Lawyers for Cuban prisoners

[GrantDawg]

Linky

Court: Terror Suspects Must Get Lawyers


Dec 18, 3:01 PM (ET)

By DAVID KRAVETS



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Thursday for the first time that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba should have access to lawyers and the American court system.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 decision was a rebuke to the Bush Administration.

The administration maintains that because the 660 men held there were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial.

The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the detainees, picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.

The San Francisco appeals court, ruling Thursday on a petition from a relative of a Libyan the U.S. military captured in Afghanistan, said the Bush administration's indefinite detention of the men runs contrary to American ideals.

"Even in times of national emergency - indeed, particularly in such times - it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

"We cannot simply accept the government's position," Reinhardt continued, "that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement."

[Airhog]

I applaud this judge for upholding the constitution. I just do not feel it is right to hold anyone, no matter what they have done, for an indefinate period of time, without any legal counsel.

[rkmsuf]

I believe in the soul, the c___, the p____, high fiber,good Scotch. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
I believe in the soul, the c___, the p____, high fiber,good Scotch. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

You’re gullible, and a woman. (or is that redundant?)

[rkmsuf]

Young girls don't get wooly. They get weary.

[albionmoonlight]

Not to be lost--the question of whether what the government is doing the these detainees is constitutional (debatable) is separate from the question of whether what the government is doing to these detainees is right (of course it isn't).

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Not to be lost--the question of whether what the government is doing the these detainees is constitutional (debatable) is separate from the question of whether what the government is doing to these detainees is right (of course it isn't).

This isn't close to being both? Giving them lawyers and allowing them access to courts has to be considered right, whether technically constitutional or not.

[sterlingice]

Sorry, I gotta say, it's about f'ing time. I wonder if, 50 years from now, this is going to be one of those things glossed over in history books or made a big deal about like Japanese internment.

SI

[QuikSand]

Wow... so far this thread has surprised me. But I'll give it some time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ah yes, the good ol' 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The same group who gave us hits like:
Let's Postpone the California Election and You Can't Say God In the Pledge of Allegiance. And who can forget their timeless classic Decency Shouldn't Matter to the NEA.

As the Christian Science Monitor noted:"While the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being the most overruled appeals court in the country, legal analysts say the more important measure of performance is how often the court is overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court. In other words, how often the high court's more liberal justices reject the Ninth Circuit's reasoning.

"There is no shame in being reversed, but if a court starts getting unanimous reversals or summary reversals in very many cases, that ought to raise a red flag," says Mr. Ramsey.

Last term, the court unanimously reversed three Ninth Circuit cases and summarily reversed without opposition at least three others. A year earlier, eight were reversed unanimously. "

Consider too that:
-- In 1996-97, the Ninth Circuit was reversed in 27 of 28 cases, 16 of which were unanimous. In 1999-2000, the Ninth Circuit was reversed in 9 of 10 cases.
-- Between 1985 and 1997, the Ninth Circuit was reversed unanimously (in non-summary dispositions) a total of 38 times while the other 11 regional appellate courts averaged fewer than 10 unanimous reversals each.
figures from The Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy

Yep, that's the group I'd hang my hat on

CS Monitor article on the 9th

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Ah yes, the good ol' 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The same group who gave us hits like:
Let's Postpone the California Election and You Can't Say God In the Pledge of Allegiance. And who can forget their timeless classic Decency Shouldn't Matter to the NEA.

As the Christian Science Monitor noted:"While the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being the most overruled appeals court in the country, legal analysts say the more important measure of performance is how often the court is overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court. In other words, how often the high court's more liberal justices reject the Ninth Circuit's reasoning.

"There is no shame in being reversed, but if a court starts getting unanimous reversals or summary reversals in very many cases, that ought to raise a red flag," says Mr. Ramsey.

Last term, the court unanimously reversed three Ninth Circuit cases and summarily reversed without opposition at least three others. A year earlier, eight were reversed unanimously. "

Consider too that:
-- In 1996-97, the Ninth Circuit was reversed in 27 of 28 cases, 16 of which were unanimous. In 1999-2000, the Ninth Circuit was reversed in 9 of 10 cases.
-- Between 1985 and 1997, the Ninth Circuit was reversed unanimously (in non-summary dispositions) a total of 38 times while the other 11 regional appellate courts averaged fewer than 10 unanimous reversals each.
figures from The Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy

Yep, that's the group I'd hang my hat on

CS Monitor article on the 9th

you smug right wing prick.

Oh wait, this is my CamEdwards account, not my albionmoonlight account.

Rock on, Jon!

Since I'm too lazy to read the actual story (I have 9 more hours of vacation, dammit!), can someone tell me how this ended up in the 9th Circuit to begin with? I mean, we're talking about Cuba here, not California.

[John Galt]

It's funny - the 9th gets a rap for being the most overturned, but it really has the same overturn rate as all the other active circuits. The stats commonly cited ignore the fact that most of the circuits only have 1 or 2 cases a year before the Supreme Court. The 9th is definitely more liberal, but its high overturn rate is largely a myth. The Supreme Court more often than not takes up a case in order to overturn it. In that regard, the 9th (by far the biggest and most active circuit) has way more overturns.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Wow... so far this thread has surprised me. But I'll give it some time.

Damn it, QS, you jinxed the thread.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Cam -- I'm sure that was just a hatchet job by the notoriously conservative & biased Christian Science Monitor

[albionmoonlight]

[originally posted by GrantDawg [/i]
This isn't close to being both? Giving them lawyers and allowing them access to courts has to be considered right, whether technically constitutional or not.

My point was that it may be the case that--due to the detainee's citizenship, where they were captured, and where they are being held--the constitution may not provide them with any protections. If so, the courts are powerless to help them because We The People only gave the courts the power to interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States. The courts' authority does not come from God or spring sua sponte, but from the Constitution.

Accordingly, there may be a loophole (for lack of a better term) under which the courts are powerless to act. If so, then the courts cannot force the executive branch to change its policy.

I simply wanted to point out that, even if the government does not have to change its policy because of the constitution, it should change its policy because it is the right thing to do. The state should not use its police power to indefinitely imprison people and give them no contact with the outside world without ever bringing charges or presenting any evidence whatsoever. Even if the government tells us off the record (i.e. through the media) that these people really are bad guys.

Charge them, give them a trial with limited protections based on national security concerns and the like, find the guilty ones guilty, and lock them up for the rest of their lives.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
My point was that it may be the case that--due to the detainee's citizenship, where they were captured, and where they are being held--the constitution may not provide them with any protections. If so, the courts are powerless to help them because We The People only gave the courts the power to interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States. The courts' authority does not come from God or spring sua sponte, but from the Constitution.

Accordingly, there may be a loophole (for lack of a better term) under which the courts are powerless to act. If so, then the courts cannot force the executive branch to change its policy.

I simply wanted to point out that, even if the government does not have to change its policy because of the constitution, it should change its policy because it is the right thing to do. The state should not use its police power to indefinitely imprison people and give them no contact with the outside world without ever bringing charges or presenting any evidence whatsoever. Even if the government tells us off the record (i.e. through the media) that these people really are bad guys.

Charge them, give them a trial with limited protections based on national security concerns and the like, find the guilty ones guilty, and lock them up for the rest of their lives.

We are in complete aggreement, except I don't care if it is a court-forced solution or not.

[albionmoonlight]

[originally posted by CamEdwards [/i]


Since I'm too lazy to read the actual story (I have 9 more hours of vacation, dammit!), can someone tell me how this ended up in the 9th Circuit to begin with? I mean, we're talking about Cuba here, not California.

From a quick glance at the opinion, it looks like one of the detainee's brothers filed the petition as a "next friend." The brother lives in California. "Next friend" petitions are allowed to be filed on behalf of people who (for various reasons such as mental incompetence, unavailability, etc.) cannot file themselves.

I am sure that it was no accident that this was filed in the 9th Circuit--just like it is no accident that the actions filed by the government are filed in the 4th Circuit. Justice is mostly blind, but it is an unfortunate legal reality that smart lawyers know where the holes in the blindfold are. Since it is all going to the Supremes anyway, it is somewhat of a moot point.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Cam -- I'm sure that was just a hatchet job by the notoriously conservative & biased Christian Science Monitor

Well, the link doesn't work for me. I certainly don't think the myth has anything to do with the right wing media, just media in general. It has just become a "truth" and the easy numbers back it up, but when you look at the reasons why, the 9th is not really worse than the 2nd, DC, or other busy circuits. It makes for an easy story to write and the media likes that.

[JPhillips]

Of course this isn't anything important. Things will only get interesting if the Supremes rule against the government. If that happens I really think we could face a landmark when the admin delays complying for as long as they can.

[JW]

Lawyers? Constitutional rights? Indefinitely imprisoned? The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II?

These folks were combatants in an ongoing shooting war between radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and the US. It is a war in everything except name, because Congress no longer declares war, not since 1941.

How long were German and Japanese prisoners 'detained' during WWII? For the duration. This is not a law enforcement action; it is a war. These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants in an ongoing war. Judge Judy rules do not apply.

[JPhillips]

I think the Padilla ruling is actually more interesting. The court ruled that Padilla could not be held as an enemy combatant because the Non-Detention Act specifically forbids holding an American citizen without due process. Only an act of Congress can repeal this act or exempt someone from it. I didn't know of the Non-Detention Act, but it seems hard to argue against this ruling. I suppose the Supremes will end up with it, but this really does look like a loss for the Admin.

From the ruling:

....the Non-Detention Act provides: “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” 18 U.S.C. §4001(a). The District Court held that this language “encompasses all detentions of United States citizens.”

....Both the sponsor of the Act and its primary opponent repeatedly confirmed that the Act applies to detentions by the President during war and other times of national crisis. The legislative history is replete with references to the detentions of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II, detentions that were authorized both by congressional acts and by orders issued pursuant to the President’s war power. This context convinces us that military detentions were intended to be covered. Finally, the legislative history indicates that Congress understood that exceptions to the Non-Detention Act must specifically authorize detentions.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by JW
Lawyers? Constitutional rights? Indefinitely imprisoned? The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II?

These folks were combatants in an ongoing shooting war between radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and the US. It is a war in everything except name, because Congress no longer declares war, not since 1941.

How long were German and Japanese prisoners 'detained' during WWII? For the duration. This is not a law enforcement action; it is a war. These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants in an ongoing war. Judge Judy rules do not apply.

You keep using that "war" word over and over again, yet I see no declaration of war despite your rhetoric. So how can you claim these were people picked up at war?

But let's even concede this point: if it were war, then they would be POWs and subject to the rules of being a POW. On top of that, who are you then negotiating with about them? The Afghanistan provisional government?

You cannot have them just be in limbo because it's convenient to lock them up indefinitely during a war that no one ever declared for an unspecified duration.

SI

[yabanci]

Originally posted by JW
These folks were combatants in an ongoing shooting war between radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and the US.

How do you know what crimes these people committed, if any?

That's the problem.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Sorry, I gotta say, it's about f'ing time. I wonder if, 50 years from now, this is going to be one of those things glossed over in history books or made a big deal about like Japanese internment.

SI

Like President Lincoln suspending habeus corpus?

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Like President Lincoln suspending habeus corpus?

Hm, so maybe the moral of the story is: if you wait long enough, the revisionsist will forget about the things you do wrong and go onto something more trendy. I like it! It's a moral for the new millenium

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by JW
These folks were combatants in an ongoing shooting war between radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and the US.

I'm going to have my morning coffee after this post, so I promise to be a little less snippy in the future.

However, I have to ask how in blazes you can know that every single person over there is guilty of whatever you are accusing them (being at war with the US, possibly? When did that become a crime punishable by life in prision). Because CNN told you? Because the government told you in a press conference? Remember “I did not have sex with that woman?” Sometimes the president lies.

If, apparently, we can believe everything the government tells us about people that it claims are a danger to society, why do we have trials at all? Why shouldn't we just amend the constitution to allow the executive branch to secretly imprison anyone it wants forever as long as it has a press conference assuring us that these people are bad. It would save a lot of money with judges, lawyers, etc.

Again--I'm sorry for my tone in this post. I am just really sad and angry that my government is doing this and, apparently, most of my countrymen are willing to ignore it for the illusion of safety. My views are known. I don't think I am going to post in this thread anymore 'lest I turn it into a flame war.

Oh--and my best friend, cousin, grandfather, etc. are/were in the military, fighting for these basic human and/or constitutional rights about which I speak. Having these concepts dismissed as Judge Judy justice upsets me more than it should. It just seems very disrespectful.

[clintl]

As far as I'm concerned, the US government has two choices that are legally legitimate: treat them as criminals, and give them public trials with attorneys to defend them, or treat them as POWs with full rights provided the Geneva Convention. There is no legal or moral justification for not following one of these two paths, and as long as the Bush Administration persists with this delusional "enemy combatant" tactic, they are making the US an international scofflaw.

[Buccaneer]

I don't disagree but what will happen when one of those dirty bombers or detainees blow up a plane, stadium, etc.? Will we then hear an outcry of 'what we knew and when we knew it?' or 'why didn't you prevent this from happening?'

Also, I love it when I hear certain political extremist group cheer for this constitutional decision (which I can go along with). But where are they when the 1st or 2nd or certainly the 10th Amendment get assaulted by Congress and/or the courts? It seems the key phrase, "Congress shall make no law..." is stupid and irrelevant to them - except when it suits an agenda.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by JW
Lawyers? Constitutional rights? Indefinitely imprisoned? The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II?

These folks were combatants in an ongoing shooting war between radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and the US. It is a war in everything except name, because Congress no longer declares war, not since 1941.

How long were German and Japanese prisoners 'detained' during WWII? For the duration. This is not a law enforcement action; it is a war. These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants in an ongoing war. Judge Judy rules do not apply.

So what if tomorrow, the feds show up at your house, call you an enemy combatant and throw you in a detainment camp?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So what if tomorrow, the feds show up at your house, call you an enemy combatant and throw you in a detainment camp?

Airhog, if I'm spending my time sleeping with the enemy, there's no one to blame for my detainment but me.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Airhog, if I'm spending my time sleeping with the enemy, there's no one to blame for my detainment but me.

And we're back to the fallacy of assuming guilt. You haven't proven they are guilty so you can't say they are terrorists. These guys are not soldiers they captured in the field or anything. It's not like our intelligence in that part of the world is that great, either. That's just plain stupid rhetoric: "sleeping with the enemy". The whole point is that we don't know if they were on that side or not- hence the trials!

SI

[IMetTrentGreen]

i think everyone who agrees with the treatment at guantanimo should be tossed in there indefinately. then ask them

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
Young girls don't get wooly. They get weary.

I cannot, for the life of me, think of the correct lyrics now.

[JW]

Originally posted by Airhog
So what if tomorrow, the feds show up at your house, call you an enemy combatant and throw you in a detainment camp?

Unrelated hypothetical. The prisoners discussed in the story were foreign nationals captured during combat operations or related operations overseas, largely Afghanistan, mostly Taliban. US citizens suspected of terrorist action against the US and arrested in the US have been tried in US courts. Several, btw, have been convicted, i.e., the Buffalo and Seattle groups. The exception to this is Padilla, and the government was probably wrong in its dealings with Padilla. But the original story is not about Padilla.

Re albionmoonlight and sterlingice comments, not in any particular order.

Congress indeed has abdicated its responsibility to declare war. But if you listened to some of the post-9/11 discussion by members of Congress, some essentially said a traditional declaration of war is obsolete and that Congressional votes in support of combat action against Afghanistan were in effect a declaration of war. Frankly, I think that shows a lack of balls by Congress and believe war should have been declared. But we are indeed in a war, just like Korea was a war and Vietnam was a war, whether we call it that or not.

The question of how long to hold these people keeps coming up. They should be held for the duration of the conflict. That seems simple. We didn't let German and Japanese POWs go while the war was still going on. And I am sure there were some 15-year-old German POWs who had no choice but to serve and who never fired a shot in anger against US forces. Did we violate the rights of those hypothetical 15-year-olds by holding them indefinitely even if they took no active part in combat operations against the US and served against their will and had no valuable information to give us?

I do, btw, think the US erred in the treatment of these people. I believe as some have stated that they should have been declared to be POWs and treated as such. But I have no sympathy for them in light of 9/11.

[Joe Canadian]

I don't think they should get lawyers... those evil Arabs should be plocked up for life. Who cares about their rights?

Ahhh... the wonders of that excellent document know as The Patriot Act. The only way I'll be happy is when the whole foolish thing is done away with... and we try to come up with actuall better ways for law enforcement to counter and find terrorist threats, instead of allowing them to bypass the constitution so they can take the easy way out (kinda like the good ol' shoot first, ask questions later method).

[Buccaneer]

But here in the US, our representatives in Congress overwhelmingly passed this legislation with great fanfare and hoopla - just they had been doing (bypassing the Constitution) for decades. We want it that way because we demand our Congress to do something about all of these problems.

[Anthony]

Originally posted by JW:

Lawyers? Constitutional rights? Indefinitely imprisoned? The internment of Japanese-Americans during WLawyers? Constitutional rights? Indefinitely imprisoned? The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II?

These folks were combatants in an ongoing shooting war between radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and the US. It is a war in everything except name, because Congress no longer declares war, not since 1941.

How long were German and Japanese prisoners 'detained' during WWII? For the duration. This is not a law enforcement action; it is a war. These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants in an ongoing war. Judge Judy rules do not apply.orld War II?

i love JW. i wish all you people were more like him. i'm sick and tired of all this PC bullshit going on in America. everyone's lost their balls. you people forget too easily. i watched grown men shout out in hysteria and cry as the last tower fell to the ground. i remember standing silent while people around me were crying out in horror while i watched the glitter of the glass particles being flung around in the dust cloud as the tower fell down. i will never forget. that was the longest day of my life.

not only do you want to forget the horror of that day, you want to offer those who hate you just because you're an American the privileges and justices of the very country they tried to topple? be silent for a couple of minutes - you look yourself in the mirror and you think about what you're saying.

people fuck with America cuz they think we have no balls, no stomach to take things to the next level. we used to be the most feared country on the planet, now we have every militant pig with a mound of sand to call home thinking they can take us down. this shit doesn't happen in other countries. they put the fear of God in their enemies. people are abducted in the middle of the nite and never heard from again.

this is like someone breaking into your house to kill you, and you fight that guy and subdue him. rather than lock him in the basement or tie him up you'd rather let him roam free around your house because in America he's innocent until proven guilty and you wouldn't want to refuse him his rights.

JW is okay in my book. the rest of you - the people who died in wars so you can sit safely in your homes shitting your equal rights for enemies bullshit in an internet forum are rolling in their graves now.

i will never forget.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Thomas Jefferson was ever a wise man:

"It [is] more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape."

[Anthony]

oh stop.

that's philosphy.

that doesn't apply to "kill or be killed", where either you turn up the heat on the threat or they are let free only to rejoin the fight again another day. that doesn't apply to all the young men in foreign lands who see that not only do we let nothing happen - if enemies are taken they are treated quite nicely...they're even treated as good as guilty Americans who have their rights protected.

quotes like that are for the classroom. they aren't for the practical real world where strong countries must show what happens to those that wish it harm.

if any of you ever become president of this country, give me ample warning so i can get out.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Holy Troll, Batman!!

Originally posted by Hell Atlantic
not only do you want to forget the horror of that day, you want to offer those who hate you just because you're an American the privileges and justices of the very country they tried to topple?

Some of us have the courage to abide by our principles even in the face of danger. Apparently the concept has not occurred to you. I will not be frightened into abandoning the ideas that made our nation great.

we used to be the most feared country on the planet, now we have every militant pig with a mound of sand to call home thinking they can take us down. this shit doesn't happen in other countries. they put the fear of God in their enemies. people are abducted in the middle of the nite and never heard from again.

Which countries are those? Israel? Russia? They surely put the fear of god into their subjects. You can't get any more next level than that short of genocide. Fat lot of good its done them. This whole line of thinking is a stage of denial. The entire point of terrorism is to circumvent and make irrelevant overwhelming conventional military might. It is not because they aren't impressed by our military, it is precisely because they are impressed by it and would rather hit soft targets than try to take it on.

[Anthony]

"Holy Troll, Batman!!"

i'll let that slide. your ignorance is amusing. you only have 30 posts. must be new around here. eventually you will know.

[Anthony]

"The entire point of terrorism is to circumvent and make irrelevant overwhelming conventional military might. It is not because they aren't impressed by our military, it is precisely because they are impressed by it and would rather hit soft targets than try to take it on."

no, it's because this country is slowly being filled with flower loving pacifist's like yourself who don't know when rights to fair trials - an American-born right - apply only to Americans.

you make it too easy for those who want to do you harm. it's free-loving pussies like you who give courage to people to ride up in boats alongside our ships only to blow holes in the sides of them, which happened, in case you don't remember, to the USS Cole.

we put hell on earth when Japan thought it was big and bad enough to drops bombs in Pearl Harbor. enough hell that we enjoyed quite a long while of a safe homeland because of the fear that our potential enemies had of the consequences. but then little by little people like yourself pussy-fied this country. you give them courage.

what rights and lawyers did the American POW's of Vietnam have? you forget too easily.

[stevew]

What kind of rights do Mercenaries have on the field of battle?

[vex]

It really bothers me that Hell Atlantic and JW are in the minority here.

[yabanci]

Originally posted by stevew
What kind of rights do Mercenaries have on the field of battle?

human rights.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by vexroid
It really bothers me that Hell Atlantic and JW are in the minority here.

It scares me that anyone would grant power to a single, unchecked part of the government to be lawyer, judge, and jury for people being held in secret with no contact to the outside world. They are being classified not as POW's (which would give them Geneva Convention protections) and not as criminals, but instead they are having their lives destroyed with no chance to prove their innocence. Maybe they are all guilty, but what possible harm is there in finding out? Allowing the military to declare, by fiat, people to be guilty and give them a life sentence is unconscionable.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Hell Atlantic
Originally posted by JW:

i love JW. i wish all you people were more like him. i'm sick and tired of all this PC bullshit going on in America. everyone's lost their balls...

{massive snip}

i will never forget.

It speaks volumes to the logical structure of an argument when one side is resorting to flag waving rhetoric, a challenging of one's manhood, and appealing to irrational emotions as the key points upon which to build its defense.

SI

[Fritz]

A few notes from scanning the above posts:

I more or less agree with Clint. The problem with calling them POWs is that the "war" is with NGOs, which have no ability to act as an enemy nation. So this kind of puts those guys in limbo as far as being POWs goes.

[Fritz]

dola,

What we are doing in cuba has plenty of historic precedent. Not that this alone makes anything right, just that it is not a first.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by John Galt
It scares me that anyone would grant power to a single, unchecked part of the government to be lawyer, judge, and jury for people being held in secret with no contact to the outside world.

Whilst I see your point, do you know what I find even scarier.

The amount of Americans who don't trust their goverment to do the right thing, and feel that without constant oversight they 'may' do illegal acts.

They are your goverment, doing their best for America and its people, why not give them some trust, maybe they actually know what they are doing (god forbid) and really want to ensure your safety.

Then again, maybe they are an unchecked bunch of facists who enjoy inflicting suffering on innocent people