Hey, Mr. President, we can't prove these Muslims are guilty!

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

Stop the lies!

The only thing I accused you of assuming was that I supported the imprisonment of these detainees in your efforts to claim I was caught in a tautology.

You claimed I implied it when that is quite clearly not the truth and you failed. The only implication in my posts to that effect was imagined. If you would read what was actually posted rather then what you are imagining we would not be arguing.

Oh No they arrested thousands.... How many muslim foreigners are there in the United States? A hell of alot more then the thousands that were arrested.

Again if they were "only" arrested because they were muslim foreigners then every single muslim foreigner would have been arrested. The reality is that there were other reasons.

They could have been because they were travelling during 9/11. It could have been because they attended mosques which were suspected of being terrorist communication centers. The reasons however valid are numerous.

The fact of the matter is that the actions taken by the government do not support your conclusion that they were "only" arrested because they were muslim foreigners.

[Relbeek Einre]

The only thing I accused you of assuming was that I supported the imprisonment of these detainees in your efforts to claim I was caught in a tautology.

You claimed I implied it when that is quite clearly not the truth and you failed.

I made no such claim. My only assumption was that when you said they had "Reasons" that you meant "Valid reasons." Which was wrong, which made your statement a tautology (because OF COURSE they put people there for reasons, DUH.)

Again if they were "only" arrested because they were muslim foreigners then every single muslim foreigner would have been arrested. The reality is that there were other reasons.

They could have been because they were travelling during 9/11. It could have been because they attended mosques which were suspected of being terrorist communication centers. The reasons however valid are numerous.

Any immigrant from particular Muslim nations with any irregularity on his or her Visa was imprisoned. (See previous remarks about "excuse".) To my knowledge, none were charged. I'm sure you'll make some semantic argument at this point. Spare me.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

It is not a tautalogy because further review of the situation shows that the oversite involved verifies that there is a compelling reason for their detention. This destroys the notion that they are just being held on the whim of some government official.

There is a large difference between they are being held because they are muslim, a captured muslim insurgent, or a captured muslim insurgent with operational data on current activities. The first is a reason but not even germane to their detainment. The second is germane to their detainment, but potentially invalid since they should be processed in normal manners. The last is a legitimate reason for national security.

So to make it abundantly clear since you are unable to refrain from assuming..

These prisoners being held do not belong to the first case. They belong to either the second or third that involves germane evidentiary requirements for their detention.

In addtion even if you want to take it literally there is no evidence of a similar preceding statement that this is a repittion of.

Any immigrant from particular Muslim nations with any irregularity on his or her Visa was imprisoned. (See previous remarks about "excuse".)

Ok lets use some basic analytical powers and determine what possible reasons they would be detained:

First of all they are foreigners from Muslim nations.

Second of all they have irregularities on their visas.

So to conclude we are left with two reasons they were detained based upon the evidence you presented. Well that certainly defeats the notion that they were only arrested since they were muslim foreigners.

[Ddrak]

The problem is twofold:

First, I believe Rsak is conflating what is alleged and what is known. As there has been no trial and there is a distinct lack of admissible evidence, the best that can be said is that many of these people are being held on alleged issues, not proven ones. Until some form of independant court has the ability to determine the evidence in an impartial matter nothing can be definitively said about their offenses or the validity of imprisonment.

The concept of "national security" is a red herring. Find a judge and lawyers that are cleared for the information that may be released. Problem solved. I believe the real issue is the executive branch doesn't want to take the chance of releasing someone who does know something but they are unable to prove it, which raises the interesting specter of the balance between personal freedoms and personal security.

Secondly, activities like holding people indefinitely without trial; using torture for interrogations; outsourcing of illegal activities to countries where it's not illegal and other similar antics greatly reduces any sort of moral credibility the US has on the world stage. If the US wants to present the superiority of the American legal system then uses these end runs around it, or the concept of a different system for citizens and non-citizens is a powerful argument for its detractors to suggest that it's all a sham and distinctly reminiscent of the corrupt dictatorships that provide different rules and different legal standards for different groups of people.


No one is arguing that terrorists should be set free. What people are arguing is the presumption of innocence and that the "right" to a fair trial should be upheld even in the face of the dangers. To turn the tables on the government - what do they have to fear from an investigation and trial if they do have good legal reasons to hold these people?

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

Rsak: "Compelling reasons" in my book = "valid reasons" which makes my original interpretation of your comments correct.

And they are wrong.

They belong to either the second or third that involves germane evidentiary requirements for their detention.

This is wrong. We don't know who they are, if they were captured in Iraq, Afghanistan or America, or why. They may well be insurgents. They may not be. My argument is that we need to find out - and taking the word of only one of the three branches of government is insufficient.

First of all they are foreigners from Muslim nations.

Second of all they have irregularities on their visas.

So to conclude we are left with two reasons they were detained based upon the evidence you presented. Well that certainly defeats the notion that they were only arrested since they were muslim foreigners.

Yet none was charged with any immigration violations. Thus my contention that it was an excuse, a pretext, nothing more.

[Narith]

To go before a military tribunal means you are being charged with a crime and that evidence has to be admissable. You are making the assumption that lack of admissable evidence means there is a complete lack of any evidence which is blatantly false. They would not be detained without evidence that the oversite can depend on.

Ok I have been scratching my head on this one, the article quotes from defense department spokes people that there is a "Lack of evidence" period, not lack of admissable evidence or anything like that, just a lack of evidence period. This means to me just what it says, not that there is evidense just not enough, or that it is just not admissable, it means there is no evidence period.

Explain to me please how you get lack of admissable evidence out of a direct quote from defense department officials that never contained the word admissable.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

You are using your definitions to determine what my comments mean and it does not work that way. I am not using "no reason" to mean valid or legitimate reasons.

Of the three cases i mentioned a general case of each would be the following:

1. Invalid reason for detention
2. Possibly valid reason for detention
3. Valid reason for detention

I contend that of those we have detained they are only in the compelling reasons category which includes 2 and 3, but not 1.

The facts of the matter is that there is legal oversight of the detainments. The Supreme Court can be invovled on this matter so to claim only one branch is involved is incorrect.

You are letting your extreme paranoia of the administration lead you to conclusions that we do not have the facts to support. In the absence of actual evidence on the individual cases we are left with the reality that housing these detainees costs quite a bit of money and they will not commit to such an undertaking without a benifit for doing so.

That benifit could be because they have proof he is a terrorist and they are getting actionable intelligence. Or it could because they suspect they are a terrorist and want to keep them from fighting against the US. One of these cases most certainly abuses the notion that invidiuals are innocent before proven guilty, but that is not what we are discussing.

Yet none was charged with any immigration violations. Thus my contention that it was an excuse, a pretext, nothing more.

And I have not stated that it was not an excuse, pretext, nothing more. My objection is your statement that they were only held because they were Muslim foreigners.

And no, pretty much being foreign and Muslim was the only reason for their detention.

To repeat if this were the case then every single muslim foreigner would have been rounded up akin to the Japanes internment camps which did not happen.

[Relbeek Einre]

So much for sparing me the semantic argument, I'll just bypass that part.

There is no legal oversight. The Administration has blocked nearly every effort from third parties, including international groups, Congress and the courts to witness anything down there. The only cases that have even been brought to the USSC involve trying to establish oversight. In short, you're dead wrong.

You're again making false assumptions about my position and my motives, but of course you'll never admit it because that would take humility. Invalid conclusions from paranoia indeed.

You also made another logical error. It is logical to conclude that they will not commit to said undertaking without BELIEVING there is a benefit to doing so, which is not to say there actually is one.

Occam's razor suggests that they are assuming (probably rightly) that a portion of those to be detained would take up arms against the US again, either as insurgents, guerillas or terrorists, and that in their minds it is better to simply be rid of all of them than take the chance or try to sort out the dangerous ones. An understandable reason, but IMHO an invalid one.

To repeat if this were the case then every single muslim foreigner would have been rounded up akin to the Japanes internment camps which did not happen.

This is also logically flawed. Even ignoring the obvious, like they'd make exceptions for those that they had reason to not abduct (diplomatic fallout, extra information, etc.), they couldn't simply abduct all of them because the action would result in an almost instant backlash and nullification. They needed a pretext. That's how it works.

[vaulos]

The interesting thing that falls out of the last part of Keebler's argument is that the US government has yet to take any action which the public by and large does not support. Most people in the post 9/11 era are willing to see foreigners locked up without trial, if it makes them feel safter. That doesn't mean it is the best course of action, of course, but it is still interesting.

As to the rest, my only real problem with the current governmental tac involving these parties is that they have yet to be allowed to challege thier status as "enemy combatants" in US court. While I don't have a particular problem with locking up foreigners, I do have a problem with locking up US citizens without trial. Thus, the only way to ensure that doesn't happen is simply to allow the court to supervise. And of course, that supervision does bring with it certain tangental affects which would no doubt please Keebler. However, it would no doubt fall far short of what he would like to see.

I believe, that this difference between Keebler and myself stems not from a difference in the concept of justice generally, but rather from what we each feels is the role of the US government. Keebler would hold up a standard of justice which I would no doubt more or less agree with, however, he would suggest that it is the role of the US government to uphold that standard when dealing with everyone in the world. I, on the other hand, would suggest that it is the role of the US government to protect the US, it's citizens, and it's interests only (though it is important to note that that often means acting in accordance with Keebler's global standard when dealing with others. However, I believe this is merely optional from the standpoint of the US government).

I would suggest that it is this central question which most of you should be arguing about, as it's import has direct implications for the more specific arguments you are making.

[Relbeek Einre]

You're not quite right about where I stand Vaulos, but I imagine I'm closer to "stick to our values abroad" than you are. I believe at minimum we must adhere to the Geneva Convention, for example.

But the remainder of your post is pretty meaty, and well said.

[Partha]

I believe at minimum we must adhere to the Geneva Convention, for example.

Seeing as how it IS 'the law of the land', and all.

[vaulos]

The problem with the Geneva rules is that they were designed for a world in which we no longer live. They do not set out rules for handling non-state actors such as we face so often around the world today. Thus, you see those in charge (and I would argue Clinton or Kerry would have done the same if it were he in the seat) changing thier interpretation of Geneva in order to account for the change in the world.

And, before you get all up in arms, keep in mind that our interpretation of the First Amendment (be it the Republican or Democratic interpretation) is FAR different than it was interpretted during the first 100 years since thier ratification. This represents a similar need to change the interpretations of our codified rules in order to deal with changes in the way the world functions.

The Geneva rules need to be updated at the least or scrapped at the most.

[Ddrak]

Which parts do you feel in particular need revision. Overall, I think they have held up quite well in the face of non-state combatants.

Dd

[vaulos]

I simply mean that the Geneva agreement does not deal with non-state actors at all. If you wish to use it when dealing with them, you must do so through construction of the language, as it is not expressly stated how to deal with them. But construction is not the intended use of Geneva. Geneva was suppose to give us firm direction on what was "right and wrong" so far as rules of war were concerned. When Geneva does not speak to a new aspect of war, it needs to be updated. And of course, that update needs to be another negociated settlement between all involved countries, as was the first.

But no one wants to reexamine these rules. They are perhaps too worried about what the changes would look like. Worried perhaps that the result would be more pragmatic than ideological.

PS- You've seen the Bush administration's current construction of the language of Geneva. Do I really need to go into why not being specific is a bad idea?

[Ddrak]

The GC does deal with non-state actors in considerable depth, both non-coms and combatant ones. I believe (disclaimer: IANAL) that the current administration's interpretation is simply a clear case of deliberate misreading to attain a predefined goal.

The intent of the GC seems pretty clear to me - noncoms are to be protected where possible and combatant non-state actors are to be detained if possible until the cessation of hostilities where they are to be tried in the country of origin as criminals. Maybe the language could be "tightened up" but I really don't think it's all that obscure and honestly when it comes to agreements of that nature I'd prefer to keep what we have than throw it open for every country to fight over their own agendas.

Dd

[Partha]

The problem with the Geneva rules is that they were designed for a world in which we no longer live.

I'm sorry, this is not true. Do you honestly believe that there was no such thing as an 'insurgent' prior to 9/11, or people who could have been labeled 'unlawful combatants'? I'll point you to the historical example of the various battalions that supported the Republicans in Spain in their Civil War.

Even IF, and I say IF, the people being held do not deserve protection under Article 4 of the third Geneva convention (this is the current neocon talking point), they still were entitled to protection under Article 5.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

As the administration has noted, these men have not gone before a tribunal, nor may they ever go before a tribunal.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

The USSC has stated they are open to hearing cases on the Gitmo detainees, however each case will have to meet the requirments of a valid legal case. Compound this with the fact that the SC has the power to enforce changes if they are presented with a case and feel it is necessary.

You're again making false assumptions about my position and my motives

That is funny you have yet to show one example where I have done so while I have shown and you have admitted you made assumptions about my position.

[quote"]You also made another logical error. It is logical to conclude that they will not commit to said undertaking without BELIEVING there is a benefit to doing so, which is not to say there actually is one. [/quote]

No such error occured. If you would read what is posted you would avoid these errors.

[quote="Rsak"Or it could because they suspect they are a terrorist and want to keep them from fighting against the US. [/quote]

I specifically mentioned the case where the benifit is suspected. Those benifits may be imagined, but it still supports the conclusion despite your inavlid conclusion of the existance of logical errors.

And since you mentioned Occam's Razor would it not also suggest that every one of these detainees is most being held for valid reasons. Potentially ones that may not lead to charges being filed, but valid for their detainment!

This is also logically flawed. Even ignoring the obvious, like they'd make exceptions for those that they had reason to not abduct (diplomatic fallout, extra information, etc.), they couldn't simply abduct all of them because the action would result in an almost instant backlash and nullification. They needed a pretext. That's how it works.

No the flawed logic is on your side of the argument here. If the "only reason" they were arrested was because they were muslim foreigners then that means that the government thought that being a muslim foreigner was a large enough risk to the country that they should be questioned and detained. But this did not happen even accounting for exceptions being made. The number of muslim foreigners in the country compared to the number that were detained just does not support your conlusion that they were only arrested since they were muslim foreigners.

This leads us to the simle conclusion that they did not do a single factor profiling. They looked at other factors such as problems on Visas, travelers during 9/11 time period, association with suspected terrorist sympathizers, etc.. etc..

You have been unable to show one example of where someone was arrested and the fact that they were a muslim foreigner was the "only reason". You made that claim and you are completely and utterly unable to support it. Send your condemnations of flawed logic elsewhere while you actually find some evidence to support your baseless assertion.

[Relbeek Einre]

....

*rereads*

Yep.

Backpedal, absurd Occam's Razor assertion, logical convolutions.

Vintage Rsak.

No point in continuing. You've stopped listening.

[Partha]

You assume he started.

[Relbeek Einre]

I am the eternal optimist.

Next post Rsak will declare victory. Of course his own defeat is something he'll never acknowledge.