What did you do to remember 9/11?

Ah, joa. The question was "what rights in particular should they have?"

Should they have the right to an attorney? Are you talking about the right to observe their religion while in captivity? The right to humane treatment? The right to party like it's 1599?

 

I just want to say that i did nothing to remember the 9/11.

 

Addendum:

I just read the Geneva Convention on the rights of POW's. I don't see any rights there that are being denied to those at Guantanamo.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899b.htm

I do, however, see that they should not, under the Geneva Convention, be considered prisoners of war. For one, the GC only applies to soldiers who are wearing insignia. There's also the fact that there was no declaration of war.

Add in the fact that U.S. Constitutional rights don't apply to foreign combatants, especially those who've never set foot on American soil, and I have a hard time seeing what the complaints are about.

[ September 26, 2002, 17:45: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

I will respond to your comment about the prisoners in Guantanamo.

America is doing more harm to itself than anything Bin Laden could have dreamed. We are dismantling our constitution, throwing aside justice and the right to privacy. I don't understand how people who fight so hard to maintain the right to bear arms aren't yelling and screaming about these changes. But then again maybe that crowd is more into vigilantism (sp?). People have such a hard time imagining the ramifications of these actions. This is about more than a bunch of guys in Cuba that no one likes. It could be your brother or child one day. How can one sit aside and wave a US flag without trying to protect that which makes our country so great?

 

Aw, Scampy. You have such fun posts and then you write something like that. Honestly, how can you say that detaining a few possibly hostiles, especially in a time of war, is worse than what UBL hoped for?

Crikey. I think Ashcroft is a stand-up guy doing what has to be done. What worries me is this new Dept. of Homeland Security. That could be teh suq.

 

Okay, Okay guys/gals, I threw a bunch of thoughts on one pire! Got everyone worked up a little, that's OK.

Ashcroft is scary. He is the modern day McCarthy (sp?). Did you know we have a secret court? I didn't, until they came out speaking against Ashcrofts desire to wiretap for 'Homeland Security' and share info not acquired legally.
According to them the Fed's lied in many cases in order to get info they wanted and were not justified in getting many of the warrants they asked for. They were dishonest with the court and the court will no longer support their invasion of privacy.

My God, how people fear the government and cry about its inability to do things right, and then think its OK to let them have powers beyond the scope of our Constitution.

I am more concerned about the thousands(can't remember exact numbers) of US citizens rounded up and some still in jail without being entitled to legal council. Not just J Lind. We are practically repeating the Japanese internment camps from 60 yrs ago. Have we not learned anything?

What concerns me about the 'few hostiles' is that we don't really know who is hostile and who isn't. Are we to scour the planet and imprison everyone who might attack our country? No one is concerned about the fact there is no end to their internment or what condition could right the situation.

If some nut from the US like Timothy McVeigh were to bomb a building in China, would it be alright for the Chinese government to invade our country, round up a bunch of radicals and stick them in a prison for an endless amount of time?

I've been playing BG lately and there is a great Nietsche quote at the beginning. Something about, beware looking into the eyes of the monster lest you see yourself. (I'm sure someone will correct me). Are we to become the evil empire? Once we begin swaggering around the planet doing what we will because it suits our best interest, we will begin our downfall.

[ September 26, 2002, 20:52: Message edited by: scarampella ]

 

That "secret court" has been around for decades, and activists from both the right and the left have been criticizing its very existence. (I used to work for a conservative think tank that was trying to get it shut down.) Ashcroft didn't invent it, and I haven't heard that he's using it any more frequently than past administrations. The difference is that now it's more scrutinized.

All of the people detained in the nation have been done for for crimes they have committed. I know that this is contrary to the hype, but the huge round-ups were of people who had overstayed their visas, worked without a visa, etc. I know of no credible sources that say American citizens with proper identification that were detained unreasonably. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of some in the hysteria right after 9/11, but please show me the information if you have it.

 

AWTUS, do you even think about what you're writing before you decide to post it?

No, no, NO. The President of the United States of America has a job. That job pays about $200,000 per year, plus benefits, secret service, etc. The fact that you would imply that the PRESIDENT uses WARS to raise TAXES to get MONEY for HIMSELF is freaking absurd! This isn't [insert European country] in the Middle frickin' Ages, here!

[ September 26, 2002, 21:58: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

 

Well, I would have to look up the info because I heard it on the radio. Sure the court is not new, but why are they coming out now? Because they are being asked to go beyond what they feel legally comfortable.

While I dislike people being in the country without proper visas, they still should be entitled to legal counsel, not held indefinitely.

Whatever dances we can make around legal rights for citizens or non-citizens, it seems to me our country is based upon certain liberties for all, regardless of whether they are war criminals, or non-citizens. Our doctrine concerns the proper treatment of people i.e...
If 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' how can we draw lines between people who deserve or people who don't deserve fair treatment?

 

And i would also like to add that i agree with Sir Dargorn to an extent.

 

I just read something in the paper a few days ago, that said the prisoners are being referred to as "battlefield detainees". Since they are not actually POW's (according to the U.S. gov't, because they are not uniform-wearing members of an enemy *military* force), they don't get the same rights as POW's (no interrogation, among other things - this means we can question them to our hearts content), and because they are not criminal-type prisoners, they don't get the same rights that any U.S. citizen would - i.e., no lawyer, phone call, etc.

Terrorists fall into a unique category - not really civilians, not really military, and I have a feeling that some rules are going to be rewritten. I don't mean by the U.S. specifically - I'm referring to something along the lines of the Geneva Convention, but tailored to terrorists, and agreed to by all interested countries.

[edit] @ Shralp: I agree with you about the "homeland security" thing. It worries me that we may have to start watching each other all the time. 1984 a few decades later than "predicted"? I'm not sure I want to give up some freedoms for increased security. I forget who made the statement, but there is a quote that I wholly agree with (paraphrased): "He who would give up liberties for safety, shall have neither."

[edit #2} at Slim: Actually, the president makes $250,000 per year. Just being nitpicky

[ September 27, 2002, 15:10: Message edited by: MaxxQ1 ]