----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Gulags
>Dr. Cole is correct, what you are arguing is that a class of people should
>be held indefinitely without trial. This is known as a bill of attainder
>and is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Actually, it's known as habius corpus. A bill of attainder is a law that is
aimed at punishing a single person, IIRC. When in the past did we either
try
prisoners taken in wars or quickly release them? Aren't such prisoners
usually kept for the duration of hostilities.
>OK, you do recognize the problems with this. However, your dismissal of
>"the courts", not even recognizing the difference between military justice
>and the right demonized "liberal court system" is troubling to me.
I was discussing the often repeated argument I've heard from members of
the left wing of the Democratic party that I know that we need to treat AQ
like any other criminal, with warrants for arrests, evidence presented in
public, etc. I was referring to the problems with that
Also, according to a recent AP story, all but about 12 of the people at
Gitmo have been before a tribunal that either declared them enemy
combatants or ordered their release. I have absolutely no idea how many
have been charged with war crimes. So, in a real sense, they have been
before at least some sort of military tribunal.
But, remember, I'm not defending Gitmo. I think it has done more harm than
good to the US; I think that the administration handing of prisoners has
caused tremendous problems. I think that the blurring of the bright line
between torture and good treatment by the ambiguous inclusion of "High
Stress" has contributed to the tremendous failure of the military to live
up to the standards they have set in the previous decade.
But, I do not think it represents the start of the end of civil liberties
in the US. I don't think it represents one of the most significant risks
to civil liberties in the US. I don't believe it is one of the most
significant risks to the liberty of a randomly selected American today.
I'm discussing that in more detail later in this post. But, I'd just like
to point out here that the bar I have set for "defending" Gitmo is rather
low. If it is immoral, stupid, and counter-productive, if Bush has hurt US
interests by torturing people that are at Gitmo simply because they had the
wrong personal enemies in Afghanistan, then I could still "defend" Gitmo as
not being one of the most serious risks to the liberty of Americans in
history. It could still be horrid without posing a significant risk to the
liberty of American citizens.
>Many wars are not between governments with fixed boundaries.
That is true. And, prisoners taken during such a war can be held until the
war has ended. That is Bush's argument. We're in a war and have the right
to hold combatants that we capture until hostilities have ceased. My
argument is more restrictive....since the "war on terror" is a war that
has unusually unclear boundaries, it is not reasonable to hold prisoners
until there is no more terror.
>The actions by the administration violate the laws of the
> >military justice system and are legal and constitutional systems and
have
> >only been possibly matched at the worst times in our history.
>
> I'd be curious to see examples of the established laws of military
justice
> system has handled captured combatants that have not been covered by
> treaty
> on this. I think part of the challenge for the Supreme Court is that this
> is new legal ground....so they are being careful where they step.
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol
II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal standing of
their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to government clashes
with
armed insurgent groups.
In addition the 4th Geneva Convention ("Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") lays out separate
protections for civilians, including so-called "unlawful combatants."
Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention sets out six distinct categories of
prisoners whom the convention defines as POWs.
The Constitution states that all treaties that the United States have
signed have the full status of law.
I would not call the administration being careful.
>(Just curious - are you like John getting your news and analysis from
>Scaife's NewsMax or Murdoch's Fox News?)
Let's see. I tend to get my news from internet sources, particularly
articles and opinions from:
The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Christian Science Monitor
The AP
Reuters
The Los Angeles Times
Of all the columnists on world affairs, I think that Tom Freedman is my
favorite; he tends to be closest to my viewpoints.
He has written a scathing criticism of the Administrations handling of
prisoners, which I agree with. (He has also written a number of other
strong criticisms of the Administration's handling of foreign policy that I
agree with.) According to a mutual friend, we also share a strong distaste
for the hyperbola that has rendered reasoned discussion of difficult issues
all the more difficult to accomplish. _That_ is what I'm addressing.
I also read Time magazine. Issue before last they had a very interesting
cover article on Gitmo. I'm posting it separately (no links are
available). I think this article has verisimilitude.
> 1) Lynchings of 30,000 blacks in the first 30-40 years. 1000 lynchings
per
> year is a large number.
>
> 2) The internment >100k Americans as a result of their ethnic background
> (Japanese) during WWII.
>
> 3) The legality of segregation.
>
> 4) The legality of Jim Crow laws
>
> All of these are examples of extensively practiced denial of the US
> constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for Americans.
>Yes, and were what I was thinking of as examples of the worst times in our
>history that could not be supported today.
But, how can all of the first 2/3rds of the 20th century be considered
examples of the worst times in our history? I would argue that the 19th
century and the end of the 18th century saw worse: with the treatment of
Native Americans, slavery, Jim Crow starting, etc. Yet, we still honor the
only American President to conduct a death march on our 20 dollar bill.
>> Some of the worst instances I mentioned have been. Others have not...at
>> least not by the general consensus of American opinion.
>Which ones have not?
Few people make a fuss about prison rape. Did you even know about Omar
Bradly's orders? I didn't. Have people gave much thought to the conduct of
American GIs during WWII and the occupation of Japan and Germany?
I can think, in addition, of two much bigger threats to the liberty of a
randomly selected American than the combination of the Patriot act, Gitmo
AG, and Homeland Security today. The first is the tendency of police to
cut corners (including perjuring themselves) to get people they know are
guilty jailed. The second is the DWB (Driving While Black) offence
syndrome. My Zambian daughter actually got picked up for that, with a
friend who is squeaky clean.
I think it would be a worthwhile thread to go through the Patriot act and
see what is reasonable (I'd say giving anti-terrorism the same power as
anti-organized crime seems reasonable) and what isn't, the risks to liberty
inherent in those parts that aren't reasonable, and how the Patriot act has
hurt liberty in the last 3 years. In particular, I'd be interesting in
seeing an objective nuts and bolts analysis much more than a speculative
analysis of "what this all really means."
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
