Question for the Gitmo Apologists

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, considering the thrashing the hoyacoug is taking on the other thread, I post this with some trepidation. But here goes:

I read over and over again the refrain "terrorists have no rights". While this feels good on one level ("down with those terrorist bastards!"), it is quite troubling on another level. I seems that what we are really saying is: "suspected terrorists have no rights" or "someone who happened to be accused of being a terrorist has no rights". If you don't give someone due process and a chance to defend themselves in court, how can you be absolutely sure that they are indeed terrorists, and weren't just ratted out by someone who didn't like them? Or they weren't simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Don't any of you get a little nervous about a society where simply being suspected of being a terrorist voids your rights?

Your humble servant of Satan, (just wanted to beat Rocky and Archea to the punch )

Homeboy

[Archaea]

Most of the Guantanamo detainees as I understand it were rounded up in Afghanistan, during the war against the Taliban, when the troops invaded Al Quaeda's training camps.

These were the "foreigners" possessing Afghanistan.

I am comfortable that the military doesn't as a matter of policy round up innocents. Is there a potential for mistake? You're asking a rhetorical question.

However, somebody rounded up in Afghanistan in a known terroist training camp has met the initial burden of proof. Our military believes these few persons form or pose a threat. They are being treated very well.

My supposition is they now have the burden of rebutting that presumption created by their capture in known terroist camps.

The problem in this activity is the disclosure of sensitive intelligence. And the fuzzy nature of intelligence.

We don't want our military to make mistakes, it's too costly. The resources are limited and housing them too costly. However, given the knowledge that we have limited resources and the fact the military isn't getting more pay or more weapons, things its leaders want, that for me is significant evidence that the detainees possibly and quite probably pose a significant threat. The fog of war does not always allow for legal niceties as proving a bank robber actually robbed Bank X. We should not level that burden upon the military, as it, unlike most other arms of government, is working for our collective good, to the detriment of its participants.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Most of the Guantanamo detainees as I understand it were rounded up in Afghanistan, during the war against the Taliban, when the troops invaded Al Quaeda's training camps.

These were the "foreigners" possessing Afghanistan.

I am comfortable that the military doesn't as a matter of policy round up innocents. Is there a potential for mistake? You're asking a rhetorical question.

However, somebody rounded up in Afghanistan in a known terroist training camp has met the initial burden of proof. Our military believes these few persons form or pose a threat. They are being treated very well.

My supposition is they now have the burden of rebutting that presumption created by their capture in known terroist camps.

The problem in this activity is the disclosure of sensitive intelligence. And the fuzzy nature of intelligence.

We don't want our military to make mistakes, it's too costly. The resources are limited and housing them too costly. However, given the knowledge that we have limited resources and the fact the military isn't getting more pay or more weapons, things its leaders want, that for me is significant evidence that the detainees possibly and quite probably pose a significant threat. The fog of war does not always allow for legal niceties as proving a bank robber actually robbed Bank X. We should not level that burden upon the military, as it, unlike most other arms of government, is working for our collective good, to the detriment of its participants.

I think the Gitmo situation is another example of people imagining that there is some peril free path that we could simply take if only we would choose to, jus t as they believe in Iraq.

Yes holding people without much if any due process is going to be problematic. So is turning these people loose (some that we thought we were okay to let go subsequently have attacked us) and so is having a judicial proceeding where the possibility of sensative information that could cost lives leaking out.

Again we are in a position where we have no attactive option. I'm not saying we have chosen the best option, just that there is no good option here. And once again the critics have a great deal more to say about what they think is wrong than what they think the fix is.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think the Gitmo situation is another example of people imagining that there is some peril free path that we could simply take if only we would choose to, jus t as they believe in Iraq.

Yes holding people without much if any due process is going to be problematic. So is turning these people loose (some that we thought we were okay to let go subsequently have attacked us) and so is having a judicial proceeding where the possibility of sensative information that could cost lives leaking out.

Again we are in a position where we have no attactive option. I'm not saying we have chosen the best option, just that there is no good option here. And once again the critics have a great deal more to say about what they think is wrong than what they think the fix is.

What I think you meant to say is NO DUE PROCESS. The accused aren't even presented with the evidence that is being used to incriminate them. They don't have the opportunity to speak on their own behalf.

How would you like that? You are arrested, tried and convicted without ever even knowing what evidence the opposing party had to put you in prison or being able to explain that evidence.

It is an embarassment to our nation.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Most of the Guantanamo detainees as I understand it were rounded up in Afghanistan, during the war against the Taliban, when the troops invaded Al Quaeda's training camps.

These were the "foreigners" possessing Afghanistan.

I am comfortable that the military doesn't as a matter of policy round up innocents. Is there a potential for mistake? You're asking a rhetorical question.

However, somebody rounded up in Afghanistan in a known terroist training camp has met the initial burden of proof. Our military believes these few persons form or pose a threat. They are being treated very well.

My supposition is they now have the burden of rebutting that presumption created by their capture in known terroist camps.

The problem in this activity is the disclosure of sensitive intelligence. And the fuzzy nature of intelligence.

We don't want our military to make mistakes, it's too costly. The resources are limited and housing them too costly. However, given the knowledge that we have limited resources and the fact the military isn't getting more pay or more weapons, things its leaders want, that for me is significant evidence that the detainees possibly and quite probably pose a significant threat. The fog of war does not always allow for legal niceties as proving a bank robber actually robbed Bank X. We should not level that burden upon the military, as it, unlike most other arms of government, is working for our collective good, to the detriment of its participants.

Your supposition would be false. They can't rebut anything, because they aren't presented with any evidence against them.

Treated well? I suppose that is accurate, with the tiny exception that they are being held on an island in the middle of nowhere with no rights and no way of proving their innocence.

If I took you into custody and gave you great food for the rest of your life, would you say you were treated well even if the detention itself was improper?

For most of them, they probably are guilty. But for all? That is why we have an adversarial process (or why we are supposed to).

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

What I think you meant to say is NO DUE PROCESS. The accused aren't even presented with the evidence that is being used to incriminate them. They don't have the opportunity to speak on their own behalf.

How would you like that? You are arrested, tried and convicted without ever even knowing what evidence the opposing party had to put you in prison or being able to explain that evidence.

It is an embarassment to our nation.

Actually, I am not troubled in the least with a person who is snatched off a foreign battle field in the middle of the fight being held until the war is over. Obviously the big problem is determining when the war has ended and to whom to you return them to , particulary if they will immediately rejoin the fight so to speak. I think the question to do with such people is very thorny indeed and I don't think they are entitiled to due process under those facts. I truly believe that Geneva doesn't cover these people and say that this is one very good reason for scrapping it and coming up with something else. We need new tools for new times and that convention is inadequate. I'm not saying I know what the new tool looks like, just that what we have doesn't help us resolve the issue here


Now, as I understand it, this is the case with the vast majority of gitmo detainees. If there are those, however, who have been picked up in the US, then yes I agree that they should be afforded due process as I think the law requires that. This is ignorance in me, but I don't think that is very many of them. If this is not so I'm sure you will tell me.

I actually think in someways we are lucky to have the luxury of this debate. I think that had we continued to suffer catastrophic terrorist attacks over the last five years most people would be more than wililng to err on the side of holding suspected Al Queda forever. Fortunately we have not. I'm glad we'll never know whether giving them the sort of public platform that Moussaoui got would have cost any lives.

In any case, I think it is healthy to ask all of these questions and in the end I think we need to do something different. Surely, I woudl say, at this point we need to put these foks on trial or let them go. It's hard to imagine that all these years later they have intelligence value, though undoubtedly most of them would seek to do us additional harm when released (and by the way many have been released). I'm just not as hard on the president as some seem to be because among the lousy options he had immediately afte 9-11, deciding that giving terrorists judicial proceedings was an unacceptable risk seems to me to be a rational choice though a problematic one and one that woudl ultimately have to be modified.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Actually, I am not troubled in the least with a person who is snatched off a foreign battle field in the middle of the fight being held until the war is over. Obviously the big problem is determining when the war has ended and to whom to you return them to , particulary if they will immediately rejoin the fight so to speak. I think the question to do with such people is very thorny indeed and I don't think they are entitiled to due process under those facts. I truly believe that Geneva doesn't cover these people and say that this is one very good reason for scrapping it and coming up with something else. We need new tools for new times and that convention is inadequate. I'm not saying I know what the new tool looks like, just that what we have doesn't help us resolve the issue here


Now, as I understand it, this is the case with the vast majority of gitmo detainees. If there are those, however, who have been picked up in the US, then yes I agree that they should be afforded due process as I think the law requires that. This is ignorance in me, but I don't think that is very many of them. If this is not so I'm sure you will tell me.

I actually think in someways we are lucky to have the luxury of this debate. I think that had we continued to suffer catastrophic terrorist attacks over the last five years most people would be more than wililng to err on the side of holding suspected Al Queda forever. Fortunately we have not. I'm glad we'll never know whether giving them the sort of public platform that Moussaoui got would have cost any lives.

In any case, I think it is healthy to ask all of these questions and in the end I think we need to do something different. Surely, I woudl say, at this point we need to put these foks on trial or let them go. It's hard to imagine that all these years later they have intelligence value, though undoubtedly most of them would seek to do us additional harm when released (and by the way many have been released). I'm just not as hard on the president as some seem to be because among the lousy options he had immediately afte 9-11, deciding that giving terrorists judicial proceedings was an unacceptable risk seems to me to be a rational choice though a problematic one and one that woudl ultimately have to be modified.

This is a good summation.

The Left is great at picking holes in a difficult situation, but when has the Left ever solved anything.

Thank goodness for Libertarians and the Right, otherwise there would only be the wrong.

I like the old saw used by Churchhill who was quoting somebody else, if when you're young and you're not a bit liberal, then you don't have a heart, but if when you're old you're not conservative, then you're lacking common sense.

Whenever the Afghani war is deemed over, try them and convict or release them somewhere so that it's hard for them to get home, say, Ghana.