Gitmo ruling - Writers Forum

alanmt · 06-13-2008, 07:07 AM

The US Supreme Court holds 5-4 that detainees in guantanamo bay have been afforded insufficient protections against wrongful detention.

The only thing that surprised me about the decision was how narrow the margin of vote was.

I praise the court for this ruling, even though to my legal mind the legal/constitutional principles involved make the result seem self-evident. I hope the rest of the world will realize that the current administration's abandonment of America's longstanding principles against torture and the right to challenge one's imprisonment was an unfortunate deviation, an overreaction to our first deadly brush with the effects of international terrorism. We know better, and we are fixing it.

To my mind, this issues transcends politics, but for the record, I am a Republican.

Malone · 06-13-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

To my mind, this issues transcends politics

Exactly. Wrong is wrong.

JosephB · 06-13-2008, 12:07 PM

All good.

But what about civilian combatants detained at other bases, say in Afghanistan? Or is this just at Gitmo?

Straylight · 06-13-2008, 12:17 PM

Bloody Kennedy... Terrorists are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions, routinely attack civilians, identify with no nationality and walk beneath no banner. They hide amongst women and children, they torture and behead journalists. It is ridiculous to expect to fight that kind of enemy whilst abiding by the rules of civilized warfare.

The purpose of the Geneva Conventions wasn't to hamstring the effectiveness of the more morally-upright force in a war... it was to provide for some degree of decency in a situation where two forces morally-upright enough to honor the Convention went to war. This is ridiculous.

The Constitution applies to Americans, not international detainees. Go go Gadget Judicial Activism.

As always, props to Scalia and Thomas. Would that we had more like them.

Malone · 06-13-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

As always, props to Scalia and Thomas. Would that we had more like them.

Please kill yourself. Now.

Yes, terrorists are bad. Too bad the majority of the people they're detaining and torturing aren't terrorists.

Straylight · 06-13-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malone

Please kill yourself. Now.

Very mature.

You first.

Quote:

Yes, terrorists are bad. Too bad over 95% of the people they're detaining and torturing aren't terrorists.

Did you know that 95% of statistics are made up by self-serving Liberals?

People who pay for, drive around, provide body-guard service and logistical/propoganda-support to terrorists are only one tiny step above terrorists, morally.

Non Serviam · 06-13-2008, 01:25 PM

British citizens, detained without charge or trial for five years or more. Makes my blood boil.

We can look forward to further delays and fudging now, so I'm minded to think Gordon Brown should just send the navy with orders to collect our people or leave the base in flames.

alanmt · 06-13-2008, 01:59 PM

Anyone who would trade our principles of freedom and fairness for security out of fear is a short-sighted coward; anyone who would do so out of hatred, a scoundrel.

These aren't nice terms. But they are apt descriptions.

Let me explain, lest this be seen as simple name-calling. My country was founded and built on Lockean philosophical concepts, that men have certain natural rights, and that government cannot infringe upon these rights, generally. One of these freedoms is liberty of movement, and more specifically freedom from governmental detention. Government may restrict this freedom to punish criminal activity and protect citizens from criminals, but only in a certain way, after due process of law, and with fundamentally fair and civilized procedures designed to guarantee that the innocent are not wrongfully detained. In time of war, enemy combatants once captured, must be given similar protections as soon as is feasible given the exigencies of war, but if there is any doubt as to the nature of the individual as an enemy conbatant, that must be resolved with even more immediacy. Terror is is a fairly new construct, falling in between criminal activity and war, occasionally looking more like one or the other. But it's not actually a war, in the traditional sense, and this has caused difficulty in how to craft policy. Terrorist acts often target civilians, and so cause increased fear amongst general citizens. Here in the United States, it is largely fear which has led to governmental acts of oppression against suspected terrorists.

What people like President Bush and others are actually doing with facilities like Gitmo is sacrificing the American philosophical ideals out of fear and anger at terrorists. With all due respect, this selling out, or trading away of the very concepts that make this nation great to save innocent lives is backwards. We have in wars past suffered the losses of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to preserve our freedom, our ideals, and while we mourn the price paid, no one would say that it was too high. So suddenly, 10,000 civilian lives - innocent victims it is true - are worth more than the spirit and hope and ideals of our great nation? I say no! And I say anyone who thinks so is more concerned about their own skin than doing the right thing and is a coward.

We punish despicable evil people for their evil acts - in our criminal justice system. But even these men and women are properly afforded those protections which make sure that only the guilty are punished, and that only such punishments as a civilized nation and people would impose are actually imposed. It is not the nature of the bad actor which dictates how they are treated in our system - everyone is or ought to be treated the same, for our system is based on high ideals which only work if that is the case.

We are a better country if we let ten terrorists go free, to avoid the horrible treatment of one person such as the poor tortured Canadian man. In this circumstance, our morality is not defined by how we treat those we like, but how we treat those we despise.

Ilasir Maroa · 06-13-2008, 03:46 PM

I agree with with Alan. It is more important to prevent the suffering of one innocent man, than to prevent the deaths of ten thousand innocents. It is better to sacrifice many lives to uphold one's upright moral principles, than to sacrifice one life for such a cowardly goal as safety and security.

alanmt · 06-13-2008, 04:38 PM

Oh, Ilasar! Would you like to get together tonight and mess around?

Umm, you aren't a minor, right?

The trade off is between security on one side and liberty, decency and fairness on the other. It is the principles which must be weighed, not the potential lives saved. The collateral costs in terms of innocent lives could vary significantly, of course. I would respectfully suggest that there is a disconnect in moral responsibility between affirmatively and deliberately depriving one person of liberty or life wrongly and failing to prevent the deaths of others from the intentional and unpredictable affirmative criminal acts of a third party.

I do question the effectiveness of and the actuality of the increased security resulting from trampling on the rights of terrorist suspects.

Shawn · 06-13-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Straylight

The Constitution applies to Americans, not international detainees. Go go Gadget Judicial Activism.

The Constitution is irrelevant. The world decided, in great wisdom and in a desperate time, to afford equal rights to all people.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It is international mandate, and these detainees are citizens of the international community. They deserve to be treated fairly as human beings, no matter if they are enemy combatants or not.

I'm against global totalitarianism, but this is one issue that should be universal, and not decided on the basis of fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDHR

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Straylight · 06-13-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

The Constitution is irrelevant. The world decided, in great wisdom and in a desperate time, to afford equal rights to all people.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

--snip for brevity--

SCOTUS (The Supreme Court) is neither tasked nor permitted to rule on Universal Declarations of anything (or indeed, any international agreement to which we are a signatory (unless that agreement is itself unconstitutional)). They are tasked, specifically, with determining the constitutionality of a given law, policy or practice.

The Constitution (their writ and the extent of their delegated right to decide) says nothing about the application of habeus corpus to POWs. Ergo... Judicial Activism.

Ilasir Maroa · 06-13-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

The Constitution is irrelevant. The world decided, in great wisdom and in a desperate time, to afford equal rights to all people.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It is international mandate, and these detainees are citizens of the international community. They deserve to be treated fairly as human beings, no matter if they are enemy combatants or not.

I'm against global totalitarianism, but this is one issue that should be universal, and not decided on the basis of fear.

Sorry, but the UDHR doesn't have the power to enforce it's "rules" as far as I know, and is rather more of a suggestion.

Non Serviam · 06-13-2008, 06:52 PM

What the... ?

Courts and treaties don't enforce rules. Men with guns do. I mean, the Supreme Court by itself is just a bunch of old men; I could beat up the whole lot of them with one arm behind my back.

But because we're decent people the men with guns obey the courts and the treaties.

We are decent people, right?

Straylight · 06-13-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Serviam

What the... ?

Courts and treaties don't enforce rules. Men with guns do. I mean, the Supreme Court by itself is just a bunch of old men; I could beat up the whole lot of them with one arm behind my back.

But because we're decent people the men with guns obey the courts and the treaties.

We are decent people, right?

I'm not the guy who said the Constitution was irrelevant in a discussion about a Supreme Court decision...

/shrug.

And I've heard Roberts has a mean left hook

.