It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Washington prepares international network of permanent detention camps

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Ill give you thier generalization of the matter.

Not to offend, but I refuse to beleive that Patriot makes dissent against the government illegal, at least until I see the relevant portion of the law and the explanation for why it is so. I do need to state that its not that I don't trust the ACLU, but there's no reason to take them on their authority.

But thats not an abuse of the patriot act is it?

Not a single one of those people were arrested under the patriot act. They were arrested because they were specifcally told, when the protest permit was given, that central park was off limits. The organizers particuarly requested the park and where explicitly denied it. They said that they'd go there anyway. Those who did were arrested and put into holding pens. The NYPD was stupid enough to hold many of them longer than is legal without seeing a lawyer, and if they sue the City for it they'll probably win. Hardly fascist. Infact, as far as I recall, no one was ever brought to trial because of those protests, at least none of those people. After the convention the chargers were dropped.

I agree, the NYPD were overly, jumpy, lets say. But keep in mind that they probably expected a scene like Montreal from a few years back, or Seattle. They were almost certainly told 'arrest anyone who breaks any of the rules and prevent a riot from happening'. It wasn't necessary, and the protestors should get credit for that. They were peacfully protesting.

Funny, seems like that'd be dissent. And yet, none of them were arrested for dissent, and none of thm were even charged with violating any provision of the Patriot Act.




posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
This post started out very long, with direct quotes and responses, however in the interest of brevity I will be condensing it to elimate redundancies and make it easier for everyone to read. Please point out to me any mistakes I make in representing your points.

You argue that the insurgents are not protected by any law or authority. You argue that they are not entitled to the rights of a POW, nor or are they entitled to the rights of an accused criminal under either US or Iraqi law.

I argue that any punishment must be applied under one of those two catagories because they both have precedent in international legal proceedings while alternatives invented unilaterally by America do not.
Furthermore I argue that the distinction between an insurgent and POW is strictly financial. If the insurgent could afford a uniform and standardized equipment he would be a volunteer soldier or militiaman with protection under the Geneva convention.

You continue your arguement along the lines that since they are not POWs there is no law against summary inprisonment for life. You seem to demand a "letter of the law" approach without regard for underlying morals or possible "spirit of the law" implications of existing not not applicable laws.

I argue that if they are not POWs then they must be criminals. A criminal is entitled to due process and legal treatment under the laws of the nation in which he commits the crime, unless extradited. Therefore, if we do not acknowledge the Geneva conventions for Iraqi insurgents we must do one of the following.
1. Extradite them and try them under US law.
2. Have the Iraqis try them under Iraqi law under whatever system of justice the soon to be elected government decides upon.
3. Have the Iraqi government enact laws which permit the United States to take the actions is is taking.

You have asked and likely will ask again what laws require such a thing. I respond that Iraqi laws against kidnapping apply unless the United States recieves proper authorization from the Iraqi government.

You say that an insurgent is clearly guilty and needs no due process or judicial review. I say that is because he has committed acts of war rather than acts of crime, and therefore he is under the moral implications and broader precedent necessitated by our support of the Geneva conventions.

You have made one statement which I will quote because it is the heart of the above disagreements.

if there is no law, then there is no crime and they are justified in doing practically anything.

When followed to its logical conclusion this strips law of its underlying moral mandate and makes it nothing but arbitrary rules enforced by men with guns. It would make any armed fanatical idealist an enforcer of legitimate laws.
You have expressed agreement to the idea that there are moral absolutes which govern such things but have expressed concern for necessity of taking action, which I can agree with. I recommend that we back away from the idea that that which is not technically illegal is OK, and operate under the assumption that America may have to do things which are wrong because they constitute the lesser evil, and that America should make reforms to mitigate damages.


Continuing on that point above, I make the case that the potential for innocents to be caught up in the system is too great to be ingored and you have agreed to the necessity of nonspecific "reforms".
You say, and have my agreement, that the present situation requires that we take action even if we can not be 100% certain of fairness.

I propose that the obvious reform to adopt is that we abandon the idea that imprisonment of insurgents is to be permanent. Indefinite and permanent are not one in the same. Indefinite is not for a defined length of time- it is a variable subject to the requirements of the situation. Indefinite detainment is acceptable in any war related case, while expressed permanence of detainment is only permissable as a criminal punishment.

We can declare the insurgents to be volunteer soldiers under the protection of the Geneva conventions, we will not have to try them or go out of our way for their sake except not to violate their human rights. We can hold them indefinitely, accomplish our mission, then get them off our hands and back into their home where their government has every right to consider them criminals and deal with them accordingly, including the extradition of those who commited crimes against the United States so that they can be tried and dealt with permanently in those cases which exceptionally warrant it. What about this, pray tell, is so damningly unacceptable to the interests of the United States?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Man this makes me wonder what G Bush is really up to. I read a thread here at this site about a bunch of dentention camps being readyed for use. The Patriot Act and all it's glory sucks. It takes away fundamental rights we have now and enjoy. I would not be surprised If Bush and his cronies use this type of system to lock up those who speak against them. This is yet another sign of whats to come. So stay tuned to the bat channel, same bat time.


[edit on 7-1-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
permanent detention camps?
are there no more rooms in military prisions?
guantanamo bay is full?
need more room? more space for the "terrorists" and "enemies of the state"?
you can always turn to nazi germany ideas of contencration camps!

maybe "they" are expecting a big wave of prisioners coming to be locked up!

yes, the new "patriot act" will soon prove very effective.


dh

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Surely the whole point of permanent detention camps is because the US government wants to hold people whom it cannot bring to trial with any form of open scrutiny, because the vast majority would be found not guilty
The only information on those already held in internment camps worlwide is that obtained out of their oen mouths or the mouths of others through torture
The bulk of the people held worldwide are undoubtedly innocent of terrorist intent, though some may be 'guilty' of fighting foreign invaders

The tale of the Tipton 3, released last year after pressure from high profile lawyers, and with reluctance from the UK Government, is instructive

"After months of questioning in coercive conditions, Mr Rasul admitted meeting Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, in Afghanistan in 2000. In fact, he was working in a Currys store in the West Midlands." (Currys is a UK electrical goods chain store)

www.guardian.co.uk...

The whole point is not in locking up specific groups, be they alleged terrorists or dissenters
The point is the ability to lock up large numbers of people who it is convenient to the regime to incarcerate at any given time for purpose of propaganda and political expediency



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dh
The tale of the Tipton 3, released last year after pressure from high profile lawyers, and with reluctance from the UK Government, is instructive

"After months of questioning in coercive conditions, Mr Rasul admitted meeting Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, in Afghanistan in 2000. In fact, he was working in a Currys store in the West Midlands." (Currys is a UK electrical goods chain store)

This sounds like Mr. Rasul met UBL in a chance encounter as a result of Rasul's job at Currys. Nothing sinister here, pure accident.

Then why did it take Rasul months of being questioned in coercive conditions to admit this? Or am I missing the point - did he confess just to put an end to the questioning?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Some of you either have to be too dumb or too young to not see what is happening in this country.

You know who you are


Its a nice evening to ride your tricycles



True dat!



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Detaining terror suspects indefinitely is UN_AMERICAN in the extreme. It's funny how folks think its ok.. I wonder how many of them are WASPs? Probably most. They don't know much about harassment. Their white middle class upbringing has shielded them from many of life's harsh realities. And they don't think it'll ever happen to them. Hey DG, the joke's gonna be on them one of these days when its their a$$ in the sling and no one to cry to for help.

Word to the wise.. one of these days you may find yourself on the opposite side of the government over any number of issues. Let's say the Bush administration decided it was time to confiscate your firearms. If you refused, you'd be labled a terrorist and hauled off INDEFINITELY. Get it through your heads, we are ALL in danger of these abuses.

Being a white, Christian, (former) Rush Limbaugh listening Republican, there was a time when I thought the ACLU was a bunch of commie pinkos and that they were doing everything to undermine our nation's values.. I've come around to a different way of thinking since the OKC bombing and 9-11. I now fully support the good work they do defending those who are wrongly treated at the hands of this tyrannical government. We need to support them because one day soon you or I may need their help.



Cary Clack: Lifetime imprisonment of suspected terrorists is un-American
Web Posted: 01/05/2005 12:00 AM CST


San Antonio Express-News

The ghosts of Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Franklin have long ceased spinning in their tombs. Once word drifted up to them about the Pentagon and CIA's recent request of the White House they probably went looking for Paul Revere's horse so that they could ride back to Earth and haunt some bureaucrats back to their constitutional senses.

The request being made is for the government to plan to indefinitely imprison suspected terrorists even when there is insufficient evidence to charge them. Instead of setting the suspected terrorists free or turning them over to the courts of the United States or other countries they could remain in custody for their lifetimes.

It's ridiculous. It's frightening. It's un-American.
www.mysanantonio.com.../news/columnists/cclack/stories/MYSA010505.1B.clack.75f8240c.html


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It is American but for how long can the administration can get away with something like this?

I don't think for too long, one of the reasons is not protest about it is due to the fact that this camp is not in the US, but as more incriminating stuff comes around from the government it will become to hot to handle.

Eventually the people in Guantanamo will be free, at least the ones that is not links whatsoever of any involvement with 9/11.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
DG: I know from experience how fun it is to wallow in intellectual superiority and degrade those who are radically and sadly mistaken. On top of that, I share your opposition to these camps. That being said, it isn't helping anything- and thats a -very- watered down and nice way for me to say it.
The neo-con agenda depends on its opponents to be insulting and degrading, otherwise the vast majority of conservatives would most likely be intellectually won over by the opposition- that's what class warfare is all about, and its the lifeblood of radicalism in democracies. Ask yourself this: do you think G-dub could have won that election if the moderate conservatives hadn't been made so afraid of radical soundbytes from the left?

ECK: You're exactly right- everyone is in danger here, not necessarily because it's planned, just because its becoming possible when it was never supposed to be.
Yesterday they made it OK to strip the rights of terror suspects. Today it's gang members and lone idiots who point lasers at stuff. Tomorrow it's petty criminals and people who "have it coming" but can't be convicted. Then someday it just might be a guy who has an ATS post flagged by the FBI, or members of labor unions, 3rd parties, and minor religious organizations. You don't create a monster and tell it "only hurt the badguys". You don't lay a mine field in your backyard and say "only an intruder would be caught in it". This is playing with fire and there's no reason for it.

Last but not least, the ACLU aren't pinkos- they're inept, especially when it comes to public relations. As a person who believes in personal freedoms and opposes interference from the government or other organizations, I would support an organization like the ACLU. The twin problems they face are that 1. They often make oppression universal instead of extending equal freedom to the minority- take the incessant restrictions on religious expression as a case in point. 2. Those are the cases that get all the press; You never hear about the cases where the ACLU is wildly successful in protecting the little guy from the interests of larger groups.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
ECK: You're exactly right- everyone is in danger here, not necessarily because it's planned, just because its becoming possible when it was never supposed to be.


I wish everyone could see that. So many accuse me of being an American-hating liberal instead of acknowledging the truth of what this actually means for us all. That accusation could not be farther from the truth! No one (outside of the highest echelon of the elites) is safe from this growing tyranny. At some point, it will begin to affect us all. One need only look back to pre-ww2 Germany and the rise of Hitler to see exactly how it happens. And woe to us! If we are so stupid as to let this happen all over again, having such a potent, recent example, perhaps we deserve what we get.


You never hear about the cases where the ACLU is wildly successful in protecting the little guy from the interests of larger groups.


It's funny.. back in the day, when I listened to el Rushbo (before he sold his soul), I had nothing but contempt for the ACLU. Gee, maybe b/c I'm a WASP and never had any need for them? I still don't.. yet. Since 9-11, though, I've come to see things in a much different light. I now see how very important they are to protecting individuals and their rights. At this point, I think folks who can't see that are just blinde and/or racist.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join