Originally posted by RSMA1234who said USA are a democracy?
Every democray / nation has the right to defend itself.
But in the defence of itself, should it break the fundemental principles that are by defination implied in a democray ?
Freedom or movement, legal representation, freedom of information torture, a right to be tried in the courts ?
I would have to say the whole Gitmo thing is just a remarkable enigma.
Whether it was Bush himself, or a lowly minion, whoever made the decision to create the facility shot the Administration in the foot in several ways.
If the Jumah detention cannot be justified with specific charges by now, then he should be freed, and repatriated (if this is his desire)...it is no more acceptable for the Bush to detain individuals in this manner than it is for example, for the junta in Myanmar to detain the monks...
If there are specific charges for which they can be brought to book, then they should be presented, and his consequent legal rights respected.
And if they were "simply" POW's, then those rights should be bestowed.
What is most curious of all, is that these people are "on display" in the first place.
Originally posted by RSMA1234Terrorists or suspected terrorists have no rights under the US Constitution and its debatable whether they have rights under the Geneva Convention.
Every democray / nation has the right to defend itself.
But in the defence of itself, should it break the fundemental principles that are by defination implied in a democray ?
Freedom or movement, legal representation, freedom of information torture, a right to be tried in the courts ?
And as for 'torture' or interrogation methods, which is harsher ... sleep deprivation and 'water boarding' or being feed into a wood chipper feet first?
I mean if we really want to be harsh with the detainees in Camp Gitmo, we could invite a Mossad interrogation team come visit.
Even Bill Clinton in a interview this past weekend stated that if the situation was time critical and involved the saving of lives, he didn't care what interrogation method was used as long as those who participated took personal responsibility for their actions. He used the example of the fictional character, Jack Bauer.
The point being if say for example, the information obtained prevented a 'dirty bomb' from being set off on American soil in the next 24 hrs, those who obtained the information would be exonarated(sp?).
Originally posted by SMSBear716
Terrorists or suspected terrorists have no rights under the US Constitution and its debatable whether they have rights under the Geneva Convention.
I do agree with the principle, most definitely, such rights were yielded when they participated in the terrorist act...but ...if his (or their) participation cannot be demonstrated, at least towards if not without, "reasonable doubt", in any established legal framework, after this length of time, then human rights are being ignored for reasons of "National Security" .
Under this situation, Bush is acting no differently to (for example) the junta in Myanmar detaining monks to "defend" their National Security.
(sorry to repeat myself)
And as for 'torture' or interrogation methods, which is harsher ... sleep deprivation and 'water boarding' or being feed into a wood chipper feet first?
I mean if we really want to be harsh with the detainees in Camp Gitmo, we could invite a Mossad interrogation team come visit.
He-he.
Oh, I'm quite sure there's plenty of home-grown talent...I mean, the wood-chipper sure sounds effective enough right there.
Medieval or modern, by suffering or serum, why aren't there any "signed confessions" yet?
Even Bill Clinton in a interview this past weekend stated that if the situation was time critical and involved the saving of lives, he didn't care what interrogation method was used as long as those who participated took personal responsibility for their actions. He used the example of the fictional character, Jack Bauer.
The point being if say for example, the information obtained prevented a 'dirty bomb' from being set off on American soil in the next 24 hrs, those who obtained the information would be exonarated(sp?).
I'd likely agree with that too, but then again, we are w-a-y past any time-critical events that these individuals may have been privy to, surely?
SMSBear, this discussion isn't even about how terrorists should be treated, it is about how people who might or might not be terrorists should be treated. It's only a small, but very significant difference. Is it acceptable that even 1 innocent is in there ? You will probably say yes, if it keeps your country safe. That's an understandable sentiment, but there is still a better way. Charge them, bring them to court, give them a change to prove their innocence and then see what you do with the guilty. Because isn't that the foundation of every western judical system, "innocent untill proven guilty" ?
Originally posted by Bartsas countless of appeals by this attorney proved, the US judicial system thinks they are guilty until proven innocent, that they have no rights.
SMSBear, this discussion isn't even about how terrorists should be treated, it is about how people who might or might not be terrorists should be treated. It's only a small, but very significant difference. Is it acceptable that even 1 innocent is in there ? You will probably say yes, if it keeps your country safe. That's an understandable sentiment, but ther ...[text shortened]... n't that the foundation of every western judical system, "innocent untill proven guilty" ?
Why? because they were labeled as enemy combatants. by whom? who knows? who cares?
My question is who can ever decide that you are below the status of human being and therefore without rights. another question is what happens when the people not staying at Guantanamo hotel stop caring how the prisoners where put there. Because that is when we have given the coup de grace to freedom.
Originally posted by SMSBear716what prevents you from being incarcerated in guantanamo? What if someone puts some explosive materials and some pictures with "I love Osama" in your house? WHat will stop whoever is responsible with that sh/thole to throw you in there without the hassle of a boring trial? Then we can read about you on someones blog and say that we dont care about you (you are guilty of course because you simply are there)and this cannot happen to us so may you rot in jail you filthy terrorist.
Yep.... any other questions?
Since we aren't told what Jumah's last name is (Thats convenient) we can't research who he is. We don't know why he is at Camp Gitmo, was he captured in a terrorist training camp? Was he captured as a non Iraqi fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan in which case that would seem to indicate he was a AQ member. Did he kill innocent ...[text shortened]... , you'll have to do better than that.
BTW, democracies get to defend themselves as well.
It is easy now to put abduls and hassans and mohammeds in that jail because they are the right shade of arab. The problem is that Hassan is a human being and therefore has the right to all the nice stuff we call human rights. If hassan is denied those rights for any reason, then maybe Irv the jew will be next, or Juan the mexican. And once you take care of the minorities, there are always some members of the proud arian race that could use a holiday at Guantanamo resort.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou still refuse to answer my question. MAybe its because you don't know or maybe its cause you won't say. So who is Jumah? Is he real?
what prevents you from being incarcerated in guantanamo? What if someone puts some explosive materials and some pictures with "I love Osama" in your house? WHat will stop whoever is responsible with that sh/thole to throw you in there without the hassle of a boring trial? Then we can read about you on someones blog and say that we dont care about you (you a ...[text shortened]... are always some members of the proud arian race that could use a holiday at Guantanamo resort.
And what did he do to get to Club Gitmo. If you can't answer these basic questions, what is there to debate?
Your whole argument is flawed for one very good reason. I'm a citizen of the United States of America and have legal and Constitutional protection. Jumah we must assume is not an American citizen so he can't claim any rights provided by the Constitution. One assumes he wasn't in the military of any nation, so he doesn't have any rights under the Geneva Convention as a combatant. He has the same rights as I would if my profession was mercenary and I was captured fighting against , oh say, the Iranians.
BTW, Illegal immigrant Mexicans in the United States don't have any rights either. Well maybe the right to get the heck back to Mexico.
Originally posted by SMSBear716No one has to answer your question, because you are turning the judical system upside down. We do not have to say why he shouldn't be there, you have to tell us why he should, burden of proof rests on the accuser.
You still refuse to answer my question. MAybe its because you don't know or maybe its cause you won't say. So who is Jumah? Is he real?
And what did he do to get to Club Gitmo. If you can't answer these basic questions, what is there to debate?
Your whole argument is flawed for one very good reason. I'm a citizen of the United States of America and h ...[text shortened]... tates don't have any rights either. Well maybe the right to get the heck back to Mexico.
As to your second point, some quick reading brought me to the bill of rights, 6th amendament.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Note the "In ALL criminal prosecutions", you are accusing the people in guantanamo of a criminal act, so they have the right to trial, american or not.
Also, in the Geneva convetions, article 5:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
I haven't heard of any such tribunals being set up to clarify the status of those detained in guantanamo. (You may correct me if I am wrong about these tribunals.)
Originally posted by SMSBear716you miss my point. the constitution only accepts the fundamental human rights and promise to uphold them for americans. however the fundamental human rights are universal, you know, the right to freedom that jumah has just as much right as you proud american. i am saying that if one human being is deprived of the right to freedom it won't take long until other categories are labeled "enemy combatants" and sent to gitmo as you call it. after all, the nazis started with jews and after a while, retards, insanes and political disidents started getting one way tickets to gasing chambers.
You still refuse to answer my question. MAybe its because you don't know or maybe its cause you won't say. So who is Jumah? Is he real?
And what did he do to get to Club Gitmo. If you can't answer these basic questions, what is there to debate?
Your whole argument is flawed for one very good reason. I'm a citizen of the United States of America and h tates don't have any rights either. Well maybe the right to get the heck back to Mexico.
i am going so far as to say that it doesn't matter why jumah is there because we do not know and cannot know why is jumah there. he wasn't convicted or even charged. so if he is there for several years and the people who put him there don't accuse him of anything how can you name a reason for his incarceration?
it doesn't even matter if jumah is real. there are other people in there (i think none of them were ever charged and/or convicted of anything) who fit the profile.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundShould we just take the authorities word for it every time? At what point does the US then look like the former USSR under people like Stalin and Kruschov
Is it any better than what happened to Ken Bigley ? How many people does a terrorist have to kill before detention is permitted ?
Originally posted by kmax87A terrorist is rotting in the sun.....boo hoo, Wait while i bust a nut worrying about him.
Should we just take the authorities word for it every time? At what point does the US then look like the former USSR under people like Stalin and Kruschov
So, how many dead bodies do a terrorist make ? I for one would rather they didn't drive 4x4s at our airports, and sat in guantanamo till they die....no offence.
