Campy

If you can spot an agenda from a mile away, I can spot a slippery slope from either further. Domestic prisons are full of people who were proven guilty. Gitmo is filled with people who have not been found guilty. By the law of the land, they are innocent, although I believe a great many of them would be found guilty if they were ever charged and tried. And yes, Gitmo has political prisoners. There is a world of difference between an Iraqi saying something like "Down with Bush" or "Down with America" and actually being a terrorist, yet anti-American rhetoric can land Ahmed the Iraqi in Gitmo. Not really all that different than the reasons the Soviets threw people in their gulags, is it? Sure, many deserved to be there. Many did not.

That was my first thought when it was announced on Channel 13 last week. The folks at PETA, especially given that their HQ's in Norfolk, have been strangely quite on this one. They must be freeing lab mice from a cancer research center somewhere.

Hot-Pocket Disclaimer: I'm by no means discounting the terrible conditions of the gulags operated by the Soviet Union or the suffering that those who were held there endured. Nor am I attempting to draw any comparison to them and Gitmo. Anyone who has read The Gulag Archipelago (myself included) will forever have very strong reactions whenever we hear the word "gulag." But I do think it's important to remember that the definition of the word gulag is "a labor camp or prison for political prisoners" and should not be defined by the atrocities that occured in the Soviet Union's. The results of Amnesty's findings aside, by using an objective and non-connotation laden definition, Gitmo is a gulag. Therefore, the writer was accurate in his use of the word from my understanding of the context in which it was used, ie, "the prison for politcal prisoners of our time." I say that, because I hope that any person who is learned enough to use the word "gulag" in a sentence must know the difference between Gitmo and the Soviet's infamous gulags. As an aside, if anyone hasn't read The Gulag Archipelago, it's well worth your time. It is a powerful read that will change your perspective on a great many issues. I know that it did mine. As another aside, I understand that after the Soviet Union fell Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia. What a homecoming that must have been, eh?

That's terrific news! Congrats!

Not if I was the one who claimed that judges should look over their shoulder for ruling against issues I was championing.

All you need to know about poison ivy is RoundUp.

Nicarauga is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Among their leading industries is the transhipment of coke from Columbia to the US. Yep. I'll be booking my ticket to vacation there soon.

Facts like that they were denied lawful counsel? Facts that the tribunals were held despite that the detainees hadn't been charged with a crime? Or is it just conveniently ignoring all of the facts posted in this thread with regard to the legal issues surrounding this situation - like the fact that the US government is breaking the very laws and violating the very rights we've entrusted them to defend? The military tribunal-type courts that I referred to in an earlier post should be a hybrid IMO. Civilian procedure and and a matter of public record, with military to adjudicate and seal the uncensored tesitimony/evidence (to be released when it becomes lawfully unclassified - is it 40 years?) and censor the publicly releasedrecords to maintain the sensitivity of intel. The press needs to have access to the public version of the trial records very quickly, not a year after a hearing is held as is the case with the records to which you refer.

I "can" freeze water too.

Have a good weekend Rich. Even though you don't drink.

Whatever it takes to have our government operate within the law while respecting the sensitivity of the most compromising intel. I imagine there are ways to make it happen. A military tribunal where we can censor and seal the most sensitive information (specific names, specific intel gathering methods, etc) by allowing one camera in the court and treat the footage like the censored pool footage released during Iraq I? I dunno, but that might be one suggestion. I don't claim to know all of the answers, but we are Americans - If there's a solution, we can find it.

I don't care if it's a military-style tribunal, provided they receive due process. In fact, that might even be better, provided all records of the proceedings are made public except sensitive intelligence information that could jeopardize our intel gathering efforts or cause an informant or undercover agent to be outted. It doesn't have to be difficult.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. And yeah, it'd take some balls. IMO if we are to do any justice to American ideals and the people who died fighting for them over the past two plus centuries, we are obligated to give the detainees their day in court. You might not agree with me, but I'm glad that at least you took the time and effort to see where I'm coming from. Thanks for that.

What they're called really doesn't matter. Personally, I think that if they were part of a nation's organized military (Geneva refers to them as an army under the direction of a "High Contracting Authority") captured on a battlefield (like the Iraqi army in Gulf I and the begining of Gulf II), it would make it a lot easier to justify detaining them for the duration of hostilities under the terms of Geneva. But in this case, the administration claimed that the detainees aren't members of a High Contracting Authoritiy's military, and instead claimed that Geneva does not apply as they are "individuals detained as suspected terrorists." Individuals detained by the US are granted certain rights as provided by law, provided they aren't being detained under the mechanisms in place during a state of declared war.

Some much needed levity. Thanks.

Here's the quandry though JSP - The 14th Ammendment and subsequent court interpretations doesn't specify that the right of due process is limited to only US citizens. It includes all people, except those detained in a declared state of war.

I have no problem believing that if Willis has a strong 16-game season this year that TD will reward him with a more generous contract. The hard part will be determining exactly what qualifies as a "strong 16-game season" and then determining exactly what qualifies as a "more generous contract," and that makes me a bit uneasy with Rosenputz being Willis' agent.

I agree with that. But the laws on the books are relevant to Gitmo detainees as ruled in Rusal et al v Bush et al. Perhaps we'd all be best served if the maroons who are debating steroids in sports and judical appointees would take the initiative and create a law that dealt specifically with suspected terrorists? Like I said, I'm primarily concerned with the government acting in a manner prohibited by the laws on its books.

Using law to argue one's point isn't objective anymore? I don't know where the "you guys" comment comes from, as I have always said that Newsweeks' comments were irresponsible to the Nth degree. Is it the subtle distinction that I posted that as irresponsible as I believe that article was, Newsweek has the right to publish it free of governmental censorship? And lastly, you're drawing comparisons between Newsweek and our government? Newsweek is a private business whose ultimate responsibility is to its parent company's stockholders. The US government's ultimate responsibility is to you and me as it (supposedly) governs us using a set of rules that are limited by the restrictions we (collectively, as in over the last 225 years) have placed upon it.

Exactly. By the letter of the law, as we haven't declared war (regardless of the reason), these people are have rights when detained by a party to the US' federal system of government (ie, either at the national, state, or local level). I'm not "for" terrorists by any stretch. I'm against the governments abuse of power in this case. Why? I guess for the same reason that I'm a proponent of the Second Ammendment although more Americans have been killed by other Americans with firearms than by terrorism. Rights are rights, even if they don't apply directly to me. I don't want the goverment overstepping the limits we gave it when we first agreed to allow it govern us.

Some of them would, sure. Hell maybe even most of them would. But is the government now going to jail people indefinetly based upon what the government thinks an indivdual thinks? It's actually pretty simple. Charge them. Try them. Punish them if found guilty, and release them if found innocent. Based upon this thread and others, I honesty think where you and I disagree is that I believe in individual rights like due process, regardless of the atrocities the individual may (or may not) have committed, and you find such rights as an "inconvenience" at work.

Nobody. But that's why the detainees should be given due process. It's nothing sinister I'm talking about. Charge them, provide evidence of their guilt, and if found guilty, punish them. If found innocent, let them go on with their lives. Again, the concept of this land's governing body detaining people without due process has already led to one famous revolution.

It's not about the other side, it's about OUR responsibilities. According to the GC, "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation."

Rights can not and should not be suspended by the goverment on a governmental whim or because doing so suits the government's agenda, regardless how noble the intent may be. That was one of the important factors of the American Revolution. The detainees rights should only be suspended after Congress issues a declaration of war, not because the detaining force isn't a civilian police force.

So the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does escape you. OK, I won't, but why don't you google for the report released (I think by the CIA or DoD) that details the beating of a cab driver who was beaten to death at Gitmo. The report says his interrogators believed he was innocent. I'd rather have the GUILTY suffer than an innocent. If you don't mind the innocent suffering merely because they are "one of them," you share the mindset of the guilty.