Terrorist and Constitutional Rights.

Eazy E said:

We already treat them better than they treat us, but it goes back to the whole "it could be better" line. The only way the internation community, plus those at home who feel that the accused rights are being violated, is if their treatment is much better than the treat the US Soldiers currently receive from the government. Sorry, but all they need are three things: shelter, food and water. If they are a suspected terrorist, send them back to their home country. Enemy combatent or POW, keep them till we are done with Iraq, then send them to their country of origin.

Click to expand...

If they actually were captured during fighting, I have no problem with them being treated as a POW.

But the first problem is that the majority in Gitmo were not captured during fighting, instead they were trying to get out of Afghanistan into Pakistan (can't imagine why anyone would want to flee a war unless they are terrorists [/sarcasm]), someone accused them of being with the Taliban for a reward (and no other evidence was needed, just the single accusation for money), etc.

The second problem is that we aren't treating them like POWs. Instead we've created a special category for them that strips most of their rights. We don't return them to the US because we know that if they were in the US these same constitutional protections would apply. And again, this isn't true if they were considered POWs, and treated as POWs; for example, many German prisoners spent WWII in the United States.

My problem is that the current administration didn't like the options and so tried to get around the Constitution.

I still find it really scary that our Supreme Court almost allowed the government to strip any person of rights, simply by labeling them a terrorist. We were one vote away from being a Police State instead of the home of the free, land of the brave.

Hmm... Whose vote was it that saved the Union?

All I know is that if an American Citizen were being held by a foreign country who was claiming they were terrorists…but that country was refusing to charge them with actual crimes or provide even basic evidence that these Americans were involved in terrorism the Bush administration would be outraged and demanding these citizens be released and even threatening military action….

If you want to claim someone is a terrorist then you had better provide evidence to back it up…I think the fact that Bush is so upset by this ruling shows that he knows at least some of the so called terrorists we have imprisoned without trail are actually innocent

That's certainly part of the problem, however I still believe what outrages them the most is that they have to treat these people like real people, actual human beings with rights, even though the administration has labeled them as "terrorists."

Now if the government decides tommorrow that your a threat and possible even a terrorist, they can still snatch you up and put you in a secret prison. Classify the fact that you are being held captive, and where you are being held captive pretty much indefinatly... anyone trying to raise a stink about your siezure can be prosecuted for releasing classified data to the public. If and when your capture ever becomes public knowledge and the government decides to give you access to a lawyer who is actually representing your interests... you can request to actually be brought before a Federal court and hear the charges that are being brought against you.

A judge might actually order your release, and you might actually be set free... till your friendly Department of Homeland security once again decides you may be a threat and the cycle starts all over again. However that's unlikely, since you were tortured/waterboarded/subjected to enhanced interogation and admited to whatever would make them stop the enhanced interogation. Between that and the classified evidence against you, which can not be refuted because it's classified... your pretty much ruined.

SughaNSpice said:

All I know is that if an American Citizen were being held by a foreign country who was claiming they were terrorists…but that country was refusing to charge them with actual crimes or provide even basic evidence that these Americans were involved in terrorism the Bush administration would be outraged and demanding these citizens be released and even threatening military action….

If you want to claim someone is a terrorist then you had better provide evidence to back it up…I think the fact that Bush is so upset by this ruling shows that he knows at least some of the so called terrorists we have imprisoned without trail are actually innocent

Click to expand...

I have to say, ACougar, it is refreshing to hear ex-army personnel speaking sensibly and honestly about their own country. So

There is no way to get through to most people though... thier all wraped up in thier "it can't happen to me" blanket.

stan1980 said:

I have to say, ACougar, it is refreshing to hear ex-army personnel speaking sensibly and honestly about their own country. So

Click to expand...

stan1980 said:

I have to say, ACougar, it is refreshing to hear ex-army personnel speaking sensibly and honestly about their own country. So

Click to expand...

Hey, don't forget the ex-USAF person.

Maren said:

Hey, don't forget the ex-USAF person.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll extend that to all the armed forces.

I find normally, that far too many of the ex-armed forces personnel, tend to be so wrapped up in defending their countries policies and being too patriotic for their own good, that they end up being quite blinkered.

Perhaps I generalise too much though.

1. Standing up for civil liberties is patriotic.

2. While the military is not an exact representation of the American public, it's not that far off...

3. Anyone who spends a good bit of time in Europe, a good bit of time in Asia, and has a half way open mind is more often than not going to support civil liberties, heath care and education for all... which pretty much means thier a liberal.

stan1980 said:

Okay, I'll extend that to all the armed forces.

I find normally, that far too many of the ex-armed forces personnel, tend to be so wrapped up in defending their countries policies and being too patriotic for their own good, that they end up being quite blinkered.

Perhaps I generalise too much though.

Click to expand...

stan1980 said:

I was under the impression they were released as part of the negotiations to bring an end to the violence. Whether someone who has killed civilians should be released early is debatable, and could probably do with a thread of its own, but I suppose it was for the greater good, and there isn't too much reason to believe they are still a risk to the public, unless of course they sign up to one of the break away groups like the Real IRA.

Click to expand...

The whole paragraph could make several threads. The freeing of the prisoners because of the negotiations was my point though, they became in someways legit. The majority of people killed by the IRA were civilians (even by the IRA definition of civilians), they recently "apologized" for that.

Never say never.

Being Irish, you'll know this, but one of the reasons the IRA had sympathisers and willing members was because of the poor treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland. I'm not really entirely sure all of what went on (my own ignorance, I admit. My family in NI are protestants so I only hear one side of the story), but I would guess the army opening fire and killing protesters didn't help matters. Now if some of the Muslim community feel they are being targeted (like the Catholics used to feel) then there is every chance they could get stronger, and pick up more support. I for one would like to do everything possible to avoid history repeating itself. If you can't learn from the past what can you learn from?

Click to expand...

I agree with you, if Muslims in the UK become more and more discriminated they will lash out. However without Afghanistan Al- have no base for training. The IRA grew out of actual military (the losing half of the Irish civil war) Al- did too (the Soviet war against Afghanistan) however the British never invaded the Republic during the Troubles any potential organised war of on their part, they did invade Afghanistan.