Very well, if my position is still unclear to you, I will spell it out. Every person, regardless of nation origin, detained on charges of terrorism or violent opposition to US forces is entitled to a trial, by either civil or military authority, and entitled to legal counsel and an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.
You have misjudged me. On this we agree.
That is your right. I think they made a huge mistake in Bush v, Gore, yet surprisingly, Bush remains president.
That certainly would be more efficient, but don’t you see the hypocrisy of voicing a goal of spreading democracy around the world, yet denying the accused representation?
Not one of the Guantanamo detainees has had the opportunity to be represented before a military tribunal. I would be satisfied if this opportunity was provided.
I will not dignify your veiled slander with a response. If all your arguments are going to devolve thusly, they no longer rise to the level of debate. Do try to keep it out of the gutter.
Yeah, democracy is so messy.
Are you accusing those who brought this case before the Supreme court of treason?
As I have said, I often disagree with SCOTUS decisions, but I recognize that my arguments are significantly weakened when the highest court in the land finds them unpersuasive.
Wrong, false, incorrect, mistaken. If an enemy is captured on a battlefield, that makes him a POW, not a terrorist. If he is a POW, certain rules apply. As a POW, the Geneva conventions apply. If he was caught planting bombs on a bus, he is a terrorist and a criminal. In that case he is subject to trial and punishment.
If we afforded a trial to every enemy? How about we go all the way. If we afford a trial to anyone at all it would handcuff our law enforcement efforts. After all “we know” nobody gets accused unless they are guilty. Right? Trials are a huge waste of money, and the criminals will just use lawyers to get away with it. Let’s scrap all courts and go straight to imprisonment for all accused. Let’s scrap the Constitution too. It just gets in the way. :dubious:
Sorry, but sneering attempts to dismiss the issue as trivial or mere partisan bickering won’t wash. The point of my previous post was that it has been conservatives themselves, particularly the Administration, who have been constantly harping on the importance of calling antiterrorism efforts a “war”. In the process, they’ve been accusing liberals who objected to that terminology of being “soft on terrorism”.
If the Administration, or conservatives in general, now choose to abandon their insistence on “war model” terminology because it’s “incorrect” or inaccurate, they need to (a) apologize for their error and their nasty slams against the liberals who were trying to point it out to them, or (b) give a rational explanation why using the term “war” was so crucial earlier, when it’s incorrect now.
Attempting to switch from one position to an opposing one without accounting for it is what conservatives used to call “flip-flopping”.
The irrational, fear-and-anger based, primitive-chimpanzee part of my brain answers no, the savages deserve whatever they get. Fortunately, the rational, advanced, thinking part of my brain intervenes, and reminds me that that would be inhumane and unAmerican.
Do you mean even those captured on the field of battle and classified as POWs? That aside, I would sign on for the military tribunals, at a rate that military manpower will allow. That might be a long wait–and I don’t say that to be flippant–but I do think it is to stand on firmer ground to give the accused an opportunity to defend himself, even if it slow in coming.
By the way, do you (anyone) know what the procedure was on the battlefiled during WWII?
That is your right. And, I would add, completely understandable.
Yeah, I see how you can say that. But I’m willing to err on the side of security. Especially when the sheer numbers involved in a war (or struggle) make the alternative near impossible.
Again, as manpower would allow. But it is not at the top of my list of military responsibility.
Rightly so. I’m glad you feel that way. Please accept my personal apology. But I’m sure you know that they’re are some (a tiny minority) that would love to handcuff our military efforts, and they wouldn’t have found my observation so offensive.
No. I don’t think they all share the motive of undermining the U.S. war effort (though I’m sure some do). I think most take the honorable position of placing human rights above military caution. I just disagree with their position.
I agree. And a unanimous decision that is counter to my position makes me think my argument was weaker than one that was 5 to 4 against.
I’d be happy applying the Geneva Convention to those who were captured and are now it Gitmo. Would you?
Also, you seem to draw a hard line between an enemy on the field of battle and a terrorist. But what if the enemy considers Manhattan and DC and LA and Chicago and Miami and Denver the field of battle? At what point, if any, do terrorists fighting for the enemy, but outside a perceived “filed of battle”, become a military problem and not a law enforcement one?
No, they are governed by the Geneva Convention. I would amend my position to exempt them.
But there must be a limit to the delay. Some of the detainees have been there for nearly two and half years. I believe that is already too long, and they should be tried without further delay.
I am not; I would gladly trade the some of the security for myself and my family for their liberty. When liberty is unlawfully diminished for one person, it is diminished for all.
It should be noted that the Bush Administration has opposed any efforts to classify the Gitmo detainees as POWS under the Geneva Convention, as this would require visits by the International Red Cross and other concessions the White House is loath to grant.
There is Shafiq Rasul from Tipton in the West Midlands, who took his wardrobe of designer clothes with him to Pakistan, was captured with his friends Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed by the Northern Alliance, and was handed over to the US in Shebergan in northern Afghanistan in December 2001.
Jamil al-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi, two refugees living in Britain, were arrested in the Gambia in west Africa and handed over to the US by the Gambians.
Moazzam Begg and Richard Belmar, two other Britons, were arrested in Pakistan and handed over to the US by the Pakistanis.
David Hicks, an Australian, who had previously led a life of shark fishing and kangaroo skinning, and had fathered two children, ended up in the Shebergan prison after fighting with the KLA in Albania and the Kashmiri insurgency group Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Mehdi-Muhammed Ghezali, who grew up in the Swedish town of Rebro and whose father was Algerian and mother Finnish, had a promising career as a footballer ahead of him before turning up with the Taliban in Afghanistan and being captured. Nizar Sassi and Mourad Bechnellali grew up in Venissieux, a suburb of Lyons. Their lives came to revolve around the mosque on Lenin Boulevard before they travelled east.
Ibrahim Fauzee, a citizen of the Maldives, was arrested in Karachi while staying in the home of a man with suspected al-Qaida links.
Tarek Dergoul, from east London, thought to have been arrested during the battle for Tora Bora in southern Afghanistan, is reported to have had an arm amputated as a result of wounds.
Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese assistant cameraman with the al-Jazeera TV station, was picked out and held while leaving Afghanistan for Pakistan after the fall of Kabul with the rest of his crew. They never saw him again.
Another Briton, Martin Mubanga, from north London, was handed over to the US by Zambia. Jamal Udeen, from Manchester, born into a devout Catholic home, and converted to Islam in his 20s and was seized in Afghanistan only three weeks after he left England.
Airat Vakhitov, one of eight Russians on Guantanamo, thought he had been liberated when a reporter from Le Monde discovered him in a Taliban jail, where he had sat in darkness and been beaten for seven months on suspicion of spying for the KGB. But he only exchanged the Taliban prison for an American one.
And there is Mish al-Hahrbi, a Saudi schoolteacher. After he tried to kill himself on Guantanamo, he suffered severe and irreversible brain damage.
On what basis do you think people like this should get life imprisonment or execution?
Do you think your attitude helps or hinders the terrorists?
Can you justify an indefinite delay in bringing their cases before a tribunal? It has been two and a half years, when do they get to plead their case? When to they get to talk to counsel? Even with the SCOTUS ruling against them, Rumsfeld & Co. are still stonewalling. How long is too long?
Definitely. Are we somehow arguing the same side of the argument? I used “battlefield” literally. Pitched battle between two armed forces, both operating in a military manner and following military methods / procedures / protocol. Two armed enemies going at it. Those who escape or are not killed live to fight another day. Those that are captured are POWs and should be given the same protections we want our soldiers to have. They are detained so they can not rejoin their forces. They are not treated like criminals. They are contained and controlled, but should not be degraded or demeaned. However, if someone considers a school, night club, office building, or a bunch of noncombatant civilians to be targets, and thinks of (let’s say for example) a schoolyard as the battlefield, they are terrorists and should be tried, convicted and made to pay.
A good way to start dealing with this would be to hold these two very different groups in completely separate facilities - put POWs in a traditional military POW camp and put terrorists in a federal prison to await trial. We already have laws and methods to deal with them. We can charge them with terrorism and / or sabotage. Sabotage during war carries the death penalty.
We are basically in agreement. We are on POWs and the field of battle. And I’d be with you about terrorists if a particular terrorist act is in isolation. I consider the DC Snipers terrorists, as I do MacVeigh and Rudolph. I agree: arrest them, convict them, and fry them (if you are so inclined).
But the question is what do we do when the enemy expands the battlefield to include schools and shopping malls outside of where soldiers are fighting. If they are part of the enemy’s war effort, they should have to answer to the military (tribunals). Otherwise, a concerted effort be a relatively small group could bring our court system to a virtual halt. Plus, I see no reason why a terrorist who is acting on behalf of the enemy trying to blow up non-military targets in America should be afforded more legal protections those blowing up a coffee shop in Baghad. If anything, I’d find it easier to argue for less. (not that I am)
megellan01, some absolutely dreadful countries have been very secure. I really don’t think you would like martial law or a police state. Just a hunch.
As for myself, I’ll stick with the Constitution or try to change it through Constitutionally proscribed procedures. But, hey, that’s what a loyal patriotic American does.
The jaded view that many hold of this administration is one that has been earned through five years of misdirection and lies. I know a lot of Republicans who are appalled by GW’s contempt for the American people and his belief that he can do anything to anyone and get away with it (so far, he’s not too far off). The administration did not just suddenly one day decide to become warm and close to leftist thinking. Every utterance by this president is carefully crafted by others and designed to push public opinion a certain direction, or more importantly to create a diversion from the real issues. If they are now talking ‘struggle’, it’s because the war has become unpopular, GW’s approval rating is sagging, and there is an election to win in three years for whatever flying monkey they decide to run.
Then they are terrorists, no matter what argument or justification they use. For them, we have either federal court trial, or military tribunal. But while we are holding them for trial or tribunal, we hold them separately. Do not commingle them with legtit POWs, and do not commingle them with some dummy who was just swept up in a “dragnet”. If you catch someone attacking or trying to attack or planning to attack noncombatant civilians, they are terrorists. If you have surveillance reports and /or tapes and/or sworn testimony and/or outright admission of guilt they are terrorists (evidence). Whether it is a court trial or military tribunal, it is still a hearing. There will still be requirements for evidence and testimony. If it turns out the prisoner had no involvement, turn him loose. If he is a POW, put him in the appropriate camp. If he is a terrorist or saboteur, he is in deep shit and rightly so. Just as in any other court, innocent people do get busted. They should be “acquitted” and turned loose. For those that are guilty, let the full weight and fury of the law come crashing down on them.
'Mkay, feel free to count me in the camp of Republicans that absolutely hate this administration, disagreed with Iraq from day one, yada yada yada.
Basically your point is that you know their evil, so then if they do something that you actually agree with, you’re too bright to fall for that because they’re inherently evil and it’s actually just a clever ploy in reverse psychology or something equally sinister. You completely overlook the more innocuous and probable situation, that through a combination of both the electorate becoming more sophisticated and the administration doing so as well, regardless of the source of the influence. Hopefully, now that the Administration is toning down some of it’s war rhetoric, dumbasses like magellan01 will stop clamoring for extrajudicial processing of “terrorists” because, hey, all’s fair in love and war.
Basically, you’ve basically gotten what you wanted, but you’re still upset. There is nothing that this administration could ever do to make you happy let alone stop posting stupid pit OP’s that decry every shift in policy that the administration makes. An OP that was based upon Daily Show quote mining at its worst.
I think we’re in complete agreement. The only point that might separate us is that I make a distinction between the DC Snipers/MacVeighs/Rudolphs and those that might expand their war effort against the U.S. to our soil. It hasn’t happened since we’ve gone into Iraq, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.
The Administration was pretty honest with us back when they were releasing the dogs of war, weren’t they? I mean, they came right out and said, “Everyone hates Saddam, and we know we have the muscle to slap him around and get the voters all jazzed up before the next election. So we’re gonna invade. We hope that once we go in, we’ll find some nukes or germs so we can tell everyone ‘We told you so’ and head off any possible opposition. Especially considering that some of our most trusted advisors are telling us that a lengthy occupation will result, requiring the use of many thousands more soldiers than we’re saying we need right now. We’ll really need those nukes so we can wave the bloody shirt when the unwinnable struggle starts.”
They said something like that, right? 'Cause if they didn’t, I might have to alter some of my views on the honesty of the people in charge.
Hmmm. . .that’s at least twice you’ve referred to me as ‘stupid’, so apparently I’ve plucked a nerve. As for your assumptions as to what I’m thinking or as to what motivates me, that’s just so much chaff and bullshit being thrown into the argument. I choose not to play the namecalling game with you this time around. Maybe next time. I hope you’re not terribly disappointed that your baiting didn’t work. Oh, wait, that’s incorrect.
