Gitmo and wire tapping

[audtatious]

So, during the campaign, Obama was talking about closing Gitmo and removing the EO's for wire tapping and such that a large number of people were having fits about. What is he really going to do?

Just a question, not an accusation.

[audtatious]

Nobody?

[hsckris]

http://www.iht.com/articles/20...o.php

That article looks to me like BHO is paving the way to be forgiven if he did not to close it.

I'd say this issue is uncertain as of now -- but I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Another problem is in reality these people would all succeed in trial. I doubt they were arrested/detained with proper procedures for citizens.

[audtatious]

That is true and I doubt there is much supported evidence other than what can be considered "hearsay". Obama is in a difficult position as on one hand you have what can be considered dangerous people and on the other hand a large number of people who expect him to close Gitmo down. What do you do? Keep them locked up since you can't send them back to their countries (who don't want them and court orders say we can't do that) which will piss off those who think you are going to release them or he releases them to the civilian courts knowing that the majority of them will be let go. If the latter happens then where do they go and what do you do with them?

What about wire tapping? That was HUGE back in '04. Does anyone think he will actually remove those EO's and the processes in place?

[WDRacing]

The whole "Patriot Act" needs to be rethought. The wire tap EO's are garbage and need to be done away with immediatly.

[audtatious]

Why are they garbage? "Supposedly" they only track number and calls from or to the US by cell phones "over there". They do not record conversations. The numbers are then run through and "washed" to determine if there are any known associations and such. I'm sure they associate by location and such as well.

[WDRacing]

Still an invasion of privacy. There are more cell phones then land lines these days. Who says they are only tracking certain calls? I don't trust Big Brother.

I've personally tracked terrorists by cell phone to make maratime interdictions, so I know it works and I'm all for getting the bad guys. But I don't trust the Gov.

[audtatious]

Then why would you think they are going to stop regardless of EO or not?

[480sx]

What about wire tapping? That was HUGE back in '04. Does anyone think he will actually remove those EO's and the processes in place?

Its hard to say. He has said that hes gona clean house but is going to have a lot of pressure from the intel community to keep those provisions intact.

Once we give up power or rights, its very rare for a govt to just simply give them back like 'Opps! those were yours, sorry about that'. Doubt that its really happen. I cant really see the effects of the Patriot act ever truly being rescinded, anytime soon at least. I know its got a sunset clause, however i still think that the pressure to keep that bit of anti-constitutional legislation alive will be to strong and Obama will back it.

[WDRacing]

Just voicing my opinion is all...

[480sx]

Still an invasion of privacy. There are more cell phones then land lines these days. Who says they are only tracking certain calls? I don't trust Big Brother.

Agreed, and you shouldnt.

You heard about the telephone companies giving out our private information to the government right? Then the industry pressed the govt to make it so they couldnt be held liable for giving out information that we thought was private and secure. They got their wish this year, they are protected by the government against any law suits going after them for doing something ILLEGAL. The real question is, what are they doing with that information?

To many people turn a blind eye to this kinda stuff. Where theres smoke, theres fire.

[HashiriyaS14]

Obama *JUST SAID* on 60 minutes the other day that he is going to close Gitmo.

I can't for one minute think why he would come out and say that in a public interview if he didn't intend to it, that would be setting himself up for a fall.

I'm confident that he'll close it.

[WDRacing]

I know we house real torrorists there, but I also feel for the people that are held for no good reason. I don't consider having a conversation with a known terrorlst a good reason btw.

The War on Terror is a complicated one...

[480sx]

The scary thing to me is that we dont consider them prisoners of war. 'They' are labeled 'enemy combatants'. This term is so loosely defined it can be used to pick up just about anyone in the world. 'Enemy combatants' have no rights, no habeas corpus, no nothing. International law is even ignored when dealing with enemy combatants, or anyone on the 'Terror watch list'.

This government has way, WAY overstepped their legal boundaries. They took very liberal interpretation of the Constitution or simply ignored it all together in places and passed legislation that should have never been passed.

I wrote a paper last year on a theory that i have. It basically states.. Attacks on freedoms and privacy come after tragic events, such as 9/11, when a nation is most vulnerable and prone to rash decisions. These first steps are the ones that are met with the most resistance. As time passes, people stop caring as much, and more and more freedoms are taken away with less and less resistance.

You think that this cant happen, or is an exaggeration? Its already happening, and it just keeps getting worse. The latest about the government protection for telecom companies who gave our personal information to the government was just the latest, THAT WE KNOW OF.

When are people going to put their foot down and say enough already, because this crap is out of control. It starts with wiretapping, but where does it stop? If a government is openly violating one of our constitutional rights, what other rights are being violated behind our backs?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Obama *JUST SAID* on 60 minutes the other day that he is going to close Gitmo.

I can't for one minute think why he would come out and say that in a public interview if he didn't intend to it, that would be setting himself up for a fall.

I'm confident that he'll close it.

He also claimed he was going to filibuster the so called "wire-tapping" bill to death.

Then he voted for it. Yup, that's a man of his word.

The scary thing to me is that we dont consider them prisoners of war. 'They' are labeled 'enemy combatants'. This term is so loosely defined it can be used to pick up just about anyone in the world. 'Enemy combatants' have no rights, no habeas corpus, no nothing. International law is even ignored when dealing with enemy combatants, or anyone on the 'Terror watch list'.

SURPRISE, they're not prisoners of war! They're afforded some protection, but nothing like a prisoner of war gets.

Your point is further mooted because there was a Supreme Court case in 2006 that forced compliance with "Common Article 3" of the Geneva Convention.

They've got no rights to habeas corpus anyway, that's a right reserved for U.S. citizens and nationals. Similar with "constitutional" rights. Nope. No rights for you!
Modified by charlieo at 10:03 PM 11/19/2008

[480sx]

SURPRISE, they're not prisoners of war! They're afforded some protection, but nothing like a prisoner of war gets.

Oh so i guess the phrase war on terror is meaningless when tossed around by the government? Its only a war when its convenient for them to call it a war. When taking prisoners or doing interrogations then they are enemy combatants, not a POW.

Lets try to think about this for a second, since my point was so moot.

We capture an 'Enemy combatant'.. While we are at war, with 'Terror'.... They are somehow not a prisoner of war.. because......?

Maybe the Veit Kong considered American GI's to be enemy combatants too, so it was then OK to deny them of basic human rights, or torture them, ect.

To take it a step further just for fun, arnt the terms Enemy Combatant and Soldier synonymous? So, in taking a soldier captive, how is he not a prisoner of war?

Your point is further mooted because there was a Supreme Court case in 2006 that forced compliance with "Common Article 3" of the Geneva Convention.

Hmm lets think about this, again from a moot point perspective of course. So in 2006 the Supreme Court decided that the government had to be FORCED into complying with the Geneva convention. Forced huh..? Wait, the war started in 03 right? So i guess those 3 years are a moot point to you? Kinda like Whoops! We forgot all about international laws prohibiting torture and unethical treatment of PEOPLE(this term aviods the semantics you bring up between 'terrorlst/enemy combatant/pow'), but now its all good because our supreme court forced us to give a fvk.

They've got no rights to Habeas corpus anyway, that's a right reserved for U.S. citizens and nationals. Similar with "constitutional" rights. Nope. No rights for you!

FAIL. You, like most, were unaware that Habeas Corpus was extended to ALL non citizens before Bush and his crew of "Constitution/international law as their personal toilet paper" staff. Habeas Corpus is an ancient law that goes back over 800 years that demands adherence. None of this bull **** that some people arnt deserving of it simply because its convenient for those in power.

The Framers wrote the Constitution without disenfranchising ANYONE. Surprise!

[audtatious]

I say we give them housing, welfare and citizenship.

San Fran sounds like a good place for them

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Oh so i guess the phrase war on terror is meaningless when tossed around by the government? Its only a war when its convenient for them to call it a war. When taking prisoners or doing interrogations then they are enemy combatants, not a POW.

Lets try to think about this for a second, since my point was so moot.

We capture an 'Enemy combatant'.. While we are at war, with 'Terror'.... They are somehow not a prisoner of war.. because......?

Maybe the Veit Kong considered American GI's to be enemy combatants too, so it was then OK to deny them of basic human rights, or torture them, ect.

To take it a step further just for fun, arnt the terms Enemy Combatant and Soldier synonymous? So, in taking a soldier captive, how is he not a prisoner of war?

Nope. There is a VAST legal difference between soldiers, medics/chaplains, and "unlawful combatants."

Take this handy quote:"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

GTMO prisoners are treated quite humanly. They are also tried in courts.

The NVA miscategorized our servicemen so they could claim they were following the rules.

Hmm lets think about this, again from a moot point perspective of course. So in 2006 the Supreme Court decided that the government had to be FORCED into complying with the Geneva convention. Forced huh..? Wait, the war started in 03 right? So i guess those 3 years are a moot point to you? Kinda like Whoops! We forgot all about international laws prohibiting torture and unethical treatment of PEOPLE(this term aviods the semantics you bring up between 'terrorlst/enemy combatant/pow'), but now its all good because our supreme court forced us to give a fvk.

We don't torture people in GTMO. Nor are they treated unethically. I don't want to hear any whining about "waterboarding" either. Not torture. Nasty, but not torture.

FAIL. You, like most, were unaware that Habeas Corpus was extended to ALL non citizens before Bush and his crew of "Constitution/international law as their personal toilet paper" staff. Habeas Corpus is an ancient law that goes back over 800 years that demands adherence. None of this bull **** that some people arnt deserving of it simply because its convenient for those in power.

The Framers wrote the Constitution without disenfranchising ANYONE. Surprise!

Fact: habeas corpus does not apply to non-U.S. citizens that aren't in the United States. Sorry. The age and origin of a writ (not law) has no baring on present application.

The rights given to American citizens are not given to non-citizens. Period. If they did we'd be freeing the **** out of a lot more countries.

The Framers wrote the Constitution at a time when people could own people. How's THAT for disenfranchising? Taking a history lesson; slaves weren't citizens, so the Constitution didn't grant them any rights.

[datsun2401972]

Am I the only one who thinks a soldier and a terrorlst are two completely different things?

And sure we've tortured people who deserve it and people who don't, but if I have to decide whether or not we are going to be the "guiding light" for the rest of the world, or have better information to secure our homeland from further terrorlst attacks....you'd better believe I'd put my middle finger to the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is no more innocent of these crimes than we are, and terrorists don't care who they kill, innocent or guilty.

[themadscientist]

Cockmeat sandwich?

[480sx]

Nope. There is a VAST legal difference between soldiers, medics/chaplains, and "unlawful combatants."

Uh, yea.. There is a vast LEGAL difference. Thats part of the problem im trying to address that your not acknowledging.

GTMO prisoners are treated quite humanly. They are also tried in courts.

What planet have you been living on for you to make that first statement? Multiple suicide attempts among other things that have leaked to the media. That have LEAKED! How much stuff hasnt leaked? Abu Ghraib? It all speaks to a huge problem that most people are ignoring and considering isolated incidents. We have secret CIA prisons around the world man.. You rarely hear anything from them. The last thing i remember hearing was a news article from the UK about one in Romania with body sized boxes being unloaded regularly as 'Cargo' from C130's to a top secret military compound with its own airstrip and tighter security than NORAD.

Tried in courts? Your absolutely right. They are tried in secret courts that NO ONE has access to the documents, evidence, or anything. They are assigned a lawyer by US. They could be playing pin the tail on the terrorists in those courts for all we know. Theres a large difference between courts and reasonable and fair courts.

We don't torture people in GTMO. Nor are they treated unethically. I don't want to hear any whining about "waterboarding" either. Not torture. Nasty, but not torture.

Prove it. You sound like your a spitting image of GWB and his staff with those statements. Simulating DEATH isnt torture? FFS, get a grip.

Here ya go bud. http://www.google.com/search?h...title

Fact: habeas corpus does not apply to non-U.S. citizens that aren't in the United States. Sorry. The age and origin of a writ (not law) has no baring on present application.

Again, your dead wrong here. Do your own research. It doesnt apply NOW but it did apply before 2003. The bush administration changed all that. You can put fact in front of anything. Fact is, it doesnt make it true.

The Framers wrote the Constitution at a time when people could own people. How's THAT for disenfranchising? Taking a history lesson; slaves weren't citizens, so the Constitution didn't grant them any rights.

Interesting you brought that up, however it doesnt derail my argument. The framers knew slavery would die off, it was a commonly held belief. There isnt a single passage in the Constitution saying 'and these rights are only for these people', or anything of the like.

[480sx]

Am I the only one who thinks a soldier and a terrorlst are two completely different things?

And sure we've tortured people who deserve it and people who don't, but if I have to decide whether or not we are going to be the "guiding light" for the rest of the world, or have better information to secure our homeland from further terrorlst attacks....you'd better believe I'd put my middle finger to the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is no more innocent of these crimes than we are, and terrorists don't care who they kill, innocent or guilty.

No your not the only person who believes that. It is however a strange belief held onto through misconceptions. Look up the literal definition of a soldier and tell me how someone who picks up a gun, puts his life on the line for what he believes in is not a soldier. Ask a terrorlst fighting a holy war if hes not a soldier.

And sure we've tortured people who deserve it and people who don't, but if I have to decide whether or not we are going to be the "guiding light" for the rest of the world, or have better information to secure our homeland from further terrorlst attacks....you'd better believe I'd put my middle finger to the rest of the world.

You must be a student to the global way of thinking thats probably going to lead to WW3.

The rest of the world is no more innocent of these crimes than we are, and terrorists don't care who they kill, innocent or guilty.

Your whole tone is basically, they do it so why cant we?

Because its FVKED UP and wrong. Why are we going to reduce ourselves to the levels of terrorists? Doesnt that give them even more reason to strap a bomb to their chests and target us?

Where does it end? America was supposed to be champions of cival rights, we built ourselves up on this pedestal for so long and threw mud down on everyone, and now look at what a joke we've become.

[ishkabibble]

Am I the only one who thinks a soldier and a terrorlst are two completely different things?

And sure we've tortured people who deserve it and people who don't, but if I have to decide whether or not we are going to be the "guiding light" for the rest of the world, or have better information to secure our homeland from further terrorlst attacks....you'd better believe I'd put my middle finger to the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is no more innocent of these crimes than we are, and terrorists don't care who they kill, innocent or guilty.

So, you'd be fine with being tortured by police until you confessed to a felony? Just wondering.

[datsun2401972]

No your not the only person who believes that. It is however a strange belief held onto through misconceptions. Look up the literal definition of a soldier and tell me how someone who picks up a gun, puts his life on the line for what he believes in is not a soldier. Ask a terrorlst fighting a holy war if hes not a soldier.

Ok, so terrorists are soldiers...what adjective would you use to discern the difference between soldiers who fight where other enemy soldiers are...and soldiers who hijack civilian aircraft, full of innocent civilians, and run them into two civilian buildings, full of innocent civilians(from around the world I might add)?

My adjective: murderous.

I guess my point is, should we treat these people like other people who haven't conspired to or actually killed innocent people? HELL NO. Then again I'm the type of person who believes if you murdered someone intentionally, with no justifiable reason, you should also die. And you can say that person has rights, and they don't deserve to die. Well, ok, what about the family of the person killed, they don't have a God given right to be able to see their, now murdered, family member?

Closer to topic: Yes, I think the prisoners in gitmo deserve due process to determine whether or not they are actually apart of a terrorlst plot or cell. But, when we determine that they are a terrorlst, what do you do? Hold them in prison for years at taxpayer expense!??!?! Does that really make sense?

What did we do with Timothy Mcveigh? That's right, we killed his ***. So you interrogate them to find information that could possibly stop future terror attacks. And when that doesn't work, but you know he's guilty, you kill him in front of all the other terrorlst inmates just like they kill our innocent(beheaded on tv for example). Then you chunk up the body and put a piece in every prison cell so the rest of them know what's up.

There is no such thing as a "politically correct" war. And the actions we take to be "fair" to the enemy has only cost us more lives. So why do we try?

Another war(WW3 being your example) is inevitable, unless history stops repeating itself.

And really, my tone should read to the rest of the world: if you **** with me(U.S.) and my freedom, I will stop you, at any cost to you.

[datsun2401972]

So, you'd be fine with being tortured by police until you confessed to a felony? Just wondering.

No. I believe in due process. But once your found guilty of TERRORISM, yah, I don't give a **** about that guy. Cut him in peices and ship em to his terrorlst buddies.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[ishkabibble]

No. I believe in due process. But once your found guilty of TERRORISM, yah, I don't give a **** about that guy. Cut him in peices and ship em to his terrorlst buddies.

The problem is nearly all of the people in Gitmo have not been found guilty of anything.

[heliochrome85]

The problem is nearly all of the people in Gitmo have not been found guilty of anything.

i agree. for the most part, there is little evidence to their terrorlst status. I would say close it. That isnt to say we wont have similar centers in other countries, but i think the GTMO is so closely associated with the misssteps of the bush administration that it would be a mistake for Obama to keep it open.

[datsun2401972]

The problem is nearly all of the people in Gitmo have not been found guilty of anything.

Hmm, well how did they get there in the first place? Did they loose a game of duck duck goose?

[heliochrome85]

yes. for the most part. its as if your neighbors called the cops to let them know you are a terrorlst. then the next thing you know, you wake up in gitmo. what are the chances that you are actually a terrorlst?