08...), it's not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause.

Besides, if a majority of the electorate (and EC) decides that said powers are being abused, the near-worst case scenario is that you have 4 years of dealing with it. And if things are uber-bad, you know, man-the-ramparts bad, be grateful for the 2nd Amendment.


Are these two quotes not contradictory?

[Brutus]

Are these two quotes not contradictory?

No. You need to re-read them.

[GomiBoy]

I know that the US, including the Supreme Court, is calling it a war. I just don't agree that it is, any more than the "war on drugs" is really a war. For a war to exist, I at least think there must be two sides fighting each other. I don't see that here. I see one unusually successful act of terrorism and the vastly overrated reaction.
The two sides are fighting. Al-Queda is attacking us as much as they are able; we have successsfully carried the fight to them. I don't see how you don't see this.


If you find it impossible or pointless to discuss anything but the US Federal Code or the US Constitution, then so be it. I think it's highly interesting to discuss the right to not be detained without due process no matter what the Constitution or Supreme Court say.
Actually, it is kind of pointless. We're not talking about some vague legal terminology, but a real right that is being withheld both Americans and non-US citizens being held in custody without any redress to be tried and thus either convicted and sentenced or aquited and released. A right which the US government wants to further retract.

If we're not talking about that, why did you say Habeas Corpus in your OP?

[Dunderman]

The two sides are fighting. Al-Queda is attacking us as much as they are able; we have successsfully carried the fight to them. I don't see how you don't see this.
Name five of the attacks and I might be.
Actually, it is kind of pointless. We're not talking about some vague legal terminology, but a real right that is being withheld both Americans and non-US citizens being held in custody without any redress to be tried and thus either convicted and sentenced or aquited and released. A right which the US government wants to further retract.

If we're not talking about that, why did you say Habeas Corpus in your OP?
Because habeas corpus is the name for that right and has been since 1679.

[SentientMeat]

Just to be clear, Brutus and perhaps others, you are advocating the indefinite detention of suspected criminals despite an absence of evidence with which to convict them?

[GomiBoy]

Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08...), it's not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause.


Very cute. If Hitler ran for any party, I would think it would be the party of hate and exclusion and gay bashing and and racism (Republican), not the party of inclusion.

Just my 2p.

[GomiBoy]

Name five of the attacks and I might be.
OK:
1st World Trade Centre Bombing
USS Cole
Embassy attacks in Tanzania and Kenya
Attempted 12-31-2000 bombings of LAX and Seattle's Space Needle
9-11
Bali resort bombing (killing mostly Australians, so maybe that doesn't count?)
Various attacks in Iraq after the fall of Saddam
Attacks in Egypt (resort full of Israeli students) may be Al-Queda (not proven yet but highly likely)
Publishing of instructions on attacking and overthrowing Saudi government
Repeated attacks on aid workers, including Doctors Without Borders and UN missions, in Afghanistan and Iraq
Assasination attempts (3 at last count) on Musharraf

Need any more? There's lots more attempts out there.


Because habeas corpus is the name for that right and has been since 1679.
Again, what is the point of debating a legal principle? We can't enforce that. We can enforce the Constitution and the US code. Give us something to work from, or it's just pie in the sky.

[Dunderman]

OK:
1st World Trade Centre Bombing
USS Cole
Embassy attacks in Tanzania and Kenya
Attempted 12-31-2000 bombings of LAX and Seattle's Space Needle
These aren't part of the war on terror. I didn't hear that term any time prior to the World Trade Center attacks. Was it used before that?
9-11
One. Even this one I hesitate to call an act of war.
Bali resort bombing (killing mostly Australians, so maybe that doesn't count?)
I have severe trouble seeing this as an attack on the US.
Various attacks in Iraq after the fall of Saddam
Inhabitants of an occupied country attacking the occupants, you mean?
Attacks in Egypt (resort full of Israeli students) may be Al-Queda (not proven yet but highly likely)
How is this an attack on the US?
Publishing of instructions on attacking and overthrowing Saudi government
So a terrorist organization works out a plan to attack another country's government, and that's somehow an act of war against the US?
Repeated attacks on aid workers, including Doctors Without Borders and UN missions, in Afghanistan and Iraq
Last I checked, Doctors Without Borders and UN missions weren't part of the US.
Assasination attempts (3 at last count) on Musharraf
Since when do assassination attempts by organizations constitute acts of war?
Need any more? There's lots more attempts out there.
Keep them coming.

I really don't get the American need to label this a war. Why not just tell the truth: "They hit us, it hurt, we're going to hit back"?
Again, what is the point of debating a legal principle? We can't enforce that. We can enforce the Constitution and the US code. Give us something to work from, or it's just pie in the sky.
The point of debate is "Should the US uphold the right to fair trial, freedom from detention without due process and so forth?".

[SentientMeat]

Actually, Gomiboy, everything you cited after 9-11 (perhaps with the exception of the publication of that inflammatory literature) appears to be utterly unconnected with the handful of foreign Taleban fanatics financed by a rich Saudi psychopath. The name “Al Qaeda” was never used by anyone before January 2001, when a supposed informer was prompted by the FBI to testify that Binladen headed an enormous, global organisation. “Al Qaeda” barely even existed then, and it almost certainly doesn't any more. Jemaah Islamiah, the group responsible for the Bali Bomb, had no link with Al Qaeda (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/01/08/bali.alqaeda/). The Madrid bomb was planted by a group called Islamic Combatants of Morocco (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/31/spain.bombings/) (GICM), who exchanged drugs for mining explosives - again, these are hardly the actions of a global terrorist organisation. The Chechen separatists and the Egypt gunmen had no AQ link either. These groups are isolated handfuls of psychopaths - only one of them, somewhere in the world, needs to put some cheap explosives in a public place once a year and the Al Qaeda illusion is complete.

[GomiBoy]

I really don't get the American need to label this a war. Why not just tell the truth: "They hit us, it hurt, we're going to hit back"?
The point being, the WOT (all capitols) didn't come into play until 9-11, but Al-Queda declared war on the US long before that. And when someone attacks our staunchest allies (Australia, Pakistan, Saudi, Israel) we are obligated by treaties to reply in some fashion. Since their attackers also attacked us, then yes, I feel that it is equal to a act of war against us. They hit us, it hurt, we're gonna hit back - is this not war in it's basest terms?


The point of debate is "Should the US uphold the right to fair trial, freedom from detention without due process and so forth?".
Look, you can't defend something that isn't part of the Constitution or Legal Framework of the US. If you want to talk about the concept and history of Habeas Corpus, and then related that to current events, be my guest. But it's nothing that will help us now.

[Dunderman]

The point being, the WOT (all capitols) didn't come into play until 9-11, but Al-Queda declared war on the US long before that.
Cite? As far as I know Al-Qaeda didn't even exist long before that, and has never declared war on the US.
And when someone attacks our staunchest allies (Australia, Pakistan, Saudi, Israel) we are obligated by treaties to reply in some fashion.
What treaties obligate the US to retaliate when its allies are the victims of terrorist attacks?
Since their attackers also attacked us, then yes, I feel that it is equal to a act of war against us.
Most of the attacks you described were carried out by different people and organizations.
Look, you can't defend something that isn't part of the Constitution or Legal Framework of the US.
Why not?
If you want to talk about the concept and history of Habeas Corpus, and then related that to current events, be my guest. But it's nothing that will help us now.
Nor will anything else, I fear.

What I'm talking about is how we all (as in you, me, Brutus, Shodan, SentientMeat and all other participants) think that the US should act.

[Aro]

Al-Queda declared war on the US long before that...
For my own understanding; do you believe Al Qaeda to be an actual physical and currently active organisation, one which people can join, pertain to hold membership and be a part of? One that perhaps has a ruling council and hierarchy to direct their actions / strategy and distribute funding for missions? Is this similar to what you perceive Al Qaeda to be? Or what?

[yojimbo]

I'm sure he does Aro as that's the line being sold for the last few ears. Without actually investigating it for oneself it's hard to find a true representation of AQ in the media. All this fear mongering leads to abuses like the ones talked about in the OP and the new stuff we're still hearing about even now It was dated 24 June - two months after the extent of abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison was revealed - and was marked "urgent" and sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

It described strangulation, beatings and the placing of lit cigarettes into detainees' ears.

Another document said an executive order signed by President George W Bush had authorised techniques such as "sleep management", stress positions, use of military dogs and sensory deprivation.

The White House was quick to respond to this allegation, saying: "What the FBI agent wrote in the e-mail is wrong. There is no executive order on interrogation techniques." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4113679.stm

[Shodan]

Speaking only for myself, yes, I would find that satisfactory. Obviously, the US government is not doing this, and that is the problem.
I can't access the link in the OP without registration, and I am not sure how reliable The Middle East Times is. Please note that I am not saying they are unreliable, just that I don't know.

Are we talking about specific cases, or principles in general?

The Middle East Times quoted a Swedish TV program that the US handed some prisoners over to Egypt (if I understood them correctly). And then they were tortured in Eqypt. It seemed to be all "alleged" and no hard proof, so, again, I am not sure how much credence to put into it. Is this the sort of thing we are discussing?

Would you accept, for example, if we captured a bunch of enemies who were fighting against us (even though they weren't uniformed) and held them in a prison camp without offering them lawyers?

Depends on the circumstances. Did you attack their home town and they took up arms in defense? Then I think they should be released. Do you have some sort of legitimate grievance against them? Then present it and give them lawyers as soon as you can.
How about if they aren't citizens?

Of where? The US? Doesn't matter.Again, are we talking about Gitmo, or in general?

FWIW, I understand the situation with many Gitmo prisoners is that they are being held as non-traditional combatants. The "grievance" we have against many of them is that we don't want them to go back and pick up the fight against the US soldiers in Afghanistan. So they aren't really guilty of crimes that we need to charge them with, just that they are fighting against us. This is not so much illegal as undesirable, if that distinction makes any sense. I thought they were being held more as enemy ringleaders, who may have information or exercise control over those fighting against the US in Afghanistan. It seems more like holding combatants than criminal arrest.

To me, it makes a good deal of difference if they are citizens or not. And also, the circumstances under which they were arrested/taken into detention/call it what you like.

I understand the possibility of abuse inherent in the situation. But much of the description of what is going on would like me to believe that innocent Achmed Smith, minding his own business working at the 7-11, suddenly was spirited off in the dead of night by the jack-booted thugs of the Bush administration to Guantanomo Bay prison where he is being held without trial. And I don't think that is exactly what is going on, in every case.

I think most, at least, of the prisoners held in Gitmo have the misfortune to fall between two stools. They were taken by the US while bearing arms against the US in Afghanistan. But they are not traditional combatants, so they aren't treated either as POWs or as ordinary criminals. So, as far as I can tell, they are shit out of luck. But they are not US citizens, and/or were taken while bearing arms against the US. So, basically, boo hoo for them.

Suppose it's 1944, and the ACLU announces that it wants the US to give German POWs the right to file for habeas corpus. I just don't think it is a good idea, even if the German POWs never committed any war crimes. So I don't think habeas corpus is an absolute human right.

It seems to be mostly a slippery slope argument. "The prisoners at Gitmo are having their rights violated, therefore the average citizen is next". I find this neither more nor less compelling than most other slippery slopes.

As I say, it is possible that there can be abuses, just as there can be of anything. And I wouldn't defend violations of absolute human rights, like torture or what-not. But abusus non tollit usum. There's a war on, and the bad guys are going to be inconvenienced. If we do it right, that is.

FWIW.

Regards,
Shodan

[yojimbo]

They were taken by the US while bearing arms against the US in Afghanistan. But they are not traditional combatants, so they aren't treated either as POWs or as ordinary criminals. So, as far as I can tell, they are shit out of luck. But they are not US citizens, and/or were taken while bearing arms against the US. So, basically, boo hoo for them. You dismiss these abuses with a "boo hoo to them".

How quickly would it take for me to get pitted I wonder if the next time some American gets killed by people who the US have taken up arms against I responded with "Boo Hoo". Don't expect empathy if you're incapable of showing it.

[Aro]

There's a war on, and the bad guys are going to be inconvenienced. If all the 'inconvenienced' people in this instance were all shown and proven to actually be "bad guys" then there would be little for most people to complain about. But that is obviously not the case in many instances. Or, at least, hasn't been shown to be. You are assuming their guilt due to them having been arrested, and cheering their arrest on the assumption of their guilt.

[SentientMeat]

Regarding Gitmo: a starter question for 10...

What hapens when you offer a sum of money in excess of hundreds or thousands of times the daily average wage to a bunch of non-uniformed militiamen called the Northern Alliance for every "Al Qaeda member" or "senior Taleban" they capture, and accept only their word that the goatherd they brought you was actually fighting?

[Shodan]

You dismiss these abuses with a "boo hoo to them".

How quickly would it take for me to get pitted I wonder if the next time some American gets killed by people who the US have taken up arms against I responded with "Boo Hoo". Don't expect empathy if you're incapable of showing it.Who said anything about getting killed? I thought we were talking about habeas corpus.
If all the 'inconvenienced' people in this instance were all shown and proven to actually be "bad guys" then there would be little for most people to complain about. But that is obviously not the case in many instances. Or, at least, hasn't been shown to be. You are assuming their guilt due to them having been arrested, and cheering their arrest on the assumption of their guilt.No, I am not thinking in terms of guilt or innocence at all.

As far as I know, most of them were taken while bearing arms against the US. Whether you think of that as a crime or not, it is something I would like to see prevented. I don't want anyone fighting against the US invasion of Afghanistan, in other words. Thus the Gitmo prisoners are mostly being detained to prevent them from fighting against the US.

I don't think we need to convict them all individually any more than we needed to convict every single German POW in 1944 of war crimes. We can lock them up and get them out of the way while the war is going on.

I think you are mistaking habeas corpus for an absolute right. I don't think that it is.

Consider an example. Joe Blow is arrested for murder. He comes before the judge for a bail hearing, and the judge finds that he is a flight risk and denies bail. So Joe spends six months in prison awaiting trial.

Has Joe been convicted of a crime? Nope. Has he been deprived of his liberty? Certainly. Has he been denied his rights? Well, I suppose you could see it that way. The trouble is, there are other factors that outweigh Joe's right to walk the streets, such as the interest in having people accused of serious crimes appear for trial.

I think many of the Gitmo prisoners are similar, if not identical. They have not been convicted of anything, and they are being denied their liberty. But it seems there are other factors that outweigh their right to scurry around Afghanistan toting an AK-47 and chanting "Allah-u-akbar - Death to the infidels!"

Certainly there can be abuses, just as there can be abuses of the ability of judges to deny bail. But I rather doubt you have conclusively established that the US is violating people's rights everytime they lock up someone who shoots at our troops, just because Muhammed and the ACLU don't care for the idea.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

FWIW, I understand the situation with many Gitmo prisoners is that they are being held as non-traditional combatants. The "grievance" we have against many of them is that we don't want them to go back and pick up the fight against the US soldiers in Afghanistan. So they aren't really guilty of crimes that we need to charge them with, just that they are fighting against us. This is not so much illegal as undesirable, if that distinction makes any sense. I thought they were being held more as enemy ringleaders, who may have information or exercise control over those fighting against the US in Afghanistan. It seems more like holding combatants than criminal arrest.

To me, it makes a good deal of difference if they are citizens or not. And also, the circumstances under which they were arrested/taken into detention/call it what you like.

I understand the possibility of abuse inherent in the situation. But much of the description of what is going on would like me to believe that innocent Achmed Smith, minding his own business working at the 7-11, suddenly was spirited off in the dead of night by the jack-booted thugs of the Bush administration to Guantanomo Bay prison where he is being held without trial. And I don't think that is exactly what is going on, in every case.

I think most, at least, of the prisoners held in Gitmo have the misfortune to fall between two stools. They were taken by the US while bearing arms against the US in Afghanistan. But they are not traditional combatants, so they aren't treated either as POWs or as ordinary criminals. So, as far as I can tell, they are shit out of luck. But they are not US citizens, and/or were taken while bearing arms against the US. So, basically, boo hoo for them.


Jose Padilla is a US Citizen. He has been denied trial and access to legal representation since his arrest in Chicago in 2002 on charges of attempted terrorism. He's the Chicago 'Dirty Bomb' suspect.

His right to habeas corpus has been suspended, and he has been declared an 'enemy combatant' and put in a military brig in Charleston SC, and has been denied access to any legal representation.

Note the critical words - suspect and attempted terrorism. This guy IS a US Citizen. How big of a gap is it between him and me?

Now imagine that I am not a US citizen - now the US can throw me in a deep dark hole for life and never charge me and never even have to admit that I exist. They don't even need a reason.

Some freedom here.

Now - Aro, Priceguy, and Yojimbo:

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Queda) is my cite. Al-Queda has been in existence since 1988, and has been actively plotting against US interests since 1996. After the bombings in Africa and the USS Cole, we fired cruise missiles at Al-Queda training facilities in Afghanistan (the Republican congressional leadership talked about it extensively at the time as in Clinton fired cruise missiles and killed some goats to distract from the Starr Investigation). I also have read this offline in Jane's Defence Weekly (no cite, sorry) and in Time and Newsweek as recently as a month ago.

[SentientMeat]

Shodan:I think many of the Gitmo prisoners are similar, if not identical. Perhaps you could direct me towards the legally mandated transcript of the "bail hearing", tribunal or any other due process which established that they were fighting US troops? Or do we simply take the word of those who received hundreds of dollars for saying he was?

[GomiBoy]

Cite?
I hope I answered this in my latest post, towards the bottom, but just in case...
here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Queda)


What I'm talking about is how we all (as in you, me, Brutus, Shodan, SentientMeat and all other participants) think that the US should act.
I think we should be extending habeas corpus to all US citizens, regardless of their status as 'enemy combatants' immediately, and should be moving as quickly as humanly possible to establish whether or not we can (or should) be holding some of these poor fools in Guantanimo or not, either through transparent military tribunals with press representation or through grand jury hearings. If they are footsoldiers, we should let them go. If they are commanders, we should interrogate (not torture!) them and let them go. If they are ringleaders, then we should hold on to them. But bearing arms against the US if you are not a US citizen is not a life in prison crime.

[Polycarp]

Interesting point, Shodan, and I have a few comments:

1. Habeas corpus in and of itself is not a fundamental right -- it seems to be a primary element in "procedural rights," under the Anglo-American legal system, of guaranteeing a more fundamental right -- that of a fair trial. In short, person X who is alleged to have committed crime Y may very well be locked up for a term of years, for life, or even executed, for having committed crime Y -- but under our system, what "entitles" him to that punishment is being convicted in a court of law, not the bare allegation, however well founded, of a prosecutor, law enforcement officer or agency, or even the U.S. Presidency and Department of Justice.

2. I think you mistake the idea of opposing the denial of habeas corpus for seeking to permit persons accused of crime to go free. Rather, what's being asked is that they "receive a fair trial and a first-class hanging" if they are indeed guilty of the crimes for which they are accused. It's the holding them incommunicato and without trial, not the idea that they may indeed be guilty of waging war against the U.S., that people object to.

3. The question of to what extent non-citizens are entitled to the protections of the American legal system is a good one, with some mutually contradictory case law. Rick, Dewey, minty, or one of the other Dopers-at-law can discuss this at more length. And by and large it is an issue that needs to be addressed in this thread.

But the underlying question is not, "should they be set free?" but rather "should they not receive a fair trial before being permanently incarcerated?" And that's one that I'd hope patriotic liberals and conservatives could agree on.

[Aldebaran]

A question:

Suppose my country invades the USA
can my country arrest and abduct to a similar prisoner camp like Gitmo
and hold in similar conditions
and deprive from any other right then breathing (and sometimes even not that when suffocating them as "interrogation tactic", but that are little details, no?)
everyone in the USA
who is fighting my country's army
or who is said to: be fighting it, wanting to fight it, planning to fight it
or who is suspected wanting to resist the invasion in any way
or who is simply walking a street where members of my country's army think persons maybe involved in such activities were walking previously.

If your answer is yes, then I can understand why you think the USA can do all these tings to people of other nations the USA invades. (However does not explain why you think the USA could do such things to people of any nation worldwide.)


Salaam. A

[Shodan]

Jose Padilla is a US Citizen. He has been denied trial and access to legal representation since his arrest in Chicago in 2002 on charges of attempted terrorism. He's the Chicago 'Dirty Bomb' suspect.

His right to habeas corpus has been suspended, and he has been declared an 'enemy combatant' and put in a military brig in Charleston SC, and has been denied access to any legal representation.For someone who "has been denied legal representation", Padilla sure seems to fill a lot of legal pads.

Anyway, your allegation about how Padilla has been denied access to his lawyers is incorrect. (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/inthecourts/supreme_court_padilla.htm) His case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And was denied.
Perhaps you could direct me towards the legally mandated transcript of the "bail hearing", tribunal or any other due process which established that they were fighting US troops? Well, if you like, here (http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/09-771737.html) is a reference to the legal authority under which at least one citizen was held. The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, although with the caveat that prisoners could appeal.

And the cite mentions the US Department of Defense declaration of facts signed by a special advisor (a Mr. Michael Mobbs) finding that Hamdi was taken in combat against the US. The appeals court mentioned that it was "undisputed" that Hamdi had been captured in a war zone, while armed.

As far as I know, Padilla (whose case reached the Supreme Court), Hamdi (since released), and John Walker Lindh are the only US citizens detained under the circumstances of the Gitmo prisoners. (Lindh was convicted and is doing time.) All the others are being held under military authority, and habeas corpus does not apply.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

A question:

Suppose my country invades the USA
can my country arrest and abduct to a similar prisoner camp like Gitmo
and hold in similar conditions
and deprive from any other right then breathing (and sometimes even not that when suffocating them as "interrogation tactic", but that are little details, no?)
everyone in the USA
who is fighting my country's army
or who is said to: be fighting it, wanting to fight it, planning to fight it
or who is suspected wanting to resist the invasion in any way
or who is simply walking a street where members of my country's army think persons maybe involved in such activities were walking previously.

If your answer is yes, then I can understand why you think the USA can do all these tings to people of other nations the USA invades. (However does not explain why you think the USA could do such things to people of any nation worldwide.)


Salaam. A

If someone had the military might to take on the US (which is unrealistic to be fair) then I wouldn't know but I would imagine that any country which is militarily superior to all others has a certain leeway in countries it invades in taking citizens o that country into detention facilities and doing whatever the hell it wants.

As to your specific example, I wouldn't really know because I would be out in the streets throwing molotov cockatils and shooting at the invaders, just like the Iraqis are. And I would be trying to unify my friends and family into a fighting unit to do so more effectively.

Of course, I would not be doing so under the guise of religion but simple freedom... but that is just me.

[SentientMeat]

All the others are being held under military authority, and habeas corpus does not apply.Yes - it is utterly different from "bail" or whatever civil situation you were drawing a parallel with.
The appeals court mentioned that it was "undisputed" that Hamdi had been captured in a war zone, while armed.And how do we know that he had not simply come under fire and acted to defend himself? The Geneva Convention was written to try and prevent these situations and the legal black hole which the suspects in Cuba have fallen into. Their default status is PoW until a competent tribunal decides otherwise, no matter what they're wearing (the Northern Alliance or even US Special Forces would similarly have fallen outside GC provisions given such absurdly strict stipulation for a uniform). US Army regulation 190-8 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf) (PDF) is perfectly clear that this is the default. For six decades, no Western power has sought to weasel out of its own regulation in the way that the US is doing now.

[Dunderman]

Again, are we talking about Gitmo, or in general?
I'm talking in general. Have I even mentioned Gitmo?
FWIW, I understand the situation with many Gitmo prisoners is that they are being held as non-traditional combatants. The "grievance" we have against many of them is that we don't want them to go back and pick up the fight against the US soldiers in Afghanistan.
While I appreciate the problem, I must add: How many of them do you think really will start fighting if allowed to go back? And even if we assume they would, why do they have to be held under these kinds of conditions?
To me, it makes a good deal of difference if they are citizens or not.
Why?
And also, the circumstances under which they were arrested/taken into detention/call it what you like.
Of course. And the circumstances here is that the US invaded their country (if the invasion was justified or not doesn't really enter into it, and for what it's worth I think it probably was) and they fought back. Pretty much anybody would.
I understand the possibility of abuse inherent in the situation. But much of the description of what is going on would like me to believe that innocent Achmed Smith, minding his own business working at the 7-11, suddenly was spirited off in the dead of night by the jack-booted thugs of the Bush administration to Guantanomo Bay prison where he is being held without trial. And I don't think that is exactly what is going on, in every case.
Of course not. But one case is one too many, don't you agree?
But they are not US citizens, and/or were taken while bearing arms against the US. So, basically, boo hoo for them.
This I don't get. I understand that people in different parts of the world are born under different circumstances and have different rights in practice, but to actively want to give some people more rights based on where they were born... why?
Suppose it's 1944, and the ACLU announces that it wants the US to give German POWs the right to file for habeas corpus.
That was a war. It was going to end some day. This isn't a war and will go on for as long as the people in power want it to.
I would imagine that any country which is militarily superior to all others has a certain leeway in countries it invades in taking citizens o that country into detention facilities and doing whatever the hell it wants.
It does have that leeway in practice, yes. We're discussing whether it should use it, thus making the world a less safe place.
As to your specific example, I wouldn't really know because I would be out in the streets throwing molotov cockatils and shooting at the invaders, just like the Iraqis are.
Exactly.

[GomiBoy]

For someone who "has been denied legal representation", Padilla sure seems to fill a lot of legal pads.

Anyway, your allegation about how Padilla has been denied access to his lawyers is incorrect. (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/inthecourts/supreme_court_padilla.htm) His case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And was denied. .

Padilla had 'next friend' briefs filed on his behalf, without consultation with his attorney (a PD assigned in his original hearing in New York before Bush declared him an enemy combatant and whisked him out of the New York State jurisdiction).

As to his 'legal council' allowed to him, I believe it was a 15 minute consultation, one time only in Feb 2003, video and audio recorded, with a military lawyer. His assigned PD (Donna Newman) from New York State has been denied access to her client since his arrest and transportation to South Carolina. She, along with a host of civil rights organizations, filed the request for the Writ of Habeas Corpus on his behalf without his input.

The crux of the problem is that he is not a soldier, was not captured on a foreign battlefield but in Chicago Airport, and as far as can be determined has no significant ties to any foreign agency at war with the US, but is being held under military jurisdiction - why?

To quote your own source:
On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on narrow technical grounds that the case of Jose Padilla, should be heard in a federal court in South Carolina, rather than by a federal court in New York. The Court ruled that Mr. Padilla improperly named Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the Respondent, instead of the warden of the military brig where Mr. Padilla is held. Mr. Padilla has, since his detention in South Carolina, been denied meaningful judicial review.
SCOTUS dodged talking about the issue, instead focusing on the inappropriate respondent named in the filing (Rumsfeld) rather than the proper respondent (the Navy Brig Commander, a Commander Marr). They dodged it, rather than ruling on this critical abuse of power and effective suspension of Habeas Corpus by the Executive. Two federal appeals courts upheld that the classification of Enemy Combatant was illegal and inappropriate, and one (New York) even ordered him released within 30 days. That is what caused the Government to appeal to SCOTUS.


Well, if you like, here (http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/09-771737.html) is a reference to the legal authority under which at least one citizen was held. The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, although with the caveat that prisoners could appeal.

I don't think this means what you think it means, or why did the Government release Hamdi? This judgement means in effect that yes, the military can detain people, and until they are charged they have no rights. But US citizens have the trump card of Habeas Corpus which can force the government to either bring to trial or release those held.

As far as I know, Padilla (whose case reached the Supreme Court), Hamdi (since released), and John Walker Lindh are the only US citizens detained under the circumstances of the Gitmo prisoners. (Lindh was convicted and is doing time.) All the others are being held under military authority, and habeas corpus does not apply.
Fair enough. but does that make it better or worse that only one US citizen is being held in the same legal black hole as hundreds of foreign citizens?

For further reading:
Padilla's Case (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html)
Questions on Legality of Padilla Case (http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html)
Further Questions of Legality of Padilla Case (old) (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/dirty.bomb.suspect/)

[Shodan]

Interesting point, Shodan, and I have a few comments:

1. Habeas corpus in and of itself is not a fundamental right -- it seems to be a primary element in "procedural rights," under the Anglo-American legal system, of guaranteeing a more fundamental right -- that of a fair trial. In short, person X who is alleged to have committed crime Y may very well be locked up for a term of years, for life, or even executed, for having committed crime Y -- but under our system, what "entitles" him to that punishment is being convicted in a court of law, not the bare allegation, however well founded, of a prosecutor, law enforcement officer or agency, or even the U.S. Presidency and Department of Justice.Correct - considering habeas corpus as a civilian legal concept. I believe the finding of the Supreme Court was that detaining illegal combatants is a matter for military justice, not civilian. And judicial review of actions such as detention under the military is not absent, but it is (in the words of the appeals court to which I linked) "highly deferential".

Military and civilian justice are different, and have different priorities. It would be (in my view) inappropriate, or counter-productive, to try to apply the military system in civilian life, just as it would be equally counter-productive to apply civilians standards to the battlefield. Nobody expects soldiers to read the enemy their rights before opening fire. Nobody should expect a military interrogator to get a prisoner a lawyer before asking him, "How many people in your unit, son?"
2. I think you mistake the idea of opposing the denial of habeas corpus for seeking to permit persons accused of crime to go free. Rather, what's being asked is that they "receive a fair trial and a first-class hanging" if they are indeed guilty of the crimes for which they are accused. It's the holding them incommunicato and without trial, not the idea that they may indeed be guilty of waging war against the U.S., that people object to.That's a fair point. Although I will say in my own defence that much of the anti-detention rhetoric tends towards the "either try them OR let them go free" position.

And, since I don't think (in many instances) the prisoners are going to be or should be tried in a court of law, that point of view does not strike me as the only choices.

It seems to me that the ACLU and others would like to treat these Gitmo prisoners taken on the battlefield in the same way they would like to have treated some nineteen-year-old who robs a liquor store with a starter pistol. Which doesn't quite (in my view) recognize the military aspects of the situation. There might, in other words, be more going on than would be evident to someone with an overweening concern solely for the legal niceties. As I said - there's a war on.
3. The question of to what extent non-citizens are entitled to the protections of the American legal system is a good one, with some mutually contradictory case law. Rick, Dewey, minty, or one of the other Dopers-at-law can discuss this at more length. Indeed. And it's a question I am not legally qualified to answer. The ACLU seems to take it for granted that all the non-citizens are subject to every single stricture ever dreamed up. But it seems to be a point of view they are advocating, not a self-evident proposition.

The Gitmo prisoners, by and large, suffer from dual disadvantages. They aren't conventional combatants, and thus aren't subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. But they aren't quite criminals either (and usually aren't US citizens either) so they aren't protected by the Constitution either.

Which is not the same thing as saying they have no rights at all. Nobody is saying they can be tortured with impunity, or summarily executed, or whatever. But I also don't necessarily agree with pounding the round peg of the ACLU's notion of what the Constitution is all about into the square hole of the invasion of Afghanistan.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

Shodan - can I just say before I get a response to my earlier post (if you were going to, that is - not assuming anything here) that I am of the 'either try them or release them' school of thought myself.

The military tribunals promised some time ago to assess the guilt or innocence of the Gimo detainees that are non-US citizens have not materialized, and don't even look like it is a priority for this administration. There is NO legal way or form of redress for these folks to get out of the hole, and some of them could very well be simple goatherds who pissed off the wrong warlord. I'm not saying all of them are, just that there's no way to separate the wheat from the chaff. And you can't even being to tell me that military necessity requires holding a 15 year old kid in conditions that is driving tough field-trained adult soldiers insane and suicidal.

If they are guilty, try them. If the government can't prove their guilt, let them go.

Seems pretty honest, honorable and right to me. Just like the country I try to love and was once upon a time willing to die to defend.

[Shodan]

Padilla had 'next friend' briefs filed on his behalf, without consultation with his attorney (a PD assigned in his original hearing in New York before Bush declared him an enemy combatant and whisked him out of the New York State jurisdiction).

As to his 'legal council' allowed to him, I believe it was a 15 minute consultation, one time only in Feb 2003, video and audio recorded, with a military lawyer. His assigned PD (Donna Newman) from New York State has been denied access to her client since his arrest and transportation to South Carolina. She, along with a host of civil rights organizations, filed the request for the Writ of Habeas Corpus on his behalf without his input.Usually the best way to deal with being proven wrong is to admit it and move on. You claimed that he had no legal representation. He did. You are now claiming (I think) that this counsel was inadequate. It seems to have been adequate to the task of getting him before the Supreme Court, where he failed to prevail. When you lose before the highest court in the land, it seems to me that arguments that you have been railroaded sound a trifle tinny.
The crux of the problem is that he is not a soldier, was not captured on a foreign battlefield but in Chicago Airport, and as far as can be determined has no significant ties to any foreign agency at war with the US, but is being held under military jurisdiction - why?
Respondent Padilla,a United States citizen,was brought to New York for detention in federal criminal custody after federal agents apprehended him while executing a material witness warrant issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District)in connection with its grand jury investigation into the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks.
Cite - PDF. (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf)
So he was originally held as a material witness. He was then declared an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court and Congress have upheld the authority of the President to declare him an enemy combatant. “[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,or persons he determines planned,authorized,committed,or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations,organizations or persons.”115 Stat.224.That's why.

As far as your allegation that "as far as can be determined has no significant ties to any foreign agency at war with the US", I direct you to your own cite:(Padilla's) connections with al-Qaeda operatives were never in doubt...
Fair enough. but does that make it better or worse that only one US citizen is being held in the same legal black hole as hundreds of foreign citizens?Since the said citizen seems to have been fully availed of the appeal process, and his appeals have not convinced the court, I would say it is better.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

Usually the best way to deal with being proven wrong is to admit it and move on.
Just as soon as you prove me wrong, I promise to move on and will even publicly apologise to you for wasting your precious time.

Or, rather than get snarky, how about just read what I posted?


You claimed that he had no legal representation. He did. You are now claiming (I think) that this counsel was inadequate. It seems to have been adequate to the task of getting him before the Supreme Court, where he failed to prevail. When you lose before the highest court in the land, it seems to me that arguments that you have been railroaded sound a trifle tinny.

I didn't say he has had inadequate legal council - your own cite (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/inthecourts/supreme_court_padilla.htm) did. One 15-minute legal conference in over two years sound appropriate to you for a supreme court case, as a reasonable individual? You'd be satisfied with seeing your lawyer once in 2 years when on trial for attempted murder, would you?


Cite - PDF. (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf)
So he was originally held as a material witness. He was then declared an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court and Congress have upheld the authority of the President to declare him an enemy combatant. That's why.

Cite for the SCOTUS or Congress upholding this right? The PDF you cited talks directly about the majority ruling of Padilla's 'next friend' habeas writ, but never mentions the President's right to arbitrarily suspend Habeas Corpus for individual citizens that I could find, be they Enemy Combatants or not, and even with such court 'support' the US released Hamsi. And don't pull out the same one you tried before - that says that non-US Citizens can be held as enemy combatants, but remains silent on keeping US citizens in the same condition.


As far as your allegation that "as far as can be determined has no significant ties to any foreign agency at war with the US", I direct you to your own cite:

Rather than take one sentence out of context, why not read the entire thing (http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html):
And while his connections with al-Qaeda operatives were never in doubt, he suddenly began to look a lot more like the accused shoe-bomber Richard Reid (i.e. another disaffected ex-con from the West desperate to get in with al-Qaeda) than like the sophisticated professionals who put together September 11.

Details, of course, are sketchy, but it appears that Padilla converted to Islam after a prison spell in Florida, and eventually made his way to Afghanistan or Pakistan to make common cause with al-Qaeda. According to the government's account, he approached them with the idea of detonating a "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city, and they obliged by teaching him to wire a bomb. The impression, in the government's own account, is of a former street hoodlum desperate to join a new gang — and being kept at arm's length. An outsider taught to build a bomb (what's not to like, for al-Qaeda, about a U.S. passport holder asking to be taught how to kill his countrymen?) but not necessarily integrated into the organization he was desperate to join. The fact that the authorities arrested Padilla immediately on his arrival in Chicago rather than following him around in the hope that he would reveal al-Qaeda operatives already on U.S. soil says volumes about how little may have known about the organization.


Since the said citizen seems to have been fully availed of the appeal process, and his appeals have not convinced the court, I would say it is better.


Yeah, right. The SCOTUS never addressed the central issue, which is whether he was legally held as an enemy combatant, but instead addressed a technicality and remanded the case to the lower court. That's certainly my idea of justice.

Did you bother to read the dissenting opinion? I'll quote a little bit of Justice Steven's (with Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer joining in dissent) words to you:
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this case raises questions of profound importance to the Nation. The arguments set forth by the Court do not justify avoidance of our duty to answer those questions. It is quite wrong to characterize the proceeding as a “simple challenge to physical custody,” ante, at 13, that should be resolved by slavish application of a “bright-line rule,” ante, at 21, designed to prevent “rampant forum shopping” by litigious prison inmates, ante, at 19. As the Court’s opinion itself demonstrates, that rule is riddled with exceptions fashioned to protect the high office of the Great Writ. This is an exceptional case that we clearly have jurisdiction to decide.

Sounds like he was a bit unhappy that his fellow Justices dodged the issue, to me...

[GomiBoy]

I hear crickets in the background... Do you have a response, Shodan?

[GomiBoy]

Oh, and another interesting tidbit.

Newman, the PD for Padilla in New York, filed her habeas writ on behalf of her client on June 11th, 2 days after her client had been moved to the navy brig in SC. At that time, she was informed, not by the prosecution as required by law, but by the media through Ashcroft's statement during a press conference held in Moscow, Russia, that Padilla had been moved.

From Justice Steven's dissent, page 4:
It is reasonable to assume that if the Government had given Newman, who was then representing repondent in an adversary proceeding, notice of its intent to ask the District Court to vacate the outstanding material witness warrant and transfer custody to the Department of Defense, Newman would have filed the habeas petition then and there, rather than two days later.

As this incorrect filing was half of the cause the SCOTUS majority remanding this ruling to the lower court used as justification, it was pretty damn important to get it right. This was the technicality that the conservative majority on SCOTUS used to duck this particular problem.

In addition to this, in Steven's dissent he further states (footnote 2, page 3):
The order vacating the material witness warrant that the District Court entered in the ex parte proceeding on June 9 terminated the Government's lawful custody of respondent. After that order was entered, Secretary Rumsfeld's agents took custody of respondent. The authority for that action was based entirely on the President's command to the Secretary - a document that, needless to say, would not even arguably qualify as a valid warrant. Thus, wheras respondent's custody during the period between May 8 and June 9, 2002, was pursuant to a judicially authorized seizure, he has been held ever since - for two years - pursuant to a warrantless arrest.

So, since Stevens and 3 other Supreme Court Justices think justice has yet to be done, that Padilla is being held illegally, and that the whole thing was dodging 'the duty of the court,' yeah, I think I kind of have a point that maybe Padilla hasn't yet had his day in court.

Or maybe I will just let Stevens speak for himself, as he's a pretty eloquent guy:
Executive detention of subversive citizens, like detention of enemy soldiers to keep them off the battlefield, may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction. It may not, however, be justified by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure. Whether the information so procured is more or less reliable that that acquired by more extreme forms of torture is of no consequence. For if this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.

[Shodan]

Point of clarification - are you expecting us to believe that dissenting opinions constitute the findings of the Court?

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

Point of clarification - are you expecting us to believe that dissenting opinions constitute the findings of the Court?

Regards,
Shodan

Of course not;

My only point is that Stevens, along with the other dissenting Justices, believes the issue at the heart of the case has yet to be heard, that the government acted in such a fashion as to make it impossible for the PD to file her case correctly, and that they are holding someone with no significant intelligence to offer incommunicado in a Navy Brig in violation of Federal Law.

Of course, that should be no big deal, really. I trust the Executive to do the right thing.

[Shodan]

Just as soon as you prove me wrong, I promise to move on and will even publicly apologise to you for wasting your precious time.Well, let's see. So far, you have claimed that Padilla had no legal representation, which was wrong, that the legal representation was inadequate, which was also wrong, that there was no evidence linking him to al-Queda, which your own cite contradicted, and now that what Justice Stevens said is more important than the actual findings of the Supreme Court.
Cite for the SCOTUS or Congress upholding this right? Perhaps you could read the cite immediately following my claim.
Or, rather than get snarky, how about just read what I posted?
Indeed.
Of course, that should be no big deal, really. I trust the Executive to do the right thing.
You don't have to. They are subject to judicial review, as in this case. That's how our system operates.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

Well, let's see. So far, you have claimed that Padilla had no legal representation, which was wrong,
OK, you win. He saw his lawyer for about a month (from his arrest May 8th 2002, until two days prior to his secret midnight transfer June 11th, 2002, then once more in Feb 2003). So you're right, he did have legal representation. Just not enough.


that the legal representation was inadequate, which was also wrong,

Your cite, not mine. And it was inadequate, unbeliveably so. Would you accept seeing your lawyer for about a month (I assume with a bit of regularity), then only one single time in 2 years, if you were on trial for your life and through the appeals process? I am curious as to your answer.


that there was no evidence linking him to al-Queda, which your own cite contradicted,
No significant ties to Al-Queda, not none. For someone being as pedantic as you are, I am surprised you missed that.


and now that what Justice Stevens said is more important than the actual findings of the Supreme Court.

Not what I said, but go for your life if that's what you want to read into it. What I said was that his opinion stated that the core issue of whether he was held illegal or not was not addressed by the Court, instead the Court focused on two technicalities.


Perhaps you could read the cite immediately following my claim.
Indeed.
Did that; just couldn't find that cite anywhere in the linked PDF (which I assume was your source) or in any other judicial sources including findlaw.


You don't have to. They are subject to judicial review, as in this case. That's how our system operates.

Thank you for that excellent lesson in Government 101. Now if we can return for a moment to my premise, which is that the Court (according to Stevens et al) failed to meet it's duty and instead of addressing the core Constitutional issue of habeas corpus and illegal holding of US Citizens incommunicado instead addressed two technicalities allowing the case to be remanded to a lower court.

You have a fascinating view of my statements, Shodan. I wonder where you are getting them from, because it is clearly not what I said.

[glee]

I understand the possibility of abuse inherent in the situation. But much of the description of what is going on would like me to believe that innocent Achmed Smith, minding his own business working at the 7-11, suddenly was spirited off in the dead of night by the jack-booted thugs of the Bush administration to Guantanomo Bay prison where he is being held without trial. And I don't think that is exactly what is going on, in every case.


Well I did one Google search:

"Three British prisoners released last week from Guantanamo Bay have revealed the full extent of British government involvement in the American detention camp condemned by law lords and the Court of Appeal as a 'legal black hole'.
Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed and Asif Iqbal, the so-called 'Tipton Three', speaking for the first time since their release at a secret location in southern England, have disclosed to The Observer the fullest picture yet of life inside the camp on Cuba where America continues to hold 650 detainees.

After more than 200 interrogation sessions each, with the CIA, FBI, Defence Intelligence Agency, MI5 and MI6, America has been forced to admit its claims that the three were terrorists who supported al-Qaeda had no foundation."

"the picture painted by the three released prisoners is of a Security Service which saw them as mere 'interrogation fodder', and questioned them repeatedly throughout their 26-month stay."

"Ahmed described an interrogation session which took place before he left Afghanistan by an officer of MI5 and another official who said he was from the Foreign Office: 'All the time I was kneeling with a guy standing on the backs of my legs and another holding a gun to my head.

'The MI5 says: "I'm from the UK, I'm from MI5, I've got some questions for you," he told me: "We've got your name, we've got your passport, we know you've been funded by an extremist group and we know you've been to this mosque in Birmingham. We've got photos of you."' In fact, none of these claims was true."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0%2C11026%2C1169152%2C00.html

[Brutus]

Of course. Those three were obviously in Afghanistan for the tourism, and much like Weekend at Bernies, before they knew it, they were caught up in quite a zany caper.

[glee]

Of course. Those three were obviously in Afghanistan for the tourism, and much like Weekend at Bernies, before they knew it, they were caught up in quite a zany caper.

Gosh, you must have a wonderful security clearance!

"After more than 200 interrogation sessions each, with the CIA, FBI, Defence Intelligence Agency, MI5 and MI6, America has been forced to admit its claims that the three were terrorists who supported al-Qaeda had no foundation."

Can you tell us where the weapons of mass destruction are?

[glee]

"Guantanamo may also hold a significant number of civilians. Anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan regularly cast a wide net, sweeping up non-combatants, and many of those they captured were delivered to U.S. officials, and in at least some cases in exchange for bounty payments. According to several sources, ranging from interviews with former detainees to press reports citing U.S. officials in Afghanistan, as many as several dozen detainees sent to Guantanamo were simply farmers, taxi drivers, and laborers with no meaningful ties to the Taliban or al-Qaeda—not the enemy combatants the Bush Administration claimed."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm

[Dunderman]

Of course. Those three were obviously in Afghanistan for the tourism, and much like Weekend at Bernies, before they knew it, they were caught up in quite a zany caper.
I think you'd do much better if you tried to present a coherent argument instead of making these little quips. The only conclusion one can draw from this particular one is that you think that someone present in a country that the US is attacking must by definition be guilty of something, and therefore detaining them is the reasonable thing to do. I'm quite sure that's not what you mean, but that's the only way I can interpret your statement.

[glee]

I think you'd do much better if you tried to present a coherent argument instead of making these little quips. The only conclusion one can draw from this particular one is that you think that someone present in a country that the US is attacking must by definition be guilty of something, and therefore detaining them is the reasonable thing to do. I'm quite sure that's not what you mean, but that's the only way I can interpret your statement.

You're too polite. :)

Brutus obviously thinks that anyone anywhere in the World who Rumsfeld says is a terrorist should be given life imprisonment without trial.
Family and lawyers will not be allowed to visit, since they are left-wing agitators.
Of course Mr. Torture is always welcome to drop by.

[GomiBoy]

Of course. Those three were obviously in Afghanistan for the tourism, and much like Weekend at Bernies, before they knew it, they were caught up in quite a zany caper.

Glee provided a cite for his/her information. As this is GD, do you have a cite saying that the holding of Gitmo detainees has aided the US's efforts in the War on Terror? Or a cite pointing to the guilt of any of the Gitmo detainees in acts which would justify holding these detainees in such cruel and unusual conditions?

[Shodan]

that the legal representation was inadequate, which was also wrong,
Your cite, not mine. And it was inadequate, unbeliveably so. Would you accept seeing your lawyer for about a month (I assume with a bit of regularity), then only one single time in 2 years, if you were on trial for your life and through the appeals process? I am curious as to your answer.
Are you? I have already given my answer, which is that I find it hard to believe that a case that has already made it to the Supreme Court has not been given adequate legal attention. Read the cite...
Did that; just couldn't find that cite anywhere in the linked PDF (which I assume was your source) or in any other judicial sources including findlaw.Didn't look very far, did you?

I will save you the effort. It is from the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Joint Resolution, Pub.L.107 – 40,115 Stat.224 (AUMF), enacted by Congress on September 18, 2001. See the footnote?

If you aren't going to read the cites, I tend to lose interest in the discussion. Have a nice Christmas.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

Are you? I have already given my answer, which is that I find it hard to believe that a case that has already made it to the Supreme Court has not been given adequate legal attention.

But the case made it to the Supremes without his lawyer having contact with his client. That's what a Next Friend brief means!


Didn't look very far, did you?

Uh, yeah, but I assumed (incorrectly) that your cite came from the PDF of the Document. I see I was wrong, and apologize.


I will save you the effort. It is from the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Joint Resolution, Pub.L.107 – 40,115 Stat.224 (AUMF), enacted by Congress on September 18, 2001. See the footnote?

I didn't understand the footnote, so thanks for pointing out the cite. I didn't mean to sound snarky (on that particular point) and am sorry if I was.

But it still doesn't address my question. Where does this give the President the right to arbitrarily suspend Habeas Corpus for select US citizens?


If you aren't going to read the cites, I tend to lose interest in the discussion.

Hopefully, the above is enough. I am enjoying this discussion, whilst I completely disagree with you, and hope we can continue it civilly. I have read all of your cites, but just couldn't find more detail on that specific one quoted.


Have a nice Christmas.

You, too. And a Happy New Year to boot.

[Shodan]

Uh, yeah, but I assumed (incorrectly) that your cite came from the PDF of the Document. I see I was wrong, and apologize.


I didn't understand the footnote, so thanks for pointing out the cite. I didn't mean to sound snarky (on that particular point) and am sorry if I was.

But it still doesn't address my question. Where does this give the President the right to arbitrarily suspend Habeas Corpus for select US citizens?


Hopefully, the above is enough. I am enjoying this discussion, whilst I completely disagree with you, and hope we can continue it civilly. I have read all of your cites, but just couldn't find more detail on that specific one quoted.


You, too. And a Happy New Year to boot.
Actually, you are right. I have been more snarky to you than was deserved. My apologies, and my appreciation for your gracious response.

I will be out of town for the next few days, and so mostly unavailable for posting. So the thread will likely have to do without me for a bit. But I appreciate your apology, and offer my own in return.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

My apologies, and my appreciation for your gracious response.


Apology accepted, and please do have a really nice holiday.

Cheers,

C