Vote lost.
lolchange (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html?hpid=topnews)
OMG you believed him!?!
:lol:
"The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities."
whether you agree with the policy or not you cannot argue with the truth of this particular statement.
If you close her, the stuff that goes on inside may as well just carry on somewhere else that we won't know about for a few years.All of the detainees were supposed to be transferred to a new supermax facility in Illinois, and the military tribunals were supposed to end with that.
Wasn't a big thing to me either way, so I'm not too worried. Would vote again, no better alternatives.
lolchange (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html?hpid=topnews)
OMG you believed him!?!
:lol:
I'm not surprised. As soon as he started wavering on shutting the damn thing down I knew he was full of ****.
lolchange (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html?hpid=topnews)
OMG you believed him!?!
:lol:
I'm not surprised. As soon as he started wavering on shutting the damn thing down I knew he was full of ****.
I am not sure how you were with that, but many, many people had a reverse racism effect... Obama wasn't a politician in their eyes but a black guy (who we wooowooo consider equal). It worked fantastically for him.
Really? So just let me ask... the "cessation of hostilities"... when is that gonna be?
The "truth" in this statement might as well read like: "We still like to be able to lock up anyone for as long as we like, k thx bye".
I am not sure how you were with that, but many, many people had a reverse racism effect... Obama wasn't a politician in their eyes but a black guy (who we wooowooo consider equal). It worked fantastically for him.
Cite that right now. I want poll data, Bradley effect factoring and proof you're not bull****ting, because you're bull****ting.
I think he did this as a concession to the right. They've been refusing to cooperate on ANYTHING it seems.The article states in no uncertain terms that there's strong bipartisan opposition in Congress to closing down Gitmo. So while I'm certainly not condoning Obama's decision or the existence of Gitmo in general, it's not just him flip-flopping on his own stance in a complete political vacuum.
This is true, but the problem is that there are stupid people on the left and stupid people on the right. Neither will read the article or seek out the political nuance behind the decision. They'll just see broken promise and that'll be that. The difference is that more of the stupid people on the right will stick with their chosen leaders through more ridiculous mistakes (see most of Bush's term and the republican victory in the election just 2 years later), whereas stupid lefties will get all huffy and probably refuse to vote.I think he did this as a concession to the right. They've been refusing to cooperate on ANYTHING it seems.The article states in no uncertain terms that there's strong bipartisan opposition in Congress to closing down Gitmo. So while I'm certainly not condoning Obama's decision or the existence of Gitmo in general, it's not just him flip-flopping on his own stance in a complete political vacuum.
It's the trade-off between Dictatorships and Democracies. In a Dictatorship, an idea comes out the same shape it went in, whereas in a Democracy, the idea gets beaten up along the way. The problem, and the strength, of a Dictatorship is that only one persons' opinion counts.
Compulsory voting, seriously. You need it.No, we don't. I'd much rather have apathetic and therefore disinterested voters sitting at home than casting apathetic and ill-informed votes. Compulsory voting won't do anything to reduce voter apathy, which is the real issue.
I reckon it's got more to do with the whole setup of the American political system where the executive and the legislature get eleceted separately. In a parliament, the leader goes to the election with the party's platform, and if s/he wins, then there's both a mandate for him to enact those policies and a more or less cooperative legistative body. The upper house serves as a filter, sure, but I can't imagine, as an example, the senate or the house of lords simply saying "no" to something like this - an unequivocal campaign promise that clearly had a madate - if the prime minister was truly committed to seeing it through.Checks and balances. Having the legislative and executive at odds tends to gum up government, and therefore slowing down its unceasing intervention in our daily lives.
Well, if you say that they will of course use the excuse that it's a "coalition" government, but quite clearly the Lib Dems are just being repeatedly sodomized (at least that's how it looks).
I don't have particular transparency on the demographics of the detainees but I'll assume a goodly portion of them are not Joe **** the conscript that you can just send home and he goes back to farming poppy and thats that. I figure that quite a few are real zeal and steel dyed in the wool bamf jihadists. You cut them loose they're going to go back to the business of trying to attacking the West. If they pose a clear danger to this nation's citizens what exactly do you propose we do with them other then keep them locked up?You could handle them the same way we handle POWs except that kind of legitimizes them, so we don't want that. If they were captured in the US then we should just treat them like any other criminals. Put them in jail, have a trial, etc. I don't know for sure what the rules are for people captured abroad, but we should either follow them if we have some, or come up with some if we don't. What we shouldn't do is have some kind of limbo-prison, where we're allowed to do whatever the hell we want to people because of legal loopholes.
lolchange (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html?hpid=topnews)
OMG you believed him!?!
:lol:
I'm not surprised. As soon as he started wavering on shutting the damn thing down I knew he was full of ****.
I am not sure how you were with that, but many, many people had a reverse racism effect... Obama wasn't a politician in their eyes but a black guy (who we wooowooo consider equal). It worked fantastically for him.
To anyone who believes that Obama wouldn't have won if he was white needs to remember how badly everyone hated republicans at the time.
I don't have particular transparency on the demographics of the detainees but I'll assume a goodly portion of them are not Joe **** the conscript that you can just send home and he goes back to farming poppy and thats that. I figure that quite a few are real zeal and steel dyed in the wool bamf jihadists. You cut them loose they're going to go back to the business of trying to attacking the West. If they pose a clear danger to this nation's citizens what exactly do you propose we do with them other then keep them locked up?You could handle them the same way we handle POWs except that kind of legitimizes them, so we don't want that. If they were captured in the US then we should just treat them like any other criminals. Put them in jail, have a trial, etc. I don't know for sure what the rules are for people captured abroad, but we should either follow them if we have some, or come up with some if we don't. What we shouldn't do is have some kind of limbo-prison, where we're allowed to do whatever the hell we want to people because of legal loopholes.
I don't have particular transparency on the demographics of the detainees but I'll assume a goodly portion of them are not Joe **** the conscript that you can just send home and he goes back to farming poppy and thats that. I figure that quite a few are real zeal and steel dyed in the wool bamf jihadists. You cut them loose they're going to go back to the business of trying to attacking the West. If they pose a clear danger to this nation's citizens what exactly do you propose we do with them other then keep them locked up?You could handle them the same way we handle POWs except that kind of legitimizes them, so we don't want that. If they were captured in the US then we should just treat them like any other criminals. Put them in jail, have a trial, etc. I don't know for sure what the rules are for people captured abroad, but we should either follow them if we have some, or come up with some if we don't. What we shouldn't do is have some kind of limbo-prison, where we're allowed to do whatever the hell we want to people because of legal loopholes.
I'll play this line just a little further.
The Criminal Justice system is a very regulated organ of the state, it has all sorts of procedures, checks and balances that need to be adhered to in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals. That works for the various law enforcement agencies within the US because they know the rules and they play by them. Domestic law enforcement has the luxury and apparatus to follow those rules. A SEAL team nabbing some asshole in the Hindu Kush are not operating as a law enforcement agency, they are not acting towards the goal of legal prosecution. The military and foreign intelligence services might be sure as **** that this guy is a hardcore zeal and steel jihadist but they are not following judicial procedure, they are fighting a war. So now what do you have? Some terrorist bamf that was seized in wartime conditions and your're going to somehow try to shoehorn into the criminal justice system? Your trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and you don't have the option of cutting this bastard loose because he's going to turn around and start plotting vile deeds again.
What exactly do you do?
Those checks and balances work in a controlled environment with law enforcement agencies that are built to operate in that manner. The military and foreign intel agencies are prosecuting a war in a chaotic environment and are not designed to work inside the confines of the judicial proceedings. Nobody is getting a search warrant for raiding some spider hole in the Korengal or for intercepting wireless transmissions by Al Queda. Witnesses, assets and evidence might be classified information the type of stuff that would compromise future operations, or not available for a trial. Under normal proceedings I very much doubt most of the evidence would be even admissible. How do those checks and balances function in that kind of situation?
Is the word of the military and foreign intelligence agencies trustworthy enough that we should be willing to detain people indefinitely based on it? It's been proven time after time that it's not. Now, if we'd be talking of a boy scout organization which acts in an open manner, tries to prevent, correct and admit mistakes, compensates victims, publicly apologizes for screwing up and generally acts like a good guy then sure, I could sympathize with the idea that we could take their word for it. But since the military and foreign intelligence agencies are known for doing none of the above or doing the exact opposite, taking their word for it would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
I'm asking pragmatic questions about the mechanics of implementing criminal justice standards into a situation where those standards don't apply. It's no fun if instead of addressing them you side step and post about principle and vague notions of national soul. If nations had souls they long ago ceded any claims to purity and righteousness. Every nation has a laundry list of actions they've taken that would hardly be acceptable by a reasonable moral scale.
Just because we fight barbarians of one sort or another doesn't give us any excuses to start behaving like them. We're better than this, or at least we should be.:yes:
Let's make some comparisons: After World War 2 we had faced that very question, what do we do about some of the most evil people in modern history? Let the concentration camp survivors tear them apart? No one would have blinked an eye if that had been the case, but we didn't. We put them in a court of law. Just because we fight barbarians of one sort or another doesn't give us any excuses to start behaving like them. We're better than this, or at least we should be.
Let's make some comparisons: After World War 2 we had faced that very question, what do we do about some of the most evil people in modern history? Let the concentration camp survivors tear them apart? No one would have blinked an eye if that had been the case, but we didn't. We put them in a court of law. Just because we fight barbarians of one sort or another doesn't give us any excuses to start behaving like them. We're better than this, or at least we should be.
Faulty comparison. We put them to death. Once you get up to that, the specifics are sort of irrelevant : they're still dead. We didn't put them to death in a nice way, either. Death by hanging asphyxiation is not a pleasant one and is pretty much as painful and near to a "**** you, you're subhuman" as the state could come. Letting the concentration camp survivors at them might have been more merciful and swifter.
Let's make some comparisons: After World War 2 we had faced that very question, what do we do about some of the most evil people in modern history? Let the concentration camp survivors tear them apart? No one would have blinked an eye if that had been the case, but we didn't. We put them in a court of law. Just because we fight barbarians of one sort or another doesn't give us any excuses to start behaving like them. We're better than this, or at least we should be.
Faulty comparison. We put them to death. Once you get up to that, the specifics are sort of irrelevant : they're still dead. We didn't put them to death in a nice way, either. Death by hanging asphyxiation is not a pleasant one and is pretty much as painful and near to a "**** you, you're subhuman" as the state could come. Letting the concentration camp survivors at them might have been more merciful and swifter.
We gave them a trial first. That's probably the difference Kosh is after.
So because there is a loophole in the law that makes Gitmo okay? Why not call for the loophole to be fixed?
We gave them a trial first. That's probably the difference Kosh is after.
So because there is a loophole in the law that makes Gitmo okay? Why not call for the loophole to be fixed?
That's like saying if we give a crime a mandatory sentence and then don't carry it out, there's a loophole in the law. This isn't a loophole; this is refusal to comply on humanitarian grounds.
Which comes back to the points I brought up but have remained unaddressed, insurgents captured by US military/foreign intelligence operations were not seized in the context of the law enforcement apparatus. As we have seen, insurgents captured domestically by agencies like the FBI can be tried because the FBI was operating within the realm of the criminal justice system they did the investigation, built a case, and apprehended them. Some SOCOM unit operating in Afghanistan are not operating as cops, thats not their job. How do you realistically apply criminal justice standards to something like that in a way that is legitimate, especially retroactively?
The fact that the trials after World War II were sham trials does not somehow mean that trials of Gitmo inmates today would be sham trials; analogy is not causality.
Even in wartime you don't automatically shoot spies just cause you can.
Not to mention it's going to be harder to make a legal case that these are spies given that you have yourself claimed that they don't belong to any enemy nation. At best that puts them in the same category as people who hack into the Pentagon. i.e requiring a civil case in the country they were captured before extradition.
But let me ask a simply question. Should these people have been shot? Even the ones who were later released cause they weren't guilty?
But in the simplest answer, we should have either shot them all or let them all go. It's been done before and it will be done again using the logic laid out above. Half-measures only serve to make the problem worse. The United States has shot itself in the foot before by falling between two stools of ruthlessness and leniency, most notably over the Native Americans. This is just another case of that.
Erm, what is the point of that analogy? Things would have been better if we just shot all the Indians? I don't see how that would help anyone. I don't see how further ruthlessness would be a beneficial policy for anyone in that case. Better if they agree to peacefully settle onto a reservation and join our society.
Honestly, I think there is a reason why Obama feels he can't release those prisoners now. They may not have been enemies of the US when they were put in, but after six years I bet they're not friends any more.
The fact that the trials after World War II were sham trials does not somehow mean that trials of Gitmo inmates today would be sham trials; analogy is not causality.
But it is.
Any attempt to make the legal system work in these cases would be even more farcical than the post-WW2 trials because it's all down to he-said she-said in effect, unless they've since confessed to something, which would probably be thrown out anyways if their lawyers are halfway competent. And the stigma of victor's justice will attach anyways regardless, just as it attached to even the few just trials conducted at Nuremburg.
Erm, what is the point of that analogy? Things would have been better if we just shot all the Indians? I don't see how that would help anyone. I don't see how further ruthlessness would be a beneficial policy for anyone in that case. Better if they agree to peacefully settle onto a reservation and join our society.
That shows you don't understand the situation. I refer to the fact we moved them to reservations rather than exterminate them (the classic method) or try to integrate them (the one practiced in Canada). (And if you think the reservation system was any form of integration you have no concept of its history or how it works.) It's pretty much unique; no other example of something similar being done exists.
In essence being unable to exterminate but being unwilling to bring them in, we got the reservations, and that has gone awful, horrible places and killed hundreds of thousands in its time. (Arguably, it still is. There are rez in the northwest that might as well be third-world, where if you're alive you're addicted to meth and/or alcohol and the poverty rate is as close to 100% as makes no difference.) The option selected and how it played out was the one that would cause the most suffering and deprivation and the longest-lasting problems.
Gitmo is turning out pretty much the same way. It would have been better for the world and humanity as whole if we'd chosen an absolute in both cases.
I just believe that the risk of letting terrorists go far outweighs the cost of imprisoning innocents.
I disagree. We should all be free from the threat of wrongful imprisonment. The price of that freedom is a world more dangerous.
We would only free them after a trial if they were found to be not guilty......
People who are willing to sacrifice their liberties in exchange for safety will lose both and deserve neither.
Habeas corpus is something you don't just casually dismiss. You might as well move to North Korea if you take that route - I hear there's no terrorism problem there.
I'm doing quite fine, thank you. I'll let you know once I get sent to Gitmo.
And for the record, I am of the opinion that a hundred guilty criminals set free for insufficient evidence is better alternative than one innocent person unjustly incarcerated.
People who are willing to sacrifice their liberties in exchange for safety will lose both and deserve neither.
NGTM-1R, how many of those prisoners in Gitmo were actually captured in combat? How many were rounded up from their homes? Should all of them been shot on the spot? Even the idea that they're all guilty to begin with is wrong. They've never had a trial to determine if they were guilty, they were just thrown in based on suspicions. Their guilt was never established, yet you would have them shot.
"Old Tricks"
[Note: This was written back in 2009. The status of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was in flux at the time, though, so I sat on this, until some resolution could be reached. As it's turned out, no resolution was reached, and all of the involved parties were content to resume the status quo. That said, here's a little reminder as to the implications of that status quo.]
I just finished up A Tale of Two Subs tonight. Being a sucker for early submarine warfare, I quite enjoyed the glimpse into the history of the sister ships USS Sculpin and Sailfish, despite knowing in advance how the story of these two vessels would end. In one of the most bitter-sweet moments of the war, Sailfish scored the first submarine-versus-carrier victory of the Pacific war, not knowing that many of the survivors of Sculpin, scuttled weeks before, were aboard the target ship. The final chapters briefly describe the ordeal that the remaining survivors had to endure in wartime Japan.
But the tragedy didn't end with Japan's surrender, nor was it explicitly mentioned in the book. "They also discovered that through a cute interpretation of international law, the Japanese had classified them not as prisoners of war but as 'unarmed combatants.' As such, they would be afforded no protections under the Geneva Conventions, including provisions governing contact with the outside world ... and whether they would be tortured." The book goes on to describe the repeated waterboarding of Lieutenant Commander John Fitzgerald, of the USS Grenadier.
Sixty-five years ago, the enemies of the United States held our soldiers, denied them what few rights they were guaranteed under international law by falsely labeling them anything but prisoners of war, and it was a war crime. It was a war crime. Today, the United States government retains the right to incarcerate someone, label that someone an "unlawful enemy combatant" and deny them the few rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by international law. In fighting a new enemy, we have become an old one.
The amount of harm these guys can do is minimal compared to the amount of harm we've done. One of them could probably organize another 9/11 attack and not manage to kill nearly as many innocent people as we've killed in our responses to 9/11.
We're the good guys here. We have an obligation to stand up for our principles, or we forfeit the moral high ground and become no better than them. Either they get trials or they get released.
The amount of harm these guys can do is minimal compared to the amount of harm we've done. One of them could probably organize another 9/11 attack and not manage to kill nearly as many innocent people as we've killed in our responses to 9/11.
We're the good guys here. We have an obligation to stand up for our principles, or we forfeit the moral high ground and become no better than them. Either they get trials or they get released.
Do you think it would better if the enemy combats were shot instead of imprisoned, so this problem wouldn't exist in the first place?
Heck no, that's revolting. We should go out of our way to take them in, treat them well, give them fair trials and treat them as innocent until proven guilty, because we're the good guys and that's what we do, even if it comes at a price.
Heck no, that's revolting. We should go out of our way to take them in, treat them well, give them fair trials and treat them as innocent until proven guilty, because we're the good guys and that's what we do, even if it comes at a price.
You can believe what you want. But people probably died because of that decision and the world hates us more for it. The terrorist ranks would be thinner if the combatants were shot on the battlefield or handed over to the Saudis, denying Islamists the opportunity to rally around Guantanamo.
Under international law they are military prisoners suspected of espionage and have no rights and only the expectation of a quick death. International law does have a category for them and they're being treated quite leniently by those standards.
People are going to die no matter what decision you make. Utilitarian ethics are of limited use when only imperfect information and bad models are available. If you want to fight a war that is much more about the perception of justice and injustice than the number of rounds expended or people killed, you need to stop feeding the enemy ammunition for their most powerful weapon: the idea that we are the cruel, domneering, unjust bad guys.
You can't say 'the world hates us more for it'. You're talking about a decision that wasn't made. If you seriously advocate shooting people on the battlefield who may not even be enemy combatants, who could be useful intelligence sources even if they are, just because international law permits it you've lost sight of how to win.
Every time you release someone who turns out to have been a terrorist, you release one terrorist. Every time you execute or indefinitely detain someone who wasn't a terrorist, you create terrorists. At least with one of those options you get to maintain the moral high ground.
Every time you release someone who turns out to have been a terrorist, you release one terrorist. Every time you execute or indefinitely detain someone who wasn't a terrorist, you create terrorists. At least with one of those options you get to maintain the moral high ground.
I don't care how the rest of the world views us. It's for our own benefit that we shut down Gitmo.
Yes you do. Unless you can turn them. Read a freaking book, watch a movie, something. This is patently false. You're a Brit for chrissakes, you should know something about this via XX Committee if you have any grounding in the subject at all.
Anyone who is not wearing a uniform or some form of recognizable identification, in time of war, engaged in action against the soldiers of a nation-state, is automatically considered to be engaged in espionage and has no protection or rights.
That is literally the way international law works on the subject. A lack of own national affiliation is not even referenced, probably quite deliberately to allow the full range of options to be employed against more anarchistic domestic groups.
Has anyone been released on the grounds they weren't guilty? Or simply because they weren't thought to pose a danger?
Of two dozen Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Washington Post reported on August 25, 2005, fifteen were found not to be "enemy combatants." These Uyghurs remained in detention, however, because the United States refused to return them to China, fearing that China would "imprison, persecute or torture them"; U.S. officials note that their overtures to approximately 20 countries to grant the individuals asylum have thus far been rebuked, leaving the prisoners no place to be released to.
But in the simplest answer, we should have either shot them all or let them all go. It's been done before and it will be done again using the logic laid out above. Half-measures only serve to make the problem worse. The United States has shot itself in the foot before by falling between two stools of ruthlessness and leniency, most notably over the Native Americans. This is just another case of that.
I would, personally, prefer that most of them be let go.
I prefer releasing the ones we can't find guilty, and giving due process to the ones we can make a case against.I don't care how the rest of the world views us. It's for our own benefit that we shut down Gitmo.
Do you mind sending inmates to other countries which aren't as concerned with human rights, which is what we do most of the time?
It isn't the liberal thing to do. But the media fallout from handing prisoners off to other countries has been minimal and there is no risk of potential fighters being let go by the courts. In this case it's not a question of imprisoning terrorists versus denying them a recruiting tool. It's a matter of saving lives versus liberal ideals. And that's confusing ends with means.
It isn't the liberal thing to do. But the media fallout from handing prisoners off to other countries has been minimal and there is no risk of potential fighters being let go by the courts. In this case it's not a question of imprisoning terrorists versus denying them a recruiting tool. It's a matter of saving lives versus liberal ideals. And that's confusing ends with means.
Which really is the crux of the isssue, isn't it? It's not even an issue of liberals vs. conservatives... when you really think about it... you can only call it "Anti-American".
Which brings us back full circle to the real issue: How can a nation that betrays its own ideals "for the greater good" still be taken seriously?
Worse... what will become of that nation in the long run.
Of two dozen Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Washington Post reported on August 25, 2005, fifteen were found not to be "enemy combatants." These Uyghurs remained in detention, however, because the United States refused to return them to China, fearing that China would "imprison, persecute or torture them"; U.S. officials note that their overtures to approximately 20 countries to grant the individuals asylum have thus far been rebuked, leaving the prisoners no place to be released to.
What it isn't... is liberal or conservative. It's a matter of human rights and national integrety that transcends political party affiliation in all but the smallest minds.
Innocent until proven guilty? Or does that not apply to "foreigners"?
HE HAS CONTROL OF THE SENATE AND THE COURTS
HE'S TOO DANGEROUS TO BE LEFT ALIVE
Now this is probably just immigration politics stupidity. If there is no reason to suspect the Uyghurs have hostile intentions then by all means grant them asylum in our country. But this is a distraction. It doesn't change the fact that there are many militants locked up in Gitmo who will be a threat if released.
If anyone is still for in the "just put everyone on trial" idea, give this a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle
It takes quite a bit of evidence to keep someone imprisoned and you can't rely on a fair trial to always get it right. So if you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go. At present many if not most of the inmates have been allowed administrative review hearings. Yet there are some prisoners who are just too dangerous to risk putting on trial and the US has apparently not done a good job of sorting out who is dangerous and who isn't. This warrants caution.
Is Mace Windu talking about terrorists or George Bush?
If you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go.
Now this is probably just immigration politics stupidity. If there is no reason to suspect the Uyghurs have hostile intentions then by all means grant them asylum in our country. But this is a distraction. It doesn't change the fact that there are many militants locked up in Gitmo who will be a threat if released.
I was actually talking to NGTM-1R about a completely different issue to the one you're responding about.QuoteIf anyone is still for in the "just put everyone on trial" idea, give this a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle
It takes quite a bit of evidence to keep someone imprisoned and you can't rely on a fair trial to always get it right. So if you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go. At present many if not most of the inmates have been allowed administrative review hearings. Yet there are some prisoners who are just too dangerous to risk putting on trial and the US has apparently not done a good job of sorting out who is dangerous and who isn't. This warrants caution.
So? Your argument basically suggests that anyone suspected of a crime by the police should be put in jail without a trial. You're basically arguing that no criminal should ever be granted bail. Cause I can guarantee you that the number of people killed by people released from prison is much higher than the number killed by terrorists who went back to the fight.
Furthermore, what is your proof that those who "returned" to terrorism weren't in fact radicalised by being tortured for years in Gitmo?
Now this is probably just immigration politics stupidity. If there is no reason to suspect the Uyghurs have hostile intentions then by all means grant them asylum in our country. But this is a distraction. It doesn't change the fact that there are many militants locked up in Gitmo who will be a threat if released.
I was actually talking to NGTM-1R about a completely different issue to the one you're responding about.QuoteIf anyone is still for in the "just put everyone on trial" idea, give this a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle
It takes quite a bit of evidence to keep someone imprisoned and you can't rely on a fair trial to always get it right. So if you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go. At present many if not most of the inmates have been allowed administrative review hearings. Yet there are some prisoners who are just too dangerous to risk putting on trial and the US has apparently not done a good job of sorting out who is dangerous and who isn't. This warrants caution.
So? Your argument basically suggests that anyone suspected of a crime by the police should be put in jail without a trial. You're basically arguing that no criminal should ever be granted bail. Cause I can guarantee you that the number of people killed by people released from prison is much higher than the number killed by terrorists who went back to the fight.
Furthermore, what is your proof that those who "returned" to terrorism weren't in fact radicalised by being tortured for years in Gitmo?
The point of trials is exactly to determine whether the guilt of the accused can be proven. If it can't be proven, they should be considered innocent. That's the only way an ethically legitimate judiciary system can function.
There's also the separation between executive, legislative and judiciary branches of power. Your model of thought hands the power of judiciary branch to executive branch (terrorism suspects are treated as terrorists without the need for a trial to actually prove them to be terrorists) and that's never, ever amounted to a good thing in the history of world.
QuoteThe point of trials is exactly to determine whether the guilt of the accused can be proven. If it can't be proven, they should be considered innocent. That's the only way an ethically legitimate judiciary system can function.
There's also the separation between executive, legislative and judiciary branches of power. Your model of thought hands the power of judiciary branch to executive branch (terrorism suspects are treated as terrorists without the need for a trial to actually prove them to be terrorists) and that's never, ever amounted to a good thing in the history of world.
I believe an ethically legitimate system keeps people from getting killed. It is a good thing when the system accomplishes this.
Anyway, it is usually field commanders who make the decision whether or not to imprison a suspect rather than the executive branch of the government. You can say that the President is the commander and chief and is responsible for everything the armed forces do. It's a semantic debate either way. The important thing is that by planning a terrorist act or by assaulting American forces you already mark yourself guilty of premeditated mass murder, which is probably the most serious class of crime. Due process is fine for relatively trivial domestic cases. In wartime, protecting soldiers and American puppet governments is more important.
But the problem there is that then you can justify anything by saying that it keeps people from getting killed. It opens a dangerous back door to getting anything done in the name of Greater Good (and no one's allowed to question whether something actually keeps people from getting killed, or if you're just saying so.
You can even genuinely believe that it DOES keep people from getting killed, but you're missing the point that it's just your belief instead of something you can know for sure.
Executive branch of power is widely regarded to be composed of not only the executive part of government (president, prime minister, secretaries/ministers and their offices/ministries, nomenclature depending on where you are), but also the elements directly under their control: The police, the prosecutors, the military, the national guard, border guards, customs agents, civil servants, school teachers, what have you.
They are part of the executive branch of power because they are the ones who execute the orders given to them from the top of the chain of command.
Judiciary is the branch that is responsible for dealing out justice, as in determining the guilt of those accused by the executive branch. And their job is to determine that using the guidelines set for them by the legislative branch, which is responsible for - obviously - legislation.
Now, what you are suggesting is leaving the executive branch free to administer judgement on the accused, instead of involving the judiciary at all.
This is where I see a problem.
I'll ask again - if you can't prove the guilt of an accused, do you consider them guilty or innocent by default?
Having a trial also helps to minimize instances where prejudice or even personal grudges result in a prison sentence. Imagine, Mustang19 that you have sex with some guy or girl you picked up at a bar. Things go bad and you end up on really bad terms. Turns out he or she was the kid of some powerful person. This powerful parent now has a grudge against you, and suddenly you're being arrested on suspicion of terrorism. It may not be fair, but without a trial who's to know you're innocent? You're being called a terrorist, no one will listen to you.
If there's no question about someone's guilt, what's the problem with giving them a trial and proving their guilt there?
If there is doubt of their guilt, how can you possibly condone of keeping them imprisoned without a trial?
I still don't know if you're serious about this, but this is a misguided, perverted view of justice if I ever saw one.
In the immortal words of Counter-Strike,
"Terrorists win."
In my opinion these decisions would best be left up to field commanders and intelligence agencies. They determine suspects and guilt.
(...)
I can condone keeping them [terrorist suspects] imprisoned on the significant possibility that they will organize or execute terrorist operations if let go.
And I don't think "terrorists win" is a meaningful statement since Al Qaeda has no specific demands and no goals besides killing as many Americans as possible. What's the expected end state there? They need us to blame their problems on.
It depends on the risk involved in letting them go if wrongly found innocent. If they could destabilize a government I would better be safe than sorry. In cases of terror suspects, I assume guilt.
And I don't think "terrorists win" is a meaningful statement since Al Qaeda has no specific demands and no goals besides killing as many Americans as possible. What's the expected end state there? They need us to blame their problems on.
Domestic terrorists can already be apprehended on suspicion alone thanks to the Patriot Act. Has America become North Korea? Not yet. Do you really think this grants any power to the government they don't already have? You don't even have to commit an act, conspiracy to commit a crime is a punishable offense and stacked juries are not hard to come by if you really want someone locked up. Albert Woodfox, the Red Scare, the 1968 DNC... this is nothing new at all.
What exactly are Al Qaeda's demands then? What are their "true goals" as you put it?
Do you think that if the US withdrew all military forces and aid from the Middle East and stopped buying oil Al Qaeda would call it a day?
Al Qaeda may have many cells but it does have a central leadership that produces the propaganda and media statements. If they wanted to state demands they could easily do so. Thing is many Islamists are convinced that there is a western-Zionist conspiracy holding back the Arabs and the mere existence of the United States and Israel poses a threat to the Arab world. How do you negotiate with people who want to kill you, unconditionally?
As for the centralised leadership not making demands, what the **** do you think Bin Laden is doing on those tapes he periodically releases? Dictating his shopping list? Reading out the text of Harry Potter in Arabic? Ordering pizza? :rolleyes:
The Patriot Act does not allow detention for years without trial. And don't talk to me about conspiracy to commit a crime. You're advocating locking people up for suspicion of conspiracy. Which is a completely different kettle of fish.
As for the centralised leadership not making demands, what the **** do you think Bin Laden is doing on those tapes he periodically releases? Dictating his shopping list? Reading out the text of Harry Potter in Arabic? Ordering pizza? :rolleyes:
The thing about conspiracy is that it's easier to prosecute without physical evidence. And I didn't say there couldn't be a trial. After all in the examples I mentioned (like DNC 1968) there was a trial but it was hardly fair. Again locking people up without real proof is nothing new in America, although appeals do sometimes through a wrench in things.
Hm, I must watch too much YouTube. It's not like I understand Arabic anyway.
But the cost to the West from loosing cheap oil is way the hell greater than any damage the terrorists have managed to inflict so far.
Indeed almost all of the West's problems resulting from the War on Terror are self-inflicted. Now point out my typo and act like that means you win.
If jihadists really do want more Islamist states in the Middle East they're doing a poor job of it considering that all that has happened since 2001 is that two Muslim countries were invaded while secular revolutions took place in a few other ones. They really need to reconsider their tactics. In fact now that I think of it, neither side seems to know what the hell they are doing.
Hey, "troll" was a title bestowed upon me. I haven't said anything hostile. I'm merely participating in the debate.
I'm not saying it won't be abused. It just makes little difference which way fascism comes. It's a matter of time before either mind control is invented or we get overrun by China. We might as well be safe in the mean time.
The system is by no means infallible. If it was I would be all for trials. The fact that mistakes can be made (or the government lets terrorists go to make a point, /conspiracy) is the reason why we can't be sure if we're letting go terrorists or not when a trial finds them innocent.
edit: And trials won't necessarily help. There will still be plenty of wrongly convicted people regardless.
That's a sad and pessimistic view of the future and it really isn't all that realistic. China doesn't really have any expansionistic ideology driving them - they are motivated by economical factors primarily, and it would not be economically feasible for them to overrun their customers.
But that's a better option than simply assuming all suspects are guilty and thus all suspects of serious enough crimes would never see the light of day as free men or women again.
The point of trials, like I said, is to bring a third party to decide the matter between the defendant and the prosecution. If you simply drop the role of the judiciary branch, you end up with executive decisions spelling the fate of the suspects, rather than a detached third party.
Are you familiar with term "conflict of interests"? The police and prosecutors can't be allowed to make the decision between guilty and not guilty because their job is to investigate and prosecute, not to determine if they happen to be right or not. Of course they think they're right when they determine the most likely suspect and whether or not to prosecute. That's their job, and they can't be second-guessing themselves when they do their job. That responsibility belongs to the neutral third party - which is the judiciary.
You've spent pretty much your entire time on this thread arguing against trials so what are you saying? You want trials for Americans but anyone else is ****ed?
Your typo doesn't mean I win. The fact that you've completely failed to prove that Al Qaeda only want to kill Americans is why I win.
I never said they did. Again you seem to be arguing against a point I never made. Iraq is pretty much the biggest proof of the incompetence of the terrorists. If the insurgents had simply waited 5-6 months the Americans would have gone home and they could have just rolled over the country.
China is dependent on exports for now. In a few decades it will be self sufficient. In perhaps a century or so it have by far the world's largest military. None of the other BRICs are able to match it's growth rate. Ever heard of the democratic peace theory? Well, that doesn't apply to China. If they ever believe they have a shot at taking over the world, there is nothing stopping them from taking it.
As for the fate of democracy, ask why this particular system is able to exist. Republics are maintained because the army and police will refuse to defend the government if the constitution is revoked. Now what happens once automation replaces labor and the executive comes to have a direct monopoly on the use of force? Sounds like a lame idea for a science fiction novel, but consider the possibility that sooner or later technology may come to increase the amount of power a small group of individuals can wield. Now considering the idiocy of the modern electorate and phenomenon such as the Tea Party I am not fully sure of the people's ability to sustain democracy when their collective hold on power weakens further.
It seems like people today believe that liberalism will last forever and the future is Star Trek. Consider for a second whether or not there is such a thing as social progress, or whether we are living in a brief historical interlude following millenia of slave societies where the particular conditions and balance of power happen to favor democracy and peace.
QuoteBut that's a better option than simply assuming all suspects are guilty and thus all suspects of serious enough crimes would never see the light of day as free men or women again.
Then you can argue from a liberalist basis. I will argue from a utilitarian basis. In particular crimes where the danger of letting individuals go is too high, then due process should be circumvented. Are we arguing over values or social welfare?
Deontological ethics or deontology is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, rather than third-party consequences of the act as in consequentialism, or the intentions of the person doing the act as in virtue ethics.
QuoteThe point of trials, like I said, is to bring a third party to decide the matter between the defendant and the prosecution. If you simply drop the role of the judiciary branch, you end up with executive decisions spelling the fate of the suspects, rather than a detached third party.
Are you familiar with term "conflict of interests"? The police and prosecutors can't be allowed to make the decision between guilty and not guilty because their job is to investigate and prosecute, not to determine if they happen to be right or not. Of course they think they're right when they determine the most likely suspect and whether or not to prosecute. That's their job, and they can't be second-guessing themselves when they do their job. That responsibility belongs to the neutral third party - which is the judiciary.
You said you were tired of going in circles so I'm not going to just pull a copypasta of my previous posts here. Again, it appears we are arguing from different value systems.
As I understand it, the social benefit of holding trials for captives is the prevention of the imprisonment of (at least some) innocents. The social cost of holding trials is that criminals will likely be freed and will commit further crimes. When the risk of the social cost of additional crime from wrongful acquittals exceeds the social benefit of not imprisoning innocents, then a utilitarian would say that the criminals should not be given trials even if the result is imprisonment of foreigners, kangaroo courts, a bit of dictatorship, and everything else you mentioned, Herra. Is this not at least an internally consistent act utilitarian argument?
I don't think you can substantiate the claim of great risk due to wrongful acquittal. Even among the actual 'terrorists', most of these guys are yahoos and will simply not be able to do very much damage. If every single US government claim of a former Gitmo inmate returning to terrorism is correct, it still amounts to less than 4% of the already released detainees, and not one of them has been able to do a single notable thing on the strategic level.
In fact I would wager that Gitmo creates more terrorists than it incarcerates. How does that figure into a utilitarian argument?
This approach is, in my opinion, the most defendable and logically sound ethical system, because it doesn't rely on assumptions of what future will hold, nor gauge the (subjective) intentions behind an act (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all).
Would they be willing to risk that? After all, they don't remember who they are and what they were doing before being selected into the temporary government.
Can you defend utilitarian ethics, without claiming that those you would trust to make decisions are aware of the absolute consequences?
Would you be willing to be imprisoned unjustly for indeterminate period of time?
If not, you can't justify anyone else being imprisoned indefinitely, since there is always a possibility that the imprisonment happens to be unjust, and a trial is the only even remotely valid way of determining their guilt or innocense, because it bestows that responsibility to a third party rather than some arbitrary probabilistic predictions about the consequences of releasing (or imprisoning) the suspects without certain knowledge of their innocense or guilt.
The executive is still a valid means of determining guilt, simply to a lesser degree than the judiciary is.
Imprisoning innocents sends a message. But so do car bombs. I'd rather prevent the latter.
And I've said again and again the US human rights record is very patchy, both in WWII and before (the occupation of the Philippines, for instance.) That doesn't somehow excuse continued violations. The average human life expectancy was once quite low; we worked and improved it. The fact that said life expectancy was once small doesn't make it acceptable for it to fall back to 35 or whatever again.
So having failed completely to make an argument you're trying to derail now by making this an argument against socialism?
Without the principles, you've lost the moral high ground. In an ideoogical conflict (which this is), the loss of your morality and principle is the loss of the conflict.