Thanks, SG. I probably got it wrong, and it was most likely Amendment 5 which was being cited. I was listening to tapes of the proceedings, but I don’t have a transcript. I’m still hoping someone will provide a link, or another way to access one.
When I heard the “little old lady in Switzerland” argument, I was floored. But I thought, certainly this will wake people up.
Please, oh, please, America… wake up!
Or at least the courts wake up. Lifetime imprisonment with no charges?
Bolding mine.
It’s that kind of thinking that I find so dangerous and reprehensible.
If it’s so easy that you can make broad sweeping statements regarding their guilt, then why can’t an entire country with all the powers that go along with it get them into a court and prove it?
I don’t like this any more than the rest of you, but bear in mind that since these detainees will not be charged with or convicted of a crime, they can’t actually be sentenced. “Lifetime” detention as a matter of Administration policy means only that they will be in jail until some later administration decides to change the policy.
I’d like to bring up the situation in Indonesia… I’m not sure if they detain suspected terrorists for long, but they have changed a lot of people with terrorism (Bali bombings, etc), and also took them to (non-military) court fairly quickly, which the public including TV cameras could watch over. i.e. camp X-ray and promised secret military court trials isn’t the only way.
Or some court decides the policy is unconstitutional.
They are very different (legal) beasts. The Nazis had already committed their crimes against humanity, and documented them in great detail for some bizarre German reason (no such documentation exists for any of the tens of millions the Soviets and their puppet governments killed off, or the ones the CIA got to before them).
But these (accused) terrorists are just that. Accused. Most of them haven’t actually done anything illegal - maybe carrying forged documents, maybe being around the wrong group of people - but they haven’t done anything yet. Unless you’re in a crappy Tom Cruise movie, you usually can’t arrest people for something they will likely do in the future - and then, you have to prove it pretty damn well as conspiracy to ________
What complicates matters is that they aren’t citizens of the United States, and every day that goes by where we’re holding international citizens captive without trial or representation ticks against us that much more. Before long, it will become a tremendous issue, especially if they DO hold them for life without trial. We’re undoing, day by day, thread by thread, the careful groundwork laid for international law over the past 50 years. That is what the real injury to society is, and as I said in my first reply, that is where our reputation becomes damaged beyond repair.
Well being “detained” under the conditions they have to endure is worse than the sentences for crimes in most other places. I mean usually jail isn’t as bad (ignoring fellow inmates beating you up or raping you). And also there are those evidences of abuses of the detainees that have surfaced recently.
Oh, and that isn’t even mentioning THIS scenario:
Some extremist US citizens (fill in your favorite target group) decide to take the matter into their own hands, and carry out an attack on Mecca. They are caught and arrested in Yemen, and held without trial for an undetermined number of years.
How do you think the US would react? With peach cobbler and apologies, or with a few thousand cruise missiles?
Not only is this a blatant violation of everything this country’s supposed to be about, but it also seems quite expensive.
What happens, heaven forbid, if there’s another 9/11 and we go after another country and round up another bunch of “suspected” terrorists. Do we set the first group free to make room? If so, isn’t that just admitting to everyone that we held innocent people captive for 3 years plus?
Do we build a highrise prison in Gitmo and keep building floors on top of it?
Eventually, someone is going to sue and they will be awarded beau coups of money. And they will deserve every last cent of our money.
I can’t help thinking that the reason the Bush administration is doing this is because they know they’ve screwed up. If they don’t have terrorists now, they most surely will if/when they let these angry men out. What better what to prevent this from happening but to keep them indefinitely?
Will someone who’s a Bush supporter say something please? I’d hate to think you have to be a Democrat in order to see the wrongness of this situation.
What has the Bush administration said? That these people actually had committed terrorist acts in the past, or that it was just feared that they would do so in the future?
Keep in mind that the central issue in most of these cases is a simple right to habeas corpus – just the right to have a court review the state’s evidence to see if it is sufficient to warrant detention. We’re not even talking about right to trial.
What’s so scary about the Bush regime is its insistence that so much power be concentrated in the executive. Even Bush supporters should be afraid of that. What happens when someone they consider dangerous (like that “fascist” John Kerry – my brother’s term there) takes office?
Combine this with whatever tactics they used to bring Arlen Specter into line, and you have a dangerous pattern of attempting to castrate the congressional branch and coopt the judiciary.
Interesting thought. What I was thinking is that the Bush administration realizes it screwed up, and is angling to get the courts to release these detainees. That talk about lifetime detention of people who the government has no proof to make a case against them seems so outrageous that it is begging for the courts to intervene. If a judge lets these people out and the do use terrorism later against the US, Bush could use that as proof he was right all along, and blame the courts.
How could they sue - when the USA refuses to be part of the ICC? What court would they be heard in?
As for getting lots of money, I read that some of the released prisoners got as little as $100 and a trip home. Not much to pay for incarceration like an animal, torture, suicide attempts etc. - I think they deserve better.
The children [as young as 13] who were in Gitmo were only released last year after massive international outcry. They, at least, should have got massive compensation. http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052703B.shtml
As much as I dislike Bush and believe he’s a dishonest and dangerous President, I start balking when I hear speculation that his regime would intentionally encourage terrorism in order to cover their tracks and justify their actions. I think that kind of accusation, even if speculative, requires some back-up.
Did you read the rest of the paragraph? I said two sentences later that these people should be getting a trial.
All that ‘what we are about’ business is just pap for liberal America, The useable voting blocs in the red states are unifed:
Torture, kill, jail whatever. We were attacked!
It’s the same as the WMD fiasco. What do you think they were asking out midwest? Does Iraq have WMD?
Don’t make me laugh, they recognised that it was an offhand wave to the thinking parts of the country. You weren’t meant to take it seriously. No the real vibe was:
Why haven’t we attacked already!? Enough of this UNHansBlixWMDResolutionImminentThreat nonsense
True, I also believe the detained persons would provide credible and consistent evidence of the policy to torture.
Further each is likely to have a large legal case against the US govt. Probably the administration wants to forestall that until it is someone else’s problem.
LOL!
Yes I did, but you opened your post by stating something which nobody yet has even attempted to prove.
They might be terrorists, but how can you say “undeniably”?
I gotta come to Little Nemo’s defense here. Undoubtedly, some of these people are genuine terrorists. We know already that some of them have been wrongly detained. (“Sorry about the 3 years out of your life, Jaleel. Take care. Write when you can. Say hello to the missus.”) But I find it impossible to believe that the military and intel folks got it wrong in every case, that none of them are actual non-military combatants who were associated with Al Q’aida and involved in planning and/or executing terroristic acts against the US. And I think that’s all Nemo meant by that sentence.