Are the US still a democracy?

[armageddonman]

Cases like this:

http://www.chargepadilla.org/

make me question this.

[Dancing David]

I too question how we ended up in this position where an American citizen can be held under these conditions: this seems to be an abbrogation of all civil liberties.
I suppose that we have a president select so he is likely to act as though there is martial law when there isn't.

I don't agree with the governments arguement that he is an enemy combatant, traitor maybe but not enemy combatant.

Peace
dancing David

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Cases like this:

http://www.chargepadilla.org/

make me question this.

Get a life..

[Wolverine]

Are the US still a democracy?

The US has never been a democracy. It's a republic.

[max]

I am not familiar with USA law but I would think that being accused of terrorism comes under different rules altogether. Does a democracy mean that anyone has the right to do anything? I doubt it. Me? I'd blow their brains out first. Why do all the 'do-gooders' so want this type of person to be given every creature comfort, sympathy etc. They blow people up without regard for freedom and democracy. They would rather blow you up than look at you for their cause. The President and CIA whatever will have enough imformation on him, to hold him for now, any DECENT person would want such terrorists to be confronted, challenged and imprisoned until they can be brought to court. Why is there so much sympathy for this scum of the earth?

[DialecticMaterialist]

You need to read the fine point of the amendment, I have the key parts in bold.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Terrorism goes under "public danger" and thus having a Grand Jury present is not necessarily part of due process. Notice also the statements are very open to interpretation.

[Frostbite]

Because the USA can do whatever it want because it's in the name of "freedom". Although I agree that whoever orchestrated 9-11 must pay, and Saddam's regime was an oppressive one, I still don't agree that any country can just lash out and invade another country without the UN's approval. If other countries pull the same trick, the world's gonna become a little more chaotic.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Saddam's regime was an oppressive one, I still don't agree that any country can just lash out and invade another country without the UN's approval.

Well then maybe the UN should approve when a dictator violates human rights and UN orders on a regular basis. If the UN isn't going to do its job and accept its moral duty then another country has a responsibility to do just that.

The world can become more chaotic if free nations do this, but will it be any better off with totalitarian dictators in power? Do such dictators listen to the UN anyway?

I'd rather ten months war in Iraq without UN approval then decades of totalitarian dictatorship without UN approval.

[Frostbite]

Good point, but I don't think it's anyone's business what goes on within a dictatorship's borders unless it affects a neighboring country negatively. Desert Storm was justified because Iraq invaded Kuwait. But this time? I dunno...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Good point, but I don't think it's anyone's business what goes on within a dictatorship's borders unless it affects a neighboring country negatively.

Do you mean without the UN's say-so, or is this a principle you hold regardless?

[max]

did you know that other than usa uk europe etc, backward countries have to provide a certain amount of staff to UN. Most of these can't even read never mind drive......God help us

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Wolverine


The US has never been a democracy. It's a republic.

It's funny, dozens of countrys (not only) in Europe manage to be republics and democracies. After all, what's the problem with being a democracy? In essence, it only means that the government too has to abide by the law, not only the ordinary people.

At least in theory... :rolleyes:

The Soviet Union was a republic (but not a democracy) and so are lots and lots of third-world dictatorships. On the other hand, Great Britain is a democracy, but not a republic.
You choose :)

Sorry, this one seems to be an anti-Bush site (http://irregulartimes.com/democracy.html), so blame Google, it's the first link it offered me... ;)

[Frostbite]

Yeah without the UN's approval. If they can get enough evidence that there's inhumane things going on, like slavery or cruelty or whatever, then they can allow for the toppling of their government.

But anyway, I think what the US is doing is bringing justice and freedom in the world by getting rid of dictators one by one. I guess someone has to do it, since the UN seem to be buried in their own bureaucracy.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
You need to read the fine point of the amendment, I have the key parts in bold.



Terrorism goes under "public danger" and thus having a Grand Jury present is not necessarily part of due process. Notice also the statements are very open to interpretation.


You're quoting way out of context here. The amendment reads "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia (in other words, crimes involving military personnel, not private citizens) when in actual service, in time of war or public danger.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Nitpick
You choose :)

lol... the phrase "Not a Democracy" gnome is kinda cute, as is the rhetoric on the page you linked. :)

However, all one needs to do is look at Article IV of the constitution.
Reading (and understanding) the Federalist Papers would put the cherry on the sundae. ;)

[John Harrison]

After all, what's the problem with being a democracy?

Do you mean a pure democracy? Majority rule.

In essence, it only means that the government too has to abide by the law, not only the ordinary people.

No, in a republic the representatives rule by law. In a democracy the majority can change the law by vote. (ie: if the majority rule that murder is no longer a crime, it is no longer a crime)

[Scorpy]

Democracy is just a tool for making decisions. It is neither moral nor immoral, and whether it's used to protect rights or take them away depends entirely on the morality of the majority.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Stop this stupidity, people. Republic is a particular kind of democracy -- representative one (as opposed to ancient-Athenian-style direct democracy). Neither representative nor direct democracy are resistant to rule of the mob -- that resistance is accomplished by having a constitution, which fact is not inherent in being a republic (ancient Rome didn't have a constitution, just regular easily changeable laws).

If enough voters in USA decide that murder is no longer to be a crime, that fact will become law by simply getting amended into the constitution before getting legislated. The only difference from non-constitutional democracy is that it will require significantly more than majority of votes to over-ride constitution thusly. the alternative, an immutable constitution, is even worse.

[DialecticMaterialist]

You're quoting way out of context here. The amendment reads "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia (in other words, crimes involving military personnel, not private citizens) when in actual service, in time of war or public danger.

The Amdendment is open to interpretation. You can read "in time of war or public danger" as an afterthought to the militia or a new standard, or as an add on to "cases arising in land or naval forces" which itself can mean a) crimes within the military or b) crimes involving the military.

I know it sounds a little weasely, but I believe parts of the Constitution were purposely made flexible, because the Founders knew that the future was not going to be like their present. Also keep in mind the Founding Fathers never really dealt with a phenomenon like terrorism before, so the constitution is not really capable of classifying the act as a civilian or military offence.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Stop this stupidity, people. Republic is a particular kind of democracy -- representative one

Not necessarily.


Remeber Plato for example vouched for his Republic as a autocracy. And the Founding Fathers only wanted land owners to be able to vote.

re·pub·lic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=republic

All it means is that you have a president or officials that are voted in, this may or may not mean majority rules.

[Victor Danilchenko]

DialecticMaterialist

Remeber Plato for example vouched for his Republic as a autocracy.True; but not used that way any longer.

And the Founding Fathers only wanted land owners to be able to vote.in ancient Athens, slaves and women couldn't vote; that didn't make it non-democracy. Democracy, whether representative or otherwise, is rule by the people, for some arbitrary definition of ruling people. Sad, but true.

All it means is that you have a president or officials that are voted in, this may or may not mean majority rules.the point is that the only material difference between direct and representative democracy is the level(s) of indirection. Representative democracy can use arbitrary voting rules for electing representatives (it can require either majority or plurality or a variety of other arrangements), and democracy can require similar voting distribution for vote success/failure. The only difference is that in direct democracy people vote on issues, and in representative democracy people vote on people who [vote on people who...] vote on issues.

[Supercharts]

My town raised my property taxes without U.N. approval. I appealed to the French Council in Boston but to no avail. :mad:

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


The Amdendment is open to interpretation. You can read "in time of war or public danger" as an afterthought to the militia or a new standard, or as an add on to "cases arising in land or naval forces" which itself can mean a) crimes within the military or b) crimes involving the military.


'in time of war or public danger' is a prepositional phrase modifying 'when in actual service.'


I know it sounds a little weasely, but I believe parts of the Constitution were purposely made flexible, because the Founders knew that the future was not going to be like their present. Also keep in mind the Founding Fathers never really dealt with a phenomenon like terrorism before, so the constitution is not really capable of classifying the act as a civilian or military offence.


You are aware that the Constitution can be amended?

[DialecticMaterialist]

in ancient Athens, slaves and women couldn't vote; that didn't make it non-democracy. Democracy, whether representative or otherwise, is rule by the people, for some arbitrary definition of ruling people. Sad, but true.

You appear to be right.

5 entries found for democracy.
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy

Strangely then I guess any government made by "the people" can be considered a democracy.

I think a lot of people mean majority rule though when they say democracy though.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Wolverine


lol... the phrase "Not a Democracy" gnome is kinda cute, as is the rhetoric on the page you linked. :)

However, all one needs to do is look at Article IV of the constitution.
Reading (and understanding) the Federalist Papers would put the cherry on the sundae. ;)
Not much to do with the topic other than to quibble with a particular word.
If we're a republic (with a Constitution and Bill of Rights) does that make it OK?

[max]

You all seem to be off key here. A republic is a country that does not have monarchy, therefore USA is a republic. This does not mean that it is not democratic. It is democratic in that the citizens vote the rulers (government) in. It is not a dictatorship like Iraq.
There are, however rebublics that are dictatorships..i.e. Zimbawe Iraq etc

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Wolverine


The US has never been a democracy. It's a republic.

No, it's both.

Our governmental system is a republic.
Our political system is a democracy.

We became even more of a democracy when we adopted the 17th Amendment.

[armageddonman]

Back to the topic, do incidents like the one I mentioned jeopardice the US democracy?

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by max
I am not familiar with USA law but I would think that being accused of terrorism comes under different rules altogether.

Well see, that's the kicker. He's been accused of terrorism, but how do we know for sure unless we try him. Anyone can accuse you of anything for any reason, just because he's an alleged terrorist is no reason to strip him of his due process rights. He doesn't have to be let out on the street while awaiting trial, judges are not required to set bail, its left up to their discretion.
However, hiding him away, denying access to counsel, and having a closed trial defeats the whole purpose of having a judicial system open to public review.

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Back to the topic, do incidents like the one I mentioned jeopardice the US democracy?

I think this is not a very clear-cut matter, as it doesn't seem to be the people's opinion itself that's being ignored (a majority of US-citizens seem to agree with this somewhat problematic way of handling legal matters - even if there are also people who oppose it, see this forum). It's the laws that are being treated somewhat ungently (You could call it gymnastics to keep them in shape - bend a little, strech a bit... uups, aaand a little bit more...) :p

Ok, let's not get funny, I don't think this is something to get funny about.
After all, laws are supposed to be the guarantors of democracy.
But can a majority of a country's population act undemocraticly?

Edited for typos

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by subgenius
Not much to do with the topic other than to quibble with a particular word.

Guilty as charged, sir. :)

Sorry for knocking things off course.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
You need to read the fine point of the amendment, I have the key parts in bold.



Terrorism goes under "public danger" and thus having a Grand Jury present is not necessarily part of due process. Notice also the statements are very open to interpretation.

A Grand Jury is a requirement of due process. A G/J reviews the evidence collected so far and determines if there is enough to reasonably believe the accused commited the crimes he's in jail for. It used to be considered un-American to imprison a guy until you have found evidence to charge him with (normally the evidence is supposed to come first).

[Dancing David]

The question is why would we give the goverment the power to hold someone like this.

What is to prevent the people in the government from doing this to thier personal enemies.

If he is found guilty in a court of law fine, kill the scumbag.

It is not about how we defend scumbags, it is about how we keep the people in government from abusing thier powers. It is not the scumbag on trial we need to worry about, it is the scumbag in the goverment.

Does the phrase 'star chamber' ring a bell?

Peace
dancing David

[DialecticMaterialist]

A Grand Jury is a requirement of due process.

Not for all offenses. Those dealing with military,militia and/or(?)grave societal dangers have no need of a grandjury.

Not that I like the system of "peer review" anyways, its outdated and starting to break down. Civilians are too easily tricked by lawyers and overwhelmed by legal complexities.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by max
I'd blow their brains out first. Why do all the 'do-gooders' so want this type of person to be given every creature comfort, sympathy etc. They blow people up without regard for freedom and democracy. They would rather blow you up than look at you for their cause. The President and CIA whatever will have enough imformation on him, to hold him for now, any DECENT person would want such terrorists to be confronted, challenged and imprisoned until they can be brought to court. Why is there so much sympathy for this scum of the earth?

1st of all who are "they"?

You have determined that he is a terrorist, or, "they" are terrorists? Do tell, where is the evidence? Or is evidence not required when it is deemed an individual allegedly threatens the lives of civilians or military personel or property.

You have determined him or they to be scum. How did you come to this determination. Is there some precedent that will allow individual rights to be suspended when it is deemed "they" are in some way perceived undesirable.

Throughout history "they" have been rounded up, imprisoned, judged and sometimes executed without evidence by the religious or the secular. Circular arguments have been used to condemn "they". "They" are deemed guilty of [what ever charge], but they can not be innocent because they have been charged.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I too question how we ended up in this position where an American citizen can be held under these conditions: this seems to be an abbrogation of all civil liberties.
I suppose that we have a president select so he is likely to act as though there is martial law when there isn't.

I don't agree with the governments arguement that he is an enemy combatant, traitor maybe but not enemy combatant.

Peace
dancing David

Jose threw away his citizenship when he changed his name to Abdullah Al Muhajir and started plotting to kill his countrymen with a "dirty bomb". It is a military matter to deal with traitors like this. With any luck Jose will be facing a firing squad in California, where he won't be allowed a last cigarette in his public execution.

This law dates back to WWII (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/11/prisoner.status/index.html)

[Dancing David]

Soo if Tim McVeigh(rightist hero) had changed his name then he wouldn't have had due process. Citizenship is citizenship, the fight is not over the scumbags it is over powermad buerocrats.

Peace

[Nikk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Jose threw away his citizenship when he changed his name to Abdullah Al Muhajir and started plotting to kill his countrymen with a "dirty bomb". It is a military matter to deal with traitors like this. With any luck Jose will be facing a firing squad in California, where he won't be allowed a last cigarette in his public execution.

This law dates back to WWII (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/11/prisoner.status/index.html)

No.

He is accused of a serious crime and it is up to the state to prove his guilt. Until that is done he is a citizen like any other and entitled to due process.

In the abscence of an opinion to the contrary from a US lawyer this looks like a usurpation of judicial power by the executive which is always a route to tyranny.

As US prosecutors have proved to be more than capable of cocking up murder trials and imprisoning the innocent there is no good reason to assume guilt. Is the phrase innocent until proven guilty at all familiar to you?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Soo if Tim McVeigh(rightist hero) had changed his name then he wouldn't have had due process. Citizenship is citizenship, the fight is not over the scumbags it is over powermad buerocrats.

Peace

This thread gives a nice illustration of how easy it is to manipulate public opinion. The average poster here is probably significantly more intelligent and better informed than average. Yet all you have to do is give them a bit of a fright and some posters will fall over themselves agreeing that the government (the executive) should be able to override basic rights.

The average bloke in the street is hardly likely to be more sceptical of the government's actions either.

I hope the US has a suitable venue for really impressive torchlight rallies. ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Although I agree that whoever orchestrated 9-11 must pay, and Saddam's regime was an oppressive one, I still don't agree that any country can just lash out and invade another country without the UN's approval.

It's called sovereignty...


Originally posted by Frostbite
If other countries pull the same trick, the world's gonna become a little more chaotic.

You've never studied world history then, I take it...

[glee]

Originally posted by max
I am not familiar with USA law but I would think that being accused of terrorism comes under different rules altogether.


How about 'accused of terrorism without any evidence'?
Like the people in Guantamo Bay, Cuba. Facing a potential life sentence without trial.

Originally posted by max
Does a democracy mean that anyone has the right to do anything? I doubt it.


Do you have access to a dictionary? Look up 'democracy'. Something to to with citizens and ruling the country?
Now look up 'strawman'.

Originally posted by max
Me? I'd blow their brains out first.


As your thinking processes are so incoherent, I can't tell exactly which people you want to kill.
Do you mean people against whom there is no evidence?

Originally posted by max
Why do all the 'do-gooders' so want this type of person to be given every creature comfort, sympathy etc.


1. Gosh, you really are good at strawmen.
2. Which type of person?
3. Cite?

Originally posted by max
They blow people up without regard for freedom and democracy. They would rather blow you up than look at you for their cause.


Ah, I think I understand you. You are protesting against the US Government holding people without trial, denying them access to a lawyer and potentially sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Originally posted by max
The President and CIA whatever will have enough imformation on him, to hold him for now,


What breathtaking arrogance. Of course the President and the CIA don't have enough on them. Otherwise they'd hold a press conference to announce that charges were being brought and that dangerous terrorists were facing justice.
Basically Bush is trying to get re-elected by fooling people that the War on Terrorism is going as well as the War on Drugs ... err, skip that one ...

Originally posted by max
...any DECENT person would want such terrorists to be confronted, challenged and imprisoned until they can be brought to court. Why is there so much sympathy for this scum of the earth?

You really are a mixed up soul.
I notice you didn't say any DECENT LAW ABIDING person, since of course the US is not obeying the law.
And what pray, is the delay before they are brought to court?
Haven't you noticed that no charges have been brought, that prisoners are being quietly released and even that there are children held in these dismal camps.

I support justice being given to terrorists. Describing people who can't be brought to trial (because there is no evidence against them) as 'scum of the earth' sounds like a deeply disturbing idea to me.
If another Government imprisoned US citizens without trial, saying they were 'terrorists', would that bother you?

[max]

Glee
I'll wager you are the type that pulls spiders legs off one by one, too

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by max
Glee
I'll wager you are the type that pulls spiders legs off one by one, too

Without having a lot of the facts and enough evidence you are going to be losing what ever you wager.


non sequitur arguments, particularly Strawman and ad hominim, appear to be what you rely on in presenting your arguments max.

[glee]

Originally posted by max
Glee
I'll wager you are the type that pulls spiders legs off one by one, too

Ludicrous.

Let's summarise, shall we?
A person who pulls legs off spiders doesn't care about inflicting pain on others.
Here are some quotes:

Originally posted by max
I would think that being accused of terrorism comes under different rules altogether. ... Me? I'd blow their brains out first.


So you'd murder people just because they were accused of something.

Originally posted by max
The President and CIA whatever will have enough imformation on him, to hold him for now,


Oh look everyone - Max can save us all money! We don't need defence lawyers, or even those expensive courts. If the CIA says you're guilty, then you must be!
I realise that logic is a foreign concept to you, but could you explain why you think Mugabe in Zimbabwe is a dictator, but Bush is a republican? After all, they both imprison people without trial.
Perhaps you could send this cheery message to the family of an imprisoned man in Africa:
"The President will have enough information on him, to hold him for now,."

Lovely. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by max
did you know that other than usa uk europe


So you don't know any geography either. (Didn't you learn in school that the UK is part of Europe?)


And when I protest about this disgraceful imprisonment and abrogation of legal rights, you call me names. :confused:

Scene - a garden.
MAX is pulling legs off spiders.
MAX (mumbling) "You must be guilty of something..."
GLEE enters.
GLEE "Stop that at once!"

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Nikk:
No.

He is accused of a serious crime and it is up to the state to prove his guilt. Until that is done he is a citizen like any other and entitled to due process.

Originally posted by glee:
As your thinking processes are so incoherent, I can't tell exactly which people you want to kill.
Do you mean people against whom there is no evidence?


So you'd murder people just because they were accused of something.


Originally posted by Nikk:
The average bloke in the street is hardly likely to be more sceptical of the government's actions either.

I hope the US has a suitable venue for really impressive torchlight rallies.

Maybe both of you should read up on legal precedent in the UK.

Killing of unarmed suspects by British troops deemed lawful (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/30/newsid_2542000/2542719.stm)

I'm sure the new Wembley arena will prove the most suitable venue for torchlight processions in the UK. ;)

[glee]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Maybe both of you should read up on legal precedent in the UK.

Killing of unarmed suspects by British troops deemed lawful (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/30/newsid_2542000/2542719.stm)


Oh, Shane! I really expect better from you.

1. The story also includes the facts that the soldier's actions were considered by a court and jury.
Did you not notice the difference between that and the OP?

2. Also from the article: 'The elite SAS team shot the suspects because they believed the republican dissidents were about to detonate a remote control bomb in the tiny British territory.'

3. It wasn't in the UK (nitpick!).

I believe you are a supporter of guns for self-defence. ;)
I seem to remember discussing with you and others the rights of US citizens to kill car thieves. Don't you want known terrorist bombers to be shot?
(The IRA team had gone to Gibraltar to plant a car bomb at the weekly changing of the guard ceremony.)

And you compare this case to holding children for potentially life sentences without trial?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by glee
Oh, Shane! I really expect better from you.


A compliment, perhaps? In which case I'm suitably humbled!

1. The story also includes the facts that the soldier's actions were considered by a court and jury.
Did you not notice the difference between that and the OP

What matters here is that the soldiers acted as judge, jury and executioner. The suspects (British subjects) didn't get the benefit of having their actions considered by a court and jury. We're comparing treatment of suspects here.

2. Also from the article: 'The elite SAS team shot the suspects because they believed the republican dissidents were about to detonate a remote control bomb in the tiny British territory.'

Also from the article:
After the inquest relatives of the victims took the case to the European Commission of Human Rights.

It supported the findings of the Gibraltar court, but referred the decision to its higher court.

In September 1995 the Strasbourg court reversed the conclusion of the original inquest and the backing of the commission.

By a narrow margin of 10 votes to nine it found Britain had used excessive force and so breached Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


So you believe it is OK to kill people suspected of planning acts of terror? A reprise of your earlier points to Max:
As your thinking processes are so incoherent, I can't tell exactly which people you want to kill.
Do you mean people against whom there is no evidence?


So you'd murder people just because they were accused of something.

Am I to take it that this is your position also? To be honest I fid your thought processes somewhat difficult to fathom.

3. It wasn't in the UK (nitpick!).

Guantanamo Bay isn't in the US either. The soldiers were acting in the name of the British crown on British territory inhabited by British subjects. Don't forget that the suspects were also British subjects.

I believe you are a supporter of guns for self-defence. ;)

How did you form this opinion?

I seem to remember discussing with you and others the rights of US citizens to kill car thieves.

You're very much mistaken.

Don't you want known terrorist bombers to be shot?

Were these suspects "known terrorist bombers"?

(The IRA team had gone to Gibraltar to plant a car bomb at the weekly changing of the guard ceremony.)

So why weren't they arrested on suspicion of conspiring to plant a car bomb, detained, and tried in a court of law?

And you compare this case to holding children for potentially life sentences without trial?

Yes. It would appear to me (and I stand to be corrected on this) that legal precedent has been set in the UK, whereby British subjects may be liquidated on the mere suspicion of conspiracy to commit a crime.

The detainees in Guantanamo bay (are any of them legally defined "children"?) are not US citizens, and are members of a terrorist organisation that has engaged in hostile actions against the US. Al-Qaeda members killed a US serviceman in a suicide attack after they had surrendered. Life imprisonment? Links please. And how does a life sentence compare to a death sentence in terms of severity?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Agammamon


A Grand Jury is a requirement of due process. A G/J reviews the evidence collected so far and determines if there is enough to reasonably believe the accused commited the crimes he's in jail for. It used to be considered un-American to imprison a guy until you have found evidence to charge him with (normally the evidence is supposed to come first).

If the FBI had decided to press criminal charges, Padilla most likely would have never even gone to trial, securing a quick release and another chance to go about his merry work.
This time, it’s not so easy, and protecting the civil liberties of an Osama-loving gangster necessarily takes a backseat to safeguarding the American public from catastrophic attack.

[glee]

Originally posted by glee
Oh, Shane! I really expect better from you.


Originally posted by Shane Costello
A compliment, perhaps? In which case I'm suitably humbled!


A barbed one - I suggest you have dropped below your normal logical standards here!

Originally posted by glee
1. The story also includes the facts that the soldier's actions were considered by a court and jury.
Did you not notice the difference between that and the OP?


Originally posted by Shane Costello
What matters here is that the soldiers acted as judge, jury and executioner. The suspects (British subjects) didn't get the benefit of having their actions considered by a court and jury. We're comparing treatment of suspects here.


Well, the court ruled that since the suspects were believed to be terrorists about to bomb innocent people, that the soldiers were right to shoot.
Now we can discuss the case in more detail if you like. But just accept the view of a court and jury for the moment.
Are you suggesting that terrorists about to kill should be somehow 'confronted' with a court appointment?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Also from the article:

After the inquest relatives of the victims took the case to the European Commission of Human Rights.
It supported the findings of the Gibraltar court, but referred the decision to its higher court.
In September 1995 the Strasbourg court reversed the conclusion of the original inquest and the backing of the commission.
By a narrow margin of 10 votes to nine it found Britain had used excessive force and so breached Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Right and proper. The UK has signed up to the European Convention, and actions of UK soldiers are subject to international law. Unlike the US which declines to sign up to similar international legislation.
The Cuban detainees would be immediately released by such a court - but of course they face potential life imprisonment without trial.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
So you believe it is OK to kill people suspected of planning acts of terror?


No, of course not.
'The elite SAS team shot the suspects because they believed the republican dissidents were about to detonate a remote control bomb in the tiny British territory.'
Do you believe that terrorists about to kill innocent people should be shot?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
A reprise of your earlier points to Max:

Originally posted by glee
As your thinking processes are so incoherent, I can't tell exactly which people you want to kill.
Do you mean people against whom there is no evidence?
...
So you'd murder people just because they were accused of something.


Am I to take it that this is your position also? To be honest I fid your thought processes somewhat difficult to fathom.


Well once more for you then:

1. The people in Cuba have never had a lawyer nor faced any court proceedings. They are being held outside the US because they would be released immediately inside the country.
There is no evidence that any of them have ever committed any crime, nor that any of them belong to any terrorist organisation.
They include children. There is no time limit set for their release.
(I personally think they are being held so Bush can persuade people that he is getting results against the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity, but that's just me.)
Max announced that he would like to kill these people. He doesn't know anything about them or what, if anything, they are accused of. But the CIA say they did 'something', and that's all he needs.

2. The soldiers in Gibraltar had tracked an IRA terrorist unit which was planning to bomb a parade. There was extensive intelligence on the terrorists, and of course the IRA has killed thousands of people in the UK.
The soldiers believed the terrorists were about to kill, and that they would save innocent lives only by opening fire.
Since then their actions have been investigated by courts in both Gibraltar and Europe.
These trials were held in public and the evidence presented in court.

What exactly do you find difficult about finding the difference between these two cases?


Originally posted by glee
It wasn't in the UK (nitpick!).


Originally posted by Shane Costello
Guantanamo Bay isn't in the US either. The soldiers were acting in the name of the British crown on British territory inhabited by British subjects. Don't forget that the suspects were also British subjects.


1. I said it was a nitpick.
2. The point about Guantanamo Bay is that it isn't in the US, because the detention would be illegal otherwise.
3. I know the suspects were British. And they had lawyers speak for them in court. Something no-one in Cuba will ever have.
Just imagine a US camp guard shooting a detainee (he was trying to 'escape'). You think that will ever be investigated?

Originally posted by glee
I believe you are a supporter of guns for self-defence.


Originally posted by Shane Costello
How did you form this opinion?


Originally posted by glee
I seem to remember discussing with you and others the rights of US citizens to kill car thieves.


Originally posted by Shane Costello
You're very much mistaken.


Apologies - I've got you mixed up with another poster. (That's why I put 'I believe' and 'I seem to remember'.)


Originally posted by glee
Don't you want known terrorist bombers to be shot?


Originally posted by Shane Costello
Were these suspects "known terrorist bombers"?


A court and jury backed the view they were. Are you saying they weren't active members of the IRA?

Originally posted by glee
(The IRA team had gone to Gibraltar to plant a car bomb at the weekly changing of the guard ceremony.)


Originally posted by Shane Costello
So why weren't they arrested on suspicion of conspiring to plant a car bomb, detained, and tried in a court of law?


If time had permitted, that's the right thing to do.

Originally posted by glee
And you compare this case to holding children for potentially life sentences without trial?


Originally posted by Shane Costello
Yes. It would appear to me (and I stand to be corrected on this) that legal precedent has been set in the UK, whereby British subjects may be liquidated on the mere suspicion of conspiracy to commit a crime.


How many more times?
If a known terrorist group, which has been infiltrated, and is known to be on a mission to bomb innocent people, is believed to be about to detonate a bomb, then they may be shot.
Do you want to run that by anyone else on this Board?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
The detainees in Guantanamo Bay (are any of them legally defined "children"?)...


Yes, at least 3 are under 16.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
are not US citizens,...


Oh, that justifies life imprisonment without trial does it?!
Well that should cut down the tourist trade a bit.
(If it matters, at least one is a US citizen.)

Originally posted by Shane Costello
and are members of a terrorist organisation that has engaged in hostile actions against the US.


Goodness me. And you know this how? Because the CIA told you?
Funny how none of this non-existent 'evidence' has been presented in court.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Al-Qaeda members killed a US serviceman in a suicide attack after they had surrendered.


And these are people held in Cuba?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Life imprisonment? Links please.


Are you on drugs, or something?
How long do you think these people can be held? When is their next court appearance? What did their lawyers say? Who's going to serve the writ of habeas corpus?
Oh, yeah, none of the above apply.
So they can be held until ..err.. Bush decides to let them go. Or they die in captivity. And you think that's justice?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
And how does a life sentence compare to a death sentence in terms of severity?


I really am getting worried.
You're comparing known terrorist bombers believed to be about to commit mass murder with a bunch of people held for life without even being charged of any crime?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted glee:
Are you suggesting that terrorists about to kill should be somehow 'confronted' with a court appointment?

They should be arrested and tried. "Confronting" people with the legal process is what I thought the British judicial system is all about. "Confronting" the suspects would have been simple, considering they were unarmed.

Right and proper. The UK has signed up to the European Convention, and actions of UK soldiers are subject to international law. Unlike the US which declines to sign up to similar international legislation.

No, they're subject to European law under the European convention. Now if you think that the soldiers followed the correct course of action in Gibralter, how can you consider it "right and proper" that a European court deemed this to be "excessive force". As I see it, the possibility an external court might overrule an American one in this fashion is the reason why the US hasn't signed up for the international criminal court.

The Cuban detainees would be immediately released by such a court - but of course they face potential life imprisonment without trial.

Have you any evidence to support these assertions?

'The elite SAS team shot the suspects because they believed the republican dissidents were about to detonate a remote control bomb in the tiny British territory.'


The dissidents were unarmed. They could have simply been arrested.

Do you believe that terrorists about to kill innocent people should be shot?

When all other means to prevent it have been exhausted, then yes, lethal force is permissable.

1. The people in Cuba have never had a lawyer nor faced any court proceedings. They are being held outside the US because they would be released immediately inside the country.


The British subjects in Gibralter never faced a court of law nor had recourse to legal advice. They were shot dead. Have you any legal evidence to support your assertion the Cuban detainees would be released in the US?

There is no evidence that any of them have ever committed any crime, nor that any of them belong to any terrorist organisation.
They include children. There is no time limit set for their release.

You've told me all this before. Now back it up with evidence.

Max announced that he would like to kill these people. He doesn't know anything about them or what, if anything, they are accused of. But the CIA say they did 'something', and that's all he needs.

And if the detainees were in the UK, they probably could be killed if the SAS "suspected" that they might be up to something. It appears the legal precedent has been set.

2. The soldiers in Gibraltar had tracked an IRA terrorist unit which was planning to bomb a parade. There was extensive intelligence on the terrorists, and of course the IRA has killed thousands of people in the UK.
The soldiers believed the terrorists were about to kill, and that they would save innocent lives only by opening fire.

How do you know that the CIA doesn't have similar intelligence on the Guantanamo bay detainees? I mean, Al-Qaeda has killed "thousands of people" in America too. I'm sure the CIA believe that keeping Al-Qaeda operatives under lock and key is going to save innocent lives as well.

What exactly do you find difficult about finding the difference between these two cases?

You're not providing any supporting evidence to back your take on the two cases. In that case I find it very difficult to accept your version of the differences.

2. The point about Guantanamo Bay is that it isn't in the US, because the detention would be illegal otherwise.

Evidence?

3. I know the suspects were British. And they had lawyers speak for them in court. Something no-one in Cuba will ever have.

Speak for them in court? AFTER THEY WERE SHOT DEAD ON THE STREET ON SUSPICION OF PLANNING A BOMBING! They can have all the posthumous legal representation in the world. That isn't going to bring them back from the dead.

A court and jury backed the view they were. Are you saying they weren't active members of the IRA?

No. But why weren't they arrested and brought before a court?

If time had permitted, that's the right thing to do.

I see. So is due legal process to be abandoned because of time constraints? I mean, right now in this country there's a backlog of murder trials waiting to be heard. Should the presumption of innocence be thrown and the defendants automatically convicted out to speed things up a bit? The police have strong suspicions and evidence that these people may be guilty. That's enough, right?

3. I know the suspects were British. And they had lawyers speak for them in court. Something no-one in Cuba will ever have.

THEY WERE DEAD! They never got a trial! What good was legal representation and an eloquent defense then? None of the detainees in Cuba have been shot on suspicion of bad intent. I'd imagine if you gave them a choice between death and posthumous legal representation, and detention they'd choose the latter.

Just imagine a US camp guard shooting a detainee (he was trying to 'escape'). You think that will ever be investigated?

I've no reason to believe it wouldn't, have you?

If a known terrorist group, which has been infiltrated, and is known to be on a mission to bomb innocent people, is believed to be about to detonate a bomb, then they may be shot.

That seems to be the legal position in the UK. I'm not disputing that. But Al-Qaeda is a known terrorist group, has been behind acts of terrorism against Americans, and there's evidence to suggest they will continue to do so if allowed. So why shouldn't Al-Qaeda operatives be detained in light of this, if you see no proble with IRA terrorists being shot? I mean, they didn't shoot Richard Reid on sight, and he was apprehended with a bomb on him, and he got a trial. So why not the Gibralter suspects?

Do you want to run that by anyone else on this Board?

Absolutely!

Yes, at least 3 are under 16.

Evidence? And if so, then more evidence as to why their detention is illegal.

Oh, that justifies life imprisonment without trial does it?!
Well that should cut down the tourist trade a bit.
(If it matters, at least one is a US citizen.)

Please, evidence.

Are you on drugs, or something?
How long do you think these people can be held? When is their next court appearance? What did their lawyers say? Who's going to serve the writ of habeas corpus?
Oh, yeah, none of the above apply.

Says who? None of the above applied to the Gibralter suspects, and you don't have a problem with that. So why are throwing a hissy fit over the Cuban detainees, while posting no evidence to justify your position?

I really am getting worried.
You're comparing known terrorist bombers believed to be about to commit mass murder with a bunch of people held for life without even being charged of any crime?

The Gibralter suspects weren't "known terrorist bombers", and they weren't charged with any crime either before being liquidated. I think it's an apt comparison to make.

[glee]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
They should be arrested and tried. "Confronting" people with the legal process is what I thought the British judicial system is all about. "Confronting" the suspects would have been simple, considering they were unarmed.


You keep repeating this.
The soldiers thought the terrorists were detonating the bomb. How can you keep describing bombers as 'unarmed'? (Plus they hadn't been searched - IRA members have access to guns, you know.)
The first court agreed with the soldiers (even if the second overuled) and therefore refuted your suggestion that confronting the suspects was 'simple'.

I did have a lengthy post, but the hamsters ate it.
So I'll just summarise.

The people in Guantamo Bay are held without legal aid, have no date set for release or trial and no evidence (such as membership of any organisation) has been presented against them.
That worries me.

The IRA terrorists in Gibraltar had a bomb. Their organisation (which had killed thousands of people over decades) had been infiltrated, which is why their murderous mission was known and they were being followed.
Personally I wonder if some warning could have been given, and I detest all forms of violence anyway.
Nevertheless I see no comparison between these two cases.

I like the US, but I think they are making a terrible mistake in Cuba.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by glee:
You keep repeating this.
The soldiers thought the terrorists were detonating the bomb.

No. From the article:
The elite SAS team shot the suspects because they believed the republican dissidents were about to detonate a remote control bomb in the tiny British territory.

How can you keep describing bombers as 'unarmed'? (Plus they hadn't been searched - IRA members have access to guns, you know.)

Because they were unarmed! From the article:
The killing of three unarmed IRA suspects by British soldiers was lawful, a Gibraltar court has found

I did have a lengthy post, but the hamsters ate it.

The same hamsters up there in your head at the controls?

The people in Guantamo Bay are held without legal aid, have no date set for release or trial and no evidence (such as membership of any organisation) has been presented against them.
That worries me.

A link, some piece of evidence to back up your claims, how hard can it be if things are as cut and dried as you make them out?

The IRA terrorists in Gibraltar had a bomb. Their organisation (which had killed thousands of people over decades) had been infiltrated, which is why their murderous mission was known and they were being followed.

And you don't think Al-Qaeda is a murderous organisation? Haven't they killed thousands of people? What's illegal about the detention of suspects in Cuba?

[glee]

Originally posted by glee
The soldiers thought the terrorists were detonating the bomb.


Originally posted by Shane Costello
No. From the article:

'The elite SAS team shot the suspects because they believed the republican dissidents were about to detonate a remote control bomb in the tiny British territory.'


And what do you think 'about to detonate' means?

Originally posted by glee
How can you keep describing bombers as 'unarmed'? (Plus they hadn't been searched - IRA members have access to guns, you know.)


Originally posted by Shane Costello
Because they were unarmed! From the article:

'The killing of three unarmed IRA suspects by British soldiers was lawful, a Gibraltar court has found...'


Yes, after the danger from the murderous terrorist bombers was averted, they were discovered not to have guns. How were the soldiers supposed to know the IRA men were unarmed?

Originally posted by glee
The people in Guantamo Bay are held without legal aid, have no date set for release or trial and no evidence (such as membership of any organisation) has been presented against them.
That worries me.


Originally posted by Shane Costello
A link, some piece of evidence to back up your claims, how hard can it be if things are as cut and dried as you make them out?


Well if you really are so ignorant about what the fuss is about:

'Report Condemns Treatment of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
The treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban suspects at a U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay undermines human rights and may be cruel and degrading, Amnesty International asserted Monday.
In a 62-page memorandum sent to the U.S. government, Amnesty also accuses Washington of flouting international law by refusing detainees access to legal counsel.

"The U.S. government must ensure that all its actions in relation to those in its custody in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay comply with international law and standards," the human rights group said.

"This is crucial if justice is to be done and seen to be done, and if respect for the rule of law and human rights is not to be undermined." '

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/04152002_nw_prisoners.html

'It is shameful for Britain to support the degradation of these terrorist suspects'

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=115688

Law Society and Bar Human Rights protest

http://www.barhumanrights.org.uk/pdfs/PR_25_12_02.PDF

'Doctors at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly say that in the seven months that the U.S. has been keeping al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners there, about thirty have tried to kill themselves.

That's according to the BBC, which also reports that a "couple of dozen detainees" have chronic psychiatric problems. Some are reported to have cut themselves with plastic utensils; others are said to have banged their heads against the walls.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/15/attack/main518770.shtml

'The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the prisoners are aliens being held outside U.S. sovereign territory and therefore are not entitled to constitutional rights such as being charged with a crime or having access to a lawyer.'

http://www.fresnobee.com/24hour/nation/story/802255p-5717289c.html

'Many countries have complained that the prisoners are being held without charges or access to lawyers, a violation of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war.

Amnesty International has also protested that the prolonged detention and uncertainty the prisoners faced put them at risk of physical and psychological harm after a series of suicide attempts among the detainees.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,911513,00.html

'The government came under renewed pressure today to demand the release of British citizens being held without charge by the US at the Guantanamo Bay base.
Nine Britons have been detained for more than a year at Camp X-Ray and at Bagram air base after being taken prisoner during military action in Afghanistan.

The Liberal Democrats' deputy leader, Menzies Campbell, said the government should use its influence with the US president, George Bush, to secure their freedom.

He said: "It is unacceptable that the government has allowed UK citizens to be held captive at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram for over a year.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,943696,00.html

'Several fugitives, alleged to be former members of Saddam’s Government and named on a list of fifty or so individuals who are “Wanted” by the Bush Regime, have been arrested. What legitimate authority has the United States, and its aiders and abettors, to go about in Iraq, apprehending its citizenry? The answer to this question is a positive, “None whatsoever!” In fact Bush’s authority is that of the Bandit, who holds a gun at his opponent’s head and says, “Stand and Deliver!” For George W. Bush and his henchmen to claim the right, now that they have devastated Iraq, to continue to harass and imprison its citizenry, under the specious claim of the pursuance of criminals, is an international outrage, with grave implications for the future peace and stability, not only of the Middle East, but of the world itself. No longer will those who anger the USA, be able to do so with impunity but they must face the resentment of US officials, who will find ways and means to deal with them as they see fit. The “Roy Bean” mentality is in charge of US Justice, these days, and that jurisdiction extends, evidently, throughout the length and breadth of the entire planet. What is happening to those who are now in US Custody? Will they, too, be transferred to the Tiger Cages of Guantamo (?) Bay, where US torturers can deal with them as they see fit? '

http://www.ideal.net.au/~robertsj/requiem.html

'United States: Free Guantanamo Bay detainees. The United States has no legal basis for continuing to hold captured Taliban soldiers at Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch has told US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "There are people being held at Guantanamo who shouldn't be there," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "The United States cannot simply hold the detainees for as long as it wants." '

http://www.indexonline.org/indexindex/20030308_unitedstates.shtml

'In one of the cases (Al Odah v. United States, No. 02-5251), fathers and brothers of twelve Kuwaiti nationals detained at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay brought an action in the form of a complaint against the United States, President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, whom they allege is the Commander of Joint Task Force 160, and Col. Terry Carrico, the Com- mandant of Camp X-Ray/Camp Delta. None of the plaintiffs' attorneys have communicated with the Kuwaiti detainees. The complaint alleges that the detainees were in Afghanistan and Pakistan as volunteers providing humanitarian aid; that local villagers seeking bounties seized them and handed them over to United States forces; and that they were transferred to Guantanamo Bay sometime between January and March 2002. A representative of the United States Embassy in Kuwait informed the Kuwaiti government of their where- abouts. Invoking the Great Writ, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2242; the Alien Tort Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; and the Administrative Procedure Act, the Al Odah plaintiffs claim a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment, tortious conduct in violation of the law of nations and a treaty of the United States, and arbitrary and unlawful governmental conduct. They seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction ordering that they be informed of any charges against them and requiring that they be permitted to consult with counsel and meet with their families.'

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/dc/025251a.html

'Why You Should Care About the Guantanamo Bay "detainees" 01/29/2002
I always (naively) thought that the Rule of Law applied here in the U.S. If you were a "detainee" of the federal government, then you fell into one of two categories; a prisoner subject to federal law, or a prisoner of war, subject to the Geneva Convention.
Seems now like there is a third category, a "Bush detainee".

The Voice of America, on Jan 28, 2002, had this to say about the "detainees":

"Questions about the treatment of 158 al-Qaida and Taliban detainees being held at the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba appear to be putting strains on the U.S.-led international coalition fighting terrorism. But following a visit to Guantanamo Bay, efforts are under way to mute any further criticism from abroad."'

'Guantanamo Bay Watch
By Matt Bivens
"Military authorities at the U.S. Naval Base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have discovered that 'fewer than a half dozen' detainees are juveniles. ... The juveniles, described as between the ages of 13 and 15, were declared 'enemy combatants' when they were arrested fighting against U.S. troops in Central Asia. ... After a detailed medical examination, they were determined to be youngsters."

-- Los Angeles Times, April 23

"Teenagers younger than 16 being held at Guantanamo Bay are 'not children' and pose a lethal danger that justifies detention, U.S. military chiefs insisted yesterday."

-- The Guardian, April 26'

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/04/28/007.html

Originally posted by Shane Costello
And you don't think Al-Qaeda is a murderous organisation? Haven't they killed thousands of people? What's illegal about the detention of suspects in Cuba?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were a moron.

Yes, Al-Qaeda is a murderous organisation.
Yes, they have killed thousands of people.
Of course I detest violence.

And what evidence is there that anyone in Cuba is a member of Al-Qaeda?
None.

What's illegal about holding children for over a year in a foreign military camp without access to their family or legal advice?
Gee Shane, you tell me. :rolleyes:

[PogoPedant]

Just a quick butt-in...
The IRA terrorists in Gibraltar had a bomb. Their organisation (which had killed thousands of people over decades) had been infiltrated, which is why their murderous mission was known and they were being followed.
The subtle difference, I belive, is that the brit's were known to be members of a terrorist organization, while the guys in Cuba are suspected of being members of a terrorist organization. But what the hell do I know.

[Shane Costello]

"'Doctors at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly say that in the seven months that the U.S. has been keeping al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners there, about thirty have tried to kill themselves."

So they are Al-Qaeda and Taliban members. Thank you.

"'The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the prisoners are aliens being held outside U.S. sovereign territory and therefore are not entitled to constitutional rights such as being charged with a crime or having access to a lawyer.'"

So their detention is legal under US law. Thank you.

"'Many countries have complained that the prisoners are being held without charges or access to lawyers, a violation of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war."

But then are the Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners recognised as combatants, and covered by the Geneva protocol in the first place?

"'Doctors at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly say that in the seven months that the U.S. has been keeping al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners there, about thirty have tried to kill themselves.

That's according to the BBC, which also reports that a "couple of dozen detainees" have chronic psychiatric problems. Some are reported to have cut themselves with plastic utensils; others are said to have banged their heads against the walls.'

This is moot. Whether the detainees have psychiatric problems or not isn't in any way related to the legality of their detention.

'The government came under renewed pressure today to demand the release of British citizens being held without charge by the US at the Guantanamo Bay base.
Nine Britons have been detained for more than a year at Camp X-Ray and at Bagram air base after being taken prisoner during military action in Afghanistan.

So these British citizens were captured in Afghanistan. On a sun holiday, were they? Could it possibly be that they were up to no good, like the British citizens shot dead by the SAS in Gibralter?

'Several fugitives, alleged to be former members of Saddam’s Government and named on a list of fifty or so individuals who are “Wanted” by the Bush Regime, have been arrested. What legitimate authority has the United States, and its aiders and abettors, to go about in Iraq, apprehending its citizenry? The answer to this question is a positive, “None whatsoever!” In fact Bush’s authority is that of the Bandit, who holds a gun at his opponent’s head and says, “Stand and Deliver!” For George W. Bush and his henchmen to claim the right, now that they have devastated Iraq, to continue to harass and imprison its citizenry, under the specious claim of the pursuance of criminals, is an international outrage, with grave implications for the future peace and stability, not only of the Middle East, but of the world itself. No longer will those who anger the USA, be able to do so with impunity but they must face the resentment of US officials, who will find ways and means to deal with them as they see fit. The “Roy Bean” mentality is in charge of US Justice, these days, and that jurisdiction extends, evidently, throughout the length and breadth of the entire planet. What is happening to those who are now in US Custody? Will they, too, be transferred to the Tiger Cages of Guantamo (?) Bay, where US torturers can deal with them as they see fit? '

Standard Guardian flapdoodle. Allegations of torture not backed up.

'United States: Free Guantanamo Bay detainees. The United States has no legal basis for continuing to hold captured Taliban soldiers at Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch has told US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "There are people being held at Guantanamo who shouldn't be there," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "The United States cannot simply hold the detainees for as long as it wants."

The US court of appeals begs to differ, it would seem.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were a moron.

Yes, Al-Qaeda is a murderous organisation.
Yes, they have killed thousands of people.
Of course I detest violence.

And what evidence is there that anyone in Cuba is a member of Al-Qaeda?
None.

Well, some of the links you posted have stated that they are members of Al-Qaeda.

[max]

Glee
It has been announced today that David Blunkett wants suspected terrorists to be held longer without charges or trial. Laws should be different for this....'scum' or would you prefer them to go free to bomb innocent people? There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, in holding a suspect until further evidence is forthcoming, and I can't see that an innocent person would be dragged off the street and accused of involvement with terror, without some sort of inside info.
The CIA and FBI can't always report how they arrive at arresting a suspect, this would give away their source and their secrets as to how they obtain information. You know this of course as you appear to be very articulate on the subject.
The reason my posts are 'veiled' and perhaps cryptic sometimes is because I would be banned from this forum if I posted what I really think of the afore named scum

P.S should the title of this thread not be.....Is the USA......and not Are the USA? I know it's 'states' but it is one country.

[De_Bunk]

Max..

I agree....

There is no smoke without fire....

No one is just picked up because of a phone call...

There has to be "reasonable suspicion"....

Law enforcement agencies are not dim....they collude info across the world....

I have faith in what they are doing...I rely on them to protect me...

If i break the law....and then get caught...so be it...

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by De_Bunk

No one is just picked up because of a phone call...



Tell this to the Jews that were persecuted in Nazi-Germany.

[glee]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
"'Doctors at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly say that in the seven months that the U.S. has been keeping al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners there, about thirty have tried to kill themselves."

So they are Al-Qaeda and Taliban members. Thank you.


1. The only people saying they are Al-Quaeda are the US personnel holding them. Do you call that evidence?
2. I thought the Taliban were legal rulers of Afghanistan, and therefore entitled to fight invaders. How come they are not prisoners of war?
3. You accept blindly the word of the US doctors over Al-Quaeda, but sneer at the admission they have tried to kill themselves.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
"'The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the prisoners are aliens being held outside U.S. sovereign territory and therefore are not entitled to constitutional rights such as being charged with a crime or having access to a lawyer.'"

So their detention is legal under US law. Thank you.


Oh, for goodness sake! Of course their treatment is not legal in the US. That's why they are being held in a military camp in Cuba.
You might as well say that if Al-Quaeda kidnap a US serviceman outside the US, it's legal because he's not entitled to constitutional rights.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
"'Many countries have complained that the prisoners are being held without charges or access to lawyers, a violation of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war."

But then are the Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners recognised as combatants, and covered by the Geneva protocol in the first place?


Well Bush simply announced a new category of prisoner. Apparently you can hold these 'combatants' without trial indefinitely (as long as it's not in the US, because that would be illegal!). Of course there is no precedent or backing in law for this, but the US has the biggest army.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
'The government came under renewed pressure today to demand the release of British citizens being held without charge by the US at the Guantanamo Bay base.
Nine Britons have been detained for more than a year at Camp X-Ray and at Bagram air base after being taken prisoner during military action in Afghanistan.'

So these British citizens were captured in Afghanistan. On a sun holiday, were they? Could it possibly be that they were up to no good, like the British citizens shot dead by the SAS in Gibralter?


Ah, so now being in a country is an arrestable offence, according to you.
Actually one of my sources was a legal claim that they were doing humanitarian aid. That of course is not being investigated.
Note that the US has recently released some of the detainees without charge. Perhaps you could choose from these two:

- they were innocent and have been detained illegally
- they were Al-quaeda members and the US just let them go.

You still can't tell the difference between these detainees, especially the ones who have been released. and the proven terrorists of the IRA who were about to detonate a bomb?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
'United States: Free Guantanamo Bay detainees. The United States has no legal basis for continuing to hold captured Taliban soldiers at Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch has told US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "There are people being held at Guantanamo who shouldn't be there," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "The United States cannot simply hold the detainees for as long as it wants."

The US court of appeals begs to differ, it would seem.


Of course the court only ruled that it had no jurisdiction over Cuba.
If you bothered to read the legal judgement above, you'd see the detention is illegal under the US Constitution anywhere in the US.

Originally posted by glee
Yes, Al-Qaeda is a murderous organisation.
Yes, they have killed thousands of people.
Of course I detest violence.


And what evidence is there that anyone in Cuba is a member of Al-Qaeda?
None.
Well, some of the links you posted have stated that they are members of Al-Qaeda. [/QUOTE]

Oh, so this is what you call evidence:

- the US troops detain some people in Afghanistan
- the US take them to Cuba
- the US announces they are members of Al-Quaeda
- you agree because 'So these British citizens were captured in Afghanistan. On a sun holiday, were they?'
- the US release some detainees without charge, but this doesn't prove these men are dangerous terrorists

And most importantly, please answer this:

What's illegal about holding children for over a year in a foreign military camp without access to their family or legal advice?

[max]

Glee
Why are you soooooo concerned about what America does? Why don't you concentrate on your own country.UK or is that really Asia and the UK a second home.
If I sit amongst a den of junkies but don't take drugs myself, I have only myself to blame if there is a police raid and I am dragged into custody with the rest of them. Maybe the Brits in Afghan were human aid workers but they must have been in pretty close proximity to the Al-Quaeda to have been rounded up...grow up

[BME]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Jose threw away his citizenship when he changed his name to Abdullah Al Muhajir and started plotting to kill his countrymen with a "dirty bomb". It is a military matter to deal with traitors like this. With any luck Jose will be facing a firing squad in California, where he won't be allowed a last cigarette in his public execution.

This law dates back to WWII (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/11/prisoner.status/index.html)

isnt there also this war on drugs going on in the USA? or has it ended? anyway, anyone who could be seen as an undeclared participant/combatant/informer on the druggies side could
according to this article, i think, also be 'legally' held under the conditions Jose is held......
how many people would that be?
cheers, Bart

[glee]

Originally posted by max
Glee
It has been announced today that David Blunkett wants suspected terrorists to be held longer without charges or trial.


1. Do you know what circular reasoning is? So you want the Government to be able to arrest you because they say you are a terrorist. Then the proof that you are a terrorist is that you have been arrested.
2. You are in distinguished company:
- Germany 'It has been announced today that Adolf Hitler wants suspected Jews to be held longer without charges or trial. '
- Soviet Union 'It has been announced today that Josef Stalin wants suspected counter-revolutionaries to be held longer without charges or trial. '
- Zimbabwe 'It has been announced today that Robert Mugabe wants suspected farmers to be held longer without charges or trial.'
- Iraq 'It has been announced today that Saddam Hussein wants suspected plotters to be held longer without charges or trial.'

Originally posted by max
Laws should be different for this....'scum' or would you prefer them to go free to bomb innocent people?


How old are you?
If you have evidence, then you have my full support arresting criminals, charging them, proving the case in open court and sentencing them.
Of course you prefer to lock up children for over a year in a foreign military camp without access to their family or legal advice.
What sort of person are you?
As I posted earlier:
Note that the US has recently released some of the detainees without charge. Perhaps you could choose from these two:

- they were innocent and have been detained illegally
- they were Al-quaeda members and the US just let them go (to continue their murderous bombing.

So which is it?
Does the US hold innocent people for a year, or does it let terrorists free to strike again?

Originally posted by max
There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, in holding a suspect until further evidence is forthcoming,


You just love your assumptions, don't you? What 'evidence' do you think they've got to start with?
So you see 'nothing wrong, in my opinion, in holding a suspect until any evidence is forthcoming'?

Originally posted by max
and I can't see that an innocent person would be dragged off the street and accused of involvement with terror, without some sort of inside info.


Oh dear.
This has certainly happened in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia* etc.
And you want the US to be just like these regimes?

*this is a particularly nasty example. People were executed by the Khmer Rouge simply for wearing glasses, since it showed they were an intellectual, and intellectuals were the enemy of the State.

Originally posted by max
The CIA and FBI can't always report how they arrive at arresting a suspect, this would give away their source and their secrets as to how they obtain information. You know this of course as you appear to be very articulate on the subject.


I expect that's what all the regimes above said.
The vital difference for me is that once a Government ignores the courts and justice, then the terrorists have won. The Democracy becomes a terror state.
And of course I assume you will be entirely ignorant of any terrorism outside the US. You may have noticed Shane Costello and I discussing the IRA. This terrorist organisation has been bombing civilians for decades. British Intelligence has had infiltrators at the highest levels. Books, TV programs and newspapers have discussed this whole topic.

Originally posted by max
The reason my posts are 'veiled' and perhaps cryptic sometimes is because I would be banned from this forum if I posted what I really think of the afore named scum.


Oh we know what you'd like to do. As soon as a detainee arrives in Cuba, you'd torture them for information, then shoot them.
They must be guilty, because they're in Cuba!
Perhaps you'd like to compose and post a little speech to the family of a detainee who turns out to be innocent, but can't be released because you murdered him.

[glee]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
There is no smoke without fire....


I think you mean there is no justice without evidence.

Originally posted by De_Bunk
No one is just picked up because of a phone call...
There has to be "reasonable suspicion"....


Are you serious?
As I posted to max:
'This has certainly happened in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia* etc.
And you want the US to be just like these regimes?

*this is a particularly nasty example. People were executed by the Khmer Rouge simply for wearing glasses, since it showed they were an intellectual, and intellectuals were the enemy of the State.'

Do you wear glasses, De_Bunk?

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I have faith in what they are doing...I rely on them to protect me...
If i break the law....and then get caught...so be it...

So if the police arrest you, you'll plead guilty. You won't ask for details of the charges, for the advice of a lawyer or even for a trial.
Go straight to Jail. Do not pass justice.

[glee]

Originally posted by max
Glee
Why are you soooooo concerned about what America does?


Well actually I am concerned about human rights all over the World.
As I have often said, I admire the US for its tradition of free speech, democracy and other human rights under the Constitution.
When the US makes what I think is a terrible mistake, then I point it out.

Originally posted by max
Why don't you concentrate on your own country.UK or is that really Asia and the UK a second home.


Oh, you're not just stupid, but a bigot as well!
Do tell me more. If I do come from Asia, does that make me inferior?
(And since there are fellow Brits held by the US without trial in Cuba, I think I have a vital interest.)

Originally posted by max
If I sit amongst a den of junkies but don't take drugs myself, I have only myself to blame if there is a police raid and I am dragged into custody with the rest of them.


Well I would certainly think that anyone foolish to sit with a bunch of law-breakers might have to spend the night in custody before being released.
Of course nobody gets a trial, access to a lawyer or their family in Guantanamo Bay.

Originally posted by max
Maybe the Brits in Afghan were human aid workers but they must have been in pretty close proximity to the Al-Quaeda to have been rounded up...grow up

Ha bloody ha.
Maybe they were human aid workers...so that justifies imprisonment does it?
How old are you?

[max]

Glee
old enough, take no notice of my D.O.B in my profile, like a lot of others on here it is incorrect. There is another thread dedicated to me and age.
You harp on about children, of course it is a disgrace but these are hardened soldiers, trained for many years by their own 'countrymen' If these backward countries use children on frontlines, then they must take the consequences. They can't be soldiers one day and enjoying (like every other terrorist) blowing your head off then crying that 'I am but a child'
You'd do well to channel your anger, not on here, faceless, and bleating rubbish, but within the UK and good causes.
Of course I am a bigot so what? What are you? Someone who seeks solace in this land and lives off my hard earned money? Then shows the racist card, stamps feeties and gets exactly what he wants because the original UK sucker daren't kick up against this for fear of being called a racist. But the day is dawning.....long live the NBP
You think I won't have my say? You certainly spew out yours. Muslims, hindus don't want us on their land....well, get the f=ck off ours for Christs sake.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by max
Muslims, hindus don't want us on their land....well, get the f=ck off ours for Christs sake. [/B]

"Ours"? Who are you referring to?

[max]

arma
The Islam faith began in Mecca or there abouts. But Mohammed's people spread like a rash over the planet. They have conveniently forgotten that. Now they claim Israel is 'theirs'
And what is THEIR land that they tell us to get off...ask that. where is THEIR land if I can't say 'ours' meaning the UK. And don't give me the speel about the Vikings and Romans it gets so boring. I couldn't give a toss who lives in the UK as long as they don't start dictating to me how I should live, share MY money and then say we are a naff nation, their housing isn't good enough, (well it's better than a piece of plastic drawn over deadwood eh?) our morals are crap, we are all infedels if we don't follow Allah etc etc etc etc
This is my final posting on this thread. And you haven't even the guts to put what part of Europe you are in.........europe, very vague
Glee
you may not read this but who cares. Wrong............
Skin colour....pure white
School...best in England left with 9 GCEs three A levels
work...reached the dizzy heights of executive for Nationalised company. Left to do Journalism, then be an Equity member. Director of own company for a decade.
Not a racist just want my equal rights,.. to be white , British and fly the union Jack
I won't be leaving so you shut the door as you go. we don't need angry two faced people on here. We need posters to be honest.

[glee]

Originally posted by max
You harp on about children, of course it is a disgrace but these are hardened soldiers, trained for many years by their own 'countrymen'


And you know this how?

Originally posted by max
If these backward countries use children on frontlines, then they must take the consequences. They can't be soldiers one day and enjoying (like every other terrorist) blowing your head off then crying that 'I am but a child'


Ah, yes backward countries. You're a racist aren't you?

Originally posted by max
Of course I am a bigot so what?


A bigoted racist, and proud of it. Wow.

Originally posted by max
What are you? Someone who seeks solace in this land and lives off my hard earned money?...


Gosh, max, you think I'm an immigrant to the UK? And that would automatically make me inferior in your eyes. I suppose you think I'm unemployed too.

Originally posted by max
....Then shows the racist card, stamps feeties and gets exactly what he wants because the original UK sucker daren't kick up against this for fear of being called a racist. But the day is dawning.....long live the NBP


Now that just proves what you are max. Only really ignorant racists don't know that it's the British National Party (BNP) - our equivalent to the Klu Klux Klan.

Originally posted by max
You think I won't have my say? You certainly spew out yours. Muslims, hindus don't want us on their land....well, get the f=ck off ours for Christs sake.

And there was I posting politely to a message board.
Well here's a farewell surprise for you max - I'm going to describe you astonishingly accurately:

Skin colour: White
Education: Poor (left school early)
Politics: Racist (BNP)
Job: Low paid
Social skills: Poor
Hobbies: Drinking, violence

Please shut the door on your way out.