Is the Bush Administration stomping on our rights?

[Gilding the Lily]

Yet another example of Bush - and Bush followers - taking things too far. It is ridiculous that this senior official is suggesting that clients should drop their attorneys because the attorneys are representing clients at Guantanamo Bay. Next thing you know, the FBI will start "investigating" these corporate clients just because they have maintained relations with the law firms, not because of probable cause... causing the clients to incur substantial costs in "cooperating with officials."
NY Times

The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble....

 

[delldude]

And why do these detainees need representation?

Threw too much fecal matter on our boys?

Maybe you and Cindy Sheehan should bring those poor,poor

detainees into your homes for repatriation....

 

[Gilding the Lily]

And why do these detainees need representation?

Threw too much fecal matter on our boys?

Maybe you and Cindy Sheehan should bring those poor,poor

detainees into your homes for repatriation....

Hey, I don't have a problem with "detaining" certain people that pose a risk to our national security. I praise those efforts!

But why doesn't our government charge those individuals with crimes? They are not charged because once they are charged in the U.S. they are afforded due process rights. If the U.S. just "detains" them, they are never given due process... nor are they required to have representation. Many of those claimed "risks" were eventually sent back to their home country, never to be charged or even connected to a terrorist organization. It is because of this why I think there needs to be representation. Representation should force the gov't to determine the actual threat of the represented individual, not simply the "shot-in-the-dark threat" when the government thinks that MAYBE this person can pose a threat. If they are determined to be a threat... GOOD, glad we got em'... charge them and put them away. But, if they are not a threat, release them and send them home!

Heck, as it currently stands, if you give some of these folks shovels it would be akin to slavery... stealing humans from foreign soil and forcing them to live in sub-standard conditions while working on behalf of the "better man." (Blatant sarcasm intended)

 

[local 12 proud]

And why do these detainees need representation?

Threw too much fecal matter on our boys?

Maybe you and Cindy Sheehan should bring those poor,poor

detainees into your homes for repatriation....

dell how could you be so callous, those are human beings just like Saddam who was led to the gallows and slaughterd.

Have'nt you learned that all human life is prescious, except of course the innocent unborn?

 

[delldude]

Due process is afforded to citizens of this country ,protected by the Constitution.....

stealing humans from foreign soil and forcing them to live in sub-standard conditions while working on behalf of the "better man.

You get our info from Teddy Kennedy or Patrick Leahey?

Prove your substandard conditions.....I take it you have seen these conditions or know personally someone else who has?

You have made the claims of these conditions....prove them once and for all.

Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) [official website] said that "[t]he Guantanamo we saw today is not the Guantanamo we heard about a few years ago".

Tell me what you know ?

And here

Spare me the litany...

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Due process is afforded to citizens of this country ,protected by the Constitution.....

Well, if people, regardless of residence, are CHARGED in this country they will be afforded certain due process rights. We have pushed that aside, however, by not charging most of those people. The principles of habeas corpus, originally placed in the Magna Carta, has been one of the cornerstones of our law since this nation's founding and was enshrined in our Constitution. It gives the detainee the right to go to our courts to challenge the authority of the jail or prison warden to continue to detain him.

Still, the Bush Administration is proposing more restrictions on detainees in our custody. Bush signed into law in October, a law that strips our courts of jurisdiction to consider writs of habeas corpus filed by the detainees classified as enemy combatants. The administration argues that the president can classify any person, even an American citizen, as an enemy combatant. However, our Consitution limits the suspension of Habeas Corpus to those times when there is an invasion or rebellion AND it is needed for public safety. I assume that you may disagree, but I do not think that our public safety is at risk FROM A CURRENT rebellion or invasion. And, as far as I know, Bush has yet to suggest that our public safety is NOW at risk from invasion or rebellion.

Prove your substandard conditions.....I take it you have seen these conditions or know personally someone else who has?

You have made the claims of these conditions....prove them once and for all.

Let me ask you this? Would you consider being taken from your home and forced to live in a prison-like setting for 4 + years without being charged with a crime to be standard? If you think it is standard, then I suggest you, a presumed law-abiding human, try it. Again, if they are guilty of being a threat to the U.S., then great... they got what they deserve. But what about the ones that were a mistake in the first place? They deserve representation to get them out of this mess.

Also, there have been numerous detainees that have been sent back to their home country, presumably without a finding of fault. I wonder if they think the prison-like setting was standard? I am glad that, as you cited, conditions have improved at G-bay. But those improved conditions do not fix any potential abuses that come along with putting people in "prison" without ever charging those individuals with a crime.

The 'war on terror' must not be used as an empty excuse to deny humans the basic rights that should be afforded to every person. If they are a threat, then they deserve this treatment. If they are not a threat, then such treatment is unwarranted and wrong. Those people deserve representation to determine whether they are a threat!

 

[Flying Titan]

And why do these detainees need representation?

Lots of reasons....

Because our founding fathers said so...and they even bothered to write it down in a little document called the Constitution. Take some time to actually read it.

Because throughout our history - even during wartime - (with only a few sad exceptions) we have lived up to American standards, not stooped down to the vile level where the dictators live.

Because even the likes of John Adams (you've heard of him, right?) saw fit to legally represent enemy combatants during times of war. Are you implying he was some un-American, pinko, commie, terrorist-sympathizing traitor?

Because we're better than those we are fighting against. We have set a higher standard and we should live up to it.

 

[delldude]

Hey Thomas Paine.....

Not citizens nor POW's...grey area at best.Will be decided by the Supremes someday.

Appeal likely because ruling conflicts with previous court decision





By Alexandra Abboud
Washington File Staff Writer



Washington -- A U.S. federal district judge ruled on January 31 that the special military tribunals used to determine the legal status of detainees at the U.S. Naval Base in Guántanamo Bay are illegal.

Judge Joyce Hens Green of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the tribunals deny detainees constitutional legal rights such as the right to consult an attorney and to confront any evidence being used against them, and that the detainees had the right to have a U.S. court of law determine if they were lawfully detained.

Green’s findings conflict with a decision by a judge from the same court two weeks earlier in a separate case brought by different detainees that addressed the same issues. The ruling in the previous case stated that the Guántanamo detainees did not have a right to have their detentions examined in federal court, a process known as a writ of habeas corpus.

The U.S. Department of Justice in a January 31 statement said that the original ruling that dismissed the claims made by other Guántanamo detainees was correct. “There is no basis in the Constitution, or in history, for according aliens captured by the military outside the United States and classified as enemy combatants 'due process' rights under the Constitution based on the mere fact that they are confined -- for operational and security reasons -- on foreign property that has been leased by the United States,†the statement said.

Ultimately, the two conflicting findings will have to be reconciled in a court of appeals and might even be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The “Combatant Status Review Tribunals†at issue were established by the Defense Department as a direct result of a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found that the military could not simply declare the fighters enemy combatants but must hold hearings to determine if detainees being held at Guántanamo Bay were “unlawful combatants†and therefore properly detained.

Under international law, unlawful or enemy combatants are fighters who are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, which protects prisoners of war, because they do not act under the accepted rules of war.

It is likely that the rulings will not soon have a direct affect on Guántanamo Bay detainees because the cases still face a lengthy appeals process. In her ruling, Green also stated that no prisoners would be set free as a result of her findings.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Lots of reasons....

Because our founding fathers said so...and they even bothered to write it down in a little document called the Constitution. Take some time to actually read it.

Because throughout our history - even during wartime - (with only a few sad exceptions) we have lived up to American standards, not stooped down to the vile level where the dictators live.

Because even the likes of John Adams (you've heard of him, right?) saw fit to legally represent enemy combatants during times of war. Are you implying he was some un-American, pinko, commie, terrorist-sympathizing traitor?

Because we're better than those we are fighting against. We have set a higher standard and we should live up to it.

We can even throw some less ideological reasons into the mix:

* Ethnic, political, tribal, or religious adversaries may supply the United States with false or misleading information.

* Terrorists often operate amidst civilian populations. That hated tactic creates a non-trivial risk that US soldiers, in the heat of battle, may mistake an innocent bystander civilian for a terrorist member or supporter.

* The executive in charge may, at times, exaggerate incriminating evidence and/or ignore the exculpatory for political effects. The greater the number of enemy/terrorist combatants detained = the greater the public appearance/notion that the fight against terrorism is succeeding. (exaggerating makes for career advancement).

But if there is no representation, it is unlikely that any of these abuses and/or mistakes may be uncovered.

 

[delldude]

But suddenly the battlefield and tactics have changed dramatically from the norm. Does this call for a new look into combatants and their status relative to our survival?

 

[Flying Titan]

But suddenly the battlefield and tactics have changed dramatically from the norm. Does this call for a new look into combatants and their status relative to our survival?

Yes, it does. However, it does not mean that we should ever abandon the freedoms, liberty and protection from unconstitutional government action that set the USA apart from the rest of the planet and make this nation great.

We've beaten back worse enemies in our history and we haven't betrayed our core American values. We should never forget that - and we shouldn't surrender our standards now.

 

[delldude]

I understand quite well.However,under just about every President since I remember...there has been some type encroachment on freedoms.Doesn't matter which political affiliation either.I suppose all were well intended,but you remember the book about 'unintended consequences'don't you?
Anyway,some were instituted,some were not.
But these detainees we discuss were captured during military operations in another country and they were trying to kill our men.I see somewhat where they should have some right to defense and such but disagree with Constitutional protections totally.And I don't see how this affects you and I.They got what they were looking for and that was war.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

By the way, delldude, I understand, as I think you do, the predicament we currently find ourselves. In past wars, it was easier to find the "bad guys"... they often had on the uniform of the enemy. Unfortunately, in this war the enemy can easily blend in with law-abiding citizens. So, we absolutely need a system, like the detainee camp we have currently. This, however, bolsters the reason why people need representation... it is hard to pick the enemy out and, thus, we may pick out the wrong people by mistake. Safe guards to our current detainee camp could work wonders.

But these detainees we discuss were captured during military operations in another country and they were trying to kill our men.

Who knows if they were trying to kill our men? I imagine that many, if not most, of them were a threat and thus, should be detained. But like I said earlier, there are no safe-guards in place to deter the 3 problems I mentioned earlier in post # 9: false or misleading information; in the heat of battle soldiers may mistake an innocent bystander civilian for a terrorist; and exaggeration by the executive in charge. Representation could determine if these problems existed for any of the particular detainees.

And I don't see how this affects you and I

Well, the principle is oft stated in a poem. It happened to Japanese 60 years ago, African-American 40 years ago, and Muslims now. What do we do when it happens to the blonde hair, blue-eyed people? By protecting the rights of others, I protect my own.

 

[delldude]

By the way, delldude, I understand, as I think you do, the predicament we currently find ourselves. In past wars, it was easier to find the "bad guys"... they often had on the uniform of the enemy. Unfortunately, in this war the enemy can easily blend in with law-abiding citizens. So, we absolutely need a system, like the detainee camp we have currently. This, however, bolsters the reason why people need representation... it is hard to pick the enemy out and, thus, we may pick out the wrong people by mistake. Safe guards to our current detainee camp could work wonders.

Not wanting to go off on a biblical tangent.....

But maybe you're familiar with those lines about the mark of the beast on the hand or forehead....amazingly simple fix for all but the pursued.....in fact they were pushing for that in jolly old England a short time ago.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

I think the point is being missed.... the detainees are enemy combatants.

They are NOT american citizens and should not have constitutional protection.