Really Liz Cheney? Really???

[Philistine]

{snip}
But criminals, again according to your model, are to be tried by their own governments---not by those of their former adversaries.{snip}

Why?

Foreign nationals are tried as criminals in the US and other countries all the time.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Are we to understand, then, that your thesis is the following? "Because these detainees fall into a third category, neither criminal nor POW, we have the right to punish them without according them any procedural rights."

No.

My thesis is: "Because they fall into a third category, they are entitled neither to rights guaranteed POWs by the Geneva Conventions nor to those guaranteed to criminals who fall under the unbrella of the US Constitution and its derivatives".

There may indeed be procedural rights to which they are entitled---that is up to Congress and the courts to determine---but they flow neither from Geneva nor the Constitution...

Just to raise the stakes a little here, are you aware of S. 3081,

"Raise the stakes" how?

Have you read the whole thing? Including the definitions? I don't see the threat you seem to think it represents, but in any case we both know it has zero chance of even getting to Obama's desk and if it did it would be unlikely to survive judicial review.

If Obama opposes it, he's a muslosocialinazicommunist who eats babies and hates Amur'ca.

That ship has already sailed.

And Republican supporters are, as badpenny (accurately) points out, either too dumb or too wicked to care about this kind of stuff. (

Fallacy of bifurcation, but again, I don't expect anyone as ideologically committed as yourself to admit the possibility of other alternatives.

[phillipmj]

I have to say, I luv sabre has never struck me as being a rabid right-wing, intractable nutjob, so his defense of Inq is not just a case of the good ol' boys banding together.

Just within this thread he has shown his willingness to listen to the other side, and change his stance accordingly.

Amateur. You aren't worth by time. I dub thee the anti-chase. Continue as you were, you can continue your schizophrenic rants on your own.

Yes. I'm willing to defend your right to being an idiot and my right to ignore you being an idiot.

Here, he seems to be agreeing that in some cases, with some people, disrespect and incivility are warranted.

[I_luv_saber]

Well, I ain't one to start a fight, but when the gloves come off you can be sure as hell I'll be in there to help finish it!

[Inquartata]

Why?

Foreign nationals are tried as criminals in the US and other countries all the time.

For acts committed in the country in question. For the US, that is, we try foreign nationals for acts they commit on US soil. We do not try Germans for acts committed in Germany, as the IMT's in Nuremberg did...nor were they tried in Soviet courts for acts committed in the Soviet Union, or in France for acts committed in France, or in Hungary for acts committed in Hungary, etc. They were tried in Germany, for acts committed in Germany and elsewhere, but not by German courts. There were not so many that this could not have been done.

[fencerchica]

There may indeed be procedural rights to which they are entitled---that is up to Congress and the courts to determine---but they flow neither from Geneva nor the Constitution...

From whence, then, do they originate?

"Raise the stakes" how?

It's easy to be an armchair analyst when it's only people of a different citizenship, off on the other side of the earth, who are subject to indefinite detention without so much as the opportunity to be informed of the grounds of their imprisonment, with bloodthirsty terrorists rubbing shoulders with innocent farmers and prepubescent children. This bill brings it home -- at the pleasure of the Chief Executive, one's citizenship is no protection, being arrested on US soil is no protection, the US Constitution and the courts are no protection, and how can one demonstrate innocence when one is not even entitled to a hearing?

Have you read the whole thing? Including the definitions?

Yes and yes. I suppose you're referring to 6.9.B? Let's return to the original topic of this thread: In the lights of persons considered respectable and mainstream within the Republican Party, just being a lawyer for a detainee accused of terrorism could be construed as "material support for hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners".

I don't see the threat you seem to think it represents, but in any case we both know it has zero chance of even getting to Obama's desk and if it did it would be unlikely to survive judicial review.

Do you think the same would be true if the Republicans had greater numbers and the Executive Branch? I do not. Further, as I pointed out, I do think that this is a political ploy -- Republicans have much to gain and little to lose by putting forward this kind of legislation. People who would oppose them for this would probably oppose them anyway, and people who support them are unlikely to find it distasteful.

Fallacy of bifurcation, but again, I don't expect anyone as ideologically committed as yourself to admit the possibility of other alternatives.

What, do I have to put this in legalese? "Statistically speaking, voters who identify themselves as supporters of the Republican Party have historically been more likely to support legislation of this nature than voters who identify themselves as supporters of the Democratic Party. This, therefore, carries implications about the parties' respective priorities with regard to preservation of individual civil liberties." Better?

[Philistine]

For acts committed in the country in question. For the US, that is, we try foreign nationals for acts they commit on US soil. We do not try Germans for acts committed in Germany {snip}

That will come as something of a surpise to, for example, the Natwest Three.

Manuel Noriega will also likely to be happy to hear of this....

--Philistine

[migopod]

Are we to understand, then, that your thesis is the following? "Because these detainees fall into a third category, neither criminal nor POW, we have the right to punish them without according them any procedural rights."

Just to raise the stakes a little here, are you aware of S. 3081, the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010"? It proposes to empower the President to imprison anyone, including American citizens arrested in the US, on his sole discretion, and says that they "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

Nice little throw from the Republicans. If Obama supports it, the bottom line is that if it passes he probably won't use it much (though supporting it at all is bad enough) and they'll have it in their back pocket if and when they recapture the executive. If Obama opposes it, he's a muslosocialinazicommunist who eats babies and hates Amur'ca. And Republican supporters are, as badpenny (accurately) points out, either too dumb or too wicked to care about this kind of stuff. So, it's a win-win-win scenario for the Right.

Am I missing something or wasn't this pretty much already settled by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?

[Hauptman]

Excellent! I was unsure whether you would step into the trap or not. Thank you.

So---they were not POWs. This makes them, acccording to your dichotomy, just criminals.

But criminals, again according to your model, are to be tried by their own governments---not by those of their former adversaries. Not even by extraordinary tribunals overseen by judges selected by their former adversaries from their own citizenry.

So apparently we have a third category of malefactor, neither POW nor criminal, by the tenets of your own model...

Which is precisely what I have been saying all along.

( I will be interested in seeing how you wriggle out of this one. )



As perhaps you can now see, you were wrong on all three counts here.

Say what? I have no idea what you're talking about.

So I've made a dichotomy, and that means I'm actually proposing a third category? That doesn't even make sense.

"So... they are not POWs." Which "they" are you referring to?

Inq, you're being even less clear in your arguments than usual; can you fill in the gaps for a change? It may be clear in your head, but it's certainly not clear by what you're writing here.

[Hauptman]

For acts committed in the country in question. For the US, that is, we try foreign nationals for acts they commit on US soil. We do not try Germans for acts committed in Germany, as the IMT's in Nuremberg did...nor were they tried in Soviet courts for acts committed in the Soviet Union, or in France for acts committed in France, or in Hungary for acts committed in Hungary, etc. They were tried in Germany, for acts committed in Germany and elsewhere, but not by German courts. There were not so many that this could not have been done.

We try people for crimes committed on U.S. soil, AND for crimes committed against U.S. citizens wherever they may be. Other countries do the same. The problem is with extradition which is not always easy to secure, especially if they also committed crimes against other countries and their citizens.

Or are you stating that a criminal is only subject to U.S. law if the crime they commit occurs on U.S. soil? Any lawyers out there that can clarify this?

[telkanuru]

It's interesting Inq would bring up Nuremberg, where those who were indisputably guilty of the most heinous of massacres were given fair, public, and open trials. That they were not tried in Germany is no surprise; Germany did not exist, legally speaking, from 1945 until 1989. In fact, the second world war did not technically end until 1989, since there was no Germany to sign the actual peace accord.. Certainly I have no issue with bringing the Gitmo detainees before an international court, in any case, if that is what is being suggested.

[fencerchica]

Am I missing something or wasn't this pretty much already settled by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?

Scalia was actually the one I'm most inclined to agree with (how many times in my life am I ever gonna say that again??) because he and Stevens argued either Congress had to suspend the right of habeas, or Hamdi had a right to a normal trial, nothing in between. If Scalia's had been the majority opinion I think unquestionably s3081 wouldn't stand a chance in terms of its Constitutionality. But the plurality opinion in Hamdi seemed to carve out a middle ground of halfway-due-process, where Hamdi had the right to challenge his detention, but only a hearing before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, not a normal trial, and not a decision by a judge. I could see someone like Inhofe arguing that the Hamdi decision fitted with s3081's statement that a US citizen could be held without a trial, since Hamdi wasn't considered to be entitled to one either.