Go to Empyre
- Add a comment
- Go to Three Suicides At Guantanamo
Exactly the point I wish to make, Blanche. When you trample the inherent
right of others, even extranationals, you are setting precedent for the trampling of domestic civil rights. This abdication of power by the strongest check in our system, the American Congress, to allow the powers of war (and any acts related to those powers -- Patriot Act, the illegal wiretapping, extraordinary renditioning, etc.) to be fully assumed by the executive branch, and the almost total collaborative effort in this abdication by the increasingly conservative Judiciary should send signals to the American public that all is not well in the Homeland.
posted by
saul_relative
on June 13, 2006 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
I didn't know about that case, Saul, that was news to me
about the Nazi exceutions, but that was (If I got this right), the last war actually declared by Congress. Now, this endless state of ambiguity is a real slippery slope, pushing the boundaries of presidential authority, and Congress just plays along.
Why no warrants for the wiretaps? Before anybody gets their knickers in a knot about being "of-topic", which I have been accused of, I believe that it is all part of the package deal: Guantanamo, the "lack of prisoners rights" in Guantanamo, and our own civil rights, there is no separating them
posted by
Blanche.
on June 12, 2006 at 4:48 PM
| link to this | reply
You are point on, Blanche. The legal reasoning used to hold these
detainees is loosely based on the legal rulings in the case against the 8 Nazi saboteurs caught in WWII. Their trials and executions (six of the eight were executed) were a mere formality. They weren't treated as prisoners of war. The Supreme Court did not rule on the case until after the executions (convenient). Scary stuff.
posted by
saul_relative
on June 12, 2006 at 4:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Due process is what I am most proud of as an American, Saul,
I agree: try them and either set them free or exectue them. But the trickle-down or legal precedent effect worries me. If there are extrajudicial territories like Guantanamo that become de facto holding tanks, where no rights apply, then those same procedures can occur here. The police and military must be kept in check.
I do not and never have believed that the US government cannot wage a successful war on terrorism without stooping to the lowest level of t he terrorists themselve. It is what separates dictators and despots from a lawful government.
posted by
Blanche.
on June 12, 2006 at 3:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Maybe it was an act of war, Blanche, and as such, I guess the three
detainees have no worries about their entrance into heaven (although it is still technically suicide, an act of war or not, and may not be covered as such in Muslim doctrine). Still, the remaining detainees do need to be treated as humans, be accorded the rights that are due them as human beings, charged (or not) and tried. This endless imprisonment of suspected and real terrorists without charging, without due process, is unquestionably loathsome, un-American, and unethical. We, and our laws, are better than that.
posted by
saul_relative
on June 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Unfortunately, Azur, we'll never know what the last thing on their minds
were, but, if they were devout Muslims, I would say that it was contemplating their god and the mortal sin they were committing, wondering whether or not they'd be denied heaven. And I agree on the "shot": they must receive a fair trial, period. Charge them, try them, set them free or imprison them or shoot them, just get them out of incarceration limbo.
posted by
saul_relative
on June 12, 2006 at 3:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul, comments like the one below beg the question of legal precedent
we are or were a nation of laws. No one, not even the President, is above the law. Hence the term, "democracy". Also, morality, which so many are fond of touting. It is immoral to condemn without trial.
I saw the NY Times article on this today. Amazing, that the Admiral in charge said this was not an act of desperation but an act of war. Well, who can say?
posted by
Blanche.
on June 12, 2006 at 12:27 AM
| link to this | reply
I would have thought their being "shot"
depends somewhat on the conviction. There are concerns that they will not receive a fair trial. The British detainees were sent home, questioned and freed. One can't help wondering how different it would be if they came from somewhere else. And then one has to wonder how many of those people are guilty or not?
I read someone who described the suicides as a PR move for people who want Guantanamo closed. I reckon that PR was the last thing on their minds.
posted by
Azur
on June 11, 2006 at 11:29 PM
| link to this | reply
That may be so, kingmi, but I really would like to see these guys charged,
tried, and shot --- not simply detained. And I don't believe Dubya has a principled bone in his entire body, nor muscle, nor organ...
posted by
saul_relative
on June 11, 2006 at 9:43 PM
| link to this | reply
saul, Bush has set a new high for principled leadership. these filthy verm
-in should have been shot and burned like rags last year.
posted by
kingmi
on June 11, 2006 at 8:56 PM
| link to this | reply