Is the Bush Administration stomping on our rights?

[delldude]

I think the point is being missed.... the detainees are enemy combatants.

They are NOT american citizens and should not have constitutional protection.

Kinda what I was/have inferred....

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I think the point is being missed.... the detainees are enemy combatants.

They are NOT american citizens and should not have constitutional protection.

I think you may be missing the point. Ever heard of the Magna Carta or Habeas Corpus?

The principles of habeas corpus, originally placed in the Magna Carta, has been one of the cornerstones of our law since this nation's founding and was enshrined in our Constitution. It gives the detainee the right to go to our courts to challenge the authority of the jail or prison warden to continue to detain him.

Hebeas Corpus can only be suspended for rebellion or invasion that is required for our public safety. The Act that Bush signed into law, MWA, does not suspend Habeas Corpus for that reason.

It does not matter if they are NOT american citizens... so YES, foreign residents are often afforded Constitutional rights in OUR country.

 

[delldude]

I think you may be missing the point. Ever heard of the Magna Carta or Habeas Corpus?

The principles of habeas corpus, originally placed in the Magna Carta, has been one of the cornerstones of our law since this nation's founding and was enshrined in our Constitution. It gives the detainee the right to go to our courts to challenge the authority of the jail or prison warden to continue to detain him.

It does not matter if they are NOT american citizens... so YES, foreign residents are often afforded Constitutional rights in OUR country.

Infers not all the time.....

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Infers not all the time.....

Obviously, that is what we are discussing now... not giving the detainees representation so they can challenge the authority to detain them... The Constitutional rights given to detainees by our forefathers.

All they need is representation and an opportunity to challenge the detainment. Then, if they are still found to be a threat, then who cares about them... book em'.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I agree, and until all this is settled we should allow conjugal visits.

Let’s start a ‘Goats 4 Gitmo’ fund.

UT

 

[delldude]

I agree, and until all this is settled we should allow conjugal visits.

Let’s start a ‘Goats 4 Gitmo’ fund.

UT

Ahh....Abdul...like you meet my waaaaaife....

 

[Gilding the Lily]

When the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, criticized lawyers at top law firms for representing G-Bay detainees, I suggested that perhaps his statements were part of a Bush Administration effort to discourage such representation. Perhaps I was wrong (sarcasm intended)... He just wrote an apology to Detainees' Attorneys:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients -- people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

Article on the jump

 

[delldude]

You are that connected?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Recent news regarding this story.

I originally opened this thread because a senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees said in an interview that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

Yesterday, that man resigned from his post because of the controversy over a radio interview in which he said he found it shocking that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba. He stated:" He believed it hampered his ability to be effective in this position,"

While I am relieved that action was taken after his ridiculous statements, I am a bit disappointed that he resigned (if in fact it was a voluntary resignation). I think that too often public figures are forced to resign after mistakes. Granted, there are many times that politicians should resign after huge mistakes. But often, they are forced to resign after little, or trivial, mistakes. Most people learn valuable lessons through their mistakes (presumptuously, politicians and public officials do as well); if we continually force them to leave once they make a mistake, then we are forcing out a person who may very likely be better at their job than before they made the mistake.

Obviously, these people are not perfect... we should give them the grace to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. The forced resignations should be saved for those individuals that repeatedly make mistakes without learning from them, and those individuals who make such mistakes that would shock the conscious (Katrina rings a bell). Apparently, it is very difficult to set a standard for when a person should be forced to resign; but my point is that I think that officials are often forced to resign for petty mistakes, when, they are probably a better official now that they have learned from that mistake.


Story after the jump.

 

[delldude]

I think that too often public figures are forced to resign after mistakes. Granted, there are many times that politicians should resign after huge mistakes. But often, they are forced to resign after little, or trivial, mistakes. Most people learn valuable lessons through their mistakes (presumptuously, politicians and public officials do as well); if we continually force them to leave once they make a mistake, then we are forcing out a person who may very likely be better at their job than before they made the mistake.

Like Trent Lott but not Joe Biden.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I understand quite well.However,under just about every President since I remember...there has been some type encroachment on freedoms.Doesn't matter which political affiliation either.I suppose all were well intended,but you remember the book about 'unintended consequences'don't you?
Anyway,some were instituted,some were not.
But these detainees we discuss were captured during military operations in another country and they were trying to kill our men.I see somewhat where they should have some right to defense and such but disagree with Constitutional protections totally.And I don't see how this affects you and I.They got what they were looking for and that was war.

Delldude,

Here are some 'unintended consequences':

"Dozens of suspected terrorists released by the United States from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are believed to have returned to terrorism activities, according to the Pentagon. Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from the detention camp, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday."

Article

 

[dapoes]

I cant believe that a nation that loves there arse kicking, take no prisoners-heroes, Dirty Harry, Jack Baur, etc., turns into a PXXXY when its time to fight. Others are beheading our soldiers first chance they get, and yet we act like wimps when we have to get our hands dirty.

 

[Cosworth]

I cant believe that a nation that loves there arse kicking, take no prisoners-heroes, Dirty Harry, Jack Baur, etc., turns into a PXXXY when its time to fight. Others are beheading our soldiers first chance they get, and yet we act like wimps when we have to get our hands dirty.

Perhaps the people who watch those type of programs are not the majority of the US population. A lot of us are not willing to get all worked up over an unjustified war.

 

[southwind]

All I'm going to say about the Bush policy, on my rights is I don't feel, as an "American Citizen", that my rights have been trampled on and am respectful of the job the president has done to avert another "Islamic Terrorist" attack on American soil since 9/11 !

Not so sure if Obama's plan..........."Holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" around the camp fire".............. will be as effective ! :blink:

 

[southwind]

Perhaps the people who watch those type of programs are not the majority of the US population. A lot of us are not willing to get all worked up over an unjustified war.

Hopefully, as an American , your not implying, that the war on "ISLAMIC" Terrorism is not justified !