Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo prisoners and Padilla

[Miss Jasmine]

Perhaps the more pertinent point is Brenda's definition of what isn't immoral. Of course I’m sure you’ll agree with her that enemies shouldn’t be given the chance to surrender but should be killed instead. You’re a w supporter, non? Yeah, lots of morality there!

Now, off to drink some water we go! Yipee!!!

Three Circles, the water thing had to do with a post about someone drinking water on It's A Small World. It was a joke among a group of friends. I haven't bothered to change my tags or siggy for quite some time. Sorry that it bothers you so much.

Uh yes I am a supporter of President Bush. So what? And why are you assuming I agree with everything AFR says? In this case, I don't have feelings either way.

Everyone has different definitions of immoral. Obviously you feel that what is being done in Gitmo is immoral. Okay that's how you feel. It doesn't make everyone wrong who feels differently. Of course you ever believing that or agreeing with that will never happen.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
ok, call it professional curiosity, but I waded through the Hamdi decision on line -- or most of it, anyhow.

what struck me aout the case:


Hamdi is 20 years old, and according to the court papers filed by his father in relation to the habeas petition, he went to Afghanistan in July 2001 to do "relief work".

Hamdi was not captured by US troops, he was captured by the Northern Alliance and turned over to US authorities.

the government's sole opposition to the habeas petiition was an affirmation by a defense department official that contained NO supporting docuimentation. the government actively opposed the trial court's order that copies of interviews with Hamdi, etc. be turned over to the court for in camera inspection.

this is scary stuff...that some people in this country were willing to lock Hamdi away "forever" without a shred of evidence.

While I certainly see the courts point regarding Hamdi, I'm a bit baffled as to how that can be applied broadly. Someone explain to my why a non-US citizen being held outside the US should be afforded the protections of the Constitution?

As for Padilla, the SC basicaly punted on that issue, so let's not be applying those rulings universally.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Three Circles, the water thing had to do with a post about someone drinking water on It's A Small World. It was a joke among a group of friends. I haven't bothered to change my tags or siggy for quite some time. Sorry that it bothers you so much.

Uh yes I am a supporter of President Bush. So what? And why are you assuming I agree with everything AFR says? In this case, I don't have feelings either way.

Everyone has different definitions of immoral. Obviously you feel that what is being done in Gitmo is immoral. Okay that's how you feel. It doesn't make everyone wrong who feels differently. Of course you ever believing that or agreeing with that will never happen.

By your post I did assume that you were agreeing with Brenda. If I was incorrect in that assumption, I apologize.

I do agree with you that definitions of "moral" and "immoral" behavior most definitely vary. However, I find it morally reprehensible that someone in our armed services would say that they would rather shoot an individual than give that individual a chance to surrender.

Do I think what is being done at Gitmo is immoral? I don't believe in abusing prisoners regardless of what they have done. I don't believe in disregarding their human rights. I don't believe in imprisoning individuals without charges.

And the "water" comment was in return for your original post. Perhaps I read too much into it but it seemed that your intentions were to be derogatory. If I was incorrect in that assumption too, I again apologize.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

dmadman, I haven't seen the Gitmo decision yet. but it's my understanding that the Gitmo prisoners were given rights based on the fact that Gitmo is US soil -- that the ruling would not apply to prisoners in Abu Ghraib because that was Iraqi soil, or to prisoners in Afghanistan or elsewhere. we claim sovereignty over our permanent installation in Guantanamo, and anyone within our borders is subject to our laws.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
dmadman, I haven't seen the Gitmo decision yet. but it's my understanding that the Gitmo prisoners were given rights based on the fact that Gitmo is US soil -- that the ruling would not apply to prisoners in Abu Ghraib because that was Iraqi soil, or to prisoners in Afghanistan or elsewhere. we claim sovereignty over our permanent installation in Guantanamo, and anyone within our borders is subject to our laws.

Fair enough. I do agree that should their day in court....eventually. What that timeframe is, I'm not altogether sure. Hamdi should be able to make is case that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, if that is his story. I have no problem with that. I don't necessarily agree with the blanket "try them or release them" philosophy. Another thing to point out: the court did NOT limit the Administration's power to declare persons enemy combatants. It just said those person should ultimately have the right to counsel.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

from the Gitmo decision:

Petitioners in these cases are 2 Australian citizens and 12 Kuwaiti citizens who were captured abroad during hostilities between the United States and the Taliban.1 Since early 2002, the U. S. military has held them--along with, according to the Government's estimate, approximately 640 other non-Americans captured abroad--at the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. Brief for United States 6. The United States occupies the Base, which comprises 45 square miles of land and water along the southeast coast of Cuba, pursuant to a 1903 Lease Agreement executed with the newly independent Republic of Cuba in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. Under the Agreement, "the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the [leased areas]," while "the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States ... the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas."2 In 1934, the parties entered into a treaty providing that, absent an agreement to modify or abrogate the lease, the lease would remain in effect "o long as the United States of America shall not abandon the ... naval station of Guantanamo."3

...


In the end, the answer to the question presented is clear. Petitioners contend that they are being held in federal custody in violation of the laws of the United States.15 No party questions the District Court's jurisdiction over petitioners' custodians. Cf. Braden, 410 U. S., at 495. Section 2241, by its terms, requires nothing more. We therefore hold that §2241 confers on the District Court jurisdiction to hear petitioners' habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval ...

 

[dmadman43]

Do I think what is being done at Gitmo is immoral? I don't believe in abusing prisoners regardless of what they have done. I don't believe in disregarding their human rights. I don't believe in imprisoning individuals without charges.

When did that happen? I thought the IRC said there was no evidence of abuse. As for charges? They are charged with being enemy combatants. What they have not had available to them is the ability to tell their side of the story.

 

[Van Helsing]

Fair enough. I do agree that should their day in court....eventually.

Thank goodness

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

given the precedential value of the Hamdi decision, you know what's going to happen in the Padilla case on remand, don't you?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
When did that happen? I thought the IRC said there was no evidence of abuse. As for charges? They are charged with being enemy combatants. What they have not had available to them is the ability to tell their side of the story.

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179858.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/30/terror/main586001.shtml

"But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. "

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/site/newsweek/

Seems you're wrong on all counts.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

I read that the legal memos supporting Rumsfeld's actins were so poorly drafted that...well, when you need to opine on the legality of certain conduct, and you never cite to the leading case on the subject, well, that's extremely poor legal work.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

scholars criical of memos

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179858.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/30/terror/main586001.shtml

"But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. "

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/site/newsweek/

Seems you're wrong on all counts.

I'm sorry , but I'm having trouble finding in the opinion pieces you posted were the IRC makes charges of abuse or disregarding their human rights. Care to point out the specific statements regarding confirmed abuse cases at Gitmo?

You do realize the IRC has to keep it's reports ocnfidential in order to retain the rights to access to the prisoners? That the IRC leaked a report is disturbing and makes one wonder what the true motives of the organization are. Would it surprise you to learn that if these detainees were granted true POW status that the are required to give only name, rank and ID number? Also that the Geneva Conventions also forbids POSTIVE reinforcements such as better conditions or food to coax information from POWs? IOW, the US wouldn't have been able to interrogate these men in hopes of preventing the next 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was arrested in Pakistan and is being held in an undisclosed location under non-POW rules, would also be off limits to serious interrogation. Is that want you want?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'm sorry , but I'm having trouble finding in the opinion pieces you posted were the IRC makes charges of abuse or disregarding their human rights. Care to point out the specific statements regarding confirmed abuse cases at Gitmo?

You do realize the IRC has to keep it's reports ocnfidential in order to retain the rights to access to the prisoners? That the IRC leaked a report is disturbing and makes one wonder what the true motives of the organization are. Would it surprise you to learn that if these detainees were granted true POW status that the are required to give only name, rank and ID number? Also that the Geneva Conventions also forbids POSTIVE reinforcements such as better conditions or food to coax information from POWs? IOW, the US wouldn't have been able to interrogate these men in hopes of preventing the next 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was arrested in Pakistan and is being held in an undisclosed location under non-POW rules, would also be off limits to serious interrogation. Is that want you want?

Perhaps you didn't read the articles closely enough.

As far as discounting them an opinion pieces, well, that's not at all surprising. It's a self-defense move to guard yourself against information that could complicate or damage your beliefs.

And I’ll reiterate my point. I don’t care who these individuals are. They have basic human rights. Abuse and torture in the name of “saving lives” or gaining information is, none the less, abuse and torture. It’s yet another ill-conceived policy of the w administration and those whom support him.

As far as the IRC releasing the info, I believe that gave reason for doing so.

I understand it must be difficult and disconcerting for you to have to attempt to justify torture because your president has made a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights and dignity for all, justice before the law, and other values that our Founders held dear but are now being trampled on.

And your preaching about propaganda?

Wakeup call. We need a wakeup call over here!

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
As far as discounting them an opinion pieces, well, that's not at all surprising. It's a self-defense move to guard yourself against information that could complicate or damage your beliefs.

Oh, baloney.

You posted three articles to back up assertions that there's prisoner abuse and human rights violations, confirmed by IRC. The only relevant IRC reference in those articles says this from the ICRC team leader:

Although he did not criticise any physical conditions at the camp, he said that it was intolerable that the complex was used as "an investigation centre, not a detention centre".

You were called on it. Has nothing to do with self-defense to guard against information that could complicate or damage anyone's beliefs.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Oh, baloney.

You posted three articles to back up assertions that there's prisoner abuse and human rights violations, confirmed by IRC. The only relevant IRC reference in those articles says this from the ICRC team leader:


You were called on it. Has nothing to do with self-defense to guard against information that could complicate or damage anyone's beliefs.

You should attempt to put more effort into following the thread. The articles were posted in regard to three different remarks made by dmadman, not just one.

And, let me guess, another tried and true, patriotic, unquestioning w supporter? Hmmmm... Yeah, I can see why you would disregard the articles.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
You should attempt to put more effort into following the thread. The articles were posted in regard to three different remarks made by dmadman, not just one.

I have followed the thread just fine.

dmadman asked you for clarification:

I'm sorry , but I'm having trouble finding in the opinion pieces you posted were the IRC makes charges of abuse or disregarding their human rights. Care to point out the specific statements regarding confirmed abuse cases at Gitmo?

He specifically asked for you to show how those articles pertained to your comments regarding prisoner abuse and human rights violations.

Rather than admit they didn't at all support your assertions of prisoner abuses and human rights violations, you try to blow it off as his not reading the articles closely enough and attempting to deflect the issue with a mythical self-defense mechanism in place to prevent him from complicating or damaging his beliefs.

baloney

And, let me guess, another tried and true, patriotic, unquestioning w supporter? Hmmmm... Yeah, I can see why you would disregard the articles.

Wrong, again. Why do you insist on judging everyone and putting everyone in a neat little compartment based on an opinion of a single issue? Not very open-minded.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Judging by your remarks neither of you are reading the articles very carefully.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Judging by your remarks neither of you are reading the articles very carefully.

And maybe we're not.

That's why dmadman said:

I'm sorry , but I'm having trouble finding in the opinion pieces you posted were the IRC makes charges of abuse or disregarding their human rights. Care to point out the specific statements regarding confirmed abuse cases at Gitmo?

At that point, since you believe he hasn't read the articles carefully and is missing those statements, it's your turn to cite the statements from the articles rather than engage in psychoanalysis of the typical conservative.

Why don't you do that now and we can clear up the apparent misconception?

 

[dmadman43]

I understand it must be difficult and disconcerting for you to have to attempt to justify torture because your president has made a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights and dignity for all, justice before the law, and other values that our Founders held dear but are now being trampled on.

Well, I'm not the only one. One of the left's most ardent water carriers, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, wrote an opinion piece in the Nov. 5th 2001 edition extoling the value of torture.

http://conversations.tamu.edu/topics/2001fall/torture.html

And then we have that other liberal mouthpieces, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, put forth the concept of a "torture warrant" in Nov 8th 2001 LA Times opinion piece.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000089139nov08.story?coll=la-headlines-oped-manual

He wrote:

When, if ever, is it justified to resort to unconventional techniques such as truth serum, moderate physical pressure and outright torture?

The constitutional answer to this question may surprise people who are not familiar with the current U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: Any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of the fruits of such
techniques in a criminal trial against the person on whom the techniques were used. But the evidence could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case--such as a deportation hearing--or against someone else.

If a suspect is given "use immunity"--a judicial decree announcing in advance that nothing the defendant says (or its fruits) can be used against him in a criminal case--he can be compelled to answer all proper questions.

But what if it were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case--the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?

Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?

To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?

So, get off your high horse there, pal. As you can see, the issues are not all black and which. Even YOUR liberal cronies understand that.