DC Tom Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Ok, how about this. We catch a terrorist and hold him for 70 years without charging him for anything. Now, thats a VERY extreme case, but this is what I am getting at. Again, catch him where and how? If you want to know what I think should happen: anyone arrested within the US has full constitutional protection. Anyone captured in battle who was under the authority of a soverign national government (which includes the Taliban) should have full protection of the Geneva Convention. The grey area in between - trans-national terrorists - should be addressed through international law, an updated Geneva Convention, basically. Until then, an Act of Congress should be passed saying in effect that although such prisoners have no legal standing under domestic or international law, they will be entitled to certain rights enumerated by the current Geneva Convention until such time as a new Geneva Convention is created that grants them legal status and accepted by the Senate, at which time the new international law will supercede said Act. Because everything that's been discussed and complained about - the military tribunals, Congress' MCA, Boudemiene v. Bush, all comes down to half-assed - and usually incorrect and unconstitutional - attempts by individual branches of the government to determine the legal status of such captives. Fundamentally, the correct legal answer right now is "They don't have any legal status, and we can do to them whatever we want", which while legal is not something I believe. But the military tribunals (even were we to presume they're benign), the cowardly acts of Congress passed so far, and the court decisions passed down are all fundamentally insufficient solutions as long as the fundamental issue - the legal status of prisoners - remains insufficiently addressed...and realistically, it has to be addressed by international law, not domestic.
K-9 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Again, catch him where and how? If you want to know what I think should happen: anyone arrested within the US has full constitutional protection. Anyone captured in battle who was under the authority of a soverign national government (which includes the Taliban) should have full protection of the Geneva Convention. The grey area in between - trans-national terrorists - should be addressed through international law, an updated Geneva Convention, basically. Until then, an Act of Congress should be passed saying in effect that although such prisoners have no legal standing under domestic or international law, they will be entitled to certain rights enumerated by the current Geneva Convention until such time as a new Geneva Convention is created that grants them legal status and accepted by the Senate, at which time the new international law will supercede said Act. Because everything that's been discussed and complained about - the military tribunals, Congress' MCA, Boudemiene v. Bush, all comes down to half-assed - and usually incorrect and unconstitutional - attempts by individual branches of the government to determine the legal status of such captives. Fundamentally, the correct legal answer right now is "They don't have any legal status, and we can do to them whatever we want", which while legal is not something I believe. But the military tribunals (even were we to presume they're benign), the cowardly acts of Congress passed so far, and the court decisions passed down are all fundamentally insufficient solutions as long as the fundamental issue - the legal status of prisoners - remains insufficiently addressed...and realistically, it has to be addressed by international law, not domestic. The most erudite summation of the issue I've read; here or anywhere else. Until the legal status is addressed, I suggest we abide by our own time-honored American code of honor regarding prisoners.
Adam Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Again, catch him where and how? If you want to know what I think should happen: anyone arrested within the US has full constitutional protection. Anyone captured in battle who was under the authority of a soverign national government (which includes the Taliban) should have full protection of the Geneva Convention. The grey area in between - trans-national terrorists - should be addressed through international law, an updated Geneva Convention, basically. Until then, an Act of Congress should be passed saying in effect that although such prisoners have no legal standing under domestic or international law, they will be entitled to certain rights enumerated by the current Geneva Convention until such time as a new Geneva Convention is created that grants them legal status and accepted by the Senate, at which time the new international law will supercede said Act. Because everything that's been discussed and complained about - the military tribunals, Congress' MCA, Boudemiene v. Bush, all comes down to half-assed - and usually incorrect and unconstitutional - attempts by individual branches of the government to determine the legal status of such captives. Fundamentally, the correct legal answer right now is "They don't have any legal status, and we can do to them whatever we want", which while legal is not something I believe. But the military tribunals (even were we to presume they're benign), the cowardly acts of Congress passed so far, and the court decisions passed down are all fundamentally insufficient solutions as long as the fundamental issue - the legal status of prisoners - remains insufficiently addressed...and realistically, it has to be addressed by international law, not domestic. Can't find anything in there I disagree with at all.
GG Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Because the notion of our country torturing captives is just as ridiculous. That's quite the leap from indefinite detention to torture. Just wondering if you're really concerned about the laws, the image or what actually happens to the detainees. Or just upset because you read something that just sounds wrong. As is often the case, the criticism misses the solution component, nor the actual ramifications of the act. There is one thing that is worse than a bad law, it's an ambiguous law - and that's precisely what SCOTUS just left the DoD with. The ruling did not clarify the treatment of all detainees, just Guantanamo and opens a big question of what to do with similar detainees held in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. This now presents the battlefield commanders with a bigger dilemma of what to do with potential prisoners, introducing the real element of taking no prisoners to eliminate any doubt. Bravo for the human rights crowd. The other logical alternative is for the US not to take anyone into custody, and immediately render the captives to local authorities or other jurisdictions, because as Tom points out, they are not subject to any legal authority, so the commanders' act to render can also be viewed as perfectly legal. Another huzzah for human rights.
Adam Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 That's quite the leap from indefinite detention to torture. Just wondering if you're really concerned about the laws, the image or what actually happens to the detainees. Or just upset because you read something that just sounds wrong. As is often the case, the criticism misses the solution component, nor the actual ramifications of the act. There is one thing that is worse than a bad law, it's an ambiguous law - and that's precisely what SCOTUS just left the DoD with. The ruling did not clarify the treatment of all detainees, just Guantanamo and opens a big question of what to do with similar detainees held in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. This now presents the battlefield commanders with a bigger dilemma of what to do with potential prisoners, introducing the real element of taking no prisoners to eliminate any doubt. Bravo for the human rights crowd. The other logical alternative is for the US not to take anyone into custody, and immediately render the captives to local authorities or other jurisdictions, because as Tom points out, they are not subject to any legal authority, so the commanders' act to render can also be viewed as perfectly legal. Another huzzah for human rights. What I am saying is that we should keep things we do within reason- I don't care how it appears. Torture is not an effective interrogation method- it just gets them to say something- anything to make it stop. I would prefer execution to that. As far as holding indefinitely- I just mean don't hold them a ridiculous amount of time and just leave them sitting there.
GG Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 What I am saying is that we should keep things we do within reason- I don't care how it appears. Torture is not an effective interrogation method- it just gets them to say something- anything to make it stop. I would prefer execution to that. As far as holding indefinitely- I just mean don't hold them a ridiculous amount of time and just leave them sitting there. Your "reason" could be different from someone else's definition of "reason" and the resulting ambiguity that unclear laws carry and have the potential for much graver damage. Nice to see that you prefer execution to torture. How about execution to a long term detention, which is the most likely outcome?
Adam Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Your "reason" could be different from someone else's definition of "reason" and the resulting ambiguity that unclear laws carry and have the potential for much graver damage. Nice to see that you prefer execution to torture. How about execution to a long term detention, which is the most likely outcome? OK, let me further define what I meant by that- I am not for an unjust execution, but if it were me, I would rather be executed than suffer for a long time. I understand that defining such things isn't an easy task, but they are supposed to get elected for a reason
Chilly Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Looks like only one Republican voted no, some guy from Minnesota. I'm disappointed in Ron Paul not voting.
Recommended Posts