Thorolf:

Perhaps the safeguards were not sufficient, but they were, and are, there.

Safeguards that are insufficient are not safeguards.

And the flimsiness of the evidence is, frankly, something we know absolutely nothing about. We don't get to review the evidence on file - not many people do - so we're left with the detainees' "say so." Of course, everybody in prison is innocent... may I suggest that we take what we hear with a grain of salt? After all, the one group who ISN'T talking are the ones who are in control of whatever evidence they may have revealed.

And may I suggest that the test of the evidence needs to be in a courtroom. We neither need to believe the accused nor the government. The court did not suggest taking the word of the accused, only that it be examined in court.


The SCOTUS majority determined that the prisoners should, no MUST have the ability to challenge their imprisonment with a full hearing in US courts,

Sounds right to me.

Again, that sounds right to me.
 
But why does that sound right? That has never been the case before - and contrary to the court's opinion, there HAVE been precedents set in the past. It's not US territory... they aren't US citizens...

It is de facto US territory. Ask Castro. They may not be US Citizens but they are human beings who deserve the right to present their case that an overzealous government made mistakes.The place to do that is in court.

there is no claim of OTHER Constitutionally protected rights being enforced in other countries, but this would appear to set a standard that the US is responsible for enforcing the Constitution ANYWHERE we have a presence. I realize on first glance maybe that doesn't sound like such a bad thing... but it's not good, and it's quite a slippery slope.


But the detention of possible innocents, prevented from making their case because of national security concerns that information would leak out is not a steeper and more slippery slope? In the light of the incompetence of Bush and his administration, I lack confidence in their assurances.
Quote

Fortunately, that's not what the court is there for.

The court is there as a check on the misplaced exuberance of the executive and legislative branches and the abuses that might occur.


And there were (and it is likely that some still are) literally hundreds of people who have been on death row who were innocent of the crimes of which they were accused - nevermind the thousands of relative innocents who have served lesser prison sentences. Mistakes happen...

I guess that takes care of that, mistakes happen, except if you're one of those who went to his  death for a crime that was not committed. That's pretty cavalier.

An expected, albeit disappointing response.

It was expected because your remark was cavalier in dismissing the problem with "mistakes happen." The way to keep them from happening is exposing the mistakes in court. No court, the mistakes go on happening. If you think the mistakes need go on happening because that is the nature of things, then you are rightly accused of being cavalier and uncaring about the victims as long as it not you or yours.

 There was a point in there, and it wasn't to be "cavalier." No mistakes are acceptable - but they DO happen. Don't act like Gitmo is the only place people may be wrongly incarcerated, and that judicial review somehow creates an infallible safety net.

Judicial review may not be infallible, as the Supreme court proved in the 2000 election, but providing a venue to review the evidence against and guilt of the accused is one more safeguard.


Incidentally... and this is just an aside - but who, especially in the post-9/11 world, travels to the Middle East, especially a place involved in the conflict like Pakistan, to learn about a religion that he has never practiced? Sorry, but that's pretty dense... I'd be rather suspicious, too.

You're right. He got what he deserved for not being more aware. Forget my objections.

Another expected, albeit disappointing response. You have to know full well that I wasn't saying that he deserved anything... but hey, if it's expedient to take potshots at me, so be it.

Screw your victim hood. What else would it mean when you ask who would be crazy enough to travel to the middle east post 9/11? If he didn't want to be suspect, he should have stayed in Germany, realizing that those crazy Americans would allow Pakistani police to round up suspects for  $3,000 a head.

Perfection is an awfully steep demand... Since the courts have failed to prevent some innocent people from being executed in our own system, I suppose we might as well just throw out the entire court system because it was insufficient.

I can't think of ANYTHING that is, or ever has been perfect. Do the CSRT's need modification? Yes, perhaps they do. But they exist to determine whether or not someone is a legitimate enemy combatant, and there are those that have been released after the CSRT's review. Clearly.


You may suggest it... plenty of others have. But the point stands - much of the information available to the CSRTs would NOT be a good idea to air in court. So, in some cases, at least, the choice must be made... keep this guy locked up, and release information that may well end up getting Americans killed? Or let a guilty terrorist free to, well, try to kill Americans?

Perhaps not all of the detainees will put the government in this position - but I don't think anybody can honestly declare that this rock and hard place choice will never have to be made...


I rent the place where I live. I guess that means it is de facto Thorolf territory, and I can do what I want with the property. Or are you not aware that we have been leasing Guantanamo Bay from Cuba for somewhere around 100 years? It's a perpetual lease granted by Cuba as part of a 1903 treaty, and part of that treaty is that the lease cannot be revoked - but that doesn't make it any more US territory than any other military base we have in the world. And the fact that they are human beings does secure them certain rights. Habeas Corpus has never before been considered one of them by any court by any country. Until now, of course...


I'm really not concerned about your opinion on incompetence. Even if true, it has absolutely no legitimate role in this discussion.

And no, it is neither steeper, nor more slippery to take steps to protect American interests and American soldiers. There is no slope at all in the "detention of possible innocents," because nobody WANTS to imprison innocents. Nobody is intentionally imprisoning innocents. Where is the slope?

Is something broken? Perhaps it is... can it be fixed without endangering American lives? Why not? Why do we have to grant privileges normally reserved for Americans, and normally IN America to the rest of the world? Which parts of the Constitution should we NOT grant?


Abuses of what?


The mistakes I spoke of WERE in court. They were mistakes BY the court. I am not cavalier about them, I am noting a problem with your thesis... problems should normally be fixed WITHOUT creating MORE problems with ZERO guarantee that more mistakes won't be made. Is it a mistake when someone who is guilty is set free? Is it a mistake when someone who is innocent is imprisoned? I say absolutely... but these mistakes are quite prevalent in our court system, just as they appear to be in GTMO. There is no knight in shining armor here... there is bad, and there is bad with less protection of national security and American soldiers. Why not take the first one and make it better?

Oh, right... because Bush is supposedly incompetent. Gotcha.


The irony is that the court was right in 2000. 

And, again, such a venue already exists without having to make sensitive information public.  Surely there are ways to improve that venue...


Very nice. Thank you, sir. May I have another?


It could mean... I think he was an idiot for doing that.

I don't know. Maybe.

Or maybe you're right. Maybe I was saying that he deserved it.

I mean, I thought I was just saying that he did something pretty stupid, but if you prefer to paint your own convenient and expedient little picture, by all means.. don't let me stop you.

While we're at it, why not tell me that I think people who get mugged for walking alone through unlit parts of central park "deserve it?" Or girls who wear next to nothing to frat keggers "deserve" to be objectified and, possibly, raped?

No, I wouldn't say that they did something unsmart that put them in a difficult situation where unscrupulous people and/or criminals could take advantage of them... no, no, no... they all DESERVED it.

Right? After all, I am conservative. I must think like that.  Clearly, I'm stupid enough to be conservative, so I must deserve it.

The issue, though, is that the man is not an inanimate machine or force of nature or an animal. One who sleeps on railroad tracks or takes a toaster into a bathtub or climbs over the fence into the tiger exhibit in the zoo is the only moral actor in the scenario and they do bear the totality of the responsibility and the consequences of their behavior because the train, the electricity, and the tigers are not rational moral agents and are incapable of bearing blame or consequences.

A man who chooses to rape a woman is a rational moral actor and his moral actions are absolutely unjustified. It does not matter even if the woman initiates sex and then changes her mind and tells him to stop: once a person chooses to act contrary to the rights and will of another, they and they alone bear the responsibility and consequences of their actions. No matter how provocative a woman may be, she does not in any way bear any blame for being raped. No matter how insulting or offensives a man may be to another, he does not in any way bear any consequences for being maimed or murdered by the person he enrages.

The only exception that comes to mind right now is when the violator's will is constrained by some external force. For example, soldiers who are under orders to shoot anyone who trespasses on a highly sensitive site are not responsible for the death of a person who knowingly and willingly trespasses; if the person trespasses accidentally and does not know the situation, it would be a different story.  



Would you care to elaborate on that in the present context?

Right.





Why?  Why do the immoral actions of one actor entirely alleviate the poor judgment and responsibilities of another?  The rapist is not acting in a vacuum.

I think we can both agree that the foolish woman doesn't deserve to be raped because, in some sense, our opinions are muddied by the psychological harm caused by the animalistic act.  However, let's change this example from a politically controversial point to something less litigious. 

Let's say two men are conversing.  Tom tells Steve that his mother is dysfunctional for some reason he thought was valid at the time, which manages to piss off Steve -- thus causing a combative slew of hate-driven and personal verbal attacks directed toward Tom and his family. 

Here we have two moral actors.  Now certainly Tom didn't intend to piss off Steve.  He simply spoke before thinking.  Did he deserve to be verbally abused for being inconsiderate toward Steve?  Or, like the woman who was raped, does he bear absolutely no responsibility because Steve violated Tom's rights via verbal abuse?

I think you didn't understand my point.  I'm not arguing that a woman deserved to be raped because she deliberately toyed with a man's hormonal urges.  Instead, I'm saying your argument will push you into positions of inconsistency if you're asserting she bears absolutely no responsibility for being harmed.  It's like saying that a man who runs out into fast moving traffic isn't responsible for being run over because the pedestrian always has the right away.  The point with this analogy, which you undoubtedly will have problems with, is that common knowledge that fast moving traffic will not stop for you even though the pedestrian has the right away will still get you killed.  Did the man deserve to die?  I don't know, but he knowingly took the risk of getting harmed, and therefore he is responsible for his actions. 




Part of my point, however, is that Tom should know that his comments were offensive based upon past experience, or based upon the principle of not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to you.  Tom shouldn't depend upon others to put on the better face when he's rude.  Such is life, when we do stupid things that cause us harm, we simply learn not to do them again. 



Freedom is not the issue -- responsibility is.  And here I think we have a disconnect.  Being responsible means that one is either shares in the blame for a specific corollary precisely because one shared in it's cause with an anticipation that one's actions may very well produce the said corollary.  Adding another free moral agent into the mix doesn't alleviate the responsibility of the one making a mistake.  IF Tom knew or reasonably anticipated that his comments might be met with a returned verbal assault, then he could have avoided the confrontation.  Tom is responsible for himself.




Right, but why do you choose to focus solely on the responsibility of Steve?  Are there not two involved in the conflict?




You're confused because you presuppose the conservative, by admitting both parties share in the blame, IS in fact diminishing the responsibility of one of the parties.  When a conservative says a woman is partly responsible for the harm she received, we are not saying the man who violated her rights has been vindicated or perhaps shares less of the blame.  As you astutely pointed out, the rapist is 100% at fault because he could have chosen to do otherwise.  However, the woman is also responsible for her own safety based upon her knowledge of evil.  Conservatives, if I'm allowed to speak for them, don't look at responsibility as one big "pie chart" where if one party shares in some of the blame, then the other party by default cannot be 100% responsible.  The woman and the rapist are two separate individuals, both responsible for themselves.  Two individuals do not share the same pie chart of responsibility, instead they have their own pie chart of responsibility.  She cannot depend upon the man to behave morally, and she must factor this in when she agrees to meet with him.

 

That is an important point, we need to learn from past problems.  So ways to avoid such leaks needs to be re-considered, and perhaps the type of court involved needs to be re-considered.

Another thing learned from past problems is that when there is no outside check, or when an outside check is unduly restrained, all sorts of crazy things happen, without accountability.  So which ways the separate branch of the judiciary can and should be involved, needs to be re-considered.  The Judiciary branch needs to be involved as a check, no one seems to dispute this, the question is HOW such a check should operate, in this particular situation.  And SCOTUS asserted this, though it allowed for the details of the process to evolve over time through other court decisions.

This ought to add more fuel to the fire.  A released Guantanamo detainee was behind a March suicide truck bombing at Combat Outpost Inman in Mosul killing 13 Iraqi soldiers and wounding 42 others.


   


http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/released_guantanamo.php

That's not particularly incendiary. Do we know under what circumstances the late and unlamented terrorist was released?

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of argument, and assume that he was not guilty of any actual "enemy comabt" activity when he was taken prisoner. If I had been taken prisoner and held capitve for an undetermined number of years, you can bet damn well that I would want revenge against the country that did that to me.

If was an actual "enemy combattant" then no discussion can proceed until we know by what process he was released and for what reason. The rule of law is paramount and is the only thing that separates us from the terrorists. Sometimes the system makes a mistake -- a murderer can be acquitted in a civil court and go on to kill again -- but the system must be upheld.

No, it's not typical liberal banter becase, if you read my post, I conceded that he could very well have been an enemy combattant before going to Guantanamo. That is why the circumstances under which he was released are important to establish before this situation can be properly understood and discussed.

Whether I were a terrorist or not before going into Guantanamo, I can guarantee to you that I would definitely be when I came out -- unless the US compensated me very generously for my incarceration.