- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
Yes, let''s just let those poor terrorists go free:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_al_qaida
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_al_qaida
Closing Guantanamo
- Thread starter diamondseeker2006
- Start date
- Status
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
They''re not going free, for the record. I''d say American high-security prisons really are sufficient and I don''t understand why other people don''t consider this to be true. I can''t even begin to recount the number of international laws that Guantanamo broke, so let''s just say it will be a lot more productive to put them on American soil so that we can be true to the fundamental values of our often great country by restoring habeas corpus and exercising a legitimate criminal justice system instead of using torture and refusing to follow judicial protocol. These are basic values of our country and at the core of our Constitution.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
I assure you that anyone who can reasonably be found guilty of committing a crime will be put in prison. Even the most liberal among us think that people who have broken the law belong in prison, and I am sure these particular prisoners will be handled with the utmost care.
As for anyone who will be released, it is my hope that the judicial process will be able to determine who is innocent and who is guilty to the best of its ability. I don''t see this as being especially different than the usual cases that come before courts all the time, many of them heinous. I am a firm believer that it is necessary to use the very basic roots of our system on even the worst offenders, and that justice is served only when prisoners of any sort are granted a fair trial. We cannot take the moral high ground without acting within the very framework our country was founded under. If we are to promote democracy we need to make sure that we model it productively, do we not? I am not naive enough to think that the criminal justice system is always fair, but I''d hope no one would advocate holding someone in prison when we cannot prove they have committed a crime. Unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that some of the Gitmo detainees are being held without evidence against them for years without trial. That''s horrible and wrong, and I hope that closing the facility will force the system to exercise restraint only within the confines of American law... which includes a fair and expedient trial.
As for anyone who will be released, it is my hope that the judicial process will be able to determine who is innocent and who is guilty to the best of its ability. I don''t see this as being especially different than the usual cases that come before courts all the time, many of them heinous. I am a firm believer that it is necessary to use the very basic roots of our system on even the worst offenders, and that justice is served only when prisoners of any sort are granted a fair trial. We cannot take the moral high ground without acting within the very framework our country was founded under. If we are to promote democracy we need to make sure that we model it productively, do we not? I am not naive enough to think that the criminal justice system is always fair, but I''d hope no one would advocate holding someone in prison when we cannot prove they have committed a crime. Unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that some of the Gitmo detainees are being held without evidence against them for years without trial. That''s horrible and wrong, and I hope that closing the facility will force the system to exercise restraint only within the confines of American law... which includes a fair and expedient trial.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
Could you explain a bit more about this? Are there any examples that show this to be true? I follow up pretty closely on this and I'm not aware of any detainees who have been released and turned out to be guilty. If there were to be such a case I would question whether any subsequent criminal acts should indicate that the person was guilty of the first alleged acts. In other words, while it is too bad that someone has committed a crime, it is unreasonable to hold them accountable for a previous crime they were not found guilty of. That's not really how our judicial system works. I think it's important to be consistent and exercise only US law in making these determinations.
I honestly, really, truly see this as an area that "liberals" and "conservatives" can find common ground. Everyone wants criminals to be prosecuted. The only thing we differ on is how to handle the cases, and I think that there is a good case to be made for the importance of sticking to fundamental American values such as the integrity of our judicial system, something which has a great deal of support on both sides of the proverbial aisle.
I would also say that since theory is the basis for democracy to begin with, the theory aspect is important!
ETA: I also think it's important to note that the US Supreme Court came down pretty harshly on the Bush administration's handling of Guantanamo on several occasions, and ordered due process for the detainees. I found it shocking that the Roberts Court could possibly be on the same ideological page as me, but I think that speaks volumes to the nature of this issue, especially legally speaking. The Roberts Court is possible the *most* conservative Court in US history, so I think that's important in and of itself.
ETA: OMG WAIT! Closing Guantanamo will spare the US a fair amount of federal expenditures. I think the detainees can be handled just as well on US soil in existing prisons and it will be much less expensive. I bet we can all agree on that, too!
somethingshiny
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,746
This is a tough subject for me. Obviously, the circumstances at Guantanamo are not ideal. But, frankly, I don''t want those criminals in my country, breathing my air, enjoying the perks of American prisons. Additionally, I wonder how long it would take some extremist to plan out a murder of one of these people. How many more could get injured if another terrorist decided to bomb the whole prison? How many guards, kitchen help, laundry servicers, etc will have their lives at risk trying to protect and serve these people? How many inmates who are just doing time for petty theft are going to be affected horribly? And, how much info are these terrorists going to pass on to the petty theft who wants to make it to the big time?
Of course I don''t have any alternative solutions, just a bunch of questions....
Of course I don''t have any alternative solutions, just a bunch of questions....
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
Did you read the article I linked in my very first post??? (The reason I posted...)Date: 1/23/2009 9:02:37 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
Could you explain a bit more about this? Are there any examples that show this to be true? I follow up pretty closely on this and I''m not aware of any detainees who have been released and turned out to be guilty. If there were to be such a case I would question whether any subsequent criminal acts should indicate that the person was guilty of the first alleged acts. In other words, while it is too bad that someone has committed a crime, it is unreasonable to hold them accountable for a previous crime they were not found guilty of. That''s not really how our judicial system works. I think it''s important to be consistent and exercise only US law in making these determinations.
I honestly, really, truly see this as an area that ''liberals'' and ''conservatives'' can find common ground. Everyone wants criminals to be prosecuted. The only thing we differ on is how to handle the cases, and I think that there is a good case to be made for the importance of sticking to fundamental American values such as the integrity of our judicial system, something which has a great deal of support on both sides of the proverbial aisle.
I would also say that since theory is the basis for democracy to begin with, the theory aspect is important!Our justice system and almost all other aspects of our country were founded based on these theories.
ETA: I also think it''s important to note that the US Supreme Court came down pretty harshly on the Bush administration''s handling of Guantanamo on several occasions, and ordered due process for the detainees. I found it shocking that the Roberts Court could possibly be on the same ideological page as me, but I think that speaks volumes to the nature of this issue, especially legally speaking. The Roberts Court is possible the *most* conservative Court in US history, so I think that''s important in and of itself.
ETA: OMG WAIT! Closing Guantanamo will spare the US a fair amount of federal expenditures. I think the detainees can be handled just as well on US soil in existing prisons and it will be much less expensive. I bet we can all agree on that, too!
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
Okay, a bunch of things to respond to here, so I will try to at least address some of them. #1 is that I don''t think we get to pick who breathes our air and lives in our country. I''m really sorry and I don''t at all want that to come across as snarky, but there are a LOT of people I would prefer not to have to share my country or even my state with, but it''s not my luxury to get to decide that. In fact, I''m sure there are a lot of people who would prefer not to allow me into this country either, and I''m really not okay with that either... for obvious reasons.
American prisons are not perky. Really. Inmates in American prisons are given the bare minimum things that have mostly been decided through court decisions. Let''s just say that most courts aren''t exactly sympathetic to hardened criminals. Again, denying these detainees the same conditions as those serving in American prisons is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately murders in prison are more common than they probably should, and of course not a day goes by that prison guards and other employees of the prison system are faced with dangerous situations brought about by the nature of the inmates they are responsible for. This is not something new that will be introduced with the presence of the Gitmo detainees. There are obviously a lot of highly dangerous people in the prison system. Everyone deserves due process, regardless of the crimes they have committed.
These detainees will obviously be placed in maximum security prisons, which are not the same facilities where people serving time for petty theft and other non-violent crimes are held.
I hope that helps. I also would feel pretty confident that there are numerous experts who know about all of this and much more working to make sure that the situation is handled responsibly. As I said before, nobody wants there to be a terrorist attack or for anything bad to happen.
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
Sorry, I obviously didn''t read the article you posted. I assumed based on the title of the thread that the article discussed the exec. order to close Gitmo, and since I know the details of it basically by heart I responded with that knowledge. I sincerely apologize for that.Date: 1/23/2009 9:14:39 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Date: 1/23/2009 9:02:37 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
Could you explain a bit more about this? Are there any examples that show this to be true? I follow up pretty closely on this and I''m not aware of any detainees who have been released and turned out to be guilty. If there were to be such a case I would question whether any subsequent criminal acts should indicate that the person was guilty of the first alleged acts. In other words, while it is too bad that someone has committed a crime, it is unreasonable to hold them accountable for a previous crime they were not found guilty of. That''s not really how our judicial system works. I think it''s important to be consistent and exercise only US law in making these determinations.
I honestly, really, truly see this as an area that ''liberals'' and ''conservatives'' can find common ground. Everyone wants criminals to be prosecuted. The only thing we differ on is how to handle the cases, and I think that there is a good case to be made for the importance of sticking to fundamental American values such as the integrity of our judicial system, something which has a great deal of support on both sides of the proverbial aisle.
I would also say that since theory is the basis for democracy to begin with, the theory aspect is important!Our justice system and almost all other aspects of our country were founded based on these theories.
ETA: I also think it''s important to note that the US Supreme Court came down pretty harshly on the Bush administration''s handling of Guantanamo on several occasions, and ordered due process for the detainees. I found it shocking that the Roberts Court could possibly be on the same ideological page as me, but I think that speaks volumes to the nature of this issue, especially legally speaking. The Roberts Court is possible the *most* conservative Court in US history, so I think that''s important in and of itself.
ETA: OMG WAIT! Closing Guantanamo will spare the US a fair amount of federal expenditures. I think the detainees can be handled just as well on US soil in existing prisons and it will be much less expensive. I bet we can all agree on that, too!
Did you read the article I linked in my very first post??? (The reason I posted...)
In light of that, I would definitely encourage you to think a bit more about my other statement above: "If there were to be such a case I would question whether any subsequent criminal acts should indicate that the person was guilty of the first alleged acts. In other words, while it is too bad that someone has committed a crime, it is unreasonable to hold them accountable for a previous crime they were not found guilty of. That''s not really how our judicial system works. I think it''s important to be consistent and exercise only US law in making these determinations."
Again, that is NOT how our justice system works. Sometimes guilty criminals get off, but you still cannot continue to hold someone if there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute them. Period. Everyone needs to be subject to the same rules. If not, the actions are unconstitutional. I really don''t understand why this is such a difficult concept for a lot of people.
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
Against US law? Against international law? If it''s not legal, why are we allowed to do it? How do we justify our government as a Democracy when we operate outside of basic, fundamental democratic principles? I think it''s pretty sad that some people are willing to shred the most important parts of the constitution of our country. I''d like to think we''re better than that, but I guess we''re really not.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 13,375
somethingshiny
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,746
Wishful~ Obviously we don't get to pick who we share our country with, but THAT'S how strongly I feel about those criminals being here. There are American criminals who've done heinous things too and I feel the same way about them. I just don't understand why we would offer up our services to horrible people who we weren't forced to deal with. With all due respect, American prisons ARE perky. I've had family in prison doing time and I've had family working in prisons. Yes, there are horrible atrocities that occur within the prisons, but there are also wonderful programs, resources, etc available. (I'm talking about the max prisons and the lesser security prisons) I don't think the Gitmo guys are gonna latch on to our GED program, ya know? I never implied that these detainees don't deserve due process, I just think that should be up to their respective countries. I think we're going to spend Millions of dollars on trying to give these people a fair trial (which, btw, I DON'T believe they can receive in the US.)
But, this is where I have more questions than answers again. On one hand I believe that you should pay the penalty that your law has put in place. On the other hand, some of the penalties are outright stupid and unjustifiable. I believe that we were lucky enough to be born American, we should extend our hands and try to help others. But, would that help be more appreciated or used by someone who actually WANTS to change (of course I don't know if the detainees want or need to change). I guess I should just take comfort in knowing I am not responsible for making these decisions.
eta-in reading the other responses, I've realized that I didn't actually know what the thread was SUPPOSED to be about. Apologies and thanks for addressing my posts anyway!
But, this is where I have more questions than answers again. On one hand I believe that you should pay the penalty that your law has put in place. On the other hand, some of the penalties are outright stupid and unjustifiable. I believe that we were lucky enough to be born American, we should extend our hands and try to help others. But, would that help be more appreciated or used by someone who actually WANTS to change (of course I don't know if the detainees want or need to change). I guess I should just take comfort in knowing I am not responsible for making these decisions.
eta-in reading the other responses, I've realized that I didn't actually know what the thread was SUPPOSED to be about. Apologies and thanks for addressing my posts anyway!
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
To be fair, diamondseeker, while I erred in my original thoughts about what the article itself was about, the vast majority of my statements are still relevant to the issue at hand, and you haven't addressed the questions in my post. If you don't want to respond that is completely your prerogative, of course, but Thing2 agreeing with my posts doesn't indicate that she hasn't read the article.
Thing2- Thanks! My obsession with Con Law leads me to strong conclusions on the issue. And, as a very special treat, I am in the rare position of being interested in finding common ground!
I always enjoy your posts as well.
Thing2- Thanks! My obsession with Con Law leads me to strong conclusions on the issue. And, as a very special treat, I am in the rare position of being interested in finding common ground!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 13,375
Sorry, ds, you're right. (I think it's because the title of your thread and the subject of the article are totally different.)
Now, I read it.
The United States had 6 years to build a case against him, charge him, prosecute him, and render a verdict. If the US could not prove that he was guilty of crimes in 6 years, it is not his problem. Blame the US for not building a case.
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
I will have to respectively disagree with the bolded statement. All but one or two sentences of my posts to you adequately address the content of the article. Other than the post responding to somethingshiny, which was an attempt to answer some of her questions on the subject. I apologize if that post was off-topic, but the majority of the conversation here has been on-topic.
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
I agree as well, and that's precisely what I've said in many of my posts above. We call that due process. If it doesn't work in some cases that's unfortunate, but that doesn't give anyone the right to throw the Constitution out the window in response.
ETA: The fact that they even were allowed to TAKE 6 years to build a case is ludicrous and also a violation of due process, although I suppose he's lucky he even got a trial at all, since that's more than most detainees are afforded.
there is info that some of these high-security-prisons are nothing more than breeding grounds to further spread the twisted thinking of these combatents-they are not criminals but combatents-people we are at war with and who would kill anybody and become a marter so as to enjoy the so called 72 virgins that they think are waiting for them when they do their deeds. they are expected to lie, cheat, or steal to reach their goals according to their teachings-instead of honering life as we do-they honor death and its rewards. to bring them to this coiuntry and put them in the system is insane! if they think being a marter is the in thing-we should accomadate them-but on a one-on-one condition-not taking innocents with them!!!
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Date: 1/23/2009 10:53:32 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
Thing2- Thanks! My obsession with Con Law leads me to strong conclusions on the issue. And, as a very special treat, I am in the rare position of being interested in finding common ground!I always enjoy your posts as well.
That is a rare position to be in! I''m too lazy tonight to try to get into that position, myself, but I admire your ability!
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
It was a bit ad hoc, I admit. The fiscal conservatism thing came to be by chance, but it might be a valid argument in some way. Although I'm not a fiscal conservative when it comes to many other issues, which probably undermines my credibility. Anyways, I always think torture is a bad thing, and flawed as the criminal justice system at least we HAVE one in the US, which is batting 1000 compared to what happens in Gitmo. Flaws aside I kind of like due process and think the Constitution is generally pretty rad. I like to pretend that conservatives also feel this way, what with all the rhetoric about sticking to "American values," but I am starting to feel that my faith has been misplaced. I obviously have nothing better to do than debate tonight.Date: 1/23/2009 11:22:55 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 1/23/2009 10:53:32 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
Thing2- Thanks! My obsession with Con Law leads me to strong conclusions on the issue. And, as a very special treat, I am in the rare position of being interested in finding common ground!I always enjoy your posts as well.
That is a rare position to be in! I'm too lazy tonight to try to get into that position, myself, but I admire your ability!
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
I certainly agree with much of what you have said, wishful. I certainly never said I approved of torture. However, I think we need to look at making stricter laws for those suspected of terrorist activity. These guys aren''t there for no reason. And I certainly don''t want them brought into prisons on our mainland where they can recruit others to their cause.
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
We will have to disagree on most of this post, but I am glad we don''t disagree on all counts.
Obviously there is a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. Some people believe it is worthwhile to suspend Constitutional law in order to prosecute terrorism, and others do not. I am in the latter category for many reasons, but first and foremost because I think we deserve it to ourselves to handle the situation with grace and dignity by living true to our most treasured principles of justice, even when faced with big obstacles. I think if we all work together we can come up with solutions that meet everyone''s concerns, and I honestly do hope that the decisions made by congress, president Obama, and the military about how to carry about the exec. order to close Gitmo are made with the utmost deliberation. I like to believe they will reach a bi-partisan conclusion, and I think the people in charge of this have expressed the same sentiment.I still believe that inmates, whoever they are should get a fair trial! Why are we so afraid of that??? If we have sufficient proof that these men/women have committed/planned terrorist acts, then they will be convicted. But if we do NOT have proof, which I suspect is the case for most of these inmates, then, by law, we will have to send them back to their countries. And this is what happened in some cases. And some of them have indeed decided to engage in SUBSEQUENT, apparently proven terrorist activity. Does that mean that we should hold ALL SUSPECTS indefinitely, without trial, for fear that they could commit future crimes??? Hello!!! That is not how the law works. And we should be ashamed of ourselves for doing so. On one hand we tout our values, moral superiority and "way of life" and on the other hand we condone torture and hold people indefinitely without trial?? How hypocritical does it get??
Oh - I forgot. It is all in the name of national safety and security. Excuse me while I throw up.
Oh - I forgot. It is all in the name of national safety and security. Excuse me while I throw up.
- Status
300x240.png)