Life in prison for Gitmo inmates because of insufficient evidence to charge them?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@astro

If there were some end game in sight your point might have some traction, but the fact of the matter is that United States has demonstrated an incredibly poor ability to accurately determine whether these prisoners yanked bodily out a 3rd world context, are bona fide, die hard terrorists, hungry locals that were looking for some adventure and 3 squares a day with the Taliban, or some out of luck shepherd sold for a few dollars out by the resident warlord.

Mind if I ask what you’re basing this statement on?

I realize it’s unfair to ask you to prove the innocence of the folks that have never been charged with anything, and when the government controls most of the sources of proof and won’t open those up to us. But you said the government has “demonstrated” an incredibly poor ability to accurately determine whether they’re terrorists or otherwise. How have they demonstrated that?

If the US has, in fact, demonstrated that it’s “incredibly” poor at figuring out who to interrogate or detain, then that would certainly be something for authoritarians like myself to consider.

[TastesLikeBurning]

@JohnClay

So say we’re talking about people who were captured during the invasion of Afghanistan… (BTW in the case of Australia’s David Hicks, who hasn’t been freed or received a trial, he was a fighter for the TALIBAN [that’s different from Al Queida, a government who until just before the invasion, the US government seemed to view as a legitimate government)…

Bolding mine.

It may have been unintentional, but until those of us who are opposed to what is going on at Guantanamo stop making claims which are yet to be proven, then we will continue to add weight to the arguments of those who think it is perfectly acceptable to lock people up without justifiable cause.

[astro]

@Age Quod Agis

But you said the government has “demonstrated” an incredibly poor ability to accurately determine whether they’re terrorists or otherwise. How have they demonstrated that?
.

By the matter of fact observation that in three years little observable progress has been made (by the US) in sorting this group of people out. To me this is evidenced by the lastest plan for more or less permanent incarceration predicated quite explicitly on our lack of ability to develop enough meaningful evidence to charge and prosecute them now, or ever.

Now possibly you are correct, and the US has sorted them all out in some diabolically clever fashion, but can’t use this information to repatriate the hangers on, and the bystanders cause that would…umm…well it’s just something we don’t want to do…but we could… if we wanted to!

Or possibly I am correct and the US realizes that it has some hard core terrorists and a large collection of 2nd and 3rd tier ragtag, hanger ons, along with some innocent, but plain unlucky people, but it has no way of determining whether Masour or Jugdish is the bad guy, because they both will admit to practically anything after they been sleep deprived, terrorized with dogs, and hosed down on a regular basis.

[rjung]

@Age Quod Agis

“Innocent until proven guilty” has never applied to the government’s actions against POWs and/or enemy combatants.

And some folks wonder why there are people in the world who steadfastly refuse to bow down before America’s Vision As The Beacon Of Freedom And Democracy – because we pull crap stunts like this, where we talk a mean game of being democratic and fair, but we find ways to weasel out of those high standards when it suits us.

Don’t talk to me about legal loopholes; tell me how we as a nation can allow this stuff to occur when we claim to be above such stunts.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Age Quod Agis

But I’m not the one suggesting that I need to know what the detainees have done.

No. You’re the one asserting that we can lock up and even torture anybody we want to, for as long as we want to, without giving a damn whether or not they’ve done anything. Tell us once again what we’re fighting against?

[Squink]

@Age Quod Agis

If the US has, in fact, demonstrated that it’s “incredibly” poor at figuring out who to interrogate or detain, then that would certainly be something for authoritarians like myself to consider.

Take a gander at some of the links in this google search: guantanamo “low level”
The LA Times story (Many Held at Guantanamo Not Likely Terrorists) is revealing, but requires registration to see. Before dismissing the links as baseless chit-chat, remember that it is very much not in the administration’s interest to admit that there are problems with improperly detained persons.

[Windwalker]

@ElvisL1ves

No. You’re the one asserting that we can lock up and even torture anybody we want to, for as long as we want to, without giving a damn whether or not they’ve done anything. Tell us once again what we’re fighting against?

The “cans” and legality of the issue seems to be the main topic of debate here, and I want to reiterate this point: shouldn’t we be looking at the “shoulds” instead? Even if the law says we can lock these folks up for indefinite lifetimes of torture, it’s our duty to protest and fight against it if it’s wrong. If we have certain principles we’re willing to defend, such as “Innocent until proven guilty”, then make damn sure that the law covers this intent, which includes changing the law to cover any random loopholes that pop up, such as with this Gitmo situation. If there are going to be exceptions, make sure that it is only because another principle overrides it for each exception.

Can we say with a straight face that there is some principle that supercedes some very basic human rights here?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@ElvisL1ves

No. You’re the one asserting that we can lock up and even torture anybody we want to, for as long as we want to, without giving a damn whether or not they’ve done anything.

:rolleyes: Don’t you ever get tired of misrepresenting what other people say?

Here, by way of example, are a couple of things I’ve said earlier in this thread that directly contradict your characterization of my position:

Having said that, I’m with Dick Lugar and Mr Moto in that I agree there needs to be some resolution to this situation.

As I said before they’re being held because they have valuable intelligence, and/or to keep them from returning to the battlefield and/or engaging in terrorist activities.

In other words, the power extends as far as the support of or intelligence on terrorism goes. That’s not coextensive with “anyone from anywhere at any time for any reason.”

And while I’m in favor of some sort of eventual resolution for these prisoners, I’m arguing that until that point, the US does not need to present evidence of guilt or innocence.

I’m against torture.

ElvisL1ves, your argumentation might improve if you started responding to what people actually said instead of just outlandishly mischaracterizing their positions.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@rjung

And some folks wonder why there are people in the world who steadfastly refuse to bow down before America’s Vision As The Beacon Of Freedom And Democracy – because we pull crap stunts like this, where we talk a mean game of being democratic and fair, but we find ways to weasel out of those high standards when it suits us.

So I’m the reason that some countries hate the US? Well, shit. I’m sorry everybody. From now on, I’ll try to hold only those opinions that other countries agree with. Would that be better, rjung?

And here I thought you lefties were supposed to be the group that embraces opposing viewpoints.

@rjung

Don’t talk to me about legal loopholes; tell me how we as a nation can allow this stuff to occur when we claim to be above such stunts.

It’s not a “legal loophole.” The Geneva Conventions were specifically drafted that way to encourage combatants to comply with their mandates. If somebody doesn’t qualify for its protections, then they’re not not supposed to get its protections. If we treated everyone the same whether they followed the Geneva Conventions or not, there would be no reason to ever follow the Geneva Conventions.

So don’t accuse me of using “legal loopholes” when you’re asking us to ignore the law, and to remove the incentives for following it. I’m arguing that the law should be followed.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@astro

By the matter of fact observation that in three years little observable progress has been made (by the US) in sorting this group of people out. To me this is evidenced by the lastest plan for more or less permanent incarceration predicated quite explicitly on our lack of ability to develop enough meaningful evidence to charge and prosecute them now, or ever.

Isn’t your argument – that we must have lots of innocent people because we haven’t let many people go – just as specious as my argument – that we must have lots of guilty people because we haven’t let many people go? (At least I think that’s what jjimm was browbeating me for.) Please correct me if I misunderstand your argument.

@astro

Or possibly I am correct and the US realizes that it has some hard core terrorists and a large collection of 2nd and 3rd tier ragtag, hanger ons, along with some innocent, but plain unlucky people, …

I don’t doubt that many of the people in detention centers are not high ranking terrorists. But you don’t need to be a hard core terrorist or a high ranking aQ member to have valuable intelligence, or be likely to return to battle and/or terrorist activities.

If there are still innocent people who don’t fit the above criteria that have been locked up in Gitmo and other detention centers for 3 years, then that is both a tragedy and a travesty. The Bush Admin should have ensured that the military has in place procedures to determine who should be detained and who should be let go. But that doesn’t change my answer as to what powers the Executive should have to gather intelligence and fight wars.

[rjung]

@Age Quod Agis

So I’m the reason that some countries hate the US?

No, you merely demonstrate the attitude driving that hatred.

@Age Quod Agis

If we treated everyone the same whether they followed the Geneva Conventions or not, there would be no reason to ever follow the Geneva Conventions.

Silly me – I thought if we treated everyone humanely even when they don’t deserve it, that would give more credibility to our claims of being a compassionate people whom others should emulate.

[Avenger]

It’s not a “legal loophole.” The Geneva Conventions were specifically drafted that way to encourage combatants to comply with their mandates. If somebody doesn’t qualify for its protections, then they’re not not supposed to get its protections

Do you not think that people should qualify for thr protections of basic human rights, by virtue of being human?

[elucidator]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

No, scratch that. All American citizens have human rights, open season on everybody else. Who? Jose Padilla? Oh, right, OK, all American citizens that the President doesn’t suspect might be a bad guy, they have inalienable rights. Unless the President changes his mind…

Boy, am I ever reassured!

[spectrum]

@Age Quod Agis

Sorry. This should have gone in the post below. :smack:

But as I understand it, they aren’t being held captive because of crimes they’ve committed. As I said before they’re being held because they have valuable intelligence, and/or to keep them from returning to the battlefield and/or engaging in terrorist activities.

Engaging in terrorist activities may be a crime, but I doubt you can be charged with having valuable intelligence or possibly returning to the battlefield (after all, it’s not illegal for a foriegner to engage in war against the US).

Answer me this. Let’s say the government swoops down and grabs your neighbor and takes him to a camp, saying that he supports our enemies and is going to be held indefinitely. They won’t let him talk to a lawyer, won’t charge him for anything, and intend to hold him for the rest of his life… because they say he’s a terrorist and would do bad things if he were free, yet offer no evidence for this. What would your reaction be?

[Sample_the_Dog]

It’s time for me to bow out of this discussion because I’ve already contributed as much as I can and I’m beginning to repeat myself. But before I go…

I will reassert – because it is a vital point – that the Bush regime is in fact claiming the right to detain anyone anywhere at any time indefinitely without any review other than their own.

It is true that in practice they cannot apprehend all foreign nationals at their whim, because they can’t get to them. Everyone realizes this.

However, they are attempting to establish a right to total control over anyone they can apprehend, regardless of place, time, or circumstance. And they admit this in open court.

They claim the right to detain indefinitely and without benefit of habeas corpus people such as:

• An English teacher who happens to be tutoring, unbeknownst to him/her, the son of someone they suspsect to be a terrorist

• A private citizen living peacefully in a peaceful place, who has donated money to a charity which the administration suspects to be funneling money to terrorists

To those who support this policy, I ask:

What if either of these people were your sister or brother?

What if other countries claimed this right? If Elbonia managed to detain your brother or sister on such grounds, without judicial review, would you say, “Well, Elbonia has a right to defend itself”?

The “due process of law” guaranteed to all persons under US jurisdiction, not just citizens, by the US Constitution is being denied by the administration. The right of habeas corpus is not demanded because it is named in the Constitution, but because it is the minimum that should be expected in order to fulfill this guarantee of due process.

Arguments based on war powers do not apply here, because the administration is claiming the right to use these powers anywhere on the planet at any time, regardless of whether an actual combat situation exists. They claim that war exists wherever and whenever the president says it exists.

If the executive order stands, it will effectively grant the executive the right to impose a writ of attainder on anyone in the world it can manage to impound.

These actions are reprehensible. They are a threat to our national security, fodder for the propaganda and recruitment efforts of our true enemies, an impediment to the active support of our friends, and of no practical value to the fight against terrorism.

They should be actively opposed by those who love liberty.

Peace to you all. Good night.

Yours, Sample_the_Dog

[Jake_the_Plumber]

@Age Quod Agis

I’m arguing that until that point, the US does not need to present evidence of guilt or innocence.

Do you understand the impact of what you just said? What kind of Freedom-defending country would ever hold someone without justifiable cause and with supporting evidence? Why does our Constitution stop at our boarders? Surely the rights of “all man” extend beyond the US mainland?

There has been savage hypocracy in the history of the United States, but this is a step a century and a half backwards. This and Ryan_Liam’s “mass incarceration of minority groups is OK because some members of those groups are threatening” thread.

[JohnClay]

@TastesLikeBurning

…It may have been unintentional, but until those of us who are opposed to what is going on at Guantanamo stop making claims which are yet to be proven, then we will continue to add weight to the arguments of those who think it is perfectly acceptable to lock people up without justifiable cause.

Though most news sites say it is “alledged” that Hicks is a Taliban fighter, his father said in 2001:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/12/14/ret.australia.taliban/
"All I know is he was fighting for the Taliban and he said he was off to Kabul to defend Kabul … " (of course, his father may have been mistaken)
Though the Hicks example mightn’t be a good example to persue… (I had dropped it) It doesn’t necessarily make a strong case for those who think that no trial (or no very fair trial) and indefinite detention is a good idea…

[JohnClay]

@rjung

…Don’t talk to me about legal loopholes; tell me how we as a nation can allow this stuff to occur when we claim to be above such stunts.

Most American voters mightn’t think that stuff is very important - compared to the other issues. e.g. they mightn’t want to have a “flip-flopper” in power, or the possibility that gay marriage becomes widespread. Or they might think that the Democrats aren’t good enough so they vote for a third party, and since the US doesn’t have run-off or preferential voting, it doesn’t go towards the lesser of the two evils - the party who realistically can get into power (unlike minor parties). Security was a big issue in the election, and the Gitmo situation, in their minds, might be good for security - rather than letting potential terrorists go (who mightn’t have any hard evidence that can be pinned on them). The rights of those detainees wouldn’t seem very relevant to the lives of most Americans - they’d be concerned about their personal safety, having low taxes, etc.

[Jake_the_Plumber]

@JohnClay

Most American voters mightn’t think that stuff is very important - compared to the other issues. e.g. they mightn’t want to have … gay marriage becomes widespread

lol, just the phrasing of that, like making gay marriage legal will make more people gay. Sad thing is, many probably do think that.

[elucidator]

Well, gee, it might. I would certainly consider it, having the surgery or whatever. Maybe then I’d stop buying my socks by the bag at K-Mart, get a sense of decor, stuff like that. Then maybe I’d get more chicks!