# Life in prison for Gitmo inmates because of insufficient evidence to charge them? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-in-prison-for-gitmo-inmates-because-of-insufficient-evidence-to-charge-them/282694 "2005-01-02T15:30:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-in-prison-for-gitmo-inmates-because-of-insufficient-evidence-to-charge-them/282694/141 "2005-01-06T17:59:23Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well, gosh darn it, there’s another six billion individuals out there that could cause the same amount of damage. How’re they going to lock them all up? And, of course, all 6 billion people in the world could be murderers, too. Since we can’t differentiate between the murderers and non-murderers, I guess we need to either lock everyone up or let all the murderers go free. Except we can differentiate between groups. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-in-prison-for-gitmo-inmates-because-of-insufficient-evidence-to-charge-them/282694/142 "2005-01-06T18:06:41Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > And, of course, all 6 billion people in the world could be murderers, too. Since we can’t differentiate between the murderers and non-murderers, I guess we need to either lock everyone up or let all the murderers go free. > > Except we can differentiate between groups. Well, no, what we’re going for is differentiation betwene individuals, not groups. But that’s semantic. And the way that civilized nations differentiate between individuals who are murderers and individuals who are not is by adhering to laws. You know - courts, trials, international agreements, habeus corpus, and things of that sort. You don’t differentiate by just having the government lock people up indefinitely without the benefit of evidence or law. Until hearings are held, Gitmo isn’t the behaviour of a civilized nation. They’re either POWs, and therefore should be recognized as such, or aren’t, and should get their day in court. One or the other. A decision has to be made here, or else it’s little more than kidnapping. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-in-prison-for-gitmo-inmates-because-of-insufficient-evidence-to-charge-them/282694/143 "2005-01-06T19:41:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He isn’t subjecting _any_ detainee to a trial. Try again. The idea being bandied about is that Bush should submit every detainee for trial. I’m arguing that Bush need not submit every detainee for trial. Or are you suggesting that Bush need only submit some detainees for trial? Because if that’s the case, then I’ve been misunderstanding your argument. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then you need to propose how it should, IYHO, be resolved. I haven’t submitted an alternate plan because this thread is about the plan submitted by others. Specifically, this thread is about the plan to submit every detainee for trial (or allow every detainee to file a writ of habeas corpus). > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re inconsistent there. If only the President’s power matters, then it’s limitless. I haven’t said that “only the President’s power matters.” There should be limits on the President’s powers. I just don’t endorse these new limits that are being suggested for the current American administration. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Congress and elections are real powers, but note Bush’s refusal to acknowledge that they limit him in anyway. Cite for Bush’s refusal to admit that Congress and elections apply to him? And if you acknowledge that Congress and elections are real balances against the use of the President’s powers, then why do we need to add another balance with the judiciary? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The military is under the orders of the Commander in Chief, ya know. And the military is under the rule of American and international law, too. “I was just following orders” didn’t work in Nuremberg or My Lai. It wouldn’t work here, either. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > > > Second, I’ll need a cite for your proposition that “What has happened has been totally indistinguishable.” Because unless I’ve missed it, there haven’t been any cites to anything demonstrating that the Admin’s power has ever been used in areas other than the fight against terrorism. > > You already acknowledged that you don’t know. Further, you resist even finding out. I’m not asserting that I know. You’re asserting that you do. Please demonstrate to me how you know. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Ibid. Ditto. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Every place you’ve refused to allow any practical limits on Bush’s power, or to take seriously the detainees right to a fair and speedy trial. It’s inseparable - you want to avoid those messy complications, but give them lip service anyway. > > Indeed you are. If you refuse to allow a problem to be fixed, or even investigated, that is support. First, I’ll need a cite for your proposition that the detainees have a right to a fair and speedy trial. In fact, they don’t have such a right. Second, I have no problem with investigations of torture allegations at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. I do have a problem with the assertion that the detainees have a right to a speedy trial. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > First, yes, that stuff has always gone on, but it’s also always been recognized and contemptible. Why us? Because we’ve always claimed to be above it, even to the point of excusing what we’re doing on the basis that we’re liberating Iraq from it, and mostly \* because we’re now doing it.\* Is that so hard? But I’m not claiming that we’re above it. You are. So I eagerly await the accolades of the international community. (Do you think they’ll give me a medal?) And I suppose that it is actually _you_ who is drawing the ire of the international community. But don’t worry, I won’t hold it against you. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “The rest of the world”, you say? If your views are that isolationist and caricatured, perhaps we have been wasting our time with you. Attaboy, again. By focusing in on my use of the phrase “the rest of the world,” you’ve managed to completely avoid addressing my point. Well done. To answer your question, I don’t believe that “the rest of the world” hates us. I should have written “that portion of the rest of the world that you say hates us.” Please forgive my laziness. And if your best arguments involve misdirection and mischaracterization, then you probably are wasting your time with me. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Are you satisfied with making so many people mad at us that they’ll bomb us any way they can? Wouldn’t you rather be, and be seen as, a little more responsible than that? So these people are so pissed at the apparent hypocrisy – that we dare to talk about a better world and democracy and human rights, and yet we remain human and fallible – that they want to blow up innocent American civilians? And you think that’s legitimate enough that I should tailor my beliefs to meet with their approval? Fuck them. If they’re such idiots and so insane that they think blowing up civilians is a legitimate response to our government’s alleged hypocrisy, then fuck them. I won’t tailor my beliefs nor my words to meet with the approval of such insane assholes. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you seriously doubt that the Afghan detainees’ families would like to see them again, I’d have to ask where you get the idea that those people are somehow different from us in that regard. I never said that Afghan detainees’ families wouldn’t like to see them. I’m sure many of them would. I said that Afghanistan – meaning the Afghani government and its people in general – would not like for us to release the detainees into Afghanistan. But I think that was reasonably obvious from my original post. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-in-prison-for-gitmo-inmates-because-of-insufficient-evidence-to-charge-them/282694/144 "2005-01-06T19:59:31Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > The idea being bandied about is that Bush should submit every detainee for trial. I’m arguing that Bush need not submit every detainee for trial. > > Or are you suggesting that Bush need only submit some detainees for trial? Hardly, but that’s a start. Your argument that there are detainees who needn’t ever have a hearing is indefensible, btw. > [@](#): > > I haven’t submitted an alternate plan because this thread is about the plan submitted by others. You’ve spent enough thought contesting it that you should have some idea by now. Let’s have it. > [@](#): > > .Cite for Bush’s refusal to admit that Congress and elections apply to him? His refusal to allow anyone to visit the detainees. Duh. > [@](#): > > And if you acknowledge that Congress and elections are real balances against the use of the President’s powers, then why do we need to add another balance with the judiciary? Eighth grade civics class. > [@](#): > > And the military is under the rule of American and international law, too. Please. The military is under the command of the Commander in Chief, who, since apparently you missed it, \*refuses \* to allow the US to be subject to the ICC, on the basis that US military personnel would be subject to its trials. > [@](#): > > “I was just following orders” didn’t work in Nuremberg or My Lai. It wouldn’t work here, either. So far it has in Abu Ghraib. You know where the authorizations came from, and if not you have no excuse. > [@](#): > > I’m not asserting that I know. You’re asserting that you do. Please demonstrate to me how you know. Please read other “news” sources than RW blogs. It’s amazing what’s out there. > [@](#): > > First, I’ll need a cite for your proposition that the detainees have a right to a fair and speedy trial. In fact, they don’t have such a right. Have you ever _heard_ of the Constitution? Sheesh. > [@](#): > > But I’m not claiming that we’re above it. That is beyond sad. > [@](#): > > Attaboy, again. By focusing in on my use of the phrase “the rest of the world,” you’ve managed to completely avoid addressing my point. Well done. What, are you complaining about misquoting yourself? :rolleyes: Time to pack it in, pard. > [@](#): > > So these people are so pissed at the apparent hypocrisy – that we dare to talk about a better world and democracy and human rights, and yet we remain human and fallible – that they want to blow up innocent American civilians? It goes beyond being human and fallible, as you ought to know. Is every fallible human in the world subject to hatred and bombings? Or are some humans more decent, and therefore seen as more decent, than others? > [@](#): > > Fuck them. If they’re such idiots and so insane that they think blowing up civilians is a legitimate response to our government’s alleged hypocrisy, then fuck them. I won’t tailor my beliefs nor my words to meet with the approval of such insane assholes. What do you hope to accomplish with that chest-pounding other than to make more people hate us more? You’re endangering \*me \* with that infantile crap, not just yourself. > [@](#): > > meaning the Afghani government and its people in general – would not like for us to release the detainees into Afghanistan. But I think that was reasonably obvious from my original post. No, it wasn’t. Are you suggesting that the Kabul municipal government, which is all it is, has rights that supersede basic human decency? Is that what your party’s vaunted defense of family values consists of? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-in-prison-for-gitmo-inmates-because-of-insufficient-evidence-to-charge-them/282694/145 "2005-01-08T03:14:29Z")
Just wanted to log on to correct some of the most glaring inaccuracies in **ElvisL1ves** ’s post. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > His refusal to allow anyone to visit the detainees. Duh. People have been visiting the detainees. [Duh.](http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4/C5667B446C9A4DF7C1256F5C00403967)[Duh.](http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-05/07/article13.shtml)[And duh.](http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=3135) There are others, but a simple google search will probably suffice. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Please. The military is under the command of the Commander in Chief, who, since apparently you missed it, \*refuses \* to allow the US to be subject to the ICC, on the basis that US military personnel would be subject to its trials. The ICC is not the only body that can enforce international law. For example, see my previous statements about the Nuremberg and My Lai trials. There’s also the ICJ. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So far it has in Abu Ghraib. You know where the authorizations came from, and if not you have no excuse. “I was just following orders” worked in Abu Ghraib? Well then how do you explain [this](http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040504-121638-8338r.htm)? > [@](#): > > President Bush called Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday morning to make sure that those responsible for abusing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners are punished — a process already under way as the Pentagon took steps likely to end the careers of seven U.S. soldiers. > > ``` > Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, ordered the most severe level of administrative reprimand to officers involved in the abuse . . . . > > ``` And the fact that the individuals who committed the acts [have been severely punished for their acts](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51044-2004Oct21.html). > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@AQA](#): > > > > I’m not asserting that I know. You’re asserting that you do. Please demonstrate to me how you know. > > Please read other “news” sources than RW blogs. It’s amazing what’s out there. A non-response. Especially considering my “source” was you. Or have you become a right wing blogger? Since I sincerely doubt it, I still eagerly await a cite or a retraction. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Have you ever _heard_ of the Constitution? Sheesh. The Constitution does not guarantee the detainees a right to speedy trial. See _Ex parte Quirin_. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What, are you complaining about misquoting yourself? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I’m not complaining about misquoting myself. I’m complaining about you picking one part of my statement – taken totally out of context – and not responding to the larger point that I made. Which you’ve managed to do again. To rehash, I’ve conceded that I used a phrase that could have resulted in misunderstanding by you. Once again, I await with baited breath your response to my larger point. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What do you hope to accomplish with that chest-pounding other than to make more people hate us more? You’re endangering \*me \* with that infantile crap, not just yourself. Once again, according to your logic, I’m not the one endangering us because I’m not holding the US out as being above this kind of thing. You are. Therefore, by your own logic, _you_ are endangering _me._ > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Are you suggesting that the Kabul municipal government, which is all it is, has rights that supersede basic human decency? Is that what your party’s vaunted defense of family values consists of? I’m suggesting exactly what I said – that the Afghani government and people, in general, would not think we were doing them any favors if we enacted your proposal of just letting the detainees go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-in-prison-for-gitmo-inmates-because-of-insufficient-evidence-to-charge-them/282694.md?page=7)