Marines in Shackles! Where's the ACLU?

It's a secret...sssshhhh!

 

Don't they?

I don't know - do you? The Red Cross were about the only outside organization to have any contact with the prisoners.

 

This statement is just absolutely false. Every person, regardless of citizenship, have constitutional rights.

 

Huh?

How do you know?

If what you contend is true, then I still say there is a difference between prisoners held incommunicado and servicemen who are in a position to ask, but don't.

 

That's exactly right. When you put the uniform on, you give up certain rights, including the right to free speech.

Not always true. I sat on an Admin Board last month for a Reservist who had both a JAG and a civilian representing hiim. The LT (O-3) JAG did a much better job.

I may be wrong but I would state that rights in the military aren't constitutional but rather accorded under the MCM and UCMJ.

 

Really!

That is truly amazing. Let me see if I understand you correctly (because if I do, it is truly scary). Are you saying that anyone in the world, regardless if inside or outside our country, external territories, whether under our control or not? They have constitutional rights whether or not they have to obey our laws? How one-sided can you get?

Nobody outside our country has any claim to our constitutional rights except for US citizens that are under the protection of our government oversees. Moreover, if they are not legally in our country, then the only constitutional right they have is an escort back to where they came from.

The Constitution is the law of this land, and contains protections for citizens. It is some stretch to apply it to everyone

 

Daisy,

In post #102 in the "Officer refuses to serve in Iraq" thread, you said "...something doesn't have to be a crime to be injust." Yet, in this thread you seem to be taking the stance that the military has different rules governing the rights accorded to servicemen.

I just want to ask you. Don't you consider a detention such as this "unjust"?

 

Dave,

You partially understand me. Yes, everyone has Constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence talked about these inalienable rights that men have from their creator. Hence, it is our humanity that means we have these rights. That is a founding principle of our nation.

Do we have a right to enforce them in other countries? I say no. This is the problem with being the world's cop to enforce human rights.

Now if a US Citizen is in a foreign country, has he given up his rights? Technically no. As I recall, even our passports ask countries to respect the rights of the citizen and grant safe passage. Does this mean the foreign government cannot infringe those rights? Of course not. It happens all the time. If you break foreign laws, there is little that can be done to get you out of prison.

However, what is scary to me is that you seem to think that foreign nationals in U.S. territory are not protected by the Constitution, that they don't have the same rights as a citizen. Yes, they do have every constitutional right you and I have. They cannot be unreasonably searched, they have the right to peacefully assemble, to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. etc. The things they are denied, such as voting, are not rights but priviledges of citizenship. Big difference.

 

As a matter of humanity and consience, I could agree that it is desireable to accord our Constitutional rights to other nationals. Notice it is desireable, not necessarily practical, or acheivable.

Agreed that we do not have the right to enforce those rights in other countries.

Agreed

I do agree as far as this goes. However, suspected foreign combatents, taken and held by the military, are not entitled to the protections accorded to foreign nationals on US soil. We are in a war and the military rules apply to these people. Moreover, terrorists are not fighting in support of a state and therefore are non-uniformed combatents and not necessarily covered even by the Geneva Convention.

What is desireable is not always practical when it comes to combat and national security.

 

The position you espouse here is the one taken, incorrectly IMO, by the current administration. People should be held if suspect of wrongdoing, absolutely. BUT...and it's a BIG BUT (no wisecracks here please :laugh I don't recall the Geneva Conventions making that distinction. ANY person detained, either under Constitutional law, military codes, or treaty (like the GC) has the right to a speedy trial, the right to an attorney, etc. etc. Just because we rounded people up doesn't mean they should be held indefinitely and have their rights suspended.

I also fear that this sets precedent for our own soldiers taken as POWs to be tortured, abused, etc. War is not an excuse. No doubt, we got some really bad guys in Gitmo and other prisons. I'd bet we also have some innocents who were turned in on foreign soil as a result of local squabbles, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only way to know is to try them, either in court or in a military tribunal. Bear in mind, convictions DO negate many rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of association, etc.

 

You consider acknowledging facts as a "taking a stance"?

Sure, even not knowing the facts. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant when I wrote earlier in this thread, "Of course, I'm not in favor of chaining them up like dogs."

 

Hmmm youve strayed a ways from the flock on this one FTR :smilewinkgrin: .

I never signed my constitutional rights away by enlisting. That is impossible. You should read the 1700 or so pages of the MCM, its BASED on the Constitution (had to read it for the advancement exam, and boy is that boring!).

I arrest someone in the military, they are afforded all their rights just like a civilian.

In matters such as these, I would never ever ever let a JAG represent me. The press alone would cave his head in and he is also bound by the UCMJ where private counsel is not.

If you go that route, you run the risk of not having a JAG officer available to represent you or you get the greenest one out of OCS. JAG's come in as LTs. No thank you.

 

Enemy soldiers and terrorists implicitly agree to the "rules" about what might happen to them. Yet you have loudly protested when they're treated about the same as these Marines.

Hold on. Elsewhere you protested that solitary confinement causes disorientation and psychosis. Why do you have more sympathy for our enemies than our own?

Since when does the ACLU wait to be asked?

The ACLU deserves to be bashed. It is an organization that attempts to use the letter of the Constitution to undermine the spirit of the Constitution.

 

Combatants don't. The unfortunate thing about this particular "war" is that the line between who is combatant and who is not is difficult to discern.

This is a war that doesn't fit the normal modes of what westerners consider "civilized warfare". The enemy doesn't openly declare war. They don't have a single country and are identified by ideology more than anything else. Their ultimate motivation is almost pure hatred for things alien to their largely religiously defined worldview. Even though governments aren't directly involved, it is an even more political form of warfare. The enemy chooses its circumstances and targets for attack based more on political impact than military impact.

 

BTW, This commanding officer did exactly the right thing. He's responsible for the safety of both these men and those around them. A distraught soldier who was not shackled might have hanged themselves or over powered a guard. If I were in the CO's shoes, I'd have done the same until they had been evaluated for mental state and until satisfactory controls could be established.

 

And those in Gitmo who are in neither category - what did they agree to?

No, I have not protested when actual terrorists and enemy soldiers have been treated like these Marines. Nice misrepresentation, Scot.

And?

Poisoning the well and, um, deliberately misstating who I have sympathy for. Good going, Scot.

Show me where it has not.

No, you're mistaken on that point.

 

Yes they do. This false classification invented by the Bush team to bypass the Geneva Convention is abhorrent.

 

When a foreign organized entity exhibits all of the characteristics of being at war with you but fails to obey the western rules of honor by formally declaring war... it is not a false classification to call them a "combatant".

 

Kind of like the U.S. did in Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, etc.? By your definition, the US troops are "combatants" not worthy of Geneva Convention protection.