Marines in Shackles! Where's the ACLU?

The military has rules of its own that service people agree to upon enlistment. Which civil rights is Malkin claiming the military is violating? Do any of those Marines agree? Have they or their families or representative requested intervention by the ACLU?

This looks like another bogus ACLU bashing rant.

 

Doesn't the military have a different system outside of the normal constitutional parameters for civilians?

 

So if I understand you guys correctly, the constitution of our country applies to people who fight against it (i.e., Gitmo) but not to people who fight for it (i.e., Marines)? If these guys are dangerous, I have no problem with them being held. I also have no problem with Gitmo because I think is a necessary part of what is going on. People who are not legally in our country do not have a right to the rights of our constitution.

I would like to think I have misunderstood you, but that is sure what it sounds like.

I don't know much about this story so I am responding only to your responses.

 

Considering Gitom: "In the U.S., the Constitution is the law of the land, for citizens and non-citizens alike. But where does the reach of that law end?" I don't know as I have not gotten involved in discussing the issues of Gitmo. It looks like this will be an ongoing discussion in a globalized world:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030409_raustiala.html

Considering military service: "Sort of, but not exactly the way it does in civilian life.":

http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_law/military_us_constitution.htm

 

Question

==So you argue against putting terrorists (who you claim are innocent people picked up on the streets, Gitmo thread post #40, dated 6/15/06) in prison because they have not been charged with anything. Do you have a problem with American soilders being chained up like dogs when they have not been charged with anything? In fact I am not sure they did anything wrong. No crime has been proven, no crime has even been charged.

After all it was you who said,

"Since the prisoners at Gitmo haven't been charged with any crime, let alone found guilty and sentenced, they should be treated with decency. In fact, all prisoners should be treated decently" (post #25, Gitmo suicides 'a PR stunt' thread, dated 6/15/06).

I am not saying these soilders should be let off the hook. There should be a conclusive investigation into the events of that day. And if there was a crime the guilty party should be punished. The same for the men who remain at Gitmo. They should be tried before a military tribunal and if no crime can be proven they should be released to their home nation, if a crime can be proven they should be punished.

Now I agree with you that the military has rules that men and women agree to when they sign up. They should be held to the highest of standards since they represent our country on foreign soil. However NO American soilder should be chained up for something they have not been charged for and NO American soilder should be charged for anything unless it can be proven that a war crime had been committed. No political prosecutions are acceptable. Not from this administration, nor any administration. Shame on Bush for allowing this to happen to American troops on his watch.

 

Do you consider the USMC to be a liberal organization? After all, they are the ones who have put these men in shackles.

BTW, I don't like the thought of these men being treated this way, especially since they have not been charged or convicted of a crime.

 

soldiers don't have no rights like civvies do, especially if the civilian is simply blowing himself up to kill others, or marching out in the streets to give above ground support for the underground, or farmers by day, killers by night.
least that's the way those in the left regard government troops, I think.

Heck, nuthin' new to me, folks, no bragging intended.

In the Philippines, if a farmer dies in the hands of the military, or if the police use batons and water cannons against demonstrator, the human rights groups are in the streets in a flash.

But I haven't heard a peep from them when the muslims started setting off bombs in civilian airports and in shopping centers, and not a whimper when the commies send out hit squads known as Sparrows to assasinate cops and soldiers in plain view of civilians.

 

Do you know what "poisoning the well" means in a debate (linkie)?

That is what you've done when you state that "terrorists...who you claim are innocent" - because that is deceitful. I am NOT claiming that terrorists are innocent or that terrorists should not be in prison. Either you know that and said it anyway or your comprehension is not all that it could be....you know which.

Of course, I'm not in favor of chaining them up like dogs. I don't know really what their circumstances are. How many hours a day are they shackled? Are they shackled naked, wrists to ankles to the floor of their holding cells for eighteen hours at a time in near freezing temperatures while being doused with cold water periodically or are they fully clothed and shackled only when they are escorted out of their cells? Is it unusual or standard procedure in the Marines?

I don't know the much of the story yet - I wouldn't go by anything Malkin says without double-checking. She may be accurate on the salient points or she may be winging it - I simply don't know at this point.

The article mentioned that they are allowed to see their families once a week, so they are not being held incommunicado, which is good. Their families know where they are and that they're alive, which is also good. How long have they been held without charges? It hasn't been years yet, so that's better than if it had been.

What is the usual procedure for the Marines in cases like these?

So is that not clear that I think all prisoners should be treated decently? And that by "all prisoners" I mean "all prisoners"? I'm missing the point of your argument here.

Agreed.

There's a couple of problems. First, is it appropriate to try non-military foreign citizens in a military tribunal? Would they have access to lawyers of their own choosing and would they be allowed to call witnesses in their own defense? Then there is the Uighur separatists problem - the likelihood that they will be summarily executed if returned to their home country.

Are you accusing the Marines of mistreating one of their own?

 

==In my view that would be the only place to try them. Since they are not American citizens, and since they are "suspected terrorists", they should not be tried in American courts. Not only that, but considering that it could take years for each person the American courts option is too expensive and complicated. The mililtary tribunals would be the best route. I am not sure what the "normal" procedure would be.

==The first question I would say that depends upon how military tribunals are done. Since I am not in the military I am not sure. These tribunals should be done the normal way. As far as the execution issue, that is out of our control. At the end of the day we can't control how other countries treat prisoners (etc), no matter how hard we try. Those who are in Gitmo, yet are found not guilty, should be sent back to their home country. If their home country prosecutes them for other crimes (etc) then that is just the way it is.

==If the stories are true I would say that I am deeply troubled. If I were president that would never happen to an American troop on my watch. Period. Then again alot of things (war in Iraq, weak border control, out of control spending, etc) that are happening under this administration would not happen under a Martin administration (and let's thank God there will never be one...at least not this Martin!).

 

==Excuse me, that should be "suspected terrorists" not "terrorists".

 

So you're saying that there isn't a difference between military justice and justice for civilians? I'm not an expert on military law but I think there is. The question has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives. It has to do with the law.

 

I believe you are correct. I am getting used to seeing liberals blamed for every injustice in the world.

It is almost funny that the same people who say that our military is behind Bush's war on terror and that it is the liberals who are standing in the way, now blame the liberals for things the Marine Corp is doing.

 

<snip>

<snip>

If they are not legally in the US how can the US claim to have the right to detain them? Maybe the Cuban government should take responsibility for them.....

Regards
Bob

 

Yes we do its called the Manual for Courts Martial and the United States Code of Military Justice. We still have our constitutional rights.

However legal representation of the accused is always done by private attorney. To have a military lawyer plead your case is crazy. I wouldnt do it.

I agree, where is the ACLU on this? They have a voice in this matter as does each and every taxpayer.

Standy by for presentation of commendation cookies to both Daisy and KenH for being predictable. :applause:

Your flag underpants are showing.

 

People in this country and any US territory, regardless of their citizenship are allowed the same freedoms as any citizen. Its called the laws of the land. There is no special laws for outsiders.

 

I'm not sure why you think consistency is to be sniggered at but help yourself to one of those cookies, eac, and one for gratuitous nastiness.

Have any of the servicemen asked the ACLU to step in or would they object if it did? Phoney baloney issue and you know it.

The shackles seem to have been overkill in these cases.