Guantanamo Bay

[TheFaithfulStone]

Course not.

 

Do you need an example of an innocent person who was rendered extraordinarily?

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Okay, I mistook the point about Blackstone being anti-catholic as an attack on the position, like "He may have said that, but he didn't really mean it, and therefore it's not a good opinion" and not as a description of his legal reasoning.

 

But it's still not relevant and here's why. I don't think that Kayra meant to cite Blackstone's legal opinion, he was simply stating the commonly held aphorism "It is better to let ten guilty free than imprison one innocent." The aphorism does not include Blackstone's anti-Catholic "rider" about "papists."

 

Like the famous Malcolm X quote "By any means necessary..." Of course, in his later years, Malcolm softened his view, and actually supported Islam as a means of racial harmony. But then, when people quote Malcolm's "By any means necessary..." they don't usually mean - "until I go on the Hajj and come back a changed man."

 

It's the same with the Blackstone Formulation. When people say "Better 10 guilty go free..." They're simply using it as a shorthand for conventional wisdom. As such, Blackstones tempering views on the subject are irrelevant in anything but a legal context.

Or in two simple words "Ad Hominem"

 

I was merely taking Sebby's logic to it's logical conclusion - if ten men can be wrongfully imprisoned to prevent a nuclear strike, why not eleven? 100? 10,000? The tipping point really would be solved by the equation Vl * Nk - Vf * Ni = 0, where Vl = the Value of Life, Nk = the Number killed in a nuclear explosion, Vf = the Value of Freedom, and Ni = the Number imprisoned. Of course, that is simplifying it a bit as it doesn't take into account the long term effects of a nuclear weapon, but the idea is good. Of course, there is more than one nuclear weapon in the world, so really we have to modify it to take that into account. The number grows so quickly with that, that we have to acknowledge that more people could be killed than arrested, so we should arrest everybody.

 

I gave an extremely powerful argument why 'innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt' does not work for terrorism. The argument was 'better to let go 10 men than imprison one innocent man'. I said that breaks down regarding terrorism.

 

You have certainly not extended my argument to it's 'logical conclusion', you have taken it to its impossible extreme.

 

This illogical tactic can be used with your beloved 'better let go 10 guilty men than improsen 1 innocent man'. Why stop at 'beyond reasonable doubt? We could stop at 'beyond all doubt, however unreasonable'. That way all criminals will be released onto the streets and we need never worry about imprisoning an innocent.

 

So your argument clearly is absurd. The only question is where does it (and my very similar argument) fall.

 

Your mathematical argument "Vl * Nk - Vf * Ni = 0" as a tipping point is an attempt to quantify exactly where it ends. Simerlarly my argument would give "Vd * Nd - Vf * Ni = 0" where Vd is the value of damage and Nd is the amount of damage. Infact, we could put Vl equal to Vd and Nk = Nd since amount damaged will include life lost. Thus we have just one equation, Vd * Nd -Vf * Ni = 0 for both criminal and terrorism cases.

 

I do like this to some extent. Obviously one cannot do mathematics with morality and alot of people will probably be shocked that I'm taking this seriously, but Vf and Vd are both factors determined morally anyway so it is not really a mathematical problem but another way of expressing the moral problem.

 

The numbers depend on how much each person values each factor so every person will no doubt give a different answer and I think most people will conclude that only about 10-1000 and not 100,000 people could be arrested to prevent such a strike.

 

I can't see any errors thus far. Also, the conclusion is also not yet absurd. I agree the idea is good.

 

But I think it falls on the final "doomsday" extension.

Of course, there is more than one nuclear weapon in the world, so really we have to modify it to take that into account. The number grows so quickly with that, that we have to acknowledge that more people could be killed than arrested, so we should arrest everybody.

 

The number of nuclear weopons is irrelevant. It is the number in terrorist hands that matters. This number will never be more than 1 or 2 so the time when the Government will have to arrest a huge %age of the population will never come. Even if terrorists did get their hands on 100 such devices we can consider the world at an end anyway so it doesn't matter what the government does. Thus Vd will never increase to the point that Nf will be larger than a very small %age of the population. Quite simply, your doomsday senario is an impossible fiction and does not follow from the original argument. This is where your argument falls.

 

So that's the long, but I believe correct, answer.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Or in two simple words "Ad Hominem"

 

What? No, not.

 

TFS

 

give a different answer and I think most people will conclude that only about 10-1000 and not 100,000 people could be arrested to prevent such a strike.

 

That's 10-100 people who have NOTHING to do with terrorism. Who nominates those 10-1000 people?

 

For our first victim...ahem....martyr, I nominate YOU stebby.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by stebby

Or in two simple words "Ad Hominem"

 

What? No, not.

 

Stebby?????? Who's Stebby? Luckily I remember saying something very similar to that so I guess I might be able to answer on Stebby's behalf. Having said that, I would like to meet this Stebby. He sounds very clever :).

 

'What? No, not'???? What does that mean?

 

I think most people will conclude that only about 10-1000 and not 100,000 people could be arrested to prevent such a strike.

 

That's 10-100 people who have NOTHING to do with terrorism. Who nominates those 10-1000 people?

 

For our first victim...ahem....martyr, I nominate YOU stebby.

 

If any government gets evidence which leads them to believe I may have some kind of connection to terror and possibly a nuclear strike then I'd be happy to martyr myself in that way to save millions. I have full confidence that my interigationers will realise very quickly the truth.

 

Lets see, I've campaigned strongly against all forms of Islamic terror in all countries for my whole life, I'm white, non-Muslim and am strongly atheist and love America despite not being American. Hardly the profile of an Islamic terrorist.

[TheFaithfulStone]

If any government gets evidence which leads them to believe I may have some kind of connection to terror and possibly a nuclear strike then I'd be happy to martyr myself in that way to save millions. I have full confidence that my interigationers will realise very quickly the truth.

 

Lets see, I've campaigned strongly against all forms of Islamic terror in all countries for my whole life, I'm white, non-Muslim and am strongly atheist and love America despite not being American. Hardly the profile of an Islamic terrorist.

 

So? The whole point is that we're imprisoning (maybe torturing) a bunch of innocent people.

 

We don't need this "evidence" because we're busy trying to make you safer from terrorism. If we could just kidnap you, take you Afghanistan for a few years and maybe do a little bit of torturing we think that might help us catch a real terrorist!

 

Do you have any family of friends? We might want to talk to them to. And no talking to the press, or to any lawyers, they just complicate matters!

 

You said we could imprison 1,000 innocent people if it would help save others from terrorists. We think it might help if we imprisoned and tortured YOU.

 

Oh wait - you meant it's fine if we have to send 1,000 other innocent people to jail. I see.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

 

Stebby?????? Who's Stebby? Luckily I remember saying something very similar to that so I guess I might be able to answer on Stebby's behalf. Having said that, I would like to meet this Stebby. He sounds very clever .

 

'What? No, not'???? What does that mean?

 

You do realize I've been quoting you like that for the last 15 pages or so right? Should have spoken up before now. Or are you just trying to distract?

 

And I mean you TOTALLY misunderstood my point, that whole thing about Blackstone was NOT about it being an ad hominem fallacy.

 

TFS

[Michaelangelica]

Erm, what part of that sentence do you not understand?

I made 5 claims which I believe constitute what all sides agree.

1) GB is not acting within the law.

2) The law and 'due process' for dealing with terrorists is inadequate and must be changed significantly.

3) The American Government's breaches of the law have resulted in us (the whole Western World) being safer.

4) GB is potentially open to obuse.

5) The American Government has not actually abused GB yet for improper purposes.

I don't agree with 3.

We can't know this because we don't know what is happening because the law is being broken

I don't agree with 5.

Again no one can really know the full truth but I consider keeping a man in solitary and 22-23 hours a day in a little cell with out trial an abuse. It is torture.

Will America expect it's prisoners to be treated under International Law?

It is very unlikely that this will happen given the US's abuse of its power.

 

It might be worth quoting the whole of the Declaration of Human rights so you can see how many are being broken By Guantanamo Bay

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(other language versions)

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

 

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

 

PREAMBLE

 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

 

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

 

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

 

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

 

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

 

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

 

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

 

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

 

Article 1.

 

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

 

Article 2.

 

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

 

Article 3.

 

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

 

Article 4.

 

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

 

Article 5.

 

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Article 6.

 

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

 

Article 7.

 

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

 

Article 8.

 

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

 

Article 9.

 

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

 

Article 10.

 

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

 

Article 11.

 

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

 

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

 

Article 12.

 

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

 

Article 13.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

 

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

 

Article 14.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

 

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 

Article 15.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

 

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

 

Article 16.

 

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

 

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

 

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

Article 17.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

 

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

 

Article 18.

 

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Article 19.

 

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 

Article 20.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

 

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

 

Article 21.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

 

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

 

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

Article 22.

 

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

 

Article 23.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

 

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

 

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

 

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

 

Article 24.

 

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

 

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Article 26.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

 

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

 

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

 

Article 27.

 

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

 

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

 

Article 28.

 

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

 

Article 29.

 

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

 

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

 

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 

Article 30.

 

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Definitions.

Democracy: the process whereby the constituants of one constituancy is able to choose their leaders by free and fair democratic elections in which every constituant has an equal right to vote.

 

If you define democracy as the actual vote of the majority of its citizens then USA is not a democracy.

A democracy without human rights is not a democracy.

You want your own Civil Rights (The protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights) but don't want to apply them to others.

Democracy is the practice of the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment.

This includes the Due Process of Law (The right of every citizen to be protected against arbitrary action by government.)

In David Hick's case a democracy should include the freedom from Ex Post Facto Law(A law that makes criminal an act that was legal when it was committed. (Latin: "after the fact")

 

 

I'm not disputing that some Australians and nationals of other countries are angry about GB. Quite frankly, who cares?

All American Citizens should care whether you are seen as a"Good Cop" or a"Bad Cop". Many people trying to blow you up, do so, because they think you are a "Bad Cop"

 

 

Human Rights: a package of individual rights that each citizen is entitled to and it is a primary responsibility of a state to secure the human rights of their citizens in so far as is possible and a secondary duty of a state to secure the human rights of citizens of other nations in so far as is possible unless it hinders their primary responsibility.

 

These rights are covered by the EU Convention of Human rights and includes: the right to life; the right to a fair trial; the right to liberty; and the right to free thought and political associations.

 

Human rights were develped in the wake of the holocaust as a way of describing oppressive and barbaric acts by a state. When human rights were written, issues like euthenasia or terror were not properly considered.

 

The difficulty with human rights as a moral tool is applying them in any given situation.

 

Morally, human rights can be deprived if more important considerations come along. This can be viewed in two ways. Either very important issues arise, eg a threat to national security, where it becomes clear that the world will be worse place unless human rights are given only secondary consideration. This is what is meant by 'Human rights are not the most important consideration'.

 

So the end justifies the means?

How can you know there is "a threat to national security" from these people if everything is done in secret, due process it not observed and access to the prisoners is non existent. (Especially the 500 who are detained in places we don't know about.)

If you can get it so wrong with David Hicks, then the rest is suspect too.

 

However, I prefer the view that in all the above circumstances, what is actually going on is that human rights are conflicting with each other and it is just a matter of looking a little deeper to find the exact rights that are conflicting.

? What?

 

GB protects the innocent people's right to life, whilst the angry Australians (and others) are trying to protect the terrorist suspects right to a fair trial. Unfortunately one cannot get both. If you don't like that, blame god.

God is not involved.

It is your government (The USA) who is breaking the law and abusing human rights and due process.

 

 

Lastly, on your melodramatic point about the values your forfathers fourght for (and mine died for) being under threat. Even if you are right, all it amounts to is one irregularity in a society of rightousness. The phrase 'one swallow does not a summer make' comes to mind. Perhaps when people start rounding up ethnic groups for beatings or murder and when people in every street start disappearing under suspicious circumstances and when people are too scared to oppose our leaders, your statement might be more accurate. Until then, it sounds like a brat complaining of child abuse because his favourite toy was taken away due to bad grades. Further, some might consider it an insult to compare GB and American society to Nazi deathcamps and Nazi society.

 

You want to get away with that rave and you yet you say I'm melodramatic! Look to youself.

And people are disappearing in mysterious circumstances. That we have learnt, from Nazi Germany, is the thin end of the wedge.

and "people (have)start(ed) rounding up ethnic groups for beatings or murder" It is happening in Iraq. Watch the news. Another 'thin wedge' of many.

[Cedars]

 

Do you need an example of an innocent person who was rendered extraordinarily?

 

TFS

 

You have again put up an example of a person who was detained with cooperation of the government where this citizen resides, and cooperation of another government (Macedonia). While this person is apparently innocent of being a terrorist, it is not an example of the US going into a soverign nation and doing whatever it wants to without the knowledge/cooperation of (in this case several) governments.

 

After reading the links in the wikipedia article, I can see where this man was a person of interest. He lived in an area that has been attracting a lot of terrorists in Germany, he attended the same mosque as terrorists, the spelling of his name and his own application for citizenship all contributed to their interest. And lets not forget passport forgery in Germany is an issue.

 

I do agree a better job could have and should have been done in clarifying his true identity, before shipping him off to Afghanistan, but again this is no case of intent to harm an innocent. Mistakes are going to happen.

 

German Spy Agency Admits Mishandling Abduction Case

 

June 2, 2006, Friday

By SOUAD MEKHENNET AND CRAIG S. SMITH (NYT); Foreign Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 8, Column 1, 648 words

 

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 648 WORDS -Germany's external intelligence service, the BND, said yesterday that it knew about the American seizure and detention of a German citizen 16 months before the country was officially informed of his mistaken arrest. It was unclear whether that information had been passed on to senior officials. Germany had previously...

 

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E13F73D550C718CDDAF0894DE404482

 

Terrorists with German Visas

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,381940,00.html

Note the al-Tawhid connection which was mentioned also in the Wikipedia link.

Page 2 of an interesting article:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,390084-2,00.html

From this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120600083.html

"The complaint, filed by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, asks for damages in excess of $75,000."

 

If this is what he (el-Masri) is asking for, I think we should pay it.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I don't know if I'd call the el-Masri situation "cooperation." It's not like the Germans nabbed him for us. The Macedonians snagged him, we came and looked at him, then shipped him off to Afghanistan.

 

I certainly understand how the mistake could have been made, but I'm not willing to give the US a pass on it, cause it's a pretty big freakin' mistake.

 

I think everyone involved in that little debacle should at least lose their job, and some should probably do time. (Whoever tortured him in Afghanistan.)

 

My thoughts on this matter are pretty simple - "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

 

If a CIA agent decides it's absolutely necessary to torture somebody to find out some information, that's fine, but he should expect to pay the piper. What if it turns out that it saves millions of lives? Great, but the CIA agent still goes to jail.

 

In other words, there is a constant "cost" for breaking the law, detaining innocent people, screwing up real royally, etc. It should be high enough that it discourages doing it unless the potential reward is really high.

 

TANSTAAFL.

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

If a CIA agent decides it's absolutely necessary to torture somebody to find out some information, that's fine, but he should expect to pay the piper. What if it turns out that it saves millions of lives? Great, but the CIA agent still goes to jail.

 

In other words, there is a constant "cost" for breaking the law, detaining innocent people, screwing up real royally, etc. It should be high enough that it discourages doing it unless the potential reward is really high.

 

That's not a bad idea...if there was a procedure by which we allowed some forms of torture ONLY when the interrogator decided to and then he and his immediate supervisors would have some form of punishment for it, then torture would be used when absolutely necessary and not any other time. It would allow for us to be kept safer, and provide much greater protection for the innocent and less dangerous criminals/terrorists.

[InfiniteNow]

If a CIA agent decides it's absolutely necessary to torture somebody to find out some information, that's fine, but he should expect to pay the piper. What if it turns out that it saves millions of lives? Great, but the CIA agent still goes to jail.

 

In other words, there is a constant "cost" for breaking the law, detaining innocent people, screwing up real royally, etc. It should be high enough that it discourages doing it unless the potential reward is really high.

 

That's not a bad idea...if there was a procedure by which we allowed some forms of torture ONLY when the interrogator decided to and then he and his immediate supervisors would have some form of punishment for it, then torture would be used when absolutely necessary and not any other time. It would allow for us to be kept safer, and provide much greater protection for the innocent and less dangerous criminals/terrorists.

It gets really sticky though when you are trying to figure who makes these decisions, when is it decided to be important ENOUGH to allow torture, and who oversees it all. Not that the idea has no merit, but it is wrought with challenges and obstacles for which I personally see no clear answer.

[sebbysteiny]

We don't need this "evidence" because we're busy trying to make you safer from terrorism. If we could just kidnap you, take you Afghanistan for a few years and maybe do a little bit of torturing we think that might help us catch a real terrorist!

 

Do you have any family of friends? We might want to talk to them to. And no talking to the press, or to any lawyers, they just complicate matters!

 

What you say is very scary and quite shocking. But surely you must admit that to descibe GB as that is a gross misrepresentation. GB inmates, according to Government officials, must have some real evidence to be held, and there is no evidence the American Government have breached this. The only problem is that the evidence is not admissable in a court of law and / or would cause innocent deaths if released to the public. I would say that the evidence must consist of at the very minimum evidence of links with other known terrorists and circumstantial information and being captured fighting alongside the taliban fullfills both conditions. But the word of a trusted source might also be sufficient. This I believe is what is going on in GB and why innocent people with no connection to terror will find more danger crossing a road than by being falsely accused of terror.

 

Access to lawyers is not denied in GB and friends and relatives of inmates have never been ceased unless there is fresh evidence of direct involvement in terror.

 

So just because one or two rights for GB inmates have been partially denied, it does not follow that all of the hundreds of other rights for GB inmates have been denied in full. By "rights" I'm talking human rights and legal "rights", not moral "rights" since the moral case arguing that those rights should be deprived as at least as strong as the case that they should be granted.

 

You do realize I've been quoting you like that for the last 15 pages or so right? Should have spoken up before now.

 

Great. 15 more pages in which you have been talking to an imaginary person. I'm worried about you. Have stopped taking your pills?

 

If any government gets evidence which leads them to believe I may have some kind of connection to terror and possibly a nuclear strike then I'd be happy to martyr myself in that way to save millions. I have full confidence that my interigationers will realise very quickly the truth.

Followed by

You said we could imprison 1,000 innocent people if it would help save others from terrorists. We think it might help if we imprisoned and tortured YOU.

 

Oh wait - you meant it's fine if we have to send 1,000 other innocent people to jail. I see.

 

It is a good custom to read the posts of those your debating with.

 

And I mean you TOTALLY misunderstood my point, that whole thing about Blackstone was NOT about it being an ad hominem fallacy.

 

Hmm. I might have misunderstood it but from what I read, you were saying that it is possible for one person to have one opinion that is good and another that is bad. You then gave reasons for this including that the person could change his mind. If my understanding is right, this is just proving the ad hominem logical fallacy. I'm trying to be helpful since before KickAssClown gave me the Wikopedia link, I also wrote vaste paragraphs to explain that point.

 

I made 5 claims which I believe constitute what all sides agree.

1) GB is not acting within the law.

2) The law and 'due process' for dealing with terrorists is inadequate and must be changed significantly.

3) The American Government's breaches of the law have resulted in us (the whole Western World) being safer.

4) GB is potentially open to obuse.

5) The American Government has not actually abused GB yet for improper purposes.

 

I don't agree with 3.

We can't know this because we don't know what is happening because the law is being broken

Firstly, you can't deny it. You argue you cannot know one way or the other. Secondly, are you saying that almost none of the GB inmates actually have links to terror? If you believe that a small %age do, then it must make us safer. The question, 'is it worth it' may arise but 3 should still be agreed by all sides.

 

I don't agree with 5.

Again no one can really know the full truth but I consider keeping a man in solitary and 22-23 hours a day in a little cell with out trial an abuse. It is torture.

Will America expect it's prisoners to be treated under International Law?

It is very unlikely that this will happen given the US's abuse of its power.

 

I refer you to post 135, last two paragraphs. The dispute is about the definition of the word 'abuse'. These types of disputes are silly because it means you are arguing one debate and I am arguing a totally different debate, so if you want to understand the points I'm making, you must use my definitions and vice versa. So using my definition (in post 135) do you now agree with 5?

 

It might be worth quoting the whole of the Declaration of Human rights so you can see how many are being broken By Guantanamo Bay

No it is not. Point 1 is agreed by all sides.

 

Democracy: the process whereby the constituants of one constituancy is able to choose their leaders by free and fair democratic elections in which every constituant has an equal right to vote.

 

If you define democracy as the actual vote of the majority of its citizens then USA is not a democracy.

 

True, but that is not how I defined it. Federalism, first past the post and proportional representation are all perfectly adaquate systems of democracy.

 

A democracy without human rights is not a democracy.

You want your own Civil Rights (The protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights) but don't want to apply them to others.

Democracy is the practice of the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment.

We are both right. Your talking about 'liberal democracy', I'm talking about just 'democracy'. I think it is far more useful to treat democracy and human rights (ie the 'liberal' bit) as two distinct concepts or we risk losing the fundamental meaning of both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

 

I'm not disputing that some Australians and nationals of other countries are angry about GB. Quite frankly, who cares?

 

All American Citizens should care whether you are seen as a"Good Cop" or a"Bad Cop". Many people trying to blow you up, do so, because they think you are a "Bad Cop"

Perhaps, but I'm not American. America will always be demonised (politics of envy). I only care about whether GB is morally right, not if people are burning American flags using it as a skapegoat.

 

The difficulty with human rights as a moral tool is applying them in any given situation.

 

Morally, human rights can be deprived if more important considerations come along. This can be viewed in two ways. Either very important issues arise, eg a threat to national security, where it becomes clear that the world will be worse place unless human rights are given only secondary consideration. This is what is meant by 'Human rights are not the most important consideration'.

 

So the end justifies the means?

What means? Human rights can and must be overrided by other considerations or one gets morally rediculous solutions. Euthenasia does not suddenly become wrong simply because we have created a 'Human right to life'. Fundamentally, Human Rights are not an excuse to turn off our brains and ignore the necessities of reality. However, if you still don't see any merit in this version, you might find my favoured way of applying Human Rights issues more palatable.

 

How can you know there is "a threat to national security" from these people if everything is done in secret, due process it not observed and access to the prisoners is non existent. (Especially the 500 who are detained in places we don't know about.)

This is not an argument but an argument shift trying to move the debate from whether human rights can be overriden by other factors like national security to whether the American government can correctly diagnose a threat to national securicy making the implied and highly dubious assumption that our government cannot be trusted.

 

This is also called 'shifting the frame' and it is what politicians do when they duck questions. It has great pursuasive value but absolutely no logical merit and so will not get a response from me.

 

However, I prefer the view that in all the above circumstances, what is actually going on is that human rights are conflicting with each other and it is just a matter of looking a little deeper to find the exact rights that are conflicting.

What?

I'll explain it another way. Concepts of national security and all other such concepts that might apparantly conflict with human rights I believe can be translated into human rights language. National security thus becomes the right of the innocent population to life. Establishing Law and order becomes the right of the innocent to life, to be free from abusive treatement, and the right to property. GB, which is necessary for national security becomes necessary to defend the human right to life of innocent people. So now the problem becomes entirely a human rights problem in which one must balance the competing rights, eg for GB, the rights of the terrorist suspects against the rights of the innocent potential victims.

 

GB protects the innocent people's right to life, whilst the angry Australians (and others) are trying to protect the terrorist suspects right to a fair trial. Unfortunately one cannot get both. If you don't like that, blame god.

 

God is not involved.

It is your government (The USA) who is breaking the law and abusing human rights and due process.

Fine, then blame nature, the universe, science, or even green elfs from mars for all I care. It is not Americas fault that the world is so cruel as to create tough choices.

Other than repeating that I'm not American, your latter argument again is reframing the debate so I will ignore it.

 

Lastly, on your melodramatic point about the values your forfathers fourght for (and mine died for) being under threat. Even if you are right, all it amounts to is one irregularity in a society of rightousness. The phrase 'one swallow does not a summer make' comes to mind. Perhaps when people start rounding up ethnic groups for beatings or murder and when people in every street start disappearing under suspicious circumstances and when people are too scared to oppose our leaders, your statement might be more accurate. Until then, it sounds like a brat complaining of child abuse because his favourite toy was taken away due to bad grades.

 

people are disappearing in mysterious circumstances. That we have learnt, from Nazi Germany, is the thin end of the wedge.

and "people (have)start(ed) rounding up ethnic groups for beatings or murder" It is happening in Iraq. Watch the news. Another 'thin wedge' of many.

 

So we have the 'thin end of the edge' argument. That has to be about the most stupid pointless illogical argument (not you, just the argument) I have ever heard rivalled only by 'better the devil you know'. Also known as 'the slippery slope' argument. It's not your fault. I've seen many bright people slip over on a 'slippery slope' time and time again.

 

Wake me up when the edge gets a little thicker. Until then, lets not wildly press panic buttons and abuse the good values our forefathers fought and died for.

 

By the way, I haven't eaten for about 5 hours. I'm hungry. Isn't that the thin end of the wedge in which I am close to dying of starvation?

 

And what's this Iraq point all about? If you wish to debate the Iraqi government's problems perhaps you should open a new thread?

 

If a CIA agent decides it's absolutely necessary to torture somebody to find out some information, that's fine, but he should expect to pay the piper. What if it turns out that it saves millions of lives? Great, but the CIA agent still goes to jail.

The CIA and all other intelligence agencies already have a very difficult and important job. I see no pressing reason to make their jobs even tougher and put our best agents behind bars for making what was at the time a correct decision.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Too true. It is far better to imprison 10 innocent people than to allow terrorists to strike using a nuclear bomb.

 

The numbers depend on how much each person values each factor so every person will no doubt give a different answer and I think most people will conclude that only about 10-1000 and not 100,000 people could be arrested to prevent such a strike.

 

You did say the government should be able to imprison innocent people to protect us from terrorism.

 

So. Let's say I know this guy named "stabbystainy" He thinks that America is pure unadulterated evil, and would like to kill a bunch of civilians. He wants to be a terrorists, and is trying to buy plane tickets to Afghanistan.

 

The FBI wises up to him, but when YOU try to get on a plane, they pick you up by mistake.

 

"Sebbbysteiny?" They say, "sounds like an alias for the Stabbystainy. Let's take him to Afghanistan and rape him a few times, see if we can get a confession."

 

So that happens - eventually, a few years later, they realize the real Stabbystainy is still loose somewhere in the Midwest and release you - a little worse for wear. You're a terrorism suspect, so you don't have a job, & can't get one. The people who raped you are secret agents so you don't get any justice.

 

Are we safer from terrorism because the FBI got to arrest and detain an innocent person, namely YOU?

 

Right - but your not worried, because you're beyond reproach.

 

I refer you to Martin Niemoeller. (Just the good parts.)

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

Firstly, you can't deny it. You argue you cannot know one way or the other. Secondly, are you saying that almost none of the GB inmates actually have links to terror? If you believe that a small %age do, then it must make us safer. The question, 'is it worth it' may arise but 3 should still be agreed by all sides.

 

This is a very, very, short sighted argument. It does not take into account the possibility of the abuses at GB leading to other people deciding to become terrorists. If the number of terrorists at GB is less than the number of people it convinces to become terrorists, or if the number of people who would have been harmed by those terrorists not being there is less than the number of people who will be harmed because of its existance, then this argument falls flat on its face. I, in fact, believe that it is not worth it because it increases anti-American feelings, thus potentially, most likely in fact, leading to a general trend of more terrorism against America. GB does not exist in a vacuum. What happens there affects people around the world, and that is a point that you have not taken fully into account.

[pgrmdave]

And stop saying that "everybody agrees on these points" when many people have repeatedly told you that we do NOT agree. It is rude, disrespectful, and in violation of our rules because of that.

[Cedars]

I don't know if I'd call the el-Masri situation "cooperation." It's not like the Germans nabbed him for us. The Macedonians snagged him, we came and looked at him, then shipped him off to Afghanistan.

 

I certainly understand how the mistake could have been made, but I'm not willing to give the US a pass on it, cause it's a pretty big freakin' mistake.

 

I guess you didnt read the links I posted. oh well

 

A 'pretty big freakin mistake' is convicting someone who is innocent. This was a mistake. "pretty big freakin'" is hypebole.

 

 

I think everyone involved in that little debacle should at least lose their job, and some should probably do time. (Whoever tortured him in Afghanistan.)

 

ummm... if you would have read the links you would have discovered there wasnt 'torture'. Several articles report el-Masri own words stating his encounters with Americans in Afghanistan revolved around questioning. Transporting a prisoner, one teeny little bit of resistance opens up a whole lot of wiggle room for 'excessive force'.

 

My thoughts on this matter are pretty simple - "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

 

If a CIA agent decides it's absolutely necessary to torture somebody to find out some information, that's fine, but he should expect to pay the piper. What if it turns out that it saves millions of lives? Great, but the CIA agent still goes to jail.

 

In other words, there is a constant "cost" for breaking the law, detaining innocent people, screwing up real royally, etc. It should be high enough that it discourages doing it unless the potential reward is really high.

 

TANSTAAFL.

 

TFS

 

The only way to have a CIA (another seperate arguement of course) is that they do have different rules than the rest of us, in order to be able to do their jobs. Do I think they have too much ability to operate in secrecy? yes. Do I think the methods in place for oversight leaves something to be desired? Yes, for a much longer time than Gitmo has been around. Do I agree with jailing CIA agents everytime someone uses the word torture in print media is the answer? nope.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I guess you didnt read the links I posted. oh well

 

A 'pretty big freakin mistake' is convicting someone who is innocent. This was a mistake. "pretty big freakin'" is hypebole.

 

I did read them. I still don't think the Germans cooperated. Perhaps "failed to interfere" but I wouldn't call it "cooperate." They knew the Americans were watching him, but it wasn't clear they knew WHY.

 

If you do not think throwing an innocent man in jail in a foreign country, (alledgedly) sodomizing him, and detaining him for five months qualifies as a "big freakin' mistake" I am terrified beyond measure at what you think SHOULD constitute a "big freakin' mistake"

 

And you're totally misrepresenting my point about jailing CIA agents. We shouldn't jail them every time someone "cries" torture, but if they are torturing people, then YES they should go to jail.

 

TFS