Should Constitutional Rights Extend to Non-Citizens?

Terrorists do not deserve rights from the Constitution. We also need to stop worrying about "offending" people also.

Once again I will ask. Just what in hell would you charge them with? If you can't answer this question then your whole point is moot!

And so, we would do well to prove it. Give the Gitmo detainees due process, give them a fair trial. Give them the rights that they would have if they were American citizens. After all, that is what they are (ironically) demanding. Let's show the rest of the world that our system is INDEED superior and that the evil deeds of the terrorists were exactly that.

I get really tired of this "let's show the world" that we care bs. The "world" does not care about the U.S. You can give every terrorist a lawyer and "the world" would still complain.

You'd think these people would be honorable enought to stick with their ideals when they are captured. Instead, they just start crying for all the rights they demean as weak otherwise.

Arab terrorists laugh at the idea that they should wage war by any rules, and yet take every advantage of our rules, even to the point of lambasting us for not using them. They have no honor, as displayed by how they wage war to begin with.

That said, we have standards. The problem is, the standards in a case like this were never really hashed out. There have always been grey areas in international law in terms of spies and terrorists, and I think nations never wanted those laws defined so they could skirt them.

Now, though, they'll have to be. It would be a shame to do ANYTHING that strengthens the abilities of evil people. I think rights are due to those who support them. Those who cast off the human rights of their victims should cast them off for themselves.

Constitutional rights should only extend to citizens, legal immigrants, and those other visitors here legally.  The rest are either - outlaws - they broke the law to get here, or detainees caught in a hostile war zone (both POWs and the NCs).  And hence, they deserve no protection under the constitution.

They do deserve protection under the laws of decency and fairness.  Nothing more, nothing less.

The thing is, our behavior, overall, has been right and just and proper. Sure this is a war of perceptions, but after a certain point you can't change perceptions without compromising your fundamental principles. Not only that, but in the perception war there are enemy propagandists who will not stop poisoning public perception simply because we're not doing anything wrong.

Even when we behave properly, that doesn't stop the negative perceptions being fostered by enemy propaganda.

The solution can't be to change our behavior. How much nicer can we be, without giving up operational and strategic advantage? How much nicer would we have to be, in order to change the perceptions of our enemies? The truth is, it's not about our behavior. It's about us being powerful, prosperous, content, and confident. The only way to make the perception change you dream of, Gid, would be for America to become weak, impoverished, disgruntled, and despairing. Preferably as a brief rest stop on a short road to death and destruction.

As I've said several times, these detainees are already getting due process, as POWs, under the Geneva Convention--in fact, they're getting treated much better than the Geneva Convention requires. They can't get a fair trial because they weren't "arrested". Their Miranda rights were never presented to them. No evidence of their crimes has been collected, nor can it be collected. If we gave them a "fair" trial, we'd have to let them all go free immediately, on ten thousand different legal technicalities.

I agree with your sentiments, but it's a serious mistake to apply criminal justice system solutions to POW problems.

And even if we did so, it wouldn't change perceptions. Every enemy combatant we set free (which would be all of them) would simply walk away even more convinced that the Great Satan was decadent, incompetent, and stupid.

You're assuming that our enemies are reasonable people, and that the only thing influencing their perceptions is American behavior. This is totally untrue.

Any trial of these people would become a media circus. Those who are guilty of terrorism against the U.S. have no motivation to participate in their own defense, or to tell the truth if they took the stand. It would become a Why-I-Hate-America-fest and the slime in the media would eat it up.

Fascinating that, in all this talk about whether or not to extend rights to the inhabitants of Gitmo, everyone seems already to have denied them the most basic legal right of all: the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Of course, if these people are the evil, murdering bastards you all appear to have prejudged them to be, then perhaps it's entirely /morally/ fair - if not legally so - to treat them like dirt. The problem is, that has yet to be established. Does it not bother anyone that some, at least, may be innocent? May have simply been at the wrong place at the wrong time? May have been set up by someone with a grudge?

We out here in the Rest of the World are aware that there's a strong need and desire for you guys to believe that you have caught the people who attacked you, and can take your revenge on those who carried out this evil sucker punch. Wanting it, however, doesn't necessarily make it so. How many of those red-tracksuited wretches behind the wire are the real perps?

Thing is, the little information we have doesn't look very good. One or two of the detainees have been released, and the apparent ratio of real Bin Laden fans to normal joes who were just standing around - well, it's a little thin so far.

And in case you've been consoling yourself with the story of the released detainee who was found to have goner straight back and re-joined the Taleban or whatever - didn't happen, I'm afraid. It was a trumped-up story, just like that atrocious little charade about Iraqi soldiers dumping babies out of incubators when they invaded Kuwait.

Before you all start aiming at the messenger, let me assure you that I have no sympathy whatever for fanatical murderers of any kind. What worries me, and the rest of us out here in Restoftheworldland, is that there seem to be a lot more of them now than when you guys started trying to reduce them to zero. If the Middle East was a patient America was treating for a fever, it would be time to get a second opinion.

CD

Thing is, the little information we have doesn't look very good. One or two of the detainees have been released, and the apparent ratio of real Bin Laden fans to normal joes who were just standing around - well, it's a little thin so far.

You need to do some more homework! One or two? Try 250!

And in case you've been consoling yourself with the story of the released detainee who was found to have goner straight back and re-joined the Taleban or whatever - didn't happen, I'm afraid. It was a trumped-up story, just like that atrocious little charade about Iraqi soldiers dumping babies out of incubators when they invaded Kuwait.

Oh REALLY? What ignorance is this and where did yours come from. Read and LEARN!

Afghans Released From Gitmo Return to Terrorism Posted July 6, 2004 By Shaun Waterman At least five detainees released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield in Afghanistan. Several prisoners released by the U.S. military from a detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have rejoined their comrades in arms and taken part in fresh attacks on U.S. forces, according to Defense Department officials and a senior GOP lawmaker. "We've already had instances where we know that people who have been released from our detention have gone back and have become combatants again," Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence told United Press International recently. "It's the military Willie Horton," he said, referring to the notorious killer who absconded on furlough and a year later pistol-whipped a man and raped his fiancee. "I do in fact have specific cases," he said when pressed for further details, but declined to say more. The Willie Horton case became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign, and the case of the released detainees threatens likewise this week to become a political issue as Congress returns in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Guantanamo Bay detainees have a right to file writs of habeas corpus. A Defense official confirmed to UPI that several such cases had involved Afghans released from Guantanamo. "At least five detainees released from Guantanamo have returned to the [Afghan] battlefield," said the Defense official, who requested anonymity. When asked how U.S. authorities could know, the official declined to comment. "That gets into intel[ligence] stuff. I can't go there," the official said. Mark Jacobson, a former senior official at the Pentagon who helped put together the policy for detainees at Guantanamo, explained to UPI that every detainee is fingerprinted and photographed. "We build up pretty extensive biometrics on these guys," he said. "There are a lot of different ways we could know that someone we'd captured or killed had already been in our custody." In the absence of further details, it is unclear how many of the five -- about 10 percent of the 57 Afghans released from Guantanamo -- have fallen back into the hands of U.S. forces, leaving open the possibility that more might be at large. "I would hope our intel is good enough that we'd know if someone we'd released was back on the battlefield," said Jacobson, now a visiting scholar at the University of Michigan. At least one of the men released appears to have been a Taliban field commander. Media reports from Afghanistan in April said that Mullah Shahzada, released in spring last year, had been captured or killed. Shahzada appears to have become active again almost immediately following his release. In May 2003, he -- or possibly another Afghan with the same name -- was interviewed in Quetta, Pakistan by a U.S. newspaper. The report, which described him as a "former fighter," did not mention that he had been detained in Guantanamo. Until recently, the U.S. military made decisions about who should be released from Guantanamo on an ad hoc basis, considering, officials say, whether they have intelligence that might still be of use, and whether they continued to pose a threat. Jacobson described the process as "pretty meticulous." "Even if five got through," he said, "that's still an 'A' grade." The Defense official also defended the review process. "It's very thorough, but it's not foolproof," he said. "We err on the side of caution, but mistakes are going to be made." The official said that the process was complicated by the lack of system of personal identity or other records in Afghanistan. "These people don't have driver's licenses," he told UPI. "They don't even have birth certificates. Some of them are trained in deception and counterinterrogation techniques. One guy had 13 aliases." Earlier this year, facing a Supreme Court challenge to the legality of the Guantanamo detentions, the Pentagon began work on a more structured review process for detainees, under which an annual hearing would consider whether they still posed a threat. The initial plans for the new system were unveiled June 23 by Navy Secretary Gordon England. England declined to comment on whether detainees released under the old, ad hoc review system had taken up arms again, but said it was one pitfall the new process he was in charge of was designed to avoid. "Obviously, we don't want to release someone who's going to come back and attack America or our allies," he said. But the Supreme Court ruling last week, and the prospect that the Pentagon will now face an avalanche of litigation from the 500-plus detainees still held at Guantanamo, has left plans for the new system in limbo. England said it was too soon to tell what might happen "The department is still reviewing the [Supreme Court] decision," he said. "We just don't know what we're going to do yet." Ruth Wedgwood, a staunch defender of the administration's legal strategies for detention, said that the court's ruling had "left everything quite confused." She said that although the judges had made it clear some form of review was necessary, they had given officials no real guidance on how it should work. Whatever arrangements were eventually made to fulfill the legal duty to provide due process, she said "they are not going to be as simple as the Supreme Court seems to think." The Defense official said the Pentagon might use the new review process, both to reduce the numbers being detained before the department has to go through the arduous process of preparing to defend multiple habeas corpus writs, and to show the courts that there already is some due process in the continuing, open-ended detentions at Guantanamo. Experts familiar with the review procedures agreed. "The process of sorting through the detainees will be put into overdrive," predicted Elisa C. Massimino, director of the Washington office of Human Rights First. Eugene R. Fidell of the National Institute for Military Justice expects the numbers of those detained to drop precipitately "to below 200" before the courts begin to consider habeas writs. "The floodgates problem has been overstated," he said. Jacobson said it would have been wiser to treat the detainees captured in Afghanistan as prisoners of war "straight off the bat" -- as some on the administration had urged -- rather than leaving them in the legally murky situation of unlawful combatants. "That way," he pointed out, "the only question is 'When is the conflict over?' The courts don't get involved." "It makes much more sense to do Article Five hearings on the front end than get into complex review procedures afterward," agreed Massimino, referring to the process mandated by Article Five of the Geneva Convention, whereby those captured on the battlefield are screened to check they really are combatants and not bystanders or displaced persons caught up in the fighting. Other commentators said the administration had only itself to blame for any difficulties it now found itself in. The National Journal's Stuart Taylor said that the administration had provoked the court "by refusing to give even the minimal hearings [to detainees] most agree are required under international law." The court, he said, was effectively "being asked to put its imprimatur on violations of international law that had caused worldwide outrage." Goss said he would hold Intelligence Committee hearings on detention issues later this month. Shaun Waterman is the homeland and national security editor for UPI, a sister news organization of Insight.

I am not a citizen, should I be allowed to be tortured in Gitmo if wronglyfully arrested? I don't think so. By the way, I'm English.

I am not a citizen, should I be allowed to be tortured in Gitmo if wronglyfully arrested? I don't think so. By the way, I'm English.

They were not arrested.  They were captured on a battlefield.  BIG difference.  You get caught firing at troops and you are complaining you were not killed?  Ok, go commit suicide.  But you will not be getting a 'fair trial' for an act of piracy on the high seas. War is hell.  Deal with it.

I am not a citizen, should I be allowed to be tortured in Gitmo if wronglyfully arrested? I don't think so. By the way, I'm English.

For the last time get it straight! THERE IS NO TORTURE GOING ON AT GITMO!

I am not a citizen, should I be allowed to be tortured in Gitmo if wronglyfully arrested? I don't think so. By the way, I'm English.

First of all, there is no evidence of torture at Gitmo. Sencondly, if your were fighting against British troops, while not being a member of any military of a nation (as defined by the Geneva Convention), you would be both a traitor and no country would be required to afford you the protections of the Geneva Convention.

So, on the one hand, you could rightfully be executed by England, on the other hand, no nation would have to acknowlege that you even exist.

One or two? Try 250!

Ah, a little cultural misunderstanding, I think. This is a sort of inverse hyperbole we use around here. As in 'When the big night arrived, the attack began by dropping one or two bombs on Baghdad'. Get it?

Oh REALLY? What ignorance is this and where did yours come from. Read and LEARN!

You seem very angry about something, so I'll keep this brief and conciliatory, and avoid any Cui Bono issues about the source. Yes, this sounds very much like the incident I had seen discredited, except:
o In my case it was seven recidivists, not five
o My one was around a year ago, while this suggests - though it doesn't confirm - that it's more current.

So perhaps it's a new event, which just bears an uncanny resemblance to the previous one. Fair enough - stranger things have happened. I have to say that I - like many people, I suspect - would probably walk out of Gitmo straight to the nearest place I could get some revenge.

So here's what I'll do: I'll apologise profusely for having adduced false and misleading information into my argument.

You can then decide whether this invalidates everything else I've said.

CD

First of all, there is no evidence of torture at Gitmo

One of your guys seems to think there is:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm

And here it is from the people themselves (but then they're biased, of course):

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3533804.stm

Here's one of the guys who wasn't shooting at anyone:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4467825.stm

And here's one who wasn't even in the country:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4240107.stm

Well, as Mr. Macleish himself say at the start of the article:

"The point is, we are waging a war that's as much about perception as anything."

How true. And perception is so malleable if you have the tools. It's a thermosetting plastic, that hardens as its temperature rises.

CD

I get really tired of this "let's show the world" that we care bs.

Right, Island...instead, we should hit 'em hard and fast, and by doing so, show them how "civilized" we are.

Sorry, but, I have a saying that goes a long way back, that "someone has to be the big guy". I truly believe that the ideals embodied by the Constitution are the best ideals anywhere, when practiced correctly. Besides, didn't our founding fathers refer to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as SOME of the rights that are "inalienable" (meaning they extend to ALL persons, regardless of citizenship, and can't be revoked)?

Frankly, my GUT reaction is to want to see all of the terrorists that are proven guilty hanging high on the public square. But that is the way our enemies react; the way those we oppose treat their criminals. If we can't be better than them, then what the hell are we fighting?

You're assuming that our enemies are reasonable people, and that the only thing influencing their perceptions is American behavior. This is totally untrue.

No, actually, I'm playing devil's advocate because I believe we need to avoid the other extreme. We can't be guilty of the same kinds of things of which these terrorist nations are guilty. There are some who claim (I can't state this for fact; I don't have enough information); that some (not all) Gitmo detainees were turned over to the American forces under false allegations for the reward money. If this is true, these are men who should be subject to due process and restored to their families as soon as possible. (Again, assuming the statement is true), these men are innocent and have suffered more than enough. We can't assume that every Muslim in the Middle East is the enemy.

 

that some (not all) Gitmo detainees were turned over to the American forces under false allegations for the reward money.

Here's a gedankenexperiment: imagine something similar, somewhere else. Would there be miscarriages of justice? Would old scores be settled? Now factor in the relative desperation of the actual people involved. Money for injustice? Not a good way to get at the truth - see the Jackson trial for example.

Another known factor: people in desperate circumstances, especially in the presence of occupying forces, will often turn against each other, especially if they know that paid agents provocateur are in their midst.

Look at pre-democracy South Africa, where the biggest game in town among the oppressed masses during the uprising was exposing 'police spies', who were then executed by having a blazing car tyre put around their necks. here too, old scores were settled, and power shifted, by denouncing innocent people to the mob - who were only too happy to have a visible enemy to get back at. I imagine that it was like that for Jesus.

Rounding up everyone with a hint of suspicion is sometimes necessary in a life&death situation, but you can't just move from there straight to sentencing and imprisonment. It's this, it seems to me, the the rest of the world is complaining about.

America seems now to be taking the stance that this is the US's problem, and they don't need or want advice from other countries. So sad, when in the days after 9/11 every sane person in the world stood shoulder to shoulder with you, ready to give our support, and if necessary our LIVES, to fight your enemy with you. The world was one, for a brief moment.

Since then we've seen the US metamorphose into the bully of the global playground. The mountain of moral capital is gone, and where once we all joined to help in your just opposition to evil, we're now watching nervously as you create new enemies that we all have to deal with. Not only is the world no safer for all the conflict, it's more dangerous than ever.

I get really tired of this "let's show the world" that we care bs

A television stand-up comic some nights back was doing a little piece on US aggressiveness. Nothing special - it's become a regular subject for humour nowadays. 'There's 350 million Americans,' he mused at one point. 'That means there's about five-and-a-half billion of the rest of us, right?' He paused. 'I reckon we could take 'em,' he concluded to loud laughter.

CD

One of your guys seems to think there is: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm And here it is from the people themselves (but then they're biased, of course): news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3533804.stm Here's one of the guys who wasn't shooting at anyone: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4467825.stm And here's one who wasn't even in the country: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4240107.stm Well, as Mr. Macleish himself say at the start of the article: "The point is, we are waging a war that's as much about perception as anything." How true. And perception is so malleable if you have the tools. It's a thermosetting plastic, that hardens as its temperature rises. CD

Oh No, girls making unwanted sexual advances towards detainees! The Horror!! This has never happened in the history of civilization!!

Did she touch him sexually? Did she rape him?

Wait a minute, doesn't that go on everyday? Isn't it a woman's right to do with her body what she chooses? Haven't the liberals spent the last 2 decades telling us that how a woman dresses is her right no matter how it affects the men around her?
Just more liberal stupidity if you ask me. So she used sex as a weapon... That's what you call "abuse"??? If so, I guess advertisers "abuse" us all every day.

Oh No, girls making unwanted sexual advances towards detainees! The Horror!! This has never happened in the history of civilization!!

Well yes, quite: any time I'm stuck in prison, gurlies can rub up against me as much as they like. So perhaps the person in question is an utter pussy for complaining.

In order to see it from this prisoner's point of view, I suppose you have to imagine that you were captured by, say, an all-homosexual nation. And they sent in some cute boy wearing a speedo to tickle your nuts and waggle his ass in your face. That wouldn't bother some people, but others would be very upset.

But maybe this sort of relativism is a load of crap: maybe these things ought to be absolute, and no real man should be unhappy about a woman fondling his undercarriage. Of course, there are ordinary, straight, Western guys who really want to stay faithful in thought and deed to their spouses, or their marriage vows, and would be upset anyway when someone comes in and gives them a hard-on they don't want. More pussies? Perhaps.

I suppose the bottom line is that if this sort of thing didn't drive the detainees nuts, they woudn't do them.

CD

Oh No, girls making unwanted sexual advances towards detainees! The Horror!! This has never happened in the history of civilization!! Well yes, quite: any time I'm stuck in prison, gurlies can rub up against me as much as they like. So perhaps the person in question is an utter pussy for complaining. In order to see it from this prisoner's point of view, I suppose you have to imagine that you were captured by, say, an all-homosexual nation. And they sent in some cute boy wearing a speedo to tickle your nuts and waggle his ass in your face. That wouldn't bother some people, but others would be very upset. But maybe this sort of relativism is a load of crap: maybe these things ought to be absolute, and no real man should be unhappy about a woman fondling his undercarriage. Of course, there are ordinary, straight, Western guys who really want to stay faithful in thought and deed to their spouses, or their marriage vows, and would be upset anyway when someone comes in and gives them a hard-on they don't want. More pussies? Perhaps. I suppose the bottom line is that if this sort of thing didn't drive the detainees nuts, they woudn't do them. CD

No matter how you spin this, it would NOT be considered torture by the majority of international opinion.

No matter how you spin this, it would NOT be considered torture by the majority of international opinion

If you believe that to be so, then discard the point. I wasn't aware of trying to 'spin' it. I was just trying to figure it out.

If the absence of this point is enough to discredit everything else, then discard it all. I'm not trying to tell you how to think. I'm just looking at how some people do think.

CD

The problem with denying rights to prisoners on the basis that they are illegals or potential criminals is that it opens up the opportunity to treat other illegals the same way. For example if it's enshrined in law that those captured by the US who are not citizens and are illegally involved in something deserve no rights then what happens to all those Mexicans illegally in the US? Are they too going to be disappeared to Cuba?

Sure, that could be considered a seperate issue, but if it becomes necessary to have legislation to justify gitmo, then other more negative uses are going to turn up. It happens with every law.

So, on the one hand, you could rightfully be executed by England, on the other hand, no nation would have to acknowlege that you even exist.

Just a technical point, but no one could be "rightfully executed by England". The UK is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Protocol 13 under which no-one can be rightfully executed for anything, including treason in time of war. Liberal madness, or a higher level of civilisation? (I'm sure there are strong feelings on that one on both sides )

CD

In order to see it from this prisoner's point of view, I suppose you have to imagine that you were captured by, say, an all-homosexual nation. And they sent in some cute boy wearing a speedo to tickle your nuts and waggle his ass in your face. That wouldn't bother some people, but others would be very upset.

It is neither torture, nor abuse to play on the perceived "weaknesses" of the enemy. As a Mormon, if I were captured during war, I would Expect the enemy to play on my religious beleifs. As an American, I would expect them to play on my cultural beliefs. To me, it wouldn't be "abuse", it would be simple psychological warfare. A tactic used to either get information out of me, or get me to turn to voluntarily help their cause. Nothing more.