30
   

Obama echoes Bush: CIA abductees can’t sue

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 02:51 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Except it isn't true.

Captured enemy soldiers (should they have the rare fortune to be captured alive) have the right to have their case reviewed by a federal judge, where they can argue that they are actually not part of al-Qa'ida.

In that case, your analogy between Al-Quaeda and enemy soldiers was misleading in the first place. The National Defense Authorization Act explicitly empowers the government to detain Al-Quaeda members and those who "substantially supported" them indefinitely---without trial.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 03:33 am
@Thomas,
Without actual charges, too, I believe?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 04:23 am
@dlowan,
That's correct. Prisoners detained under this law would have know right to know the charges against them, and prison-operators would have no duty to even bring any charges to defend against.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 09:57 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Except it isn't true.

Captured enemy soldiers (should they have the rare fortune to be captured alive) have the right to have their case reviewed by a federal judge, where they can argue that they are actually not part of al-Qa'ida.


In that case, your analogy between Al-Quaeda and enemy soldiers was misleading in the first place. The National Defense Authorization Act explicitly empowers the government to detain Al-Quaeda members and those who "substantially supported" them indefinitely---without trial.


"Substantially supporting the enemy" is good enough for POW status.

The government was already empowered to do all this. All this legislation does is restate existing law.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 09:58 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Without actual charges, too, I believe?


Correct. The detention of POWs until the end of a war does not involve criminal charges.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 10:04 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
That's correct. Prisoners detained under this law would have know right to know the charges against them, and prison-operators would have no duty to even bring any charges to defend against.


They would have the right to know that they are being held because they are suspected of being a member of al-Qa'ida.

And they would have the right to go to court and try to persuade a judge that they are not.

But it is true that there would be nothing like criminal charges involved. It's based on the POW model, not the criminal justice model.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 01:46 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
But it is true that there would be nothing like criminal charges involved. It's based on the POW model, not the criminal justice model.

. . . which in practice leads to human rights violations if you over-strech concepts like "war", "prisoner", and the like.

I think you can see this easily if you imagine the shoe on the other foot: Johnson's "war on poverty" was declared almost 50 years ago. Would you be fine if Democratic presidents started shipping exploitative employers to Gitmo, and keep them there indefinitely until "the end of hostilities"?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 10:05 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
But it is true that there would be nothing like criminal charges involved. It's based on the POW model, not the criminal justice model.

. . . which in practice leads to human rights violations if you over-strech concepts like "war", "prisoner", and the like.


Nothing is being overstreched. We are at war with a definite enemy, and up through 2005 we were capturing prisoners alive.



Thomas wrote:
I think you can see this easily if you imagine the shoe on the other foot: Johnson's "war on poverty" was declared almost 50 years ago. Would you be fine if Democratic presidents started shipping exploitative employers to Gitmo, and keep them there indefinitely until "the end of hostilities"?


The war on terror has a definite enemy: al-Qa'ida and allied organizations like the Taliban. That enemy is using military force against us, and we are using military force against them.

The war on poverty did not have a definite enemy. We were not using military force against anyone related to the war on poverty. And no one related to the war on poverty was using military force against us.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 05:54 am
@Thomas,
Oralboy is a ******* idiot. Terrorists are criminals, using terms like 'war on terror' legitimises their actions, and helps to make them look heroic in the eyes of angry young Moslem men. They're criminals and should be tried as such.

I do like your notion of shipping exploitative employers off to Gitmo though.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 05:57 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
. . . which in practice leads to human rights violations if you over-strech concepts like "war", "prisoner", and the like.

I don't see any way between us to reach agreement on this point. I'm giving up the effort.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 12:46 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Oralboy is a ******* idiot.


As always, your childish namecalling does little to balance your lack of a real argument.



izzythepush wrote:
Terrorists are criminals, using terms like 'war on terror' legitimises their actions,


Nothing has been legitimized. They are still eligible to be tried, either by a military tribunal or by a regular Article III court.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 01:18 pm
@oralloy,
Guantanamo Bay is a monument to America's lawlessness, and is Al Qaida's greatest recruiting sergeant. If you want to win the war on terror, close down Guantanamo Bay.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 04:15 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Guantanamo Bay is a monument to America's lawlessness,


There is no lawlessness. The law says we have the right to detain POWs until the end of the war.



izzythepush wrote:
and is Al Qaida's greatest recruiting sergeant. If you want to win the war on terror, close down Guantanamo Bay.


If we moved the POWs into prisons somewhere else, the terrorists would not be any happier about it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jan, 2012 08:15 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Guantanamo Bay is a monument to America's lawlessness, and is Al Qaida's greatest recruiting sergeant.
If you want to win the war on terror, close down Guantanamo Bay.
What do u propose that we do with the Moslems?

Incidentally, how many more Moslems did Al Qaeda recruit
than it woud have if we did not have it in operation ?

I dunno, but I suspect that there was no difference;
i.e., more of them probably did not join up for the chance of being housed there.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jan, 2012 08:23 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
I do like your notion of shipping exploitative employers off to Gitmo though.
If we send the EXPLOITATIVE ones THERE, then where
shud we send the EXPLOITIVE ones ?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jan, 2012 08:30 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Somewhere that doesn't know how to spell.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2012 04:58 pm
Somalia's Prisons: The War on Terror's Latest Front

Jun 27, 2012 6:30 AM EDT

The U.S. wants out of the international jailing business. So what happens when we catch a terrorist abroad? In Somalia, they end up in a living hell.

So now it’s official: United States soldiers have been hunting down al Qaeda affiliates in Somalia. When the White House confirmed earlier this month what has long been an open secret, most of the ensuing chatter focused on the need for greater transparency about the expanding war on terror.

Less discussed was what happens to all those alleged terrorists when they’re captured alive.

One answer can be found here in the dusty Somali port city of Bosaso, where corrugated-metal shacks look as if they might be blown away in the next storm, and summer temperatures easily top 110 degrees. Overcrowded, underfunded, and reeking of urine, the Bosaso Central Prison could make even the most dedicated insurgent regret ever getting into the terrorism business. Many inmates don’t have shoes, and instead of uniforms, they wear filthy T-shirts and ankle-length garments wrapped around their waists that resemble sarongs (called ma-awis in Somali). When I visited earlier this year, the warden, Shura Sayeed Mohammed, told me he had 393 prisoners in a place designed to hold no more than 300. He said that since 2009, he had received 16 inmates captured by Americans.

Pentagon spokesman James Gregory wouldn’t confirm the number of prisoners the U.S. has sent to Bosaso, only that it has handed over prisoners, “back over to where they came from.” He said the U.S. is “returning them to their government, and their government takes them.”

Bosaso, along with other remote prisons around the world, is one of the less well-known and least-understood aspects of the war on terror. When President Barack Obama came into office, he expanded the scope of Central Intelligence Agency and military-drone operations in the Islamic world, while also taking steps to end America’s role in detaining suspects captured overseas in that war. He shut the remaining CIA black site prisons in Europe, and handed over high-value Iraqi detainees to the Iraqi courts. Guantanamo Bay no longer takes new inmates, though it continues to house prisoners who haven’t yet been transferred to other countries.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2018 at 12:01:19