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

[Relbeek Einre]

The Mandarins survived the Mongols without wiping them out.

[Rsak]

To say that there are hundred being held without enough evidence to charge is most likely a fabrication of the truth.

A more accurate statement would be there is not enough admissable evidence to charge them with. The reason the evidence is not admissable would range from tactics it was obtained (by the US or allies) to matters of national security.

The fact of the matter is that they are not being held for no reason.

[Riggen]

This is the possibility I was thinking of when I asked my question about evidence gleaned from torture.

[Relbeek Einre]

The fact of the matter is that they are not being held for no reason.

This does not mean they are being held for legitimate reasons, let alone reasons that warrant a life in prison without trial.

[Rsak]

And did I say such a thing Relbeek?

Do not confuse my actions in pointing out problems with the article at hand with support for what the article is speaking against!

[Lord Holervabeese]

[quote="superwalrus] Only people that have done something wrong should be worried.

Walrus[/quote]

I hear that said a lot about our good ole Patriot Act and the way we are just locking people up overseas that look like they may possibly have some kind of connection to anything at all. All human beings are equal and have the right to due process before imprisoning them for life. And furthermore, what I have quoted up there is like saying that the government should be able to put up cameras all over my home and that I shouldn't object because "I'm doing nothing wrong."

[vaulos]

I would imagine that in most (if not all) these cases, there is enough evidence for a Grand Jury, but not enough to convict anyone.

[Relbeek Einre]

If you were implying no such thing, Rsak, then your statement is a tautology.

[Rsak]

Wrong once again Relbeek

Pointing out a twisting of the truth in the defense of clarity and proper reporting in no way supports the imprisonment of these men.

Whether I support it or not is unknown since i have not stated a position as of yet, but do not let that stop you from your assumptions.

[Relbeek Einre]

You pointed out no such thing, and I assumed no such thing.

[Rsak]

Give it up Relbeek, even you can read between the lines of the article.

The facts of the matter is despite the implication from the article that there is zero oversite on the detainment of these individuals there does not exist the capability for our government to at a whim take someone off the street and hold them indefinitely without having to answer to someone. There is oversite in place that is used to make sure there is enough evidence to merit such a detainment.

The key here is that the rules about what evidence applies is different from what is required to charge an individual or even hold them for life.

For example there were a number of militants captured in Afganistan which could not be charged for matters of national security but since have been released as the time of their detainment lessened that security risk until it was no longer a valid reason for detention.

The writer of the article then twists the truth by claiming that not enough evidence exists to charge the inviduals despite the evidentiary requirements for detainment being met. It also ignores the fact that there is evidence that may not be admissable in a court due to the way it was obtained or for national security reasons.

Despite all of these facts there exists the possiblity that the government organizations are abusing the system and that the reasons they are holding these individuals are not legitimate ones. I can neither make a determination of legimitacy without looking at the facts of each case in question or suggest that anyone else on this board could as well.

The only facts that I can assert is the following:
1) These individuals are not being held for no reason.
2) There is govenrmental oversite for each detainee.
3) There is evidence in the governments possession which is not admissable in court if these detainees were charged.

When you take into account all of these facts with the article in question you actually have a fair and balanced report on the situation rather then a biased article that lets the anti administration individuals jump to conclusions rather then actually looking at the evidence.

Amazing how you used the same process you used in reading the article to form a conclusion and how you read my statements and made numerous assumptions about my position which at this point continues to not exist.

[Partha]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ity_usa_dc

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the Washington Post.

The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share, the newspaper said.

"It would be modeled on a U.S. prison and would allow socializing among inmates," the paper said.

Italics mine.

[Rsak]

Why did you add the italics?

It offers no new information or contradicts anything that I posted.

[Partha]

The only facts that I can assert is the following:
1) These individuals are not being held for no reason.
2) There is govenrmental oversite for each detainee.
3) There is evidence in the governments possession which is not admissable in court if these detainees were charged.

[Rsak]

Partha,

I know this may come as a shock to you since you are having trouble reading but I will spell it out just for you.

The court in which the evidence is not admissable would include our domestic courts as well as military courts such as a military tribunal.

Again I point out that nothing in your italics emphasized section is in debate or conflict.

[Partha]

Lack != not admissible. Perhaps you missed that class.

[Rsak]

Partha,

Could you learn to read and follow along? This was covered 6 posts ago.

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.

Also do not make the assumption that I am saying there is evidence for every case which is not admissable. I have only asserted that there is evidence out there.

This and for other reasons is why I withhold judgement on the legitimacy.

[Relbeek Einre]

Rsak, you are the one making assumptions, not me.

My position is thus: There needs to be oversight by more than one branch of government. I believe the article's thrust is the same. I agree there is governmental oversight, but I don't trust the Bush administration to deal with the detention of these prisoners humanely or appropriately because the Bush administration has failed to do so in the past. Either Congress or the Judiciary needs to be involved. Checks and balances.

It is also a fact that meny at least FORMERLY held in Gitmo were completely innocent, and the only "reason" for their detention was being a muslim foreigner in America.

While technically that is not "no reason", it's no reason for all practical purposes as far as I'm concerned.

Your third "fact" - that the US definitely has evidence against these detainees which is inadmissible - is an assumption, not a fact. While I think it's probable (not definite) that the US has that kind of evidence against -some- of these detainees, I find it highly unlikely that it does against all of them.

So you're basically wrong about my position, about my alleged assumptions of your position, and about your own asserted facts.

[Rsak]

Relbeek get over yourself.

Not once have I tried to claim I know what your position is nor now that you have made such a position do I find anything particulary wrong with it. It is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

You are deluding yourself if you think that the "only" reason those individuals were detained was due to the fact they were muslims. If that were the case every single muslim foreigner in our country would have been detained which is not the case.

And no I am not making assumptions about the fact that there is evidence that is not admissable. It is fact that we have captured terrorists or received terrorists who have spent time in nations wherre anti-torture laws do not exist. We also use technics which may be described as torture by some on this board while not technically metting the legal definition. The government has stated on multiple times that these suspects are held for national security reasons. This is why they are being denied access to lawyers.

So to sum it all up I am basically and actually neutral on your position since I have made no comments one way or the other, consitently offering information that corrects the flaws in the article without supporting life time imprisonment of these detainees, and correct on the facts I have asserted.

Twist all you want but it will not change.

[Relbeek Einre]

You are not neutral on my position because you have accused me of making assumptions I didn't make, and refuse to acknowledge that.

And no, pretty much being foreign and Muslim was the only reason for their detention. And anyone they could make up an excuse for arresting - and many they couldn't - they did arrest. They arrested thousands, Rsak. THOUSANDS. Without charge or trial.