Human Rights and the GOP Rank and File

from JoeUser Forums
There's been a lot of talk about Guantanamo Bay. I find it quite disturbing that so many from the Republican camp believe that our government can do absolutely anything it wants to Gitmo detainees because they are terrorists, especially and most tellingly, without having to PROVE those allegations in a court of any standing.

What disturbs me the most is the issue of human rights. Do you believe in human rights as our founding fathers did? The simple, plain truth of the matter is this: IF you believe that human rights should not be afforded to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay because "they are terrorists", then you don't believe in human rights, you believe in human PRIVILEGES. You believe that power emanates from the government, not the people, and while that may be held to be true in other nations, it is not true of the philosophical basis on which the US is built.

Why is this so important, so critical as to "crusade" about? Because a privilege can be revoked at the discretion of the one granting it; a right cannot. So if human rights are voidable for those at Guantanamo Bay, then every single American should be on the alert. Oddly enough, a strong contingent of Bush Buddies are demanding for the rights to teach Bible in the schools, to allow churches to teach that homosexuality is wrong, to display articles of their faith on the courthouse square. This select group of people believes that their rights to religious expression are inviolable. And they are right!. But although exceptions to this may exist (please speak up if this is the case), I have yet to personally encounter one who equally believes in the rights of the Baptist Church and the Gitmo detainees. Every single Republican I have encountered who believes in the rights of the churches to express their faith denies rights to Gitmo detainees.

I believe that in this manner the single greatest threat to the United States Constitution may well be the citizens of these hallowed shores. What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do, we are doing to ourselves. We are unraveling the very fabric of our Constitution thread by thread by denying basic rights to the most vulnerable. And it is to our national shame that we are so doing.
politics
13,087 views 36 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe even the detainees deserve their day in court. When they are proven guilty, then they should be punished. Not the other way around. I want them to be treated the same way I would want American soldiers to be treated by any other government or organization that held them prisoner.

Congress actually passed a law last year stripping the federal courts of the rights to hear habeus corpus cases filed by the detainees. The Supreme Court will determine whether the Congress had the right to suspend habeus corpus for the detainees. The Court had declined to review a federal court ruling in April but will actually hear the case in their next term.

It is very telling that McCain was the only Republican presidential candidate that would condemn torture and then there was talk about that costing him the nomination. When the other nominees say they support "enhanced interogation techniques", I have to wonder if they would support the same techniques being used on our soldiers. Alberto Gonzales then says that the Geneva Convention is a "quaint". The Democrats need to start making some noise on this issue. Of course, if they do they will be accused of supporting the terrorists.

You're right, human rights are supposed to be rights not privleges.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love the agreement between the two of you, and don't have more to add.

Simply wanted to say that I agree with the both of you (as you both already know).

And Alberto Gonzales really needs to be let go already. "Quaint"? Come on.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree only if we are not at war. WWI and WWII prisoners were held until the war was ended. Russians didn't repatriate all of their German prisoners until 10 years after the end of the war. Sadly the arguement isn't about human rights or Geneva Convention. It is about the simple question..."Are we at war?"

It is difficult to visualize a war where there is no country to declare against. We are at war with an ideology that has as it's base the destruction of western civilization. We don't have a precedent book to look at, this is new to us. So we pretty much make it up as we go along. Is it wrong to detain people who have supported or participated in some way with those who wish to kill us? I don't know...honestly, I don't pretend to know what is "right". I do know that of those who have been released from Gitmo, there have been some who have been recaptured doing their particular naughties again.

We feel sorry for those poor souls being denied their right to speedy trial or their right to be heard...please remember most, if not all, of those poor souls would gladly vaporize you in a nuclear fireball if they had the opportunity. Instead of focusing on what the inmates are suffering through, maybe you should see what the guards have to put with from the inmates.

I ramble...first lets figure out if it is a war or not...if it isn't...I agree with you.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is difficult to visualize a war where there is no country to declare against.


Therein lies the problem with the "War on Terror". Who decides what is terror? When is a "War on Terror" over?

These are questions that have no answers. The problem with this current "war" is that there is no way to win it. The only way it's ever gonna end is to either a)blow up the entire world and let the cockroaches have it; or b)Jesus better hurry up already.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Should we treat the Gitmo Detainees the way our Founding Fathers treated prisoners of war? The fact is, it is, if they were declared prisoners of war, what you suggest here would be against the Geneva Convention.  Wartime captives have never been given a trial or lawyers in the history of war. 
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

SanChonino:

Therein lies the problem with the "War on Terror". Who decides what is terror? When is a "War on Terror" over?

These are questions that have no answers. The problem with this current "war" is that there is no way to win it. The only way it's ever gonna end is to either a)blow up the entire world and let the cockroaches have it; or b)Jesus better hurry up already.

Islamists Extremists have been fighting this war for a few decades now.  They don't fight by the calendar, and niether should we.  How do we win it?  The same way any war is won, but not being the side that surrenders.  We have lied to ourselves, saying the "ceasefire agreements" end war.  Can you tell me 1 ceasefire agreement that ended a war?

while the Western world whines and moans about how long this war will last, the enemy is making plans for the next few decades.  While you ask "when is the war over" they are laughing at you for even asking the question.

The motto in the U.S. Army Airborne is "How Far?" "All the Way!".  That means, it doesn't matter how far, all the way is the only acceptable finishing point.

 

 

 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
You could prove that a German soldier was part of the German army, and therefore, detain him as such. As soon as we prove these people are terrorists, we can hold them as a POW. Or, we can treat them as criminals. We cannot do both. We cannot say they are POWs and try them as criminals, because if we ARE at war with them, what is wrong with them attacking us? It is a war on terror only as much as it is a war on drugs - the legal system is the only system we can use to detain or punish them. And if it is an actual war, then we should afford them the rights as soldiers, because that is who they are - and there is nothing criminal about their attacks. Since that is not what we believe, we need to use the legal system to prosecute their crimes.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The motto in the U.S. Army Airborne is "How Far?" "All the Way!". That means, it doesn't matter how far, all the way is the only acceptable finishing point.


What's all the way in the "War on Terror", Ted? How do we completely eradicate terror?

Please explain how we win this war. The more specifics the better.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I believe in human rights until you take away or infinge upon the rights of others.  Once you have done that, you've voided your rights while in the process of trying to void someone else's.

That is precisely why I have no problem 'taking away' or 'ignoring' the rights of terrorists and combatants against our (U.S.A. and it's allies) interests in the global war on terror.

The people that have taken up arms against us or our allies have opted to sacrifice their rights and as such they are entitled only to what we opt to give them until after we have the time to try them and penalize them.  Until then, they can sit on their duffs, eat the M.R.E.s we have provided to them, and STFU.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
believe that in this manner the single greatest threat to the United States Constitution may well be the citizens of these hallowed shores. What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do, we are doing to ourselves. We are unraveling the very fabric of our Constitution thread by thread by denying basic rights to the most vulnerable. And it is to our national shame that we are so doing.


rather than the greatest single threat, i'd say it was a major component of a larger plan to subvert and gut the constitution in order to replace our democratic republic's three branches of government with autocracy in which what is now our executive branch is unrestrained (and probably renamed with some sorta deplorably clever euphemism such as 'Supreme Enlightened National Protectorate').

maybe 'enlightened' is a stretch. but without it how will people be able to differentiate between our new government and that of saudi arabia?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
this seems so easy to me. most of the time, our citizens aren't rounded up like that. you wanna know why? its because we don't usually gather into groups to plot mass murders.

whether everyone who's being detained is a terrorist or not, they were hanging out with the wrong crowd. you can say how unfair all of this is to people are "innocent" on this blog, and then turn around and tell your children, just like i do, to be careful who they hang out with.

i'm not next. wanna know why? its because i behave myself. i have nothing to hide. i'm not worried about losing rights over being safe because i don't do anything that needs to be a secret. its not that hard. my life is not effected by this stuff because i am a law abiding citizen. worries about these things is for people who are trying to get over somehow.

those guys at gitmo are safe. safe from being killed in a war zone. they are being taken very good care of.

don't get me wrong, i don't want to lose rights any more than you do. but you are wrong, flat wrong, if you think the gitmo prisoners being held till we figure them out means that we as americans are losing something. big fat daddy said it earlier, we have no precedent for this. but we have to find a way to deal with it. until we do, this is all we can reasonably do. if you don't agree, then what should we do with these people that isn't going to put them right back out there and working against us?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do


this is why i hate goin senile. it's embarrasing as hell to have to admit i'd forgotten the civil rights movement was responsible for nullifying the constitution for nearly 100 years. i guess the turning point musta been george lincoln rockwell's inspirational 'we're amerikans too dammit' speech.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
whether everyone who's being detained is a terrorist or not, they were hanging out with the wrong crowd


I agree with what Gid said about human rights. but the above statement by tooth defines the problem. and if we are in doubt about their real intentions, it is natural that we should be careful about releasing them. As long as they are treated fairly and not abused it makes sense to hold them. However, they should be allowed to have legal council in order that they can plead their case and convince the government of their innocence if they can. (presumed innocent till proven guilty does not apply here since they were caught while they were with the fighting enemy in some capacity)

The idea that the governmnet "can do anything it wants" in any thing is not acceptable but it has the right to do things according to the law. if we treat them as mentioned above, i dont see anything wrong with that
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

What's all the way in the "War on Terror", Ted? How do we completely eradicate terror?

Please explain how we win this war. The more specifics the better.

You know as well as I do that the buzzwords "war on terror" simply mean, the "war on Islamist Extremists".

The only way to win this war is to be willing to fight them for longer than they are willing to fight us.  For decades they killed us and we did next to nothing.  Now that we are fighting back, too many people long for the days when the killing was only one direction.  Why is it that so many people think it's only a war if the U.S. chooses to shoot back.

Sorry, I can't give you many specifics on how to win this war.  It isn't a war fought on a map or a calendar.  It isn't a war with a clearly defined enemy leader whose death means their soldiers will quit fighting.

The Islamist extremists have made it clear that they will continue to kill us as long as they are able.  The only way to win is to make it so they are no longer able.

~~~~~~~~

The goal in war is not to "kill people and break things", but to deny the enemy the ability to continue the fight.~ ParaTed2k's (Not So) Famous Sayings.

 

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
We cannot say they are POWs and try them as criminals, because if we ARE at war with them, what is wrong with them attacking us? It is a war on terror only as much as it is a war on drugs - the legal system is the only system we can use to detain or punish them. And if it is an actual war, then we should afford them the rights as soldiers, because that is who they are - and there is nothing criminal about their attacks


I don't remember the exact number, but captured German saboteurs who were dropped off a U-boat in Florida (I think) were tried and executed. In wars past, sneaking around in civilian clothes and killing innocents and blowing up infrastructure was a hanging offense...and hang they did. Just cause they don't have a country doesn't give them a free pass.

It is a war and it is winable...but we are not ready as a nation to believe either...what is it going to take to convince this country? A mushroom cloud over your hometown?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have to wonder if they would support the same techniques being used on our soldiers.


Good question...would you consider the opposite? Would you consider using the techniques on Gitmo detainees that ARE being used on our soldiers? Needless torture for the soul purpose of instilling fear...beheadings (taking twenty to thirty cuts to do the job)...gutting the corpse and stuffing it with explosives, using it for a booby-trap...sniping on camera for the folks back home??? The methods used at Gitmo are a far cry from those employed at the Hanoi Hilton, or any other prison camp going back as far as you wish into our history. I do not advocate torture of prisoners. I've seen no evidence that we do.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
From another discussion you participated in on this subject - quoting myself here:
I'm a compassionate person by nature and my livelihood depends on it, but I can't for the life of me understand why we should pretend these people deserve to be treated like citizens of our country. Same with illegal aliens. Sorry, but it makes no sense to me. If simply behaving in a civilized manner and being nice to everybody was all we needed to do to "win over" the rest of the world, we'd have all been singin' kumbaya long ago. Shit, the amount of money & good will we've flushed down the third world boggles the mind and what has it gotten us? Kofi Anan, among other highly beneficial things.

Like I said, I'm all for compassion where compassion is due, but let's not be terminally naive here.

I'll fight for your rights and the rights of any of our citizens, Gid. You're making more out of this than is there. This has become a chest-thumping exercise with each side claiming to be more American than the other, which misses the point altogether.

rather than the greatest single threat, i'd say it was a major component of a larger plan to subvert and gut the constitution in order to replace our democratic republic's three branches of government with autocracy in which what is now our executive branch is unrestrained (and probably renamed with some sorta deplorably clever euphemism such as 'Supreme Enlightened National Protectorate').

kb, you crack me up.  
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Many of us here are assuming the people at Gitmo are terrorists, whatever the heck that is, but this is this issue, an allegation is not evidence. Evidence is useless unless tested in a court of law. Detaining people without trial is a major problem and I would say it is so regardless of whether we are at war or not. What is the fear we have of fair trials anyway? It would seem to me that by now we have spent far more money and good will detaining people without trial than the trials themselves would have cost.

Be well.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

What disturbs me the most is the issue of human rights. Do you believe in human rights as our founding fathers did? The simple, plain truth of the matter is this: IF you believe that human rights should not be afforded to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay because "they are terrorists",

This is the nut of the issue, is it not?  For if we then say they must all be free pending a trial - by our laws - then we are violating international laws and treaties.  Would you have wanted the American POWs subject to Iraqi law in the first gulf war?  Then they would have been eligible for execution by the very fact they did not kiss Saddams butt.

So by the nature that they were captured in armed conflict (or plotting there of) against the US means they cannot be subject to OUR laws (again we have not even scratched the issue of Human rights).  And therefore, subjecting them to OUR courts would then be a violation and would open our own soldiers up to the same treatment.  Hence, while it would be nice to PROVE they are guilty of plotting or carrying out terrorist acts - or in armed combat with the US, we cannot do that as we are bound by man made laws.

So in Gitmo must they sit.  Then we can discuss Human Rights.  Of course it is against HUMAN rights to imprison someone against their will.  Should we let them go?  Well, we have prisons full of US citizens that are imprisoned against their will.  Why?  Because many broke man made laws (some having nothing to do with Human rights or natural law, but of laws that society has made to keep society from devolving into an anarchy).

And thus the easy sound bite is broken down into just that - a sound bite.  We cannot try them - that is a violation of law.  We must detain them, or they will (we assume) do their best to deny others of their human rights.

That is the crux of it.  The rest - allegations of abuse torture and nude pictures  - are just that.  Allegations and those can be demonstrated against and argued about (which would go towards the issue of Human rights - but not Law as non-uniformed combatants are the same as spies and according to law, they have no right to any redress).

While some would love to argue that the latest administration loves to grab a bag of popcorn and watch the latest torture techniques done in secret, and have alleged that this is approved all the way up to the white house, the facts are far different.  When routed out, mis-treatment (I will not be so shallow as to call it torture) of POWs and enemy combatants have been investigated and when found to be true, the perpertrators have been punished in accordance with laws.

But when the international media and some here in the US decide that mis-handling a Koran, showing nudy pictures to prisoners, and lying to them is torture, that is where I basically part ways and tell them to get a life.  Those things are not depriving them of any rights - human, natural, or man made - nor is it torture (except those that think subjecting rats to a Ramones concert is torture).

In short, yes, you can argue that depriving them of freedom is against human rights.  But then depriving them of freedom, with or without a trial is that as well (it is a HUMAN right).  Yet I dont hear many (some yes) demanding that.  So we are left with what is prevalent in this world.  Living by man made laws that are imperfect in order to guarantee most the rights they were born with.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
all a guard has to do is eat a ham sandwich

to the Muslim this would be torture because they might come in contact with pork and condemned to hell
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
When we begin prosecuting this as a war, we can treat it as one. But a war has specific, definable objectives, this one does not. It will be over when a talking head with the presidential seal behind his head says it is over and not before. It is not a war against a nation, but against an ideology and as such a war that cannot be won.

I'm afraid the war on terrorism has, unfortunately, already been lost, and the majority of these posts serve as evidence. Because we no longer hold the Constitution sacred, nor respect the dignity and rights of humans, we have shredded the Constitution far worse than any terrorist bomb ever could have. If these posts in any way represent the majority American viewpoint, there remains little hope of restoring our rights, rights that the government was never meant to be able to deny us.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
For if we then say they must all be free pending a trial - by our laws - then we are violating international laws and treaties.


No, that is not true. The law provides for bail, not automatic release, and bail may be denied if certain circumstances apply. In this circumstance, you would have little trouble convincing most people (myself included) that these circumstances apply. If nothing else applies, these detainees certainly present a flight risk.

There IS a way to see that justice is done and rights are respected without risk to our country. And it is our responsibility to find it.

all a guard has to do is eat a ham sandwich

to the Muslim this would be torture because they might come in contact with pork and condemned to hell


I am not convinced that true torture has taken place at Gitmo, danielost. To me, that is not the primary issue. If torture has taken place, we need to bring those who inflicted the torture to justice, but our soldiers deserve due process as well before that is determined.

I am concerned about the indefinite detention of these individuals without trial, without benefit of counsel, based solely on the word of the government. A government that LIED to us at Waco. A government that LIED to us at Ruby Ridge. A government that has proven itself consistently unworthy of our trust.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
this war is the same as all other wars have been

good vs evil


well sometimes it is the less evil against the more evil