Indefinite detention without trial to be official policy?

[INRM]

Critical Funker,

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.

Correct, but by then it would be too late.

I don't take anyone seriously lecturing me on everyone who is detained is guilty. It's a false premise from the very beginning.

Of course it is. Under Bush's term there were a couple of hundred people at Guantanamo Bay, of which about 50 were suspected of actual terrorist activity


INRM

 

[WildCat]

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?

Did you miss the news?

"In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges."

Are you claiming that every intern at guantanamo has already had a trial in a civilian court in america?

Of course not. Do you know the difference between a trial and a detention hearing? Do you know it's not even legal to try someone merely for being an enemy combatant?

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.

If you are demanding a court system which is 100% correct 100% of the time you won't find such an animal on this planet.

In the case of Gitmo detainees every single one of them had their chance to convince a civilian court judge their detention was in error.

 

[D'rok]

Did you miss the news?

"In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges."

Quit dodging, WildCat:

It was proved, in a US civilian court in every single case.

This is really pathetic. I don't know who you think you are fooling with this.

 

[WildCat]

Quit dodging, WildCat:



This is really pathetic. I don't know who you think you are fooling with this.

So it's your conention that the SCOTUS opinion is being ignored? If that were indeed the case, it would be huge news and a Constitutional crisis.

Anyway, your claim. You supply the evidence. I've already shown that all detainees have the right to challenge their detentions in a civilian court.

 

[D'rok]

So it's your conention that the SCOTUS opinion is being ignored? If that were indeed the case, it would be huge news and a Constitutional crisis.

Anyway, your claim. You supply the evidence. I've already shown that all detainees have the right to challenge their detentions in a civilian court.

I made no such claim and you bloody well know it. That is one of the most transparent instances of strawmanning I have ever seem on this forum. Unbelievable.

Now, when are you going to support this claim - you know that ACTUAL claim you clearly made, rather than the modified one you are trying to defend:

It was proved, in a US civilian court in every single case.

 

[WildCat]

I made no such claim and you bloody well know it. That is one of the most transparent instances of strawmanning I have ever seem on this forum. Unbelievable.

Now, when are you going to support this claim - you know that ACTUAL claim you clearly made, rather than the modified one you are trying to defend:

You're right, I do not know if every single detainee excercised their right to challenge their detentions in civilian court. But they certainly have that right, yes? Are you aware of any cases where that right was denied in violation of the SCOTUS ruling?

 

[D'rok]

You're right, I do not know if every single detainee excercised their right to challenge their detentions in civilian court. But they certainly have that right, yes? Are you aware of any cases where that right was denied in violation of the SCOTUS ruling?

The ruling you are trumpeting was handed down in 2008. I think that suggests that you have many years of unlawful detentions to answer for, don't you?

And every single prisoner who has been subject to this laughable habeus corpus process has had his rights denied, pre or post Boumedine v. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal

Can you name a single Gitmo prisoner who has had due process?

 

[WildCat]

The ruling you are trumpeting was handed down in 2008. I think that suggests that you have many years of unlawful detentions to answer for, don't you?

Only because the SCOTUS determined that military status hearings weren't good enough for the first time in US history. It's no different than any other SCOTUS opinion which redefined the rules midway through the game, whether it was Brown. v. Board of Education, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Roe v. Wade, or District of Columbia v. Heller. Laws evolve and change.

And every single prisoner who has been subject to this laughable habeus corpus process has had his rights denied, pre or post Boumedine v. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal

Can you name a single Gitmo prisoner who has had due process?

Dude, you're not even making sense now.

I have proven my statement that every single detainee has the right to challenge their detention in a US civilian court. You can drag the goalposts wherever you like, but at that point you can argue with yourself.

 

[bikerdruid]

I have proven my statement that every single detainee has the right to challenge their detention in a US civilian court. .

omar kadr certainly never had this option.

 

[Crossbow]

White House Drafts Executive Order for Indefinite Detention



(Insert sarcastic comments about Change We Can Believe In here)

In fairness to the president, congress including his own party did block his efforts to close GITMO and to bring GITMO detainees to the US to stand trial. And congress in turn was responding to large majorities of the public who said they didn't want them tried in civilian court.

Still, a military trial seems preferable to no trial at all. But then, what happens if they can't get a conviction? Do they just keep holding them anyway? Don't we have to bite the bullet and let them go then if we are to be a nation of laws?

If I recall correctly, during the Presidential campaign Obama said something like:

'Some of the Guantanamo Detainees will get Civilian Trials, and
Some of the Guantanamo Detainees will get Military Trials, and
Some of the Guantanamo Detainees will be sent to other countries, and
Some of the Guantanamo Detainees will be held indefinitely.'

So this new Presidential Order is hardly news to me.

 

[Biscuit]

I recall the presidents press secretary fielding a question on this last week. He said something to the effect of

"This is a preliminary report that has not been through the appropriate committees yet alone crossed the presidents desk. The president has not read this and this is not the policy of the Obama administration"

I am paraphrasing but thats what I got from it. I was pissed when I first read this report but after the press hearing I filed it away.