Infinite Detention Without Trial - what does it mean?

One of the reasons we have so many laws and regulation is that power corrupts and those in power are forever finding new ways to perform old atrocities. Due process? Habeas corpus? Prohibitions against torture? These have no meaning if we are not committed to the spirit for which they exist.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not quite. An end of hostilities is presumed possible, but it doesn't have to be defined, and in fact it generally isn't defined beforehand (even though it's often obvious what it would be).
Click to expand...
That's not the way I read Article 118. And it's clear from the language of the third Geneva Convention that an impossible condition for the cessation of hostilities is not what was intended. No one sought to legalize indefinite detention of POWs.

But perhaps more importantly, the "War on Terror" is just a label. The AUMF didn't declare war on terrorism in toto. It declared war on al Qaeda and groups which support them. If we destroy these groups, or they surrender or make peace with us, then the conflict will be over, even though "terrorism" will not be.
Click to expand...
I agree. We can have a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda (usually referred to as the war in Afghanistan). At the cessation of hostilities, POWs must be released.

The "War on Terrorism" isn't such a thing, and detainees held under that theory of war, aren't POWs. They are people accused of criminal activity. As such, they are entitled to the rights of the accused. Similarly, in the "War on Drugs", people detained are accused of crimes and are not POWs.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
One of the reasons we have so many laws and regulation is that power corrupts and those in power are forever finding new ways to perform old atrocities. Due process? Habeas corpus? Prohibitions against torture? These have no meaning if we are not committed to the spirit for which they exist.
Click to expand...

A more optimistic take on that same idea is that we actually are moving more and more toward the rule of law than simply might makes right. As we do so, we've become less tolerant of tacitly looking the other way from extra-legal government activity. Basically, we're shining more light on things that are going on, and it looks worse, but the reality is that things are generally better than they were before, when most of us were kept ignorant of what was going on.

On deck on my reading list is Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
A more optimistic take on that same idea is that we actually are moving more and more toward the rule of law than simply might makes right. As we do so, we've become less tolerant of tacitly looking the other way from extra-legal government activity. Basically, we're shining more light on things that are going on, and it looks worse, but the reality is that things are generally better than they were before, when most of us were kept ignorant of what was going on.

On deck on my reading list is Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Click to expand...
Love Pinker. Thanks, I do agree with you. My post doesn't represent my view of where we are headed. My point is that we must be ever vigilant and committed to our most cherished principles.
 
I Ratant said:
There is also the lack of a declaration of war.
The Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US when the US presented proofs of his involvement.
The US didn't, and began the invasion.
Click to expand...

I have heard this claim before but I believe it is disputed. What is your source?
 
Ziggurat said:
Point to what needs correcting. I'm not going to wade through an article that long, most of which has nothing to do with what you just claimed or my reply, in order to try to find out if anything in it might conflict with what you or I said.
Click to expand...
.
There's a section labeled "2001".. with a link to an article pertinent.
 
I Ratant said:
.
There's a section labeled "2001".. with a link to an article pertinent.
Click to expand...

And you couldn't previously be bothered to provide a quote or indicate where in the article your information came from? Talk about lazy.

But I'm not really surprised, since your own source refutes your claim. Like I said, and like your source says, "the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in an Afghan court". They never offered to hand him over to the US or NATO. The only error I made was the dates. They also made later offers after the invasion, and I forgot about the prior offer, but everything else I said matches with your own source, which (again) refutes your own claim. And missing from that section are our prior demands to hand bin Laden over for terrorist attacks before 9/11, which is directly relevant to the question of the Taliban's credibility. You find them credible for... well, for no reason at all, really.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I agree. We can have a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda (usually referred to as the war in Afghanistan). At the cessation of hostilities, POWs must be released.
Click to expand...

Released or tried for crimes. That will remain an option for some prisoners.

The "War on Terrorism" isn't such a thing, and detainees held under that theory of war, aren't POWs.
Click to expand...

I know of no one who is actually detained under the "war on terrorism", rather than under the AUMF. Are you aware of any such cases?
 
gnome said:
It claims that they offered to try OBL in an Afghan court. Not that they offered to hand him over to us.
Click to expand...
.
BFD.
The US would have prosecutors there.
.
As for the AUMF, it's the biggest bully on the planet declaring he can invade anywhere at any time to do whatever he wants to.
"EC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
.
With the result that 10 Al Queda die, along with 250,000 Afghanis..
Any opposition the invasion by the US encountered would be that of citizens of the invaded country fighting that invasion.
That's pretty much legitimate, as the AUMF is hardly legitimate.
Instead of insurgents, one could term them patriots.
 
I Ratant said:
.
BFD.
The US would have prosecutors there.
Click to expand...

Again, you give the Taliban credibility that they never had. We have no reason to conclude that the Taliban would even think that what he did was a crime under Sharia law.

As for the AUMF, it's the biggest bully on the planet declaring he can invade anywhere at any time to do whatever he wants to.
Click to expand...

Keep that tin-foil had on nice and snug.

With the result that 10 Al Queda die, along with 250,000 Afghanis..
Click to expand...

Once again, your own source refutes you.

Instead of insurgents, one could term them patriots.
Click to expand...

I never called the Taliban "insurgents". The military certainly never did during the initial invasion either. But it's rather telling that you want to call them "patriots". At least you've made it quite clear which side you've chosen. Yet despite giving them your praise, I suspect you would never actually want to live in the kind of world they would choose to create. I guess the ability to side with your enemies and against your own interests must mark you as some sort of "intellectual".
 
I Ratant said:
The US would have prosecutors there.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this? Why would the US have prosecutors in Afghanistan, and why would we expect that a court in Afghanistan at that time would provide an honest judgment of OBL?

I'm a critic of US war policy and how willing we are to jump into situations, but even this would stretch my credibility that it was a serious offer and we could expect satisfaction if we accepted it.
 
gnome said:
Can you elaborate on this? Why would the US have prosecutors in Afghanistan, and why would we expect that a court in Afghanistan at that time would provide an honest judgment of OBL?

I'm a critic of US war policy and how willing we are to jump into situations, but even this would stretch my credibility that it was a serious offer and we could expect satisfaction if we accepted it.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Picking up someone on a battlefield, or doing an attack is one thing. The problem here is that some people captured in non-combat situations, such as inside their own homes, and declared to be combatants even though they were not engaged in combat during their capture.
Click to expand...
Were the German saboteurs dropped off on Long Island during WWII (2 of which were German-born US citizens who went back to Germany to fight for the Nazis) engaged in combat during their capture? Was there a "Battle of Long Island" I never heard about?

I Ratant said:
There is also the lack of a declaration of war.
Click to expand...
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

If you don't think that meets Constitutional requirements do explain how. And "war" is a term that doesn't appear in the Geneva Conventions, "armed conflict" does. Do you think that there is no armed conflict against al Qaida and the Taliban et al?

I Ratant said:
The Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US when the US presented proofs of his involvement.
The US didn't, and began the invasion.
Click to expand...
Wow, I never have seen that argument outside the 9/11 conspiracy theories section. You really think the Taliban were going to turn over OBL? I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, it's the Brooklyn model and it's CHEAP! Interested?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
If you do so in accordance with the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.
Click to expand...
We've been through this over and over Joe. You don't get the privileged status of POW unless you were abiding by the LOAC and other provisions of Article IV. If you fail to meet those standards you can still be detained, but do not get POW status. You get Common Article III protection instead.

This is settled law at this point Joe, as defined by the SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom