I’m so happy. The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that detainees at Guantanamo have a right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts. (They must have been convinced by the Guantanamo Cell Tour.) I’m happy because this is the best way to determine who should be given a fair trial and who should be released.
I’m unhappy though because the military commissions are still on the books and therefore unfair trials are still in the works. But this ruling is progress. The crucial thing now is to make sure Congress does not try to pass bad legislation in response.
I just looked at Lindsey Graham’s website, and his statement contains this chilling line: “I will also explore the possibility, if necessary, of a constitutional amendment to blunt the effect of this decision when it comes to protecting our men and women in the military and our nation as a whole.”
Can someone, anyone, please present (you can post it right in the comments section of this post) a logical and factual argument that shows why denying people fundamental legal rights makes members of the U.S. military and the U.S. as a whole, safer?
Can someone please also offer a logical and factual argument that shows how torturing people makes members of the U.S. military and the U.S. as a whole, safer?
Otherwise, it’s just rhetoric, plain and simple.
Go ahead, surprise me! My mind is open to being persuaded, but the burden of proof is on you–I’m for following the law.
Counter Terror With Justice!
ZJ
20 July 2008 at 2:02 am
Just as I suspected–nothing. They’ve posted their irrational arguments to other posts, but have curiously avoided this one. C’mon, don’t be shy!
23 July 2008 at 11:18 pm
Ah ZJ…thanks for the “double dare”…I guess I will bite. I haven’t commented on this one yet because I am more passionate about defending the accusations against the U.S. Military and the treatment of detainees while at GITMO. But, since you issued the dare…
Before I get started, how are you today? I trust you are healthy and feeling well. I trust you haven’t been shot by a terrorist and no planes have crashed into the building you are safely occupying right now? No suicide bomber has rammed his van into you? Well that is good, I am happy to know that.
I believe the Supreme Court’s ruling was a mistake and does make the U.S., U.S. Service Members, and U.S. Allies and Interests less safe. I will argue my point and at the end do one better then making “a logical and factual argument” but will provide you actual EXAMPLES.
First I would argue against your use of the words “denying people fundamental legal rights”…Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s “unwise” 5 to 4 ruling, each detainee at GITMO already had more legal rights then any other Enemy Combatant or Prisoner of War in the history of all U.S. conflicts. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 made sure of even more rights. Even prior to the DTA…No existing Federal, International law or law of war was broken when it came to determining the continued detention of and the enemy combatant status of those held down at GITMO.
During continued ARMED CONFLICT it never was (nor should it be now) a requirement to charge and convict an Enemy Combatant with a crime. Having said that, I recognize the War on Terror is not a traditional war in which treaties can be signed and heads of Government can surrender/declare victory/end hostilities/turn over prisoners. So, the result is some Enemy Combatants being held for several years now and people jumping up and down about how unfair it is to keep a terrorist locked up without being charged with a crime.
Existing Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Annual Review Boards determine an individual’s enemy combatant status, whether or not the person is a threat…which in turn determines whether or not to continue detention. I’ll post more if you want to know more about this process (I’m sure you are educated and know about it already, but choose not to share it with the people you talk to on your tour). It is a very fair process, the detainees are able to participate and are appointed personal representatives to assist them. They can submit matters, etc… This is not a criminal court proceeding. The Assistance Secretary of Defense makes the final decision after reviewing the board’s determinations. ALL detainees have had a CSRT, and unless they are being charged under the Military Commissions they have annual ARBs that continue to access the threat they pose.
I’ve taken enough space, but for examples of why this decision DOES make U.S. Military and others less safe read the Justice’s Dissenting opinion (the 4 that know what they are talking about, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts)…I’ll even save you some time and post a link right to it…http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZD1.html Also, research a guy named Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi (former detainee that the Department of Defense DID NOT want to release after his CSRT and ARBs), but because he may not have been a candidate for Military Commissions…DoD was trumped and al-Ajmi was released. Guess what happens next…after he is released? He blew himself and six innocent people up (the target was Iraqi Security Police…OUR ALLIES)… So, read Justice Scalia’s discenting opinion that lists about half-a-dozen other true stories of released detainees returning to the JIHAD and that sums up my LOGICAL and FACTUAL argument.
Continued peace and blessing to you ZJ.
U.S.A. Terror Free since 9-11-2001
p.s. WE ARE AT WAR
30 July 2008 at 6:12 pm
???
1 August 2008 at 2:44 pm
“Just as I suspected”
20 August 2008 at 5:05 pm
Sorry Brian, I didn’t read past the first fallacy: circular reasoning, that is, assuming the very point you set out to prove. Please try again!
20 August 2008 at 5:59 pm
Fallacy? Didn’t read past the first fallacy? That is all you have to come back with? Can you please tell me what part of my argument is flawed? I spelled it out for you! C’mon ZJ…please…WEAK
20 August 2008 at 6:19 pm
Have fun on your “fallacy” tour. Both Denver and St. Paul are beautiful cities. Sincerely, have a good time.
Continued peace and blessings to you ZJ.
U.S.A. Terror Free Since 9-11-2001
Brian
20 August 2008 at 7:04 pm
Example of “Circular Reasoning” - “Joe is fat because Joe is fat”. How is citing ACTUAL TRUE EVENTS to support my argument…a suicide bomber killing 6 Iraqi Security Police and the examples that Justice Scalia uses…”Circular Reasoning”?…You had a month to chew on this and that is your comeback? C’mon…your dare made it seem like you wanted a debate???
1 September 2008 at 5:55 am
Hello!,
1 September 2008 at 5:55 am
Hi!,
1 September 2008 at 5:56 am
Good day!,