What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
143 Comments
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -14/+53Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Supreme Court refused to hear their case, because the White House has said it is of vital national security that they not be heard.
So, it's not so that the detainees have lost - they've, in the interest of national security, again been denied the right to have have their case heard at all. - mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42@5n00py,
You Wrote: "In order to have "Constitutional" rights, a person needs to be subject to the Constitution of the United States."
The only response is: Perhaps you should wait until you're able to PASS CIVICS CLASS before commenting on something you're obviously unqualified to voice an opinion on.
PEOPLE are not subject to the Constitution. The People are SOVEREIGN, and therefore subject to nothing.
The Constitution tells THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only what they can do. Therefore when it says, "ANY PERSONS IN US JURISDICTION GET EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS" ( 14th Amendment ) it means "ANY PERSON"
Unless y'all wanna get all "Clintonian" and start arguing what a PERSON is... - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37....In the laaaaand of the freeeeeee.....
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -13/+40If only we werent holding people without charging them we might have more moral standing in the current Iran captives situation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32It is unfortunate that there are so many willing participants in the destruction of our legal system and way of life. The term enemy combatant includes anyone the almighty government says it does and that is the problem.
We do our nation a disservice with these charades. - physphd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Disregarding voluminous legal precedent to the contrary for the moment, think really hard about what you're saying, recalling that "We...hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." By that very definition, our constitutional rights cannot extend exclusively to US citizens, but necessarily MUST include all humans. They are inalienable rights, remember? That is also precisely why certain rights are explicitly restricted to citizens (voting, presidential office, etc.), because the bulk aren't restricted. This is why everybody in our borders, citizen and non-citizen alike, has protected speech, the right to assemble, etc. (you know, all other constitutional rights.) Think also about how the police inform all arrested of their Miranda rights which are summary of your constitutional rights against self-incrimination and a few-others. Further still, think about the message that would send to the rest of the world we value our citizens' human rights but will treat anybody else like animals. Makes it kinda tough to export democracy and freedom and claim that "terrorists hate freedom," doesn't it?
Finally, you need to look into what constitutes an "enemy combatant." Look into how that classification came about, how one earns that dubious title, and what precedent exists for the treatments executed under that name. Read the governments own accounts of all males of combat age being rounded up in a region - captured seems rather grandiose. How many of those thousands have been charged or convicted of anything? They should trumpet everyone as a huge success - unfortunately there aren't too many are there?
We so often assume that since the federal government is doing it, it must be legit. It is so arbitrary and ad hoc as to be frightening. You will not like what you find about how an executive branch has literally made up this semi-legitimate sounding classification which has never existed before, can strip constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike with no checks, balances, access to legal counsel, the right to be present at any "legal proceeding" or any possibility of the redress of grievances. Simply put, by fiat a human can be made non-human and there is no mechanism to do anything about it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22"And FYI, if they aren't citizens, they don't have the same priviledges that we do under our law."
No, but they are supposed to have rights under International Law, and America is flouting that law, and can continue to do so because it is the only 'superpower' left. It is an abuse of it's position of power.
America (or at least the current administration) thinks of itself as the World Police, but when that police force is corrupt, the whole system is *****. By repeatedly ignoring international law, the US has lost all standing on the world stage, and has certainly lost any moral arguments it had after 9/11.
Who watches the Watchmen??? - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Yes; but that is prisoners of war. The administration has specifically stated that these are NOT prisoners of war, because prisoners of war have special rules for their protection - e.g. you may not torture prisoners of war.
By declaring them "enemy combatants", a term originally invented fduring WWII for dealing with undercover german infiltrators the administration removed them from BOTH the protection normally offered criminals AND the protection normally offered prisoners of war.
Basically, the administration turned the captured suspected Taliban into something which is neither prisoners of war nor criminals, and imprisoned them in a place which is neither really the USA nor really Cuba, with the express intent of making their legal position as unclear as possible, thereby giving the administration as wide latitude in their treatment as possible. - washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19The Supreme Court didn't say they wouldn't hear the appeal ever--just that they wouldn't hear it right now. The cases have to wait until they go from the Military Commissions to the DC Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court.
With the Court rejecting the Bush Administration twice in both Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I wouldn't be surprised that it will happen again--it just won't be right now with this case. - ncdoyle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19jarland:
Non-citizens are entitled to most of the same rights under the US constitution (stuff like voting obviously excepted). They have a right to free speech, they have a right to bear arms (seriously) and they have a right to judicial process. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As well, it's obvious that this kind of ***** isn't compatible with the principles of justice that makes the US a forward republic and not a backwards theocracy. Part of what makes the US great is the constant scrutiny of the government's actions. If you would rather live in a dictatorship where the executive's actions go unchecked, perhaps you may find Pakistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe more to your liking. - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15That sounds like enemy combatant talk to me, mister..
- adcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Again (and in short), just because someone isn't a citizen of the United States doesn't mean they don't have any human rights.
- AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"And FYI, if they aren't citizens, they don't have the same priviledges [sic] that we do under our law."
That's funny, because let's actually use the text of the Constitution and look at what it really says:
Article III, Section II:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
See that part where it says "to Controversies to which the United States shall be a party"? That means Guantanamo Bay. "Controversies" means wars. It states right there that it applies to "the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority". In other words, it means that the Constitution applies under ANY circumstance where the United States' laws have been broken. That includes wars, as I just mentioned. Oh, and look here, just two paragraphs below:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
ALL CRIMES. *ALL* crimes. Not "crimes committed by citizens." It even gives instructions on what to do when the crime doesn't happen in a state. I don't understand why ANYBODY says that the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens. - ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@jarland
"If this is what it's like to be nazis, then march forward. I'll take this place over any other country any day hands down."
*shakes head in disgust*
You can follow a tyrant if you want. Sorry, that bastard needs to be impeached. - e2thex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The constitution does not set out what the people can do but what the government can do. And the limits of the government. and the 9th and 10th amendment makes it clear that if it is not enumerated the as a power of the Federal Government then they have no business doing it. The 5th amendment use the term "No person" not no citizen. and the 6th uses the term accused once again these are limits on the government not rights of people. The country was founded on the idea that all rights lay with the individual and that we give some of them to the government so that we may live in peace. So the government must assert its right to act not the other way around. One of the main arguments against the bill of rights was that it would be construed as limiting the rights of people and giving rights to the government (hence the need for the 9th and 10th amendment).
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Arguments_against_the_Bill_of_Rights for a general look at the issue.
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.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. - chase001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"Until the end of a war" being the key phrase here. There is no war. We are not fighting a country's military. Invasions and occupations can go on indefinitely.
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@jarland:
It is not an endless cycle. You set up a system like our government branches are supposed to be. Each watches the other two. That way, all three are watched in a closed-cycle setup. - ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@h0stile17
"So can anyone here that is painting detainees as poor little victims quote from personal experience and walk me through a typical day of a Gitmo Detainee? I can."
That is a sad justification. Really pathetic. If it is so great at Gitmo, why don't you volunteer to spend the next 5 years there in your virtual club med? - ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9This really is disappointing. We have laws and governing bodies for a reason. Those men (terrorists or not) deserved a speedy fair trial; and not to prove anything to the rest of the world, but because it is the right thing to do. Period. And if we do the right thing, the rest of the world will notice it. Right now, they are witnessing the decline of a great civilization.
And yes, this applies to Bin Laden too. If we bring that rotten bastard in alive, he should be given a trial that is not made into a media circus. Unfortunately, with the present administration, this is nothing more than a pipe dream. This may sound ridiculous but this makes me think of BG and Adama using his head letting Baltar go. Wow.
I am an an American and I served 8 years in the Army on active duty (first combat tour at age 19 in the first gulf war). I AM NOT proud to be an American right now and I just hope that 2008 will bring positive change; but I am not very optimistic. I am proud of what our Constitution stands for, I am proud of the American idea, and I think we have the ability to become a world leader again, but right now we are ***** up on a daily basis. Very sad. - PsychoticClown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Titus Pullo:
"if this was the Fourth Reich your fat ass would have been loaded up on train years ago, thank your lucky stars it's not. But you can pretend your oh so persecuted if it makes you feel better."
First of all, it's YOU'RE, you magnificent moron.
Second, you're using what I presume is the "at least..." excuse. It means we can do any immoral and evil act we want, because "at least" we're not as bad as the so and so country.
Examples: wedding ceremonies bombed in Afghanistan. It's alright. We can do it. Hey, at least we're not as bad as Iran.
Overthrow world leaders? Sure. We have the right to do that. Hey, at least we have free press, not like Cambodia under Pol Pot. This means we're not completely like those bad guys.
Invade a sovereign country under false pretexts? Hell yeah. OK, it might be bad, but "at least" we have a democracy, unlike Libya.
And here, we have (mostly) innocent people held in inhumane and barbaric conditions and now we deny them their most basic of rights, without a fair trial or even **A** trial. But hey, we didn't load "fat asses" on trains years ago, so it’s ok.
Great logic. I am now inclined to believe the rumor I heard about you.
(You know, that back in school your debate teacher tried to assassinate you) - UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This two party ***** needs to go, I'm sick and tired of people labeling and hating one because their either republican or democratic. Most are ***** corrupt and not worried about the citizenry and further than that politicians that claim to be democratic have deep republican beliefs and vice versa. They care about money and power and that is a FACT. The republican and the democratic party exist so the politicians can get media time and financial support to further someone else's ambitions and goals. Stop voting for either of those two parties, it's time to vote someone else into office.
- imeddy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8In my opinion, the USA is not a democracy. There is only the illusion of having control and being able to choose, while in reality the amount of control people have depends largely on the amount of money they have (status, legal support, etc), and, if they're in politics, whether or not they're backed by other politicians, judges, large companies, and all sorts of other lobbies. Human rights? Look at what's happening with Guantanamo Bay. People are being held for years without a trial or without even seeing a lawyer. And even discussing the possibility of condoning torture seems barbaric to me. 'Human rights' in the USA has become a loose term, sadly. But that's just my opinion, as I said.
- spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"if we suffered through Clinton for 8 years you can suffer through Bush, paybacks are a bitch!!"
I've suffered through Clinton for 8 years, now I'm suffering through Bush. They're the same thing (But Clinton! But Clinton!) except the latter has taken things way to far in the wrong direction.
Supporting political parties like supporting a baseball team is wrong and irresponsible. The only team that loses is the the people. - hamobu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9This is horrible news for the USA. We keep re-discovering democracy and human rights and then breaking them anew.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"I'd gladly give me life in a dirty war to make sure my family could continue to live their lives as they do now."
I'm afraid you're missing the point. As long as America continues on it's current path of reckless disregard for International Law, it makes America a bigger target for extremists (and increases the number of extremists), and by definition puts your life, and the lives of your family at greater risk of attack. By supporting this kind of thing, You are doing the opposite of what you think you are doing. You are feeding the hatred. You may as well walk around Asia handing out guns. (oh, wait, your gov already did that back in the 70's and 80's) - addw, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Just think: is this illegal incarcertation going to make others think that the USA is behaving reasonably and so behave reasonably to the USA ?
Think about the illegal war in Iraq (not sanctioned by the UN), what does that do to the perceived standing of the USA ?
I am sorry, but the USA is acting as a bully as if it is above the rule of international law. The unfortunate thing is that it can often get away with it since it does have the biggest clout. - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mattmoto...
The problem here is how the war has been defined. Specifically, its been defined by the President in such a way that there are no objective, measurable conditions for victory. Phrases like "we must defeat the terrorists". Well, exactly who are the terrorists and how do we know when we've defeated them? No neutral observer can objectively measure our progress against goals like that and say "yes we've won and therefore the war is over" or "no we haven't won and the war must continue". Instead, we have this ambiguous situation where the President can say "no we haven't won and the war must continue" because there is no objective way to prove that he is wrong, based on the criteria that he himself has defined.
In other words, with the war defined this way, it will continue for as long as the President chooses. So holding the detainees until the conflict is over becomes a questionable idea if, really, the conflict will likely never end. - Krakn3Dfx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"If only we weren't holding people without charging them we might have more moral standing in the current Iran captives situation."
Well said. As it stands, we as a country stand out as indifferent and even contemptuous of the people we have holed up in Guantanamo, due to an administration who arrested mass numbers of people for no real reason other than to fill a prison and look like they were doing something while they went to dig for oil in the desert. We have abandoned Geneva Convention, and anything that happens to those captives is on the head of this administration. I love this country, but being an American right now leaves a bad taste in my mouth. - rageguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Man the U.S is getting scarier, how can innocent non-U.S citizens have no rights?
You must, absolutely must set a higher moral standard for yourselves than that!
As many have pointed out, you already have higher standards than that. For some reason you have chosen to ignore them. Worse yet, now many of you believe your higher standards never existed in the first place or debating the wording of them to defeat the spirit of them. - GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6As another veteran (retired after 20 years), I will echo what ubuntuedgy said. I'm ashamed of what the (not our) government is doing to destroy our country.
Pogo was right, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" - we are standing by allowing this to happen and many are cheering it on and defending it's actions....reminds me of another historical govt.
Yes, I expect to be buried just as ubuntuedgy was, so go right ahead. I still felt I had to say this. - animus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5breaking: a day late and a who cares short.
- an0nym0us, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3^ if it happens, you wouldn't be here, spewing crap.
- chase001, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10A sad, sad day for the Republic and a victory for the Boy Who Would Be King.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@AndrewJC
Exactly... the Geneva convention only deals with law on the battlefield. If the US troops had simply captured the illegal combatants and executed them even after surrendering it would NOT have been an illegal action during war.
BUT... last time I checked every soldier in the Armed forces takes an oath to the Constitution which entitles them to HAVE and army at all. At the moment the "illegal combatants" were brought in from the field and into the custody of Officers of the United States they were automatically under the Constitution. Not because the Enemies were Citizens.. but because the OFFICERS of the Army ARE Citizens under the Constitution. Without the Constitution's rules the Army has no right to hold anybody.. period. The Officers hold no station at all. The Constitution is the rules OUR Government must follow... Always.... it' s not about the other guys or how bad they are. It's about how bad our OWN people are becoming by not following the law of the land. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First sound commentary I've read.
- jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Zaccarias Mousaoui was forced to stand trial as was Richard Reid and they both denied trial as would every GITMO detainee would."
So says you. How about we ask if they even want a trial and those that say "yes" should get one because it is the moral thing to do and those who say "no" get to stay forever. If someone says, "I do not want a fair and speedy trial.", I am not inclined to disagree with them. But let THEM make that choice then and find out for sure. - tomarocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hi Kevin.
- InfidelAl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7These people are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war. One significant difference is that enemy combatants can be held until the end of hostilities with only a military tribunal to decide their fate. These people do not qualify as prisoners of war. Look it up before you bury me.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
Article 4 is the relevant portion. - mattmoto, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it standard practice to hold detainees until the end of the war? Hasn't every other nation in the world, throughout history, engaged in similar practices? When we have people in the middle east lopping off heads, and China selling organs of it's prisoners... doesn' t it seems a bit pointless to criticize the US for engaging in standard wartime practice?
If I am wrong, please reply and explain. Don't just bury me, I am open minded and am here to learn. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't hate Bush, I just hate what he is doing to America, and the rest of the world.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@gojeda
The recent "convictions" of those two are shams. They were convicted in front of a court whose threshold to establish guilt is almost non-existent. They were convicted based on torture-induced confessions. When a guy is nailing your wrist to a table you'd probably say most anything to stop him. Furthermore, since there is no more evidence that these proceedings ever took place than supposed transcripts of what occured (no witnesses to the proceedings, no photographs, no video, no audio recording) we really don't even know that they took place.
Look, I'm not saying that these guys aren't guilty as hell. They probably are. But to claim that we've actually established their guilt based on these "trials", you might as well be looking to buy swamp land in Florida or be trying to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5breaking: using breaking pisses me off.
+digg for sarcastic bush comment - aratika, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sorry - a political declaration of victory does not determine the legal end of conflict. You know there is no law that requires the release of ECs during active conflict. Sucks being them - but sucks less if they were simply shot where they were found.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"You're either with us or against us."
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It comes from GTMO.
- aratika, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6You were in the miliary? Right...so you would know about the laws and rules that govern the confinement of enemy combatants?
How about you borrow money (GI Bill - right?), go to law school, graduate, pass the bar and offer to represent them (for free of course).
Oh - and you'd lose. - aratika, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Al - Please don't confuse the Digg Hippies with the facts. It'll only confuse and annoy them. The truth is they're jealous of how ***** their own lives are in comparison:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/15/uguantanamo.xml - ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is not about playing word games. This is about leading by example. If we play word games, yes, they are enemy combatants. If we use our heads, we would lead by example for the rest of the world and give those people a fair trial. If they are guilty, punish them accordingly. If they are innocent, let them go.
- mattmoto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@PsychoticClown
Yay, more America bashing non Digg! How original, hey, I can nitpick too!
Engage with negotiations with North Korea, for the good of the world? Yeah, America can do that!
The largest supporter financially of the UN? Thats America!
Supply some of the most foreign aid in the world? America is up there!
Rebuilt Europe from collapse after WWII? Yeah... it was the US.
Now, I am not saying the US is better than any country in the world. I'm just saying that you can make anything look horrible by nitpicking at the evidence, like you did. Hopefully, my comment serves as a counterbalance to yours to Diggers reading this will see both perspectives... instead of just your highly angsty and anti-american one. -
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is