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.
As a result, the proper place to contest their detainment is before military review boards, not federal courts.
Originally posted by FredT
The lawsuit had been filed following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed them access to federal courts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by dubiousone
Nygdan,
Your position is clear. Individuals have no rights. Period.
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.
FACT: When Americans travel outside the U.S. they are "foreign citizens".
Originally posted by Ghaleon4
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.
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.
turn them into some kind of animal that deserves no basic human dignity.
does not justify what is taking place now.
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.
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
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.
While I don't agree with all of your points, I can see where you're coming from even regarding our differences.
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.
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.
This is "supposedly" a democracy ruled by the people.
I think in this situation there should be at least a LITTLE more disclosure of