The ninth circus in action again

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" I wish the librarians were as concerned about the use of library computers by underage youth to surf the internet for pornography."

 

Gotta love the libraries. As a parent, I am financially responsible for anything that my minor children check out. However, if they had their own cards, the library would not tell me what books they had checked out. That's akin to Sears sending you a bill but not telling you what you had bought.

 

The result is that my children don't have their own library cards.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" Let's say Mr. Ashcroft came in and detained Mr. Fat Old Guy."

 

Never happen. We who live on mountains in Idaho take precautions to keep the government out.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

eisely wrote:

The paramount responsibility of the President of the United States is to see to the safety of the republic. In times of war civil liberties are compromised.

 

So let me see this official "declaration of war", so when it's repealed I'll know when these "compromises" on civil liberties will be lifted...

 

Oh, it's a metaphorical war, there is no real declaration? So my civil liberties are compromised as long as the government thinks they need to be forever?

 

And you see nothing dangerous in this?

[eisely 13]

I never said that I saw no dangers in any of this.

 

The congress did authorize the president to take all necessary measures after 9/11, but they did not declare a state of war existed between the US and any other government. How do you fit a terrorist organization into the mold of conventional ware between states and apply the rules to that state of war when the other party is not a state and clearly doesn't accept any rules?

 

There are many troublesome issues raised by the current situation. At this point I am personally comfortable with most of what the administration has done. In some areas I don't think they've gone far enough. We shall see. I just think the ninth circus has gotten out of hand, again, in its recent ruling and will shortly be slapped around, again, by the Supremes.

[gsmom 10]

I believe our treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo is shameful. They are being held "on suspicion" of terrorism indefinitely, with no notice of any charges against them, and no ability to challenge their status in any tribunal. Our country was founded on the notion of "due process". Due process means notice of charges against you, and the opportunity to be heard. Due process is not only a fundamental American value, it is what every human being is entitled to.

 

Bush's refusal to extend these fundamental rights to these people makes us hypocrites when we try to promote our democracy abroad.

[ScouterPaul 11]

Trail Pounder - with all due respect I believe that under our Constitition a U.S. Citizen is considered innocent until proven quilty by a jury of his peers. For you to state that he isn't innoncent means that your are either privy to information that the Bush Regime has not disclosed to the American Public or you don't believe in the Constitution. If he is guilty then try him in criminal courts - he has the same constitutional rights that both you and I have.

[LovetoCamp 9]

When I took up arms, it was to defend Western Europe against the inevitable invasion across the Fulda Gap by the 8th Guards Route Army and then to expell the Invading barbaric Iraqis from their rape and pillage of tiny Kuwait.

 

Your friend Padilla is a sabotuer, an enemy snake, preparing a Nuclear Biological Chemical strike against his own country during this war on terror, firing squad is what he deserves.

 

Bush Regime, that's nasty. Hey, Mrs Trail Pounder and I are planning on voting for Dean in the primary. Go Dr. Howard!!!

[LovetoCamp 9]

gsmom, enemy combatants taken off a hostile battlefield engaged in armed conflict against us get them a day in our court system. They are POWs, they'll be kept as POWs until this war is over and then they'll be shipped back to Afghanistan, where they'll be welcomed with open arms and warm hearts.....maybe not, these dudes at Gitmo are Taliban Warriors who made sport out of beheading little girls who tried to learn to read, or hanging moms from soccer goal posts for such serious crimes as being seen without her burqua on. Do they deserve our justice system?

 

I'm here to tell you, some of you attorneys on this board scare me more than the Iraqis ever did.

[eisely 13]

gsmom,

 

Trail Pounder is absolutely correct about the people being held at Guantanamo. These are prisoners taken in armed combat, not merely terror suspects. We are being very generous to them. They are not being tortured. They are receiving better food and medical care than many american citizens. They are getting an all expenses paid vacation on a Caribbean Island. Sorry, no beach access...but I digress again.

 

There is a qualitative difference between prisoners captured in active fighting and those arrested by the civil authorities that people would do well to understand. Prisoners captured in active fighting are held for the duration of the fighting. At a minimum, as long as there is fighting going on in Afghanistan, we are entitled to hold them without charges and without access to attorneys. We never provided the few fighters we managed to capture in my war (Viet Nam) with attorneys, because those people were never charged with a crime. How absurd is the idea that these people are entitled to anything more than they are getting right now. If some of them are eventually charged with specific crimes we may try them with appropriate procedures or return them to be tried by the congnizant civil authorities who exercise jurisdiction.

 

The reports that some of them feel suicidal suggests that maybe we ought to make this opportunity available to them. Many of their colleagues around the world commit suicide on a daily basis attacking various military and non military targets in Turkey, Iraq, Bali, and Israel to name a few places.

 

I am reminded of an order issued by Field Marshal Viscount William Slim, the commander of the ultimately victorious British commonwealth forces in Burma in 1945, when the mechanisms of surrender of the Japanese forces were being considered. Slim was advised by his experts that "(1) The Japanese officer's honor was so bound up with his Samurai sword that, rather than surrender it, he would go on fighting, (2) Alternatively...if he did surrender it before his men, he would never again be able to exercise command over them, and (3) he would in fact, rather than be so publicly shamed, commit suicide."

 

Slim's response was "(1) If the Japanese liked to go on fighting, I was ready for them, (2) If the officers lost their soldiers' respect I could not care less as I intended to separate them from their men in any case, and (3) If the officers committed suicide I had already prepared for this by broadcasting that any Japanese officer wishing to commit suicide would be given every facility."

 

Slim sounds harsh, but one has to remember the nature of the war in which he and his forces had just prevailed. Also the Japanese have gotten over it very nicely and we now count them as among our firmest allies.

 

My sympathy for the detainees in Guantanamo rises about to the level of Slim's sympathies for the Japanese military machine he had just defeated.

[gsmom 10]

Our government has declared the Guantanamo prisoners to be "enemy combatants", NOT prisoners of war subject to the Geneva convention. Here is an excerpt from the opinion:

 

"Gherebi alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Third Geneva Convention arising out of his involuntary detention at Guantnamo, a naval base "under the exclusive and complete jurisdiction of the respondents," and he further claimed that, "Respondents have characterized Gherebi as an `unlawful combatant, and have denied him status as a prisoner of war, have denied him rights under the United States Constitution, have denied him access to the United States courts," and have denied him access to legal counsel."

 

First of all, it is always possible that the innocent have been swept up with the guilty. A hearing before a tribunal would help to resolve that.

 

However, for the sake of argument, lets assume they are all guilty of terrorism. We, and our democracy, are supposed to be better than they are. We should never compromise our fundamental American values. These prisoners should be provided with the bare minimum our Constitution provides: notice of the reason for imprisonment and an opportunity to be heard on that issue.

[eisely 13]

I think that very few of the detainees at Guantanamo are guilty of acts of terrorism. Most of them were captured fighting in Afghanistan. Certainly if the US government believes that some of these people are guilty of specific crimes then the government has, at some point, a duty to charge them with those crimes. Merely being on the wrong side per se in a combat situation is not a crime. But being captured in combat does not entitle one to much of anything, particularly access to the legal system of the US. In the phrase of one author, surrendering in combat entitles one to a "benignn internment" for the duration of the conflict but not much else. I don't know the circumstances of capture of most of these people and the mix of detainees captured in combat versus those captured under non combat circumstances may be shifting. Frankly I doubt that very few of those who are there are confused as to why they are being held. Some of them may be perfectly innocent of anything. We don't know. In this regard it is useful to point out that several tens of them have been released and transported back to Afghanistan or their home countries.

 

It is not clear to me what rights under the Geneva conventions, if any, are being denied to the detainees at Guantanamo. One set of rights that POWS, clearly understood to be POWS, have that apparently is being denied to these people is the right to have some communication with the outside world through correspondence with loved ones at home, etc. I think it is prudent to deny this right given the overall situation. We don't want their colleagues still at large to know who we have and who we don't have. By taking up arms on behalf of an ideology, not a competing government, or even a rebel regime, these folks have placed themselves in an awkward situation. The Geneva conventions and similar agreements are difficult to apply in good faith when there is no government or even a rebel group trying to gain power some where on the other side of the fight.

 

As far as trying to be better morally than those we fight is concerned, I think the record of the US over the last two years is exemplary. While we need to be concerned about how the rest of the world is looking at us, this to me is a lesser concern right now. I want our political and military leaderhsip to defend our interests, not pander to the French.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" Our country was founded on the notion of due process"

 

You've been watching too much Law and Order. Our country was founded on the notion of "No taxation without representation." The American Revolution was a tax revolt, not a rebellion against an unjust legal system.

 

"with all due respect I believe that under our Constitition a U.S. Citizen is considered innocent until proven quilty by a jury of his peers."

 

Nope, unless I missed something, the Constitution simply guarantees a speedy trial by a jury of peers. What sort of peers should a terrorist have on his jury? More terrorists?

[eisely 13]

le Voyageur makes a factual assertion in his earlier post that deserves a response. I don't have at my fingertips numbers on the citizenship of the detainees held at Guantanamo. I believe that most of the original captures in Afghanistan of people who were clearly citizens of Afghanistan were ultimately turned over to the provisional government of Afghanistan. It is my understanding that the overwhelming majority of those held in Guantanamo are from third countries captured either in Afghanistan or some place else not the country of their citizenship. Such people can hardly be considered to be "foreign nationals who were captured while defending their homeland..." as le Voyageur states. For example, Saudis captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban may fairly be considered as foreign interventionists supporting a hated regime oppressing the Afghan people.

 

President Bush offered the Taliban government several opportunities to do the right thing and hand over Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts. Frankly I doubt that the Taliban would have had the wherewithal to effect such a handover, but then if that is so, it can scarcely be characterized as a fully sovereign government in control of its own territory. We had every right to go after the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks wherever we might find them, unless the nominal government of the territory where the terrorists were hiding was able and willing to do something about the situation.

[gsmom 10]

FOG: While taxation without representation may have been one issue in the Revolution, a fundamental concept underlying our Constitution is due process. Here is the Fifth Amendment from the Bill of Rights:

 

"Amendment V

 

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

If the Guantanamo prisoners were taken in combat, they should be classified as POWs, subject to the Geneva Convention, and returned at the cessation of hostilities. That occurred once the Taliban were defeated and Hamid Karzai installed as President. We make no claim that we occupy Afghanistan like we do Iraq.

 

If they are not POWs, they should be afforded minimum due process. This will not compromise our security if handled properly. What are we afraid of? We would show the world that we adhere to our fundamental values even in the worst of circumstances. We treat our worst enemies with the same fairness as we do our own citizens. World opinion is important, and I'm not talking about the French. We invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam to promote democracy in the Middle East. How can we promote democracy to others if we aren't prepared to make the difficult choices ourselves?

 

 

[Hunt 11]

To me, the Padilla case is easy--he's an American citizen, arrested on US soil. If he's a traitor, charge him with that and have a trial. Then we can talk about whether he's innocent or guilty.

 

The guys in Guantanamo are a different case--it's not clear (to me, anyway) what their exact status should be. However, I think it's wrong to exploit the hazy nature of their status to hold them indefinitely. If any of them have a valid claim that they don't belong there, they ought to have some way to assert it and somebody to adjudicate it. I don't like to see any part of our government acting with no accountability--that's why we have three branches of government, after all.