Suspected Terrorist = Actual Terrorist

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Winston
Boo-hoo.

I'd be more concerned about the suspected terrorists that aren't yet incarcerated.

That's because you're on AQ's side.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DanS

I was merely pointing out that the problem was corrected and we admitted the mistake, unlike what Admiral believed.

So suck it.

Actually, no-one admitted that a mistake was made in the Masri case. Condi admitted that in implementing any policy, mistakes will sometimes occur.

The very next day, talking heads stateside denied any linkage between Condi's comment and the Masri case. And slagged Merkel at the same time.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Heerscher
Yeah, it must really be terrifying to live in the US these days, knowing your society is threatened by brutal terrorist wishing to turn your country into a Islamic kaliphate. To live in fear each and every day, I wouldn't be able to stomach it. And knowing they even are among you, secretly conspiring their evil plans. You would be a fool to value liberty over security in such a situation. What is libery worth if your safety is compromised every day, when you are at war with a brutal enemy that knows no mercy and is willing to do all that it takes to blow up your buildings, kill your friends and family and destroy your country. In such a situation I would be glad to have a powerfull president and Intelligency Agency, to protect my liberty and freedom!

[Mr. Harley]

Donegal and Provost Harrision (Provost, he's not Molly - your personal digs really do hurt your credibility, you know that) that is the kind of exchange I was hoping for. I tend to agree with the Provost here, because, and I am sure Donegeal will understand - liberty and justice are not only based on attitude, but on process.

The process being used on terror suspects can so easily be warped by those who would really undermine liberty that they are much more dangerous than the terrorists. Peace activists on the no fly list or under FBI survellience - it's been documented, and it's an abuse (I posted on that last year on a case from Colorado). Giving law enforcement powers that are NOT subject to judicial review!

And there are already operatives out there right now who wish to subvert the democratic process. The old ballot stuffing done by both parties was bad enough - but contracting out voter list purges designed to target minorities, blocking phone banks to keep the other side from picking up disabled or poor voters, etc. goes to another level. It's not the entire party - but there is a strong minority support (look at the other states that started to try the supposed felon list bit).

There are people in both parties who, if they thought they could, would establish Putin's "guided democracy" here. They KNOW what's best for most of us. Since our military is decidedly pro-Republican, as is law enforcement, only a right wing erosion of liberty is a real threat. The poster who mentioned Central America was right on the mark. Remember, in Chile - Pinochet really thought Socialism was a threat to his country.

You cannot have a partial process. Once you start eroding liberties, the next emergency makes an even more compelling case. I have also used the quote by Franklin and got chided by some posters for it - but I still firmly agree with the Provost that he was absolutely correct. I've made a point to a fellow law enforcement friend, who argued like Donegeal. I stated that my wife who is under 100 pounds - 45 kg - could have walked through the center of Moscow at 1AM in safety during the Soviet era. She would have been safer than she is in any US major metro area today.

I probably would have been waiting for the knock on my door, and if I was lucky I might have been shipped out to a Gulag. Liberty has a price - and you cannot make other people pay it. When you do, you no longer have liberty, you have tyranny. Think about it.

[DanS]

no-one admitted that a mistake was made in the Masri case

According to Merkel, Condi told her that a mistake was made in the Masri case. Condi was at the same press conference, so she could have explained further, if she chose. But she didn't.

[Last Conformist]

I suppose that means she neither explicitly admited it on record nor denied it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Odin
This whole "enemy comabtant" catagory is BS. If they are not POW's they are civilians according to the Geneva Conventions.

Thats not quite true, IIUC. The Geneva Conventions certain envisions that there are combatants who are not entitled to protection as POW's - thats the point, largely, of the distinction - if you follow the rules, you get protected yourself, if not, not.

That said, the use of the enemy combatants category is open to abuse. Even if not deliberately abused, the possibility of error is real. This probably does not mean we should never detain anyone using intelligence - but it does mean we need to be circumspect about what happens to them. If we used "harsh interrogation techniques" and had no individuals incarcerated as enemy combatants whose cases were at all debatable - or IF we had such detainees, but we never used "harsh interrogation techniques" wed be in a different position. The combination of detentions of enemy combatants, and the use of "harsh interrogation techniques" raises the awful question of the use of such techniques on innocents, and has served to undermine what may well be necessary tools of the WOT. Net-net, we now have to adopt changes in the techniques that have been used in the past. In particular the McCain amendment against cruel and inhumane treatment must be passed.

[Pekka]

I thought every person were still entitled to human rights, and that includes not being tortured, yes?

Terrorists or not, they can't be held in some weird position locked between two worlds, a non-entity. They must have some of the basic rights that everyone else enjoys.

[lord of the mark]

1. We havent had any attacks lately, in the US. The attacks outside the US have been smaller in scale than 9/11. This leads to a greater feeling of safety. This is good. It may be that in these conditions we want to relax measures that seemed necessary a few years ago. OTOH the relative absence of attacks is according to many, due to precisely those measures. Perhaps it wasnt worth it anyway. OTOH lets hope very much that relaxing such measures, doesnt lead to attacks that could themselves lead to much harsher measures

2. Exagerration of the threat to safety, undermines support for security measures. Exageration of the threat to liberty, however, undermines the attempt to relax unneeded security measures.

Ben Franklin was attacking the prospect of a country giving up its own liberty, for safety. The detentions and torture at issue, have been imposed on foreigners. For the most part folks detained in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Franklin did not insist that suspending constitutional rights in places where such writ never ran was the kind of error he was talking about. So far, IIUC, two US citizens have been implicated in these discussions. One was detainedd overseas, and one at an airport coming from overseas. All Americans arrested domestically in the WOT have been treated according to law. the one arrested at an airport has now been formally charged in the civilian courts. The notion that the US is becoming a police state is simply silly. A Putin style state? Where you cant here criticisms of the govt in the main media? Really.

The truely controversial cases have been the detentions of individuals from democratic societies, ABROAD. Like Germany. We need to determine if we appropriately notified and gained the consent of the states in question. If we did, than the liberty issue is THEIRS. If we did not, we must change, so that we maintain good relations with our allies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
I thought every person were still entitled to human rights, and that includes not being tortured, yes?

Terrorists or not, they can't be held in some weird position locked between two worlds, a non-entity. They must have some of the basic rights that everyone else enjoys.

There is some question if there is a universal human right against torture - and if so, if it applies to all the techniques that are a matter of controversy. There is much confusion between various bad things - violating the Geneva Convention (which does not apply to illegal combatants) is bad. Detaining the innocent is bad. Using harsh and unpleasant techniques on the innocent is VERY, VERY bad. Im not convinced that using harsh and unpleasant techniques against the genuinely guilty (however that is to be determined) in order to gain needed information, is bad. Or illegal. Though it may have to be declared illegal, now, due to the mess weve gotten into by the overuse of said techniques.

[Pekka]

lotm, well I hope you did follow the news of several countries wanting their people back, who were snatched. Not to mention they were found innocent after over year of imprisonment, while the countries tried to get them back without results. These countries include at least Sweden, UK, and others.

I guess it didn't make news there.

[Pekka]

lotm, that's the difference between practice and theory. In theory, I don't think we can afford to accept torture. But if the worst case scenario would come, I'm 100% SURE that the person in question would be tortured, even in the librul european nations.

The difference is, I don't think it's acceptable, but I understand it happens every now and then. Maybe sometimes it must happen, but I wouldn't accept it as general method fo what ever.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
lotm, well I hope you did follow the news of several countries wanting their people back, who were snatched. Not to mention they were found innocent after over year of imprisonment, while the countries tried to get them back without results. These countries include at least Sweden, UK, and others.

I guess it didn't make news there.

lots of things make the news, not all of which I follow. The biggest case is this German guy. The others were mainly detained in Afghanistan, IIUC, which I consider different from alleged snatches IN European countries. Obviously not everyone shares my belief that those are different situations.

[lord of the mark]

"The old ballot stuffing done by both parties was bad enough - but contracting out voter list purges designed to target minorities, blocking phone banks to keep the other side from picking up disabled or poor voters, etc. goes to another level."

what do you think of routine challenges to petition signatures to get challengers off the ballot - including subpoenas to intimidate? Do you see that as a threat?

[Pekka]

No I didn't mean that as an insult, the 'i guess it didn't make news'.. In scheme of things, these individual cases might not make news with all the other stuff going on.

But yeah, it has made some uncomfortable moments. Nothing too dramatic though, the countries in question have been in a spot where they knew bringing it up is difficult because it will automatically mean clash of things so I don't know how they ultimately handled the situations, but I guess they used some backchannels or secret diplomacy, who knows.... but it was uncomfortable for a while.

Yeah I'd agree that it's different to snatch a person in Afghanistan or in Europe. Of course the other one is questionable but in certain situations you know it happens and it's to some extent OK in my mind, but doing it in Europe is NEVER acceptable in my opinion. Should be done with cooperation with local authorities that is.

I'm tired of this subject now, I'll eat something and watch a movie