Topic: I hope the US government learns something from this (Read 6361 times)

Demosthenes · « **on:** December 16, 2004, 09:28:29 AM »

British gov't loses key case over terror suspects' detention

Quote

Britain's government suffered a major blow to its security policy as the country's highest court of appeal ruled that the indefinite detention without trial of foreign terrorism suspects was illegal.

You know, it's not just the "slippery slope" bit that concerns me about all the various "enemy combatant" detainees the US is holding.

I mean, yes, it bothers me that they are so willing to throw due process AND the Geneva Convention out the window.

But that's not what bothers me the most.

What concerns me most is the fact that most of these detainees ARE terrorists. Many of them trained at camps run by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They learned how to do things like take hostages, build bombs, plan and execute schemes to kill as many civilians as they possibly could.

These are truly terrible people, when it comes down to it.

And because their rights are not being acknowledged in their detention without counsel, without being charged, without being able to have access to any evidence the government has against them, without being able to do anything, effectively, to help their own defense, sooner or later, they are going to be set loose.

That's the reason why we have due process in place. It's not just to ensure that everyone is treated equally... I mean, that's the main goal, but it also means that if due process is followed to the letter and rights are respected, scum of the earth don't get set free on technicalities.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2004, 09:33:11 AM »

You know, it just occurred to me how funny it is to read my own post, lecturing the US government on due process, while wearing my Ricardo Montalban mask.

Anonymous · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2004, 09:43:08 AM »

Quote

...indefinite detention without trial of foreign terrorism suspects was illegal.

The key word is indefinite. Perhaps if they established a resonable timeframe, that would force the governments to bring these people to court within an acceptable delay. being locked up for 3 years witout having your trial isn't resonable.

It's up to the government to get its act together and trial these people. It's up to the government to build a case that will lead to a guilty verdict. "Innocent until proven guilty" is what your freedom is based on. You can't throw that out the window. IF it applies to you, it applies to everyone. Yes, it's true some people slip through the cracks of the system once in a while. The system isn't perfect. But the consequences of skipping the system would be more devastating. The last thing you want to do is to indefinitly hold innocent people. And I'm sure there are some. There have been plenty in the past who have been held against their wills for no reason. They were not a proper trial. Their famillies were not informed of their status. They were completly disconnected from the outside world. Without even a reason or explanation. Wheter they were guilty or innocent, that's just wrong. There has to be a fair and transparent process in place.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2004, 10:02:05 AM »

Exactly.

The problem is, the US government is not even trying. They aren't even acknowledging the rights of those they are detaining.

I don't care that the majority of them are not held on US soil. If they are in US custody, in my opinion they are our responsibility, and therefore must be treated accordingly... with the same respect toward due process that anyone else would get.

In fact, even MORE attention should be paid to due process in this case because of how heinous most of these individuals truly are. We don't want them to be set free... so their rights should be acknowledged and everything concerning their detention should be by the fricken book so as not to screw something up and have them set loose.

Instead, the US government is not even attempting to mask its contempt for due process and individual rights. They are claiming, all the way up to and including the White House, that these people are "outside of" the need for due process, and that it simply does not apply. In short, President Bush and his staff are essentially claiming that we can do anything with these people we want.

Detain them indefinitely. Torture them. Interrogate them without counsel, without end.

No government, least of all one that was intended from the start to be a benificent government over a free society, is legitimate that takes that kind of power for itself and shows that kind of contempt toward the document that grants it its powers and authority.

Anonymous · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2004, 10:18:15 AM »

The attitude you just described pisses me off beyond beleif. A while back, remember when the whitehouse was saying that geneva convention didn't apply to most people they capture because they were essentially acting of their own will and not affiliated with offical combatants? That's a low blow. You can't get lower than that really. That is the perfect example of ignorance mixed up with arrogance. I would so love to see hte people making these claims being captured in some foreing country, being held without reason, being severed from the outside world, being tortured, humiliated, killed, mutilated, etc. And all of that because of a legal jargon being exploited. I wonder how they would feel it it hapened to them.

The bottom line is that if you cannot convice a judge that the person you are holding needs to be held, you have no legitimate reason to hold that person other than to terrorize that group. In the end, that's all it is. It's a strategy. They want to affect the morale of the opposition. They want people to back down by creating an environement based on fear. ANd afterall, why wouldn't they? It worked on the american population. They controll the media and feed the average american with mass messages of fear to gain support in their cause, which is wrong. They are too damn arrogant to admit they are wrong so they'll brainwash everyone if they can. They'll exploit every possible loophole if it's to their advantage.

And what do those who suffer these injustices do in return? They fight back with terror as well. Both groups fuel one another. One abuses one group, the other replies by decapitating supporters of the other group. They bomb and kill supporters of the americans because they represent the injustices their people have been subjected too. And then, the armericans respond with more force. It's turned into a chicken or the egg game and both sides are too stuborn to realise that it doesn't matter if the chicken came first or if it was the egg. What matters is that they co-exist and they are both delicious. I'd be up for a chicken an egg meal if that would resolve the issue. But obviously, it doesn't work that way.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2004, 01:32:15 PM »

Just wait until we all start disappearing one by...

ivan · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2004, 02:35:22 PM »

EDIT: Content removed as requested by the US government.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2004, 08:05:48 PM »

Uncle Sam wants YOU!
To come peacefully...

xolik · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2004, 08:24:02 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

And what do those who suffer these injustices do in return? They fight back with terror as well. Both groups fuel one another. One abuses one group, the other replies by decapitating supporters of the other group. They bomb and kill supporters of the americans because they represent the injustices their people have been subjected too. And then, the armericans respond with more force. It's turned into a chicken or the egg game and both sides are too stuborn to realise that it doesn't matter if the chicken came first or if it was the egg.

I've come to like at it as more of a stupid, macho 'who's got the bigger dick' contest. It's sad, really.

Edit: I had no idea I broke the 1000 post mark already. Damn.-

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:37:56 AM »

i give it 2 years before a state of marshal law is declared in the united states. there are only 5 executive orders that need to be signed in order to suspend the constitution, dissolve congress, and put military units in the streets, as well as ordering all industrial facilities, farms, and other assets (food, fuel, cash, etc.) into the control of the government. god help us all if the chimp finds them and practices writing his name on them.

Law · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2004, 01:53:53 PM »

Oh please, the martial law (although Marshal law sounds interesting too) and the US is becoming another Nazi Germany folks need to have a valium and read some history.

Where did you pluck the 5 executive order theory from?

xolik · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2004, 03:45:54 PM »

Quote from: Law

Where did you pluck the 5 executive order theory from?

The hindquarters come to mind, but I'll wait to see if there is anything to back this up.

LOL BUSH IS DUM HE'S TEH CHIMP OMFGLOL!!11!

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #12 on:** December 21, 2004, 04:14:22 AM »

No food for you, smartypants.

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #13 on:** December 21, 2004, 09:26:07 AM »

i'll pull the exact document numbers when i get them.

Law · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2004, 11:17:58 AM »

I'm just wondering since an executive order that violates the Constitution (e.g. suspending the Constitution or dissolving Congress) would be a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purposes of impeaching the President which in effect negate the executive order thus making it impossible for the President to dissolve Congress. That and the Supreme Court would immediately hear any challenge to such an order and would likewise strike it into nullity.

I find it interesting how many people are experts on something that has never happened, say, martial law in America.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2004, 05:01:52 PM »

Uhh, yeah.

I'm paranoid, but even I'M not that paranoid.

Not yet, anyway.

Sardonicus · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2005, 01:11:53 AM »

Ironically, detaining these people indefinitely without trial is the same thing as taking hostages. The perpetuators of the "War on Terrorism" are using the same tactics as the terrorists, only in this case, it's officially sanctioned by the US Government.

Give them a trial. Build a case. Find them guilty. Shoot them in the back of the head and bill the cost of the bullet to their next of kin. Just a thought.

BizB · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2005, 09:12:19 AM »

Terrorist: a prisoner who is held by one party to insure that another party will meet specified terms

What exactly are the terms that the US has set forth?

You're one of those The-Bush-Administration-can-do-nothing-right left wingers, aren't you?

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2005, 12:21:06 PM »

Quote from: BizB

Terrorist: a prisoner who is held by one party to insure that another party will meet specified terms

What exactly are the terms that the US has set forth?

You're one of those The-Bush-Administration-can-do-nothing-right left wingers, aren't you?

And when did you become Mr. Angry-Stereotype-the-Guy-You-Disagree-With?

DAMN LEFT WINGERS AND THEIR FLIGHTY ACCUSATIONS

Quote

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By holding someone indefinitely without charges or access to legal representation, that's exactly what the administration is doing. They're intimidating and coercing the people they're holding into ostensibly providing information that will lead to advances in the "war" on terror.

Of course in practice, it fails. They've been releasing many of the detainees after years with no proof of anything. RELEASING THEM. So on the one hand, they're claiming these people are such a threat that they can't have access to counsel for security reasons, and on the other, they're then maintaining that they posed no real threat or had no relevant information and then are letting them go. Yeah, that's real solid policy.

Sardonicus · « **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2005, 12:37:27 PM »

I believe the word you were looking for was hostage, not terrorist.

Quote

What exactly are the terms that the US has set forth?

Nothing other than announcing to the rest of the world that the US doesn't have to abide by the Geneva Convention, and that if you continue to bomb buildings we'll find you, lock you up and make you play naked twister.

Quote

You're one of those The-Bush-Administration-can-do-nothing-right left wingers, aren't you?

Not at all. Just like any administration, I agree with some things and disagree with others. I'm a moderate; no one, except me, can do anything right.

You're not one of those Bush-can-do-no-wrong right wing fascists, are you?

BizB · « **Reply #20 on:** January 29, 2005, 03:55:01 PM »

Lacerda: When have you known me to be anything other than the grumpy old man? Fucker.

Nope, I'm not a bush-can-do-no-wrong type. In fact, I don't like a lot of things that have been done by this administration. I believe that they are of the mind that the noble-ness of the end justifies the cruelty of the means.

And, you're right. I mistyped... It should have said Hostage, not Terrorist.

Naked Twister? Where do I sign up?
I believe that American's message has always been one of - We will do whatever it takes to assure that America remains. In this case, since we cannot war against a nation state, we're faced with a rock and a hard place. Like the gentleman settlers of our nation who faced a native foe that didn't "fight by the rules", we're not prepared to wage the war that we're in. But, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. I just hope that there are enough covert operations under way that we'll be able to wage a more effective war against this enemy that has also invaded Iraq.

Sardonicus · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:35:38 AM »

Quote

But, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. I just hope that there are enough covert operations under way that we'll be able to wage a more effective war against this enemy that has also invaded Iraq.

Agreed. I didn't mean to infer that the actions by the US and British governments to deter terrorism were wrong. I just think that, while keeping these people locked up may be keeping them from suicide bombing, it is ultimately an exercise in futility if they're just going to be released after an indefinite period of time.

BizB · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:56:29 AM »

Yeah. If they weren't enemies before, they will be after 3 years of Gitmo.

Sardonicus · « **Reply #23 on:** February 01, 2005, 01:03:58 AM »

The February 2005 issue of Wired magazine has an article titled "How to Stop Terrorism Dirty Harry-Style" written by Thomas P.M. Barnett (Author of The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century). Here's an excerpt:

"The Geneva conventions, as it turns out, served a few purposes: They created an international order, separated the civilized nations from the outlaws, and protected Americans. The 1949 convention was designed to prevent a rerun of the atrocities of the last great global war - a struggle between sovereign states. Today, we're waging a new type of war (for us, at least) against a new type of enemy (the Man With No State). Unless we want to spend the rest of this conflict trying to rationalize police brutality and torture, the US needs to acknowledge (1) that it's not above the law; and (2) that it needs a new set of rules for capturing, processing, detaining, and prosecuting such nonstate actors as transnational terrorists. In short, we need Dirty Harry to come clean. Frontier justice must be replaced by a real justice system. And there's nothing wrong with figuring this out as we go along."

He suggests a global, invitation-only, organization to set operating standards and rules of engagement in counterterrorism activities.

Link to the full article here http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/start.html?pg=2

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #24 on:** February 01, 2005, 01:04:46 PM »

Quote from: BizB

Lacerda: When have you known me to be anything other than the grumpy old man? Fucker.

Oh yeeeeah. Heh.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: I hope the US government learns something from this (Read 6361 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

ivan