0
   

Powell Says Close Gitmo

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 10:29 am
even the secretary of defence proposed closing gitmo ?
that should elicit some choice comments - can hardly wait !
hbg
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 11:22 am
hamburger wrote:
even the secretary of defence proposed closing gitmo ?
that should elicit some choice comments - can hardly wait !
hbg

Evidently, even the Republican, Bush-appointed Secretary of Defense doesn't understand America is at war. Damn liberal bastard!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 02:33 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
Without going into detail, Thomas, I think it should be self evident that the conditions of war do not lend themselves to the requirements of a traditional court system where evidence, witnesses, and other considerations are entered into the equation.

I was proposing to give enemy combatants court-martials, or something very similar to them. Can we agree that court-martials, a system designed for the conditions of war, lend themselves to operating under the conditions of war?

I'm not sure about that, Thomas. I will concede the point that court martials would be a far better option than a civilian court, but again, I am not sure court martials should apply to terrorists that do not fit a traditional profile of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. We are dealing with people that may be far more dangerous in terms of the damage they will cause in the future, vs the danger of individual traditional soldiers of past military conflicts. I don't have enough information concerning court marshals vs the military commission route. I think I am going to defer to the military experts on this.

Quote:
okie wrote:
In regard to the court martial, again, I have not gotten very far in reading about that, but it is apparent it is meant first and foremost for the members of our own military.

It is also apparent that your own source disagrees: "as explained in my first post, courts martial deal with lawful combatants, both one's own and the enemy's, and are meant to be operating differently than military commissions, which handle unlawful enemy combatants." (Emphasis added.) While the United States has made a policy decision not to try unlawful enemy combatants in court martials, your claim that court martials aren't for enemy combatants at all is refuted by your own source.

Maybe, but can you cite a long history of using the court marshal for people other than our own military people that break the UCMJ. Do we have alot of historical evidence that the court marshal works very well for the way you propose to use it on these types of people?

Quote:
okie wrote:
You make the same argument here that we are dealing with a civilian problem, not a war problem. Are our soldiers supposed to read the enemy his rights before he shoots him or gets shot? How many times does this point have to be repeated here?

You didn't address this to me; still, I'd point out that reading rights to enemy soldiers is not required by the laws of law. Failure to read them will not disqualify any evidence in a court martial.

Well, I am not going to dismiss your argument out of hand, but my gut instinct is that granting these guys more ways to elude any benefit to us simply plays into their hands, not ours. If this was a crime problem, I would agree with all of the normal constraints of a traditional court or a court martial, but we are not talking about a crime problem. We are talking about acts of war by people that swear no allegiance to a country or wear uniforms.

I am going with the military on this, what they recommend, until I think they are grossly abusing their jurisdiction. So far, I've seen no evidence of it in context with what happens with acts of war, and what has happened in history. With war, there are always effects that potentially affect innocent people, but I see no possibility of avoiding that while we do what is the best for our own survival. Again, I think idealists want to see the world in idealistic terms, but the reality is that we have Islamic jihadists that are bent on killing and maiming as many of the civilized world as they can, you included, Thomas.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 05:29 pm
Glenn Greenwald effectively eviscerates Okie's position. Read the whole thing.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/13/al_marri/index.html

Here's a snippet

Quote:
As usual, those who seek to vest the President with such tyrannical power rely almost exclusively on scare tactics -- not only that the Terrorists are a grave and mortal threat, but specifically, that if we force the President to prove that individuals are actually guilty before punishing them, then all sorts of horrible things will occur.

As due-process-hating former prosecutor Andy McCarthy warns, allowing trials would mean that suspects "receive lavish discovery that could be extremely helpful to the people trying to kill us." The anti-due-process National Review identically editorializes that a terrorist suspect would "be entitled to -- and able to share with his confederates -- the fruits of discovery from U.S. intelligence files detailing the enemy's capabilities and plans."

When has that ever happened? We have tried scores of terrorist suspects now in civilian courts. Other countries, including England, have done the same. Is there a single instance where our doing so was "extremely helpful to the people trying to kill us"? And, as always, terrorist-obsessed fear-mongers focus on one side of the risk ledger. What of the risks of vesting in the President the power to imprison people inside of the U.S. indefinitely? That risk is one they studiously ignore.

Yes, it is true that due process limits what the government can do and risks allowing those who want to harm others to go free. The Founders weighed exactly those risks and concluded that it was preferable to impose those limits anyway, because effective governments can safeguard against risks within the rule of law. As big, bad and scary as the Terrorists are, it is hardly worth fundamentally revising the core calculus which has defined our country for the last 220 years. And rational people do not believe that we are incapable of safeguarding against The Terrorists without vesting tyrannical powers in our leader.


An even better excerpt:

Quote:
(1) Those who want to vest the President with the power to detain suspected terrorists with no due process never address what checks or limits would exist on abuse of that power. Search high and low for defenders of this presidential power and see if you can find a single one who addresses this question.

Allowing the President unilaterally to declare individuals to be "enemy combatants" with no meaningful review process means, by definition, that the President's power to imprison people for life is unchallengeable and unreviewable. No hyperbole is needed to describe that as a core tyrannical power, one of the defining attributes of dictatorial rule. How does that, by itself, not end the debate over whether this is something that ought to be done?

It is just self-evident that vesting the President with this power will result in inevitable and widespread abuse of that power. That is why our system of government does not recognize such a thing as unchecked power generally or executive imprisonment specifically. Those who advocate unilateral presidential imprisonment power willfully ignore that issue and simply pretend (or blindly trust) that the power will only be used against The Terrorists -- exactly the assumption our entire system of government was constructed to reject.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:09 am
Cyclops, with all due respect for your preaching the rights of terrorist suspects, I am confident you would change your tune if you wake up one morning to some kind of a monumental carnage caused by such people. There is a difference between how things are done with respect to war and national security, and how it is done in a civil society within our citizenry, which is why presidents are granted special powers relative to war.

Call it fear mongering as you love to do, but the reality of human nature, history, and the world, is reality. There were Hitler apologists all over the world as well, before he killed a few million people. Just one example.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:28 am
okie wrote:
Cyclops, with all due respect for your preaching the rights of terrorist suspects, I am confident you would change your tune if you wake up one morning to some kind of a monumental carnage caused by such people.

Your unstated assumption is that Gitmo and its monkey courts are likely to prevent monumental carnage in the future. I find this assumption unpersuasive, considering the grief, frustration, and anger they are causing outside the United States.

Okie, with all due respect for your preaching the powers of authoritarian governments, I am confident you would change your tune if you woke up one morning in a detention camp -- innocent, with no legal means to get out. This is what happened to 110,000 innocent people of Japanese decent during World War II. It could happen again if Americans were scared out of their vigilance in protecting human rights.

Call it softness on terror as you love to do, but the reality of human nature, history, and the world, is reality. There were Roosevelt apologists all over the world as well, before he imprisoned those 110,000 innocent people. Just one example. (Astonishingly, there are still Roosevelt apologists in America. But that's another thread.)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:33 am
One of the gifts of the al-Marri decision, for me anyway, is clarity. What has been missing in this debate since the beginning is exactly the sort of piece by piece analysis of where the lines are between combatant and civilian. After reading the decision, I have come to understand and accept why many in Gitmo can be detained legally, though I wish they'd do it elsewhere. The thing is, a combatant necessarily has to have taken up arms and been caught doing so in order to be treated as a combatant, legal or otherwise. If you assert that a combatant can include anyone suspected of terrorism then you obliterate the distinction and give the president military authority over the citizenry, which is tyranny, as Greenwald has identified. However, the people who are in Gitmo who were taken in Afghanistan can be treated as combatants if a competent tribunal has determined that they are. I think even that is up for debate because there are folks in Gitmo that were not taken in Afghanistan and were not taken during any fighting.

This administration has tried to blur the line between combatant and civilian in order to avoid the rule of law. Simple as that.

As to the threat of terrorism necessitating that we give up our rule of law, I ask whether you would want to live in a country where there is no rule of law. I wouldn't. And if you give the terrorists that kind of power, the power to destroy the very essence of America (liberty and justice for all), you give them power to destroy America and you make it easy for them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:40 am
okie wrote:
Cyclops, with all due respect for your preaching the rights of terrorist suspects, I am confident you would change your tune if you wake up one morning to some kind of a monumental carnage caused by such people.


Greenwald wrote:
As usual, those who seek to vest the President with such tyrannical power rely almost exclusively on scare tactics -- not only that the Terrorists are a grave and mortal threat, but specifically, that if we force the President to prove that individuals are actually guilty before punishing them, then all sorts of horrible things will occur.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:50 am
Okie, keep in mind that time diminishes threats.

9/11 was a long time ago now and many Americans (and other citizens of the world) have forgotten the feelings they had on 9/12. They have seen no recurrences of terrorism on American soil so they no longer think about it. The prisoners in Gitmo have been there a long time now and as time progresses they forget why they were put there and instead concentrate on the politics of the prison instead of it's purpose.

Bush has become a very polarizing President despite his campaign words. Nothing he can do is right to some people and that is just the way it is. Nothing anyone says will make them remember why we are at war or the consequences of going back to our pre-9/11 way of thinking. All they see is lies and political intrigue and miss the big picture that there are people in the world planning to hurt America in any way it can.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:53 am
There have always been people who have been planning to hurt America any way they can.

Some HAVE hurt America by convincing people like you that we must give up our freedoms. That's a worse damage to our country than any bomb or gun could provide.

Quote:
Nothing anyone says will make them remember why we are at war or the consequences of going back to our pre-9/11 way of thinking.


Greenwald wrote:
As usual, those who seek to vest the President with such tyrannical power rely almost exclusively on scare tactics -- not only that the Terrorists are a grave and mortal threat, but specifically, that if we force the President to prove that individuals are actually guilty before punishing them, then all sorts of horrible things will occur.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:56 am
McGentrix wrote:
All they see is lies and political intrigue and miss the big picture that there are people in the world planning to hurt America in any way it can.

You mean like Saddam Hussein did by hiding weapons of mass destructions from the UN, and by supporting Al Quaeda? Or like Niger did by selling uranium to Iraq? Of course there are people in the world planning to hurt America. But lies and political intrigues about them are the big picture of the Bush administration.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 08:57 am
McGentrix wrote:
Okie, keep in mind that time diminishes threats.

9/11 was a long time ago now and many Americans (and other citizens of the world) have forgotten the feelings they had on 9/12. They have seen no recurrences of terrorism on American soil so they no longer think about it. The prisoners in Gitmo have been there a long time now and as time progresses they forget why they were put there and instead concentrate on the politics of the prison instead of it's purpose.

Bush has become a very polarizing President despite his campaign words. Nothing he can do is right to some people and that is just the way it is. Nothing anyone says will make them remember why we are at war or the consequences of going back to our pre-9/11 way of thinking. All they see is lies and political intrigue and miss the big picture that there are people in the world planning to hurt America in any way it can.


Sometimes the passing of time allows us to make better, smarter, cooler headed decisions. Maybe it's better for a country to act with calm, cool, deliberation then with hot fury and a desire for revenge. You know what they say about revenge and how it's best served cold, don't you?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:00 am
Others call on the "we have lost our freedoms" canard knowing full well they have lost nothing. Surely, if we have lost any freedoms they could demonstrate what those are, but they can't because we haven't.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
Others call on the "we have lost our freedoms" canard knowing full well they have lost nothing. Surely, if we have lost any freedoms they could demonstrate what those are, but they can't because we haven't.



But how can you argue for authoritarian government and then make the case that we can't argue against it because it hasn't happened yet? At what point would it be appropriate to mention that the Constitution is being shredded? After it's bagged in plastic?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:19 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Others call on the "we have lost our freedoms" canard knowing full well they have lost nothing. Surely, if we have lost any freedoms they could demonstrate what those are, but they can't because we haven't.



But how can you argue for authoritarian government and then make the case that we can't argue against it because it hasn't happened yet? At what point would it be appropriate to mention that the Constitution is being shredded? After it's bagged in plastic?


It's a tired argument. The constitution is not being shredded and freedoms are not being lost. It's an appeal to sympathy to say it is.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:22 am
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Others call on the "we have lost our freedoms" canard knowing full well they have lost nothing. Surely, if we have lost any freedoms they could demonstrate what those are, but they can't because we haven't.



But how can you argue for authoritarian government and then make the case that we can't argue against it because it hasn't happened yet? At what point would it be appropriate to mention that the Constitution is being shredded? After it's bagged in plastic?


It's a tired argument. The constitution is not being shredded and freedoms are not being lost. It's an appeal to sympathy to say it is.


Assertion without supporting logic or evidence.

It is easy to counter as well, as previously it was assumed by all - until the Bush administration asserted otherwise - that the Exec. branch could not, in fact, hold an American citizen indefinitely without bringing charges. Freedoms which are not vigilantly guarded are lost.

Let's be honest, though - you would be in favor of a reduction of freedoms whether or not there were terrorist attacks on the horizon. I think that 9/11 was a blessing for those who have a penchant for Authoritarian government, such as yourself and Okie.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:22 am
McGentrix wrote:

It's a tired argument. The constitution is not being shredded and freedoms are not being lost. It's an appeal to sympathy to say it is.


Are you or are you not arguing that the president should have the power to deny rights of due process in order to fight terrorism?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:29 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

It's a tired argument. The constitution is not being shredded and freedoms are not being lost. It's an appeal to sympathy to say it is.


Are you or are you not arguing that the president should have the power to deny rights of due process in order to fight terrorism?


Are you arguing that the government shouldn't do everything in it's power to protect it's citizens from terrorism or terrorist plots under the full power of the law?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:30 am
No. Now it's your turn.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:31 am
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
Cyclops, with all due respect for your preaching the rights of terrorist suspects, I am confident you would change your tune if you wake up one morning to some kind of a monumental carnage caused by such people.

Your unstated assumption is that Gitmo and its monkey courts are likely to prevent monumental carnage in the future. I find this assumption unpersuasive, considering the grief, frustration, and anger they are causing outside the United States.

Okie, with all due respect for your preaching the powers of authoritarian governments, I am confident you would change your tune if you woke up one morning in a detention camp -- innocent, with no legal means to get out. This is what happened to 110,000 innocent people of Japanese decent during World War II. It could happen again if Americans were scared out of their vigilance in protecting human rights.

Call it softness on terror as you love to do, but the reality of human nature, history, and the world, is reality. There were Roosevelt apologists all over the world as well, before he imprisoned those 110,000 innocent people. Just one example. (Astonishingly, there are still Roosevelt apologists in America. But that's another thread.)


Thomas, I understand where you are coming from. All of this points out the need to have a balance, where we have a reasonable policy of doing reasonable things to protect ourselves in balance with respecting the rights of individuals. I am glad you cite FDR and the things done in WWII, rounding up tens of thousands of Japanese as an example, because that example really points out how much further and more extreme that historical example is from what we are doing now. There was no reason to suspect those people of wrongdoing, except for their heritage. This is a totally different situation with the people in Gitmo. If we would do now what was done in WWII, we would have all Middle Eastern descent American citizens living in camps right now. Can you not see the disconnect with your comparison?

And the bizarre thing about this is that a large majority of Democrats that criticize Bush for his policies in this regard still hold FDR on a pedestal as one of the greatest American presidents of all time, all because of his socialist policies that he started, blah, blah, blah. This tells me one very important point, and that is that much of this criticism is purely political, on both sides of the pond, and is not based on serious human rights concerns in context with history and war.

One other point, I have traveled a tiny bit in Europe and have relatives in a couple of countries. My take is that many of the people on your side of the world have not awakened to the full realization of the threats that are posed in this world. You are half asleep in regard to what is happening on your doorstep and I believe you would be much better served to unite more fully against the barbarians of the world that hate the civilized world, instead of sympathizing with them.
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
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 01/08/2025 at 11:53:04