- #1
ice109
- 1,714
- 6
can someone give me some legitimate arguments for why detainees at gitmo shouldn't have the same legal right as us citizens? to me these like basic rights but i think I'm missing something.
Only US citizens have the same legal rights as US citizens.ice109 said:can someone give me some legitimate arguments for why detainees at gitmo shouldn't have the same legal right as us citizens? to me these like basic rights but i think I'm missing something.
The detainees have the same minimal set of rights conferred to pirates, slave traders, and others classified as hostis humani generis ("enemies of mankind"). They have a right not to be tortured (torturers are being viewed more and more as a "enemies of mankind"; http://openjurist.org/630/f2d/876/filartiga-v-pena-irala" ), but not much else.ice109 said:can someone give me some legitimate arguments for why detainees at gitmo shouldn't have the same legal right as us citizens?
It is not at all clear that the detainees at Guantanamo - plucked from foreign countries as a part of our own invasions meet the threshold of suspension that the Bush-Cheney Administration would claim.The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
LowlyPion said:It is not at all clear that the detainees at Guantanamo - plucked from foreign countries as a part of our own invasions meet the threshold of suspension that the Bush-Cheney Administration would claim.
DaleSpam said:I don't know if there is some US legal document that defines human rights, but if there is one then since they are humans they would have the rights of humans protected by such a document.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
TheStatutoryApe said:And I think that the bill of rights was generally considered basic rights that all people should have.
TheStatutoryApe said:And I think that the bill of rights was generally considered basic rights that all people should have. So if all men are created equal, a truth that is apparently self evident, what does it matter if a person is a citizen or not to whether they are capable of having these rights applied to them?
Vanadium 50 said:I don't think that's quite right. First, until the 14th Amendment, there was no requirement that the States enforce these rights. Second, many of these "rights" were in fact not individual rights but restrictions on the federal government. It doesn't say that individuals have an unrestricted freedom of speech - it says Congress can pass no law abridging this freedom. Many of these rights are not rights at all - consider the 27th amendment (one of the original BoR amendments, not passed until 1992): it says Congress cannot grant itself a raise.
Not at all. Based on the writings of the Founders, Vanadium is entirely correct. As constitutional scholars like the Pres elect are fond of saying, the constitution and BoR provide 'negative liberties', that is, it is chiefly concerned with articulating that which the government shall not do, and wisely so. The liberty aspects of the Federalist Papers are almost entirely about whether or not the federal government was adequately restrained. In the constitution, the rights of the individual only appear 'negatively'; look to Jefferson's Declaration for articulation of individual rights.BobG said:When it comes to the reasoning behind the first 10 amendments, StatutoryApe is correct - which is one reason two of the amendments weren't approved at the time(including the 27th Amendment). The door was opening beyond the intended scope.
Vanadium is parsing the legal language used in the amendments instead of looking at the motivation that initiated the amendments...
mheslep said:Not at all. Based on the writings of the Founders, Vanadium is entirely correct. As constitutional scholars like the Pres elect are fond of saying, the constitution and BoR provide 'negative liberties', that is, it is chiefly concerned with articulating that which the government shall not do, and wisely so. The liberty aspects of the Federalist Papers are almost entirely about whether or not the federal government was adequately restrained. In the constitution, the rights of the individual only appear 'negatively'; look to Jefferson's Declaration for articulation of individual rights.
Exactly.BobG said:...The government can't give these rights to the individual because these are inalienable rights that the people (all people) already have (which is why they weren't addressed in the Constitution on first go round). Any rights the government gives the people can also be taken away by the government. Hence, the 'negative liberties' ensuring the government doesn't infringe on rights already belonging to individuals regardless of what government they live under.
russ_watters said:The basic problem with that, CQ, is that they exist outside the law. American laws are for American citizens and for enforcement on American soil, so there is no law to "process" them under. That's what treaties such as the Geneva Conventions are for. And they may be similar to laws, but they don't contain provisions for a trial, nor should they.
The president reserves the right to suspend habeas corpus in certain situations. And the issue arises that, since the Iraq war (the actual battle) is over, can we allow the president to invoke this right based on such a vague notion as a "War on Terror". Personally I would say no. And I don't believe his daddy ever held any drug dealers as enemy combatants either.CaptainQuasar said:So, by that passage of BobG's you just resoundingly agreed with, the "negative liberty" stated in the seventh amendment saying "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" means that all people possesses rights to life, liberty, and property that must not be infringed without due process of law regardless of what government they live under, right?
It certainly seems that the guys at Gitmo, particularly the ones who were captured, held for several years, and then released with no comment, were deprived of liberty without due process of law - with no process of law, in fact.
I definitely agree with jimmy's statement at the top that they aren't going to have the same rights as U.S. citizens. Just common human rights, which I think are mixed in with rights granted by the U.S. government in the Bill of Rights.⚛
If the US has any right to detain them currently then the US should be able to try them under US law. If US laws can not be applied to them then the US has no right to detain them and they ought be released to anyone who does have authority to handle them, or on their own recognizance.russ_watters said:The basic problem with that, CQ, is that they exist outside the law. American laws are for American citizens and for enforcement on American soil, so there is no law to "process" them under. That's what treaties such as the Geneva Conventions are for. And they may be similar to laws, but they don't contain provisions for a trial, nor should they.
Try them for what? Though I'm sure some of them could be charged with war crimes, I suspect most of them could not. That makes their status little more than that of POWs. Regular POWs didn't commit any crimes and so don't get a trial.CaptainQuasar said:There's law to detain them under but not a process of law to examine the reasons for which they're detained? Sounds like a flourish of sophistry to me. There are international courts, like where Slobodan Milošević was tried.
That's not what I said at all. Read it again. One can only get a trial in a jurisdiction that applies. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated with certain level of human dignity. Again, you didn't specify what liberties you were talking about - certainly not all those in the Bill of Rights apply to their status. For example, for any prisoner, freedom of speech, assembly, and search/siezure are severely curtailed.Not to mention - what you're saying is that if someone happens to not fall under any jurisdiction then *poof* their right to liberty, which according to BobG and mheslep is something that exists without being granted by the U.S. government which the 7th amendment avoids infringing upon, disappears somehow.⚛
CaptainQuasar said:There's law to detain them under but not a process of law to examine the reasons for which they're detained?
Can you provide an argument as to why that should be true? If this is it:TheStatutoryApe said:If the US has any right to detain them currently then the US should be able to try them under US law. If US laws can not be applied to them then the US has no right to detain them and they ought be released to anyone who does have authority to handle them, or on their own recognizance.
Considering that a lot of people are still getting killed over there, that is a tough one to accept.And the issue arises that, since the Iraq war (the actual battle) is over, can we allow the president to invoke this right based on such a vague notion as a "War on Terror". Personally I would say no.
russ_watters said:A guy is arrested in New Jersey and is found to be wanted for a murder in California. Between his capture and his extradition hearing, the government of California falls (if only!). The new governent of California doesn't want him. What can New Jersey do with him?
russ_watters said:You guys are talking in lofty, generic, high sounding principles,
russ_watters said:when the reality of the situtation requires that you be specific. It isn't simple enough to deal with in such a way.
At the end of WWII captured German POWs were reclassified as "disarmed enemy forces" to avoid the Geneva convention and used as slave labour, particularly in France where they were used to clear minefields.Vanadium 50 said:Sure there is. If they were POW's, a category which grants them more rights than "unlawful combatants", they would have to be repatriated at the end of the war.
You are suggesting that we adopt the laws of the Taliban for the purpose of trying our prisoners captured in Afghanistan in 2002. That's absurd.CaptainQuasar said:A simple solution would be for a New Jersey court to try him under the laws of California that existed at the time of his capture.
That they exist outside the law is a practical reality. It's just plain true. I doubt you'll find any legal system in the world that is set up to adopt the laws of another country for the purpose of a trial. That just plain isn't how it works. Your position contains no realistic provisions for implimentation. Heck, you're not answering some of the more important questions here! Like what rights and what to do with them if they are to be released. These are very complicated problems that you are simply whitewashing!And you aren't? "They exist outside the law"...
The idea that everyone has fundamental rights and that a nation must be governed by the rule of law and without transgressing those rights is not some boutique liberal concern, it's an integral part of the American Way. Not to mention agreed upon by most of the people in the world in general.
First off, the status of the prisoners has been reviewed and I would venture to say that they all know why they are there. This picture you paint of people locked up and forgotten about is not how it is working.Oh, give me a break. Telling someone why they are a prisoner - even if the answer is either "you have committed a crime" or "you are a prisoner of war" - in less than four or five years is not something the U.S. government is prevented from doing because it's an insanely complicated measure. Being specific is exactly what the Bush administration has avoided doing at all costs.⚛
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.htmlMore than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers.
russ_watters said:You are suggesting that we adopt the laws of the Taliban for the purpose of trying our prisoners captured in Afghanistan in 2002. That's absurd.
russ_watters said:And you didn't answer the question of what to do with them if we decide not to hold them - that's the more difficult one. It's easy to say what you think we can't do, but if you can't provide a solution, you haven't helped anything.
russ_watters said:That they exist outside the law is a practical reality. It's just plain true.
russ_watters said:I doubt you'll find any legal system in the world that is set up to adopt the laws of another country for the purpose of a trial. That just plain isn't how it works.
russ_watters said:Your position contains no realistic provisions for implimentation.
russ_watters said:First off, the status of the prisoners has been reviewed and I would venture to say that they all know why they are there.
russ_watters said:This picture you paint of people locked up and forgotten about is not how it is working.
russ_watters said:Highlighting the problem I mentioned before that is being ignored here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html
Lots of people die every day in the county I live in. Paramilitary groups, generally referred to as gangs, use all manner of weapons and tactics to kill people and cops in the city streets on a fairly regular basis. Would you say that we can legally define LA county as being at war?russ_watters said:Can you provide an argument as to why that should be true? If this is it: Considering that a lot of people are still getting killed over there, that is a tough one to accept.
This scenario is excessively complicated. California is part of a larger nation and the authorities of that nation may wish to have the person tried. While a person is generally tried in the location where they commited their crime it is not necessary. Trial can be moved, even out of state, to another court. How that works exactly I am not sure but I know that it happens.But certainly, US law never applied to such people (see my example in the previous post), so it is unreasonable to require a trial under US law. Let me give you another example:
A guy is arrested in New Jersey and is found to be wanted for a murder in California. Between his capture and his extradition hearing, the government of California falls (if only!). The new governent of California doesn't want him. What can New Jersey do with him?
You guys are talking in lofty, generic, high sounding principles, when the reality of the situtation requires that you be specific. It isn't simple enough to deal with in such a way.
Can you tell me why it is at all legal to keep persons who have apparently been found innocent detained simply because their country of origin does not want them? If they are innocent they should not be held in a prison. They are in US custody and they are now the USs responsibility. If their country will not take them they should be released here and given perhaps a provisional status as visitors until such time as something can be done with their situation.Highlighting the problem I mentioned before that is being ignored here:
Gitmo, short for Guantanamo Bay, is a detention facility located in Cuba that is operated by the United States government. It was established in 2002 to hold individuals suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The detainees at Gitmo are primarily non-US citizens.
No, the detainees at Gitmo are not entitled to the same legal rights as US citizens. They are not protected by the US Constitution and do not have the right to a fair trial in a civilian court. However, they are entitled to certain basic human rights under international law.
The detainees at Gitmo have the right to challenge their detention through the military commission system, which is a special court set up by the US government to try individuals suspected of terrorist activities. They also have the right to legal representation and access to the courts to challenge their detention.
The US government argues that the detainees at Gitmo are not entitled to the same legal rights as US citizens because they are considered to be enemy combatants, not ordinary criminals. They are also held outside of the US, which the government claims puts them outside the jurisdiction of US courts.
Yes, there is ongoing debate about the legal rights of the detainees at Gitmo. Some argue that they should be given the same legal rights as US citizens, while others believe that they should be treated as enemy combatants and not given the same rights. The issue is still being discussed and debated by lawmakers, human rights organizations, and legal experts.