Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Supreme Court Ruling - Gitmo detainees can appeal to U.S. court system (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65809)

Buccaneer 06-15-2008 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1750915)
Well, and this is why I phrased it the way I did. I know you don't have much love for the guy (tho I will argue that you're more partisan than you want to let on) and I got the answers I was curious about.

SI


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.

Grammaticus 06-16-2008 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1750493)
what I find interesting in the current list and the list of past (back to 1937) is how many of them were relatively "unqualified" - it's kind of scary


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

larrymcg421 06-16-2008 08:13 AM

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.

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat (Post 1750690)
If he gets the same calibre of lawyers O.J. had, who knows...


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

To recap, Dutch said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch
The scary part is that civilian courts want to release these killers and their associates just to snub our President.


NoMyths said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMyths
This is a ridiculous assertion.


To which you responded:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLCat
Actually, based on their obsessive, almost illogical hatred of Bush (much like the right's feelings toward Clinton), I think it is pretty spot on. The left seems willing to do anything they can to thwart or claim victory over Bush policy, regardless of whether it makes sense or not concerning U.S. national security


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.

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLCat
Randi Rhodes told her radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in "The Godfather," should be taken out and shot (can't say I've ever read a story where Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative talk show host has advocated the same for a Democrat).


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.

Quote:

So, please, be careful about casting stones in a glass house.

How about you learn to read first?

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1750723)
I've hated Bush for a long time because I think his policies are destroying this country, not because it's trendy. Do you think there are people in this thread that just suddenly started hating Bush because it's trendy? If so, then please point those people out, because I'm tired of this random grouping of people to make an argument.


Quoted for emphasis.

molson 06-16-2008 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1749476)

Let's be clear: I could not care less what happens to KSM and his cronies. My recommendation is that they not get the death penalty solely because that's exactly what they want and what their supporters worldwide want. Let them rot in prison.

I have two concerns:

One, Bush created a stupid legal mess where one didn't need to be created. As a yardstick for how off-base Bush and his legal team were, remember that even Antonin Scalia disagreed with them (in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld). Dude, when even Antonin Scalia disagrees with a Conservative President, that President is just plain wrong.

Two, as we know now, the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were taxi drivers, farmers, or whatever - guys who had the misfortune to be brown and in the wrong place at the wrong time. As this Souter states most specifically in this decision, it's simply inexcusable to lock people up like this for this amount of time with absolutely no movement towards dispositioning them.


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.

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1751296)
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?


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

Quote:

If that's true, that sole "innocent" farmer at Gitmo is still going to be there.

Not necessarily.

Quote:

And don't forget that many detainees that the US has freed have gone on to commit terrorist acts.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Anthony 06-16-2008 10:40 AM

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.

molson 06-16-2008 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1751338)

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.


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.

molson 06-16-2008 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1751338)

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


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).

Flasch186 06-16-2008 11:42 AM

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.

molson 06-16-2008 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1751472)
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?

Flasch186 06-16-2008 12:25 PM

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.

larrymcg421 06-16-2008 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1751481)
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).


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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1751404)
So none of them became suicide bombers before they were detained at Quantanamo? :)


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:

Quote:

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).

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1751462)
The Pentagon says that 36 are "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism".


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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of guilt.

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

2. :eek:

Quote:

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?

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.

molson 06-16-2008 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1751593)

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.



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?

BishopMVP 06-16-2008 02:49 PM

Just to clear up some misconceptions.
Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1751538)
It's a long, long way from letting Bin Laden's family fly away immediately to detaining them for 6 years without a trial.

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1751593)
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.

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.

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1751697)
You're making a lot of assumptions that just aren't supported.


Let's see about that.

Quote:

A criminal investigation is actually much harder as time goes on, it doesn't get easier. Memories fade, people die or dissapear.

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

Quote:

You've made the assumption that Cold War spy prosecutions are identical or similar to terrorist prosecutions in terms of practacality.

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."

Quote:

You've assumed that "delays" are not warranted, and provide no reasonable purpose.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
The best I can come up with is that Bush and his advisors didn't trust the court system to do their jobs and decided to try to make up their own court system from scratch. They also didn't trust Congress to work with them (although, ironically, Congress did work with them and has also gotten slapped down by the Supreme Court) to develop new procedures to deal with the issues raised by capturing and holding terrorists, so they just decided to ignore the Constitution.

Basically you have a small cabal of people deciding what's best for the country against the wishes of the other two branches of government (one of which is directly elected by citizens). And this isn't a slight difference of opinion, it's a complete 180.


This is 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."

If Bush had approached this problem this way, I'd be very surprised if a workable solution wasn't quickly developed and the last 7 years of wrangling was far behind us.


Quote:

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).

I never said that either. To quote myself again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
It's taken longer to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad to trial than R. Kelly. The mind just boggles.


and

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
That really wasn't my point, though.

KSM's trial should be open-and-shut easy. He both admits guilt and isn't interested in an insanity plea. Plus he's about as "high-value" as they come. There should be mountains of evidence on him, if Intelligence are doing their job.

I don't know where you're going with "getting useful information". You can still interrogate someone after they've been convicted. Just don't kill him.


and

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
I too am not interested in drawing parallels. My point is that any of the high-value targets should be such slam-dunk cases that they could have been turfed to even the stupidest civilian court ages ago and we still would have had convictions and by now have these turkeys wasting away at ADX Florence.


and

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
I can't imagine it's more complex than something like the Enron trial, not to mention that KSM and his co-conspirators admit guilt.




Quote:

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

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

Quote:

You've also objected to "grouping" people but have yourself grouped "conservatives" several times in this thread.

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.

Quote:

And you've scoffed at other people's unsuported assertions citing a lack of proof. All people can do is state opinions.

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.

Quote:

The US wants to close this place - no question about it.

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

Quote:

Do you think they hold on to a portion of the detainees there because they get off on torture?

Please, this is beneath you.

Quote:

What's the US strategy here?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BishopMVP (Post 1751716)
First, I don't see how that's ironic at all


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.

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BishopMVP (Post 1751716)
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.


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.

molson 06-16-2008 05:05 PM

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.

Flasch186 06-16-2008 06:49 PM

...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).

WVUFAN 06-16-2008 07:20 PM

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.

miked 06-16-2008 07:36 PM

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.

Anthony 06-16-2008 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN (Post 1751943)
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.


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. :)

Toddzilla 06-16-2008 07:54 PM

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

Flasch186 06-16-2008 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN (Post 1751943)

Morality be damned.


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

cartman 06-16-2008 08:16 PM

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.

Flasch186 06-16-2008 08:22 PM

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."

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 09:03 PM

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

flere-imsaho 06-16-2008 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN (Post 1751943)
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.


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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

General David H. Petraeus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Petraeus
The top U.S. commander in Iraq admonished his troops regarding the results of an Army survey that found that many U.S military personnel there are willing to tolerate some torture of suspects and unwilling to report abuse by comrades.

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.

He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.


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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt. General Kimmons
No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.

And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under -- through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.

Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized, humane interrogation practices, in clever ways that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual. So we don't need abusive practices in there. Nothing good will come from them.


Buccaneer 06-16-2008 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1752018)
ahhhhhhhhhhhh, WWJD? Other than be ashamed of what you just said.


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

Flasch186 06-16-2008 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1752085)
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.

Flasch186 06-16-2008 09:53 PM

appropriate that this hits the tape tonight:

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

Quote:

Military lawyers objected to harsher interrogation

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Military lawyers warned against the harsh detainee interrogation techniques approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002, contending in separate memos weeks before Rumsfeld's endorsement that they could be illegal, a Senate panel has found.
ADVERTISEMENT

The investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee also has confirmed that senior administration officials, including the Pentagon's then-general counsel William "Jim" Haynes, sought information on a program involving military psychologists early on to devise the more aggressive methods — which included the use of dogs, making a detainee stand for long periods of time and forced nudity, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released. Details, including the names of the service lawyers who objected to the interrogation techniques, were to be discussed at an open committee hearing Tuesday.

Rumsfeld's December 2002 approval of the aggressive interrogation techniques and later objections by military lawyers have been widely reported. But the November protests by service lawyers had not, and the interest by Pentagon civilians in military psychologists has surfaced only piecemeal.

The lawyers' objections were sent to the Joint Staff, which would have relayed the messages to civilian leadership. There is no proof, however, that Rumsfeld or Haynes personally saw the memos.

Tuesday's hearing is the committee's first look at where the harsher methods — used in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq — originated and how policy decisions on interrogations were vetted across the Defense Department.

The review fits into a broader picture of the government's handling of detainees, which includes FBI and CIA interrogations in secret prisons.

Ultimately, Democrats say the Senate investigation will prove that abusive conditions in some military prisons were not — as the administration contends — the result of a few "bad apples" but rather the consequence of senior defense civilians anxious to extract intelligence in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Senior officials in the United States government sought out information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who will preside over Tuesday's hearing as Armed Services Committee chairman.

The panel is expected to hold further hearings on the matter and release a final report by the end of the year.

Haynes, who resigned in February after nearly seven years as the military's top civilian lawyer, is expected to testify Tuesday. He is now chief counsel to the Chevron Corp. in San Ramon, Calif. Also present will be Richard Shiffrin, Haynes' former deputy on intelligence matters, as well as legal advisers at the time to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Alberto Mora, former general counsel for the Navy, will be the only service lawyer to testify.

According to the Senate committee's findings, Haynes became interested in using harsher interrogation methods as early as July 2002 when he sent a memo inquiring about a military program that trained Army soldiers how to survive enemy interrogations and deny foes valuable intelligence.

Officials who taught the methods — known as "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape," or SERE techniques — were well schooled in the art of abusive interrogations.

Jerald Ogrisseg, a former top military psychologist, is expected to testify Tuesday that the SERE program was designed for defensive training purposes and was never intended to be reverse-engineered as a means of finding tougher ways to interrogate U.S. prisoners.

Shortly after requesting more information about the use of SERE techniques, Haynes traveled in September 2002 to Guantanamo Bay with other administration lawyers, including then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington.

A month later, in October the military commander in charge of Guantanamo Bay, Gen. Michael Dunlavey, asked his superiors at U.S. Southern Command for approval to employ harsher interrogations. His request was based in part on a legal review by Air Force Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a lawyer assigned to the task force running the Cuban prison.

Beaver also is expected to testify Tuesday.

According to officials familiar with the Senate investigation, the proposal prompted protests from the services' uniformed lawyers. Each of the service lawyers told the Joint Staff that the techniques warranted further study, and the Air Force and Army specifically warned that the methods could be illegal.

Their objections were ignored. Several weeks later, in December 2002, Rumsfeld approved more than a dozen interrogation techniques that went beyond those authorized in the Army Field Manual, which is based on Geneva Convention standards for the humane treatment of war prisoners. His approval was based on a recommendation from Haynes.

In a statement provided through his lawyer, Haynes said that dealing with the terrorist threat after Sept. 11 "presented the United States with urgent, unprecedented and complex challenges."

"One of my goals as chief legal officer of the Department of Defense was to support the department's efforts to gather critical intelligence lawfully in order to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," he said.

Rumsfeld later rescinded his own memo and issued new guidance in April 2003.

Mora was among those military lawyers who logged objections to the administration's treatment of detainees in that 2002 and 2003 timeframe, according to a February 2006 article in The New Yorker. In a July 2004 memo, shortly after images surfaced of abuses at Abu Ghraib, Mora detailed his 2 1/2-year effort to halt a policy that he said was illegal and cruel.

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

sterlingice 06-16-2008 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1751475)
I think this all boils down to how comfortable you are with collateral damage. Some are, some aren't.


An interesting way of putting it.

SI

WVUFAN 06-16-2008 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1752091)
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.


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.

WVUFAN 06-17-2008 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 1751952)
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.


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.

Quote:

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.

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

WVUFAN 06-17-2008 12:02 AM


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.

Grammaticus 06-17-2008 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN (Post 1751943)
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.

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.


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 1751952)
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.


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.

Flasch186 06-17-2008 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN (Post 1752156)
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.


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.

JPhillips 06-17-2008 07:55 AM

Quote:

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

This is the absolute end point of morality.

flere-imsaho 06-17-2008 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN (Post 1752156)
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.


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

Quote:

And I would ask you to note one CIA quote that says the same, since the CIA are the ones primarily doing the interrogating.

Robert Baer, former CIA Case Officer:

Quote:

But legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation.

When Stalin asked the KGB to find out how to make an atomic bomb, the KGB didn't kidnap and torture American and British scientists. It recruited spies. And Stalin got his bomb.

The Israelis figured all of this out a long time ago. For the last three years I have been in and out of Israeli jails interviewing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of them had been in suicide bomber cells — just the kind of people the Israelis would want to extract every last detail out of. None of them, however, claimed to have been tortured. The Israelis found out what they needed to know using traditional, legal police methods. It simply isn't worth it for them to risk damaging their already shaky international reputation by torturing suspects on the slim hope they just may get a lead.

Another thing the Israelis learned is that the "ticking bomb" scenario so popular on shows like 24 (and even in recent presidential debates) is a false choice. Any terrorist group capable of carrying off a sophisticated attack knows enough to "compartmentalize" its attack — the operatives are told only what they need to know. Or the attacks are so closely timed that it is impossible to stop them. For instance, had we arrested one of the 9/11 teams, there would not have been enough time to physically coerce its members into telling us about the other three hijacking teams.

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

Quote:

Detainees will say virtually anything to end their torment

Merle Pribbenow (CIA):

Quote:

A similar stance was articulated last year by Merle L. Pribbenow, a 27-year veteran of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations. Writing in Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's in-house journal, Pribbenow recalled that an old college friend had recently expressed his belief that "the terrorist threat to America was so grave that any methods, including torture, should be used to obtain the information we need." The friend was vexed that Pribbenow's former colleagues "had not been able to 'crack' these prisoners."

Pribbenow sought an answer by revisiting the arcane case of Nguyen Van Tai, the highest-ranking Vietcong prisoner captured and interrogated by both South Vietnamese and American forces during the Vietnam War. Re-examining in detail the techniques used by the South Vietnamese (protracted torture that included electric shocks; beatings; various forms of water torture; stress positions; food, water, and sleep deprivation) and by the Americans (rapport-building and no violence), Pribbenow reached a stark conclusion: "While the South Vietnamese use of torture did result (eventually) in Tai's admission of his true identity, it did not provide any other usable information," he wrote. In the end, he said, "it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans, and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided."

But perhaps most noteworthy was Pribbenow's conclusion: "This brings me back to my college classmate's question. The answer I gave him -- one in which I firmly believe -- is that we, as Americans, must not let our methods betray our goals," he said. "There is nothing wrong with a little psychological intimidation, verbal threats, bright lights and tight handcuffs, and not giving a prisoner a soft drink and a Big Mac every time he asks for them. There are limits, however, beyond which we cannot and should not go if we are to continue to call ourselves Americans. America is as much an ideal as a place, and physical torture of the kind used by the Vietnamese (North as well as South) has no place in it."

Frank Snepp (CIA):

Quote:

From 1972 to 1975, Frank Snepp was the CIA's top interrogator in Saigon, where he choreographed elaborate, protracted sessions with Nguyen Van Tai and, at one point, seven other senior Vietcong captives. To the question of whether torture or abusive behavior by interrogators is justified, Snepp's answer is unequivocally no. And the fact that this point isn't understood at the agency today, Snepp says, is a sign of serious problems.

"One of the big lessons for the agency was that the South Vietnamese torturing people got in the way of getting information," he says. "One day, without my knowledge, the South Vietnamese forces beat one of my subjects to a pulp, and when he staggered into the interrogation room, I was furious. And I went to the station chief and he said, 'What do you want me to do about it?' I told him to tell the Vietnamese to lay off, and he said, 'What do you want me to tell them in terms of why?' I said, 'Because it's wrong, it's just wrong.' He laughed and said, 'Look, we've got 180,000 North Vietnamese troops within a half hour of here -- I can't tell them, don't beat the enemy. Give me a pragmatic reason.' I said, 'He can't talk. He's a wreck. I can't interrogate him.' He said, 'That, I can use with them.'

"The important lesson for me was that moral arguments don't work," Snepp says. "But if you have pragmatic reasons, that will work. But the most important thing is that the only time you can be sure that what you're getting from someone is valid is through discourse. In Tai's case, the idea was to develop absolute trust, which you do not do by alienating and humiliating someone. He liked poetry; I brought him books of poetry, and in many sessions we sat and discussed poetry, nothing else. The most extreme thing I did was a disorientation technique, where I would keep jumping from one subject to another so rapidly that he might not remember what he'd told me the day before, or not remember that he had not, in fact, told me what I was saying he'd told me. Little by little, I drew him into revelations. And I was highly commended for this work."

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

Quote:

An FBI special agent from 1977 to 2002, Cloonan started working Al Qaeda cases in the mid-1990s. In this interview, he explains why he believes the FBI's method of interrogation is successful. He describes how the FBI cultivated former Al Qaeda operatives Jamal al-Fadl and Ali Mohammed as cooperative sources in the years before 9/11. Cloonan also recounts the FBI's battle with the CIA over custody of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and who was one of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operatives captured in the first months of the war in Afghanistan. Cloonan says al-Libi was revealing information that could have been useful in the prosecutions of Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, before he was transferred to CIA custody, duct-taped, put in the back of a truck, and sent to Egypt for more aggressive interrogation. Cloonan also discusses the FBI's role at Guantanamo and why he believes little good intelligence came out of there. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on July 13, 2005.

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):

Quote:

No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.

flere-imsaho 06-17-2008 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMyths (Post 1749915)


Even George Will doesn't agree with McCain:

Quote:

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well.

Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

Critics, including Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent, are correct that the court's decision clouds more things than it clarifies. Is the "complete and total" U.S. control of Guantanamo a solid-enough criterion to prevent the habeas right from being extended to other U.S. facilities around the world where enemy combatants are or might be held? Are habeas rights the only constitutional protections that prevail at Guantanamo? If there are others, how many? All of them? If so, can there be trials by military commissions, which permit hearsay evidence and evidence produced by coercion?

Roberts's impatience is understandable: "The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date." Ideally, however, the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by courts.

McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, "quote 'First Amendment rights.' " Now he dismissively speaks of "so-called, quote 'habeas corpus suits.' " He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as "the great writ of liberty."

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims?

As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

molson 06-17-2008 09:32 AM

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.

flere-imsaho 06-17-2008 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1752356)
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

Brian Swartz 06-17-2008 07:18 PM

Quote:

And for those who are Scalia fans and believe that judicial activism is some horrible thing plaguing our country, then Scalia's dissent presents a problem. This was a par of the beginning of his dissent:
America is at war with radical Islamists.... The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.
Yeah, that has a lot to do with the law.

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.

Toddzilla 06-18-2008 08:15 AM


Fighter of Foo 06-18-2008 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN (Post 1752155)
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.


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

Toddzilla 06-18-2008 10:09 AM

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?

molson 06-18-2008 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1753878)
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.

Flasch186 06-18-2008 11:57 AM

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.