Detainee bill passed - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Gort · #76 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by varrussword

Because we're at war!!! This isn't a legal procedure these are attempts to keep another 911 from happening.

Varus

And that is the problem Five years after 911 the value of these people as a intelligence resource is questionable at best. So it is either time to put them on trial, which is a legal proceeding, if we have evidence they were involved in acts that are deemed war crimes or criminal activity, or release them. If they go on trial they should have the right to face their accusers and question their imprisonment.

varrussword · #77 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

But to detain indefinitely without trial is antithetical to our system of governance.
Matt

I disagree; as do many others like David Rivkin attorney at law.

Quote:

law? If not, what should the international community do about this?"

David Rivkin answered: "The detention of individuals who have been captured as al-Qaeda and Taliban combatants is entirely legal under international law. Let me point out that we are at war, and these are war-time norms governed by both the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. Under those norms, it is very important to understand that both lawful and unlawful combatants – and I'm sure we'll get, in a minute, a distinction – can be captured and detained, not indefinitely, not forever, but for the entire duration of hostilities. The reason for it is very simple; that norm goes back centuries ago. There's an obligation to, so-called ‘give quarter'. So if an enemy combatant wants to surrender you cannot shoot that person, you have to accept this person's surrender. The flip-side of course, [is that] you, as a power at war, have a right to ensure that the individual would not go back, pick up arms and start fighting against you. The most fundamental reason to detain those people is to prevent them going back and fighting against you."

While we're at war with these muslims in the ME it would be idiotic to return these prisoners.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/featu.../031219af.html

Varus

scarywoody · #78 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

This is a grave, grave mistake.

The rights of due process and habeas corpus have been cornerstones of our system of jurisprudence since the beginning. In may ways, this is what sets us apart from many other nations - and it is a key component to the arguments against joining the ICC.

We must not abandon our core beliefs in response to terrorism. When we do that - and this is exactly what this bill will do - then the terrorists win.

Osama Bin Laden wants the US to adopt the stone-age oppression of Sharia Law. This bill doesn't do that, but it sure moves us in the same direction.

As far as torture goes, the bill seems to require compliance with the Geneva Convention. If the administration actually does that, then I have no problem with that provision. But the indefinite detention of anyone without due process of law is odious and antithetical to the American system of justice.

If this legislation is adopted and signed into law - and then survives the court challenges - it will be a dark, dark day in our nation's history IMHO.

We are at imminent risk of becoming what we beheld.

Matt

I really agree with your thoughts on this subjext.

As for references to the Geneva convention I found this while looking through the Bill.

Quote:

`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

You said the bill , "seems to require compliance with the Geneva Convention," did you get that idea from the Bill or just what you've heard?

Quote:

Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3- A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not sure what the above means?

Traveler · #79 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

I don't understand. You are essentially saying that if one is suspected of "terrorist" activities, then one is automatically guilty of terrorist activities? And not only is that person automatically guilty, but also he or she does not have the right to challenge the charge?

Is that justice?

No what i said was that people aren't entitled to the rights that Americans have if they're not American citizens.

This bill is bad for a couple o reasons, you need to actually try those you capture before the battle is over essentially, or the war is anyway and there is various evidence and information you may be able to get after the fall of a foreign government or end of a war or whatever.

Secondly it bans torture again;this is one thing that even if not used as policy by an administration the government must have at its disposal no matter what.

There are a few other things but to be honest even thouh people seem to rant on about how bad this bill is i still preffered it before the SC got involved with things like Hamden and the President could effectively detain anyone as long as he liked and waged war without anyhing else distracting him; they can be dealt with after this war is won.

Luap · #80 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by varrussword

Because we're at war!!! This isn't a legal procedure these are attempts to keep another 911 from happening.

Varus

Your viewpoint seems to assume that the entire world is a perpetual battlefield. Is that the case?

I still cannot comprehend some of the opinions here (most I agree with). Terrorism is seen as a constant threat; a suicide bomber could target your very home within an hour. No, it doesn't matter that driving to the grocery store presents a statistically greater danger to your health; no, it doesn't matter that terrorism is a psychological or violent tactic and cannot be defeated with a rifle; we must preserve our safety, we must avert "another 9/11," we must forsake the Constitution to protect it.

Here's a relevant quote in a link I provided above.

"They came for the foriegners, and I did not help, because I was not a foriegner..."

proUSA · #81 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Let me see if I am getting this right……The bill was passed to “keep” things the way it always has been (meaning non-civilian interrogation practices) and prevented it from changing over to our Federal courts system………I say great news.

No where does this bill allow torture and the other BS that is floating around, it is simply stating that the system that has been in place for Centuries will not change.

That’s my take on the matter, I haven’t seen anything else.
I personally don’t want our courts filled up with military tribunal cases, we all know how “our” judicial system grants the guilty with more rights than the victims and can take 30 years before justice is done.

Traveler · #82 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

Your viewpoint seems to assume that the entire world is a perpetual battlefield. Is that the case?

Potentially not perpertual, a potential battlefield as this an enemy without a uniform, not following the traditional rules of orthodox warfare, not complying with certain standards, which i just yet another reason why we need this sort of tough hardlined interrogation policy.

Luap · #83 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Potentially not perpertual, a potential battlefield as this an enemy without a uniform, not following the traditional rules of orthodox warfare, not complying with certain standards, which i just yet another reason why we need this sort of tough hardlined interrogation policy.

I don't see the interrogation policy aspect of this as all that important compared to the fundamental tenets of due process being abolished.

I suppose that the argument can be made that during war time, certain rights may have been infringed temporarily in order to ensure public safety and national victory. But take a look around, in American cities and towns and countrysides. We are not at war; we are not being invaded. Suicide bombs are not killing dozens of people every week. You are more likely to die in a car accident than by being killed by a suicide bomber or enemy combatant. Yes, there is violence out in the world; yes, we are an occupation force in a far strife-ridden country. That does not mean that domestic policies should be adopted that infringe on a non-citizen's right to due process.

varrussword · #84 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

Here's a relevant quote in a link I provided above.

"They came for the foriegners, and I did not help, because I was not a foriegner..."

Actually that's a misquote. Perhaps if you're going to quote quotes you would do well to actually cite a source.

Now here's the actual quote;

Quote:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/...ll_009_29_.htm

If we don't speak out against the threat of Islam one by one; nation by nation Islam will spread, much like nazism.

Varus

drgoodtrips · #85 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by varrussword

If we don't speak out against the threat of Islam one by one; nation by nation Islam will spread, much like nazism.

Do you honestly think that 'Islam' is more of a threat to you than your own government making power grabs and throwing its founding principles out the window? All the "tough guy conservative" bluster about torture is incongruous with the irrational hand-wringing and bed-wetting about this 'threat'. Are you really ready to trot happily down the road to fascism just so that you can sleep better at night knowing that something with virtually no chance of hurting you has an infintessimally smaller chance of hurting you?

This sentiment reminds me of Orwell's 1984. Keep your eye on Eastasia, varus. They're the real threat. Big Brother, on the other hand, will keep you cozy and warm.

ViolaLee · #86 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by varrussword

Actually that's a misquote. Perhaps if you're going to quote quotes you would do well to actually cite a source.

Now here's the actual quote;

Quote:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/...ll_009_29_.htm

If we don't speak out against the threat of Islam one by one; nation by nation Islam will spread, much like nazism.

Varus

That quote has nothing to do with the threats of religions. It has to do with the threat of your own government. For example today's comparison would be:

Quote:

First they spied without warrants on the Muslims, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Muslim;

Then they spied without warrants on the peace activists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a peace activist;

Then they took away habeas corpus from the suspected terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a suspected terrorist;

Then they came for me and I had no right to a trial and they wouldn't even tell me what the charges against me were because I didn't do anything when the government violated the constitution's bill of rights.

Gort · #87 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samantha

That quote has nothing to do with the threats of religions. It has to do with the threat of your own government. For example today's comparison would be:

Evangeline

That Leahy picture looks like that puppet of the old man on the muppets.

Luap · #88 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Do you honestly think that 'Islam' is more of a threat to you than your own government making power grabs and throwing its founding principles out the window? All the "tough guy conservative" bluster about torture is incongruous with the irrational hand-wringing and bed-wetting about this 'threat'. Are you really ready to trot happily down the road to fascism just so that you can sleep better at night knowing that something with virtually no chance of hurting you has an infintessimally smaller chance of hurting you?

This sentiment reminds me of Orwell's 1984. Keep your eye on Eastasia, varus. They're the real threat. Big Brother, on the other hand, will keep you cozy and warm.

Thank you. I've been trying to put together words such as these for a while.

There are much worse things out there than acts of terrorism. For example, government manipulation of those acts to become fascist in nature.

Slon · #89 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Do you honestly think that 'Islam' is more of a threat to you than your own government making power grabs and throwing its founding principles out the window? All the "tough guy conservative" bluster about torture is incongruous with the irrational hand-wringing and bed-wetting about this 'threat'. Are you really ready to trot happily down the road to fascism just so that you can sleep better at night knowing that something with virtually no chance of hurting you has an infintessimally smaller chance of hurting you?

This sentiment reminds me of Orwell's 1984. Keep your eye on Eastasia, varus. They're the real threat. Big Brother, on the other hand, will keep you cozy and warm.

Where would Bush be without the idiots who buy into all of his bullshit?

proUSA · #90 (**permalink**) 10-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Where would Bush be without the idiots who buy into all of his bullshit?

Bush and the rest of us would be ruined because Gore and/or Kerry would have been president.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode