• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Indefinite detention without trial to be official policy?

These aren't traditional hostilities and they will probably never cease.
But these are combatants who are at war with us. They don't get more rights for being "non traditional" than do those who abide by the LOAC, that would be an absurd practice.

And while they certainly can be held until hostilities with al Qaeda cease, most have already been released after determining (falsely in many cases) that they were no longer a threat to war against us.
 
But these are combatants who are at war with us.
That's a pretty big assumption. In a just system, this must be proved rather than assumed. Do you really think you rounded up only actual combatants? Is your net really that foolproof?
 
That's a pretty big assumption. In a just system, this must be proved rather than assumed. Do you really think you rounded up only actual combatants? Is your net really that foolproof?
It was proved, in a US civilian court in every single case.

Do you still have a problem with it?
 
It was proved, in a US civilian court in every single case.

Do you still have a problem with it?
I must have missed that. Given that I can call to mind at least one case where it wasn't - Khadr. Can you point me to this civilian court?
 
It was proved, in a US civilian court in every single case.

Do you still have a problem with it?

Are you claiming that every intern at guantanamo has already had a trial in a civilian court in america?
 
It was proved, in a US civilian court in every single case.

Do you still have a problem with it?

Definitely no reason to investigate any offenses to civil liberties there. Because you proclaimed it, we should just close the book on it. Somehow I doubt that every person locked in Git'mo is a legitimate enemy combatant. I have a feeling in rendition trades, it gets a little dicey.
 
I feel like both sides are talking into a wall here. Half view it as a legal/rights issue. The others view it as an administrative process.

From what I can gather, the Geneva conventions are a bizarre combination of both. POWs have rights to their treatment, but indefinite detention in indefinite conflict (under an ideal, indefinite conflict) is an administrative problem, not a rights one.
 
Are you claiming that every intern at guantanamo has already had a trial in a civilian court in america?

When you live in a black/white world and it doesn't hit your cultural boundaries, you can believe anything to make yourself feel correct in your assumptions. This is part of the problem with this issue. It's why this debate usually abruptly ends as soon as the Lee Greenwood background music kicks in.
 
I feel like both sides are talking into a wall here. Half view it as a legal/rights issue. The others view it as an administrative process.

From what I can gather, the Geneva conventions are a bizarre combination of both. POWs have rights to their treatment, but indefinite detention in indefinite conflict (under an ideal, indefinite conflict) is an administrative problem, not a rights one.

I view it as a road we shouldn't travel because it seems it's ripe for legal miscalculations we can't even begin to fathom. Administrative, civil liberties & complex legal wranglings we haven't traversed yet. I think the US has too much pride to admit when it has overstepped it's bounds in authority, this is a perfect example of this. Personally as an american, I am not willing to play these "you are the enemy" games that always seem to come back and scorch our keister at inappropriate times.
 
I view it as a road we shouldn't travel because it seems it's ripe for legal miscalculations we can't even begin to fathom. Administrative, civil liberties & complex legal wranglings we haven't traversed yet. I think the US has too much pride to admit when it has overstepped it's bounds in authority, this is a perfect example of this. Personally as an american, I am not willing to play these "you are the enemy" games that always seem to come back and scorch our keister at inappropriate times.

Like when?
 
Yes, I totally get your point, David. Nowhere in the relevant amendments is the word "citizen" used. I did not use the word "only", however (just to quibble). Would you agree that the amendments do not exclude citizens?

That being said, the Fifth Amendment spells out an exception which could be interpreted to exclude some people. That exclusion does seem germane to this discussion. What is your take on the exception, and how might it apply to the combatants being discussed?

That is currently the issue under discussion, I believe as stated that either they are POWs and should be treated as such or they are non-combatants and treated as such, and have a trail by a military court. The language of COTUS is deliberately vague, I believe that it applies to soldiers on the battlefield and times of insurrection. Perhaps it will come before the SCOTUS, but I doubt it.

However I would like to see the evidence investigated, torture and pay for snitch information is hardly reliable. I also do not think that the whole world is a battlefield and that any person who takes violence against the US is a enemy non-combatant just because we say so.
.
 
That's a pretty big assumption. In a just system, this must be proved rather than assumed.


And in the future maybe before kidnapping other countries citizens out of their own countries and threatening the local legislative whenever they're trying to do their job and help their citizens by trying to prosecute the foreign US kidnapper. :dig:
 
Also, is Bradley Manning a case of an US Citizen Enemy Combatant, so to speak?
 
It's a worrisome development.

The effect of war on democracies is an erosion of legal rights, moral standing, and eventually the democratic proces itself.

One only has to look at the democracies in WWI and II to see this: censorship and other personal restrictions, massive propaganda and terrorbombing.

In my opinion this was regrettable, but an inevitable part of the nature of war. And when Japan and Germany were defeated full democracy in the Allied countries was restored.

The War on Terror is more insidious. It was never declared, and since there is no enemy to defeat, it can never end in victory. Meanwhile legal rights and moral standing gradually deteriorate, with no end in sight. The danger here is people become desensitized to (other) people's loss of rights.
 
It's a worrisome development.

The effect of war on democracies is an erosion of legal rights, moral standing, and eventually the democratic proces itself.

One only has to look at the democracies in WWI and II to see this: censorship and other personal restrictions, massive propaganda and terrorbombing.

In my opinion this was regrettable, but an inevitable part of the nature of war. And when Japan and Germany were defeated full democracy in the Allied countries was restored.

The War on Terror is more insidious. It was never declared, and since there is no enemy to defeat, it can never end in victory. Meanwhile legal rights and moral standing gradually deteriorate, with no end in sight. The danger here is people become desensitized to (other) people's loss of rights.

The problem for the theatrical pro "War on Terror" mindset is, it doesn't touch home yet. The heavy handed rhetoric would go up in flames as soon as 1 close family member is in a civil liberties situation with their freedom and civil liberties at jeopardy. The position will drastically shift to one of understanding & rational discourse on how to get their loved one out of this nightmare. I don't take anyone seriously lecturing me on everyone who is detained is guilty. It's a false premise from the very beginning. It can be dismantled with ease.
 
Like when?

I don't know, how about this 14 year old that was sent to git'mo.
Here is one pathetic miserable case. Look at this paltry evidence, this is the sad state of affairs what concerns proof in military justice.

El Gharani was arrested in Pakistan in 2001 at a mosque by local police, and turned over to United States forces in 2002. He was one of the first Guantanamo Bay detainees and also one of the youngest.

Katznelson said el Gharani now has spent a third of his life in military prison in Cuba. "He never should have been in prison in the first place," Katznelson said.

He was accused of receiving military training from al-Qaida in Afghanistan and serving as a courier for several high-ranking members. He also is accused of fighting against U.S. and coalition forces at the battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in late 2001 and of being a member of an al-Qaida cell based in London in 1998.

El Gharani denied all of the accusations.

The government's only evidence is statements made by two other Guantanamo Bay detainees whose credibility and reliability has been called into question by "government personnel," Leon said.

For example, El Gharani's lawyers pointed out that he would have been 11 in 1998, when he is accused of being part of an al-Qaida cell in England.

And "putting aside the obvious and unanswered questions as to how a Saudi minor from a very poor family could have even become a member of a London-based cell, the government simply advances no corroborating evidence for these statements it believes to be reliable from a fellow detainee, the basis of whose knowledge is _ at best _ unknown," Leon said.

This is a perfect example of how flimsy evidence is getting in court cases involving War On Terror & enemy combatants. Flip the tables and have a General's son in the US Military accused of being a terrorist with this evidence, this case wouldn't even go to trial. 1998, give me a break. How do you prove that? Oh, that's right, the US Government truthfully can't. A detainee informant who was likely what? Tortured to get the answer they were looking for. If this weren't an actual case, I would swear this was an onion news article.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom