Due Process. What a crock. Sounds so noble. Well did we apply Due Process at Gitmo? No. When due process is applied selectively it becomes a travesty. Just so much talky talky from unthinkers. Right?

When due process is selective and constitutional rights are denied to some, is not due process, period.

Hello shelly:

For your convenience, let me show you the relevant Constitutional passage:

"..nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.."

The founders COULD have used the word, "citizen" instead of person.  But they didn't.  I don't think that was an oversight..

excon

We have not yet created international protocols for how to treat captured terrorists. They seem to sit in a grey zone between soldiers of the enemy and criminals. And that might be the grey area that created some sort of loophole which made the Guantanamo Bay prison possible.

The United Nations has conventions for how to treat prisoners of war. In war, the captured enemy may give his name, rank and number but nothing more, must be housed, fed and treated humanely, and has a duty to try to escape. This is because of the atrocities committed against prisoners. For an example look up how the Japanese treated Australian soldiers on the Burma Railway. It is only one example of many, not limited to time, place or nationality. If we want our soldiers to have a chance of survival good health and sanity after fighting for us, we need reliable agreements for the treatment of captives, and we have no right to consider ourselves exempt.

Terrorists fight in a grey zone which is both war and criminality. It seems reasonable that if a terrorist group has declared war, and that if we capture any of their fighters, we should treat them according to international conventions of war. This should include declarations of jihad which imply guerilla warfare and seemingly random acts of terror.

If however, a terrorist group does not claim responsibility (they always do because they're proud of it and want to use it as advertising,) then acts of terrorism should be treated as crimes and the offenders brought to justice in the same way as any other perpetrator. This deals with the individuals who are not members of groups but have been inspired or motivated by them. I think that this is what we are already doing.

Perhaps it was the grey zone (between definitions of soldiers of the enemy and criminals) and the lack of an international protocol for dealing with captured terrorists that created some sort of loophole which made the Guantanamo Bay prison possible.

The Constitution might not, peaceofmind50, but America's membership of the United Nations does give it obligations to obey international protocols for the treatment of prisoners.

How would you feel if captured American soldiers were subjected to inhumane living conditions, humiliation and torture during their imprisonment? They are treated this way by ISIS now, but does this give us the right to use "an eye for an eye" morality or law?

If you want information, give them ecstasy or sodium pentothal. History, such as the Inquisition, proves that if torture extracts any information at all, it is usually false.

I don't believe the motivation of terrorists is religious. These extremists originate from marginalised arid zones where droughts have caused crops to fail; deserts encroach, and survival is threatened. I think they use their religion as a political tool to gain power over populations, land, resources and probably oil. However, as long as they are using religion, we need to demonstrate that we can be kinder to those who suffer misfortune and more just to those who have harmed us and others. Justice means appropriate treatment, either re-education, and rehabilitation, or being in detention so as not to be able to harm others. But that detention need not be inhumane.

If we want to fight a war against terrorism, we need to remove their access to weapons, communications, and funding, and build defensive shields against attacks and sabotage. But above all we need to win the moral war - we have to remove the motive that causes the fighting in the first place.

I knew I wasn't the only one who understands who is entitled to Constitutional protections.  Enemy combatants ain't them.

Hello Tm:

If you're a lawyer as you claim, the lawyerly thing to do would be to tell us WHY you think what you do, instead of just declaring it to be so.. 

I'm certainly not a lawyer but, I've presented my case, and what I base it on..  Where's yours?  Please tell me why terrorists and/or enemy combatants are not PERSONS.  Certainly, the founders are familiar with the word citizen as they use it in Article II..  So, if they MEANT citizens, doncha think they would have said so??

excon

Assuming that "Due Process" was actually due the detainees at GITMO, and they were denied that Right, then denying Due Process" to someone else makes up for that?  Just how many "wrongs" do you think it takes to make a "right".

But if you don't like the idea of "Due Process" I'm certain we can find somewhere for you to live where it's denied to all the citizens all the time. I'll even chip in a couple of bucks to help with your moving expenses.

Hello again, Red:

I'm a due process JUNKIE..  You're MAKING it up that I'm not..  You do that a lot around here, don't you?  We're done here, aren't we?

excon

CON:

I was responding to Rosie's question and her comment that due process was a travesty unless applied 100% equally. Don't know why you felt compelled to butt in when my answer wasn't directed to you unless you're really Rosie as well as CON.

As far as being done, it's looking like you're more than half-baked.

Hi excon. Happy Monday! :):):)

Nicely stated hartfire! Thank you for your reply m'dear! :)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply hartfire. Another Answermugger said that Bush misunderstood the Constitution and thought it would be okay to set up a place specifically to avoid providing due process. I don't know the why or wherefore but I do believe that if you are going to harp on and crow about due process it MUST be applied equally to all otherwise it's just another hypocritical convention used wantonly, randomly and promiscuously!  Those who want Gitmo to remain open and want due process for folks on  terrorist watch lists are either hypocrites or have logic-tight compartments and cannot see how ridiculous it is to champion both. In my opinion. :)

:):):)  Another thoughtful, calm, patient reply excon. Once again you amaze me with your ability to keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over without losing your temper! :) ((hugs))

Mahalo for your thoughtful answer and the cartoon graphic which ain't funny at all but then you know that OS! Happy Monday! :)

EXACTAMUNDO Uc! Precisely! Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday! :)

Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday to thee st.

How many times will you have to repeat yourself excon until your target audience "gets" it? Any idea? Regards and very truly yours...rosie

How many times will you let someone else defend your position?

@excon, I couldn't reply to your other post, so I'll do it this way. It was not a criminal act, but an act of war. We could look back at past mistakes and play the what if game. Such as what if Bill Clinton responded after the first tower attacks? Or the attack on the USS Cole, and others? Or if Obama found a way to stay in Iraq? Would ISIS be what they are now?

Wow, droughts, lack of jobs has this administration told us has nothing to do with ISIS starting and growing. People from around the world experience droughts and other natural disasters without resorting to the type of violence ISIS has done. Their ideology is to destroy the nonbelievers throughout the world.

Hello again, not:

That it was an act of war, or a criminal offense lay in the minds of Bush/Cheney.  They made the wrong call.

excon

Hi excon,

I'm butting in because I see these questions and answers not as conversations between two people, but open to who ever wishes to participate. Such openness allows for group discussion. It can make it more complex to follow the threads, but it also leads to a wider variety of thoughts and angles shared. It makes it more interesting and challenges us to hone our thinking and interactive skills. And, providing we remain respectful, it can be fun.

Well put hartfire.

I guess the best take-away from all the uproar over captive terrorist is we stopped taking prisoners after that. At least the one's that could have been taken as prisoners will not be going back to the battlefield to fight again. Their rights will not be violated.

Hello there Rosie

During a declared war, prisoners captured on the battlefield and held offshore are not subject to "due process" as described in the constitution. They are accorded certain rights under Geneva convention rules of war, among those the right to not be tortured.

Upon secession of war, these prisoners are to be either released or tried as war criminals..

As we ended the Iraq war in 2011 and the Afghanistan war in 2014, it is my opinion these prisoners should be released...

and as always. have a wonderful day...