6 ms·

This is why I'm going to vote for Obama in 2008!

by hugh3 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago
In fairness, his justice department made a serious effort to transfer some gitmo people to the US justice system, but there was an opportunist shitstorm over it, and close to no principled liberals/libertarians who stood up and called out the shitstormers.
- Afton 16y ago
  "Fair trials to those we have an open and shut case against! Continued detention and possible military trials for anyone else" doesn't sound like a slogan I can get behind.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    This is why we're increasingly going for option three: summary execution on foreign soil on sight via military robot spyplane. Not that I have a problem with that, really. The real problem is that our legal categories haven't caught up with reality. Regular criminals we catch, try and imprison. But soldiers of an enemy nation we shoot on sight... unless they surrender, in which case we're obliged to keep 'em as POWs until hostilities end and then return them to the other country. Unless they're not legit combatants (e.g. they're spies or saboteurs or otherwise not dressed in proper military uniforms) in which case we can declare 'em illegal combatants and shoot them. That's the way it used to be, but now that we live in a world where non-state organizations make war against states (well, war against everything) there's a need for some new legal classification. If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda then I don't think that the civilian "release 'em until they actually kill someone then try 'em for murder" is a good strategy. On the other hand "kill 'em as soon as they pop their head up" has too high a risk of false positives.
    - mquander 16y ago
      If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda, I think that the civilian "release 'em until they actually kill someone then try 'em for murder" is a good strategy. Specifically, I think it's a better strategy than the "occupy their countries and capture or kill them" strategy. I think it's on the order of thousands of times better, judging by the dollar costs and human costs of our actions in the Middle East.
    - bandushrew 16y ago
      "If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda" what process do you suggest for proving that? Without a court trial, how can your membership in Al Qaeda reasonably be established? Also, membership of what other clubs or groups also allows the government to imprison you indefinitely without trial and torture you? who decides that?
    - gnosis 16y ago
      "If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda then I don't think that the civilian "release 'em until they actually kill someone then try 'em for murder" is a good strategy." That's a very big if. Why should anyone trust the US government to decide who is and who isn't a member of Al Qaeda? The US government repeatedly proven themselves to be liars (or at least incompetents) on precisely this subject (not to mention many, many others).
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Screw the judicial system, in one act of exercising his power as commander and chief he could order all these military personel to release those prisoners and go home. This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do. This will of course never been done. Not by this president, nor by any future ones. I'd love to be proven wrong.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do. That's what any sane man would do about, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      If the police search your house in violation of your rights, it doesn't matter if they find the bong you made of Elvis's skull that you stole, and use to smoke the hundreds of pot plants you are growing. They can't fucking use it. This detainment is illegal, it doesn't matter what the hell they did. Release them, and try again legally this time.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        Yep, which is a major difference between civilian law and the law surrounding unlawful combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant The law of unlawful combatants is, however, pretty poorly developed. It needs to be the subject of serious thought rather than political football.
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. Just because you can convince congress to pass anything you wish by allowing them to throw their pet projects into the mix, doesn't mean human rights are not being violated.
- kragen 16y ago
  I regret not being able to comment much on this issue, but it seems to me that the Obama Administration's continued secrecy on this matter was a necessary enabler for those opposed to the use of the US court system.

This is why I'm going to vote for Obama in 2008!

by hugh3 16y ago

This is why I'm going to vote for Obama in 2008!

In fairness, his justice department made a serious effort to transfer some gitmo people to the US justice system, but there was an opportunist shitstorm over it, and close to no principled liberals/libertarians who stood up and called out the shitstormers.

Afton 16y ago
"Fair trials to those we have an open and shut case against! Continued detention and possible military trials for anyone else" doesn't sound like a slogan I can get behind.
- hugh3 16y ago
  This is why we're increasingly going for option three: summary execution on foreign soil on sight via military robot spyplane. Not that I have a problem with that, really. The real problem is that our legal categories haven't caught up with reality. Regular criminals we catch, try and imprison. But soldiers of an enemy nation we shoot on sight... unless they surrender, in which case we're obliged to keep 'em as POWs until hostilities end and then return them to the other country. Unless they're not legit combatants (e.g. they're spies or saboteurs or otherwise not dressed in proper military uniforms) in which case we can declare 'em illegal combatants and shoot them. That's the way it used to be, but now that we live in a world where non-state organizations make war against states (well, war against everything) there's a need for some new legal classification. If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda then I don't think that the civilian "release 'em until they actually kill someone then try 'em for murder" is a good strategy. On the other hand "kill 'em as soon as they pop their head up" has too high a risk of false positives.
  - mquander 16y ago
    If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda, I think that the civilian "release 'em until they actually kill someone then try 'em for murder" is a good strategy. Specifically, I think it's a better strategy than the "occupy their countries and capture or kill them" strategy. I think it's on the order of thousands of times better, judging by the dollar costs and human costs of our actions in the Middle East.
  - bandushrew 16y ago
    "If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda" what process do you suggest for proving that? Without a court trial, how can your membership in Al Qaeda reasonably be established? Also, membership of what other clubs or groups also allows the government to imprison you indefinitely without trial and torture you? who decides that?
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "If you're a real honest-to-Allah member of Al Qaeda then I don't think that the civilian "release 'em until they actually kill someone then try 'em for murder" is a good strategy." That's a very big if. Why should anyone trust the US government to decide who is and who isn't a member of Al Qaeda? The US government repeatedly proven themselves to be liars (or at least incompetents) on precisely this subject (not to mention many, many others).
burgerbrain 16y ago
Screw the judicial system, in one act of exercising his power as commander and chief he could order all these military personel to release those prisoners and go home. This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do. This will of course never been done. Not by this president, nor by any future ones. I'd love to be proven wrong.
- hugh3 16y ago
  This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do. That's what any sane man would do about, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    If the police search your house in violation of your rights, it doesn't matter if they find the bong you made of Elvis's skull that you stole, and use to smoke the hundreds of pot plants you are growing. They can't fucking use it. This detainment is illegal, it doesn't matter what the hell they did. Release them, and try again legally this time.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Yep, which is a major difference between civilian law and the law surrounding unlawful combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant The law of unlawful combatants is, however, pretty poorly developed. It needs to be the subject of serious thought rather than political football.
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. Just because you can convince congress to pass anything you wish by allowing them to throw their pet projects into the mix, doesn't mean human rights are not being violated.
kragen 16y ago
I regret not being able to comment much on this issue, but it seems to me that the Obama Administration's continued secrecy on this matter was a necessary enabler for those opposed to the use of the US court system.