I’m onboard with fighting terror, but isn’t this pushing the “special circumstances” envelope past the breaking point for a country that likes to call itself a nation of laws? Doesn’t this proposed lifetime “detainment” without specific charges and a trial go against everything we stand for as a nation?
That envelope was taken out and shot at dawn ages ago. And you can call yourself what you like, but don’t expect anyone to believe you.
Well, at least they’ll get healthy portions of Freedom Toast…
No, really, I like the precedent. Detaining suspected enemies for life with no evidence whatsoever of their suspicions. I’m sure that’ll play out real well as the rest of the world advances the concept of “international law”.
I’m seriously becoming afraid that America is going to end up being the left-out ex-superpower in a few decades, having alienated most of the world and lost its technological advantages and industrial capacity to Europe and China.
First the sentence, and maybe someday the US will charge them with a crime. Either #1) Reuters is lying, or #2) the Bush administration is evil. “detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence”??? If there is a lack of evidence, would it not make sense to free these people?
Blah. If it is true, then it makes a mockery of some of this country’s most basic founding principles.
- No unlawful imprisonment.
- The right to a speedy trial.
- The right to face one’s accusers.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
What do you mean, ‘if it’s true’? The first prisonners arrived at Guantanamo three years ago. It made a mockery of all those things then.
These points have been rejected by the Justice Dept. some time ago as being applicable only to US Citizens. If you’re not part of the citizen club we can treat you virtually as we please (and they have).
This latest proposal goes beyond the “exigencies of war” argument that shaped most of the Justice Depts. Gitmo (and elsewhere) detainment argument over the past few years. They’re preparing to formalize the notion of indefinite detainment for non citizens, sans evidence to make their case, because they “know” they’re baduns.
Avenger, you are right. Three years is far too long. If there were any legitimate charges or evidence, it should have been acted on long ago.
I guess that means the “All men are created equal” part is out the window too then. I don’t remember those words saying anything about citizen vs. noncitizen or “us vs. them”. The words said ALL.
It’s ironic that this mockery of justice is being helped along by the Department of Justice, in the same way the Committee for Public Safety was responsble for the Reign of Terror.
Bear in mind, some of these people undoubtedly are genuine terrorists and should be detained indefinitely. But due to the typically bumbling manner in which our current administration has handled this matter, we’re once again on the defensive. If we managed to ensure fair trials and lifetime imprisonments for the Nazis, why can’t we have a trial for these people?
While it’s not pleasant at the moment, like many other unfortunate things, the Bush administration will someday pass. A future President will release the prisoners, with a degree of publicity reflecting his connection with the Bush presidency. Historians will form a consensus that George Bush’s contribution to civil rights and the rule of law was on par with his contributions to America’s financial well-being and international relations.
Washington Post article (More detailed than Reuters story) referencing same plan.
Yeah, but they lost and weren’t in government anymore. Oh, you meant the prisonners…
So let me get this straight: the U.S. Government is going to take all the suspected terrorists that it has been holding for the past three years, without bringing them to trial, or even bringing charges against them due to lack of evidence, and build prisons to hold them for life in their home countries. Then they’re going to ask those countries, none of which have a good record of supporting human rights, to follow human rights standards in the prisons, which they will operate, on pain of being given 40 lashes with a wet noodle by the U.S. State Department, should they go out of compliance.
Gee, that sounds like a good, well-thought out plan to me! :rolleyes:
The only way I sleep at night is to repeat the mantra “The 22nd Amendment means Bush won’t always be president.”
But will the new prisons still allow torture?
“A British detainee at Guantanamo Bay has told his lawyer he was tortured using the ‘strappado’, a technique common in Latin American dictatorships in which a prisoner is left suspended from a bar with handcuffs until they cut deeply into his wrists.
The reason, the prisoner says, was that he was caught reciting the Koran at a time when talking was banned.”
“Stafford Smith’s letter to Tony Blair - which has been declassified - says that on his visit to the Guantanamo prisoners, he heard ‘credible and consistent evidence that both men have been savagely tortured at the hands of the United States’ with Begg having suffered not only physical but ‘sexual abuse’ which has had ‘mental health consequences’.”
Of course. They’ve said that they will ensure that the prisons abide by recognised standards of human rights. And they’ve already long ago recognised that these people don’t have any human rights. Easy, see.
It may have been rejected by the Justice Dept and the lower courts, but not yet I believe by SCOTUS. And in the arguments presented in the case below (US District Court), I recall at least one justice refering to this language in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:
That judge interpreted this language to mean that states (not sure how it would apply to Federal cases) could not (1) abridge the rights of citizens, or (2) deprive any person, citizen or no, of due process and equal protection. The Bush regime has argued that Gitmo is not US jurisdiction. This would be laughable if people’s lives weren’t on the line.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the full transcript. Anyone know more?
I hope someone can provide some more cites, but listening to recent arguments by the Bush regime on this topic was very scary!
Let us hope that enough citizens will see the dangers of this course of action by the current administration before it’s too late.
I said it here, and I’ll say it again (gotta shout it): THERE IS NO CRIME SO HEINOUS THAT ITS MERE ACCUSATION WARRANTS SUSPENSION OF BASIC RIGHTS TO FAIR TRIAL.
Why? Because it allows unscrupulous people in power to deny rights arbitrarily, and it prevents innocent parties from being discovered as innocent, which in turn means that the actual perpetrators of crime are never discovered and prosecuted.
Unfortunately, this is just another data point for the rest of the world to use when we ask them, “Why do you hate America?” 
(Currently reading Why Do People Hate America?, by Sardar and Davies. Highly recommended.)
I remember reading science fiction stories, years ago, where the ruling class of the USA began denying traditional rights it suddenly found inconvenient or merely offensive to grant. I said, no, not here, we’re all liberals, even the so-called conservatives.
Sixteen years of Rusty Limbaugh denouncing “liberals,” & now the right-wing believe that liberalism must be evil, so they must be fascists.
We may be at frog-in-the-water-on-the-stove time. But hey, maybe they’ll just keep abusing non-Americans, with an appeal to the idea that it doesn’t hurt us, & our rights are protected by positive law.
I had this argument on New Year’s Eve. Some people don’t understand empathy.
In 50 years time, when the decline fo the US becomes more obvious, despite its own struggles to remain at the top, this will be seen as a huge indicator, even if many other events led up to it.
Indefinate detention without trial, abduction, torture.
Add to that a massivley increasing budget deficit, and no real prospect of action to deal with this, and a war in two locations very distant.
The reasons for the war were all cover up lies to gain control of oil, and the refuasl to sign up to the Kyoto protocols shows that the power hungry US is only intent upon maintaining its own power, at the expense of the rights of others, soon its own citizens will suffer loss of rights, its inevitable.
Your economy will stagnate, as those with ideas and genius will leave, or refuse to come to the US and live in such a repressive regime.
Ok, OK, it looks far from likely at the moment, there are plenty of other possible futures, I wonder who will take it up and return the US back to its ideals that tore it away from the corrupt British system that gave it birth so long ago.
The thing that has always bothered me, and which I have been to lazy or busy to research simply because it doesn’t concern me directly and because no body seem to be willing to pay me to do it, is the language of, not the Fourteenth Amendment which applies to the several States of the Union, but of the Fifth Amendment which restricts the power of the national government and which provides in part:
“…nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
That language, it seems to me, is pretty hard to get around. Note that the prohibition is on depriving any person, not any citizen.
Clearly there are procedures and bodies of law and practice which are applicable to the “Unlawful Combatants.” Clearly we dealt with Axis and Japanese war criminals after WWII in a way that has generally been accepted as just. Equally clearly there is a body of law and procedure for dealing with prisoners of war. Apparently the Administration has chosen to ignore both these charted courses in favor of a novel approach. It may not be all that novel. We have the example of the British practice of interment without trial in Northern Ireland and an ages old practice of sticking political prisoners off in some dark hole where they will not disturb the Prince.
It seems to me that sooner or later the National Government will have to face up to the problem of treating a fair number of people as outlaws, people who can be dealt with at discretion without regard for the ordinary rules and unrestrained by the foundation charter. If you are saddled with a government which refuses to confront unpleasant realities, or any issue that cannot be made to advance its agenda, then you can figure that the day of reckoning will not be any time soon.