snippet of a news story about the Military Commisions Act of 2006
quote:
The Elimination of Habeas Corpus has made the Bill of Rights irrelevant. The United States is now a military dictatorship.
Mr. Parcelan fucked around with this message on 10-23-2006 at 11:45 PM.
e: also wrong tag Gadani fucked around with this message on 10-23-2006 at 11:39 PM.
quote:
Gadani had this to say about Cuba:
sensationalist bullshite: also wrong tag
Do you even know what no more Habeas Corpus means?
e: i would change the tag but i accidentally posted it on my Jennifer name and i cant Puggy fucked around with this message on 10-23-2006 at 11:43 PM.
quote:
Puggy stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Do you even know what no more Habeas Corpus means?e: i would change the tag but i accidentally posted it on my Jennifer name and i cant
Yes; I'm not completely retarded.
quote:
Gadani had this to say about Duck Tales:
Yes; I'm not completely retarded.
so where do you get the idea of "sensationalist bullshit" from a video that simply presents facts? unless youre referring to the quote which i admit is a bit dramatic but essentially true.
That said, I think you're overreacting to this and don't entirely understand it.
quote:
Verily, Mr. Parcelan doth proclaim:
I do love Mr. Olbermann; possibly not as much as you do, but I think he's quite necessary to the current situation. However, he does thrive on sensationalism. He's perhaps one of the most sensationalist media personalities around, albeit a charming and well-spoken one often with a point.That said, I think you're overreacting to this and don't entirely understand it.
The potential for abuse this has is terrifying. I dont think being pissed that i have no more basic human rights for the remainder of this "war on terror" is overreacting at all.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Arttemis:
Habeas Corpus isn't part of the Bill of Rights.
Without habeas corpus the bill of rights is virtually useless. According to the Military Commisions Act anyone can now be thrown in jail for any reason and denied all rights.
The unfortunate part is that you sucked at presenting it. I like Olbermann as well, really I do, but his style is way too emotionally charged for most people. You would've been better served using a news article with some more informed opinions of your own tacked on to it as a prompt for discussion.
Again, I'm on your side, so don't take this the wrong way... Don't let a pundit/editiorial journalist/whatever speak for you, no matter how right you may think he is or how awesome he may be. It makes you look silly.
Sorry dogg
Olberman makes O'Riely look sane. Though him an Hannity are still neck and neck for biggest political wackos.
quote:
Kegwen obviously shouldn't have said:
We appreciate what you're trying to do here, Patrick. Really. You were trying to share with us what I also consider a very important issue that needs to be addressed by the people of this country. If nothing else, it needs to be addressed for the sake of clarity. If it isn't as bad as the critics say then please do tell us why, because the text as I've seen it seems pretty bad.The unfortunate part is that you sucked at presenting it. I like Olbermann as well, really I do, but his style is way too emotionally charged for most people. You would've been better served using a news article with some more informed opinions of your own tacked on to it as a prompt for discussion.
Again, I'm on your side, so don't take this the wrong way... Don't let a pundit/editiorial journalist/whatever speak for you, no matter how right you may think he is or how awesome he may be. It makes you look silly.
Sorry dogg
Ha I know I suck at evercrest and I did figure I would just get people calling me stupid but Im just trying to raise awareness about this. My guess is most people out there don't even know what it is, much less how it could change their future.
quote:
Puggy had this to say about Duck Tales:
Ha I know I suck at evercrest and I did figure I would just get people calling me stupid but Im just trying to raise awareness about this. My guess is most people out there don't even know what it is, much less how it could change their future.
With all due respect, I was about to say the same thing to you.
quote:
This one time, at Naimah camp:
This law only applies to non-citizens of an illegal status. In other words, the rights of American citizens have changed not at all.Olberman makes O'Riely look sane. Though him an Hannity are still neck and neck for biggest political wackos.
quote:
The most recent example of a U.S. citizen being targeted using terror legislation involved BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast, who was pursued by Homeland Security and charged with unauthorized filming of a critical national security structure, (an Exxon Oil refinery that was readily available to anyone with an Internet connection at Google Maps), under PATRIOT Act legislation. The charge was later dropped after an activist outcry.The recent historical precedent for U.S. citizens being charged under legislation originally passed in the name of combating non-US terrorists only, provides clear motivation for the Military Commissions Act to be used in the same way.
quote:
Naimah wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
This law only applies to non-citizens of an illegal status. In other words, the rights of American citizens have changed not at all.
This isn't true. Unfortunately under current U.S. law, the president is able to declare whomever (s)he wishes as an enemy combatant, up to and including U.S. citizens. Although I have confidence that someone along the line will have the ethical and moral compunction to stop an arrest from happening unjustly, ultimately I don't think that should be the role of the Executive Branch of the government. I don't believe that it should be necessary to hope that the Executive Branch uses discretion in its widely expanded powers.
Furthermore, I take ethical issue in the idea that any single person should not be able to challenge the veracity of the charges against them, and the legality of their imprisonment. I keep hearing the morally bankrupt argument that "If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear" and I think I'll apply the same principle. If there is nothing wrong with the imprisonment of a person, then the Executive Branch and the United States should have nothing to fear from a court reviewing the case. Freedom from unjust imprisonment seems to be a basic human right. Indeed, the fact that the founding fathers felt fit to include habeas corpus in the constitution is an affirmation of that view legally.
Although I hope this will not need to face a challenge in the Supreme Court, I'm hopeful that they will throw this law out. Unfortunately since imprisoned individuals can't bring this to a court, it may be very difficult. This also provides further incentive to not release individuals on the fear that they will challenge the law. Additionally, the justices that Bush has been appointing seem to subscribe to the idea of a unitary executive which isn't a positive sign.
I was discouraged by the fact that the Democratic minority didn't see fit the filibuster this bill. Of all the stupid things they chose to filibuster in the past, they couldn't find the action to take a stand against something that is truely wrong.
Jennifer/Puggy - If you want to post a politics thread, a much more neutral source adds enormous legitimacy. Certain people make snap judgements about the issue when you post clearly biased sources. Gadani was right to call this sensationalist, although the issue is certainly not bullshit. Kegwen was able to point out how you could perhaps improve the quality of a future politics thread. (though I hope you don't make another) Even if you post an excellent neutral article and accompanying analysis, there will still be people who will use silly fallacies, and blind loyalty to justify their position, ignoring any rational discourse. Although it's discouraging, the answer is not to post emotionally charged rants which, although legitimate to some degree, don't add to any intelligent discussion.
I'm really looking forward to absolute gridlock for this next government.
This is definitely a tremendous issue the American people are facing today, however I tend to believe that it will be thrown out before too long.
This bill stops the legal recourse used by the US citizens to escape "unlawful combatant" status, and allows a trial by military commission--one that cannot possibly be considered a fair one: just read the legislation to see what I mean.
quote:
(Sec. 7) Amends federal criminal justice provisions to deny any court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of, or to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Makes the provisions of this section effective upon enactment, and applicable to all cases, without exception, pending on or after enactment which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.
Pulling out the line that matters:
quote:
...detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
I was wrong about the illegal status, but it does not apply to citizens. This is not an abridgement of American rights. The law refers several times to an alien enemy combatant, meaning someone who is not a citizen, or in the loosest interpretation a naturalized citizen may count as an alien.
Citizens have rights. Lawful combatants have rights. People from parts unknown who randomly attack America have the rights we decide to give them.
During World War II, an executive order was given to round up Japanese-Americans and Japanese immigrants and send them to special internment camps. They were held without reason and without an expected release date.
So, is this really such a new thing for our policy, as it seems to have a precedent?
quote:
Azakias impressed everyone with:
Being half awake and tired as hell, I just figured I would ask this:During World War II, an executive order was given to round up Japanese-Americans and Japanese immigrants and send them to special internment camps. They were held without reason and without an expected release date.
So, is this really such a new thing for our policy, as it seems to have a precedent?
I don't really think this can be used as precedent. Although Korematsu v. United States said that the camps were not illegal, a coram nobis appeal filed in the 80's was granted. The fact that the Korematsu case involved intentionally false information submitted by the U.S. government to prevent an unfavorable ruling invalidates it as a legal justification. Furthermore, Reagan ordered reparations to be paid to the families, and in 1990 families interned started receiving money.
If you feel that it was ok to detain American citizens of Japanese descent, it is certainly your right to hold that opinion. It seems dissolute to favor the imprisonment of people just because it doesn't apply to you. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean it is ok to do today, and the fact that Reagan saw fit to pay reparations is good indication that others think it wasn't ok. Noxhil2 fucked around with this message on 10-24-2006 at 04:27 PM.
quote:
Naimah painfully thought these words up:
I was wrong about the illegal status, but it does not apply to citizens. This is not an abridgement of American rights. The law refers several times to an alien enemy combatant, meaning someone who is not a citizen, or in the loosest interpretation a naturalized citizen may count as an alien.
That is only a portion of the bill and part of the reason this is confusing. You really have to piece it together. Check the version passed by the senate and it's definition of an unlawful enemy combatant.
quote:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.(A) The term unlawful
enemy combatant means
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.
(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.In this paragraph, the term cobelligerent,
with respect to the United States, means any State
or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United
States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against
a common enemy.
Citizens can be declared unlawful enemy combatants, and thus can be arrested Now start reading further. This vague definition is really the crux of the problem.
quote:
§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter...(f) STATUS OF COMMISSIONS UNDER COMMON ARTICLE 3.
A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly
constituted court, affording all the necessary judicial guarantees
which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples for purposes
of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
So a military commission is ok for citizens covered under the Geneva Conventions, not a normal court case.
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section
1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801
note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear
or consider any other action against the United States or its agents
relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial,
or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained
by the United States and has been determined by the United
States to have been properly detained
So a citizen can be arrested and he does have habeas corpus, technically. He does not have to be tried by a normal court though, only a military commmission. I'm sure you can guess that there's a number of differences, including a near infinite delay of the trial. Note that there is no statement of how long after a writ for habeas corpus has been filed, let alone arrest or being allowed to file the writ, that the trial must begin.
Hell, this is all pretty moot anyway. It's pretty simple to revoke citizenship.
quote:
A sleep deprived Azakias stammered:
So, is this really such a new thing for our policy, as it seems to have a precedent?
Both during WWII and during the Civil War, habeas corpus has been suspended. It has never been abolished within law. This is a new. And are you really going to cite internment camps, of all things, as reason to promote this law? You may want to rethink your views if you thought internment camps were a good thing.
Of course, you have read your history and realize that habeus corpus has been suspended before, and on much, much more broad basis than this. And yet the world continues to turn as before.
Hyperbole, ahoy!
quote:
Callalron had this to say about (_|_):
Of course, you have read your history and realize that habeus corpus has been suspended before, and on much, much more broad basis than this. And yet the world continues to turn as before.
Lets look at the constitution;
quote:
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.
This is neither a case of rebellion or invasion. Also, this is more than a suspension of habeas corpus; it effectively elminates it in some cases. Furthermore, the Supreme Court decided in Ex Parte Milligan (I hate linking wiki, but it has a good summary);
quote:
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.It further observed that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's enforcement.
Notice that the law contradicts the Supreme Court decision in a couple areas; it suspsends habeas corpus while civilian courts are open, citizens can be tried by a military commission and not a civilian court, and citizens can be executed by decision of a millitary commission. While Civil War/Reconstruction and WWII cases will most likely apply to more people, this law has potential for far more damage in other areas.
It is likely that this law will go to the Supreme Court at some point and will be declared unconstitutional for various reasons. It's a matter of time.
quote:
§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter...(f) STATUS OF COMMISSIONS UNDER COMMON ARTICLE 3.
A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly
constituted court, affording all the necessary judicial guarantees
which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples for purposes
of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
quote:
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter...
quote:
alien unlawful enemy combatant
quote:
alien unlawful enemy combatant
quote:
alien
Words mean things. If the word 'alien' was not present in the bill, then yes there would be a major problem. But the fact is, it's there.
To quote the same document you provided:
quote:
948a.3: (3) ALIEN.The term alien means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.
QED. This law does not infringe upon the rights of a United States citizen by definition because it only applies to alien unlawful enemy combatants.
Meh, the law won't hold anyway if a court case ever hit the Supreme Court. The court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (again Wiki gives a good summary) directly contradicts the law. Of course, the law prevents a case from ever going to the Supreme Court due to it's wording so... who knows if it will ever get there, even though it should. If it somehow does, the law most likely dies.
This puts the government in a difficult position, because the people trying to do their job don't know what is legal. This law defines what is legal and sets up a set of rights to protect both the alien unlawful combatants and those handeling their processing.
They have changed the rules so that we had no official way of dealing with it. So we had to create rules to apply to them. That's all this law is doing.
quote:
Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
1) Do you feel that it is just to hold "aliens" on no charges and with no judicial oversight?
2) Do you feel that it is a basic human right to be able to apply a writ of habeas corpus?
3) Do you feel people who are not U.S. citizens deserve lesser protections under the law?
4) Do you believe that the United States should make any effort to abide by International Law?
5) How would you feel if a foreign nation imprisoned you with no charges and no opportunity to defend yourself?
6) Do you understand that the constitution does not apply solely to U.S. citizens?
Extra Credit:
Do you believe the United States should be in the business of torturing prisoners for information? Do you think this information should be valid in a Noxhil2 fucked around with this message on 10-24-2006 at 09:17 PM.court of law military tribunal?
quote:
Naimah thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
QED. This law does not infringe upon the rights of a United States citizen by definition because it only applies to alien unlawful enemy combatants.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but from what I've heard part of the problem is that if you are arrested as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, you don't have the right to go to court to prove that you ARE in fact a citizen of the US.
So saying that it doesn't infringe upon US citizens rights is pointless since you can be arrested on that charge and not be allowed to prove otherwise.
But hey, maybe I'm missing something, and I'm sure someone will point it out to me 
quote:
Noxhil2 stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Naimah I have some serious questions for you.1) Do you feel that it is just to hold "aliens" on no charges and with no judicial oversight?
2) Do you feel that it is a basic human right to be able to apply a writ of habeas corpus?
3) Do you feel people who are not U.S. citizens deserve lesser protections under the law?
4) Do you believe that the United States should make any effort to abide by International Law?
5) How would you feel if a foreign nation imprisoned you with no charges and no opportunity to defend yourself?
6) Do you understand that the constitution does not apply solely to U.S. citizens?
Extra Credit:
Do you believe the United States should be in the business of torturing prisoners for information? Do you think this information should be valid in a
court of lawmilitary tribunal?
1) Loaded question, and skiriting the issue. Not going to bother with a response.
2) No, it is a part of common law.
3) United States law applies to United States citizens. Tanzinian law applies to Tanzinian citizens. International law, ideally, fills in the gaps.
4) That's the issue. International law has no say on this particular issue as they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. The important sections were quoted above.
5) I would expect to be treated as international law provided.
6) The United States Constitution applies to no citizens. Only to the United States Government. It defines the way in which the government may enact its powers.
Extra Credit: This law does not condone torture.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael said this:
do we have a definition for terrorist yet?
Anyone who asks this question.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
1) Loaded question, and skiriting the issue. Not going to bother with a response.
I know, it's a tough question to spin an answer out of. I guess I can be more specific. Do you think that it is correct to hold citizens of other countries at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, and perhaps arbitrarily (we have no way of knowing) with no charges and no reviews of their imprisonment? I don't think so, and I understand why the rest of the world thinks Gitmo is a huge and blatant rights violation by the United State. This doesn't really skirt the issue, and is kind of the crux -- why can't they challenge the veracity of their imprisonment?
quote:
2) No, it is a part of common law.
Ok, so when should we NOT be applying common law to the life of a person? Should we always be able to pick and choose? Is it based on when we are at war with an idea? I mean, I don't know. I think common law should apply except in extraordinarily extreme cases, not written to be excluded to every such case. I can't think of very many situtations where it is infeasible to let someone's situation be reviewed by a court to see if their rights are being violated.
quote:
3) United States law applies to United States citizens. Tanzinian law applies to Tanzinian citizens. International law, ideally, fills in the gaps.
That isn't what I asked. I'm curious if you think we should treat citizens that we prosecute (or imprison) with lesser rights than a U.S. citizen. Does the U.S. really have the moral authority to decide that human beings from other countries deserve less protection under the law? I don't think so. I just hope that if you do, you understand why the United States is going to have a lot less friends in the future.
quote:
4) That's the issue. International law has no say on this particular issue as they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. The important sections were quoted above.
Fair enough. I do take issue with the fact that we are really granting them very few rights, perhaps less than those afforded by Geneva.
quote:
5) I would expect to be treated as international law provided.
Not if you were a Syrian citizen detained by the U.S..
quote:
6) The United States Constitution applies to no citizens. Only to the United States Government. It defines the way in which the government may enact its powers.
Incorrect. Off the top of my head Sanchez-Llamas v. United States and Reno v. Flores both reaffirmed the fact that illegal aliens have the right to due process under the Fifth Ammendment. There are of course, other instances of the Constitution applying to non-citizens, one could even argue that most all parts apply, except where citizens are specifically mentioned. (ie voting)
quote:
This law does not condone torture.
Why, then, was the absolute ban on torture removed in favor of a conditional one, that lets evidence obtained by torture be admitted at the military's discretion? (Section III 948r I believe) Personally, I don't that any single person should have the ability or the duty to identify certain interrogation techniques as torture or not. It seems a simple thing to be sure your techniques don't cross the line, rather than doing them then seeing if they are ok. Is it torture to lock a man in a room with loud music and strobing lights? I don't know, but it sounds pretty awful, and I doubt we do that to U.S. citizens.
quote:
I know, it's a tough question to spin an answer out of. I guess I can be more specific. Do you think that it is correct to hold citizens of other countries at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, and perhaps arbitrarily (we have no way of knowing) with no charges and no reviews of their imprisonment? I don't think so, and I understand why the rest of the world thinks Gitmo is a huge and blatant rights violation by the United State. This doesn't really skirt the issue, and is kind of the crux -- why can't they challenge the veracity of their imprisonment?
Their imprisonment as an alien unlawful combatant is reviewed twice under this law. Once by a tribunal, and once by a congressional comittie.
quote:
Ok, so when should we NOT be applying common law to the life of a person? Should we always be able to pick and choose? Is it based on when we are at war with an idea? I mean, I don't know. I think common law should apply except in extraordinarily extreme cases, not written to be excluded to every such case. I can't think of very many situtations where it is infeasible to let someone's situation be reviewed by a court to see if their rights are being violated.
They have abbandoned certain rights when they behave in a manner outside of current provisions. This law is set up to give them some of those rights back.
quote:
That isn't what I asked. I'm curious if you think we should treat citizens that we prosecute (or imprison) with lesser rights than a U.S. citizen. Does the U.S. really have the moral authority to decide that human beings from other countries deserve less protection under the law? I don't think so. I just hope that if you do, you understand why the United States is going to have a lot less friends in the future.
They only have less protection from this law if they are alien unlawful combatants. If someone from another country has not met the definition of an unlawful combatant then this law does not apply to them. If they have, then their parent country should be outraged that they have acted in such a manner.
quote:
Fair enough. I do take issue with the fact that we are really granting them very few rights, perhaps less than those afforded by Geneva.
They gave up the Geneva Conventions when they decided to act outside of them.
quote:
Not if you were a Syrian citizen detained by the U.S..
If I were to blow up a mosque in Syria I doubt I would be granted any of the rights affored to me as an American Citizen.
quote:
Incorrect. Off the top of my head Sanchez-Llamas v. United States and Reno v. Flores both reaffirmed the fact that illegal aliens have the right to due process under the Fifth Ammendment. There are of course, other instances of the Constitution applying to non-citizens, one could even argue that most all parts apply, except where citizens are specifically mentioned. (ie voting)
You missed my point. The Constitution puts limits to how the government may impinge our rights. The Constitution itself does not grant rights.
quote:
Why, then, was the absolute ban on torture removed in favor of a conditional one, that lets evidence obtained by torture be admitted at the military's discretion? (Section III 948r I believe) Personally, I don't that any single person should have the ability or the duty to identify certain interrogation techniques as torture or not. It seems a simple thing to be sure your techniques don't cross the line, rather than doing them then seeing if they are ok. Is it torture to lock a man in a room with loud music and strobing lights? I don't know, but it sounds pretty awful, and I doubt we do that to U.S. citizens.
quote:
948r.d.3:
(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement
do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of
2005.
If an interrogation method is neither cruel, inhuman, or degrading it would be difficult to call it torture. Mayhaps sending them to bed without their pudding is outside your moral limits, but I am perfectly fine with it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Do folks understand that even under the Geneva Conventions there is no right to trial and that combatants may be held until the end of the conflict with no recourse?
Of course not.
I actually went out and read much of the geneva convention, since my actions as a military rep are bound by them.
You'd be surprised how many people in the military have not read it.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Knight Rider:
Do folks understand that even under the Geneva Conventions there is no right to trial and that combatants may be held until the end of the conflict with no recourse?
Yes, but there will never be an end to the "War on Terror." You can't really ever end a "War on [Idea]." Imagine if we held people indefinitely with no trial as a result of the "War on Drugs." (Heck, we might do that, I just don't know about it)
I see your point though. The problem is, if we want to call these men prisoners of a conflict, then we should apply Geneva. Since we aren't at war with any nation-state, we should have immediately began processing them for release after we had interrogated them, barring damning evidence.
If we want to say they aren't prisoners of a conflict, but plotting against the United States, then we have civil laws and civil courts to deal with people breaking our laws, and we should use them.
quote:
They have abbandoned certain rights when they behave in a manner outside of current provisions. This law is set up to give them some of those rights back.
But the point is, WE DON'T KNOW they did anything wrong. We aren't even going to let them petition to make sure their rights aren't being violated! We've seen the government be wrong, and sometimes in horrifying ways.(Maher Arar) I don't want anyone to be there who shouldn't, and I don't trust a historically opaque executive branch to decide that.
quote:
If I were to blow up a mosque in Syria I doubt I would be granted any of the rights affored to me as an American Citizen.
No, I mean, what if you did nothing wrong? You were just travelling, and your Uncle is a terrorist on the other side of the world. You get to face creative interrogation and an inability to challenge your own imprisonment.
quote:
You missed my point. The Constitution puts limits to how the government may impinge our rights. The Constitution itself does not grant rights.
Well in that case you'll have no trouble agreeing this is unconstitutional
"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." (I, 9)
quote:
If an interrogation method is neither cruel, inhuman, or degrading it would be difficult to call it torture. Mayhaps sending them to bed without their pudding is outside your moral limits, but I am perfectly fine with it.
Yeah, I misread that part. The admission of evidence obtained through torture is only permitted before the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It probably should not be admissable anyway, though.
Edit: The point I'm trying to make here, is that some of the people this country detains might be innocent. We don't really know, because transparent government is increasingly a thing of the past. I don't see why they can't petition a court to see if their rights are being violated. Honestly, if the government is THAT gung-ho about all these people being evil and guilty and whatnot, then a court will easily decide that the imprisonment is legal and just. The only reason not to let a court review it, is if you are hiding something, or you aren't sure. Noxhil2 fucked around with this message on 10-25-2006 at 03:37 PM.
There is no requirement to process anyone to determine evidence against them, and unlawful combatants are subject, quite lawfully, either to military tribunals or to the legal system of the captor nation. And there's no timeline for charges to be brought, either.
Prisoners of war are rightly held until the end of the conflict. Period.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
