Blackhole or Not?

[Bull Barrel]

Gitmo Detainee Log released--here's the full story: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...169322,00.html
My poll is: do you think the dtention facility should be brought under the scrutiny of our legal system or returned to the "blackhole" of legal limbo...

[troy2000]

They're either criminals or they're prisoners of war, and should be treated as one or the other; I see no justification for creating a new catagory of "illegal enemy combatant" and using that as an excuse to do anything we want with them.

It's the sort of thing we used to scream at Soviet Russia about.

[Father Time]

If we believe in human rights, they should get due process.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

We should follow the Geneva Convention in which we a signatory of.

They are Prisoners of War and should be treated as such. However they are not your usual POW, in which if released will not simply go home they will join whatever resistence group they can find and start fighting again. Hold them as long as necessary, however I don't think we can get any more info out of them. After 3+ years if you ain't got it you ain't gonna.

[lefty o]

as far as im concerned, they are p.o.w's. they have no rights as defined in our constitution. their only rights are outlined in the geneva convention regarding prisoners of war, and as such that we are still at war with terrorism they can be kept in detention.

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by lefty o

as far as im concerned, they are p.o.w's. they have no rights as defined in our constitution.

I tend to agree. The only difference is that they do not fall under the Geneva definition of a legal combattant. Furthermore, our constitution is just that...OUR constitution. As such, it does NOT apply beyond our borders. These "p.o.w." are not within our borders and as such should not be afforded our due process.

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by Father Time

If we believe in human rights, they should get due process.

I strongly disagree. We can fully believe in human rights and still have them treated humanely but not given "due process" according to our rule of law. They were not captured in our country, they are not kept in our country, and are not under the jurusdiction of our law. Ergo, they are not entitled to "due process" of law that does not apply to them. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to Afghanistan or Iraq. It is the United States Constitution and only applies to the United States.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by troylaplante

I strongly disagree. We can fully believe in human rights and still have them treated humanely but not given "due process" according to our rule of law. They were not captured in our country, they are not kept in our country, and are not under the jurusdiction of our law. Ergo, they are not entitled to "due process" of law that does not apply to them. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to Afghanistan or Iraq. It is the United States Constitution and only applies to the United States.

Nowhere in the world is being kept in chainlink kennels considered humane treatment for any sort of prisoner.

Second, we don't throw due process out the window just because non-citizens are involved. A foreigner on trial in our courts is given the same rights as a citizen.

And to claim they can be held forever without even being charged, much less convicted, simply because the War on Terror isn't over is utter nonsense. "The War on Terror" is just a catch-phrase, with no legal meaning.

It would make as much sense to say that anyone arrested for a robbery or for passing a bad check can be held for the rest of his life without a trial, because he was captured during the "War on Crime", which isn't over either.

And how about "The War on Poverty"?

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Nowhere in the world is being kept in chainlink kennels considered humane treatment for any sort of prisoner.

Wrong.

Second, we don't throw due process out the window just because non-citizens are involved. A foreigner on trial in our courts is given the same rights as a citizen.

The difference being that these individuals were captured in battle, and not on our soil and therefore not under the jurisdiction of our law under which to have due process. Simple.

[Bull Barrel]

Originally Posted by troylaplante

I strongly disagree. We can fully believe in human rights and still have them treated humanely but not given "due process" according to our rule of law. They were not captured in our country, they are not kept in our country, and are not under the jurusdiction of our law. Ergo, they are not entitled to "due process" of law that does not apply to them. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to Afghanistan or Iraq. It is the United States Constitution and only applies to the United States.

Then whose jurisdiction are they under--if not ours? What protocol or standard is it that only recently has been adopted? How is it to be followed through? I prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" approach--otherwise anybody could end up a detainee--indefinitely--I see a serious corrosion of our (USA) standards in this line of reasoning.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by troylaplante

Wrong.

Okay, which countries keep prisoners in chain link kennels?

Originally Posted by troylaplante

The difference being that these individuals were captured in battle, and not on our soil and therefore not under the jurisdiction of our law under which to have due process. Simple.

And entitled to be treated according to the Geneva Convention. And besides, a good number of them weren't captured in battle. They were sold to us by the warlords of the Northern Alliance, who rounded up foreigners, strangers and people they didn't like for the bounty we were paying.

[troylaplante]

I don't see this as any corrosion of US standards at all. Actually, I see it as a higher standard. During war time, we put prisoners into POW camps. These prisoners are not exactly in Andersonville. AND they are not here in the U.S.

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Okay, which countries keep prisoners in chain link kennels?

Ever spent any time in a prison, even right here in America? I have. I have done plenty of work in several prisons. They weren't the best accommodations, but are still plenty humane. Plenty of chain link cages. Plenty of barred cells.
Try going to a Mexican prison and complaining about the treatment there. See how far that will get you.

And entitled to be treated according to the Geneva Convention.

And they are. The prisoners in question do not meet the definition of legal combattants according to that same convention agreement.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by troylaplante

Ever spent any time in a prison, even right here in America? I have. I have done plenty of work in several prisons. They weren't the best accommodations, but are still plenty humane. Plenty of chain link cages. Plenty of barred cells.
Try going to a Mexican prison and complaining about the treatment there. See how far that will get you.
And they are. The prisoners in question do not meet the definition of legal combattants according to that same convention agreement.

But no amount of Orwellian sophistry can change the facts: if they were picked up on a battlefield, they're prisoners of war. Or is it suddenly illegal simply to be fighting on the other side?

If they aren't prisoners of war they're criminal suspects, to be indicted or turned loose.

Unfortunately for them, whether you think American prisons are humane or not is irrelevent, because they aren't in one. They're in outdoor cages in Cuba. And to claim that, because our Navy base is leased from Cuba instead of owned outright by us, they aren't on American soil and subject to American laws is more smirking word games.

[Bull Barrel]

Beyond the words look to our American Values! We have fought against those powers that put people in concentration camps--we have fought to give the basic human rights to not only Americans, but to the whole world.

What are we to become by sliding down this slippery slope of semantics and loopholes--just because we can do what we want unopposed doesn't make it right or moral or even American (IMO).

We set the standard the rest of the world looks toward--what kind of example is it to continue using pseudo-military tribunals and concentration camps (calling them detainment facilities is merely word play). Better to have killed these suspects outright than to have them hung around our necks like an albatross.

What good can come of this erosion of our values and standards--the American way is fading, soon to be replaced by what is expedient, rather than what is just.

[7mmag6]

you guys watching this thread can I have a moments peace is that to hard to ask

[7mmag6]

I am very tired and I dont want to put up with your bull-!!!!

[7mmag6]

whos next got my foot at the ready who once to get kicked out im ready bring it on

[Mooseman684]

I say... Firing Squad!...Let ALLAH sort em out !:assult:
( I'm Counting Beans)

[7mmag6]

im getting a little tired of this guys