What defines 'aid and comfort to the enemy'?

Aid and comfort ought to mean providing material resources or harboring enemies. Anything else, mostly ideological support, may be despicable, but it's not treason.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Simply expressing an opinion isn't treasoness, unless Hitler took power in this country when I wasn't looking.
 
Heist is absolutely right. Dick Durbin is not a traitor as defined by the Constitution.

Congratulations, Heist, you win the straw man contest. You proved he's not legally liable for treason, while the other side is busy proving that our detention camps are at least better than the Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet Gulags.


And you've both missed the point. The point is that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than just "not technically a traitor" or "not as bad as the Nazis."

I think the evidence is pretty strong that the effort we've taken to be fair and humane at Guantanamo makes any argument over whether it resembles the Nazis laughable. In truth, "not as bad as the Nazis" is vast understatement. The treatment at Guantanamo is much better than the average petty criminal gets in Cook County Jail or the Jacksonville Correctional Facility not so far from me (and both inside Durbin's district.) What the opponents of Gitmo really don't like is why and how the inmates were put there, and they'd make more progress arguing about that than trying to take the cheap way out.

On the other hand, Durbin was just being Durbin. I can't help but be amused at the outpouring of hatred when he says something like this. What about the decades-long career of swindling everyone in sight and selling out Illinois citizens at every opportunity? I'm not saying I'm totally naive; I know exactly why Rush Limbaugh and the rest are jumping on him now. It's because this time last month, he was supposedly "secure" in his position and it would have been a "waste of resources" to bother talking about him. He wasn't on the talking points list back then. Now they think they see an opening to hurt the leadership of the Democratic party. That's all they see.
 
What the opponents of Gitmo really don't like is why and how the inmates were put there, and they'd make more progress arguing about that than trying to take the cheap way out.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Once you hold someone indefinitely without charges or prospect of trial or release, the way you treat them becomes irrelevant.

If you lock me up without charging me with anything, and tell me that my detention will most likely be indefinitely (or for as long as you feel like locking me up), then it won't matter to me greatly whether you feed me Twinkies and sing me to sleep every day, or tape my eyes open and make me watch the 700 Club 24/7. It is irrelevant to the discussion, because you can't mitigate a greater evil (the detention without charge or prospect of release) with the absence of a lesser one ("hey, at least we're not torturing them!").

If they're a danger to the country, they should have been killed by our troops on the spot. If they're suspected of crimes against our countrymen, they ought to get a rope after a proper trial if a jury agrees with the evidence as brought forth by the government. If they're not a danger to the country, they ought to be cut loose. This chicken wire prison crap is not worthy of this country.
 
If they're a danger to the country, they should have been killed by our troops on the spot. If they're suspected of crimes against our countrymen, they ought to get a rope after a proper trial if a jury agrees with the evidence as brought forth by the government. If they're not a danger to the country, they ought to be cut loose. This chicken wire prison crap is not worthy of this country.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
If you aren't bothered by the idea that saying anything critical of an administration or it's activities is rapidly being viewed as a treasonous act, then I don't know what to say.

What the opponents of Gitmo really don't like is why and how the inmates were put there, and they'd make more progress arguing about that than trying to take the cheap way out.
Click to expand...

Hey, who started the "DURBIN IS A TRAITOR!11" meme? Wasn't me.

I'm not an opponent of Gitmo. I don't think people there are being tortured.

I've complained about how people get there and how people got into Abu Ghraib for months, no one seems to listen. For what it's worth, I think the chances high that most people in Gitmo belong there, as opposed to Abu "England the Smacktart" Ghraib.

My problem is what people are saying about free speech sounds like what I'd hear in the Third Reich for criticizing the Fuhrer. Don't like what the new Leftist administration is doing overseas? OFF TO GITMO WITH YOU, TRAITOR.

If they're a danger to the country, they should have been killed by our troops on the spot. If they're suspected of crimes against our countrymen, they ought to get a rope after a proper trial if a jury agrees with the evidence as brought forth by the government. If they're not a danger to the country, they ought to be cut loose. This chicken wire prison crap is not worthy of this country.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
I don't think that being critical of your government's actions means you want your country to fail. It doesn't mean you are on the side of the enemy.

If you are unable to criticize your government, without being accused of treason and landing in jail, or worse... that is no better than a totalitarian regime. If you didn't like it when the Russians and Chinese did it, you shouldn't like it if we do it.
 
Consider this quotation from a letter by Abraham Lincoln in 1848:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you dont.

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.”
Click to expand...

Representative ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to William H. Herndon, February 15, 1848.—The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, vol. 1, pp. 451–52 (1953).
 
I think refusing to take the necessary steps to prevent the enemy from attacking the nation is giving aid to the enemy. Like wilfully leaving the borders wide open, failing to intercept those entering outside controlled points and wilfully neglecting to identify everyone within the borders who should not lawfully be here. That should easily qualify.
 
Marko

You said if they were a danger they should have been killed in combat on the spot........ or to that effect.....

Well, sir if you, a combat soldier did that you would be tried.....circumstances might allow only you take that person into custody or control. Example: Enemy runs out of ammunition and no longer threats you or your unit with death from that rifle he shot 30 seconds ago. You can't say you would order him shot on the spot without violation of the rules of war the U.S. military follows and lives by. We also like live body types for extracting real information about the forces we fight against. Intel gathering is a tad easier from live body than a dead one. So, your idea of killing them at the battle sounds nice and neat and finished but you and I both know it's not so simple or legal for our troops to do that....

We could sit and argue the unfair practice of gathering up enemy and holding them with no time line......we can also state Bush won't give a schedule for our troops return home......could this all slightly work together? I don't think we owe a full set of times and rules to a group of enemy combatants or the world that thinks the rights of same are more important than sustaining security and peace in our world..... ;) I don't understand how politics from this nation and the worlds ideas gets to dictate how the war is waged? Most of us can smell and taste how politics and media role is injected into this war.

Regards........ Rojoe67
 
Marko, we might disagree with the concept of a War on Terror, but the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are comparatively well-defined, even if they're unjust. Most of the people at Guantanamo were picked up in Afghanistan, some in Iraq, and very few if any elsewhere. The vast majority were picked up on the battlefield, as it were.

It's been military policy since forever to keep prisoners for an indeterminate amount of time, without shooting them, charging them with war crimes, or letting them go.
 
OK, here is a question. Say you are a doctor in Iraq giving medical care to the civilians. One day, a man who is obviously an insurgent comes to you're door with several gunshot wounds. Now, as a doctor, do you treat him since he is in need of medical attention, turn him away, or treat him and call in the troops. There has to be some doctor here that can comment.
 
It's been military policy since forever to keep prisoners for an indeterminate amount of time, without shooting them, charging them with war crimes, or letting them go.
Click to expand...

That's one of the points of contention. The military keeps enemy POWs for as long as the conflict lasts...always have, always will.

The Gitmo inmates are *not* classified as POWs. The administration made up a legal status for them, so they wouldn't have to afford them the rights of either POWs or "regular" criminals.

The WoT cannot be won by definition, therefore it stands to reason that we now claim the right to incarcerate anyone labeled as "enemy combatant" for the rest of their lives. The problem I have with that is that the label is not clearly defined...right now you are one if the Executive branch says so, with no recourse for anyone to prove otherwise.
 
I gather they're not classified as POWs because they weren't wearing uniforms and following certain protocols. It's unfortunate that in 2003 we had nothing better than the Geneva Conventions (which were not designed for this kind of conflict), but that's all we have. Why should enemy combatants have more rights than a "legitimate" enemy soldier (who becomes a POW and can be held indefinitely)?

I'm concerned here with majority of Gitmo detainees, who were picked up in Afghanistan, and the few if any who were picked up in Iraq after hostilities began there. The rights (or lack thereof) of people picked up elsewhere, even on U.S. soil (Padilla, who granted is not even at Gitmo) are questionable because there are few judicial and historical precedent for detaining them, and the legal community cannot agree how those precedents apply today.*

Can we agree for the sake of discussion that Congressional authorization of force is a declaration of war, because it has become that? So there is an official war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and technically the Geneva conventions apply to those engagements regarding classification of people on the battlefield?

(* It is, however, a pathological abuse of rights under any framework to do what we did to Hamdi: pick him up on the battlefield, hold him indefinitely, then let him go free and clear on the conditions that he give up his U.S. citizenship and be deported to Saudi Arabia. If he was a danger, he is more of a danger in Saudi Arabia than just about anywhere else.)
 
"It's been military policy since forever to keep prisoners for an indeterminate amount of time, without shooting them, charging them with war crimes, or letting them go."
Click to expand...

You mean Bush and Company's decision...the military follows his orders

Please dont lump the military in with politician's decisions. We may not like the orders but all we do is follow em.

even if they are not classified as POWS... they are entitled to some kind of due process to decide thier status. which would mean at least a tribunal.

This is from FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. (GPW, art. 5.)

d. Further Proceedings. Persons who have been determined by a competent tribunal not to be entitled to prisoner-of-war status may not be executed, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized without further judicial proceedings to determine what acts they have committed and what penalty should be imposed therefore.

80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.


From the Geneva Convention

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

So have these men had a competent tribunal delcare them other than POWs or have just been administratively classified ?

So I would say precedent and rules are in place and Bush and Company are playing bully......
 
I think it's about time we stop tying the hands of our soldiers and letting two-bit politicians make policy decisions for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top