Powell Says Close Gitmo

McGentrix wrote:

If a person is suspected of being a terrorist, he/she will be investigated. If the investigations find plausible evidence of wrong doing and it becomes necessary to violate that individual's rights to due process then I am not against that at all. Are you? Oh, wait, Bush is president, of course you are against that.

Yes, I am against violating individual rights, especially to due process. That's the law regardless of who is president. Oh wait, Bush is president, of course you are for giving him these tyrannical powers.

Quote:

You, and others, seem to be afraid of a black helicopter landing in your backyard with men in black suits are going to come and take you away for no reason and kick your cat while doing it. That's a slippery slope argument and it's just not going to happen.

I've made my argument and will continue to make my argument without said hyperbole. I am at a loss as to why you would want to live in an America with no rule of law and basic human rights. If you set up a system like this it WILL be abused no matter who is president.

If a person is suspected of being a terrorist, he/she will be investigated. If the investigations find plausible evidence of wrong doing and it becomes necessary to violate that individual's rights to due process then I am not against that at all.

You think they should be coddled until some lawyer can find some loop hole to release them, while I think they should be isolated until some lawyer can find a way to convict them.

I am suggesting that after an investigation by one law enforcement agency or another finds evidence of wrong doing and has probable cause to believe an immediate threat is imminent that they should be picked up and isolated and have the evidence turned over to the appropriate judicial authorities.

Gosh, it's almost like we have a difference of opinion on how to treat terrorists!

Now, bear in mind I am not suggesting that random people on the street should be picked up and have their rights stripped from them as some of you will say I am. I am suggesting that after an investigation by one law enforcement agency or another finds evidence of wrong doing and has probable cause to believe an immediate threat is imminent that they should be picked up and isolated and have the evidence turned over to the appropriate judicial authorities.

We have laws that allow for this. What our laws don't allow is the indefinite military detention of American civilians.

FreeDuck wrote:

We have laws that allow for this. What our laws don't allow is the indefinite military detention of American civilians.

Sorry to sabotage you, but unfortunately I'm somewhat more pessimistic about this than you are. The Patriot act may forbid indefinite military detentions. So you guys might be covered by current statutes. But as a constitutional matter, I'm not so confident. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court never overruled Korematsu v. United States, the case that sanctioned Roosevelt's internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans.

McGentrix wrote:

You think they should be coddled until some lawyer can find some loop hole to release them, while I think they should be isolated until some lawyer can find a way to convict them.

I refer you to Thomas' post on your bad arguing habits.

I think that we have laws in place for a reason and I have just a little faith in our judicial system. I don't think we should let terrorists dismantle our laws by scaring us with violence. I think you pay lip service to the rule of law but deep down inside wish that you could be a part of the Spanish Inquisition. If only you hadn't been born so late! I bet you have a inquisitor costume in your closet, for those special occasions.

Quote:

I am suggesting that after an investigation by one law enforcement agency or another finds evidence of wrong doing and has probable cause to believe an immediate threat is imminent that they should be picked up and isolated and have the evidence turned over to the appropriate judicial authorities.

We have laws that allow for this. What our laws don't allow is the indefinite military detention of American civilians. We don't allow for our people to be held without charge except in some very narrowly defined cases.

McG, I'm having trouble nailing down exactly why we are arguing. We have both said that we want the government to abide by the law while protecting us from terrorism. Yet you constantly throw out this asinine language about how I want to coddle terrorists or I'm paranoid of black helicopters and whatever other diminutive characteristic you can come up with that you think makes you superior. Why don't you do this for me. Read the al-Marri decision and tell me whether and where you disagree with it. Then maybe we can see what this difference of opinion really is.

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

If a person is suspected of being a terrorist, he/she will be investigated. If the investigations find plausible evidence of wrong doing and it becomes necessary to violate that individual's rights to due process then I am not against that at all. Are you? Oh, wait, Bush is president, of course you are against that.

Yes, I am against violating individual rights, especially to due process. That's the law regardless of who is president. Oh wait, Bush is president, of course you are for giving him these tyrannical powers.

Quote:

You, and others, seem to be afraid of a black helicopter landing in your backyard with men in black suits are going to come and take you away for no reason and kick your cat while doing it. That's a slippery slope argument and it's just not going to happen.

I've made my argument and will continue to make my argument without said hyperbole. I am at a loss as to why you would want to live in an America with no rule of law and basic human rights. If you set up a system like this it WILL be abused no matter who is president.

Gosh, it's almost like we have a difference of opinion on how to treat terrorists!

You think they should be coddled until some lawyer can find some loop hole to release them, while I think they should be isolated until some lawyer can find a way to convict them.

Now, bear in mind I am not suggesting that random people on the street should be picked up and have their rights stripped from them as some of you will say I am. I am suggesting that after an investigation by one law enforcement agency or another finds evidence of wrong doing and has probable cause to believe an immediate threat is imminent that they should be picked up and isolated and have the evidence turned over to the appropriate judicial authorities.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

.You complain about my asinine language and you throw that crap out there?

Lead by example if you don't want to be called on your paranoia.

One American citizen. Held for just cause. One American citizen and all the libbies are afraid of the constitution being shredded and losing all their rights, yet they keep on talking **** and no government official has yet to arrest any of them. Odd how you complain about your rights being stripped but can not demonstrate how a single right has been taken away beyond nebulous claims of might be's and could be's.

McGentrix wrote:

Gosh, it's almost like we have a difference of opinion on how to treat terrorists!

Maybe we do, but our current disagreement is on how to treat individuals the government suspects to be terrorists -- which is not the same thing, as the government's suspicion may be wrong.

McGentrix wrote:

Now, bear in mind I am not suggesting that random people on the street should be picked up and have their rights stripped from them as some of you will say I am. I am suggesting that after an investigation by one law enforcement agency or another finds evidence of wrong doing and has probable cause to believe an immediate threat is imminent that they should be picked up and isolated and have the evidence turned over to the appropriate judicial authorities.

1) Does your idea of evidence include hearsay and testimony obtained under torture, both of which are known to be notoriously unrealiable? Do you think defendants should be able to know the evidence they need to rebut to make their case?

2) "Probable cause" is an extremely weak standard of proof. It's the standard judges apply when they decide if your house is even worth searching for evidence. What do you think of upgrading your standard to "clear and convincing evidence"? This still is weaker than "beyond every reasonable doubt", the standard in criminal cases, and approximately means "it's much more likely than not that this person is guilty".

McGentrix wrote:

.You complain about my asinine language and you throw that crap out there?

I'm giving you back what you give. You should see how much I deleted before posting.

Quote:

Lead by example if you don't want to be called on your paranoia.

Please show where I have demonstrated paranoia. Please show where you have ever led by example. Or are you willing to take your own advice?

Quote:

One American citizen. Held for just cause. One American citizen and all the libbies are afraid of the constitution being shredded and losing all their rights, yet they keep on talking **** and no government official has yet to arrest any of them. Odd how you complain about your rights being stripped but can not demonstrate how a single right has been taken away beyond nebulous claims of might be's and could be's.

You didn't read it. If you did you'd know he's not an American citizen.

How many Americans have been picked up on suspicion?

So, let me get you straight... 4 guys want to blow up a pipeline in New York City. Police and federal officials have probable cause to suspect them through informants and observation but have no positive evidence as they haven't actually blown it up yet and they have no video of them doing it.

You want to let them walk the streets til there is "clear and convincing evidence" or even better "beyond every reasonable doubt"?

I was not referring to him. He is from Qatar. I was referring to the single American, Jose Padilla, that has been held without his due process and every lib uses as an example of the constitution being shredded and how every American is losing their rights. That's the basis of this argument.

I have long since abandoned leading by example here.

I believe you stated something about the constitution being shredded a few posts back yes? That's an example of paranoia.

I was not referring to him. He is from Qatar. I was referring to the single American, Jose Padilla, that has been held without his due process and every lib uses as an example of the constitution being shredded and how every American is losing their rights. That's the basis of this argument.

I am suggesting that after an investigation by one law enforcement agency or another finds evidence of wrong doing and has probable cause to believe an immediate threat is imminent that they should be picked up and isolated and have the evidence turned over to the appropriate judicial authorities.

McGentrix wrote:

I believe you stated something about the constitution being shredded a few posts back yes? That's an example of paranoia.

If you quoted it you'd see it was a hypothetical. But aside from that, does it strike you that if I'm paranoid then so are you? Let's just accept that we are both paranoid. You are afraid of terrorists and I am afraid of a tyrannical government.

Quote:

I was not referring to him. He is from Qatar. I was referring to the single American, Jose Padilla, that has been held without his due process and every lib uses as an example of the constitution being shredded and how every American is losing their rights. That's the basis of this argument.

Ok. So how many American citizens should receive this treatment before it becomes a problem? How many would be too many for you?

If you read the al-Marri decision you might understand what the basis of this argument really is. Please read it and let me know whether and where you disagree with it. I think that is the only way to get anything out of this conversation.

For my part, I think that we should limit the category 'enemy combatant' to cases of actual, not metaphorical, war. There is a reason to adopt different judicial processes to deal with enemy soldiers. For one thing, enemy soldiers have a very different legal status than civilians -- they can do things civilians can't, like shoot at our soldiers legally; they cannot do things civilians can do, like disobey the lawful orders of a superior; and in all sorts of ways the rules are different. Moreover, when we are actually fighting a war, then there is a real reason to think: we cannot expect e.g. the normal rules governing evidence to apply to people captured on a battlefield. But none of these things are true in the case of people with whom we are not actually engaged in military hostilities.

In any case, though, the sooner we clarify this by adopting some law that clearly explains how one enters the supposed intermediate state between being a criminal and being a lawful enemy combatant, the better off we will all be.

Difference being that my paranoia is based in reality and yours isn't.

I think this summarizes my thoughts close enough.

Quote:

For my part, I think that we should limit the category 'enemy combatant' to cases of actual, not metaphorical, war. There is a reason to adopt different judicial processes to deal with enemy soldiers. For one thing, enemy soldiers have a very different legal status than civilians -- they can do things civilians can't, like shoot at our soldiers legally; they cannot do things civilians can do, like disobey the lawful orders of a superior; and in all sorts of ways the rules are different. Moreover, when we are actually fighting a war, then there is a real reason to think: we cannot expect e.g. the normal rules governing evidence to apply to people captured on a battlefield. But none of these things are true in the case of people with whom we are not actually engaged in military hostilities.

In any case, though, the sooner we clarify this by adopting some law that clearly explains how one enters the supposed intermediate state between being a criminal and being a lawful enemy combatant, the better off we will all be.

source

The government failed to make their case and the court did as they are supposed to do, rule on the evidence. Appeals to the Supreme Court will finalize the issue and that will be that. Just as it was designed to do. No tyranny, no shredding of the constitution, no rights being lost.

McGentrix wrote:

Difference being that my paranoia is based in reality and yours isn't.

Yes, I forgot about all those instances in history when a democratic republic was literally destroyed by terrorism. You must be right.