Supreme Court restores Habeas Corpus, rebukes Bush and the Military Commissions Act - Page 2

7960 · 06-13-2008, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

This is the best I could find:

American Civil Liberties Union : New Poll: Majority of American Voters Want Next President to Restore and Protect Civil Liberties; Seek a More Assertive Congress

I read the PDF linked on that page. Many of the questions specifically mention bush or "the president's policies".......my opinion, that's as much a poll about bush as it is about civil liberties. And fairly good evidence that I'm right is how divided the results are along party lines.

Also, this is the exact question people were asked.

Q11. Restore habeas corpus rights for people held at Guantanamo – that is, instead of holding people indefinitely without charges, make the government show evidence in order to continue to hold them.

Again, my opinion, change "people" to "enemy combatants" or "iraqis" and the numbers would change.

WickedLou9 · 06-13-2008, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I read the PDF linked on that page. Many of the questions specifically mention bush or "the president's policies".......my opinion, that's as much a poll about bush as it is about civil liberties. And fairly good evidence that I'm right is how divided the results are along party lines.

Also, this is the exact question people were asked.

Q11. Restore habeas corpus rights for people held at Guantanamo – that is, instead of holding people indefinitely without charges, make the government show evidence in order to continue to hold them.

Again, my opinion, change "people" to "enemy combatants" or "iraqis" and the numbers would change.

They aren't people? Calling them people is about as non partisan as you can get. Enemy combatant is a made up Bush admin term.

thewise1 · 06-13-2008, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I read the PDF linked on that page. Many of the questions specifically mention bush or "the president's policies".......my opinion, that's as much a poll about bush as it is about civil liberties. And fairly good evidence that I'm right is how divided the results are along party lines.

Also, this is the exact question people were asked.

Q11. Restore habeas corpus rights for people held at Guantanamo – that is, instead of holding people indefinitely without charges, make the government show evidence in order to continue to hold them.

Again, my opinion, change "people" to "enemy combatants" or "iraqis" and the numbers would change.

Yes, on another forum I've been speaking with a disabled vet who says he doesn't consider them people, and that we should just put a bullet through their head and be done with it. He can't wrap his mind around the idea that we find them guilty, THEN put the bullet through their head. He also can't name a single person that is held at gitmo, their accused crime, their supposed victim, or the evidence against them.

And he called me too stupid to live.

7960 · 06-13-2008, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They aren't people?

no, they're not. They're terrorists or enemy combatants or just plain "the enemy."

Again, IMO when answering the poll they were answering about their approval of bush, not habeas corpus. Did you read the PDF? Nearly every graph is sharply divided along party lines.

7960 · 06-13-2008, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They aren't people? Calling them people is about as non partisan as you can get. Enemy combatant is a made up Bush admin term.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I'm tlaking about!

Originally Posted by thewise1

Yes, on another forum I've been speaking with a disabled vet who says he doesn't consider them people, and that we should just put a bullet through their head and be done with it. He can't wrap his mind around the idea that we find them guilty, THEN put the bullet through their head. He also can't name a single person that is held at gitmo, their accused crime, their supposed victim, or the evidence against them.

And he called me too stupid to live.

I'm not saying I believe that. I'm saying "the majority of the population is not going to let our government hold people indefinitely" is wrong. To the majority of the population the people in gitmo are NOT people.

thewise1 · 06-13-2008, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

THIS IS EXACTLY what I'm tlaking about!

I'm not saying I believe that. I'm saying "the majority of the population is not going to let our government hold people indefinitely" is wrong. To the majority of the population the people in gitmo are NOT people.

I think you're wrong, and even if you're not, the people who think they are not people are wrong both technically and logically.

7960 · 06-13-2008, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I think you're wrong,

I dont.

and even if you're not, the people who think they are not people are wrong both technically and logically.

of course they're wrong, but this is an emotional issue, not a logical one.

Phantom · 06-13-2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I dont.

of course they're wrong, but this is an emotional issue, not a logical one.

exactly, and therein lies the problem. Decisions are being made based on emotions rather than rational thought.

[sexist comment intentionally omitted]

thewise1 · 06-13-2008, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I dont.

of course they're wrong, but this is an emotional issue, not a logical one.

Yeah, luckily our rule of law is not based on emotion though.

thewise1 · 06-13-2008, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

exactly, and therein lies the problem. Decisions are being made based on emotions rather than rational thought.

[sexist comment intentionally omitted]

lawlz

WickedLou9 · 06-13-2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

no, they're not. They're terrorists or enemy combatants or just plain "the enemy."

Isn't that kinda of the whole point? You don't know that they are the enemy. They havn't had a trial.
And dehumanizing someone is the first step towards doing terrible things. If you ever see how the isreali's view the arab world and vice versa, they dehumanize eachother. That's how they can commit such attrocious acts against eachother. It's a theme that repeats itself around the world and throughout history. From the Nazi's to Aparthied. Before you think about demumanizing someone, think about what you are really doing.

Darlin · 06-13-2008, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

These are not soldiers captured on the field of battle. they are not part of any regular army. They are, for all intents and purposes, international criminals. No different than drug dealers, human smugglers, or gun runners.

Not being defined as "sodiers" is purely semantics in this case. The prisoners at Gitmo were captured on the battlefield.

My opinion in a nutshell:

Anyone who commits a crime within the borders of the USA, whether they be a tourist, an illegal alien, a naturalized citizen or born in the USA to citizen parents or non citizen parents - no matter how they got here - cause we are the fair country we are, they will be treated fairly in our courts and afforded the rights of citizens whether they "deserve" it or not.

But an enemy combatant, on a foreign shore, one who has borne arms against our soldiers and has shown no regard for our country our people and indeed - innocents in their own country - can not claim our constitution protects them.

The 5 "supremes" that believe terrorists have the same rights as we do - rights secured by the blood of our Soldiers, have shown contempt for every U.S. citizen, our Constitution, and most of all our Soldiers on the battlefield.

WickedLou9 · 06-13-2008, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Darlin

Not being defined as "sodiers" is purely semantics in this case. The prisoners at Gitmo were captured on the battlefield.

My opinion in a nutshell:

Anyone who commits a crime within the borders of the USA, whether they be a tourist, an illegal alien, a naturalized citizen or born in the USA to citizen parents or non citizen parents - no matter how they got here - cause we are the fair country we are, they will be treated fairly in our courts and afforded the rights of citizens whether they "deserve" it or not.

But an enemy combatant, on a foreign shore, one who has borne arms against our soldiers and has shown no regard for our country our people and indeed - innocents in their own country - can not claim our constitution protects them.

The 5 "supremes" that believe terrorists have the same rights as we do - rights secured by the blood of our Soldiers, have shown contempt for every U.S. citizen, our Constitution, and most of all our Soldiers on the battlefield.

The battlefield has no boundaries. It's the entire earth. Saying that they were captured on the battlefield is dishonest. There is no battelfield. These antiquated terms don't really work anymore.

Darlin · 06-13-2008, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Yes, on another forum I've been speaking with a disabled vet who says he doesn't consider them people, and that we should just put a bullet through their head and be done with it. He can't wrap his mind around the idea that we find them guilty, THEN put the bullet through their head. He also can't name a single person that is held at gitmo, their accused crime, their supposed victim, or the evidence against them.

And he called me too stupid to live.

That vet is obviously speaking from emotion. Prisoners, no matter what the crime -are people. They should be treated humanely and with the respect due any human being. Getting emotional about it, or hateful, benefits no one and confuses otherwise legitimate, though differing, viewpoints.

I can't name a single person at gitmo either, but their crime is like any other soldier captured on the battlefield, you capture the enemy and hold him so he can't continue to fight. It is not a point of having "evidence". This is war - there is no CSI on the battlefield.

War has not been declared against a Country no, but I do understand a "War on Terror", it is like no other. I think this administration is doing the best it can by these prisoners, there are no defined rules of engagement as in past wars.

Darlin · 06-13-2008, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The battlefield has no boundaries. It's the entire earth. Saying that they were captured on the battlefield is dishonest. There is no battelfield. These antiquated terms don't really work anymore.

And there you have it.

The WOT can not be fought as other wars have been fought, the old rules do not apply and new rules can not be implemented through an emotional channel.

I have mixed feelings about the WOT, whether we should stay or leave Iraq, when and how we should leave. But one thing I do not have mixed feelings about is affording terrorists the same rights and privledges of those they wish to kill.

Having terrorists in court will be a nightmare. Terrorists can not be judged by the average person, a court of *cough* peers. The peers of a terrorist do not exist in this country (or they shouldn't, anyway).

Terrorists should be judged by Militray tribunal - not by a civillian court.

How a person feels about the Bush Administration or whether we should be at war at all should have no bearing on the decision to offer rights to those who are not subject to the laws of this country.

On edit: You say the battlefield has no boundaries. If the battlefield is the entire earth, why shouldn't they be tried overseas?

7960 · 06-13-2008, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Isn't that kinda of the whole point? You don't know that they are the enemy.

Of course they're the enemy, otherwise they wouldn't be there!

Before you think about demumanizing someone, think about what you are really doing.

And before you make me say it AGAIN I'm not saying I believe this, I'm saying many people do.

WickedLou9 · 06-13-2008, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Darlin

And there you have it.

The WOT can not be fought as other wars have been fought, the old rules do not apply and new rules can not be implemented through an emotional channel.

I have mixed feelings about the WOT, whether we should stay or leave Iraq, when and how we should leave. But one thing I do not have mixed feelings about is affording terrorists the same rights and privledges of those they wish to kill.

Having terrorists in court will be a nightmare. Terrorists can not be judged by the average person, a court of *cough* peers. The peers of a terrorist do not exist in this country (or they shouldn't, anyway).

Terrorists should be judged by Militray tribunal - not by a civillian court.

How a person feels about the Bush Administration or whether we should be at war at all should have no bearing on the decision to offer rights to those who are not subject to the laws of this country.

On edit: You say the battlefield has no boundaries. If the battlefield is the entire earth, why shouldn't they be tried overseas?

So if you agree that the WOT has no boundaries and that the entire planet is the battlefield, how does one decide who they can grant habeus rights to and who not? An arbitrary decision by the Bush Admin? Well we caught this guy setting hummers on fire in california, He is not a real terrorist, He can have all of his rights. but this other guy that we caught in New York, well he is a terrorist we are pretty sure. He's an arab anyway... we think he was going to do something....we will hold him forever without charges.
As soon as it becomes someones decision whether or not you get your rights, the rights don't exist at all.

Darlin · 06-13-2008, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Isn't that kinda of the whole point? You don't know that they are the enemy. They havn't had a trial.
And dehumanizing someone is the first step towards doing terrible things. If you ever see how the isreali's view the arab world and vice versa, they dehumanize eachother. That's how they can commit such attrocious acts against eachother. It's a theme that repeats itself around the world and throughout history. From the Nazi's to Aparthied. Before you think about demumanizing someone, think about what you are really doing.

Those at Gitmo do not need a trial to prove they are the enemy. They prove that by killing our soldiers. They are being held to keep them off of the "battlefield" or out of the battle, wherever a person believes that is.

The terrorists are, of course, human beings. But they are currently our enemy.

During WWII, there were German Soldiers who fought against our Soldiers and the Soldiers of our Allies. They were considered the enemy.

The enemy believes in why they fight as much as we beleive in why we fight. They believe they are right, we believe we are right - such is war.

It is not dehumanizing to call the enemy the enemy, it is what it is.