# We can lock you up forever, now... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 2, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693 "2005-01-02T14:57:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/41 "2005-01-03T03:11:38Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > You liberal whiner, you. You just don’t understand. We have to lock these people up to protect Good Americans from Evildoers who don’t even have the decency to respect our sense of freedom and fair play. Yea - what was it Bush said - ‘They hate us for our freedom’, wasn’t it? Well, I bet they hate the much vaunted American ‘freedom’ a lot more now that they’ve had a taste of it ! ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/42 "2005-01-03T03:18:32Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > And comments like that will discourage him from sharing his opinion on those ocaisions when it does agree with yours. If only that were true. Well…one can hope. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/43 "2005-01-03T03:18:50Z")
> [@Twoflower](#): > > If they get away with this (and the past 4 years of precendent says they will) … how long 'til they start locking people up for being Democrats? Well, they’ve already started rigging the elections - and the people in the Ukraine at least had the guts to do something about it - while the American democrats just accepted it. [http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11262004.html](http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11262004.html) ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/44 "2005-01-03T03:23:16Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > If only that were true. > > Well…one can hope. I didn’t say it would stop him from speaking, I said it would stop him from publicly agreeing with you. I’m assuming you didn’t understand that, and that you aren’t saying you want him to disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/45 "2005-01-03T03:32:32Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > It’s so cute how you think this will actually change anything. What? I should ‘storm the Bastille’ and release them myself? What else can we do, except write our elected representatives? Have a rally, I suppose; but would it do any more good? The other alternative is to come to the message board and point fingers and say, ‘Look how the Bush Administration is destroying Liberty!’ That’s all very well, but it won’t solve anything. But IMO most Americans are apathetic about it. Those who aren’t either won’t try to do _anything_, not even write an e-mail, or they support the denial of our coveted Civil Rights as long as it doesn’t affect _them_. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/46 "2005-01-03T03:39:01Z")
Sometimes contacting elected officials can seem like banging your head against a wall, but it’s one of the best ways to get things done, imho. Getting voted out of office is like the death penalty for them. Even those who aren’t running again usually feel an obligation not to lose vote-share for their party. Of course, if 10 people write/call/email about this issue and 250 people write/call/email to say that the Ten Commandments ought to be placed in the lobby of the capitol building, well… But hey, you gotta try. I say “kudos”. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/47 "2005-01-03T03:52:56Z")
From this [site](http://www.genevaconventions.org/): > [@](#): > > The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions. The implication I see here is that the Geneva Conventions make specific definitions of who may or may not be protected by them. And combatants are usually defined as someone who’s a member of a recognized armed force, responsible to a government. This leaves the whole question of partisans, guerillas, and terrorists wide open. Are they: > [@](#): > > A mercenary is any person who is specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who takes a direct part in the hostilities, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47) > > A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37) or someone performing terrorism? > [@](#): > > Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68) In other words there is considerable wiggle room in these definitions, providing that we exclude the 1977 Protocols, for most ANY treatment of those persons caught carrying arms in support of attacks on occupying troops. Doesn’t change that playing musical confinements, searching for the best place to torture suspected terrorists, is vile. Frankly, I would love to see the US finally frigging sign the damned Conventions. If you want my opinion, a trial with due process, accusing the “detainees” of violating the Geneva Conventions would be all that is needed to provide a legitimate reason to hold them indefinitely. IANAL, so I may be wrong, but it can be argued that anyone found with arms on the site of a battlefield, as I understand the majority of the detainees were, is either a soldier or in violation of the provisions I’ve listed above. And being a soldier usually requires a rank, some form of ID, and a uniform. Not only is this policy of Shrub’s wrong, it’s frigging stupid. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/48 "2005-01-03T04:15:56Z")
Our dear European friends may not be aware that we have three branches of government. The proposal being floated by certain twits in the Administration will not fly (or to keep metaphors unmixed, will sink). > [@jjimm](#): > > Next time you hear a fellow countryman of yours telling foreigners like me about how your country is the “home of democracy”…is the bastion of freedom… Sorry, but this would still be viewed as true, according to the vast majority of Americans as well as the potential immigrants waiting to gain entrance here (and who are mindful of the resentment and violence being directed against outsiders trying to establish residence in Europe). And me. It may be more a reflection of conditions elsewhere than some Absolute Truth, but there you go. (I deliberately left out the part about “the best legal system in the world”, since I don’t recall hearing this claim being routinely made, and there are certainly enough flaws in it that I doubt many would want to hold it up as some kind of world model). ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/49 "2005-01-03T04:21:22Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > It’s so cute how you think this will actually change anything. At the very least, if EVERYONE did it it would clog the inboxes of the powers that be, forcing them to finally address the spam issue. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/50 "2005-01-03T05:54:25Z")
> [@continuity eror](#): > > Hm, there still hasn’t been a single post by a Bush-supporting conservative. What’s keeping them? They haven’t gotten directions from Rush, Bill, and Ann yet. Give 'em a day or three to get over those New Year’s hangovers. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/51 "2005-01-03T07:07:09Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > In other words there is considerable wiggle room in these definitions, providing that we exclude the 1977 Protocols, for most ANY treatment of those persons caught carrying arms in support of attacks on occupying troops. I’m posting to 2 almost identical and simultanous threads on this subject, so forgive me if I’m being redundant (it’s late, too). The central question at this time is granting the right of habeas corpus to the detainees. Even if they are classified as non-military combatant (terrorists, guerillas, what have you) and are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, they should still have the right of habeas corpus – that is, a judicial review (by the civilian courts – not by the military or the executive) to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to detain them as non-military combatants in the first place. In other words, under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, they have the right to have a judge review their case and say either, “Ok, this person is indeed classified correctly and may be detained” or “No, the administration has not met the burden of sufficiency, and is wrongly detaining this person”. The Bush regime is attempting to deny these persons, and by extension anyone in the world (literally) they could potentially get their hands on, even this fundamental right, which applies to all persons in US custody, not just US citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/52 "2005-01-03T19:07:30Z")
I have received a reply to my e-mail from the office of Senator Cantwell: > [@](#): > > Thank you for contacting me regarding the Justice Department’s treatment of enemy combatants. I appreciate hearing from you. > > The U.S. Department of Justice has asserted that several American citizens are “enemy combatants” and are being held consistent with the laws and customs of war. As a result, in their view, such citizens can be held indefinitely without access to counsel and without the right to a trial. > > Our current war on terrorism is being fought in many different ways and presents > different challenges from traditional warfare. However, even in these circumstances, I am concerned about applying a designation of “enemy combatant” to American citizens, and the implications of such a designation. While there are genuine national security concerns about the need to use classified material in a prosecution of certain cases, I believe that these challenges can be effectively dealt with in closed hearings under the federal rules. On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on the case of Yaser Hamdi. The court ruled that Hamdi and nearly 600 people captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere who are being held at Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detentions in U.S. courts. > > I will be monitoring the cases of those held as enemy combatants as the courts consider these cases. I am confidant that as our courts will uphold due process protections. > > Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at [http://cantwell.senate.gov](http://cantwell.senate.gov). Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance. > Sincerely, > > Maria Cantwell > United States Senator ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/53 "2005-01-03T19:11:29Z")
Nice, a standard boilerplate reply, probably from an 18 year-old intern. Go democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/54 "2005-01-03T21:45:32Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Nice, a standard boilerplate reply, probably from an 18 year-old intern. > > Go democracy. Note also that it completely sidesteps the habeas corpus issue that’s at the center of things right now. A response pointing this out might run along these lines: "I am frightened that the current administration apparently believes that the writ of habeas corpus doesn’t apply to ANYONE they believe is a terrorist any more, or more to the point, anyone they SAY they believe is a terrorist. This means they could “disappear” anyone at any time … me or even YOU, dear Senator. In what way are we different from Pinochet’s Chile under these standards? ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/55 "2005-01-04T02:16:24Z")
Let me see… How to get around this pesky habeas corpus anf 14th amendment thing…hmmm… I have it! We’ll build prisons, with American tax payers money, in the countries that these people come from and keep them there! Pay the overseers with taxpayer money and never have to let them go! > **[U.S. Makes Plans for Detainees](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256609)** > > The Bush administration is said to be preparing plans to hold terrorism suspects in the U.S. indefinitely without trial. NPR's Michele Norris talks with Dana Priest, who reported the story for the Washington Post. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/56 "2005-01-04T02:48:50Z")
Well, you can knock me over with a feather now. As I noted up there, none of the right-wing lawyer types have been by to take either side of this issue. After twenty-four hours and a few posts that I know of in other threads, they’re still not saying a word, neither in this nor the GD thread. I now understand the meaning of moral cowardice. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/57 "2005-01-04T03:04:12Z")
> [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > The central question at this time is granting the right of habeas corpus to the detainees. Even if they are classified as non-military combatant (terrorists, guerillas, what have you) and are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, they should still have the right of habeas corpus – that is, a judicial review (by the civilian courts – not by the military or the executive) to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to detain them as non-military combatants in the first place. Hold on, courts martial ARE empowered by civil law: The UCMJ is a law written by Congress, and they’re the ones who get to change it, not the military. And based on my understanding of what I’d read on the Geneva Conventions site I’d posted a link to previously, courts martial are acceptable for the purposes of courts and due process rights under most interpretations of the Geneva Conventions. If I missed where it insisted on a civilian court, pleast point it out for me. (I’m not trying to be snarky or offensive, just saying that courts martial are real courts.) That doesn’t change that I am all for maintaining the writ of _habeus corpus_. And in public trials, too. Star Chambers are bad things. Holding people indefinitely without even mentioning charges is bad, too. Even if the charge is simply: This person was caught on a battlefield with arms, and no ID, and is therefore presumed to be a terrorist; charging these detainees is the only proper thing to do. BTW, **pantom** , if I’m not a conservative lawyering type, why the fuck am I wasting this brain sweat? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/58 "2005-01-04T03:12:38Z")
Sorry, but I’ve never run across you before. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/59 "2005-01-04T03:15:03Z")
Hold the phone! In your previous post, you say IANAL. So, is you is or is you ain’t? ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693/60 "2005-01-04T03:23:17Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > Hold the phone! In your previous post, you say IANAL. > So, is you is or is you ain’t? Sorry, I’m not a lawyer. I have an interest in law and legal theory, as any reasonable citizen should, I think. But I have no real desire to pass the bar, or study that long to take a test graded on a 50% curve. 😃 I’d meant I was trying to discuss the legal issues involved, even though I don’t approve of all the methods being used. I was afraid I was being painted with your moral cowardice brush, and that’s what I was protesting. I’d meant to point to myself as an honest conservative-type rather than a lawyer. If I mistook your intent, I do apologize for my thin skin. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-can-lock-you-up-forever-now/282693.md?page=4)