I have always thought that one of the indicators of greatness and lack of insecurity in individuals and in peoples is that they admit their mistakes and wrongdoing graciously and without hesitation. America is not in that category.
It will take two or three generations for Americans to feel they can condemn what was done and they will still find plenty of excuses. Like slavery, Japanese internments, McCarthysm, etc. Not only those who did it but those who didn’t care and even some who thought it was a bad idea have this inflated sense of not wanting America to admit having done any wrong and will oppose any such recognition or even admission of such possibility. They are the ones who want to “move on” and not “waste time”. America is right up there with China and Japan when it comes to saving face and not admitting any wrongdoing. Of course, to outsiders it just seems to be what it really is: the insecurity of admitting that America is not perfect and maybe even not the best of the best in everything. That maybe it is just one more nation, with many goog things and a few bad things which, like others, has made a few mistakes along the way.
This is not a matter of being republican or democrat. Americans are very nationalist and will find excuses for things done by America which they would outright condemn if done by others.
If American citizens were being held and tortured by any other country like the people being held in Guantanamo all Americans would be up in arms demanding death and destruction. It would be simply inconceivable that any country could have any good excuse for that. But if America does it then there must be a good reason.
It is really simple: If it is more important to put the criminal behind bars, you use the evidence against him in a court of law and convict. If it is more important to hide the evidence for whatever reason, you let the suspect go. Period. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either keeping government secrets or punishing terrorists is more important. Pick one.
Try them or let them go, those are the choices. Would you allow consideration of any other choice if these prisoners were your friends and family? Hell no! It is inexcusable that this is even a debate.
I hate uncalled-for accusations of racism more than anyone, but I think this one is called for: This shit wouldn’t fly for two seconds if those ‘terror suspects’ were pretty white girls or clean-shaven white guys. But since they’re brown, bearded, scary foreigners, they are monsters that must be locked away without a trial. There is no way to excuse this. It is institutional racism as bad or worse than the internment of the Japanese.
I am first going to give a shout-out for your early introduction of the actual text of the Constitution in a discussion of constitutional matters. It’s always the starting point.
I am second going to say that I don’t think the Constitution applies, or fully applies, to non-citizens [and I am third going to concede that the courts don’t really agree with me, but I’m okay with that].
If the suspects really are as dangerous as is being implied, the evidence shouldn’t be tenuous at all. And if by some freak possibility they can not convict without sacrificing assets, you let them go, follow their every move and arrest everyone of interest who they contact, or you wait until you can nail them for something worthwhile, rather than supposition.
I’m not sure I agree with this. 9/11 made it patently obvious that “some guys” (who happened to be from a well-funded terrorist network) CAN in fact seriously endanger national security.
I do however agree that quite a few of these people are likely being held on flimsy pretense, if any, like being in the wrong place at the wrong time while happening to be muslim. But I refuse to believe that the previous administration, no matter how egregious, simply rounded up a bunch of brown dudes, locked them up and threw away the key.
I’m pretty comfortable in believing that many of those detained at Gitmo were put there for good reason. But it’s past time to try them in a court of law and prove it.
Of course it can be argued that by behaving in this manner, the US government itself has imperilled national security by eroding the rights to a fair and timely trial.
Look at the illegal phone taps as well, and the attempts to intrude using electronic surveillance on what amounts to fishing expeditions based on little or no evidence at all.
Sometimes you have to look around and see just who is really the bigger threat.
That makes no sense. The courts interpret the laws, not you. You are therefore just wrong. The most you can say is that, in your opinion, things should be different.
No civilized country, as far as I know, has ever restricted the rights of non-citizens to due process of law in criminal and civil trials. Doing this would be such a blatant injustice that it would put any country who did that in the same league as the most primitive countries. The fact that many Americans, even on this board, propose such an idea is a good indicator of American mentality as to where they stand with respect to the rest of the world. I find this frame of thought mind-boggling. Many Americans believe this and I find it very ugly.
Now, if Americans believe non-Americans are not entitled to all rights and guarantees due Americans why would Americans expect foreigners to believe Americans were entitled to any rights? If you can deny one right on account of nationality why can you not deny others?
Actually… a lot of them did this. You can argue over whetehr or nto they should have, but that they did is undeniable.
For me, however, the issue is something else entirely. These people broke no American law and we have no jurisdiction over them. Any assertion that we have the right to try them would be an unsconscionable assertion that American law applies to anyone anywhere in the world.
I would rather harm the man and keep the law honorable than make the law. The man may be guilty once, but one dishonored, the law itself will be guilty.
It is old by now. Scare your people and tell them only you can be trusted to protect them from “terrorists”. They will give their rights up instantly. How can you expect them to respect the rights of others ?
Don’t be surprised if other countries take umbrage . Their citizens are taken away to an American gulag, perhaps forever. No trial and no charges. It is wrong.
If your sources are too important to be revealed in a trial, then the suspect is not important enough to put in jail. If you put him in jail he deserved a fair trial and a chance to defend himself.
I’m having an email discussion with an old friend regarding this very subject. He’s one of the fear-bound citizens who is willing to give up his rights if it means these guys will be put away. And he thinks he’s the true American. Sigh…I barely recognize him anymore.
Maybe I misunderstood the cases, but to the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never held that Guantanamo detainees are due ALL the protections of our Constitution. Certainly habeas. Most likely due process. But not the rest.
Really? Cite?
Putting aside the inflamed rhetoric, do you not see the difference between advocating due process for detainees, and advocating that they get the full panoply of every right in our criminal justice system?
I think Americans are entitled to due process wherever they go. I do not, however, expect them to receive every US constitutional protection in foreign court, nor do I expect that the rules of evidence in our federal system apply to every court in the world.
Begging your indulgence, what were your feelings on the Nuremberg trials, the War Crimes trials after WWII by the US, or other tribunals that sought to enforce the “laws of war”?
If the US says someone is a criminal, then YES, we need to afford them all the rights criminals are granted in the US. It doesn’t matter whether they’re classified as terrorists, POWs, whatever. They are accused of something and their accusers need to back up those accusations with evidence in a fair, public (it’s a little late for speedy) trial. Anything less is Inquisition-style crime on the part of the US government. It is not defensible.
Ask yourself what those rights are there for. It isn’t some wishy-washy “love everybody” hippy bullshit. Those rights are in place to ensure justice is served. Do you want to put innocent people behind bars? Do you want the real criminal (or terrorist, or whatever) to go free while we detain the wrong guy? If not, then the detainees need to be tried by a jury, with all the rights suspected criminals in this country are due.
Again with the inflamed rhetoric and false dichtomies. It’s not a simple one or other like you want to portray it to be; that it’s either criminal trials in the US or it’s “inquisition style crime”. Military commissions have been used in this country since the founding; and they’ve been used worldwide for centuries. International law, US law, and a great many treaties, all recognize that. The reality is that a crime in Afghanistan is nothing like a crime in Chicago. We don’t have police force, CSI, grand juries, or any of the thousands of things that we have in the US. Expecting the civilian criminal justice system to be the ONLY way to try someone arrested in a foreign country during a war is just silly. And I won’t even mention the arrogance of insisting that the American criminal system is the ONLY one in the entire world that is just and the entirety of the rest of the world’s tribunals are on par with the Inquisition. Oops, I did mention it.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Again with the false dichotomy. Good luck with those.
Your mind is very, very easily boggled, and your knowledge of history limited.
The courts have been wrong, and reversed themselves, before. Check out Dred Scott. And mind you, the only reason I concede that the prevailing judicial mindset grants some (not all) rights of U.S. citizens to aliens is that there was a late 1800s court case that said so – which implicitly acknowledges that up until then, people thought they did not.
I don’t necessarily think I can be President of Holland or that I enjoy full rights to free speech or voting in Korea. Why would I? I haven’t joined or endorsed their respective social contracts, I haven’t paid a penny of taxes there.
Say I call the CIA or somebody and say “Hamlet is a terrorist.” What specifically should they do about it, and in what way is the situation with Gitmo detainees different?
I’m a US citizen, in the US, with all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They should fully investigate me in accordance with the law. Of course they’ll get pretty bored, pretty quickly, and then they’ll probably come after you for false reports.
The detainees in Guantanamo are not US citizens and they did not commit their crimes in the US. They certainly should be given due process, both in the determination of their status and in any trial they face. But there is no reason to conclude that the civilian criminal justice system in the US is the ONLY place in the entire world where there are fair trials.
Nobody said the US is the only place in the world where there are fair trials. But they are in the US, being accused by the US, so they should be tried according to US rules, the same as any other suspected criminal accused by the US.
Why does citizenship matter? Are you saying they should investigate you according to the law, but if the accused isn’t a US citizen, we should just lock them up and be done with it? Why? Just because it’s easier, or what?