What is Digg?294 Comments
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -16/+72the questions should be, "what right does any state have to go into another state and kidnap people? they were "unlawful combatants"? WTF is that? you mean they were attacking the other "unlawful combatants" who were wearing US uniforms? How on earth would American laws apply on foreign soil, anyway? Because we waged a war of aggression and applied our laws to other peoples lands without the consent of the governed? is there evidence that these people were unlawful combatants? if so, lets bring it forward and let a court hear it. Contrary to popular opinion, our courts are not "easy on criminals", as we all know we execute and incarcerate at rates that rival the most oppressive of regimes.
The court should not be pondering the question, "do the hostages at Guantanamo Bay have rights?" the court should be asking itself what rights the state has, and the answer to that can be found in the US constitution and the declaration of independence.
It'll be interesting to see how our new "strict constructionist" justices will answer these questions. a hallmark of a true conservative is suspicion of government, and a propensity to want to LIMIT governments power. ill bet these ***** roll over disappoint us like all the other politicians... - rpi22, on 12/06/2007, -4/+54Governments are setup to protect your natural rights. You rights are not granted to you by any government. No government can take them away.
- Apokalyps2547, on 12/06/2007, -0/+19Perfectly stated, rpi22.
vaga222: by 'no government can take them away', rpi22 no doubt meant 'no government can *legitimately* take them away' - kindrobot, on 12/06/2007, -3/+20Stop asking yourselves all these questions and simply remember... we should treat detainees EXACTLY the way we want our soldiers to be treated if captured.
- williamdyer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+15Read Amendments IX and X.
You have rights. Period. Governments that take your rights deserve to be eradicated. - KyleGoetz, on 12/06/2007, -1/+16I'm studying Rule of Law in Wartime right now at UT. The article mentions 87 people waiting outside of the court to gain access. A good chunk of those were my classmates, who flew to DC with one of our professors 4 days before our first final to witness the oral arguments. I'll share a little of what I've learned this semester.
The Geneva Conventions (created in 1959, to which many, many nations are High Contracting Parties) creates a few classes of people: civilians, wounded/sick, POWs, lawful enemy combatants, unlawful enemy combatants, etc. Under the laws of war (international law agreed on by practically every country), to be a lawful enemy combatant, you must carry your arms openly, be part of a group that is controlled adequately by a leader, wear a mark that identifies you as a soldier and not as a civilian, and a few other things.
By unlawful enemy combatants, what is meant is that they did not carry arms openly and didn't wear a mark identifying themselves as non-civilians. We all have heard the stories about how al Qaeda members have hidden as civilians in order to surprise and ambush US soldiers. This is a violation of the laws of war that places you squarely in the "unlawful enemy combatants" category by the Geneva Conventions. And before anyone goes criticizing this as a "Western" document with no power over anyone else, I've not been able to find a country that is not on the list of signatories. Hell, even MYANMAR is a signatory. Here's the Wikipedia article about unlawful combatants to clarify what I've merely glossed over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
Make sure you understand that what I'm saying isn't some weird Bush-government justification; the classification (I'm not talking treatment here, I think their treatment is horrible and sets a bad precedent as well) as "enemy combatant" here is in accordance with international law that has existed for a very long time (the Geneva Conventions merely ratified international law that already existed in common practice). - brianary, on 12/06/2007, -2/+14You've missed the point of the Constitution. It's not a supermarket loyalty card, it's a doctrine of human rights philosophy.
- mortbort, on 12/06/2007, -2/+14I had a discussion with one of my friends about Gitmo and the patriot act his response was "When they start torturing me or people I know then I'll be concerned, but right now they're just doing it to terrorists." I have a feeling this attitude is widely accepted among the American public. Kinda scary.
- phnx0221, on 12/06/2007, -5/+17What did we do when we found that terrorists from another country attacked us here? That country was Saudi Arabia, but the countries we blamed and invaded were Iraq and Afghanistan. We didn't even find the guy we were looking for, and it soon became quite apparent that our administration didn't even care to find him. Bush even said so himself, that finding Bin Laden wasn't of concern to him.
The best thing to do when we are attacked by people of a foreign country, is take a look at what the reasons for the attack may have been. We can't just use the experience of an attack, and then the fear and vulnerability thereafter, as a justification to slowly accept the withering of our civil rights, as well as the rights of others in other lands. That is not justifiable.
What is justifiable, is looking at what our foreign policy has done to the rest of the world. We need to take a look at the sanctions imposed on governments and citizens of other countries. We need to take a look at billions of dollars in support that goes to a terrorist country in that region that kidnaps, tortures, and humiliates regular people on a daily basis.
That's what we need to look at. Only after we admit the injustices we have committed, and have backed others in committing, can we take a look at how to resolve the issue. - MWeather, on 12/06/2007, -0/+11They don't have anywhere near number of guns we do, nor do they outnumber us.
And guess what? They rely on us to fund what guns and soldiers they do have. - inactive, on 12/06/2007, -5/+16I'm digging this because I think this whole Guantanamo Bay thing is so disgusting that I cannot believe it's happening.
I don't care whether they are terrorists or not. Most of us here live in a democracy (of sorts) and the fact that so many people have been held for so long without a proper justice disgusts me to the core. If they are terrorists then allow them a proper trial. If you aren't going to do that then you should release them NOW. - brianary, on 12/06/2007, -3/+14You've missed the point of the Constitution. It's not a supermarket loyalty card, it's a doctrine of human rights philosophy.
- Toshibi, on 12/06/2007, -2/+13You mean the info that you predetermined they had but may not have, so you kill them and drop their body off at sea the whole while they are innocent. Or, the info that you gain is just what you wanted to hear after you hurt them.
- edmcguirk, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10The constitution is not a grant of rights to people, it is a limit of rights of the government.
So, YES the constitution DOES apply to what our government can inflict on non-citizens. - morcheeba, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11And many times our troops rely on local informants with ulterior motives.
- DigitAl56K, on 12/06/2007, -2/+12The number of people on this thread playing down basic human rights is horrific.
Read it again people, "all are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights". That means our Creator did not decide one day that all Americans should have certain unalienable rights, and ***** everyone else. ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. If you believe in a creator, then you may be aware that he's been "creating" people since before America was even formed.
To those downplaying even the Geneva Convention, you make me sick. You're essentially arguing that certain individuals by matter of circumstance do not deserve to be treated as human beings. You have fallen to the propaganda of your war-mongering Government and become a lesser person as a result. - epohs, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11The point is that most of the detainees are totally unable to dispute the charge that they are terrorists.. and, in fact in the article a specific instance is referenced where a detainee was given access to a lawyer and it was very quickly proven that he was in fact not a terrorist and released.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -6/+15this isnt being used against only terrorists
anyone who breaks any state or federal law, blocks traffic, or is part of a group which does so can be considered a terrorst, enemy combatant and have supposedly have their god given inalienable rights taken away be his lordship bush, its completely unconstitutional, completely criminal, completely anti american and if we dont stand up for those being violated it will be us next i can guarantee you that. just check history.. - williamdyer, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10EFPs WTF. We spend a trillion dollars LOSING to 20,000 (probably less) "insurgents" armed with rifles and home-made bombs/mines.
- edmcguirk, on 12/06/2007, -0/+8The constitution is not a grant of rights to people, it is a limit of rights of the government.
It says what the government is not permitted to do regardless of whether the person in question is a citizen or not. It doesn't matter if the person is an illegal alien or an enemy combatant. Once the person is removed from the battlefield and is under control of the government (even if not on american soil), then the inalienable rights of any human being cannot be legally taken by our government or representatives of our government. - Toshibi, on 12/06/2007, -0/+8You're so wrong your damn near right again. The fact is, everyone has the same rights, but allow others to usurp them. My freedom to speak is not delivered to me on a platter from government, I am born capable of vocalizing, and later learn to construct sentences and express my thoughts. They may make it illegal to do so, threaten force against me, but those threats do not change the fact that I am capable of saying what I please. Consider the phrase "Live Free or Die."
- edmcguirk, on 12/06/2007, -0/+8Non combatant citizens are granted one set of rights.
Lawful combatants get another set of rights.
But even unlawful combatants get a different set of rights that include at least a trial.
At some point we have to admit that unlimited imprisonment without even charging for a specific crime is not permissable. - kindrobot, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9The war against which idea this time? Why not a war against "naughty people" or "hatred"? How long would those go on?
- brianary, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10You've missed the point of the Constitution. It's not a supermarket loyalty card, it's a doctrine of human rights philosophy.
As for unlawful combatants: You mean like Blackwater? - brianary, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10*****.
They were not captured on the battlefield. Many were turned in by political opponents for the bounty the US was offering, then held for years, hundreds have been released after years WITHOUT CHARGE.
Since when is torture considered following the Geneva conventions? Over 100 people have died during "enhanced interrogation"--which is exactly what the Nazis called it, too, BTW. How did they die, if there was no torture?
You've missed the point of the Constitution. It's not a supermarket loyalty card, it's a doctrine of human rights philosophy. - epohs, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10From the article:
"Waxman replied that in Vietnam — the only other war in which the U.S. fought an enemy that didn't wear uniforms — captured enemy combatants were accorded hearings close to the battlefield, were assigned lawyers, and, he said, there is no indication that the captured men were denied access to the evidence being used against them.
In short, Waxman said, there was fair notice of the facts and the chance to rebut them, as well as a neutral decision-maker who was insulated from command influence. " - MWeather, on 12/06/2007, -3/+11Extradite them, just like any other criminal.
- Phrag, on 12/06/2007, -1/+8If the TSA, with billions of dollars in funding, can't stop a known terrorist from entering the country, then we are all screwed no matter what we do. The inability of our own security to function does not justify invading other countries and disrespecting sovereign governments.
- bluesnowmonkey, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7By limiting rights to US citizens on US soil, you create loopholes. Now they can strip you of your citizenship or put you in an offshore prison or base, and do whatever they want. Don't tell me that they have no right to strip your citizenship, because they just stripped it, and as a non-citizen you have no right to try to prove your citizenship. Get it? Loophole. And never mind that it's illegal to kidnap you and ship you offshore, because they already did it, and now that you're offshore you have no right to not be kidnapped. Loopholes everywhere.
- spudnic, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9You're making the assumption that the people in Guantanamo Bay are guilty.
You think it's moral to torture and murder innocent people just in case? - edmcguirk, on 12/06/2007, -1/+8The constitution is not a grant of rights to people, it is a limit of rights of the government.
So, YES the constitution DOES apply to what our government can inflict on non-citizens. - KyleGoetz, on 12/06/2007, -1/+8Actually, the government contention is that they are NOT POWs; POWs get certain rights via Geneva that the prisoners at GTMO do not get. But the rest of what you've said is fairly spot-on.
- brianary, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9Yup, escalation always works.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/06/2007, -4/+11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the execution of any unlawful combatant against the United States.
"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." - epohs, on 12/06/2007, -1/+8Someone doesn't have to be a liar or an ***** to make a mistake.
- Nattybumpoe, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Because we have a war on drugs, drug addicts should also be denied Habeas Corpus rights because they too are POWs, but wait, POWs are allowed certain rights... Umm, they should not be allowed rights because they are drug addicts... Oh wait, the constitution doesn't let you blanket punishment based on status... Hmm, how about, drug addicts are POWs if they don't get habeas corpus, but if they do get habeas corpus, then they are not POWs, they are hmm... Circular reasoning by the government for each of their two major arguments, I love it!
Oh yeah the other one: they aren't on American soil so American law doesn't apply there. Take a look 15 years back, the government tried the SAME argument with Guantanomo, and it was unsuccessful (Haitian refugees who had AIDS). - elhaf, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7The argument I haven't heard much yet is this: If we detain "terrorists" who turn out to be innocent, we have let the real perpetrators go free. From the article, there was one fellow who go a lawyer and got into the courts somehow, and he was released because the supposed suicide bomber with whom he had associated was alive and well. If one is detained for years without being able to challenge such basic facts, the system is broken.
- Phrag, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9No they didn't. The Taliban ran most of the country and they were apparently good enough to bring to the US for a proposed deal to build an oil pipeline through their country. Only after the deal with Unocal (now Chevron) broke down did they become 'terrorists'.
- DooM, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Let's skip right over the innocent until proven guilty thing then..? And the whole 'term' thing - you actually have to have a trial and a sentence to receive a 'term'.
- phnx0221, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8Yes, the constitution has provisions that grants almost the same rights to non citizens as to citizens, when those people are either in the USA, or in the holding of the US government. It was also provided by the international laws of habeus corpus, and the geneva conventions.
- vaga222, on 12/06/2007, -8/+14You mean they should not take them away. Unfortunately, In reality they have more guns that you do you so they can take what they like.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743 ...
British that were release from Guantanamo were never formally charged ANYWHERE. So it seems to me that if there WAS evidence against those people they would still be there, but they are not and they are free.
Think. - thanakar, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8Why do you think the government holds these detainees on foreign soil? Sure it may be a US base but that base is still in a foreing country. Plausible deniability anyone?
- Phrag, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8You are completely wrong. According to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all said that the detainees in Guantanamo are not POW's.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0 ...
They are effectively being held on US soil because there is no government with control over the base Guantanamo other than the US. A US embassy in another country is still US soil because US law applies. A US military base in other countries is still the property of the other country because the base is there only with the other government's permission and their laws still apply. The base at Guantanamo is effectively US soil because the Cuban government can not make them leave, their laws do not apply and the only people who have any control over the area are in the US government.
When you are done spouting rhetoric and childish insults, perhaps you can come back and talk about the facts. - briancarnell, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6You might actually want to try reading the US Constitution before making such an idiotic post. The right to a fair trial, etc. is not exclusive to citizens, as the plain language of the Consitution makes clear:
"No person... 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."
Notice, the founders didn't say "No citizen" but rather "No person." The Fifth Amendment clearly applies to any person under the jurisdiction of the United States regardless of citizenship. So, with illegal immigrants, you can deport them, of course, but not without some sort of hearing. - MWeather, on 12/06/2007, -3/+9Jose Padilla.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7Who the detainees are is irrelevant, the real question it is WHY the Bush administration is / was determined to usurp the courts and the constitution. I think the reasons are very clear and extremely dangerous. It is also obvious that without the pervasive atmosphere of ignorance and hate, then and now in the country this entire episode would have failed early on. In any case it is exceptionally clear that ANY action taken by the US government by any of its officials or organs is completely within the purview of the courts and congress. It is an absurd assertion that any person my be held indefinably without any possible review or oversight. This line of thinking is not only immoral but insane and not acceptable as official dogma on any level.
- prophet5, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Our Rights are bestowed upon us by our "Creator" - the Government exists to protect those Rights for us from those who would take them away from us (such as terrorists and Islamist Extremists).
- kindrobot, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6Pay attention, you'll learn something killakan. I didn't say the way THEY are treating our soldiers.. I said we should treat detainees the way WE want OUR soldiers to BE treated. Not rocket science. I guess the real question is do you want to be more like them? Is that what we're supposedly fighting for? The right to be more uncivilized and brutal? If Iran can treat captives according to rules and conventions then we surely can and should. Fear is making us sick.
- Phrag, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6Riiight. Those prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the blacksites in Europe sure were treated humanely...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 292 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is