Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
This was started because I said:

However, I know I am a naive irrational moron, but I believe in the above statement. However, most of these occupants at Gitmo have been trampling on other peoples rights (most particularly their right to life) and thus they have sacrificed their own rights.

I thought we were talking about the "most" part of the issue -- you are saying that there are occupants at Gitmo that have not been trampling on other peoples' rights -- how have they sacrificed their own rights?

And is the Administration even saying that most of the people in Gitmo have actually killed (American) people, or plotted in a meaningful way to kill (American) people? It seems like they are saying that the people "support terrorism" which can be stretched to cover a lot of things that fall far short of murder.

It's kinda Stalinist. Or something. Kewl.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This was started because I said:

However, I know I am a naive irrational moron, but I believe in the above statement. However, most of these occupants at Gitmo have been trampling on other peoples rights (most particularly their right to life) and thus they have sacrificed their own rights.

And then you said:

Think about the word "inalienable."

You were implying that by being inalienable they could not be taken away. I responded that they could not be transferred but taken away by the government.

I think it is clear that when you infringe on other peoples rights sometimes the government takes away yours. That is what our criminal justice system does, and that is what is happening at Gitmo.

I would also posit that if you have information that could save the lives of innocent people (or if not revealed innocent people will die) the government can take away your right not to be tortured.

If rights can just be taken away by the government when it's in the public interest (e.g., when a government official says it could save the lives of innocent people), then there's not really much to those rights, is there? When Thomas Jefferson et al. referred to inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, I don't think he meant that the government could simply annul those rights if it was in the name of the common good.

Everyone understoods that your right to liberty is not a right to whatever you please, regardless of the effects on others, and that if you harm other people you may be imprisoned. If so, your right to libery has not been violated.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If rights can just be taken away by the government when it's in the public interest (e.g., when a government official says it could save the lives of innocent people),

Who said that? No one said that. Rights just can't be arbitrarily taken away. There are certain times certain rights can be taken away when there is a compelling government reason. But it is very limited. That is what we call the criminal justice system. But you can't possibly argue that the government can never take our rights away. And what other reason would the government take our rights way other than the public interest. What other reason is there?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who said that? No one said that. Rights just can't be arbitrarily taken away. There are certain times certain rights can be taken away when there is a compelling government reason. But it is very limited. That is what we call the criminal justice system. But you can't possibly argue that the government can never take our rights away. And what other reason would the government take our rights way other than the public interest. What other reason is there?

Please apply the above to Gitmo. Or do you think it's not possible? I don't even remember what side you are on. I get you mixed up with club.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who said that? No one said that. Rights just can't be arbitrarily taken away. There are certain times certain rights can be taken away when there is a compelling government reason. But it is very limited. That is what we call the criminal justice system. But you can't possibly argue that the government can never take our rights away. And what other reason would the government take our rights way other than the public interest. What other reason is there?

At Guantanamo Bay, and other undisclosed places around the world, our government is locking people up. These people effectively have no rights. Our government asserts the ability to do as it pleases to these people, without the protections that might be afforded by our criminal justice system, the Constitution, or treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. The audacity of the legal theories applied to justify all of this is breathtaking. Most of the people who are locked up are not American citizens, but the case of Jose Padilla demonstrates that this government believes it can ignore these various protections even when it locks up an American citizen within this country, simply in the name of national security.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We got here from sebby's suggestion that non-citizens lack the rights that citizens possess. You don't seem to be arguing that anymore; it's not clear to me whether club is, since the distinction he's drawing between individual and constitutional rights is opaque to me.*

I'm drawing a distinction between human rights and constitutional rights. Non-citizens retain their human rights, but should not be entitled to rights under our constitution. Those human rights include the right to generally be free of torture, but do not necessarily include the right, for example, to a speedy trial.

So the Gitmo prisoners should not be tortured absent a really good reason to do so. But those same prisoners are not entitled to a jury of their peers and the government should not necessarily have the same proof standards as it would in a criminal action against a citizen.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At Guantanamo Bay, and other undisclosed places around the world, our government is locking people up. These people effectively have no rights. Our government asserts the ability to do as it pleases to these people, without the protections that might be afforded by our criminal justice system, the Constitution, or treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. The audacity of the legal theories applied to justify all of this is breathtaking. Most of the people who are locked up are not American citizens, but the case of Jose Padilla demonstrates that this government believes it can ignore these various protections even when it locks up an American citizen within this country, simply in the name of national security.

The people at Gitmo are not citizens and should not necessarily have rights under our criminal justice system or the Constitution. They also don't fall into the protected class under the Geneva Convention. That is not to say that there should not be a process for these people, but exactly what that process should be is unclear.

The government, rightfully so, does not want to grant these people protections under our Constitution/justice system, because given the circumstances underwhich they were taken prisoner, the integrity of the evidence gathering process was not among the first concerns of the troops in battle. It's also probably not a good idea (for the prisoners) to have a jury trial, given circumstances. So they are discussing military tribunals, which I understand are not a new concept.

The government should get moving on establishing the process and trying these people under it.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
so it's more inalienable than death?

Given that death is a certainty and torture is always at someone's option, I would think that would be self-evident.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The people at Gitmo are not citizens and should not necessarily have rights under our criminal justice system or the Constitution. They also don't fall into the protected class under the Geneva Convention. That is not to say that there should not be a process for these people, but exactly what that process should be is unclear.

This idea that the Geneva Conventions were intended to create a class of people ("enemy combatants") who would be unprotected is historically flimsy. And other things that our military has done to evade the Geneva Conventions and other protections -- e.g., a signed Presidential letter to give military personnel a necessity defense to any prosecution -- are flimsier still.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This idea that the Geneva Conventions were intended to create a class of people ("enemy combatants") who would be unprotected is historically flimsy. And other things that our military has done to evade the Geneva Conventions and other protections -- e.g., a signed Presidential letter to give military personnel a necessity defense to any prosecution -- are flimsier still.

I'm not a Geneva Convention scholar, and in fact have never read it, but I don't think it creates the enemy combatant classification. I think it defines a class of people who are entitled to the protections, but the Gitmo prisoners fall outside that definition. So I don't think you have your facts straight.

Then again, I may be wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not a Geneva Convention scholar, and in fact have never read it, but I don't think it creates the enemy combatant classification. I think it defines a class of people who are entitled to the protections, but the Gitmo prisoners fall outside that definition. So I don't think you have your facts straight.

That may be. I do the exceptions to the Geneva Convention appear to be swallowing the rules, and that we are all the worse off for it. We managed to win World War II without abandoning the idea of treating captured combatants according to civilized standards. Our treatment of various people at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and elsewhere is counterproductive in the long run.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That may be. I do the exceptions to the Geneva Convention appear to be swallowing the rules, and that we are all the worse off for it. We managed to win World War II without abandoning the idea of treating captured combatants according to civilized standards. Our treatment of various people at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and elsewhere is counterproductive in the long run.

It must be pretty to see the world your way!

Say if mohammad Atta was caught the morning of Sept. 11. What would you charge him with? Trying to take a knife on a plane?

I've done that.

Having literature that talks about Jihad?

That's not illegal.

Your way we'd let him go.

When european countries try these guys they are released. the laws don't respond to the reasons we want them locked up. the reason is they are at war with us, but not in uniform. We are confronted by things we are not presently legally equipped to deal with. I would rather fuck up the lives of some innocents snatched from an Afghan battlefield, then have the Sears tower crumble to the ground next year.

Maybe you can find a long blog cite to show how unreasonable my position is?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It must be pretty to see the world your way!

Say if mohammad Atta was caught the morning of Sept. 11. What would you charge him with? Trying to take a knife on a plane?

I've done that.

Having literature that talks about Jihad?

That's not illegal.

Your way we'd let him go.

When european countries try these guys they are released. the laws don't respond to the reasons we want them locked up. the reason is they are at war with us, but not in uniform. We are confronted by things we are not presently legally equipped to deal with. I would rather fuck up the lives of some innocents snatched from an Afghan battlefield, then have the Sears tower crumble to the ground next year.

Maybe you can find a long blog cite to show how unreasonable my position is?

So charge him with conspiracy. If the penalties aren't severe enough, make it so conspiracy to commit terrorism is punished more. If the laws don't fit well, change the laws, but don't ignore them.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not a Geneva Convention scholar, and in fact have never read it, but I don't think it creates the enemy combatant classification. I think it defines a class of people who are entitled to the protections, but the Gitmo prisoners fall outside that definition. So I don't think you have your facts straight.

Then again, I may be wrong.

I think your characterization is more literally correct than than Ty's. However, getting from there to "since they aren't protected, but can do to them exactly all the things that the Convention was designed to prevent" takes the sort of parsing interpretation that has created the tax shelter industry and was relied on by Enron and Tyco in looking interpreting the tax and securities laws, and look at the fucking mess that created.

Of course, Enron and Tyco affected taxpayers' money and the detainees at Gitmo are just a bunch of foreign terrorists, right? If Ed Meese were posting he'd remind us that if they wren't guilty, they wouldn't be detained.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It must be pretty to see the world your way!

Say if mohammad Atta was caught the morning of Sept. 11. What would you charge him with? Trying to take a knife on a plane?

I've done that.

Having literature that talks about Jihad?

That's not illegal.

Your way we'd let him go.

When european countries try these guys they are released. the laws don't respond to the reasons we want them locked up. the reason is they are at war with us, but not in uniform. We are confronted by things we are not presently legally equipped to deal with. I would rather fuck up the lives of some innocents snatched from an Afghan battlefield, then have the Sears tower crumble to the ground next year.

Maybe you can find a long blog cite to show how unreasonable my position is?

I'll settle for merely asking you what that does to our ability to protest in good faith when China decides it would rather lock up a bunch of American "agitators" than have another Tienanmen Square rebellion?