Originally Posted By Mr X Is this cool? Just wondering about the general sentiment here. Are we all okay with this as a way to handle terrorists? I say "terrorists", because they are the ones in question, for now. And, assuming they ARE dangerous terrorists, it's fine with me. But it's the slippery slope that bothers me. If we can imprison someone forever, without trial, because they are a terrorist who wants to kill people (but hasn't committed any "crime", per se), where does that end? Can we imprison ANYONE we don't like, forever and without a trial, just because? Wondering about opinions on this topic, but I'm hoping to avoid posts that go something like "well, they are terrorists and so they deserve it!" because we all pretty much feel that way...looking more for opinions about how this might or might not be a dangerous road towards easy incarceration of anyone the government might happen to dislike for whatever reason... Thoughts?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy It's not an OK way to treat anyone suspected of a crime. This is a fundamental human right issue. This is the way political prisoners were treated in the ex-Soviet Union.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy It's amazing how humanitarian organizations like Amnesty Internationl, who we stood alongside and supported for nearly 50 years of the Cold War, are now adversaries with the U.S. government due to the goings on in places like Guantanamo Bay.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The "unless" exception seems to be reasonably in effect in the Gitmo situation.
Originally Posted By gadzuux We haven't been given much information about these handful of 'remainders'. I believe the government when they say that these particular people are clearly and demonstrably dangerous and cannot be released. What I don't understand is why they cannot be tried, and I wonder if it's because the "evidence" against them is inadmissable do to our treatment of them while in our custody - read: they were tortured. In the abstract, I'm not comfortable with indefinite detention without a hearing of charges and a trial of some sort. Although my faith in the integity of this current administration is greater than the last one, this group isn't going be around forever - anymore than the last administration was. The open-ended nature of what's being proposed seems unconstitutional at best. The silver lining here is that these people are still alive. A more brutal and secretive government might have arranged for this problem to be quietly resolved permanently via execution. That hasn't happened - at least not yet. And don't think for a moment that it hasn't been considered.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << What I don't understand is why they cannot be tried, and I wonder if it's because the "evidence" against them is inadmissable do to our treatment of them while in our custody - read: they were tortured. >> Mostly because there is little to no evidence, other than circumstantial, to use in the trials. These individuals were not collected by law enforcement officials. They were apprehended on the battlefield by soldiers, sailors, and airmen -- who receive almost no training in law enforcement or the collection of evidence. There is no real mechanism in the military to collect evidence against detainees. It's just not part of the mission. << The silver lining here is that these people are still alive. >> There have been over 100 detainees that have died in U.S. captivity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's amazing how humanitarian organizations like Amnesty Internationl, who we stood alongside and supported for nearly 50 years of the Cold War,> Well, sort of. I've been a member of AI for a long time. In the 80's, I remember very well that the Reagan admin. was very supportive of AI when they talked about the Soviet Union or eastern bloc countries, and their human rights abuses. When they talked about the human rights abuses of some of the right-wing dictatorships we supported (El Salvador, Guatemala, South Africa, etc.), not so much (to say the least). But that's what I always liked about AI - it wasn't about left/right politics with them, it was about bringing attention to abuses and freeing prisoners of conscience, no matter which country was doing the abusing.
