TroyF taught me that. If one can get both sides thinking you are against them, then you must be doing something right. :)

I love to study American History and one of the things I focus on is change (in all aspects of life). Perhaps one of the key ideas I look for is the control - how much would change happen if thing were different at the time? This has led to my in-depth studies as to the causes and lead-up to the Civil War - as no greater change since the Constitutional Congress had ever happened in our history. But even at that such change, many aspects of life continued on as if there were no war happening. That fascinates me to no end.

If you are smart and can read the constitution, you are as qualified as the bunch. ;)

Here are some voting stats from the 06-07 term:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...tFinalOT06.pdf

Some interesting numbers from this set...

*Supposedly liberal Kennedy's agreement in order: Roberts (85%), Scalia (79%), Alito (79%), Thomas (79%), Souter (75%), Breyer (74%), Ginsburg (73%), Stevens (66%)

*There were 19 5-4 decisions where Kennedy cast the deciding vote. 13 of them he sided with the conservaties and 6 of them he sided with the liberals.

O.J. didn't admit guilt. Try again.

To recap, Dutch said this:


NoMyths said this:


To which you responded:


Prove to me that the "left" wants Khalid Sheik Muhammad released to "spite Bush". Further, please clarify if you mean "leftist wingnuts", "liberals", or some other group and if said group includes people posting in this thread.

I'm going to assume for the moment that you're actually above accusing members of FOFC of being in league with terrorists, but I have to say it is sometimes difficult to make that assumption based on your rhetoric.

I find it humorous that you post this in response to a post where I cite Ann Coulter (certainly much better known than Randi Rhodes) exhorting people to poison members of the Supreme Court.


How about you learn to read first?


Quoted for emphasis.

These are the two reasons you've cited why you're so fired up about this. #1 is clearly just Bush backlash, isn't it? "He created a legal mess". So what? If he handled it "correctly" from the start, you'd be against this decision? The detainees aren't suing for POW status, they're suing for more. If POW status is the "correct' way to handle these detainees, why are you for Habeas Corpus rights (which POWs don't have). People are just giddy over the fact that this blew up in Bush's face.

#2 doesn't hold up with everything else people have said about how everyone's admitted guilt and that a Habeas defense is basically a rubber stamp. If that's true, that sole "innocent" farmer at Gitmo is still going to be there. And don't forget that many detainees that the US has freed have gone on to commit terrorist acts. Those people presumably would have been freed by a Habeas petition because there wasn't concrete enough evidence to keep them. That's because concrete evidence can be difficult to obtain in this environment. It's not like investigating a murder in a Chicago. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time should be evidence enough to detain someone in wartime - you shouldn't need to prove he pulled a trigger or threw a grendade - how could you? Or are you for a lower standard than that?

If Habeas Corpus was this magical remedy that seperated the innocent from the guilty, it'd be a whole different story.

If he handled it correctly from the start, this decision (nor Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld nor Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld) would not be necessary.


Not necessarily.


If by "many" you mean "maybe 10 out of 517".

Further, numerous reports indicate that of those who have later engaged in terrorist activities, most became suicide bombers and had no jihadistic tendencies prior to Guantanamo. One possible conclusion? Being thrown in Gitmo for 6 years without rationale and without recourse to justice makes one somewhat depressed, angry, and an easy target for jihad recruiters.


I don't have a problem with detaining someone under reasonable suspicion (although even that litmus test wasn't always used by the CIA) during military operations. I do have a problem with detaining them for over 5 years without any sort of hearing whatsoever.

Besides, what do you mean by "lower standard"? "Being in the wrong place at the wrong time" is a pretty low standard. By that standard you could justify arresting any able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 45 in Afghanistan any time between 2002 and 2004 (to pick some dates at random). And in many cases it appears that this is exactly what was done.

Look, if you can't make a case for keeping a guy after you've had him in custody for 5 years, then maybe there isn't a case to be made for keeping a guy.

And this still doesn't explain why it's been so long and KSM & his immediate cronies (all of whom have admitted guilt) only just got arraigned last week.

i don't have a prob with keeping detainees for 5+ years with no chance of a hearing. it shows the US has balls and aren't some nation of pussies who need to farm out interrogations to other nations cuz we're too faggish to do it ourselves.

why does anyone care - these aren't Americans that are being detained. they're foreigners, and possible terrorists to boot. i think in wartime its perfectly ok to take a "we don't know why you're here in Guatanimo Bay, but we'll hold you indefinitely until we can find a valid reason to keep you here" approach.

So none of them became suicide bombers before they were detained at Quantanamo? :)

That's one possible conclusion, another is that we just didn't have evidence of any jihadistic tendencies. It doen't mean they weren't there. These people aren't being detained for the purpose of "building cases" against them, and just because they're little/no case to be built, it doesn't mean it's unjust to keep them (that's the #1 disagreement here I guess). Even "reasonable suspicion" can be an unrealistic standard in wartime, in a foreign country, with limited resources and police infrastructure.

If 420 detainees have already been released, there's a reason that 270 are still there. That's good enough for me.

The Pentagon says that 36 are "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism".

If there was another 9/11 tomorrow that involved any of these 36, you'd be all over Bush and the military for releasing them. Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of guilt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7411862.stm

(The US also says they'd love to release more but the home countries won't take them back in many cases).

but life imprisonment with lack of guilt would be pretty awful and I'd say against our moral fabric.

To pile on, no Lefty or liberal American that I know wants anyone guilty to go free. That is just fear mongering at its best.

It's unfortunate in the same way that civilians dying in air strikes is.

The only way to guarantee that there's no innocent people in domestic criminal jails is to set everyone free and not punish anyone (and that's with our expansive rights for defendants). I'm just willing to "miss" a lot more in the terrorist context than I am in the domestic one (and I think most people are).

Talking outside of this opinion, what's the appropriate "standard of proof" to keep someone detained? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Reasonable suspicion? What if there was an eyewitness account but those eyewitnesses are now dead? I'm sure your standard would keep at least a handful of innocent people detained (unless you're saying free everybody who doesn't admit). I don't know why we don't have the stomach for that.

A lot of people crtiticized Bush (including Michael Moore) for not detaining anyone related to Bin Ladin in the US after 9/11 - would that have been OK?

well we can start with when they admit guilt (outside of torturing to get the admission) the trial should be based on a much lower standard than when they dont admit it. We can start there.

I'm willing to miss alot more, too. I don't disagree that national security concerns should come into play, but I think we've gone well beyond that point in these cases.


I think there should be some standard. You seem to be arguing that there should be no check against the executive branch in this case, and I think that goes against the very nature of our republic.


It's a long, long way from letting Bin Laden's family fly away immediately to detaining them for 6 years without a trial.

I know you have a smiley, but that's not what I said. I said "had no jihadistic tendencies prior to Guantanamo".

Exactly how many times are my words going to be wilfully misrepresented, misconstrued or just outright re-written in this thread? :banghead:


For 5 years? Really? So you hold a guy for five years, you get intel from his native country, maybe even question his friends and family, and even waterboard this guy until he's a limp dishrag, and you still don't have a shred of justification to continue to hold him. I'd say at that point there's probably not much of a case to keep him locked up. You may have the wrong guy at this point.


The Pentagon's numbers have been challenged by a number of sources.


So let's sacrifice any principle we have to, in order to save ourselves from terrorists. For fun, let's start with the 2nd Amendment.


1. Except that for the majority of those put in Guantanamo, this turned out to be exactly the case.

2. :eek:


Ironically, some members of the Bin Laden family may have proven more useful to U.S. Intelligence after 9/11 than the dozens of farmers, students and cab drivers who were instead arrested and tortured.

You're making a lot of assumptions that just aren't supported. A criminal investigation is actually much harder as time goes on, it doesn't get easier. Memories fade, people die or dissapear. You've made the assumption that Cold War spy prosecutions are identical or similar to terrorist prosecutions in terms of practacality. You've assumed that "delays" are not warranted, and provide no reasonable purpose. You're assuming that some kind of mililtary trial of a suspected terrorist "should" happen at least as quickly as one for a US civilian in a domestic court (R Kelly/Enron).

If I was sold on any of those assumptions, I'd probably change my mind.

You've also objected to "grouping" people but have yourself grouped "conservatives" several times in this thread. And you've scoffed at other people's unsuported assertions citing a lack of proof. All people can do is state opinions.

The US wants to close this place - no question about it. Do you think they hold on to a portion of the detainees there because they get off on torture? What's the US strategy here?

Just to clear up some misconceptions.They didn't fly away immediately. The flight left September 19, the FBI was questioning the people on it before they left and it was approved by Richard Clarke, not exactly a Bush lackey.First, I don't see how that's ironic at all, but more relevantly the members of the bin Laden clan in the US (and Europe) were the westernized portion that pushed for the severing of ties to Osama close to a decade earlier (back when Osama himself was offered to Clinton by Hassan al-Turabi, but he turned the offer down because we barely even knew the name). But hey, if you want to alienate the pro-western/pro-US portion of a rich and influential Saudi family, I'm sure it wouldn't backfire at all.

Let's see about that.


All the more reason to get it done and over early, which is what I was suggesting.


That's not what I said at all.

Let me quote myself again: "A key problem conservatives are fond of bringing up is this falsehood that you can't convict someone in a civilian court where significant pieces of evidence are Top Secret. If this was true, we never would have been able to try and convict the various Cold War spies."


That's not what I said at all. To quote myself again:



I never said that either. To quote myself again:


and


and


and





It seems to me you're arguing against your own projection of an argument instead of, you know, mine.


To make a direct contrast to a post that "groups" liberals and then attacks them arbitrarily. I'm well aware that not all "conservatives" share the same views as "Bush apologists", in much the same vein that not all "liberals" share the same views as "terrorist sympathizers". Which was, basically, my point.


If people were just stating opinions, that would be one thing. I have asked for proof where an assertion is presented as fact. I am still waiting for that proof.

And lest we forget, that assertion was that "liberals", which is a group of which I'm a member, want Khalid Sheik Muhammad set free. Which is a pretty disgusting accusation to make without proof, if you ask me.


President Bush doesn't want to. Or did I miss an announcement?


Please, this is beneath you.


I don't know, I'm not President Bush. Perhaps you could ask him.


Bush applied an extra-judicial and interrogative process to farmers, students and taxi drivers that, had it been applied to certain members of bin Laden's family, may have supplied more useful information than the information derived from the farmers, students and taxi drivers.

To whit: Who's likely to know more about bin Laden's general whereabouts or general proclivities? A relative, even an estranged relative, or some random farmer?

In reality, neither probably had much info. However, one's ushered out of the country with kid gloves while another's taken to Gitmo and drowned for 5 years straight.

Which wasn't the point.

It's still a long, long, long way from letting bin Laden's family fly out of the country on 9/19 after questions from the FBI to holding someone in Gitmo for 6 years.

That's actually a famous Michael Moore trick, state something that clearly implies something, and then deny the implication. I can't read your mind obviously, but it's not so much a stretch, for example, to assume that:

"It's taken longer to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad to trial than R. Kelly. The mind just boggles"

is implying that

"You're assuming that some kind of mililtary trial of a suspected terrorist "should" happen at least as quickly as one for a US civilian in a domestic court (R Kelly/Enron)."

Why would it boggle your mind if you don't think the KSM trial should happen just as or more quicky? How is that implication unreasonable?

And I said Bush was an awful president, and I certainly never said that anyone would love to see KSM freed to spite Bush. (And I realize you're not tagging those things on me, I just want to further distance myself) I'm not even a Republican. I would just love to hear any spectulation on WHY the white house does what it does - if nobody can come up with anything, (flere: "Perhaps you could ask him (Bush)"), than I'll just assume that there's a damn good reason we've freed or prosecuted most detainees but have kept some. That's why I mentioned how criminal cases are harder to prove over time - if we're STILL taking our time, and there's no reasonable unjust explanation to the contrary, it's easier for me to assume there's a good reason for it, than simply that we're doing it for fun or whatever. Your assumption (I THINK), is that the delays are unjust and/or unnecessary (disclaimer, you didn't say exactly those words, but you're clearly against the delays).

I actually trust the military far more than I trust the civilian courts in this context. That's just based on MY ideal of military discretion v. collateral damage. Everyone's a different place on that scale.

Edit: I looked back and you did theorize that Bush simply didn't trust the civilian courts or Congress. Personally, I think that's a great reason to do what they did, and we just (apparently) disagree on that.

I really do have an open mind on this, because I know so little of about how the world works in this area (though I do have experience prosecuting domestic criminal cases).

You said something about me arguing my own projection of an argument, and that may be true, because I'm challenging my own views and don't think that I could be unquestionably "right" about anything.

Here was your solution of what Bush "should have done".

"Look, KSM and these other guys aren't like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. They're connected to a large international network of terrorists. In the interest of national security, we need two outcomes that aren't necessarily afforded by normal criminal proceedings. One, we need to have a time period, post-capture, when we can interrogate these individuals to inform current intelligence, and we need to be able to continue these interrogations as necessary. Two, we need to make sure that these individuals are not inadvertently released from a maximum secure custody during and after their criminal trials. My administration plans to work closely with leaders in Congress and representatives from the Supreme Court over the next few weeks to work out a framework that will ensure these objectives but not compromise the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded."

First of all, the Supreme Court is prohibited from working in any kind of advisory capacity and doesn't have "representatives". And if he "worked with Congress", I have no doubt that things would have been delayed even further. The result probably still would have been overturned by the Supreme Court, because the administration wasn't going to budge much. The "solution" would presumably be some kind of new hybrid civilian/military court - clearly they couldn't be tried under US law with all US rights in a federal criminal court (unless it's a true US crime, like 9/11 - and I can see why the US wouldn't be comfortable simply handing KSM's fate over to a jury), and apparently people aren't satisified with a military court. Setting up a new court system would take some serious time.

The whole thing could have been more organized - no question, the biggest (OK, maybe one of the biggest) failures of this administration is its inability to communicate effectively with the people.

...but by not critically being skeptical of those in power you instead have a King, which is why the burden of prove relies on the prosecution in this country, not the defendent (they tried that for awhile).

Many of you have said that continuing to detain those in Gitmo without due cause causes the moral fabric of the US to fall -- the idea that despite the fact that any US prisoners, citzens or no, would not be afforded the same (see: Daniel Pearl), and I get that -- but it's not practical.

My problem with what many of you say is that the enemy knows this too -- they know that given enough time, they're going to get their "due right". They know that since the US really isn't going to perform torture in the "classic" sense, and they certainly won't kill them, they're in no true danger, not compared to what would happen to them if they spoke. It's like a game of poker -- no matter how well you bluff, eventually if you don't have the ability to have the hand to force your opponent out, you're not going to win; you'll get your bluff called eventually.

This ruling is, in my opinion, allowing terrorists to call our bluff. They know our own people, in some stupid sense of morality, will not allow us to do what is necessary to get information (including torture), but are instead ACTIVELY PROTECTING the enemy.

This isn't a morality play. This isn't "we're better than that, so we shouldn't do it". We should be doing anything and everything in our power to win and get the information needed to permanently end the threat. No other enemy country or organization will follow the Geneva Convention, whether they signed it or not. When the only people who benefit from it are the enemy, it's useless to us.

Morality be damned. This ruling is one the worst rulings in recent memory, and it's effectively cutting the hamstrings of our military and our intelligence gathering.

Firstly, Daniel Pearl was not arrested detained by a government, he was captured by terrorists and killed. It was not sanctioned by any president, and probably wholly inappropriate for the conversation at hand. I understand you are obviously trying to invoke some sort of fear and disgust, but at least keep it to the topic at hand.

Secondly, the doesn't do a thing to our military, it doesn't put our soldiers in harms way, and don't think for a second that are considering our supreme court while fighting. The ruling simply states that the government has to show a shred of evidence when they detain these people. Otherwise, it's no better than other governments that throw people in jail for crimes they believe to be endangering their people/way of life.

no , but you don't understand. everyone is equal and we need to be fair to everyone. even our enemies. it's important that we have the upper hand with regards to morality and ethics, because even when future terrorists continue to threaten our safety and way of life we'll be able to hold our head up high and know that we didn't stoop to their level, regardless of how many schools they blow up or buildings they bomb. always remember, safety should always take a backseat to morality. :)

How dare we subject people we consider criminals of the highest form to our own justice system. :rolleyes:

ahhhhhhhhhhhh, WWJD? Other than be ashamed of what you just said.

The mafia doesn't afford legal protections to the folks they take and kill either. We seemed to have not destroyed ourselves as a country or put ourselves in more danger by prosecuting them in the legal forum, and giving the mafia folks legal protections they didn't give the people they killed.

For the first time in the history of the board Im going to use this term:

The idea that trying these people and the shred of a possibility that one of them could be found to be wrongly imprisoned is a Strawman. It actually boils down to a Republican hate thing, IMO. It's a support for continuing on the path we've been on in spite of overwhelming evidence that we've done more harm than good thus far and in light of keeping alive the tenants of checks and balances, accused rights, and moral character and an unwillingness to be open-minded due to a fear of having to reflect on the past and admit that perhaps it couldve been done differently and better. I had a friend who was engaged to the wrong girl and he said later that breaking the engagement off was hard not because it was the right thing to do but because of having to admit that he made a prior mistake.

IT's ok to claim moral high ground when its convenient but when its not its, "Morals be damned."

molson - thanks for the response, I appreciate your thoughts.

I fail to see how convicting the high-value terrorists and dumping them in a SuperMax facility is a "win" for them. The only "win" KSM and his buddies have to hope for now is that we kill them so they can become martyrs.



General David H. Petraeus:


Lieutenant General John Kimmons (Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 2006):

Jesus would say to let Caesar and its human-based morality be damned. ;)

It was poster specific.

Flere's retorts in this thread are spot on with citing of those in high positions of the administration or military branches that simply contradict those in the thread who say otherwise. The Patreus quote above is just the Gorilla Glue to seal that coffin shut.

appropriate that this hits the tape tonight:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/...nees_treatment


and not to bring up old arguments but in this article above it discredits some people's arguments that:

It was a few bad apples acting on their own
Rumsfeld didnt know or it didnt go to the top
Military people follow the army manual only

An interesting way of putting it.

SI

I'm not a highly religious man, so I don't know why it was poster specific. And note that while Jesus did take the higher ground, he was killed for it.

You missed my point entirely, or dismissed it by arguing semantics. We are not in war with a specific nation, but rather an organization. My point is that that organization isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention, will not abide by it, and when you're bound by a document intended to apply to both sides of a war, and only one side follows it, you probably shouldn't abide by it.

THEY will torture to get information if needed. We should do that same.


In my opinion, it's handcuffing our government's ability to get information.

I have a strong feeling (but no proof to match it) that those two statements were made for a political reason, and not the two individuals' true opinion. And I would ask you to note one CIA quote that says the same, since the CIA are the ones primarily doing the interrogating.

Well, it may just inspire soldiers to shoot the enemy on the battlefield rather than capturing them. Of course that does not help intelligence gathering. Prolly best to go the route of buying information and paying others to do the dirty work from a rogue perspective.


The Pearl example seems to belong in the conversation as much as anything else. Besides we are not fighting a country with a president or any formal structure anyway. Also, if you are comparing to the US, the President doesn't sanction wars, Congress declares them. This is not a war and the US may never fight in another war. Our Congress is too weak to exercise their responsibility because they can "give" it unofficially to the President and skirt any real consequences.

If this is the case then you would agree that Scott McLellan was lying strictly for political reasons while in office and since leaving now is telling the truth about the administration and it's lying rush to war. Then I would also say you would agree that the other people to leave the administration and write books and articles slamming it, Dick Clarke, Colin Powell, etc. are now telling the truth since they were lying for political reasons while in office.

Just because the CIA is doing the interrogating 10 feet away from the military guys doesnt mean the military isn't complicit ESPECIALLY considering that it was Rummy himself of the DOD who wrote the book (or the addenda) regarding the types and methods of interrogation.

I apologize for the WWJD, I assumed from other threads that you were slanted in that direction. I apologize.

This is the absolute end point of morality.

Was Petraeus lying about the surge as well? Who, exactly, do I have to quote that you will believe? God? :banghead:


Robert Baer, former CIA Case Officer:


Vincent Cannistraro, 27 veteran with the CIA, including leading clandestine units:


Merle Pribbenow (CIA):


Frank Snepp (CIA):


Jack Cloonan, FBI Special Agent (full article in link, description/summary below):


Brigadier General David R. Irvine (Retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School):

Even George Will doesn't agree with McCain:

Stating things in such superlatives just opens one up to being proved wrong, but it's tough to compare supreme court cases from 100+ years ago, if you believe in the "living constitution" idea.

Regardless, McCain was definitely over the top there - he has a way of dropping quotes that come back to hurt him.

If nothing else this election season: McCain + YouTube = Instant Hilarity

:D

I've read a lot of this type of stuff recently, and frankly it has nothing to do with the emphasis of Scalia's dissent. It was, as is his usual bent, a powerful explanation of the judicial irresponsibility of the court's ruling. And he also, before this section, stated the following:

"I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today."

One could ignore the entirety of what he says about those consequences without damaging the legal arguments he makes. And because of this, to claim his dissent is somehow made with disregard to the law is totally absurd. And indeed, IMMEDIATELY AFTER his statement about more Americans being killed, he wrote this:

"That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today."

And then of course he goes on to expand on this in most of the balance of the dissent, using among his precedent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(2006), with four of the five justices voting with the court in this most recent case agreeing with the majority then. You can say what you want about the legal issues involved here, but it's more than a little silly to accuse Scalia of being a hypocrite or basing his opinion on the prosecution of the war on terror.

In his summary, he lists the following as his objections to the decision: it 'warps our Constitution', 'blatantly misdescribes important precedents' -- citing Johnson v. Eisentrager specifically -- , 'breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law', and also mentions the burden added to the military.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot there that has to do with the law.

Fuck that. Torture is an act of cowards too pussy to fight a proper fight.

Didn't John McCain, while he was being tortured as a POW, renounce the United States and make a bunch of statements he clearly didn't believe in and were outright lies? (link) So shouldn't he realize that, *obviously*, the information you get form torture isn't reliable?

That link was a great read, but ya, McCain actually has realized that and is anti-torture.

Have no idea the legitimacy of the group behind the report but it flies in the face of the military being uninvolved in events that may have occurred as some have claimed on here and I am fairly certain that the claims in the report, coupled with the evidence we've seen with our own eyes, bears out that not all military personell follow the manual or the addenda those in charge come up with, both written and verbal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/detainees_rights_report