Guantanamo Stats

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

You agreed with BlueK's self-named radical proposition that Gitmo was created for the primary purpose of expanding executive power.

Sorry. No dice. There's absolutely no legitimate way to read what I wrote, then take the phrase I used to describe the administration and extend it to describe Guantanamo. Nice try, though.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sorry. No dice. There's absolutely no legitimate way to read what I wrote, then take the phrase I used to describe the administration and extend it to describe Guantanamo. Nice try, though.

Welcome to Texread, it must be in the Texas waters.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sorry. No dice. There's absolutely no legitimate way to read what I wrote, then take the phrase I used to describe the administration and extend it to describe Guantanamo. Nice try, though.

You're dickering about words, when it's the substance of the assertion that I'm objecting to.

So fine, clear it up for me: do you agree that post-2002 Gitmo policy was created primarily to give Bush cover for expanding executive power? Specifically, to unlawfully detain US citizens?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Who is worse than Bush and Carter?

But let's not take anything Bush said at face value. It was not created for the purpose of protecting the US, it was created to evade the protections of US law. It was a careful plan.

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.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And he didn't do it to expand executive power, he did in disregard of whether it increased executive power and whether it abridged the civil liberties of the US.

In fact, his lawyers knew it was a problem and carefully sought to create plausible deniability, because Bush wanted to do, what he wanted to do.

And John Ashcroft is reading your public library checkout records.

[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.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

So fine, clear it up for me: do you agree that post-2002 Gitmo policy was created primarily to give Bush cover for expanding executive power? Specifically, to unlawfully detain US citizens?

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. Do I think his use of Gitmo in this capacity establishes a dangerous precedent? Yes.

[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.