[luke warm]

kenberg, on Jun 13 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 13 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

either declare war on somebody and kill/destroy the enemy or don't... security isn't worth the cost we're paying in liberty, imo... of course i can say that (and believe it) because i'm not in charge

The last time we declared was on anyone was, I believe, December 8, 1941. I think a thorough discussion of exactly how this country goes to war is long overdue.

Sample question to the candidates: In the event that you feel the US military should be used, how do you plan to seek authorization for that use? Or do you feel that the inherent powers of the presidency make such authorization unnecessary? Of course if the candidate feels confident that he is so blessed that during his term in office it will never be necessary to use military force he could explain the basis for that belief.

i agree... yet another (if i need another) reason i'd hate to be in charge, because if i was running and was asked your question i'd say "i'd seek a declaration of war from congress and, upon receiving it, utilize all the military force at my disposal to destroy the enemy's will to wage war while preserving, as much as possible, american lives... if enemies of this country choose to engage america in battle, they must be prepared to be utterly destroyed"

and that's what i'd do

[Al_U_Card]

I would hope that most here remember the "show" trials of the recent past (Communist countries especially) and how they were decried by the US as being barbaric and uncivilized. How the US system was designed and ensured a fair trial......for all your citizens....don't get on the wrong side of the DHS as they will go down in history with the KGB and the Gestapo eventually. People allowing their ideals to be coerced by the powerful.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Jun 13 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

One of the greatest tragedies possible is when people have their life taken away from and are sent to prison for a crime they did not commit. I think it's terrible to contemplate it happening, and I know that it does happen with our current court system. I recognize it as a necessary evil, only because (presumably) a very very low percentage of people who go to prison are innocent. This is because they get a trial, a very high burden of proof is put on finding them guilty, and they get to appeal possibly several times. Because of our system, the ratio of innocent:guilty is tolerably low, and it is necessary because we have to be able to punish actual offenders and sometimes don't have 100 % proof.

To me when you just put people in jail without a trial, and without sufficient evidence to win a trial, there is now a MUCH HIGHER possibility that we have taken someone out of society who has done nothing wrong. Taken them away from their families, attached a stigma to them, put them in horrible conditions (in this case truly horrible, including possible torture). The ratio of innocent:guilty CANNOT POSSIBLY BE anywhere close to what it is with the trial system, and that is just NOT acceptable to me because of how horrible the things happening to the innocent people are. Without the right amount of evidence, it is a certainty that we have done this to many many many people who have done nothing wrong. It totally outrages me to think about.

It also outrages me that mike777 thinks that this law is bad because we will have to RELEASE people who we don't have enough evidence to hold. There is a reason they should be released if we don't have enough evidence to hold them: we don't know if they're guilty! Without enough evidence, how can we know?

Justin what you claim I said is false and I have repeated it is false in the above posts. I do get the feeling that people just seem to get angry really angry if one questions a decision or their point of view.


Sigh I never said this, in fact I said just the opposite. No wonder people get mad at me if they say I say the exact opposite. I repeated the trial would be bogus.

I admit I seem to be the only one concerned that often those released kill and kill again and many still in custody say they will kill or die trying if given a chance.

But I never said anything close to what you claim I did, in fact I said the opposite. The evidence is bogus, and the trials a sham. But I see people keep coming back to the subject of crime. I repeat someone can be a legitmate POW and no crime has been commited. In fact I believe that 99.99% of legitmate POW's could be be guilty of no crime. See WWII.

"One of the greatest tragedies possible is when people have their life taken away from and are sent to prison for a crime they did not commit. I think it's terrible to contemplate it happening, and I know"

I did ask the question if we should capture POW's and how long to keep them and what to do with them. In fact this is the key point I think.

It might be helpful if someone had some facts on how many people around the world are being held, what their status is, and in general how they came to be held.
For instance, captured on the battlefield or as a result of informants, etc.

I repeat I did not say or infer what you claim below.


" also outrages me that mike777 thinks that this law is bad because we will have to RELEASE people who we don't have enough evidence to hold. There is a reason they should be released if we don't have enough evidence to hold them: we don't know if they're guilty! Without enough evidence, how can we know?"

As for this ruling, as I understand it there are no standards for what a legitmate POW is or any guidance on how a District Judge let alone a commander inthe field should make this decision. Again I am not trying to ask a tricky question, what do you want the commanders in the field to do if they take a POW? As I understand it this decision applies to all POW's not just the 240 or so in CUBA but all worldwide but I admit this point is unclear.

[mike777]

jtfanclub, on Jun 13 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 13 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

Quote

But in all seriousness we just do not seem to have the trial system to do anything with these guys.

Most of "these guys" were turned in as "terrorists" by those wishing to collect the $25,000 per "terrorist" head bounty the U.S. was paying.

I'd break it down into thirds...

1/3 people turned in for the bounty.
1/3 people who had information we might want, or some loose association with actual terrorists (such as taxi drivers, or Osama's chauffeur).
1/3 were people too dangerous to keep in local jails. Some of them were actual terrorists (such as the Bosnians who were the folks who brought the suit), some pissed off the local honchos, and some are just really nasty people (like drug lords and heads of street gangs) that the local authorities were afraid to prosecute.

Of course, some of these thirds ARE terrorists, and some of the ones who are NOT terrorists have been let go. Still, I'd wager that 2/3 of the people still in Gitmo we have no actual evidence that they've been terrorists. Of course, that doesn't make them nice people....

It does seems as if many people accept what you say as true facts. I just do not know. Hopefully someone can come up with facts.

If I am understanding your main point you seem to believe that the vast majority of people being held worldwide or maybe just in CUBA are not people who have killed or are eager to kill Americans. Or to use my phrase, they are not legitmate common POW's just as in WWII. As I have stated I would be surprised we have any legal evidence or that their rights have not been shattered to the point as to make any trial a sham.

Assuming what you state is true, I agree it is an outrage.

AGain what the law says and how it is to be enforced and to who it applies to is unclear to me.

1) Does anyone captured on foreign soil as a POW or combatant get a lawyer and a trial/hearing in front of a District Court Judge in the USA?
2) If so what standards should soldiers and commanders on the ground be using?
3) What do the soldiers do with the evidence?
4) What rules concerning the chain of evidence and what rules of evidence do they follow?
5) What standards do the judges use to rule on?
6) What about appeals?
7) Assuming the Judge says ok, the appeal courts say ok, etc, what do we do with the POW's and how long do we keep them?
8) How soon do they get a hearing, within 48 hours after capture or what time period?

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jun 13 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

I would hope that most here remember the "show" trials of the recent past (Communist countries especially) and how they were decried by the US as being barbaric and uncivilized.  How the US system was designed and ensured a fair trial......for all your citizens....don't get on the wrong side of the DHS as  they will go down in history with the KGB and the Gestapo eventually.  People allowing their ideals to be coerced by the powerful.

This was my exact thought when I heard there would be trials for those held in CUBA. They would be stalinist show trials.



I found this article interesting. It may not be perfect but it seems like a good first step.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A9649C8B63


1) killing people or supporting killing people in a time of war is not per se a crime, you are not guilty of a crime.
2) The vast majority or 100% of POWs are not guilty of any crime. Guilt of a crime is not the question.
3) The vast majority of POW's are not terriosts, whatever that means.
4) Which brings me back to my main point in my first post, should we take in POW's in the field of combat, if not what do we do with them?
5) If we do, what standards do we apply putting them in captivity or not, what do we do with them and how long do we keep them?

Of course Al one needs to assume, which you clearly do not, that the global war on Terror or however you prefer to call it is moral and legit and a real war, if not none of this matters.

[blackshoe]

When you capture enemy soldiers in war time, you incarcerate them "for the duration", treat them nicely, and set them free to go home when the war is over. That's the theory, if you like.

One problem with terrorism is that we're pretty sure that if terrorists capture any of our people (soldiers or civilians, the terrorists don't much care) they will not be treated nicely, and they are far more likely to be tortured and killed than to ever be set free. After all, they've done it before.

Another problem is that we know (because the terrorists have told us so) that if we set them free, they'll go right back to making war on us, whatever anybody else says or does.

So, should we treat terrorists the same way we would treat enemy soldiers in a conventional war? I don't think so. Doing so would be stupid.

An alternative would be to treat them as criminals. That means that when we capture them, we have to expend time and money to prove they did whatever they did. And if we don't prove it to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers, they go free - and go right back to doing what they were doing before we captured them. I don't think that'll work too well, either.

What the Bush administration is trying to do is to find a new paradigm, recognizing that neither of the existing paradigms is going to work. Yes, that puts them in conflict with the opinions of a lot of people. Doesn't make them evil, or even necessarily wrong. OTOH, they have to be damn careful that whatever they do doesn't destroy the Constitution - the basis of our system of government. Not an easy task. I don't envy any of them.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Jun 14 2008, 12:32 AM, said:

Another problem is that we know (because the terrorists have told us so) that if we set them free, they'll go right back to making war on us, whatever anybody else says or does.

How many of the prisoners have told "us" that? Remermber, this is the same administration that insisted that Iraq threatened the US with weapons of mass destruction. Not exactly a reliable source...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 14 2008, 04:09 AM, said:

kenberg, on Jun 13 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 13 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

either declare war on somebody and kill/destroy the enemy or don't... security isn't worth the cost we're paying in liberty, imo... of course i can say that (and believe it) because i'm not in charge

The last time we declared was on anyone was, I believe, December 8, 1941. I think a thorough discussion of exactly how this country goes to war is long overdue.

Sample question to the candidates: In the event that you feel the US military should be used, how do you plan to seek authorization for that use? Or do you feel that the inherent powers of the presidency make such authorization unnecessary? Of course if the candidate feels confident that he is so blessed that during his term in office it will never be necessary to use military force he could explain the basis for that belief.

i agree... yet another (if i need another) reason i'd hate to be in charge, because if i was running and was asked your question i'd say "i'd seek a declaration of war from congress and, upon receiving it, utilize all the military force at my disposal to destroy the enemy's will to wage war while preserving, as much as possible, american lives... if enemies of this country choose to engage america in battle, they must be prepared to be utterly destroyed"

and that's what i'd do

That's not a plan, that's belligerent posturing...

The central issue here is not "destroying" the enemy. Killing people is easy.

What's really hard is

1. Knowing who to target
2. Minimizing blowback
3. Figuring out policies to make sure this type of ***** doesn't happen again

I've been incredibly skeptical about the "War on Terror" since day one...
When I heard about the 911 attacks, my main worry was that the US would misreact in some way. However, my issue has never been with the use of military force. My concern has always been the limits in the effective application of force.

You still don't seem to recognize the distinction

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 14 2008, 06:26 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 13 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

One of the greatest tragedies possible is when people have their life taken away from and are sent to prison for a crime they did not commit. I think it's terrible to contemplate it happening, and I know that it does happen with our current court system. I recognize it as a necessary evil, only because (presumably) a very very low percentage of people who go to prison are innocent. This is because they get a trial, a very high burden of proof is put on finding them guilty, and they get to appeal possibly several times. Because of our system, the ratio of innocent:guilty is tolerably low, and it is necessary because we have to be able to punish actual offenders and sometimes don't have 100 % proof.

To me when you just put people in jail without a trial, and without sufficient evidence to win a trial, there is now a MUCH HIGHER possibility that we have taken someone out of society who has done nothing wrong. Taken them away from their families, attached a stigma to them, put them in horrible conditions (in this case truly horrible, including possible torture). The ratio of innocent:guilty CANNOT POSSIBLY BE anywhere close to what it is with the trial system, and that is just NOT acceptable to me because of how horrible the things happening to the innocent people are. Without the right amount of evidence, it is a certainty that we have done this to many many many people who have done nothing wrong. It totally outrages me to think about.

It also outrages me that mike777 thinks that this law is bad because we will have to RELEASE people who we don't have enough evidence to hold. There is a reason they should be released if we don't have enough evidence to hold them: we don't know if they're guilty! Without enough evidence, how can we know?

Justin what you claim I said is false and I have repeated it is false in the above posts. I do get the feeling that people just seem to get angry really angry if one questions a decision or their point of view.


Sigh I never said this, in fact I said just the opposite. No wonder people get mad at me if they say I say the exact opposite. I repeated the trial would be bogus.

Please review your initial post in this thread:

It opened as follows

Quote

We seem to not have the tools to do anything with these guys. We cannot spend a million or billion bucks each giving them a true trial with so far 4-5 years of pretrial appeals and another ten years or so it seems.. This is money that could go to cure cancer or education. Of course we want to do what is fair and legal, but there is not unlimited amount of money and time here. We seem to have little evidence that is accceptable in a criminal case. Much if any of the evidence is so old, tainted or otherwise not acceptable.

You introduce your thesis by arguing that it is too expensive to provide detainees with trial. You shed a couple crocodile tears and state that it might have been better if this never happened. But the core argument that you appeared to make is one related to cost.

Personally, I find this theme incredibly offensive. You don't get to destroy someone's life, lock them away for 6 years, torture them, and then say "Sorry mate, it would cost too much to give you a fair trial".

[mike777]

Sigh again read my the quote in full please, I said I want this process to be fair and just. You ignore this. I say we do not have the tools, you ignore this. I say I want the process to be legal, you ingore this. I say this there is not unlimited money, you ignore this point also. You impune my motives with insults and no proof. I say the process if I understand it and guesses of what the ruling means and I am really not sure my guesses of what it means are correct will be hugely expensive. You claim to understand the ruling and claim it is not expensive, if is not then prove it. If these hearing will not be sham trials prove it. Let us not be naive and live in some utopian world where you seem to think trials are fair because you say they are. To say money does not play some role in a fair system and therefore we should just not even discuss money because it it is somehow fascist is just being naive of how the Justice system works.

Finally as usual you set up a strawman, you say this quote shows a theme I want to torture and lock away people in some fascist prison for years with inhumane results. Perhaps this is how you truly want to treat people. With hate and contempt for those who dissent or have may have concerns over vast government decisions that may hurt people, thousands of people. If there is a better alternative to making sure people do not rot in jail for years, I want to use it, discuss it and improve the system. I do not want sham trials. I long ago called for the shutting down of the prison in CUBA, better alternatives and the sactioning of the Geneva Convention. I posted a link to an interesting first step in an above post.


Again I do not say this ruling is bad and my core point is not that it is too expensive. I say this again sigh. I am worried the trials and hearings will be a farce.

I said over and over I do not fully understand what this ruling means, who it applies to and what the standards are in court and for our soldiers and marines. I have yet to see anyone who thinks this ruling is good, explain the details.

Yes I think if this applies to all POW's and they all, literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands(we had 400,000 German pows alone in WWII) over the years get their own lawyer, staff and budget and the rule of law and the rule of evidence is followed this ruling is hugely expensive but again I am not really sure what this ruling means and what the process is.

If your main point is that this ruling is good explain in detail what the ruling means how our courts process it, what standards they follow, how are soldiers and marines in the field follow it, how much it costs, where the money comes from, why it is better than the alternatives out there to make sure people do not rot in jail for years on end. You may be right but just saying so it not proof.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2008, 06:10 AM, said:

That's not a plan, that's belligerent posturing..

.
i think it's posturing if it's a threat only

Quote

The central issue here is not "destroying" the enemy.  Killing people is easy. 

What's really hard is

1.  Knowing who to target
2.  Minimizing blowback
3.  Figuring out policies to make sure this type of ***** doesn't happen again

the aim isn't merely to kill people, it's to make others less eager to attack or harbor those who do

Quote

I've been incredibly skeptical about the "War on Terror" since day one...
When I heard about the 911 attacks, my main worry was that the US would misreact in some way.  However, my issue has never been with the use of military force.  My concern has always been the limits in the effective application of force.

You still don't seem to recognize the distinction

between the misuse of force and the limits of its effective application? i guess "misuse" is often open to question, there will always be those who disagree with an aggressive stance (we had plenty of those even during wwII)... my feeling is, if you're going to commit to war, wage war.. if i could do so while getting no usa soldier killed, that's what i'd do... in your opinion, what are some things that limit the effective application of force?

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Jun 14 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 14 2008, 12:32 AM, said:

Another problem is that we know (because the terrorists have told us so) that if we set them free, they'll go right back to making war on us, whatever anybody else says or does.

How many of the prisoners have told "us" that? Remermber, this is the same administration that insisted that Iraq threatened the US with weapons of mass destruction. Not exactly a reliable source...

I agree it would be nice to have some facts on this issue from reliable sources.
Just last month a former GITMO detainee killed a group of Iraqi soldiers if newspaper sources are reliable.
I seem to recall just this week or last the hearing of 5 or 10 or so current detainees saying they that if set free they are going back to killing people and are willing to die to achieve their goals.
-----------------------------------------
edit: More stuff from today's papers:
1)One Gitmo detainee said at his review" I do pose a threat to the US and its allies>"
2) Gitmo houses a substantial group of detainees whom the government has long been trying to clear but cannot send home out of a fear they will be tortured or they cannot find a nation willing to take them.
3) Last page of Kennedy's decision says " Our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs petitioners detention....that is a matter yet to be determined"
------------------------------------

Again if my newspaper is reliable Lakhdar Boumediene detained in Bosnia was the person involved in this case. The military heard this case in 2004 after he was captured in 2002. He never claimed NOT to be an enemy combatant. He had a hearing and he never claimed to not be an enemy combatant.

Hopefully some lawyers with reliable sources can tell us what this is all about and means. Again just reading from various newspapers, it appears to not be about having a hearing or claiming to not be an enemy combatant. It seems to me whatever good faith rules that Congress and the President set up for handling POWs during wartime the Supreme Court rejected. The Supreme court declined to set what standards should be used, how they protect national security over sources or methods that led to captures.

Not sure how reliable and accurate the following claims are but in 1950 Johnson vs Eisentrager, Justice Robert Jackson ruled that non americans held in the American Occupation zone in Germany do not warrant habeas corpus or that 400,000 prisoners in WWII detained on American soil did not have habeas corpus.


Some articles claim that all people detained anywhere oversees now are entitled to a lawyer and a hearing in front of a USA Federal District Judge. The articles seem to say the Federal District Judge can use almost whatever standards(there are many) or rules they wish from Court to Court. Again not sure how reliable this stuff is. It would nice to have some facts.

[Winstonm]

Quote

What the Bush administration is trying to do is to find a new paradigm, recognizing that neither of the existing paradigms is going to work. Yes, that puts them in conflict with the opinions of a lot of people. Doesn't make them evil, or even necessarily wrong. OTOH, they have to be damn careful that whatever they do doesn't destroy the Constitution - the basis of our system of government. Not an easy task. I don't envy any of them.

Apologizing for attempted tyrany does not excuse it. Those in this administration held the beliefs in the unitary executive and the presidential war powers well before any terrorist action ocurred in the U.S. These neocons are followers of Leo Strauss - it didn't take a terror attack to turn them against constitutional separation of powers.

The only new paradigm involved is the paradigm of propaganda that is aided by a compromised and willing corporately owned press.

[Winstonm]

Point:

Quote

Referring to the human beings who are still being detained at Guantanamo Bay, McCain stated, “These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have”

Counterpoint:

John, you ignorant slut.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, those that are inherent to all men and women. They are not "granted or given" by the government. You forget this is the U.S.A., not some communist bloc country.

Here, the government does not grant rights to the people; the people allow the government to hold certain rights.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jun 13 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

It does seems as if many people accept what you say as true facts. I just do not know. Hopefully someone can come up with facts.

If I am understanding your main point you seem to believe that the vast majority of people being held worldwide or maybe just in CUBA are not people who have killed or are eager to kill Americans.

2/3 of the people I mention were a threat to our allies. Whether they were so as terrorists, or drug lords, or competing merchants, or married somebody they wanted to marry, they were a threat.

The other 1/3 at least had an association with terrorists. In most cases, it seems innocent to me, but what do I know? Only the defense lawyers for these guys are talking.

For the last third, I would hope that we drain them of info and release them. What we did to them was inexcusable, but at least they got out. As for the first 2/3, well, we tend to pick sides in a regional conflict, and that means the side we don't like gets imprisoned or killed even if they haven't done anything 'wrong'. After all, isn't that what picking sides means?

[blackshoe]

The word is "inalienable", Winston. I don't think it means quite what you think it does.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Jun 14 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

The word is "inalienable", Winston. I don't think it means quite what you think it does.

Geez, I guess the wording in the Declaration of Independece is wrong, then:

Quote

N CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Perhaps the source settles the argument - not only about the word used but its meaning.

But if you don't like the language used by the framers, we can call on our old friend wikipedia, then.

Quote

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property.

Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional.

Either way, original language or wikipedia definition, unalienable (or inalienable) rights are not granted by the government

Or we can simply see what others have said about these unalienable rights:

Quote

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

Quote

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

[Al_U_Card]

One thing is sure....they don't come from the aliens....lol

[luke warm]

winston is right imo, the framers meant to impart the notion that some rights were innate to humans and that gov't only has any rights at all because it is granted those rights by the governed... this brings us to the point mike has made over and over - we get the gov't we want (we grant it the powers we want it to have) every time we vote (or don't vote)

the trouble is apathy, and that has been the problem for a number of years

[Al_U_Card]

Voter apathy is often a function of relevent involvement. The more people feel that what they do will make a difference the more they do. At present, that feeling of helplessness leads to the abandonment of adherence to the principles that make a difference. This is exactly what the power brokers want as it simplifies their use and misuse of the power that they are "given" by the public.