Good point SC. I meant 36.

I have a question....

If someone is being detained at Guantanamo that wasn't captured during actual combat, how do we know that he's guilty of anything?

That's easy...because the U.S. Government SAYS SO!!!

:p

Skeptic.

When you say "we," are you implying we the people/citizens/Americans, or "we" as in the U.S. government?

If so, I think there is a difference.

Give me your lunch money.
Double-J

P.S.

Great sign, Double-J ... !!!

Apple

Well, I know I'm a bully and a racist, and randomly have aged 20+ years and have also changed residences to my Mother's basement, but I have a bunch of them. Keep it, Aps.

Thanks, and by the way....give me your lunch money too!

I don't have any lunch money. But since I'm over forty, have no job, live in my mother's basement and don't pay my taxes (I'm using a bit of creative license), I can give you one of the numerous checks I receive in the mail from the government every day by taking advantage of the various social welfare programs supported by bleeding hearts that allow people like me to exist!

*gives Apple my welfare check*

Take it, you bully!

"Hated by many. Loved by few. Feared by all."

You got a XXL ego.

You should have seen my old signature. :p

When you say "we," are you implying we the people/citizens/Americans, or "we" as in the U.S. government?

If so, I think there is a difference.

Give me your lunch money.
Double-J

P.S. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Well, as usual, JJ you are off the mark. Go back to the Constitution of the United States (you know, that troublesome document that allows for free speech, due process, privacy, all the things you wingholes despise) and note that the first three words are "WE THE PEOPLE." Read on and it says the people create the government. So there should be no difference between the people and the government.

Of course you fans of that tin horn wannabe dictator George Bush don't get that.

By the way don't ever PM me again ....ever.

Thats so clever JJ. Why dont you do us a favor and leave these boards?

If you want to make the distinction, fine, although it's a narrow one at best, I think.

When I wrote it, I guess I was thinking "How do 'we the people'" know for sure, but if you wish to separate the two, go right ahead.

How do we the people know for sure, and how does the government know for sure?

[/b][/quote]

If you want to make the distinction, fine, although it's a narrow one at best, I think.

When I wrote it, I guess I was thinking "How do 'we the people'" know for sure, but if you wish to separate the two, go right ahead.

How do we the people know for sure, and how does the government know for sure? [/b][/quote]When you refer to the people themselves, the citizens of the United States, we really don't know who is guilty or innocent, since we weren't witnesses to a crime in question. Then again, in any case, who *really* knows? I mean, as you have stated numerous times, there are people on death row who are innocent but have been wrongfully convicted. The only way we would every truly know is if we were intimate with the people in question. After all, even if there was a trial, who is to say that we, the public, would ever get the *true* story? Especially in a case involving terrorism; like I said beforehand, I doubt that any terrorist would ever get a fair trial here (which, as I'm sure you could ascertain, I really am not particularly concerned about). I suppose the best explanation is that we, the people, will probably never know who is truly innocent or guilty. We will have to either accept what is revealed to us by the government, or what is decided in a trial (the jurors most specifically), or both. So, to answer your first question, we don't *know* for sure whether they are guilty or not.

As far as the government is concerned, they *know* through either secret/clandestine evidence that won't ever be revealed to the general public (for security reasons, etc.), through capturing these people red handed (i.e. on the traditional battlefield, while they are on a computer, etc.), or arbitrarily detaining these people. Obviously, the government's interpretation of "guilty" would be much more broad in the instance of national security than many ordinary citizens (I would think), especially given the terrorist label of the people being detained. For the second part of that question, the best explanation would be that the government knows either through cloak-and-dagger evidence collection (that could expose national secrets and thus cannot be revealed to the public), the government knows because it caught them on the battlefield or with traditional evidence (which may or may not ever be revealed to the public in the future), or the government doesn't know, and simply suspects someone, and has detained them in the interest of national security (most likely will never be revealed to the public).

Regards,
Double-J

There's a lot of truth in what you say, however....

While obviously "we" can never be absolutely certain about the guilt or innocence of an individual even after holding a trial, I would certainly say that it's better to have a trial rather than not.

Someone has to take the responsibility for determining guilt or innocence, and I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea of a group of 12 unacquainted individuals making that determination than I am with doing it any other way.

As far as the government goes, while I would agree that some things should be kept from the general public in the interests of national security, there should always be at least ample and non-partisan Congressional oversight over this kind of thing.

I don't think it would be unfair to say that our government's intelligence arm has made enough mistakes in the past to indicate that making these determinations should not be left solely up to them.

I think that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, Plaw. I might need to get that framed.

I suppose, if for nothing else than PR and to establish some sort of "superior" mindset that we are better than them. But, in the end, if they are terrorists, and they didn't receive a trial, it won't make me cry. If they are wrongly accused, I happen to have a bit of faith (largely because of those already released from Guantanamo) that they will not be held indefinitely. I do think thought that all the hubbub that has been brewing over Guantanamo is misdirected, since it costs far too much to house and guard these guys if they aren't feeding us information.

And apparently there are plenty (not a majority, but many) of Americans who feel the same way you do, going so far as to spend millions and sending some our best attorneys to try and free these people.

But unless they are American citizens, they are not granted a trial under the Constitution or the Geneva Convention.

But what would the oversight do? Determine whether these people are potential threats, and are justified as detainees? Their mere presence in Guantanamo (as opposed to some other detention facility) already means they are of the utmost importance to the anti-terror efforts. If anything, a congressional committee would serve to do little more than show disunion to our enemies.

As I've said before, if I were Al Qaeda, I'd be laughing my ass off watching American citizens sending money and lawyers down to Guantanamo to try and free these people. It's like watching a country rot from the inside out, as far as I'm concerned.

While that may be true, it should also be noted that many of the successes are never aired, only the dirty laundry of our intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies. When operations go off without a hitch, little is ever known about it. Only the mistakes end up being big news.

With that said, as I've discussed with some of my University colleagues as well as members of the BB (Mikey Sullivan most notably), I do think that our intelligence services are in bad need of an overhaul, but also need to be reaffirmed and allowed to do their job, in the wake of the human intelligence cuts of the Clinton years. Am I blaming Clinton for the mistakes? No, not entirely, the intelligence problems likely can be traced back to earlier times, possibly Reagan, certainly Carter. But there is no doubt that the agencies are now too corrupt, or, possibly, too outstretched and galvanized to be able to properly function. Communication between agencies must be restored and fruitful.

Lame.

I'm sure your other half will really relate to my non-dialogue visual opinion to your entire existence:

First of all, I don't say that these detainees should be
freed, and I'm not sure how many other people there are excpet for the members of the extreme left who would argue that position.

As I've stated, I still have enough confidence in the government that if they arrest and detain someone because they feel that the person is a terrorist, that's fine.

But I think that the person is entitled to a trial within a reasonable amount of time.

As far as what their rights are, with respect to them being American citiznes or having the rules of the Geneva Convention apply to them:

If they were arrested on American soil, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else who is arrested on American soil.

If a French tourist in the United States is accused of a crime and arrested, he isn't denied the same rights that an American citizen would have simply because he isn't an American citizen, is he?

Or an illegal immigrant from Mexico, say?

As far as the others go....

This is a unique situation, this business of our enemy not being the member of the army of a specific enemy country (altho I would argue that those captured who were originally members of the Iraqi army and the Taliban are entitled to have the Geneva Convention applied to them), and a unique solution for the problem of what to do with those we capture on the battlefield is called for if you're going to say that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

The unique solution that we've come up with, however - detaining them indefinitely without counsel or a trial - is not, IMO, a practical one.

Same thing for those we capture in a foreign country that we accuse of terrorism who we do not capture on the battlefield.

Are you saying that you agree with The President? :

Prez pledges trials for Gitmo suspects


BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - President Bush said yesterday for the first time that terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay who are not shipped home will get their day in court.
"Eventually, these people will have trials and they will have counsel and they will be represented in a court of law," Bush said at the White House.

"I say 'these people' - those who are not sent back to their mother countries," Bush added.

Earlier this month, the President said Gitmo detainees "ought to be tried in courts here," and that his administration eagerly awaited a Supreme Court ruling about prosecuting them before military tribunals.

But experts were stunned that Bush promised that all 450 held at Camp Delta - including many Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects jailed without charges for four years - will get a chance to defend themselves in court.

Officials have long said that only about two dozen, or 75 at most, would ever face justice from military judges. So far, no prisoner has been fully tried.

"It certainly would be a switch if, after all the time that has elapsed, they wound up trying a large proportion of the detainees," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Also yesterday, Afghanistan announced that all 75 Afghans at Gitmo will soon be returned home or released.

Originally published on June 15, 2006



Don Cardi

Yes, I would agree.

That shouldn't surprise you, and no "eek" ( ) is necessary - I'm no Bush-hater that automatically disagrees with everything he says or does.

I'd like to know how long "eventually" is, of course, but it sounds like we're on the right track here.

BTW, I like how it says in the article about this reversal in policy that "experts were stunned..."

But it doesn't appear that many of these people have been captured on American soil, and are they being held in the United States. Unless I'm mistaken, as I've said before, most of these people have been apprehended either by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan or by allied counterterrorist organizations across the globe.

If they are Americans (as I mentioned in the case of Jose Padilla), they are entitled to a trial. Otherwise, they are, legally, not.

Again, you're assuming a.) that they've been captured on American soil and/or b.) that I don't think they have the right to a trial if they were caught on US soil or are American citizens, which is exactly the opposite of what I've said before:

Padilla is an American citizen who, after traveling to various Middle Eastern countries (including Iraq and Afghanistan) and trained with Al Qaeda, was apprehended (with a warrant no less, go USA) when he tried to re-enter the US in 2002. Obviously, his status as a citizen (as well as apprehension on our soil) gives him the right to trial in our courts.

Again, you're missing the point. It isn't whether or not I "think" the Geneva Convention should or shouldn't apply to them. It doesn't matter. The Geneva Convention still would not help their case.

Even if it did apply to them (hypothetically), they would fall under Prisoner of War (POW) status, which means they STILL aren't entitled to a trial, or a lawyer, and would still be legally held indefinitely until the end of hostilities. Period. There isn't any personal feelings or opinions about it. They are not guaranteed a trial by the Geneva Convention.

How is it not practical? We're keeping these agents of terror off the streets in a maximum security facility on an island in the Caribbean and extracting information that is helping us either capture or kill their comrades. What would be more practical? Throwing them into a pit and machine gunning them down like the Nazi's did the Poles and Jews?

It is not only practical, it’s legal, and its far more humane than what the vast majority of them deserve. Lesser nations, in my humble opinion, would easily put a bullet into the back of each and every one of their heads. That would be practical, but not very humanitarian, wouldn't it?

Like I said in my previous post, the government likely has a reason for holding these people, and we've already released people in the past who have been determined as a non-threat. But again, they are captured in a foreign country, and to say that they aren't captured "on the battlefield" if we, hypothetically, capture them in a known terrorist safehouse with explosives, automatic weapons (Soviet surplus, of course), and sketches of potential U.S. troop movements, I think they fall under the same jurisdiction as someone who is unlucky enough not to be sent to Allah with his 72 raisins by our boys and girls in a firefight.

Regards,
Double-J