United States of the American Dictatorship?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, look at Camp X-Ray - they've been holding people there since last year, but you hardly ever hear about it. Doesn't mean they're not still there.

Im always hearing about how the people there are being treated too poorly.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, look at Camp X-Ray - they've been holding people there since last year, but you hardly ever hear about it. Doesn't mean they're not still there.

But keeping Taliban and Al Quaeda operatives imprisoned isn't contraversial. Jailing people without cause would be.

[GeneralTacticus]

well, the people were detained for fear that they were terrorists or had connections to terrorists with other plots such as the 9/11 one. If even one of those 1000 people would have had a plot half as deadly, it would make detaining those 1000 people more than justified. If you think differently, then i would like to see you explain your thoughts to one of the families of these hypothetical victims.

I'd like to see a single shred of evidence that they had any connections whatsoever to Al Quaeda or anyone els.e For that matter, I'd like to see some evidence that Al Quaeda did it.

And had the US not detained them, and one of them had done a terrorist attack, you know what would happen? Everyone would be asking why the government did nothing to stop them if they knew that person posed a terroist threat. And then they would have all those Congressional inquaries and investigations and stuff like what they are going for the 9/11 attacks.

Why not detain everyone then? That way we could be sure that no-one would ever commit a crime again, coz they'd all be in jail. You need to have evidence before you can go around arresting people.

And beyond what stage are you refering?

The stage of arresting people based on race out of paranoia.

After 9/11, our nation felt vulnerable and cornered, and we are doing as much as we can to protect ourselves. It is very unfortunate for those who were detained wrongly, but if they had nothing to hide, then they should have nothing to fear and have been released (one such man is a arab docter in my area. it recieved much coverage when he was forcefully detained a few days following 9/11, but when he was released it got little more than a tiny article in the deep recesses of the local newspaper).

Ok, I'll take your word for that. However, I disagree that if they hadn't done anything wrong, they had nothing to fear; they were arrested because they were thought to have terrorist connection, but becaus ethey had no idea of what these connections were, they'd have no idea if there was evidence or not.

As the government doesnt target muslims or arabs because they hate muslims or arabs or something ludicrous like that, if that is what you are inferring. Those who were detained were not done so just becasue they were from a specific group, they were all just suspect of having connections with terroism.

They were all Muslims, all arrested very shortly after September 11, when there would not have been nearly enough time to gather evidence against all of them. And you've admitted yourself that they weren't all guilty, while there has been no evidence presented against them.

As the government doesnt target muslims or arabs because they hate muslims or arabs or something ludicrous like that, if that is what you are inferring. Those who were detained were not done so just becasue they were from a specific group, they were all just suspect of having connections with terroism.

That wouldn't make it right.

[GeneralTacticus]

Im always hearing about how the people there are being treated too poorly.

From where?

But keeping Taliban and Al Quaeda operatives imprisoned isn't contraversial. Jailing people without cause would be.

But it is controversial. Remember how all the leftists said it was against international law and the Geneva Convention?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
But it is controversial. Remember how all the leftists said it was against international law and the Geneva Convention?

This is becoming apples to oranges-ish. Not only do the camp X-Ray prisoners have evidence against them, but the contraversy there was over the conditions of the prison.

The locked up people of which we have been speaking for a while now supposedly do not have evidence against them, and the contraversy is over whether they should be locked up.

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, but my point is that the matter remains controversial, and nobody much seems to care any more.

[Drogue]

But it is controversial. Remember how all the leftists said it was against international law and the Geneva Convention?

I think that was about the conditions, and I think it is against the Geneva Convention.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Yes, but my point is that the matter remains controversial, and nobody much seems to care any more.

For something to be contraversial, don't people have to care?

[GeneralTacticus]

For something to be contraversial, don't people have to care?

Well, the controversy wasn't resolved, but the issue seems to be pretty much dead for most people, and nothing has really changed.

[Jaguar]

Hmm, we've gotten off the subject a bit, haven't we. Well this thread kind of deserves to be threadjacked, but still...

[Kramerman]

I'd like to see a single shred of evidence that they had any connections whatsoever to Al Quaeda or anyone els.e For that matter, I'd like to see some evidence that Al Quaeda did it.

Well, that was why they were arrested. There was probably little more than suspicians on alot of them, but the degree of the danger they could have posed to the US made it viable in those circumstances to detain them on so little. This was done with complete disregard to their Constitutional rights, which does make me very sad, but really, think of the scope of the situation... what if? You never did say anything about what if one of the detainees did know something of a terror plot or was a terrorist themself.

Why not detain everyone then? That way we could be sure that no-one would ever commit a crime again, coz they'd all be in jail. You need to have evidence before you can go around arresting people.

Because Intellegence and law enforcement had suspicians and perhaps even significant evidence on each of those detained. Everyone who was detained had been on FBI watch lists for some time, some since the first WTC bombing in the early 90's. The 9/11 attack was what it took to detain these people.
You do need evidence before you go around arresting people. And we are told that there was evidence, it just wasnt being disclosed (which is against the ruling of the Miranda v Arizona Supreme COurt case, which made it mandatory for all those being arrested to be aware of their rights and what charges they are being arrested for). Now this does sound suspicious, but, in my eyes, this is the lesser of two evils... the 'what if' one was a serious threat comes into play...

The stage of arresting people based on race out of paranoia.

but no one is being arrested based on race. they are being arrested on very thin suspicions of terrorist connections, which under the circumstances, is enough. It is technically unconstitutional as far as how the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in cases past, but since the Supreme Court has done nothing to stop it, I suppose they warrant the circumstances, as I do, as justifiable in detaing these people as they were.

They were all Muslims, all arrested very shortly after September 11, when there would not have been nearly enough time to gather evidence against all of them. And you've admitted yourself that they weren't all guilty, while there has been no evidence presented against them.

evidence wasnt gathered against them after 9/11. They had all been suspect for sometime, some for as long as a decade or more.

That wouldn't make it right.

no it wouldnt, but you must understand it is the lesser of two evils.

From where?

BBC World News is the best! It comes on Public Broadcasting Station here. I love their accents... and they give a slightly different perspective than the typical US CNN, NBC, FOX, and other news sources, that I also watch on occasion. But BBC is where i hear all the stuff about the prisoners at camp x-ray, though, admittedly, I havent had time to watch in in more than a month, so I havent heard anythign since then.

Kman

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, that was why they were arrested. There was probably little more than suspicians on alot of them, but the degree of the danger they could have posed to the US made it viable in those circumstances to detain them on so little. This was done with complete disregard to their Constitutional rights, which does make me very sad, but really, think of the scope of the situation... what if? You never did say anything about what if one of the detainees did know something of a terror plot or was a terrorist themself.

I don't consider 'thin suspicions' to be enough to arrest someone on. If you think they actually do have terrorist connections, then you obviously have something more than that; if you don't, you have no business arresting them.

Because Intellegence and law enforcement had suspicians and perhaps even significant evidence on each of those detained. Everyone who was detained had been on FBI watch lists for some time, some since the first WTC bombing in the early 90's. The 9/11 attack was what it took to detain these people.

And what about that arab doctor who you said was innocent and recently got released? If he was innocent, why was he arrested?

EDIT: And seeing as how I don't trust any agency in the US government as far as I could throw them, 'possibly significant evidence' isn't enough for me.

You do need evidence before you go around arresting people. And we are told that there was evidence, it just wasnt being disclosed

Which I consider more than a little supsicious, as I don't see why it would be a breach of security to disclose the evidence.

(which is against the ruling of the Miranda v Arizona Supreme COurt case, which made it mandatory for all those being arrested to be aware of their rights and what charges they are being arrested for).

So, IOW, the US government has acted illegally. How nice.

Now this does sound suspicious, but, in my eyes, this is the lesser of two evils...

The law doesn't cease to apply because people are scared. IF there was evidence, fine, let's see it and I'll shut up.

the 'what if' one was a serious threat comes into play...

But what would this 'what if' one be? Just remember, we haven't even seen any proof that OBL was behind September 11, have we? There's no evidence as to who really did it.

but no one is being arrested based on race. they are being arrested on very thin suspicions of terrorist connections, which under the circumstances, is enough.

Which is the same as arresting people based on paranoia. Considering some of stuff I've been reading, and posted here recently, I could probably qualify as having 'thin suspicions of terrorist connections'.

It is technically unconstitutional as far as how the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in cases past, but since the Supreme Court has done nothing to stop it, I suppose they warrant the circumstances, as I do, as justifiable in detaing these people as they were.

They may see it that way, but that doesn't make them right. They are supposed to be above panicking in situations like this, and try to return some reason to the discussion.

evidence wasnt gathered against them after 9/11. They had all been suspect for sometime, some for as long as a decade or more.

Then why weren't they arrested then?

no it wouldnt, but you must understand it is the lesser of two evils.

Compared to what? If you went around arresting people because you felt that it would nbe better to keep them in custody for a while than to risk them committing a crime, then you coudl arrest damn near everybody.

BBC World News is the best! It comes on Public Broadcasting Station here. I love their accents... and they give a slightly different perspective than the typical US CNN, NBC, FOX, and other news sources, that I also watch on occasion. But BBC is where i hear all the stuff about the prisoners at camp x-ray, though, admittedly, I havent had time to watch in in more than a month, so I havent heard anythign since then.

I haven't watched it at all, so I have no idea what they broadcast.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


What happened to the rights of those 1000+ Muslim-Ameircans who were arrested after September 11 and haven't been heard from since?

First of all, calling them Muslim americans is misleading, since they weren't US citizens (except for Jose Padilla, who has recently been allowed lawyers). However, of those that were detained, some were convicted, some were deported and some were released - only 6 are still being held by the government.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

And what about that arab doctor who you said was innocent and recently got released? If he was innocent, why was he arrested?

That's what a trial is for. If the police only ever arrested guilty people, there would be no reason for a trial.

[GeneralTacticus]

First of all, calling them Muslim americans is misleading, since they weren't US citizens (except for Jose Padilla, who has recently been allowed lawyers). However, of those that were detained, some were convicted, some were deported and some were released - only 6 are still being held by the government.

Ok.

That's what a trial is for. If the police only ever arrested guilty people, there would be no reason for a trial.

The original reaosn for the controversy over it was that they were arrested without a trial.

[Kramerman]

And what about that arab doctor who you said was innocent and recently got released? If he was innocent, why was he arrested?

heh, dude, inocent people are arrested everyday. They have evidence that links them to something, but in the end it turns out that they are innocent, and then they are released.

EDIT: And seeing as how I don't trust any agency in the US government as far as I could throw them, 'possibly significant evidence' isn't enough for me.

Why do you have such distrust? Do you know how many watchdog groups are out there that keeps their eye on the various bureaucracies moves? Not to mention the press, who are ravenous when it comes to political and government scandal. Talking about paranoia, dont get me started on conspiracy theorists...

So, IOW, the US government has acted illegally. How nice.

no, they have only acted in violation of a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution from the late 1960s. But since the Supreme court has done nothing about this, one can assume they feel that the court ruling doesnt apply in this case, such as the Freedom of Speech doesnt apply everytime, it has limits.

[GeneralTacticus]

heh, dude, inocent people are arrested everyday. They have evidence that links them to something, but in the end it turns out that they are innocent, and then they are released.

Point taken.

Why do you have such distrust? Do you know how many watchdog groups are out there that keeps their eye on the various bureaucracies moves? Not to mention the press, who are ravenous when it comes to political and government scandal. Talking about paranoia, dont get me started on conspiracy theorists...

Because there are many, many things that don't get mentioned in the press and which the government lies about. Do you know anything about what happened in El Salvador? Or Guatemala? OR Nicaragua? Or Cambodia? Or Iraq? The US government has either suppported or directly committed atrocities all over the world, and this gets no mention whatsoever in the media. I think that;s reason enough not to trust them.

no, they have only acted in violation of a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution from the late 1960s. But since the Supreme court has done nothing about this, one can assume they feel that the court ruling doesnt apply in this case, such as the Freedom of Speech doesnt apply everytime, it has limits.

But where's the justification? If there was a valid reason why informing them of the evidence against them would be a bad idea, ok, but what was it?

[Kramerman]

But what would this 'what if' one be? Just remember, we haven't even seen any proof that OBL was behind September 11, have we? There's no evidence as to who really did it.

The what if is what if one of the detainees knew of a terrorist plot. You still have said nothing about that. You can read more in my earlier posts about those consequences.

Heh, and I think the video clip of OBL saying how the 9/11 attack was more than he could ever have hoped for, and was much more successfulk than he thought would happen is plenty of evidence for me, let alone all the various other things that link Al Quida and OBL to 9/11. I am very surprised to still see people denying this fact.

Which is the same as arresting people based on paranoia. Considering some of stuff I've been reading, and posted here recently, I could probably qualify as having 'thin suspicions of terrorist connections'

Yes, im sure the FBI, with its infinite resources and man power, has all the time in the world to keep files and tabs on everyone who is slightly suspicious. These people must have had significant reason to be on FBI watch.

They may see it that way, but that doesn't make them right. They are supposed to be above panicking in situations like this, and try to return some reason to the discussion.

the supreme court isnt panicking at all. It is their job to interpret the COnstitution and how it applies to circumstances. In this circumstance, of clear and present danger, they do not see anything wrong with the governemnts actions.

Then why weren't they arrested then?

LOL, becasue before there was 9/11, their arrest for what little evidence in hand would of sent up an uproar. But in clear and present danger, they could be arrested. If you have knowledge of the inner workings of the US Constitution and how it applies to law, you would understand this.

Compared to what? If you went around arresting people because you felt that it would nbe better to keep them in custody for a while than to risk them committing a crime, then you coudl arrest damn near everybody.

Listen to yourself. The reason not nearly everyone ios arrested is because their is a big differnce between stealing a loaf of bread, and killing 3000 people and destroying billions in commercial infrastructure. And the risk of most stealing some bread is significantly less than the risk of these 1000 men who may have or known someone who may have been a terrorist.

Law is not an exact science. Like many religions, it is based on inerpretaions, and must be applied differently depending on the degree of the situation.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus The original reaosn for the controversy over it was that they were arrested without a trial.

Obviously there was some sort of system to verify that the man was innocent - since he was released. And that, I think, is the most important part.

I know not the details of the case, however, or what nationality the doctor was (though I'd guess he wasn't an american citizen). However, the police do have the power to detain people, even citizens, for a certain period of time. And the police do have the power to detain someone (for question, whatever). In the case of citizens, it's something like a day or two, in the case of illegal immigrants, it was something like 6 months - and that was before 9/11.

During wartime, IIRC, the courts ruled during WW2 that the government could detain people without trials for longer periods of time (though, IIRC, not indefinately) - indeed, a number of foreign spies, as well as one or two american citizens working for Germany were detained that way (though, IIRC, one of them testified against the others shortly afterwards).

Now, personally, I don't think that citizens should be held indefinatly without being charged or have access to lawyers, and I don't think that non-citizens should be held without some sort of check by the Judicial branch to make sure the power isn't being abused, and that those detained for no reason or a bad reason get released - fortunatly, it appears that there is some sort of check, and, while I am still a little angry about the Padilla situation, he has been given access to his lawyer, which is a step in the right direction.

Edit (wanted to add some remarks) IMO, the initial government reaction to detain people was shortsighted, premature, and largely due to their not knowing what they were doing in response to what was a very clear and present danger. They've since improved - maybe not enough, but slowly they are learning and edging towards making less stupid reactions. (at least, I hope so)

[GeneralTacticus]

The what if is what if one of the detainees knew of a terrorist plot. You still have said nothing about that. You can read more in my earlier posts about those consequences.

But is there any reason to think they knew anything about a terrorist plot? Suspicion isn't enough for me, especially when the country has just experienced a major terrorist attack and is in a very high state of alarm.

Heh, and I think the video clip of OBL saying how the 9/11 attack was more than he could ever have hoped for, and was much more successfulk than he thought would happen is plenty of evidence for me, let alone all the various other things that link Al Quida and OBL to 9/11. I am very surprised to still see people denying this fact.

These other things being? And fro what I've read, there are significant doubts about the validity of that tape, and of the translation.

Yes, im sure the FBI, with its infinite resources and man power, has all the time in the world to keep files and tabs on everyone who is slightly suspicious. These people must have had significant reason to be on FBI watch.

Yes, and until I know what those reasons are, I remain suspicious. The US government has lost any claim to be blieved on it's word.

the supreme court isnt panicking at all. It is their job to interpret the COnstitution and how it applies to circumstances. In this circumstance, of clear and present danger, they do not see anything wrong with the governemnts actions.

But how, exactly, did these suspects pose a clear and present danger? Something else did, but what did they have to do with that?

LOL, becasue before there was 9/11, their arrest for what little evidence in hand would of sent up an uproar. But in clear and present danger, they could be arrested. If you have knowledge of the inner workings of the US Constitution and how it applies to law, you would understand this.

So, IOW, they cashed in on the general panic to do what they couldn't have otherwise?

Listen to yourself. The reason not nearly everyone ios arrested is because their is a big differnce between stealing a loaf of bread, and killing 3000 people and destroying billions in commercial infrastructure. And the risk of most stealing some bread is significantly less than the risk of these 1000 men who may have or known someone who may have been a terrorist.

You still haven't explained what connection those suspects had to 9/11, other than 'the FBI said they did'. That isn't enough.

Law is not an exact science. Like many religions, it is based on inerpretaions, and must be applied differently depending on the degree of the situation.

True enough.