Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Jan 2, 2005.

  1. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    why would i trust saudi arabia or pakistan with dangerous terrorists? and how legal is this? i wonder when the supreme court will rule on this enemy combatant business.

     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    This is a very difficult problem. These individuals are not going to be tried by a military court because there is not enough evidence to convict them. Yet it is felt that they would commit future crimes against Americans if they were released. So what to do with them? Without great risk, enemy combatants cannot be returned to pathologically dysfunctional regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc. Can we throw away the keys to their jail cells without due process of law by claiming that they are foreign nationals, enemy combatants, or both? We claim that our goal is to introduce human rights and democracy to repressive, totalitarian Middle Eastern Islamic and secular regimes. Is not habeas corpus, due process under law, a basic human right? Is a foreign enemy combatant disqualified from obtaining this right? Ideally, I say no. However, that seems maladaptive when it is known that due process will not result in conviction and dangerous enemy combatants must then be released. This is the dilemma: we say we want to introduce basic human rights and democracy to totalitarian Islamic regimes, yet we hesitate to permit due process when considering the enemy combatants who are their citizens. How can we resolve this? In 1861 Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland in response to attacks on Union soldiers traveling to Washington, DC. His reasoning, explained one month later to Congress, was that absolute adherence to a particular human right (e.g., habeas corpus) cannot contravene access to other human rights (e.g., the right to travel without being attacked). Well…Lincoln was a lawyer. Setting aside the issue of nationality, can Lincoln’s justification for the suspension of habeas corpus be used to indefinitely jail those at Guantánamo? Allowing foreign enemy combatants due process under law will contravene the right of US citizens to live free from attack. Throw away the key? What do you think?

    ---
     
  3. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    I think we have to give them their "basic" human rights. I cannot fathom us "long-term" suspending their rights. I'm not saying Geveva Convention rights, i'm saying basic human rights, i.e. right to live, right to worship, right to work. my solution would ideally be an island in the pacific, atlantic or indian where they and willing family members could live. children would be released at the age of 18 to their country of choice and then kept on a watchlist to make sure they didn't try to continue the old family business.

    its crazy, but i don't know, its all i can come up with right now. this is not a conventional war, especially in its prospective length and outcome... the old conventional rules and ideas don't work.

    i don't envy those who have to make this decision, but i do hope in the end they respect the prisoner's "basic" rights.
     
  4. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Bullshit.
    Imprisoning people for life, when you are not competent to make the case is unAmerican.
    I support both Afganistan and the Iraq Campaigns. My kid is in the service and she understands and supports what is going on as well.
    But, if we do this it isn't any better than a concentration camp. Maybe it'll have cable tv and no gas houses........
    We can investigate the hell out of people, but if we cannot prove it, we must drop it. Kinda like OJ.
    Shipping them off to unstable nations is no better. This idea smacks of a think tank session that should have been debated and discarded but got leaked instead.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    I admire that viewpoint, because it is the "right" one. However, is it wise for us to weigh fear and danger in deciding to take the "easy but probably immoral and unamerican" route and hold these folks for life? These are not your average suspected/accused criminal, these are known killers/terrorists in many cases who we just don't have the evidence on. Perhaps an evidence time limit? Like we could hold these particular threats for 2-4 years and if we still can't make the case, let them go?
     
  6. Doc Holiday
    Offline

    Doc Holiday BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +20
    OK, I'll be immoral and unAmerican, I say dig a hole and bury the assholes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Hey NATO. Just got off the road again. Good point with only one flaw I can see. If these are "known" killers and Terrorists then we can prove the case and I will personally volunteer to be the executioner of the week. My understanding of the article was the these were suspects which could not be proven. For example, SH is a "known" killer and should simply be shot and buried with the pigs.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    A majority of laws are only effective because people VOLUNTARILY obey them. Release of suspects because our laws are intentionally skewed to protect the innocent should be weighed against the expected or even pronounced behavior of the detainee.The reward of American style justice should be reserved for those who have paid their dues by at least attempting to comply with the law.
     
  9. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Your argument doesn't hold water. We get tourists all the time who come over here and break the law. They get the same rights (and a couple more) that American Citizens do. If we cannot prove that Abdulla-RatfinkVermin is a terrorist, then we cannot hold him because we expect him to be one. I aint a democrat but that is only a step away from them doing it to you. "We expect Dillo to argue with us, so lets lock him up to avoid the argument." Don't go there man, the board would be far less interesting....
     
  10. FollowerOfKeeb
    Online

    FollowerOfKeeb Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    What to do with people you can't prove commited a crime, and who you refuse to grant POW status to? What do we do with these people we think might one day hurt us if we let them go, who we need to keep in prison, for the rest of their natural lives, because our government says they are bad?


    What a problem we have on our hands.


    Certainly, this is only a problem that a free and democratic and morally righteous nation like the US would have.

    The U.S. is free to treat people as it pleases, as long as its not as bad as Saddam Hussein.
     

Share This Page