Really Liz Cheney? Really???

[erik_blank]

You really need these dots connected for you? Seriously? The point of due process is to sort out the innocent from the guilty. Or would you like to get picked up by the police for being around the corner from a burglary and then told you don't deserve due process because the police pick up bad guys too? The hell?

No, no, no, no, no.... It is not as simple as that! Remember, after the burglary, the police first have to post a cash reward to any neighbors, who can then collect it by simply pointing their fingers at a passing person. A simple unsigned (or even verbal) affidavit and poof! $3,000! Of course the fact that we now have 300 people in custody for a single crime is irrelevant... We as police can now say for sure that we have the burglar, and we can throw away the key.

[Inquartata]

And again...yes, that's all that happened...

You know, because you were there, I'm sure...

[phillipmj]

You really need these dots connected for you? Seriously?

I think with a lot of people, it's not so much that they don't comprehend as that they don't care.

[Inquartata]

Well, since you "think with a lot of people", that makes it groupthink, no?

[telkanuru]

And again...yes, that's all that happened...

You know, because you were there, I'm sure...

I'm very strongly reminded of some anti-evolution material, which told its audience that if anyone asserted the world was 4.5 billion years old or such, they should ask, "Were you there? Did you see it?"

I'm sure the reductio ad stultum argument is much more effective here, though.

[Inquartata]

So it's better to assume that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent swept up in a net of stupid CIA and military intelligence people gulled by crafty Afghani bounty-hunters?

Really, Telkanuru? Really?

[migopod]

So it's better to assume that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent swept up in a net of stupid CIA and military intelligence people gulled by crafty Afghani bounty-hunters?

Really, Telkanuru? Really?

Why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

[telkanuru]

So it's better to assume that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent swept up in a net of stupid CIA and military intelligence people gulled by crafty Afghani bounty-hunters?

Um, yes?

[Philistine]

Meh, but I was commenting specifically on "Did she forget about that tricky thing called due process?" and the whole complex of sentiment behind it, not just on whether they should get attorneys or not...unless that is the entirety of "due process"?

Well, it's certainly part of due process. The implication seems to be (and with some, it is more explicit) that none of the detainees should have any access to courts or be able to challenge the basis of their detention. This Government position that has been rejected by the Courts still seems to be popular with some--and seems to be a clear violation of due process.

So it's better to assume that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent swept up in a net of stupid CIA and military intelligence people gulled by crafty Afghani bounty-hunters?

Kind of. But really it's more accurate to say that its better to assume that they could have been so swept up--as, in fact, a number of them were--or otherwise were not in fact dangerous terrorists, again, as a number of them were not.

You don't have to let everybody go who says they're innocent--but you do have to give them some opportunity to actually be able to contest the accusations.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Because it strains the fabric of credulity?

[migopod]

Because it strains the fabric of credulity?

It strains the fabric of credulity to presume that every accused criminal is innocent of the crimes for which they are charged as well. Yet in the US they are still presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

[Inquartata]

...criminal...in the US...

There is your answer.

And we have talked about this "presumption of innocence" before. It really only means that we formally place the burden of proof on the prosecution.

For criminals.

In the US.

A POW, the soldier of a foreign state in war, is not a criminal, and is not treated like one. That's two categories of prisoner. If there are two, there can be more---in this case non-state terrorists. If the first two categories can be treated differently, so too can others...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

And depending on the context, we look at what we can manage. In the middle of WWII, having trials that were even a little bit civilian-like for every POW would have been ludicrous. There were a lot of them, they were mostly very far away from out soil, and we were a bit busy at the time. Even after the war was over, when we did a little bit of everything-- trying some people for the crimes they committed, exchanging some people for our people, letting some people go, wiping some Nazis' records clean and giving them secure jobs in the US.... There were so many people that it wasn't like we really could have a clear standard.

We're not dealing with that kind of scenario. We don't have thousands and thousands of people elsewhere that we don't have any idea what to do with. We've got well under a thousand in limbo on pseudo American soil, and we haven't necessarily decided on all the rules yet in all cases.

At the absolute very least, we need to decide what the rules are going forward-- how we will detain these people, what kinds of interrogation is and is not allowed, and what kind of trial they will have, so that a case can be built against them properly, from the very beginning.

[lindajdunn]

Once upon a time, wars were fought in specific geographic locations. By declaring a War on Terrorism and treating those "captured" in the war as POWs, the government has placed everyone in a situation where they can be seized at any moment and for any reason and held indefinitely with no hope of an exchange of prisoners and/or release after the war is over.

I've not seen Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay but is it really Glenn Beck-like paranoid of me to think that this situation could lead to political prisoners in the US? If Palin is elected, will Levi Johnson disappear?

I cannot speak for others, but I personally want terrorists tried as criminals, not enemy combatants. Enemy combatant has historically meant "member of the armed forces of a state with which we are at war." This war without geographical boundaries has greased a slope and I do not want to see us slide down it. Or perhaps I should say I would prefer the country not slide down it any further.

[Bayou Bum]

Once upon a time, wars were fought in specific geographic locations. By declaring a War on Terrorism and treating those "captured" in the war as POWs, the government has placed everyone in a situation where they can be seized at any moment and for any reason and held indefinitely with no hope of an exchange of prisoners and/or release after the war is over.

With traditional wars, when the war was over and the prisoners released, everyone went back to their normal lives. Terrorism isn't that way, they kill out of hatred and when released, many return with the hatred and will to kill again.

I've not seen Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay but is it really Glenn Beck-like paranoid of me to think that this situation could lead to political prisoners in the US? If Palin is elected, will Levi Johnson disappear?

One, Palin won't be elected; two, are you really that paranoid? If so, I think many here should be more careful about what they say; who knows who will be President one day.

I cannot speak for others, but I personally want terrorists tried as criminals, not enemy combatants. Enemy combatant has historically meant "member of the armed forces of a state with which we are at war." This war without geographical boundaries has greased a slope and I do not want to see us slide down it. Or perhaps I should say I would prefer the country not slide down it any further.

Where do you propose we try these terrorists as criminals? What about a jury of their peers? Should we try those captured in Afghanistan there with a jury of their terrorist peers or those that are afraid for their life? What sentence do you propose for a terrorist that fired on UN troops with an AK-47? What is the sentence for killing a soldier; wounding a soldier; planting an IED? Where should they be imprisoned? If they aren't in a uniform, maybe they all should be shot as spies? Maybe they are all ambassadors for Islam and should be given diplomatic immunity?

You sound just like Obama before he was given the responsibility and now he is trying to figure out what to do with them also. I give him credit for learning that it isn't that simple, but he was either stupid when he said to try them as criminals without thinking of the consequences, or he knew ahead of time and lied to keep his ignorant party base happy.

[Inquartata]

And depending on the context, we look at what we can manage. In the middle of WWII, having trials that were even a little bit civilian-like for every POW would have been ludicrous. There were a lot of them, they were mostly very far away from out soil, and we were a bit busy at the time.

Were you aware that we had POW camps here in the continental US?

Anyway, the whole point of POW's is that they are not criminals, they are not tried as criminals, any more than ours were tried as criminals by the Germans.

Yet, we held them prisoner, for as long as the war ran. Had it run 20 years more, we would have held them 20 years, no? "As long as the war runs" is "indefinitely", no? So why, considering that we have a war still running, are we not only to try prisoners as criminals but release them before the war is over?

[Slim]

Were you aware that we had POW camps here in the continental US?

Anyway, the whole point of POW's is that they are not criminals, they are not tried as criminals, any more than ours were tried as criminals by the Germans.

Yet, we held them prisoner, for as long as the war ran. Had it run 20 years more, we would have held them 20 years, no? "As long as the war runs" is "indefinitely", no? So why, considering that we have a war still running, are we not only to try prisoners as criminals but release them before the war is over?

Because it makes us feel good?

[Slim]

Once upon a time, wars were fought in specific geographic locations. By declaring a War on Terrorism and treating those "captured" in the war as POWs, the government has placed everyone in a situation where they can be seized at any moment and for any reason and held indefinitely with no hope of an exchange of prisoners and/or release after the war is over.

I've not seen Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay but is it really Glenn Beck-like paranoid of me to think that this situation could lead to political prisoners in the US? If Palin is elected, will Levi Johnson disappear?

I cannot speak for others, but I personally want terrorists tried as criminals, not enemy combatants. Enemy combatant has historically meant "member of the armed forces of a state with which we are at war." This war without geographical boundaries has greased a slope and I do not want to see us slide down it. Or perhaps I should say I would prefer the country not slide down it any further.

Correct. Once upon a time.

Once upon a time, wars were fought with rocks and sticks too. Things change and the rules have to adapt to meet the threat, or you lose.

As BB said, you sound like Obama on the campaign trail. He's changed his tune quite a bit since he's now actually somewhat responsible for what happens. Last I checked, Club Gitmo was still in business.

They are not criminals and deserve no rights in the US court system. They're terrorists waging war. Wake up.

[lindajdunn]

With traditional wars, when the war was over and the prisoners released, everyone went back to their normal lives. Terrorism isn't that way, they kill out of hatred and when released, many return with the hatred and will to kill again.

One could say much the same thing about gang members, sexual predators, etc. who are released from prison.

One, Palin won't be elected; two, are you really that paranoid?

One, Palin could be elected. Obama won, after all, and what were the odds on that? Two, I offered a silly possibility to give the suggestion a light note rather than offer a dark one. I really, really don't want to go into some of the darkk possibilities that could occur if, for example, one of the Cheneys were in charge.

If so, I think many here should be more careful about what they say; who knows who will be President one day.

I already went through a period of being ultra careful during the Bush years and decided that I'd rather be unemployed and destitute than live under those conditions. If I have to live like that, then the terrorists have won and I refuse to hand them that victory.

Where do you propose we try these terrorists as criminals?

How about where they are now? We can take the court system to them if we go with military tribunal trials. Personally, I believe we screwed up so badly in the way that we handled this mess that the only way to try many of them is to return them to wherever they came from for trials or have a world court trial much along the lines of the war crimes trials. For those who made explicit treats against explicit locations, such as NY, then a trial in NY (with a possible change of venue due to publicity), would be a good option. A trial by one's peers does not mean a trial by those who share your political beliefs, your race, your culture, etc. I've seen some of the juries around here and no one has ever gotten a trial of their true peers. Most juries in this area are composed of white retirees.

What sentence do you propose for a terrorist that fired on UN troops with an AK-47?

As that would be attempted murder, it would be a very long sentence in a maximum security prison.

What is the sentence for killing a soldier; wounding a soldier; planting an IED? Where should they be imprisoned? If they aren't in a uniform, maybe they all should be shot as spies? Maybe they are all ambassadors for Islam and should be given diplomatic immunity?

Time for me to get ready for work so I'll summarize:

There are places in the US that would willingly accept these prisoners and which could adequately protect the American population from them. I strongly suspect that being sentenced to some of these locations would be worse for the prisoners than the locations where they are imprisoned now.

In my state, they could be executed and while I think that's an adequate sentence, I recognize that this would be making them a matyr and -- since this is what some of them desire -- I would prefer we didntt do so. Life on death row with constant appeals (initiated by others), would be a good compromise.

You sound just like Obama before he was given the responsibility and now he is trying to figure out what to do with them also. I give him credit for learning that it isn't that simple, but he was either stupid when he said to try them as criminals without thinking of the consequences, or he knew ahead of time and lied to keep his ignorant party base happy.

I suspect that once he was briefed, he was given information that very few in the US possess. I note that McCain also wanted to close GB as do many upper brass within the military. The Bush administration (imho) took the easy way out with these prisoners and created a situation that needs to be resolved in an ethical manner.

[fencerchica]

They are not criminals and deserve no rights in the US court system. They're terrorists waging war. Wake up.

I have no problem with draconian penalties being applied to fairly convicted terrorists. But I'd like to know how you can be so damn certain that not one innocent person has ever been detained on terror charges and/or why you're so fecklessly unconcerned about sorting the innocent out from the guilty.