Court Rules Detainee Names Can Remain Secret

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Donut, one of the three judges suggested that...the other two judges disagreed. That is far from "conclusive proof" that their Constitutional rights are being violated...in fact, it suggests the opposite.

All three judges have a more intimate knowledge of the US Constitution than I do, the fact that even one is questioning the situation suggests that no-one can have conclusive proof. But we don't know do we - because it's a secret! Shhhh!

[Davros]

!!!!CEREK!!!!,

It is too late at night for me to bother with the "again" part of the "wrong agin" statement, because I have not tracked back in history and I have no idea if this pertains to this thread or previous. The thing that Donut was challenging in that statement though was the information given on the location of the detainees. An assertion was made about information pertaining to locale, and the evidence that I see provided suggests that the assertion (of MagiK's) was indeed invalid.

Anywho, there is not much point in you and I debating the semantics of this - let's agree on that tiny bit of common ground, clear center stage, and hand it back to the earstwhile interlocutors.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Agreed, Davros.

Actually, I was agreeing with you in my last post also. I stated why I "called Donut's hand" on his post..but I also stated that I was being "nit picky" when I did it.

I also agreed that you were right to challenge my own post and correct me accordingly.

BTW, didn't think about the time difference. Get some rest my friend. Donut is back online now, so he can continue with any corrections and chastisements my posts may warrent. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: LOL - no problem, Davros [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] Donut took the opinion of the one dissenting judge and presented it as fact to Magik. I called him on that when he accused Magik of being wrong again.

My claim that Magik was wrong was based on his misunderstanding of the group in question.

Back to the point. Am I right in believing that the Constitution states that prisoners should be given a speedy trial? It's been 18 months since these people were arrested.

[Azred]

Ok. I'm a little late in joining the discussion...just been a little busy, that's all.

This goes against every principle upon which America was founded. Secret (or not-so-secret) police who can arrest and detain someone for an indefinite period of time for no reason is one reason we broke from England to declare independence.

They are being detained for reasons of National Security? That is balderdash (not to mention statistics, which are worse than damn lies [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] )! If these people were so anti-American, so hell-bent on causing death and destruction, so frothing-at-the-mouth rabid to blow up something, they would have done it already. Isn't that obvious? Were I to be a radical terrorist I wouldn't wait, I would do something in an attempt to spread my message and accomplish my goal. I agree that there may be "sleeper agents" who only recruit and train, but the other terrorists will act, and they won't take down more skyscrapers; instead, they will blow up convenience stores and laundromats.

The Patriot Act and the powers given to the Department of Homeland Security have already set the precedent that anyone can be detained. This means even you (if you are in America). If that doesn't scare the **** out of you it should.

I hate to be stereotypical, but I never said I was perfect. This quote is very appropriate:
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. --Martin Niemoeller

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: My claim that Magik was wrong was based on his misunderstanding of the group in question.

Point taken. Fair enough.

Originally posted by Donut: Back to the point. Am I right in believing that the Constitution states that prisoners should be given a speedy trial? It's been 18 months since these people were arrested.

For one thing, a "right to a speedy trial" is a very relative phrase in our current legal system. It is not unusual at all for suspected criminals to wait 18 mos for their trial. In fact, this is often a result of their own lawyers seeking delays in the trial.

If they were being held for 18 mos without being charged with a crime, THAT would definitely be a violation of their Constitutional rights...but since no information is being released about their situation, any claims that they are being held without charges is merely speculation.

FWIW, I agree that the actions of the gov't in this situation should be questioned and challenged. It does represent a dangerous "first step" if it is allowed to simply slip by unnoticed. Personally, I don't feel the gov't's motives are as sinisters as some are implying, but I recognize the fact that I could be wrong...so it is necessary that their actions be challenged.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: If they were being held for 18 mos without being charged with a crime, THAT would definitely be a violation of their Constitutional rights...but since no information is being released about their situation, any claims that they are being held without charges is merely speculation.

It is also mere speculation that their rights were not violated. That is the problem with secrecy, you do not know. And given human nature we are more likely to hide things that we find embarrassing. And it would be quite embracing to the administration to got committing such wholesale violations of the constitution.

[Timber Loftis]

Yes, a defendant can exercise his/her right to a speedy trial. Most don't, because you usually get what you ask for.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Rokenn: It is also mere speculation that their rights were not violated. That is the problem with secrecy, you do not know. And given human nature we are more likely to hide things that we find embarrassing. And it would be quite embracing to the administration to got committing such wholesale violations of the constitution.

Very true on all counts, Rokenn. However, the original tone of the thread implied that their Constitutional rights were being violated based solely on the fact that the gov't was not releasing specific information to the general public. There were even incorrect assumptions made (before the mention of Camp X-Ray) that these detainees were not being provided access to attorneys.

I agree that BOTH sides are making assumptions based solely on speculation. While I don't completely agree with the logic that the gov't MUST be hiding something since they won't divulge all their information...I have acknowledged {more than once} than I could be wrong. A move the "gov't conspiracy side" has thus far been unwilling to do.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I agree that BOTH sides are making assumptions based solely on speculation. While I don't completely agree with the logic that the gov't MUST be hiding something since they won't divulge all their information...I have acknowledged {more than once} than I could be wrong. A move the "gov't conspiracy side" has thus far been unwilling to do.

I'm not saying that they must be hiding something. I'm just saying that given the nature of secrecy it is much more likely that they are hiding something. I have a deeply pessimistic view of the government, that way I avoid being disappointed too much [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]