9th Circuit says Detainees at Gitmo need lawyers...
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
Pebcac
Member
What's that got to do with the fact that we have, in fact, altered our society based on 9/11's terrorist action?
What part of "All men are created equal" means "unless you're not American?"
If these guys are enemy combatants, then they get POW status as we agreed at Geneva. It doesn't matter whether their country signed or not; we did. We said, "This is how we think civilized nations behave in a state of war. This is how we'll behave." When we don't do that, we betray all that we as a nation purport to believe.
If they're criminals, try them in the court system, and do what the law allows after conviction. If they're POWs, give them trials according to the UCMJ and do whatever the courts martial decide. My problem isn't the incarceration, it's the lack of clear justification for continued incarceration based in law. Try them, convict them, and sentence them. If that sentence is life in prison, fine. That's how it works in the USA.
Or, since we now have a friendly government in Afghanistan, send them back to have their day in an Afghan court, after which they can say their prayers before going to meet Allah.
rock jock
Member
Being an American affords you certain legal privileges. Legal representation is not a human right, it is a legal right.
Pebcac
Member
Those legal "privileges" are resultant of the Founders' ideas of basic human rights, hence their inclusion in the Bill of Rights. These were things that were deemed unalienable, the right of a human being by birth, not by birth in the USA.
Mark Tyson
Member
We're talking about the Guantanamo prisoners. Padilla is a seperate issue. There are US citizens in Cuba but they were all captured fighting overseas.
There is no point in trials. There is nothing to charge them with, unless they are guilty of war crimes. Engaging in war is not a crime. Maybe the few US citizens could be charged with treason.
And if you are a member of a group that does not abide by the laws of war, you are not entitled to POW status. You are still a "protected person" under the laws of war, but there are certain things you are not entitled to.
Cosmoline
Member
If the folks are terrorists, we darn sure have laws against their actions and either we can punish them or an ally state can do it.
If the folks were just Talib soldiers with no evidence of being involved in terrorism, they need to be sent back home.
There is no justification for this perpetual imprisonment. Particularly where the entity doing the holding--the US Federal gov'ment--is next to the UN the least trustworthy entity on the planet.
If the folks were just Talib soldiers with no evidence of being involved in terrorism, they need to be sent back home.
There is no justification for this perpetual imprisonment. Particularly where the entity doing the holding--the US Federal gov'ment--is next to the UN the least trustworthy entity on the planet.
Mark Tyson
Member
I believe the Taliban soldiers were already released quite some time ago, and the remaining prisoners are all Al Qaeda.
rock jock - Liberty IS a basic and universal human right, not a legal construct. And holding people indefinitely in a prison camp is most assuredly a violation of that right.
If they're criminals, try them. If they're from a war zone, declare war. Otherwise let them go.
If they're criminals, try them. If they're from a war zone, declare war. Otherwise let them go.
longeyes
member
Gitmo decision = take no prisoners.
I wonder if that's what Reinhardt intended.
I wonder if that's what Reinhardt intended.
rock jock
Member
These poeple gave up their right to liberty when they decided to fight with the likes of the Taliban and al Queda.
The Constitution is first and foremost a legal document, not a philisophical treatise. As a legal document, it only extends to the jurisdiction of the United States. It does, for example, do a dang thing to protect the rights of foreign nationals.
longeyes
member
Those legal "privileges" are resultant of the Founders' ideas of basic human rights,
hence their inclusion in the Bill of Rights. These were things that were deemed
unalienable, the right of a human being by birth, not by birth in the USA.
--------------------------------
How is that libertarians end up as global socialists? Perfect one country at a time, please. You've got your hands full hanging on to this one in case you haven't noticed.
hence their inclusion in the Bill of Rights. These were things that were deemed
unalienable, the right of a human being by birth, not by birth in the USA.
--------------------------------
How is that libertarians end up as global socialists? Perfect one country at a time, please. You've got your hands full hanging on to this one in case you haven't noticed.
Chris Rhines
Member
Wow. Express your opposition to undeclared wars, imprisonment without due process, and the perversion of individual liberty, and all of the sudden you're right up there with Marx and Engels.
Now Marx and Engels, and the other luminaries of the Socialist movement, are on record as being in favor of the violent expansion of the socialist political system, imprisonment based on whim, and collective rather than universal liberty. Among other things.
It seems to me that the Neoconservative movement has more in common with the Socialists than they'd like to admit...
- Chris
longeyes
member
Chris Rhines:
My point was that, like it or not, our Constitutional protections are culture-bound. They do not apply, legally, to everyone on earth. And, frankly, there are a lot of people on this planet who may not WANT our values, rights, and protections, hard as that may be for many here to swallow.
When we get to the point where foreign national combatants, arrested on foreign soil, are equated with Americian citizens in terms of rights, privileges, and entitlements, we have drifted into the absurd, not to mention the impractical and even the arrogant.
My point was that, like it or not, our Constitutional protections are culture-bound. They do not apply, legally, to everyone on earth. And, frankly, there are a lot of people on this planet who may not WANT our values, rights, and protections, hard as that may be for many here to swallow.
When we get to the point where foreign national combatants, arrested on foreign soil, are equated with Americian citizens in terms of rights, privileges, and entitlements, we have drifted into the absurd, not to mention the impractical and even the arrogant.
They don't have to be equated with US citizens if you don't want. Make 'em POWs. The problem is that they are being considered non-entities who can be locked in a box forever. Since this is theoretically a nation of laws, due process of SOME sort needs to be exercised.
longeyes
member
WOT the heck?
Let wartime military law apply. My beef is trying them as criminals, in parity with American citizens. We start doing that, we can forget about winning this struggle. If Bush needs to formally declare war, let him find some sophisto to draft the document with the right language.
Let wartime military law apply. My beef is trying them as criminals, in parity with American citizens. We start doing that, we can forget about winning this struggle. If Bush needs to formally declare war, let him find some sophisto to draft the document with the right language.
Waitone
Member
Ain't no way the president will ask for and congress will vote for a declaration of war. To many absolutes, shuts off to many avenues of escape, demands too much accountabillity.
Resolution to the status of various detainees will have to be fought out between the branches of govenment.
Resolution to the status of various detainees will have to be fought out between the branches of govenment.
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI
Member
The rules of war require that combatants wear a military uniform. Anyone caught fighting in civilian clothes may be presumed to be a spy and can be shot. This is exactly what should have been done to all the inmates at Gitmo.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
The "prisoners at Gitmo are "enemy combatants." This term did not develop in a vaccum. In order to be a prisoner of war (POW) one must wear a uniform or fly a flag of a nation-state. These Al Qaeda killers did neither.
Enemy combatants which are not beholden to a nation-state presents a new quandary for the POTUS. Clearly these persons are not citizens, nor POWs. They have no flag and can be returned to no specific country. They were fighting US troops in Afghanistan, but are Yemeni or Saudi. They may be promising the take up the jihad after their release. They may be doing this daily.
The Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens. We already see erosion on this front regarding illegal immigrants. We can not apply our civilian laws to foreigners who, by definition, are not here legally. If this continues, the US will cease to exist since any person or entity can get the same treatment regardless of allegiance. ALLEGIANCE: that is the reason why citizens are afforded rights and legal standing.
Al Qaeda combatants belong to no discernable military chain of command. Al Qaeda has signed no ceasefires or treaties. Al Qaeda leadership has not asked for the return of the combatants. WHat do you propose we do with them? They have broken no US civilian laws. And as Mark stated: there is no end to hostilities, so we can not just let them go.
There is a group of people that screech and holler about inconsequential things, I believe, just to hear themselves. Does the storage at Gitmo affect your rights? NO. Will a released Gitmo detainee setting off a dirty bomb in your town affect your rights? YES. POTUS has decided that we will hold on to them just in case.
Enemy combatants which are not beholden to a nation-state presents a new quandary for the POTUS. Clearly these persons are not citizens, nor POWs. They have no flag and can be returned to no specific country. They were fighting US troops in Afghanistan, but are Yemeni or Saudi. They may be promising the take up the jihad after their release. They may be doing this daily.
The Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens. We already see erosion on this front regarding illegal immigrants. We can not apply our civilian laws to foreigners who, by definition, are not here legally. If this continues, the US will cease to exist since any person or entity can get the same treatment regardless of allegiance. ALLEGIANCE: that is the reason why citizens are afforded rights and legal standing.
Al Qaeda combatants belong to no discernable military chain of command. Al Qaeda has signed no ceasefires or treaties. Al Qaeda leadership has not asked for the return of the combatants. WHat do you propose we do with them? They have broken no US civilian laws. And as Mark stated: there is no end to hostilities, so we can not just let them go.
There is a group of people that screech and holler about inconsequential things, I believe, just to hear themselves. Does the storage at Gitmo affect your rights? NO. Will a released Gitmo detainee setting off a dirty bomb in your town affect your rights? YES. POTUS has decided that we will hold on to them just in case.
You got it backwards. The fact that the Bill of Rights does extend to them means the founders regarded it as an expression of universal human rights, not mere chance of birth. The courts have got that one right.
Maybe we should have airdropped them some uniforms; they certainly couldn't afford to buy them. Spies? That is just silly - they were just dirt-poor soldiers (unpleasant and crazed though they may have been).
How many of the soldiers in the Continental Army were without proper uniforms?
It seems clear enough; if we are going to hold them they are POWs, whether we like it or not. Bush et al. made up 'enemy combatants' out of whole cloth, just like he is trying an end run around the constitution by claiming there is no federal court jurisdiction over Guantanamo. It seems to me that this is exactly the type of situation that the Bill of Rights was written up to deal with - gross overextension of federal power.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Get it?
Here is the only question that matters in this case: Do you trust the government to act fairly when there is no means for The People to observe it?
Facts:
We do not know how many Americans are in GitMo, because we do not know all of the people in GitMo.
Some people, to include American citizens, are wholley committed to the destruction of the current incarnation of "The United States of America".
Some members of the gun culture complain that the Judicial branch does not stand up to the Legislative branch. Some members also complain that the Judicial branch is standing up to the Executive branch.
On September 11, 2001 terrorist executed a plan that they hoped would result in the end of the United States. Today, there is an American citizen who has been detained for 18 months without charges or trail.
Moral Questions:
Are we to assume that the average under funded Taliban foot-soldiers were as well informed of the Geneva convention as the professional soldiers in this country? If the answer is no, is it right to shoot a person for not knowing it? Who determines whether they knew it anyway?
Is a man who is ready to shoot government officials, because he has a ridiculous and radical interpretation of the Second Amendment a terrorist? I would like to believe that he is a criminal.
If there are a dozen men who are ready to shoot government officials, because they have a ridiculous and radical interpretation of the Second Amendment, are they terrorists?
Is Thunder Ranch a training camp for terrorists? What if some well-known terrorists begin outsourcing their training in an effort to become more cost-efficient in the new economy?
What rights does an American Terrorist have?
Opinion worth what you paid for it
48 hours after capture a prisoner should be designated as either a Prisoner Of War, a Spy, or Criminal. 96 hours after designation the existance and status of the prisoner should be made available to the public. It would allow time for an interrogation to assign class, then to exploit the prisoners contacts to gather intel or spread disinfo.
Here is the only question that matters in this case: Do you trust the government to act fairly when there is no means for The People to observe it?
Facts:
We do not know how many Americans are in GitMo, because we do not know all of the people in GitMo.
Some people, to include American citizens, are wholley committed to the destruction of the current incarnation of "The United States of America".
Some members of the gun culture complain that the Judicial branch does not stand up to the Legislative branch. Some members also complain that the Judicial branch is standing up to the Executive branch.
On September 11, 2001 terrorist executed a plan that they hoped would result in the end of the United States. Today, there is an American citizen who has been detained for 18 months without charges or trail.
Moral Questions:
Are we to assume that the average under funded Taliban foot-soldiers were as well informed of the Geneva convention as the professional soldiers in this country? If the answer is no, is it right to shoot a person for not knowing it? Who determines whether they knew it anyway?
Is a man who is ready to shoot government officials, because he has a ridiculous and radical interpretation of the Second Amendment a terrorist? I would like to believe that he is a criminal.
If there are a dozen men who are ready to shoot government officials, because they have a ridiculous and radical interpretation of the Second Amendment, are they terrorists?
Is Thunder Ranch a training camp for terrorists? What if some well-known terrorists begin outsourcing their training in an effort to become more cost-efficient in the new economy?
What rights does an American Terrorist have?
Opinion worth what you paid for it
48 hours after capture a prisoner should be designated as either a Prisoner Of War, a Spy, or Criminal. 96 hours after designation the existance and status of the prisoner should be made available to the public. It would allow time for an interrogation to assign class, then to exploit the prisoners contacts to gather intel or spread disinfo.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Roscoe,
I am no legal scholar. I just performed a small exercise with an easily read document. I find no instance wherein that "any person of the world" is afforded any rights in the US, let alone outside the US.
Preamble below
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I guess you think "we the people" is anybody who happens to be here, or there, or anywhere. To whom do these "other people" owe allegiance?
"Article. IV.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. "
Here we have "Citizens of the United States" with, uh-oh, immunities and priveldeges. I do not see anything about non-citizens.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"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."
For the Gitmo boys, I see only a right for people (citizens) to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Non-Americans engaged in combat in Afghanistan is not a criminal matter.
The US Constitution does not convey any rights or priveledges to non-citizens. Misguided "living document" revisionists have "read" this crap into case law. Gitmo is not in the US. The combatants operate under no uniform or flag. If anyone is end-running the US Constitution, it is you by expanding US Law to include non-citizen enemy combatants.
I am no legal scholar. I just performed a small exercise with an easily read document. I find no instance wherein that "any person of the world" is afforded any rights in the US, let alone outside the US.
Preamble below
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I guess you think "we the people" is anybody who happens to be here, or there, or anywhere. To whom do these "other people" owe allegiance?
"Article. IV.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. "
Here we have "Citizens of the United States" with, uh-oh, immunities and priveldeges. I do not see anything about non-citizens.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"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."
For the Gitmo boys, I see only a right for people (citizens) to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Non-Americans engaged in combat in Afghanistan is not a criminal matter.
The US Constitution does not convey any rights or priveledges to non-citizens. Misguided "living document" revisionists have "read" this crap into case law. Gitmo is not in the US. The combatants operate under no uniform or flag. If anyone is end-running the US Constitution, it is you by expanding US Law to include non-citizen enemy combatants.
DigitalWarrior
Member
7.62 changed my opinion.
I think that the detainees in GitMo have no rights that we are legally obligated to respect.
I still do not trust the beurocrats to act correctly without supervision.
I also do not believe that it is in our national best interests to ignore the God-given rights of those in other nations.
I think that the detainees in GitMo have no rights that we are legally obligated to respect.
I still do not trust the beurocrats to act correctly without supervision.
I also do not believe that it is in our national best interests to ignore the God-given rights of those in other nations.
StuporDave
Member
I'm finding it really difficult lately to give a crap what the 9th circus says. What I find amazing is that these "judges" don't realize just how rediculous thier descisions are.
Dave
Dave
longeyes
member
You think Stephen Reinhardt, 9CC honcho, doesn't realize where his decisions are taking us? The goal has been disintegration of the traditional national fabric piece by piece by piece. We are being rent asunder as a people, as a nation. Now we are being told, de facto, we cannot fight for our own survival. No, these judges know exactly what they are cooking.
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI
Member
Wrong- your sympathy is grossly misplaced - they are not just dirt-poor soldiers- they are the enemy, who do not adhere to the rules of war, and who have deliberately killed innocent women and children. Indeed, maybe we should have airdropped them, period. Without a parachute. I'd gladly volunteer to give them a push.
- Status
