20 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesFirst of all, Iran does do that in any case.
So if Iran decided to round up a few hundred Americans and declared them to be "enemy combatants" without any sort of trial, should the president just accept that Iran has the right to detain them indefinitely?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=8236485
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985731.html
Second, of course we would not "accept" Iran doing it, just like they don't "accept" us doing it either.
The question isn't whether the other guy would accept your doing it; the question is whether you're right to do it.
I agree with the concept allowing detained terror suspect some due process rights and to require the government to prove that the detainee was an enemy combatant to some sort of neutral tribunal before keeping them indefinitely (which, apparently, Barack Obama does not, if his actions thus far are any indication). But I sure wouldn't demand full civilian trials for every person captured on the battlefield.
20 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonRight now, I imagine the folks in power in Iran are a tad nervous ever since the protests began regarding that suspicious election they held.
Do you know of any Americans who are attacking Iranian troops? Do you know of any Americans who are at war w/Iran?
I can easily imagine a scenario where the militia rounds up some Americans, blames all the unrest on a US plot to overthrow the government, and detains them indefinitely.
20 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI have trouble imagining a scenario where that sort of thing doesn't happen eventually.
Right now, I imagine the folks in power in Iran are a tad nervous ever since the protests began regarding that suspcious election they held.
I can easily imagine a scenario where the militia rounds up some Americans, blames all the unrest on a US plot to overthrow the government, and detains them indefinitely.
How about when they detained those British sailors on some bogus claim that they entered Iranian waters when, in fact, they did not? That was an illegal detention.
20 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76I guess my original question should have been, should the president accept that Iran would have the right to detain Americans without a trial.
First of all, Iran does do that in any case.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=8236485
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985731.html
Second, of course we would not "accept" Iran doing it, just like they don't "accept" us doing it either.
The question isn't whether the other guy would accept your doing it; the question is whethe ...[text shortened]... sure wouldn't demand full civilian trials for every person captured on the battlefield.
There is much to debate regarding the type of trial that would protect Americans from enemy attack while also being fair to the people we take prisoner.
But we can't have a double standard. Whatever policy we use regarding the foreign prisoners we detain, we must accept that other countries have the right to use the same exact policy regarding any American prisoners they detain.
20 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut we trust ourselves.
I guess my original question should have been, should the president accept that Iran would have the right to detain Americans without a trial.
There is much to debate regarding the type of trial that would protect Americans from enemy attack while also being fair to the people we take prisoner.
But we can't have a double standard. Whatever policy we ...[text shortened]... tries have the right to use the same exact policy regarding any American prisoners they detain.
And we don't trust them.
Surely that's a salient difference; no?
20 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I'm sure Iran would utter the same words.
But we trust ourselves.
And we don't trust them.
Surely that's a salient difference; no?
But why should we even trust ourselves? Human beings, even those from America, can do lots of bad stuff once the door is shut.
To ensure maximal trust, the process needs to be clear to everyone, and it needs to be done in the open where everyone can observe it. This would also set a good example for other countries to be just as transparent in their proceedings against our prisoners.
20 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI was half joking with that previous post. Maybe it didn't come through in print.
I'm sure Iran would utter the same words.
But why should we even trust ourselves? Human beings, even those from America, can do lots of bad stuff once the door is shut.
To ensure maximal trust, the process needs to be clear to everyone, and it needs to be done in the open where everyone can observe it. This would also set a good example for other countries to be just as transparent in their proceedings against our prisoners.
I do think you cannot draw a complete moral equivalency between what you do and what you fear other countries might do to you. If you can, then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
20 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76Your previous post actually was a legitimate point. Trust is important.
I was half joking with that previous post. Maybe it didn't come through in print.
I do think you cannot draw a complete moral equivalency between what you do and what you fear other countries might do to you. If you can, then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Some argue that the US should do whatever it takes to protect its own citizens, no matter how vile or barbaric, and so what if some other country tries to do the same thing to us, we'll just use our superior firepower to crush them.
But unless we are totally omnipotent, there will be times where we will need allies to help us get us out of a jam, and we might have a hard to time making a case if some nation is just using the same barbarism that we ourselves have been using against others.
This is one of the major reasons to oppose torture. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?
21 Jan 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonyeah, thats what they said but there's no evidence every single person who was being held was indeed a terrorist.
According to the military, most were picked up in Afghanistan"captured on the battlefield."
The Pentagon says the detainees fought alongside the Taliban during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan or they have direct links to Al Qaeda. Therefore they are enemy combatants.
Once determined by the president to be an enemy combatant, persons may be held i ...[text shortened]... serves the important purpose of preventing enemy combatants from continuing their attacks.
21 Jan 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonyou don't see anything wrong with detaining people indefinitely without charge?
As stated above:
They need not be 'guilty' of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war. This detention is not an act of punishment but one of security and military necessity. It serves the important purpose of preventing enemy combatants from continuing their attacks.
Im guessing you're also in favor of concentration camps.
21 Jan 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotstrawman.
well, hell, let's let them all go, then.
It is well-known that people were being held even though they were not a threat to the US (see Uyghurs).
Nevertheless, I never said they should all be released, but detaining them indefinately without a trial is simply unrealistic. GW Bush was not necessarily wrong about guantanamo, but his approach was simply not going to work in the long-term.
Also, the way the US military allowed abuse to happen only goes to show how things went wrong.
21 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotso now the US went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"?
if your criteria for holding ANY terrorists at guantanamo isn't that they are ALL terrorists, then why even say?: "yeah, thats what they said but there's no evidence every single person who was being held was indeed a terrorist."
why release someone who's not proven innocent?
edit- looks like its not very far away from stalinist russia.