Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 i don't know what exactly is going on at gitmo, but i guaren-fuckin-tee that it is nothing like nazi germany or a russian gulags... dick durban is a disgrace to america... [url="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/"]click here[/url] [quote]BY JAMES TARANTO Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:11 p.m. EDT [b]Durbin Supports the Troops[/b] BY JAMES TARANTO Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:11 p.m. EDT Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, took the Senate floor yesterday and likened American servicemen to Nazis (link in PDF): [i]When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]--I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report: On a couple of occasions, [b]I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.[/b] If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, [b]you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings.[/b] Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.[/i] We are fighting an enemy that murdered 3,000 innocent people on American soil 3 1/2 years ago and would murder millions more if given the chance--and according to Dick Durbin, our soldiers are the Nazis.[/quote] my problem is this is a senator... this isn't some fat film maker or someone w/out credibility... this is a senator that is totally retarted when it comes to history... he mentioned these as the "gulag-like" torchering techniques: -chained in a fetal position w/ no food; water -air conditioner turned up, making room cold -air conditioner turned down, making room hot -detainee tore his hair out -loud rap music lets not be pussies here... if we can't do these techniques, what can we do? these tactics are not torture... nothing here is causing deaths or ever real torture... mor of annoyances... we can't tell the gov't on one hand, that you can't do anything to get information, and on the other hand, that its your fault that our intellegence sucks... we can't get information through rewards and gaining respect from those fucks at gitmo... we have to get it through LEGAL interregation and i see nothing wrong w/ the above accusations... the next problem is he doesn't see anything wrong w/ these remarks: [url="http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3480381"]click here[/url] [quote]CHICAGO Illinois Senator Dick Durbin says he won't apologize for comments comparing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis and Soviet gulags. News of the Democrat's comparison created a buzz around the Internet today, fueled by sound bites of yesterday's Senate floor speech on radio talk shows. By this afternoon, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna asked Durbin to apologize. Durbin says the Bush administration should apologize for abandoning the Geneva Conventions. Human-rights activist groups and some lawmakers -- mostly Democrats -- want Bush to close the prison. But administration officials say some of the people who have been detained at Guantanamo later return to fight against the United States. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Chill out. Stop rationalizing inhumane behavior. If you did a little research you'd find that it's possible to gather intelligence without making people piss and shit all over themselves. If you think it's okay to get down into the gutter just because other folks do it, okay. But don't get all offended if some folks disagree with that. Some of you folks couldn't find your own ass with both hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 what?!? what is wrong w/ changing the temperature, chaining them up, or making them listening to rap music??? imo, these are the tactics that are not torcher... what am i missing?? am i the only one that thinks these tactics are a joke?? come on homer, you should konw that these tactics aren't breaking the geneva convention... you should know that this is a joke, when compared to the nazis, communists, etc... if these are extreme tactics, what tactics would be considered good tactics in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 16 2005, 11:37 AM']what?!? what is wrong w/ changing the temperature, chaining them up, or making them listening to rap music??? imo, these are the tactics that are not torcher... what am i missing?? am i the only one that thinks these tactics are a joke?? come on homer, you should konw that these tactics aren't breaking the geneva convention... you should know that this is a joke, when compared to the nazis, communists, etc... if these are extreme tactics, what tactics would be considered good tactics in your opinion? [right][post="103772"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Don`t try to confuse him with facts and common sense Rick... His hatred of the Bush Administration has obviously clouded his judgement. :roll: And he can find his ass easily...his head is stuck in it. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='oldschooler' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:41 PM']Don`t try to confuse him with facts and common sense Rick... His hatred of the Bush Administration has obviously clouded his judgement. :roll: And he can find his ass easily...his head is stuck in it. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img] [right][post="103775"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] i am amazed that anyone is sticking up for durbin on this one... if someone wants to say that they need a trial, or the people that were stacking up the prisoners, naked, and taking pictures of it, i can handle that... that shit is wrong, and i admit even these terrorists deserve to be heard in a trial... but these tactics he mentions are not even close to these... the reason he uses these examples is b/c they are the truth imo... these are the worse things that are allowed by the administration... other things are done by indiviuals and they are not only wrong, but are punished... these comments are spitting in the face of the people that were in the nazi camps and in the gulags in russia... to support it, is unbelievable to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [i][b]If we aren't going to folow the Geneva Convention then lets Repeal it and take our name off it..... I'll at least give Bush credit for knowing he wasn't going to follow the Kyoto missle Treaty Protocol and so he repealed it...... Now whether he should've is a different story but at least he got rid of something he didn't plan on following. Also once we take our name off it, lets stop citing others for volating it, we constantly point out other nations that violate it in the similar ways to us..... [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:57 PM'][i][b]If we aren't going to folow the Geneva Convention then lets Repeal it and take our name off it..... I'll at least give Bush credit for knowing he wasn't going to follow the Kyoto missle Treaty Protocol and so he repealed it...... Now whether he should've is a different story but at least he got rid of something he didn't plan on following. Also once we take our name off it, lets stop citing others for volating it, we constantly point out other nations that violate it in the similar ways to us..... [/b][/i] [right][post="103803"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] maybe i'm wrong, but are any of these "torture techniques" mentioned in this article violating the geneva convention? if they are, i'll eat my share of the crow, but i seriously doubt hot/cold temperatures, rap music, or a chaining people in a fetal position are against the convention... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Can you do me a favor rick, and please spell it like so: torture. Sorry, I hate to be English teacher here, but you keep spelling it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 16 2005, 03:27 PM'][i][b]If we aren't going to folow the Geneva Convention then lets Repeal it and take our name off it..... I'll at least give Bush credit for knowing he wasn't going to follow the Kyoto missle Treaty Protocol and so he repealed it...... Now whether he should've is a different story but at least he got rid of something he didn't plan on following. Also once we take our name off it, lets stop citing others for volating it, we constantly point out other nations that violate it in the similar ways to us..... [/b][/i] [right][post="103803"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] No BJ! We can do anything! We don't have to hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others to, we can nuke them if they object. They were probably terrorists anyways! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='steggyD' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:01 PM']Can you do me a favor rick, and please spell it like so: torture. Sorry, I hate to be English teacher here, but you keep spelling it that way. [right][post="103807"][/post][/right][/quote] my bad... english/spelling was never my strong suit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote]maybe i'm wrong, but are any of these "torcher techniques" mentioned in this article violating the geneva convention? if they are, i'll eat my share of the crow, but i seriously doubt hot/cold temperatures, rap music, or a chaining people in a fetal position are against the convention...[/quote] [b]Bengal Rick......[/b] [url="http://www.genevaconventions.org/"]http://www.genevaconventions.org/[/url] torture Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A). [u]Art. 75. Fundamental guarantees[/u] 1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. [u]Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.[/u] 2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: (i) murder; (ii) [u]torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental[/u]; (iii) corporal punishment; and (iv) mutilation; (b ) [u]outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,[/u] enforced prostitution and any form or indecent assault; © the taking of hostages; (d) collective punishments; and (e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts. 3. [u]Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken[/u]. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released [u]with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest,[/u] detention or internment have ceased to exist. 4. [u]No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following: (a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence; [/u](b ) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility; © no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account or any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby; (d) [u]anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law; [/u](e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence; (f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt; (g) [u]anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;[/u] (h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure; (i) [u]anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly[/u]; and (j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction or his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised. [u]Art. 3.[/u] In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b ) taking of hostages; © [u]outrages upon personal dignity[/u], [u]in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;[/u] (d) [u]the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.[/u] (2) [u]The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.[/u] [u]Art. 12.[/u] Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created. Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex. The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care. [color="blue"][i][b]Basically we are violating most of the fucking thing [/b][/i][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='CP1' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:09 PM']No BJ! We can do anything! We don't have to hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others to, we can nuke them if they object. They were probably terrorists anyways! [right][post="103812"][/post][/right][/quote] nobody is saying we can do anything... i am saying, whats wrong w/ these particular tactics and how do they compare to gulag or nazi germany? seriously, did you read/hear what he wrote, or just throw in your 2 cents for no specific reason?? if we held ourselves to these guys' standards, we really would have a problem... but noone wants to talk about what they do to our guys, just how the music and temperatures of these detainees... thank God/Allah/nobody that we aren't doing that... i have said that they deserve a trial... but i am more worried about our guys right now... i can wait IF it is b/c we don't want to put our guys in any harm or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Here's a line from the Geneva Convention that I find humorous. I just thought I would share this while we are on the subject. [quote]Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture.[/quote] I don't know why, it just sounds funny that they should "enjoy" anything. I barely enjoyed the time I was in the USMC, especially in boot camp. And to think that prisoners of war should get the "civil capacity" that they "enjoyed" at the time of their capture. What if we find them in a strip bar? Do we provide them with topless women during their stay in our POW camps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote]I don't know why, it just sounds funny that they should "enjoy" anything.[/quote] [i][b]Enjoy is also a synonym for experience, be granted, or have and they are refering to Civil capacity not stripping [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [url="http://www.genevaconventions.org/"]http://www.genevaconventions.org/[/url] [i][b]good site to look up any topic on the Geneva conventions The actual document is very long, expansive and contains lots of things .... but you can type in key words to search by subject [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Yeah, it is very long, and you can twist the convention around to say just about anything you want it to say. Just ask a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote]Yeah, it is very long, and you can twist the convention around to say just about anything you want it to say. Just ask a lawyer.[/quote] [i][b]Steggy..... Read the damn underlined lines, it doesn't take twisting to comprehend them, infact they repeat the same thing 3 times for even Bush to understand [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [i][b]At Gitmo they are not given their offense or charges, not allowed the Red Cross treatment they are entitled, the public isn't notified of who is there and why, they are being held indefinitley, they are humiliated, and the guards attempt Mental and phyical humiliation in violation of the above articles [/b][/i] [color="red"][b]The damn document doesn't read .... these will only apply to enemies who also follow them..... [/b][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [color="purple"][i][b]And Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Convention so they are not entitled to follow it, thus when they behead they aren't violating the Geneva Convention But the U.S. did sign the fucking thing, and thus has to agree to all of its tenets which give every human being the privileges regardless if they also afford them to U.S. personnel [/b][/i][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 so we are not allowed to interregate anyone that is mentally or physically harmful... ok, i can understand that... if someone took a bamboo stick under my fingernails, i'd would probably tell them whatever they want to hear... true or untrue... but i don't see that happening... the temperature is in between mental and physical, but it really depends on how hot or how cold they are keeping the rooms... i mean, turning the air up real high, or turning it off, just doesn't equal torture to me... the rap music might be mental abuse for some, but come on... that is a joke... i didn't think that any of these tactics would come close to violating the convention, but they are closer than i thought... reguardless, i don't think these tactics are breaking the geneva convention... i wonder how many terrorists (like zarqawi's aide today) have been caught b/c we made the terrorists listen to some rap music? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:28 PM'][color="purple"][i][b]And Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Convention so they are not entitled to follow it, thus when they behead they aren't violating the Geneva Convention But the U.S. did sign the fucking thing, and thus has to agree to all of its tenets which give every human being the privileges regardless if they also afford them to U.S. personnel [/b][/i][/color] [right][post="103826"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] i have been avoiding this like the plague, but isn't this why they added the whole part in the geneva convention that says that they have to meet certain requirements for us to follow the convention... if they didn't sign it, that would mean noone is supposed to follow it... does that mean we should not follow it... no!!! but that would be the point of adding that important part of the document it there, you know... you can't have it both ways... there was a reason for adding that in there... they cut our civilians' heads off w/ knives, but we have to give all their "soldiers" korans to appease their religious beliefs... saying this ain't fair is the understatement of the century... if you sign i contract, you can't just pick out the parts of the legal shit that you want... you have to follow all the rules, and al-queda isn't... that is why i'm confussed why you and others are worried about loud music and not the heads that are cut off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [b]It isn't only these tactics of rap music that deserve the comparisons to the Gulag.... it is the fact that we are not declaring them POW's which would afford them these rights, and instead we are calling them enemy combatants in an endless War on terror with no end, no offical enemy, and using that to justifiably hold them indefinetly forever with no charges being filed against them. That is in direct violation of the Geneva convention. 1. The Public should be Given a list of the names who is at Gitmo 2. The public should be Given the charges against them 3. Then the men themselves should be told why they are there 4. Allowed to be looked at by The Red cross to check their health 5. allowed a chance to speak to a non military judge and answer their charges 6. and not have these rediculous tactics used on them... which also violate the convention If not then just get rid of the damn thing, because Bush already has made it clear he can't read and understand it [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:46 PM'][b]It isn't only these tactics of rap music that deserve the comparisons to the Gulag.... it is the fact that we are not declaring them POW's which would afford them these rights, and instead we are calling them enemy combatants in an endless War on terror with no end, no offical enemy, and using that to justifiably hold them indefinetly forever with no charges being filed against them. That is in direct violation of the Geneva convention. 1. The Public should be Given a list of the names who is at Gitmo 2. The public should be Given the charges against them 3. Then the men themselves should be told why they are there 4. Allowed to be looked at by The Red cross to check their health 5. allowed a chance to speak to a non military judge and answer their charges 6. and not have these rediculous tactics used on them... which also violate the convention If not then just get rid of the damn thing, because Bush already has made it clear he can't read and understand it [/b] [right][post="103834"][/post][/right][/quote] i agree w/ this part, but i'm more worried about putting our soldiers in harms way, then these guys... you act like we have just locked up everyone there, and noone has been released... there have been many detainees released to their own countries, where they were either arrested when they got there, or they were officially let go... i've read that about 15 of them have either been re-picked up or killed trying to fight against us "infidels"... we are letting some go, and the people that you are so proud to be fighting for, are some of the same fucks that helped kill 3000 people on 9/11... these aren't just regular dudes we picked up b/c they looked at us wrong... these are the worst of the worst... why do you keep fighting for these guys, but not fighting for OUR guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Not saying that this is the right thing, but, our government, ever since WW2 has been writing acts, bills, and whatever else they can, to take as much control over whoever they want. Even the great Bill Clinton had a weaker version of the Patriot Act signed, right after the Oklahoma bombing. Read this: [quote]For non-citizens, the government also may detain a terrorism suspect under the lesser standards of immigration law. Such detention is potentially indefinite in the government’s view if there is no available country to which a non-citizen terrorism suspect can be deported.[5] The government may: Detain a non-citizen on charges of deportability as a terrorist. The Immigration Act provides standards for removing a person (including a long term, lawful permanent resident) who is engages in terrorist activity, which is defined more broadly for immigration purposes than for criminal purposes. INA § 237(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4). For example, giving material support to a “terrorist organization†that has not been designated as such in the Federal Register is not a crime. However, it is a ground for deportation. The government need not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather must establish deportability by clear and convincing evidence. There is mandatory detention for any person charged with deportability on terrorism grounds. The government may use the procedures of the special Alien Terrorist Removal Court to use secret evidence (classified information not disclosed to the non-citizen) in such cases, subject to certain protections. Detain a non-citizen for seven days without charge under the USA PATRIOT Act (potentially indefinitely after charges are filed). INA § 236A, 8 U.S.C. § 1226A (added by section 412 of the PATRIOT Act) gives the government the power to “certify†a non-citizen as a suspected terrorist and authorizes detention without charge for up to seven days. After the seven-day period expires, the non-citizen must be charged either with an immigration or criminal offense, but the offense does not have to be related to terrorism. Non-citizens can be indefinitely detained pursuant to this section, so long as the certification is renewed each six months. Judicial review is available by habeas corpus. Detain a non-citizen on unrelated immigration violations. The government may detain any terrorism suspect in violation of immigration status, and may use evidence of involvement of terrorism to deny release on bond or to deny discretionary relief (such as asylum). The non-citizen, not the government, bears the burden of proof to obtain release on bond or other discretionary relief in a proceeding before an immigration judge. The government may use secret evidence (classified information not disclosed to the non-citizen) in such cases, even without the protections available in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.[/quote] This is from the ACLU site, not my favorite hangout, but I do tend to agree with them on some of this new Patriot Act bullshit coming into law. Basically, these prisoners are not being held under the Geneva Convention anyways, so it is null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote]i have been avoiding this like the plague, but isn't this why they added the whole part in the geneva convention that says that they have to meet certain requirements for us to follow the convention... if they didn't sign it, that would mean noone is supposed to follow it... does that mean we should not follow it... no!!! but that would be the point of adding that important part of the document it there, you know... you can't have it both ways... there was a reason for adding that in there... they cut our civilians' heads off w/ knives, but we have to give all their "soldiers" korans to appease their religious beliefs... saying this ain't fair is the understatement of the century... if you sign i contract, you can't just pick out the parts of the legal shit that you want... you have to follow all the rules, and al-queda isn't... that is why i'm confussed why you and others are worried about loud music and not the heads that are cut off...[/quote] [i][b]Rick I am concerned about both.....EVen more about the beheading than the Gitmo, however I am not a member of Al Qaeda and I am a member of the U.S. and so I am in a better position to point out the wrong here... as for Al Qaeda not signing it that argument is absurd because they are not a nation and not even eligible to sign it. Also the Geneva convention is not there to ensure some sort of scale where you weigh your behavior against someone elses.... yes as a Nation who agreed to the Geneva convention the US is supposed to follow the terms regardless if we are fighting Satan himself, thus why even Charles Manson in Jail gets his 3 meals a day also. It isn't about picking out legal parts that they don't like.... Hell Al Qaeda doesn't follow the Convention sure they behead people...... but it is not a situation where you cna then say well our enemy isn't complying so we wont..... it is an absolute, that is why it makes it clear that "all persons" .....[/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.