Guantanamo Bay
Posted by: Deane F on 09 November 2004
I'd like to extend an invitation to members of the forum who are citizens of the United States of America to comment about the detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
Would US forum members tolerate a foreign government detaining US citizens or soldiers without access to some processes to protect civil liberties (that are in place in the US jurisdiction for this purpose)?
Do US forum members think that the solid and proven "due process" of the law in the US jurisdiction might be eroded by the Guantanamo Bay affair through the (blithe ?) disregard of these processes when the place of detention is outside the US jurisdiction?
Do US forum members think that the detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay reflects an honourable light upon their government?
Deane
Would US forum members tolerate a foreign government detaining US citizens or soldiers without access to some processes to protect civil liberties (that are in place in the US jurisdiction for this purpose)?
Do US forum members think that the solid and proven "due process" of the law in the US jurisdiction might be eroded by the Guantanamo Bay affair through the (blithe ?) disregard of these processes when the place of detention is outside the US jurisdiction?
Do US forum members think that the detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay reflects an honourable light upon their government?
Deane
Posted on: 09 November 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Do US forum members think that the detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay reflects an honourable light upon their government?
Honourable? No. Accurate portrait of current administration? Pretty much.
Posted on: 09 November 2004 by ejl
Deane,
There's not going to be a single "US forum members' response", but IMO the answer to all of your questions is a clear no.
People in the U.S., or at least some of them, know full well that the Guantanamo detainees are being held in violation both of basic principles of U.S. law and of the Geneva Convention to which the U.S. is a party.
The Bush Administration is simply trying to bypass all of this and exercise direct and unmediated executive power. There are some hopeful signs from the judicial branch that it is finally intervening. Yesterday's U.S. District Court ruling that the president had gone outside the law with the proposed military commission trial process is the most recent. The Bush Admin. is certain to appeal, but it's not clear they'll succeed: the Supreme Court did not seem very sympathetic to the Bushies when it reaffirmed the right of Guantanamo detainees to get judicial review last June.
These is still far from a complete restoration of law, but they are positive steps against the flagrant violation of rights by Bush.
As far as the "honorable light on the government" stuff goes, you're joking, right?
There's not going to be a single "US forum members' response", but IMO the answer to all of your questions is a clear no.
People in the U.S., or at least some of them, know full well that the Guantanamo detainees are being held in violation both of basic principles of U.S. law and of the Geneva Convention to which the U.S. is a party.
The Bush Administration is simply trying to bypass all of this and exercise direct and unmediated executive power. There are some hopeful signs from the judicial branch that it is finally intervening. Yesterday's U.S. District Court ruling that the president had gone outside the law with the proposed military commission trial process is the most recent. The Bush Admin. is certain to appeal, but it's not clear they'll succeed: the Supreme Court did not seem very sympathetic to the Bushies when it reaffirmed the right of Guantanamo detainees to get judicial review last June.
These is still far from a complete restoration of law, but they are positive steps against the flagrant violation of rights by Bush.
As far as the "honorable light on the government" stuff goes, you're joking, right?
Posted on: 09 November 2004 by Deane F
ejl
"honorable light on the government" etc. I was trying very hard not to let irony creep too far into my questions. Of course I have my own position with regard to Guantanamo Bay but I don't want to colour any discussion or provoke offence by being too blunt with my feelings.
I am open to the opinions of anybody but especially US citizens because they have the most direct investment in the checks and balances that are (supposed) to be ensured by the separation of powers in their government.
I suppose I should add that I am interested to see if the discussion is collapsed back to September 11 as (to paraphrase) "the beginning which justifies the means".
Deane
"honorable light on the government" etc. I was trying very hard not to let irony creep too far into my questions. Of course I have my own position with regard to Guantanamo Bay but I don't want to colour any discussion or provoke offence by being too blunt with my feelings.
I am open to the opinions of anybody but especially US citizens because they have the most direct investment in the checks and balances that are (supposed) to be ensured by the separation of powers in their government.
I suppose I should add that I am interested to see if the discussion is collapsed back to September 11 as (to paraphrase) "the beginning which justifies the means".
Deane
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Two-Sheds
I thought this issue has been before several courts in the US and all of them ruled against that it was pretty much illegal. There was an article on the BBC a few days ago and a trial of an inmate there has been stopped due to a ruling from a judge.
Can anyone else confirm my thoughts above and have any links to court rulings on this issue?
Can anyone else confirm my thoughts above and have any links to court rulings on this issue?
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by matthewr
Quite apart from the legality and morality of all this, is the fact that it appears that the vast majority, if not all, of the detainees have done nothing wrong.
Certainly it seems likely that none of them are anything remotely approaching "International Terrorists" and, apart from the bloke who made up some shit about the Brooklyn Bridge being attacked based on the plot of the movie "Godzilla", have provided exactly zero intelligence.
Matthew
Certainly it seems likely that none of them are anything remotely approaching "International Terrorists" and, apart from the bloke who made up some shit about the Brooklyn Bridge being attacked based on the plot of the movie "Godzilla", have provided exactly zero intelligence.
Matthew
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Phil Barry
Deane,
As a loyal US citizen, I am very insulted by this thread. You have obviously missed the point.
My President is God's chosen one; he obviously can do no wrong.
His many speeches in defense of liberty and his private conversations about Christian love (see The Faith of George W. Bush) are cornerstones of his policies. The fact that you can't see the connection between liberty and love and his treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo says more about you, perhaps, than it does about our President.
The fact that these prisoners seem to have done nothing wrong is beside the point. Suppose they HAVE done evil. How could we punish them if we didn't hold them? Yes, we're violating their 4th amendment rights...but they don't have 4th amendment rights, since the prisoners were taken in Afghanistan. Besides, we have the Patriot Act to override the Constitution.
Boy, this sucks! I can't do this much longer....
In fact, W's administration makes me ashamed to be an American.
It turns out that I'm a graduate of the girst Baptist college in this country. For the life of I can't see how the so-called 'Christian' Right (or anyone else) can support.
Doesn't the Bible say tell us to treat 'strangers' well? Doesn't our Constitution protect citizens from government oppression? Bush violates these precepts.
Isn't it unlikely that 'strangers' will value our ways if we preech 'liberty' but practice autocracy and conduct a 'crusade' against adherents of another religion? Bush obvioulsy thinks preaching has more impact that actions.
The Gitmo incarcerations are only the tip of an iceberg of shame for my country.
There are some bright spots, however. Note, for example, that numerous lawyers in many parts of the country fought the administration on the Gitmo policy. Note that even a Republican Supreme Court ruled against W.
The advantage in our system goes to the one who acts - and Bush has acted. The checks and balances take a lot of time to work. All is not yet lost.
Besides, no matter what the US does, in 50 years we'll all pay tribute to China, who will have no patience for the non-Chinese world's inter-ethnic and inter-religious rivalries.
Regards.
Phil
As a loyal US citizen, I am very insulted by this thread. You have obviously missed the point.
My President is God's chosen one; he obviously can do no wrong.
His many speeches in defense of liberty and his private conversations about Christian love (see The Faith of George W. Bush) are cornerstones of his policies. The fact that you can't see the connection between liberty and love and his treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo says more about you, perhaps, than it does about our President.
The fact that these prisoners seem to have done nothing wrong is beside the point. Suppose they HAVE done evil. How could we punish them if we didn't hold them? Yes, we're violating their 4th amendment rights...but they don't have 4th amendment rights, since the prisoners were taken in Afghanistan. Besides, we have the Patriot Act to override the Constitution.
Boy, this sucks! I can't do this much longer....
In fact, W's administration makes me ashamed to be an American.
It turns out that I'm a graduate of the girst Baptist college in this country. For the life of I can't see how the so-called 'Christian' Right (or anyone else) can support.
Doesn't the Bible say tell us to treat 'strangers' well? Doesn't our Constitution protect citizens from government oppression? Bush violates these precepts.
Isn't it unlikely that 'strangers' will value our ways if we preech 'liberty' but practice autocracy and conduct a 'crusade' against adherents of another religion? Bush obvioulsy thinks preaching has more impact that actions.
The Gitmo incarcerations are only the tip of an iceberg of shame for my country.
There are some bright spots, however. Note, for example, that numerous lawyers in many parts of the country fought the administration on the Gitmo policy. Note that even a Republican Supreme Court ruled against W.
The advantage in our system goes to the one who acts - and Bush has acted. The checks and balances take a lot of time to work. All is not yet lost.
Besides, no matter what the US does, in 50 years we'll all pay tribute to China, who will have no patience for the non-Chinese world's inter-ethnic and inter-religious rivalries.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
Besides, no matter what the US does, in 50 years we'll all pay tribute to China, who will have no patience for the non-Chinese world's inter-ethnic and inter-religious rivalries.
Just ask the Tibetans.
Steve M
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Phil Barry
Depends on your viewpoint - independent country or rebellious province? Besides the Tibetans aren't 'Western'.
Taiwan, too, despite being independent from China since 1895. And before 1895, it was in fairly constant rebellion.
But not many of us are speaking up for an independent Taiwan.
Tai du wan swei!
I don't welcome chinese hegemony; I just expect it. And overall, they'll probably just be different from previous hegemons - not better or worse - with different elemenst gaining and losing than, say, when the Brits really ruled the waves.
Phil
Taiwan, too, despite being independent from China since 1895. And before 1895, it was in fairly constant rebellion.
But not many of us are speaking up for an independent Taiwan.
Tai du wan swei!
I don't welcome chinese hegemony; I just expect it. And overall, they'll probably just be different from previous hegemons - not better or worse - with different elemenst gaining and losing than, say, when the Brits really ruled the waves.
Phil
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
There are some bright spots, however. Note, for example, that numerous lawyers in many parts of the country fought the administration on the Gitmo policy. Note that even a Republican Supreme Court ruled against W.
The advantage in our system goes to the one who acts - and Bush has acted. The checks and balances take a lot of time to work. All is not yet lost.
Phil
Your observation that the advantage goes to the one who acts is all the more sad for it's accuracy. I am holding onto the hope that a vigilant US judiciary will triumph in the end. But the time spent in prison by the detainees has already passed from their lives and nothing will restore it to them if they are ever properly tried and guilt is not proved by the ones who bear the burden for the proving. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Your country has many bright spots in it's judicial history. Miranda v. Arizona, Billings Learned Hand ...
"What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow." --from "The Spirit of Liberty" collected speeches and writings of Learned Hand compiled by Irving Dilliard.
In New Zealand we have a similar shame to bear in the form of the detained Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui.
Deane
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by JonR
Don't get your hopes up about the US Supreme Court, y'all.
I heard the Chief Justice William Rehnquist is ill and may have to resign, leaving Bush with a golden opportunity to appoint a Republican in his place, which no doubt he'll do.
Whither fairness and justice in the US legal system?
JR
I heard the Chief Justice William Rehnquist is ill and may have to resign, leaving Bush with a golden opportunity to appoint a Republican in his place, which no doubt he'll do.
Whither fairness and justice in the US legal system?
JR
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by ejl
....and to make matters worse:
Alberto Gonzales chosen for Atty. General
Here's a quotation from Mr. Gonzales from a memo of 2002:
"The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians ... in my judgment renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners."
Sigh.
Alberto Gonzales chosen for Atty. General
Here's a quotation from Mr. Gonzales from a memo of 2002:
"The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians ... in my judgment renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners."
Sigh.
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by JonR:
Don't get your hopes up about the US Supreme Court, y'all.
I heard the Chief Justice William Rehnquist is ill and may have to resign, leaving Bush with a golden opportunity to appoint a Republican in his place, which no doubt he'll do.
Whither fairness and justice in the US legal system?
JR
I have often wondered at the political appointment of Judges to the US Supreme Court. Judicial tenure means that the effects of stacking the Court can continue long after the administration which appointed them has passed.
Then again, tenure fosters the independence of the judiciary by freeing the judges from the fear of removal for an unpopular decision.
Deane
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Jim Lawson
Sorry I missed you there for bit. Good question(s)as always
As U.S. courts have recognized, going back to the Civil War, a court can no more review the commander in chief's battlefield detentions than it can ovrule a decision to bomb Baghdad. To do either would be equally absurd and would equally trespass on the president's fundamental powers.
As U.S. courts have recognized, going back to the Civil War, a court can no more review the commander in chief's battlefield detentions than it can ovrule a decision to bomb Baghdad. To do either would be equally absurd and would equally trespass on the president's fundamental powers.
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
...and would equally trespass on the president's fundamental powers.
Yikes!
We wouldn't want to be doin' that now would we?
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 10 November 2004 by Deane F
Jim
Are the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay "battlefield detentions"?
You will forgive my bluntness, I hope, but that is at best a specious argument. Do you classify the September 11 attacks as a crime, or an act of war by a sovereign power?
And has the entire planet been a battlefield upon which the US has fought since the moment the Twin Towers were attacked? Is that what you mean?
Deane
Are the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay "battlefield detentions"?
You will forgive my bluntness, I hope, but that is at best a specious argument. Do you classify the September 11 attacks as a crime, or an act of war by a sovereign power?
And has the entire planet been a battlefield upon which the US has fought since the moment the Twin Towers were attacked? Is that what you mean?
Deane
Posted on: 11 November 2004 by Jim Lawson
Yes they are "battlefield detentions".
I would classify the attacks as both a crime and an act of war.
No. That is not what I mean. I wonder how you came to that assumption.
Jim
[This message was edited by Jim Lawson on Thu 11 November 2004 at 18:00.]
[This message was edited by Jim Lawson on Thu 11 November 2004 at 18:01.]
I would classify the attacks as both a crime and an act of war.
quote:
has the entire planet been a battlefield upon which the US has fought since the moment the Twin Towers were attacked? Is that what you mean?
No. That is not what I mean. I wonder how you came to that assumption.
Jim
[This message was edited by Jim Lawson on Thu 11 November 2004 at 18:00.]
[This message was edited by Jim Lawson on Thu 11 November 2004 at 18:01.]
Posted on: 11 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
Yes they are "battlefield detentions".
I would classify the attacks as both a crime and an act of war.
Jim
For the purposes of inquiry, I'll accept for a moment that the attacks are both crimes and an act of war. My question would then be, what exactly restrains the exercise of presidential power? Is it just the next election? Your argument suggests that in times of war the president is above the law.
The attacks on the Twin Towers were not acts of war. An act of war is carried out by a sovereign nation. A sovereign nation has an international character, a legal system which is recognised by the populace, and a territory.
Are you interested in this discussion? If you are, then I invite you to engage in a little argument. I would prefer that to just reading your brief assertions.
Deane
Posted on: 18 November 2004 by Jim Lawson
Hi DeaneF
Sorry for the late reply on this. Bit busy with as of late. I am interested in this discussion.
Certainly there is a war between Israel and the Palestinians ?
What you prefer does not concern me.
The war making powers of a President are laid out in Article Two of the Constitution.
Regards
Jim
[This message was edited by Jim Lawson on Fri 19 November 2004 at 5:30.]
Sorry for the late reply on this. Bit busy with as of late. I am interested in this discussion.
quote:
A sovereign nation has an international character, a legal system which is recognised by the populace, and a territory.
Certainly there is a war between Israel and the Palestinians ?
quote:
I would prefer that to just reading your brief assertions.
What you prefer does not concern me.
quote:
what exactly restrains the exercise of presidential power? Is it just the next election?
The war making powers of a President are laid out in Article Two of the Constitution.
quote:This is the second time in one thread that you have made an incorrect assumption. What is your point ?!
Your argument suggests that in times of war the president is above the law.
Regards
Jim
[This message was edited by Jim Lawson on Fri 19 November 2004 at 5:30.]
Posted on: 18 November 2004 by Deane F
Hi Jim
I would be obliged if you could reconcile two statements you made in your last post. These are:
"I am interested in this discussion."
and
"What you prefer does not concern me."
What interests you in this discussion?
"This is the second time in one thread that you have made an incorrect assumption. What is your point ?!"
Fair question. To help me avoid any more mistaken assumptions please tell me, what is your point in mentioning the Arab/Israeli conflict? Is it your point that the war between Israel and Palestine is linked to the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? Or does it's mention illustrate a point that you think bears on this discussion about the detentions? If the first; what is the link? If the second; what is the point it illustrates?
I have read the Constitution. Article Two of the Constitution sets out a president's powers. I may be misunderstanding Section Two of Article Three, but doesn't it set the exercise of presidential powers within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
Deane
I would be obliged if you could reconcile two statements you made in your last post. These are:
"I am interested in this discussion."
and
"What you prefer does not concern me."
What interests you in this discussion?
"This is the second time in one thread that you have made an incorrect assumption. What is your point ?!"
Fair question. To help me avoid any more mistaken assumptions please tell me, what is your point in mentioning the Arab/Israeli conflict? Is it your point that the war between Israel and Palestine is linked to the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? Or does it's mention illustrate a point that you think bears on this discussion about the detentions? If the first; what is the link? If the second; what is the point it illustrates?
I have read the Constitution. Article Two of the Constitution sets out a president's powers. I may be misunderstanding Section Two of Article Three, but doesn't it set the exercise of presidential powers within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
Deane
Posted on: 19 November 2004 by Berlin Fritz
But will the prisoners be buying their chocoalte / fags etc with their hard earned wages usng the Yankee Dollar ?
FRitz Von Wannabuyanoldchevvie
FRitz Von Wannabuyanoldchevvie