Republican Timidity?

[Bikewer]

So there has been plenty of outcry about the horrors of bringing the inhuman savages housed at Gitmo onto venerated US soil.
This will cause their fellow terrorists to descend upon us like a biblical plague, fighting their way to the wilds of Northern Illinois to free their brethren....

The Horror....

What happened to the party of "bring it on!"? Why would the fact that these prisoners are now in a US jail rather than a Cuban-island jail make other sympathetic Jihadists more likely to attack us?
Wouldn't they be trying to attack us anyway?

Have we not successfully prosecuted and imprisoned other terrorists?

Or, maybe it could just be the same old..."If Obama is doing it, it must be wrong!" rhetoric.

 

[Towlie]

The real horror is defusing the despicable and unjustified loophole that Constitutional rights are invalid outside of U.S. borders, even in territories where the American Flag flies.

 

[Tiktaalik]

The real horror is defusing the despicable and unjustified loophole that Constitutional rights are invalid outside of U.S. borders, even in territories where the American Flag flies.

This is what bugs me. The Declaration of Independence recognizes inalienable rights that accrue to all people by virtue of their existence, and says nothing about citizens of the US being the only ones entitled to those rights. If we truly believe that those rights exist, then we have to include all human beings, and not exclude the majority of the world's population due to circumstances of their birth.

 

[Towlie]

It's one of the principles that separate liberals from conservatives; liberals uphold the spirit and intent of the Constitution while conservatives look for loopholes.

 

[Tricky]

This is what bugs me. The Declaration of Independence recognizes inalienable rights that accrue to all people by virtue of their existence, and says nothing about citizens of the US being the only ones entitled to those rights. If we truly believe that those rights exist, then we have to include all human beings, and not exclude the majority of the world's population due to circumstances of their birth.

True, but that's the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. The D of I is a rhetorical document that says some moving but pretty stupid things, and of course, Jefferson didn't even believe all of them himself, as he didn't believe his slaves had the right to liberty.

Still, the gist is true. If we believe the rules set out in the Constitution, it should be our goal to extend them universally. Indeed, the whole idea of extending democracy to others has been the driving force between many of our actions, including the push for elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While I certainly have little sympathy for murderers or really most any kind of criminal, I believe the US system of Habeus Corpus is the best way to deal with them. I accept that the conditions may be harsh, but I require that they be fair.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

So there has been plenty of outcry about the horrors of bringing the inhuman savages housed at Gitmo onto venerated US soil.
This will cause their fellow terrorists to descend upon us like a biblical plague, fighting their way to the wilds of Northern Illinois to free their brethren....

The Horror....

Funny these same pols weren't crying about any of these guys being sentenced to ADX Florence, CO. Florence appears to be the Mayberry of bedroom communities, nestled neatly in the shadows of the Rocky Mountains.

Mahmud Abouhalima, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

Ahmed Ajaj, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

Nidal Ayyad, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

El Sayyid Nosair, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

Mohammed A. Salameh, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

Clement Rodney Hampton-El, a.k.a. Dr. Rashid, convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

Eyad Ismail, 37802-054, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a Canadian convicted of terrorism-related offences

John Walker Lindh, dubbed "The American Taliban"

Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, participant in the 1998 United States embassy bombings

Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings

Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad, would-be financier of al-Qaeda and Hamas, serving 75 years

Zacarias Moussaoui, 51427-054, of the September 11 attacks

Wadih el-Hage, 42393-054, of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa

Wali Khan Amin Shah, convicted on charges stemming from Operation Bojinka

Ramzi Yousef, 03911-000, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Operation Bojinka, senior al-Qaeda member

Abdul Hakim Murad, of al-Qaeda's Operation Bojinka

Mohammed Odeh is one of the four former al-Qaeda members sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 for their parts in the 1998 United States embassy bombings.

Jose Padilla, 20796-424, convicted of aiding terrorists

Richard Reid, 24079-038, al-Qaeda's would-be "Shoe Bomber"

Ahmed Ressam, of the 2000 millennium attack plots

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, Al Qaeda conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate U.S. President George W. Bush

Nope, it's a only wrong now, because Obama is doing it, and the party of "No" just says, "No".

I know, most of these things happened before 9/11, when waterboarding was still considered torture, not an "advanced interrogation technique". blah

On a side note, I didn't know Woody Harrelson's dad was a Hit Man.

Charles Harrelson, 02582-016, Texan hitman, convicted of murdering a federal judge, father of actor Woody Harrelson, died in prison of a heart attack March 15, 2007

ADX Florence, CO

 

[Towlie]

While I certainly have little sympathy for murderers or really most any kind of criminal, I believe the US system of Habeus Corpus is the best way to deal with them.

The best way to deal with murderers or really most any kind of criminal is the punishment that's prescribed by law, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people accused of being murderers or really most any kind of criminal.

That's the wisdom of our Founding Fathers that seems to escape so many Americans. They want to put the cart before the horse and deny rights to the accused before they're even allowed a fair trial. Such people are no better than those who endorsed the use of Spectral evidence^WP at the Salem witch trials^WP.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . Indeed, the whole idea of extending democracy to others has been the driving force between many of our actions, including the push for elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan . . .

****cynicism alert ****

DFINO.

driving force in name only

 

[Whiplash]

So there has been plenty of outcry about the horrors of bringing the inhuman savages housed at Gitmo onto venerated US soil.
This will cause their fellow terrorists to descend upon us like a biblical plague, fighting their way to the wilds of Northern Illinois to free their brethren....

The Horror....

What happened to the party of "bring it on!"? Why would the fact that these prisoners are now in a US jail rather than a Cuban-island jail make other sympathetic Jihadists more likely to attack us?
Wouldn't they be trying to attack us anyway?

Have we not successfully prosecuted and imprisoned other terrorists?

Or, maybe it could just be the same old..."If Obama is doing it, it must be wrong!" rhetoric.

Timidity? We should actually want them to come and fight on US soil, and endager the lives of innocent Americans?

Why does being willing to stand out there and take them on, in their own environment, mean we are also supposed to want to take them on, here at home? Did you miss the entire point of that? That we were fighting them on their own soil? With our soldiers? Not putting our own civilians in the line of fire?

I agree that some of what the Republicans are saying regards this stuff is a by hysterical. But at the same time, no terrorist is easily able to reach and help martyr anyone at Gitmo. They would conceivably have an easier time of doing so, should the person be in a US prison. Or during a trial. It's not likely, but it's feasible. Far more feasible than an attack on Gitmo.

And if it happens, that's gonna be a huge black eye for Obama and the Dems. It's not a matter of fearing them or not wanting to fight them, it's about not wanting to put our own civilians in harms way. Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has given them a place to attack us. Just, our soldiers, not our people. Having these trials is an open invitation for them to come and try to make a mess of things.

You accuse the right of being against it just because Obama is doing it. And yet you fail to recognize how the left routinely puts it's ideals and beliefs ahead of everything else, including the safety of citizens and the good of our nation, overall. It's more important that your ideals and philosophies are always maintained. Absolutely zero pragmatism. And I expect that if something does happen, there'll be no shortage of excuses and rationales as to why it wasn't really their fault. They'll still hold to those ideals fiercely, even in the face of a devestating terror attack.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good point, Bikewer. Also, I wonder why they're not afraid of the murderers and rapists and so on already in our maximum security prisons. If they're so afraid that we can't keep people who are a danger to society behind bars, how come they never expressed that concern before now? I don't know the figures, but I assume a handful of Gitmo detainees would only comprise a small percentage of our high risk prison population.

Still, the gist is true. If we believe the rules set out in the Constitution, it should be our goal to extend them universally. Indeed, the whole idea of extending democracy to others has been the driving force between many of our actions, including the push for elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While I certainly have little sympathy for murderers or really most any kind of criminal, I believe the US system of Habeus Corpus is the best way to deal with them. I accept that the conditions may be harsh, but I require that they be fair.

We sort of covered this on a couple of other threads recently. This idea that the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights (and rights of the accused in particular) only pertain to U.S. citizens is false.

In one of those other threads, I made several arguments to support this position. I'll repeat them here in the summary form:

1. The language: the Constitution uses the word citizen when that's what it means as distinct from words like persons or the people or the accused. There are numerous examples of this, and I cited a few clear examples that uses both "person" and "citizen" in the same sentence in such a way that the set citizens is obviously a subset of the set persons.

2. The legislative history of the Constitution. We know the Bill of Rights in particular were based on Locke's idea of natural rights--rights that all humans should enjoy.

3. At least some of these rights in the Bill of Rights are expressed as limitations on government power, and it makes no sense to construe them otherwise. (Surely the government can't establish a religion for non-citizens, for example.)

4. Boumediene v. Bush addressed in part this very question and found that the rights of the accused in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens.

 

[Peephole]

Ah, the old "if we start wars all over the world, we might trick terrorists into fighting over there instead of on American soil"-strategy.

Too bad guys like Abdulmutallab didn't seem to have gotten the memo.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Timidity? We should actually want them to come and fight on US soil, and endager the lives of innocent Americans?

This is rubbish.

We don't want them to "come and fight on US soil". We want them to come enjoy the hospitality at a new maximum security facility in Illinois.

If we have a good case that they're a danger to innocent Americans (or even bad Americans), that's where they'll stay. If we don't have such a case, then we don't know that they're a danger to anyone.

Mostly, I don't want us to become a nation that locks people up indefinitely without having to prove they are a danger.

 

[Peephole]

Mostly, I don't want us to become a nation that locks people up indefinitely without having to prove they are a danger.

"Become" isn't the verb you were looking for.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Become" isn't the verb you were looking for.

I'm an optimist. Also, despite Bush's 'druthers, the SCOTUS ordered Boumediene et al. to be set free as part of the opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. So the system still works. . .eventually.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I like to think of the United States as a "can do" nation, as opposed to a "can't do" nation. That pretty much sums up my view on this topic.

ETA: I live a few hours away from the place where the Gitmo detainees will be housed. I'm not scared one bit. In fact, I'm more worried about dying in a random car wreck. I think living in fear of terrorism is for losers; I've got better things to do with my life.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

ETA: I live a few hours away from the place where the Gitmo detainees will be housed. I'm not scared one bit. In fact, I'm more worried about dying in a random car wreck. I think living in fear of terrorism is for losers; I've got better things to do with my life.

I saw a couple of news stories on it here in St. Louis, and the first one was pretty positive (the project will provide desperately needed jobs). I saw another where the reporter was trying to get people to voice fears of the terrorists in their own back yards, but it didn't seem to me that anyone was really going for it. (Again, why is a suspected terrorist more frightening than a convicted murderer or rapist if they're all in maximum security prisons?)

ETA: For that matter, if escape is such a big fear, why did we bring them from places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to a prison 90 miles from Florida? Surely if they can escape a maximum security prison, getting from Cuba to Florida should be no problem.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I saw a couple of news stories on it here in St. Louis, and the first one was pretty positive (the project will provide desperately needed jobs). I saw another where the reporter was trying to get people to voice fears of the terrorists in their own back yards, but it didn't seem to me that anyone was really going for it. (Again, why is a suspected terrorist more frightening than a convicted murderer or rapist if they're all in maximum security prisons?)

Exactly. We handle the worst of the worst (mass murderers, rapists, thugs of all types) in our prison system every day, and society hasn't gone to hell. We can handle some terrorist nuts.

I'm just getting really damn tired of some folks constantly playing the fear card. Fear is for wimps, and I'd like to think my nation isn't full of wimps.

 

[leftysergeant]

Timidity? We should actually want them to come and fight on US soil, and endager the lives of innocent Americans?

The point is that they have no less reason to come here now than if we moved the detainees to an inland prison.

Why does being willing to stand out there and take them on, in their own environment, mean we are also supposed to want to take them on, here at home? Did you miss the entire point of that? That we were fighting them on their own soil?

Bull flops. We are fighting them on somebody else's turf.

Not putting our own civilians in the line of fire?

But you're cool with putting a bunch of them darned Mooslim kids in the line of fire, aren't you?

Disgusting.

They would conceivably have an easier time of doing so, should the person be in a US prison. Or during a trial. It's not likely, but it's feasible. Far more feasible than an attack on Gitmo.

Why didn't they try to snatch or off Moussaui?

It's not a matter of fearing them or not wanting to fight them, it's about not wanting to put our own civilians in harms way. Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has given them a place to attack us.

And they are still trying to attack us here. Pay attention.

You accuse the right of being against it just because Obama is doing it. And yet you fail to recognize how the left routinely puts it's ideals and beliefs ahead of everything else, including the safety of citizens and the good of our nation, overall.

Doing it right and doing it in a way that does not further erode our civil liberties or degrade our morality is the for greatest good of the nation. That vile nosferatu who used to be VP is running about the country ranting and drooling about how much it endangers us that Obama is not the monster he and his PNAC slimebags were and ignoring the fact that he and his thugs did not make us a damned bit safer, but did make us all a great deal poorer and deeper in debt.

I would not be at all surprised if the undie bomber turns out to have gotten through because one of the Shrub's appointees who got switched by executive action to a career position just shrugged off the warnings.

Republicans are pretty much useless in time of war unless they are in uniform and in the line of fire.

 

[Brainster]

It's one of the principles that separate liberals from conservatives; liberals uphold the spirit and intent of the Constitution while conservatives look for loopholes.

Yawn. Actually, Obama is proposing trials for only some of the detainees; he's proposing indefinite detention without trials for others. Perhaps you could point me to the article in the constitution that allows for this to happen?

"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said. "But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."

I happen to think Obama's making the right decision here, but even he would acknowledge that he's using a loophole.

 

[Towlie]

Yes, Brainster, many of us who supported Obama are very disappointed in how he persists in trying to placate conservatives. I wince whenever I hear him say "bipartisan". He reminds me of that old song about the woman who rescued and healed a rattlesnake, tried to pet it, and was shocked when she got bitten. I'm still wondering how many more times Barack Obama needs to get bitten before he gives up and starts doing the right thing regardless of what Republicans want.

Lyrics to The Snake