No trial, no appeal, just lifetime detention

[Flyboy]

Arc-Lite

You still haven't answered my charge of detention of the innocent (see the 60% number, as quoted, and properly cited, above). Do these people have rights? Do we just write them off as collateral damage because they happened to be in their own sovereign nation, which we invaded?

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
--Thomas Paine

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--also Thomas Paine

Arc-Lite, the fundamental question here is: do you believe our rights come from our Creator, and are therefore fundamental human rights, or do you believe that they're granted to us by the grace of the government?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Rights are not without limits. We can forfeit our right to life and liberty by engaging in criminal behavior. It's a choice we and we alone make. We can't then turn around and blame someone else for the consequences of our actions.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This concept is hideous, repugnant, and frightening.

RileyMac, the article said that these are people who have no intelligence to offer, and there isn't sufficient evidence to charge them in any court in the world. In other words, someone in the administration doesn't like them for some reason.

For this they should be incarcerated FOR LIFE, with no recourse to counsel? No probably cause hearing? No habeus corpus ?

I don't think so.

 

[Cosmoline]

Those who ask, should we let the terrorists go are missing the point. Nobody has shown one shred of evidence that any of these people ARE terrorists. Without some showing that this is the case, I cannot see how we can abide perpetual prison simply on the say-so of some faceless federal goon from some agency.

 

[R.H. Lee]

and there isn't sufficient evidence to charge them in any court in the world. In other words, someone in the administration doesn't like them for some reason.

Is it legal or not? I really have no idea. It would seem if it were illegal, their attorneys would find a judge to release them.

 

[flatrock]

"I understand the concern and fear of the government overreaching and detaining persons without due process. What do you propose as an alternative? Do you think international terrorism should be handled as a criminal justice matter? If so, who has authority to prosecute? Furthermore, if it were handled as a criminal justice issue, no 'prior restraint' measures could be used AFAIK. So you just let known terrorists run around loose until they blow something up??????"

Our laws allow for prosecuting criminals for conspiracy to commit a crime, or for aiding others in a crime. Our laws do provide for 'prior restraint' measures.

What our laws do require is evidence. The question is are these people being held without a trail because the government lacks the evidence to try them. Or is the government avoiding a trial because they cannot present the evidence they have and provide the defense with the information they need to properly defend their client without exposing sources that we can't afford to expose.

Protecting our sources of information is VERY important, but it's often directly in opposition to due process. I'm really not sure how do deal with that.

Maybe a balance could be reached in a military tribunal where those judging the case could determine if the evidence if credible and sufficient possibly without the defendant becomming aware of all of the evidence against them, but that's a system that could be horribly abused.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Is it legal or not? I really have no idea. It would seem if it were illegal, their attorneys would find a judge to release them.

You're still missing the point, Mate. You keep talking about "their" attorney, as if anyone even knows who they are and is if they HAD an attorney. They are specifically DENIED access to attorneys, and in many cases their names are not even released.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Gotcha, Hawkmoon (finally). Sorry for being so dense. :banghead:

Being held (detained) under those conditions must then be allowed under prevailing law, correct? That would be PA I & II, correct?

 

[Flyboy]

Attorneys? Judge? These people don't have attorneys, are being denied access to attorneys, and are not being given trials. To wit:

Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

...

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, according to defense officials.

(Again, emphasis mine)

This is the whole point: the administration is holding people without trial, and without evidence; further, the administration has already openly defied the courts on similar matters, and is making every effort to declare these prisoners to be outside the jurisdiction of the US court system, so as to render the courts impotent in these matters. This business of exporting criminals to another country is a part of that: if they're outside the US, they're not subject to our civil rights laws. Why do you think they're being kept at Gitmo?

What happens when the government decides to start exporting citizens to Gitmo on terrorism charges? With the current atmosphere, I don't doubt that a lot of people would support it--they are terrorists, aren't they? The gummint says so, so they must be. Look at the responses to this very thread if you don't think people will fall into line that way. Now, what happens when, say, gun owners with propensity towards freedom (and resentful of ever-broadening government power) are "terrorists?" After all, they publicly state that they disagree with the government, and a lot of us make noises about changing it; and as gun owners, we have weapons that could potentially be used to stand against the government. And before you say it can't happen, think about Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Dianne Feinstein; do you really think they would hesitate to use the laws that way if they had the power to do so? That sort of power doesn't come overnight; it's gained gradually, like boiling a frog. Do you really want to establish these precedents?

 

[mtnbkr]

Arc-Light, a kid I am not nor have I been for quite some time. That said, it's funny how none of the vets (some combat, some not) I work with, some of whom have been sent to Iraq have felt the need to "send me to the dentist" because I believe our rights apply to all. Rights come from the Creator, not .gov.

when was the last load of gang banger terrorists going to cuba?

In case you failed to read the article I linked to, New York State is charging a common criminal as a "terrorist".

Don't misunderstand me, I have no issues with locking terrorists up for life or executing them for that matter. I do have a problem with our govt deciding who is a terrorist without enough evidence to satisfy even a minimum standard of justice. Our govt applies the laws it creates with a broader and broader brush as it sees fit. If we don't restrict them now, who will be able to resist when they are afraid of being labled "terrorist" and dropping away into the black hole?

Sex offenders deemed likely to reoffend have been held past their sentences too.

They still received Due Process of law, including a trial by jury and legal representation. "Terrorists" receive neither.

Chris

 

[artherd]

On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina. Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and probably a violation of the 6th Amendment. It is also a clearly abominable violation of the democratic traditions of the United States.

Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".

These are frightening accusations, and they may be true. Accusations do not give the President the authority to lock someone away, however. According to the laws and traditions of the U.S., the way to determine who gets imprisoned is through the due process of a trial by jury.

Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. That is tyranny. We must put an end to it.

It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.

And people wonder why I say firearms in the hands of US Citizenry at large are essential to secureing liberty.

 

[Sindawe]

If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. That is tyranny. We must put an end to it.

IIRC, the current Administration asserts that anybody on the planet, American citizen or not, may be seized and held indefinitely on the say-so of the President of the U.S.

Sorry, I don't have a link at the moment. If I can find one, I'll edit it in.

 

[Arc-Lite]

Flyboy... interesting question, so bear with me, for a few clarifing questions..our rights, meaning your rights my rights, as citizens, under our laws, or the rights of all man, both Islam, and Christian? our creator, as in Islam and Christian creator, or Islam or Christian? fundemental human rights, as in Islam, man or woman? or Christian...and grace of government, you know the question !!!...as is in the US, Afgan, Iraq..whos government? 60% innocent? intersting figure, when 100% of most criminials are as well innocent, just ask them, or their paided lawyer ... if the facts of these cases, as still not presented, where did this number 60% come from? assumptions???...and the true kicker we invaded a sovereign nation, hummmm a sovereign nation, giving safety to who???? the scum responsible for 911... I guess some can live, their entire life, looking in, and never have the experence, to be involved in something, that your fore fathers fought for, to preserve for you. I agree with both your quotes, of T. Paine, but these are only words, without the ability to secure these words, and turn them into life, they are just words. I am out of the country, I am going to bed.

 

[The Rabbi]

IIRC, the current Administration asserts that anybody on the planet, American citizen or not, may be seized and held indefinitely on the say-so of the President of the U.S.

Have a drink and relax. It's not the end of the world just yet.

 

[Flyboy]

Arc-Lite:

I'm about to step out, so this will be brief. I'm formulating something longer, though, to post later this evening.

The 60% innocent number comes from the Taguba report, as quoted: 60% of the detainees (a number that was increasing) has already been found by their interrogators to be innocent of any charges, and of no intelligence value. They met all of the conditions for release, yet their detention continued. Why? Nobody knows--nobody will answer questions. I quoted the relevant paragraph of the report previously. The full report can be found online, with the aid of Google (look for the Taguba report).

"the scum responsible for 911?" There has been a lot of discussion on this point. The generally accepted conclusion is that the Iraqis had no direct link to the attacks, and little connection to any anti-American terrorism (at least until we invaded their country). Al Qaeda and Saddam just wouldn't have gotten along--Al Qaeda is a remarkably religious organization, and the Saddam regime was quite secular. (Along the same lines, there is little chance that the CIA ever worked with Al Qaeda, for similar reasons. The mujaheddin, yes, but not that particular group.)

"that your fore fathers fought for, to preserve for you." Sir, kindly watch your accusations. My father retired just last month from the military. He was an attorney, and is thoroughly disgusted with this business. He fought for the principles upon which this great nation was founded, principles that include due process and rights for the accused, at least until a guilty verdict is returned. I have no problem with detention or execution of convicts; I have every problem with indefinite detention--without lawyer, or trial--of the accused, particularly those whom our own people believe to be innocent (again, see the Taguba report).

As to rights: I'm referring to our basic rights as human beings, given to us by our Creator, regardless of the name by which you know Him (Yaweh, God, Allah, or Zeus, I don't care). "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...." The legal theory of the rights of the accused, and of accusers being forced to provide proof, dates back long before the Bible; it appears in the Code of Hammurabi, which provides for a death sentence if an accuser doesn't produce witnesses. So far, the government has not only failed, but refused to even try. That's the point I'm trying to make--that these men are being held without any basis to do so, legally, morally, or rationally. Many of them were ordered to be set free, and are still being held.

As I said, this is a short one. I'm off to have some dinner with a friend, but I'll follow up with a much better-supported version in a while.

 

[griz]

As I recall one of the reasons we gave for removing Saddam was he made citizens “disappear†when they were not supporters of the government.

Now I think the US still has a way to go before we get there. Right now we only make “terrorist†disappear, it will be years before dissidents are treated that way.

But my point is this: How do you think this makes us look to Iraqi citizens? You know, those people we are in the process of liberating and teaching them about human rights? When they see us have such little regard for our own legal system I think they will question our benevolence. Ah, you say, but we aren’t torturing people like Saddam did. You are right; we operate under the façade of legality by shipping them off to a friendly terrorist state and having that regime do the torturing for us.

You guys defending this either aren’t understanding what is happening or lack any real principle of freedom.

 

[why_me]

Too many word ways too many

If you believe it is right to deny due process to any one. Your a Facist!
I hope the masked ones come for you in the middle of the night. Your family will wonder were your at. LOL Getting your A$$ tortured in some god forsaken country .
Just cause some one "Thinks" you may be dangerous.

 

[12-34hom]

Lack of evidence?

Let us now all join hands and sing while the good Reverend Bin Laden leads in a course of Kumbayah.

12-34hom.

 

[brian roberts]

RileyMc....

sources, cites??...." here ya go, riley, how about,"The New Pearl Harbor" David Griffin; "The Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade" Alfred McCoy; "Dark Alliance" Gary Webb; "Air America" Christopher Robbins;"Barry & The Boys" & "Welcome To Terrorland" Daniel Hopsicker; oh, & for you fans of WWII: "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About Rooseveldt & Pearl Harbor" (forgot this author, 2000 release, title alone will call it up) and try "Gold Warriors" & "The Yamato Dynasty" & "The Marcos Dynasty" by Sterling & Peggy Seagrave. you say you don't read any NON-fiction???? try some of these titles, quite an education.(if you dare)
------------------------------------------------------
people are born free, but are everywhere in chains,
placed there by the rich to ensure their plunder....Rousseau

 

[brian roberts]

rights.....

then there's Uncle Janet....who among us has forgotten her so soon???? "well, we gotta burn down th' place ta make it safe.... fer th' chilluns"

 

[cropcirclewalker]

When one fights evil with evil, then, DUH, evil wins.

Why do we bother? Bin Laden is much better at it than we are.

Everytime a granny gets felt up at the airport, every time we lock up somebody without evidence and throw away the key, every time we whack some goat herder over there who just happens to be in the wrong place, or is maybe getting married, then Bin Laden is happy.

We do evil, Bin Laden smirks and the wheel goes around.

Washington had the answer in his farewell address. We are too stupid, so wise we grow, to learn from him.

Shame.

 

[mtnbkr]

If you believe it is right to deny due process to any one. Your a Facist!

Hush now or a Vet will beat you up.

Chris

 

[why_me]

Im a vet too.

Bring it on!

 

[Beren]

Any man culpable in an act of murder should hang. No question, and I fully support death for offenses of treason, murder, and violent rape. First, however, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the man is guilty of the deed. Otherwise, you're just another savage, no better than those who flew planes into a few American buildings a couple years ago and just as much an enemy of our country.

Maybe we should just start arbitrarily cutting off the hands of any Muslim women married to suspected terrorists. That'll teach them, and make it harder to "aid the enemy." Or their children? After all, you wouldn't want to risk having them grow up and become terrorists like dad, right? Aw, screw it, let's just nuke the Middle East and call it a day. They're all guilty of something, they all hate us anyway, and so long as the President says so it's okay.

 

[orionengnr]

first post here, and I may be on the wrong site, but...

I enjoy a lively discussion as well as anyone. I can see both sides of this, and despite the overwhelming opinion, I believe there are two sides.

The side that hasn't been well stated (in my view) goes something like this:
--Anything reported by the mainstream media has an agenda attached, and is woefully (and intentionally) incomplete. As a result this information is suspect by definition.
--Any source that quotes Jane Harmon or the ACLU is suspect BEYOND definition.
--The trend in law these days seems to be to protect the evil and crucify the just; as a result, I have a built-in distrust of judges and lawyers.

Sorrry if I sound like a paranoiac or a conspiracy theorist...but I believe it's highly unlikely that we are getting both sides of the story (certainly not from the bench, the politicians, or the media).