[QUOTE=Robot Arm] Der Trihs asked if you would have a problem with being held under the provisions of this new law for detaining Unlawful Enemy Combatants.
You replied that you would have a problem being tried and executed under a completely different law and judicial process, even if you were guilty.
That reads like a strawman to me.
[/QUOTE]
No. Is that ALL I said? That comment, standing alone, would be fair game for a strawman accusation. But when combined with the direct and complete answer to his question, which immediately followed the “completely different law and judicial process” it should be clear that it was intended to illustrate and be responsive to the contradiction inherent in his question – the fact that most people punished by a system for anything are not “OK” with their punishment, no matter the circumstances.
My total response:
The last paragraph, and particularly the last sentence, is directly responsive to the question asked, and belies the accusation of a strawman.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
No. My argument was more precisely drawn: that your side in this debate is attempting to use the processes of internal criminal law and apply them to warfare situations. Specifically, this thread bemoans the rejection of the habeas corpus process to detainees captured in armed conflict. I argue that this is wise.
[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe that all of our current detainees were captured during armed conflict? I doubt that the current procedures used, for instance bounties, ensure that. Were it the case I would feel differently about the passed legislation, while perhaps not in favor of all the provisions.
But feel free to continue living in your truthy utopia.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
…In short – these are not “accused” in the sense of criminal wrongdoing. They are enemies. They are not deserving of criminal justice protections, because they are not part of the criminal justice system.
[/QUOTE]
Ah! Crucial point, there. Since the detainees are, in fact, guilty they are not “deserving” of the same sort of protections we afford rapists, murderers, and Congressmen?
Silly me! I thought the point of the procedure was to determine if they *were * guilty. Well, that certainly simplifies the whole thing, doesn’t it?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
No. My argument was more precisely drawn: that your side in this debate is attempting to use the processes of internal criminal law and apply them to warfare situations. Specifically, this thread bemoans the rejection of the habeas corpus process to detainees captured in armed conflict. I argue that this is wise.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you insist on muddying the waters with this idea that, if the detainees have the right to habeas corpus, that they must therefore have all the rights granted in the Constitution for criminal proceedings? That is simply not the case. They most certainly can be tried by military commission or within the court martial system. This isn’t about that. It’s about denying those detainees the right to have their cases judically reviewed. I’m shocked (not really because I’ve come to know how you are, but it sounds nice) that you think judicial review is a bad idea. You’ve offered no support for that idea (what you quaintly call an argument), and instead create this false idea that habeas = full criminal protection.
We, as a country, have an opportunity to, once again, lead the world in handling the new threat of terrorism. The Geneva Convention and UCMJ aren’t just quaint little ideas to be tossed aside because this administration makes its bones on creating fear. They should be used as a template, to show the world, and our enemies, how strongly committed to the ideas of freedom, democracy, and fairness. Instead, we get this travesty of indefinite detention, fighting the Supreme Court, arguing FOR torture, and, now, bypassing the judiciary. Where we should have been leading with pride, we’re dragged down through the filth by this administration.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
That’s argument ad hominem. It’s of course permitted, this being The Pit, but it is still a logical fallacy.
[/quote]
“Don’t trust a liar” is an ad hominem statement, and good advice. Hardly a fallacy.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t lose sleep worrying about whether you believe me or not, and the legislation we are discussing mandates a trial. If you are arguing agianst the legislation because you believe there will be no trials, your position is untenable.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, really ? Since when did the Bush Admin care about trials ? You are the one being unreasonable in claiming there will be, unless you mean a kangaroo court with a predetermined verdict.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Specifically, this thread bemoans the rejection of the habeas corpus process to detainees captured in armed conflict.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s not. Few of these people were captured in an armed conflict, and even if they were you’ve effectively just said that we have a right to permanently arbitrarily imprison any random civilian our troops come upon in a battle.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
In short – these are not “accused” in the sense of criminal wrongdoing. They are enemies.
[/QUOTE]
And they are our enemies soley because we said so, which means that no one has any legal rights by your theory.
Well I didn’t say, back in post #18, that I was posing the question, so I guess I have no right to complain that it wasn’t treated as one. Still, it would have been nice to have it acknowledged on its merits as a statement. I’ll try to be explicit this time:
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
There is the question of whether a handover of persons (in exchange for a cash bounty) with no proof that they had engaged in combat legitimately constitutes a battlefield detention.
[/QUOTE] Bricker, do you agree that the question I assert is a valid one? And if so, do you feel comfortable accepting the position that the answer has been established to be “yes”?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
A hypothetical. Suppose the President were a scoundrel? Suppose said President knows or suspects that any number of the detainees currently under our protection are, in fact, essentially innocent. Suppose said President would prefer that this fact not become common knowledge.
What protection, if any, does the innocent detainee have? If the President quietly lets it become known that any military tribunal member who thwarts his will had best find another career track, what’s to stop him? Presumably, a confession might be offered as evidence. What provision is made for the victim…excuse, detainee…to challenge the means by which such a confession was obtained?
[/quote]
Hold that thought for a moment, if you will indulge me, and let me ask YOU a question.
Suppose the governor of a state is a scoundrel. Suppose he knows or suspects that people on his Death Row are innocent, but he would prefer this fact not become common knowledge. If he quietly lets it be known that state judges (who do NOT have lifetime appointments!) and police who thwart his will should find other jobs, what’s to stop him?
Are they guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I doubt it. But that’s not the standard to apply here, since these are not criminals and this is not a criminal courtroom.
I do believe that these procedures offer any detainee a reasonable way to demonstrate that he is not a person that should be detained, if in fact he is not.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
No. Is that ALL I said? That comment, standing alone, would be fair game for a strawman accusation. But when combined with the direct and complete answer to his question, which immediately followed the “completely different law and judicial process” it should be clear that it was intended to illustrate and be responsive to the contradiction inherent in his question – the fact that most people punished by a system for anything are not “OK” with their punishment, no matter the circumstances.
My total response:
(Bolding mine. - RA)
The last paragraph, and particularly the last sentence, is directly responsive to the question asked, and belies the accusation of a strawman.
[/QUOTE]
Your responses, in both the illustrative and direct forms, are both based on the presupposition that you were guilty of the acts for which you were being held. Der Trihs’ original question had no such qualification.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Are they guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I doubt it. But that’s not the standard to apply here, since these are not criminals and this is not a criminal courtroom.
[/quote]
Forget “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. Do we have any substantial reason to believe they are guility of anything ? If they are not criminals, and not enemy soldiers, we should let them go, with apologies and compensation.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I do believe that these procedures offer any detainee a reasonable way to demonstrate that he is not a person that should be detained, if in fact he is not.
[/quote]
And your evidence for this is ?
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
Your responses, in both the illustrative and direct forms, are both based on the presupposition that you were guilty of the acts for which you were being held. Der Trihs’ original question had no such qualification.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but Bricker apparently believes in faith-based imprisonment. He seems to believe that if you are accused or imprisoned, you are guilty; he can’t wrap his mind around the concept of “false accusation” or even “arrested by mistake”.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Ah, but Bricker apparently believes in faith-based imprisonment. He seems to believe that if you are accused or imprisoned, you are guilty; he can’t wrap his mind around the concept of “false accusation” or even “arrested by mistake”.
[/QUOTE]
You’d be surprised to learn what Bricker can wrap his mind around, Der. But then I suppose you’d be surprised to see your foot come up off the ground when you lift your knee.
Again: can you just let the grownups talk for a while, please?
[QUOTE=mstay]
Does this mean we can go right to attaching the electrodes to the testicles?
[/QUOTE]
No. From house bill 6166:
So the president has to Authorize the procedure, and publish that as an executive order in the Federal Register before we can go to attaching electrodes to the testicles.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Your links don’t work for me.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no permalinks there. I acknowledged it above, but if you go here and type H.R.6166 in the Bill Number query, then click the Engrossed version, the full text will come up.
Between you and me, I think this whole Habeas argument is a smoke screen for what the Pres is trying to do to the War on Terror. Some people agree:
It’s still not clear to me if habeas corpus has indeed been suspened by this bill. While they may not have the right to challenge their detention in the US criminal court system, they can challenge their detention in the military tribunals authorized by Congress, no?
Does this bill allow the government to detain “unlawful enemy combatants” indefinitely without any type of hearing? If so, can we see what part of the bill does that? I honestly don’t know, so I’m asking someone who has had the time to review the bill in detail.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Hold that thought for a moment, if you will indulge me, and let me ask YOU a question… what’s to stop him?..
[/quote]
Federal court?
Are they even guilty at all? Surely some must be guilty, but we have already released detainees from Guantanamo. Surely you are not about to suggest that we have released desperately vengeful and heinous terrorists? And just as noted above, we are not asking about a technical question of the law, as to what “standard” may be applied in re stark staring decisis. What about the standard of justice? Or is that too “quaint”?
Excellent! And they are? Absent habeas*, absent the right to directly confront your accuser, absent the right to discovery? Do tell.
Then you are engaged on a very dangerous course. How many of us could resist the temptation to cover our errors and misteps?
My vast study and reflection leads me to believe that the Constitution works because it was constructed by men who didn’t trust each other so far as they could be thrown. Tom Jefferson knew what that little bitch Al Hamilton was up to, and wasn’t about to let him get away with, “Little Jimmy” Madison wasn’t fooled for a minute by Tom’s smarmy piety…and so on.
Hence, the checks, the balances, the structure that prevent frail and corruptible men from gaining more power than can be wrested from them.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
What protection, if any, does the innocent detainee have? If the President quietly lets it become known that any military tribunal member who thwarts his will had best find another career track, what’s to stop him?
[/quote]
It’s spelled out under section 948k. "(c) Military Defense Counsel- Subject to subsection (e), military defense counsel detailed for a military commission under this chapter must be a judge advocate (as so defined) … " The perp gets a JAG.
948r: “(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.”
…Bricker, in previous threads about Guantanemo Bay I have posted a link to the unclassified Combantant Status Tribunal Transcripts and asked for your comments, to which you have chosen not to reply. I include the link again for your comments on the evidence. I also invite you to read my two previous OP’s on Guantanemo Bay, and my thread on the War on Terror.
Forgeting the legal implications for a moment: do you consider it moral to detain somebody for five years on the basis of evidence like this:
or
Only 5% of detainees were captured by US forces. Most of the rest were “gifted” by Pakistani or Northern Alliance Forces. Names are alleged to turn up on computers, even when detainees state the name on the computer is not their name. People like “Half Head Bob”, who couldn’t string a sentence together and ate his own shit, was determined to be worthy of a stint at Guantanemo. CIA agents abduct Clerics of the streets of Italy and then lie about it, ruining an Italian investigation. Millions of dollars were given out as bounty payments for these detainees, and, as we are finding out now, many of those bounty payments were paid directly to the Pakistani Government!
So a few questions for you Bricker:
I am not a citizen of the United States. Why should I have confidence in the United States, their systems of detaining people oversees, and their judicial processes?
Considering that you have read some of the transcripts of the CSRT, why do you have confidence that the CSRT are competent, the detainees have had a fair chance to defend themselves, and that innocent people have had every chance to prove their innocence?
Should somebody that has been handed to United States Forces in exchange for a bounty payment be classified as an unlawful combantant? Should he have the right to be treated as a POW? How much effort should the US Administration go to in these cases to check out the evidence against these particular detainees? Do you think the administration has put in the right amount of effort?