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.

 

WAR: Detainees Can't Challenge Confinement

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Ruling that Congress had authorized the presidents order to detain "enemy combatants", a federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by foreign-born terror suspects challenging their detention in Guantanamo Bay. The lawsuit had been filed following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed them access to federal courts.
 



story.news.yahoo.com[/u rl]
WASHINGTON - A federal judge threw out a lawsuit Wednesday by foreign-born terror suspects challenging their detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruling that last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling did not provide them the legal basis to win their freedom.


U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that Congress had authorized the president to order the detention of "enemy combatants" for the duration of the war on terror.


The lawsuit by seven of the roughly 550 detainees being held at the U.S. Navy (news - web sites) base failed to show valid legal grounds to overturn that power, Leon said. As a result, the proper place to contest their detainment is before military review boards, not federal courts.


"The petitioners are asking this court to do something no federal court has done before: evaluate the legality of the (president's) capture and detention of nonresident aliens, outside the United States, during a time of armed conflict," Leon wrote.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I have to tell you that I am very troubled by this. No I do not want to see them go free, however, I feel strongly that evidence needs to be presented and thier detentions need to be justified. With reports that Camp X-Ray may be made permanent and people may be detained for the rest of thier lives without charges being filed goes against everything our constitution stands for. If we cannot follow it, what do we have left?


[edit on 20-1-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I see this

As a result, the proper place to contest their detainment is before military review boards, not federal courts.

as a perfectly reasonable avenue for them to pursue a resolution to their complaints. They are not entitled to all the rights of an American citizen.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I agree with jsobecky. These people were captured on an overseas battlefield by the Department of Defense. They don't have rights to full access to the U.S. court system.

[edit on 1/19/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The lawsuit had been filed following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed them access to federal courts.

Well, then lets be clear, foreigners captured on the field of battle can't appeal to the US civilian judicial system, which makes sense. If the gov weren't investigating and perhaps allowing some sort of defense in its extra-judicial tribunals, then that would be senseless.

One has to wonder what the SCOTUS allowed them to access the federal court system for if not to allow them to charge to be tried there tho. I don't know what other options are there. Perhaps they can sue the US gov for torture and what not if it happens that way.


I have to tell you that I am very troubled by this. No I do not want to see them go free, however, I feel strongly that evidence needs to be presented and thier detentions need to be justified.

Sure, but in the american civil courts? Those courts have no jurisdiction over them anyway. And they're certainly able to mount some sort of defense since they were able to file with the SCOTUS.


With reports that Camp X-Ray may be made permanent and people may be detained for the rest of thier lives without charges being filed goes against everything our constitution stands for.

They are not citizens, they have no Constitutional rights. They have less rights than the nazis that invaded the east coast of america during wwii since they aren't even regular uniformed soldiers of a recognized government. There definitly should not be executions without a reasonably protected trial, but internment, permanent internment? What does the US need to legally justify that other than the situation that lead to the person being held? Now, I know that there are some who have supposedly been turned over by enemies at home, and this along with common sense warrants having a thurough and detailed investigation, possibly even a defense for the detainee, but not necessarily a trial in which they can be released for anything other than demonstration of complete innocence. In the Boer War, the british held captured Boer commandos, even the heads of the Boer Republics, without any trials, until the war and insurgency was over and they signed articles of non-agression. Personally signed them, not just as a group. Some, including one of the presidents of the republic, never signed and were held, in detention camps on the other side of the globe, til the day they died. Heck, the US isn't even requiring that. Some of the people released from XRAY have been recaptured in afghanistan fighting against the US again. This also shows that its possible for people to get out of XRAY.

I just hope that there is some transparency in the process before long.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Detaining a person without legal justification for an indeterminate time for the duration of a "war" that's likely to last forever is just plain wrong. Play all the intellectually dishonest games you want. It is wrong on its face for any civilized society to do that.

I don't care how many historical examples you cite. That some nation in the past committed this crime doesn't justify the US doing it now. Growing numbers of honorable men and women throughout the world are losing respect for the U.S. with each passing day. When will this insanity stop? Our legal and judicial system is gaining a reputation as a system of "injustice". Shame on the judges of the US District Court who heap dishonor upon our judicial system with this kind of decision.

It will not be long before our enemies do the same to our servicemen captured abroad. When that inevitably occurs, the families of those servicemen should lay the blame where it belongs i.e. on the those among us who instituted this lawless practice and those who strain logic, reason, and credulity in support of it.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
First off if you are in GITMO, Camp X-Ray, you are there for a damn good reason, not just picked up on the side of the street in Afghanistan and shipped over, you did some pretty nasty stuff to end up there. Trust me, I know who goes there and who doesnt.

However, I was appalled when the US granted them access to federal courts, WHY? They have no rights and if this BS does get to the point where they do have rights and are tried on US soil for their crimes, our judiciary system will need a major overhaul. Not like it doesnt now.

If its plain wrong, well its plain wrong what they did, but like I said, they are there for good reason. Now the detainees will cry innocent. But unless there is positive proof they were not involved or any such thing, they are released. There were quite a few released, but it didnt make the news headlines. But those at Camp X-Ray are in there for good reason.

Lets just say, I have had, without incriminating myself here, seen some of their reasons for being there.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
mscbkc070904 -

If there is solid reason and evidence for keeping them there, why the refusal to lay it on the table?

Those who raise concerns about indefinite detention without due process aren't saying the detainees should be released with no questions asked. (All questions imaginable have been put to these detainees by now using the most unpleasant methods of interrogation). Government must accord due process to the individuals it wishes to detain regardless of the reason for ther detention. No human being should be detained indefinitely in the absence of a legally demonstrable basis in fact.

The continual blather that "we have good reason, but it's a secret, and we're not telling" falls on deaf ears after a while. Two years is long enough. Prove it or let them go. It is not acceptable to hold them so long that all possible exculpatory evidence vanishes due to passage of time. I personally don't trust anyone in government enough to accord them that kind of power.

Why do our President and his underlings refuse to accord the detainees a little due process? Are the detainees pawns in an effort to expand government powers at their expense? Is their simply a lack of evidence to continue the detention? Do the detainees know things that will embarass our leaders if allowed to talk? Something else? What is it?

It's time the U.S. cleans up its act and quits conducting business like every other scum bucket petty dictator in the world.



[edit on 1/20/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Lets see what I can say here, here are the "possibilties" why:

- ties to other organizations
- being held until other information is verified, guilty til proven innocent, only because they were either caught redhanded, turned in, or at a place knwoing where they were at to begin with
- confined, charged yet punishment not executed, due to the individual still has information that requires being obtained
- falls under the laws of war as an enemy combatant
- high profile target, given info, safest place until info given is acquired
- actively investigated for financial, dealing, transport, etc

Those are some of the reasons of "possibilities" why they are there. As far as given out what and why they are there, think about it, dont want to give that info out on who is there, what they said, what they may have confessed to or done. It only defeats in searching for the others guilty of the crimes or acts of. Display that and you have got nothing.

Most of those detained there are enemy combatants under the laws of war, under the Geneva Convention, not US laws of war. However we are the authority figure overseeing this.

And if these people are so important to those from where they come from, you dont hear random letters, videos, or any other media type requesting to release those there in Camp X-Ray.

And if OBL and Zarqawi are so hell bent on having prisoners released in Iraq, did they forget their brothers in Afghanistan?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Two years is long enough to wring out whatever might be hidden deep within the detainees' memory cells. Give them a hearing. A public one. I don't care if embrasses our leaders or exposes them to public or worlwide ridicule. This Bush Administration policy reveals a deep seated moral depravity on the part of those who are doing it. Nothing the detainees have done justifies abandonment of everything America used to stand for. I'm ashamed that the people doing this call themselves Americans.

[edit on 1/20/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Detaining a person without legal justification for an indeterminate time for the duration of a "war" that's likely to last forever is just plain wrong.

The legal justification is that they were caught on the battle field



Play all the intellectually dishonest games you want. It is wrong on its face for any civilized society to do that.


I don't care how many historical examples you cite. That some nation in the past committed this crime doesn't justify the US doing it now.

Why? What is unjustified about it? These men were caught abroad fighting against the US. The US, instead of refusing to take prisoners, captured them, and have now locked them up, and are reviewing their status. They've already let some of them out of the detention camp.


Our legal and judicial system is gaining a reputation as a system of "injustice".

Strange, since the legal system has nothing to do with this. Its a matter of the military holding military prisoners.



It will not be long before our enemies do the same to our servicemen captured abroad.

In case you haven't noticed, almost every nation that the US has fought against has tortured, brutalized, and murdered american pows.


When that inevitably occurs, the families of those servicemen should lay the blame where it belongs i.e. on the those among us who instituted this lawless practice

You mean not on the people that kill them?

if some foreign country is at war with the US and they want to hold ununiformed 'guerillas' in detention camps permanently, well, what complaint can they or the united states make? Besides, there is a review process for these detainess, its simply not one that can only take place in the US civil courts.


mscbkc070904
Trust me, I know who goes there and who doesnt.

How? No one who reviews that sort of material would be allowed to talk about it, and I doubt anyone who reviews all the detainess would be posting to this board.

Also, apparently the US accepted some detainess who were turned over by the rather disreputable afghan and other allies overseas. i agree, that anyone say, found in a location where US troops and whatnot were being fired upon, and is found with a weapon, well, they've already given enough reason for the US to take them and put them in these camps. But not everyone has been captured by US forces, and, indeed, not all US soldiers are of the highest moral fibre, as the garaib disgrace demonstrates. A review process is sensible, just not a civil trial, which is ludicrous.


dubiousone
why the refusal to lay it on the table?

The US government is under no legal compulsion to offer that information to anyone.


Government must accord due process to the individuals it wishes to detain regardless of the reason for ther detention

Since when? Is there a specific portion of the Un Charter that states this? And since when does 'due process' mean a full trial in US civilian courts?


No human being should be detained indefinitely in the absence of a legally demonstrable basis in fact.

Why? Legallly demonstrable implies that there is a law that was broken. What actual laws could any of these people have broken? Its not a legal question, they have no legal status, its a military question.


Prove it or let them go

Prove it to who?


It is not acceptable to hold them so long that all possible exculpatory evidence vanishes due to passage of time

Evidence? What evidence is required outside of that which got them arrested in the first place? If a US soldier says 'Johnny Islam here fired at me', then that is sufficient reason to look him up. What possible kind of evidence could be brought into play there? Shell casings from the scene? Testimony of other witnesses? These suspects have no right to those protections, they are not american citizens, they are not part of any government that exists anymore or was even recognized by the US or the UN when it was around. They don't wear uniforms to demonstrate that they are soldiers and distinguish them from civilians. There isn't going to be any evidence in any of these cases.


It's time the U.S. cleans up its act and quits conducting business like every other scum bucket petty dictator in the world.

If the US were acting like that, then it would be called Gravesite XRAY


Two years is long enough to wring out whatever might be hidden deep within the detainees' memory cells

In case you didn't know, memory cell readers don't exist. And two years is long enough? How long does the average murder trial take in the US? If they were in the civil courts, they'd still be waiting for a trial.

Give them a hearing. A public one

They have no right to it.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Nygdan,

Your position is clear. Individuals have no rights. Period. Especially when they are foreigners nabbed by the U.S. The nabber is the judge/jury/and executioner of sentence or, rather, you seem to be saying that the act of nabbing is the end of the story. The nabbing is its own justification. Such splendid logic. You'll find many U.S. sheeple who agree with you.

I could continue this exchange but I won't as I recognize that it's a pointless and futile debate. You have a hardened position. I understand your position. It's contrary to what the U.S. stands for (or used to stand for). On the other hand, it fits very nicely into the NWO and the view that government/corporate/military/industrial interests trump all rights and interests of individuals in our society and in the world in general. I get your point. Everyone better jump on the bandwagon soon or be left in the dust and become a non-entity with no rights. After all, Dubya proclaims, that if you ain't with us you're agin' us. (that's "against us" not "a Guiness")


[edit on 1/20/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Straight from the article in question, dubiousone:


Leon concluded the detainees presented "no viable theory" to support their claim that they are being held in violation of federal laws. Foreign citizens captured and detained outside the United States have no rights under the Constitution or international law, he said.






seekerof



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

From post by Seekerof: Leon concluded the detainees * * * Foreign citizens captured and detained outside the United States have no rights under the Constitution or international law, he said.


That's a rather profound statement and one that should scare the pants and skirts off of everyone.

If "Leon" is correct, then it follows that "foreign citizens" captured outside a foreign nation's boundaries likewise have no rights under international law. I think Leon needs to go back to his sources. Unless, of course, this is yet another one of those principles that only the U.S. but no other country gets to apply to its foreign captives. Can you say "hypocritical"?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Let's look at the unacceptable results that Seekerof's endorsement of Leon's premise leads to:

Leon's PREMISE: Foreign citizen's captured outside the US have no rights under international law.

FACT: When Americans travel outside the U.S. they are "foreign citizens".

FACT: The U.S. is one of many sovereign nations in the world. (Though, we now know, Dubya's agenda is to make them all just like us)

FACT: Americans could be captured and detained outside the U.S. by one of the other sovereign nations.

CONCLUSION: International law does not apply to Americans captured and detained under those circumstances.


If U.S. law does not apply to foreign citizens captured outside the U.S., and if International Law does not apply to them, then they have no legal protection. Anything whatsoever can be done to them with no consequence to or recourse against the perpetrators.

The same necessarily applies to any American who is captured by a foreign nation outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S.A. No law protects them.

That's quite a revision of the law of this planet.

Seekerof, are you one of those reptilians of whom David Icke speaks? I used to take that part of Icke's position with heavy skepticisim. Maybe its time to reconsider.


[edit on 1/21/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Armchair legalists


asposted by dubiousone
Seekerof, are you one of those reptilians of whom David Icke speaks? I used to take that part of Icke's position with heavy skepticisim. Maybe its time to reconsider.



No, but I suppose that the question can or could be likewise asked of you, huh, dubiousone?
And despite your "indepth" analysis of the situation, my alledged condonement was merely in pointing out what you, as others, had missed from the article.
As such, check out the legal qualifications of Judge Leon and then you'll find that though his findings are debatable, they are backed by the legal jurisdiction and/or the authority of his office. NO judge makes decisions like this without doing an indepth legal sourcing on this matter. It will ultimately be up to others within his field of office to overturn his ruling or allow it to stand.





seekerof

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Nygdan,

Your position is clear. Individuals have no rights. Period.

No, you have not been paying attention. US citizens have natural rights enumerated in their Constitution. All human beings have a smaller limited set of rights enshrined in the UN Charter. The UN charter does not guarentee un-uniformed guerillas the right to a trial in the US civilian legal system. How you went from that to 'they have no rights' I have no idea.


You'll find many U.S. sheeple who agree with you.

Please cite an international law that is being broken.


I could continue this exchange but I won't as I recognize that it's a pointless and futile debate.

Apparently it is since you can't even recognize my position.


FACT: When Americans travel outside the U.S. they are "foreign citizens".

International law provides for the protection of non-militants. An american who went to say london, and met up with other americans and started breaking out their machine guns and killing people can be held by Britain as foreign combatants without access to civilian courts. This is especially true if, say, britian invaded the US and occupied it and captured american paramilitary resistance forces. No american should expect to be treated any differently when doing the same thing, and this is certainly not a license to abduct and execute non-militant civilians on vacation.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Nygdan:
I'd like to introduce a phrase that I think would come in quite handy in this conversation. "MORAL LAW". It has nothing to do with international treaties, or the geneva convention, or the constitution.
What does it have to do with? How about, oh...um...ACTING LIKE A HUMAN BEING. Human rights man, sheesh. Ever heard of THAT? It's a concept that should be pretty basic, and easy to understand. I'll be the first to admit that I, along with the rest of us certainly do not know the whole story about what's going on at Guantanamo Bay, however, that is not the point anymore in this discussion as we have been led off on a tangent in regards to what "laws written by man" dictate who deserves what. First off, you're not a very good outhouse lawyer...(Neither is anyone else here, for that matter.) But let's not miss the point. You can't just grab somebody, throw them in a box, and let them sit there for eternity without giving good public just cause, no matter WHAT circumstances they were in when they were apprehended. I'm not basing this off of any law, as I'm not a lawyer. But I am a human being, and that is the conclusion that my moral code has brought me to. Just because a person doesn't have an officially recognized soveriegn nation to back up their social identity while they're fighting for a cause does not instantly turn them into some kind of animal that deserves no basic human dignity. (No, I'm not supporting their cause, however...that's EXACTLY what our founding fathers did when the United States was being coddled in it's infancy). But just because you don't support their cause, and because we don't have a country to turn them back into or hold responsible...does not justify what is taking place now.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaleon4
How about, oh...um...ACTING LIKE A HUMAN BEING. Human rights man, sheesh. Ever heard of THAT?

I have not, at any point, advocated that these prisoners should not be treated humanely. But humane treatment need not require a civil trial in domestic US civilian courts.

It's a concept that should be pretty basic, and easy to understand.

One would think that the basic distinction between civil and military law, and perhaps citizens and foreigners, would be easy to understand.

You can't just grab somebody, throw them in a box, and let them sit there for eternity without giving good public just cause, no matter WHAT circumstances they were in when they were apprehended.

I see no moral requirement for the US government to explain to the general public what the details of any of the cases are. There is a moral requirement to investigate each of the detainess situation. In following with that obligation, the US government has been investigating their cases, has been listening to their arguments, and has been releaseing people. Their requirement for holding people are obviously strict enough that some of the people who have been released for not being terrorists/guerillas have ended up being actual terrorists and guerillas requiring second arrests.


I'm not basing this off of any law, as I'm not a lawyer. But I am a human being, and that is the conclusion that my moral code has brought me to.

As far as I understand it, US and Global law require that, say, these people not be executed without review, and probably requires some sort of review. It does not require disclosure to the general public, and it does not require that the occupying/capturing power put detainess into its own civilian justice system. No one, who fights in guerilla/commando units for a government that is not recognized can expect to be, first off, not executed upon capture, and beyond that they can't expect to be given the full legal protections enjoyed by the citizens of the very nation that they have taken up arms against and are trying to destroy.


turn them into some kind of animal that deserves no basic human dignity.

Into animals with no rights? Of course not. But they do not and should not be given the same protections of legitimate soldiers fighting for legal and recognized governments. Members of Hamas or Hizbollah, for example, cannot reasonably expect to be treated with the same protections as italian soldiers captured in a european war, or chinese soldiers captured in an american-sino war.


does not justify what is taking place now.

It does not justify what exactly? Military tribunals, while still maintining access to federal courts? An actual POW, captured in a declared war between signatories of all international conventions regarding war while part of an organized fighting unit and in uniform, can not expect a trial in a civilian court, but these guys should?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I will confess:
I am not aware of whether or not these prisoners are able to contact their familes back home, but I have my doubts (mainly because of security concerns due to the nature of their detainment), but that concerns me deeply, simply because I am aware that many of these folks have been swept up en masse. Surely there are plenty of innocents in there somewhere...and those are who truly concern me.
I've re-read my post, and will admit that I got a little heated. While I don't agree with all of your points, I can see where you're coming from even regarding our differences. Lately on other forums, I've found myself getting into more, and more arguments with people getting hung up on technicalities, and "rules" that causes them to miss the real issue. As a result, I think I've built up a kind of knee-jerk response for whenever I sense that kind of thing taking place.

One of your statements I think would make for interesting debate, although it certainly isn't a "new" topic by any stretch of the imagination.



I see no moral requirement for the US government to explain to the general public what the details of any of the cases are. There is a moral requirement to investigate each of the detainess situation. In following with that obligation, the US government has been investigating their cases, has been listening to their arguments, and has been releaseing people. Their requirement for holding people are obviously strict enough that some of the people who have been released for not being terrorists/guerillas have ended up being actual terrorists and guerillas requiring second arrests.


The eternal debate between government accountability, and national security is whether our leaders should have to explain their actions, and let the American people know what is going on. There is no easy answer, however, I think in this situation it would not hurt to start volunteering a little info on what is really going on inside these camps. But...let's say we have in our possession a terrorist who has valuable information. If Al Quaeda knew we had him, they may try to get him killed, or change their tactics based on the knowledge they *think* we may or may not have. That would be a security concern. It's a tough one. Now, there have been plenty of comparisons between President Bush, and our favorite nazi...but I do not bring this up for that purpose, but rather it is JUST a similar observation and possibly well founded concern: When the nazis rose to power in the early thirties, and WWII had broken out in the forties, the German people were very much in the dark about what their government was doing to the POW's, and "criminals" being held in detention, and concentration camps. As a result, things spun WILDLY out of control. There is an instance of one of the worst camps in the war sitting just a mile into the woods behind a village. The villagers knew NOTHING of what was taking place there for (2?) years, and were absolutely horrified when they found out what their government had done. I'm not going to just come out and SAY that's what's taking place (more than likely not), but...jeez, what if?

This is "supposedly" a democracy ruled by the people. I think in this situation there should be at least a LITTLE more disclosure of intent/situation in regards to what is going on in the walls of X-Ray, and others. My next statement is not intended to be a biased pro/con Bush remark, but in any given election, I believe that we all must admit that we've NEVER had ALL of the information we could've used to make the best decision on who to vote for. I'm sure that if we did, many of us may have voted for another candidate, and the course of our nation may have taken a much different path. Who's to say that we would be better, or worse off. But I'll say this: I'd rather end up in a worse place with the knowledge that at least we got there with the truth, than to end up in a happy place full of ignorance, and lies.

***Edited for Spelling***

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Ghaleon4]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaleon4
I will confess:
I am not aware of whether or not these prisoners are able to contact their familes back home

They are not. For a while I think that there was a question of whether or not they'd even be able to contact lawyers.



simply because I am aware that many of these folks have been swept up en masse.

How do you know this?


Surely there are plenty of innocents in there somewhere...and those are who truly concern me.

I'd think that there have to be some, or one has to at least assume that there are enough to make one proceed with caution.



While I don't agree with all of your points, I can see where you're coming from even regarding our differences.

Excellent. As you pointed out, sometimes the technicalities get one bogged down, and the most important thing to communication is listening to the other person. And this is, afterall, a communications board. My position on this topic has been bizzarely mis-perceived. I can understand a person being opposed to what I suggest, but I don't see much use in assuming I am taking about something even more extreme that I already am.



One of your statements I think would make for interesting debate, although it certainly isn't a "new" topic by any stretch of the imagination.



I see no moral requirement for the US government to explain to the general public what the details of any of the cases are. There is a moral requirement to investigate each of the detainess situation. In following with that obligation, the US government has been investigating their cases, has been listening to their arguments, and has been releaseing people. Their requirement for holding people are obviously strict enough that some of the people who have been released for not being terrorists/guerillas have ended up being actual terrorists and guerillas requiring second arrests.


The eternal debate between government accountability, and national security is whether our leaders should have to explain their actions, and let the American people know what is going on. There is no easy answer, however, I think in this situation it would not hurt to start volunteering a little info on what is really going on inside these camps.
I tend to agree with you. How much of security concern can some of these guys be anyway, especially if they're, effectively, nothing more than armed thugs?

And, in addition to what you suggest, there is a possibility that, say, if al-qaida knew that the US had, say, their director of operations for tajikastan, rather than thinking that he was killed in an assault, they'd alter their plans accordingly. Or, if they knew that some other John Smith was beign held, they might suspect say, the only person that could've lead the US to him, and thus eliminate a mole or other asset in that system or region. Similar problems might arise if they were tried publically, and certainly there'd be great danger in allowing these guys access to the civilian legal system, hell, most would have to be let out on bail at least.


When the nazis rose to power in the early thirties, and WWII had broken out in the forties, the German people were very much in the dark about what their government was doing to the POW's, and "criminals" being held in detention, and concentration camps.

Well, i think thats debatable tho, apparently lots of them knew just what was going on, but your point is certainly a valid one. Great evil could come out of this all, for certain.

I think that its certainly a good arguement for having international aid groups come in and monitor the detainess, but even then only under great supervision. Recall that the world trade center bomber's lawyer was coordinating communication between him and his followers.


This is "supposedly" a democracy ruled by the people.

Indeed, the government is accountable to the people, and similiarly the people are ultimately responsible for what their government does. However to be clear I have been saying that these people should not be executed or punished in any way outside of detainment.


I think in this situation there should be at least a LITTLE more disclosure of

I agree, however, I don't think that international nor american law requires the government to do so. It would certainly be adviseable, and apparently they are doing some of that, investigated and released some detainess, had rights groups visit them, etc etc.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join