Re: Should terror suspects have a right to due process?
Originally posted by PVS
as im sure many of you know, u.s. lawfirms are now defending detainees in guantanimo bay.pleased? outraged?
discuss
Hell yes of course they should. A terror suspect can be anybody in the world with the wrong name or who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... Without trail you are locking up innocent people. And I hate locking up innocent people
i dont know, honestly...but i wish such sound logic was a prerequisite for being a senior official at the pentagon
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070113/pl_afp/usattacksjustice_070113000943
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Pentagon official responsible for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said he finds it "shocking" that top US attorneys are rushing to defend "terrorists" locked up there."The major law firms in the country ... are out there representing detainees," Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said in a Federal News Radio interview Thursday, available online.
"And you know what, it's shocking," he said.
"I think quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."
His remarks were blasted on Friday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and in a Washington Post editorial, described as an attack on the role of lawyers and the rule of law.
"What Mr. Stimson condemns are precisely the values we should be trying to defend in the war on terror," the ACLU said in a statement.
Originally posted by PVS
i dont know, honestly...but i wish such sound logic was a prerequisite for being a senior official at the pentagonhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070113/pl_afp/usattacksjustice_070113000943
Yeah it does really shock if people try to figure out if somebody is guilty or not and want to get innocent people out of jail...
Damn those bastards, damn them all to hell
the arguement some present is that since these prison camps are not on u.s. soil, and the detainees are not u.s. citizens, then they by extention have no basic human rights, letalone being under the guidelines of the constitution.
also may i remind those reading of newly passed military commissions act which not only strips 'enemy combatants' of basic human rights, but also allows the executive branch to suspend the right to selectively suspend the 700 year old right of habius corpus for any u.s. citizen.
Originally posted by PVS
the arguement some present is that since these prison camps are not on u.s. soil, and the detainees are not u.s. citizens, then they by extention have no basic human rights, letalone being under the guidelines of the constitution.also may i remind those reading of newly passed military commissions act which not only strips 'enemy combatants' of basic human rights, but also allows the executive branch to suspend the right to selectively suspend the 700 year old right of habius corpus for any u.s. citizen.
Denying them basic human rights is the same as saying they're not human (racists). If the US arrested them then they should be subject to US legal protection no matter where they are IMO.
i think the whole problem stems from the fact that many of them are guilty as sin yet there is no evidence for it because it isn't and shouldn't be a soldiers duty to prove that they are being shot at/ mortared, bombed by terrorists...if it were then it would involve having forensic teams fingerprinting and DNA testing every seized weapon and terrorist in a dangerous combat zone and matching up bullets fired to particular guns...
in short its just not possible
on the other hand it could be considered that the US brought that problem on themselves by not classifying the detainees as POW's and thus the same level of criminal prosecution and demand for evidence to prove terrorist activity that would not have been needed under a war situation...they would merely do what has been done in the past...POW's would be detained for the duration of the war and then freed...given that the war on terror will most likely drag on indefinitely then the POW's could be held indefinitely
Originally posted by jaden101
on the other hand it could be considered that the US brought that problem on themselves by not classifying the detainees as POW's
bingo
btw, i intended to title this thread "OMG LAWYERS REPRESENTING TERRORISTS!!!" to sex it up and spin it right (im gunnin for sean hannity's job)