And you keep telling me it's the 1950s and not the 1930s. Bullshit.

[theweaselking]

US plans "terrorist" concentration camps, to keep suspected "terrorists" imprisoned for a lifetime even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts.

Yes, that's right. Be an Arab in the wrong place at the wrong time, and be sent to a camp for the rest of your life, with no recourse. Even worse, these are *American* camps, meaning you *will* be tortured and your arrest *will* be entirely groundless.

How long before the crescent-moon armbands, the reasoning that all Arabs "might become terrorists because we're imprisoning their people" and the concomitant imprisonment of the entire population on ethnic grounds, and the tattoed ID numbers?

Comments

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

I'm cetainly not defending the request by the CIA and Pentagon for baseless lifetime imprisonment, but you did of course neglect to mention both parties condemning the idea, and the request for additional funds to make Camp 6 more comfortable.

There's also been plenty of documentation for releasing these people and having them turn up in Afghanistan holding AK-47's aimed at coalition forces.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

It's ok to imprison people for life "even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts" as long as you make sure they're comfortable?!?! Is that really what you're saying?? Give 'em an easy chair and some ESPN and tell 'em to shut up about their human rights?? I hope that's not what you're saying because that's pretty pathetic.

I'm also pretty sure that John was pointing out the fact that this idea is still out there, regardless of who is questioning or condemning it.

Where is this documentation? How many of them show up doing that? How many of them go back to their regular life? If these guys are such hardened terrorists that the go from Camp X-Ray to shooting at the troops, how in the hell do we not have something to hold them on? That question begs this question: how many of them are being spured to action by their imprisonment?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

One of the people quoted in the article says that we should look at it to make sure whether or not it's constitutional. I really don't think it takes all that much close inspection of the Constitution in order to understand that this, in fact, is blatantly unconstitutional. Admendment 14: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't use the term "citizen", which is used prior to that in the same Admendment, which says to me that it doesn't matter whether or not the individual is a citizen or not. Of course, some fucktard will probably produce some twisted, irrational interpretation of the same passage, if not ignore it entirely, in their justification of Camp 6.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

In other words, they're going to say that it uses the term "State", so it doesn't restrict the federal government from doing those things.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

It's ok to imprison people for life "even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts" as long as you make sure they're comfortable?!?!

If they've been convicted of a crime where life imprisonment is an appropriate disciplinary action decided on by a jury, then yes. In the case of detainees who haven't even been charged with anything, then no.

Where is this documentation?

There's a definite bias in the first link, but that doesn't make the information incorrect.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15689
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825317/

[torrain.livejournal.com]

*cough* Actually, that would be a Republican senator saying it's a bad idea, so they ought to take a look at it from the perspective of the Constitution, and a Democratic senator saying it might be nice to hold on to some appearance of due process.

As for making Camp 6 more comfortable: oh. Goody. No further intelligence to offer, no expectation of ever getting a trial, an administration that believes 200 is a reasonable number of people they can expect to be put in these circumstances, but it'll be comfortable? That's alright then. And the comfort combined with the "no further intelligence" thing should be a handy carrot, too--not that I'm saying that I believe all the things those bleeding-heart flakes are saying about detainee treatment.

(I hear Number Six will be transferring in there from the Village if they ever break him.[1])

Now, since the bit about what people are saying is a handy segue into documentation--and whatever else John did, he did provide a link to the news which inspired his opinion--could you possibly pass me a reference on releasing these people and having them turn up in Afghanistan holding AK-47's aimed at coalition forces? I having trouble finding any such examples beyond Mullah Ghafar, and I'm assuming that "plenty of documentation" means there're more.
---
[1] What, you thought he actually got out?

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

In the case of detainees who haven't even been charged with anything, then no.

Which is why I highlighted the portion of the article that said "even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts." Generally speaking, there aren't too many people who disagree with the sentiment "If they've been convicted of a crime where life imprisonment is an appropriate disciplinary action decided on by a jury, then yes." That's not what we're dealing with here.

As for your documentation, even your biased article can only claim "at least 10" returning to terrorist activities. Ten. Out of 200. The MSNBC cites between 4 and 8 out of 100 (depending on how you read it), which is fairly consistant with the other article. Eight. Out of 100. I'm pretty sure that more than (going with the harshest reading of the more extreme figures) 8% of domestic criminals return to crime after their sentences are up, and those are people who have been tried by a jury and had proof of their involvement produced. Should we continue to hold all criminals because they "might" go back to criminal activities? Should we suspend their human rights as well?

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

Technically, our constitutional prtections apply only to our own citizens.

Not that I think that's a good way to run a country...

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Technically, it's got nothing to do with Constitutional protections and everything to do with basic human rights.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

> Technically, our constitutional prtections apply only to our own citizens.

#1: There ARE Americans in there.

#2: You are full of shit.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[publius1.livejournal.com]

That, of course, applies to the states.

The Federal Government is free to ignore it as it wishes.

Or at least, that's what Bush is fervently hoping will be decided by the Supremes.

"Stop! In the name of constitutional law!"

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Depending on the constitutional definition of "State", I suppose. It also relies heavily on the interpretation that the heavily state-centric founders and traditionally state-centric Republican Party really *did* mean to ensure that the Federal Government has no restrictions on its actions.

Claiming that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply because Cuba isn't part of a state sets a dangerous precedent that even You Dumb Fucks[1] should be able to understand. Hey, we can have slavery at the White House again, because DC isn't a state, either.

[1]: The correct, technical term for people who voted for Bush.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, pointing AK47s at armed forces might be Not Very Nice, but it is *not* in any way shape or form 'terrorist activities'.