I think McCain makes an important distinction when he talks about detainees who are "truly dangerous". If only we had some kind of system for figuring out which ones they are.

I'm trying to figure out why this Scheppele dude is in the story at all. He's pimping some lame book and it feels out of place. What's he contributing here? The counterpoint that we should keep our secret prisons open?

bheilig: I think McCain makes an important distinction when he talks about detainees who are "truly dangerous". If only we had some kind of system for figuring out which ones they are.

just count their midichlorians. oh wait, nevermind, that's how you see if they're a jedi.

It's just a crying shame that the US has never been in a war before and had to have somewhere to store the POWs and enemy combatants. I'd imagine if we had that we could resurrect one of those places.

Ron Paul Revere: In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down the original tribunals set up by the Bush administration, saying Guantanamo detainees must be tried "by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." That is on top of a 2004 ruling that said detainees have basic rights to contest their imprisonment and that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president."

That little bit there gives me some hope for our country yet.

Too bad our president doesn't seem to agree with that logic.

Would have been even better if the Supreme Court had kindly reminded everybody that a Constitutional "state of war" does not currently exist.

"We will lead in having high standards for civil liberties and civil rights and rule of law and due process," says Barack Obama.

Obama went on to say that the suspected terrorists are just bitter little people that can't find a job. That's why they cling to their guns and Koran.

Obama went on to say that the suspected terrorists are just bitter little people that can't find a job. That's why they cling to their guns and Koran.

The thread you meant to post in, let me show you it.

Ron Paul Revere: The words "police action" come to mind.

The words "police state" come to mind.

we should at least move the camp to the states, so that the concessions revenue will go to americans.

barneyfifesbullet: "We will lead in having high standards for civil liberties and civil rights and rule of law and due process," says Barack Obama.

Obama went on to say that the suspected terrorists are just bitter little people that can't find a job. That's why they cling to their guns and Koran. Would everyone pretty please hate Barack Obama? He murders puppies and just called anyone who doesn't live in New York or California an ignorant, sister-raping hillbilly, I swear! Please hate him! Please? PLEASE?

FTFY

Ron Paul Revere: In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down the original tribunals set up by the Bush administration, saying Guantanamo detainees must be tried "by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." That is on top of a 2004 ruling that said detainees have basic rights to contest their imprisonment and that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president."

That little bit there gives me some hope for our country yet.

Too bad our president doesn't seem to agree with that logic.

You can thank our President and John McCain for throwing Hamdan out the window. The Military Commissions Act is an abomination.

What really pisses me off about the whole torture thing is the enourmous cover-your-ass spectacle that happened after the fact. then they hung the soldiers doing the dirty work (EG, everyone under the rank of Captain) out to dry. God bless America.

We've pretty much lost all moral credibility as soon as Füher decided that it was okay to torture people and hold them indefinitely. (That's what the War on Terror is, and you'd be naïve to think that we'll be done after we stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan)

Our foreign policy has been extremely stupid, short-sighted and ultimately destructive to America's relevance. Bring all of our military home, and let's have a frank discussion about what the real purpose of the US military is and what kind of role we should have in the world--before the country becomes permanently ruined.

/of course, making sure not to make things worse in the process of withdrawing

I still don't get why we had to go and advertise the fact that we are torturing people. I'm sure we've tortured people from time to time throughout our history, but never before was it necessary to advertise the fact.

WTF?

I'm curious, what rights is it that you think these people have and under what laws?

Churchill2004: Would have been even better if the Supreme Court had kindly reminded everybody that a Constitutional "state of war" does not currently exist.

Indeed. No declaration of war by Congress; no war-time executive powers. Instead we have this open-ended period where the executive branch thinks they're above the law. Damn you, Jar-Jar! I know yousa is behind this!

randomjsa: I'm curious, what rights is it that you think these people have and under what laws?

It's not okay to torture people. Period.

syrynxx: Churchill2004: Would have been even better if the Supreme Court had kindly reminded everybody that a Constitutional "state of war" does not currently exist.

Indeed. No declaration of war by Congress; no war-time executive powers. Instead we have this open-ended period where the executive branch thinks they're above the law. Damn you, Jar-Jar! I know yousa is behind this!

I think we're still at war with Germany. That is what they used to justify this war anyway.

randomjsa: I'm curious, what rights is it that you think these people have and under what laws?

What kind of a scumbag lowlife do you have to be to come into threads and argue against human rights? That's a better question.

Phil Moskowitz: randomjsa: I'm curious, what rights is it that you think these people have and under what laws?

What kind of a scumbag lowlife do you have to be to come into threads and argue against human rights? That's a better question.

Amen.

I Repeat: What rights is it that you think these people have and under what laws? You can insult me all you like but at least have the courage to answer the question.

randomjsa: I Repeat: What rights is it that you think these people have and under what laws? You can insult me all you like but at least have the courage to answer the question.


This got hashed out pretty good in the other thread, but we can start out with this, from the ICRC commentary on the 4th Geneva Convention: (new window)

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.

randomjsa: I Repeat: What rights is it that you think these people have and under what laws? You can insult me all you like but at least have the courage to answer the question.


Besides this purely legal approach I gave earlier, there are other ways to tackle the question.

First some people have raised the issue of whether interrogation techniques that amount to torture have been proved effective.

Second, some people have argued that there is a component of "rights" that can be deemed "natural" - ie. in inherent in human beings regardless of legal standing. Remember all that talk about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Basic human rights share same line of thinking and the same philosophical lineage as the founding principles of this country.

Third, there is a moral and ethical aspect to all of this. One can argue that the treatment of detainees goes beyond what we are prepared to accept as a society.


I hope that answers your question, but frankly, this stuff has been said over and over again the last few years, and if you haven't come across these arguments yet, you're probably not honestly looking for them.

randomjsa

What, no response? Cat got your tongue (with a pair of pliers)?

Damnhippyfreak: randomjsa

What, no response? Cat got your tongue (with a pair of pliers)?

Oh are we all over here now?

In that case, HAI GUYZ WHATS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD

/Meet the new thread, same as the old thread?

If these guys think that hooking up some terrorist's genitals to a battery charger to grab info that will save American lives all I have to say is Red is positive, black is negative.

Spitzer wannabe: If these guys think that hooking up some terrorist's genitals to a battery charger to grab info that will save American lives all I have to say is Red is positive, black is negative.

Wow. That's one of the oldest stand-up comedy bits in the history of Ever. I think it came out right after '.. and BOY are my arms tired!'

I think I will bring up this thread whenever randomjsa is anywhere near a discussion of human rights and/or torture.