user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Well, this is a tricky question. Normally, a suspect and their lawyers will have access to all the evidence arrayed against them. This is not usually possible for a variety of reasons. Most importantly the fear that much of this highly sensitive information could end up being released to other terrorists or others in the event the suspect is found not guilty (which doesn't necessarily mean innocent) or a mistrial is declared. Because access must be negotiated, this is one example of "less rights". Visitation of the prisoner is usually greatly restricted as well for similar reasons.
I'll guess you are basing this question on detaining people a long time before charging them. I'd rather keep someone detained 3 years if it takes that long to get information about a deadly terrorist plot. Of course, we can play all nicey-nicey and let them go if after a couple of days they don't say anything. This, of course despite the fact that they were caught in the company of known (or highly suspected) Al-Qaeda operatives. None of this means we shouldn't follow the Geneva Convention. Those caught in the situations I listed above are the opponents in a war. They are prisoners of war which is not the same thing as a US citizen accused of petty theft.
FF: Yeah ... suspicion of criminal wrongdoing is just as good as evidence ... why do we bother with formalities? Habeus corpus ... what an outdated concept. much better to keep potentially innocent people detained for decades than risk letting one actual terrorist slip by, eh? 
I swear, I can't recognize my country any more. And it infuriates me.
Voted : Depends (explain)
Although I believe in the rule of law, and in the vast majority of cases it works. What troubles me is the extreme case where a terrorist knows the location of nuclear device in a major city that is set to blow up within hours and kill millions of people. Should we have exceptions to the ordinary law? Do such exceptions invalidate the law? I don't know, but I do strongly feel that we need a system that allows for this extreme scenario. I know this invites abuse, and we need oversight. As much as I hate it, there it is.
Voted : No: People suspected of any crime should have the same basic rights
Cath:
It's even worse than "suspicion of criminal wrongdoing." It's "suspicion of having a foreign accent and being a Muslim" or "suspicion of standing on the sidewalk when a Marine humvee drives by." And that will eventually morph into "suspicion of being a member of the Humane Society of America."
"I'd rather keep someone detained 3 years if it takes that long to get information about a deadly terrorist plot."
Even if that person is innocent and has no information about a deadly plot? Or is the presumption here that everyone associated with the Bush Administration is infallible? Or that any crime against humanity is justifiable as long as it is in the defense of the United States. (That's interesting, because I've heard that same argument used in the defense of Israel.)
"Of course, we can play all nicey-nicey and let them go if after a couple of days they don't say anything."
Since when is the rule of law and due process simply a case of being all "nicey-nicey?" Is Western civiliation just too nicey-nicey for our neocon citizens?
"This, of course despite the fact that they were caught in the company of known (or highly suspected) Al-Qaeda operatives."
I.e., caught somewhere within the territorial borders of Iraq, Afghanistan or any other nation ending in "-stan," the United States, or any other piece of land that is above sea level (in this case, Atlantis would be excluded, but those penguins better watch it because glaciers count).
"None of this means we shouldn't follow the Geneva Convention. Those caught in the situations I listed above are the opponents in a war. They are prisoners of war which is not the same thing as a US citizen accused of petty theft."
Hellloooooo!!!!. The Geneva Convention exists to give captured combatants absolute rights under law. Rule of law. That's the whole point.
Voted : No: People suspected of any crime should have the same basic rights
Am I mistaken, or wasn't that the same fundamental premise we used to *build* this country?
"suspicion of criminal wrongdoing is just as good as evidence ... why do we bother with formalities? Habeus corpus ... what an outdated concept. much better to keep potentially innocent people detained for decades than risk letting one actual terrorist slip by, eh?"
I didn't say that.
I didn't say American citizens. I said those who are Al-Qaeda or Taliban as they would be prisoners of war. We are at war against them aren't we?
"aptured combatants absolute rights under law. Rule of law. That's the whole point."
Yes, cranky, but not the same rights as they would have in an American court.
I believe I quite clearly stated that they should be treated as prisoners of war. Geneva conventions means giving them the rights entitled under that agreement. You don't generally release prisoners while you are still at war do you? The answer is NO.
Well... I tried to explain how an accused terrorist is treated under American law and under the Geneva Conventions. What I stated is basically no different that what almost all of congress agrees to, what courts agree to, etc. Unfortunately, cathexis and cranky AS USUAL knee-jerk responded to what I said. I said nothing about torture. I said nothing about American citizens.
Keep knee-jerking and forget who the enemy is. We are at war. BTW, I basically stated EXACTLY what people like John McCain and other senators involved in dealing the Bush administration on Gitmo issues.
knee jerk, knee jerk... try reading what I said and researching the issue first. Sorry to be patronising, but you missed exactly what I said especially in the first paragraph.
Soooo, are you saying an accused terrorist should have unfettered access to all material against him? Or should this be filtered and negotiated with the person's attorney? Seems to me you want to turn everything over. This would likely include methods and persons used including informants and US agents. Nice way to put people's lives at risk when an accused terrorist gets off on a technicality. OH, BTW... the ACLU doesn't even protest this. Get a clue people.
Who is the enemy?? I am sure for you guys that Bush (Satan) is FAR WORSE than Al-Qaeda. You guys really make me sick at your lack of knowledge and your seeming inability to put things in perspective. I'm glad neither of you are president.
FF: Just because one is worse doesn't make the other good.
Let me add... if the person is convicted and has access to all information including sources, methods, names, etc. How do you 100% prevent this information from getting out?
Rights granted to a prisoner of war are NOT the same as those granted to someone in American courts. The world did not agree to America's version of a court system. A prisoner can be subjected to a military tribunal. This does NOT give the same rights as a regular American court. In case you didn't notice this. Prisoners of war are NOT given the same rights as non-prisoners of war. That is why they are called PRISONERS. I'm not aware of any time when prisoners of war were released during a war except in the event of a prisoner exchange. Perhaps you miss these basic differences?? Or should we give prisoners of war the same rights as those in the American court system? I don't see a whole big clamor for this except with those captured within the US. But, then of course giving them access to national security information is apparently fine by you.
Voted : No: People suspected of any crime should have the same basic rights
One person from Sri Lanka tried to flee to Canada seeking asylum from terrorist attacks. He's being detained in the U. S. because he paid ransom to terrorists when kidnapped, and there's a rule against paying any money to terrorists for any reason. There is a real risk of a new McCarthyism.
Voted : No: People suspected of any crime should have the same basic rights
Of course they should have the same basic rights. What do you think the Enlightenment is about? I agree with Cathexis. I see now why he fears for his country. If the issue becomes relative in the USA, I don't know if it would be proper to consider the USA to be a country belonging to the Western civilisation any longer.
|
|
