DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on October 20, 2006, 01:50:08 PM
-
WIll this stand?
Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; A18
Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.
Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.
The new law already has been challenged as unconstitutional by lawyers representing the petitioners. The issue of detainee rights is likely to reach the Supreme Court for a third time.
Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning "you have the body," is one of the oldest principles of English and American law. It requires the government to show a legal basis for holding a prisoner. A series of unresolved federal court cases brought against the administration over the last several years by lawyers representing the detainees had left the question in limbo.
Two years ago, in Rasul v. Bush, which gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention before a U.S. court, and in this year's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Supreme Court appeared to settle the issue in favor of the detainees. But the new legislation approved by Congress last month, which gives Bush the authority to try detainees before military commissions, included a provision removing judicial review for all habeas claims.
Immediately after Bush signed the act into law Tuesday, the Justice Department sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asserting the new authorities and informing the court that it no longer had jurisdiction over a combined habeas case that had been under consideration since 2004. The U.S. District Court cases, which had been stayed pending the appeals court decision, were similarly invalid, the administration informed that court on Wednesday.
A number of legal scholars and members of Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have said that the habeas provision of the new law violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion." Historically, the Constitution has been interpreted to apply equally to citizens and noncitizens under U.S. jurisdiction.
The administration's persistence on the issue "demonstrates how difficult it is for the courts to enforce [the clause] in the face of a resolute executive branch that is bound and determined to resist it," said Joseph Margulies, a Northwestern University law professor involved in the detainee cases.
On Tuesday, the appeals court granted a petition by lawyers for the detainees to argue against the new law. Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many of the detainees, said yesterday that he expected the administration to file a motion for dismissal of all the cases before the defense challenge is heard.
"We and other habeas counsel are going to vigorously oppose dismissal of these cases," Warren said. "We are going to challenge that law as violating the Constitution on several grounds." Whichever side loses in the upcoming court battles, he said, will then appeal to the Supreme Court.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
-
Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII.
-
<<Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII.>>
That's nothing. You'd be really amazed at how unconsitutional it was to its own black citizens back then!!!
(sirs' theory is, once unconstitutional, always unconstitutional. Don't - - whatever you do - - even think about enforcing the Constitution.)
But why only go back to the 1940s? Why not the pre-Civil War days when slavery was the law of the land? That's who you should really model yourselves on, the USA of 1840, not 1940. If you love unconstitutionality as much as sirs does, now THAT'S unconstitutionality!!!
-
Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII.
Amazing how some folks seem willing to excuse unconstitutional behavior now by comparing it to unconstitutional behavior then. As if somehow ignoring the Constitution before makes it okay now.
-
Amazing how some folks seem willing to excuse unconstitutional behavior now by comparing it to unconstitutional behavior then. As if somehow ignoring the Constitution before makes it okay now.
My thoughts are that we weren't so "unconstitutional" then, or now
-
<<Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII. >>
I guess you have proof that the Japanese and Nazi POWS of WWII were suffocated, beaten and kicked to death, tortured, anally raped, attacked by guard dogs while naked, denied communication with their families, held in secret prisons in undisclosed locations and sexually humiliated don't you? How'd you like to share some of that proof with the group?
-
<<Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII. >>
I guess you have proof that the Japanese and Nazi POWS of WWII were suffocated, beaten and kicked to death, tortured, anally raped. How'd you like to share some of that proof with the group?
Cool, now show us where our troops were/are
a) doing it
b) Government is condoning it
c) Supporters of the war support it
Your other references are not relevent and/or they're distorted allegations
-
<<Cool, now show us where our troops were/are
a) doing it>>
I'm not going to fall for that same bullshit over and over again. The misconduct of U.S. troops torturing, suffocating, beating to death and anally raping prisoners is well documented and if you really don't know anything about it, I can only assume that you have been in a coma for the past two years from which you have only just awakened.
<<b) Government is condoning it>>
That's inferred from the failure to prosecute any high-ranking officers who allowed this to happen on their watch, from the modest sentences given to the few lowly soldiers already convicted of some of these events, from the "President" reserving right to torture for himself, from the widespread nature of the offences and probably a few other indicators that haven't occurred to me at the moment.
<<c) Supporters of the war support it>>
a total irrelevancy, if the act is in fact unconstitutional, the approval or disapproval of the supporters of the war can't make it any more or any less constitutional.
-
<<Cool, now show us where our troops were/are
a) doing it
b) Government is condoning it>>
I'm not going to fall for that same bullshit over and over again. The misconduct of U.S. troops torturing, suffocating, beating to death and anally raping prisoners is well documented and if you really don't know anything about it, I can only assume that you have been in a coma for the past two years from which you have only just awakened.
And I can only assume you're going to stick to the same lack of facts /proof is a validation of facts/proof.
-
I have had conversations with Veterans of the Pacific fighting who have told me that they avoided takeing Japaneese prisoners.
This is hardly proof , but it is equal to supposition that the few cases that are presently being prosicuted are a "tip of an Iceberg".
-
<<And I can only assume you're going to stick to the same lack of facts /proof is a validation of facts/proof. >>
No, sirs, I am not. The facts of US abuse of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners are so well known that I will assume that anyone who reads my post knows all about them. Just like I would assume that he or she knows that the U.S. has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. If anyone reading my post is so fucking ignorant that he or she doesn't know that basic and well-documented fact, then there is nothing to be gained by further dialogue with him or her and I will spend my time more productively dialoguing with readers who at least know the basic facts of the situation, whether or not they agree with me, and leave the wingnuts to dialogue with the wingnuts.
-
<<And I can only assume you're going to stick to the same lack of facts /proof is a validation of facts/proof. >>
No, sirs, I am not. The facts of US abuse of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners are so well known that I will assume that anyone who reads my post knows all about them. Just like I would assume that he or she knows that the U.S. has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes Tee, you are. Your facts are of examples already condemned actions of torture, already investigated & prosecuted acts of mistreatment, and pure opinion of Afghanistan & Iraqi invasions. In short, you have squat, as it relates to this supposed widespread abuse and torture at the hands of our Military, and advocated by our Government
-
sirs, you're as welcome to the opinion that the U.S. doesn't torture its prisoners as I am to the opinion that it does. But as far as I'm concerned, that's an issue that I have no interest in debating. It would be like debating whether or not the U.S. invaded Iraq. (Or whether or not Bush lied.) Those issues as far as I am concerned are done. Dead and buried. You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. We've been through every permutation and combination of the case for and against and there's no point in going through them again for the 500th time.
-
sirs, you're as welcome to the opinion that the U.S. doesn't torture its prisoners as I am to the opinion that it does. But as far as I'm concerned, that's an issue that I have no interest in debating.
Oh I realize trying to debate with someone as closed minded as they are on certain subjects can prove quite disinteresting. Been having to deal with that on pair of other threads. It's in those cases that I remind myself that there are others who don't post, who simply read these forums. And its those folks that allow me to endure the perseverating Bush lied us into war, Capitalism & America are evil, U.S. military tortures diatribes you call critical thinking. So, yes, you are absolutely entitled to your alternate version of events, as it relates to Bush and our military. Just don't think they're gonna get free passes, like so many Liberal Democrat Politicians receive from Mainstream media reporters
-
I think that the origional stratergery was to repeat "Bush Lied " with no supporting facts so many times that the defense was exausted and simply allowed th naked assertion to stand.
But apparently the strain is starting to show on the strategisers.
-
<< I think that the origional stratergery was to repeat "Bush Lied " with no supporting facts so many times that the defense was exausted and simply allowed th naked assertion to stand.
<<But apparently the strain is starting to show on the strategisers. >>
Bass-ackward like everything else you write. "Bush lied" was a conclusion that started to become apparent on its own for some people as soon as they saw his lips moving, for others as soon as he made claims about WMD that were at odds with the accounting that Saddam gave to the UN and for many many more, as soon as it became apparent that there were no WMD in all of Iraq.
As the impression grew that Bush was a liar, based on nothing more than the exposure of his lies, the defenders of Bush began a campaign to extensively defend every lie, no matter how absurdly, causing those who knew that Bush had lied to go back and research what they already knew. Naively thinking that those who denied the lies were simply misinformed and would see the error of their ways.
The will to exhaust was always a factor, but it was the will of Bush's defenders to exhaust those who knew that Bush lied, and not the other way around. It was the will of the liars to exhaust the will of those who told the truth.
-
"Bush lied" was a conclusion that started to become apparent on its own for some people as soon as they saw his lips moving, for others as soon as he made claims about WMD that were at odds with the accounting that Saddam gave to the UN and for many many more, as soon as it became apparent that there were no WMD in all of Iraq.
As the impression grew that Bush was a liar, based on nothing more than the exposure of his lies, the defenders of Bush began a campaign to extensively defend every lie, no matter how absurdly, causing those who knew that Bush had lied to go back and research what they already knew.
Close. The "defense" was in simply extensively demonstrating how every lie about Bush lied, was just that. No matter how absurd, they weren't ignored, simply shown to be acutely lacking in any logical, factual and/or rational merit, with probably the most pathetic of that being he lied about WMD.
-
My thoughts are that we weren't so "unconstitutional" then, or now
That contributes to it being amazing. But maybe it's just me. I don't know how anyone can read the Constitution and conclude that the Japanese internments or the current administration's attempts to deny habeas corpus are in any way constitutional. Whether it is or is not constitutional doesn't seem to matter in the least, so why bother justifying it as constitutional? Maybe this "it's constitutional because I'm okay with it" attitude is the way we should all think about it, but I don't and honestly don't want to do so.
-
c) Supporters of the war support it
They didn't support it exactly. More like they just tried to dismiss it. I recall lots of talk about "putting it in perspective" and comparing it to a college frat prank. I guess that isn't really support, but it hardly looks like a condemnation either.
-
<<Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII. >>
I guess you have proof that the Japanese and Nazi POWS of WWII were suffocated, beaten and kicked to death, tortured, anally raped, attacked by guard dogs while naked, denied communication with their families, held in secret prisons in undisclosed locations and sexually humiliated don't you? How'd you like to share some of that proof with the group?
----------------------------------
When the same things happen to our troops is when we won't be OK with it.
-
Quote from: Michael Tee on October 20, 2006, 04:27:40 PM
<<Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII. >>
I guess you have proof that the Japanese and Nazi POWS of WWII were suffocated, beaten and kicked to death, tortured, anally raped, attacked by guard dogs while naked, denied communication with their families, held in secret prisons in undisclosed locations and sexually humiliated don't you? How'd you like to share some of that proof with the group?
----------------------------------
When the same things happen to our troops is when we won't be OK with it.
When has anything nice been the norm for Captured Americans?
In the Revolutionary War Captured Americans were rotting alive on prison barges .
In the Civil War Prison Camp conditions were uniformly awfull with a few outstandingly awfull camps like Andersonville.
In WWII Allied Prisoners of Japan were worked to death , starved , beaten , beheaded etc.
I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.
-
<<In WWII Allied Prisoners of Japan were worked to death , starved , beaten , beheaded etc.
<<I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.>>
I'm not sure you understand the point of the thread from which the quote was taken. To the best of my recollection, sirs was trying to argue that the U.S. wasn't treating its POWS any differently than they had been treated in WWII and my challenge was to find Abu-Ghraib-type treatment of Japs (who really would have deserved it) in WWII. The point was that sirs COULDN'T find that kind of treatment because it did not exist, thereby disproving his point.
In other words, I did not intend to hold up the U.S. to shame for its treatment of Japanese prisoners in WWII, who IMHO were treated much better than they deserved and certainly than they treated Canadian and Allied prisoners.
-
In WWII Allied Prisoners of Japan were worked to death , starved , beaten , beheaded etc.
I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.
We did not have legalized torture then. At least one Japanese war criminals was tried and put to death. Deservedly so.
We should treat prisoners as we are supposed to under the Geneva Accord and the military rules.
-
We did not have legalized torture then. At least one Japanese war criminals was tried and put to death. Deservedly so.
How many have been convicted and sent to prison for their actions at Abu Ghraib?
-
"How many have been convicted and sent to prison for their actions at Abu Ghraib?"
You mean the low-ranking soldiers like Graner and England?
I'm talking about Generals. That is who you try and that is who you put to death or hold in prison, if you want war crimes to stop. Who ordered the abuse?
-
I don't believe i qualified my question. How many people have been convicted.
How many people who directly participated in the torture have been charged and or convicted?
Of those how many have shown orders demanding that they perform the torture?
Wouldn't that be a prerequisite for going after higher ups?
-
I don't believe i qualified my question. How many people have been convicted.
How many people who directly participated in the torture have been charged and or convicted?
Of those how many have shown orders demanding that they perform the torture?
Wouldn't that be a prerequisite for going after higher ups?
Not to worry all that is coming after the Dem landslide on 11/7/06.
-
Hopefully the dems will campaign on that theme for the remaining weeks.
-
When the same things happen to our troops is when we won't be OK with it.
I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.
Probably not. But Lanya's comment is probably correct. If some of our troops were being treated the way prisoners at Abu Ghraib were treated, most of the folks who have been saying the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was no big deal would be making a big deal out of the way our troops were being abused. And frankly, it doesn't matter how bad the rest of the world treats military prisoners. We are supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be the guys who care about human rights and set the higher example for the rest of the world. And we leave that behind to point fingers and say "at least we're not as bad as they are".
-
Can you tell me who has actually said that the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Garaib is "no big deal"?
If a crime were to send you to prison for five , twenty or life in prison , would you think it was a big deal?
Who thinks that sending some one to a federal prison for a long part of his life is no big deal?
-
Can you tell me who has actually said that the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Garaib is "no big deal"?
Right off the top of my head, I recall Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talking heads comparing the Abu Ghraib abuse to a college frat prank. And I also recall some conservative opinion column writers, along with some conservatives at 3DHS, explaining that we needed to put the abuse into "perspective", that compared to things other countries have done and compared to the actions of terrorists, it really wasn't that bad. Maybe you missed that conversation, but I remember being appalled that people were trying to minimize the abuse. (I did not comment on the Abu Ghraib abuse when the story first broke because it made me genuinely angry that American troops would be involved in such a thing, and I felt whatever rant I might have produced would not be a good contribution to the discussion.)
And the sad thing is, the minimization is still going on. Look, here is you doing it:
When has anything nice been the norm for Captured Americans?
In the Revolutionary War Captured Americans were rotting alive on prison barges .
In the Civil War Prison Camp conditions were uniformly awfull with a few outstandingly awfull camps like Andersonville.
In WWII Allied Prisoners of Japan were worked to death , starved , beaten , beheaded etc.
I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.
As I said before, how bad the rest of the world treats military prisoners does not matter because we, America, the United States, we are supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be above that because we're supposed to care about human rights. No one is ask you to condemn all of America for the actions of a few, but there is no excuse for justifying the kind of prisoner abuse that went on at Abu Ghraib. And no, the "but they're worse" excuse is not valid no matter how many times it is repeated.
-
This is a significant legal question. We start with the proposition that Congress controls the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Suspending a certain remedy would seem to fall within that sweep. Yet, for habeas particularly, there is an exception (to Congressional control of federal court dockets), which provides for a total ban on suspension save for instances of "rebellion and invasion" (if I recall correctly). The first question is whether our present circumstances present an instance of "invasion." With an on-the-ground, actual attack on US soil in our recent history, and with a continuing threat of repeat attacks, it is not so clear cut that the present time is not a time of "invasion." But further, beyond this exception, I would think that exception or not, Congressional "tinkering" with "core constitutional rights" must be viewed with a suspicious eye, giving the presumption of regularity to the "core constitutional principle." There is also the matter, since habeas in this context is at least a quasi-criminal concept, that the principles behind the ban on ex post facto laws (retroactive criminal laws) must be examined for any bearing on the problem.
-
So because Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda hit us here, and threatens via video to do it again, we suspend our own right to habeas corpus?
What a very clever stroke by Osama.
We did not suspend habeas corpus during WW2, did we? Officially? Post Pearl Harbor?
-
We did not suspend habeas corpus during WW2, did we? Officially? Post Pearl Harbor?
I'm still trying to find out where we "officially" suspended habeas corpus for US citizens now.
-
We did not suspend habeas corpus during WW2, did we? Officially? Post Pearl Harbor?
I'm still trying to find out where we "officially" suspended habeas corpus for US citizens now.
I think it fits in with the Bush lied approach....because they said so
-
Can you tell me who has actually said that the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Garaib is "no big deal"?
Right off the top of my head, I recall Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talking heads comparing the Abu Ghraib abuse to a college frat prank. And I also recall some conservative opinion column writers, along with some conservatives at 3DHS, explaining that we needed to put the abuse into "perspective", that compared to things other countries have done and compared to the actions of terrorists, it really wasn't that bad. Maybe you missed that conversation, but I remember being appalled that people were trying to minimize the abuse. (I did not comment on the Abu Ghraib abuse when the story first broke because it made me genuinely angry that American troops would be involved in such a thing, and I felt whatever rant I might have produced would not be a good contribution to the discussion.)
And the sad thing is, the minimization is still going on. Look, here is you doing it:
When has anything nice been the norm for Captured Americans?
In the Revolutionary War Captured Americans were rotting alive on prison barges .
In the Civil War Prison Camp conditions were uniformly awfull with a few outstandingly awfull camps like Andersonville.
In WWII Allied Prisoners of Japan were worked to death , starved , beaten , beheaded etc.
I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.
As I said before, how bad the rest of the world treats military prisoners does not matter because we, America, the United States, we are supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be above that because we're supposed to care about human rights. No one is ask you to condemn all of America for the actions of a few, but there is no excuse for justifying the kind of prisoner abuse that went on at Abu Ghraib. And no, the "but they're worse" excuse is not valid no matter how many times it is repeated.
Rush Limbaugh can be wrong , his authority within our system is not greater than Al Frankens .
Lanya was who I was responding to a while ago when she said that when our troops get this treatment we won't like it , in truth I expect our troops to be mistreated because they usually are , at no time has the standard we set ever been important ot our enemy.
I will have to give you though that it is wrong to use the enemy as our own standard , we have to stick to treatment standards that are good for our self respect.
-
Can you tell me who has actually said that the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Garaib is "no big deal"?
Right off the top of my head, I recall Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talking heads comparing the Abu Ghraib abuse to a college frat prank. And I also recall some conservative opinion column writers, along with some conservatives at 3DHS, explaining that we needed to put the abuse into "perspective", that compared to things other countries have done and compared to the actions of terrorists, it really wasn't that bad.
I'm compelled to add clarity to this concept being proposed by Prince. The "perspective" was in no way implying "no biggie" It was specific in countering the arguements being posed that what was happening in Abu Graib was somehow equal to what was occuring to those taken by terrorists. That being made to wear underwear on one's head was analogus to being beheaded. That being made to listen to loud music and be deprived of some sleep was analogus to being burned alive. THAT was the concept of "perspective" that was being referenced, vs this concept that any Abu Graib abuses were "no real biggie"
-
We did not suspend habeas corpus during WW2, did we? Officially? Post Pearl Harbor?
I'm still trying to find out where we "officially" suspended habeas corpus for US citizens now.
These things are so easy to look up.
via The New American http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-15-2002/vo18no14_suspending.htm
[]
According to the Bush administration's brief, "the military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants -- including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention." Furthermore, continues the brief, "the Court may not second-guess the military's enemy-combatant determination" because by doing so they would intrude on "the President's plenary authority as Commander in Chief," which supposedly includes the power to establish policies concerning "the capture, detention, and treatment of the enemy and the collection and evaluation of intelligence vital to national security."
[]
-
These things are so easy to look up.
via The New American http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-15-2002/vo18no14_suspending.htm
[]
According to the Bush administration's brief, "the military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants -- including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention." Furthermore, continues the brief, "the Court may not second-guess the military's enemy-combatant determination" because by doing so they would intrude on "the President's plenary authority as Commander in Chief," which supposedly includes the power to establish policies concerning "the capture, detention, and treatment of the enemy and the collection and evaluation of intelligence vital to national security."
[]
Enemy combatants that are captured are POWs and therefore do not have a right to a trial. No right to trial, no right of habeas corpus. Geneva Convention dictates this, if I'm not mistaken.
-
These things are so easy to look up.
via The New American http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-15-2002/vo18no14_suspending.htm
[]
According to the Bush administration's brief, "the military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants -- including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention." Furthermore, continues the brief, "the Court may not second-guess the military's enemy-combatant determination" because by doing so they would intrude on "the President's plenary authority as Commander in Chief," which supposedly includes the power to establish policies concerning "the capture, detention, and treatment of the enemy and the collection and evaluation of intelligence vital to national security."
[]
Enemy combatants that are captured are POWs and therefore do not have a right to a trial. No right to trial, no right of habeas corpus. Geneva Convention dictates this, if I'm not mistaken.
I am sorry, but I fail to see what this has to do with my post.
I did not reference POWs. I referred to citizens who, under this law, can now be declared 'enemy combatants', be imprisoned, and not have the right to counsel.
-
I did not reference POWs.
A captured enemy combatant is a POW. Regardless of citizenship. It's the definition.
"prisoner of war
n., pl. prisoners of war.
A person taken by or surrendering to enemy forces in wartime."
-
I'm compelled to add clarity to this concept being proposed by Prince.
You did, just not in the way you intended, imo.
The "perspective" was in no way implying "no biggie" It was specific in countering the arguements being posed that what was happening in Abu Graib was somehow equal to what was occuring to those taken by terrorists. That being made to wear underwear on one's head was analogus to being beheaded. That being made to listen to loud music and be deprived of some sleep was analogus to being burned alive. THAT was the concept of "perspective" that was being referenced, vs this concept that any Abu Graib abuses were "no real biggie"
I don't know how anyone can come away from that explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal. What abuses do you list? Being made to wear underwear on one's head, being forced to listen to loud music, and sleep deprivation. And you compare it all being beheaded and being burned alive. In what way are you not minimizing the abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib? Sure, it doesn't sound so bad the way you talk about it, but the problem is the abuse was not just some minor inconvenience like lack of sleep or loud music. The abuse included prisoners under threat of attack by snarling dogs, prisoners forced to strip and have sex, prisoners raped and sodomized, and at least one prisoner was forced to stand on a small box, had wires attached to him, and was told if he fell off the box he would be electrocuted. This is inexcusable behavior whether or not you compare it to beheading or anything else terrorists or other countries have done. But you minimize it, speaking of it as if it's just underwear on the head or some loud music. I suppose I should thank you for proving my point, but I'm appalled just the same.
-
A captured enemy combatant is a POW. Regardless of citizenship. It's the definition.
My understanding was that we were not treating terror suspects as prisoners of war because they were not members of a uniformed army. Thus are they "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war".
-
My understanding was that we were not treating terror suspects as prisoners of war because they were not members of a uniformed army. Thus are they "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war".
My understanding is that they are both "enemy combatants" but the Geneva Convention applies only to uniformed soldiers.
"Enemy combatant" seems to be a subset of "Prisoner of War" - as civilians detained by troops are also "Prisoners of War" though not considered "combatants."
-
I don't know how anyone can come away from that explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal
How about the part where I've said that "perpsective" is in no way referencing being "no big deal"? How about the part where I've consistently criticized abuses that go over the line, and need prosecuting. How about the part that making one wear underpants on their head is nothing in relation to having one's head cut off? Your "impression" meter needs a major overhaul, Prince
In what way are you not minimizing the abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib?
Presenting perspective when trying to debate those who claim such abuses at Abu Graib are akin to "abuses" at the hands of terrorists is focused on dismantling the notion of how analogus they're supposed to be. Do you see how it's being presented yet? It's not defending U.S. abuses, it's condeming the notion that abuses are equal in stature.
The abuse included prisoners forced to strip and have sex, prisoners raped and sodomized
Do you see anyone supporting that? Did you notice that such acts have been criticized, and those creating those acts are to be prosecuted?? And if the snarling dogs and "threat" (was it an actual threat or faked threat) of electrocution was simply being done to abuse prisoners for fun, that's to be condemned as well. Do you see that's still no where near being beheaded or burned alive??
-
How about the part where I've said that "perpsective" is in no way referencing being "no big deal"?
And then you proceeded to talk about it as if the abuse was merely making prisoners listen to loud music and wearing underwear on their heads. When I take your comments in context, I don't know how anyone can come away from your explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal.
How about the part where I've consistently criticized abuses that go over the line, and need prosecuting.
Over what line? The line of basic human rights, or the line of if they did it for fun then I'll condemn it? What line are we talking about?
How about the part that making one wear underpants on their head is nothing in relation to having one's head cut off?
How about the part where they had batons shoved up their asses? How about the part where they were made to crawl on the floor while naked? How about the part where prisoners sustained injury or even died as a result of the abuse? How does that correlate to having underwear on one's head?
Your "impression" meter needs a major overhaul, Prince
Oh, I dunno. I think you're doing a good job of indicating how accurate it is.
In what way are you not minimizing the abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib?
Presenting perspective when trying to debate those who claim such abuses at Abu Graib are akin to "abuses" at the hands of terrorists is focused on dismantling the notion of how analogus they're supposed to be. Do you see how it's being presented yet? It's not defending U.S. abuses, it's condeming the notion that abuses are equal in stature.
Do I see how it's being presented yet? Yes. I see that you're talking about loud music and sleep deprivation when the abuses were much greater. I see that you're saying being forced to wear underwear on one's head is nothing compared to a beheading as if that were the worst of the abuses when we both know it is not even remotely close to the worst. It's not defending U.S. abuses, it's just minimizing them so that complaints about them seem trivial. Yes, I see exactly how it's being presented.
The abuse included prisoners forced to strip and have sex, prisoners raped and sodomized
Do you see anyone supporting that?
No, just minimizing and dismissing as if such were nothing more or nothing worse than loud music and underwear on heads.
Did you notice that such acts have been criticized,
Yes. And I noticed that such acts have been compared to college frat pranks and glossed over as if they were just a little sleep deprivation.
and those creating those acts are to be prosecuted?
Yes, and since you brought the subject up, I'll say something about it. Some people, not you but some people, think bothering with this sort of thing undermines the "war effort". If anyone encounters someone like that, I recommend leaving the immediate area and to keep one's children away from such people.
And if the snarling dogs and "threat" (was it an actual threat or faked threat) of electrocution was simply being done to abuse prisoners for fun, that's to be condemned as well.
That sort of comment is the kind that makes me wonder where your "line" is.
Do you see that's still no where near being beheaded or burned alive??
Do you see that it is nowhere near being made to listen to loud music? I don't care one iota whether it is near being beheaded or being burned alive. I care that it is serious and grotesque abuse that should not be tolerated under any circumstances. And I see that you're still trying to minimize it.
-
And then you proceeded to talk about it as if the abuse was merely making prisoners listen to loud music and wearing underwear on their heads
Yea, those'd be the ones I have absolutely no problem with
When I take your comments in context, I don't know how anyone can come away from your explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal.
Well, as I said, you need your impression meter rebooted, because you're consistently taking them out of context. I should be getting used to it by now
Over what line? The line of basic human rights, or the line of if they did it for fun then I'll condemn it? What line are we talking about?
The one that abuses prisoners just for the hell of it vs those supposed "abuses" when prisoners taken off the battlefield are being interrogated. When harm becomes physical damage or dismemberment or made to perform sex acts. THOSE are over the line. The use of mental and even physical strain, when interrogating prisoners taken off the battlefield is NOT over the line
How about the part where they had batons shoved up their asses?
OVER
How about the part where they were made to crawl on the floor while naked?
OVER, if the guards are just doing it for fun
How about the part where prisoners sustained injury or even died as a result of the abuse?
OVER
How does that correlate to having underwear on one's head?
When that's one of the references being made equating our abuses to that of what the Terrorists do. As if we're doing the same to each other. The other neat trick here is that when the Terrorists go "over the line" they all high five each other. When our soldiers do it, they're to be properly condemned & prosecuted
Do I see how it's being presented yet? Yes. I see that you're talking about loud music and sleep deprivation when the abuses were much greater
And have you also noted how those abuses that go beyond "loud music" are being consistently condemned yet?? ???
Yes, I see exactly how it's being presented.
Obviously not
just minimizing and dismissing as if such were nothing more or nothing worse than loud music and underwear on heads
See what I mean. Completely ignoring the condemnations I personally have made for such over the top abuses, while you keep placating the notion that the only "abuses" I've referenced or focused on was the underwear & loud music. Personally Prince, I think I've had enough of this misrepresenting of yours I can take for the evening. Perhaps I'll jump back to any responses of yours tomorrow, when I can again remind myself that you're one of the good guys
-
When I take your comments in context, I don't know how anyone can come away from your explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal.
Well, as I said, you need your impression meter rebooted, because you're consistently taking them out of context. I should be getting used to it by now
Taking them out of context? Where? I've quoted you extensively. Quoted entire posts. I've even kept your quote of my comments where necessary so that I specifically do not take your comments out of context. I fail to see how I've taken any your comments out of context.
Over what line? The line of basic human rights, or the line of if they did it for fun then I'll condemn it? What line are we talking about?
The one that abuses prisoners just for the hell of it vs those supposed "abuses" when prisoners taken off the battlefield are being interrogated. When harm becomes physical damage or dismemberment or made to perform sex acts. THOSE are over the line. The use of mental and even physical strain, when interrogating prisoners taken off the battlefield is NOT over the line
How about the part where they had batons shoved up their asses?
OVER
How about the part where they were made to crawl on the floor while naked?
OVER, if the guards are just doing it for fun
How about the part where prisoners sustained injury or even died as a result of the abuse?
OVER
Hey, look, you've said certain things are "over the line". How nice. It really doesn't change what you said initially in your "clarification" but at least now we have some basis for your claims of having "consistently criticized abuses". I'll get back to this later, but here's a clue: I have not read all of your posts, and even if I had, I would not have a complete catalog of all your statements in my head.
How does that correlate to having underwear on one's head?
When that's one of the references being made equating our abuses to that of what the Terrorists do. As if we're doing the same to each other. The other neat trick here is that when the Terrorists go "over the line" they all high five each other. When our soldiers do it, they're to be properly condemned & prosecuted
You got a quote for that? I'd like to see this supposed equating of underwear on heads to beheadings. Anyway, the point of the question was how do the more serious abuses compare to the abuses you listed in your initial response to me in this thread.
Do I see how it's being presented yet? Yes. I see that you're talking about loud music and sleep deprivation when the abuses were much greater
And have you also noted how those abuses that go beyond "loud music" are being consistently condemned yet?? ???
One question mark is sufficient. Anyway, no, I'm not seeing the consistant condemnations yet. Okay, you said they were over the line. When do I see you call them disgusting and abhorant? When I do see you condemning the equating of the abuses to college frat pranks? In this thread, I've seen none of that so far. You chimed in not to agree with me in this, but to contradict me, to "clarify" that "perspective" meant being made to listen to loud music is not the same as being set on fire. A comparison which I never made, and which I don't recall having seen anyone else make.
just minimizing and dismissing as if such were nothing more or nothing worse than loud music and underwear on heads
See what I mean. Completely ignoring the condemnations I personally have made for such over the top abuses, while you keep placating the notion that the only "abuses" I've referenced or focused on was the underwear & loud music. Personally Prince, I think I've had enough of this misrepresenting of yours I can take for the evening.
Ignoring the condemnations you personally have made? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me look in the catalog of "Condemnations Personally Made by Sirs"... oops, wait, no, that doesn't actually exist. And so far in this thread, you've called them "over the line". Wow. Real strong condemnation there. Geez. Why didn't I think of that? Anyway, if you'd bother to look back at the conversation, you might see why I'm criticizing you for not mentioning the more serious abuses. It's because you didn't mention them. In your "clarification" post you mentioned only prisoners being made to wear underwear on their heads, being made to listen to loud music, and being deprived of sleep. Now if you want to show me where someone actually said being made to have underwear on one's head is the same as beheading, I'll be happy to join you in declaring that person to be overreacting. In the meantime, that you did not mention anything more serious sure looks to me like you were minimizing the abuses. The idea that somehow the folks who were comparing the abuse there to the actions of terrorists were only concerned with a little loud music or sleep deprivation, well, you have got to be kidding me. And for the record, I'm not comparing the two. My anger in this matter has nothing to do with whatever standards the terrorists have, and everything to do with the standards I expected us to have.
I know of no reason to not insist that the calls to put the Abu Ghraib abuse into perspective were attempts to minimize the abuse. Every instance of that I can recall was about how the abuses were nothing worse that one might see in a frat house, or that to discuss it is to tarnish the good name of the military, or that caring what happened there was caring about the rights of mass murders (as if that were some sort excuse to abuse people), or some such. All of it intended to say that it's really just a minor thing, and not worth getting upset over. I do not agree, and that someone would consider minimizing the abuse is appalling to me. I realize to some people that pigeonholes me into the same category as those who want America to fail, who care more about terrorists than our own troops, but I refuse to apologize for my outrage. I do believe this abuse is something the majority of our troops would never do. But that doesn't lessen my anger. And frankly, I'm disgusted that some people want to try to tell me that I should not be so angry about it because we're not as bad as the terrorists, or that we need to put America ahead of our concerns about rights. We're supposed to be better than that.
Perhaps I'll jump back to any responses of yours tomorrow, when I can again remind myself that you're one of the good guys
Pooh yi.