Guantanamo Stats

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

For detainees, I agree that was part of the reason for selecting Gitmo. And with good reason. In the years since, it seems there's no terrorist that liberal courts don't want to grant Constitutional rights to ... a sad after effect, I assume, of being citizens of the world first, and Americans second.

It must be terrible in your mind that courts seek to enforce the rule of law, requiring prosecutors to actually prove their cases. I see your point, a star chamber is a better method of assuring conviction which is all justice really wants.

And as an aside, the protection afforded the worst amongst us, ensures that all of us are guaranteed adequate protections.

Just for a month, you should live in a realm where civil liberties are dream, not a curse.

I don't find it unreasonable to support no erosion of civil liberties, just as I don't desire any erosion of rights to bear arms.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It must be terrible in your mind that courts seek to enforce the rule of law, requiring prosecutors to actually prove their cases. I see your point, a star chamber is a better method of assuring conviction which is all justice really wants.

The rule of law that applies to foreign born, non-American terrorists captured on the battlefield trying to kill American servicemen, is not the same rule of law that applies to you and me.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And as an aside, the protection afforded the worst amongst us, ensures that all of us are guaranteed adequate protections.

There is nothing about protecting foreign born, non-American terrorists captured on the battlefield trying to kill American servicemen, that protects me.

In the least.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

The rule of law that applies to foreign born, non-American terrorists captured on the battlefield trying to kill American servicemen, is not the same rule of law that applies to you and me.



There is nothing about protecting foreign born, non-American terrorists captured on the battlefield trying to kill American servicemen, that protects me.

In the least.

I can see the argument, and I have made it myself, but really what harm occurs to you and me, if the protections are afforded to others?

What harm is there in requiring a prosecution to actually use time-honored methods to prove its case?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can see the argument, and I have made it myself, but really what harm occurs to you and me, if the protections are afforded to others?

What harm is there in requiring a prosecution to actually use time-honored methods to prove its case?

The harm was that as the article shows, most wouldn't have been convicted under normal judicial procedures. That's why the administration had to create a new system.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Do I think Bush began using Gitmo to circumvent existing protocol regarding prisoners of war with the deliberate intention of later using the same tactics against American citizens? No.

But that was the contention you were agreeing with. Your later clarification is very reassuring, though.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can see the argument, and I have made it myself, but really what harm occurs to you and me, if the protections are afforded to others?

What harm is there in requiring a prosecution to actually use time-honored methods to prove its case?

As has been detailed by those smarter than me, there are very compelling reasons not to extend Constitutional protections (or Geneva protections, for that matter) to those who do not meet the standards for them.

To your second question: I believe military tribunals were appointed for that purpose, which thing I do not object to.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The rule of law that applies to foreign born, non-American terrorists captured on the battlefield trying to kill American servicemen, is not the same rule of law that applies to you and me.



There is nothing about protecting foreign born, non-American terrorists captured on the battlefield trying to kill American servicemen, that protects me.

In the least.

Nonsense. First of all, you are assuming the following:

1. That everyone captured was foreign born
2. That everyone captured was non-American
3. That everyone captured was a terrorist
4. That everyone captured was on the battlefield trying to kill American servicemen

Each of the 4 above are demonstrably false (ironic that the study Arch posted is further evidence that each of the 4 above are demonstrably false, and you have still missed it).

When you assume that all 4 items above are true, it is easy to then conclude that it doesn't affect you or your liberties at all, and it is easy to conclude that all 4 items above are true when you don't give anyone a trial or tell them what they are being charged with, or even allow them to speak to defense counsel without the prosecuting attorney being present.

They came for the Jews...