|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 26, 2009 8:25:42 GMT -5
As to your question; you're damn right you let them go free. If you can't convict them, then by every definition of what we call freedom they HAVE to go free. Do you run the risk that they will simply return to the battlefield. Again, you're damn right you do. And you know what? That's just too bad. Freedom is neither easy, nor free. There are prices to pay for freedom, many have paid it, many more will continue to pay it. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. The alternative is a police state, where everyone is safe, but no one is free, and that is NOT what our culture, our way of life, is based on. Give me liberty, or give me death. For sure, its easy for me to type that sitting in my heated house, with my two cars, wi-fi and PVR-ed Habs games, and I won't deny that, but that heated house, two cars, wi-fi and PVR-ed Habs game came because others were willing to pay that price. I will not sit here and say its okay to sacrifice the personal freedom that they fought and died for because it's a scary world otherwise, because that's not what I believe. I believe that we owe it to THEM to act otherwise. Hey, I agree with most of that. My grandfather fought for those freedoms, and I sure you had family members that did too ... However, right or wrong, they do not afford us those freedoms. Do you think if they capture one of our guys he gets his one telephone call, a free lawyer, a fair trial, and then let go on a technicality?? Over their, it is a blade across the neck and who give a hoot if we are wrong it is one less infidel ..... So why can't we try these guys the same as they would be tried in their own land - the law they actually respect. I know ... because that would make us just as bad as them. But wait. We aren't chopping off heads. We aren't depriving these guys of the basics of human life ... ok ok all that torture notwithstanding. In Sweden, they can hold you for 2 years (mmmm 2 years? Maybe its 2 months ... some one help me out here) on an accusation. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 26, 2009 9:08:26 GMT -5
Is your ethical peace of mind worth the lives of men, women and children? Is yours? No. It's not. Which is why I don't come out prancing around with joy that Gitmo is closed. I'm a follower of J.S. Mill's philosophy, and that means that I have to be willing to stand up and say Gitmo is performing a greater good than the evil it is committing. Which is why I'm not terribly happy to see it go. Now, don't get me wrong - I thing Gitmo and these Black Sites have made a hash of things, and they might not have been the best solution to the issue. However I don't have a better solution and neither does anyone else it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 26, 2009 9:34:19 GMT -5
Not really. If those were just boxes of chocolates, I think it would be impossible to get a conviction. The intent may be there and the desire may be there but without evidence under OUR legal system. Are you going to convit them on "thinking about it"? That's not going to happen. Or should it happen? For the greater good? Didn't Winnipeg social services take away a woman's child because she sent him to school with a Nazi tatoo? Didn't the same thing happen to the parents of that Adolph Hitler cake kid? Seems to me our legal system already has a lot of powers. And even if they didn't I'm quite sure that if you start posting pictures of your children like that then you go on to the "watch" list. I have no problem with suspected terrorists being surveyed and closely guarded. They can lead their lives, but the second the break the law we nab them. Yes, its hard. Again, nobody ever said it would be easy. I do however, have a problem with simply locking them up without anybody knowing why. Maybe there are pictures, maybe there aren't, there has been no trial, so we cannot know. Last name? Don't endrun this into "if his name is Mohammed". The question was clearer then that. I don't think it is though. There are degrees of evidence and lets face it more than one person has had difficulty getting on an airplane because of their name. That's one end of the spectrum. At the other end you have the guy who was arrested with a suicide vest, trying to get on a bus. Its the middle part that gets hazy. And without knowing where each person that is in Gitmo sits on the spectrum how can you call them terrorists? Some, maybe all, have crossed the line and deserved to be locked up. Fine. Prove it and do it right. That's all. By saying that you would make an "informed opinion", while it sounds "reasonable", the fact remains that one simply can not trust our legal system to work with enough certainty and worse then that, the legal system can not peer into a persons intent. If you are comfortable with "there was not enough evidence" and it was good enough, then you are indeed free to take the risk. I'm not. I guess this is where our difference lies. I trust our legal system. Its strange, because by arguing against Gitmo I tend to fall onto the so-called "left", but I'm really coming at it from the "right." I believe in law and order. I believe in it strongly, which is what most would call a "conservative" trait. But I believe that NOBODY is above the law; not the people who break it, and not the people who claim to be protecting us from the people who break it. Everbody must respect the law. And that means courts, with lawyers, evidence and verdicts. I am not advocating a totalitarian state but I am advocating a "greater good" state that is willing to be that much more vigilant and that much more aggressive pursuing people who intent great direct harm. Even more so then people who toss their "hate" on a piece of toilet paper and call it literature. I'm all for that. But once you have been more aggressive, once you have caught these people who want to do us harm, then let justice prevail. Innuendo and stereotypes have nothing to do with this (nice stickhandling though. I had to rethink that one). Let's move away from babysitting for you and "your" rights to the pedophile teaching in a public school. The issue boils down to this, does society take preventive action on the few for the greater good. If it's yes for the pedophile then it has to be yes for the terrorist wannabe. I'm trying to boil it down to a debate of greater good and making the case that the greater good should include convicting terrorist wannabe, hate mongers and pedophiles equally. Now to be truthful, from what I'm reading, we may not be that far apart in our views and really arguing about the "degree" of actions which we are willing to take or accept. I don't think we're all that far apart at all. I just think that people should - need - to get their day in court. And once they get their days in court, and once they are convicted, then too bad for them. I'm not going to let a convicted pedophile into a classroom, because he is a convicted pedophile. It all comes back to Gitmo, where people were held without trials; THAT is where I think we've made the mistake. Try, convict, lock away. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 26, 2009 9:49:58 GMT -5
Hey, I agree with most of that. My grandfather fought for those freedoms, and I sure you had family members that did too ... However, right or wrong, they do not afford us those freedoms. Do you think if they capture one of our guys he gets his one telephone call, a free lawyer, a fair trial, and then let go on a technicality?? Over their, it is a blade across the neck and who give a hoot if we are wrong it is one less infidel ..... So why can't we try these guys the same as they would be tried in their own land - the law they actually respect. Because we are not them. If "they" get a nuclear weapon do you think they will hesitate to use it? Not for a second, right? So by that logic, shouldn't we just nuke them now? Its what "they" would do, right? Its the only thing "they" understand, no? I know ... because that would make us just as bad as them. But wait. We aren't chopping off heads. We aren't depriving these guys of the basics of human life ... ok ok all that torture notwithstanding. In Sweden, they can hold you for 2 years (mmmm 2 years? Maybe its 2 months ... some one help me out here) on an accusation. Is freedom a basic human right? Because we are depriving them of that, are we not? Without a trial. That's the kicker. I'm all for locking up maniacs, but do it right. Don't take the easy way out, your grandfather didn't, my grandfather didn't, why should we? We're not like them, and that's why we are better than them. That's why we are such a threat to them. Because lets face it, very few people REALLY want to blow themselves up on a bus. Most simply do it because their current lives really suck and the only hope for a better one is to take out a few fat westerners. Or so they have been told. But that doesn't mean we have to be like them, does it? Why should WE change our lives, because of THEM?? I'd rather spit in their eyes. Instead of changing our culture to be more like theirs, why not try to change their culture? Instead of locking people up without trials because, hey, it's still nicer than what they would do to us, why not try to make them "nicer?" Not going to be easy, certainly not going to be quick, but again, most people don't really want to blow themselves up on a bus. Most people want the aforementioned heated homes, two cars and PVR-ed Habs games. If you lock them up for no discernible reason you perpetuate the cycle; their family is going to come after you, and then you'll have to lock them up, and then more will come after you, and so on. Again, if your wife is locked up and tortured, and you don't know why, are you going to sit idly by? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 26, 2009 9:55:21 GMT -5
What certain actions? Owning a gun does not make one guilty of "certain actions", no more then if one owns a knife, or a chainsaw, or a really sharp dildo. That's grossly presumptions. Actually, it makes you guilty of... owning a gun. If that is the law, then that law cannot be broken. If you don't like that law, work to get it changed. We can do that in our society, and that's what makes it so great, both our society and our law. But you have to respect the law. All of it. Again, if you don't like it, work to get it changed, but don't ignore it because its not convienient. Further....a wider conversation..... Are you distinguishing between "freedoms"? Does religion have a different set of rules of freedom then ownership of a gun? Are those religious freedoms different for different people? What about the polygamist? Or is it about intent? Does a pedophile who reads porn guilty? Or does society say that he should NOT read that porn and then proceed to throw him in jail even though he has not commited any crime greater then reading a book? Or reading hate literture. Shouldn't there be a constant in society so it does not make us hypocrits? We are either for a "greater good" which would include convicting terrorist as having the "equal intent" as a pedophile/hate reader or we dole out equal freedoms. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I'm all for convicting people who break the law, be they terrorists, pedophiles or gun-toters. Because its the law. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 26, 2009 10:04:37 GMT -5
Sure it is easy when it is cut and dry .... no one wants to live next to a pedophile, and no one wants a pedophile babysitting their kids. But thats not a proper analogy. What do you do when your best friend tells you that he saw your babysitter sitting down at the park "watching the kids", or he heard rumours that your babysitter/kids teacher is suspected of being a pedophile? Do you leave those kids in that person's care? He is afterall only "suspected" , he isn't convicted ... and it is only rumours. So you leave those kids with him/her until you have undeniable proof? If so man, you are WAY better than me .... and I'll actually go out on a limb and say you may be the only man (if you say yes) on earth who wouldn't be looking for a new babysitter pronto.... You are arguing a completely different thing. As an individual I am free to do whatever I want within the law. And that means I don't have to send my kid to a "suspected" pedophile. I'm free to believe rumours, inneundo, stereotypes. If my best friend says he suspects my babysitter is a pedophile, and I trust his judgement, then I pull my kids and report the guy to the police. Because I am free to do that. But society is not free to that. Society has a rigid and defined set of laws that dictate how it can behave. And those laws say that you cannot burn somebody at the stake simply because somebody accuses them of being a witch. Or send them to jail indefinitely because somebody accuses them of being a terrorist. Or a pedophile. Our society, our laws, say that they are entitled to defend themselves in a court of law, that they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Its a simple concept, really. And one that I think needs to be upheld. I'm not arguing for murderers and terrorists and pedophiles to be set free. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing that they should be tried, convicted and sent to jail. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 26, 2009 12:18:11 GMT -5
I guess this is where our difference lies. I trust our legal system. Its strange, because by arguing against Gitmo I tend to fall onto the so-called "left", but I'm really coming at it from the "right." I believe in law and order. I believe in it strongly, which is what most would call a "conservative" trait. But I believe that NOBODY is above the law; not the people who break it, and not the people who claim to be protecting us from the people who break it. Everbody must respect the law. And that means courts, with lawyers, evidence and verdicts. Courts, evidence, verdicts....and consequences in OUR society by OUR legal system. Right? How do you collect "beyond a reasonable doubt" on a battlefield? How do you try those that aided and abated a bomber? How about that foreign land.... How do we try terrorist that are captured in a foreign land? WHO are their peers? How can we be so presumptious tha we have the right to demand that OUR justice system be implemented? Or OUR "punishment" system be taken into account? While our justice system is set up to deal with OUR society, it's far too onerous and clumsy to deal with the fluidity and the urgency of the battlefield. As much as the left likes to point finger and cry for every sob story the lawyers spit out, executing justice is ten level more difficult on a battlefield. Under OUR societies laws, ONE case will be a circus on the battlefield, ten cases would take up an entire army to deal with. Now what? While I have a "put on the riot gear and fight" problem with Gitmo like facilities WITHIN OUR society, I can see the need for somewhat different detention and legal system to deal with terrorism and enemy combatants that use terror tactics. The devil is in the details..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 26, 2009 12:23:45 GMT -5
Society has a rigid and defined set of laws that dictate how it can behave. "Rigid" is a word that should never be applied to Western law. Our society is fluid in it's application of the laws. In practice, the law is a set of guidelines that flex according to the time and mood of that society and the power of those accused. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 26, 2009 12:24:10 GMT -5
I guess this is where our difference lies. I trust our legal system. Its strange, because by arguing against Gitmo I tend to fall onto the so-called "left", but I'm really coming at it from the "right." I believe in law and order. I believe in it strongly, which is what most would call a "conservative" trait. But I believe that NOBODY is above the law; not the people who break it, and not the people who claim to be protecting us from the people who break it. Everbody must respect the law. And that means courts, with lawyers, evidence and verdicts. Courts, evidence, verdicts....and consequences in OUR society by OUR legal system. Right? How do you collect "beyond a reasonable doubt" on a battlefield? How do you try those that aided and abated a bomber? How about that foreign land.... How do we try terrorist that are captured in a foreign land? WHO are their peers? How can we be so presumptious tha we have the right to demand that OUR justice system be implemented? Or OUR "punishment" system be taken into account? While our justice system is set up to deal with what we can deal with, it's far too onerous and clumsy to deal with the fluidity and the urgency of the battlefield. As much as the left likes to point finger and cry for every sob story the lawyers spit out, executing justice is ten level more difficult on a battlefield. Under OUR societies laws, ONE case will be a circus on the battlefield, ten cases would take up an entire army to deal with. Now what? While I have a HUGE problem with Gitmo like facilities in our society, I can see the need for somewhat different detention and legal system to deal with terrorism and enemy combatants that use terror tactics. The devil is in the details..... The prisoners at Gitmo have continually and daily attacked their guards. They are a danger to the civilized world. Send them to martyrdom. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 26, 2009 15:05:29 GMT -5
I guess this is where our difference lies. I trust our legal system. Its strange, because by arguing against Gitmo I tend to fall onto the so-called "left", but I'm really coming at it from the "right." I believe in law and order. I believe in it strongly, which is what most would call a "conservative" trait. But I believe that NOBODY is above the law; not the people who break it, and not the people who claim to be protecting us from the people who break it. Everbody must respect the law. And that means courts, with lawyers, evidence and verdicts. Courts, evidence, verdicts....and consequences in OUR society by OUR legal system. Right? How do you collect "beyond a reasonable doubt" on a battlefield? How do you try those that aided and abated a bomber? How about that foreign land.... How do we try terrorist that are captured in a foreign land? WHO are their peers? How can we be so presumptious tha we have the right to demand that OUR justice system be implemented? Or OUR "punishment" system be taken into account? While our justice system is set up to deal with OUR society, it's far too onerous and clumsy to deal with the fluidity and the urgency of the battlefield. As much as the left likes to point finger and cry for every sob story the lawyers spit out, executing justice is ten level more difficult on a battlefield. Under OUR societies laws, ONE case will be a circus on the battlefield, ten cases would take up an entire army to deal with. Now what? While I have a "put on the riot gear and fight" problem with Gitmo like facilities WITHIN OUR society, I can see the need for somewhat different detention and legal system to deal with terrorism and enemy combatants that use terror tactics. The devil is in the details..... I was going to post something similar HA ..... collecting evidence on a battlefield, or about terrorists activities boils down to "he said / he said" which will get thrown out of every court in the Western World every day of the week. It would be a kangaroo court. OUR judges, OUR witnesses, OUR jury .... sure we could let them call witnesses, but you think a jury of OUR peers, is going to believe anyone he asks to tesify for him? And I am sure Osama Bin laden will just walk out of his cave and be a good character witness, for immunity mind you .... and since we gave him immunity to testify, we will just let him walk out of the court and hope he jay-walks or something since we can't hold him. And as HA says .... why do these guys have to be tried by our legal system. The crimes we are talking about (Khadr for example) happened over there, on foreign land. So we bring them home to try them and as HA said, who are their peers ....? It's a bloody mockery. It's called WAR. No war was ever won by "playing fair" ..... in war civil liberties are sometimes limited or taken away (conscription, curfews, and yes, even freedom of movement) |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 26, 2009 15:23:56 GMT -5
So you think they are prisoners of war? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 26, 2009 15:32:35 GMT -5
So you think they are prisoners of war? I think it's hard to argue that they aren't in many respects, but the legalities and even ethics of these "PoW's" when we are not at war with a nation state are muddled at best. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 26, 2009 16:18:05 GMT -5
So you think they are prisoners of war? Why wouldn't they be.... suspected terrorists from nations that harbour terrorists. Are you saying we are not fighting a WAR in Afghanistan? We are not at war AGAINST Afghanistan, but we most certainly are at war in Afghanistan.... a war in which we are trying to flush out all harboured terrorists, allies of these suspected terrorists. Yes, they are prisoners of war, for all intents and purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 26, 2009 16:27:38 GMT -5
Why wouldn't they be.... suspected terrorists from nations that harbour terrorists. Are you saying we are not fighting a WAR in Afghanistan? We are not at war AGAINST Afghanistan, but we most certainly are at war in Afghanistan.... a war in which we are trying to flush out all harboured terrorists, allies of these suspected terrorists. Yes, they are prisoners of war, for all intents and purposes. So you think they should be subject to the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 26, 2009 19:37:27 GMT -5
So you think they are prisoners of war? So you think they should be subject to the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention? Skilly, be careful, those questions are traps. LOL! Let me ask you BC, are terrorist actions covered by the Geneva Convention? Is Al Queda combatants of a state? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 27, 2009 8:34:16 GMT -5
So you think they are prisoners of war? So you think they should be subject to the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention? Skilly, be careful, those questions are traps. LOL! Let me ask you BC, are terrorist actions covered by the Geneva Convention? Is Al Queda combatants of a state? Hey, as I said, I am a law and order kind of guy. The US Supreme Court, sharper legal minds than me for sure, have ruled that they are in fact covered by the Geneva Convention. Who am I to argue with them? I just want them to follow the law. I could *almost* understand ignoring the UN, or the World Court, or even the Geneva Convention, on the grounds that its ruling did not take into account a specific set of conditions that force a country to disobey international law and with the new world reality blah, blah, blah... but when your own Supreme Court, in a ruling dealing directly with a Gauntanamo inmate, says that you must follow the law and respect the Geneva Convention... I don't know how much clearer it could be... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 27, 2009 8:47:39 GMT -5
Why wouldn't they be.... suspected terrorists from nations that harbour terrorists. Are you saying we are not fighting a WAR in Afghanistan? We are not at war AGAINST Afghanistan, but we most certainly are at war in Afghanistan.... a war in which we are trying to flush out all harboured terrorists, allies of these suspected terrorists. Yes, they are prisoners of war, for all intents and purposes. So you think they should be subject to the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention? Hey, you get them to follow the Geneva Convention and I'll gladly change my mind and say law and order should rule the day. If they don't follow it, and the international community will not stand side by side with us (and dont give me they are, they are not, they are hiding in the shadows afraid of retribution, hoping we can anniliate them in a ground war) I say Genava Convention, Schmeneva Convention - it isn't fit to be in my bathroom on the roll..... But even still, your original point was that we should try them, and then lock them away if found guilty. Law and order rule the day, trust our legal system you said. As far as I know, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatmnet of Prisoners of War does not state anywhere that we have to try these people, in fact it says that we can keep them until "the end of hostilities" confined as long as we treat them humanely. OK, so now its the humane treatment you are arguing against and you are for the confinement (take their freedom away). Also the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war actually says that if the Geneva Convention is broken, that the prisoners are not "set free" but that we have to pass them over to a neutral party to be held in confinement .... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 27, 2009 8:59:38 GMT -5
Hey, you get them to follow the Geneva Convention and I'll gladly change my mind and say law and order should rule the day. If they don't follow it, and the international community will not stand side by side with us (and dont give me they are, they are not, they are hiding in the shadows afraid of retribution, hoping we can anniliate them in a ground war) I say Genava Convention, Schmeneva Convention - it isn't fit to be in my bathroom on the roll..... So you believe that the rulings of the United States Supreme Court should also be ignored? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 27, 2009 9:10:27 GMT -5
Hey, you get them to follow the Geneva Convention and I'll gladly change my mind and say law and order should rule the day. If they don't follow it, and the international community will not stand side by side with us (and dont give me they are, they are not, they are hiding in the shadows afraid of retribution, hoping we can anniliate them in a ground war) I say Genava Convention, Schmeneva Convention - it isn't fit to be in my bathroom on the roll..... So you believe that the rulings of the United States Supreme Court should also be ignored? See above ... The US Supreme Court says the Geneva Convention must be followed ... it doesn't say we have to set them free ... your original arguement was to try them, and if we cant prove anything set them free. Well as POW's they are confined LEGALLY (notwithstanding the torture, which I am sure most, even me see as wrong). But even if they were tortured, the US is not bound to set them free ... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 27, 2009 9:19:01 GMT -5
From the most recent Supreme Court ruling, June 2008, consistent with pretty much every ruling it has made since Guantanamo opened; (The) Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953 |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 27, 2009 9:22:09 GMT -5
From the most recent Supreme Court ruling, June 2008, consistent with pretty much every ruling it has made since Guantanamo opened; (The) Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953Yes, because they aren't declared as prisoners of war, which makes them civil/criminal detainees. If they were PoW's and the Geneva Convention were followed, they would have no such rights. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 27, 2009 11:41:00 GMT -5
From the most recent Supreme Court ruling, June 2008, consistent with pretty much every ruling it has made since Guantanamo opened; (The) Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953Yes, because they aren't declared as prisoners of war, which makes them civil/criminal detainees. If they were PoW's and the Geneva Convention were followed, they would have no such rights. That's the Supreme Court's opinion. Unfortunately, it's not for the Supreme Court to say. The Supreme Court only has authority over actions committed in U.S. Territory or by U.S. Citizen's abroad. Occasionally they will overreach their bounds, but frankly the battlefield is way, way beyond the spectrum of their powers. And in fact the whole idea of applying civilian protocols of justice to actions done in combat is just this side of insane. The only two bodies which have any authority on the field of battle are the laws of the respective military bodys engaged in the combat, and any overarching international legal conventions - the laws of war, if you will. Much noise is made about the Geneva Conventions and how Gitmo (and the Black Sites) run contrary to it. The prisoners at Gitmo do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, as they do not meet any of the qualifying conditions listed under GC III Article IV. This leaves only the authority on the field of battle the respective military commanders. Now tradition suggests, I believe, that these men should be turned over to the Afghani and Iraqi militaries on capture, but to be honest - if you're not happy about Gitmo you're not going to be happy about handing them over to people from rival tribes and ethnic groups who have been waiting for generations to become the beator instead of the beatee. So what to do then? Drop them into American civilian courts, applying more pressure to an already overtaxed court system and essentially waste millions (if not billions) of dollars setting men free to fight again (because as I said, civilian law does not have a place on the battlefield)? Send them wholesale back to their country of origin (if its outside of Afghanistan/Iraq and doesn't have a propensity for beating the tar out of prisoners like him) - essentially skipping the middle man of the American legal system and sending them right back to the fight (but saving much money in the process)? Or keep them at a quasi-legal military run prison camp outside U.S. territory until a better arrangement can be made. Yeah - I like number three better still. Anyone got any better ideas? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 27, 2009 13:06:32 GMT -5
That's the Supreme Court's opinion. Unfortunately, it's not for the Supreme Court to say. The Supreme Court only has authority over actions committed in U.S. Territory or by U.S. Citizen's abroad. Occasionally they will overreach their bounds, but frankly the battlefield is way, way beyond the spectrum of their powers. And in fact the whole idea of applying civilian protocols of justice to actions done in combat is just this side of insane. Actually, its not insane at all, and is in fact quite necessary in a democratic society. If it wasn't the Nuremberg defense of "just following (military) orders" would have been a good one. It wasn't, and judgement after judgement has shown that military commanders and/or soldiers are subject to the laws of civilian courts. Ask Slobodan Milosevic. The military serves its civilian masters, and not the other way around. For sure you don't civilians dictating tactics (though that of course happens), but in terms of rules of engagement and military behavior the army guys are most certainly beholden to the suits. And the suits are represented by the President, who is kept in check by the Supreme Court. Its all part of the checks and balances that ensure that no one person has unfettered power, that no one person can be "king" as it were. Yanks, you know, they were kind of against that whole monarchy thing. The only two bodies which have any authority on the field of battle are the laws of the respective military bodies engaged in the combat, and any overarching international legal conventions - the laws of war, if you will. Much noise is made about the Geneva Conventions and how Gitmo (and the Black Sites) run contrary to it. The prisoners at Gitmo do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, as they do not meet any of the qualifying conditions listed under GC III Article IV. Again, both the Supreme Court (which DOES have overriding jurisdiction) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice - the military's own set of standards - disagree and believe that the Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to due process. And besides, you can't have it both ways and say that the Supreme Court has no say on the battlefield and therefor has no say on these guys, but these guys are not soldiers captured on a battlefield and therefor do not fall under the protection of military law. Its either civilian or military, one or the other. This leaves only the authority on the field of battle the respective military commanders. Again, it doesn't. On a certain level of course, military commanders have free sway, but the higher you go the more involved civilians become. And this is clearly a "civilian" matter, for lack of a better term. Every single avenue of justice has declared it as such, be it judicial or military. The laws, both civilian and military, are not on the side of Guantanamo. Which is why its such an abhorration. Essentially you have a small cadre of men, including the President of the United States, deciding that "they know best" and that they are above the law. "The Supreme Court is wrong" they are saying, "The UCMJ is wrong. We're going to do what WE think is right." That's scary and in direct violation of the US Constitution. No man, not even the President, is above the Supreme Court. Now tradition suggests, I believe, that these men should be turned over to the Afghani and Iraqi militaries on capture, but to be honest - if you're not happy about Gitmo you're not going to be happy about handing them over to people from rival tribes and ethnic groups who have been waiting for generations to become the beator instead of the beatee. So what to do then? Drop them into American civilian courts, applying more pressure to an already overtaxed court system and essentially waste millions (if not billions) of dollars setting men free to fight again (because as I said, civilian law does not have a place on the battlefield)? Send them wholesale back to their country of origin (if its outside of Afghanistan/Iraq and doesn't have a propensity for beating the tar out of prisoners like him) - essentially skipping the middle man of the American legal system and sending them right back to the fight (but saving much money in the process)? Or keep them at a quasi-legal military run prison camp outside U.S. territory until a better arrangement can be made. Yeah - I like number three better still. Anyone got any better ideas? Yes, I do. Try, convict and lock away. Its not about taking the "easy" way out, its about doing what the LAW says you HAVE to do. There is no law that justifies what happens at Guantanamo (which the Supreme Court has ruled IS US territory). None. The President and his men tried to twist and evade existing laws but they have been thwarted at every legal turn, be it civilian or military. They must respect the law.Its as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 27, 2009 13:54:04 GMT -5
The prisoners at Gitmo do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions, as they do not meet any of the qualifying conditions listed under GC III Article IV. Actually they do ... which is why I say the US are justified in keeping them locked up. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
Al Quaida is a resistence movement and has a clear leader ... and you'll notice that at every turn the Geneva Convention says that the other army must respect the rules of War to be a prisoner of war .... ... so "technically" I guess they are not prisoners of war since they don't respect the rules of war. You know we must have law and order .... so NO WHERE in the Geneva Convention does it say we can't kill them on site because they are not respecting the rules of war. But some would prefer we risk OUR soldiers and have them play fair ... I think not. I want OUR boys to do what they can to survive over there, and ask questions later. The more we lock up, the less on the field. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 27, 2009 19:58:26 GMT -5
Actually, its not insane at all, and is in fact quite necessary in a democratic society. If it wasn't the Nuremberg defense of "just following (military) orders" would have been a good one. It wasn't, and judgement after judgement has shown that military commanders and/or soldiers are subject to the laws of civilian courts. Ask Slobodan Milosevic. The military serves its civilian masters, and not the other way around. For sure you don't civilians dictating tactics (though that of course happens), but in terms of rules of engagement and military behavior the army guys are most certainly beholden to the suits. And the suits are represented by the President, who is kept in check by the Supreme Court. Its all part of the checks and balances that ensure that no one person has unfettered power, that no one person can be "king" as it were. Yanks, you know, they were kind of against that whole monarchy thing. Actually neither the trials at Nuremberg nor the recent trials of Milosevic have anything to do with civilian law or civilian courts. Instead they draw their authority on international treaties and conventions (such as the Geneva Conventions). Again, both the Supreme Court (which DOES have overriding jurisdiction) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice - the military's own set of standards - disagree and believe that the Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to due process. And besides, you can't have it both ways and say that the Supreme Court has no say on the battlefield and therefor has no say on these guys, but these guys are not soldiers captured on a battlefield and therefor do not fall under the protection of military law. Its either civilian or military, one or the other. Well - no, you're right. Let's follow international convention and hand them over to the Afghani and Iraqi authorities. See how long it takes them to pine for the halcyon days of Gitmo. Again, it doesn't. On a certain level of course, military commanders have free sway, but the higher you go the more involved civilians become. And this is clearly a "civilian" matter, for lack of a better term. Every single avenue of justice has declared it as such, be it judicial or military. The laws, both civilian and military, are not on the side of Guantanamo. Which is why its such an abhorration. Essentially you have a small cadre of men, including the President of the United States, deciding that "they know best" and that they are above the law. "The Supreme Court is wrong" they are saying, "The UCMJ is wrong. We're going to do what WE think is right." That's scary and in direct violation of the US Constitution. No man, not even the President, is above the Supreme Court. US Constitution does not apply. They are not American nationals (with the occasional notable exception anyways - they might be a different kettle of fish, but we're working on the general case here). The 'crimes' they committed were not on American soil. The Supreme Court does not have authority. The American Military retains soverign authority over itself. Only acts of government itself hold authority. The Military Courts do have some authority, however. I have not read much on decisions made by these courts about Gitmo - can you quote any of them (give me somewhere to look)? Yes, I do. Try, convict and lock away. Its not about taking the "easy" way out, its about doing what the LAW says you HAVE to do. There is no law that justifies what happens at Guantanamo (which the Supreme Court has ruled IS US territory). None. The President and his men tried to twist and evade existing laws but they have been thwarted at every legal turn, be it civilian or military. They must respect the law.Its as simple as that. Right, because trying these people would be so easy. Lets see. First there's the evidence. Of course the evidence is half the world away and is in fact, not a crime scene, but a battle ground. So besides the difficulty of sending Gil Grissom to Afghanistan or Iraq to do his CSI thing, there's also the fact that it's overlaid with a lot of other things that would indicate - well, you know, the standard things, bullets, gunpowder residue, craters left behind by hand grenades. Witness testimony? I doubt we'll get any jihadi's to testify against their fellows, so it'd fall to the soldiers to testify against them. Of course, that the soldiers are half a world away engaged in an armed conflict.... I don't know, might be hard to subpeona them. Yeah - putting them in civilian court is the right thing to do. Like I said, why not just cut out the middle man, save a couple billion dollars in court time, and just send them home. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 27, 2009 22:48:08 GMT -5
Again, both the Supreme Court (which DOES have overriding jurisdiction) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice - the military's own set of standards - disagree and believe that the Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to due process. The US Supreme court simply said that detainees have a right to challenge their detention in federal court. On the other hand, it did NOT suspend the right of the military to try them in a military court. The Problem Bush created was that if he tried them in a military court and executed a modicum of apparent justice, the supreme court would not have ruled. Bush biggest problem is that he did not foresee consequences of his actions. While some of the center and everyone on the left saw this as actions and reactions of a "stupid man", I see it as someone who is not conniving enough to run the most powerful nation on earth. Instead of bobbing and weaving to get things done his way, he stepped into right hooks. Carter would probably fall into the same traps and no one called him stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 28, 2009 0:48:01 GMT -5
Bush biggest problem is that he did not foresee consequences of his actions. While some of the center and everyone on the left saw this as actions and reactions of a "stupid man", I see it as someone who is not conniving enough to run the most powerful nation on earth. Instead of bobbing and weaving to get things done his way, he stepped into right hooks. Carter would probably fall into the same traps and no one called him stupid. Or the answer could be the simple one, that Dubbya really is just a silly, foolish man who hasn't yet grown up and wanted to be something in which he has absolutely no skills to succeed. Kinda like really, really stupid. But full of ambition. I know other guys like that and unless they have rich parents, they usually top out at collecting EI. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 28, 2009 7:41:06 GMT -5
Right, because trying these people would be so easy. Lets see. First there's the evidence. Of course the evidence is half the world away and is in fact, not a crime scene, but a battle ground. So besides the difficulty of sending Gil Grissom to Afghanistan or Iraq to do his CSI thing, there's also the fact that it's overlaid with a lot of other things that would indicate - well, you know, the standard things, bullets, gunpowder residue, craters left behind by hand grenades. Witness testimony? I doubt we'll get any jihadi's to testify against their fellows, so it'd fall to the soldiers to testify against them. Of course, that the soldiers are half a world away engaged in an armed conflict.... I don't know, might be hard to subpeona them. I don't have time at the moment to respond to the rest of your post (and I suspect everyone else is getting bored with our little exercise in sophistry) so I'll just respond to this part. I think you are overestimating how difficult it would be to convict these guys, especially in an American court. There is currently a man serving life in prison with no chance of parole for lending his car to a friend who subsequently committed murder. He wasn't even there, but he is spending the rest of his life behind bars. To take, for example, Omar Khadr, they don't have to prove that he himself threw the grenade that killed the American medic, they merely have to prove that he was working with whoever did, be it Khadr or an associate. And they found Khadr in a remote enemy fortress from which gunfire and explosives were fired, the gunfire and explosives that killed the medic, he was carrying a bunch of enemy weapons, he is an admitted Al Quada sympathiser if not actual member, and they have video of him training to fight and plant mines. What possible defense could he come up with that wouldn't at the very least make him guilty of participating in a murder? "I just happened to be here delivering pizza?" If you are engaging in a criminal activity and a murder is committed then you are guilty of murder, whether you pulled the trigger or not. It wouldn't be difficult to convict these guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 28, 2009 8:46:47 GMT -5
Right, because trying these people would be so easy. Lets see. First there's the evidence. Of course the evidence is half the world away and is in fact, not a crime scene, but a battle ground. So besides the difficulty of sending Gil Grissom to Afghanistan or Iraq to do his CSI thing, there's also the fact that it's overlaid with a lot of other things that would indicate - well, you know, the standard things, bullets, gunpowder residue, craters left behind by hand grenades. Witness testimony? I doubt we'll get any jihadi's to testify against their fellows, so it'd fall to the soldiers to testify against them. Of course, that the soldiers are half a world away engaged in an armed conflict.... I don't know, might be hard to subpeona them. I don't have time at the moment to respond to the rest of your post (and I suspect everyone else is getting bored with our little exercise in sophistry) so I'll just respond to this part. I think you are overestimating how difficult it would be to convict these guys, especially in an American court. There is currently a man serving life in prison with no chance of parole for lending his car to a friend who subsequently committed murder. He wasn't even there, but he is spending the rest of his life behind bars. To take, for example, Omar Khadr, they don't have to prove that he himself threw the grenade that killed the American medic, they merely have to prove that he was working with whoever did, be it Khadr or an associate. And they found Khadr in a remote enemy fortress from which gunfire and explosives were fired, the gunfire and explosives that killed the medic, he was carrying a bunch of enemy weapons, he is an admitted Al Quada sympathiser if not actual member, and they have video of him training to fight and plant mines. What possible defense could he come up with that wouldn't at the very least make him guilty of participating in a murder? "I just happened to be here delivering pizza?" If you are engaging in a criminal activity and a murder is committed then you are guilty of murder, whether you pulled the trigger or not. It wouldn't be difficult to convict these guys. Ahhhh but he could argue Duress .... "What was I suppose to do your honor, say no, and have them kill me?" OR .... "I was there against my will, I was their prisoner, I am Canadian, an infidel in their eyes, I carried those weapons so they wouldn't kill me ...." It wouldn't be difficult to shoe reasonable doubt either .... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 28, 2009 8:54:24 GMT -5
I don't have time at the moment to respond to the rest of your post (and I suspect everyone else is getting bored with our little exercise in sophistry) so I'll just respond to this part. I think you are overestimating how difficult it would be to convict these guys, especially in an American court. There is currently a man serving life in prison with no chance of parole for lending his car to a friend who subsequently committed murder. He wasn't even there, but he is spending the rest of his life behind bars. To take, for example, Omar Khadr, they don't have to prove that he himself threw the grenade that killed the American medic, they merely have to prove that he was working with whoever did, be it Khadr or an associate. And they found Khadr in a remote enemy fortress from which gunfire and explosives were fired, the gunfire and explosives that killed the medic, he was carrying a bunch of enemy weapons, he is an admitted Al Quada sympathiser if not actual member, and they have video of him training to fight and plant mines. What possible defense could he come up with that wouldn't at the very least make him guilty of participating in a murder? "I just happened to be here delivering pizza?" If you are engaging in a criminal activity and a murder is committed then you are guilty of murder, whether you pulled the trigger or not. It wouldn't be difficult to convict these guys. Ahhhh but he could argue Duress .... "What was I suppose to do your honor, say no, and have them kill me?" OR .... "I was there against my will, I was their prisoner, I am Canadian, an infidel in their eyes, I carried those weapons so they wouldn't kill me ...." It wouldn't be difficult to shoe reasonable doubt either .... Maybe so, but if he was thought of as an infidel he'd have been killed or imprisoned. Not given access to weapons. |
|
