Guantamo Bay, A Question of Justice

[AdD 1]

I'm not a big fan of the Taliban, or Ossama's bunch, but I think they should at least be given the same rights as given to murderers and rapists in the US. You can't bring people to justice while ignoring the fundamental concept of justice yourself. Unfortunately this has been the status quo in the United States' foreign policy. We need only to look back on events such as the bombing of the Al Shifa medicine plant in the Sudan in 1998 or the numerous violations of international law in Central America by the Nicaraguan contras, (who were beyond any doubt, terrorists), but were still sponsored and directed by the US gov't.
I think that until the historical facts about the US's own conduct are addressed, the goverment's claim to being the world's policeman, (not to mention judge, jury and executioner), are extremely hypocritical. The widespread historical amnesia in the US and the biased viewpoint of the dominant media combine to allow the administration to continually get away with violations of international law. What exactly is the point of these laws if we can break them just because we've been terrorized by an attack such as 9-11? Striking out blindly at people who may or may not have been involved is counterproductive, especially if we're going to deny them trials. Yes, it would be much harder to bring these people to justice if we do it in a civilized manner, but didn't someone say something about it being better to let 100 guilty men go free than to hang one who's innocent? Isn't that what the modern concept of justice is based upon.
I think the problem is that some Americans don't believe that these people deserve justice, only to be hunted down like dogs. Well, I can certainly understand that point of view, and I spend a fair amount of my high school days double tapping "tangos" in the back of the head on Rainbow Six, but there's a difference between video games and reality. I completely grasp the gut reaction that they should pay with their lives, but who's lives are being forfeited to satisfy this desire? Remember when the US cut off ground based food aid to Afghanistan while simultaneously launching a huge media campaign about the efficacity of the airdrop system while the Red Cross pleaded for them to allow the food across the border to relieve impending famine? What a load of crap, innocent people starved as a direct result of that policy, but to the administration this was, and I quote, "acceptable".
And don't even get me started on Iraq, even Jessica Stern (Harvard prof), an admitted right winger, will tell you that Iraq is becomming a haven for terrorists as we speak. I guess we should just start nabbing people at random there and hauling them off to Cuba for another couple of years, I'm sure that would go over well in the region.
What if the situation were reversed and US soldiers or citizens were captured and held accountable for the real or supposed crimes of their government. We would be outraged that a foreign power had imposed it's own brand of justice on our citizens. Imagine then if that government didn't even accuse them of anything or give them trials. The result would be a public outcry loud enough to drown out a whisper of Arnold's election in California.
Sometimes you've got to "cowboy the f*** up" and take the hard road, and if that means acting like a civilized person and affording people you hate the same rights as you would expect them, ie. use ligitimate authority instead of violence. Granted, I'm not sure if the net result of this would be more terrorists dead or in jail, but I sure as hell know that it would mean less innocent people being killed, terrorized or having their rights trampled in other ways. Disagree if you like, I respect that, but be informed that if your wife is a clandestine CIA agent on foreign assignment I will be forced to leak her name to the press or possibly detain you up here in Canada, and trust me... it ain't Cuba this time of year.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[wmw999 2,167]

I'll use the tools available to me.

bump.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ajmclean 0]

You can't give the same rights to OSL et al as you do to murderers and rapists. Why? Because they are not citizens of the U.S. and therefore ineligible for Constitutional protection. Also, the detainees are just that: detainees. They do not have the status of defendants because we attacked/invaded Afghanistan since the Taliban wouldn't cough up the SOB. Basically you are mixing apples and oranges here. Your thirst for justice is misplaced since the actions the U.S. has taken are in a war context. As for the historical facts concerning the "crimes of the U.S., get real. What crimes have we committed? Defending ourselves, even erroneously, when our sovereign territories were attacked? Perhaps the bombing of the factory in Sudan was mistaken, but I don't think ex-Prez Clinton would have acted if he didn't have some good intel. (he certainly is not a conservative, nor a hawk).
As for the Contras, they were not terrorists. Their country was taken over by Communists and they were attempting to fight back. Remember Daniel Ortega and his mob of murdering henchmen? Your loyalties are definitely misplaced.
The U.S., while not perfect, has been slow to respond to attacks in the past and it took 9/11 to wake us up.
Remember, you don't go to war and finish up in court. Kind of like playing football and finishing up in the pool.

Think about it.

Mack The Knife
"IT IS SAID THAT THE WARRIOR'S IS THE TWOFOLD WAY OF PEN AND SWORD, AND HE SHOULD HAVE A TASTE FOR BOTH WAYS." MIYAMOTO MUSASHI, A BOOK OF FIVE RINGS.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

You can't give the same rights to OSL et al as you do to murderers and rapists. Why? Because they are not citizens of the U.S. and therefore ineligible for Constitutional protection.
....

Think about it.

You think about it, right after reading the Constitution, as amended. It must be a while since you read it, since you seem to have missed a critical point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,470]

>You can't give the same rights to OSL et al as you do to murderers and
>rapists. Why? Because they are not citizens of the U.S. and therefore
>ineligible for Constitutional protection.

1) The constitution refers to the _people_ under its protection, not the citizens under its protection. That's why murdering a citizen in the US carries the same penalty as murdering a non-citizen. That's why both citizens and non-citizens are treated the same when they do commit murder.

2) There are US citizens being held without trial. Do a web search on Jose Padilla.

>Also, the detainees are just that: detainees.

Detainees are people who are detained. That term would apply to you if you got arrested one night; the police would detain you. In your case, the usual laws about having to be charged with a crime in a certain amount of time, having the right to a lawyer etc. would probably apply. Three years ago I would have said they certainly would apply, but now there are people who are not given the usual rights when they are arrested.

>They do not have the status of defendants because we
>attacked/invaded Afghanistan since the Taliban wouldn't cough up the
> SOB.

If they are prisoners of war, treat them the way we have agreed to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva articles. If they're not, put them on trial, and if they're guilty put them in jail or execute them.

Making up your own rules, and ignoring the rules that we have established over 200 years of war, peace, communist threats, terrorist attacks etc is a very bad idea. The constitution has stood worse tests than this; to panic and say that it is too weak to survive terrorism pays no respect for the freedoms millions of americans have died to protect.

>Remember, you don't go to war and finish up in court.

You don't end up in a secret military camp forever either. That used to be what the bad guys did.

[AdD 1]

Well spoken Bill, I'm way too hung over right now to come up with any kind of intelligent reply to AJ. One thing I'd like to say is that the contras, ignoring anything to do with communism or political affiliation, employed tactics which specifically targetted the civilian population. Terrorism isn't an entity, it's a tactic. Just because you're deemed to be fighting for the right reasons (ie on our side) it doesn't mean you can't be a terrorist.
Also, the fact that you are unaware of the crimes the US is responsible for proves my point about historical amnesia quite well. An excellent reading on this topic would be Noam Chomsky's book 9-11, which honestly completely changed my point of view on the world the day I read it. I was actually quite supportive of the US, and would have agreed with most of the stuff you said in your post. That however, was due to my lack of knowledge of the historical context of many events of the last 50 years. Now granted, a lot of the stuff you read in the radical news media is complete horseshit, but Chomsky's arguements are well backed up with actual evidence, not just misquotes of the constitution. The US has supported the most brutal regimes around the world for quite some time, and as a result of its actions (direct and indirect) hundreds of thousands of civillians have died, (maybe millions, but who knows for sure). All I can say is read some of Chomsky's stuff with an open mind and then tell me that the hands of the US gov't are clean.
And then you assume that because I come out and say this that my loyalties are misplaced? Sometimes loyalty to your country means that you don't agree with something it's done, and you say so. I'm not an American, but I'm a great admirer of the principals it was founded on, (if you exclude slavery and indian extermination), and I hate the fact that the current leadership is so far from the level of integrity that was intended by the founding fathers. So no, my loyalties aren't misplaced, they're exactly where I want them to be.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

They do not have the status of defendants because we attacked/invaded Afghanistan since the Taliban wouldn't cough up the SOB.

How do you claim, then, that the Taliban are not POWs? The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, and their militiamen were their army.

The US Constitution (2nd amendment) recognizes the importance and legitimacy of militias.

Fact is, since Gitmo is not a prison and not a POW camp, there only remains one description: it is a concentration camp.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

You can't give the same rights to OSL et al as you do to murderers and rapists. Why? Because they are not citizens of the U.S. and therefore ineligible for Constitutional protection.
....

Think about it.

You think about it, right after reading the Constitution, as amended. It must be a while since you read it, since you seem to have missed a critical point.

Think again. Their crimes were not committed on U.S. soil. They were committed in Afghanistan. Anybody know what the punishment would be under Afghani law? I suspect we are in full compliance.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I'm not a big fan of the Taliban, or Ossama's bunch, but I think they should at least be given the same rights as given to murderers and rapists in the US.

You are so absolutely right. I could not possibly agree with you more on this subject.
Let them out of Gitmo and put them into the general population at
Rikers. That is what we do for murderers and rapists, so be it. Let's give them a court appointed attorney, and let them deal with it.

Damn,that is the bast idea we've had here in a long, long, long time.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[juanesky 0]

Yes it is...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Yes it is...

*Chirp* - *Chirp* - *Chirp* - *Chirp* - *Chirp* - *Chirp*

Amazing how, when you agree with them, it gets so quiet.

The silence is deafening.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,470]

>Let them out of Gitmo and put them into the general population at
>Rikers. That is what we do for murderers and rapists, so be it. Let's
>give them a court appointed attorney, and let them deal with it.

I'd go for that. Treat them like we treat all criminals.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

Quote

I'm not a big fan of the Taliban, or Ossama's bunch, but I think they should at least be given the same rights as given to murderers and rapists in the US.

You are so absolutely right. I could not possibly agree with you more on this subject.
Let them out of Gitmo and put them into the general population at
Rikers. That is what we do for murderers and rapists, so be it. Let's give them a court appointed attorney, and let them deal with it.

Damn,that is the bast idea we've had here in a long, long, long time.

I don't have a problem with that. If you read the earlier posts in the thread, that's all anyone has asked for - charge them, classify them as POWs, or release them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skyrad 0]

Can't we just have another Gay thread?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[juanesky 0]

As long as no one is asked to bend over any rules....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon