McCain and Supreme Court Decision on Terrorist Detainees [Archive]

The Heart Collector

06-18-2008, 02:09 PM

Your post is so fundamentally terrible that I'm not even sure if you even know what habeas corpus is, or what this court decision means.

When a person is deprived of liberty by the state, and placed under arrest, the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus allows a court to determine whether their detention is lawful, whether the state has the power to hold them under arrest.

This allows people to be released if they are being unlawfully arrested, keeping a check on the state and preventing it from abusing the law.

It is irrelevant what the person under arrest is dedicated to. It is irrelevant whether the person is dedicated to murdering innocent people. It is irrelevant whether the person is dedicated to eating children. The person cannot just be arrested without evidence, unlawfully, and without even knowing their charges.

To hear that they "deserve" no such freedom from someone who probably doesn't know diddly squat about the law is laughable. Habeas Corpus has been one of the most important principles of law for hundreds upon hundreds of years. That travesty that happened in 2006 is unspeakable, and to hear people claim that "the terrist dont deserve our freedoms" is depressing and more proof that America doesn't even know what the fuck they're theoretically (but not really) fighting for. Even if they were guilty, they have that right. Inherently.

But that is the point. That they aren't necessarily guilty. The people under custody by the American government aren't guilty. The people petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus aren't guilty. They haven't been tried yet. That is, in fact, the entire point of petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus, and the reason why I'm claiming you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Do you understand those concepts? Innocent until proven guilty, etc? The people petitioning for writs of habeas corpus are often people arrested under dubious circumstances, with dubious evidence, in situations where it is unclear whether they should even be legally held under custody. Your assumption that the writ of habeas corpus is to aid "murderers of innocent people" is right-wing authoritarian fantastic horseshit.

If you went to Iran tomorrow, and their government arrested you, threw you into a hole of a cell, didn't tell you what you were arrested for, what you did, etc, didn't even clarify why exactly it's legal for them to arrest you, do you think that would be legal, and proper? Is that ok, since Iran is in shaky relations with the U.S.? Even if you had actually done something bad, you think it's ok to be thrown into a legal limbo? This is fundamentally against every understanding of American law in, well, history.

Regardless of whether they "deserve" or "not deserve" some nebulous freedoms (keep in mind you're seriously advocating throwing people into a hole forever regardless of whether they're guilty of anything), the Constitution says any persons have those rights, unless during times of rebellion or invasion. There is no rebellion, there is no invasion. So what are you talking about?

MISFITS_Fiend

06-18-2008, 02:15 PM

Please clearly state your position on the matter. and the constitutional support for it.

Considering the fact that these terrorists are not American citizens I don't see how the Constitution has anything to do with this. It was designed to protect American citizens, not people who are trying to kill them.

What reasons could you possibly have to defend this decision?

The Heart Collector

06-18-2008, 02:26 PM

Considering the fact that these terrorists are not American citizens I don't see how the Constitution has anything to do with this. It was designed to protect American citizens, not people who are trying to kill them.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What reason could I possibly have to defend this decision? That it is the only rational decision that can be made.

SpoonMan999

06-18-2008, 02:36 PM

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What reason could I possibly have to defend this decision? That it is the only rational decision that can be made.

As I said in another thread and as was stated above the Constitution is to protect American citizens. I think these peopel should be treated under the laws of their own people, which supports murdering 20 people just to kill one or two soldiers. By those standards they would have been executed shortly after being arrested without even talking to a lawyer, which by the way they were using lawyers to pass messages that the guards couldn't confiscate due to "confidentiality" between a client and his lawyer.

The Heart Collector

06-18-2008, 02:43 PM

The Constitution is not to protect only American citizens. The evidence of that is the relevant portion I just quoted, which explicitly makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens regarding the rights and laws they are subject to, and there are centuries of legal precedent for the idea that the Constitution refers to everyone. No amount of hand waving will make the reality disappear.

I'm still patiently waiting for an argument that isn't fear-mongering nonsense.

SpoonMan999

06-18-2008, 02:46 PM

RicochetShaw

06-18-2008, 02:51 PM

The evidence of that is the relevant portion I just quoted, which explicitly makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens regarding the rights and laws they are subject to

I'm with you here on the issue as a whole, but I think it's a case of the Constitution not explicility making a distinction, as opposed to, as you say, explicitly making no distinction. I don't want to speak for you, but I assume you really meant the former, right?

The Heart Collector

06-18-2008, 02:54 PM

Just because one line makes no distinction it doesn't change what the constituion was created for.

You honestly have no reading comprehension.

The Constitution's intent is within the Constitution. That's why it exists. Within the Constitution, it is very explicit that these rights apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship, therefore the Constitution was created to provide rights to everyone under the jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship.

Your claim that the Constitution was created solely to protect American citizens isn't a given. You have to actually prove it. And the evidence says that it is untrue, because the actual content of the Constitution grants rights to people under the jurisdiction of America regardless of citizenship.

You have no argument, do you understand? Your claim that the Constitution was created for the specific purpose you've decided it was is easily disproven by the actual document.

Stop this nonsense about what the Constitution was "created for". The actual text of the Constitution, not to mention centuries of legal precedent utterly contradict your childish notion of what the Constitution is for.

Homyrrh

06-18-2008, 02:55 PM

From a certain perspective, THC is essentially entirely right, at least when in times of peace. However, it has been my understanding for many years that in times of war, as in now, that writ can be waived under executive order.

As in the case of the Gitmo detainees, their writ to habeas corpus, as you put it, has been revoked because of the legal premise illustrated in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

It seems sensible that because an attack on US soil was attempted and succesfully accomplished, costing several thousand American lives, and there is a very evident threat of further attacks by terrorist organizations associated with these detainees, that there write to habeas corpus be suspended.

Therefore, because it has been suspended by the chief executive, however much one may hate him, those affected by this ruling, those under military jurisdiction as captured by the military, should have no right to appeal in US civilian courts.

The Heart Collector

06-18-2008, 02:55 PM

It seems sensible that because an attack on US soil was attempted and succesfully accomplished, costing several thousand American lives, and there is a very evident threat of further attacks by terrorist organizations associated with these detainees, that there write to habeas corpus be suspended.

This isn't sensible at all. America is not under invasion in any way, shape or form. It hasn't been under threat of invasion at any point during the war on terror. A terrorist attack is not invasion. An attack on U.S. soil is not invasion. Their right of habeas corpus cannot be suspended because September 11th. This is in fact what the Supreme Court, who studied the situation, decided.

Was America under "invasion" when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building? What was the distinction, that McVeigh is american? At what point has Al Qaeda actually planned on literally taking over America?

SpoonMan999

06-18-2008, 03:00 PM

You honestly have no reading comprehension.

The Constitution's intent is within the Constitution. That's why it exists. Within the Constitution, it is very explicit that these rights apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship, therefore the Constitution was created to provide rights to everyone under the jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship.

Your claim that the Constitution was created solely to protect American citizens isn't a given. You have to actually prove it. And the evidence says that it is untrue, because the actual content of the Constitution grants rights to people under the jurisdiction of America regardless of citizenship.

You have no argument, do you understand? Your claim that the Constitution was created for the specific purpose you've decided it was is easily disproven by the actual document.

Stop this nonsense about what the Constitution was "created for". The actual text of the Constitution, not to mention centuries of legal precedent utterly contradict your childish notion of what the Constitution is for.

I don't see why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you. How is it childish to think that my forefathers created this document to protect their people. Yes, it does cover rights for people in the country that do not have citizenship, but the reason for it's creation is to protect the people of the United States, which Hom has effectively pointed out.

RicochetShaw

06-18-2008, 03:04 PM

C'mon, Heart Collector, I posted before Homyrrh, but you respond to him first. I'm so hurt.

But really though, I'm only at work for another hour and I'd like to discuss this before I go. This post is a sort of bump to ensure my question to you isn't lost in the muddle.

SpoonMan999

06-18-2008, 03:04 PM

in·va·sion Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-vey-zhuhn] –noun 1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.

I think by definition 9/11 counts as an invasion and more than grants the president power to hold them without habeus corpus.

Homyrrh

06-18-2008, 03:04 PM

Alright, Spoon and THC, this is infantile. To the former, stop using nonsensical arguments based entirely on moral conviction and assumption; in all, Spoonman, the basis for the Constitution was to preserve liberty, specifically, not exclusively, that of American citizens. To the former, please read my immediately prior post and, also, do stop using rather immature name calling.

RicochetShaw

06-18-2008, 03:09 PM

I think by definition 9/11 counts as an invasion and more than grants the president power to hold them without habeus corpus.

To get Constitutional... do you have any Constitutional basis for this thought?

Here's the document in question. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Hint: It would be under Article II.

Homyrrh

06-18-2008, 03:09 PM

This isn't sensible at all. America is not under invasion in any way, shape or form. It hasn't been under threat of invasion at any point during the war on terror. A terrorist attack is not invasion. An attack on U.S. soil is not invasion. Their right of habeas corpus cannot be suspended because September 11th. This is in fact what the Supreme Court, who studied the situation, decided.

Was America under "invasion" when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building? What was the distinction, that McVeigh is american? At what point has Al Qaeda actually planned on literally taking over America?
Didn't see this.

MY issue with your rhetoric and logic now, THC, is that you asked for a tangible, logical argument from someone opposed to the decision, was supplied one, and still look to refute.

It's very simple. Your argument was based on their "writ to habea corpus". It was revoked under executive order. This is a fact, just like there was an invasion of US soil. That was September 11, 2001. BECAUSE habeas corpus was waived, the detainess CAN be held without charge.

THIS was the argument presented in the thread, not whether or not their writ should be waived. If someone captured and charged by the military factually has NO LEGAL RIGHTS, how can they sensibly appeal their detainment in a civilian court?

The Heart Collector

06-18-2008, 03:15 PM

I'm with you here on the issue as a whole, but I think it's a case of the Constitution not explicility making a distinction, as opposed to, as you say, explicitly making no distinction. I don't want to speak for you, but I assume you really meant the former, right?

My point is the Constitution doesn't make a distinction, but that's not to be interpreted as some oversight or some unfortunate choice of words, it's very deliberate. As I've said before, this has always been interpreted as giving rights to all persons regardless of citizenship, it's not like this is the first time in history that this wording has come into question.

Not addressed towards you, but... For all these comments about how the terrorists hate our freedoms and would "kill us all" if they had the chance, has anyone tried to think about this in an actually realistic way, at all?

I'm not an American citizen. But I live in America. Are you guys saying I'm not under protection of American laws because I'm not a citizen? Or that I shouldn't be tried under American laws because I'm not an American citizen? I feel that within all this nonsensical "kill them terrists" rah-rah bullshit no one's ever actually sat down and thought a little bit about the human repercussions.

Again, I ask, am I not under American law? Do I have no rights to life, liberty and justice because I'm not American?

So what, the government could come in tomorrow, throw me inside a hole, and not even tell me what I did or where I allegedly did it, and that would be fair? Because apparently, I would kill you if I had the chance?

Is that what you guys are saying? The law in practically every country I can think of can try non-citizens. I am Colombian. We regularly extradite our criminals, our Colombian criminals, here to America so that they can be tried under American law for crimes done in America, under all the provisions that American law bring.

I don't understand how anyone can seriously claim that the country's laws don't apply to people that aren't citizens. That is just absurd.

I don't see why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you. How is it childish to think that my forefathers created this document to protect their people.

Because you were making a childish argument. Sorry, but it was a childish argument. Your argument was that the wording of the Constitution didn't match what you wanted the wording to be, therefore it should be ignored. That's almost literally what you said.

The Heart Collector

06-18-2008, 03:21 PM

It's very simple. Your argument was based on their "writ to habea corpus". It was revoked under executive order. This is a fact, just like there was an invasion of US soil. That was September 11, 2001. BECAUSE habeas corpus was waived, the detainess CAN be held without charge.

September 11th was not an invasion. Please stop saying September 11th was an invasion. Saying September 11th was an invasion isn't going to make September 11th an invasion.

Furthermore, September 11th was seven years ago. Seven years ago. Even if September 11th were an invasion, which it wasn't, how are you going to rationally keep using September 11th as an argument for invasion indefinitely? At what point do we say "We aren't being 'invaded' anymore"?

Further-furthermore, invasion from whom? Who was invading us, Al Qaeda? Do you think every prisoner at Guantanamo is from Al Qaeda? Who, who is invading us?

This "invasion" argument falls apart completely because no one is invading us, and even if someone was invading us, it was seven years ago. World War Two was shorter than that.

Homyrrh

06-18-2008, 03:24 PM

September 11th was not an invasion. Please stop saying September 11th was an invasion. Saying September 11th was an invasion isn't going to make September 11th an invasion.

Furthermore, September 11th was seven years ago. Seven years ago. Even if September 11th were an invasion, which it wasn't, how are you going to rationally keep using September 11th as an argument for invasion indefinitely? At what point do we say "We aren't being 'invaded' anymore"?

Further-furthermore, invasion from whom? Who was invading us, Al Qaeda? Do you think every prisoner at Guantanamo is from Al Qaeda? Who, who is invading us?

This "invasion" argument falls apart completely because no one is invading us, and even if someone was invading us, it was seven years ago. World War Two was shorter than that.
When militant foreigners hijack American flights and attack both civilian and government/military targets, it's an invasion, just like Pearl Harbor was an invasion. There is no Constitutional standard for how many years one can be held, and using this argument is a direct contradiction to the frustration you expressed about the intangible, conviction-fueled arguments of Spoon and others.

You have yet to logically and legitmately refute the unconstitutionality of this ruling.

Homyrrh

06-18-2008, 03:24 PM

My point is the Constitution doesn't make a distinction, but that's not to be interpreted as some oversight or some unfortunate choice of words, it's very deliberate. As I've said before, this has always been interpreted as giving rights to all persons regardless of citizenship, it's not like this is the first time in history that this wording has come into question.

Not addressed towards you, but... For all these comments about how the terrorists hate our freedoms and would "kill us all" if they had the chance, has anyone tried to think about this in an actually realistic way, at all?

I'm not an American citizen. But I live in America. Are you guys saying I'm not under protection of American laws because I'm not a citizen? Or that I shouldn't be tried under American laws because I'm not an American citizen? I feel that within all this nonsensical "kill them terrists" rah-rah bullshit no one's ever actually sat down and thought a little bit about the human repercussions.

Again, I ask, am I not under American law? Do I have no rights to life, liberty and justice because I'm not American?

So what, the government could come in tomorrow, throw me inside a hole, and not even tell me what I did or where I allegedly did it, and that would be fair? Because apparently, I would kill you if I had the chance?

Is that what you guys are saying? The law in practically every country I can think of can try non-citizens. I am Colombian. We regularly extradite our criminals, our Colombian criminals, here to America so that they can be tried under American law for crimes done in America, under all the provisions that American law bring.

I don't understand how anyone can seriously claim that the country's laws don't apply to people that aren't citizens. That is just absurd.

Because you were making a childish argument. Sorry, but it was a childish argument. Your argument was that the wording of the Constitution didn't match what you wanted the wording to be, therefore it should be ignored. That's almost literally what you said.
I think this was not directed toward me, and I understand the argument. THe issue with some of the rhetoric that opposes the SC's decision is that it is very intangible and based entirely on projection.

HOWEVER, I feel my argument makes the most sense. THC, I assume you may be a legal resident. You may also be an illegal alien. Either way, the US Constitution governs the US, but I cannot say whether it is for strict citizens or aliens, etc.

What I do know is that if your writ to habeas corpus is waived, your legal right not to be detained without warrant is voided. It may be unfortunate or it may not, be either way, it is an irrefutable fact.

SpoonMan999

06-18-2008, 03:30 PM

Because you were making a childish argument. Sorry, but it was a childish argument. Your argument was that the wording of the Constitution didn't match what you wanted the wording to be, therefore it should be ignored. That's almost literally what you said.

How was I being childish? The Constitution was written to protect the rights of those who were oppressed by the British government and to protect their lives. Even the slimmest chance of one of these men being released when they appeal their case does not protect us, in fact it endangers us. There have been issues in the past of the Constitution being too vague in some areas and that is because it's an old document that does need to be amended at times to fit modern society.

RicochetShaw

06-18-2008, 03:46 PM

How was I being childish? The Constitution was written to protect the rights of those who were oppressed by the British government and to protect their lives.

Actually, the Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

SpoonMan999

06-18-2008, 04:08 PM

Actually, the Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

That is merely the circumstances in which it was written. I'm talking about the intent of the documents.

MadsenOMC

06-18-2008, 04:11 PM

Even the slimmest chance of one of these men being released when they appeal their case does not protect us, in fact it endangers us.

Fearmongering.

SpoonMan999

06-18-2008, 04:14 PM

Fearmongering.

I'm sorry, but you should have a healthy fear of men who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people being released.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-18-2008, 04:26 PM

What was the distinction, that McVeigh is american? At what point has Al Qaeda actually planned on literally taking over America?

Wow, you answered your own question. OF COURSE it was because McVeigh was an American citizen! Are you really arguing semantics over common sense? That's really reaching.

I don't think Al Qaeda has any plans of taking over America. They want to destroy it. I don't think they can be any clearer about that than they already have.

The Heart Collector

06-19-2008, 12:13 AM

I don't think Al Qaeda has any plans of taking over America. They want to destroy it. I don't think they can be any clearer about that than they already have.

So?

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 10:45 AM

SpoonMan, since you like Steve Chapman so much, here's his column from today:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0619chapmanjun19,1,7624376.column
chicagotribune.com

Terrorized by the Supreme Court

Steve Chapman

June 19, 2008

A lot of people who strongly believe in the war on terror are not above sowing a little terror of their own. From the reaction to last week's Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo, you would think the detainees were all going to be trained, armed and set free at ground zero, with free shuttle service to the nearest airport.

John McCain denounced the ruling, which said inmates may ask for federal court review under a procedure known as habeas corpus, as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Former Bush Justice Department official John Yoo warned that, henceforth, captured enemy fighters will be read their Miranda rights. The irrepressible Wall Street Journal had a cartoon with a judge atop a cage labeled "Gitmo" watching masked inmates stream out wearing suicide vests and lugging AK-47s.

All this outrage builds on the dissent registered by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The court's decision "will make the war harder on us," he thundered. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Well, it won't have that effect unless it leads to inmates being released—which it has not, will not anytime soon, and may not ever. If and when it does, he may have a point, though not necessarily a powerful one.

Anytime you let someone out of prison, even if he's innocent, you create the possibility that he will someday kill someone. Scalia makes much of the supposed fact that 30 of the detainees freed from Guantanamo "have returned to the battlefield." Just because they were later captured or killed, however, doesn't mean they "returned" to the war.

Some of them may have been victims of mistaken identity, which could explain why those softhearted folks at the Pentagon let them go. But stick a blameless unfortunate in a cage for six years, abusing him in the process, and when he comes out, he may seek revenge. The only way to eliminate the risk is to keep all the detainees locked up forever.

Even the Bush administration has not gone that far. It was happy to free more than 500 inmates over the years. When it did, by the way, nobody accused the president of causing more Americans to be killed.

Besides, any releases are only speculative right now. To have a chance at freedom, a prisoner will have to make a plausible case that he's innocent. The administration had already planned to try 80 of the detainees before military commissions, which suggests it has abundant evidence of guilt.

Presumably the Defense Department has information to show that many, if not all, of the others were connected to Al Qaeda or other enemy forces. If the government presents incriminating evidence that the inmate can't refute, a habeas corpus petition will be about as useful to him as a snowboard.

Nor are the courts likely to let the American Civil Liberties Union draw up the standards for release. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, indicated the judiciary will err on the side of caution.

"Habeas corpus proceedings need not resemble a criminal trial," he stipulated, for those worried about Miranda warnings. Though inmates have rights, he noted, "it does not follow that a habeas corpus court may disregard the dangers the detention in these cases was intended to prevent."

Let's suppose there's an inmate whom the Pentagon thinks was fighting for Al Qaeda but lacks any supporting evidence it can use in court. Does he now have a get-out-of-Gitmo-free card? Not necessarily.

In that case, says Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen, the government could classify him as a prisoner of war—who, like POWs in previous wars, may be held until the hostilities cease. The trouble, from the administration's point of view, is that he would then be entitled to standard POW protections, such as being treated humanely and not being punished for refusing to answer questions. But at this point, that's a small price to pay.

It's also a small price to say that if the executive branch wants to capture someone, treat him as an enemy combatant and hold him for the rest of his life, it should have to justify that decision to someone other than itself. Critics of this decision are terrified that the courts will have the power to free innocent men. But really, the alternative is a lot scarier.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 11:20 AM

So?

Awesome comeback. I was just responding to your comment "Was America under "invasion" when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building? What was the distinction, that McVeigh is american? At what point has Al Qaeda actually planned on literally taking over America?"

I know this is your world and we just live in it, but just because someone disagrees with your views doesn't make them wrong.

Thanks for playing.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 11:32 AM

Is America under invasion right now?

Homyrrh

06-19-2008, 11:50 AM

Is America under invasion right now?
Eh, at least the threat of. But the further, more important fact is that we were at the time.

The issue is that the topic presented in this thread is becoming much too intangible for the sake of logical discussion. There is a lot of "well this should have happened, so this has no merit" and "you're entirely unjustified because I assume...", etc.

The FACT, regardless of whatever or merit or lack of merit may inherently exist therein, is that these prisoners, as we are in a time of war, had their right to habeas corpus revoked under executive order. This waiver is still in effect, thus remissing the right of the Gitmo prisoners to only be held with presentation of charges; in other words, they have no basic Miranda rights.

You can question the morality or ethics of the decision, but to me, the Supreme Court overruled the Constitution itself (the aforementioned Article I, Section 9).

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 11:53 AM

Were we under invasion, or were we attacked? Or to you are they one and the same?

Because of 9/11 it is OK for our government to just throw anyone we deem a terrorist in jail and let them sit there, with no rights whatsoever? You trust this administration with that responsibility? You want this great country engaging in that type of activity?

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 12:11 PM

I'm not an American citizen. But I live in America. Are you guys saying I'm not under protection of American laws because I'm not a citizen? Or that I shouldn't be tried under American laws because I'm not an American citizen?

Of course you're protected under American law. However, when was the last time you committed a terrorist act on American soil? I'm guessing not recently, so your argument is baseless.

Again, I ask, am I not under American law? Do I have no rights to life, liberty and justice because I'm not American?

You have the right to be protected by American law, but you are also required to follow it. No other country allows the public to try terrorists in court; a terrorist attack is considered a military attack, hence being tried in military court.

BTW:

in·va·sion: Pronunciation[in-vey-zhuhn] –noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 12:14 PM

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 12:18 PM

Did every single person in Guantanamo commit a terrorist act on American soil?

Probably not; they were being held under suspicion of being terrorists or aiding them. How many were convicted? Not every single person, I'm sure.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 12:21 PM

I don't know; do you?

Of course they didn't.

I can't believe American citizens are fine with this administration locking up hundreds of people in Guantanamo in the name of "fighting terrorism" and giving them no legal rights. We just have to take Bush and Co. at their word, and of course they would never lie.

Elgyn

06-19-2008, 12:26 PM

[sigh]
Haven`t you people been paying attention to ANYTHING our President says?

They`re not terrorists.
They`re evildoers.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 12:27 PM

Of course they didn't.

I can't believe American citizens are fine with this administration locking up hundreds of people in Guantanamo in the name of "fighting terrorism" and giving them no legal rights. We just have to take Bush and Co. at their word, and of course they would never lie.

Sorry, I edited my post before I saw this.

If those hundreds of people are suspected of being terrorist, then you're goddamn right I'm fine with it. Go to another country, attack their citizens, and see how touchy-feely they are about it.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 12:29 PM

If those hundreds of people are suspected of being terrorist, then you're goddamn right I'm fine with it. Go to another country, attack their citizens, and see how touchy-feely they are about it.

How many of them have actually been convicted of being terrorists? And you think they are all terrorists just because Bush says so? Do you believe everything he tells you?

NOT ALL OF THEM ATTACKED AMERICANS!

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 12:33 PM

How many of them have actually been convicted of being terrorists? And you think they are all terrorists just because Bush says so? Do you believe everything he tells you?

NOT ALL OF THEM ATTACKED AMERICANS!

At what point did I say I believed it just because Bush said so? That response is so cliched now that it isn't even a valid one.

And I never said they all attacked Americans, I said they were suspected of it. Sure, some people have been wrongly accused, but shit happens all over the world, not just when the US is involved.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 12:38 PM

At what point did I say I believed it just because Bush said so? That response is so cliched now that it isn't even a valid one.

And I never said they all attacked Americans, I said they were suspected of it. Sure, some people have been wrongly accused, but shit happens all over the world, not just when the US is involved.

So do you trust the Bush administration when it comes to holding "suspected terrorists" at Guantanamo Bay? If they say someone is a terrorist, do you just take them at their word?

You are comfortable with locking people up and giving them no legal rights because they are suspected of terrorism?

Well fine, shit happens, it's all OK then. Great attitude.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 12:45 PM

So do you trust the Bush administration when it comes to holding "suspected terrorists" at Guantanamo Bay? If they say someone is a terrorist, do you just take them at their word?

You are comfortable with locking people up and giving them no legal rights because they are suspected of terrorism?

Well fine, shit happens, it's all OK then. Great attitude.

What is this "no legal rights" shit? Do you believe everything the Democratic party tells you?

They have access to lawyers, religious facilities, food and water. And if I was arrested under suspicion of terrorism by another country, I can guarantee you that my situation would be a lot worse than that.

And yeah, I like my attitude. I'm tired of people treading around worried to do anything due to the fear that someone won't like it. I didn't say it was fair; it's how the world is.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 12:47 PM

What is this "no legal rights" shit? Do you believe everything the Democratic party tells you?

They have access to lawyers, religious facilities, food and water. And if I was arrested under suspicion of terrorism by another country, I can guarantee you that my situation would be a lot worse than that.

And yeah, I like my attitude. I'm tired of people treading around worried to do anything due to the fear that someone won't like it. I didn't say it was fair; it's how the world is.

I asked a valid question and you responded with a stupid one. I honestly wonder whether or not you believe the Bush administration every time they call someone a suspected terrorist and hold them in Guantanamo Bay.

Every single prisoner at Guantanamo has access to lawyers?

You keep referencing other countries. Do you not want this country held to a higher standard? Or should we always just do what other countries do?

I'm tired of people excusing everything this country does in the name of fighting terrorism.

Vong

06-19-2008, 12:56 PM

http://ca.geocities.com/jgilston@rogers.com/willnotendwell.jpg

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 01:06 PM

I asked a valid question and you responded with a stupid one.

Stupid? It's basically the same question you asked me, only the names have changed.

You keep referencing other countries. Do you not want this country held to a higher standard? Or should we always just do what other countries do?

Sure, higher standards would be nice, but don't expect countries that have made it known that they hate us to respect us for it. Nobody gives a shit anymore.

And, Vong? Awesome picture. :)

QUENTIN

06-19-2008, 01:25 PM

Stupid? It's basically the same question you asked me, only the names have changed.

No it isn't, not at all. You're obviously not paying attention or just working off buzzwords. Your question is stupid because knowing that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not being held with any specific charges, have no legal rights, and are unable to secure release even if they are demonstrably innocent is a matter of public record and has nothing to do with the Democratic party. You're just trying to agitate and you think turn his question around, except his is valid and yours is nonsensical. His is valid because you say you have no problem with what's going on at Guantanamo Bay and without legal rights or court oversight, the only "evidence" that the prisoners at Gitmo are reasonably suspected of terrorism is the word of the Bush administration. So to have no qualms with the Gitmo situation, you have to take the administration at their word and just trust that they're being forthright and honest...even though time and time and time and time again we've found out they're not.

Sure, higher standards would be nice, but don't expect countries that have made it known that they hate us to respect us for it. Nobody gives a shit anymore.

It has nothing to do with how other countries see us. It has to do with how we can honestly see ourselves and who we really are. We can't be a democracy, a "beacon of hope", a free society that America is supposed to be and continue this barbarous, unconstitutional gulag system. "Sure, higher standards would be nice"? It's pretty evident that you don't give a shit what America is and have no pride in your country.

The Heart Collector

06-19-2008, 01:32 PM

Of course you're protected under American law. However, when was the last time you committed a terrorist act on American soil? I'm guessing not recently, so your argument is baseless.

When was the last time 90% of the people in Guantanamo committed an attack on American soil?

Never. And you know that's the case, yet you continue to spout this right-wing authoritarian bullshit. We know you don't actually believe most of these people didn't commit the worst crimes, so why do you try to use it as an argument? It isn't an argument. Even then, so what? We pick and choose who is protected under American law depending on whether we like what crimes they committed?

Removing the writ of habeas corpus during times of invasion and rebellion is already extremely tricky and not exactly a positive thing. In cases where the country is under chaos, such as an invasion by a foreign country, or rebellion/civil war, it can be useful.

Even by being extremely, extremely generous and granting you that Al Qaeda is STILL INVADING AMERICA (again, a preposterous notion), this is not a time of crisis. America isn't under crisis. Again, do you understand that? Even if I am the most generous person in the entire history of the law and grant you that 911 was an invasion, America is not at all in chaos. Americans live peacefully. Americans aren't particularly concerned about Al Qaeda. The average person's life isn't affected at all.

Do you understand that? It's not that we arbitrarily decide "yeah this qualifies as invasion, let's destroy habeas corpus, one of the most importants human rights in history since the goddamn magna carta was signed for fucks sake". There is no reason why the present situation requires removing the writ of habeas corpus. There is no reason why the situation on September 11th 2002 (a year later) required removing the writ of habeas corpus.

Again, is that clear? Even if we grant you the completely absurd notion that America is under invasion, there is no need for it. Removing the writ of habeas corpus is a very extreme measure done under chaotic times, such as, y'know, when Lincoln did it. If any of you are trying to argue that the goddamn Civil War was equally as chaotic to America as this dumb "war on terror" bullshit, then you've drank the kool aid.

I'm sorry, but America was not under invasion. America wasn't under invasion then, it isn't under invasion now. Much like England and Spain were never under any invasion. No one even thought America was under invasion at the time. Do you think on September 12th, 2001, the United States government was mobilizing their army to fend off the coming Al Qaeda invasion? Was Osama Bin Laden strolling through the White House inside a tank, hoping to stage a coup on the American government and turn it into Islam? If Al Qaeda was trying to "invade" the country, why did it try to invade it by destroying a bunch of symbolic buildings and dying in the process? Seriously, are you honestly arguing that suicide bombers were trying to invade the country? That's like saying a palestinian who blows him/herself up was trying to "invade" a coffee shop. It's absolutely preposterous. What army was Al Qaeda going to use to invade? What further plans did Al Qaeda have within America? None. Because it wasn't an invasion. It was an attack.

The argument that America is under invasion, or was under invasion, is ridiculous. It's not even the argument that the executive powers, the legislative powers, and the judicial powers have tried to use in order to determine whether these people's right of habeas corpus should be removed. It's not even that. Do you get that? Like, Roberts isn't arguing that. Kennedy isn't arguing that. I don't understand why I have to sit here and explain to you two why America isn't and hasn't been under invasion at all.

You guys' crazy-ass argument demonstrates quite well why trying to label a terrorist attack as an invasion is a completely preposterous argument, and using that alleged "invasion" to remove habeas corpus is even more preposterous. America was attacked in this decade. America was attacked in the last decade. America will probably, at some point, be attacked again. Using your psychotic moon logic, habeas corpus could and should be cancelled indefinitely. There is a huge difference between a country in civil war, a country under invasion, and an isolated attack (which is what 911 was, and will be), and to use an isolated attack as an excuse to remove the writ of habeas corpus indefinitely is patently absurd, and an obvious dump on the law's head.

The Heart Collector

06-19-2008, 01:35 PM

Eh, at least the threat of. But the further, more important fact is that we were at the time.

No. This is not a "fact". You don't get to just toss the word "fact" around with shiny little vbulletin emphasis like bold and italic. America wasn't under invasion. There is no possible argument you can make that America was under invasion. You haven't even remotely tried to make a proper case that America was under invasion. How the fuck is America under the threat of jack shit? I want the fucking proof. I want you to come here right now, and give me a real, detailed set of plans by Al Qaeda on how they're going to mobilize an army to invade America, topple the main cities, fight the American Military, and stage a coup on the White House. Because that's a fucking invasion, not killing yourself inside a fucking plane. Where's the fucking plans? Where's Al Qaeda's plan to invade the White House on Sept 12th? Where was the Al Qaeda army stationed in order to invade America? Where were they gonna do it from? Mexico? Canada? Boats? Planes? Were they planning on invading Hawaii, perhaps? Which coast were the boats gonna release their soldiers on? What was their path for coming straight into Washington D.C.?

America was not under invasion. Stop fucking saying that. There is zero argument and zero evidence that 911 was anything other than an isolated attack on American soil, and demonstrable evidence that the next terrorist "invasion attacks" weren't in America at all.

The FACT, regardless of whatever or merit or lack of merit may inherently exist therein, is that these prisoners, as we are in a time of war, had their right to habeas corpus revoked under executive order. This waiver is still in effect, thus remissing the right of the Gitmo prisoners to only be held with presentation of charges; in other words, they have no basic Miranda rights.

The FACT is that the Supreme Court has decided the executive orders and the legislative orders were a load of unconstitutional shit. The fact is the President doesn't get to turn off the Constitution whenever he pleases. The FACT is you're defending a morally and legally indefensible position for no apparent reason other than the hatred of everything America actually stands for in a ridiculous, bloodthirsty zeal to take a crap over some guy that was arrested that apparently had the same name as some suspected terrorist and that apparently is reason enough to throw him in a hole, torture him daily, and not allow him to even ask WHY he is there in the first place because gee shucks we might get 'em terrists with this strategy! YAY AMERICA! THESE COLORS DO NOT RUN! *takes a shit all over the law, the constitution, basic human rights, morality, decency, logic, reason, civility, and truth* GOTTA GET 'EM TERRISTS AMERICA IS UNDER INVASHUN YEEE HAAWWW *fucking tortures some guy for two years until he dies, finds out later he's innocent* YEEEH HAWWW WE'RE GETTING 'EM! KEEPIN' AMERICA SAFE BABY WHOOOOO WHOOOOOO *takes pictures of dead corpse* AWWW C'MON GUYS WHY DOES ANYONE HATE AMERICA THIS IS BULLSHIT! UNITED WE STAND!

SpoonMan999

06-19-2008, 02:22 PM

No it isn't, not at all. You're obviously not paying attention or just working off buzzwords. Your question is stupid because knowing that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not being held with any specific charges, have no legal rights, and are unable to secure release even if they are demonstrably innocent is a matter of public record and has nothing to do with the Democratic party. You're just trying to agitate and you think turn his question around, except his is valid and yours is nonsensical. His is valid because you say you have no problem with what's going on at Guantanamo Bay and without legal rights or court oversight, the only "evidence" that the prisoners at Gitmo are reasonably suspected of terrorism is the word of the Bush administration. So to have no qualms with the Gitmo situation, you have to take the administration at their word and just trust that they're being forthright and honest...even though time and time and time and time again we've found out they're not.

His question is valid because you keep saying they had no rights. They had rights, they had legal consel and took advantage of that right by passing messages in "confidential" folders which their lawyers passed on and the guards couldn't read the messages due to "client confidentialy." Most of the people I've talked to are aware of this, you guys seem to not be so it must be coming from somewhere.

America was not under invasion. Stop fucking saying that. There is zero argument and zero evidence that 911 was anything other than an isolated attack on American soil, and demonstrable evidence that the next terrorist "invasion attacks" weren't in America at all.

You're making the mistake of thinking an invasion is a larger or constant assault. In fact, invasion is, as described by MISFITS_fiend and myself previously, quite simply an act of entering as an enemy. Simply setting foot on our soil as an enemy with the intent of doing harm to this country they have invaded us. Everyone thinks for an invasion you need a large army when in fact it can be done by one man. When those planes crashed we weren't being invaded we already had been and that was the penalty for us not realizing it.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 02:23 PM

No it isn't, not at all. You're obviously not paying attention or just working off buzzwords.

Whatever, dude. I'm wrong and everybody else is right; got it.

It's pretty evident that you don't give a shit what America is and have no pride in your country.

Yeah, you know me. I served my country...not for college money or a steady paycheck, but because I just wanted to serve. So don't sit there on your high horse and tell me I don't give a shit about this country; I love this country.

I do believe that the US should set a standard that the world looks up to, and no I don't think we're there yet. I just don't think that having terrorist trials in public court is the way to go. Take that as you will; I really don't care. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 02:25 PM

Does every single person being held in Guantanamo have access to a lawyer? What are your sources?

The news (including news reports from the UK, Europe and Asia).

What are your sources that they don't?

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 02:26 PM

His question is valid because you keep saying they had no rights. They had rights, they had legal consel and took advantage of that right by passing messages in "confidential" folders which their lawyers passed on and the guards couldn't read the messages due to "client confidentialy." Most of the people I've talked to are aware of this, you guys seem to not be so it must be coming from somewhere.

Does every single person being held in Guantanamo have access to a lawyer? What are your sources?

QUENTIN

06-19-2008, 02:27 PM

The Heart Collector is awesome and say what you will about his anger, he uses facts, the real kind, and logic to back his arguments.

Anyway, like Iraq, this clusterfuck in Guantanamo is likely creating terroristm rather than preventing it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080618/wl_mcclatchy/2969823
Militants found recruits among Guantanamo's wrongly detained
By Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers

GARDEZ, Afghanistan - Mohammed Naim Farouq was a thug in the lawless Zormat district of eastern Afghanistan . He ran a kidnapping and extortion racket, and he controlled his turf with a band of gunmen who rode around in trucks with AK-47 rifles.

U.S. troops detained him in 2002, although he had no clear ties to the Taliban or al Qaida. By the time Farouq was released from Guantanamo the next year, however - after more than 12 months of what he described as abuse and humiliation at the hands of American soldiers - he'd made connections to high-level militants.

In fact, he'd become a Taliban leader. When the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency released a stack of 20 "most wanted" playing cards in 2006 identifying militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan - with Osama bin Laden at the top - Farouq was 16 cards into the deck.

A McClatchy investigation found that instead of confining terrorists, Guantanamo often produced more of them by rounding up common criminals, conscripts, low-level foot soldiers and men with no allegiance to radical Islam - thus inspiring a deep hatred of the United States in them - and then housing them in cells next to radical Islamists.

The radicals were quick to exploit the flaws in the U.S. detention system.

Soldiers, guards or interrogators at the U.S. bases at Bagram or Kandahar in Afghanistan had abused many of the detainees, and they arrived at Guantanamo enraged at America.

The Taliban and al Qaida leaders in the cells around them were ready to preach their firebrand interpretation of Islam and the need to wage jihad, Islamic holy war, against the West. Guantanamo became a school for jihad, complete with a council of elders who issued fatwas, binding religious instructions, to the other detainees.

Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby , until recently the commanding officer at Guantanamo, acknowledged that senior militant leaders gained influence and control in his prison.

"We have that full range of (Taliban and al Qaida) leadership here, why would they not continue to be functional as an organization?" he said in a telephone interview. "I must make the assumption that there's a fully functional al Qaida cell here at Guantanamo."

Afghan and Pakistani officials also said they were aware that Guantanamo was churning out new militant leaders.

In a classified 2005 review of 35 detainees released from Guantanamo, Pakistani police intelligence concluded that the men - the majority of whom had been subjected to "severe mental and physical torture," according to the report - had "extreme feelings of resentment and hatred against USA ."

The report warned that unless steps were taken to rehabilitate the men, they had the potential of "becoming another Abdullah Mehsud," a former Guantanamo detainee who became a high-ranking Taliban commander in the Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan . Mehsud killed himself with a grenade last July to avoid being taken prisoner by Pakistani troops.

"A lot of our friends are working against the Americans now, because if you torture someone without any reason, what do you expect?" Issa Khan , a Pakistani former detainee, said in an interview in Islamabad . "Many people who were in Guantanamo are now working with the Taliban."

According to Afghan authorities, Mohammed Naim Farouq was a rural gangster, not a terrorist.

"He was with a group that was kidnapping people. It was a criminal group. It did a lot of extortion," said Attorney General Abdul Jabar Sabit , who interviewed Farouq in Guantanamo.

But, Sabit found, Farouq wasn't linked to the Taliban or al Qaida when the Americans arrested him.

No more. Since Farouq was released from Guantanamo, the Defense Intelligence Agency said, he's had a relationship with al Qaida and the Taliban and heads a group of Taliban militiamen.

"Naim was a very, very small guy before, but now that he's been released, he's a very big problem," said Taj Mohammed Wardak , a former Afghan interior minister who also served as the governor of Farouq's province. "It has a really bad effect when these men return to their communities."

Discussing the effect that Guantanamo had on him, Farouq measured his words.

"Why did the Americans treat me this way?" he said during an interview with McClatchy in Gardez. "I wanted to keep my district peaceful."

A NETWORK FOR RADICALIZING

In interviews, former U.S. Defense Department officials acknowledged the problem, but none of them would speak about it openly because of its implications: U.S. officials mistakenly sent a lot of men who weren't hardened terrorists to Guantanamo, but by the time they were released, some of them had become just that.

Requests for comment from senior Defense Department officials went unanswered. The Pentagon official in charge of detainee affairs, Sandra Hodgkinson , declined interview requests even after she was given a list of questions.

However, dozens of former detainees, many of whom were reluctant to talk for fear of being branded as spies by the militants, described a network - at times fragmented, and at times startling in its sophistication - that allowed Islamist radicals to gain power inside Guantanamo:

-- Militants recruited new detainees by offering to help them memorize the Quran and study Arabic. They conducted the lessons, infused with firebrand theology, between the mesh walls of cells, from the other side of a fence during exercise time or, in lower-security blocks, during group meetings.

-- Taliban and al Qaida leaders appointed cellblock leaders. When there was a problem with the guards, such as allegations of Quran abuse or rough searches of detainees, these "local" leaders reported up their chains of command whether the men in their block had fought back with hunger strikes or by throwing cups of urine and feces at guards. The senior leaders then decided whether to call for large-scale hunger strikes or other protests.

-- Al Qaida and Taliban leaders at Guantanamo issued rulings that governed detainees' behavior. Shaking hands with female guards was haram - forbidden - men should pray five times a day and talking with American soldiers should be kept to a minimum.

-- The recruiting and organizing don't end at Guantanamo. After detainees are released, they're visited by militants who try to cement the relationships formed in prison.

"When I was released, they (Taliban officials) told me to come join them, to fight," said Alif Khan , an Afghan former detainee whom McClatchy interviewed in Kabul . "They told me I should move to Waziristan," a Taliban hotbed in Pakistan .

Most of the 66 former Guantanamo detainees whom McClatchy interviewed were hesitant to talk about their religious and political transformations in prison.

Ilkham Batayev, a Kazakh, described his stay at Guantanamo in bitter, angry terms. "I learned the traditions of many people," he said. "Of course it changed me inside, but this is something private." He said that Arab detainees spent a lot of time teaching him Arabic and giving him lessons about the Quran.

Others said that fellow detainees showed them the path of fundamentalist Islam.

Taj Mohammed , an Afghan detainee, said that the time he spent at Guantanamo studying the Quran and discussing Islam with radicals helped him see the world more clearly.

"There were detainees who did not pray or who spoke with female soldiers," Mohammed said. "We stopped speaking with these men. Sometimes we beat them."

The U.S. government accused Mohammed of being a member of two insurgent groups in Afghanistan's Konar province and taking part in an attack on a U.S. military base.

Mohammed maintained that he was a shepherd. Mohammed Roze , an official with the Afghan government's peace commission in Konar province, said Mohammed was set up by a cousin with whom he was feuding.

U.S. ATTEMPTS AT SEPARATION BACKFIRE

American officials tried to stop detainees from turning Guantanamo into what some former U.S. officials have since called an "American madrassa" - an Islamic religious school - but some of their efforts backfired.

The original Guantanamo camp, Camp X-Ray, was little more than a collection of wire mesh cells in which detainees were grouped together without much concern for their backgrounds.

In April 2002 , U.S. officials shifted the detainees to Camp Delta, which grew to include a series of camps organized by security level.

For example:

-- Camp One was for better-behaved detainees, who were given toiletry items such as toothpaste and shampoo and more time for outdoor exercise.

-- Camp Two was set up for cooperative detainees - especially those who helped interrogators - who still posed a high security threat to guards. They were given time in exercise areas, but were watched carefully.

-- Camp Three was a high-security facility where detainees spent most of their time in cells with steel mesh walls and little more than mattresses and copies of the Quran.

-- Camp Four was for the best-behaved detainees, and featured communal living spaces, librarian visits and lawns for soccer.

-- Camp Five resembled a U.S. maximum-security prison, with automatic sliding cell doors and a central guard station.

The idea was that detainees who presented graver threats and were uncooperative would be separated from those with looser ties to international terrorism.

What the plan overlooked - according to several detainees and a former U.S. defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject - is that even midlevel al Qaida members had been trained in resistance techniques, and that one of them was to avoid calling attention to yourself. An angry cabdriver from Kabul , in other words, may have been more likely to attack a guard and end up in Camp Three than an al Qaida militant was.

As a result, some senior radicals ended up in Camp Four, free to preach their message of international jihad to petty criminals, Taliban conscripts and detainees who had little or no previous affiliation with Islamic militancy.

At times, detainee leaders would order other men to break camp rules so that the guards would send them to higher-security blocks, where they could carry messages from their leaders, said Charles "Cully" Stimson , who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs from January 2006 to February 2007 .

"The communications network there is like the communications network in any jail," Stimson said. "When Americans are in captivity, they respect rank. ... I suspect it's no different down there."

Buzby, the Guantanamo commander, said that he, too, suspected that information flowed freely between militant leaders and their men at Guantanamo's camps.

"It would be foolish to not believe that there is a hierarchy of information being passed up and down the chain of command," Buzby said.

Abdul Zuhoor, an Afghan detainee who spent time in Camp Four, said that radical detainees used the system to their full advantage.

Zuhoor said he remembered watching groups of senior Taliban and Arab detainees meet in the exercise yard.

"They considered themselves the elders of Guantanamo," Zuhoor said in an interview in the Afghan town of Charikar. "They met as a shura (religious) council."

The group, Zuhoor said, acted in concert with others across Guantanamo to issue fatwas, which then were disseminated by detainees who were being moved to other areas for medical checkups, interrogations or transfers to higher-security blocks.

An attorney for one Arab detainee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared implicating his client, said his client told him at one point that he couldn't meet with his legal team anymore.

"He said there were five or six detainees who had assumed positions of leadership in the camp, and that he had to deal with them," the attorney said. "And they said that he would need a fatwa to continue speaking with us, to continue speaking with Americans."

The fatwa, the shura council told the attorney's client, couldn't come from just any imam; it had to be from a senior cleric in Saudi Arabia , a hotbed of fundamentalist Sunni Islam .

In June 2006 , Zuhoor said, a Taliban member at Guantanamo bragged to him that there soon would be three "martyrs."

"The Arabs and some Taliban sat together and issued a verdict," Zuhoor said. "Three of the men volunteered to kill themselves to get more freedom for the other detainees."

The next morning, Zuhoor said, the news spread across Guantanamo: Three Arabs had committed suicide.

The Guantanamo commander at the time, Rear Adm. Harry Harris , called the suicides acts of "asymmetric warfare."

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 02:28 PM

I just don't think that having terrorist trials in public court is the way to go.

But what if they are not all terrorists?

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 02:29 PM

The news (including news reports from the UK, Europe and Asia).

What are your sources that they don't?

Can you be more specific than "the news?"

This article mentions the government's failure to charge detainees and denying them access to lawyers.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/08/30/justice-department-lawyers-refuse-detainee-cases.html

Another article about denying the detainees access to lawyers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179014.stm

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 02:31 PM

But what if they are not all terrorists?

Ordinarily, that is determined BEFORE the case makes it to court, which is why they have lawyers. No one here seems to accept this fact. Gitmo was a black eye on the US; that is not in doubt. However, that happened years ago, and steps have been taken to lessen the chances of that happening again. I'm not saying the system is perfect; far from it. Gitmo was not the standard but the exception.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 02:44 PM

Can you be more specific than "the news?"

This article mentions the government's failure to charge detainees and denying them access to lawyers.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/08/30/justice-department-lawyers-refuse-detainee-cases.html

Another article about denying the detainees access to lawyers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179014.stm

When did I ever say that the detainees shouldn't have legal representation? All I said was that they shouldn't be tried in public court.

SpoonMan999

06-19-2008, 02:45 PM

You can't say "What if...?" in these situations. When you're dealing with dangerous people you have to do something and do it fast, yes sometimes an innocent man is detained and it is unfortunate but this happens in war. You can't play the "what if...?" game because we throw it right back at you, "what if everyone one of them is responsible for the deaths of at least 20 people?" You don't know if they are or not and neither do we.

Also, you guys act like Bush hand selects the people being detained. I don't like the man but I'm sick of everyone saying every little issue is completely his fault. They go off of intelligence provided by organizations you may have heard of...the FBI and CIA, you know, those guys.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 02:45 PM

When did I ever say that the detainees shouldn't have legal representation? All I said was that they shouldn't be tried in public court.

As those articles point out, apparently they were not allowed access to lawyers.

QUENTIN

06-19-2008, 02:45 PM

Having access to a government appointed attorney and having legal rights is not the same thing. At all. They can't review the evidence against them, they couldn't until this week petition the government for release unless the government could provide compelling evidence that they were guilty. How about the fact that 2/3 of those captured and held in Gitmo were released and never charged with anything? In other words, the government found that they had no evidence the people they had held were guilty of anything, so let them go. But these innocent individuals were held for YEARS in the worst Western prison in the world, tortured and denied many of the basic rights of the Geneva Convention, because they had no legal recourse. That is a fucking travesty and you authoritarians openly don't care.

MISFIT -dismissing what I said like that is about as childish as one can get. How about you address what I said? Having no qualms with who is held in Gitmo without charges necessitates that you unquestionably trust the Bush administration, since it is only their word that keeps those men in that prison camp as it is run today. Democrats have nothing to do with what Heart Collector, Madsen, or I are talking about. The prisoners don't have the proper legal rights and are being treated extralegally, unconstitutionally, which is wrong and unAmerican. Finally the Supreme Court did something about it.

You serving isn't here or there. Being in the military doesn't have anything to do with caring about or taking pride in your country when you so blatantly disrespect and dismiss the constitution, which is what our entire fucking nation is based on. If you don't care about and even support unconstitutional, unAmerican, anti-freedom and democracy actions then you don't actually support, take pride in, or respect this country.

SpoonMan999

06-19-2008, 02:46 PM

You serving isn't here or there. Being in the military doesn't have anything to do with caring about or taking pride in your country when you so blatantly disrespect and dismiss the constitution, which is what our entire fucking nation is based on. If you don't care about and even support unconstitutional, unAmerican, anti-freedom and democracy actions then you don't actually support, take pride in, or respect this country.

He was willing to die for this country...which gains him an immense amount of respect from me. To say that means nothing is despicable.

SpoonMan999

06-19-2008, 02:48 PM

Can you be more specific than "the news?"

This article mentions the government's failure to charge detainees and denying them access to lawyers.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/08/30/justice-department-lawyers-refuse-detainee-cases.html

Another article about denying the detainees access to lawyers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179014.stm

I heard it on the radio from Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the house.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 02:50 PM

I heard it on the radio from Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the house.

Well Newt could never, ever be wrong. He must not have read those articles I provided links to.

SpoonMan999

06-19-2008, 03:00 PM

Well Newt could never, ever be wrong. He must not have read those articles I provided links to.

I'm pretty sure Newt Gingrich is far more well informed than you are. And citing someone whose source is "two sources familiar with the matter tell U.S. News." Familiar with the matter? Were they former prisoners? Guards? The mail man?

And the BBC article is from 5 years ago...a little out dated.

To use your own form of sarcasm...Well, the columnists could never, ever be wrong and circumstances could never ever change.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 03:02 PM

I'm pretty sure Newt Gingrich is far more well informed than you are. And citing someone whose source is "two sources familiar with the matter tell U.S. News." Familiar with the matter? Were they former prisoners? Guards? The mail man?

And the BBC article is from 5 years ago...a little out dated.

To use your own form of sarcasm...Well, the columnists could never, ever be wrong and circumstances could never ever change.

Newt is an extremely partisan source. He is as biased as they come. Do you have a source that isn't a right wing Republican loyal to the Bush administration?

QUENTIN

06-19-2008, 03:06 PM

He was willing to die for this country...which gains him an immense amount of respect from me. To say that means nothing is despicable.

No it isn't, it's realistic. The idea that every soldier is some paean of honor and virtue is ridiculous. It's a job, a dangerous job that is very hard, but a job nonetheless. Being a firefighter, being a cop, being a soldier can all be very admirable, altruistic things. It doesn't necessarily make one so though and it isn't automatically deserving of this immense reverence and respect. My father was a career military man and I grew up on bases constantly surrounded by servicepeople. What you learn is such a situation is that some people are awesome and some are assholes, just like cops, firefighters, or anything else. But signing a contract for a dangerous job doesn't automatically make you some demigod or your opinion immune to criticism.

Finally, his serving is irrelevant to what we're discussing. His opinion is ignorant, despicable, and disregards what it means to actually be American. I'm supposed to accept his South Park, "shit happens, fuck 'em" attitude because he "fought for freedom?" Fighting for the right to put a boot up the ass of sand niggers in turbans who speak durka durka isn't admirable and that's what a lot of dumb punks are doing. They literally don't know the first thing about being an American because they're entirely ignorant of what America is. Fighting to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the entire basis of our nation, is. And being opposed to the constitution, or not giving a shit about it, is truly unAmerican, not demanding that all people under our jurisdiction are treated humanely.

SpoonMan999

06-19-2008, 03:08 PM

No it isn't, it's realistic. The idea that every soldier is some paean of honor and virtue is ridiculous. It's a job, a dangerous job that is very hard, but a job nonetheless. Being a firefighter, being a cop, being a soldier can all be very admirable, altruistic things. It doesn't necessarily make one so though and it isn't automatically deserving of this immense reverence and respect. My father was a career military man and I grew up on bases constantly surrounded by servicepeople. What you learn is such a situation is that some people are awesome and some are assholes, just like cops, firefighters, or anything else. But signing a contract for a dangerous job doesn't automatically make you some demigod or your opinion immune to criticism.

Finally, his serving is irrelevant to what we're discussing. His opinion is ignorant, despicable, and disregards what it means to actually be American. I'm supposed to accept his South Park, "shit happens, fuck 'em" attitude because he "fought for freedom?" Fighting for the right to put a boot up the ass of sand niggers in turbans who speak durka durka isn't admirable and that's what a lot of dumb punks are doing. They literally don't know the first thing about being an American because they're entirely ignorant of what America is. Fighting to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the entire basis of our nation, is. And being opposed to the constitution, or not giving a shit about it, is truly unAmerican, not demanding that all people under our jurisdiction are treated humanely.

He didn't say he didn't give a shit about the constitution he said shit happens and no matter what we do shit will always happen. It's a fact of life, shit happens. You act like he said fuck the Constitution and then you say he isn't patriotic when he was willing do die for our freedom. Anyone who joins the military to protect freedom is worthy of respect, even if they are an asshole or a complete idiot. Just because he disagrees with you his opinion is despicable? I can't believe this intolerant crap I see spewing from people's mouths these days.

SpoonMan999

06-19-2008, 03:20 PM

He obviously wasn't willing to die for freedom, he obviously didn't try to protect freedom, because he has stated that he is anti-freedom. He opposes the right of habeas corpus being granted to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction, he therefore opposes the constitution and the rights that make up what America is. Just because he didn't say "fuck the constitution" doesn't mean his opinion doesn't mean "fuck the constitution", which it does.

By the way, what kind of hypocrisy is that? You said my opinion was despicable like 10 minutes ago. And it has nothing to do with him disagreeing with me and everything to do with his lack of concern for basic human rights and human life, and yes that IS fucking despicable.

I said saying that someone fought for our freedom means nothing was dispicable. And he didn't say anyone under US jurisdiction, again you're putting words in his mouth.

QUENTIN

06-19-2008, 03:21 PM

He didn't say he didn't give a shit about the constitution he said shit happens and no matter what we do shit will always happen. It's a fact of life, shit happens. You act like he said fuck the Constitution and then you say he isn't patriotic when he was willing do die for our freedom. Anyone who joins the military to protect freedom is worthy of respect, even if they are an asshole or a complete idiot. Just because he disagrees with you his opinion is despicable? I can't believe this intolerant crap I see spewing from people's mouths these days.

He obviously wasn't willing to die for freedom, he obviously didn't try to protect freedom, because he has stated that he is anti-freedom. He opposes the right of habeas corpus being granted to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction, he therefore opposes the constitution and the rights that make up what America is. Just because he didn't say "fuck the constitution" doesn't mean his opinion doesn't mean "fuck the constitution", which it does.

By the way, what kind of hypocrisy is that? You said my opinion was despicable like 10 minutes ago. And it has nothing to do with him disagreeing with me and everything to do with his lack of concern for basic human rights and human life, and yes that IS fucking despicable.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 03:21 PM

No it isn't, it's realistic. The idea that every soldier is some paean of honor and virtue is ridiculous.

No arguments from me there. I wasn't trying to be "look how awesome I am", I was just saying that your comments regarding me were uninformed and judgmental considering that you don't even know me.

His opinion is ignorant, despicable, and disregards what it means to actually be American. I'm supposed to accept his South Park, "shit happens, fuck 'em" attitude because he "fought for freedom?" Fighting for the right to put a boot up the ass of sand niggers in turbans who speak durka durka isn't admirable and that's what a lot of dumb punks are doing. They literally don't know the first thing about being an American because they're entirely ignorant of what America is. Fighting to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the entire basis of our nation, is. And being opposed to the constitution, or not giving a shit about it, is truly unAmerican, not demanding that all people under our jurisdiction are treated humanely.

This, however, I have a HUGE problem with. Nothing I said gives you the right to accuse me of being a stupid, kill-crazy, racist asshole. Truth be told, I'm far from it. I didn't join the Army to go and oppress other countries; I did my job...nothing more, nothing less. If you feel that just because someone's views differ from yours they're un-American, then you are being just as ignorant as you accuse me of being.

QUENTIN

06-19-2008, 03:29 PM

This, however, I have a HUGE problem with. Nothing I said gives you the right to accuse me of being a stupid, kill-crazy, racist asshole. Truth be told, I'm far from it. I didn't join the Army to go and oppress other countries; I did my job...nothing more, nothing less. If you feel that just because someone's views differ from yours they're un-American, then you are being just as ignorant as you accuse me of being.

I'm not implying you are one of those "dumb punks," I was illustrating to Spoon that not everyone who serves is deserving of respect because not everyone who serves is actually defending America, many have no idea what America even is.

I don't think you're un-American because your views differ from mine, it's because you are anti-Constitution. It's a simple mathematical equation.

The Constitution is the basis for everything in American life, government, citizenship, etc. It is our founding document, without it, we are not America. Therefore Constitution = America.

Being opposed to the Constitution makes one anti-Constitution, so:

anti-Constitution = anti-America.

You don't care about people being treated constitutionally, you shrug it off and even oppose it, so you're unAmerican.

I'm not even saying being opposed to the constitution or being anti-American is necessarily a bad thing, but they do go hand in hand. If you don't support the inalienable rights granted by the document, then you don't support America.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 03:32 PM

He obviously wasn't willing to die for freedom, he obviously didn't try to protect freedom, because he has stated that he is anti-freedom. He opposes the right of habeas corpus being granted to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction, he therefore opposes the constitution and the rights that make up what America is. Just because he didn't say "fuck the constitution" doesn't mean his opinion doesn't mean "fuck the constitution", which it does.

Wow...and you're a moderator? God help us.

You are so off-base it isn't even funny. Maybe my opinion says "fuck the Constitution" to you...thank God that by now, your opinion means less than shit to me. Your statements are so judgmental and outrageous that I can't even take them seriously.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 03:41 PM

I'm not implying you are one of those "dumb punks," I was illustrating to Spoon that not everyone who serves is deserving of respect because not everyone who serves is actually defending America, many have no idea what America even is.

I don't think you're un-American because your views differ from mine, it's because you are anti-Constitution. It's a simple mathematical equation.

The Constitution is the basis for everything in American life, government, citizenship, etc. It is our founding document, without it, we are not America. Therefore Constitution = America.

Being opposed to the Constitution makes one anti-Constitution, so:

anti-Constitution = anti-America.

You don't care about people being treated constitutionally, you shrug it off and even oppose it, so you're unAmerican.

I'm not even saying being opposed to the constitution or being anti-American is necessarily a bad thing, but they do go hand in hand. If you don't support the inalienable rights granted by the document, then you don't support America.

Whatever. At NO POINT in any of my posts did I say that the Constitution should not protect the people it is intended to protect...American citizens. Take that as you will; you're going to anyway.

Homyrrh

06-19-2008, 03:56 PM

Again, I oppose the ruling on the grounds of legality not morality; just clearing that up. The ruling itself is unconstitutional.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 04:02 PM

Again, I oppose the ruling on the grounds of legality not morality; just clearing that up. The ruling itself is unconstitutional.

Why do you believe the ruling to be unconstitutional?

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 04:18 PM

Homyrrh

06-19-2008, 04:19 PM

Why do you believe the ruling to be unconstitutional?
I made a post on page 1, but I understand that it violates the president's constitutional right of waiving habeas corpus (Article I, Section 9) regardless of any other circumstances. Technically, we're in time of war. Technically, he has the right. Technically, the SC shouldn't insubordinate that right.

The argument regarding the morality of the Gitmo prisoners is ambiguous. The problem is that none of us, not a single one, knows the exact circumstances of their detainment. Do they have no legal rights? I'm fairly certain, and this is inexcusable, especially for this long (though again: AI, S9). It is also accepted that they are treated very poorly.

They are suspects, innocent until proven guilty, which is especially important because some of them are likely not guilty (though many are).

Still, the consittutionality of the ruling seems to undermine the US Constitution itself, no one has said otherwise, and I still am convicted it is wrong sheerly for that fact.

Homyrrh

06-19-2008, 04:26 PM

But aren't you concerned that the war on terrorism is too broad? I assume that is the war you are referring to. In that case, it is a war without end. We will never entirely erase terrorism from the world, so all a president has to do is say, "Hey, we're at war fighting terrorism," and he can try and do whatever he wants and justify it by saying we're at war. It's not like the Civil War or WWII.
Don't worry I caught your post amidst the glitch;)

I refer to the War in Iraq (or in Afghanistan) as a concrete, irrefutable "wars". This is the basis on which the president can overrule habeas corpus.

The war on terror is the infinite quest to seek and eliminate threats to the safety and sanctity of the United States and her people. I cannot consider this a definitive, finite war, but, as an ideology--to essentially "make the world a safer place"--has to be undertaken. This is not what justifies a waiver on habeas corpus.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 04:28 PM

Don't worry I caught your post amidst the glitch;)

I refer to the War in Iraq (or in Afghanistan) as a concrete, irrefutable "wars". This is the basis on which the president can overrule habeas corpus.

The war on terror is the infinite quest to seek and eliminate threats to the safety and sanctity of the United States and her people. I cannot consider this a definitive, finite war, but, as an ideology--to essentially "make the world a safer place"--has to be undertaken. This is not what justifies a waiver on habeas corpus.

But the people being held there aren't limited to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are anyone considered an "enemy combatant" held on "suspicion of terrorism" or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

MISFITS_Fiend

06-19-2008, 04:35 PM

Homyrrh, you said it better that I could. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

To strip down what I've been saying to the basics:

-I don't disagree that prisoners at Gitmo have been mistreated. However, I also don't believe they are ALL innocents, either.

-I believe that the Constitution was created and is enforced to protect American citizens, not every single person on the face of the planet.

-I have no problem with suspected terrorists having legal representation; the more the merrier. I do have a problem with these same suspected terrorists using their lawyers as couriers, though.

-I have a problem with the ruling that terrorism suspects should be tried in public court. However people like to deny it, we are at war. An act of terrorism is a war crime and should be handled as such. Terrorism suspects have been tried and released before, only to try it again soon after.

-In my eyes, I am not un-American. That is a subjective term. What you feel is an American right might not be what someone else feels.

Anyway...

Homyrrh

06-19-2008, 04:42 PM

But the people being held there aren't limited to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are anyone considered an "enemy combatant" held on "suspicion of terrorism" or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
Valid, indeed, and I honestly hadn't considered that previously. Also logically, however, these militant terorrists--those with al-Qaeda and Taliban links--are the target of either theater of war. It happens that they are terrorists (I think I worded that correctly...).

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 04:43 PM

Valid, indeed, and I honestly hadn't considered that previously. Also logically, however, these militant terorrists--those with al-Qaeda and Taliban links--are the target of either theater of war. It happens that they are terrorists (I think I worded that correctly...).

Maybe they are terrorists. Or maybe we just say they are or that they have links to terrorism in order to justify imprisoning them.

Homyrrh

06-19-2008, 04:46 PM

Maybe they are terrorists. Or maybe we just say they are or that they have links to terrorism in order to justify imprisoning them.
Ah, yes, though this further enters the realm of uncertainty that trancends the Cosntitution. I'm sure this last note of yours has occured, just as I'm sure the US Army didn't pick every tenth Iraqi male they found and threw them in prison.

I again want to stress the tangible nature of the argument.

MadsenOMC

06-19-2008, 04:50 PM

Ah, yes, though this further enters the realm of uncertainty that trancends the Cosntitution. I'm sure this last note of yours has occured, just as I'm sure the US Army didn't pick every tenth Iraqi male they found and threw them in prison.

I again want to stress the tangible nature of the argument.

There are uncertainties, but if you are going to round up hundreds of people, throw them in prison and call them suspected terrorists, you should try them & prove it, not hold them indefinitely without trying them or giving them access to a lawyer.

Homyrrh

06-19-2008, 04:59 PM

There are uncertainties, but if you are going to round up hundreds of people, throw them in prison and call them suspected terrorists, you should try them & prove it, not hold them indefinitely without trying them or giving them access to a lawyer.
Yeah, but again, none of us, as the Ameican public now nearly an adequate amount to cast much more judgement than that. After all, the clandestine services, for example, have secret courts to maintain both the "clandestine" nature of their operations and the establishment of the Constitution.

mel1ssa

06-19-2008, 09:59 PM

wow, i posted this a few days ago and haven't had a chance to come back and check on it. i regret that i haven't been able to participate more.

there appears to be different interpretations of 'jurisdiction', which i believe influences how you interpret the constitution in this regard and ultimately how you may feel about the decision of the SC. (some were talking about 'citizens'. i think citizenship is irrelevant.) jurisdiction is defined as:
legal power: (law) the right and power to interpret and apply the law; "courts having jurisdiction in this district"
in law; the territory within which power can be exercised
The area or limits an authority has to make laws and enforce them.
the US's rights and authority at guatanamo bay is questionable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base).

points have been made about trust. these are worthy points. the idea that we should simply 'trust' the POTUS (regardless of who occupies the position) seems naive to me. i will only counter this to say that the position that the SC is taking is that we should 'trust' the judicial system. just as the POTUS is not beyond reproach, the legal system is also not without its own questionable decisions or challenges. my original reaction to reading this news was one of disappointment and it was precisely because of this aspect. i do not 'trust' that extending our judicial system to courtrooms outside of the US will necessarily result in anything but red tape.

in the end, however, i must counter this disappointment with a look at what the issue truly is -- and the only response that i can live with (and maintain a clear conscience) is that the intent behind the SC's decision is right. i agree with the principle, and i am proud that the US is attempting to maintain a higher standard than other countries. i say this, at the same time believing that the process used to implement that honorable principle is flawed, and has just as much potential for corruption and abuse as any other arm of our government.

homyrrh's has made interesting points about the constitutionality of the SC's decision, which is a separate topic altogether.

Homyrrh

06-20-2008, 08:46 AM

On the whole, I feel we're mostly on the same page, but regarding that last thought...

homyrrh's has made interesting points about the constitutionality of the SC's decision, which is a separate topic altogether.

...I think that is the issue. Both sides of the argument--the support of and opposition to the SC decision--repeatedly resort back to the Constitution (and if they don't, then they should). I explained numerous times about habeas corpus and the violation of the chief executive's Consitutional power of waiving habeas corpus that is inherent in this ruling.

As the quote was posted in an article from another thread, "I am no a moralist. I am a judge."

QUENTIN

06-20-2008, 10:50 AM

On the whole, I feel we're mostly on the same page, but regarding that last thought...

...I think that is the issue. Both sides of the argument--the support of and opposition to the SC decision--repeatedly resort back to the Constitution (and if they don't, then they should). I explained numerous times about habeas corpus and the violation of the chief executive's Consitutional power of waiving habeas corpus that is inherent in this ruling.

As the quote was posted in an article from another thread, "I am no a moralist. I am a judge."

I think the point is, the Supreme Court, which is Constitutionally established as the ultimate arbiters of law, decided after review that Bush's invocation of A1S9 was inappropriate and NOT Constitutionally within his powers, therefore illegal. They have ruled, very soundly and correctly I believe that:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Does not apply because the U.S. population has no rebelled and the homeland has not been invaded, moreover the public safety does not require it. He is doing it out of convenience, not necessity, and it is only legal as a last resort in cases of absolute necessity. Only in the most extreme and catastrophic circumstances, the likes of which we haven't seen since The Civil War should invoking that war power ever be considered and it simply isn't legally warranted here.

You're giving Bush's justification for suspending it and saying it nullifies and makes illegal what the Supreme Court did, but no the Supreme Court is justified and legally sound in its ruling, Bush is the one whose argument and reasoning was weak and improper and has been adjudicated as such.

Homyrrh

06-20-2008, 11:03 AM

I think the point is, the Supreme Court, which is Constitutionally established as the ultimate arbiters of law, decided after review that Bush's invocation of A1S9 was inappropriate and NOT Constitutionally within his powers, therefore illegal. They have ruled, very soundly and correctly I believe that:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Does not apply because the U.S. population has no rebelled and the homeland has not been invaded, moreover the public safety does not require it. He is doing it out of convenience, not necessity, and it is only legal as a last resort in cases of absolute necessity. Only in the most extreme and catastrophic circumstances, the likes of which we haven't seen since The Civil War should invoking that war power ever be considered and it simply isn't legally warranted here.

You're giving Bush's justification for suspending it and saying it nullifies and makes illegal what the Supreme Court did, but no the Supreme Court is justified and legally sound in its ruling, Bush is the one whose argument and reasoning was weak and improper and has been adjudicated as such.

But I do, and we can go on-and-on about either side of the moral.

The fact is that Bush, following an invasion or threat to the US (9/11) waived the detainees' writ to habeas corpus. Yeah, it's seven years later, yeah it's posibly shady, etc...

...but is still consitutional. I am not arguing any implication about the moral triumph or failure of the issue, just noting that the ruling was not parallel to the US Constitution.

MadsenOMC

06-20-2008, 11:10 AM

QUENTIN

06-20-2008, 11:50 AM

But I do, and we can go on-and-on about either side of the moral.

The fact is that Bush, following an invasion or threat to the US (9/11) waived the detainees' writ to habeas corpus. Yeah, it's seven years later, yeah it's posibly shady, etc...

...but is still consitutional. I am not arguing any implication about the moral triumph or failure of the issue, just noting that the ruling was not parallel to the US Constitution.

But, no. The Supreme Court is the Constitutionally assigned body tasked with making those judgments, not you or I. So their decision is what ultimately makes the law and is constitutionally sound. Besides, it's not just shady and it's not just a stretch, it is flat INCORRECT and UNPROVABLE, which is why the Bush Administration could not proffer a strong enough argument for it, that the public safety requires the writ of habeas corpus being revoked.

One of two things must occur for it to be legal to revoke:

1.) There is a rebellion in the U.S. and the public safety requires it
2.) There is an invasion in the U.S. and the public safety requires it

Neither of those criteria were met. And the "or threat" was subtle but important, a threat to the U.S. is NOT grounds for citing Article 1, Section 9. The citizenry of the U.S. are in no more danger if everyone we capture has the right of habeas corpus and 9/11 is neither a rebellion nor an invasion, it was a single attack. Even Pearl Harbor wasn't an invasion and that was a far grander, more coordinated event.

Your justification is the president's justification and it has been officially deemed TOO WEAK, that under these circumstances he DOES NOT have the right to invoke A1S9, it is inappropriate to the case and unnecessary. So no, regardless of any morality or whatever, it is simply NOT constitutional for the president to do that and the Supreme Court's ruling is directly in line with the Constitution.

SpoonMan999

06-20-2008, 12:21 PM

which is why the Bush Administration could not proffer a strong enough argument for it, that the public safety requires the writ of habeas corpus being revoked.

Maybe the Bush adminitration couldn't offer a good reason, they aren't the most competent bunch after all, but personally I feel if criminals at home can exploit our judicial system to get out prison...what's to stop them? I agree with Hom on the constitutionality of it, though you may not, and even if it was exploitation of the system it's one instancewhere I believe it was used to do some good.

MadsenOMC

06-20-2008, 12:33 PM

Maybe the Bush adminitration couldn't offer a good reason, they aren't the most competent bunch after all, but personally I feel if criminals at home can exploit our judicial system to get out prison...what's to stop them? I agree with Hom on the constitutionality of it, though you may not, and even if it was exploitation of the system it's one instancewhere I believe it was used to do some good.

What evidence would you offer to support the claim that it has done some good? Was an imminent attack prevented? Was useful information obtained? Were terrorists tried and imprisoned?

SpoonMan999

06-20-2008, 12:42 PM

What evidence would you offer to support the claim that it has done some good? Was an imminent attack prevented? Was useful information obtained? Were terrorists tried and imprisoned?

I don't know if it was or wasn't and neither do you. But either way these men were out of commission and that alone is enough to do at least a little good. Though I doubt they've arrested as many as they have no gotten any information.

mel1ssa

06-20-2008, 09:31 PM

So their decision is what ultimately makes the law and is constitutionally sound.

scary. SC does not make law, but interprets it.

QUENTIN

06-20-2008, 10:25 PM

scary. SC does not make law, but interprets it.

They interpret the Constitution and from that make laws by defining what is and isn't legal. In this case, they determined that the administration's invocation of Article 1, Section 9 was Constitutionally inappropriate and ruled as such. Now that practice is illegal, yes the law existed but they made a ruling that ensured it was practiced, as every SC decision does. Don't try and take a quote out of context and imply I don't know what the Supreme Court does.

mel1ssa

06-20-2008, 10:47 PM

They interpret the Constitution and from that make laws by defining what is and isn't legal. In this case, they determined that the administration's invocation of Article 1, Section 9 was Constitutionally inappropriate and ruled as such. Now that practice is illegal, yes the law existed but they made a ruling that ensured it was practiced, as every SC decision does. Don't try and take a quote out of context and imply I don't know what the Supreme Court does.

chill, chill, i admit, it was a miniscule part of your post, and i pulled it out and left all else untouched. i didn't mean to sound condescending.

i do stand by what i originally said. the word choice was concerning to me.

mel1ssa

06-20-2008, 10:56 PM

chill, chill, i admit, it was a miniscule part of your post, and i pulled it out and left all else untouched. i didn't mean to sound condescending.

i do stand by what i originally said. the word choice was concerning to me.

just to elaborate, this all goes back to the 'trust' issue again. i guess i picked up on this easily in quentin's post because i think that the SC is in a position for extreme abuse of power. it doesn't matter what the law says, they can interpret it differently and tear it to shreds.

and, my apologies, quentin.

boombche_stum

06-29-2008, 09:10 PM

I made a post on page 1, but I understand that it violates the president's constitutional right of waiving habeas corpus (Article I, Section 9) regardless of any other circumstances. Technically, we're in time of war. Technically, he has the right. Technically, the SC shouldn't insubordinate that right.

The argument regarding the morality of the Gitmo prisoners is ambiguous. The problem is that none of us, not a single one, knows the exact circumstances of their detainment. Do they have no legal rights? I'm fairly certain, and this is inexcusable, especially for this long (though again: AI, S9). It is also accepted that they are treated very poorly.

They are suspects, innocent until proven guilty, which is especially important because some of them are likely not guilty (though many are).

Still, the consittutionality of the ruling seems to undermine the US Constitution itself, no one has said otherwise, and I still am convicted it is wrong sheerly for that fact.

This argument fall flat on it's face for one reason. We are at WAR, there is no INVASION or REBELLION. And in those situations, it is to be done to secure public safety. Tell me then, how suspending habeas corpus for a goat farmer in Afghanistan that is SUSPECTED of aiding terrorists (With poor information and intelligence at that), is going to make me any safer? And you better explain how the two wars we are currently in constitutes an invasion or rebellion. Has anyone recently staged massive protests to overthrow the Government? Has a foriegn army landed on American soil? I think not. So unless you can somehow legitimize 9/11 being an invasion, in which case you would have to stretch the meaning of invasion as known to every human being on the planet, then your argument falls short.

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 09:23 AM

This argument fall flat on it's face for one reason. We are at WAR, there is no INVASION or REBELLION. And in those situations, it is to be done to secure public safety. Tell me then, how suspending habeas corpus for a goat farmer in Afghanistan that is SUSPECTED of aiding terrorists (With poor information and intelligence at that), is going to make me any safer? And you better explain how the two wars we are currently in constitutes an invasion or rebellion. Has anyone recently staged massive protests to overthrow the Government? Has a foriegn army landed on American soil? I think not. So unless you can somehow legitimize 9/11 being an invasion, in which case you would have to stretch the meaning of invasion as known to every human being on the planet, then your argument falls short.
Unfortunately, a dictionary today does not constitute a credible source for this argument for obvious reasons, but specfically the 230 years of evolution of the English language.

Regardless, hostile enemies (terorrists...those not quite looking out for our best interest, FYI) hijacked an American civilian airliner over US airspace and, legalise all you want, attacked three critical structures (for those who may have forgotten, that's the Pentagon, the WTC towers, and an attempted attack of another government structure in DC).

TERRORISTS invaded US soil. Get technical? Airspace over the capital is restricted. THe invaders invaded, at the very least, a domestic US flight. Then flew two of them into the WTC towers 1 & 2, which also had several government offices.

I cannot comprehened why this doesn't register as an "invasion". Is there some constitutionally-defined quota that mandates so many "troops" attack to consider it an invasion? LAst time I check, this is America, following an American Constitution, and anyone so foolish enough to invade/attack/enact-hostile-initiatives (for this PC inclined) cannot just be shrugged.

Unless, of course, we should read suspected terrorists to sleep in their peace and diplomacy study groups we'd enroll them in. I'm sure this helps.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 10:27 AM

Unfortunately, a dictionary today does not constitute a credible source for this argument for obvious reasons, but specfically the 230 years of evolution of the English language.

Regardless, hostile enemies (terorrists...those not quite looking out for our best interest, FYI) hijacked an American civilian airliner over US airspace and, legalise all you want, attacked three critical structures (for those who may have forgotten, that's the Pentagon, the WTC towers, and an attempted attack of another government structure in DC).

TERRORISTS invaded US soil. Get technical? Airspace over the capital is restricted. THe invaders invaded, at the very least, a domestic US flight. Then flew two of them into the WTC towers 1 & 2, which also had several government offices.

I cannot comprehened why this doesn't register as an "invasion". Is there some constitutionally-defined quota that mandates so many "troops" attack to consider it an invasion? LAst time I check, this is America, following an American Constitution, and anyone so foolish enough to invade/attack/enact-hostile-initiatives (for this PC inclined) cannot just be shrugged.

Unless, of course, we should read suspected terrorists to sleep in their peace and diplomacy study groups we'd enroll them in. I'm sure this helps.

Does one attack constitute an invasion? How is invasion being defined?

Also, not wanting people held indefinitely without charges in Guantanamo does not make one soft on fighting terrorism or PC.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/cartoon/2008-06/40464272.jpg

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 10:46 AM

Does one attack constitute an invasion? How is invasion being defined?

Also, not wanting people held indefinitely without charges in Guantanamo does not make one soft on fighting terrorism or PC.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/cartoon/2008-06/40464272.jpg
Mild apologies for allowing myself to be overly fervent.

I believe so, and like I said, the Constitution has become slightly ambiguous because of this terminology. Who is to tell either of us what source was used in defining either term, "invasion" or, less unclear, "rebellion". Ruling out the latter, invasion, to counter you Madsen, is a singular term itself.

The paradox of the cartoon enterians and amuses me beyond anything else inherent of the illustration. Superficially correct, it knocks Bush's rhetoric, yet fails to realize its own hypocrisy in condemning Bush for the very same diplomacy his critics bashed him for previously not utilizing.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 10:49 AM

I believe so, and like I said, the Constitution has become slightly ambiguous because of this terminology. Who is to tell either of us what source was used in defining either term, "invasion" or, less unclear, "rebellion". Ruling out the latter, invasion, to counter you Madsen, is a singular term itself.

The paradox of the cartoon enterians and amuses me beyond anything else inherent of the illustration.

The Supreme Court perhaps?

The events of one day seven years ago is not enough of a reason for our government to indiscriminately throw people in Guantanamo without criminal charges or legal representation for an indefinite amount of time.

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 10:58 AM

The Supreme Court perhaps?

The events of one day seven years ago is not enough of a reason for our government to indiscriminately throw people in Guantanamo without criminal charges or legal representation for an indefinite amount of time.
To reduce 9/11 and its immediate after math to the "events of one day seven years ago" is rather reductionist and fairly ludicrous.

My argument is being forsaken though. I only offer hard evidence that an invasion occured.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 11:01 AM

To reduce 9/11 and its immediate after math to the "events of one day seven years ago" is rather reductionist and fairly ludicrous.

No more ludicrous than suggesting that the events of that day justify what the Bush administration has done at Guantanamo.

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 11:27 AM

No more ludicrous than suggesting that the events of that day justify what the Bush administration has done at Guantanamo.
Is this some war of rhetoric? Who can manipulate words while avoiding points?

Again, all I point out is my evidence that 9/11 was an invasion. If considered as such, the Guantnamo prisoners were rightfully held without warrant, though I concede apparentl not in the most moral of contexts.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 11:33 AM

Again, all I point out is my evidence that 9/11 was an invasion. If considered as such, the Guantnamo prisoners were rightfully held without warrant, though I concede apparentl not in the most moral of contexts.

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does qualify as an invasion. For how long does that give the government the right to hold people in Guantanamo (or anywhere) without criminal charges or legal representation? Forever? Since one could always say it's part of the "war on terrorism," which is a war that can/will never end, can they do it for as long as they want?

QUENTIN

06-30-2008, 11:35 AM

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 11:45 AM

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does qualify as an invasion. For how long does that give the government the right to hold people in Guantanamo (or anywhere) without criminal charges or legal representation? Forever? Since one could always say it's part of the "war on terrorism," which is a war that can/will never end, can they do it for as long as they want?
That's beyond me. There's no definitive time frame that the Constitution mentions, so unfortunately reason is not a factor.

Legality is often unfortunate, Quentin, and possibly here as well (after all, I'm arguing legalities and not moralities), but for someone so empassioned and convicted to hear arguments, I'm giving you one volumes more credible than either of your own.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 11:49 AM

Legality is often unfortunate, Quentin, and possibly here as well (after all, I'm arguing legalities and not moralities), but for someone so empassioned and convicted to hear arguments, I'm giving you one volumes more credible than either of your own.

Says who? You? Others do not agree. That is subjective.

SpoonMan999

06-30-2008, 11:57 AM

And you'd have a point for the legality of the Bush Admin's actions, if only considering 9/11 an invasion weren't so patently absurd.

A single-day attack on a few buildings is fundamentally different than an invasion of a country.

Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up Parlament in England all those years ago was considered a rebellion, a small one. Yet it involved one man who didn't even get a chance to do anything but was still regarded as a rebellion. If this is seen as a rebellion how can the deaths of thousands of Americans on American soil not be seen as an invasion? Hom's right, the dictionary wasn't the best tool for me to use but it's simplicity and terminology is what we're arguing here. An attack on our soil, despite the number of those involved, can be considered and frankly should be regarded as an invasion.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 11:58 AM

Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up Parlament in England all those years ago was considered a rebellion, a small one. Yet it involved one man who didn't even get a chance to do anything but was still regarded as a rebellion. If this is seen as a rebellion how can the deaths of thousands of Americans on American soil not be seen as an invasion? Hom's right, the dictionary wasn't the best tool for me to use but it's simplicity and terminology is what we're arguing here. An attack on our soil, despite the number of those involved, can be considered and frankly should be regarded as an invasion.

Then I'll repeat my earlier question to you:

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does qualify as an invasion. For how long does that give the government the right to hold people in Guantanamo (or anywhere) without criminal charges or legal representation? Forever? Since one could always say it's part of the "war on terrorism," which is a war that can/will never end, can they do it for as long as they want?

SpoonMan999

06-30-2008, 12:01 PM

Then I'll repeat my earlier question to you:

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does qualify as an invasion. For how long does that give the government the right to hold people in Guantanamo (or anywhere) without criminal charges or legal representation? Forever? Since one could always say it's part of the "war on terrorism," which is a war that can/will never end, can they do it for as long as they want?

Technically it does, though I'll agree they should not hold them for "as long as they damn well please" but there is nothing that limits the time they can be held or the timeframe in which they have to be captured from the time of the invasion.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 02:56 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL3043530820080630?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 03:26 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL3043530820080630?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Really heart-wrenching article...if only it was relevant.

Believe it or not, I understand how horrible it must be to be at Gitmo. Actually I know so well, I'm being numbed. Yet STILL, objectively even, aside from the 3000+ lives lost on what was "just one day" (apparently a fact inferior to the grave mistreatment of suspected terrorists), militant foreigners hijacked domestic US flights and crashed them into domestic civilian targets. They "invaded" American airliners in American airspace.

Was Pearl Harbor not an invasion? After all, the Japs never touched American soil. Or do you just sympathize with those poor terrorists and their righteous cause? You're arguing morality. I'm saying it sucks they're being mistreated there and probably shouldn't have been there for seven years.

BUT constitutionally it's sound, as I've yet to find the alotted timeframe and we are, technically and legalistically, AT WAR.

MadsenOMC

06-30-2008, 03:30 PM

Really heart-wrenching article...if only it was relevant.

Believe it or not, I understand how horrible it must be to be at Gitmo. Actually I know so well, I'm being numbed. Yet STILL, objectively even, aside from the 3000+ lives lost on what was "just one day" (apparently a fact inferior to the grave mistreatment of suspected terrorists), militant foreigners hijacked domestic US flights and crashed them into domestic civilian targets. They "invaded" American airliners in American airspace.

Was Pearl Harbor not an invasion? After all, the Japs never touched American soil. Or do you just sympathize with those poor terrorists and their righteous cause? You're arguing morality. I'm saying it sucks they're being mistreated there and probably shouldn't have been there for seven years.

BUT constitutionally it's sound, as I've yet to find the alotted timeframe and we are, technically and legalistically, AT WAR.

You weaken your points when you take cheap shots implying that someone sympathizes with terrorists or believes the lives lost on 9/11 aren't as important as detainee treatment. No one has said that or suggested it.

I know the article doesn't relate to Gitmo, but it still seemed worth linking to here.

We're going in circles on this. We fundamentally disagree about the term invasion, in addition to the Supreme Court decision itself. It's been a good discussion though.

QUENTIN

06-30-2008, 03:46 PM

That's beyond me. There's no definitive time frame that the Constitution mentions, so unfortunately reason is not a factor.

Legality is often unfortunate, Quentin, and possibly here as well (after all, I'm arguing legalities and not moralities), but for someone so empassioned and convicted to hear arguments, I'm giving you one volumes more credible than either of your own.

No you're not. You're just trying vainly to rationalize a totally asinine attempt by the Bush Administration to apply Article 1, Section 9 to further executive privilege where it is totally and obviously unwarranted and has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court as such. Their rationale is volumes more credible than your own. You think you're arguing law, but you're not. You're twisting and misusing words to suit an agenda in the purpose of trying to prove something that cannot be proven because it is blatantly untrue.

This is getting really redundant, but here we go. You say that:

Unfortunately, a dictionary today does not constitute a credible source for this argument for obvious reasons, but specfically the 230 years of evolution of the English language.

Regardless, hostile enemies (terorrists...those not quite looking out for our best interest, FYI) hijacked an American civilian airliner over US airspace and, legalise all you want, attacked three critical structures (for those who may have forgotten, that's the Pentagon, the WTC towers, and an attempted attack of another government structure in DC).

TERRORISTS invaded US soil. Get technical? Airspace over the capital is restricted. THe invaders invaded, at the very least, a domestic US flight. Then flew two of them into the WTC towers 1 & 2, which also had several government offices.

I cannot comprehened why this doesn't register as an "invasion". Is there some constitutionally-defined quota that mandates so many "troops" attack to consider it an invasion? LAst time I check, this is America, following an American Constitution, and anyone so foolish enough to invade/attack/enact-hostile-initiatives (for this PC inclined) cannot just be shrugged.

Unless, of course, we should read suspected terrorists to sleep in their peace and diplomacy study groups we'd enroll them in. I'm sure this helps.

After attempting to discredit the dictionary as a resource for definitions, you show why when you bunglingly attempt to connect "attack" and "invasion" as the same thing. They're not. And an invasion would have a time period of "the length of invasion." So if we're to just obligingly give you that the events of 9/11 somehow qualified as an invasion, that invasion was over on 9/12/01. When hundreds of British soldiers set the White House on fire, that was an invasion. When Germany conquered Poland, that was an invasion. When the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor, it was an attack, not an invasion. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Edward R. Murrah building, it was an attack, not an invasion. And when four planes were hijacked and used as kamikaze missles, it was an attack, not an invasion. Entering restricted air space is the justification for invoking A1S9 to revoke habeus corpus? You gotta be kidding me. It's silly that we have to get into this semantic argument when I can't really believe for a second that anyone posting in this thread doesn't know what an invasion is and that right now we are not a nation under invasion. The notion that we are currently under invasion is patently ludicrous, one should not have to argue it anymore than I should have to argue that we are a nation located in North America.

Besides, as noted above and written in the constitution, the very strict guidelines for invoking Article 1, Section 9 (which are strict because the framers DID NOT WANT the president able to suspend habeas corpus at a whim) require that we BOTH be invaded AND that suspending it is necessary to secure the safety of the people. Whether or not an Afghani cab driver who may or may not (and based on the percentage of people freed without charges, probably does not) have ties to terrorists gets to face charges he is being incarcerated for rather than held indefinitely in a laweless, Orwellian nightmare doesn't make you or I one iota safer. It doesn't require the release of anyone guilty, it doesn't give them power. It just makes the system a system of law, which any American prison and court must be.

Why doesn't it seem to bother you that now 70% of the total prisoner population at Guantanamo Bay has been released without any charges? It turns out we wrongly imprisoned hundreds of innocent people in an American gulag where they were subject to harsher conditions than any U.S. prison and not even allowed to contest their imprisonment. The vast majority of detainees at Guantanamo were never terrorists, and the "evidence" that we had for their initial imprisonment was so flimsy it never would have stood up in court and didn't stand up even to Gitmo review. That is a travesty, a crime against humanity, and totally illegal. If we're going to be arresting people in foreign countries and bringing them within U.S. Jurisdiction, they need to be treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention or as prisoners subject to U.S. law, there isn't some legal middle ground for the made-up term "enemy combatants."

As for that last line, it's worthy of Sean Hannity, not these boards. If you succumb to that kind of empty smartass rhetoric that pretends those who want the Constitution and the rule of law upheld, that the truly innocent have some means of release, are somehow coddling terrorists, it will be impossible to respect you when you have something of value to add.

QUENTIN

06-30-2008, 03:53 PM

Was Pearl Harbor not an invasion? After all, the Japs never touched American soil. Or do you just sympathize with those poor terrorists and their righteous cause? You're arguing morality. I'm saying it sucks they're being mistreated there and probably shouldn't have been there for seven years.

BUT constitutionally it's sound, as I've yet to find the alotted timeframe and we are, technically and legalistically, AT WAR.

Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Maybe you really don't know the difference between an attack and an invasion? Historians, generals, FDR, no one considers the ATTACK on Pearl Harbor an invasion, because it wasn't.

And constitutionally it is not sound because us being at war in Afghanistan and Iraq has nothing to do with whether we are under invasion. Those are wars fought on foreign soil. If they were being fought in Michigan against an armed uprising of militant Iraqis, what you're saying would make some sense. But however you want to cut it, technically, legally, whatever, it doesn't.

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 04:01 PM

Hm. Yeah, um, so my smartass rhetoric, obviously the only statment in any thread worth a reprimand from such an objective user (and, yes, that's condemning sarcasm), is entirely incredible, though accusations of my disdain for these terrorist detainees is so easily solidified by what I've said mutltiple times is both immoral, innapropriate and unfortunate. If you can find me a copy of your dictionary in existence c. late 18th century, feel free to earn some credibility in your argument.

So, now that we're back on topic, please tell me where in your dance of a post is the difference between an attack and an invasion as outlined by your Constitution. Time? Location? Not enough innocent civilians dead?

You're just rambling foul for these oh-so-innocent suspects. God forbid one amongst three or ten spends some time in prison for something he didn't do. Get over it, especially if you're going to ask me to shrug 3000+ (for verification, you might've read 3 before) innocent American lives.

Madsen's right, this thread has hit the john.

SpoonMan999

06-30-2008, 04:11 PM

Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Maybe you really don't know the difference between an attack and an invasion? Historians, generals, FDR, no one considers the ATTACK on Pearl Harbor an invasion, because it wasn't.

And constitutionally it is not sound because us being at war in Afghanistan and Iraq has nothing to do with whether we are under invasion. Those are wars fought on foreign soil. If they were being fought in Michigan against an armed uprising of militant Iraqis, what you're saying would make some sense. But however you want to cut it, technically, legally, whatever, it doesn't.

Considering the internment of Japanese-American citizens that followed Pearl Harbor it seems the very right described in A1S9 was exercised. You know, in response to an ivasion. An ivasion doesn't have to be an attempt to take over or conquer it's merely coming into our country as an enemy.

Also, we didn't say we were still under invasion only that it does not set a time frame for how long one can be held under those circumstances.

Furthermore, I want to point out that here you are knocking somebody else's argument and talking down to them because their brain doesn't work the same way your's does.

Homyrrh

06-30-2008, 04:16 PM

QUENTIN

06-30-2008, 04:23 PM

3000 innocent American civilians have nothing to do with hundreds of innocent Middle Eastern civilians though. 9/11 isn't a justification for any abuse we want to dole out. And it's not 1 in 3 or 1 in 10 who are innocent, so far it is at least 7 in 10 did nothing wrong and were held in a gulag without legal recourse for years. Why should anyone "get over that"? It's human suffering that never should have happened. How heartless. Can you imagine being told to "get over" the 3000+ deaths on 9/11? I'd never ask you to shrug that, never would, I say they're not related. Two wrongs don't make a right and we should have the legal and moral high ground over terrorists, no?

You posted about having some sympathy for innocent Gitmo detainees while I was compsoing my post. You still argue that legally there is some justification for them having no legal recourse to seek release though, so how much is that sympathy worth?

The constitution does not define every word, but it's also not Middle English, it is a language we still use, most of the words not too changed by time. Are you going to ask me where the constitution defines "arms" and "religion" too? We do know the difference between an invasion and an attack, one is a sustained presence of a foreign enemy on our soil the other is a singular offensive event on our soil. And as we keep pointing out, A1S9 is for when we are both under invasion AND revoking habeas corpus is required for the public safety. Even under your definitions and circumstances of 9/11 being an invasion, 7 years later we are not STILL under invasion, we haven't been since 9/12. Are you arguing that since the British invaded in 1812, the president should forever be able to revoke habeas corpus? No, when the British left, that power left with them. Since we're inarguably not being attacked continually by some invasive force, the president no longer has that right. Emergency powers granted to the executive branch during times of crisis are by their nature intended to be as definite and limited to the crisis as possible, not as an indefinite right granted for as long as they damn well please and whether it applies or not.

SpoonMan999

06-30-2008, 04:26 PM

Quentin, he's arguing the legality of it and the constitution does not specify a time frame. This is one of the many loopholes in law that I talked about earlier, and how I do not approve of anyone being accused of terrorism being able to take advantage of these loopholes.

QUENTIN

06-30-2008, 04:36 PM

Considering the internment of Japanese-American citizens that followed Pearl Harbor it seems the very right described in A1S9 was exercised. You know, in response to an ivasion. An ivasion doesn't have to be an attempt to take over or conquer it's merely coming into our country as an enemy.

Also, we didn't say we were still under invasion only that it does not set a time frame for how long one can be held under those circumstances.

Furthermore, I want to point out that here you are knocking somebody else's argument and talking down to them because their brain doesn't work the same way your's does.

Roosevelt did not invoke Article 1, Section 9 to suspend habeas corpus, instead his Executive Order 9066 allowed for military leaders to create militarized zones and exclusion zones and they proceeded to exclude most Japanese people on the West coast for fear of espionage. A1S9 had nothing to do with it.

The last time habeas corpus was suspended by a president was when Grant invoked A1S9 to quell a REBELLION by the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina in 1871. We haven't used it when we've just been under attack, because it doesn't apply.

SpoonMan999

06-30-2008, 04:40 PM

Roosevelt did not invoke Article 1, Section 9 to suspend habeas corpus, instead his Executive Order 9066 allowed for military leaders to create militarized zones and exclusion zones and they proceeded to exclude most Japanese people on the West coast for fear of espionage. A1S9 had nothing to do with it.

The last time habeas corpus was suspended by a president was when Grant invoking A1S9 to quell a REBELLION by the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina in 1871. We haven't used it when we've just been under attack.

Executive Order 9066 would have been unconstitutional without A1S9.

boombche_stum

06-30-2008, 08:27 PM

Unfortunately, a dictionary today does not constitute a credible source for this argument for obvious reasons, but specfically the 230 years of evolution of the English language.

Well, seeing as dictionaries are regularly updated to keep up with the above "problem," I would say they make a mighty fine source. But I guess for the sake of your agenda, you deem it necessary to throw out the universally known application of the term "invasion" to better suit your argument, correct?

Regardless, hostile enemies (terorrists...those not quite looking out for our best interest, FYI) hijacked an American civilian airliner over US airspace and, legalise all you want, attacked three critical structures (for those who may have forgotten, that's the Pentagon, the WTC towers, and an attempted attack of another government structure in DC).

And? This constitutes an invasion? They all died. Is Al-Qeada rapidly growing in America and plotting to overthrow our Government? I haven't heard any such thing. If you're going to call 9/11 an invasion though, you had better be consistent and tell me that the bombing to WTC One in '93 was an invasion too.... but I doubt you would. And I also seriously doubt you were calling 9/11 an invasion before this ruling, if I'm wrong on that feel free to let me know... if not, then why start calling it an invasion now? To further your argument that a couple of lowly "terrorists" in Cuba within American jurisdiction don't deserve hebeas corpus? That's being a ted opportunistic.

We INVADED Iraq. The Nazi's INVADED Poland. We INVADED Germany.... Do you see where this is going? Al-Qeada did not INVADE the US. The Battle of Crete is a great example of what an air invasion is, not 9/11.

TERRORISTS invaded US soil. Get technical? Airspace over the capital is restricted. THe invaders invaded, at the very least, a domestic US flight. Then flew two of them into the WTC towers 1 & 2, which also had several government offices.

Airspace over the capital is restricted, yes... I'm well aware of that. How does aircraft, hijacked or not, constitute an invasion by being in a no fly zone? And they blew themselves up along with the plane.... normally, when someone INVADES another country, they don't kill themselves along the way in a TERRORIST ATTACK... But I guess if you feel inclined to believe something as ridiculous as this, be my guest.

I cannot comprehened why this doesn't register as an "invasion". Is there some constitutionally-defined quota that mandates so many "troops" attack to consider it an invasion? LAst time I check, this is America, following an American Constitution, and anyone so foolish enough to invade/attack/enact-hostile-initiatives (for this PC inclined) cannot just be shrugged.

It was a TERRORIST ATTACK. That's why you can't "comprehend" why people like me don't get your argument.... because your argument is illogical. Here's why:

An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.

How does 9/11 fit that? It doesn't. You're trying to argue something that has no basis in reality. 9/11 was a terrorist attack by a terrorist group who's objective was to bring down the WTC and scare the American public. That is the text book definition of terrorism...... But that does not constitute an invasion as anyone understands it, and you are the first person I have ever heard try to argue this ridiculous point. I doubt even Scalia tried using this incredibly illogical argument.

Unless, of course, we should read suspected terrorists to sleep in their peace and diplomacy study groups we'd enroll them in. I'm sure this helps.

Uh, no. Where did I say that? LOL. You just love putting words in people's mouths don't you?

However, because Guantanamo IS within American Jurisdiction, this means the people held should at the vey least be able to hear the case against them with the appropriate legal counsel. How is that reading terrorists to sleep? That's just granting people, regardless of their crimes, the appropriate legal rights we grant anyone within our jurisdiction. We do this all the time, I fail to see how Guantanamo is any different.... But I guess, since you more than likely think they're all "big bad terrorists out to destroy America," they don't deserve those rights huh?

A few questions though....

Doesn't it strike you as somewhat suspicious that our Government would hold people who are supposedly terrorists, or at least have terrorists connections, and not charge the vast majority of them? And THEN, when the Supreme Court rules they actually have a right to see the case against them, our Government wants to re-write the evidence against these people? For what reason? If they have solid evidence why weren't charges filed in a timely manner? Why have several JAG officers quit because? (We already know why, they said the trials were a sham). Why would they need to re-write evidence? Common sense would lead one to the conclusion most of the "charges" are flimsy (That, and I know a gaurd at Guantanamo personally who I keep in contact with quite often).

Either way, you're "9/11 was an invasion" argument holds no weight IMO.

boombche_stum

06-30-2008, 08:44 PM

SpoonMan999

07-01-2008, 02:07 PM

Well, seeing as dictionaries are regularly updated to keep up with the above "problem," I would say they make a mighty fine source. But I guess for the sake of your agenda, you deem it necessary to throw out the universally known application of the term "invasion" to better suit your argument, correct?

Clearly you didn't bother reading the whole thread because I used the dictionary to define Invasion and it supported his argument. He was actually dismissing something that was in his favor.

The internment of Japanese American's was not justified by suspending habeas corpus at any point.

Um, you're right, it wasn't justified by it...and I didn't say that. I said, what was done could not have been consitituional without Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution allowing those rights to be taken away.

QUENTIN

07-08-2008, 09:09 PM

Judge to Bush admin.: Guantanamo is top priority

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 51 minutes ago

A federal judge overseeing Guantanamo Bay lawsuits ordered the Justice Department to put other cases aside and make it clear throughout the Bush administration that, after nearly seven years of detention, the detainees must have their day in court.

"The time has come to move these forward," Judge Thomas F. Hogan said Tuesday during the first hearing over whether the detainees are being held lawfully. "Set aside every other case that's pending in the division and address this case first."

The Bush administration hoped it would never come to this. The Justice Department has fought for years to keep civilian judges from reviewing evidence against terrorism suspects. But a Supreme Court ruling last month opened the courthouse doors to the detainees.

About 200 lawyers, law clerks and reporters sat through the nearly three-hour court hearing. Other lawyers joined by phone for the historic hearing. Attorneys, nearly all of them working for free, have long asked for a judge to scrutinize the evidence, saying the detainees could not be held indefinitely, simply on the government's say-so.

"A day in court on the Guantanamo cases is a treasured moment," said Gitanjali Gutierrez, one of two attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights selected to address the court on behalf of all the lawyers.

There are about 270 detainees being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government has already cleared one of five for release and is just looking for a country to send them to, the Justice Department said.

"That's the issue the executive branch is struggling with," Justice Department attorney Judry L. Subar said.

"Maybe we can assist them," Hogan said.

Hogan is coordinating most of the estimated 200 Guantanamo Bay cases on behalf of most of the Washington federal judges. He will decide how quickly the Justice Department must turn over the evidence against the detainees.

The Justice Department is asking for about eight weeks to start doing so. It is dramatically expanding the litigation team handling the cases and is asking for time to get the new attorneys brought up to speed, settled in their new offices and approved to handle the classified evidence.

It also wants time to update and add to the evidence that was originally used to justify holding the detainees.

"The government should be entitled, in 2008, to present its best case," Justice Department attorney Gregory G. Katsas said.

Lawyers for the detainees adamantly oppose that move and Hogan was skeptical of the plan. If the evidence was enough to warrant holding the detainees for six years, he said he didn't understand why it suddenly needs to be changed.

"If it wasn't sufficient, then they shouldn't have been picked up," Hogan said, adding that he probably would make the government explain any proposed change.

A schedule has not been set but it appears judges could begin reviewing evidence in September. If judges find the evidence lacking, they could order detainees released, but the Bush administration would decide where to send them. Judges do not generally have authority to bring detainees into the U.S., despite White House assertions that the court process could release terrorists onto U.S. streets.

Shayana Kadidal, another attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said he doubts most detainees ever get that far. He predicted that once judges order the evidence is made available, the Bush administration would try to release as many detainees as possible to prevent judges from scrutinizing it.

In those cases in which evidence is reviewed, judges will decide how much weight to give the government's evidence, which in many situations will include unidentified sources and hearsay.

A federal appeals court recently scrutinized the case of a Chinese Muslim and found the evidence lacking. The court said the detainee must be released. Susan Baker Manning, an attorney in that case, said she expects district court judges to be similarly skeptical of the government's evidence.