3 prisoners dead at gitmo

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by To Starla

I think I was pretty clear. I'm not debating whether or not people deserve basic human rights, or are entitled to them. I said human rights exist and they do. ON PAPER.

you're talking about two different things. he's saying they don't exist inherently.

[Starla]

okay

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Go back and read the first paragraph. There are a few questions at the end. Think about them, and answer them. Then you'll be addressing the point

Okay, after going back and re-reading things I'm assuming the thrust of your question is this: If a certain offense a person is accused of makes it necessary and fair to subject that person to some reduced form of their rights under things like the Geneva Convention, then why wouldn't US citizens who are accused of that same offense also be subject to having their rights under the US constitution reduced in the same way? My answer to that is that I think the US's obligation to enforce its own rules as they pertain to its own citizens outweighs any necessity that someone might point to in support of reducing those rights. As a general matter, it may be necessary to hold an unlawful combatant (regardless of his nationality/citizenship) without trial, and it may be fair to do so... but regardless of necessity and fairness in the general sense, the US government has a duty to its citizens to provide the rights it guaranteed them. Otherwise, like I said earlier, the legal status of citizenship would be pretty much worthless. Does that mean the American unlawful combatant gets a better deal than the non-Americans? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is being treated unjustly.

Hopefully, this at least touched on what you were asking.

[DeviousJ]

Yes it touched on it, but you still missed the main point so I'll ask the question again - how can you see what's happening to these people as fair and necessary (in these 'changing times' where 'more is at stake' and with all the other justifications you made), and then say that this stuff doesn't really matter if people turn out to be citizens?

It's not grounded in reality, because these people are either a threat and need to be held, or they're not, and their citizenship doesn't factor into the truth of this in any way. So you can't say 'oh, US citizens would be released and I'd be fine with that, because respecting their rights is most important,' and then in the same breath say that other people's rights can be circumvented because 'the situation is too important to simply allow them to go free'.
Either the US would release citizens who are incredibly dangerous terrorists who threaten America, which you said isn't even a problem, or there isn't any real danger or justification for holding these people at all. If holding these prisoners in this way really is so vital and imperative, a prisoner should not be able to escape by waving some 'get out of jail free' card. Applying such different standards so glibly, without even showing concern that there may be consequences just shows how disingenuous your reasoning is

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Yes it touched on it, but you still missed the main point so I'll ask the question again - how can you see what's happening to these people as fair and necessary (in these 'changing times' where 'more is at stake' and with all the other justifications you made), and then say that this stuff doesn't really matter if people turn out to be citizens?

It's not grounded in reality, because these people are either a threat and need to be held, or they're not, and their citizenship doesn't factor into the truth of this in any way. So you can't say 'oh, US citizens would be released and I'd be fine with that, because respecting their rights is most important,' and then in the same breath say that other people's rights can be circumvented because 'the situation is too important to simply allow them to go free'.
Either the US would release citizens who are incredibly dangerous terrorists who threaten America, which you said isn't even a problem, or there isn't any real danger or justification for holding these people at all. If holding these prisoners in this way really is so vital and imperative, a prisoner should not be able to escape by waving some 'get out of jail free' card. Applying such different standards so glibly, without even showing concern that there may be consequences just shows how disingenuous your reasoning is

I think the problem is that we disagree on whether or not the reason these guys have the legal status they do (which in turn dictates their treatment) is solely necessity. I don't think that people's rights are being determined based on some subjective belief in how dangerous it would be to not detain them. (Maybe it's being done out of other subjective beliefs, but I digress.) I think that these people's rights are determined by their legal classification, which is what it is...not what the government wants it to be.

For our purposes right now, let's say broadly that you can classify all these guys into any one of two categories: lawful combatant or unlawful combatant (I know we disagree on whether or not the distinction actually exists in reality, but leave that aside for now, let's assume that it does exist for this part of the discussion). Generally, the determination of which category someone is in is relatively clear (you're either lawful or you're not), and that determination has a big effect on what sort of rights they get, be it the bare minimum or something more than that. I think that difference in classification and its consequences does not exist because of any decision that unlawful combatants are somehow more dangerous than lawful ones. Rather, I think its to provide incentive to encourage people to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and avail themselves of its protections. If mere necessity were the driving factor, then one should be able to successfully make the case that a lawful combatant who is proven to be dangerous should be subject to being treated the same way unlawful ones are now...but I don't think it would or should work. The idea of unlawful combatants having the bare minimum of protections is on shaky enough ground...applying that idea to lawful combatants too would probably make the bottom drop out.

And extending that principle to the US citizen question: just like the US can't deny a lawful combatant his guaranteed rights under the Geneva Convention because he's dangerous, they also can't do that to a US citizen. The US may not owe its own citizens many protections under international law, but that doesn't mean that they can forego the duties that they've seperately guaranteed to its people.

[sleeper]

you could at least answer my question about the NYT man, thats just rude

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I think the problem is that we disagree on whether or not the reason these guys have the legal status they do (which in turn dictates their treatment) is solely necessity. I don't think that people's rights are being determined based on some subjective belief in how dangerous it would be to not detain them. (Maybe it's being done out of other subjective beliefs, but I digress.) I think that these people's rights are determined by their legal classification, which is what it is...not what the government wants it to be.

That's not true at all - you've been justifying the internment and continued imprisonment without trial of these people, on the basis that 'there's a lot at stake', 'they're suspected terrorists', 'this is a war' and so on. Now you're trying to back away from that and say that they need to be held this way because 'that's the rules', and not out of necessity.

First of all, there are no rules or anything in whatever status they've been afforded that says 'these people must be kept locked up for 4 years+ without trial' - that decision has been taken entirely by the US adminstration. And yes, they do claim (as you were before you started backtracking) that this is out of necessity, to 'protect against the evils of terrorism' and so on. Secondly, the necessity of holding these people has *nothing* to do with their legal status - if they're so important or dangerous that they need to be held, then that's a simple fact whether they're a US citizen or not. The point isn't whether or not their status allows them to avoid that or not, it's whether or not that creates a problem. You said you had *no problem* with it, which implies that it really isn't imperative that these people are held at all.

Originally Posted by Corganist

stuff about rights and classifications

These people *are* classed as lawful combatants, the US decided to reclass them as 'unlawful combatants' so they wouldn't have to deal with annoyances like 'rights' and 'Geneva Conventions'. It's another circular argument - the US is respecting the rights it has chosen not to deny them. And that still doesn't address whether or not they *need* to be there. And don't say 'they need to be there because they're unlawful combatants' because that just turns the circular argument into a figure-eight

Originally Posted by Corganist

And extending that principle to the US citizen question: just like the US can't deny a lawful combatant his guaranteed rights under the Geneva Convention because he's dangerous, they also can't do that to a US citizen. The US may not owe its own citizens many protections under international law, but that doesn't mean that they can forego the duties that they've seperately guaranteed to its people.

See above. This is starting to sound like 'they wouldn't hold a dangerous terrorist who happens to be a US citizen because they can't'. You hate that, remember?

[DeviousJ]

I posted this before because I thought it might provide a shortcut to the conclusion of this here debate, but it was ignored so I'll post it again

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Why don't you just come out and say it - you're a US citizen, and as such you're protected against this kind of treatment, and therefore whatever the US government decides to do to the rest of the world, you're protected from it. So any progress the US makes results in you being safer, and there aren't any downsides because it's just other, 'non-citizen' schmucks who have to worry about inconveniences like being locked up on a whim

Hmm?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by sleeper

you could at least answer my question about the NYT man, thats just rude

Sorry. I forgot to answer that because I didn't really have much response to the other stuff in the thread, as it seems like we'd gotten down to the point where are differences are more glass half-empty/half-full matters of perspective and I was going to be content to leave it at that.

Anyways, to answer your question, I'm not a regular reader of the NYT. I generally only make efforts to read individual articles of it on occasion that the articles cause some discussion in the news. At least that way, I get to see what the fuss is about without it being filtered through other people.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

That's not true at all - you've been justifying the internment and continued imprisonment without trial of these people, on the basis that 'there's a lot at stake', 'they're suspected terrorists', 'this is a war' and so on. Now you're trying to back away from that and say that they need to be held this way because 'that's the rules', and not out of necessity.

I'm pretty sure that I haven't been doing that at all. I just scanned back through the thread to make sure, and I really don't see much of anything in the posts I've made that really make the argument you say I'm making. I don't think I ever made any claims that what's at stake or the fact that these guys are suspected terrorists justifies anything. I think I did make one offhand comment about how the standards for charges related to war hold something of a lower standard than usual criminal fare, but I wasn't claiming that as a sweeping justification.

I guess its possible I might have said something somewhere that gave you the wrong impression. In long threads like these, its happened once or twice that I've found myself moving away from points I made in early posts as my thinking on the subject got more solid and I thought of better justifications for things. (A big reason I enjoy long-ass threads like these so much.) Maybe the same thing is going on here....

but I don't think so.

First of all, there are no rules or anything in whatever status they've been afforded that says 'these people must be kept locked up for 4 years+ without trial' - that decision has been taken entirely by the US adminstration. And yes, they do claim (as you were before you started backtracking) that this is out of necessity, to 'protect against the evils of terrorism' and so on.

The question is not whether the rules (assuming, again, that the US's interpretation of them is legitimate) say that these people must be held, just whether or not they can be held. As for using necessity to justify the detentions, I'm not so sure that's what's going on...at least from the legal standpoint. I'm of the mind that necessity is probably a good reason for the US to explain why it chose the more restrictive legal status for unlawful combatants, but its no explanation for the restrictiveness of the status itself.

Secondly, the necessity of holding these people has *nothing* to do with their legal status - if they're so important or dangerous that they need to be held, then that's a simple fact whether they're a US citizen or not. The point isn't whether or not their status allows them to avoid that or not, it's whether or not that creates a problem. You said you had *no problem* with it, which implies that it really isn't imperative that these people are held at all.

I agree that legal status has nothing to do with the necessity of holding these people. I thought that was the point I just made. It may be very necessary to hold a lawful combatant or a US citizen, but since they are entitled to higher standards of due process than people outside of that status, it takes more proof or evidence to continue holding them. That doesn't mean they can't hold them though. It only means that if there is not enough evidence to meet the burden under the standard of due process afforded to that legal status, then the prisoner gets released no matter how dangerous they are or how necessary its thought to be to keep them.

These people *are* classed as lawful combatants, the US decided to reclass them as 'unlawful combatants' so they wouldn't have to deal with annoyances like 'rights' and 'Geneva Conventions'. It's another circular argument - the US is respecting the rights it has chosen not to deny them. And that still doesn't address whether or not they *need* to be there. And don't say 'they need to be there because they're unlawful combatants' because that just turns the circular argument into a figure-eight

But its not meant to address whether or not they need to be there. The question of their legal classification only relates to their "need" to be there in the sense that it determines the way the US can go about figuring out if the need even exists. If they're lawful, or a US citizen, then you get hearings and trials and all that jazz. If they're not, then its something a little less formal. That's as far as the relationship goes.

See above. This is starting to sound like 'they wouldn't hold a dangerous terrorist who happens to be a US citizen because they can't'. You hate that, remember?

It's more like "if the Constitution doesn't let them," which I think is a good bit different than "because they can't."

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Sorry. I forgot to answer that because I didn't really have much response to the other stuff in the thread, as it seems like we'd gotten down to the point where are differences are more glass half-empty/half-full matters of perspective and I was going to be content to leave it at that.

Anyways, to answer your question, I'm not a regular reader of the NYT. I generally only make efforts to read individual articles of it on occasion that the articles cause some discussion in the news. At least that way, I get to see what the fuss is about without it being filtered through other people.

dream on, republican scum. this isnt anything like that whatsoever. you could at least have the dignity to admit youre wrong, corganist. i know your inner slimeball lawyer is pushing you to weasel out, and, to be fair, you do have your work cut out for you given that youre supporting the unsupportable, but dont think you can shit in my mouth and tell me its chocolate, you swine. i dont want to like punish you for being wrong or anything, but your attempted bamboozlement is insulting



what newspaper do you read, then? what do you deem more worth youre time than the NYT? i assume you, when reading those rare articles, browse around or whatever... do you not like what you see?
and by "discussed in the news" do you mean linked to on some militant conservative blog or actually discussed in the the real media (theyve had a few big scoops that have recently)? you should at least read their international section. look, you can start slow. see here
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/wo...pe/16bear.html

"He doesn't know how to be a bear anymore. He's going to be trouble his whole life."

i like it

youre like that bear, corganist. some people find your antics adorable, some dont care, but at least a few people want to see you dead -- i, admittedly, amongst them

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'm pretty sure that I haven't been doing that at all. I just scanned back through the thread to make sure, and I really don't see much of anything in the posts I've made that really make the argument you say I'm making. I don't think I ever made any claims that what's at stake or the fact that these guys are suspected terrorists justifies anything. I think I did make one offhand comment about how the standards for charges related to war hold something of a lower standard than usual criminal fare, but I wasn't claiming that as a sweeping justification.

I guess its possible I might have said something somewhere that gave you the wrong impression. In long threads like these, its happened once or twice that I've found myself moving away from points I made in early posts as my thinking on the subject got more solid and I thought of better justifications for things. (A big reason I enjoy long-ass threads like these so much.) Maybe the same thing is going on here....

but I don't think so.

Oh please, don't try to pin this on misunderstandings or being unsure of your thoughts. You've been avoiding very direct and pointed questions designed to get you to address specifics, and you've shifted and dodged and flat-out ignored them. It's not like anyone's going to see you concede a point and shout 'HAHA CORGANIST, YOU LOSE' or anything - hell I'd personally be pleased to see some kind of progress. The way you've twisted things and skipped around attempts to clarify your thoughts is incredibly dishonest, and it only points to you being uncomfortable with the answers you'd be giving.

Here's a quote for you: "You have to keep in mind that we're not dealing with common criminals, or even conventional soldiers in a war. (Suspected) Terrorists and unlawful combatants are a different breed, and its on that basis that I think that its necessary to shy away from the common ways of dealing with wrongdoers." <- right there, justification for holding suspected terrorists indefinitely. 'The common ways of dealing with wrongdoers' is particularly great because these people haven't even charged with doing anything wrong.

"The tricky thing is that conventional ways of dealing with bad people usually deal only with what those people have already done, while the focus on people like the ones in Gitmo is on both what they've already done and, more importantly, on what they're going to do in the future. I think that a conventional trial really has no way of dealing with future acts, and that's pretty much the main problem I have with them (ie. why I think "trial" essentially means "release"). It'd be exceedingly difficult to prove, in the legal sense, something someone is going to do or is likely to do....but I still think its something that has to be considered somehow."

You don't want these people to receive a trial because they can't prove what may or may not happen in the future. So until that can be proven, they should be held?

Originally Posted by Corganist

The question is not whether the rules (assuming, again, that the US's interpretation of them is legitimate) say that these people must be held, just whether or not they can be held. As for using necessity to justify the detentions, I'm not so sure that's what's going on...at least from the legal standpoint. I'm of the mind that necessity is probably a good reason for the US to explain why it chose the more restrictive legal status for unlawful combatants, but its no explanation for the restrictiveness of the status itself.

Uhhhh so the reason for holding them is because they can?

Originally Posted by Corganist

It only means that if there is not enough evidence to meet the burden under the standard of due process afforded to that legal status, then the prisoner gets released no matter how dangerous they are or how necessary its thought to be to keep them.

Which you said you have no problem with.

Originally Posted by Corganist

But its not meant to address whether or not they need to be there. The question of their legal classification only relates to their "need" to be there in the sense that it determines the way the US can go about figuring out if the need even exists. If they're lawful, or a US citizen, then you get hearings and trials and all that jazz. If they're not, then its something a little less formal. That's as far as the relationship goes.

So they need to be there so the US can decide if they need to be there. Mindblowing

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

It's not like anyone's going to see you concede a point and shout 'HAHA CORGANIST, YOU LOSE' or anything

actually...

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by sleeper

actually...

Don't spoil the surprise

[sleeper]

im preparing the banner in photoshop as we speak; you prep the queen midi

[DeviousJ]

... Corganist?

He left his briefcase

[DeviousJ]

Hey, it's full of shredded newspaper!

[sleeper]

hahaaha, thats exactly it. youd find like a raw salmon and some dirty underwear in there as well or something -- the insanity behind the pretense.

[sleeper]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...g_Down_DVD.jpg

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Oh please, don't try to pin this on misunderstandings or being unsure of your thoughts. You've been avoiding very direct and pointed questions designed to get you to address specifics, and you've shifted and dodged and flat-out ignored them. It's not like anyone's going to see you concede a point and shout 'HAHA CORGANIST, YOU LOSE' or anything - hell I'd personally be pleased to see some kind of progress. The way you've twisted things and skipped around attempts to clarify your thoughts is incredibly dishonest, and it only points to you being uncomfortable with the answers you'd be giving.

I'm so tempted to respond to this with some kind of quip having to do with glass houses and stones. Just think twice before you start throwing around words like "dishonest" please. Its not like you've really been the epitome of a straight shooter yourself in these sorts of threads, but at least I don't get all snarky about it.

Here's a quote for you: "You have to keep in mind that we're not dealing with common criminals, or even conventional soldiers in a war. (Suspected) Terrorists and unlawful combatants are a different breed, and its on that basis that I think that its necessary to shy away from the common ways of dealing with wrongdoers." <- right there, justification for holding suspected terrorists indefinitely. 'The common ways of dealing with wrongdoers' is particularly great because these people haven't even charged with doing anything wrong.

Just because I think the circumstances of terrorism and war call for and allow a lower burden of proof than something like American criminal law calls for doesn't automatically mean that its justified that someone be held forever. I've only said that I think it makes sense under the circumstances to allow the government to have to show less cause to continue holding them than would be needed to secure some kind of conviction in a trial. I've never suggested for a second that if the government can't even meet that lower standard that it'd still be okay to continue detaining these guys. I know I said that in my mind putting these guys on trial would essentially amount to their release, but that's not supposed to imply that the opposite is true, that no trial means they won't be released. We already know that's not the case, because there have been quite a few prisoners released without trial.

Let me ask you this: Suppose these guys did have trials, and it was found beyond any reasonable doubt that if released they would certainly go out and engage in terrorism. Would you think that would be sufficient grounds to keep them detained? If not, why not? I only ask because I'm beginning to suspect that the heart of what we're discussing now really isn't what's "fair" to these people anymore. I'm not out to justify the US's entire detainment policy as being the absolute best way to go about doing things. I was only asked if I think its fair.

You don't want these people to receive a trial because they can't prove what may or may not happen in the future. So until that can be proven, they should be held?

No. But the question is whether or not we actually have to "prove" what these people will do even if we could do so. I don't think that it has to go that far to justify continuing to hold them. I still think holding someone based on fear of future acts is subject to significant burden by the government of some sort, but requiring "proof" that would hold up in, say, an American court, would all but amount to a "get out of jail free" card for some of these guys. There's got to be a more nuanced way of doing things.

Uhhhh so the reason for holding them is because they can?

No. Again, the reasons for holding them are separate from their legal status. Just because they're allowed to hold someone doesn't mean they need to. You don't hold someone merely because he's an unlawful combatant. You hold him because you have some reason to. I'm just saying that the only time that the actual reason for the detention could have any effect on the legal aspects of things is when the government has a choice to make between declaring someone an unlawful combatant or opting to allow the person to fit under some lawful combatant status. In the cases where either could be proper, the government might say that the necessity in making sure they hold onto dangerous people might be reason to apply the lesser status (and its lower standard of proof)... but the actual reasons for detaining the person are going to be the same no matter their status. The only thing that'd change is how they're looked at. In any case, the government is not going to be holding anyone "because they can."

So they need to be there so the US can decide if they need to be there. Mindblowing

What, should they just send them home and say "Wait right there, and if we find proof you're a terrorist we'll come back and get you. Don't go wandering off now, You're on the honor system!"? This is really not something that should be blowing anyone's mind by any stretch of the imagination.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'm so tempted to respond to this with some kind of quip having to do with glass houses and stones. Just think twice before you start throwing around words like "dishonest" please. Its not like you've really been the epitome of a straight shooter yourself in these sorts of threads, but at least I don't get all snarky about it.

Haha, the old 'well yes but you guys/your position is just as bad - at least I (random positive)' bit. You pull that one out a lot. I do my best to address anything people ask or say, to the point where we get these ridiculously huge muliple quote posts. The only things I've clamped down on are where you've taken a question and responded with a change in subject. Maybe you should get snarky, it's more fun and it would at least dilute your speciously reasonable sophist approach

Actually you do throw in some sly comments, don't think that this guy -> fools anyone

Originally Posted by Corganist

Just because I think the circumstances of terrorism and war call for and allow a lower burden of proof than something like American criminal law calls for doesn't automatically mean that its justified that someone be held forever. I've only said that I think it makes sense under the circumstances to allow the government to have to show less cause to continue holding them than would be needed to secure some kind of conviction in a trial. I've never suggested for a second that if the government can't even meet that lower standard that it'd still be okay to continue detaining these guys.

First of all nobody here's saying they'll be held 'forever', because none of us believe (at least I hope not) that things will ever come to that extreme. That, however, in no way means that the reality of the situation is acceptable by virtue of it being 'not as bad as that'.

Ok, so what is this 'lower standard' that the government is obliged to meet? At what point, *exactly*, can this continued detention be deemed unacceptable? Since they've been arbitrarily classed as 'unlawful combatants' we're apparently supposed to ignore the established standards for their treatment - so what are these standards? When are they going to be tested? This is exactly the problem - you're trusting the government will do what's right by these people, when they're clearly not, and putting faith in whatever's happening behind the scenes as though they have any reason to suddenly change their approach.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I know I said that in my mind putting these guys on trial would essentially amount to their release, but that's not supposed to imply that the opposite is true, that no trial means they won't be released. We already know that's not the case, because there have been quite a few prisoners released without trial.

Here's how I see this justifying itself in your head - if these people were brought to trial there wouldn't be enough evidence to hold them, so any 'bad guys' would go free. If these people are all detained over a number of years the chances of weeding out the 'bad guys' increases, and eventually all the 'good guys' will be released anyway.

Sleeper already asked you this but I think you ignored it - do you understand the point of habeus corpus and the reasons for it existing? Is this treatment just or fair in any way?

Originally Posted by Corganist

Let me ask you this: Suppose these guys did have trials, and it was found beyond any reasonable doubt that if released they would certainly go out and engage in terrorism. Would you think that would be sufficient grounds to keep them detained? If not, why not? I only ask because I'm beginning to suspect that the heart of what we're discussing now really isn't what's "fair" to these people anymore. I'm not out to justify the US's entire detainment policy as being the absolute best way to go about doing things. I was only asked if I think its fair.

Well I'd assume that if it were beyond all reasonable doubt there'd be enough evidence to convict them on grounds of conspiracy. There are already laws and systems in place to deal with people who are planning to commit some crime, if there is adequate proof. If it could be somehow found that they were going to (beyond any reasonable doubt) commit terrorist acts without the evidence of this beign enough to convict them, I'd say that was a major problem with the legal system that should be addressed pretty quickly. Nobody's asking you to justify the entire detainment policy, but when you say 'citizen terrorists go free and that's A-ok with me' that just says you don't actually care whether these people are guilty or not. That ties directly into whether it's 'fair' to detain people.

Originally Posted by Corganist

No. But the question is whether or not we actually have to "prove" what these people will do even if we could do so. I don't think that it has to go that far to justify continuing to hold them. I still think holding someone based on fear of future acts is subject to significant burden by the government of some sort, but requiring "proof" that would hold up in, say, an American court, would all but amount to a "get out of jail free" card for some of these guys. There's got to be a more nuanced way of doing things.

Wait, what? So even if the legal system somehow possessed prescience about whether a prisoner is guilty of some future crimes, they wouldn't need to show it? They basically don't need any evidence of guilt? This gets better and better.

You know which guys would get a 'get out of jail free' card? US CITIZENS. Which you have 'no problem' with. How is *that* a nuanced system? This is just insane - on the one hand you're advocating releasing anyone who happens to be a US citizen with absolutely no qualms, and on the other you're saying it's justified to hold non-citizens without proof even if you could determine what they'd do in the future. Seriously, I don't get how you can even hold this perspective without at least saying 'yeah, there are some problems with this'. Are you a robot?

# Corganist - Guantanamo plugin
#
# extends the Corganist system with respect to the Guantanamo situation
# untested!

require::BlindFaith

function PrisonerTreatment (prisoner)
{
    if (prisoner.citizenship == "US")
        {
        prisoner.detain = false
        opinion="no problem with that"
        }
    else
        {
        prisoner.detain = true
        prisoner.years = random(30)
        prisoner.evidence = null
        opinion="perfectly fair"
        }

    prisoner.danger_relevancy = 0
    
    return(opinion)
}

Originally Posted by Corganist

No. Again, the reasons for holding them are separate from their legal status. Just because they're allowed to hold someone doesn't mean they need to. You don't hold someone merely because he's an unlawful combatant. You hold him because you have some reason to. I'm just saying that the only time that the actual reason for the detention could have any effect on the legal aspects of things is when the government has a choice to make between declaring someone an unlawful combatant or opting to allow the person to fit under some lawful combatant status. In the cases where either could be proper, the government might say that the necessity in making sure they hold onto dangerous people might be reason to apply the lesser status (and its lower standard of proof)... but the actual reasons for detaining the person are going to be the same no matter their status. The only thing that'd change is how they're looked at. In any case, the government is not going to be holding anyone "because they can."

Yes exactly - I got a bite! So now we both agree that their legal status has absolutely jack-all to do with them actually being held, can we get around to talking about exactly *why* they're there? What's the reasoning behind holding these people without trial or legal recourse for 4+ years and counting? You said that "As for using necessity to justify the detentions, I'm not so sure that's what's going on..." - so since it's not out of necessity, and it's not because of their legal status/'unlawful combatant'-ness, then WHY? I'm going to color this paragraph so you don't accidentally skip over it.

Originally Posted by Corganist

What, should they just send them home and say "Wait right there, and if we find proof you're a terrorist we'll come back and get you. Don't go wandering off now, You're on the honor system!"? This is really not something that should be blowing anyone's mind by any stretch of the imagination.

Hey, let's get an analogy in here shall we - what if the cops went around arresting people and locking them up indefinitely? 'Why am I in here officer?' "We need to establish if we need to have you locked up" 'But I am locked up!' "Yes, you're locked up while we work out if there's any reason you need to be locked up." 'But I haven't done anything! I'm innocent!' "Well maybe, but you could be a criminal. You have to admit it's possible, from our view. And we can't very well go releasing criminals now can we!!"

Mind: still blown

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

# Corganist - Guantanamo plugin
#
# extends the Corganist system with respect to the Guantanamo situation
# untested!

require::BlindFaith

function PrisonerTreatment (prisoner)
{
    if (prisoner.citizenship == "US")
        {
        prisoner.detain = false
        opinion="no problem with that"
        }
    else
        {
        prisoner.detain = true
        prisoner.years = random(30)
        prisoner.evidence = null
        opinion="perfectly fair"
        }

    prisoner.danger_relevancy = 0
    
    return(opinion)
}

I'll respond to the rest of your post sometime tomorrow, but I had to go ahead and say that this part is fantastic. Good show.

(As long as, you know, you don't really think I think that way...)

[TuralyonW3]

you guys are fucking epic

[JokeyLoki]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DeviousJ again.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

(As long as, you know, you don't really think I think that way...)

Well you know, I'd like to think you don't, but the answers you actually gave to questions I asked you are really leading me to believe that. That's why I'm doing my best to ask you specifics and to try and find even the tiniest sign that you *do* see a problem with that stance

[Corganist]

Sorry its taken me a day or two to respond. This whole studying for the bar exam thing is starting to wreak havoc on the quality of my boarding time as of late.

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Ok, so what is this 'lower standard' that the government is obliged to meet? At what point, *exactly*, can this continued detention be deemed unacceptable? Since they've been arbitrarily classed as 'unlawful combatants' we're apparently supposed to ignore the established standards for their treatment - so what are these standards? When are they going to be tested? This is exactly the problem - you're trusting the government will do what's right by these people, when they're clearly not, and putting faith in whatever's happening behind the scenes as though they have any reason to suddenly change their approach.

I'd say that to be fair, the standard would at the least require the government to show that it'd be more likely than not that a certain individual would return to the battlefield, engage in terrorism, etc. Anything lower than that (eg. "we can't really tell if you're a terrorist or not....better hold on to you just to be safe" type of stuff) would clearly fall short of the mark. As far as duration goes, I think it has to be on a case by case basis. There's no way that we could put down some blanket rule saying "you stay in four years and you either get a trial (and probably get released), or you get released outright."

This is the problem I have, you keep telling me that the government "arbitrarily" classified these guys the way they did, and that "clearly" the US is not doing right by these guys. I don't think either one of those claims is truly the case, yet you and sleeper both keep blindly asserting it to me as though it is. A) "Unlawful combatant" status is not assigned to these guys "arbitrarily" just because you're uncomfortable with the idea of it. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not its best to give a broad or narrow reading to the Geneva Conventions, but I don't see how its "arbitrary" to exclude combatants who don't clearly come under the rules set out for lawful status. If the decision to create the unlawful combatant status was invented out of whole cloth merely to suit the US's purposes here (for instance if they decided to define unlawful combatant as "middle eastern muslim males aged 14-50 picked up on battlefields in Afghanistan") then yeah, that would probably be arbitrary. But that's not what happened here. The US looked at the Geneva Conventions, and made an argument that these guys don't fit the rules it sets out. Does that mean they got the reading of those rules right? Not at all. But it does mean that they were still working within the legal framework they were given. If they could just arbitrarily treat these guys however they wanted, they wouldn't bother with the dog and pony show.

And B) I don't see how you can say that the US is "clearly" not doing right by these guys. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But its strange that you keep jumping on me for blind faith when you keep using such unequivocal language about these kinds of things and then you won't back them up with more than a "they're doing it because I think they are" justification in so many words. I willingly admit that there's an element of faith to my trust that the government is doing right here, but I wouldn't exactly call it blind...because as I've said before, it makes sense that the government would do the right thing if only for their own sake. Its fine if you disagree with that. Its a matter of perspective to some degree anyways...but don't pretend for a second that my perspective is mere blind faith and yours is clearly true unless you're willing to offer more support for your view than you have so far. Right now we just seem to be arguing the two sides of the same coin.

Here's how I see this justifying itself in your head - if these people were brought to trial there wouldn't be enough evidence to hold them, so any 'bad guys' would go free. If these people are all detained over a number of years the chances of weeding out the 'bad guys' increases, and eventually all the 'good guys' will be released anyway.

Not so much. I definitely wouldn't justify holding innocent people based on the rationale that "they'll be released eventually." Speediness is definitely a premium in releasing the people who need to be out of there, but its not an absolute virtue.

Sleeper already asked you this but I think you ignored it - do you understand the point of habeus corpus and the reasons for it existing? Is this treatment just or fair in any way?

Habeas corpus is a fine and good thing, but as far as I know it doesn't have any analogous provision in the realm of international law. To the extent it'd apply here, I think its a perfectly legitimate tool for US citizens to use to get relief through the American courts....indeed that's what it's there for. But do I think that the principle behind it should be carried out to everyone on some general scale? Not really. Its somewhat tenously granted to Americans as it is...it can be (and has been) suspended if the right conditions are met. I think that suggests its not necessarily an inalienable right by any stretch.

Well I'd assume that if it were beyond all reasonable doubt there'd be enough evidence to convict them on grounds of conspiracy. There are already laws and systems in place to deal with people who are planning to commit some crime, if there is adequate proof. If it could be somehow found that they were going to (beyond any reasonable doubt) commit terrorist acts without the evidence of this beign enough to convict them, I'd say that was a major problem with the legal system that should be addressed pretty quickly.

I'd say it is being addressed. The question is what we do in the meantime.

Nobody's asking you to justify the entire detainment policy, but when you say 'citizen terrorists go free and that's A-ok with me' that just says you don't actually care whether these people are guilty or not. That ties directly into whether it's 'fair' to detain people.

You know which guys would get a 'get out of jail free' card? US CITIZENS. Which you have 'no problem' with. How is *that* a nuanced system? This is just insane - on the one hand you're advocating releasing anyone who happens to be a US citizen with absolutely no qualms, and on the other you're saying it's justified to hold non-citizens without proof even if you could determine what they'd do in the future. Seriously, I don't get how you can even hold this perspective without at least saying 'yeah, there are some problems with this'.

Don't oversimplify. I've just said that US citizens are guaranteed a higher standard of due process from the US government by virtue of their citizenship than non-citizens are. I'm not saying that a person gets released automatically because they're a US citizen. I still don't see why its so difficult to wrap your head around that idea. Supposing a person is a lawful combatant who is not a US citizen, the US only owes them what's required by the Geneva Convention. If they're unlawful, they get something less. But if they are a US citizen, they get protection under the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. Being an unlawful combatant might remove someone from Geneva Convention protections, but it has no effect on whether or not the Constitution still controls a US citizen. It does, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that person being held under those standards. If the detention can pass Constitutional muster, its absolutely okay to hold them. If it can't, thats fine too...regardless of the fact that the person would otherwise still be held if they weren't a US citizen. Being a US citizen has to have its advantages when you're dealing with the US government, right?

Yes exactly - I got a bite! So now we both agree that their legal status has absolutely jack-all to do with them actually being held, can we get around to talking about exactly *why* they're there? What's the reasoning behind holding these people without trial or legal recourse for 4+ years and counting? You said that "As for using necessity to justify the detentions, I'm not so sure that's what's going on..." - so since it's not out of necessity, and it's not because of their legal status/'unlawful combatant'-ness, then WHY? I'm going to color this paragraph so you don't accidentally skip over it.

Wait a minute, are you now asking me to somehow justify the propriety in taking prisoners on the battlefield and holding them? Except for a few added considerations, that's basically what's happened here. Would you be asking me these questions if these guys were classified as "prisoners of war" instead of "unlawful combatants"? Its one thing to discuss the issue of the treatment of these people and whether they're entitled to certain rights and treatment under treaties and such...its quite another if we're gonna debate why they even had to be picked up and held in the first place. Taking prisoners in battle is hardly a new tactic.

Hey, let's get an analogy in here shall we - what if the cops went around arresting people and locking them up indefinitely? 'Why am I in here officer?' "We need to establish if we need to have you locked up" 'But I am locked up!' "Yes, you're locked up while we work out if there's any reason you need to be locked up." 'But I haven't done anything! I'm innocent!' "Well maybe, but you could be a criminal. You have to admit it's possible, from our view. And we can't very well go releasing criminals now can we!!"

Mind: still blown

Let's tweak that analogy a bit (disregarding for these purposes the trappings of criminal procedure)...lets say the cops show up at the scene of a gang fight as its in progress, and there are several people there. The cops gather up and arrest all these people and ship them off to the station house in hopes of questioning them and trying to gather evidence about the gangs' leaders and activities. And then they hold them for some amount of time while they question them and determine their role in things as they investigate and figure out who to press charges against. According to you the fact that they would hold and question these guys before charging them is mindblowing. I'm not seeing it.

[JokeyLoki]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Sorry its taken me a day or two to respond. This whole studying for the bar exam thing is starting to wreak havoc on the quality of my boarding time as of late.

Dude, you should just leave the board until you're done... no sense in letting this place interfere with something so important.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Sorry its taken me a day or two to respond. This whole studying for the bar exam thing is starting to wreak havoc on the quality of my boarding time as of late.

If your bar exam involves you arguing a case I'd say we're helping you out here

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'd say that to be fair, the standard would at the least require the government to show that it'd be more likely than not that a certain individual would return to the battlefield, engage in terrorism, etc. Anything lower than that (eg. "we can't really tell if you're a terrorist or not....better hold on to you just to be safe" type of stuff) would clearly fall short of the mark. As far as duration goes, I think it has to be on a case by case basis. There's no way that we could put down some blanket rule saying "you stay in four years and you either get a trial (and probably get released), or you get released outright."

Ok see, now you're right back where you started. If this standard requires the government to show they're likely to do something, then there absolutely has to be a duration in place - otherwise the government could (get this) hold them as long as they wanted to determine whether or not they need to be held. That's not a standard at all. The whole point is that there are rules and limits, and if (within those rules and limits) the government is unable to show that someone actually needs to be held, they should be released. You said that 'we can't really tell so we'd better hold onto you' case clearly falls short of the mark, but that's really exactly what you're proposing. Standards are in place so everyone knows what the score is and so there's accountability, by reclassifying these people and then not establishing this 'lower standard' it allows the US to do whatever they like - and that's exactly why a standard is necessary.

Originally Posted by Corganist

This is the problem I have, you keep telling me that the government "arbitrarily" classified these guys the way they did, and that "clearly" the US is not doing right by these guys. I don't think either one of those claims is truly the case, yet you and sleeper both keep blindly asserting it to me as though it is. A) "Unlawful combatant" status is not assigned to these guys "arbitrarily" just because you're uncomfortable with the idea of it. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not its best to give a broad or narrow reading to the Geneva Conventions, but I don't see how its "arbitrary" to exclude combatants who don't clearly come under the rules set out for lawful status. If the decision to create the unlawful combatant status was invented out of whole cloth merely to suit the US's purposes here (for instance if they decided to define unlawful combatant as "middle eastern muslim males aged 14-50 picked up on battlefields in Afghanistan") then yeah, that would probably be arbitrary. But that's not what happened here. The US looked at the Geneva Conventions, and made an argument that these guys don't fit the rules it sets out. Does that mean they got the reading of those rules right? Not at all. But it does mean that they were still working within the legal framework they were given. If they could just arbitrarily treat these guys however they wanted, they wouldn't bother with the dog and pony show.

We already had a thread on this but yes, they are covered under the Geneva Conventions. Read through them, it pretty clearly states that they are. The US didn't put forward an 'argument' for reclassifying them - they put forward a justification. The difference being that they did it anyway and offered a rationale/excuse. There was an outcry, but the US stuck by it. See this is what I meant by the US doing what it wants 'because it can' - nothing will happen. There are no repercussions, maybe some bad feeling but nothing major. It does make the conventions look like they have no teeth unfortunately, because really they're an agreement of good faith between nations. When the biggest nation decides to circumvent them, what can anyone do about it? It's just not a big enough issue to start a fight over, that's why everyone is 'showing concern' instead of throwing down ultimatums.

Originally Posted by Corganist

And B) I don't see how you can say that the US is "clearly" not doing right by these guys. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But its strange that you keep jumping on me for blind faith when you keep using such unequivocal language about these kinds of things and then you won't back them up with more than a "they're doing it because I think they are" justification in so many words. I willingly admit that there's an element of faith to my trust that the government is doing right here, but I wouldn't exactly call it blind...because as I've said before, it makes sense that the government would do the right thing if only for their own sake. Its fine if you disagree with that. Its a matter of perspective to some degree anyways...but don't pretend for a second that my perspective is mere blind faith and yours is clearly true unless you're willing to offer more support for your view than you have so far. Right now we just seem to be arguing the two sides of the same coin.

Heh, no - see this is what I said about your "well yes but you guys/your position is just as bad" thing. The problem is you don't seem to see a problem in holding innocent people for 4 years without even charging them with anything. Because that's happened with some of the prisoners, and I believe it will happen with many many more. How many people have been found guilty in there exactly?

Your perspective is blind faith because you do seem to have a glimmer of understanding that the whole thing is unfair to innocent people caught up in this, but then you trust the government to 'do the right thing'. You can't appeal to that, it's ludicrous. The government gains more from keeping these people and grilling them for any intelligence they can get, than it loses by getting bad PR for holding uncharged prisoners from so long.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Not so much. I definitely wouldn't justify holding innocent people based on the rationale that "they'll be released eventually." Speediness is definitely a premium in releasing the people who need to be out of there, but its not an absolute virtue.

So how much of a 'premium' is it? You seem to be fine saying 'well X but also Y' but you never commit to any kind of position on it. How long could they hold an innocent person in an internment camp before you'd say 'hey this delay is just unacceptable'? And these aren't extenuating circumstances here, before you start with 'but when fighting terrorists stakes high etc'

Originally Posted by Corganist

Habeas corpus is a fine and good thing, but as far as I know it doesn't have any analogous provision in the realm of international law. To the extent it'd apply here, I think its a perfectly legitimate tool for US citizens to use to get relief through the American courts....indeed that's what it's there for. But do I think that the principle behind it should be carried out to everyone on some general scale? Not really. Its somewhat tenously granted to Americans as it is...it can be (and has been) suspended if the right conditions are met. I think that suggests its not necessarily an inalienable right by any stretch.

No no, the point of habeas corpus. Why it's granted in the first place. Why it was decided necessary and a good thing. Why it even became part of US law in the first place. How it relates to ethics and the treatment of people.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'd say it is being addressed. The question is what we do in the meantime.

What's being addressed? The problem of courts being able to predict future actions beyond all reasonable doubt and without supporting evidence, but not being able to convict people for them? Do you have any examples of this ever coming up?

In the meantime, don't lock people up without evidence. Especially if you'd release a US citizen in the same situation.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Don't oversimplify. I've just said that US citizens are guaranteed a higher standard of due process from the US government by virtue of their citizenship than non-citizens are. I'm not saying that a person gets released automatically because they're a US citizen. I still don't see why its so difficult to wrap your head around that idea. Supposing a person is a lawful combatant who is not a US citizen, the US only owes them what's required by the Geneva Convention. If they're unlawful, they get something less. But if they are a US citizen, they get protection under the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. Being an unlawful combatant might remove someone from Geneva Convention protections, but it has no effect on whether or not the Constitution still controls a US citizen. It does, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that person being held under those standards. If the detention can pass Constitutional muster, its absolutely okay to hold them. If it can't, thats fine too...regardless of the fact that the person would otherwise still be held if they weren't a US citizen. Being a US citizen has to have its advantages when you're dealing with the US government, right?

You're still not getting it. It has nothing to do with individual legal status, and everything to do with whether or not they're a threat. If someone's dangerous enough to need locking up, they need locking up. How difficult is that to understand? If this dangerous person could then walk free by being a US citizen, then they're no longer locked up. This is a problem. You said 'I have no problem with that'. That's also a problem.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Wait a minute, are you now asking me to somehow justify the propriety in taking prisoners on the battlefield and holding them? Except for a few added considerations, that's basically what's happened here. Would you be asking me these questions if these guys were classified as "prisoners of war" instead of "unlawful combatants"? Its one thing to discuss the issue of the treatment of these people and whether they're entitled to certain rights and treatment under treaties and such...its quite another if we're gonna debate why they even had to be picked up and held in the first place. Taking prisoners in battle is hardly a new tactic.

Hell yes I'd be asking you these questions if they were POWs, because the war was over years ago and these people are still being detained. And my view is pretty much in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, as POWs have *rights* which include 'not being arbitrarily detained' and being brought to trial. The whole reason these people were reclassified was to skirt these annoyances, like I already said.

And the question was why are they being held? - not why were they picked up in the first place? Back on track please, Mr Corganist!

Originally Posted by Corganist

Let's tweak that analogy a bit (disregarding for these purposes the trappings of criminal procedure)...lets say the cops show up at the scene of a gang fight as its in progress, and there are several people there. The cops gather up and arrest all these people and ship them off to the station house in hopes of questioning them and trying to gather evidence about the gangs' leaders and activities. And then they hold them for some amount of time while they question them and determine their role in things as they investigate and figure out who to press charges against. According to you the fact that they would hold and question these guys before charging them is mindblowing. I'm not seeing it.

See, in my analogy they'd be held indefinitely, in yours - what, 30 days? How about we meet halfway and say that there's a gang fight in some neighborhood, the cops show up and arrest everyone who lives in the surrounding houses, then locks each of them up indefinitely until they're sure they haven't been doing anything illegal. Which takes years. Sounds good?

[Lie]

Corganist, I just have a question for you and I'm not going to muddy it up by giving you a handle on anything else I have to say about this issue, I'm just going to put it to you.

Keep in mind that this is a question, not an argument, as I am not stating a position.

Let's pre-suppose that it is really NECESSARY to detain some terrorist suspects indefinitely, meaning in actuality that it is NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY AND FUTURE OF THE NATION, that it is an act of pre-emptive self-defense. Thus far you have stated in so many words that the legal process afforded to U.S. citizens is not applicable to foreign terrorist suspects. You have also stated that you think there should be different standards applied in the case of potential foreign terrorists but have not, at least unless I missed something (and I might have in that mess), stated what you think they should be. Furthermore, it seems clear that in terms of indefinite detainment, you are not yourself aware of the standards that are being employed.

My question is, then, by what standards do you find that a certain amount of indefinite detainment is "fair"? If we are operating outside of any set governmental standards, what, other than this suggested NECESSITY + use of force is actually happening in any moral context in which we can judge "fair"?