• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A solution for Civil Liberties problems

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
CivilLibertyProblemSolved.gif


(I debated posting this here or in humor. If it belongs better in humor, feel free to move it there.)
 
I have no idea how guilty or innocent this man is. However, the process of justice is now out of control. How can you hold someone, and not notify them of what their status is. The 'open ended' nature of the war on terrorism means that people can be held forever for any reason.

Hicks, one of two Australians held by the US as enemy combatants, was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001 fighting on the side of the Taliban.

Mr Camatta said Hicks, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba for 19 months with only a few letters, was unaware of his plight. At a US military briefing on Friday, Pentagon officials would not disclose whether any of the six were notified of their eligibility for military trial.
Click to expand...

Mr Camatta said if he was jailed, it was unclear if that would be in the US or Australia.

Even if found innocent, he was unlikely to be released. According to a US Defence briefing, he would still be an enemy combatant in the open-ended war against terror.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/1057430137379.html
 
We are still fighting taliban remnants in Afghanistan. As such these people could still be useful information-wise. As such, shouldn't they be detained? If they were POWs, you surely wouldn't release them before the enemy was defeated would you?

Let us remember that Guantanamo is no longer chain link open cells. These people are not being held in anything resembling inhumane conditions to even the most apolegetic hand-wringers.
 
corplinx said:
We are still fighting taliban remnants in Afghanistan. As such these people could still be useful information-wise. As such, shouldn't they be detained? If they were POWs, you surely wouldn't release them before the enemy was defeated would you?

Let us remember that Guantanamo is no longer chain link open cells. These people are not being held in anything resembling inhumane conditions to even the most apolegetic hand-wringers.
Click to expand...

My concern is with the slippery slope as much as anything else.

Also, as I have said already, I have no idea how guilty this guy is, but the process of justice he has been subject to means he has no idea what the case against him even is. He is being told to plead guilty, just in case he is found guility and executed. This reminds me incredibly of the case in Texas with the frame up of the blacks by the rogue law office.



The 'war against terror' will never be over, (ref: Korean War). This means that treating people as prisoners of war will be something that can go on forever.
 
a_unique_person said:


My concern is with the slippery slope as much as anything else.

Also, as I have said already, I have no idea how guilty this guy is, but the process of justice he has been subject to means he has no idea what the case against him even is. He is being told to plead guilty, just in case he is found guility and executed. This reminds me incredibly of the case in Texas with the frame up of the blacks by the rogue law office.

The 'war against terror' will never be over, (ref: Korean War). This means that treating people as prisoners of war will be something that can go on forever.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you said. With great power we need even greater oversight.

The war on terror may be a sort of ongoing vigilance but I don't imagine the taliban remnants will last too long. Once they are gone, I don't see the need to keep detained combatants since they would be no longer of any use either for information or for fear of them rejoining the remnants.
 
corplinx said:


I don't disagree with anything you said. With great power we need even greater oversight.

The war on terror may be a sort of ongoing vigilance but I don't imagine the taliban remnants will last too long. Once they are gone, I don't see the need to keep detained combatants since they would be no longer of any use either for information or for fear of them rejoining the remnants.
Click to expand...

This war on terror doesn't end when the Taliban are all accounted for. It could be useful to the US to have it go on for centuries.
 
a_unique_person said:


This war on terror doesn't end when the Taliban are all accounted for. It could be useful to the US to have it go on for centuries.
Click to expand...

At the risk of implying that you are being intentionally obtuse, I seriously doubt that anyone in the defense department wants to keep these people once the taliban remnants are defeated.

My guess is that like POWs they will be released once the taliban is defeated.

I see no evidence to suggest any other outcome.
 
Technically, Hicks can't face the death penalty. He fought for the Taliban who governed and conducted official military operations for a country. He should be considered nothing less than a POW. I am not 100% sure at the moment but I think the delay in his movement through the system is in regards to his nationality. Was he Taliban/Afghani or Australian and do we deal with and release him and to whom do we release him to, or does Australia?
 
Troll said:
Technically, Hicks can't face the death penalty. He fought for the Taliban who governed and conducted official military operations for a country. He should be considered nothing less than a POW. I am not 100% sure at the moment but I think the delay in his movement through the system is in regards to his nationality. Was he Taliban/Afghani or Australian and do we deal with and release him and to whom do we release him to, or does Australia?
Click to expand...

Execution might not be a bad thing. We excuse some of the merciless beating of women for letting their ankles show by the Taliban fashion police because it was a cultural norm for them.

However, Hicks should have known better. Maybe we should put a sick dog down to serve as an example.

Sorry, had to play devil's advocate a bit. Sometimes I forget how cruel and inhuman the Taliban was, and how it took an excuse like sheltering terrorists to finally put an end to unfathomable regime. What century is this anyway?
 
I thought the cartoon was referring to the civilians in the U.S. rounded up on immigration charges. The cartoon makes reference to being cleared and no one in Gitmo has been cleared (?).

Ashcroft's ignoring court orders to allow Padilla to see a lawyer is more distrubing to me than what will happen to the detainees in Cuba. Although I do think it is unneccessarily cruel to take combatants who were (for the most part) born and raised in a cold, dry, mountainous climate and hold them in Cuba.

I'm glad the cartoonist wrote "Ashcroft" on the jacket otherwise I'd be wondering why Leonard Nimoy was denying people civil rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom