Obama Orders Halt To Gitmo Tribunals

[Phaedrus74]

Except that some of us were saying that with foresight. It's not like the claim that the Gitmo detainees were not to be granted POW status wasn't both well-documented and controversial at the time. I'm sorry, but my sympathy for anyone who says "Gee, in hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have loaded and cocked the gun, pointed it at my foot, and pulled the trigger" is limited.

I agree, and for this reason I would not support a decision by my government to offer asylum to former inmates of Guantanamo Bay because the US government is (understandably) reluctant to take them in.

 

[Cylinder]

Caught persons who have enter into a state of war are called "prisoners of war".

Incorrect. Prisoner of war is a subset of the group you describe.

 

[BPSCG]

As to his claims of "torture" that is the standard mantra from all of the terroists' defense attorneys. It is like Every person you meet in prison that says they were railroaded. It means absolutely nothing.

[The Shawshank Redemption]
Red: You're gonna fit right in. Everyone in here is innocent, you know that? Heywood, what you in here for?
Heywood: Didn't do it. Lawyer ****ed me.
Andy Dufresne: What about you? What are you in here for?
Red: Murder, same as you.
Andy Dufresne: Innocent?
Red: [shakes his head] Only guilty man in Shawshank.
[/The Shawshank Redemption]

 

[GreyICE]

Short, sweet and to the point. That must have hurt like hell

Brevity is the soul of wit.

However it is more fun to be verbose when describing the witless.

 

[Upchurch]

Padilla was given his constitutional rights. He was held as an enemy combatant while his legal status was litigated in the courts.

Padilla is a US citizen arrested in Chicago and held for three and a half years on suspicion for an act he was never charged for. The President played a game of legal 3-card monte in order to keep Padilla's case from being reviewed until all of his options were exhausted. Padilla was not given his constitutional rights. They were denied him for over three years.

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, misstating your opponent's argument is the very definition of a strawman. Patriot stated that actions like GITMO were fueling this conflict.

You stated that Gitmo did not occur before 9/11. You ignored other actions America has undertaken in the past. This mischaracterizes his argument, and then attacks it. That is a strawman.

Simple:
You state flat out that no amount of making nice will make them not hate us. This is a false dilemma - we may reduce the number of people hate us, and the support for people hating us, without completely eliminating everyone who hates us.
No, strawman is where you mischaracterize your opponent's arguments. I am simply stating your arguments, then demonstrating how they fail to make a logical case. This is called refuting your opponent's arguments, and is probably the second essence of debate (The first is forming arguments).
"Kid" "Wash the mud from your eyes" "Naive."

These are not words you use except to belittle your opponent's position. Belittling your opponent's position without addressing it is the essence of the argument from ridicule.



Given your failure to understand the nature of debate, may I return the ad hom with one of my own, perhaps addressing you at the level you seem comfortable with will render me more comprehensible:

You are one of the people who appears to have grown old without ever growing mature. In that I always expect and seek to learn new things, I will always appear immature to people who lack that capacity. So I shall never 'grow up' in the meaning that you use the phrase - too set in my ways to learn anything new.

Also, your casual disregard for anything resembling an intelligible debate is just annoying. I don't necessarily agree with Armstrong on much, but at least he tries. You seem content to sit back with a barrel of rotten tomatoes and desperately avoid thinking.

Still mischaracterizing what I've written and ascribing to me conclusions that I never made, I see.

Fine. Knock yourself out. I'm done wasting keystrokes on you here.

 

[BPSCG]

Padilla is a US citizen arrested in Chicago and held for three and a half years on suspicion for an act he was never charged for. The President played a game of legal 3-card monte in order to keep Padilla's case from being reviewed until all of his options were exhausted. Padilla was not given his constitutional rights. They were denied him for over three years.

It seems to me a lot of the heat generated on the treatment of prisoners derives from the failure of the law to keep up with the changing nature of war.

Once upon a time, it was clearly understood what war was. It involved an open declaration of it by an actual country against another actual country, fought by men wearing actual uniforms to identify which side they were on, and to distinguish them from civilians, who were not supposed to be targetted. Thus, it was relatively easy for the authors of the Constitution to demarcate the line regarding the authority to declare and fund war - it lay with the Congress. The president was simply the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Then the U.S. found itself in armed conflict in Korea and Vietnam, without the benefit of a declaration of war. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution during Vietnam in 1973, which requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

It doesn't appear to me that any of the above contemplated a declaration of war against an organization rather than a country, especially an organization scattered throughout the world, which claims the right to mingle freely amidst civilian populations, and to hide the identity of its soldiers. And as such, there was a lot of confusion and honest disagreement about how to treat people captured during the conflict - confusion and disagreement that had not existed when the rules of warfare had been much clearer.

It's been said that generals often make the mistake of fighting the current war with the previous war's tactics. It seems to me that the same could be said of our legal machinery for dealing with a type of warfare that had never been encountered before.

My initial reaction to Padilla's case was, "Wait, he's a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil - why shouldn't he get the full rights of any other U.S. citizen?" But the allegation was that he was fighting for an enemy power. In the 19th century, he would have been easy to spot as such, because he would have been wearing a red coat and carrying a British Brown Bess musket. If he'd been caught in New York City wearing a wehrmacht uniform in 1943, there would have been little question he was fighting for Germany, and held as a POW for the duration. So what is/was Padilla? A citizen? An enemy combatant? Did his lack of a uniform make him less of an enemy (or more)? Did the fact that he was not fighting for a country, but rather for a terrorist organization mitigate or aggravate his position? Did his U.S. citizenship trump everything else? The Supreme Court evidently decided it does (if I'm understanding correctly), but it appears to me that there have been - and still are - great gaps in our jurisprudence in this area. And those gaps are causing a lot of the heat between people claiming that Bush was trampling the Constitution and people claiming it was his Constitutional obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Just some thoughts and questions, and I'll be the first to admit I may very well be misunderstanding or misstating some facts.

 

[GreyICE]

Still mischaracterizing what I've written and ascribing to me conclusions that I never made, I see.

Fine. Knock yourself out. I'm done wasting keystrokes on you here.

Does it burn when you're this thoroughly wrong? I don't have any particular experience with being wrong on such an epic level, so I can only speculate.

Though you're reduced to dancing monkey emoticons, so I'm guessing yes.

 

[Upchurch]

So what is/was Padilla? A citizen? An enemy combatant? Did his lack of a uniform make him less of an enemy (or more)? Did the fact that he was not fighting for a country, but rather for a terrorist organization mitigate or aggravate his position? Did his U.S. citizenship trump everything else?

His citizenship coupled with the long standing principle of the assumption of innocence trumps allegations, even those made by the government. (Especially those made by the government.) To do otherwise is to allow the government to detain any citizen at any time for any duration with no accountability.

 

[BPSCG]

His citizenship coupled with the long standing principle of the assumption of innocence trumps allegations, even those made by the government. (Especially those made by the government.) To do otherwise is to allow the government to detain any citizen at any time for any duration with no accountability.

But Padilla was initially charged with being an enemy combatant in time of war. Had it been 1943, and he'd been caught in Chicago wearing a German wehrmacht uniform, there is little doubt he'd have been held until Germany's surrender in 1945, citizen or no.

Something changed in the interim, and it appears to me that the law has not kept up.

Note: I have to revise my earlier post. The Supreme Court did not rule in Padilla's favor; they remanded the case back to the appellate court on a technicality, and the government eventually dropped the charge of his being an enemy combatant, thereby sending the case back to criminal court.

 

[drkitten]

MANY people spend longer than 3 years in custody before trial since they are denied bail or can't afford bail.

I'd be surprised if that were the case, given that the SCOTUS has consistently held (Klopfer, Barker, &c) that failure to provide a trial within about a year is a constitutional rights violation that demands the complete dismissal of all charges with prejudice.

And in the case of Federal prisoners, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 provides a maximum of 70 days from arrest to trial.

Bail has nothing do to with it.

 

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - He did confront his accusers at his trial.
2 - MANY people spend longer than 3 years in custody before trial since they are denied bail or can't afford bail.
3 - His attorneys were litigating the venue for his trial it took 3 years
4 - and he won the right to civil trial.
5 - He was convicted and is now in super max that is MUCH harsher than the brig he was in before.
6 - As to his claims of "torture" that is the standard mantra from all of the terroists' defense attorneys. It is like Every person you meet in prison that says they were railroaded.
7 - It means absolutely nothing.

1 - His right to do so was withheld for about 3 years.
2 - Irrelevant, and probably inaccurate. Due Process - your defense negotiations with the prosecution delays a trial start. Reckless disregard of the rights of US citizens - you are locked up for 3 years while people you never get to see argue about your right to a trial.
3 - Inaccruate. He didn't get to see an attorney for most of those 3 years.

4 - Number 4 is the kicker, the meat, the heart of your failed understanding.
As an American citizen, he always had the right to a civil trial. Always. He was not supposed to have to win anything, he already had it, and it was denied him.

5 - Irrelevant. The result of a trial that properly follows due process is acceptable.
6 - Unconfirmed certainly. Standard mantra, maybe. However, in these extraordinary circumstances, with mistreatment of prisoners being found legal by the attorney general, the claim should be investigated throroughly.
7 - Until you get the facts straight.

 

[fishbob]

But Padilla was initially charged with being an enemy combatant in time of war. Had it been 1943, and he'd been caught in Chicago wearing a German wehrmacht uniform, there is little doubt he'd have been held until Germany's surrender in 1945, citizen or no.

Something changed in the interim, and it appears to me that the law has not kept up.
Note: I have to revise my earlier post. The Supreme Court did not rule in Padilla's favor; they remanded the case back to the appellate court on a technicality, and the government eventually dropped the charge of his being an enemy combatant, thereby sending the case back to criminal court.

The law, at least as far as our civil rights go, does not have to keep up. That part of the law remains inviolate, or the US is no longer the country we want it to be. My opinion only.

 

[BPSCG]

The law, at least as far as our civil rights go, does not have to keep up. That part of the law remains inviolate, or the US is no longer the country we want it to be. My opinion only.

I'm looking at the Bill of Rights and it seems to refer only to criminal trials. If my understanding was correct, Padilla was not originally held on a criminal charge, but rather as an illegal enemy combatant. AFAIK, to this date, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled that his detention as an illegal enemy combatant was improper.

Again, in 1787, such a thing as an illegal enemy combatant, attached to the military force of a worldwide organization, rather than a country, carrying out his military mission in civilian disguise rather than a uniform, in a war that had not been formally declared, was unheard-of. The last 8 years have been an attempt to fit the round peg of the world as it is into the square hole of the law as it stands, IMHO.

 

[drkitten]

I'm looking at the Bill of Rights and it seems to refer only to criminal trials.

Really? You must have a highly abridged copy, then.

The Fifth Amendment declares that no person can be deprived of liberty without due process of law; nothing about "criminal trials" in that one.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" generally -- again, without any mention of criminal trials.

And the fact that the government tried to prevent him from petitioning the government (claiming that he had no standing to make a claim for habeas corpus, for example) for redress of these grievances violates the First Amendment.

During the three years in which he was not permitted access to the courts, the government violated no less than three separate amendments.

ETA: Whups! Possibly four. The Fourth Amendment specifically prevents "seizure" of people's "persons" without a previous showing of probable cause. Was a warrant ever issued for his arrest and detention?

 

[BPSCG]

Really? You must have a highly abridged copy, then.

The Fifth Amendment declares that no person can be deprived of liberty without due process of law; nothing about "criminal trials" in that one.

Here's what my "highly abridged" copy of the Fifth Amendment says (boldings mine):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I submit that it is you who are looking at the highly abridged copy.

ETA: Whups! Possibly four. The Fourth Amendment specifically prevents "seizure" of people's "persons" without a previous showing of probable cause. Was a warrant ever issued for his arrest and detention?

This is where the ground gets muddy. Does the government have no power to hold anyone for any reason without a warrant being issued for his arrest?

If so, then everyone in Guantanamo who was captured while shooting at U.S. soldiers should have been served an arrest warrant and read his Miranda rights. You'll agree that's plainly ridiculous. So what happens when a U.S. citizen gets captured on the battlefield making war against the United States? What happens when a U.S. citizen makes war on the United States inside the United States? At what point do his constitutional rights kick in?

Is it impossible for a U.S. citizen to make war against the United States? If someone is caught making war against the United States, does he get rights that non-citizens do not?

 

[drkitten]

Here's what my "highly abridged" copy of the Fifth Amendment says (boldings mine): I submit that it is you who are looking at the highly abridged copy.

Not at all. You're simply wrong.

Let me re-bold for you.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Both of those uses of "crime" are clause-specific. You are correct, for example, that a person in a civil case can in theory be compelled to be a witness against himself.

However, look at the relevant clause about deprivation:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That's fairly clear -- the prohibition about "deprivation of life, liberty, or property" is not restricted to criminal cases.

In fact, there's a lot of case law about that. For example, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff was about whether or not the state had the authority (via the Land Reform Act of 1967) to exercise eminent domain; no question of criminal law entered into it, but it hinged on the "deprivation of property clause." I could find another dozen examples.

This is where the ground gets muddy. Does the government have no power to hold anyone for any reason without a warrant being issued for his arrest?

Of course. Upon a finding of "probable cause." The police don't need a warrant to arrest you if they see you commit a crime, either. A soldier captured on the battlefield would also fall under "probable cause." What crime did the US agents who arrested Padillo see him commit?

What happens when a U.S. citizen makes war on the United States inside the United States?

The appropriate authorities establish "probable cause" and arrest him.

At what point do his constitutional rights kick in?

In 1789.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My initial reaction to Padilla's case was, "Wait, he's a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil - why shouldn't he get the full rights of any other U.S. citizen?" But the allegation was that he was fighting for an enemy power. In the 19th century, he would have been easy to spot as such, because he would have been wearing a red coat and carrying a British Brown Bess musket. If he'd been caught in New York City wearing a wehrmacht uniform in 1943, there would have been little question he was fighting for Germany, and held as a POW for the duration. So what is/was Padilla? A citizen? An enemy combatant? Did his lack of a uniform make him less of an enemy (or more)? Did the fact that he was not fighting for a country, but rather for a terrorist organization mitigate or aggravate his position? Did his U.S. citizenship trump everything else? The Supreme Court evidently decided it does (if I'm understanding correctly), but it appears to me that there have been - and still are - great gaps in our jurisprudence in this area. And those gaps are causing a lot of the heat between people claiming that Bush was trampling the Constitution and people claiming it was his Constitutional obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.[/COLOR]

Even if the allegations were true, what would have made him so different from Timmothy McVeigh?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But Padilla was initially charged with being an enemy combatant in time of war. Had it been 1943, and he'd been caught in Chicago wearing a German wehrmacht uniform, there is little doubt he'd have been held until Germany's surrender in 1945, citizen or no.

And if he had been cought out of uniform, as several were that the germans put ashore by U boat, he would have been tried and hung.

 

[BPSCG]

And if he had been cought out of uniform, as several were that the germans put ashore by U boat, he would have been tried and hung hanged.

Fixed. Sorry, pet peeve.