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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
I’m not asserting that I know. You’re asserting that you do. Please demonstrate to me how you know.
Ditto.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hardly, but that’s a start. Your argument that there are detainees who needn’t ever have a hearing is indefensible, btw.
You’ve spent enough thought contesting it that you should have some idea by now. Let’s have it.
His refusal to allow anyone to visit the detainees. Duh.
Eighth grade civics class.
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.
So far it has in Abu Ghraib. You know where the authorizations came from, and if not you have no excuse.
Please read other “news” sources than RW blogs. It’s amazing what’s out there.
Have you ever heard of the Constitution? Sheesh.
That is beyond sad.
What, are you complaining about misquoting yourself? :rolleyes: Time to pack it in, pard.
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?
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.
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?
Just wanted to log on to correct some of the most glaring inaccuracies in ElvisL1ves’s post.
People have been visiting the detainees. Duh. Duh. And duh. There are others, but a simple google search will probably suffice.
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.
“I was just following orders” worked in Abu Ghraib? Well then how do you explain this?
And the fact that the individuals who committed the acts have been severely punished for their acts.
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.
The Constitution does not guarantee the detainees a right to speedy trial. See Ex parte Quirin.
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.
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.
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.