I would not be so loose with my metaphors: there is an actual war going on in afghanistan, is there not?daveb said:The problem with that is that in the "War on Terror" there is no specific way to delineate when the war is over, sort of like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". This means they can be held indefinitely.
Protection for prisoners (especially prisoners of war) is a vital tool for preventing abuse and miscarriages of justice. Regarding how one determines if someone is a terrorist there isn't exactly a good track record of this, Mohammad el Gharani was a teenager detained in Guantanamo bay for seven years for being suspected to be involved in a plot that occurred when he was 12. Ultimately there was no evidence but he suffered abuse for years until finally a writ of habeas corpus cleared his name and repatriated him.russ_watters said:Well, being found in an Afghani cave with an ak47 would be another way.
I see no reason why someone who literally steps outside the legal system should be afforded protection by it.
You worded that so broadly, it doesn't sound like you support even the detention of pows!Ryan_m_b said:I'm not sure I follow, I was alluding to the fact that prisoners in Guantanamo bay were not afforded protection under the Geneva convention and did not have the right to habeas corpus. In effect there is nothing to stop the military picking up anyone, calling them a terrorist and throwing them in a detention camp to be intimidated and possibly tortured. It's because of examples like this that I do not support legislation that allows the military to detain people for any time period with no trial.
I don't have an answer for how the situation should be changed but the last ten years has done nothing to make me trust military identification and handling of detainees. I appreciate the need for taking POWs and I am not against that but there should be in place mechanisms to prevent abuse such as inspection from an independent party (possibly including public inquiries in cases of abuse) and allowing habeas corpus as well as the usual human rights to detainees.russ_watters said:You worded that so broadly, it doesn't sound like you support even the detention of pows!
Ryan_m_b said:I'm not sure I follow, I was alluding to the fact that prisoners in Guantanamo bay were not afforded protection under the Geneva convention and did not have the right to habeas corpus. In effect there is nothing to stop the military picking up anyone, calling them a terrorist and throwing them in a detention camp to be intimidated and possibly tortured. It's because of examples like this that I do not support legislation that allows the military to detain people for any time period with no trial.
daveb said:The problem with that is that in the "War on Terror" there is no specific way to delineate when the war is over, sort of like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". This means they can be held indefinitely.
Ryan_m_b said:Protection for prisoners (especially prisoners of war) is a vital tool for preventing abuse and miscarriages of justice. Regarding how one determines if someone is a terrorist there isn't exactly a good track record of this, Mohammad el Gharani was a teenager detained in Guantanamo bay for seven years for being suspected to be involved in a plot that occurred when he was 12. Ultimately there was no evidence but he suffered abuse for years until finally a writ of habeas corpus cleared his name and repatriated him.
Ryan_m_b said:I don't have an answer for how the situation should be changed but the last ten years has done nothing to make me trust military identification and handling of detainees. I appreciate the need for taking POWs and I am not against that but there should be in place mechanisms to prevent abuse such as inspection from an independent party (possibly including public inquiries in cases of abuse) and allowing habeas corpus as well as the usual human rights to detainees.
Allowing military personnel to just shove anyone they suspect of being a terrorist into a camp where they experience abuse and possibly torture with little or no appeal process is a disgusting idea normally associated with N. African and M. Eastern tyrants. It saddens me that in the last decade there have been similar cases in the west.
russ_watters said:I would not be so loose with my metaphors: there is an actual war going on in afghanistan, is there not?
Drakkith said:No one is picking up anyone just because there is a "War on Terror". That isn't an actual war. The legislature specifically stated what it covered:
daveb said:I was merely pointing out that since it can be assumed Al Queda will (probably) exist indefintely, a person held can be held indefintely even if the war in Afghanistan ends at some future time. At what point would the person be released?
Drakkith said:I doubt they can pick up simply anyone. We are looking at one specific piece of legislature that specifically says that it exempts US citizens from this requirement.
Furthermore, I'm nearly certain that there are OTHER LAWS which make this happening to US citizen illegal anyways. Beyond US citizens there are a multitude of laws within the military defining who is who. And in a time of war or emergency one cannot wait and "make sure" someone is a terrorist. It's a bad way to do business.
Office_Shredder said:It exempts the military from detaining US citizens if the military doesn't want to, it grants no protection to US citizens from being detained.
Which laws are there which contradict this, and how long will it take to get through the court system before the detainee is finally released?
Drakkith said:You tell me. If it is likely that the person will commit acts of terror against the US would you release them?
If you can't be sure if they will or not, would you release them?
My job doesn't deal with legal issues, so I don't know specific laws at this time.
Sure, but that doesn't make them clear to apply or universal.Ryan_m_b said:Protection for prisoners (especially prisoners of war) is a vital tool for preventing abuse and miscarriages of justice.
I object to your characterizations, but I will never claim our application of morality to be perfect, Ryan: It is merely spectacularly advanced.Regarding how one determines if someone is a terrorist there isn't exactly a good track record of this, Mohammad el Gharani was a teenager detained in Guantanamo bay for seven years for being suspected to be involved in a plot that occurred when he was 12. Ultimately there was no evidence but he suffered abuse for years until finally a writ of habeas corpus cleared his name and repatriated him.
You're arguing conspiracy theory by reverse psychology here. The Bill of Rights is stll valid - it does not require a framework of laws to cover all situations where it should apply!Office_Shredder said:It exempts the military from detaining US citizens if the military doesn't want to, it grants no protection to US citizens from being detained.
Which laws are there which contradict this, and how long will it take to get through the court system before the detainee is finally released?
Office_Shredder said:The exemption says the military is not REQUIRED to hold American citizens. Where does it say that they aren't ALLOWED to?
Office_Shredder said:It exempts the military from detaining US citizens if the military doesn't want to, it grants no protection to US citizens from being detained.
russ_watters said:When operating in the US, he was under the jurisdiction of and was investigated by the FBI. When he left to go to Yemen, he put himself under the "jurisdiction" of the department of defense and the department of defense handled him as is their way.
Hurkyl said:I suspect you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the law works. The federal government isn't legally allowed to do anything at all, unless there is some law specifically enabling that activity, or can be construed to do so in a fashion that will hold up in court.
In this context, I don't believe there is any difference between "not legally allowed" and "disallowed". And even if there was a difference, it's irrelevant because your recourse is the same either way.daveb said:It may be that way in principle, but the reality is that the government does engage in activities that it is not legally allowed to do, but also not disallowed, and thus the only recourse is to settle it in the courts.
Hurkyl said:I suspect you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the law works. The federal government isn't legally allowed to do anything at all, unless there is some law specifically enabling that activity, or can be construed to do so in a fashion that will hold up in court.
The ACT is very clear on what a covered person is. To try to make it sound like it could apply to the average American is fear mongering and conspiracy theory.Office_Shredder said:This bill specifically permits the president to authorize the military to hold ANYONE determined to be a terrorist indefinitely. So the bill provides the authority to detain US citizens indefinitely. The bill only later exempts the military from being REQUIRED to hold each and every US citizen in military detention. The bill as written very explicitly grants the authority to detain US citizens at the start, and nowhere clarifies that US citizens are not intended to be covered persons.
Evo said:The ACT is very clear on what a covered person is. To try to make it sound like it could apply to the average American is fear mongering and conspiracy theory.
Please explain how & why you see the Average American as being considered a "covered person", since you seem to believe this is the case.
russ_waters said:You're arguing conspiracy theory by reverse psychology here. The Bill of Rights is stll valid - it does not require a framework of laws to cover all situations where it should apply!
Oltz said:How hard would it be for the administration controlled DHS to determin that say Hermain Cain is a terrorist? Or how bout just grabbing the GOP nominee 3 days before the election?
Office_Shredder said:The bill hands over the authority to decide who is and isn't a terrorist to the military.
But the determination of guilt or innocence in criminal cases is something that should be left to the judicial system, especially if it pertains to a US citizen on US soil. There are strict barriers to using the military as a domestic police force for a reason, and it doesn't make sense to me that we should start tearing those down, even if it's just a little bit.
Oltz said:We have an administration that has displayed a willingness to cut corners and bend rules. Constantly doing things through agencies that typically would require congressional involvement. With that in mind should anyone be comfortable with giving the administration the ability to have anyone detained indeffinatly without trial who is determined to be a terrorist.
How hard would it be for the administration controlled DHS to determin that say Hermain Cain is a terrorist? Or how bout just grabbing the GOP nominee 3 days before the election?
Obviously that will not happen but the pure potnetial existing is to close for me. Citizens have due process period no matter the charge or location.
daveb said:While I may not agree with the morality of this application (that he is fully under the jurisdiction of the military outside the US, and thus their legal system), I do understand it. I think my (and some others') concern is that this would be applied to persons living inside the US.
Proton Soup said:the language is muddy enough that it is clear that the intent is to make the intent unclear.
is it not true that jurists would use the statements of congressmen like Graham to determine what the intent of the law was?
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States.
Drakkith said:I have no idea how you're getting this idea. The intent of the law is obvious. It affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. It says so right in the law.
In addition, it also states that it does NOT give the military the right to do anything that goes against another law relating to detaining US citizens:
TheStatutoryApe said:Note the post above yours. The author of the bill specifically sites that case in noting that the bill can and does pertain to US citizens while in the United States. The bill says that it changes nothing because the bill's author believes that the above noted case says it is legal already to detain US citizens in the United States indefinitely.
TheStatutoryApe said:Note the post above yours. The author of the bill specifically sites that case in noting that the bill can and does pertain to US citizens while in the United States. The bill says that it changes nothing because the bill's author believes that the above noted case says it is legal already to detain US citizens in the United States indefinitely.
Jack21222 said:I don't know about you, but that's scary to me.
Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein — to confine military detention to those apprehended “abroad,” i.e., off U.S. soil — failed by a vote of 45-55. Only three Republicans voted in favor of Feinstein’s amendment (Paul, Kirk and Lee), while 10 Senate Democrats voted against it (Levin, Stabenow, Casey, Pryor, Ben Nelson, Manchin, McCaskill, Begich and Lieberman). Remember: the GOP — all of whom except 3 voted today to empower the President to militarily detain citizens without charges — distrusts federal power and are strong believes in restrained government. Meanwhile, even The American Spectator has a more developed appreciation of due process than these Senate Democrats and the White House.
There are several very revealing aspects to all of this. First, the 9/11 attack happened more than a decade ago; Osama bin Laden is dead; the U.S. Government claims it has killed virtually all of Al Qaeda’s leadership and the group is “operationally ineffective” in the Afghan-Pakistan region; and many commentators insisted that these developments would mean that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. And yet here we have the Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, acting not only to re-affirm the war but to expand it even further: by formally declaring that the entire world (including the U.S.) is a battlefield and the war will essentially go on forever.
Jack21222 said:You know, not all of this has to be in hypotheticals.
There was a US citizen who was arrested in the United States, and thrown in a military prison for over 3 years without a trial and without criminal charges.
[/PLAIN]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29[/URL][/QUOTE] So it happened once in a prominent case, the government lost a court case about the procedure it used, but the government ended up being right that he was a terrorist and he was convicted in civilian court.
So does knowing all of this make you feel more or less safe from rogue government action?