I've never like the whole idea about Guantánamo Bay and other such prisons and how the Patriot Act denies the people their civil liberties. If a person is suspected of breaking the law in the US they are given a fair trial with a lawyer and a jury of their peers. Now this is not always fair, but it's much more so than what is happening in Guantánamo Bay. My friend's way of explaining the whole situation is that you can get on a pay phone and call the government, give them one of your friends names and say they are a terrorist, and then they will be picked up and sent to Guantánamo Bay. Simply vanish for years at a time. I found this op-ed article in the NY Times and thought it was interesting. I don't agree with it, but still thought it brought up some good points.
"Critics argue that if the United States cannot prove before a court of law that detainees at Guantánamo Bay have committed a crime, then they should be released. This argument rests on the principle that people should be punished only for committing a crime." gee, what a good idea. Punish the guilty people and let the innocent ones go unpunished...who ever thought of that?
"A person who is merely dangerous cannot be criminally punished for being dangerous; however, he can be detained, and he is not always entitled to the expansive procedural protections granted to the accused criminal." what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just because they're supposedly terrorists they have no rights? and anyways who says that they are terrorists? If they are then I am all in favor of detaining them. However if they are innocent people, it is wrong to detain them.
"Although in 1969 the Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment governments can ban only speech that would cause "imminent" harm — like incitement to riot — it remains an open question whether this standard is workable in an age of global terrorism exemplified by the Sept. 11 attacks."
The fact that we were most brutally attacked on September 11th doesn't give the government free reign and allow them to deny us our civil liberties. Civil liberties are what allow us to be free and what make our country different from others. Yet these people are trying to take that away from us and using the same old excuse, 9/11.
"Critics argue that if the United States cannot prove before a court of law that detainees at Guantánamo Bay have committed a crime, then they should be released. This argument rests on the principle that people should be punished only for committing a crime." gee, what a good idea. Punish the guilty people and let the innocent ones go unpunished...who ever thought of that?
"A person who is merely dangerous cannot be criminally punished for being dangerous; however, he can be detained, and he is not always entitled to the expansive procedural protections granted to the accused criminal." what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just because they're supposedly terrorists they have no rights? and anyways who says that they are terrorists? If they are then I am all in favor of detaining them. However if they are innocent people, it is wrong to detain them.
"Although in 1969 the Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment governments can ban only speech that would cause "imminent" harm — like incitement to riot — it remains an open question whether this standard is workable in an age of global terrorism exemplified by the Sept. 11 attacks."
The fact that we were most brutally attacked on September 11th doesn't give the government free reign and allow them to deny us our civil liberties. Civil liberties are what allow us to be free and what make our country different from others. Yet these people are trying to take that away from us and using the same old excuse, 9/11.
posted by Ellie @ 12:21 AM
18 Comments:
At 6/28/2006 03:20:00 PM,
Cranky Daze said…
At the horrifying risk of sounding like I'm defending Bush and his minions, Abraham Lincoln did something similar, although to a lesser degree, during the Civil War. He suspended habeas corpus, jailed people in the North who were too vocal in their criticism of his position that the Union must be saved at all costs. He even shut down a few Northern newspapers for a few issues.
In one case, he reacted to the rantings of one well-known critic, whose name escapes me at the moment, but who was defending secession and the Confederacy, by deporting him...to the South which did not set well at all with the deportee. Personally, I thought that was quite original and more than a little amusing and definitely appropriate!
Perhaps the main difference between Lincoln's actions and those of GWB is that a terrible war was raging within our own country and between Americans who were intent on, and indeed succeeded at, killing each other off by the hundreds of thousands. Northern support for the war had begun to falter, due probably to some set-backs in several battles, as well as printed diatribes against the president.
From this distance, it's hard to fault him for doing his best to save the Union, especially when one considers what a disaster North America would be these days had the Confederacy succeeded.
In no event have I ever read that persons who were imprisoned by Lincoln for their dissent were removed from U.S. soil, or tortured, as has been the case with the Gitmo nightmare!
At 6/28/2006 06:35:00 PM,
billie said…
"The fact that we were most brutally attacked on September 11th doesn't give the government free reign and allow them to deny us our civil liberties. Civil liberties are what allow us to be free and what make our country different from others. Yet these people are trying to take that away from us and using the same old excuse, 9/11."
why do you think i have been so vehement about keeping the secret prisons in the forefront? the eu is suing the american government because of secret prisons over there. we have been transporting detainees from one prison to another so that they can be tortured. it is a fine line between a muslim extremist and say- my blog. i speak out against the government- they monitor my phone calls and blog posts- they don't like the fact that i am a left leaner- bang! i am a terrorist suspect and i disappear. hasn't happened yet- but hey we never thought that they would be mining and creating personal info databases either.
At 6/28/2006 10:26:00 PM,
Obob said…
to bounce around, what is more important, your child's life or a terrorist's life. What if they found out and prevented a plot from nuking your city from Gitmo? My two year old just came down in her princess slippers and care bear jammies to give me a hug goodnight, guess my choice.
And before anyone uses the "what about her rights as she grows older?" chant ... the people we are chasing care little if she grows older unless it is in their perverted brand of Islam. Islam really is a great religion when practiced in accordance of Allah's true will. As Christianity in God's and the Jewish faith by Jehovah's.
What concerns me are the nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics, what's next if they were to get their way?
The preacher and his demented flock who protest a fallen hero's funeral.(Props to the Freedom Riders)
Religion is a weapon far more dangerous than any WMD. It can also be its greatest defuser, but it is up to us and them to find a way.
I will post my best solution by Friday. Please visit and make a comment, all opinions are valuable even packer fans.
At 6/28/2006 11:09:00 PM,
The Future Was Yesterday said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 6/29/2006 12:23:00 AM,
Ellie said…
cranky daze - Some people have questioned Lincoln's judgement during the civil war. However, I think he had the country's best interests at heart. I'm afraid that this president values his own greed much more than the well-being of the country. And yes, this president has gone beyond simply wartime limitations of civil liberties. Torture is horrible and should never be allowed. and what is even more disgusting is how GWB tried to sign it into law with the Patriot Act.
betmo - this subject really doesn't receive enough attention. If it was the headlines of the newspaper every day that people were being tortured and that the US was responsible for it, I'm sure the American people would be disgusted and call for its immediate halt and for the guilty parties to be sent to jail.
to them democrat, hating america, and terrorist seem to lead into one another. Just because I dont' support the current government and I am not behind their corruption and torture doesn't mean I hate America. In fact I love America and am willing to speak out so we get our country back on track. and just so you know, I really hope you don't disappear. who knows though, I could be next... :)
obob - I don't have children, yet... but i'm sure i'd choose their lives over a terrorists. However, the terrorists still have rights. A lot of the people being interrogated in gitmo are innocent people who are picked up and subjected to torture. Of course they give up names, but that only leads to false searching and wasted time and money. yes, the islamic fanactics are dangerous, but the Bush adminstration would have you picturing them jumping out of your closet at night.
the nutjobs that bomb abortion clinics need help. Their claim of self-defense has no standing at all. It's murder. They preech against killing the fetus so they go out and kill the doctor. real smart, and real christian.
looking forward to that post...and don't worry, i'm not a packer fan. :)
who deleted a comment?! all opinions are welcome here...unless you like GWB. jk. as long as you're courteous I welcome your views.
At 6/29/2006 01:21:00 AM,
The Future Was Yesterday said…
who deleted a comment?!
GULP! Ah....Um....that would be me, I'm afraid! And after the nice one you just left me, too!..(: Before I begin, I came down to say I won't be on the blogs for an undetermined amount of time due to our move, but I will return!
I wanted to make a quick note to obob, re religion occasionally being a diffuser. That may be, Sir, but I personally haven't ever witnessed it, at least in a war situation like this. Of course, the fact I haven't seen something only means I'm grossly undereducated, so don't put much faith in that.:)
I read once that "Religion" in all it's many forms, is responsible for more deaths as a result of wars directly started in it's "name", than the sum total of both big wars, and Vietnam. That's a lot of people. I was raised until I was fourteen by the same crazed, far right wing evangelicals who dictate to us now. Their first chosen method of settling a disagreement was "war" of one kind or another. There was no "let's talk about this", it was "he said our religion was wrong! Grab the guns!!" Again, my personal experiences do not the full body cover.
The bible, if you believe part or all of that, glorifies war in many occasionhs and instances, and even actively promotes it as a problem solving agent.
We are where we are today, because two identically radical organizations cling to their religions, and neither is going to budge. This is no more a war on Terrorism than I am Ann Coulter. This is a religious war, always will be, however it is disguised.
And I apologize for ranting. It's a subject that gets me on my box and all sweaty.:) Ellie, I thank you for the use of your space.
At 6/29/2006 03:05:00 AM,
steven rix said…
The religious right only and perhaps a President that talks with God think it is a war on Islam. Westerners usually are able to get disconnected from God, but muslim countries since they don't know yet Nietzsche are not unable to do that. In the US it would seem since 1957 (under God we trust) and after 911 especially there is the vocation of the government to be also part of the Church and the voice of God. That is dangerous to conciliate both. In the Muslim countries they have issues with that under the islamic courts because it represents one single authority and it is often too hard to deny it because it is a re-interpretation of the Q'ran through their laws that determine what is right and what is right, and also determines a way of life. And in Europe we went down technologically during many centuries because of the political authority of the Church. If ever this stuff comes to the US, it will definitively blindfold once for all the vision of "freedom".
At 6/29/2006 09:12:00 AM,
Obob said…
In the span of history, people have tragically used religion as a WMD, fact. But when you attack people and thier faith you risk that WMD x10, fact. I'm not trying to sound like a hyper-religious freak, even though I teach it to 7th graders at a Catholic school. In fact I tend to teach it in an objective fashion to get the most thought from my students. Heck, I hide my political affiliations from them as much as possible. And every year I have my 8th graders who are leaving beg me to tell them my party, I can't wait to throw the Unity 08 concept at them. Sorry I can get off the topic.
The point I trying to get back to is as much as the wingnuts/moonbats are essential to political discourse, they must not be the ones who set policy or platform, it should be for the majority. I ahve no problem with either extremes creating their own parties, that could be fun. magine us needing coalitions, party.
I am fully aware that my spelling is beyond acceptable for a teacher, but spellcheck is my boon.
At 6/29/2006 09:42:00 PM,
steven rix said…
http://politiquesusa.blogspot.com/2006/06/your-debit-card-under-patriot-act.html
Why don't we flush down the US constitution or give it to somebody else since we don't even use it anymore?
At 6/30/2006 12:00:00 AM,
Ellie said…
the future was yesterday - good luck with your move! you are perfectly welcome to rant all you like here :)
I certainly hope you're not Ann Coulter... and i agree with you, this war is not about terror. I have a distant cousin who is about 86ish and she loves Bush. Every time I go to visit her I get the whole talk on how great he is and how she listens to Rush Limbaugh for hours (I wonder what she thinks about his drug bust...) She is constantly complaining about the Arabs and how they are taking over her neighborhood because one owns a grocery store where she has to buy food. The last time that I saw her she was complaining about how this is the same war as the Crusades. True, both are over religion and this administration has done a masterful job of playing on Christian people's hate of religions other than their own. However, I think the war is more over Bush's own greed. He saw opportunities for money for him and his cronies in Iraq and he seized upon it.
I grew up in an Irish Catholic household where religion was strictly enforced. One of the jokes one of my teachers liked to tell, in Catholic school of course, was about how St. Peter took people on a tour or heaven. He took them to different floors in the elevator. On one floor he told them to be very quiet. On the way down they asked why they had to be quiet. St. Peter said that that was because the Catholics were on that floor, and they didn't think anyone else got into heaven. :) it's sad how true that is, and not only with catholics but with the christian evangelicals too.
politiques USA - this combination of religion and government is not good for our country. in the past theocracies have failed and any combination of church and state hasn't turned out that well.
about the constitution, you speak the truth. I was talking to my father today while I was listening to Bloomberg radio and they were talking about Gitmo. I got into talking about how our civil liberties are being denied by our government and my dad had no idea the extent of it. And he's pretty well informed. He reads the NY Times almost everyday and listens to the news a lot. It really amazed me how he didn't know about the extent of their violation of the constitution. Makes you wonder what people who don't listen to the news believe...
gonna skoot over to that link as soon as this comment is finished. :)
obob - I think Bush is exploiting religion which is not acceptable. We should tell him so by impeaching him. For that and countless other things... and yes, people seem to be forgetting that democracy is based on what the majority of Americans believe, and winning their approval. It's not based on two extremes clawing each other and the more vicious one wins the elections.
7th grade religion, huh? That must be hard. Although I had a great religion teacher in 6th grade. She inspired me, however the religion didn't. Don't worry about the spelling. Mine is atrocious on paper and my writing is even worse. A hand written page done by me looks like complete chicken scratch...I type almost everything :)
At 6/30/2006 08:27:00 AM,
Obob said…
Try sitting in on my Social Studies class. If want to find something to make you think, read about the two opposing sides leading up to the Civil War. With the poltical rhetoric today, you could see some very scary similarities. The discourse of either party is frightening. In the Civil War, both sides used extremes to force their points of view and create the Civil War. Of course their is no way to take the side of the Confederacy based on their slavery supported regime, but look at things from their point of view.
Look in your histoy books and read from all points of view on major and minor conflicts. The far majority of all wars is based on economics and the haves and have nots. The have nots will use extreme rhetoric to get their way and scare people into their side. The haves will use the flip side to maitain power.
You could argue Bush on either side. Some day he is in Iraq to gather wealth from oil, I heard they have couple barrels tucked away. Haliburton & Cheney
The other side will say we are in Iraq because terrorist orgainzations are/could be funded through Baathist Iraq and used this to attack us.
Pick your poison, just look at the different sides.
I gotta thank ellie and everyone who comments to keep my brain alive in the off season.
At 6/30/2006 09:55:00 AM,
billie said…
obob, cicil liberties are important. period. without them we are not america. having said that- even with the outright erosion of our civil liberties- we are not any safer than we were prior to 9/11- that came from a dhs report and the 9/11 commission report. i agree with defending ourselves against attack- but the 'let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here' is getting old. why? why are we fighting them over there? if we had done what we needed to do in afghanistan, chances are the job would be done by now. the cia opperatives had bin laden pinned down within weeks of going in and rumsfeld would not send backup. know why? they wanted to go into iraq and if we had caught bin laden- there would be no iraq. so- now we have more terrorists than ever before because the middle east is united to fight a common enemy- us. how long do you think that we can continue to fight this fight- over there? most of the world is muslim and their numbers are growing- check out the un census of religions.
At 6/30/2006 05:13:00 PM,
Obob said…
I am a very strong proponent of civil liberties, please do not hold me in contempt. The freedom of US citizens is our true national treasure that carries no price, unless you have a wicked good lobbyist. lol
But terrorists we have captured should be treated as prisoners of war and US civilians should be treated with the rights allowed within US law. Although we have the best judicial system in the world, it is far from perfect and constantly needs adjusting, hence the Supreme Court and judicial review. I may disagree with the current decision, but it has been handed down. We put them on bench and until they step aside, the Robed bunch are there to protect our rights.
Back to reality, we must in the end protect the well being of US citizens. So if some bad guys we catch sit in Cuba while they are getting processed, so be it. But history is hindsight 20/20 and the innocent will be known and hopefully freed and exhonerated asap.
At 7/01/2006 10:30:00 AM,
billie said…
look- all i am saying is- the government went on a profiling rampage here in america and held several people of arab descent for months without their families knowing where they were and what was going on. these arab men were innocent legal businessmen and citizens and they were held without charges. how is that protecting america? we as citizens don't know that that isn't what happened in guantanamo. i am not advocating setting the guilty free and i really don't think that you can justify simply holding these people without charges. what the hell are they being held for if there wasn't something on them in the first place? charge them and hold them legally. what makes me so mad is that we americans hold ourselves up as so much better and our lives are worth so much more than any other people's on the planet. why? yes, america is a great place to live but how does that make us more human that the folks who just got blown to smithereens in a bagdad grocery store? most of those folks don't want what is happening to them either. it makes me mad that others think that we should fight them 'over there' to keep our country pristine and our people 'safe'. no- i don't want war here but i don't want to see innocent people stripped of their rights, homes and lives because they are brown either.
At 7/03/2006 12:25:00 AM,
Laurie said…
"A person who is merely dangerous cannot be criminally punished for being dangerous; however, he can be detained...."
Hey, am I retarted, or do we not "detain" stalkers until they murder or rape their targets? Cause you know, technically, when you've got a restraining order against someone, that someone is potentially dangerous. Still, said someone is allowed to roam the streets freely until an actual crime is committed. Do these rules just not apply to brown people?
At 7/04/2006 10:59:00 PM,
Ellie said…
obob - I think it's very interesting to read into the point of view of the losing party, because as they say: winners write history. Hitler's point of view is an interesting one to consider also. I haven't read much into the confederacy's point of view, but I found Hitlers to be very interesting. He was a very horrible man but its interesting how he could possibly rationalize the atrocious acts he committed.
betmo - amen to that! Hating he US is about the only thing the people in the Middle East agree on. We've set off quite a powder keg and Bush has no solution for dealing with it.
as for civil liberties, sorry obob, I have to agree with betmo. I see what you mean and I agree that US citizens need to be kept safe and the guilty need to be punished. Also it's no big deal that people wait a few months to be processed. However, people disappear for years when they are innocent and have done nothing. They are tortured and then they give up names, after all wouldn't you? then the government tracks down those people, detains them and tortures them. Meanwhile, it was probably the only name the person could think of while their fingernails were being removed. It wastes time, resources and above all it's just not right. We have no right to torture anyone period. Back to my point, these people aren't necessarily guilty and the US government should give them rights. Just because they MAYBE are terrorists doesn't mean that we can hold them for years without any right to a trial. If we know that they are terrorists or have some conclusive proof to back us up, then they should be detained. but under NO circumstances should they be tortured. And I may even go so far as to argue that even if they are terrorists or even Saddam himself, as members of the human race, they still deserve rights.
Laurie, you make a very good point and I see the correlation. However, I must clarify what I originally meant. I feel strongly that the policy for stalkers should be changed. A restraining order is a piece of paper that is only useful after the person is raped, killed, or both. a.k.a. totally useless. yes, stalkers should be detained before they hurt anyone. and I believe that terrorists should be detained if they are dangerous. However, some of the people who are detained are not guilty of anything. They are simply picked up off the streets and sent to Gitmo. Basically disappear off the face of the earth for a couple of years, if they're lucky. If we catch a terrorist, okay detain them. But they as human beings have rights and we must assure that they are guilty before we hold them. All I'm saying is that I don't feel the system in place is adequate to make sure that the people being detained there are guilty.
At 7/07/2006 01:03:00 PM,
Robert said…
There is no suspension of civil liberties in the Patriot Act. The suspension of habeus corpus during the Vicil War was a far more intrusive and unconstitutional action that obtaining the phone numbers I call. Lincoln actually suspended amendments to the constitution! The government stopped free speech, required no warrants for arrest and imprisonment of American citizens! The protections of the constitution do not apply to people on a battlefield. They can actually be held for the duration of the conflict.
Other than just hating Bush, why in the world would you want these people free?
At 7/08/2006 11:53:00 PM,
Ellie said…
about the only thing I seem to agree with you on is the fact that I hate Bush. :) Thanks for visiting...always up for a good debate. The Patriot Act suspends rights given under the Geneva Convention...rights to a fair trial, etc. True, getting some phone numbers doesn't seem that intrusive, but it is nonetheless. Certain little things are taken away, similar to the expression "nickling and diming to death". I'll just add a dollar for this...and five dollars for that...etc. soon you're owing a hundred dollars because of the extras. similarly the bush administration is taking away many "little" things that don't seem that important, but start to add up.
as for the suspension of habeus corpus during the civil war, I don't think that was right. However, I don't think that Lincoln had people tortured, and stood behind it. Okay Bush hasn't said that he advocates torture, but he did sign McCain's bill and then sign another bill that says he doesn't have to follow the bill he signed into law.
as for freedom of speech...that seems to be suspended too. example: dan rather. he worked for I believe 44 years, and because of a story showing Bush negatively he's forced to retire. How about the NY Times printing that article about SWIFT? the press is part of the checks and balances system. maybe unofficially, but they help keep politicians in line.
I don't want osama bin laden walking the streets. however, I don't want innocent people being denied rights and tortured just because they are suspected of being terrorists. as a New Yorker I felt 9/11 hard and I never want to see that repeated ever again. anywhere. however, people still have rights as human beings and those rights shouldn't be denied by the US government and put under the heading national security.
Post a Comment
<< Home