|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2002 : 05:56:55
|
The US is now detaining people potentially indefinitely as "illegal combatants" with no intention of charging them with a crime, or presenting the evidence against them in any public forum (I refer here to the "Dirty Bomb" suspect).
Gotta be something in your Constitution about that, hasn't there?
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily."
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 06:19:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The US is now detaining people potentially indefinitely as "illegal combatants" with no intention of charging them with a crime, or presenting the evidence against them in any public forum (I refer here to the "Dirty Bomb" suspect).
As far as I can tell from the news stories, there isn't any question that he is a member of al-Qa'ida, and that he was involved in planning to build a nuclear device. Why the difficulty in obtaining radioactive material would make this less horrible, I don't understand. Believing that his chances of succeeding make it less of a crime?
Being a member of al-Qa'ida, which is an organization who wants to kill as many men, women, and children in this country as possible, seems enough to detain him as a traitor and an "illegal combatant", though I am not versed in the technicalities of these labels, thus waiving any rights under our Constitution he may have enjoyed by being a U.S. citizen.
quote:
Gotta be something in your Constitution about that, hasn't there?
Why do I picture you sneering as you typed this? Every human deserves the rights put forth in our Constitution, whether or not they are citizens of the U.S. One would think that any fair-minded person would respect it.
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo |
 |
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 07:05:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Civil rights groups have accused the US of changing Mr al-Muhajir's status simply in order to detain him indefinitely without bringing a charge.
What they are doing here appears to me to be blatant violations of civil rights and I am sure as hell glad that is not me in that position.
We have declared him to be an enemy of the state without so much as an inkling of due process. Who made this decision, Rumsfield, Bush, ?
Would you be happy if a single politician of the intelligence of either of these goons made that decision about you?
Now because of that declaration they can detain him indefiniely denying him his rights of a prompt trial.
These are sad days for freedom.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 08:15:42 [Permalink]
|
I think the 'Dirty Bomber' is detained as an enemy combatant the people taken prisoner in afghanistan are considered illegal comabatants.
I am not sure of the definition of either one and if they might actually be the same. I also have no idea what the differences to a normal Prisoner of War would be. Can they take POW without formally declaring war?
Can Jose get away with just giving his name, rank and number or does that not go for enemy combatants carrying US passports.
Are there any rules and precendents there or do they just make those terms up as they go.
Another thing I am curious about is the fact that in the past mobsters, idiots and nuts apperantly have tried (and failed) to use the concept that they were fighting a war against the US government as defense against criminal charges. What changed?
Edited by - Lars_H on 06/12/2002 08:29:33 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 08:28:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Every human deserves the rights put forth in our Constitution, whether or not they are citizens of the U.S. One would think that any fair-minded person would respect it.
Did not Ashcroft say several month ago:
"... foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution ..."
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 09:44:27 [Permalink]
|
I missed that term "enemy combatant" and have no idea if that has the same status as "illegal combatant", or indeed if any of these terms have any status in US and International law.
One thing is for sure, though, he's a US citizen.
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 12:17:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Every human deserves the rights put forth in our Constitution, whether or not they are citizens of the U.S. One would think that any fair-minded person would respect it.
Did not Ashcroft say several month ago:
"... foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution ..."
And I totally agree, and they certainly don't have to be foreign.
[actually, I shouldn't say "totally", as I would hope that basic evidence that they did indeed commit war crimes would be available, of which we seem have in Mr. al-Muhajir's case.]
As I was being very general, I would have hoped that it was obviously implied that my use of "every human" referred to law-abiding citizens, and didn't include criminals, traitors, POWs, etc.
I'm sure we could come up with dozens of special cases in which I would believe certain criminals, traitors, POWs, etc., still deserved basic human rights.
Mr. Abdullah al-Muhajir's case, however, is not one of them (from what I can gather from news reports).
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/12/2002 12:19:46
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/12/2002 12:21:42 |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 21:44:03 [Permalink]
|
I too hope they really do have the dirt on this guy to back up their actions. If not, indeed it is a bad day for freedom.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 23:32:10 [Permalink]
|
I think they have dirt on him but are reluctant to reveal how they got it. It must be highly embarrassing.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 03:24:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As I was being very general, I would have hoped that it was obviously implied that my use of "every human" referred to law-abiding citizens, and didn't include criminals, traitors, POWs, etc.
And how does a citizen of the USA aquire the status of "criminal, traitor or POW"? Are you really happy that President Bush can call him a "bad man" and have him locked up without due process?
That is a very dangerous route to follow for any government and society, particularly one that trumpets itself as the leader of the "Free" world.
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 06:57:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
As I was being very general, I would have hoped that it was obviously implied that my use of "every human" referred to law-abiding citizens, and didn't include criminals, traitors, POWs, etc.
And how does a citizen of the USA aquire the status of "criminal, traitor or POW"?
Er, by being a member of a terrorist organization and being involved in a plot to blow people up?
quote:
Are you really happy that President Bush can call him a "bad man" and have him locked up without due process?
This is a silly oversimplification. Are you interested in serious discussion?
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 07:28:34 [Permalink]
|
Tokyodreamer: I think the point was about how you determine whether someone is guilty.
We don't give people fair trials, because like to be nice criminals, We give people fair trials, because It is the best way to find out whether someone is a criminal.
While I don't doubt that the enemy combatant is involved with terrorists to some degree, it sets a bad precendant if he is found guilty without a fair trial.
It is not much of an oversimplification to say that all we have seen against the suspected terrorist to this point is Mr. Bush saying, that he is a "bad man".
The way I understand the US legal system is, that after they captured him they had a month time to come up with anything or let him go. They did neither. Instead they declared him to be guilty by presidental decree.
Again I am not saying that I think they are sentecing an innocent man. I just think, that they could use the same methode against someone who actually is innocent.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 08:27:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is not much of an oversimplification to say that all we have seen against the suspected terrorist to this point is Mr. Bush saying, that he is a "bad man".
No, it is an oversimplification, as from what I've gathered in the news stories (unfortunately, my only source for information on this subject) the entire intelligence community, both U.S. and British, know this guy is in al-Qa'ida and they are the ones who are saying he is a "bad man".
quote:
The way I understand the US legal system is, that after they captured him they had a month time to come up with anything or let him go. They did neither. Instead they declared him to be guilty by presidental decree.
Would anyone have the same objections if a german Nazi soldier was caught in the U.S. during WWII? It's the same scenario. [I would think that] they would not have had to try him in [a civilian]court, find him guilty of being an enemy soldier, and sentenced him.
Being a member of al-Qa'ida is enough.
I would totally agree with you were there any doubt to his involvement in al-Qa'ida.
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/13/2002 08:29:11 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 08:37:24 [Permalink]
|
A problem I have is that the Bush administration seems to call anyone that opens a piece of al Qaeda junk mail a member of that organization. I do not believe that all the groups the Bush administration has tied to al Qaeda really are that close.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
