Guantanamo Bay

In the thread that shall remain nameless ;-), but which I am here reincarnating under the above title, Ed wrote,

GB is an evil, but I am not sure that it is not a necessary evil (and I'd need more privileged information to make that conclusion).

There is no such thing as a necessary evil. If something is evil, then it's not morally necessary; if it's morally necessary, then it's not evil.

The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution also addresses this issue. It states:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

"Habeas corpus" is Latin for "to have the body." So, if the government has you in detention, then the Writ of Habeas Corpus means that the government has to justify keeping you confined. It can't arbitrarily confine you to prison without informing you of the charges and without some initial evidence of your guilt.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/06, 6:12pm)

Post 1

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 5:41pm

Link to original nameless thread.

Post 2

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 6:21pm

Thanks for link, Dean. That really helps.

- Bill

Post 3

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 7:53pm

The detainees in GB are not US citizens. They are enemy combatants, they don't have constitutional rights. I do think that they should be considered as either enemy combatants or (if not in uniform) then as spies or saboteurs - or perhaps some new laws need to be drawn up. US citizens, however, do deserve such rights and need to be treated differently. Some sort of new rules are need internationally to define who the bad guys are and what can happen to them.

Post 4

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 8:09pm

Bill, good point about necessary evil -- I concede to that.

That said, I'm having trouble with Kurt's proposed "rules for US vs. rules for THEM" line of reasoning.

It pains me to think that the solution to this conundrum -- ie. transparent criminal charges brought against any and every US detainee, anywhere -- seems to increase the future risk of terrorism (because it shows the "enemy" what it is that we "know" about their past, present, and future plans).

I wrestle with that.

Ed

Post 5

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 8:23pm

I guess it should really boil down to "rules for criminal matters" vs. "rules for war and terrorism" more so even that US vs non. The fact is that a murderer is a danger to a few, but a terrorist is a danger to thousands or millions, even. Also keep in mind that many of the US rights are not rights in their countries, nor even in many cases countries like Europe! We have people who are being very hypocritical here. It isn't quite a war, nor is it quite criminals as usual - it is a new game that needs new rules.

Post 6

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 8:47pm

I'm certain its not my advantage to punish innocent people, whether they are US citizens or not.

Post 7

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 5:00am

True Dean, but there are standards of guilt, for example "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. "preponderance of evidence" in criminal vs. civil law, and the fact that "guilty" is not always known 100% but it can be extremely likely just not 100% provable in court and I don't want to let terrorists out just because we can't meet the stringent standard - a less onerous standard is reasonable.

Post 8

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 4:28pm

Posted this on the wrong thread...........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Kurt,

You present an argument that I disagree with profoundly. The world probably would be safer if we locked people up indefinitely and tortured them to obtain confessions based on suspicion, . That is not however a country that can claim to be champions of freedom, and a police state isn't something that deserves to be defended (I'm not advocating terrorists attacking the US BTW).

Everytime Rumsfield is questioned on the detention centre he tells us that they are; the worst of the worst, people who will kill US citizens if released etc. But the facts don't support that assertion. Very few charges have been brought against the 450+ detainees, according to this lady it is 10 in total http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/live/display.php?topic=50 .

Everytime an infringement of human rights are legislated, perpetrated and found (torture, indefinite detainment, Patriot Act, various acts in the UK, ID cards in UK), the same 'to protect us from terrorists' argument is repeated and repeated. Here's maybe a controversial statement; I don't want to be that safe. If my safety is depended on circumstances such as the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, and the infringement of freedom by various acts passed in the UK (I'm a resident)... I don't want it.
I don't want my safety to depend on this http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510072006 , http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/19913leg20050712.html

If you do have concerns about the dentention centre please...

email President Bush; president@whitehouse.gov

email Tony Blair; http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page821.asp

If in U.S. email senators; http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

If in U.K. email your MP; http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kurt Replied with this.........

Look Skinner - according to the agreed upon rules of war, if we capture the enemy during the course of the war, we can detain them until said war is over. That is not a violation of their rights and we don't have to charge them. We didn't release the Germans we captured until the war was over, and that took years. So why then is it a problem when these folks were captured during the course of a war? There are, as I said, some areas that could use some clarification, but to treat them as if they were someone the police caught is an absurdity. It is not the same, and if Europe continues to hide its head in the sand, you will be whinging about rights until the moment your own muslims come and cut your heads off.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the kind of attitude that compelled me to write on this forum (and thank you for the opportunity), and the argument presented by most right-wing press in the UK for the detention centre. Maybe the fact they won't be targeted by the Terrorism Laws, and detained and taken to the naval base, has something to do with it. Being white, not in the middle east, non-muslim and pro-current foreign policy, you probably won't find yourself arrested for protesting, or indefinitely detained and tortured.

The fact is, many of the detainee's were not caught in battle they were in areas caught in conflict areas, or detained in the middle east by various regions police/armies, and given to US forces, these are facts. Those who have been released without charge, and were tortured, said they were their in the middle east for humanitarian and spiritual reasons. The facts also are that one of the greatest violations human rights are being undertaken indefinite detainment without charge, homicide, and torture, are being carried out in your name, to protect your safety. Human rights are not commodities to be traded away for your personal safety. Again it is not a price I wish to pay.

The last sentence I perceived to be filled with some astounding hatred and prejudice, towards europe and muslims. The facts are millions of muslims publicly condemn the acts of terrorism in the UK, and they don't go around chopping people's heads off (I assure you). I've perceived an almost sub-human regard for the muslim community by some people in the right and some Objectivists. They are not all head-chopping terrorists, waiting for an opportunity to kill you in your sleep, I assure you.

Post 9

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 6:59pm

Well, I would expect enemies who were released to say they were tortured whether they were or not. If they were not detained on the battlefield, I would prefer that other standards be applied, but I highly doubt they were either tortured or there for "spiritual reasons" - these are all typical lies operatives are told to say, such as the "Koran in the toilet" lie they told.

So then the question remains, if they were caught on the battlefield, do you support their detention as prisoners of war? What if they were caught in an act of sabotage in civilian garb, such as preparing to blow up civilians or even military - it doesn't matter, can they not be executed in front of a military tribunal as spies as is legal according to the Geneva Convention?

Don't confuse several things here:

1) Muslims/Arabs/Middle East - I have personal doubts about the religion, in that I feel it has inherent dangers not in other religions, but be that as it may, most people I don't support putting in jail for no reason.

2) Terrorism laws - The US constitution is stronger with respect to rights than the UK and even more so other European countries, and that is why your laws can be adjusted to curtail liberties more so than US law - and not just with respect to terrorism either - and I don't necessarily support those laws recently enacted.

3) Europe - Europe is in a deep sense of denial and needs to realize that some things, for example, "soveriegnty" of a Nation that enslaves its people, is not worth defending and may need different rules than sovereignty of, say, most mainstream countries (i.e. Iraq is not the same as France, and Sudan is not the same as Germany).

4) Also, you say that most don't commit such acts, but yet there is a whole litany of things that do and have happened at the hands of such:
* 9-11, London Subway Bombings, murder of Van Gogh, Paris Riots, rabid anti-semitism (death to Israel, promulgating lies like the protocals of zion and that no holocaust ever took place), signs in protests celebrating the terrorist attacks, what were these all mirages? There has been VERY LITTLE "condemnation" that I have heard or seen, very little!

So really, you reserve all of your outrage for civilization attempting to cope with barbarism, and brush off the barbarism - how will it be stopped, according to you?

Post 10

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 7:12pm

It must indeed be a terrible place, if this article is any indication:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G6CJV03.html

I mean, what person in their right mind would rather face torture than return home.

Post 11

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 2:35pm

Dear Kurt and Jody,

let me type this in caps so maybe it will sink in; THE PEOPLE WERE RELEASED BECAUSE THE U.S. FOUND NO PROOF THAT THEY WERE TERRORISTS.

To my knowledge Objectivism dismisses arbitrary conclusions such as your 'we found no evidence that they are spies, and that's because they're good at covering their tracks.' And ' I don't think that the are tortured, because I don't think the US would torture them.' Please watch this; http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=966&sid=1a009c8ae4a0b1bbac73bd4ad9721873

Jody you seem to dismiss the idea of torture based on that article, and Kurt you seem to dismiss it on no reasonable presented argument. To do that, you have to perform 'wilful evasion' towards the FBI memo's, reports by NGOs, testimony by lawyers of detainees, and testimony of ex-prisoners. Would the circumstances of capture, and detainment be something you are personally willing to go through for 'the war on terror'?

What that article proves, is that the US by doing such things as Rumsfeld labelling them terrorist even if they are not, will be tortured and killed when they are returned to their own countries for being suspected by the US as terrorists. Also the people who asked to stay may be some of the prisoners the US say are not guilty but cannot find a country that will take them. The US government is carving a legacy of incredible hypocrisy, and arrogance. Here's an idea, seeing as the US have endangered their lives by their actions, how about ensuring they come to no further harm by giving them a home. Seeing as you took away years of a persons life, I think you should repay them.

Have to get back to you on the rules of detainment, I have a friend in the military who is coming home from Afghanistan soon, I will ask them how they are told how to identify them. He is very honest when he tells me if he thinks military operation principles are fair or unfair. I do agree with arresting people, found on the battlefield, and suspected of terrorist activities. I disagree with lack of due process, indefinite detainment, and torture.

Your last point Kurt, 4) I could easily counter with 'US' actions equally despicable; the genocide of the native Americans, slavery, financing and trade with dictatorships/militia, Bechtel takeover of Bolivian water supply, Guantanamo bay detention centre, etc

I haven't read many Oist condemnations of founding US citizens, and founding fathers genocide and slavery, should I take that to mean that Oists support genocide to build a capitalist country?

If we are so afraid of other countries/militia turning on us, maybe we should campaign against governments and corporations supplying them with weapons and training. There's a good documentary on the arms trade on the Lord of War DVD.

I'll be honest with you Kurt, you come across to me as prejudice, and willing to allow the persecution, and mistreatment of people based on race and religion, to protect yourself. I can understand (not condone, understand) why people hate neo-conservative US.

Post 12

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 5:01pm

I haven't read many Oist condemnations of founding US citizens, and founding fathers genocide and slavery, should I take that to mean that Oists support genocide to build a capitalist country?

Ah yes Mike, you can definitely leap to the non sequitur that because you haven't heard us condemning something someone did 200 years ago it means that we support genocide. Hey Mike, since you're so into these "human" rights(which you still havent defined), let me ask you this, is the world better off without Saddam? After all, that was a case of present-day genocide, slavery and torture wasn't it?

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 3/08, 8:00pm)

Post 13

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 6:17pm

Anyone who makes an ad hominem attack upon the Constitution and upon America by drudging up and hyping up supposed atrocities by its founding fathers sticks out like like a sore thumb. We get it Mike, America is a detestable nation that should be despised and diminished.

Post 14

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 7:55pm

Yes, sorry Skinner but I am done trying to have a rational conversation with you. Time to go back to your hole, best of luck.

Post 15

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 6:50am

Dear Jody,

I was presenting the atrocities (supposed???) of the US, because Kurt presented atrocities by Islamic militants, as justification for the hatred and persecution of Arabs and Muslims.

Is the world better off without Saddam? yes. How they went about it, no. But I wasn't talking abut the Iraq war, and that is better fully discussed in another thread.

I don't believe that Oists support the genocide, I was making a point. I find it very difficult to understand how you would read into my post that, that was my view.

Genocide, and the takeover of the land of the Native Americans and 400 years of slavery isn't 'hype', it's fact.

I do not hate the US citizens, their are millions of people who oppose Guantanamo Bay. I also explicitly said that I don't hate the US, so how you could even make that assertion baffles me.

Dear Kurt,

a rational person wouldn't blatantly ignore testimony of torture, and lack of due process.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You guys don't seem to have any benevolence in the way you debate, or view things. Not making a wanting to make a generalization but I read that kind of thing time and time again in Oist debate and articles, mockery also seems commonplace. You assume the worst intentions in me, even though I have blatantly said I don't hate the US. And before you proclaim otherwise, I don't support Al Qaeda.

I see that lewrockwell.com's article's, accurately examines some Oist attitudes towards the middle east.

Post 16

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 3:48pm

I did not "presented atrocities by Islamic militants, as justification for the hatred and persecution of Arabs and Muslims." as you stated. I pointed out facts and nowhere did I say it "justified hatred and persecution" - You distort that because I doubt the veracity of people claiming torture without any corroborating evidence. Anyone who speaks to convicts can get a million "testimonies" from the inmates that they are innocent, but it is not given credence in court. Nor is GB a particularly large number of people.

Then you conflate slavery and indians in the US from long ago to incidents that are happening NOW. In fact, Lincoln did some "suspending of liberties" when he fought slavery, didn't he? Tens of thousands of US soldiers died to end that practice - and now they are dying to end the same type of murder and slavery (actually, worse)in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hopefully the rest of the Middle East (by example and diplomacy, hopefully not by war if at all possible) and yet you remain silent.

Also, what is your opinion of the muslim religion and its attitude towards women? How about the fact that so many call for the death of all jews, the destruction of Israel, and the death of infidels and Christians or their subjugation, or any who would say something negative (like the cartoons)? What about Iran that JUST TODAY beat women who were protesting for more rights? What about Imams preaching our destruction, should this be just ignored? How many times does someone have to say they want to hurt me and then hurt me before I believe them?

The reason we say you hate the USA is your willful description of the US today = US from hundreds of years ago and because you compare a small number of people in GB that you think (based on self-serving testimony and propoganda) are having their due process violated to millions who are enslaved NOW throughout the muslim world - and not be their own doing, but by small groups of radicals and dictators, people who provide 0 rights to their people. Where is the reasonble comparison?

Here is a nice illustation of what you are doing: Abdullah the Muslim comes to your birthday party and gives you a bag full of dog shit. Then John the American comes in and gives you a very nice painting. You yell at John then because the painting has a small spot on it that he smudged with his fingers because he works as a mechanic and just came off the job. Meanwhile, Abdullah ransacks you fridge for food, breaks your valuables, and feels up your wife, and you keep yelling at John.

Post 17

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:02pm

Dear Kurt,

I'm not going to answer the question on the moral state of the middle east in too much depth, all I'm going to say is that I've read various media and NGO reports of human rights abuse in the middle east, and no, - before you assert otherwise - I don't whitewash, or turn a blind eye to them.

The title of this thread is Guantanamo Bay, I wished to examine the silence on the matter and engage in debate with some Oists.

Why do I focus on this, and not on the atrocities carried out by middle eastern governments in a thread? Well Oism does a pretty good job at pointing that out already. And the main reason is that I have perceived a withdraw of concern for the human rights (life, liberty, due process) of people in the middle east. Also there is a generalization that because people live in the middle eastern government, verbally supports terrorists, their citizens do(what about the people who didn't protest?), and because of this we shouldn't be concerned enforce their rights, or care about casualties of war. If you are interested this articles present an opposition I agree with http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory62.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne20.html

You say that US soldiers are dying to end human rights abuse, but what about the human rights abuse being perpetrated by the US military?

How many people do you need to report human rights infringement in Guantanamo bay before you take the allegations seriously; FBI memo's, Jag memo's, ex-detainees, lawyers of detainees, Red cross leaked confidential report, Amnesty international, Human rights watch, America Civil Liberties Union, the Lancet, investigative journalism programmes, various international Newspapers, and international TV news programmes.

The US government disregards abuse allegations, but government inside memos seem to support the allegations.

I don't consider highlighting human rights abuse being carried out by a coalition that proclaims to be defending and spreading human rights, insignificant.

And if I'm personally honest with, you the unconcern for examining torture allegations and human rights infringe, reflects a sad example of the effects of dehumanization, there seems to be no universal empathy for humanity. I would be upset and afraid to think that if I was arrested under the anti-terrorism and serious organised crime acts, (as anti-blair/bush foreign policy protestors are in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4507446.stm ), you would be unconcerned with my human rights.

link to memos
http://texscience.org/reform/torture/

Post 18

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:54pm

Just wanted to clear up a part of my post that may bring confusion,

'Also there is a generalization that because people live in the middle eastern government, verbally supports terrorists, their citizens do(what about the people who didn't protest?), and because of this we shouldn't be concerned enforce their rights, or care about casualties of war.'

I should have put in the between the brackets; what about the people who didn't express happiness for the terrorists attacks.

Post 19

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 2:26pm