Is it okay to deny due process? :: Ultimate MMORPG Gaming Community & Trading Zone

Ashley
Toomuchtimeonhands

Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 907
Location: Amfek.org

Posted: 10/15/04 - 17:25 Post subject: Is it okay to deny due process?

Okay, so we all know that the government is currently holding people who are US citizens and have denied these people lawyers or any contact with the outside world whatsoever in order to further their interrogations. How many of you think its fine for the government to hold people for years with no lawyer (or even a trial or meeting with a judge for that matter)? Just curious- also, does it make a difference when you enter the word "terrorist" into the picture? Are these people inhuman, below the geneva convention, not worthy of the rights our constitution guarantees US citizens? I guess they could have information, but is it justifiable to hold them interminably WITHOUT proving their guilt first? Remember the two guys who were just released not too long ago- they had been held without trial for 2 years and then were released because they finally found out they had been innocent.

Back to top

myndwarrp
Can't Stop Posting

Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 637

Posted: 10/15/04 - 17:37 Post subject:

Such is the world we live in post 9/11 unfortunately. We cant continue the way we were. Americans are pretty complacent and apathetic and its time for us to wake the f*k up and realize lots of people want this country demolished because of our freedom. And obviously they'll do anything to try and hurt us. Do I* like it? Not really. But, it's a new world.

Back to top

Brael
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2122

Posted: 10/15/04 - 17:40 Post subject:

Terrorists aren't included in the Geneva convention.

Back to top

Docter
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420

Posted: 10/15/04 - 17:41 Post subject:

Only if they might be a terrorist And Brael is correct.

Back to top

Ashley
Toomuchtimeonhands

Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 907
Location: Amfek.org

Posted: 10/15/04 - 17:44 Post subject:

neither are serial killers or rapists, but they get (and should get) a fair trial. They hate you because you have money or are pretty or whatever, and will rape/kill you solely for that reason. Should we be able to hold them interminably too?

Back to top

sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044

Posted: 10/15/04 - 17:48 Post subject:

No, only if they hate us because of our freedom. That changes everything.

Back to top

Syke
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Posted: 10/15/04 - 17:52 Post subject:

Brael wrote:

Terrorists aren't included in the Geneva convention.

She's talking about people that aren't necessarily terrorists, just people that are presumed to have "links" to terrorists or terrorist activities.

We know Terrorists aren't included in the Geneva convention, that's not the issue. There are terrorists, and there are people who we think have "links" to terrorism, but don't necessarily know that this is 100% true. What she's asking is; Is it right to hold someone for interrogation purposes or whatever, without granting due process, if we don't know if they are part of terrorist groups or activities? Like you said, Terrorists aren't included in the Geneva convention, but the people that were held for interrogation and released as Ashley explained, were found innocent...where do they fall under the Geneva convention?

Is this right or wrong?

Personally, I can't say...While I believe this may be an effective means to bring justice to the situation, and get the information we need, we are meddling in innocent people's lives as well. It reminds me of a crack junkie that's paranoid of everyone and everything around them, including their "friends." But terrorism is a serious issue, and if it's as serious as our administration exclaims, then I think it may be ok for this process to occur, because it may be the only way to keep our fight against terrorism afloat. EDIT: I guess I should vote for hte last option.."only if they "might" be a terrorist", but the thing is...that's sort of how we're doing it anyways, under the pretense that we think these people "might" be terrorists, and the margin of error is showing in the release of innocent people.

Tough question, hard answers...:\

Last edited by Syke on 10/15/04 - 19:38; edited 1 time in total

Back to top

Occulis
RealPoor Jedi

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 13293
Location: Moral Relativity Central

Posted: 10/15/04 - 18:46 Post subject:

myndwarrp wrote:

Such is the world we live in post 9/11 unfortunately. We cant continue the way we were. Americans are pretty complacent and apathetic and its time for us to wake the f**k up and realize lots of people want this country demolished because of our freedom. And obviously they'll do anything to try and hurt us. Do *I* like it? Not really. But, it's a new world.

Giving up freedom for security nets you 0 of either. This has been a broken record reminder from Occulis "T.J." Rift

Back to top

Manuva
Banned
Banned

Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2536

Posted: 10/15/04 - 22:14 Post subject:

myndwarrp wrote:

Such is the world we live in post 9/11 unfortunately. We cant continue the way we were. Americans are pretty complacent and apathetic and its time for us to wake the f**k up and realize lots of people want this country demolished because of our freedom. And obviously they'll do anything to try and hurt us. Do *I* like it? Not really. But, it's a new world.

Most retarded shit ever.

Back to top

Kurel
RealPoor Sensei

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1877
Location: Cali

Posted: 10/15/04 - 22:24 Post subject:

Not all of your basic freedoms apply when you're in a time of war. Those deemed to be enemy combatants will be treated as such by the military, and should be.

Conspiring with terrorists is considered treasonous under the Constitution, and *the* worst crime you can commit in the United States. I have zero respect for anyone who thinks they'll get anywhere in this country with violence against the government. Sorry, it just isn't going to work.

Quote:

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

If Congress gave permission for the military to treat them the way they are, it's perfectly legal. Now, had these people done other crimes, like murder someone, or rob someone and weren't traitors, then yes, I would say it would be wrong to with hold their due process.

Back to top

Guest

Posted: 10/15/04 - 23:56 Post subject:

Those of you who said it was alright to deny an American citizen due process are f*****g douches Kthx

Back to top

Vekril
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 2525
Location: Jersey

Posted: 10/16/04 - 00:06 Post subject:

I am in the middle on this. I think if someone is deemed an enemy combatant or a likely terrorist, they are not due a traditional public trial by jury. However, they should be reviewed by some sort of career type (not politically appointed) military tribunal or judge, and if sufficient evidence exists linking them to terrorism or a war enemy - lock em up as long as you see fit. Public trials cannot happen because it would compromise our intelligence too much, and the standards of proof are different

Back to top

ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575

Posted: 10/16/04 - 00:20 Post subject:

HELL FEK NO! kbarrs kids 2020

Back to top

Brash
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958

Posted: 10/16/04 - 01:01 Post subject:

only if kbarr agrees

Back to top

Domination
Can't Stop Posting

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posted: 10/16/04 - 01:43 Post subject:

Ashley wrote:

neither are serial killers or rapists, but they get (and should get) a fair trial. They hate you because you have money or are pretty or whatever, and will rape/kill you solely for that reason. Should we be able to hold them interminably too?

This is a loaded question....... Uhhh serial killers or rapists. If a serial killer or rapist is found in a foreign country fighting against our military then yes they will goto prison without any chance at due process until deemed appropriate by the same military they were fighting against on foreign soil. They aren't prisoners of war really because they don't fight for a country, they are enemy combatants because they don't have the representation in the international community to declare war against a nation or to fight for the warriors' rights.

You do understand that only enemy combants from foreign countries are the people being held like this right? If they are a US citizen it doesn't matter if they are caught engaging our military in a foreign war, which actually should be treason and they should be put to death by firing squad.

I don't believe Americans in the homeland should EVER be withheld due process unless under extremely odd situations, that would have the odds of 1 to 100,000,000,000 of happening.

Please post where americans in america have been denied due process, or change your question because you are talking about enemy combants which should be put to death on the spot in my opinion, heh, fight against our soldiers - you best f*****g be prepared to die if not don't take up arms against our soldiers. Its called respect, we finally have it again in the world. Walk soft, and strike hard, Say what you mean and mean what you say - this does require the dicipline of not talking shit.

Back to top

Guest

Posted: 10/16/04 - 01:45 Post subject:

Domination wrote:

Ashley wrote:

neither are serial killers or rapists, but they get (and should get) a fair trial. They hate you because you have money or are pretty or whatever, and will rape/kill you solely for that reason. Should we be able to hold them interminably too?

This is a loaded question....... Uhhh serial killers or rapists. If a serial killer or rapist is found in a foreign country fighting against our military then yes they will goto prison without any chance at due process until deemed appropriate by the same military they were fighting against on foreign soil. They aren't prisoners of war really because they don't fight for a country, they are enemy combatants because they don't have the representation in the international community to declare war against a nation or to fight for the warriors' rights.

You do understand that only enemy combants from foreign countries are the people being held like this right? If they are a US citizen it doesn't matter if they are caught engaging our military in a foreign war, which actually should be treason and they should be put to death by firing squad.

I don't believe Americans in the homeland should EVER be withheld due process unless under extremely odd situations, that would have the odds of 1 to 100,000,000,000 of happening.

Please post where americans in america have been denied due process, or change your question because you are talking about enemy combants which should be put to death on the spot in my opinion, heh, fight against our soldiers - you best f*****g be prepared to die if not don't take up arms against our soldiers. Its called respect, we finally have it again in the world. Walk soft, and strike hard, Say what you mean and mean what you say - this does require the dicipline of not talking shit.

Remember in America, once it becomes legal to do something like hold an American without due process, its IMPOSSIBLE to fight.
An American citizen deserves a trial if he is accused of crimes.
Period.
Otherwise there is room for major abuse/corruption

Back to top

Domination
Can't Stop Posting

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posted: 10/16/04 - 01:49 Post subject:

Jack Crow wrote:

Domination wrote:

Ashley wrote:

neither are serial killers or rapists, but they get (and should get) a fair trial. They hate you because you have money or are pretty or whatever, and will rape/kill you solely for that reason. Should we be able to hold them interminably too?

This is a loaded question....... Uhhh serial killers or rapists. If a serial killer or rapist is found in a foreign country fighting against our military then yes they will goto prison without any chance at due process until deemed appropriate by the same military they were fighting against on foreign soil. They aren't prisoners of war really because they don't fight for a country, they are enemy combatants because they don't have the representation in the international community to declare war against a nation or to fight for the warriors' rights.

You do understand that only enemy combants from foreign countries are the people being held like this right? If they are a US citizen it doesn't matter if they are caught engaging our military in a foreign war, which actually should be treason and they should be put to death by firing squad.

I don't believe Americans in the homeland should EVER be withheld due process unless under extremely odd situations, that would have the odds of 1 to 100,000,000,000 of happening.

Please post where americans in america have been denied due process, or change your question because you are talking about enemy combants which should be put to death on the spot in my opinion, heh, fight against our soldiers - you best f*****g be prepared to die if not don't take up arms against our soldiers. Its called respect, we finally have it again in the world. Walk soft, and strike hard, Say what you mean and mean what you say - this does require the dicipline of not talking shit.

Remember in America, once it becomes legal to do something like hold an American without due process, its IMPOSSIBLE to fight.
An American citizen deserves a trial if he is accused of crimes.
Period.
Otherwise there is room for major abuse/corruption

If they start doing this to americans here in american - We will elect the fuckwits out of office so fast. Every republican and democrat would come together to kill shit like this. Politicians will do whatever they can to stay in power, if they lose their spots in office - They are out and game over.

This is why we gotta keep our government in check, as Thomas Jefferson urged, a population has to always be ready to revolt to keep its government balanced.

We can still vote out every senator and represenetive, and if they change that then we best be ready to back it up.

Back to top

Guest

Posted: 10/16/04 - 01:57 Post subject:

Domination wrote:

Jack Crow wrote:

Domination wrote:

Ashley wrote:

neither are serial killers or rapists, but they get (and should get) a fair trial. They hate you because you have money or are pretty or whatever, and will rape/kill you solely for that reason. Should we be able to hold them interminably too?

This is a loaded question....... Uhhh serial killers or rapists. If a serial killer or rapist is found in a foreign country fighting against our military then yes they will goto prison without any chance at due process until deemed appropriate by the same military they were fighting against on foreign soil. They aren't prisoners of war really because they don't fight for a country, they are enemy combatants because they don't have the representation in the international community to declare war against a nation or to fight for the warriors' rights.

You do understand that only enemy combants from foreign countries are the people being held like this right? If they are a US citizen it doesn't matter if they are caught engaging our military in a foreign war, which actually should be treason and they should be put to death by firing squad.

I don't believe Americans in the homeland should EVER be withheld due process unless under extremely odd situations, that would have the odds of 1 to 100,000,000,000 of happening.

Please post where americans in america have been denied due process, or change your question because you are talking about enemy combants which should be put to death on the spot in my opinion, heh, fight against our soldiers - you best f*****g be prepared to die if not don't take up arms against our soldiers. Its called respect, we finally have it again in the world. Walk soft, and strike hard, Say what you mean and mean what you say - this does require the dicipline of not talking shit.

Remember in America, once it becomes legal to do something like hold an American without due process, its IMPOSSIBLE to fight.
An American citizen deserves a trial if he is accused of crimes.
Period.
Otherwise there is room for major abuse/corruption

If they start doing this to americans here in american - We will elect the fuckwits out of office so fast. Every republican and democrat would come together to kill shit like this. Politicians will do whatever they can to stay in power, if they lose their spots in office - They are out and game over.

This is why we gotta keep our government in check, as Thomas Jefferson urged, a population has to always be ready to revolt to keep its government balanced.

We can still vote out every senator and represenetive, and if they change that then we best be ready to back it up.

We started doing this in America

Wake up citizens

Quote:

August 21, 2003

Jose Padilla: No Charges and No Trial, Just Jail
by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Jose Padilla is the U.S. citizen who supposedly plotted to detonate a "dirty bomb." Since his capture -- not on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq, but at Chicago's O'Hare Airport -- he has not been charged with any crime. Yet, for more than a year, Padilla has been held incommunicado in a South Carolina military brig.

Padilla's indefinite detention, without access to an attorney, has civil libertarians up in arms. That's why the Cato Institute, joined by five ideologically diverse public policy organizations -- the Center for National Security Studies, the Constitution Project, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, People for the American Way, and the Rutherford Institute -- filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Consider this specious logic, endorsed by the Bush administration: Under the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel does not apply until charges are filed. The government has not charged Padilla. Ordinarily, U.S. citizens cannot be detained without charge. But the administration has avoided that technicality by designating Padilla as an "enemy combatant," then proclaiming that the court may not second-guess his designation.

Essentially, on orders of the executive branch, anyone could wind up imprisoned by the military with no way to assert his innocence. That frightening prospect was echoed by J. Harvie Wilkinson, the respected and steadfastly conservative chief judge of the Fourth Circuit. In a case involving another U.S. citizen, Yaser Hamdi, Wilkinson warned, "With no meaningful judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel." Judge Wilkinson upheld Hamdi's detention but pointedly noted that Hamdi's battlefield capture was like "apples and oranges" compared to Padilla's arrest in Chicago. "We aren't placing our imprimatur upon a new day of executive detentions," Wilkinson cautioned.

An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention.

Yes, Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act, which says that non-citizens suspected of terrorism can be detained, but only for seven days. After that, they have to be released or charged, unless the attorney general certifies every six months that they present a security risk. Two months earlier, Congress had passed a resolution empowering the president to use all necessary force against the 9/11 terrorists. But that resolution surely did not give the administration unfettered discretion to detain citizens without charge. If it had, then the ensuing PATRIOT Act would have afforded more protection to aliens than to citizens. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, that proposition is incredible.

Reasonably construed, Congress' resolution on the use of military force triggered the president's commander-in-chief authority. He could then order seizure of enemy soldiers and detention of persons found in a zone of active combat. But he could not order the imprisonment, without charge, of an unarmed non-soldier far from active combat, especially a U.S. citizen on our own soil.

Nor is the administration justified in its reliance on Ex parte Quirin, the Supreme Court case involving eight Nazi saboteurs, one of whom was an American citizen. The executive branch acted in Quirin in accordance with congressional authorization. The eight Nazis were represented by counsel, charged, tried, and convicted. Here, by contrast, Padilla has been denied any chance to defend himself. He has seen no lawyer; he has not been charged, much less tried and convicted. And he has been imprisoned notwithstanding a 30-year-old statute that expressly forbids the unauthorized detention of U.S. citizens.

Padilla may deserve the treatment he is receiving -- perhaps worse. That is not the point. When Americans are taken into custody, they have the right to retain an attorney. Congress must first set the rules. Then an impartial judge, not the president, should make the ultimate decision as to whether the arrest and imprisonment comport with the Constitution. James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, put it succinctly: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

This article was published in the Chicago Sun-times, Aug. 11, 2003.

Last edited by Guest on 10/16/04 - 02:20; edited 1 time in total

Back to top

Domination
Can't Stop Posting

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posted: 10/16/04 - 02:14 Post subject:

heh thats the 1 out of 100,000,000,000. Anyone caught trying to orchestrate a act such as this scale will be designated an enemy combatant. How do you figure this had anything to do with the patriot act? Did you not read your own article? I don't think you did.

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 10/16/04 - 04:54 Post subject: Re: Is it okay to deny due process?

Ashley wrote:

Okay, so we all know that the government is currently holding people who are US citizens and have denied these people lawyers or any contact with the outside world whatsoever in order to further their interrogations. How many of you think its fine for the government to hold people for *years* with no lawyer (or even a trial or meeting with a judge for that matter)?

Just curious-

also, does it make a difference when you enter the word "terrorist" into the picture? Are these people inhuman, below the geneva convention, not worthy of the rights our constitution guarantees US citizens? I guess they could have information, but is it justifiable to hold them interminably WITHOUT proving their guilt first? Remember the two guys who were just released not too long ago- they had been held without trial for 2 years and then were released because they finally found out they had been innocent.

ashley,
there due process is not being withheld unless they are not told what charges they are being held on. if they are citizens then they do need their right to a speedy trial however =/ and i also agree that under no circumstances is it ok to withhold due process. However if the people being held are not citizens or they have some info of them having links with terror, then hold away.

Back to top

Silvermouse
RealPoor Jedi

Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 11015

Posted: 10/16/04 - 13:51 Post subject:

So what criteria do they use when calling someone a "terrorist" and denying them due process?

Back to top

Is it okay to deny due process?

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK