Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free

[Tangerine]

Good. We think it's a very big deal indeed when our president shows disrespect and disdain for our legal system. Our culture places the citizen above the government. ompletely foreign concept for you, I'm sure, but that's us.

My problem with this part of the debate is that we are not talking about OUR legal system or CITIZENS of our (or any, for that matter) country. There's no way that important fact can be ignored in this discussion.

 

[Accountable]

:nod: Good point.

 

[Minor Axis]

My problem with this part of the debate is that we are not talking about OUR legal system or CITIZENS of our (or any, for that matter) country. There's no way that important fact can be ignored in this discussion.

LOL!! You should think before speaking.
We are talking exactly about our legal system and how we view individual's rights. Are you implying that foreign visitors to the U.S. can be thrown in jail and throw away the key without due process?? And the next time you visit a foreign country and are locked up indefinitely for something you did not do, you don't deserve any rights or fair treatment because you are a foreigner?

 

[Minor Axis]

For all his faults, and they were many, Bush wasn't a hypocrite. He considered the terrorists in Gitmo as prisoners of war and treated them as such. Obama claims they deserve all the rights we have in the US, but he's not following through on it. I hate hypocrites.

Your choice, he is an incredibly huge hypocrite, delusional, or a big fat lier, not to mention a criminal (along with Cheney) for foisting this war on the country. At a minimum he should be forced to face thousands of soldiers' families and beg forgiveness for the responsibility of their wasted deaths, as a result of his BULL SHIT agenda.

 

[dt3]

Your choice, he is an incredibly huge hypocrite, delusional, or a big fat lier, not to mention a criminal (along with Cheney) for foisting this war on the country. At a minimum he should be forced to face thousands of soldiers' families and beg forgiveness for the responsibility of their wasted deaths, as a result of his BULL SHIT agenda.

Hell, at least Bush and Cheney took the time to attend military funerals and visit military hospitals. To the best of my knowledge, Obama hasn't even bothered to do that yet.

 

[MoonOwl]

Hell, at least Bush and Cheney took the time to attend military funerals

Are you sure about that? Bush/Cheney were known for not attending any funerals for our Troops.

how many military funerals has george bush been to - Google Search

 

[dt3]

Are you sure about that? Bush/Cheney were known for not attending any funerals for our Troops.

You're right, I stand corrected. He met with the families, he didn't actually attend the funerals.

President Bush has met hundreds of families of fallen soldiers, but he has yet to attend a servicemember’s funeral, he said Tuesday.

“Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?” he said.


The appropriate way to express his appreciation to the family members of fallen troops is to meet with them in private, he said.

President Bush answers questions from downrange | Stars and Stripes


So I'll change my question. Has Obama met privately with the family of any soldier killed while he's been in office or visited one of the military hospitals?

 

[Tangerine]

LOL!! You should think before speaking.
We are talking exactly about our legal system and how we view individual's rights. Are you implying that foreign visitors to the U.S. can be thrown in jail and throw away the key without due process?? And the next time you visit a foreign country and are locked up indefinitely for something you did not do, you don't deserve any rights or fair treatment because you are a foreigner?

No, these people were not vistors to our country. They are being detained for acts of war committed outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system on foreign soil. No US judge, jury or higher legal authority has any standing in their cases.

Do I have concerns that their human rights are being violated? Most certainly. Should that have been in the past and should be in the future handled differently? Absolutely. But to attempt to apply elements of law or rights afforded to our citizens and vistors is misguided at best, laughable at worst.

 

[Minor Axis]

I have concerns that their human rights are being violated? Most certainly. Should that have been in the past and should be in the future handled differently? Absolutely. But to attempt to apply elements of law or rights afforded to our citizens and vistors is misguided at best, laughable at worst.

I admit there is a problem with this kind of a war versus a conventional war, in that this war could be never ending, but locking up people forever without a trial is not something this country has ever stood for. There is no compelling reason for that standard to change now.

 

[dt3]

I admit there is a problem with this kind of a war versus a conventional war, in that this war could be never ending, but locking up people forever without a trial is not something this country has ever stood for. There is no compelling reason for that standard to change now.

I agree completely. BUT our Constitution legally only applies to citizens of our country. Which is why I view the military tribunals as a very good compromise, and based on the number of people released over the years I have no reason to believe they're anything but fair.

 

[Accountable]

I admit there is a problem with this kind of a war versus a conventional war, in that this war could be never ending, but locking up people forever without a trial is not something this country has ever stood for. There is no compelling reason for that standard to change now.

Agreed. Another standard we shouldn't change is that we don't change the rules just because the results don't please us. If we screwed up the evidence and the rules state that we can't convict, we've got to let them go. Change the rules for those we capture later, but not for these guys.

 

[Tangerine]

I admit there is a problem with this kind of a war versus a conventional war, in that this war could be never ending, but locking up people forever without a trial is not something this country has ever stood for. There is no compelling reason for that standard to change now.

I could argue that native Ameicans have been, in effect, locked away permanently from their lands. Different, I know, but still similar enough to refute our American sense of "we have higher standards in how we treat people." I think there are a few hundred thousand Japanese-Americans who might also have something to say about how they were treated during WWII.

It sounds wonderful for say that we are "above" mistreating people. Sadly, our track record is not as clean as we'd like to believe.

 

[Tim]

I find this whole thread quite amusing to be sure...

I find this decision by Obama and his administration to be quite appalling. We need to put these people on trial if the evidence warrants or let them go. None of this bullshit of holding them so they won't possibly commit crimes in the future. That's just immoral and wrong.

I also find it hypocritical that those of you that had no problem with gitmo in the Bush years suddenly found religion now that Obama is in office. At least be consistent in your views on detainees and their detention...

 

[Accountable]

Wilson had more than 2000 political prisoners. The Sedition Act of 1918 made it illegal to publically critisize the government.

 

[Accountable]

I find this whole thread quite amusing to be sure...

I find this decision by Obama and his administration to be quite appalling. We need to put these people on trial if the evidence warrants or let them go. None of this bullshit of holding them so they won't possibly commit crimes in the future. That's just immoral and wrong.

I also find it hypocritical that those of you that had no problem with gitmo in the Bush years suddenly found religion now that Obama is in office. At least be consistent in your views on detainees and their detention...

This thread points out repeatedly that the is most INconsistent. He changed the definitions. He's declared that they are not POWs. Now he's trying to fashion new law out of whole cloth to justify his inconsistency.

 

[Tim]

This thread points out repeatedly that the is most INconsistent. He changed the definitions. He's declared that they are not POWs. Now he's trying to fashion new law out of whole cloth to justify his inconsistency.

And I have stated that I think it's just as wrong as when Bush was doing it.
I thought it was wrong then and I think it's wrong now. Actually I'm even more disappointed with Obama since I'm holding him to a higher standard when it comes to human rights. I can fully understand a Republican doing this, it's par for the course to just dismiss basic human rights in the name of security.

 

[Minor Axis]

I could argue that native Ameicans have been, in effect, locked away permanently from their lands. Different, I know, but still similar enough to refute our American sense of "we have higher standards in how we treat people." I think there are a few hundred thousand Japanese-Americans who might also have something to say about how they were treated during WWII.

It sounds wonderful for say that we are "above" mistreating people. Sadly, our track record is not as clean as we'd like to believe.

Well then you need to clarify what standard you think we need to strive for...

I've all ready said what I think the standard should be and that standard has been put into writing in our laws. How we treated native American's and Japanese Americans is recorded history, not something to be proud of, but at the time, it is what people did and may still do to each other when the opportunity presents itself. For the human race, it represents a step back, not a step forward. Hopefully you are not suggesting this failure of our past should be a standard to be strived for today are you?

 

[Accountable]

And I have stated that I think it's just as wrong as when Bush was doing it.
I thought it was wrong then and I think it's wrong now. Actually I'm even more disappointed with Obama since I'm holding him to a higher standard when it comes to human rights. I can fully understand a Republican doing this, it's par for the course to just dismiss basic human rights in the name of security.

Welcome to the dark side. You might be ready to read Common Sense, by Glenn Beck.

 

[Tim]

Welcome to the dark side. You might be ready to read Common Sense, by Glenn Beck.

I used to be a fan of Glen Beck before he completely lost his mind. As far as I'm concerned, he is so far off the reservation of reality that I have no use for his views.

It's funny how these people change. Years ago I would listen to Rush everyday. He actually made sense at one point. Same with Beck. But once you see these guys for who they are, it makes it very difficult/impossible to listen to them without laughing.

 

[Tangerine]

Well then you need to clarify what standard you think we need to strive for...

I've all ready said what I think the standard should be and that standard has been put into writing in our laws. How we treated native American's and Japanese Americans is recorded history, not something to be proud of, but at the time, it is what people did and may still do to each other when the opportunity presents itself. For the human race, it represents a step back, not a step forward. Hopefully you are not suggesting this failure of our past should be a standard to be strived for today are you?

No - I don't need to clarify anything. I'm not the one who suggested that we HAVE a particular standard. That was you. And you didn't say it was something to STRIVE for, you said we have NEVER stood for it. That is a false statement.

MY point is that we have no right to hold ourselves up as high and mighty when our standards are considerably LOWER in the area of human rights, historically. That doesn't mean we can't STRIVE for better, but you can't say that we are already THERE with blights like these in our history. (I never even mentioned how we treated blacks for several hundred years.) It's totally hypocritical.

And I again say what has been "put into writing in our laws" is completely irrelevant in this debate because the people at issue are not subject to them. I think it's ludicrous to think that our laws governing our people are somehow enforceable or even acceptable to the rest of the world. THAT is a prime example of the "American arrogance" that some people believe is what got us into this mess in the first place.