Would you agree that, if something is not explicitly stated in a law, this administration has a track record of interpreting the law in the fashion that gives the most power to the administration? Would you agree that this administration has, in the past, shown a propensity to try to repeal some civil and human rights (e.g. arguing that U.S. citizens should be able to be held indefinitely without trial, or that torture should be an allowed method of interrogation?) Would you agree that, even in the case of laws written clearly and explicitly, with stated time limites (e.g. FISA), the current administration has argued that such laws do not apply in the current state of emergency?
I am sorry, but I do not share in your belief that the consequences of violating this vague “reasonable time” for imprisonment will be a deterrent for the executive branch.
I’ll agree that this is something to be concerned about. Arrested on US soil is a different thing than capturing someone during war and having to be pulled out of action to testify.
The text does state that the limitation is only for persons “properly detained as an enemy combatant or awaiting such determination”. That does not sound like rock solid protection for legal residents / visitors.
I don’t know how the lack of HC rights affects the trial process, does that make it legal to hold you without trial and without the ability to present a defense?
My bad. Uniformed soldiers of nations, when captured, become POWs and there are well-established criteria for dealing with them. These people are not criminals, they are members of a regular military. Things used to sort themselves out because eventually the war ends and all the POWs go free. Now we’re dealing with a “war” that will never end, so there will be no final resolution.
Even allowing that wars can sometimes last a very, very long time (See, e.g., The Hundred Years War, which lasted 116 years; the Aceh War, which lasted between 30 and 69 years; the Sudanese Civil War, which started in 1955 and is still going on), all wars end. Eventually, this one will, too, even if it only ends with a whimper wherein we just sort of stop fighting. I think it will clearly end sometime because eventually, people’s attention has a way of turning toward different things.
When you start fighting a war, no one knows how long wars will be fought. I’m not sure I think it’s a good idea to establish rules at the outset based on the assumption that a war will never end, especially considering that history seems to indicate that all wars end.
Dunno about the rest of you Dopers, but it seems to me that most of the “assurances” of this resolution (and the basis for much of Age Quod Agis’ non-concern) is contingent upon the goodwill and honest brokering of the President and/or the various “military judges” involved – which seems like a rather tenuous and scary leap of faith, IMO.
“The dungeons of the palace held a number of felons imprisoned ‘at his lordship’s pleasure,’ and since Lord Vetinari was seldom very pleased they were generally in for the long haul.”
– Terry Pratchett, The Last Hero
So, if you are unfairly accused, and imprisoned without recourse to even notification of others that you have been imprisoned, as long as you get out in 114 years, you don’t mind all that much.
As I’ve said a number times now, the law does not allow for anyone to be imprisoned “without recourse to even notification of others that you have been imprisoned.” If you’re saying it does, then your position is starting to trickle over into willful ignorance.
Regardless, I’d appreciate it if you would leave the ridiculous strawmen out of this. If you can’t respond to my actual arguments, then maybe it’s time to re-evaluate your position.
I think that’s quite the point. Since all the empowered entities are creatures of the Executive, what check or balance exists? We are already advised that secret evidence can be offered that the defense team cannot practicably challenge. What about the innocent coward who confesses either from fear of torture or actual torture? I think it fair to assume that his confession might be offered without quailification. The prosecution is somehow enjoined from keeping the nature of the confession secret? How?
As to a threat to the more or less normal American citizen…no, not so much. But I do not see any explicit statement making such a thing impossible. Why not? If the Bushiviks are snowy white innocent of any such intent, why not make that clear beyond any question? What would be the harm of publicly forgoing an option one would not stoop to?
Its not so much a slippery slope as being nibbled to death by ducks. And once a rogue duck gets a taste for human flesh…
Well, Age, if you speak from certainty, please cite. Have all the detainees been afforded the opportunity to communicate with relatives? Unless, of course, those relatives happen to be lawyers? If any have not, is there something in this law that would compel such? Or is it merely that nothing in the law forbids such humane and decent behavior?
Cite what? That the detainees have all been previously allowed to have meet and greets with their relatives? I’d be happy to do so, just as soon as you point out where I made the contention.
Look, if it would be more convenient for you guys, I’ll just step out of this argument altogether. You folks aren’t actually arguing against anything I’ve said anyway.
And how would you make such a thing impossible? You are, after all, talking about a statute that makes the feared act illegal. How would you go about making it impossible?
This wasn’t you? And, no, you didn’t say “meet and greet”, but on the other hand, neither did anyone else.
And the clarification call was for wording. You say the law does not allow, I ask does it specifically forbid. If the law is silent on the subject, then it is fair to say that it does not “allow”, in that there is no proviso specificly permitting such. But does it actually *forbid * such a thing?
Definitions can be so restricting, Frosty. If we let our enemies know what we mean by “reasonable”, as in some sort of timetable, we weaken our position and send the wrong message to our troops. Further, we give up flexibility: The Leader’s uncanny skill in adapting to circumstances, and his innate genius for improvisation, which has brought us to our current happy state.
At least you’ve accurately quoted me this time. But if you read my quote, you’ll note that I said this:
Then you responded with this:
Did I ever say that the detainees had been afforded an opportunity to communicate with relatives?
… Of course not.
I never said that relatives were allowed to visit the detainees under this law. And even if I had said that, I never said that the detainees had already been given the opportunity to visit relatives (the law was 2 days old when you said this). So it’s dishonest to ask me for a cite for that proposition.
What I did say was the under this law, other people would be notified that the detainees had been been imprisoned. And they will.
First of all, I don’t see any difference between “not allowing” something and “forbidding” something.
A law allows anything it does not specifically forbid. You can’t say that a law prohibiting drunken driving “does not allow” kindergartners to fingerpaint. It does allow it because it doesn’t forbid it.
Second, this law says that the prisoner has to be provided with an attorney. The detainee has to be provided with a trial in front a judge and jury. The detainee also has to be provided with an appeal to civil courts. The detainee is exposed to other prisoners, guards, medical personnel, administrative personnel, interrogators, investigators, and others. The Red Cross has to be allowed access to detainees (under different laws). How exactly do you suppose that no one is notified of the prisoner’s imprisonment?