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

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

I won't expect an apology but now do you believe me when I say "Of course they're the enemy, otherwise they wouldn't be there!"

I apologize, but still disagree [without any evidence] that the majority of Americans think this way.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

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.

Technically, I agree that the battlefield is everywhere. But our Constitution does not cover the entire world, it covers citizens of our country.

In an earlier post, I stated that a person (citizen or not) who commits a crime within the boundaries of the United States, should have the right of habeas corpus, because that is the system we have. But those fighting against us on foreign soil should not be afforded that same right. Because they are not subject to our civil and criminal laws in any way, they should not reap the benefit of our courts.

Besides, "indefinately" at Gitmo is not like "indefinately" here in the USA. They are being held to keep them from going back to the battle, the same as prisoners have been held in every war we've fought since the civil war. The detention of enemy "soldiers" until the war ends is nothing new.

Your comment about "He's Arab anyway. . ." was a bit snippy don't you think? We are not at war with Arabs that I know of. I can't recall his name, but shortly after Bhagdad fell, a young American was caught fighting with the Taliban in Iraq. That young man, being a citizen, should (and was, I think) be afforded all the rights of a citizen, including habeas corpus, because he was, indeed, a citizen.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by Phantom

And what do you say to those who have been released from Gitmo and cleared of any actions against our interests? [the mistakes]

I'd say they must have been released without benefit of habeas corpus, since that is a recent ruling..so why give them that right if it is obvious they don't need it.

[Scrum]

If these people in Gitmo are so obviously guilty, then the state should have no problem providing evidence to show it.

If the state does not have evidence enough to prove guilt, then those people shouldn't be sitting in prison.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Darlin

I'd say they must have been released without benefit of habeas corpus, since that is a recent ruling..so why give them that right if it is obvious they don't need it.

I guess they didn't suffer any harm during those 4-5 years that they were imprisoned and "questionned" ?

I give up.

[motivez]

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 seems to be a common mentality amongst right wingers, unfortunately. They think that because they're in custody, they must be guilty of something, and obviously if they were picked up in either Iraq or Afghanistan, they're surely terrorists.

I don't understand how they ignore the fact that there have been people proven innocent who we've held for years.. like the Al-Jazeera cameraman, he was guilty of no crime and we held him in those conditions without access to a trial or any ability to challenge his detention whatsoever

It's completely abhorrent and inexcusable.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by Scrum

If these people in Gitmo are so obviously guilty, then the state should have no problem providing evidence to show it.

If the state does not have evidence enough to prove guilt, then those people shouldn't be sitting in prison.

Guilty?

Did we need to prove that Nazi Soldiers were guity of anything? No. We didn't. Nazi Soldiers who were caught became prisoners of War, so are the terrorists we fight.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Darlin

Guilty?

Did we need to prove that Nazi Soldiers were guity of anything? No. We didn't. Nazi Soldiers who were caught became prisoners of War, so are the terrorists we fight.

So they were picked up because they were terrorists, and they are terrorists since they were picked up. It's circular logic and it's stupid.

Many of the people in Gitmo weren't even picked up by our military. They were turned in by local militias for reward. Did you see that 60 minutes piece a couple months back about the detainee we finally sent back?

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I guess they didn't suffer any harm during those 4-5 years that they were imprisoned and "questionned" ?

I give up.

Harm? By being given their preferred food, alllowed not only to practice their faith, but provided the implements do do so?

In a war, prisoners will be taken. Some things are as they are.

I, for one, trust our Military. I hold them in high regard. If prisoners were taken, I can do nothing but trust the judgement of those who detained them because I am an American, a United States Citizen who is being protected by those who go in harms way. Besides, we do not know the facts sitting here in our comfortable freedoms.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Darlin

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

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 problem with this line of thinking is that not all of the people in Guantanamo were combatants at all, not all of them had "borne arm" against our soldiers, or anything like that.

For example, the Al-Jazeera camera man. Here's a little bit about him:

US releases al-Jazeera cameraman

n al-Jazeera cameraman detained by American forces in Afghanistan was last night released after spending nearly six years imprisoned without charge at Guantánamo Bay.

Sami al-Haj, 39, was arrested on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan on December 15 2001, while on assignment to cover the war against the Taliban. Although he had a valid visa to work in Afghanistan, US intelligence alleged that he was an al-Qaida operative, and he was transferred to Guantánamo in June 2002.

Last night, his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, said Haj was en route to his home in Sudan to be reunited with his wife and son. He said: "I'm very glad Sami has finally been released, but the question is why he wasn't freed many years ago."

The US military alleged that Haj had secretly interviewed Osama bin Laden, smuggled guns for al-Qaida and worked as a financial courier for Chechen rebels. But the evidence against him was never revealed, and he was never charged.

Prior to his release, Haj had been on hunger strike since January 2007, and was forced to undergo "assisted feeding" via a tube through his nose. According to Stafford Smith, he was suicidal and had throat cancer, but camp authorities withheld medical treatment. "We are very concerned about him, because he has been under a tremendous amount of stress and has been on hunger strike for 480 days. He has asked to be taken straight to a hospital in Khartoum," Stafford Smith said.

In exchange for Haj's release, the Sudanese government has agreed to ban him from working as a journalist or leaving Sudan, according to Reporters Without Borders.

Robert Ménard, secretary general of Reporters Without Borders, said: "Sami al-Haj should never have been held so long. US authorities never proved that he had been involved in any criminal activity."

Haj's case was one of number involving journalists captured by US forces while reporting from war zones. Two weeks ago US forces in Iraq released Bilal Hussein, a photographer from the Associated Press news agency, who was detained in Ramadi in April 2006.

Commentators in the Middle East viewed Haj's imprisonment as a proxy punishment for al-Jazeera, whose broadcasts have angered US officials.

When the BBC reporter Alan Johnston was kidnapped in Gaza, Haj appealed for his release. Johnston in turn, called on the US authorities to free Haj. But Stafford Smith said much of the western media had been slow to take up Haj's case.

A spokesman for the Pentagon refused to comment on the case.

US releases al-Jazeera cameraman | World news | The Guardian

For six years we held this man who had identification on him and was actively working for a news organization. We had nothing on him, no evidence proving our assertion that he was al-Qaeda.. and after forcing him to give up 6 years of his life, his career, and his family (he has several children).. we release him with no charges.

As you can see from the article, this isn't the only person working as a reporter that we've detained.. This isn't a traditional war where when we capture someone, they're wearing the uniform of the enemy.. so holding them indefinitely, with no trial or ability to challenge their detention is claiming that we're infallible.

Obviously we're not. This case alone proves it. And as such, we should not continue under the assumption we are.

This is really just one example though, there are many more like it. We have offered a monetary reward for people who bring us information about terrorists, and as a result we've gotten some people who want the money, want to settle an old score with someone and use us to do it, and so forth.

We have to be more cautious. Whatever you think about terrorists, you have to realize that these people have only been ACCUSED.. as such, we should treat them with much more respect than we have.. and we should at the very least allow them a venue for challenging their detention as wrong.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by motivez

That seems to be a common mentality amongst right wingers, unfortunately. They think that because they're in custody, they must be guilty of something, and obviously if they were picked up in either Iraq or Afghanistan, they're surely terrorists.

I don't understand how they ignore the fact that there have been people proven innocent who we've held for years.. like the Al-Jazeera cameraman, he was guilty of no crime and we held him in those conditions without access to a trial or any ability to challenge his detention whatsoever

It's completely abhorrent and inexcusable.

There are people in our prisons today who are innocent - but there are plenty who are guilty as sin.

Not every terrorist at Gitmo is innocent.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Darlin

Harm? By being given their preferred food, alllowed not only to practice their faith, but provided the implements do do so?

Being held against your will in a cell for 6 years, away from your family and freedom is certainly harm. Giving them food and the ability to pray doesn't negate the fact that they were harmed by our actions.

Originally Posted by Darlin

I, for one, trust our Military. I hold them in high regard. If prisoners were taken, I can do nothing but trust the judgement of those who detained them because I am an American, a United States Citizen who is being protected by those who go in harms way. Besides, we do not know the facts sitting here in our comfortable freedoms.

The military isn't infallible, like I said in my previous post. You shouldn't treat them as though they are when they've made numerous mistakes.

Saying you can do nothing but trust their judgment is scary. As an American, you have a duty to question the actions of our leaders, and that includes the military.

Following blindly is antithetical to everything our country stands for.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Darlin

There are people in our prisons today who are innocent - but there are plenty who are guilty as sin.

They have access to the courts to appeal their decision.

Originally Posted by Darlin

Not every terrorist at Gitmo is innocent.

And not every person being detained at Guantanamo is a terrorist. There are plenty who aren't. So, labeling those we detain there as terrorists is incorrect on its face.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Darlin

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.

Sure, and what of those who haven't killed our soldiers and aren't terrorists?

You're arguing based off a conclusion that is 100% incorrect -- that those we're holding are already guilty of something. That's not true, all you have to do is read the article I posted.

Originally Posted by Darlin

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

Completely irrelevant comparison, German soldiers all wore uniforms and were easy to identify as German soldiers. Not the case in this war. We don't know for certain those who we detain are actually combatants, which is why they should be given the chance to challenge their detention.

There's no justification for holding an innocent person for 6 years when a routine hearing to determine the correctness of the detention could have prevented it.

None whatsoever.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by motivez

The problem with this line of thinking is that not all of the people in Guantanamo were combatants at all, not all of them had "borne arm" against our soldiers, or anything like that.

For example, the Al-Jazeera camera man. Here's a little bit about him:



US releases al-Jazeera cameraman | World news | The Guardian

For six years we held this man who had identification on him and was actively working for a news organization. We had nothing on him, no evidence proving our assertion that he was al-Qaeda.. and after forcing him to give up 6 years of his life, his career, and his family (he has several children).. we release him with no charges.

As you can see from the article, this isn't the only person working as a reporter that we've detained.. This isn't a traditional war where when we capture someone, they're wearing the uniform of the enemy.. so holding them indefinitely, with no trial or ability to challenge their detention is claiming that we're infallible.

Obviously we're not. This case alone proves it. And as such, we should not continue under the assumption we are.

This is really just one example though, there are many more like it. We have offered a monetary reward for people who bring us information about terrorists, and as a result we've gotten some people who want the money, want to settle an old score with someone and use us to do it, and so forth.

We have to be more cautious. Whatever you think about terrorists, you have to realize that these people have only been ACCUSED.. as such, we should treat them with much more respect than we have.. and we should at the very least allow them a venue for challenging their detention as wrong.

Good post.

Would it help you to know that I understand your position? I am not without sympathy for innocent people that have been held in prisons - in any prison, anywhere.

This article causes me some concern that the Military revise its own rules, or devises a checks and balances system to prevent innocents from being detained.

My position is an opposition to giving constitutional rights - citizens rights to non-citizens, especially out of country citizens. The law of unintended consequence applies to such a thing.

If the system for taking prisoners (of war) needs to be improved upon militarily, then it should be done. . .by the military.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So they were picked up because they were terrorists, and they are terrorists since they were picked up. It's circular logic and it's stupid.

Many of the people in Gitmo weren't even picked up by our military. They were turned in by local militias for reward. Did you see that 60 minutes piece a couple months back about the detainee we finally sent back?

Well, it certainly looks like I'm getting an education.

BTW, Who is Godwin? I can't be properly chastised if I don't understand the smiley.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Darlin

I'd say they must have been released without benefit of habeas corpus, since that is a recent ruling..so why give them that right if it is obvious they don't need it.

oh christ!

"They were let go so they don't need the protection of their rights, but everyone else there is guilty! Uhhh, except for the people who get let out next, they're not guilty, but everyone else there must be or they wouldn't be there!"