1
   

* Bush Admin seeks to detain suspects forever without trial

 
 
g day
 
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 05:56 pm
This is a scary story, basically it says Bush's administration sees the war against terror is a long-term so it needs long term / permanent detention - without the right to trial ever! Basically if they think you maybe a terrorist, but there is totally scant evidence to support this view - they can hold you forever.

There is already a supreme court challenge to this, saying it is totally unconsitutional for any administration to deny people the right of fair trial. Doing otherwise simply places you forever beyond the law. Don't like your opposition, lock him up as a terrorist and he has no rights whatsoever - ever.

Sounds ugly doesn't it - but that is exactly where this is heading - institutionalised paranoia with no accountability other than those fostering the fear, doubt and loathing. If individuals practiced this is would be simply kidnapping / illegal detention. When Bush does it he gets American forces to do it off-shore - so he is less like to be viewed as breaching domestic foreign laws by holding internationals without charge or right to trial.

Very 1984...

* * *

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Terrorism-suspects-may-be-detained-forever/2005/01/02/110460

Terrorism suspects may be detained forever
By Dana Priest in Washington
January 3, 2005

Bush Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the US or other countries.

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counter-terrorism operations.

A senior Administration official involved in the discussions said the current detention system has strained US relations with other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into new US-built jails in their home countries. These would be operated by those countries but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognised human rights standards and would monitor compliance.

...

"Since the global war on terror is a long-term effort, it makes sense for us to be looking at solutions for long-term problems," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "We are at a point in time where we have to say, 'How do you deal with them in the long term?"'

The Administration considers its toughest detention problem to involve the prisoners held by the CIA. he CIA has been scurrying since September 11, 2001, to find secure locations abroad where it could detain and interrogate captives without risk of discovery, and without having to give them access to legal proceedings.

Little is known about the CIA's captives, the conditions under which they are kept or the procedures used to decide how long they are held or when they may be freed. That has prompted criticism from human rights groups, and from some in Congress and the Administration, who say the lack of scrutiny or oversight creates an unacceptable risk of abuse.

The CIA is believed to be holding most, if not all, of the senior captured al-Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida and the leading South-East Asia figure Hambali.

Places of detention include Afghanistan, ships at sea and Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,173 • Replies: 100
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 06:23 pm
Good for them.

I hope they had fun planning the death of Americans before they were captured and I hope they never have the chance to carry out those plans.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 06:32 pm
The above is not representative of the American POV, g_day.

And a belated welcome to A2K.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 06:46 pm
Scary shite.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 06:55 pm
There is one problem to your post. Non US citizens that are not on US soil don't have Constitutional protection. So those at Camp X-Ray don't have protections of the US Constitution.

Constitutional protections should only apply US citizens. Until you are a citizen all bets are off, being here doesn't guarantee protection.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 07:18 pm
Well, thank goodness a Republican Senator doesn't agree with Baldimo:

Quote:
The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it is unwilling to set free or turn over to US or foreign courts, the Washington Post said in a report that cited intelligence, defence and diplomatic officials.

Some detentions could potentially last a lifetime, the newspaper said.

But influential senators swiftly denounced the idea on Sunday as probably unconstitutional.

"It's a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have have a very careful, constitutional look at this," Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Fox News.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, also opposed the reported plan.

"There must be some modicum, some semblance of due process ... if you're going to detain people, whether it's for life or whether it's for years," Levin said, also on Fox.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The State Department also declined comment and a Pentagon spokeswoman had no information on the reported plan.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 08:03 pm
Baldimo wrote:
There is one problem to your post. Non US citizens that are not on US soil don't have Constitutional protection. So those at Camp X-Ray don't have protections of the US Constitution.

Constitutional protections should only apply US citizens. Until you are a citizen all bets are off, being here doesn't guarantee protection.


I'm not at all sure that's an accurate statement. The principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty is meant to apply to anyone accused of a crime in this country, US citizen or not. Foreign nationals with no diplomatic immunity are routinely tried in US courts if they have been accused of violating US laws. Detainees should be entitled to counsel and to a swift and fair trial, like everyone else.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 09:55 pm
So if any American forces invade or enter a Country, kidnap folk and calls them terrorists for whatever reason, then subsequentially finds there is little or no evidence to support its claims it can hold them indefinitally somewhere in the world with those held never appearing before a court to be charged and given due process? If any other Country approved of this policy America would be quick to call them terrorists. Why should it be one law for the US to do what it wants whenever it simply cries oh but we think those folk are terrorists?

Camp X-ray is to all intents and purposes American soil. It is under no one elses rule but the USA! How do you know that none of its folks are US citizens - it is not acting or accountable in anyway under your own laws. If these folk escaped and were arrested by your police in your state are you saying the just thing would be to deport them to hold them forever where they can't be tried guilty or not? Remember most are being held under suspicion - because there is insufficient evidence to convict them in a trial - guilt by being accused, not by being proven guilty. That stinks!

If any other country in the world did that how would you feel? How is this different from terrorism itself? And please don't say oh but I say they started this, not unless you appreciate just how interventionist the US has been on foreign soveriegn soil for over 80 years.

How can the land of the free exist if you don't abide by the rule of law within your terrorities or areas around teh world you temporarily control? How can you kidnap folk and detain them for years without any trial or access to legal aid? That is certainly not permissible under either American civil, criminal or international law.

As I said I believe there is already one consistutional challenges of Bush's administrations actions before your Supreme court awaiting a ruling.

Already the Patriotic act is having an unhealthy affect, American criminals are being charged as terrorists - althought they get the huge privilege of being able to mount a defense under a court of law, versus simply being accused, kidnapped and held indefinitely without trial.

* * *

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20041229/us_nm/security_terrorist_dc_4&printer=

New York Gang Member Faces Trial as Terrorist
Wed Dec 29, 8:57 AM ET U.S. National - Reuters
By Maria Castro

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Every time Lourdes Morales watches the TV news and sees a story on terrorism, she weeps. Family members ... cannot understand why Edgar Morales, the family's youngest son, will see the new year arrive in prison where he is waiting to be tried as a terrorist. "They are comparing my son to (Osama) bin Laden ... and all those people who used bombs and killed thousands of people at random," said Morales. ...

Morales, 22, was indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror in May, along with 18 other members of the St. James Boys Gang, a Mexican and Mexican-American street gang. Morales faces the most serious charge of second-degree murder as a terrorist act. A New York grand jury returned the charges against him in connection with the shooting death of 10-year-old Melanie Mendez, who died from gunshot wounds two years earlier. ...

Morales is the first gang member in New York to be indicted under the state's terrorism statute, which became law shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. If the charges did not include the terrorism stipulation, he would face a sentence of 25 years to life if found guilty. With the stipulation, he faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

At least 33 states passed laws amending criminal codes related to acts of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most changes focused on money laundering, cyberterrorism, agri-terrorism and supporting terrorist groups.

New York's use of the statute to prosecute gang-related crime has sparked disagreement among lawmakers who voted for the legislation. A spokeswoman for state Sen. Michael Balboni, who sponsored the bill, said he does not mind that prosecutors have decided gang violence is a form of domestic terrorism and are using the statute to prosecute Morales.

"Gangs are a forum to promote terrorism," said Balboni spokeswoman Lisa Angerame. "Therefore, the anti-terrorism statue would be applicable against them, even if the original intent for this law was not exactly to prosecute them." Others say the law is not being used as intended. "It is not that I want to defend gangs," said state Rep. Jeffrey Dinowitz. "But it should never be justifiable to use laws with purposes other than their original intent. "We already have the appropriate laws to prosecute gang members for their crimes," he added. The anti-terror law passed overwhelmingly in the New York Senate 53-1.

Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson, who brought the charges against Morales, said the terrorism stipulation was justified. "The obvious need for this statue is to protect society against acts of political terror," Johnson said in a statement. "However, the terror perpetrated by gangs, which all too often occurs on the streets of New York, also fits squarely within the scope of this statute." The 70-count indictment said the gang members conspired to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

It included a long list of crimes cited as evidence they terrorized a city neighborhood, including allegations they harassed and robbed customers of a local restaurant, fired guns into a crowded park, shot a teenager in the face and slashed someone's throat. Some residents say the law is being abused. "We cannot compare gang violence with big scale terrorist attacks," said resident Miriam Medina. Local store manager Lidia Chavez added: "Gang violence and terrorism are two different things." But Eve Santana, owner of a bridal shop, said while maybe not on the scale of bin Laden, "of course they are terrorists." "They do terrorize neighborhoods. Innocent bystanders die ... and they have to pay."
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:14 pm
Baldimo wrote:
There is one problem to your post. Non US citizens that are not on US soil don't have Constitutional protection. So those at Camp X-Ray don't have protections of the US Constitution.

Constitutional protections should only apply US citizens. Until you are a citizen all bets are off, being here doesn't guarantee protection.


Absolute and complete BS. Not only is it ILLEGAL to detain without trial, it is immoral, facist, against international law and un-American. I find it ironic that the party who once stood for smaller government has NO problem giving the government authoritorian power over citizens and growing its burocracy beyond even the dreams of FDR.

We have become a Facist country, we would have made Hitler proud. A truly sad, sad article. . .Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:21 pm
Citizens should have full protection but it should be a different story for non-citizens. If you want to stay in the US and have full protection then become a citizen. If you don't become a citizen then be very careful about breaking the law.

So you know I don't believe in diplomatic immunity either. And that even goes for our people in other countries.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:26 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
There is one problem to your post. Non US citizens that are not on US soil don't have Constitutional protection. So those at Camp X-Ray don't have protections of the US Constitution.

Constitutional protections should only apply US citizens. Until you are a citizen all bets are off, being here doesn't guarantee protection.


I'm not at all sure that's an accurate statement. The principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty is meant to apply to anyone accused of a crime in this country, US citizen or not. Foreign nationals with no diplomatic immunity are routinely tried in US courts if they have been accused of violating US laws. Detainees should be entitled to counsel and to a swift and fair trial, like everyone else.


Baldimo you were referring to non-citizens NOT on US soil, right?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:27 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Citizens should have full protection...


I'll just whisper it, then: [size=7]Jose Padilla[/size]

Jose Padilla: No Charges and No Trial, Just Jail

"Essentially, on orders of the executive branch, anyone could wind up imprisoned by the military with no way to assert his innocence."

And in case you think I'm defending Padilla in particular:

"Padilla may deserve the treatment he is receiving -- perhaps worse. That is not the point. When Americans are taken into custody, they have the right to retain an attorney."


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1060521&highlight=jose+padilla#1060521

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1091287&highlight=jose+padilla#1091287[/quote]
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:29 pm
Is Jose the exception or the rule?
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:30 pm
What American law are you breaking if you are acting in a foreign country when America enters and outside any rule of law detains you simply on an acquisation that the mere invocation of removes all your rights forever? Worse they take you out of country and hold you offshore so no country can intervene.

That is simply state sponsored kidnapping and terrorism.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:33 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Is Jose the exception or the rule?

Doesn't matter.

You seem content that the current administration has the power to imprison someone indefinitely.

I'll pose you the same question I posed to JustWonders:

Would you feel the same way about an administration headed by Hillary Clinton?

Personally, I don't want anyone to have that power.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:41 pm
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Is Jose the exception or the rule?

Doesn't matter.

You seem content that the current administration has the power to imprison someone indefinitely.

I'll pose you the same question I posed to JustWonders:

Would you feel the same way about an administration headed by Hillary Clinton?

Personally, I don't want anyone to have that power.


Doesn't matter? Sure it matters.

Jose Padilla is held up as an example of a corrupt government that infringes on people's rights. He is used to support the bankrupt notion that habeus corpus no longer matters and the "Bush regime" wants only to curtail rights in America through such actions as the Patriot act and the detention of terrorists.

It matters because Padilla has become the rallying cry of the left as though he matters.

I ask again, is Padilla the exception, or the rule?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:41 pm
Neither would I, DrewDad. Since Padilla, almost anyone suspected of contemplating a violent crime could be confined indefinately, secretly, and without charges being filed.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:44 pm
If Padilla's status is treated with legal legitimacy it is the rule. Frequency does not matter.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:45 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
We have become a Facist country, we would have made Hitler proud. A truly sad, sad article. . .Rolling Eyes
Rolling Eyes It shows 11:40 on my watch, so unless somebody produces a better candidate for "Most idiotic post of the day" in the next 20 minutes, I think this is the winner. Rolling Eyes

You do nearly 300,000,000 Americans and the memory of countless millions of Hitler's murder victims a grave disservice with your absurd, disgusting BS. Think just a little before counting us with history's worst scum.

g__day The courts will work this out, rest assured. The SC has already shown they're no lapdog for this or any other administration. They are the SC, not Bush. Perhaps some innocent people will suffer a little in the meantime but there's a trade off for everything. A hell of a lot more suffering took place to make way for the freedoms so many now take for granted. Give it some time. We'll iron out wrinkles.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 10:57 pm
Drives me a little crazy when people think they have to drag Hitler into it, just because our laws have shown a soft spot. If Padilla's innocent, he'll be released eventually. No system I'm aware of has never wrongfully accused or punished the innocent. I'm confident we'll work out the kinks with something short of gassing people to death by the millions. Of course, I've I'm an optimistic person.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » * Bush Admin seeks to detain suspects forever without trial
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:43:32