At 20 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Let us say then, for the sake of argument, that a person is captured and detained at Guantanamo or some other black site and is kept there for years and years without a trial because he is suspected of being a terrorist, but in reality he is completely innocent. In other words, this individual is being detained for something he absolutely did not do, but he has been given no opportunity to prove this. Do you view this situation as an acceptable loss of freedom?

This is always a tough balancing act. At its basest theme it's a question of safety v. mistakes. In the regular criminal sense I am very much against this. However, as I alluded to before, the world involving terrorism is very different. In a criminal case, at the VERY worst, if a person is not stopped for the purpose of ensuring no innocents are imprisoned, a few people might die voer a long period. When it comes to terrorism, such a move could result in numerous incidents where the death toll is well above 10, and with the higher ups, up into the 100s. Due to the pure numbers and the terror involved, the side of prevention is much heavier than in the civilian sense.

The situation you told me does rub me the wrong way. However, knowing what's at stake, I am at least able to accept it as a nessecary evil.

I also trust that in the vast majority of the cases the government has enough evidence to make the right decision. The reason we hear about the mistakes is because, by the very nature of the indefinite detention, they become quite high profile events.

So, I would say a 95% correct rate for the imprisonment is within doable standards based on the nature of the beast. Would I like it that 100% were actually guilty and prevention was air tight? Hell yes, but I can't have my cake and eat it too.

At 24 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: This is always a tough balancing act. At its basest theme it's a question of safety v. mistakes. In the regular criminal sense I am very much against this. However, as I alluded to before, the world involving terrorism is very different. In a criminal case, at the VERY worst, if a person is not stopped for the purpose of ensuring no innocents are imprisoned, a few people might die voer a long period. When it comes to terrorism, such a move could result in numerous incidents where the death toll is well above 10, and with the higher ups, up into the 100s. Due to the pure numbers and the terror involved, the side of prevention is much heavier than in the civilian sense.

The situation you told me does rub me the wrong way. However, knowing what's at stake, I am at least able to accept it as a nessecary evil.

Then I am happy to say that you and I are in complete and utter disagreement. Any society that would give up liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both. I would not presume to have the authority to take away one person's liberty unless I could determain beyond a reasonable doubt that he deserves to have it taken away, and the severity of the crime that person is accused of should have little to do with making that determination.

A person being wrongly accused and detained without the possibility of a fair trial is just as much of a tragedy as a terrorist attack, not just because of the loss of freedom suffered by the innocent person being detained, but mostly because of the loss of the ideals that are supposed to be the pillar that the entire free world rests upon.

If you're only willing to live up to your ideals when it's easy, and not when it's hard, then they aren't really ideals, they're just suggestions.

I also trust that in the vast majority of the cases the government has enough evidence to make the right decision. The reason we hear about the mistakes is because, by the very nature of the indefinite detention, they become quite high profile events.

Then you possess a much greater trust in authority than I do, friend.

At 7 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Then I am happy to say that you and I are in complete and utter disagreement. Any society that would give up liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both.

Yes, so said the man who owned slaves. I guess giving up liberty was only bad when he had to do it...

I would not presume to have the authority to take away one person's liberty unless I could determain beyond a reasonable doubt that he deserves to have it taken away, and the severity of the crime that person is accused of should have little to do with making that determination.

This isn't a civil liberties issue. These are foreigners who have declared open war upon the United States. Not only do foreigners not have a right to our civil liberties, when someone takes up arms against the US, it is forfiet. I will point out what the issue here truly is at the end of this post.

A person being wrongly accused and detained without the possibility of a fair trial is just as much of a tragedy as a terrorist attack, not just because of the loss of freedom suffered by the innocent person being detained, but mostly because of the loss of the ideals that are supposed to be the pillar that the entire free world rests upon.

Not it's not even close to as much of a tragedy. Yeah, it's bad. It is a failure of the system and a stain on the high road we claim to take. Civilians being targetted for the mere fact that they are civilians is tragic on many more levels than just a philosophical one.

I suggest you take a closer look at that pillar, namely the foundation of that pillar. I can guarantee you that an alarmingly high amount of our freedom complex was built upon the subjugation, oppression, and deprivation of others.

If you're only willing to live up to your ideals when it's easy, and not when it's hard, then they aren't really ideals, they're just suggestions.

I think the system should be changed. Do I think the Guantanimo Bay folks should be sent through the Domestic Court system? Absolutely not. I think the military tribunals are well equipped enough to handle these case whilst having an evidence code better geared toward anti-terrorism style policing, as well as the ability to hear classified material without the fear that it will become public. Why this hasn't happened, I don't know.

Then you possess a much greater trust in authority than I do, friend.

This is the crux of the issue. It's not about liberty and freedoms. The freedoms lost in this pale in comparison to many other judicial issues that we are completely fine with (like detention after and arrest and before trial). The liberty and freedoms argument is nothing other than a weak attempt to claim the high road.

All it boils down to is: Do you trust the government to judiciously use this power only on those they have substantial evidence (not judicial evidence, but coloquial evidence) against.

If only the real world were as rosy as the moral high philosophy painted it to be.

At 4 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

This isn't a civil liberties issue. These are foreigners who have declared open war upon the United States. Not only do foreigners not have a right to our civil liberties, when someone takes up arms against the US, it is forfiet. I will point out what the issue here truly is at the end of this post.

If they're innocent, then they haven't really done anything to the good ol' USA, have they?
And it isn't your petty civil liberties people are worried about, it's humane liberty. Something American politicans don't quite understand.

I think the system should be changed. Do I think the Guantanimo Bay folks should be sent through the Domestic Court system? Absolutely not. I think the military tribunals are well equipped enough to handle these case whilst having an evidence code better geared toward anti-terrorism style policing, as well as the ability to hear classified material without the fear that it will become public. Why this hasn't happened, I don't know.

You see, the problem with Guantanimo Bay is that an alarming rate of the people imprisoned there are actually thought of to be innocent civilians, and if that is the case, which is most likely is, then what is going on in that prison camp over there is pretty much illegal.

This is the crux of the issue. It's not about liberty and freedoms. The freedoms lost in this pale in comparison to many other judicial issues that we are completely fine with (like detention after and arrest and before trial). The liberty and freedoms argument is nothing other than a weak attempt to claim the high road.

I don't get a word, but once again, American policy does not control 'liberty' nor 'freedom', so don't even think of trying to imply that somewhere.

At 1 minute ago, ClickToPlay wrote: If they're innocent, then they haven't really done anything to the good ol' USA, have they?

Nope. Then again, who's determining whether these people are innocent? What information do they have that is better than the information the professionals have?

And it isn't your petty civil liberties people are worried about, it's humane liberty. Something American politicans don't quite understand.

Yes, like the right to live. And the right to live without fear. You seem to think the needs of the few far outweigh the needs of the many, and not just the somewhat many, a very large many.

You see, the problem with Guantanimo Bay is that an alarming rate of the people imprisoned there are actually thought of to be innocent civilians,

Source that claim.

I don't get a word, but once again, American policy does not control 'liberty' nor 'freedom', so don't even think of trying to imply that somewhere.

I never did imply that. The American policy in question is a long thought out 'lesser of two evils' approach. It's nowhere near perfect, but then again, neither are the alternatives.

At 8 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

Nope. Then again, who's determining whether these people are innocent? What information do they have that is better than the information the professionals have?

If you think they're professionals, then my argument with this case is done, nothing I can do about it.

Yes, like the right to live. And the right to live without fear. You seem to think the needs of the few far outweigh the needs of the many, and not just the somewhat many, a very large many.

So the solution is to choose, I see.

Source that claim.

"*About 20 juveniles, including a 14-year old boy have been held at Guantanamo. Several pensioners, including an 89 year old with serious health problems were incarcerated."
Guardian.co.uk
Fox News
Telegraph.co.uk

And all of those are mainstream sources, so you don't call me a conspiracy theorist.

I never did imply that. The American policy in question is a long thought out 'lesser of two evils' approach. It's nowhere near perfect, but then again, neither are the alternatives.

Lesser of two evils approach??
There is already a name for governmental approach, it's called the mob. Simple.
Legal Mafia.

At 9 minutes ago, ClickToPlay wrote: If you think they're professionals, then my argument with this case is done, nothing I can do about it.

Professional intelligence gatherers, which more than I can say for any of the outspoken critics.

So the solution is to choose, I see.

Instruct me otherwise.

Lesser of two evils approach??
There is already a name for governmental approach, it's called the mob. Simple.
Legal Mafia.

Oh, do explain this colorful reference.

At 17 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: Yes, so said the man who owned slaves. I guess giving up liberty was only bad when he had to do it...

So said I. The hypocrisy of the person who originally said it notwithstanding, the power of a statement such as this cannot be denied. If I may call your attention to the quote in my signature; it was said by a man who has nothing but fear of the future, and seemingly no interest in taking a part in shaping it, but they are words to live by, nevertheless.

This isn't a civil liberties issue. These are foreigners who have declared open war upon the United States. Not only do foreigners not have a right to our civil liberties, when someone takes up arms against the US, it is forfiet.

"Our" civil liberties? As in, only Americans deserve civil liberties?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

All men. Not just all Americans.

And how do you KNOW that a person has "declared open war upon the United States" and "taken up arms against the US" when there hasn't been a trial where evidence can be submitted and examined? You just have to trust that the government knows what it's doing? That isn't nearly good enough.

I suggest you take a closer look at that pillar, namely the foundation of that pillar. I can guarantee you that an alarmingly high amount of our freedom complex was built upon the subjugation, oppression, and deprivation of others.

While that may be true, does that mean that subjugation, oppression, and deprivation of others is ethically permissible? Does talking about the value of freedom forgive you for acting in opposition of freedom?

I think the system should be changed. Do I think the Guantanimo Bay folks should be sent through the Domestic Court system? Absolutely not. I think the military tribunals are well equipped enough to handle these case whilst having an evidence code better geared toward anti-terrorism style policing, as well as the ability to hear classified material without the fear that it will become public. Why this hasn't happened, I don't know.

I'm glad to hear you say that, but aren't you condradicting what you said earlier? These people are terrorists (allegedly), so why do they deserve a fair trial? They are foreigners; why should they have access to the civil rights and liberties set forth in YOUR legal system?

Then you possess a much greater trust in authority than I do, friend.

This is the crux of the issue. It's not about liberty and freedoms. The freedoms lost in this pale in comparison to many other judicial issues that we are completely fine with (like detention after and arrest and before trial). The liberty and freedoms argument is nothing other than a weak attempt to claim the high road.

I hope you realize how deeply cynical and un-American that sentiment is. How is the American government supposed to argue for human rights with any kind of moral authority when they themselves aren't living up to the lofty rhetoric? My thoughts turn to the two Swedish journalists in Ethiopia who were recently sentenced through a kangaroo court to 11 years in prison for allegedly supporting terrorism. Ethiopia is just protecting itself from terrorism, so are they not as justified as America is to impose lengthy sentences to individuals who they claim are guilty of supporting terrorism?

All it boils down to is: Do you trust the government to judiciously use this power only on those they have substantial evidence (not judicial evidence, but coloquial evidence) against.

No, I do not trust that at all. And there's substantial evidence that the government has not used that power in a proper fashion (thanks Wikileaks!).

At 1 hour ago, ClickToPlay wrote: You see, the problem with Guantanimo Bay is that an alarming rate of the people imprisoned there are actually thought of to be innocent civilians, and if that is the case, which is most likely is, then what is going on in that prison camp over there is pretty much illegal.

At 35 minutes ago, ClickToPlay wrote: "*About 20 juveniles, including a 14-year old boy have been held at Guantanamo. Several pensioners, including an 89 year old with serious health problems were incarcerated."
Guardian.co.uk
Fox News
Telegraph.co.uk

Since the Telegraph is the latest article and based on actual government data released on Wikileaks I'll use that one as the source for your claim. Of the all the detainees since Guantanamo Bay was opened in 2002 the vast majority have been either international terrorists or extremist foot soldiers who work for terrorists. Only 150 detainees were found innocent and they all seem to have been released within a couple years of their capture (which goes against the Fox News article which claimed that there were 240 detainees at Guantanamo Bay at the time and over 200 of them were supposedly innocent civilians). 200 of the detainees were proven to be international terrorists but there are only 180 people at Guantanamo Bay with the rest being either freed because they were innocent or released to prisons in other countries because they were extremists. It also shows that Britain cooperated with the U.S. in the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay.

At 8 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: So said I. The hypocrisy of the person who originally said it notwithstanding, the power of a statement such as this cannot be denied. If I may call your attention to the quote in my signature;

Regardless of the man, the quote doesn't apply here. We aren't giving anything up.

"Our" civil liberties? As in, only Americans deserve civil liberties?

Only Americans have the innate right to American civil liberties. The granting of these rights to foreigners is a completely permissive exercise.

And how do you KNOW that a person has "declared open war upon the United States" and "taken up arms against the US" when there hasn't been a trial where evidence can be submitted and examined? You just have to trust that the government knows what it's doing? That isn't nearly good enough.

I would like tribunals on this issue. Yet, as I said before, the nature of the issues at hand means that these trials should have certain differences from civilian trials, and in the end it would still be the government making the decision.

While that may be true, does that mean that subjugation, oppression, and deprivation of others is ethically permissible? Does talking about the value of freedom forgive you for acting in opposition of freedom?

I wasn't just speaking about the past. I am speaking about the black things that go on that very much have the end result of preserving and expanding freedom, even though the means very much lack it.

I'm glad to hear you say that, but aren't you condradicting what you said earlier? These people are terrorists (allegedly), so why do they deserve a fair trial? They are foreigners; why should they have access to the civil rights and liberties set forth in YOUR legal system?

I never said they didn't deserve a fair trial. I said the civilian courts aren't able to do these cases. I never said they shouldn't have civil liberties of the American system, just that they have no innate right to them.

I hope you realize how deeply cynical and un-American that sentiment is.

How is that Un-American?

How is the American government supposed to argue for human rights with any kind of moral authority when they themselves aren't living up to the lofty rhetoric?

How is America supposed to incapacitate dangerous terrorists when it has to follow the complex moral rules of others who are unwilling to get their hands dirty in order to ensure their freedom stays free? The countries that cry the hardest about such treatment don't make any effort to help capture and try terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if we released someone from Guantanimo who then went on to attack on eof these countries by the siz eof the shitstorm they would over the fact we released them.

Frankly, the other countries only like to bitch bitch and bitch. No matter what we do, we're wron. Damned if we do the dirty things needed for protection, damned if we take the moral high road at the cost of safety. So I say let's do our own thing and let the countries who don't like it go fuck themselves. They can take the high road while we do what is needed.

At 12 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

How is America supposed to incapacitate dangerous terrorists when it has to follow the complex moral rules of others who are unwilling to get their hands dirty in order to ensure their freedom stays free? The countries that cry the hardest about such treatment don't make any effort to help capture and try terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if we released someone from Guantanimo who then went on to attack on eof these countries by the siz eof the shitstorm they would over the fact we released them.

Two wrongs don't make a right, if a person is committing 'terrorist' action, then that doesn't, and shouldn't permit a government, nonetheless, to do the same =/.
It's quite simple.
Otherwise if your that enraged and feel like you want to do some huntin for justice, then your real concern is to do what they do, and providing that you'd have to wait for a couple more houses and lives to be lost, you can then arm yourself with weapons financed from the 4 corners of the globe, and commit your on 'terrorist' actions against terrorists, and done deal. No legal concerns needed, no laws mandated, no public disapproval to slow your course.

Frankly, the other countries only like to bitch bitch and bitch. No matter what we do, we're wron. Damned if we do the dirty things needed for protection, damned if we take the moral high road at the cost of safety. So I say let's do our own thing and let the countries who don't like it go fuck themselves. They can take the high road while we do what is needed.

This is why I tell myself it is a mistake to try and reason, or explain.
You're typical American media scum.

At 9 hours ago, ClickToPlay wrote: This is why I tell myself it is a mistake to try and reason, or explain.
You're typical American media scum.

And this is why this debate is over. Instead of addressing real points you delve into garbage like this.

If you are unwilling to actually engage, I suggest you stay out. Take a lesson from Hatter. He will disagree until the sun goes down, but he will always make an attempt to debate instead of just classifying as "you don't agree with me, so you = dismissed."

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote: I am pretty sure our government is smart enough to realize that the information recieved through 'alternative interrogation techniques' is rarely good to begin with.

I think this depends on who we're interrogating. In Iraq it hurt us b/c when we broke someone often times the dude didn't really know anything and he spilled the beans on a guy who kicked his dog. Thus we go get that guy and he spills the beans on some dude who shot his cat and it turns into a viscious cycle.

Now if we get one of the ringleaders who is worthy of accomadations at GitMo...we'll probably get actionable intelligence.