Guantanamo bay

[David Floyd]

a) whether or not it is right is pretty subjective, whereas whether or not it is legal is pretty objective

Well I'm not going to threadjack this into objective moral truth - we can discuss that elsewhere. I think the point, though, was that just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it should be done.

[Whaleboy]

whether or not it is right is pretty subjective

Agreed, thus my question is (now) whether or not it is rational.

whereas whether or not it is legal is pretty objective

But less useful philosophically.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Because, my dear Watson, at the time the Constitution was ratified, it enacted the United States of America as a distinct sovereign state, essentially consisting of a federation (or Confederation ) of previously existing sovereign states. The Constitution expressly acknowledges duality of citizenship, in the form of citizenship of a state, and of the United States.

Prior to ratification, there was no vslifly existing "United States of America" and thus no citizenship thereof. The Framers were also smart enough to figure that in the course of commerce, trading or acquiring territory, banking, etc., that non-citizens might become citizens, and that non-citizens would also have normal contact with the US government and legal system.

It's generally much simpler to have one recognized legal system with uniform rules for all before it - the two areas of exception that have long been recognized are military law and admiralty or maritime law.

AFAIK all western countries have a similar legal structure. There is not, generally, one class of legal protection for citizens and a lesser one for noncitizens.

[Kuciwalker]

Mostly because elijah's first post seemed mostly to relate to the constitutionality and legality of it, and not so much as to whether it was right. I contened that point, and so the thread went off in that direction.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't know, but maybe they wouldn't fall under six because it was an occupied territory?

How so? Most were not from already occupied territory, AFAIK; they took up arms prior to the arrival of the US troops and did not fight "behind the lines"; rather they were captured in large-scale conventional military engagments.

[Whaleboy]

Question: Is Guantanamo a logical way of dealing with prisoners? Is it moral or rational (according to your personal moralities) to treat prisoners like that, even though they have not been convicted, they havent been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt yadda yadda?

Do the prisoners warrant sufficient tactical threat to be placed in those conditions that are 8/10 if Auschwitz is 10/10, where a normal max sec prison would easily suffice?

Does the right to a fair trial preclude possible threats to national security, for evidence concerning tactically low level individuals (I can understand if we were dealing with Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, but these guys are pawns mostly)?

Whats so great about the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence before guilt for all criminals?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My argument is with your assertion that they are so obviously not under section 6...

That's why we don't have Taleban in any significant numbers in Gitmo. Inhabitants of the non-occupied territories within the meaning of section 6 means (a) people who are settled there for a period of time, going about their ordinary business of something other than being a mercenary, etc. In other words, a bona-fide resident. So with the bulk of Afghani prisoners, we never took custody because they obviously fell under 6 at least, if not the other forces.

The other side of 4A6 is that part about "spontaneously taking up arms at the approach of the enemy" - that's a stretch when you have regular arms caches, training camps, and people actually stationed as fighters in given areas.

[Whaleboy]

Mostly because elijah's first post seemed mostly to relate to the constitutionality and legality of it

My bad, I assumed we would be discussing the philosophical ramifications of it too, which is more up my street.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
Question: Is Guantanamo a logical way of dealing with prisoners? Is it moral or rational (according to your personal moralities) to treat prisoners like that, even though they have not been convicted, they havent been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt yadda yadda?

Do the prisoners warrant sufficient tactical threat to be placed in those conditions that are 8/10 if Auschwitz is 10/10, where a normal max sec prison would easily suffice?

Does the right to a fair trial preclude possible threats to national security, for evidence concerning tactically low level individuals (I can understand if we were dealing with Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, but these guys are pawns mostly)?

Whats so great about the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence before guilt for all criminals?

Well, if Auschwitz is 10/10, I'd say this is 1/10.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


How so? Most were not from already occupied territory, AFAIK; they took up arms prior to the arrival of the US troops and did not fight "behind the lines"; rather they were captured in large-scale conventional military engagments.

That's what the "I don't know" was for.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't know, but maybe they wouldn't fall under six because it was an occupied territory?

Please tell me your joking? P1ss poor reason (excuse?) by any stretch of the imagination!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That's why we don't have Taleban in any significant numbers in Gitmo. Inhabitants of the non-occupied territories within the meaning of section 6 means (a) people who are settled there for a period of time, going about their ordinary business of something other than being a mercenary, etc. In other words, a bona-fide resident. So with the bulk of Afghani prisoners, we never took custody because they obviously fell under 6 at least, if not the other forces.

The other side of 4A6 is that part about "spontaneously taking up arms at the approach of the enemy" - that's a stretch when you have regular arms caches, training camps, and people actually stationed as fighters in given areas.

Yeah, but they weren't training to fight the US in Afghanistan (which would have necessitated getting themselves some uniforms). They were training to become terrorists, and only took up arms as a result of an unexpected (?) development (the invasion of Afghanistan).

The possibility at least that this interpretation is the right one is there. And that's why there needed to be a competent tribunal, not like the one which was convened (which basically rendered hundreds of verdicts a day and which was constrained by the definition imposed by the Prez)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


IIRC the standard applied is that of being competent and impartial.

The executive orders regarding what standard was to be applied limit by definition the competence of the board making the decision.

Impartial is not mentioned. Competent merely means for this application (because determination of their actual competence is a subjective lawyer-fest ) a tribunal that has proper authority and jurisdiction.

You see that use of competent in contract law all the time - "a court of competent jurisdiction" which merely means it has authority over the persons, place, and subject matter to hear the case. i.e. a traffic court in Kansas can't hear a murder trial in California, no matter how favorable the judge would be.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Impartial is not mentioned. Competent merely means for this application (because determination of their actual competence is a subjective lawyer-fest ) a tribunal that has proper authority and jurisdiction.

It did not have the proper authority because of the orders issued it (that all Al Qaeda prisoners were to be declared unlawful combatants)

[Whaleboy]

1/10 would be a baby's cot.

8/10 because better food, and no prospect of getting systematically killed, at least theyll get something loosely resembling an opportunity to defend themselves. Of course there are far less of them too. Still, similar level of freedom, guarding, regulation, prospect of likely death (at end). They have a worse legal status clearly too, an indictment on the geneva convention.