cozumel

I quoted the section below from the death penalty post - and although I don't like it, every democratic nation has the right to choose on whether they have capital punishment as a possible sentence.




However, where are the human rights of the individuals held in Guantanamo? A democratic and civilised country should not have in custody any individual for longer than 14 days without some form of trial or court appearance where you are allowed to defend yourself and allowed to have access to all evidence held against you.

__________________

Maddogg6

That was me you quoted - and of course I stand by it .

To me... Guitmo is a prison used off shore to skirt the US constitutionally enforced rights for all people in the US (NOT just citizens as many assume).
Its the only thing that makes sense to me.

I always viewed it as 'pretty weird' that we operate a military prison in a country we have had sanctions against for how long now..?? And choose to put prisoners of 'the war on terrorism' there. Is more difficult for journalist to get access - that would otherwise - 'regulate' via public opinion of what happens there.

Dowaco

Where does the 14 days come from? There are certain sentences, ie. comtempt of court, where the prisoner is incarcerated for as long as they refuse to comply with the judges orders (as in refusal to supply a source for a news story or refusing to produce a kidnap victim for example).

Holding someone who is a material witness or a terrorist without access to the outside world where they could transfer information that might be deadly to thousands is perfectly reasonable.

Here is a scenario. Mr. Doe is apprehended based on CIA surveilence of a phone conversation with a man in Iran. On the tape, it appears that Mr Doe has been given the location of a nuclear bomb that has entered a US port in a shipment of farm equipment. The man in Iran was killed by police and the US authorities do not know which port or ship to look in. Mr Doe refuses to cooperate.

Do you allow him to talk to his lawyer, who will then inform the rest of the terror cell where to find the bomb?
Do you keep the man in detention until he provides the information?
Do you torture him to find out what you need to know?
Do you set him free after 14 days because you don't have enough evidence to convict him of a crime?

In the balance is the death of possibly millions of innocents and the destruction of an entire city. Replace the atomic bomb with a packet of anthrax spores, still too scary? Replace the anthrax with a computer disk holding an internet virus that would bring banking to a halt. Where do you draw the line on what is too scary to allow this person to go free on bail or to even let him talk to another person unsupervised?

I feel that there may be individuals who are being wrongly held. The reason is over-reaction to the terrorist actions of 9/11. But I do not want to see us go back to the state of vigillence we had in the previous decade, so I have no problem with holding suspects and suspending habeas corpus.

cozumel

I fully understand what you are saying Dowaco and the risks that individuals (potentiially) pose to the general public.

To imprison someone for two, three, four years or indefinitely without trial and without any reasonable chance of release goes against everything that I understand democracy & freedom to be.

It is extremely dangerous for governments and security services to choose when and which human rights should be upheld. The right to be innocent until found guilty and to be able to defend yourself in a court, whether civil or military, is at the core of everything the free world stands for. Without it we are failing society.

At the end of the WWII it would not have been justified to execute summarily criminals of war without having a trial first. Similarly, when Saddam was captured it was the belief of many people around the world that he was guilty of being behind many illegal killings but it was also understood that it would be wrong to sentence without a trial.

It is never the right time to suspend human rights.

__________________

Maddogg6

While I see your point - it is an extremely sticky subject..

My position is:
While theres a 'possibility' of saving millions of lives by illegally detaining and torture..
To start adding exceptions to our constitution without amendment - is NOT a possibility - but certainly, affects the freedoms of millions, potentially billions.

So on one hand we have 'possibility' on the other, we have 'certainty'...

Morally - I have no problems with illegal detaining / torture - but its the legal ramifications that scares me most. So I side with the constitution.

edit:
The question starts becoming - whats worse - potential mass genocide - or potential mass human 'enslavement'. And thats prolly something that could go on debated for ages.

additional edit:
By letting one free - doesnt mean law enforcement needs to 'stop investigation, surveillance of the suspect etc.. BUT, by letting them free , *could* lead to new clues/evidence - when we already know, such prisoners don't reveal too much pertinent info (sure, some maybe??) - thats also assuming they have such info... Which I also suspect, they do not. If I were a terrorist leader - I would not let all my minions know any details they do not need to know for this reason alone.

Pompey

I am fine with the authorities holding someone, so long as they can go to a court and show that the imprisonment is justified.

The argument that someone may pose a possible risk but it cant be proven so its safe to keep him locked away for years and suspend his human rights just doesn’t stack up.
If someone is suspected of planning to murder someone or rob a bank, but it cant be proven and there’s no good evidence to suggest they are, is it ok for the police to lock them up indefinitely "just to be on the safe side"? Of course not! Justice is not simply based on 'coulds', 'maybes', and 'possibilities'; its based on evidence.

If there is evidence they are planning terrorist attacks/ were involved in terrorist activities then put them on trial or monitor them to try and catch more people/gather more info.

The severity of the crime they are accused of does not alter the defendants rights so calling them "terrorist suspects" does not justify suspending any of their rights beyond what would normally be suspended.

__________________
One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

SFOSOK

Speaking of evidence...do any of you know the evidence for each person that was held at guantanamo?

I'm pretty sure I don't and I'm also pretty sure I will never know. I think our government has a lot more proof or evidence than they show for certain reasons. Of course we all want to be in the loop but thats just not goin to happen now is it?



I have no imformation on what these guys have and have not done but I'm pretty sure they ar ebeing held for a reason other than just being arab. If that were the case then there would be a lot more being held and a larger public outcry from not only citzens who's family members, friends, co-workers that have been detained but also our own press that is always hot on the heels of any story that has to do with human suffering and tragedy.


So why aren't they asking more questions? You thin kthe government is shutting them up? Psh, thats never stopped them before. Truth is they don't have the information or the facts either and it would be a losing battle.





So at this point its up in the air, if I'm goin to complain about it I may as well write to the president and visit the prison but I'm not complaining. I don't entirely trust our government but when it comes to things I will never know the info to, whats the point in worrying about it?

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding

temeteus82

What if they don't have the proof? And they just have poor guy who was in the wrong place in the wrong time?

__________________
How you can help DriverHeaven by using Digg!

bstef9950

__________________

bstef9950

__________________

Dowaco

I agree, but the crimes you outlined are against a single specific individual or a specific place. These are called "conspiracy to commit" crimes and they require evidence that a crime is about to be commited. Steps can be taken to protect the target. The alledged perpetrator is accorded all rights of an accused person because while he is in jail, the crime cannot be commited and unless there are co-conspirators, the crime cannot happen because he talked to someone else, like a lawyer or the press.
Terroristic acts are much harder to protect ourselves from and they come from a resourceful, well funded and determined enemy. I am sure that there is some evidence, however slight, that these detainees are not simply innocent bystanders.

Putting terrorists on trial only affords them a stage upon which to rattle their sabre and get free press they would normally not get. Once the threat is over, I would say to put them on trial without cameras present with a gag order if needed.
As far as monitoring them once they are released, that sounds good, but real life is not like the movies. Bad guys would disappear in a day or two.
I am in favor of gathering more info but holding the suspects while I do so. Prison is also a deterrent for other would be terrorists in that they do not get to have their message propogated and they do not get to be martyrs.

I disagree. The severity of crimes has always been a factor in how long and how closely an accused is held. Bail for a traffic ticket is not the same as bail for 1st degree murder. Hienous criminal suspects get $millions in bail or are remanded without bail. Terrorist suspects are one step beyond that...remand without habeas corpus.

Can you imagine the outcry if another terrorist attack hits the US and it was learned that a gitmo detainee was responsible? "Why didn't you keep him in chains?", they will say. I will echo SFOSOK, While I don't entirely trust the government in all things, I feel they think they are doing the right thing for the right reasons in this case. I look at this as a war with an enemy, not policing a civilian population.

Esaz666

I think the whole war on terror and Guantanamo is a farce,
Our leaders in the west have played into the hands of the men of
violence.
Guantanamo shows everyone around the world that when it comes to people's human rights we are selective as to who is allowed them and are hypocrites.

If there is any evidence against someone they should go through the same due process as other criminals, has it really saved lives keeping these people locked up in an illegal jail?.
Its no use using the same old political retoric ' the rules of the game have changed ' etc. ' this is a new kind of war ' blah blah blah, these lines have been used over and over and are just quotes from other leaders before .

Dont fall for the spin , around the world there has allways been people who want to kill others, the problem is our Government's policies support these loser's that otherwise would have been on the fringe and ignored.
I know it's easy to sit and critic from our arm chairs, but we should stand by our principles and be just if possible or at the very least, seem to be acting that way in the execution of justice against our enermies.

SFOSOK

bstef9950, I'm not sure what the point your are trying to make. The way you quoted it is very confusing. Can you please change the format of your wording?


I'm sure there are a lot of what if's in the world but I don't find myself wasting my time worrying about them doin nothing about it. Thing is, are you goin to do something about it?

I mean, whats the point in questioning something on this particular online forum where it has no affect on how our government runs when you are not goin to do a single thing about it.

I'm sure I could say what if our government have stolen our rights and done this and done that. But I don't, and you know why? Not because I'm scared or ignorent, because at this point I neither have the means nor the will to do something about it.

At this point I have learned that words means absolutely nothing unless there are actions to follow and back them up. Some of you think questioning helps let the government know what the "people" really think, when it really doesn't because they don't give a sh*t. Any government in the world is not scared of its people, they should but they are not. Are you goin to do anything about it? Nope, your goin to complain and wipe your hands clean so some other joe can do the dirty work.


I'm pretty sure every single one of you who join that cool wagon and question the gov like everyone else doesn't do sh*t about it...just like everyone else.



Your words mean nothing to me and I'm pretty sure they mean nothing to this government. So if you want to do something about the current situation then get off your ass and do it instead of complaining about it in some online forum.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding

Pompey

You are right, terrorist attacks are much harder to protect ourselves from but locking someone up without trial won’t protect us (it just makes people feel safe, since it appears the government is taking steps to protect us). Anyone could be planning a terrorist attack. Anyone could be planning to rob a bank.


That could be said about any trial, but it still does not mean that a fair trial should not take place. And the threat of terrorism will NEVER be over, and it has always been present.


I don’t mean monitor them after they have been released, I mean monitor them rather than arresting them to gather more info and possibly arrest more suspects. If im not mistaken it was good police work that foiled the recent plot in England, not locking people up indefinitely because we suspect they could be planning something.


So what you’re saying is that we should arrest people and imprison them indefinitely without a fair trial and no strong evidence they have committed a crime/were planning to commit a crime to set an example?
I agree that prison is an excellent sentence. A sentence handed down after a fair trial.
And for the record Guantanamo bay fuels the anti-American sentiment, it doesn’t scare potential terrorists off.



But it doesn’t alter the defendant’s right to a fair trial or the authority’s responsibility to substantiate the charges against a defendant. If terrorist suspects pose a high risk then just like another crime it’s perfectly fine to remand them without bail, so long as it goes through a court and a judge rules that there is sufficient justification for a trial.

The burden lies on the state to prove a man’s guilt, not on the man to prove he is innocent. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty – that does not change when the defendant is charged with terrorism.


...so?
How is that a justification for locking someone up indefinitely without trial?


You guys have obviously been good for santa because Im going on vacation in a day so you wont have to hear from my whiney liberal ass for a whole 11 days.

__________________
One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

SFOSOK