Political Crossfire Forums

[Rankor and Pissing]

Nathyn wrote: NOT EVERY HUMIN BEAN HAS RIGHTS.

WTF, this is TREASON!!!11

rights are established not naturel

teh goverment hath given rights, the govArmet taketh away!

Sure you have rights - everyone has rights. Whether or not they are recognized as such is the question.

[JLB]

[quote="[Bible]Monkey"] JLB wrote: TomPaine wrote: JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: A terrorist should be afforded the same legal rights as any other
suspected murderer in our courts.

If we don't want to uniformly execute our laws in the case of a foreign
offender then we should ship the person off to their country of origin.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

How do you know who's an "enemy combatant"? Without a trial, anybody could be anything you want to accuse them to be. When Hilary is President, maybe Republican discontents will all be declared as traitors. How could you argue against that, if the "Commander in Chief" said so!!!

Your short-sighted view of absolute Presidential power might not seem like such a good idea if Pelosi or Hilary were President, would it? Are prepared to surrender your rights to anybody who may ever be elected President, no matter who they are or what they stand for?

If not, maybe you should re-consider why the founding fathers wanted a nation of laws, not men.

Anyone who enters combat with the US and is not in uniform is an enemy combatant, and is not only not covered by the Bill of Rights, but the Geneva Convention either.

JLB wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Please show me where it says that every citizen of the planet is covered under the US Bill of Rights.

Here is evidence to contrary:


11thAMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


Quote:
Could be you're right JLB, but didn't the Supreme Court say -in effect-that
Amendment XIV

Quote: .. 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.
totally kicks amendment XI's ass ? If you have the asshat in the slammer-he's under U.S jurisdiction.

US jurisdiction of "any State". If we have an enemy combatant in a war zone, he's under military jurisdiction, not a State's. That's why they have not been transported to the US.

Regardless, the courts ruled in WW2 that Nazi spies who were caught landing in Florida were subject to military justice, as they were out of uniform, and we were at war.


Quote: Isn't XI ( dunno) more about one ( U.S) State suing another State-what started that was South Carolina suing Georgia-or whatever.

The last part of it reads as this:


or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.



Quote: As I say, I haven't followed this whole thing too closely-but it seems to me that if the U.S slammers someone, that puts that guy under U.S jurisdiction-kicking in XIV? Even if the Supreme Court didn't recently specifically say that ( as I say I haven't followed it ) in their last ruling ;the one that blocked the Executive branch...

The ruling did not say that those in Gitmo have the same rights as US citizens, merely that the existing use of military tribunals must have an agrreed upon framework that meets some international standard, and Congress can decide that, along with Bush.


Quote:
High court blocks Gitmo military tribunals
POSTED: 1:23 p.m. EDT, August 28, 2006
From Bill Mears
CNN


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday strongly limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals for suspected terrorists imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The 5-3 ruling means officials will have to come up with a new policy to prosecute at least 10 so-called "enemy combatants" awaiting trial. It does not address the government's right to detain suspects.

The case was a major test of President Bush's authority as commander in chief during war. Bush has aggressively asserted the power of the government to capture, detain and prosecute suspected terrorists in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. (Watch analyst say administration has to start over -- 3:50)

At the center of the dispute was a Yemeni man, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, captured in Afghanistan in 2001 shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Officials said he has admitted being a personal assistant, bodyguard and driver to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional act," said Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority.

The tribunals, he said, "must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law."

"In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive [Bush] is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Stevens wrote.

"Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check,' " Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a concurring opinion. "Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here."

Breyer noted, however, that "nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."

The other justices in the majority were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.

"To the extent there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so," Bush said at a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. (More reaction)

The ruling means the Bush administration will have to adopt a military commission system for trying accused terrorists that meets international standards.http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html

There's more there from the other side, but basically, they don't have our rights, but they do have some rights to a trial, yet to be determined. I would suspect that it will still be a military tribunal, but they will have right to counsel, and the results will be publically available.


Quote:
------
What percentage of alleged asshats were released ? Aren't we picking up ( or did) a bunch , and held them quite a while , that were just cabdrivers, etc? Seperating the wheat from the chaff is a problem, yet we can't give them all a full-meal-deal trial....it's a problem. I think there's a backlog of 14,000 slammered in Iraq...that ain't helping matters....


As of 2004, 146 had been released, and 7 of those returned to terrorism.

57 were transferred to the custody of their own governments. I would assume the transfers would only be made with non-terror supporting governments, where there is not a high chance of them being just released.

Quote: Gitmo Detainees Return To Terror
7 Ex-Prisoners Allegedly Violated Pledge To Renounce Violence

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/terror/main645493.shtml

(AP) U.S. military officials say that despite being freed in exchange for signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.

At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. Others are at large.

Additional former detainees are said to have expressed a desire to rejoin the fight, be it against U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq or Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

Some 146 detainees have been released from Guantanamo, but only after U.S. officials had determined the prisoners no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.

Pentagon officials acknowledged that the release process is imperfect, but they said most of the Guantanamo detainees released have steered clear of Islamic insurgent groups.

The small number returning to the fight demonstrates the delicate balance the United States must strike between minimizing the appearance of holding people unjustly and keeping those who are legitimate long-term threats, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Human rights groups frequently criticize the Defense Department for holding the hundreds of prisoners at the naval base, largely without charges or legal counsel. Many have been held for more than two years; only a few have been charged.

An additional 57 Guantanamo prisoners have been transferred to the custody of their home governments: 29 to Pakistan; seven to Russia; five each to Morocco and Britain; four each to France and Saudi Arabia; and one each to Spain, Sweden and Denmark, the Pentagon has said.

The Pentagon did not identify the seven detainees believed to have returned to fighting, although a few names have been made public. One released detainee killed a judge leaving a mosque in Afghanistan, Plexico said.

Those in the small group that has gone back to fighting come mainly from the upper echelons of suspected militant or terror groups, some allegedly linked to al Qaeda, several counterterrorism officials in the Middle East said. They gave no details, but one noted a trend that lower-echelon members tend to get on with their lives after they are released.

The former prisoners include Abdullah Mehsud, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee linked to al Qaeda who oversaw the recent kidnapping of two Chinese engineers, one of whom was killed.

On Friday, Pakistani soldiers began a massive search for Mehsud, 28, who returned to Pakistan in March after about two years' detention at Guantanamo. Pakistan officials say he has forged ties with al Qaeda since then.

One of the two former prisoners killed is Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, a senior Taliban commander in northern Afghanistan who was arrested about two months after a U.S.-led coalition drove the militia from power in late 2001.

He was held at Guantanamo for eight months, then released, and was killed about a month ago, on Sept. 26, by Afghan security forces during a raid in Uruzgan province. Afghan leaders said they believed he was leading Taliban forces in the southern province.

Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, the No. 2 commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press this month there was no alternative to releasing prisoners from Guantanamo.

"It's not going to be perfect, so it (the Ghaffar case) has not led to any soul-searching about the release program," Olson said.

Other former prisoners have expressed publicly they wanted to return to the fight.

In Denmark, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, who was released in February from the U.S. naval base on Cuba's southeastern tip, said he would go to Chechnya to fight with rebels there against Russia.

"The Muslims are oppressed in Chechnya, and the Russians are carrying out terror against them," the 31-year-old Dane, who has an Algerian father, told Danish television in September.

Abderrahmane, who was never charged in Denmark upon his return, later backtracked. After being questioned by Danish intelligence agents, he said he would stay in Denmark, hand over his passport and honor his pledge. Danish intelligence officials are keeping tabs on Abderrahmane.

In Sweden, Mehdi-Muhammed Ghezali, who was released in July after more than two years at the base, is being monitored by Swedish intelligence agents. While Sweden's security police, SAPO, has no official comment, its agents have said Ghezali is not a threat.

Other former Guantanamo prisoners, including Yaser Esam Hamdi of Saudi Arabia, had their releases held up amid fears they would rejoin their comrades.

Hamdi, who was born in Louisiana, spent three years in solitary confinement, first at Guantanamo and then at a Navy brig in South Carolina after he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was returned to Saudi Arabia on Oct. 11 after agreeing to forfeit his U.S. citizenship.

He also is required to stay in Saudi Arabia for five years, renounce terror and cannot travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan or Syria. Additionally, Hamdi must notify Saudi officials if he becomes aware of "any planned or executed acts of terrorism."

It is likely that Hamdi will be monitored by government officials there, as much as Ghezali and Abderrahmane have been in northern Europe.

[BobbyO]

steve abdul jabbar wrote: Ozzone wrote: BobbyO wrote: Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

Oh I see. What a wonderful country when you can change the terms and bypass the Constitution!

Why didn't prosecutors think of that before? He's not a suspect, he's an enemy combatant! No need for all that legal protection mumbo-jumbo!

Is anti-Constitution the same as anti-American?

The weakness of Libertarianism is that sometimes their anti-government views lead them into total irrationality...

The term "lawful enemy combatant" and "unlawful enemy combatant" was not created by President Bush. It is in the Geneva Convention, a law written long before Bush was even earning an MBA or the PNAC folks were around.

The geneva Convention is about how a country should treat POW's in times of war. To generalise, the basic rule of thumb is that POW's are NOT subject to the various laws of a country in which they have been fighting and captured. Which is a good thing, else soldiers could be charged with assault. murder, destruction of property ect. by the country with whom they are fighting. The laws of Geneva is what governs how they are treated.

As mentioned earlier, the geneva Convention establishes those terms, not the evil neo-cons. Geneva allows for governments to make distinctions between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants. It also allows governments leeway in how they interpret the restrictions of geneva (sen Dodd wishes trhe USA to interpret more stringently than it has).

Now the Libertarians may wish that someone who is plotting to attack the USA in some fashion be treated no differently than someone who is plotting rob a deli. But the fact is, the law has been clear that they do not have to be treated the same way. The Constitution is not threatened, nor is freedom, when the government does what is its PRIME responsibility, protect and defend people subject to its juristiction. The anti-government credo of the Liberatians is admirable, but there is a legitimate role for government, and preventing terrorist attacks upon the USA is a legitimate role of government.

[BobbyO]

homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Ozzone wrote: Melchior wrote: Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

It doesn't mean the same thing as torture. I have no problem with our government using coercion on enemies of the state.

Quote: Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

Not really, but I'll say that your definition is good enough for debate purposes. I've actually looked them both up.

Torture can be perceived as coercion (because it is the act of using force or power over someone), but in the legal definition there is a big difference.

Again, I have no problem limiting their rights. They are terrorists. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned. Especially if they are foreign nationals attempting to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

You want to limit the rights of "suspected" terrorists. This isn't about people that have already been tried and convicted of crimes.

Why are the Republicans in favor of withholding rights to alleged criminals? Aren't you the same people that wanted to treat Abramoff innocent until proven rediculously guilty?

Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

Actually, why don't you explain the difference for us all. Help us understand why the label "enemy combatant" all of a sudden should make it okay to detain indefinitely without bringing charges or providing a trial, and to use torture as a means of "interrogation".

Please explain.

An "enemy combatant" is NOT a common criminal. As such the rights of the former are not the same as the latter. There is nothing new about this. Such distinctions have been present for centuries.

As far as using "torture" cut the violins please. The Democrats REFUSED to sign on to President Bush's proposal to define exactly what techniques were allowed and what were not allowed. They preferred to keep things vague. Very irresponsible on their part. Because before one starts throwing terms around like "torture" you need to define exactly what it is.

[JLB]

[quote="bla bla"] JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: A terrorist should be afforded the same legal rights as any other
suspected murderer in our courts.

If we don't want to uniformly execute our laws in the case of a foreign
offender then we should ship the person off to their country of origin.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

Quote: Enemy combatant in what army?

Exactly.

If they were in an army, they would be covered by the Gerneva Convention, if they were in uniform.

Quote: "Work out a new legal definition of criminal (international terrorist)
separate from simple murder, or valid uniformed combatants."

The old one works fine.

Iraq has a democratically elected government by it's people, so those who are attacking civilians or the government while not in in uniform are terrorists.

I think a distinction can be made between those who use bombs targeted deliberately on civilians as being terrorists. If they are not in uniform, or members of a foreign army, then they should be executed after a military trial.

If they are foreigners, such as Saudis, Egyptians, Iranians, etc. who are caught fighting against the Iraqi Government out of uniform, then they should be handed over to the Iraqi military for trial and immediate execution.

I think if they are not targeting civilians, but either the Iraqi Armed Forces, or the American Armed Forces, and stand up and fight, then they deserve a higher level of consideration. Call them "insurgents" if you want to. If they are Iranians, or foreigners, out of uniform, then off to Gitmo they go, or let the Iraqi justice system deal with them.

[agentkgb]

BobbyO wrote: An "enemy combatant" is NOT a common criminal. As such the rights of the former are not the same as the latter. There is nothing new about this. Such distinctions have been present for centuries.
We don't even know if the people labeled "enemy combatants" are criminals at all, since they aren't given the right to a trial.

[micfranklin]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

[BobbyO]

agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: An "enemy combatant" is NOT a common criminal. As such the rights of the former are not the same as the latter. There is nothing new about this. Such distinctions have been present for centuries.
We don't even know if the people labeled "enemy combatants" are criminals at all, since they aren't given the right to a trial.

Nobody is saying people who are labeled as "enemy combatants" are criminals. Such people are 'enemy combatants." A whole set of law applies to such people.

[BobbyO]

micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.

[agentkgb]

BobbyO wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: An "enemy combatant" is NOT a common criminal. As such the rights of the former are not the same as the latter. There is nothing new about this. Such distinctions have been present for centuries.
We don't even know if the people labeled "enemy combatants" are criminals at all, since they aren't given the right to a trial.

Nobody is saying people who are labeled as "enemy combatants" are criminals. Such people are 'enemy combatants." A whole set of law applies to such people.
Or rather a lack of laws.
My point was that we don't know they did anything.

[agentkgb]

BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

[freeatlast]

They should be tried in their own country. Who are we to judge them? Would you want to be tried in another country for being an American patriot or standing up for your religion against foriegn envaders?

[Charlie Man]

Er, no. Let's convict them fairly for attacks on us, because as soon as they get caught (or falsely sent up the river as the case may be) they fall under our jurisdiction.

[micfranklin]

agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

Well they may be mass murderers but they're still human beings and deserve some human treatment.

[callous]

micfranklin wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

Well they may be mass murderers but they're still human beings and deserve some human treatment.

remember now, your talking to Americans, they are not humans, they're satan-spawn, and should be cast out of earthly society with hellfire and brimstone.

You need to refer to peoples imaginations, not reality.

[micfranklin]

callous wrote: micfranklin wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

Well they may be mass murderers but they're still human beings and deserve some human treatment.

remember now, your talking to Americans, they are not humans, they're satan-spawn, and should be cast out of earthly society with hellfire and brimstone.

You need to refer to peoples imaginations, not reality.

Note the part that says "some human treatment."

[callous]

micfranklin wrote: callous wrote: micfranklin wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

Well they may be mass murderers but they're still human beings and deserve some human treatment.

remember now, your talking to Americans, they are not humans, they're satan-spawn, and should be cast out of earthly society with hellfire and brimstone.

You need to refer to peoples imaginations, not reality.

Note the part that says "some human treatment."

heh.

[Vakten]

We actually had this argument over prisons in WW2.

Dwight Eisenhower at one point was criticized of relabeling German POW's as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" so he could ignore the third Geneva Convention.

Take what you want from that. I'm not pointing fingers at any side of this debate quite yet.

All I "will" say, is that even back then...our treatment of prisoners was "still" quite a lot better then that of Germany towards "their" prisoners, and likewise our treatment of prisoners "now" is still better then the terrorists we "now" face.

The more people we detain, the more the odds of bad things happening. That falls into the laws of probibility does it not?

I believe in WW2, there was a food shortage, which ended in the deaths of many German POW's.

We got directly blamed for many of those deaths, and we where accused of everything from mismanagement to downright intentional abuse of those prisoners.

Some extremists here in the US even equated Dwight Eisenhower with Hitler in his treatment of prisoners back then.

Take what you want from this...maybe this will help one side, maybe the other, but it adds perspective.

[BobbyO]

agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

today. The Millitary Commison Act

[agentkgb]

BobbyO wrote: agentkgb wrote: BobbyO wrote: micfranklin wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Terrorists, even after they murder hundreds or thousands of innocents, deserve a right to a fair trial, a lawyer and thats it. Nothing more than that.

They are afforded that right.
When, next century maybe?

today. The Millitary Commison Act
That's a "fair trial"? No.