zal is offline zal Post #41  January 22,2009, 12:13pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile



Three Eyes is correct. The issue is whether Gitmo was Constitutional. A radical nut job once said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". The nut job in question was Benjamin Franklin. It's an extremely dangerous world. Always has been, but keep in mind, the terrorists don't hate Americans. I say again, the terrorists don't hate Americans. They hate the American ideal, and the moral foundations that this country was built upon -- Individual liberty and a restricted government. Their primary objective is to destroy our way of life. FEAR is their weapon. FEAR is also the weapon that governments use to subject their citizens.


Directly after 9/11 President Bush assured us that no US citizen would be treated as an "enemy combatant" and detained at Gitmo. Within only a few months, Padilla was arrested as....that's right an enemy combatant. It's a very slippery slope indeed.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #42  January 22,2009, 12:39pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile



Landstar,


Due Process and The Constitution of the United States are what separates "us" from "them". I'm a Barry Goldwater conservative, and I'm pretty confident that he would have been appalled by the very idea of Gitmo. Yes, there are "bad guys" at gitmo. So what? The 5th Amendment States: "No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law." The VI Amendment states: In all criminal procecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . and to have assistance of counsel for his defense."


Nowhere does that Constitution provide an exception "unless the accused is really really bad."





Make no mistake, the Constitution is NOT designed to protect the guilty. It is designed to protect the innocent. As defense attorney Allan Dershowitz said upon being asked how he can represent guilty people: "It's good that defense attorneys represent the guilty. It means that the police are arresting the right people."


Props to President Obama. i didn't vote for him. I'm pretty much against every one of his positions, but he's right on this one.
 
  Reply With Quote
Cyclist_Steve is offline Cyclist_Steve Post #43  January 22,2009, 12:43pm
Cyclist_Steve's Avatar

considered it - and decided not to

Veteran

Joined: Feb 2008

Tennessee

Posts: 1,166

See profile

zal,445569 wrote :

Landstar,


Due Process and The Constitution of the United States are what separates "us" from "them". I'm a Barry Goldwater conservative, and I'm pretty confident that he would have been appalled by the very idea of Gitmo. Yes, there are "bad guys" at gitmo. So what? The 5th Amendment States: "No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law." The VI Amendment states: In all criminal procecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . and to have assistance of counsel for his defense."


Nowhere does that Constitution provide an exception "unless the accused is really really bad."





Make no mistake, the Constitution is NOT designed to protect the guilty. It is designed to protect the innocent. As defense attorney Allan Dershowitz said upon being asked how he can represent guilty people: "It's good that defense attorneys represent the guilty. It means that the police are arresting the right people."


Props to President Obama. i didn't vote for him. I'm pretty much against every one of his positions, but he's right on this one.
zal - since when should gitmo folks be afforded the same protections as the US Constitution? maybe i'm wrong, but i thought that that gitmo and other prisons for prisoners of war, etc, fell outside of this?? no?
 
  Reply With Quote
neardc is offline neardc Post #44  January 22,2009, 1:04pm
neardc's Avatar

Toodles, sayonara, and happy trails! Wishing everyone luck and love...

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2008

Posts: 8,050

See profile



Cyclist_Steve,445504 wrote :


the previous admin determined gitmo had value. B.O. wants it closed. it sounds purely political to me.


Are you aware that Defense Secretary Gates and numerous other military leaders have long saidGitmo should be closed?Bush even said he would like to see it closed. This is not just a political decision for a new administration.
 
  Reply With Quote
ThePriestess is online now ThePriestess Post #45  January 22,2009, 1:12pm
ThePriestess's Avatar

It's a glow-in-the-dark compass ring, so you don't get lost.

Sage

Joined: Apr 2008

Canadian POW held in Florida

Posts: 16,023

See profile



saulgoode,445339 wrote :


I don't know if Gitmo was right or wrong, but I don't think Bush and his advisors would've been so staunch about it for no good reason. There are some really bad dudes in there.


Nobody can prove the extent of the torture -- and yes, I imagine we tortured the poor babies.


But those who rail against Gitmo suggest the torture was rampant. I for one figure it was a non-standard option available to the interrogator, and would imagine it wasn't needed much.


Guantanamo Bay and facilities like it operate in violation of Amendments 4-8 (60% of the Bill of Rights). That's why they need to go. While these rights aren't specifically extended to foreign nationals, and there are exceptions (as with other Amendments), they stand amongst our highest ideals. What does it say about us if we dismiss them so readily.


Torture is covered under the Geneva Conventions, of which I believe the United States is a signatory (along with much of the world). It is not acceptible.
 
  Reply With Quote
fencingfellow is offline fencingfellow Post #46  January 22,2009, 1:22pm
fencingfellow's Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Nov 2008

Manhattan, NY

Posts: 16

See profile



Thought I'd weigh in...





Our country was founded on the notion that "All men are created equal." That's from the Declaration of Independence, and I think we can fairly assume that our Founding Fathers had that in mind when they went on to write the Constitution. There is no exception for non-Americans or for criminals - even the worst criminals.


To have Guantanamo Bay open is a hypocrisy of the greatest sort. A secret place, where individuals are arrested for an indefinite period of time, potentially tortured, and may never actually be tried for a crime. Further, their trial would not be by jury.


I don't see why closing it would make us any less safe. Those who have commited real crimes, will be tried and found guilty in a legal court, just like domestic criminals. Those for whom evidence cannot be presented, still deserve "reasonable doubt" just like American citizens.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #47  January 22,2009, 1:23pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile

Cyclist_Steve,445575 wrote :

zal,445569 wrote :


Landstar,


Due Process and The Constitution of the United States are what separates "us" from "them". I'm a Barry Goldwater conservative, and I'm pretty confident that he would have been appalled by the very idea of Gitmo. Yes, there are "bad guys" at gitmo. So what? The 5th Amendment States: "No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law." The VI Amendment states: In all criminal procecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . and to have assistance of counsel for his defense."


Nowhere does that Constitution provide an exception "unless the accused is really really bad."





Make no mistake, the Constitution is NOT designed to protect the guilty. It is designed to protect the innocent. As defense attorney Allan Dershowitz said upon being asked how he can represent guilty people: "It's good that defense attorneys represent the guilty. It means that the police are arresting the right people."


Props to President Obama. i didn't vote for him. I'm pretty much against every one of his positions, but he's right on this one.


zal - since when should gitmo folks be afforded the same protections as the US Constitution? maybe i'm wrong, but i thought that that gitmo and other prisons for prisoners of war, etc, fell outside of this?? no?
CS -- I submit that you're asking the wrong question. The question is "Under what circumstances and by what authority can the Constitution be ignored?" Obviously this has been debated for years by people much smarter than me. Nevertheless, you've hightlighted the real danger.


Let's assume that the Constitutional protections do not apply to POWs. The Gitmo prisoners are NOT pows. Gitmo is arguably against the Geneva Convention, which does apply to POWs. In order to get around this, the Bush Administration labeled the terrorists "enemy combatants" and declared that they are not pow's and therefore not protected by the Geneva convention. During wartime you are either a soldier or civilian. I'll use the example of a spy. Spies are not protected by the Geneva Convention. If captured they are treated as criminals. Similarly, terrorists are not soldiers. They are criminals and are subjected to the civilian court system. In Egypt that might mean daily torture or execution without trial. In our country however, that means a trial in criminal court.


I'm reminded of a legend from the Old West. When Wyatt Earp was sherrif In Tombstone, AZ, legend has it that he arrested a horse thief (or rustler, or murderer, whatever All were hanging offenses at the time). A lynch mob formed outside of the jail consisting of angry folks demanding that Wyatt turn the suspect over to them. Earp confronted the crowd, telling them in no uncertain terms "I don't care what this man done. Anyone in my custody will be given a fair trial."


The crowd grew uglier. "Turn him over, sheriff or we'll take him". Earp stared at the crowd of 30 or so, calmly rested his hand on his six shooter and said "Any man thinks he can take my prisoner come and try."


A hush grew over the crowd. Through the unsettling quite came a shout by one of the lynchmob,


"THE SHERIFF'S RIGHT. WE'LL GIVE 'EM A FAIR TRIAL AND THEN WE'LL HANG 'EM".


And so it should be with the prisoners of gitmo. Have a damn trial. Make the government put on its case. Execute the guilty. Or ship them off to Pelican Bay, or some other prison, where I'm sure they will be properly treated by the general population.
 
  Reply With Quote
three_eyes is offline three_eyes Post #48  January 22,2009, 1:52pm
three_eyes's Avatar

is crazy happy!

Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2008

Washington, DC area

Posts: 613

See profile

saulgoode,445339 wrote :

I don't know if Gitmo was right or wrong, but I don't think Bush and his advisors would've been so staunch about it for no good reason. There are some really bad dudes in there.


Nobody can prove the extent of the torture -- and yes, I imagine we tortured the poor babies.


But those who rail against Gitmo suggest the torture was rampant. I for one figure it was a non-standard option available to the interrogator, and would imagine it wasn't needed much.


Why not use torture? Well, because you get innaccurate results. They lie, just to make you stop torturing them. It's never been an effective interrogation technique. Ever.


I would guess that most of the intelligence was gotten from more subtle techniques, such as drugging, cross-examining, and passive observation.


Or, if they really wanted some answers quick, they sent these guys to Egypt with a tape recorder and some rope, then asked the Egyptians to return the tape recorder, keep the rope. Those prisons won't get shut down, count on that.


Anyway, closing Gitmo won't help our situation. I'm not sure keeping it open helped, either.


It'll be interesting to see what Obama does with new guys he collects in Afghanistan, though, because he can't exactly turn them loose into the mountains, nor can he bring them to public courts in the US. And if Obama nets Osama (which he probably will), then what the hell are you gonna do with ~that~ guy?


Closing Gitmodoesn't make a lick of sense to me. Hell, I can't believe they told the public in the first place!


It's strictly a political move so Obama can gain more popularity in France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and those in the US who believe the torturing was rampant (which we'll never know for sure).


I don't think it'll change a thing, other than Obama's ratings.


- Saul
You make a good point about where will we put future detainees? Because you know there will be more. If there aren't, Obama isn't doing his job.


I can see an international detainee facility being set up, maybe overseen by the UN (God forbid) or something similar.


What do all the people who are in favor of closing Gitmo think about that idea? Will you have the same issues with it if it's run by a third-party organization? Personally I think it doesn't matter - as long as detainees are being treated appropriately under all international and (as approrpriate) national law, what difference does it make where it is or who runs it? Though,at least with Gitmo closer to the US, we can keep a closer eye on what's going on there. But the need for it isn't going to go away.
 
  Reply With Quote
zal is offline zal Post #49  January 22,2009, 2:01pm
zal's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 3,105

See profile



One final comment on this. I don't think that Gitmo itself is necessarily unconstitutional. Again, smarter people than me have debated both sides of this going back to before the Japanese internment camps, but for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the government has the authority to create a Gitmo (i.e. a prison specifically designed for detaining terrorsists.) It's the manner in which Gitmo has been used that is the problem.


The government has created a situation where enemies of the state (whether foriegn or domestic (i.e. Mr. Padilla) ) are neither criminals nor captured soldiers and thus not afforded any rights of due process. The prisoners are allegedly subjected to torture. The Government does not deny any specific treatment, but merely argues that the treatment is not torture. (i.e. Waterboading). Prisoners are not provided counsel. They are not allowed to subpoena witnesses or examine the evidence against them on the vague grounds of "national security". Importantly, the Executive Branch unilaterally determines that the Judicial Branch has no authority to review the legality of this process. (I'd like to see the Constitutional provision that allows for this!)


The Executive Branch fights in the courts when prisoners sue. It pretty much loses at every turn, but appeals to the Supreme Court. Then, when it is clear that the Supreme Court may rule against the EB, the Justice Dept. drops the charges against the prisoner and releases him, rendering the case moot and ensuring that the Sup.Ct. does not rule on the matter.


Every American should find this process deeply distrubing. Every American should be asking if the evidence against the terrorist is so damn compelling why the fear to allow the matter to be tried? In this country, you are considered innocent until proven gulity. Again, not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent.


Democracy is easy during peace time. It's during crisis that our values are tested.


Apologies for the lengths of these posts. The short version: My opinion -- Let the T's have their day in court. If found guilty, provide the appropriate penalty. (I favor execution over life in prison).
 
  Reply With Quote
cameracollector is offline cameracollector Post #50  January 22,2009, 2:05pm
cameracollect…'s Avatar

is not ready for Missouri summer

Virtuoso

Joined: May 2008

Missouri

Posts: 3,364

See profile

zal,445650 wrote :

"THE SHERIFF'S RIGHT. WE'LL GIVE 'EM A FAIR TRIAL AND THEN WE'LL HANG 'EM".


And so it should be with the prisoners of gitmo. Have a damn trial. Make the government put on its case. Execute the guilty. Or ship them off to Pelican Bay, or some other prison, where I'm sure they will be properly treated by the general population.
yep. this mentality will surely convince the rest of the world that we're no longer a bunch of cowboys.


You get, don't you, that this is exactly the logic used by the former USSR, over which we continue to crow our superiority?
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« Afghanistan...time to leave. | Politics | Really interesting -- iReport: political opposites see eye-to-eye »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:09am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0