The Washington Post hurts my brain

[Jon Miller]

If we don't follow the rule of law, than many innocent people can be punished/stored indefinitely/etc. These numbers have traditionally been in the thousands or hundreds of thousands or more.

There is a reason why rule of law should be one of the highest priorities. The cost is way too high to ignore it.

If it is in reference to 'this isn't the first time such has happend' I would point to any group of resistance fighters. Many of them in the past would kill civilians (collaborators/etc) just as these do. I really don't see what is special about them, other than that they did it to us (for the first time, really, since the american indians did it in the 19th century).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci,

We do things (or allow things to be done) all the time that we think are morally correct in spite of being dangerous. How does this differ?

How do we decide what's morally correct?

[Jon Miller]

Really? There have been previous cases where we've held 'foreign combatants' and it's been (arguably) in doubt whether or not they're actually combatants, and that we've done so during a 'war' against an enemy with no nation, one where we can never sign a treaty to end the war and return the prisoners?

Maybe not all together, for the US. But seperately? Yes. And probably all together for other nations.

I mean, look at the Kurds in Turkey/Iraq (pre 2000)/etc.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

If we don't follow the rule of law, than many innocent people can be punished/stored indefinitely/etc. These numbers have traditionally been in the thousands or hundreds of thousands or more.

There is a reason why rule of law should be one of the highest priorities. The cost is way too high to ignore it.

Yadda yadda yadda THERE IS NO LAW.

Morever, rule of law is important because it helps prevent a government from oppressing its citizens. I am substantially less worried about our government oppressing other countries' citizens. (Rightly! Think about why it's bad for the government to ignore rule of law.)

If it is in reference to 'this isn't the first time such has happend' I would point to any group of resistance fighters. Many of them in the past would kill civilians (collaborators/etc) just as these do. I really don't see what is special about them, other than that they did it to us (for the first time, really, since the american indians did it in the 19th century).

I'm not an expert on international law, but I offer up the fact that the courts are setting precedents as evidence that there isn't really settled law in this situation. Your argument is one of several that the courts are given to consider.

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe not all together, for the US. But seperately? Yes. And probably all together for other nations.

I mean, look at the Kurds in Turkey/Iraq (pre 2000)/etc.

JM

And how was international law involved with any of those, wrt how long you can hold prisoners? Were any precedents set?

[Kuciwalker]

If this was settled law it wouldn't be so legally contentious.

[Jon Miller]

I agree that it is much more important for the government to pay attention to rule of law towards it's own citizens than those of foreign countries. Howver, any break of rule of law weakens the rule of law that serves as a protection of it's own citizens.

During the whole GB stuff is when we had US citizens held without trial or due process for years. It is when we had a huge erosion in our rights (wire taping/etc). There is a link here. If the government is ignoring some of it's rule of law, it will ignore other bits as well. And treaties we sign are the law of the land (according to our constitution).

Additionally, it becomes important when we are no longer the biggest threat on the block. Right now it mostly doesn't matter, because other countries had better respect our citizens rights. But in the future, if we become a weak nation, it will be very important for others to respect our rights just as we respect theirs.

Also, I do hold to enlightenment thinking. I think that some things should be done because they are right, not just because they are utilitarian.

The argument is that the courts are setting precedents. I think it has already been set, obviously.

And my problem isn't that GB was holding people forever. My problem is that they took people on accusation, and kept them there whether they knew the truth of AQ involvement or not. I am completely fine with holding people indefinitely (if no deal has been struck) if AQ involvement is proven. But it needs to be proven. Another problem with GB is that they didn't treat them properly. If they are going to be held indefinitely for being the enemy, than they should be treated as POWs. If they are being treated as criminals, then they should have the same rights as criminals, which includes going free if they aren't proven guilty.

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

So, I'm not trying to defend anything the Bush admin is done. Everything I'm saying here just leads back to the point that we need to think a lot harder before we release the rest of the people in Gitmo.

[MrFun]

You get a cookie.

I'll have Amos Famous Cookies - love those. Bring them when we get together in March.

[Lorizael]

I agree that it is much more important for the government to pay attention to rule of law towards it's own citizens than those of foreign countries. Howver, any break of rule of law weakens the rule of law that serves as a protection of it's own citizens.

During the whole GB stuff is when we had US citizens held without trial or due process for years. It is when we had a huge erosion in our rights (wire taping/etc). There is a link here. If the government is ignoring some of it's rule of law, it will ignore other bits as well. And treaties we sign are the law of the land (according to our constitution).

Additionally, it becomes important when we are no longer the biggest threat on the block. Right now it mostly doesn't matter, because other countries had better respect our citizens rights. But in the future, if we become a weak nation, it will be very important for others to respect our rights just as we respect theirs.

Also, I do hold to enlightenment thinking. I think that some things should be done because they are right, not just because they are utilitarian.

The argument is that the courts are setting precedents. I think it has already been set, obviously.

And my problem isn't that GB was holding people forever. My problem is that they took people on accusation, and kept them there whether they knew the truth of AQ involvement or not. I am completely fine with holding people indefinitely (if no deal has been struck) if AQ involvement is proven. But it needs to be proven. Another problem with GB is that they didn't treat them properly. If they are going to be held indefinitely for being the enemy, than they should be treated as POWs. If they are being treated as criminals, then they should have the same rights as criminals, which includes going free if they aren't proven guilty.

Jon Miller

*its.

[Kuciwalker]

Thank you, that was bothering me too.

[Blaupanzer]

POWs in previous wars had to be enemy combatants, and their holders had to prove they were. Mostly it wasn't hard. They were captured on the battlefield in military gear with a military ID. Several contries that had insurgencies chose to interpret the other side as traitors not POWs. The situation in which a nation is so rich and pwerful as to be able to remove these "traitors" and mercenaries from the battlefield and hold them on its own soil is rare. Nonetheless, if men are to be governed by the rule of law, such individuals deserve a trial to establish guilt or innocense. Note that jurisdiction belongs to the country in which they were captured.

As to Kuci's point, if it follows logically that they are now too dangerous to let go then we should keep them. With a few exceptions, we have no way to know which are and which aren't that dangerous, irrespective of how they react to the amount of time locked up. The Post was so locked into gasping that the reactionaries may be right aspect of that article that they didn't follow the reactionary line to its conclusion that we should keep them all just to be safe, even though the US has no right at all to hold other people's citizens unless they comitted crimes against us.

[Kuciwalker]

The Post was so locked into gasping that the reactionaries may be right aspect of that article that they didn't follow the reactionary line to its conclusion that we should keep them all just to be safe, even though the US has no right at all to hold other people's citizens unless they comitted crimes against us.

Strawmen

[snoopy369]

It's actually an entirely valid argument, and the crux of the issue ... therefore sort of the opposite of a strawman.

[Kuciwalker]

It's actually an entirely valid argument, and the crux of the issue ... therefore sort of the opposite of a strawman.

Do you even know what a strawman is? It's the fallacy of putting up a false opponent so you can debunk it, all while ignoring the real arguments of your opponent.

However, it's also plausible that y'all just can't read. Especially you, given that you're usually a massive tool.