For Wildcat, Regarding American Freedoms

[Wolfman]

This from a previous post (moved here because the debate is a derail from the original topic):
You have a government that detains people in a non-American territory specifically so that it can do things that would not be legal for it to do on American soil.
As it turns out, this isn't true is it?

You have a government that actively tried to encourage American citizens to spy on each other, and report on 'suspicious' activities from their neighbors and friends.And which government encourages their citizens to ignore suspicious behavior of others?

You have a government that passed laws that allowed authorities to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charges, without access to lawyers, and without any guarantee of a timely trial to determine guilt or innocence.If this is a reference to enemies captured in wartime, please list a single government that doesn't do the same. If it refers to something else we all await this information no one else seems to know about.

Yes, it was reported in the news. And yes, some people did protest. But the vast majority of Americans, despite having complete freedom to protest and demand change, did nothing. Eight years later, those laws and practices are still in place.Which laws, the actual ones or the pretend ones you've built a strawman around?

You are 100% correct in the freedoms that you ascribe to the American people, that Chinese people don't have. Yet for the past eight years, China has been moving forwards in developing more freedom and human rights...while the U.S. has been moving backwards.Please list a year that Americans had more freedoms than they do now. Pick any year you like, and list the freedom that was lost.

eta: IIRC, you're from Canada Wolfman? Talk about a country going backwards as far as freedoms go how about the people whose lives have been ruined by one of the province's Human Rights Commissions, where non-lawyers who aren't elected get to fine people and force apologies for speech and speech alone. Let me know when the US backslides as far as Canada has.

[Matteo Martini]

I think we should start not see the world split between Americans, Chinese and Russians, Europeans, etc....
After all, I do not think Chinese are better than Americans, it is all up to individual people.
I believe nations will maybe disappear in the medium-long term future.
Corporations will stay.

[Wolfman]

Now, my replies:
And which government encourages their citizens to ignore suspicious behavior of others?I should add another quote here:Wolfman seems to think that reporting criminal activity to the police is spying. Like the Stasi did in East Germany, employing citizens to spy on neighbors. Nothing of the sort is happening in the US.
Wildcat's argument is A) that the U.S. gov't is not doing anything that any other gov't would not do, and B) that the gov't is not seeking to recruit or employ citizens to spy on their neighbors.

Now, let's examine the facts (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_26_18/ai_n25059394):
Official Washington responded to 9-11 with an avalanche of frightful police-state proposals. One of the most chilling was when the Bush administration announced a new federal program called Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System). The Orwellian program called for recruiting millions of workers, from truck drivers to teachers to utility employees, to spy on their fellow citizens and report suspicious activities to the federal government.
I should note here that I was mistaken in thinking that this program still existed; as it turns out, the public outcry against this blatantly unconstitutional practice was so loud that the gov't was forced to drop it.

And kudos to the American people for that.

It still does not negate the fact that the U.S. gov't, under Bush, did in fact attempt to set up a system very much "Like the Stasi did in East Germany, employing citizens to spy on neighbors."
If this is a reference to enemies captured in wartime, please list a single government that doesn't do the same. If it refers to something else we all await this information no one else seems to know about.American citizens who are captured during wartime? First, I know for a fact that Canada will not detain Canadian citizens without charges, access to a lawyer, or a timely trial, regardless of whether there is a war or not. I'm quite certain that many other nations likewise will not do this.

And then there's that little thing called the U.S. Constitution, which states in part, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." (Title 18, section 4001(a))

No Act of Congress was ever passed to allow this. Bush simply decided to declare certain American citizens to be "enemy combatants", and deny them their Constitutional rights. And again, Wildcat, since you claim that this is something that every other government does the same thing, please bring me evidence of countries like Canada, Germany, Sweden, France, etc. who can legally imprison their own citizens for an indefinite period, with no charges, no lawyer, and no trial.
Please list a year that Americans had more freedoms than they do now. Pick any year you like, and list the freedom that was lostThe freedom as an American citizen to not be indefinitely detained without charges. The freedom as an American citizen to have access to legal counsel when detained. The freedom as an American citizen to a timely trial. These are all freedoms that were lost under the Bush administration; all they have to do is declare you an "enemy combatant", and all such rights/freedoms disappear.
eta: IIRC, you're from Canada Wolfman? Talk about a country going backwards as far as freedoms go how about the people whose lives have been ruined by one of the province's Human Rights Commissions, where non-lawyers who aren't elected get to fine people and force apologies for speech and speech alone. Let me know when the US backslides as far as Canada has. Actually, I am adamantly opposed to the so-called "Human Rights Commission". However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were discussing; whatever Canada has done or not done does not in any manner, shape, or form obviate or negate the arguments that I raised against the U.S.


And to everyone else -- my apologies for re-starting what is a well-worn and rather tiresome debate; however, despite how many times these topics have been discussed and debated here, Wildcat seems to still be quite oblivious to them.

[Texas]

Please point to a single US citizen detained indefinitely without charges.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I believe nations will maybe disappear in the medium-long term future.

Aha, another Commie!

[Matteo Martini]

Aha, another Commie!

You are still young and non-experienced..

Please point to a single US citizen detained indefinitely without charges.

It works only with US citizens

[Kevin_Lowe]

Please point to a single US citizen detained indefinitely without charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_captives_in_Guantanamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi

There is a sense in which Wildcat is right, in that Padilla was eventually tried, and Yasser Hamdi was released to Saudi Arabia and "voluntarily" gave up his US citizenship (although the validity of that giving-up of citizenship is highly legally questionable under the circumstances).

On the other hand the Bush regime did its best to relieve those US citizens of their constitutional rights, and it took years and a Supreme Court challenge to prevent the Bush regime from having its way in those cases.

You can argue that "the system works!". You can't argue that the Bush regime did not do its damnedest to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges, in complete defiance of the US constitution.

[Darth Rotor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_captives_in_Guantanamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi

You can argue that "the system works!". You can't argue that the Bush regime did not do its damnedest to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges, in complete defiance of the US constitution.
Not in complete defiance. Not hardly. The executive went so far as to get some lawyers to offer an opinion on why it was correct and constitutional. As it happened, that line of reasoning was examined, and challenged, and the SC upheld the challenge. I don't think you understand the term "constitutional" in this sense.

As to "the system works" yes indeed, it did.

That is why the system was built that way it was, Kevin. The term used in civics class is "checks and balances."

DR

[Matteo Martini]

The feeling that I have, DR, is that you take your positions on ideological basis.
Just a feeling I have

[Darth Rotor]

The feeling that I have, DR, is that you take your positions on ideological basis.
Just a feeling I have
You are dead wrong. I have a practical interest in a great deal of this. It is the practical details that interest me. The hardest thing to do in matters like this is to be objective. Your own arguments are smothered in emotion.

Please don't project your assmptions and methods on me, Matteo.

Seriously. Kevin's observation dismissed the process, and the process is key to how the cases got overturned. Without that embedded process, none of the complaints by attorneys, both military and civilian, who have complained about how the Gitmo situation was set up and handled would have been heard, nor acted upon.

The process is critical. What it allows, however, is for people in office, like this president, to skirt the edges of propriety, and find out how far they can push things.

That isn't always a bad thing. It's a framework that allows our system to work, and grow, and morph, and change, and reform, and evolve.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

You are dead wrong. I have a practical interest in a great deal of this. It is the practical details that interest me. The hardest thing to do in matters like this is to be objective. Your own arguments are smothered in emotion.

Please don't project your assmptions and methods on me, Matteo.

Seriously. Kevin's observation dismissed the process, and the process is key to how the cases got overturned. Without that embedded process, none of the complaints by attorneys, both military and civilian, who have complained about how the Gitmo situation was set up and handled would have been heard, nor acted upon.

The process is critical. What it allows, however, is for people in office, like this president, to skirt the edges of propriety, and find out how far they can push things.

That isn't always a bad thing. It's a framework that allows our system to work, and grow, and morph, and change, and reform, and evolve.

DR

Why you put so much faith in the system?

[Darth Rotor]

Why you put so much faith in the system?
Because, so far, it works well enough.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Because, so far, it works well enough.

DR

For you, maybe.
But 70% of the world population or so, lives with 1 or 2 dollars per day.
Does not work fine for them

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not in complete defiance. Not hardly. The executive went so far as to get some lawyers to offer an opinion on why it was correct and constitutional. As it happened, that line of reasoning was examined, and challenged, and the SC upheld the challenge. I don't think you understand the term "constitutional" in this sense.

This is akin to the thinking of the people who argue that the Bush government's use of torture was acceptable, because they took the time to have a lawyer issue a statement that they considered the torture in question legal first.

If you start from the basis that those kind of protections have a moral basis (it's wrong to torture people, lock citizens up indefinitely without trial etc.) then you can't escape justified moral condemnation just by having a compliant lawyer issue a convenient statement first.

If that's how morality works, then you can do almost anything to anybody with a clear conscience as long as you have a conscienceless lawyer.


As to "the system works" yes indeed, it did.

That is why the system was built that way it was, Kevin. The term used in civics class is "checks and balances."

DR

This kind of thinking is perfectly consistent, if you think that your constitutionally-provided freedoms are not based on any underlying moral philosophy. Presumably you think that your nation's founders and early legislators pulled those freedoms out of a hat, or intended those freedoms to be suspended temporarily whenever a lawyer issued an opinion saying that they didn't count.

[Ziggurat]

For you, maybe.
But 70% of the world population or so, lives with 1 or 2 dollars per day.
Does not work fine for them

Um... those people aren't living under the US system of justice, so... DUH.

[Matteo Martini]

Um... those people aren't living under the US system of justice, so... DUH.

The US system of justice has effects in.. Iraq, South America, Iran and many other places

[Texas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_captives_in_Guantanamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi

There is a sense in which Wildcat is right, in that Padilla was eventually tried, and Yasser Hamdi was released to Saudi Arabia and "voluntarily" gave up his US citizenship (although the validity of that giving-up of citizenship is highly legally questionable under the circumstances).

On the other hand the Bush regime did its best to relieve those US citizens of their constitutional rights, and it took years and a Supreme Court challenge to prevent the Bush regime from having its way in those cases.

You can argue that "the system works!". You can't argue that the Bush regime did not do its damnedest to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges, in complete defiance of the US constitution.

http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of_citizenship.html

Loss of Citizenship
Causes of Citizenship Loss
U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;

Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
Conviction for an act of treason

[Hokulele]

Please point to a single US citizen detained indefinitely without charges.


Executive Order 9066.

[Kevin_Lowe]

http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of_citizenship.html

You didn't read the articles I linked.


Though Hamdi renounced his U.S. citizenship, it is unclear under these circumstances if the renunciation was "voluntary" as required by the Supreme Court's decisions in Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas, especially since the U.S. presently holds that formal renunciations are only valid if made before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer outside the U.S. If Hamdi ever tries to reclaim his U.S. citizenship, his renunciation may thus be subject to challenge before a U.S. court.

[FireGarden]

Erich Scherfen isn't detained, but he's not entirely free either. It looks like he will lose his job. He has already been suspended.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/pilot.watch.list/index.html

Scherfen served in the U.S. military for 13 years, as an Army infantryman in the first Gulf War and then as a helicopter pilot in the National Guard. After receiving an honorable discharge, he was hired as a pilot by Colgan Air Inc., a regional airline operating in the Northeast and Texas.

In April, Colgan informed Scherfen that he was on a government list and would be suspended from his job. He was told he faced termination on September 1 unless he was able to clear his name.

But Scherfen, of Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania, has been unable to do so and said he fears that it could mean he has no future as a pilot.


[...] The lawsuit, filed this week in federal court in Pennsylvania, asks the U.S. government to remove Scherfen and his wife, Rubina Tareen, from any watch lists or databases that inhibit their travel.

Scherfen is a convert to Islam. His wife emigrated from Pakistan when she was 17 and is now a U.S. citizen. She runs a small business selling books and DVDs about Islam, publications she describes as nonpolitical.

[...] In a statement, the U.S. Justice Department said it will not confirm or deny that the couple's names are on a watch list for national security and privacy reasons.

In May, Scherfen and his wife wrote to the Department of Homeland Security, asking for help with their case. The department referred them to the Transportation Security Administration's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. This week, they received a number to track their case, but their complaint has not been addressed.

A TSA spokeswoman said the agency is seeking "a meaningful resolution" to the couple's case but said there is no timetable for doing so.

Meanwhile, a federal judge has the case under review. He asked that Colgan move Scherfen's termination date to October 1. The airline has done so, allowing more time for a possible resolution.

"Unfortunately, it is a problem that is shared by countless individuals who have no connection to terrorism, have no connection to crime and don't belong on this list," said Walczak, the ACLU lawyer.

Are people satisfied that this kind of thing is free and fair?

[The Painter]

This one is seems to work:

performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

Kinda fits

I'm still not sure what is the point of this thread. Is it that China is more free then the USA? Or that America does not have total freedom? Or something completely different.

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
I'm still not sure what is the point of this thread. Is it that China is more free then the USA? Or that America does not have total freedom? Or something completely different.

As I understood it, somebody (WildCat) has a fairytale notion that America is the land-of-freedom-and-democracy(TM), while the rest of the world is s**t.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm still not sure what is the point of this thread. Is it that China is more free then the USA? Or that America does not have total freedom? Or something completely different.

IIRC, Wildcat was arguing that America has never been as free as it is right now and no freedoms have been/are being lost and Wolfman was taking a postions along the lines of "You have to be kidding me."

[Travis]

Erich Scherfen isn't detained, but he's not entirely free either. It looks like he will lose his job. He has already been suspended.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/pilot.watch.list/index.html



Are people satisfied that this kind of thing is free and fair?

The Government is responsible because his private employer wants to fire him? Should nobody be put on the watch list because of the potential repercussions in the civilian job market? Should the FBI never name someone as a suspect?

[ImaginalDisc]

The Government is responsible because his private employer wants to fire him? Should nobody be put on the watch list because of the potential repercussions in the civilian job market? Should the FBI never name someone as a suspect?

A suspect in what crime? I'm not a lawyer, but if his livelihood is being harmed, doesn't he have some legal recourse to protect it? Has he been charged with anything? Have the authorities brought anything before a judge with regards to his case, if there is a case? If the decision is entirely his employer's, can't he seek legal redress for being denied a living? As near as I can tell, if my boss fires me for my religious beliefs, that's a major no-no.


Since when is being a Muslim pilot a crime?

[WildCat]

As I understood it, somebody (WildCat) has a fairytale notion that America is the land-of-freedom-and-democracy(TM), while the rest of the world is s**t.
No, In took the position that Americans have not in fact lost freedoms. The prime example everyone seems to offer up - the existence of Guantanamo - is in fact a camp for enemies captured in a war. No country in existence has ever taken the position that they cannot detain captured wartime enenies for the duration of the war without charges. In fact, in general you don't charge captured enemies and except in the case of war crimes or criminal activity in detention (and it has to be the same sort of criminal activity a country could charge its own soldiers with) it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try such detained enemies.

It is not a crime in and of itself to wage war on your enemies, therefore you cannot charge captured enemies simply for warring against you. But you can detain them for the duration of the war if necessary.

In fact, recent court rulings have given the captured detainees held at Guantanamo rights no enemies have ever enjoyed in the history of warfare! And btw

With this in mind, the whole argument of "held indefinitely without charges" criticism falls flat. There are some who argue we are not at war, that the AUMF falls short of a declaration of war (which I disagree with), but in fact these rules apply whether or not a war is actually declared.

And also bear in mind that this is not, as some claim, a war without end. It ends when Congress revokes the AUMF, which they can do at any time.

Some here (and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56639) comes to mind) are confused as to the scope of the so-called "War on Terror" and ask why aren't we in Darfur, or battling FARC, or at war with any given terrorist group. It's quite simple - the AUMF specifically limits those we're at war with to "those nations, organizations, or persons [the POTUS] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

It doesn't apply, for example, to a Timothy McVeigh-type person. Nor someone like the Unabomber, nor any other terrorist group not associated with al Qaeda. Those persons are the responsibility of civilian law enforcement, and civilian laws apply.

And while everyone points at the US and shreiks about supposed lost freedoms here, other countries have in fact slid backwards as far as freedoms go. Wolfman's home country of Canada, for example whose ironically named "Human Rights Commissions" are actually blasting away (I'd say chipping but that's an understatement) at the most basic and most important freedome we in the west have traditionally enjoyed - freedom of speech and freedom of the press. People are being hauled before a non-judicial government body, which has the power to levy fines and force actions, solely for what they have said or wrote! For example, here is Part 1 of Ezra Levant's appearance before the Alberta Human Rights Commission:

AzVJTHIvqw8

I encourage everyone here to view all 9 parts of this video, which can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/user/EzraILevant

And Ezra Levant is far from being the only person hauled before the government to explain his beliefs. Here's an example of a minister being fined $7,500 for writing a letter to a newspaper! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/06/30/boissoin-appeal.html

In France, Brigitte Bardot was recently fined £12,000 for daring to say what was on her mind. In Austria David Irving (a despicable person, but it's exactly speech we don't like that is most in need of protection) was imprisoned for 3 years for denying the Holocaust.

Nothing like this has happened in the United States! And I have yet to see any examples of freedoms being systematically taken away in the United States. We are in fact more free than at any point in our history - especially so if you happen to be black, or a woman.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The Government is responsible because his private employer wants to fire him? Should nobody be put on the watch list because of the potential repercussions in the civilian job market? Should the FBI never name someone as a suspect?

Rhetorical questions are primarily useful as a way of getting out of stating any actual position or argument. You'll notice that you have committed yourself to absolutely nothing - you're JAQing off, as they say in the CT subforum.

Allow me to rephrase what you have said in declarative form. (I am not saying that this is your position, since you avoided stating any position. I'm saying this is what an actual statement might look like).

"The government is not responsible if a private employer sacks someone because their name is on a blacklist maintained by the government. It is obviously incorrect to think that the government should not have a published blacklist, even if a published blacklist might make it hard for people to earn a living if they are on it. A published blacklist is exactly the same as the FBI naming a person a suspect in a crime".

(This is what a positive statement from Wildcat might look like, if he hadn't avoided making one too).

"The publication of this blacklist makes us freer to travel than we have ever been before. Also, ignorance is strength".

[plumjam]

Wolfman, I wouldn´t worry about Wildcat´s views. Edited for civility
Whereas you, Wolfie, are a fun, interesting guy, capable of changing your mind.
Although I mean the above, I still have a lingering hope that it will garner me entry into a non solipsistic sycophants club, which you should be founding round about now. ;)

[WildCat]

(This is what a positive statement from Wildcat might look like, if he hadn't avoided making one too).

"The publication of this blacklist makes us freer to travel than we have ever been before. Also, ignorance is strength".
Be free to point out when I have ever supported the current way no-fly lists are managed.

[WildCat]

Wolfman, I wouldn´t worry about Wildcat´s views. He is clearly somewhat ideologically attached,
And what ideology would that be?

[WildCat]

So does anyone here have any examples of an actual freedom that has been lost in the last 8 years? Pretty quiet in this thread all of a sudden. And no, something like "I've lost the freedom to make a retail purchase in Chicago at a sales tax of less than 10%" doesn't count. ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

So does anyone here have any examples of an actual freedom that has been lost in the last 8 years?

Hang on Wildcat, I'm seeing a disconnect here.

You've nearly admitted that "you don't like the way no-fly lists are managed" (although you've avoided coming out and saying so in black and white).

Is the freedom to travel not a freedom, or are you going to argue that this freedom hasn't been "lost" but merely "restricted", or what? It sure looks on the surface that some freedom has been lost here, yet you're still acting as if no example has been presented of such a thing.

[Earthborn]

The prime example everyone seems to offer up - the existence of Guantanamo - is in fact a camp for enemies captured in a war.More like a prison.

In fact, in general you don't charge captured enemies and except in the case of war crimes or criminal activity in detention (and it has to be the same sort of criminal activity a country could charge its own soldiers with) it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try such detained enemies.It is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions to detain enemies under prison conditions, or to interogate them.

In fact, recent court rulings have given the captured detainees held at Guantanamo rights no enemies have ever enjoyed in the history of warfare!Translation: "It not bad because recent court rulings have decided it should be better than what it was like in the gruesomest episodes of human history!"

[WildCat]

Hang on Wildcat, I'm seeing a disconnect here.

You've nearly admitted that "you don't like the way no-fly lists are managed" (although you've avoided coming out and saying so in black and white).

Is the freedom to travel not a freedom, or are you going to argue that this freedom hasn't been "lost" but merely "restricted", or what? It sure looks on the surface that some freedom has been lost here, yet you're still acting as if no example has been presented of such a thing.
Travel is a freedom. There is no "right to fly on an airplane", any more than there is a right to drive a car.

The no-fly list is managed poorly at best, no doubt about it. But it's not really an issue of basic freedoms - and by that I mean the ones enshrined in the US Constitution.

[WildCat]

More like a prison.
Argue semantics all you'd like, I'm sure there's few who would argue a country at war doesn't have the right to confine captured enemies in order to keep them from waging war.

It is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions to detain enemies under prison conditions,
Define "prison conditions", and cite the relevant GC rule.

or to interogate them.
Evidence?

Translation: "It not bad because recent court rulings have decided it should be better than what it was like in the gruesomest episodes of human history!"
Not even close. Would you like to try again? For example, what other country has given captured wartime enemies the right to challenge their status in civilian courts?

[The Painter]

More like a prison.

Psst, It is a prison


It is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions to detain enemies under prison conditions, or to interogate them.

The Geneva Conventions apply to countries at war. What country are the terrorist from?


Translation: "It not bad because recent court rulings have decided it should be better than what it was like in the gruesomest episodes of human history!"

I didn't know they put 6 million in the gas chamber at Gitmo? Will you provide evidence of this.

[WildCat]

The Geneva Conventions apply to countries at war. What country are the terrorist from?
It's not that. The detaining power certainly has the right to interrogate detainees suspected of war crimes, or knowledge of the same.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Travel is a freedom. There is no "right to fly on an airplane", any more than there is a right to drive a car.

The no-fly list is managed poorly at best, no doubt about it. But it's not really an issue of basic freedoms - and by that I mean the ones enshrined in the US Constitution.

I think we're closing in on the source of disagreement here. You're defining "freedom" very, very narrowly.

So it's not a restriction of one's freedom to travel, for example, to be placed on a blacklist that restricts one's freedom to travel by air, because if you really need to get to Hawaii you can swim or take a boat.

By the same token it's not a restriction on one's civil rights if US citizens can be locked up for years without charges or a hearing, because eventually despite the executive's best efforts the judiciary gave them a hearing, or they were bundled out of the country as part of a dubiously legal deal where they "voluntarily" gave up their citizenship. Besides that was then, and the challenge is to find a freedom you have lost now.

In fact, it only counts as losing a freedom if that freedom is a "basic freedom", defined as the ones specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

So the moves currently underway to allow the FBI to investigate people without any evidence or even allegations of wrongdoing would not count for you I imagine. After all the constitution only rules out unreasonable search or seizure, it doesn't say anything specific about requiring evidence before starting an investigation, so there is no "basic freedom" which is being infringed.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/aug/21/justice-delays-new-rules-terror-investigations/

I'm not saying you are being inconsistent. I am saying that you have to define "freedom" very narrowly to be able to say with a straight face that the people of the USA have not lost any freedoms.

[WildCat]

I think we're closing in on the source of disagreement here. You're defining "freedom" very, very narrowly.

So it's not a restriction of one's freedom to travel, for example, to be placed on a blacklist that restricts one's freedom to travel by air, because if you really need to get to Hawaii you can swim or take a boat.
You confuse bureaucratic incompetence with "loss of freedoms".

By the same token it's not a restriction on one's civil rights if US citizens can be locked up for years without charges or a hearing,
Once again, you deliberately confuse the issue. It's not "US citizens" who can be "locked up for years without charges or hearings", it's wartime enemies as defined by the relevant AUMF. Someone who wars against the United States doesn't become immune from capture and detention just because he also has US citizenship. And this isn't a new phenomena, it's the way it always has been done. And it's done in a much more genteel manner than in the past, for example in WWII US citizens fighting for Germany were dropped off on Long Island by a U-Boat and were captured. Within 4 months of capture they were sentenced to death by a military tribunal and executed. I think they would have preferred detention without charges, but that's just my opinion. And btw, no one in Guantanamo has been held without a hearing. All detainees have had their status determined by a military tribunal per military law.

because eventually despite the executive's best efforts the judiciary gave them a hearing,
They already had a miltary tribunal to determine their status. What the Bush administration tried to do was prevent that status from being challenged in civilian courts. Bush was unsuccessful in that attempt, and they won the right to challenge their detentions in civilian courts. This is actually an expansion of rights, as no such right had existed before in practyice.

So the moves currently underway to allow the FBI to investigate people without any evidence or even allegations of wrongdoing would not count for you I imagine. After all the constitution only rules out unreasonable search or seizure, it doesn't say anything specific about requiring evidence before starting an investigation, so there is no "basic freedom" which is being infringed.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/aug/21/justice-delays-new-rules-terror-investigations/
You're now claiming a rules change for FBI investigations represents a loss of freedoms?

I'm not saying you are being inconsistent. I am saying that you have to define "freedom" very narrowly to be able to say with a straight face that the people of the USA have not lost any freedoms.
It is not me who is confusing freedom with bureaucratic regulations. By your criteria a new law requiring more time behind the wheel before a new driver can obtain a license is tantamount to loss of freedoms.

Compare/contrast to the Canadian assaults on free speech and a free press I posted above which no one seems to be concerned about.

[Earthborn]

Define "prison conditions",See pictures 20 and 21 here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/slideshow/page/0,,1987294,00.html). I think we can all agree that it is a prison, by any definition. The Painter certainly does agree.

and cite the relevant GC rule.Article 21 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

Article 22:Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.Emphasis mine.

Evidence?Article 17:
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.My emphasis.

Furthermore, on the "advanced interogation" techniques:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You confuse bureaucratic incompetence with "loss of freedoms".

It seems to me that loss of freedom is the outcome, and you are quibbling that it somehow doesn't count because you can write that outcome off as the result of bureaucratic incompetence. I don't see how that is even relevant: whether it is the result of incompetence or malice, the outcome is still the same and the outcome is still a loss of something most of us think of as a freedom.


Once again, you deliberately confuse the issue. It's not "US citizens" who can be "locked up for years without charges or hearings", it's wartime enemies as defined by the relevant AUMF. Someone who wars against the United States doesn't become immune from capture and detention just because he also has US citizenship. And this isn't a new phenomena, it's the way it always has been done. And it's done in a much more genteel manner than in the past, for example in WWII US citizens fighting for Germany were dropped off on Long Island by a U-Boat and were captured. Within 4 months of capture they were sentenced to death by a military tribunal and executed. I think they would have preferred detention without charges, but that's just my opinion. And btw, no one in Guantanamo has been held without a hearing. All detainees have had their status determined by a military tribunal per military law.

Oh look, a wiki article on that specific case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, "The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States." Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[9]

Padilla was first held as a material witness, and when the courts were hot on the heels of that questionable measure, the executive redefined him from "material witness" to "enemy combatant". He spent three years in solitary confinement until they finally charged him with crimes completely unrelated to the ostensible reasons they'd been keeping him locked up all that time, because the Supreme Court was once again close to catching up with them.

Padilla alleges he was drugged and tortured during that three year period, but I think it's safe to say that such a thing could never have happened to a US citizen in the USA. :rolleyes:

This is manifestly unlike the Quirin case where enemy agents, of a clearly defined enemy power, were swiftly tried for the things they had actually done and could be shown to have done. The Quirin precedent does not come close to justifying the abuse of process in the Padilla case.


You're now claiming a rules change for FBI investigations represents a loss of freedoms?


When the rules being changed were put in place to prevent undemocratic abuses from being repeated, yes, I think they do represent a loss of freedoms.


It is not me who is confusing freedom with bureaucratic regulations. By your criteria a new law requiring more time behind the wheel before a new driver can obtain a license is tantamount to loss of freedoms.

Compare/contrast to the Canadian assaults on free speech and a free press I posted above which no one seems to be concerned about.

Straw man, followed by tu quoque argument.

[gtc]

I think we're closing in on the source of disagreement here. You're defining "freedom" very, very narrowly.

So it's not a restriction of one's freedom to travel, for example, to be placed on a blacklist that restricts one's freedom to travel by air, because if you really need to get to Hawaii you can swim or take a boat.

Is it a loss of freedom for a private company to deny you travel because you can not afford a ticket?

Is it a loss of freedom for a private company to deny travel to someone who doesn't bathe?

Arguably both are losses of freedom in the broadest sense of the word, but no one is going to lose sleep over them.

[WildCat]

See pictures 20 and 21 here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/slideshow/page/0,,1987294,00.html). I think we can all agree that it is a prison, by any definition. The Painter certainly does agree.

Article 21 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Article 22:Emphasis mine.
Ah, so you are confused about what that means. It means they are not to be housed in prisons with convicted criminals. It certainly doen't mean they cannot be locked up.

Article 17:
My emphasis.
Funny, you skipped right past the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in Article 4 on the page you linked to. Was this a deliberate deception on your part, or genuine ignorance? Do you have evidence Article 17 applies to those who are not defined as prisoners of war per Article 4?

Furthermore, on the "advanced interogation" techniques:
Once again please see Article 4 for the definition of "prisoner of war". And no, I'm not claiming we have the right to torture anyone, but we do have the right to interrogate them per the rules of US military law.

[Texas]

It seems to me that loss of freedom is the outcome, and you are quibbling that it somehow doesn't count because you can write that outcome off as the result of bureaucratic incompetence. I don't see how that is even relevant: whether it is the result of incompetence or malice, the outcome is still the same and the outcome is still a loss of something most of us think of as a freedom.



Oh look, a wiki article on that specific case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin



Padilla was first held as a material witness, and when the courts were hot on the heels of that questionable measure, the executive redefined him from "material witness" to "enemy combatant". He spent three years in solitary confinement until they finally charged him with crimes completely unrelated to the ostensible reasons they'd been keeping him locked up all that time, because the Supreme Court was once again close to catching up with them.


:
He was represented by legal counsel from the beginning who filed a Habeas motion and when he got that partial relief his lawyers started an appeal process that set in motion the legal battle that followed. His attorneys repeatedly filed cases in the wrong courts and had to refile in the correct venue.. He was never denied his rights as a citizen and never deprived of adequate legal aid. 3 1/2 years is not unheard of even in normal major criminal cases.

The trial court threw out two charges as redundant and the He was convicted of conspiracy to "materially aid terrorists" and conspiracy to "Maim, Kidnap, and murder"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)#Arrest
Habeas corpus
Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:

Padilla's lawyer was not a proper "Next Friend" to sign and file the petition on Padilla's behalf;
Commander Marr of the South Carolina brig, and not U.S. Secretary Rumsfeld, should have been named as the respondent to the petition; and
the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over the named respondent Secretary Rumsfeld who resides in Virginia.
The New York District Court disagreed with the government's arguments and dismissed its motion. However, the court further declared that President Bush had constitutional and statutory authority to designate and detain American citizens as "enemy combatants" and that Padilla was entitled to challenge his "enemy combatant" designation and detention in the course of his habeas corpus petition. Since the New York District Court had in some way disappointed all sides of this legal battle, both Padilla and the government made an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The 3 years was due both to the prosecutions appeals AND the defense appeals but at no time was he ever deprived of his rights as a US citizen.

Padilla alleges he was drugged and tortured during that three year period, but I think it's safe to say that such a thing could never have happened to a US citizen in the USA. :rolleyes

I think it is also safe to say that no terrorist would claim to have been tortured given how honorable they all are:rolleyes:

[GreyICE]

In fact, recent court rulings have given the captured detainees held at Guantanamo rights no enemies have ever enjoyed in the history of warfare!

Skeptical forum response: Such as?

[Matteo Martini]

It's not that. The detaining power certainly has the right to interrogate detainees suspected of war crimes, or knowledge of the same.

And use torture to do that?

[Texas]

Skeptical forum response: Such as?

Access to US civilian courts. That is unprecedented not only in the US but in the world as a whole. Captured enemy combatants have always been handled by Military tribunals. The idea that those captured on the battle field can argue their status as combatants in front of a federal court is almost surreal.

[GreyICE]

Access to US civilian courts. That is unprecedented not only in the US but in the world as a whole. Captured enemy combatants have always been handled by Military tribunals. The idea that those captured on the battle field can argue their status as combatants in front of a federal court is almost surreal.

I thought the argument was that under Geneva you couldn't treat enemy combatants in the manner used in Guantanamo, so they gained access to the civil system.

In any case you are totally wrong. The south Vietnamese treated the Viet Cong as criminals rather than POWs, and tried them under the criminal justice system.

This is a good reference I found for that practice, and the difficulties it faced in implementation (also note that when dealing with the Viet Cong, America was cognizant of the fact that Geneva 3 applied)
http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/Law-War/law-04.htm

So... any more? Or was this the end of this particular factual inaccuracy and wild claim regarding Guantanamo Bay?

[Texas]

I thought the argument was that under Geneva you couldn't treat enemy combatants in the manner used in Guantanamo, so they gained access to the civil system.

In any case you are totally wrong. The south Vietnamese treated the Viet Cong as criminals rather than POWs, and tried them under the criminal justice system.

This is a good reference I found for that practice, and the difficulties it faced in implementation (also note that when dealing with the Viet Cong, America was cognizant of the fact that Geneva 3 applied)
http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/Law-War/law-04.htm

So... any more? Or was this the end of this particular factual inaccuracy and wild claim regarding Guantanamo Bay?

It appears that it was more a logistical problem than anything else.

A major practical difficulty in implementing a prisoner of war program was that the Vietnamese government had no facilities suitable for the confinement and care of prisoners of war. In December 1964, the Vietnamese Director of Military justice took the MACV Staff judge Advocate on a tour of courts and confinement facilities throughout South Vietnam. As a result of his observations during that tour the Staff judge Advocate prepared a study pointing out some of the serious problems that existed in handling Viet Cong suspects and prisoners. These problems were quickly becoming joint U.S.-Vietnamese problems, because combat captives and Viet Cong suspects picked up by U.S. forces, Free World Military Assistance Forces, and Vietnamese forces were all delivered to Vietnamese authorities for interrogation, processing, and possible confinement.

[Texas]

I thought the argument was that under Geneva you couldn't treat enemy combatants in the manner used in Guantanamo, so they gained access to the civil system.


No they declared that GITMO detainees were "imprisoned" and held without charges when the fact is that they are held as enemy combatants and thus subject to detention until cessation of hostilities. There are very few that are being held for both being enemy combatants in addition to war crimes. That would have given every POW in WW2 the right to a hearing in the civilian courts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/

WASHINGTON - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

[Kevin_Lowe]

:
He was represented by legal counsel from the beginning who filed a Habeas motion and when he got that partial relief his lawyers started an appeal process that set in motion the legal battle that followed. His attorneys repeatedly filed cases in the wrong courts and had to refile in the correct venue.. He was never denied his rights as a citizen and never deprived of adequate legal aid. 3 1/2 years is not unheard of even in normal major criminal cases.

From the article linked previously:


Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts. Padilla was held for three-and-a-half years as an "enemy combatant" after his arrest in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack. That charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court after pressure from civil liberties groups.

Padilla was detained first as a "material witness" and then as an "enemy combatant" for three and a half years on the basis of no evidence, and no charges or even credible accusations arose out of the matter he was allegedly detained for in the first place. How can you look yourself in the mirror after you claim that he was "never denied his rights as a citizen?".

If you lock me up overnight without due authority and due cause you're denied me my rights as a citizen, whether or not a lawyer gets me out the next day. Padilla was locked up for three and a half years, and probably drugged and tortured, purely on government say-so. The fact he had lawyers trying to get him out throughout those three and a half years doesn't make that any more tolerable. The US government avoided ever letting the Supreme court rule on whether what they had done was legal, probably because they knew that the SCOTUS would rule the whole business as illegal as hell.

After that they abandoned the sinking ship of the "dirty bomb" accusation and managed to get a conviction on the charge that he had planned to engage in terrorist activities which had nothing to do with 9/11 and which would not have taken place inside the USA, thus making his status as an "enemy combatant" very dubious indeed since he doesn't seem to have planned to do anything against US targets or US soil.

If he did conspire to commit terrorist acts I'm not sorry he's in prison, but that's neither here nor there if we are talking about him as a civil liberties case.


The 3 years was due both to the prosecutions appeals AND the defense appeals but at no time was he ever deprived of his rights as a US citizen.


Yes, it's the fault of the defence. If they'd just stopped appealing he would have been out much sooner. :rolleyes:

Blaming his lawyers for filing in the wrong courts is equally mendacious, since it looks to me that Padilla's jailers were playing a shell game, where whoever got sued would miraculously turn out not to be responsible for Padilla at all. You sue his jailer, and they say he's Rumsfeld's baby. You sue Rumsfeld, then Padilla is property of the Navy jail, and so on. You can't make headway until they run out of people to pass the hot potato to, and that's how you spend three and a half years. Since it's a novel legal situation, there's no precedent to determine who you have to sue.


I think it is also safe to say that no terrorist would claim to have been tortured given how honorable they all are:rolleyes:

I think you mean "no person who has been accused of conspiring to be a terrorist at some future point, or of conspiring to give aid to terrorists, who claim to have been tortured".

Face it Texas, right now the US armed forces have less credibility than the people they've convicted when it comes to accusations of torture. I think any rational person given the stated legal positions and known conduct of the armed forces under Bush would have to think the balance of probabilities is very much in favour of Padilla having been tortured.

We'll never know for sure unless an insider spills their guts, but the only defence the armed forces have is to say "We tortured people a lot, yeah, but we never tortured that high-profile dirty bomb guy. Nope, no siree. That wouldn't have been right. He's probably lying, he's a terrorist. Or he planned to be one, or he helped one, or something".

[FireGarden]

Is it a loss of freedom for a private company to deny you travel because you can not afford a ticket?

Is it a loss of freedom for a private company to deny travel to someone who doesn't bathe?

Arguably both are losses of freedom in the broadest sense of the word, but no one is going to lose sleep over them.

You're quite right!
Being labled as a threat to national security is no more an unfair inconvenience than being poor or smelly.

How big is the list today?

[GreyICE]

It appears that it was more a logistical problem than anything else. A concept, but certainly most countries have never had a problem building POW camps. In any case, I'd say your argument is shot to heck.

No they declared that GITMO detainees were "imprisoned" and held without charges when the fact is that they are held as enemy combatants and thus subject to detention until cessation of hostilities. There are very few that are being held for both being enemy combatants in addition to war crimes. That would have given every POW in WW2 the right to a hearing in the civilian courts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/
Actually, this is incorrect. The government argued that Geneva 3 did not apply. WW2 predates Geneva 3, so we can't use it as evidence for anything. We applied Geneva 3 to the Viet Cong, so they did not have the right to a civil trial.

If Geneva 3 does not apply, they are not Prisoners of War. Geneva 3 applies to all prisoners of war. By arguing that Geneva 3 did not apply, the Bush Administration de facto moved them from being military prisoners to being criminals. Our system does not have a classification for military prisoners who are not military personnel or prisoners of war. Therefore, if Geneva 3 does not apply, then they are civilian prisoners, and entitled to a trial in the civilian court system (which is what SCOTUS ruled. SCOTUS ruled they were POWs, and that Geneva 3 applied).

In any case, I'd say your argument that this event was unique is just wrong. Reasons aside, I knew of a war offhand where combatants were granted Criminal trials.

Is there any other way they were granter rights granted to no other prisoner, or was this claim just so much hogwash?

[MarkCorrigan]

Funny, you skipped right past the definition of "prisoner of war" as given in Article 4 on the page you linked to. Was this a deliberate deception on your part, or genuine ignorance? Do you have evidence Article 17 applies to those who are not defined as prisoners of war per Article 4?


Once again please see Article 4 for the definition of "prisoner of war". And no, I'm not claiming we have the right to torture anyone, but we do have the right to interrogate them per the rules of US military law.

Ok, so...they aren't POW's. Right.

So...what the hell ARE they? Are they criminal prisoners?

I don't get it. "We can lck them up because they're enemies captured in wartime, but they aren't POW's." Is it just me that thinks there is something a bit....wrong with that?

Or am I missing the point?

[WildCat]

A concept, but certainly most countries have never had a problem building POW camps. In any case, I'd say your argument is shot to heck.
Off topic, but you are really arguing that the S. Vietnamese civil court system granted POW's more rights than the US does? :boggled:

Actually, this is incorrect. The government argued that Geneva 3 did not apply. WW2 predates Geneva 3, so we can't use it as evidence for anything.
Article 4 of Geneva 3 clearly defines who is eligible for POW status and the protections it allows detainees falling under that status. If you think that those held in Guantanamo qualify for Article 4 POW status under Geneva 3 please make your case.

We applied Geneva 3 to the Viet Cong, so they did not have the right to a civil trial.
This is getting way off topic...

If Geneva 3 does not apply, they are not Prisoners of War. Geneva 3 applies to all prisoners of war.
Once again, see Article 4 for the definition of Prisoner of War.

By arguing that Geneva 3 did not apply, the Bush Administration de facto moved them from being military prisoners to being criminals. Our system does not have a classification for military prisoners who are not military personnel or prisoners of war. Therefore, if Geneva 3 does not apply, then they are civilian prisoners, and entitled to a trial in the civilian court system
Wow! You are arguing that an enemy can actually gain more rights (innocent until proven guilty, access to civilian courts, 5th Amendment, etc etc) by violating the rules of warfare! It certainly does not work that way, and never has. If you aren't a POW per Article 4 it does not make you a civilian criminal suspect, it simply makes you a detainee who doesn't get to enjoy the protected status of POWs under Geneva 3.

(which is what SCOTUS ruled. SCOTUS ruled they were POWs, and that Geneva 3 applied).
The SCOTUS ruled no such thing. They ruled only that they had the right to challenge their status as determined by the military tribunal in civilian courts, not that they had the right to be tried in civilian courts. This is why Hamdan is being tried by a military tribunal, and not in a civilian court. In fact, under Geneva 3 you cannot try a detainee in a civilian court. You are actually advocating violating Geneva 3!

In any case, I'd say your argument that this event was unique is just wrong. Reasons aside, I knew of a war offhand where combatants were granted Criminal trials.
If true, it is actually a Geneva 3 violation.

Is there any other way they were granter rights granted to no other prisoner, or was this claim just so much hogwash?
It is your claim that is actually hogwash.

[WildCat]

Ok, so...they aren't POW's. Right.

So...what the hell ARE they? Are they criminal prisoners?

I don't get it. "We can lck them up because they're enemies captured in wartime, but they aren't POW's." Is it just me that thinks there is something a bit....wrong with that?

Or am I missing the point?
Yes, you are mising the point. Under Geneva 3 POW status is a protected status, and those given POW status enjoy protections and privileges not available to those who don't enjoy POW status. The rules are in place to protect civilians in war zones - thus they require combatants to carry arms openly, to have an emblem or insignia visible from a distance, a chain of command making superiors responsible for the actions of their subordinates, etc. Play by the rules of warfare and you enjoy protected status under Geneva 3. If you don't, you don't get those priviliges and protected status. Not playing by the rules doesn't suddenly give you more rights than those who do!

You still can be held for the duration of the war, and you don't have to be charged with anything, nor tried.

[volatile]

The Geneva Conventions apply to countries at war. What country are the terrorist from?


If any better illustration as to the ludicrous nature of the arguments in favour of Guantanamo were needed, note that Painter is stating that the camp is legitimate because America is not at war whilst WildCat is arguing that it is legitimate because America is at war.

Make up your minds, lads.

[volatile]

WildCat - aside from the nebulous legal arguments, do you have any moral concerns as to the detainment of anyone without charge, trial or access to lawyers?

[volatile]

You still can be held for the duration of the war, and you don't have to be charged with anything, nor tried.

What is this "war", and how will its duration (it's end) be determined?

[WildCat]

WildCat - aside from the nebulous legal arguments, do you have any moral concerns as to the detainment of anyone without charge, trial or access to lawyers?
Enemies captured in a war can be detained for the duration of the war. I have no moral problems with that, do you? And I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out but you cannot charge someone simply for being at war with you, that is actually a violation of the GC!


What is this "war", and how will its duration (it's end) be determined?
It's end comes when Congress determines it is over, and withdraws the AUMF allowing it. What metrics they use is up to them.

[WildCat]

And while this has devolved into the same tired old Guantanamo argument, the topic of this thread is freedoms lost by Americans...

[Undesired Walrus]

So does anyone here have any examples of an actual freedom that has been lost in the last 8 years?

For what it's worth, it seems like Terry Schiavo's body became -for a brief while- the sole property and possession of the religous right and their President. Despite being brain dead, they tried to make sure the rest of her didn't have to right to die with the creation of 'Terry's Law'.

[volatile]

It's end comes when Congress determines it is over, and withdraws the AUMF allowing it. What metrics they use is up to them.

How convenient!

I find it rather disturbing that you're willing to allow legal loopholes to trump basic moral decency (and, in fact, the principles of habeas corpus that have existed since the Magna Carta).

The "War on Terror" is not a war by any conventional description - even Painter figured that one out. You might as well start locking up junkies in Guantanmo as part of the "War on Drugs" by that logic.

[The Painter]

If any better illustration as to the ludicrous nature of the arguments in favour of Guantanamo were needed, note that Painter is stating that the camp is legitimate because America is not at war whilst WildCat is arguing that it is legitimate because America is at war.

Make up your minds, lads.

There you go again. Making assumptions. I never said we are not at war. We are indeed at war. An act of war was committed against the USA on 9-11-01. The problem here is it was not a country that committed this act. It was a terrorist group with no nation backing them. In my scenario there would be no one in Gitmo. I say we treat them like pirates. Pirates commit crimes with no nation backing them. The general accepted means of dealing with pirates is "hang them where you find them".

Is the UK at war?

[WildCat]

How convenient!
What? That the laws and the GC support my POV?

I find it rather disturbing that you're willing to allow legal loopholes to trump basic moral decency (and, in fact, the principles of habeas corpus that have existed since the Magna Carta).
It's not a "legal loophole". It has long been recognized (the entire history of our country in fact) that civilian rules don't apply in wartime. Otherwise we'd have the ludicrous scenario of soldiers being charged with murder for killing enemy soldiers.

The "War on Terror" is not a war by any conventional description - even Painter figured that one out. You might as well start locking up junkies in Guantanmo as part of the "War on Drugs" by that logic.
What a ridiculous argument! There is no AUMF for the "War on Drugs". This is, whether you like it or not, a real shooting war with the full participation of all branches of the military in a war authorized by Congress.

I can only assume that you have no real arguments if you're going to resort to such lunacy.

[DC]

There you go again. Making assumptions. I never said we are not at war. We are indeed at war. An act of war was committed against the USA on 9-11-01. The problem here is it was not a country that committed this act. It was a terrorist group with no nation backing them. In my scenario there would be no one in Gitmo. I say we treat them like pirates. Pirates commit crimes with no nation backing them. The general accepted means of dealing with pirates is "hang them where you find them".

Is the UK at war?

considering how many turned out to be innocent that ended up in gitmo, do you really think hanging all those people would be the right thing to do?

[volatile]

There you go again. Making assumptions. I never said we are not at war. We are indeed at war. An act of war was committed against the USA on 9-11-01. The problem here is it was not a country that committed this act. It was a terrorist group with no nation backing them.

If you are claiming we are at "war" with terrorists, then you are redefining the word war beyond any sensible definition.

How are you defining "act of war" with reference to 9/11? How do acts of groups of insurgents against US forces abroad constitute "acts of war"? How do you distinguish between such "acts of war" and common-or-garden criminal acts? What, exactly, is an "act of war" in this context?

Is the UK at war?Rhetorically, maybe. Really? Not at all. We were at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but not any more (obviously).

[volatile]

It's not a "legal loophole". It has long been recognized (the entire history of our country in fact) that civilian rules don't apply in wartime. Otherwise we'd have the ludicrous scenario of soldiers being charged with murder for killing enemy soldiers.

Who are we at war with?

The War on Terror is not a war, even if you may have swallowed the political rhetoric to the contrary. What you're supporting is the arbitrary ("What metrics they use is up to them", as you said yourself) declaration of war-time conditions in circumstances that do not resemble a war by any conventional description.

[The Painter]

How are you defining "act of war" with reference to 9/11? How do acts of groups of insurgents against US forces abroad constitute "acts of war"? How do you distinguish between such "acts of war" and common-or-garden criminal acts? What, exactly, is an "act of war" in this context?

This is an act of war you twit;
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/111wtcreutersitaly-1.jpg


Rhetorically, maybe. Really? Not at all. We were at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but not any more (obviously).

Not at war??

London, Aug.8 : More troops may be sent to Afghanistan to help fight the Taliban, British Defence Secretary Des Browne has hinted.

Military chiefs have been in discussion to almost double troop numbers in Afghanistan, the Telegraph reports.

Senior military officers have held preliminary talks about troop strengths and believe increasing numbers up to approximately 14,000 from the current 8,200 may be necessary to defeat the Taliban.

Browne, who was on a visit to Afghanistan's Helmand Province on Thursday, said: "I have, twice or three times now, increased that force level. I am willing to do that if that's the military advice."

He denied that the force in Iraq would be reduced in order to release numbers for Afghanistan.

Senior officers, including generals, have debated significantly expanding the Afghanistan force by early next summer in order to end the Taliban insurgency and to secure towns that have already been captured.

British forces in Afghanistan have suffered 17 casualties in a bloody period since the start of June.

Looks like you are to me.

[volatile]

This is an act of war you twit;

Bold assertion is not an argument.

How do you define an act of war? In what way did the 9/11 attacks constitute an "act of war"?

Was the Arndale Centre bomb an act of war? Were the Birmingham pub bombings acts of war? How about the Unabomber's attacks? The Soho nail bomb? Destruction and violence, even if politically motivated, are not sufficient conditions for war.

So, I'll ask again: what is the difference between an "act of war" and the criminal act of terrorism?

Not at war??

No.

Looks like you are to me.

Are the Taliban the government of Afghanistan? No. Therefore, we are not at war with them. Fighting someone, or engaging in acts of aggression, do not constitute "war". British and US forces ousted the Taliban in a war, and are now supporting the democratic government of Afghanistan in their aims of achieving national security.

If you are now caiming we are at war, though, I take it you think that detainees in Guantanamo are prisoners of war and thus entitled to the full protections such status affords them under international law?

[GreyICE]

Off topic, but you are really arguing that the S. Vietnamese civil court system granted POW's more rights than the US does? :boggled: Wait, what? How much crack cocaine do you need to smoke to come up with these strawmen?

THIS is your claim:
Access to US civilian courts. That is unprecedented not only in the US but in the world as a whole.

It's gone. It's shot to heck. Sorry, no go. I mean I'm hardly claiming the South Vietnamese were unique in performing this (actually I note that if it was included in Geneva as something you can't do it was probably done at least uncommonly) but unprecedented? Sorry, precedent.

Or do you mean SCOTUS ruling on whether a treaty was violated? Sorry, SCOTUS rules on whether America violates treaties we sign into law. Who do you think rules on whether laws are violated? Some system that's not the court system?

Article 4 of Geneva 3 clearly defines who is eligible for POW status and the protections it allows detainees falling under that status. If you think that those held in Guantanamo qualify for Article 4 POW status under Geneva 3 please make your case. I don't need to. A small institution called the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in that case. Please see the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where SCOTUS ruled that common article 3 of Geneva 3 applied.


This is getting way off topic...


Once again, see Article 4 for the definition of Prisoner of War.Please see common article 3. Thanks, bye.


Wow! You are arguing that an enemy can actually gain more rights (innocent until proven guilty, access to civilian courts, 5th Amendment, etc etc) by violating the rules of warfare! It certainly does not work that way, and never has. If you aren't a POW per Article 4 it does not make you a civilian criminal suspect, it simply makes you a detainee who doesn't get to enjoy the protected status of POWs under Geneva 3. Err, hello. Simple argument here. If you are an enemy combatant, period, the end, you are subject to common article 3. NO exceptions. NONE. The Geneva convention does not lay out any case where enemy combatants are not subject to common article 3.

The Bush administration argued common article 3 did not apply. If common article 3 does not apply, as argued by the President of the United States, they are criminals. Since they are criminals, which is the ONLY status they could have and not be subject to common article 3, they are to be tried in criminal courts, not military tribunals.

Please explain a status where common article 3 does not apply.


The SCOTUS ruled no such thing. They ruled only that they had the right to challenge their status as determined by the military tribunal in civilian courts, not that they had the right to be tried in civilian courts. This is why Hamdan is being tried by a military tribunal, and not in a civilian court. In fact, under Geneva 3 you cannot try a detainee in a civilian court. You are actually advocating violating Geneva 3! No, the Bush administration argued Common article 3 didn't apply. Not me. SCOTUS heard the case to determine whether it had the ability to hear the case or not. They ruled that they did not, and that they were prisoners under common article 3.


If true, it is actually a Geneva 3 violation. As ruled by SCOTUS, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States of America violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.


It is your claim that is actually hogwash.
Only if you are as ignorant as you appear to be could you claim this.

Your wild claim that they are being granted unprecedented rights seems insane, given that they are not even being granted the most basic rights in the Geneva convention.

[Undesired Walrus]

This is an act of war you twit;
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/111wtcreutersitaly-1.jpg


Does a grainy video of Ramzi Mohammed failing to detonate his simple home-made bomb on the London Underground count as an act of war in your game, or does it only count if the event is spectacular?

Appeals to emotion does not make a skeptic.

[Ziggurat]

considering how many turned out to be innocent that ended up in gitmo,

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that anyone in Gitmo was innocent? By the fact that some were released? Sorry, that's not evidence of innocence. They can get released when they're deemed no longer a threat, something which doesn't require that they be innocent at all.

[Ziggurat]

Does a grainy video of Ramzi Mohammed failing to detonate his simple home-made bomb on the London Underground count as an act of war in your game, or does it only count if the event is spectacular?

Appeals to emotion does not make a skeptic.

Indeed, appeals to emotion do not. Which is ironic, since that's exactly what you are doing. What does the graininess of a video have to do with anything? Nothing. In fact, what relevance does the video itself have to the question of what qualifies as an act of war? Again, nothing. It is the act itself (trying to set off a bomb), not the documentation of it, which might or might not constitute an act of war. The documentation of the act may be of relevance to our ability to evaluate the act, but it is still the act which we evaluate, not the documentation. Yes, I'm sure you didn't really mean to ask if the video itself was an act of war, but that is in fact what your question is asking, and your fumbling with the language of your question suggests a similarly sloppy grasp of the underlying issue.

On a more substantive note, one need not conclude that the London bombings counted as an act of war in order to consider 9/11 an act of war. Yes, magnitude CAN make a difference, it really is OK to consider small attacks to not be acts of war but large attacks to qualify. The nature and track record of the perpetrators is also relevant in the evaluation. In the case of the London bombings, it was a small group of essentially independent terrorists. In the case of 9/11, it was a very large, well-established organization. An organization which, I might add, had attacked us before, and which had declared war on us. When a group such as Al Qaeda not only declares war on us, but then proceeds to wage war against us, what kind of wisdom is it to refuse to call it war?

[GreyICE]

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that anyone in Gitmo was innocent? By the fact that some were released? Sorry, that's not evidence of innocence. They can get released when they're deemed no longer a threat, something which doesn't require that they be innocent at all.

With all due respect, the presumption of innocence before the proof of guilt is a universally respected standard. The concept that we suddenly toss it aside is absurd.

[volatile]

In the case of 9/11, it was a very large, well-established organization. An organization which, I might add, had attacked us before, and which had declared war on us. When a group such as Al Qaeda not only declares war on us, but then proceeds to wage war against us, what kind of wisdom is it to refuse to call it war?

Was Britain "at war" with the IRA? Was the Arndale Centre Bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing) an act of war? The Birmingham pub bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings) Why? Why not?

Should Britain have engaged Ireland (or the USA, some of whose citizens provided material support to the IRA) in war? If not, why not?

Define "an act of war", please. Is it contingent on motivation? Damage? Lives lost?

[Ziggurat]

Was Britain "at war" with the IRA?

Yes. Which is why the British military was involved in combatting the IRA, and not simply bobbies.

Should Britain have engaged Ireland (or the USA, some of whose citizens provided material support to the IRA) in war? If not, why not?

No, it should not, for two rather obvious reasons: first, as a practical matter it wouldn't have improved the situation, and second, the governments of the US and Ireland were not actively conspiring to support the IRA.

Define "an act of war", please. Is it contingent on motivation? Damage? Lives lost?

It is contingent upon both motivation and magnitude (lives lost being only one metric of that). The Bhopal disaster, for example, may have been of sufficient magnitude, but it was an accident, and so does not qualify as an act of war.

[volatile]

Yes. Which is why the British military was involved in combatting the IRA, and not simply bobbies.

If military involvement in response to a criminal act is your definition, then surely it was the UK who committed an act of war against the IRA and not the inverse?

Does all military response equal war footing in your eyes? There are plenty of examples of military involvement which do not constitute wars - peace-keeping being but one.

It is contingent upon both motivation and magnitude (lives lost being only one metric of that).

Right. So what motivations and what magnitudes are sufficient that we declare war against the perpetrators?

[Ziggurat]

With all due respect, the presumption of innocence before the proof of guilt is a universally respected standard. The concept that we suddenly toss it aside is absurd.

First off, it is most definitely NOT a universally respected standard. Secondly, the conclusions we reach on this board are not legally binding, so we can pick whatever damned standard we want. Thirdly, he wasn't talking about the presumption of innocence, but its actual existence.

[Ziggurat]

If military involvement in response to a criminal act is your definition,

No, it is not my definition. I was merely pointing out that their response (using the military) recognized the reality that it was a war, whatever they chose to call it. Your subsequent statements predicated on this false idea are irrelevant.

Right. So what motivations and what magnitudes are sufficient that we declare war against the perpetrators?

The motivation is rather easy: to do harm to a country as a whole. As for the magnitude, do I need to have a precise dividing line in order to evaluate cases which are well over that line?

And do you have a standard for what you consider acts of war which excludes 9/11? If we agree that 9/11 was an act of war, and that's enough for the current discussion, and the details of where we might disagree don't matter. If you don't agree that 9/11 was an act of war, let's hear how you define such acts.

[volatile]

The motivation is rather easy: to do harm to a country as a whole. As for the magnitude, do I need to have a precise dividing line in order to evaluate cases which are well over that line?

Was the Unabomber declaring war against the USA then?

As for whether you need a definition - you must certainly do if that definition is going to be used as a reason to suspend habeas corpus and legitimise specific forms of executive behaviour. In other words, if the status of war is sufficient to render permissible forms of action what are otherwise prohibited, then yes, you most definitely do need a definition.

WildCat seems content to accept that this "war" status is arrived at and maintained more or less arbitrarily, and that the use of such status to legitimise specific behaviours is in itsef justifiable. Do you concur?

And do you have a standard for what you consider acts of war which excludes 9/11? If we agree that 9/11 was an act of war, and that's enough for the current discussion, and the details of where we might disagree don't matter. If you don't agree that 9/11 was an act of war, let's hear how you define such acts.An act of war is an agressive act predicated by one nation state against another. 9/11 was not an act of war.

[Earthborn]

Do you have evidence Article 17 applies to those who are not defined as prisoners of war per Article 4?I'm not the one who brought up the Geneva Conventions. You did. It is not my claim that the GC3 applies to them, when you said "it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try such detained enemies." you suggested it did. Either they are Prisoners Of War and it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try them, or they are not Prisoners Of War and that rule doesn't apply to them.

Ah, so you are confused about what that means. It means they are not to be housed in prisons with convicted criminals.It doesn't say that. Show support that such an interpretation is common.

It certainly doen't mean they cannot be locked up.No, it just means that they cannot be locked up in a prison.

The detaining power certainly has the right to interrogate detainees suspected of war crimes, or knowledge of the same.Doubtful. I don't think the concept of "war crimes" has been clearly defined, except in the Rome Statute. You know, the statute that created the International Criminal Court, and that George W. Bush "unsigned". And even if it did apply, only the leaders who gave the order for the war crimes could be tried, not the equivalent of individual enemy soldiers.

If the detaining power wants to interrogate detainees suspected of war crimes, I think they'll have to come up with a definition of war crimes first. If it wants to interrogate detainees with knowledge of war crimes, it will have to come up with a good explanation why it detains witnesses of war crimes against their will.

[Earthborn]

And while this has devolved into the same tired old Guantanamo argument, the topic of this thread is freedoms lost by Americans...The problem with identifying freedoms you may have lost is that "freedom" is a rather abstract concept. It is not likely that when people lose "freedoms" everybody will notice. There are plenty of people living in dictatorships who never notice that they are less "free" and they may even deny that they are less free than people in other countries. It is just that they don't belong to the groups that their government oppresses, or may not want to do anything that the government forbids.

No matter how oppressive a regime is, there will always be people like you who are simply unable to see what freedoms they have lost. And depending on how they choose to define "freedom" they may not have lost any.

To Libertarian minded people any increase in government power equals a loss of freedom. The US government did gain new powers presumably to combat terrorism. There are people who argue that this automatically means the American people are now less free.

[GreyICE]

First off, it is most definitely NOT a universally respected standard. Secondly, the conclusions we reach on this board are not legally binding, so we can pick whatever damned standard we want. Thirdly, he wasn't talking about the presumption of innocence, but its actual existence. Yes it is. It's not always a universally followed standard, but in virtually every criminal justice system in the modern world, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Second, the reason we choose that standard is because the default assumption for any positive claim is "provide evidence." Period, the end, any positive claim. "He's guilty of crime [x]" is a positive claim. If the US government can't provide the evidence, the default assumption is they're innocent (prove you didn't kill a man at 4:00 AM last Tuesday night. Testimony from family members not admissible, they're obviously biased. Bet there's a problem now).

You can presume that they're guilty, but that just makes your presumption look ridiculous. Just as I can presume that you're a serial killer, but I'd be an idiot to do so.

Third, did you seriously just demand that we prove a negative?

Here, here's a statement for you "There are people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for which we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they are guilty of any crime." Agree/disagree?

[Undesired Walrus]

Indeed, appeals to emotion do not. Which is ironic, since that's exactly what you are doing. What does the graininess of a video have to do with anything? Nothing.

Precisely.

In fact, what relevance does the video itself have to the question of what qualifies as an act of war? Again, nothing.

Precisely.

It is the act itself (trying to set off a bomb), not the documentation of it, which might or might not constitute an act of war. The documentation of the act may be of relevance to our ability to evaluate the act, but it is still the act which we evaluate, not the documentation.

Exactly.

I fail to see your point. The Painter believes that a spectacular image should substitute for any cerebral description of what constitutes as an act of war. I countered that with an example of some rather unglamourous documentation of a terrorist attack. Have you stopped to think of whether I actually agree that 9/11 was an act of war or not?

[Ziggurat]

Was the Unabomber declaring war against the USA then?

Sort of. He was really more opposed to modern society in general. But he was also small potatos.

As for whether you need a definition - you must certainly do if that definition is going to be used as a reason to suspend habeas corpus

Habeas corpus hasn't been suspended since Lincoln.

and legitimise specific forms of executive behaviour.

That bit is actually Congress's role. And from Congress's perspective, we are at war. The AUMF is all that's needed under the war powers act, and serves as a declaration of war for all intents and purposes.

In other words, if the status of war is sufficient to render permissible forms of action what are otherwise prohibited,

Generally speaking, it is not. Congress must act in order for legal powers to be imparted to the executive, and they can do so in the absence of a de facto war, and they can refrain from doing so in the presence of a de facto war. But again, that line of argumentation will get you nowhere, since Congress has acted.

An act of war is an agressive act predicated by one nation state against another. 9/11 was not an act of war.

Congress disagrees. Non-state actors are very much capable of waging war. Welcome to 4th generation warfare.

[Ziggurat]

Yes it is. It's not always a universally followed standard, but in virtually every criminal justice system in the modern world, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That it is nominally the standard in the majority of justice systems does not make it universal. It is not.

Second, the reason we choose that standard is because the default assumption for any positive claim is "provide evidence."

Well, no. We choose that standard to prevent abuses by the state. Traditional civil law systems (as opposed to common law systems) frequently had no such protection. You will note that the standard is not "innocent until some evidence of guilt is provided".

Here, here's a statement for you "There are people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for which we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they are guilty of any crime." Agree/disagree?

Who is "we" in that statement? If it includes me personally, yes. There's people in every single prison in this country which qualify under that standard. If it means the US military, well, I don't know exactly how much info they have on every detainee. But that wasn't the claim being made. The claim was not that there are people whose guilt is not established, not even that there are people who we should treat as innocent, but that there are people who are innocent. That is indeed a positive claim.

[GreyICE]

That it is nominally the standard in the majority of justice systems does not make it universal. It is not.Okay...

I'm sure the fact that it's enshrined in the US Constitution, the Council of Europe, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and an array of constitutions and declarations doesn't make it anywhere near universal or anything.

Well, no. We choose that standard to prevent abuses by the state. Traditional civil law systems (as opposed to common law systems) frequently had no such protection. You will note that the standard is not "innocent until some evidence of guilt is provided". Actually civil law systems don't have presumption of innocence. Look up the phrases "Preponderance of evidence" or "Beyond reasonable doubt" some time.

However, it is certainly the responsibility of anyone making a positive claim to show convincing evidence. I assure you that in any civil trial, if you bring claim with no evidence, you're pretty much doomed.



Who is "we" in that statement? If it includes me personally, yes. There's people in every single prison in this country which qualify under that standard. If it means the US military, well, I don't know exactly how much info they have on every detainee. But that wasn't the claim being made. The claim was not that there are people whose guilt is not established, not even that there are people who we should treat as innocent, but that there are people who are innocent. That is indeed a positive claim. Well someone wants to play weasel words. The dollar store law degree kicking in?

Try this one:

There are people for whom we, as in the government of the United States of America, are holding prisoner in the prison commonly known as Guantanamo Bay, which consists of three prison camps, Camp Delta, Camp Iguana, and the former Camp X-Ray (as well as other possible facilities operated by the US government in Guantanamo Bay), do not have sufficient public evidence to hold prisoner, nor is there evidence that sufficient evidence exists in classified form (such as judicial review of classified evidence, which can occur).

Agree/disagree? Also, how is it that Republicans are afflicted with an odd form of brain damage that makes them unable to understand sentences that are perfectly comprehensible to the rest of the public, and yet still think that the legal code is written in a way that isn't comprehensible to the general public and there's no good reason for this except government incompetence? Is there any reason this cognitive dissonance never smacks them in the face?

[Ziggurat]

Okay...

I'm sure the fact that it's enshrined in the US Constitution, the Council of Europe, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and an array of constitutions and declarations doesn't make it anywhere near universal or anything.

No, it doesn't. The US constitution and the Council of Europe have no bearing on anything outside the US and Europe. And UN declarations are essentially meaningless. The way the world should be is not the same as the way the world is.

Actually civil law systems don't have presumption of innocence.

Many of them do now, though that's a relatively recent change. But seeing as how many European justice systems are civil law systems, it seems like you're now arguing that presumption of innocence is not universal.

However, it is certainly the responsibility of anyone making a positive claim to show convincing evidence.

You seem to have trouble recongizing that a positive claim was made, but not by me.

I assure you that in any civil trial, if you bring claim with no evidence, you're pretty much doomed.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with English libel law, then, where the burden of proof is on the defendant.

There are people for whom we, as in the government of the United States of America, are holding prisoner in the prison commonly known as Guantanamo Bay, which consists of three prison camps, Camp Delta, Camp Iguana, and the former Camp X-Ray (as well as other possible facilities operated by the US government in Guantanamo Bay), do not have sufficient public evidence to hold prisoner, nor is there evidence that sufficient evidence exists in classified form (such as judicial review of classified evidence, which can occur).

I think there probably is sufficient evidence to hold them, though much of it is certainly not public. It is worth noting that even in US civilian law (meaning not military law, but including criminal law), people can be held absent "proof".

Now let's try having you answer a question that's actually more closely related to the original claim: do you think there is enough evidence to prove that a significant number of Guantanamo inmates (past or present) were innocent?

Also, how is it that Republicans are afflicted with an odd form of brain damage that makes them unable to understand sentences that are perfectly comprehensible to the rest of the public,

You presume too much when you assign me a party designation. You do not know my party affiliation, nor do I believe I have ever said what it is anywhere on this board. Nice attempt at an ad hominem, though. We can play that game if you really want to, just let me know. If not, then I suggest you refrain from such personal attacks.

[WildCat]

Who are we at war with?
Once again, per the AUMF: "those nations, organizations, or persons [the POTUS] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,"

The War on Terror is not a war,
You can repeat that all you want, it doesn't make it true.

[WildCat]

Wait, what? How much crack cocaine do you need to smoke to come up with these strawmen?

THIS is your claim:

It's gone. It's shot to heck. Sorry, no go. I mean I'm hardly claiming the South Vietnamese were unique in performing this (actually I note that if it was included in Geneva as something you can't do it was probably done at least uncommonly) but unprecedented? Sorry, precedent.
So because S. Vietnam violated the GC the US should also? I'm really not following your logic here...

Or do you mean SCOTUS ruling on whether a treaty was violated? Sorry, SCOTUS rules on whether America violates treaties we sign into law. Who do you think rules on whether laws are violated? Some system that's not the court system?
Have I ever argued that the SCOTUS cannot decide such issues? What the hell are you talking about?

I don't need to. A small institution called the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in that case. Please see the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where SCOTUS ruled that common article 3 of Geneva 3 applied.
Please see common article 3. Thanks, bye.
I have never argued that Article 3 didn't apply. Your pathetic attempt at a straw man is noted.

Err, hello. Simple argument here. If you are an enemy combatant, period, the end, you are subject to common article 3. NO exceptions. NONE. The Geneva convention does not lay out any case where enemy combatants are not subject to common article 3.
And I never argued it didn't... :rolleyes:

The Bush administration argued common article 3 did not apply. If common article 3 does not apply, as argued by the President of the United States, they are criminals. Since they are criminals, which is the ONLY status they could have and not be subject to common article 3, they are to be tried in criminal courts, not military tribunals.
Holy crap, you are now srguing that they should be tried ina civilian court because Bush claimed Article 3 didn't apply, yet the SCOTUS ruled it did and... oh hell, I don't have the slightest idea what point you think you're making here.

Please explain a status where common article 3 does not apply.

No, the Bush administration argued Common article 3 didn't apply. Not me. SCOTUS heard the case to determine whether it had the ability to hear the case or not. They ruled that they did not, and that they were prisoners under common article 3.

As ruled by SCOTUS, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States of America violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
And this has what to do with their status under Article 4, which is what I have been arguing?

Only if you are as ignorant as you appear to be could you claim this.

Your wild claim that they are being granted unprecedented rights seems insane, given that they are not even being granted the most basic rights in the Geneva convention.
Are you now claiming that the Bush Admin. ignored the SCOTUS ruling? :boggled:

[luchog]

And then there's that little thing called the U.S. Constitution, which states in part, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." (Title 18, section 4001(a))

No Act of Congress was ever passed to allow this. Bush simply decided to declare certain American citizens to be "enemy combatants", and deny them their Constitutional rights.

Which American citizens are these? To my knowledge, only one American citizen has ever been detained. In his case, it was a mistake since officials were unaware of his citizenship at the time, and quickly rectified by repatriating the individual once his citizenship was confirmed.

Also keep in mind that beligerence on behalf of a foreign power or enemy of the US is grounds for loss of citizenship.

[WildCat]

I'm not the one who brought up the Geneva Conventions. You did. It is not my claim that the GC3 applies to them, when you said "it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try such detained enemies." you suggested it did. Either they are Prisoners Of War and it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try them, or they are not Prisoners Of War and that rule doesn't apply to them.
You are failing to make a distinction between a colloquial use of the term "Prisoner of War" and the legal GC definition as defined in Article 4. Article 4 POWs have more rights and priviliges than other detainees.

It doesn't say that. Show support that such an interpretation is common.

No, it just means that they cannot be locked up in a prison.
Are you completely daft? This is to prevent a detaining power from throwing war prisoners into regular civilian jails with common criminals, I have never heard someone make this claim you are making! You really think the detaining power cannot lock up captured enemies? What do you think is required, they be given keys to an apartment in the city of their choosing and come and go as they please?

Doubtful. I don't think the concept of "war crimes" has been clearly defined, except in the Rome Statute. You know, the statute that created the International Criminal Court, and that George W. Bush "unsigned". And even if it did apply, only the leaders who gave the order for the war crimes could be tried, not the equivalent of individual enemy soldiers.
Read this wiki link to get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

If the detaining power wants to interrogate detainees suspected of war crimes, I think they'll have to come up with a definition of war crimes first. If it wants to interrogate detainees with knowledge of war crimes, it will have to come up with a good explanation why it detains witnesses of war crimes against their will.
I'm not aware of anything preventing a detaining power from interrogating detainees who do not have Article 4 protections inder GC3. If you know of any feel free to post it, but frankly it sounds like you're making this up as you go along.

[GreyICE]

No, it doesn't. The US constitution and the Council of Europe have no bearing on anything outside the US and Europe. And UN declarations are essentially meaningless. The way the world should be is not the same as the way the world is. The universal declaration of human rights is meaningless?

Well that's it. We've ceased to argue based on reality, and we've moved to arguing based on ideology, facts be damned. This is like when people declare that socialized medicine is more expensive and worse than the American system, because their ideology says it is.

I can't win this argument, because I'm living in reality, and you've migrated to Planet X.

Call me when you catch a spaceship back to earth.
Many of them do now, though that's a relatively recent change. But seeing as how many European justice systems are civil law systems, it seems like you're now arguing that presumption of innocence is not universal.
Civil as in civil versus criminal, as opposed to civilian versus military. We're having a conflation of terms here.

You seem to have trouble recongizing that a positive claim was made, but not by me. Sure.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml

Look innocent man imprisoned. Claim supported.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with English libel law, then, where the burden of proof is on the defendant. Civil or criminal law? I find it funny that you take me to task for noting something and then note the same damn thing a paragraph later. It's like you're not thinking the argument through, and just throwing feces and hoping they stick. When I specifically note something and then you deliberately conflate definitions on me, and then note the same damn thing I noted right away it looks a little like you're not reading my argument, you're just picking nits.

I think there probably is sufficient evidence to hold them, though much of it is certainly not public. It is worth noting that even in US civilian law (meaning not military law, but including criminal law), people can be held absent "proof". Interesting quiz - does the US constitution set any limits on, say, the duration of said holding?

Now let's try having you answer a question that's actually more closely related to the original claim: do you think there is enough evidence to prove that a significant number of Guantanamo inmates (past or present) were innocent? I'm going to define significant as one, for the purposes of my answer, because I think one innocent being held unjustly is significant.

Under that definition my answer is yes. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml)

If you wish to redefine your weasel word by replacing it with actual words, go ahead. Other than that, I'll just note that I'm getting more than a little disgusted at the level of weasel words you've injected into this conversation. It's a huge sign that someone is trying to 'win' by debating dishonestly. And by huge sign, I mean that your debate tactics here are dishonest.

If the only way you can defend this administration is through dishonest debate, there's an issue.

You presume too much when you assign me a party designation. You do not know my party affiliation, nor do I believe I have ever said what it is anywhere on this board. Nice attempt at an ad hominem, though. We can play that game if you really want to, just let me know. If not, then I suggest you refrain from such personal attacks. Stop weaseling me then. Seriously, not appreciated, and I will continue to call such tactics dishonest tactics used by dishonest people not interested in honest debate.

If you think that's an ad hom, I suggest you change your tactics so any description of them as such becomes obviously false. Because as it stands...

[WildCat]

Was the Unabomber declaring war against the USA then?

As for whether you need a definition - you must certainly do if that definition is going to be used as a reason to suspend habeas corpus and legitimise specific forms of executive behaviour. In other words, if the status of war is sufficient to render permissible forms of action what are otherwise prohibited, then yes, you most definitely do need a definition.

WildCat seems content to accept that this "war" status is arrived at and maintained more or less arbitrarily, and that the use of such status to legitimise specific behaviours is in itsef justifiable. Do you concur?

An act of war is an agressive act predicated by one nation state against another. 9/11 was not an act of war.
Whoa there! I never "seemed content to accept that this "war" status is arrived at and maintained more or less arbitrarily". It is quite clear what metric I used - and that metric is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107)). This is a de facto declaration of war and fulfills all Constitutional requirements as such. There is no AUMF for the Unabomber, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, or whatever other strawman you want to throw out there.

[Ziggurat]

The universal declaration of human rights is meaningless?

In the sense that it has no effect, yes, it's meaningless.

Well that's it. We've ceased to argue based on reality, and we've moved to arguing based on ideology, facts be damned.

It's only ideology which would make anyone think that the UN's pronouncements on issues of human rights have any effect whatsoever. Have you looked at who's on the human rights commission?

Look innocent man imprisoned. Claim supported.

So we've got one. Color me impressed. You'll find wrongly imprisoned and even wrongly convicted people in the civilian justice system too.

Civil or criminal law?

libel is generally civil, not criminal.

I find it funny that you take me to task for noting something and then note the same damn thing a paragraph later.

First you were correct that there was some confusion about civil vs. criminal, and civil law vs. common law. One of your statements that made no sense to me before now does. But you also said, "I assure you that in any civil trial, if you bring claim with no evidence, you're pretty much doomed." Do you mean civil as in not criminal, or do you mean civil as in not common law?

Interesting quiz - does the US constitution set any limits on, say, the duration of said holding?

Implicitly by noting a right to a speedy trial, but what qualifies as speedy is up to the courts.

If you wish to redefine your weasel word by replacing it with actual words, go ahead. Other than that, I'll just note that I'm getting more than a little disgusted at the level of weasel words you've injected into this conversation. It's a huge sign that someone is trying to 'win' by debating dishonestly. And by huge sign, I mean that your debate tactics here are dishonest.

You're calling me dishonest because I'm trying to be precise, and because there was genuine confusion about civil vs criminal and civil vs common. Well, boo friggin hoo.

If you think that's an ad hom, I suggest you change your tactics so any description of them as such becomes obviously false. Because as it stands...

Let's cut to the chase: you know nothing about me, you presume information you do not know, and you use it to attack me and not my argument. You do not know my party affiliation, and it would be irrelevant even if you did. That's an ad hominem. That you feel justified in making it does not change that fact, and your pathetic attempt to recharacterize my objection is simply laughable. In short, bite me. I don't give a crap if you get irritated by the way I debate.

[Texas]

Okay...

I'm sure the fact that it's enshrined in the US Constitution, the Council of Europe, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and an array of constitutions and declarations doesn't make it anywhere near universal or anything.



No it isn't "enshrined" in the constitution. It is implied in the 4th and 5th,6th and 14th amendments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States

[Kevin_Lowe]

Which American citizens are these? To my knowledge, only one American citizen has ever been detained. In his case, it was a mistake since officials were unaware of his citizenship at the time, and quickly rectified by repatriating the individual once his citizenship was confirmed.

Also keep in mind that beligerence on behalf of a foreign power or enemy of the US is grounds for loss of citizenship.

This issue was discussed earlier in the thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_captives_in_Guantanamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

But hey, no freedoms have been lost eh Wildcat? Not basic freedoms anyway, and nobody's quoted the exact passage of the exact rule that says you can't hold American citizens indefinitely on bogus charges, or keep wounded prisoners tied to a stretcher in a shipping container for a week without proper medical attention, or force them into renouncing their citizenship under legally dubious circumstances so as to avoid the problems their citizenship would cause you.

[volatile]

Whoa there! I never "seemed content to accept that this "war" status is arrived at and maintained more or less arbitrarily". It is quite clear what metric I used - and that metric is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107)). This is a de facto declaration of war and fulfills all Constitutional requirements as such. There is no AUMF for the Unabomber, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, or whatever other strawman you want to throw out there.

So a war, then, is whatever Congress says is a war?

Have you heard of circular reasoning before, WC? I'd also advise you to re-check the meaning of the word "arbitrary".

[Texas]

This issue was discussed earlier in the thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_captives_in_Guantanamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

But hey, no freedoms have been lost eh Wildcat? Not basic freedoms anyway, and nobody's quoted the exact passage of the exact rule that says you can't hold American citizens indefinitely on bogus charges, or keep wounded prisoners tied to a stretcher in a shipping container for a week without proper medical attention, or force them into renouncing their citizenship under legally dubious circumstances so as to avoid the problems their citizenship would cause you.

Padillia was given all citizen rights to representation, access to the courts and a trial that sent him to prison for 17 years and then given credit for time served so he lost nothing other than the 13 years left of his sentence.

Lindh was captured on the battlefield, turned over to the Civilian courts and was tried and convicted within a year of his capture. He was wounded in the act of shooting at American soldiers. Too bad. He is damn lucky they didn't blow his brains out on the spot.

Hamdi renounce his citizenship on his return to Saudi Arabia.

[Texas]

So a war, then, is whatever Congress says is a war?

Had you ever read the Constitution you would have known that.

[GreyICE]

In the sense that it has no effect, yes, it's meaningless.Are we talking effect on international treaties? Because it's had it. Are we talking effect on international law? Because it's had it. Are we talking effect on the formulation of specific legal systems? Because it's had it. Are we talking effect on specific legal systems due to pressure from the international community? Because it's had it. Are we talking effect on the formulation of philosophy for government? Because it's had it. It's only ideology which would make anyone think that the UN's pronouncements on issues of human rights have any effect whatsoever. Have you looked at who's on the human rights commission?
What does your first sentence have to do with your second sentence?

So we've got one. Color me impressed. You'll find wrongly imprisoned and even wrongly convicted people in the civilian justice system too. Out of curiosity, is your contention that there's merely one?

libel is generally civil, not criminal. Yup.

Here's an interesting guide on the matter of whether there's criminal and/or civil deframation

http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/map/

As you can see, America (at least in 33 states) is one of the few countries without a category of criminal defamation (you literally can't run afoul of the criminal system with either slander or libel, although someone certainly can sue the pants off you). Sadly, we are joined by only Mexico, Ghana, Estonia, Georgia, and the Ukraine (though give credit to all the greens, such as France).

Overall, an amazingly interesting issue.



First you were correct that there was some confusion about civil vs. criminal, and civil law vs. common law. One of your statements that made no sense to me before now does. But you also said, "I assure you that in any civil trial, if you bring claim with no evidence, you're pretty much doomed." Do you mean civil as in not criminal, or do you mean civil as in not common law?

Civil as in non-criminal. If you bring a lawsuit with no evidence, it's generally going to be thrown out as a nuisance suit.

Implicitly by noting a right to a speedy trial, but what qualifies as speedy is up to the courts. The major reason it has been left up to the courts is because the fact that if a hard deadline was posed, the defense could gain a huge advantage by delaying the trial (to the point where they could have the verdict thrown out simply because they were deliberately dragging their feet). Because of this, SCOTUS has generally developed guidelines rather than hard rules in regards to that right. However, in general, a delay of one year triggers a presumption of a non-speedy trial, wherein the prosecution has to prove that the trial meets the 'speedy trial' criteria (and that the year was justified due to other causes, such as sickness of defendant, defensive motions, the need to prepare a case for excessively complicated crimes (organized crime trials, frequently) etc.).

This is actually an interesting site on the entire matter

http://www.answers.com/topic/speedy-trial


You're calling me dishonest because I'm trying to be precise, and because there was genuine confusion about civil vs criminal and civil vs common. Well, boo friggin hoo. Not really. Significant is a term that has meaning only in the context of a scientific study. In a scientific study, depending on the accuracy, differences of ANY size can be significant. For instance, if the study is sufficiently accurate, an effect of 0.1% could be considered a significant effect, even though it would not fit any 'common usage' definition of significant whatsoever.

In the usage you used, significant was a huge weasel word. If you asked five people what 'significant' meant in the context of innocents imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay in quantitative terms, you'd get five answers. Some would say one innocent was too many. Some would flinch at a 5% rate. Some would be okay with 20%, as long as 80% of the people were terrorists. Seriously, there is no actual meaning of the word 'significant.' It's just a weasel term to allow you to claim whatever evidence I bring to the table is 'insignificant.' The more people you'd ask, the more answers you'd get.

I called you on it. Man it up, and redefine the question without weasel terms, or withdraw it. Don't rail at me because I called you on the weasel word.

Let's cut to the chase: you know nothing about me, you presume information you do not know, and you use it to attack me and not my argument. You do not know my party affiliation, and it would be irrelevant even if you did. That's an ad hominem. That you feel justified in making it does not change that fact, and your pathetic attempt to recharacterize my objection is simply laughable. In short, bite me. I don't give a crap if you get irritated by the way I debate. I'm irritated because the way you debate is by using weasel terms. IF I am posed a legitimate question that has a legitimate answer, I will attempt to answer it to the best of my ability, address the premise of the question, or admit I cannot answer it. I identify above why your question is simply unanswerable. There is NO possible answer beyond "everyone at Guantanamo is innocent" or "There are zero innocents at Guantanamo." Every other answer between those two possibilities triggers a debate on the meaning of the word significant. I gave it a meaning, and an answer.

If you dislike that fact, don't ask me questions with weasel words.

Oh and btw, weasel words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

Yours is a 'vague generalization.'

[Texas]

Was the Unabomber declaring war against the USA then?

.
Both the UB and McVeigh were American citizens performing acts of terror on American soil for their own reasons and were tried as Americans in Federal courts. They were not affiliated with foreign nationals waging war on the United States. You are in a round room looking for a corner that does not exist.

[GreyICE]

So because S. Vietnam violated the GC the US should also? I'm really not following your logic here... My logic is that the 'unprecedented' right you claim clearly has precedent. The strawman you are trying to build is silly. I would MUCH prefer if SCOTUS did not have to rule that, say, America was in violation of the Geneva convention. Sadly we were, and they did. That doesn't exactly give the prisoner's unprecedented rights (there's lots of precedent for applying the Geneva convention, actually, and there's even precedent for violating it - though I doubt we're happy to be on the side of the violators).


Have I ever argued that the SCOTUS cannot decide such issues? What the hell are you talking about?
Here, let me spell it out for you: There's precedent for SCOTUS hearing the case and ruling the way they did. In other words, your claim is false.

I have never argued that Article 3 didn't apply. Your pathetic attempt at a straw man is noted. I really wish you knew what a strawman was.

You didn't have to argue that. The Bush administration argued that. SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

Geneva 3 applied, we violated it. Being in violation of the Geneva convention is usually not considered 'unprecedented' rights. Unless the precedent is, say, "The United States has never before been in violation of the Geneva Convention." At which point you might say that the phrase you are looking for is "an unprecedented lack of rights."


Holy crap, you are now srguing that they should be tried ina civilian court because Bush claimed Article 3 didn't apply, yet the SCOTUS ruled it did and... oh hell, I don't have the slightest idea what point you think you're making here. The fact that you cannot follow a simple chain of logic is not my fault.

Either the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are held on military terms, or they are held as criminal prisoners of law.

If they are criminal prisoners, criminal law applies, and they are tried in criminal court.

If they are military prisoners, Geneva 3, common article 3 applies.

By arguing that Geneva 3, common article 3 did not apply, the Bush administration opened the question up to SCOTUS on whether the prisoners were military or civilian. By arguing that, the only argument they possibly could make is that they were criminals - Common article 3 applies to all prisoners in all hostile conflicts, regardless of any signatory status, uniform status, or any other status.

That argument specifically opened it up to SCOTUS, which opened up the field for the weird ruling that SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this - the Bush administration should not have violated the Geneva Convention in the first place.
And this has what to do with their status under Article 4, which is what I have been arguing? I don't know. What does this have to do with your claim that, and I quote:

In fact, recent court rulings have given the captured detainees held at Guantanamo rights no enemies have ever enjoyed in the history of warfare!
The history of warfare. The ENTIRE history of human warfare.

I think a few prisoners have been granted both article 3 and article 4 status in, say the history of human warfare.


Are you now claiming that the Bush Admin. ignored the SCOTUS ruling? :boggled: Lets review the statement that you are quoting:
Only if you are as ignorant as you appear to be could you claim this.

Your wild claim that they are being granted unprecedented rights seems insane, given that they are not even being granted the most basic rights in the Geneva convention.

Are you arguing that the Bush administration did not, in fact, violate Article 3? The Supreme Court does not hear hypothetical cases. The Bush administration did NOT grant the detainees even the most basic rights under Article 3 until SCOTUS forced their hand. That seems like a totally different ballpark than "Unprecedented rights in the history of human warfare."

But hey, the goalposts have now moved to "The Bush administration will grudgingly grant the prisoners the most basic rights of the Geneva convention, as long as they have a Supreme Court ruling telling them that they really should follow international treaties." We're a bit far from "Unprecedented in the history of warfare" but hey, whatever.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Padillia was given all citizen rights to representation, access to the courts and a trial that sent him to prison for 17 years and then given credit for time served so he lost nothing other than the 13 years left of his sentence.

I'm not sure what argument you think you are making here. The Bush government did not have the option of denying him access to the courts, unless you are going to argue that the Bush government deserves some kind of credit for not just totally ignoring the rule of law when they feel like it.

As for the "no loss" argument, it's a red herring pure and simple. If he was deprived of his civil rights during the years he was held as a "material witness" and "enemy combatant", then he was deprived of his civil rights. You can't magically undo that by convicting him of something totally unrelated to the charges he was held on after the fact.


Lindh was captured on the battlefield, turned over to the Civilian courts and was tried and convicted within a year of his capture. He was wounded in the act of shooting at American soldiers. Too bad. He is damn lucky they didn't blow his brains out on the spot.

I don't believe the rubbish I'm reading. The statements you are making are complete non sequiturs. The topic is whether he was treated in accordance with his rights, and he clearly was not whether you want to call him a captive of war or a civilian criminal.


Hamdi renounce his citizenship on his return to Saudi Arabia.

If you think you're making a relevant point you will have to explain it in more detail than that.

[Texas]

I'm not sure what argument you think you are making here. The Bush government did not have the option of denying him access to the courts, unless you are going to argue that the Bush government deserves some kind of credit for not just totally ignoring the rule of law when they feel like it.

As for the "no loss" argument, it's a red herring pure and simple. If he was deprived of his civil rights during the years he was held as a "material witness" and "enemy combatant", then he was deprived of his civil rights. You can't magically undo that by convicting him of something totally unrelated to the charges he was held on after the fact.


Every damn trial is "after the fact" in the sense that if a guy is held for murder for 2 years before he goes to trial and is acquitted then his acquittal doesn't give him his 2 years back. Padillia was not deprived at any point of his civil rights. His case was in the courts from the first month of his capture.

I don't believe the rubbish I'm reading. The statements you are making are complete non sequiturs. The topic is whether he was treated in accordance with his rights, and he clearly was not whether you want to call him a captive of war or a civilian criminal.

He was captured in war that is a fact. He was wounded while trying to kill fellow Americans, that is a fact. He was identified as an American citizen and immediately turned over to the American justice system once again a fact. All of those facts were aired in a civilian court and the little puke was convicted..that is a fact. The fact that he is still breathing refutes your assertion he was not given adequate medical care or treatment.

[WildCat]

My logic is that the 'unprecedented' right you claim clearly has precedent. The strawman you are trying to build is silly. I would MUCH prefer if SCOTUS did not have to rule that, say, America was in violation of the Geneva convention. Sadly we were, and they did. That doesn't exactly give the prisoner's unprecedented rights (there's lots of precedent for applying the Geneva convention, actually, and there's even precedent for violating it - though I doubt we're happy to be on the side of the violators).


Here, let me spell it out for you: There's precedent for SCOTUS hearing the case and ruling the way they did. In other words, your claim is false.
I really wish you knew what a strawman was.
A strawman is when you sredit me with an argument I never made.

You didn't have to argue that. The Bush administration argued that. SCOTUS ruled otherwise.
And thus, the US did not violate the GC. And if the SCOTUS had ruled for the Bush Admin. they still wouldn't have violated the GC. You see, the court case was about the processes and procedures the military trial would take. This is a matter of US law, not the GC. The GC doesn't specify the exact due process a military tribunal must take, only that it be the same as it would had it been a US serviceman on trial for the same thing. There were disagreements over the exact process, it was decided by the SCOTUS. At no point was the US in violation of the GC.

Geneva 3 applied, we violated it. Being in violation of the Geneva convention is usually not considered 'unprecedented' rights. Unless the precedent is, say, "The United States has never before been in violation of the Geneva Convention." At which point you might say that the phrase you are looking for is "an unprecedented lack of rights."
The fact that you cannot follow a simple chain of logic is not my fault.
Uh, no. A legal dispute about the process of the military tribunal does not mean the US violated the GC. In fact, that the process went up through the entire court system all the way to the SCOTUS is proof of that.

Either the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are held on military terms, or they are held as criminal prisoners of law.
There are no common criminals held in Guantanamo Bay, they are all military detainees.

If they are criminal prisoners, criminal law applies, and they are tried in criminal court.
Thank you Captain Obvious.

If they are military prisoners, Geneva 3, common article 3 applies.

By arguing that Geneva 3, common article 3 did not apply, the Bush administration opened the question up to SCOTUS on whether the prisoners were military or civilian. By arguing that, the only argument they possibly could make is that they were criminals - Common article 3 applies to all prisoners in all hostile conflicts, regardless of any signatory status, uniform status, or any other status.
Once again, the fact that this legal dispute was settled in the appropriate way means the GC was not violated. Merely making a legal case is not a GC violation.

That argument specifically opened it up to SCOTUS, which opened up the field for the weird ruling that SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this - the Bush administration should not have violated the Geneva Convention in the first place.
And DC should not have violated the 2nd Amendment with the gun ban, and Texas should not have banned abortion, and so on and so on... these are all legal issues on which reasonable people can disagree and in fact even SCOTUS justices can disagree. You are upset that a case was even being made which lost?

I don't know. What does this have to do with your claim that, and I quote:

The history of warfare. The ENTIRE history of human warfare.

I think a few prisoners have been granted both article 3 and article 4 status in, say the history of human warfare.
So? It's my understanding that all detainees start as Article 4 POWs and can become Article 3 if a tribunal decides they are, thus losing Article 4 protections.

Lets review the statement that you are quoting:


Are you arguing that the Bush administration did not, in fact, violate Article 3? The Supreme Court does not hear hypothetical cases. The Bush administration did NOT grant the detainees even the most basic rights under Article 3 until SCOTUS forced their hand. That seems like a totally different ballpark than "Unprecedented rights in the history of human warfare."
Perhaps you'll show me a previous case in which Article 3 detainees were given the right to challenge their status in civilian courts. Can you do that?

But hey, the goalposts have now moved to "The Bush administration will grudgingly grant the prisoners the most basic rights of the Geneva convention, as long as they have a Supreme Court ruling telling them that they really should follow international treaties." We're a bit far from "Unprecedented in the history of warfare" but hey, whatever.
No, it's actually "the Bush Administration made a legal case, proper legal channels were followed, different courts issued different opinions and it was eventually settled in Hamdan's favor by the SCOTUS". There was no treaty violated, the Bush Admin. made a legal case in good faith and in fact the DC circuit court agreed with them and that was overturned by the SCOTUS.

[WildCat]

This issue was discussed earlier in the thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_captives_in_Guantanamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

But hey, no freedoms have been lost eh Wildcat? Not basic freedoms anyway, and nobody's quoted the exact passage of the exact rule that says you can't hold American citizens indefinitely on bogus charges, or keep wounded prisoners tied to a stretcher in a shipping container for a week without proper medical attention, or force them into renouncing their citizenship under legally dubious circumstances so as to avoid the problems their citizenship would cause you.
Please be specific - what freedom was lost? Everyone seems to be having a hard time defining what exactly was lost. I gave a clear-cut example of an actual, indisputable loss of freedoms on page one of this thread - the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Canada. Yet no one seems upset of the loss of those 2 biggies in Canada, but difficult and complex legal manouvering in the US in which no actual freedoms were lost gets the world in a tizzy. It's like I'm living in Bizzaro world...

[Kevin_Lowe]

Every damn trial is "after the fact" in the sense that if a guy is held for murder for 2 years before he goes to trial and is acquitted then his acquittal doesn't give him his 2 years back. Padillia was not deprived at any point of his civil rights. His case was in the courts from the first month of his capture.

You are deliberately or inadvertently muddling up two separate issues.

One is "Did this guy deserve to be in jail?". I'm happy to assume that for the sake of argument he did deserve to be in jail for planning terrorist acts, or assisting terrorists, or something, even though the prosecution case was apparently damned thin and quite likely based on information he was tortured for.

The other is "Were his civil rights violated for years while the government imprisoned him without presenting a skerrick of evidence, nor filing any charges?". That issue has precisely nothing to do with whether he deserved to be in jail. It hinges entirely on whether or not the US government is, or should be, allowed to do that to US citizens under any circumstances.


He was captured in war that is a fact. He was wounded while trying to kill fellow Americans, that is a fact. He was identified as an American citizen and immediately turned over to the American justice system once again a fact. All of those facts were aired in a civilian court and the little puke was convicted..that is a fact. The fact that he is still breathing refutes your assertion he was not given adequate medical care or treatment.

Apart from the fact that this is a classic case of stating the obvious repeatedly and then trying to slip in an absolute whopper, I don't believe you typed that last sentence on the JREF forums. Surely you give the audience a bit more credit than that? Who exactly did you think that smooth logical maneuver was going to fool around here?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Please be specific - what freedom was lost? Everyone seems to be having a hard time defining what exactly was lost. I gave a clear-cut example of an actual, indisputable loss of freedoms on page one of this thread - the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Canada. Yet no one seems upset of the loss of those 2 biggies in Canada, but difficult and complex legal manouvering in the US in which no actual freedoms were lost gets the world in a tizzy. It's like I'm living in Bizzaro world...

:rolleyes:

Okay, let's keep this as simple as possible so you can't feign confusion.

Is it loss of freedom, or a basic freedom, or whatever the heck you call it, for a civilian who is a US citizen arrested on US soil to be locked up for three and a half years in a military prison without any evidence being presented or charges laid against them?

[GreyICE]

A strawman is when you sredit me with an argument I never made. Correct. Now if you would be so kind as to point out any arguments that I am crediting you with that you did not actually make in your posts, that might not be a non sequiter. As it is, the only argument that's a strawman that I see is the argument that, and I quote:
So because S. Vietnam violated the GC the US should also? I'm really not following your logic here...
Do you really wish to make the statement that my argument was that because South Vietnam violated the Geneva Convention during the Vietnam war, we also should violate the Geneva Convention during the second Iraq war?

If you do not, that argument was a strawman. You were addressing an argument that I never made.

And thus, the US did not violate the GC. And if the SCOTUS had ruled for the Bush Admin. they still wouldn't have violated the GC. You see, the court case was about the processes and procedures the military trial would take. This is a matter of US law, not the GC. The GC doesn't specify the exact due process a military tribunal must take, only that it be the same as it would had it been a US serviceman on trial for the same thing. There were disagreements over the exact process, it was decided by the SCOTUS. At no point was the US in violation of the GC. Nonsense.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, page 4:

The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed be-cause its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

It then goes on in great detail to explain exactly how we violated them.

If SCOTUS rules we are in violation of a treaty, we are in violation of the treaty. There is literally no higher or more experienced authority on the matter. Moreover, they lay out in explicit and convincing terms how we violated the Geneva Convention.

Uh, no. A legal dispute about the process of the military tribunal does not mean the US violated the GC. In fact, that the process went up through the entire court system all the way to the SCOTUS is proof of that. No, the SCOTUS majority opinion stating we violated the Geneva Convention means we violated the Geneva Convention. I never argued that the case violated the Geneva Convention because SCOTUS heard it, I argued that we violated it because SCOTUS said and supported the fact that we violated it.


There are no common criminals held in Guantanamo Bay, they are all military detainees. Good, then we have to apply the Geneva Convention. Like SCOTUS ruled. Really, this is all excessively well documented.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Well you expressed confusion on the matter. To quote you:
oh hell, I don't have the slightest idea what point you think you're making here.

If I explain it in excessive detail, I don't really think you have the right to snide remarks, given you apparently requested such detail. I was making it simple enough that you would understand it.

Once again, the fact that this legal dispute was settled in the appropriate way means the GC was not violated. Merely making a legal case is not a GC violation. I only address this to say I'm not neglecting part of your argument. See above.

And DC should not have violated the 2nd Amendment with the gun ban, and Texas should not have banned abortion, and so on and so on... these are all legal issues on which reasonable people can disagree and in fact even SCOTUS justices can disagree. You are upset that a case was even being made which lost? With all due respect, the situation is slightly different. No one's liberty was taken away except in the most tangential sense by those bans, which were quickly rectified. Moreover, what is the argument here? That such bans were in fact legally justified? That they were good ideas? That SCOTUS was inaccurate on all three rulings? I can't see any case besides obfuscation by irrelevant fact attribution. SCOTUS ruled we violated the Geneva Convention by our actions.


So? It's my understanding that all detainees start as Article 4 POWs and can become Article 3 if a tribunal decides they are, thus losing Article 4 protections. Yes. However, note that we did not simply violate article 4.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, P. 7

Common Article 3’s requirements are general, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems, but they are requirements nonetheless. The commission convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements. Bolding mine.


Perhaps you'll show me a previous case in which Article 3 detainees were given the right to challenge their status in civilian courts. Can you do that? They were not article 3 detainees until SCOTUS ruled they were, because according to the Bush administration:

ii)
Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signato-ries. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, pro-vides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring inthe territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories],each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” (Bolding, once again, mine)



No, it's actually "the Bush Administration made a legal case, proper legal channels were followed, different courts issued different opinions and it was eventually settled in Hamdan's favor by the SCOTUS". There was no treaty violated, the Bush Admin. made a legal case in good faith and in fact the DC circuit court agreed with them and that was overturned by the SCOTUS. Except for perhaps the good faith part, not true. The treaty was violated. I find it interesting that you did not research even the basic facts about this case.

[Texas]

You are deliberately or inadvertently muddling up two separate issues.

One is "Did this guy deserve to be in jail?". I'm happy to assume that for the sake of argument he did deserve to be in jail for planning terrorist acts, or assisting terrorists, or something, even though the prosecution case was apparently damned thin and quite likely based on information he was tortured for.

You were doing fine until you threw the torture card. The evidence against him persuaded a civilian jury that he was guilty on all counts. If there was an allegation of torture the jury obviously rejected it. First you demand due process then you appear to reject the results of that process because, in your opinion the evidence was thin and he was probably tortured.

The other is "Were his civil rights violated for years while the government imprisoned him without presenting a skerrick of evidence, nor filing any charges?". That issue has precisely nothing to do with whether he deserved to be in jail. It hinges entirely on whether or not the US government is, or should be, allowed to do that to US citizens under any circumstances.

From the moment he was arrested at the airport he was under charges. First as a material witness and then as an unlawful enemy combatant. His attorney challenged the UEC charge and that set into motion the process that ended with his conviction 3 years later. He was credited with the time served and is serving the rest of his sentence. You have yet to show any civil right he was deprived of.



Apart from the fact that this is a classic case of stating the obvious repeatedly and then trying to slip in an absolute whopper, I don't believe you typed that last sentence on the JREF forums. Surely you give the audience a bit more credit than that? Who exactly did you think that smooth logical maneuver was going to fool around here?

Spare me the lecture. If you have evidence that Lindh was not given adequate treatment for the injuries he received while trying to kill Americans or that his civil rights were violated in the courts please post it. All I have seen from you is posturing to the gallery.

[Kevin_Lowe]

From the moment he was arrested at the airport he was under charges. First as a material witness and then as an unlawful enemy combatant. His attorney challenged the UEC charge and that set into motion the process that ended with his conviction 3 years later. He was credited with the time served and is serving the rest of his sentence. You have yet to show any civil right he was deprived of.

This is factually incorrect. "Being an enemy combatant" is not a charge in the legal sense in which the government is obliged to charge a suspect or let them go.

However let's explore your dumb claim. Suppose that it did count as a charge in the legal sense to be accused of being an "enemy combatant". Padilla was defined as an enemy combatant by a Presidential order, not by any evidence presented in any court anywhere. So you're arguing that USians have not lost any freedoms, even though a US citizen on US soil was locked up in a military prison for three and a half years purely by Presidential fiat.

Say what you like about the USA, before Bush that was the kind of thing that you expected to hear about in places like China and the former USSR. You're defending it. Congratulations.


Spare me the lecture. If you have evidence that Lindh was not given adequate treatment for the injuries he received while trying to kill Americans or that his civil rights were violated in the courts please post it. All I have seen from you is posturing to the gallery.

I can only assume you didn't read the link, and you're going by memories of something you read about the topic on your lunatic blog of choice.

[Texas]

This is factually incorrect. "Being an enemy combatant" is not a charge in the legal sense in which the government is obliged to charge a suspect or let them go.

However let's explore your dumb claim. Suppose that it did count as a charge in the legal sense to be accused of being an "enemy combatant". Padilla was defined as an enemy combatant by a Presidential order, not by any evidence presented in any court anywhere. So you're arguing that USians have not lost any freedoms, even though a US citizen on US soil was locked up in a military prison for three and a half years purely by Presidential fiat.

Say what you like about the USA, before Bush that was the kind of thing that you expected to hear about in places like China and the former USSR. You're defending it. Congratulations.

No it was based on this court case:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

Ex parte Quirin
This decision states:

“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.



You need at least do rudimentary research before you pontificate. You have no idea of what the US was like before Bush since you don't even posses the curiosity to learn about it.



I can only assume you didn't read the link, and you're going by memories of something you read about the topic on your lunatic blog of choice.

I read your link that looked like it was written by Lindh's family or lawyers.

Read this link

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00EFD81739F935A25754C0A9649C8B 63

[Kevin_Lowe]

No it was based on this court case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin


Objection your honour, asked and answered.

Wildcat already tried appealing to the Quirin case earlier in this very thread, and that red herring has already been dealt with.

(ETA: Interesting that both Wildcat and Texas both presented the same dodgy appeal to the Quirin case. They don't seem the type to do independent legal research, so possibly they're reading from the same choirbook).


You need at least do rudimentary research before you pontificate. You have no idea of what the US was like before Bush since you don't even posses the curiosity to learn about it.

You need to at least bother to read the thread you are participating in.


I read your link that looked like it was written by Lindh's family or lawyers.

Read this link

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00EFD81739F935A25754C0A9649C8B 63

You're handwaving a way a long, detailed factual piece that presents evidence for its conclusions, in favour of a one-page editorial that asserts with no evidence whatsoever his civil rights were upheld. I think that there might just be a teensy possibility that you are using your conclusion to decide what evidence you accept, instead of using the evidence to decide what conclusion you accept.

[gtc]

If you are now caiming we are at war, though, I take it you think that detainees in Guantanamo are prisoners of war and thus entitled to the full protections such status affords them under international law?

Not every combatant captured during a war is a prisoner of war.

Should Britain have engaged Ireland (or the USA, some of whose citizens provided material support to the IRA) in war? If not, why not?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/9/newsid_4071000/4071849.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

Britain did use internment to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland.

[WildCat]

:rolleyes:

Okay, let's keep this as simple as possible so you can't feign confusion.

Is it loss of freedom, or a basic freedom, or whatever the heck you call it, for a civilian who is a US citizen arrested on US soil to be locked up for three and a half years in a military prison without any evidence being presented or charges laid against them?
I'm not aware of that happening, you have any examples?

Or maybe you are the one who is confused, or maybe you're being intentionally deceptive when you used "civilian" rather than "combatant" and "arrested" rather than "captured".

[Earthborn]

You are failing to make a distinction between a colloquial use of the term "Prisoner of War" and the legal GC definition as defined in Article 4. Article 4 POWs have more rights and priviliges than other detainees.As I said; I never claimed that the detainees at Guantanamo are Article 4 POWs.

This is to prevent a detaining power from throwing war prisoners into regular civilian jails with common criminals, I have never heard someone make this claim you are making!It says "they shall not be interned in penitentiaries." It does not say "they shall not be interned in penitentiaries with common criminals." I think that means that they shall not be interned in penitentiaries, even if there are (no longer) any criminal detainees in it. I think it means that if you have an old prison somewhere that is not in use for any other purpose, it is not a suitable place to house prisoners of war. You may never have heard someone make this claim, but the claim is based on literal reading of the text and does not require any further assumptions such as the existence of common criminals in the same prison.

Even if you are right about your interpretation, there is still article 21 that says "prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement" so locking Prisoners of War up in a tiny prison cell is not an option.

You really think the detaining power cannot lock up captured enemies? What do you think is required, they be given keys to an apartment in the city of their choosing and come and go as they please?I think what is required is that prisoners of war are to be detained within a camp that is not a prison and doesn't have prison cells. They don't need to be allowed to move in and out of the camp as they please, but they should be free to move around the camp to a reasonable degree (unless they commit a crime within it).

I'm not aware of anything preventing a detaining power from interrogating detainees who do not have Article 4 protections inder GC3.If you think the GC3 doesn't apply, you shouldn't have brought it up and you shouldn't have claimed that "it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try such detained enemies." If there isn't anything preventing a detaining power from interrogating detainees because they do not have article 4 protections, is there really anything preventing a detaining power from putting those same detainees on trial... considering that they don't have article 4 protections?

You are trying to claim that the detainees don't have to be charged with anything because of GC3 and that the GC3 doesn't apply... at the same time. :boggled:

[WildCat]

Correct. Now if you would be so kind as to point out any arguments that I am crediting you with that you did not actually make in your posts, that might not be a non sequiter. As it is, the only argument that's a strawman that I see is the argument that, and I quote:

Do you really wish to make the statement that my argument was that because South Vietnam violated the Geneva Convention during the Vietnam war, we also should violate the Geneva Convention during the second Iraq war?

If you do not, that argument was a strawman. You were addressing an argument that I never made.
It really wasn't an attempt at a strawman, it is genuine confusion about the point you were attempting to make. I still don't have a clue as to why you brought S. Vietnam into this thread.

Nonsense.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, page 4:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

It then goes on in great detail to explain exactly how we violated them.
And the DC Circuit Court ruled the other way. And several SCOTUS justices dissented. I'll tell you why that is: it is a complex legal issue and not nearly as simple as you would like to believe.

If SCOTUS rules we are in violation of a treaty, we are in violation of the treaty. There is literally no higher or more experienced authority on the matter. Moreover, they lay out in explicit and convincing terms how we violated the Geneva Convention.
No, the SCOTUS majority opinion stating we violated the Geneva Convention means we violated the Geneva Convention. I never argued that the case violated the Geneva Convention because SCOTUS heard it, I argued that we violated it because SCOTUS said and supported the fact that we violated it.
Uh, no. The SCOTUS, as it so happens, has the final say on whether or not a particular course of action was permitted by the terms of the GC. The GC itself is silent on the specific procedure a military tribunal should take - it merely says it must be consistent with the way a military acts when its own servicemen are charged with similar crimes.

Good, then we have to apply the Geneva Convention. Like SCOTUS ruled. Really, this is all excessively well documented.
And we in fact haave followed the GC, Hamdan was tried, convicted, and sentenced in a manner the SCOTUS is satisfied with. The case against Hamdan is over, as you may have noticed. EJ Armstrong even started a thread about it here, maybe you missed it. So in fact, the legal issues are settled per the GC, the US Constitution, and the Military Code of Justice. And no freedoms have been lost! Kind of the whole point of this thread, isn't it? The fact is, if you are going to claim that freedoms have been lost you must take a position disagreeing with the SCOTUS opinion that settled the legal case brought by Hamdan. Yet you seem to agree with the SCOTUS opinion, so I am indeed confused here.

If I explain it in excessive detail, I don't really think you have the right to snide remarks, given you apparently requested such detail. I was making it simple enough that you would understand it.
I only address this to say I'm not neglecting part of your argument. See above.
As I just said, the Hamdan case is resolved to the satisfaction of the SCOTUS. This is now settled law, do you disagree with the way the case was resolved?

With all due respect, the situation is slightly different. No one's liberty was taken away except in the most tangential sense by those bans, which were quickly rectified.
Quickly rectified? No one's liberty was taken away? The DC gun ban was in place for over 20 years, and during that time many people were arrested, tried, and convicted, and imprisoned under a law that was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. Chicago, despite the ruling, is still arresting, trying, and convicting people under their own nearly identical law which will probably also be overturned. I'm sure many lost their liberty under the Texas abortion statute also. You really don't think your above statement is accurate, do you?

Moreover, what is the argument here? That such bans were in fact legally justified? That they were good ideas? That SCOTUS was inaccurate on all three rulings? I can't see any case besides obfuscation by irrelevant fact attribution. SCOTUS ruled we violated the Geneva Convention by our actions.
The argument is that reasonable people can disagree on complex legal issues, and disagreement is not tantamount to malice, evil, or criminal intent.

Yes. However, note that we did not simply violate article 4.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, P. 7
Bolding mine.
Did you mean Article 3? Because the SCOTUS did not claim we violated Article 4.

They were not article 3 detainees until SCOTUS ruled they were, because according to the Bush administration:
(Bolding, once again, mine)
Once again, complex legal issues that were resolved in the end. Due process of law was not violated.

Except for perhaps the good faith part, not true. The treaty was violated. I find it interesting that you did not research even the basic facts about this case.
You could claim the Bush Admin. attempted to violate the treaty, but in the end the treaty was not violated and the case was resolved to the satisfaction of the SCOTUS. And thus, the whole point of this thread - no American freedoms have been lost.

[WildCat]

As I said; I never claimed that the detainees at Guantanamo are Article 4 POWs.
Then why did you refer to clauses in GC3 regarding "Prisoners of War" that clearly referred to protected persons under Article 4?

It says "they shall not be interned in penitentiaries." It does not say "they shall not be interned in penitentiaries with common criminals." I think that means that they shall not be interned in penitentiaries, even if there are (no longer) any criminal detainees in it. I think it means that if you have an old prison somewhere that is not in use for any other purpose, it is not a suitable place to house prisoners of war. You may never have heard someone make this claim, but the claim is based on literal reading of the text and does not require any further assumptions such as the existence of common criminals in the same prison.
This is bordering on the ludicrous now Earthborn. The definition of "penitentiary", particularly in the US, is "a public institution in which offenders against the law are confined for detention or punishment; specifically : a state or federal prison in the United States" according to Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penitentiary). "Offenders against the law" - not enemies captured in a war. In fact, no one is held in Guantanamo once convicted. They get moved to the appropriate military prison once that happens.

Even if you are right about your interpretation, there is still article 21 that says "prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement" so locking Prisoners of War up in a tiny prison cell is not an option.
You say you never said they are subject to Article 4, and yet here you go using a term defined in Article 4 - "Prisoner of War". In GC3, "Prisoner of War" is only used for those who have Article 4 protection, not Article 3. The document is self-explanatory in that regard.

And at any rate, the chain-link cages were temporary (this was called "Camp X-Ray") until proper facilities could be built, which were completed in April 2002. The new facility is Camp Delta.

I think what is required is that prisoners of war are to be detained within a camp that is not a prison and doesn't have prison cells. They don't need to be allowed to move in and out of the camp as they please, but they should be free to move around the camp to a reasonable degree (unless they commit a crime within it).
That may or may not be true for Article 4 detainees, but not for Article 3. Article 4 POWs get special treatment, it's a reward and incentive for fighting according to the Laws of Armed Conflict which puts civilians at less risk.

If you think the GC3 doesn't apply, you shouldn't have brought it up and you shouldn't have claimed that "it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try such detained enemies." If there isn't anything preventing a detaining power from interrogating detainees because they do not have article 4 protections, is there really anything preventing a detaining power from putting those same detainees on trial... considering that they don't have article 4 protections?
Do you realize you are tacitly agreeing that the detainees are given protections above and beyond what is required?

You are trying to claim that the detainees don't have to be charged with anything because of GC3 and that the GC3 doesn't apply... at the same time. :boggled:
They don't have to be charged under either Article 3 or Article 4, so I don't understand your confusion. In either case they can be held until the end of the war (without being charged with anything) if the detaining power so wishes.

[WildCat]

120 posts, and still not a single example of a lost American freedom!

If only Canadians could say the same about Canadian freedoms.

[D'rok]

121 posts, and not a single example of a lost Canadian freedom!


(Hints: 1. The complaints against Levant were dismissed; 2. Boissoin's appeal has yet to be heard; and 3. Canadians have never had absolute freedom of speech, nor have Americans.)

[Corsair 115]

120 posts, and still not a single example of a lost American freedom!

If only Canadians could say the same about Canadian freedoms.In Canada, citizens of the same sex can get married anywhere in the country. In the U.S., they are limited to just a handful of states, with some pushing to have it outlawed nationally via a Constitutional amendment.

In Canada, women have the right to have an abortion in all parts of the nation. In the U.S., many states have tight restrictions against that right.

So which nation affords its citizens more rights in regards to the foregoing?

[D'rok]

In Canada, citizens of the same sex can get married anywhere in the country. In the U.S., they are limited to just a handful of states, with some pushing to have it outlawed nationally via a Constitutional amendment.

In Canada, women have the right to have an abortion in all parts of the nation. In the U.S., many states have tight restrictions against that right.

So which nation affords its citizens more rights in regards to the foregoing?

Irrelevant to WildCat's claim. These are freedoms Canadians have gained, not freedoms Americans have lost.

[FireGarden]

120 posts, and still not a single example of a lost American freedom!

So the USA had watchlists before Bush, then?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/pilot.watch.list/index.html

"Unfortunately, it is a problem that is shared by countless individuals who have no connection to terrorism, have no connection to crime and don't belong on this list," said Walczak, the ACLU lawyer.

Walczak acknowledged the need for the government to protect the country from threats with a watch list but said, "The problem with what the government is doing is that they really don't care about innocent casualties."

[GreyICE]

It really wasn't an attempt at a strawman, it is genuine confusion about the point you were attempting to make. I still don't have a clue as to why you brought S. Vietnam into this thread.
This seems reasonably evident to me. This claim was made by Texas:

Access to US civilian courts. That is unprecedented not only in the US but in the world as a whole. Captured enemy combatants have always been handled by Military tribunals. The idea that those captured on the battle field can argue their status as combatants in front of a federal court is almost surreal.
I responded by providing an example of a country that had treated prisoners similarly.

You decided to hop in with the confusion. I don't particularly know why you confused the issue, maybe you missed Texas's post, maybe you're just muddying the waters, but in any case, it was a false claim, now debunked, and we're just muddying the waters here.

And the DC Circuit Court ruled the other way. And several SCOTUS justices dissented. I'll tell you why that is: it is a complex legal issue and not nearly as simple as you would like to believe. As simple as I would like to believe? Who wrote:And thus, the US did not violate the GC.
Who wrote:At no point was the US in violation of the GC.
Who wrote:Once again, the fact that this legal dispute was settled in the appropriate way means the GC was not violated. Merely making a legal case is not a GC violation.

One of us appears to be making this a simple matter. That would NOT be me.
Uh, no. The SCOTUS, as it so happens, has the final say on whether or not a particular course of action was permitted by the terms of the GC. The GC itself is silent on the specific procedure a military tribunal should take - it merely says it must be consistent with the way a military acts when its own servicemen are charged with similar crimes.
Once again, SCOTUS addresses exactly this point:

Common Article 3’s requirements are general, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems, but they are requirements nonetheless. The commission convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements.
And we in fact haave followed the GC, Hamdan was tried, convicted, and sentenced in a manner the SCOTUS is satisfied with. The case against Hamdan is over, as you may have noticed. EJ Armstrong even started a thread about it here, maybe you missed it. So in fact, the legal issues are settled per the GC, the US Constitution, and the Military Code of Justice. And no freedoms have been lost! Kind of the whole point of this thread, isn't it? The fact is, if you are going to claim that freedoms have been lost you must take a position disagreeing with the SCOTUS opinion that settled the legal case brought by Hamdan. Yet you seem to agree with the SCOTUS opinion, so I am indeed confused here. There is no chain of logic here. We violated the Geneva Convention, but the Supreme Court stepped in well after the fact and made us follow it, therefore it's like we never broke it in the first place?
Quickly rectified? No one's liberty was taken away? The DC gun ban was in place for over 20 years, and during that time many people were arrested, tried, and convicted, and imprisoned under a law that was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. Chicago, despite the ruling, is still arresting, trying, and convicting people under their own nearly identical law which will probably also be overturned. I'm sure many lost their liberty under the Texas abortion statute also. You really don't think your above statement is accurate, do you? What is the argument here? The DC Gun ban was tantamount to violating the Geneva Convention? People were illegally detained under the ban?
You could claim the Bush Admin. attempted to violate the treaty, but in the end the treaty was not violated and the case was resolved to the satisfaction of the SCOTUS. And thus, the whole point of this thread - no American freedoms have been lost.

This is an interesting point of view. First, SCOTUS ruled that we violated the Geneva Convention. This violation was not hypothetical - it occurred. To state that we did not violate it because the Supreme Court later ruled their actions were illegal is absurd. Violations do not undo themselves. We cannot undo our violation because we wish we did not commit it.

Second, you claimed that the prisoners were granted unprecedented rights. This was incorrect. In seeing that they were not granted even basic rights in Guantanamo Bay, we have no only the arguments of Hamdan's attorneys and the Supreme Court, but the arguments of the Bush administration itself. By arguing that the Geneva Convention did not apply, the Bush administration implicitly and explicitly showed that their conduct towards the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay was carried out without regard to even the most basic standards of international law.

If this does not appall you in its application to international prisoners, who are, after all, well known to all be terrorists, even if the evidence does not support that (see: Murat Kunarz), then the fact that the Bush administration applied those standards to US citizens should appall you. In a 7-2 ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration had unlawfully denied Habeas Corpus to an American citizen.

Without Habeas Corpus, there is no way to challenge your status. You literally do not have the right to have your case heard in a court of law. This right was denied to all of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. In response to this, the government set up Combatant Status Tribunal Reviews. You might recognize those. Those are the bodies so shoddy and cavalier in their work that the Supreme Court ruled that they were violation of the very generous Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (which, as SCOTUS notes, offers many ways to comply). Even these treaty-violating tribunals were not offered until the Supreme Court forced the government's hand. To underline the appalling nature of this, Judge Scalia chose to be listed as dissenting from this case because he did not believe the status "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" was even constitutional in the Bush administration's application of it.

So, to review if our freedoms have been violated by the actions of the Bush administration, they sought to create a prison on foreign soil. The prisoners of this prison could be foreign, or American. They did not wish to apply the Geneva Convention in any way, shape, or form. They did not have any way for the prisoners (which included American citizens) to challenge the government for their freedom in a civil or military court. Faced with a court case that ruled their actions were unconstitutional, they set up kangaroo courts which were so shoddy they too violated the Geneva convention.

In asking if any freedoms have been lost when the government asserts the right to hold citizens on foreign soil, with no access to court or tribunal, in a prison camp where the definition of torture is something you quibble over, I cannot help but feel that those that declare that they are as free as they ever have been are missing something.

[volatile]

:bigclap

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm not aware of that happening, you have any examples?

Or maybe you are the one who is confused, or maybe you're being intentionally deceptive when you used "civilian" rather than "combatant" and "arrested" rather than "captured".

Well, that worked to some extent. You kept your feigned confusion down to a manageable paragraph or so rather than spreading it out over a lengthy post.

I am of course referring to Padilla, but you knew that.

Padilla was first arrested in Chicago, by federal agents and not by the military, as a result of a civilian warrant, and he was held as a material witness. He was not a combatant and was not captured doing anything, he was a civilian held with the usual rules applying to criminals. This was why, a month later, a District Court judge was about to hear his habeas corpus petition.

Only that point was he declared an enemy combatant by Presidential order and transferred to a military jail with no other legal process. If Padilla was ever "captured" he was "captured" out of a civilian jail cell, and the only sense in which he was arrested as a combatant was that Bush waved his magic wand and changed his status from "US citizen and civilian with rights" to "enemy combatant with no rights".

Now you are up to speed on the facts of the case, do you still maintain that Padilla lost none of his freedoms?

[WildCat]

121 posts, and not a single example of a lost Canadian freedom!


(Hints: 1. The complaints against Levant were dismissed; 2. Boissoin's appeal has yet to be heard; and 3. Canadians have never had absolute freedom of speech, nor have Americans.)
1. You have got to be kidding! This case cost Levant and Western Standard over $100,000 in legal fees and no small inconvenience defending against the charges. A second case against Levant was dismissed not because of any sudden concern over free speech, but because the complaintant dropped the case. And let's not forget the reason for all this - publishing a cartoon of Mohammed!

2. You're happy that writing a letter to the editor can cause you to be hauled before a government agency, fines levied, apologies ordered (what is this, grade school?), and damages awarded to 3rd parties who weren't actually damaged in any way, shape, or form? But it's OK - an appeal is in the works!

3. There is a world of difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater (which causes an immediate danger to life and limb) and saying something that offends someone, somewhere, without causing actual damages or immediate danger.

No matter what the outcome of the Canadian cases, it definitely infringes on free speech and freedom of the press. Few people have $100,000 available to them to defend themselves from the crime of speaking their mind, particularly on political issues. None of those cases should have been brought in the first place, and should have been dismissed at first sight by the Commission without the defendant even having to know the complaints were made. Now, Canadians know they'd better think twice before daring to express their political views in public, particularly about controversial issues.

[WildCat]

In Canada, citizens of the same sex can get married anywhere in the country. In the U.S., they are limited to just a handful of states, with some pushing to have it outlawed nationally via a Constitutional amendment.
Ah yes, thak you for reminding me of more freedoms Americans have gained in California and Massachusetts. No doubt more states will follow suit as time foes on.

In Canada, women have the right to have an abortion in all parts of the nation. In the U.S., many states have tight restrictions against that right.
Women also have the right to an abortion in all parts of the US, look up Roe v. Wade.

So which nation affords its citizens more rights in regards to the foregoing?
In America no one needs to worry about being hauled in front of a kangaroo court Human Rights Commission for having the gall to express their political views, we are allowed to own firearms and to defend ourselves with them.

[WildCat]

This seems reasonably evident to me. This claim was made by Texas:

I responded by providing an example of a country that had treated prisoners similarly.
Without knowing the specifics of what went on in S. Vietnam, your example appears to be of a country that violated the GC. this is the point of my confusion for you bringing that up, coupled with the fact that it is not at all apparent that being charged in a civilian court in a country ruled by a military dictator somehoe confers more rights to a suspect.

As simple as I would like to believe? Who wrote:
Who wrote:
Who wrote:

One of us appears to be making this a simple matter. That would NOT be me.

Once again, SCOTUS addresses exactly this point:

There is no chain of logic here. We violated the Geneva Convention, but the Supreme Court stepped in well after the fact and made us follow it, therefore it's like we never broke it in the first place?
You cannot possibly be this thick! No trial of Hamdan took place under the military tribunal proposed by the Bush Admin. - how could the US be in violation of the GC for something which never took place? It was the proposed trial format that was in violation not the actual one.

What is the argument here? The DC Gun ban was tantamount to violating the Geneva Convention? People were illegally detained under the ban?
And no one was illegally detained by the US in Guantanamo either. That the US had the right to detain Hamdan and the rest has never been in dispute. People were actually imprisoned as a result of the DC gun ban. No, I never claimed the DC gun ban had GC implications. It was merely an example of complex legal questions of which reasonable people could disagree.

This is an interesting point of view. First, SCOTUS ruled that we violated the Geneva Convention. This violation was not hypothetical - it occurred.
It did? Can you show me the news reports of this trial which was in violation of the GC?

To state that we did not violate it because the Supreme Court later ruled their actions were illegal is absurd. Violations do not undo themselves. We cannot undo our violation because we wish we did not commit it.
Once again, how could a trial which never took place possibly be a violation of the GC?

Second, you claimed that the prisoners were granted unprecedented rights. This was incorrect. In seeing that they were not granted even basic rights in Guantanamo Bay, we have no only the arguments of Hamdan's attorneys and the Supreme Court, but the arguments of the Bush administration itself. By arguing that the Geneva Convention did not apply, the Bush administration implicitly and explicitly showed that their conduct towards the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay was carried out without regard to even the most basic standards of international law.
And yet, somehow, the case made it all the way up to the SCOTUS. Not bad for "not even the most basic standards of international law".

If this does not appall you in its application to international prisoners, who are, after all, well known to all be terrorists, even if the evidence does not support that (see: Murat Kunarz), then the fact that the Bush administration applied those standards to US citizens should appall you. In a 7-2 ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration had unlawfully denied Habeas Corpus to an American citizen.
Ah, there's that unprecedented right you keep asking about! Can you give an example of haneus corpus being granted to detainees in any other war the US was involved in? And this is a right granted by the US Constitution, not the Geneva Conventions. The GC says nothing about habeus corpus.

Without Habeas Corpus, there is no way to challenge your status. You literally do not have the right to have your case heard in a court of law. This right was denied to all of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. In response to this, the government set up Combatant Status Tribunal Reviews. You might recognize those. Those are the bodies so shoddy and cavalier in their work that the Supreme Court ruled that they were violation of the very generous Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (which, as SCOTUS notes, offers many ways to comply). Even these treaty-violating tribunals were not offered until the Supreme Court forced the government's hand. To underline the appalling nature of this, Judge Scalia chose to be listed as dissenting from this case because he did not believe the status "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" was even constitutional in the Bush administration's application of it.
And once again, no trial took place under the proposed rules that were rejected by the SCOTUS.

So, to review if our freedoms have been violated by the actions of the Bush administration, they sought to create a prison on foreign soil. The prisoners of this prison could be foreign, or American. They did not wish to apply the Geneva Convention in any way, shape, or form. They did not have any way for the prisoners (which included American citizens) to challenge the government for their freedom in a civil or military court. Faced with a court case that ruled their actions were unconstitutional, they set up kangaroo courts which were so shoddy they too violated the Geneva convention.
And also to review, no trial actually took place under those conditions.

In asking if any freedoms have been lost when the government asserts the right to hold citizens on foreign soil, with no access to court or tribunal, in a prison camp where the definition of torture is something you quibble over, I cannot help but feel that those that declare that they are as free as they ever have been are missing something.
So we are not as free as we ever were because of a proposed miltary trial which never actually took place and was rejected by the SCOTUS and which the government no longer is even free to consider? :boggled:

[mrbaracuda]

no one seems upset of the loss of those 2 biggies in Canada, but difficult and complex legal manouvering in the US in which no actual freedoms were lost gets the world in a tizzy. It's like I'm living in Bizzaro world...

Hey, I hadn't read the thread until now. ;) I'm upset about that! :mad:
I'm more upset about the way my country handles free speech and the raging leftist scum establishing itself more and more here does not help.

Kudos to the participants here who aren't too fed up with the bizzaros already. :D Interesting thread. :cool:http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon14.gif

[GreyICE]

And also to review, no trial actually took place under those conditions.

Just to review the further inaccuracies in your claims, the 'proposed' trial format that you claim never occured:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal

Oh hey, it occurred. To quote your favorite smiley: :boggled:

Reality is just one of those passing notions to you, isn't it?

[D'rok]

1. You have got to be kidding! This case cost Levant and Western Standard over $100,000 in legal fees and no small inconvenience defending against the charges. A second case against Levant was dismissed not because of any sudden concern over free speech, but because the complaintant dropped the case. And let's not forget the reason for all this - publishing a cartoon of Mohammed!

Boo hoo. My definition of "freedom" doesn't include freedom from legal fees or from inconvenience. He's perfectly free to continue to spew his polemics.

2. You're happy that writing a letter to the editor can cause you to be hauled before a government agency, fines levied, apologies ordered (what is this, grade school?), and damages awarded to 3rd parties who weren't actually damaged in any way, shape, or form? But it's OK - an appeal is in the works!

:rolleyes: Yes, WildCat...nothing makes me happier. (I should really know better than to participate in tu quoque thread derails.) You realize that even if your best caricatures of Soviet Canuckistan are completely accurate, it has no bearing on abuses in your country, yes?

For the record, if the bigoted, creationist scumbag isn't successful on appeal, I will be disappointed and frustrated. I am not disappointed or frustrated that a body exists to which one can make human rights complaints about bigoted, creationist scumbags (or vile, reactionary douche-bags like Levant). In this instance, as in the Levant complaints, I think the complaint was without merit. I would be surprised if the court upholds the commission's decision.

3. There is a world of difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater (which causes an immediate danger to life and limb) and saying something that offends someone, somewhere, without causing actual damages or immediate danger.

The human rights version of shouting fire is when someone uses hate speech to incite violence against or promote harm to an indentifiable group. That is a world of difference from just offending someone. Levant's case was borderline because he caused offense that he knew was likely to lead to physical harm. Still, that was not enough to find him liable, and rightly so.

No matter what the outcome of the Canadian cases, it definitely infringes on free speech and freedom of the press. Few people have $100,000 available to them to defend themselves from the crime of speaking their mind, particularly on political issues. Few people will need to. The Supreme Court has ruled that politcal speech is of the highest value. In fact, the court has ruled that all expression except violence is prima facie protected by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter.

None of those cases should have been brought in the first place, and should have been dismissed at first sight by the Commission without the defendant even having to know the complaints were made.

Levant's case merited a look, for the reasons I mentioned above. He was hoping that his actions would cause more riots, destruction and chaos. Boissoin's case should have been dismissed.

Now, Canadians know they'd better think twice before daring to express their political views in public, particularly about controversial issues.
Really? Actually what Canadians know is that we have a constitutional right to freedom of expression and that we can use it with impunity so long as we don't promote or incite hatred leading to harm to an indentifiable group. We can be as offensive as our earnest little canuck hearts desire, we're just usually too darn polite to do so.

[WildCat]

Just to review the further inaccuracies in your claims, the 'proposed' trial format that you claim never occured:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal

Oh hey, it occurred. To quote your favorite smiley: :boggled:

Reality is just one of those passing notions to you, isn't it?
A status hearing is not a trial.

[mrbaracuda]

Levant's case merited a look, for the reasons I mentioned above. He was hoping that his actions would cause more riots, destruction and chaos. Boissoin's case should have been dismissed.

Oh? Show me where he has in any form expressed such intend.

[D'rok]

Oh? Show me where he has in any form expressed such intend.

I happen to know him from way, way back. I have no evidence besides my personal experience, so feel free to disbelieve me. To my knowledge, he has never publically expressed such intent.

[WildCat]

Boo hoo. My definition of "freedom" doesn't include freedom from legal fees or from inconvenience. He's perfectly free to continue to spew his polemics.
It is my understanding taht in any other civil trial in Canada the loser pays, but not in HRC cases. In fact, in HRC cases the government pays the legal fees of the complaintant - regardless of whether or not the complaint has merit.

:rolleyes: Yes, WildCat...nothing makes me happier. (I should really know better than to participate in tu quoque thread derails.) You realize that even if your best caricatures of Soviet Canuckistan are completely accurate, it has no bearing on abuses in your country, yes?

For the record, if the bigoted, creationist scumbag isn't successful on appeal, I will be disappointed and frustrated. I am not disappointed or frustrated that a body exists to which one can make human rights complaints about bigoted, creationist scumbags (or vile, reactionary douche-bags like Levant). In this instance, as in the Levant complaints, I think the complaint was without merit. I would be surprised if the court upholds the commission's decision.
So it's OK to use the deep pockets of government to force people to defend themselves against views you don't like, causing financial harm to the person holding such views, just so long as it eventually gets thrown out by a real court?

I cannot even find the words to describe how short-sighted this view is, nor can I see a limit to the harm such a system can cause for free speech and freedom of the press in a country that views itself as a free state.

The human rights version of shouting fire is when someone uses hate speech to incite violence against or promote harm to an indentifiable group or individual. That is a world of difference from just offending someone. Levant's case was borderline because he caused offense that he knew was likely to lead to physical harm. Still, that was not enough to find him liable, and rightly so.
Levant published a political cartoon! This is not in any way, shape, or form even remotely the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater, and certainly not libelous or slanderous.

Few people will need to. The Supreme Court has ruled that politcal speech is of the highest value. In fact, the court has ruled that all expression except violence is prima facie protected by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter.
Unless it offends someone, apparently.

Levant's case merited a look, for the reasons I mentioned above. He was hoping that his actions would cause more riots, destruction and chaos.
This statement is, quite frankly, insane.

Boissoin's case should have been dismissed.
And yet it wasn't, and it is far from the only one of its type.

Really? Actually what Canadians know is that we have a constitutional right to freedom of expression and that we can use it with impunity so long as we don't promote or incite hatred leading to harm to an indentifiable group are willing to spend thousands of dollars defending that view in front of the kangaroo court and then appeal that decision to a real court.
Fixed that for you.

It is precisely speech which is offensive, that challenges our views, that is most in need of protecting from government sanction. "I don't agree with your opinion, but will defend your right to say it" apparently is not a popular view in Canada.

[mrbaracuda]

I happen to know him from way, way back. I have no evidence besides my personal experience, so feel free to disbelieve me. To my knowledge, he has never publically expressed such intent.

Right. Thought as much.
You know where this leads to, don't you?

You disgust me.

[D'rok]

Right. Thought as much.
You know where this leads to, don't you?

Yes. It leads to him rightly not being held liable.

You disgust me.

Ditto, frendo.

[applecorped]

Blame Canada!

[mrbaracuda]

Yes. It leads to him rightly not being held liable.

Have you seen the cartoons in question?

Ditto, frendo.

And why's that?

[D'rok]

It is my understanding taht in any other civil trial in Canada the loser pays, but not in HRC cases. In fact, in HRC cases the government pays the legal fees of the complaintant - regardless of whether or not the complaint has merit.

Evidence?


So it's OK to use the deep pockets of government to force people to defend themselves against views you don't like, causing financial harm to the person holding such views, just so long as it eventually gets thrown out by a real court?

No. But feel free to continue to mischaracterize for rhetorical purposes.

Here's a hypothetical situation that I would be OK with forcing someone to defend themselves over:

Religious scumbag publishes pamphlet condemning gays in the usual vile manner for that sort, including a call to rise up and use the leviticus solution on them.

Here's a hypothetical situation that I would not be OK with forcing someone to defend themselves over:

Religious scumbag publishes pamphlet condemning gays in the usual vile manner for that sort.

Clear enough?

I cannot even find the words to describe how short-sighted this view is, nor can I see a limit to the harm such a system can cause for free speech and freedom of the press in a country that views itself as a free state.

Yes, it is quite clear that you cannot see these things. Trust me, all is well here on the slippery slope to totalitarianism.


Levant published a political cartoon! This is not in any way, shape, or form even remotely the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater, and certainly not libelous or slanderous.
Correct. This is why he was not prosecuted or held liable.


Unless it offends someone, apparently.
No.


This statement is, quite frankly, insane.
:rolleyes: I'll retract, because I can't prove it. Am I sane now?


And yet it wasn't, and it is far from the only one of its type.
It's funny that we only hear about the outrageous cases, isn't it? It's almost as if the media never reports on the spurious complaints that are dismissed on a regular basis. Go figure.


Fixed that for you.Interesting. You changed a true statement to a false one. What was the purpose of that?

It is precisely speech which is offensive, that challenges our views, that is most in need of protecting from government sanction. "I don't agree with your opinion, but will defend your right to say it" apparently is not a popular view in Canada.

I realize that you will never listen to what I say, but sometimes I just enjoy typing. Offensive speech is robustly protected by the Canadian Constitution and this protection is upheld by the Supreme Court.

Or maybe I'm just brainwashed by all the hockey, beer and donuts, eh?

[mrbaracuda]

Blame Canada!

66N6ifAFrFs

Indeed!

[mrbaracuda]

Or maybe I'm just brainwashed by all the hockey, beer and donuts, eh?

Don't forget the maple syrup! :p

[D'rok]

Have you seen the cartoons in question?
Yes.



And why's that?

This:
I'm more upset about the way my country handles free speech and the raging leftist scum establishing itself more and more here does not help.

Ignorance about Canada from an American is par for the course and is moderately amusing. Ignorance about Canada from a Canadian is disgusting.

[mrbaracuda]

Okay you got me there.

As in confused. But it's bed time anyway. You're lucky, you hear me? LUCKY! :D

[GreyICE]

A status hearing is not a trial.

Sure, it has the power to determine your future. Sure, it determines whether you remain imprisoned or go free. Sure, it is done before a judge, and evidence is presented. But it's not a trial! For instance, you don't have the right to defend yourself, or even hear the evidence being presented against you, and the Bush administration can do it as often as it likes. So if the administration finds, say, 500 pieces of evidence, and determines all of them are for your innocence and show you're not guilty, one piece of hearsay throws them all out. See? Those features clearly show it's not a trial. Another good anti-trial feature is that if the administration doesn't like the results, it can throw them out and do the entire thing again, with new people, until it gets results it likes!

Definitely not a trial. I admit it, you're totally right on the money here. It's funny that what you said was "No trial took place under those conditions" since what we're discussing isn't even a trial by your claim (a bit like saying "no swimming race took place under those conditions" when we're discussing Olympic wrestling) but hey, who am I to judge you?

[WildCat]

Evidence?
It appears I am wrong in this since while the HRC does not charge a fee for a complaint and their lawyers will not charge the complaintant, they will not pay for private representation. But it still places a defendant at the mercy of the deep pockets of the prosecution.


Religious scumbag publishes pamphlet condemning gays in the usual vile manner for that sort, including a call to rise up and use the leviticus solution on them.
That is obvious incitement, no such thing occurreed in either case I cited.

Here's a hypothetical situation that I would not be OK with forcing someone to defend themselves over:

Religious scumbag publishes pamphlet condemning gays in the usual vile manner for that sort.


Clear enough?
Yes, unfortunately the HRC does not make such a distinction, it appears offense is all that is required.

Correct. This is why he was not prosecuted or held liable.
Yet still had to spend 2 years and $100,000 defending himself in a case that involved no incitement, only offense.

No.
Yes! :D

:rolleyes: I'll retract, because I can't prove it. Am I sane now?
Maybe... :p

It's funny that we only hear about the outrageous cases, isn't it? It's almost as if the media never reports on the spurious complaints that are dismissed on a regular basis. Go figure.
The problem is the system is set up in a manner that is ripe for abuse. The HRC had no business addressing people complaining about being offended.

Interesting. You changed a true statement to a false one. What was the purpose of that?
It is true and I have shown examples. Better to avoid anything controversial than risk having to defend yourself for offending someone.

I realize that you will never listen to what I say, but sometimes I just enjoy typing. Offensive speech is robustly protected by the Canadian Constitution and this protection is upheld by the Supreme Court.
If that was true the HRC wouldn't have even heard the cases I posted.

Or maybe I'm just brainwashed by all the hockey, beer and donuts, eh?
Perhaps... :boxedin:

[applecorped]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2391548b4abe1204ff.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13561)

[D'rok]

That is obvious incitement, no such thing occurreed in either case I cited.

I would be inclined to agree that the complaints should have been dismissed before they made it to the hearing stage - even Levant's

Yes, unfortunately the HRC does not make such a distinction, it appears offense is all that is required.
It does make the distinction. Unfortunately, it blew it big time in the Boissoin complaint.


Yet still had to spend 2 years and $100,000 defending himself in a case that involved no incitement, only offense.

I haven't read the case, but I suspect, given what had literally just happened in the Netherlands, an argument for incitement was made.


If that was true the HRC wouldn't have even heard the cases I posted.
No. The provincial human rights commissions are subject to judicial review. The job of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court if things get that far, is to do that review and fix errors in law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It isn't the responsibility of the Supreme Court to adjudicate complaints.

I wonder if you can turn some of your outrage back to the OP topic.

You've argued that there has been no net loss of freedom in the USA because legal challenges have led the Supreme Court to restore freedoms stripped by the Bush administration.

Let's say Boissoin's appeal goes all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court and the Alberta HRC decision is reversed. By your argument (which I agree with), there is no net less of freedom for Canadians. Or is there? Which is it, and what makes you think you can have it both ways?

[Malerin]

Didn't the govt. used to have to have a warrant to eavesdrop on American citizens? Under the Bush Administration, if you made an international call, the "terrorist surveillance program" allowed that call, under certain conditions, to be monitored without a warrant ever being issued. Does the freedom of having a private conversation without the govt. listenting count as a basic freedom?

[WildCat]

Didn't the govt. used to have to have a warrant to eavesdrop on American citizens? Under the Bush Administration, if you made an international call, the "terrorist surveillance program" allowed that call, under certain conditions, to be monitored without a warrant ever being issued. Does the freedom of having a private conversation without the govt. listenting count as a basic freedom?
Not any more. The program is dead, now a FISA court warrant is required.

And it wasn't always the case that a court warrant was required - in WWII mail from overseas was routinely opened up and read (no such thing as international phone calls then) without any warrants at all.

The trend is clearly towards more freedoms, not less.

[WildCat]

You've argued that there has been no net loss of freedom in the USA because legal challenges have led the Supreme Court to restore freedoms stripped by the Bush administration.

Let's say Boissoin's appeal goes all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court and the Alberta HRC decision is reversed. By your argument (which I agree with), there is no net less of freedom for Canadians. Or is there? Which is it, and what makes you think you can have it both ways?
The bolded part is true only if the HRC is barred from hearing such cases in the future, not for overturning just this one case. After all, Hamdan created the framework which all future military tribunals must follow - it doesn't apply only to that case.

[D'rok]

The bolded part is true only if the HRC is barred from hearing such cases in the future, not for overturning just this one case. After all, Hamdan created the framework which all future military tribunals must follow - it doesn't apply only to that case.

Although "barred" is not really the right term, that's essentially what would happen. If the Supreme Court sets a precedent, sufficiently similar future complaints would be thrown out by the Commissions before the hearing stage.

Of course lawyers being lawyers, it would still be possible to submit arguments attempting to distinguish complaint X from that precedent.

[Malerin]

Not any more. The program is dead, now a FISA court warrant is required.

And it wasn't always the case that a court warrant was required - in WWII mail from overseas was routinely opened up and read (no such thing as international phone calls then) without any warrants at all.

The trend is clearly towards more freedoms, not less.

How long was the program active? 5 years? How many American citizens had their conversations monitored without warrant during those years? We'll probabaly never know, but I'm betting it was more than zero.

And why bring up WW2? The point of the thread was freedoms lost under the BUSH Administration, wasn't it? Also, in WW2, Congress had passed at least two Declarations of War, so there was no doubt a state of war existed. Now, a state of war has to be argued for by referencing various "authorizations of force" which never assert a war on anything, beyond referencing the all-encompassing "war on terror".

The trend is clearly towards more freedoms, not less.

Edit: Oddly enough, the trend (in this case) happened after AG Gonzales had been caught "forgetting the truth" (to be generous), and the Republicans has lost control of Congress.

[GreyICE]

Not any more. The program is dead, now a FISA court warrant is required.

And it wasn't always the case that a court warrant was required - in WWII mail from overseas was routinely opened up and read (no such thing as international phone calls then) without any warrants at all.

The trend is clearly towards more freedoms, not less.

Well this is a reasonably clear case of a solid and typical conservative argument. We have dubious statement, irrelevant factoid, unsupported conclusion. The fact that the factoid does not particularly address the conclusion in any way is glossed over.

The period we are clearly concerned about is prior to the Bush administration and after Bush took office.

I don't see how a violation of FISA unprecedented in size and scope constitutes increasing liberties.

And given that the administration is continuing to construct a super large database to collect and monitor calls and sift them for information, with the cooperation of many telecoms, I don't think we're out of the woods yet.

It amuses me that you think we gain liberties when an ongoing, many year long violation of the laws of our nation comes to light and the court system orders it to stop. By this logic we get more money every time the police catch a mugger.

[Malerin]

120 posts, and still not a single example of a lost American freedom!

If only Canadians could say the same about Canadian freedoms.

How about the freedoms of the 4000+ soldiers killed in Iraq? How many would still be alive today, had we not invaded? It's hard to enjoy "American freedom" when you're dead.

[applecorped]

They volunteered.

[quixotecoyote]

They volunteered.

Yup. I've been against the war from the beginning, but I've never sought to use troop deaths as a reason to stop the war. Its a military. You join expecting to fight, kill, and risk death. If that wasn't to your taste, there were other options. Waving troop death statistics suggests the soldiers were incapable of weighing the risks and making informed decisions. It infantilizes them.

[Ziggurat]

You join expecting to fight, kill, and risk death. If that wasn't to your taste, there were other options. Waving troop death statistics suggests the soldiers were incapable of weighing the risks and making informed decisions. It infantilizes them.

I agree. Which is also why I've hated arguments about politicians "sending" their grown children to Iraq, as if enlistment were something a parent could force on their adult offspring.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yup. I've been against the war from the beginning, but I've never sought to use troop deaths as a reason to stop the war. Its a military. You join expecting to fight, kill, and risk death. If that wasn't to your taste, there were other options. Waving troop death statistics suggests the soldiers were incapable of weighing the risks and making informed decisions. It infantilizes them.

Lets stick to the topic, if we can. I'm waiting for Texas or Wildcat to come out from under their rock and defend their stated positions.

[Corsair 115]

Ah yes, thak you for reminding me of more freedoms Americans have gained in California and Massachusetts. No doubt more states will follow suit as time foes on. Well, execpt for those states which passed resolutions which outlawed it.

The reason I even mentioned it was because your comments imply that only America is the true bastion of freedom, and only the way it defines those rights and freedoms is to be considered proper and true.

As the example shows, the real situation is more complex. In some cases a citizen may be more free in America, in other cases more free in Canada or another nation.

In America no one needs to worry about being hauled in front of a kangaroo court Human Rights Commission for having the gall to express their political views, we are allowed to own firearms and to defend ourselves with them.See above. You are once again implying that only your definition of what constitutes freedom and rights is the true and proper definition, and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your definition is therefore not free and does not have real rights.

I'd call that hubris.

[Malerin]

Yup. I've been against the war from the beginning, but I've never sought to use troop deaths as a reason to stop the war. Its a military. You join expecting to fight, kill, and risk death. If that wasn't to your taste, there were other options. Waving troop death statistics suggests the soldiers were incapable of weighing the risks and making informed decisions. It infantilizes them.

No it doesn't. It says their lives have been wasted in a needless war. Some of you act like volunteering takes away any moral culpability on the part of the people who sent them there. It doesn't.

[quixotecoyote]

No it doesn't. It says their lives have been wasted in a needless war. Some of you act like volunteering takes away any moral culpability on the part of the people who sent them there. It doesn't.

I'll listen to Kevin and make this my last post in the derail, but my position has consistently been that Americans joining the military knew or should have known that this type of war was the most likely use of their service. People who've signed up after 2003 are clearly excluded from your comment and I say people who enlisted pre-2003 should have been able to guess. Feel free to start a new thread to reply to this. I also think there was a thread from around last memorial day where we went over this.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Where, oh where has our Wildcat gone? Or Texas for that matter?

[FireGarden]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/05/60minutes/main2066624_page2.shtml

The Robert Johnson meant to be on the No Fly List would seem to be the known alias of a 62-year-old black man who was convicted of plotting to bomb a Hindu temple and a movie theatre in Toronto. After serving 12 years, he was deported to Trinidad. But the airlines ticket agents don’t have any of that information on their computer screens. They just have the name, not even a date of birth.

And, because another criminal used the alias "T Kennedy", anybody with that name must also be delayed at airports.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-08-19-kennedy-list_x.htm

"If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in the world are average Americans, who are getting caught up in this thing, how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?" Kennedy asked Homeland Security undersecretary Asa Hutchinson.

[...] Kennedy said he was stopped at airports in Washington, D.C., and Boston three times in March. Airline agents told him he would not be sold a ticket because his name was on a list.

When he asked the agent why, he was told, "We can't tell you."

Each time, a supervisor recognized Kennedy and got him on the flight. But after the third incident, Kennedy's staff called the Transportation Security Administration and asked to clear up the confusion.

[...] But twice after contacting TSA, Kennedy was stopped again at the airline counter.

A system that incompetent can't possibly infringe on anyone's freedom. Stealing freedom requires competence -- that's the first rule of dictatorship.

There could be up to a million names on the list, it had 700,000 in April 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

[Malerin]

Where, oh where has our Wildcat gone? Or Texas for that matter?

Wildcat's active in the presidential forum. For that, I'll give this a good bump.

[WildCat]

Lets stick to the topic, if we can. I'm waiting for Texas or Wildcat to come out from under their rock and defend their stated positions.
What exactly do you want me to clarify?

[WildCat]

Well, execpt for those states which passed resolutions which outlawed it.
How does something already not allowed get outlawed? Is that like double secret probation?

The reason I even mentioned it was because your comments imply that only America is the true bastion of freedom, and only the way it defines those rights and freedoms is to be considered proper and true.

See above. You are once again implying that only your definition of what constitutes freedom and rights is the true and proper definition, and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your definition is therefore not free and does not have real rights.
No, the fact remains that Americans enjoy more legal rights today than at any point in our history, particularly if you're black, gay, or a member of some other group previously denied rights of the majority. And especially when you're a captured enemy combatant who doesn't follow the accepted rules of warfare.

[Malerin]

How does something already not allowed get outlawed? Is that like double secret probation?

The reason I even mentioned it was because your comments imply that only America is the true bastion of freedom, and only the way it defines those rights and freedoms is to be considered proper and true.


No, the fact remains that Americans enjoy more legal rights today than at any point in our history, particularly if you're black, gay, or a member of some other group previously denied rights of the majority. And especially when you're a captured enemy combatant who doesn't follow the accepted rules of warfare.

Well, let's just compare the last two administrations:

Clinton Administration- No warrantless wiretapping, no suspension of Habeus Corpus
Bush Administration- Warrantless wiretapping, suspension of Habeus Corpus (which SCOTUS declared illegal).

Just to sum it up briefly: BEFORE the Bush adminmistration, I could call an overseas friend or family member without the govt. eavesdropping on me without a warrant. DURING the Bush administration, I can't.

How do you not see that as a loss of freedom?

[WildCat]

Well, let's just compare the last two administrations:

Clinton Administration- No warrantless wiretapping, no suspension of Habeus Corpus
Bush Administration- Warrantless wiretapping, suspension of Habeus Corpus (which SCOTUS declared illegal).
Bush never suspended habeus corpus. His claim was it didn't apply to enemy combatants in the first place.

Just to sum it up briefly: BEFORE the Bush adminmistration, I could call an overseas friend or family member without the govt. eavesdropping on me without a warrant. DURING the Bush administration, I can't.

How do you not see that as a loss of freedom?
No, you can't call your terrorist buddy overseas without risking the government getting a FISA warrant, maybe even after the fact. It is incorrect to say they can do it without a warrant. Funny, the same thing could have happened under Clinton!

Or do you think that if an intelligence agency is tracking a terrorist overseas, and monitoring his phone calls, they are just supposed to stop the surveillance as soon as the terrorist calls a number within the US?

Do you realize that prior to the FISA court the government could open mail from overseas without a warrant at all, as Roosevelt did during WWII?

[Malerin]

Bush never suspended habeus corpus. His claim was it didn't apply to enemy combatants in the first place.

It didn't apply to ANYBODY, no matter what category Bush could come up with. SCOTUS ruled we can't hold PEOPLE indefinitely without some sort of due process.

No, you can't call your terrorist buddy overseas without risking the government getting a FISA warrant, maybe even after the fact.

No, under Bush, THERE WAS NO WARRANT, before or after. Warrantless wire-tapping.

And I don't think my cousin living in Germany is a "terrorist buddy".

It is incorrect to say they can do it without a warrant. Funny, the same thing could have happened under Clinton!

Wrong.

"The temporary surveillance law -- approved under heavy White House pressure -- gives the government broad powers to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects without warrants. It effectively legalized many of the practices employed by the National Security Agency as part of a secret program approved by Bush in late 2001."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012302179.html

Do you have a source that the Clinton Administration was eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant?

Or do you think that if an intelligence agency is tracking a terrorist overseas, and monitoring his phone calls, they are just supposed to stop the surveillance as soon as the terrorist calls a number within the US?

If that's what the law is? Yes. That's the whole point of LAWS. Under FISA, they could wiretap and get a warrant after the fact. Bush bypassed even that safety measure.

Do you realize that prior to the FISA court the government could open mail from overseas without a warrant at all, as Roosevelt did during WWII?

Yes, and we rounded up Japanese and put them in internment camps. You know you're really reaching when you have to go back 60 years to a World War to find abuses of power, right?

[Gurdur]

All of this seems a rather astonishing huge effort at apologetics on behalf of China.

Fine, the USA has its problems; but compared with China, it's a whole set of magnitudes better. Justice in China is still far too much too often, "Find someone to take the fall and shoot them", rather than really finding the perps; and ecological protection, while suffering under Republican privatisations and deregulation, is far far better in the USA than in China. Not to mention all those other pesky little political problems, and the sheer authoritarian regime in China.

[WildCat]

It didn't apply to ANYBODY, no matter what category Bush could come up with. SCOTUS ruled we can't hold PEOPLE indefinitely without some sort of due process.
It is not as broad as you claim. Uniformed Iraqi soldiers captured don't need a habeus corpus hearing, for example. It was an open legal question whether or not illegal combatants needed one, which is now settled.

No, under Bush, THERE WAS NO WARRANT, before or after. Warrantless wire-tapping.
Bush was rebuffed on that. There is a warrant required from the FISA court.

And I don't think my cousin living in Germany is a "terrorist buddy".
You think there's the manpower available to listen in on you and your buddy shooting the bull? Or do you think they actually listen in on a miniscule number of conversations by known or suspected foreign agents/terrorists?

Wrong.

"The temporary surveillance law -- approved under heavy White House pressure -- gives the government broad powers to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects without warrants. It effectively legalized many of the practices employed by the National Security Agency as part of a secret program approved by Bush in late 2001."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012302179.html
That is oncorrect. The law in question (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1927) merely amends the FISA Act. Warrants are still required, for example:
Any surveillance conducted pursuant to an order entered under this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/newurl?type=titlesect&title=50&section=1801) et seq.), as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.


Do you have a source that the Clinton Administration was eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant?
The FISA Act has been around since the Carter administration, you can get a warrant after the fact just as it is now.

If that's what the law is? Yes. That's the whole point of LAWS. Under FISA, they could wiretap and get a warrant after the fact. Bush bypassed even that safety measure.
And was rebuffed. Warrants are now required.

Yes, and we rounded up Japanese and put them in internment camps. You know you're really reaching when you have to go back 60 years to a World War to find abuses of power, right?
Thank you for confirming that we have more freedoms now than in the past.

[Malerin]

Wait a minute- because warrantless wiretapping stopped in 2007, it was OK for all the years it went on before that? Seriously, is that your argument? That's like punching someone in the face, waiting five seconds, then claiming, "I'm not punching you now, am I? What's the problem?"

[WildCat]

Wait a minute- because warrantless wiretapping stopped in 2007, it was OK for all the years it went on before that? Seriously, is that your argument? That's like punching someone in the face, waiting five seconds, then claiming, "I'm not punching you now, am I? What's the problem?"
No, it's it's evidence that freedoms haven't been lost. In fact, this episode has strengthened the freedoms you are claiming have been lost because we now have SCOTUS opinions etc.

Understand?

[Malerin]

No, it's it's evidence that freedoms haven't been lost. In fact, this episode has strengthened the freedoms you are claiming have been lost because we now have SCOTUS opinions etc.

Understand?

No, and no one else will either. You asked "What freedoms have Americans lost under Bush?" I pointed out being eavesdropped on without a warrant and suspension of Habeus Corpus. Your response is "Well, that's not going on anymore and we're a stronger nation for it!". Constitutional violations happened for YEARS under Bush, and it took a Democratic Congress and the Supreme Court to stop it. How on Earth you think that helps your pro-Bush freedom argument is beyond me and probably anyone else bothering to read this.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Since this thread has been resurrected, Wildcat, I feel obliged to remind you to respond to post #128 since you seem to have forgotten it exists.

[WildCat]

Well, that worked to some extent. You kept your feigned confusion down to a manageable paragraph or so rather than spreading it out over a lengthy post.

I am of course referring to Padilla, but you knew that.

Padilla was first arrested in Chicago, by federal agents and not by the military, as a result of a civilian warrant, and he was held as a material witness. He was not a combatant and was not captured doing anything, he was a civilian held with the usual rules applying to criminals. This was why, a month later, a District Court judge was about to hear his habeas corpus petition.

Only that point was he declared an enemy combatant by Presidential order and transferred to a military jail with no other legal process. If Padilla was ever "captured" he was "captured" out of a civilian jail cell, and the only sense in which he was arrested as a combatant was that Bush waved his magic wand and changed his status from "US citizen and civilian with rights" to "enemy combatant with no rights".

Now you are up to speed on the facts of the case, do you still maintain that Padilla lost none of his freedoms?
So you are claiming that since he was originally captured on a criminal warrant he can't be an enemy combatant? I'm really not following you here.

And he did get legal process, in fact his case made it all the way to the Sypreme Court. He was eventually tried and convicted for crimes unrelated to the AUMF against al Qaeda, and thus in a civilian court.

Did this case represent a step backward for US justice? Let's compare/contrast to a case during WWII, the only one I'm aware of which involved a naturalized US citizen working as an agent for the enemy captured on US soil:
The German High Command had perhaps misjudged the wisdom of sending naturalized citizens to attack their own adopted country. Nevertheless, the only concern of the US government was in reassuring its citizens and sending a powerful message to the Nazis. Since the men hadn’t actually committed any crime, a normal court could sentence them to at most a few years in prison—or even acquit them entirely. To President Roosevelt, this was unacceptable. In a memorandum sent to Attorney General Biddle, he wrote: “Surely they are as guilty as it is possible to be and it seems to me that the death penalty is almost obligatory.” A military tribunal, he felt, was the only way to ensure this outcome. “I won’t give them up,” he told Biddle, “I won’t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus.”

Within a month of the initial landing at Long Island, the eight saboteurs were put before a closed-door US military tribunal—the first to be assembled since the days of the Civil War. It was presided over by a panel of seven generals; there would be no jury, no press, and no appeal. After 16 days in session and two rejected constitutional appeals from the defense, both sides had said their piece. A verdict was signed and sent directly to the president, who was to be the final arbiter of the sentencing. It was unanimous: the Germans, all eight of them, were guilty. The recommended sentence was death.

...It was only upon reading the transcript of the trial that Roosevelt learned how Hoover had misled him. Regardless, it apparently didn’t shake the foundation of his opinion on the case. At the urging of defense counsel, FDR gave only enough ground to commute Dasch's sentence to 30 years of hard labor, and Burger's to life. George John Dasch, a man who had envisioned himself being welcomed as a hero by the American people and perhaps earning his own Medal of Honor, would instead spend what was likely to be the rest of his life in prison. His six accomplices were not so fortunate. Five days after the trial’s end, they were marched to the electric chair in alphabetical order. Within two months of landing in America, the men had been captured, charged, tried, and executed. The official verdict of the tribunal wouldn’t be released for another three months.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=949

Who had more rights Kevin? Whose fate would you rather share?

[Kevin_Lowe]

So you are claiming that since he was originally captured on a criminal warrant he can't be an enemy combatant? I'm really not following you here.

And he did get legal process, in fact his case made it all the way to the Sypreme Court. He was eventually tried and convicted for crimes unrelated to the AUMF against al Qaeda, and thus in a civilian court.

You're trying to have it both ways at once. You're pretending that it's okay for him to have been held by Presidential fiat as an "enemy combatant" with no evidence, because eventually he was handed back over to civilian authorities, but that doesn't get you out of the problem that a civilian was still held by Presidential fiat as an enemy combatant without evidence.


Did this case represent a step backward for US justice? Let's compare/contrast to a case during WWII, the only one I'm aware of which involved a naturalized US citizen working as an agent for the enemy captured on US soil:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=949

Who had more rights Kevin? Whose fate would you rather share?

How many times are you going to run this argument, which has already been shown to be dishonest?

This was a case of enemy agents, with strong evidence against them, in a time of unambiguous war rather than the current pseudo-war of convenience, being promptly dealt with by a military tribunal.

There is no parallel to Padilla at all.

Framing the question as "Who would you rather be?" is simply a way of weaselling out of the question that was actually asked, which is "Was the rule of law being upheld?".

[Cylinder]

This was a case of enemy agents, with strong evidence against them, in a time of unambiguous war rather than the current pseudo-war of convenience, being promptly dealt with by a military tribunal.

Padilla was held as an enemy combatant pursuant to an act of Congress. Can you please define for me the statutory meaning of "pseudo-war of convenience?" I'm unfamiliar with that term.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Padilla was held as an enemy combatant pursuant to an act of Congress.

The specific topic under consideration was whether people had lost rights under the Bush government.

Now obviously people did in the sense that Congress passed an "authorization" that wasn't actually a declaration of war but has been taken to give the executive war-time powers when it feels like it, and people have fewer rights during war-time. In that sense the claim that people lost rights is trivial.

There is definitely an element of sophistry in arguing that the citizens of the USA have not lost any rights, because Congress always had the right to restrict their rights during time of war, and a time of war is whatever Congress says is a time of war, therefore citizens of the USA never had peacetime rights in any meaningful sense in the first place.

That aside, there's a further problem that never before in US history had the executive waved a magic wand and turned a civilian, citizen convict into an "enemy combatant" without any evidence they could present as to their guilt, and then kept them without legal representation for years. The closest Bush supporters can find is an example of enemy saboteurs, during an actual shooting war with a significant enemy, who were clearly guilty of infiltrating US territory with the intent to sabotage the war effort and who were dealt with promptly.

So the specific right we are talking about is the right of US civilians not to be held without charges or evidence for years by the military.

[Cylinder]

So the specific right we are talking about is the right of US civilians not to be held without charges or evidence for years by the military.

I'm certain this has been pointed out before, but US citizens have never enjoyed the right to join an enemy combatant force without being subject to detention for acts of lawful belligerence and detention, trial and punishment for acts of unlawful belligerence - even for armed conflicts with which some citizens disagreed.

Your claim of no evidence is incorrect. The US had enough evidence against Jose Padilla to convict him in civilian court.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm certain this has been pointed out before, but US citizens have never enjoyed the right to join an enemy combatant force without being subject to detention for acts of lawful belligerence and detention, trial and punishment for acts of unlawful belligerence - even for armed conflicts with which some citizens disagreed.

Your claim of no evidence is incorrect. The US had enough evidence against Jose Padilla to convict him in civilian court.

Read the thread.

The President did not have enough evidence to convict him of anything at all at the time he declared Padilla an enemy combatant.

[WildCat]

Read the thread.

The President did not have enough evidence to convict him of anything at all at the time he declared Padilla an enemy combatant.
An enemy combatant needn't be tried or convicted of anything (in fact it's a violation of the Geneva Convention to try someone merely for being an enemy combatant), and can be held for the duration of the war if it is so desired without any charges at all.

[WildCat]

This was a case of enemy agents, with strong evidence against them, in a time of unambiguous war rather than the current pseudo-war of convenience, being promptly dealt with by a military tribunal.
It's you being dishonest here, and you use the desperation tactic common for those who make such claims: denying that the US is at war with al Qaeda, comparing it to the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" etc.

Problem for you is this is an actual declared war (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm), authorized by Congress per the US Constitution, and specifically names who we are at war with.

Framing the question as "Who would you rather be?" is simply a way of weaselling out of the question that was actually asked, which is "Was the rule of law being upheld?".
The "rule of law" was sufficiently ambiguous that there were conflicting court opinions all the way up to a divided SCOTUS. It is only after the legal wrangling that the laws applicable have been clarified.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's you being dishonest here, and you use the desperation tactic common for those who make such claims: denying that the US is at war with al Qaeda, comparing it to the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" etc.

Problem for you is this is an actual declared war (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm), authorized by Congress per the US Constitution, and specifically names who we are at war with.

I called it a pseudo-war of convenience, and I'm happy to stand by that description. The US Congress didn't declare war as such, although they cited the power to declare war in support of their declaration that force was authorised, and the powers granted have been used for all sorts of things (like conquering Iraq) that have absolutely nothing to do with those nations, organizations, or persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.


The "rule of law" was sufficiently ambiguous that there were conflicting court opinions all the way up to a divided SCOTUS. It is only after the legal wrangling that the laws applicable have been clarified.

This is more of the same sophistry that you tried before.

If your answer to the question of whether USians lost any freedoms under Bush is "well arguably, in a very strained sense that SCOTUS eventually rejected, and in a time of war, maybe US citizens never had the right not to be seized by the military and held without trial or evidence for years in the first place" then you've just admitted that de facto US citizens were subject to a radical stripping away of their freedoms under Bush.

After all before Bush there was no state of pseudo-war permitting war-time infringements of peace-time civil rights, and in addition nobody had even tried a stunt like Padilla's detention without any evidence before (as you proved yourself by only being able to cite one example of anything similar happening before, a case of saboteurs held on the basis of clear evidence).

[OneShotKi11]

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/020105ChuckBaldwin.shtml

Found a small list of supposed lost freedoms.
I guess you guys can decide if you want to consider it true....

[Kevin_Lowe]

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/020105ChuckBaldwin.shtml

Found a small list of supposed lost freedoms.
I guess you guys can decide if you want to consider it true....

Since those links provide no citations for their claims, they're not much more than empty assertions.

Mind you, Wildcat, Cylinder and the other resident apologists will probably enjoy the distraction from the hard questions.

[GreyICE]

Well this is a reasonably clear case of a solid and typical conservative argument. We have dubious statement, irrelevant factoid, unsupported conclusion. The fact that the factoid does not particularly address the conclusion in any way is glossed over.

The period we are clearly concerned about is prior to the Bush administration and after Bush took office.

I don't see how a violation of FISA unprecedented in size and scope constitutes increasing liberties.

And given that the administration is continuing to construct a super large database to collect and monitor calls and sift them for information, with the cooperation of many telecoms, I don't think we're out of the woods yet.

It amuses me that you think we gain liberties when an ongoing, many year long violation of the laws of our nation comes to light and the court system orders it to stop. By this logic we get more money every time the police catch a mugger.

All this time, and Wildcat still hasn't thought of an adequate answer.

Don't worry, we're not going anywhere.

George Bush is though, finally. And it looks like he'll take McCain with him. Maybe they can swap war stories out there when they're put out to pasture. McCain can tell Bush about the POW camps, Bush can tell McCain about doing lines of coke in his airplane hanger.

[Cylinder]

I called it a pseudo-war of convenience, and I'm happy to stand by that description.

You have yet to describe what exactly that phase is supposed to mean. Are you claiming the Congress has not given the President specific statutory authorization to use US military forces in Afghanistan? Are you claiming that this specific authorization, absent an actual declaration of war, does not meet their Constitutional requirements for use of force?

Here's a couple of easy questions - according to the US Constitution, who is vested with the power to make rules regarding the process by which Congress' war powers are executed? Have any rules been established in this regard? Were they followed in this instance?

...and the powers granted have been used for all sorts of things (like conquering Iraq) that have absolutely nothing to do with those nations, organizations, or persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

No-one has used the AUMF to justify use of force in Iraq.

After all before Bush there was no state of pseudo-war permitting war-time infringements of peace-time civil rights, and in addition nobody had even tried a stunt like Padilla's detention without any evidence before (as you proved yourself by only being able to cite one example of anything similar happening before, a case of saboteurs held on the basis of clear evidence).

From Quirin:

During the Civil War the military commission was extensively used for the trial of offenses against the law of war. Among the more significant cases for present purposes are the following:

On May 22, 1865, T. E. Hogg and others were tried by a military commission, for "violations of the laws and usages of civilized war," the specifications charging that the accused "being commissioned, enrolled, enlisted or engaged" by the Confederate Government, came on board a United States merchant steamer in the port of Panama "in the guise of peaceful passengers" with the purpose of capturing the vessel and converting her into a Confederate cruiser. The Commission found the accused guilty and sentenced them to be hanged. The reviewing authority affirmed the judgments, writing an extensive opinion on the question whether violations of the law of war were alleged, but modified the sentences to imprisonment for life and for various periods of years. Dept. of the Pacific, G. O. No. 52, June 27, 1865.

On January 17, 1865, John Y. Beall was tried by a military commission for "violation of the laws of war." The opinion by the reviewing authority reveals that Beall, holding a commission in the Confederate Navy, came on board a merchant vessel at a Canadian port in civilian dress and, with associates, took possession of the vessel in Lake Erie; that, also in disguise, he unsuccessfully attempted to derail a train in New York State, and to obtain military
information. His conviction by the Commission was affirmed on the ground that he was both a spy and a "guerrilla," and he was sentenced to be hanged. Dept. of the East, G. O. No. 14, Feb. 14, 1865.

On January 17, 1865, Robert C. Kennedy, a Captain of the Confederate Army, who was shown to have attempted, while in disguise, to set fire to the City of New York, and to have been seen in disguise in various parts of New York State, was convicted on charges of acting as a spy and violation of the law of war "in undertaking to carry on irregular and unlawful warfare." He was sentenced to be hanged, and the sentence was confirmed by the reviewing authority. Dept. of the East, G. O. No. 24, March 20, 1865.

On September 19, 1865, William Murphy, "a rebel emissary in the employ of and colleagued with rebel enemies," was convicted by a military commission of "violation of the laws and customs of war" for coming within the lines and burning a United States steamboat and other property. G. C. M. O. No. 107.

Soldiers and officers "now or late of the Confederate Army," were tried and convicted by military commission for "being secretly within the lines of the United States forces," James Hamilton, Dept. of the Ohio, G. O. No. 153, Sept. 18, 1863; for "recruiting men within the lines," Daniel Davis, G. O. No. 397, Dec. 18, 1863, and William F. Corbin and T. G. McGraw, G. O. No. 114, May 4, 1863; and for "lurking about the posts, quarters, fortifications and encampments of the armies of the United States," although not "as a spy," Augustus A.
Williams, Middle Dept., G. O. No. 34, May 5, 1864. For other cases of violations of the law of war punished by military commissions during the Civil War, see 2 Winthrop, Military Laws and Precedents (2d ed. 1896) 1310-11

[OneShotKi11]

Since those links provide no citations for their claims, they're not much more than empty assertions.

Mind you, Wildcat, Cylinder and the other resident apologists will probably enjoy the distraction from the hard questions.

This i already knew and was the reason for me stating that "you guys can decide if you want to consider it true". At that moment in time i was a little to lazy to start look for articles to back the claims.

Anyway i have heard of quite a few of these before and probably will have time later to wonder the internet to check there validity.

As for my own personal input as to freedoms lost. Since 9/11 i can be denied access to public transportation if i refuse to allow my personal belongings to be searched before hand.
The searches are random and without any provoking factors.
Its annoying!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Cylinder, cases of people being promptly tried on the basis of evidence in 1865 as agents of an enemy power in a real war are not precedent for citizens being deemed enemy combatants by Presidential fiat and held for years without trial or evidence.

This is why I refer to you as an apologist. You recycle dishonest arguments you have, I very strongly suspect, taken in whole from elsewhere without attributing them. (How else do you and Wildcat follow the same choirbook so closely without acknowledging any common sources?).

[Cylinder]

Cylinder, cases of people being promptly tried on the basis of evidence in 1865 as agents of an enemy power in a real war are not precedent for citizens being deemed enemy combatants by Presidential fiat and held for years without trial or evidence.

Real war... Act of Congress... Universal agreement and practice...


You recycle dishonest arguments you have, I very strongly suspect, taken in whole from elsewhere without attributing them. (How else do you and Wildcat follow the same choirbook so closely without acknowledging any common sources?).

Yikes! Are you claiming that we (disclaimer: I do not pretend to speak for WildCat - if that is his real name) did not attribute our sources in this thread? Do try to focus here.

[WildCat]

I called it a pseudo-war of convenience, and I'm happy to stand by that description. The US Congress didn't declare war as such,
So the military was authorized to do what? Blow kisses? Plant flowers? This conversation has no point if you can't even admit this is a real, declared war.

although they cited the power to declare war in support of their declaration that force was authorised, and the powers granted have been used for all sorts of things (like conquering Iraq) that have absolutely nothing to do with those nations, organizations, or persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.
There is a seperate AUMF for Iraq: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Please stop acting as if one applies to the other.

This is more of the same sophistry that you tried before.
Legal opinions are now "sophistry"?

If your answer to the question of whether USians lost any freedoms under Bush is "well arguably, in a very strained sense that SCOTUS eventually rejected, and in a time of war, maybe US citizens never had the right not to be seized by the military and held without trial or evidence for years in the first place" then you've just admitted that de facto US citizens were subject to a radical stripping away of their freedoms under Bush.
Uh, no. This is hardly a new power of the POTUS. I showed you an example in WWII regarding German agents, several of which were naturalized US citizens. There has never been a right of a US citizen to be an enemy agent during a duly authorized war. Without such authorization, it is a matter for civilian law enforcement (spies captured in the Cold War being examples). In wartime, they become subject to different rules if so desired by the POTUS, as authorized by his powers as Commander-in-Chief granted by the US Constitution.

And as you may have noticed, US citizens so found today actually have had more rights granted to them in the current war than in the past as i have already showed by examples.

After all before Bush there was no state of pseudo-war permitting war-time infringements of peace-time civil rights, and in addition nobody had even tried a stunt like Padilla's detention without any evidence before (as you proved yourself by only being able to cite one example of anything similar happening before, a case of saboteurs held on the basis of clear evidence).
I gave you examples in the only other war in the modern era in which the situation was similar. The fact that US citizens aiding the enemy in time of war is a rare occurence doesn't support your case. Your case would be supported if you can show examples wartime US citizens acting as agents of the enemy who were held to civilian law enforcement rules. Got any? And no, Cold War spies don't count, as there was no declared war at the time.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So the military was authorized to do what? Blow kisses? Plant flowers? This conversation has no point if you can't even admit this is a real, declared war.

Then this conversation has no point. The AUMF and the current "war" look very much like an end-run around peace-time civil rights and the peace-time balance of powers, and very much unlike any war ever fought.


Uh, no. This is hardly a new power of the POTUS. I showed you an example in WWII regarding German agents, several of which were naturalized US citizens. There has never been a right of a US citizen to be an enemy agent during a duly authorized war. Without such authorization, it is a matter for sivilian law enforcement (spies captured in the Cold War being examples). In wartime, they become subject to different rules if so desired by the POTUS, as authorized by his powwers as Commander-in-Chief granted by the US Constitution.

And as you may have noticed, US citizens so found today actually have had more rights granted to them in the current war than in the past as i have already showed by examples.

How long were those WWII agents held with neither trial nor evidence?

I realise you would love to engage with the straw man claim "the US government has no right to hold enemy guerillas", but absolutely nobody has made that claim, so attacking that claim just makes it embarrassingly clear you are presenting talking points instead of sense.

The issue, as I have beaten you over the head with repeatedly, is that the President did not have evidence that Padilla was an enemy guerilla. The "dirty bomb" plot turned out to be completely fabricated. The fact that they were later able to get him convicted on unrelated charges, possibly using evidence obtained by torture, does not get you out of this.

The diminution of US civilian rights was not that someone was held for being an enemy guerilla, it's that someone was held for being an enemy guerilla for years with no evidence.

[WildCat]

Then this conversation has no point. The AUMF and the current "war" look very much like an end-run around peace-time civil rights and the peace-time balance of powers, and very much unlike any war ever fought.
Really Kevin? Which war is it different from? I really want to know the answer to this question!

How long were those WWII agents held with neither trial nor evidence?
Until the end of the war, like all wars. Are you now going to asrgue tat we don't have the right to hold captured enemies? Are you suggesting we try them simply for being the enemy, in violation of the Geneva Conventions? Seriously, why do you keep repeating this bull feces?

I realise you would love to engage with the straw man claim "the US government has no right to hold enemy guerillas", but absolutely nobody has made that claim, so attacking that claim just makes it embarrassingly clear you are presenting talking points instead of sense.
And yet, you just did! WTF?

The issue, as I have beaten you over the head with repeatedly, is that the President did not have evidence that Padilla was an enemy guerilla. The "dirty bomb" plot turned out to be completely fabricated. The fact that they were later able to get him convicted on unrelated charges, possibly using evidence obtained by torture, does not get you out of this.
Nonsense. They simply chose to try him on different charges which will keep this POS locked away for many years.

The diminution of US civilian rights was not that someone was held for being an enemy guerilla, it's that someone was held for being an enemy guerilla for years with no evidence.
There was ample evidence he trained in terrorist camps, IIRC his lawyer never even denied that.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Really Kevin? Which war is it different from? I really want to know the answer to this question!

Until the end of the war, like all wars. Are you now going to asrgue tat we don't have the right to hold captured enemies? Are you suggesting we try them simply for being the enemy, in violation of the Geneva Conventions? Seriously, why do you keep repeating this bull feces?

And yet, you just did! WTF?

Have fun with all those straw men.


Nonsense. They simply chose to try him on different charges which will keep this POS locked away for many years.

There's no point arguing with blind faith.