First, thanks for the link to SHU. Quite interesting reading – and makes the point also.

I was thinking of the McClatchey – has a link at
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html

He interviewed some 60-odd folks who had been detained and released. He found a lot of worthwhile info, but I was thinking of his assertion that after going through torture and Afghan bases and Gitmo, associating with some radicals in Gitmo, and then being released, etc. the expected happened.

From the day 3 report:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38779.html

the majority of whom had been subjected to “severe mental and physical torture,” according to the report — had “extreme feelings of resentment and hatred against USA.”

I’d love to see that study…

Not positive this is what you’re looking for. If not, it’s interesting reading nonetheless.

http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf

This is my favorite part.

The compromise of liberty in attempt to promote security, is not unprecedented:

While the Espionage Act was intended as wartime legislation, it continued to be invoked following the end of the war. When the Bolshevik Revolution toppled the Russian monarchy in 1917, it sparked a widespread fear of communist revolts in other nations. The period, which lasted from 1919 to 1920, became known in America as the Red Scare. During the Red Scare, the attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, and his assistant, John Edgar Hoover, set up a special task force to prosecute radicals under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Nearly 2,000 people were tried and imprisoned, but Palmer’s increasing zeal for his cause began to draw criticism in 1920. Palmer claimed that communist agents had infiltrated American organizations and were planning to overthrow the government on May 1, 1920. When his predicted revolution failed to materialize, many turned away from his cause. Palmer and Hoover ordered the deportation of some people convicted during the Red Scare; however, most were simply jailed in the United States. Most of the prisoners sentenced during the Red Scare were freed in 1920.

http://www.answers.com/topic/espionage-act-of-1917?cat=biz-fin

Although there is some obligation for our leaders to provide for our security, the compromise to liberty needs to be justifiable as a significant security measure. As with the red scare, the case against denying the liberty of the detainees needs to be resolved. The Bush administration needs to either provide a much more significant justification for the indefinite detainment (which I believe unlikely) or provide the detainees the right to a fair trial.

we are now giving battlefield detainees United States Constitutional Rights

The Constitution specifically refers to “citizens” and “all persons”. The rights of habeus corpus and a fair trial are for “all persons”. You might want to read up on the document. Without those principles, exactly what kind of country would we be?

StratRat Says:
What possible harm could come from simply allowing the detainees to challenge their detention?

I think wingnuts are so wedded to their concept of boogeymen, that when you get two of those boogeymen together — Gitmo detainees and lawyers — they are fearful that the slick lawyers will get real terrorists released “on a technicality” and those terrorist will hop on a shuttle to DC, blow up the Washington Monument and thereby give a boost to the McSame campaign.

Why is the right side so scared to allow this simple mechanism. Is it possible that they already know the detainees, for the most part, are not terrorists (yet).

The right side wouldn’t abuse the human rights of a suspect, right? Is that what Jesus would do?

June 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
_____

Welcome to a world governed by the Rule of Law rather than fear. Human beings are entitled to human rights, whether you like them or not.

Also – only about 15% of GTMO detainees were picked up on the battlefield, and only 8% are believed to have any connection with al-Qa’ida.

Religion is what got us into a place where arrogant and self-consummed people like you think only you and your kind deserve to have rights. Islam and Christianity are both equally dangerous and divisive religions that have created this problem in the first place. Shame on you.

morris771 Says:

And a new fear-based lifeform emerges from the primordial soup…

Fascinating.

When exactly are they going to get that court determination rogerse? Hmmm?

You don’t recognize them as human beings with rights, we know. It’s why we don’t like you.

He’s probably sad that McCain isn’t giving out cash or prizes to his trolls, but virtual points that are good for, well, nothing… LOL

“An enemy combatant has been defined as “an individual who was part of or supporting The Bush Administration, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”

Bomb Pop.

At a buck apiece, rog has to fling ten cut-and-pastes just to cover the cost of a single one of those patriotic treats. And with the hot days of summer upon us, rog is going through three or four a day.