quote:As far as I see it, in some situations, you at least pretend to believe that persuasiveness trumps truth and rhetorical soundness and in other cases you don't. Is it the level of damage to truth that is important? Like, ommitting something relevant isn't as big a damage as claiming something that is false?
I don't consider what I recomended about the "bigot" discussion ad having persuasiveness trump truth, because I didn't see truth as being in conflict with persuasiveness, nor did I see the exclusion damaging truth in any way.
This is the point on which we disagree. but it's you and me disagreeing, not me and me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't consider what I recomended about the "bigot" discussion ad having persuasiveness trump truth, because I didn't see truth as being in conflict with persuasiveness, nor did I see the exclusion damaging truth in any way.
I see exclusions of that type, of ignoring or at least not mentioning relevant bad things associated with a certain group, person, or viewpoint to be one of the worse attacks against truth. Outright falsehood is bad, but I find spun/santized descriptions of things to often be ultimately more pernicious. Baldfaced lies are generally easy to discover and combat but deliberate ommisions are not.
It may be that our difference of opinion on this leads to our very different and mutually aggravating argument styles. I'm going to have to think about that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see exclusions of that type, of ignoring or at least not mentioning relevant bad things associated with a certain group, person, or viewpoint to be one of the worse attacks against truth.
*nod* Whereas Dag does not. And to be honest, since Dag is (or will very soon be) a trial lawyer, this makes perfect sense.
I agree with you that "spin" is far, far more dangerous than falsehood, in the way that things which are pernicious are ultimately more dangerous than things which are directly harmful. But lots of people don't agree with us.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with you that "spin" is far, far more dangerous than falsehood, in the way that things which are pernicious are ultimately more dangerous than things which are directly harmful. But lots of people don't agree with us.
I actually do agree with this.
I totally disagree that excluding talk of bigotry from that conversation was spin.
Most of the statements I've been correcting today are "spin" not outright falsehood.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, what defines a Democrat is approval or disapproval of President Bush, right Orincoro?
Of course right!
Sorry to go back to the first page, but this one is directed to me.
No Rakeesh, that's not what I think. What is the point of your post? If you thought I did feel that way, then your post wouldn't be obviously sarcastic- or you would have just ignored me, because my opinion, in your view, would be unspeakably stupid. Your post depends on my seeing that the idea is dumb when explicity stated. But here's the thing- I didn't say anything of the kind.
My post expresses my opinion, that OSC is a democrat in name only. I said NOTHING about President Bush in my post. You lept to that conclusion, because you assumed I was basing my opinion on the fact that OSC does support him on a number of issues. How's this for an idea? His politics are not defined as Pro/Con on "what Bush thinks," at least for me. I am a registered democrat, and I don't identify with some of the aims of the democratic party, so I don't call myself a member of the democratic party. OSC CALLS himself a democrat, when what he means is that he is a registered democrat. In fact, he probably doesn't call himself a democrat, but only allows the fact that he is registered that way to speak somehow to his politics. It doesn't. Anyone can register and call themselves anything. I can call myself an astronaut. That was my point. That was my whole point.
I know you were reacting to my ruder post, but don't do that- they're two different statements entirely, and one of them I took back because it was just not useful. This one is- or I will just call it that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, although I don't pay as much attention as I used to to Card's columns-well, the Internet in general really-I can't be sure when I say this, but Card hasn't much commented on the entire civil rights aspect of Bush's presidency, has he? He has been almost exclusively focused, from what I remember, on Bush's foreign policy agenda and actions.
Mar 12, OSC Reviews Everything
quote:The plot was built around spies coming into the neighborhood, and there was an interrogation scene (of an American citizen) that is a reminder that nobody back then even thought we had the rights that the Patriot Act is supposedly taking away.
...This from, of all things, a review of The Shaggy Dog.
posted
Outside of gay rights, possibly abortion (i'm not sure), and foreign policy, OSC's views line up more with the Democrats than the Republicans.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee: and a variety of other individual freedom issues (not that I'm saying Democrats are the only ones with individual freedom issues, just that the ones OSC disagrees with seem to be ones the Democrats are commonly thought of as championing).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know what's true legally, but to me personally that falls under the category of "criminal negligence" and to hire such people for such jobs-jobs whose success or failure quite literally have an impact on the war effort-treasonous.
----
No secret foreign CIA prisons would be great. None of this talk about 'tough but humane' would be peachy. Realistic spending forecasts for war efforts would be honest, instead of 'emergency'-yet predictible-spending bills. Something to remind our people that we're at war that wasn't just, "Trust me, I'm doing things right," such as something like a "Would you like to donate $20.00 to the military spending fund," on taxes, that's an interesting idea.
---------
I reiterate something I said before, this Administration-some segments of Congress, too- seems to be outright saying, "We want the power to be able to say, 'They're terrorists because we say so, we don't have to prove it, trust us,' and have it stick legally."
That's not a power I'm comfortable granting to anyone. It's a power I would perhaps barely tolerate once in extreme, national-death circumstances but not systemically over a period of years!
----------
This entire thing highlights why I'm not a fan of the Bush Administration.
For someone purporting-or at the very least, letting others purport for him-to be a conservative, he sure seems to be saying, "It's humane/lawful/justified, trust me!" a whole lot.
Those are comments I've made in Bush-Iraq-civil rights threads you've participated in, in about the past two weeks, kmbboots. In at least a couple of cases, they're posts made before your first post in the thread-and fairly short threads, too.
I posted that list of quotes just now for a reason, and it's because I'm having a difficult time taking your words at face value when you speak as though I haven't made myself clear on this subject, to say nothing of (possibly) implying that I approve of such things.
I believe I have made myself pretty damn clear, on more than one occassion. In threads you've posted in, after I made such positions clear. So it's difficult not to be pretty angry about this, to be honest.
But while I can empathize with Dagonee, I'm not him. I don't have the skill, legal or debating knowledge, eloquence, patience (especially that), inclination, or restraint to constantly slog against the current on this and a host of other issues where obviously the lesson on Hatrack-except with people like Mig and Bean Counter-if you ain't singin' with the choir, in every chorus, there's something wrong with you Maybe you disagree with the choir.
I've made my disapproval-to say the least-quite clear on more than one occasion about the Bush Administration's stance on civil rights as they apply to terrorism suspects and 'enemy combatants'-I think they want too much power, are willing to torture with it, and want legality and anonymity. I do not know this, it is an opinion of mine based on the way things have come out of this Administration, projected (in my opinion) into the future.
I find the prospect deeply disturbing, to say the least. And I don't think the prospect is very implausible, either. So, to sum up, I am at a minimum very concerned with the way the Bush Administration wants to handle terror suspects and enemy combatants, handling in the courts and handling in the prisons. I think the prospect of granting them some of the powers they want to be one which is deeply harmful to the United States and our ideals, which I feel are antithetical to the routine practice of shipping a prisoner overseas for some good old fashioned torture, or doing some torture-light here in the United States.
Does that satisfy you, kmbboots? I certainly hope it does-I genuinely do, despite my annoyance. Because if it doesn't, well...too freaking bad. I'd prefer you be satisfied as to your question, but I'm not going to sit here and be interrogated against some sort of grading scale of acceptable answers. I ain't singing in the choir whenever you or anyone else waves their hand. There's so much of that going on that I feel no need to add my disaproving voice everytime some new disturbing revelation about the Bush Administration comes out, even though I have done so on multiple occassions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Dagonee: and a variety of other individual freedom issues (not that I'm saying Democrats are the only ones with individual freedom issues, just that the ones OSC disagrees with seem to be ones the Democrats are commonly thought of as championing).
Which ones? I tried to think of them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Drug legalization is not a Democratic cause, at all.
It is a policy preference shared by many who happen to be Democrats, but I don't think that counts.
Although a few Democrats make an issue of some of the more egregious aspects (crack/cocaine sentencing disparities, for example), the general provisions usually receive broad bipartisan support.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said the war on drugs, not drug legalization. Also, one could make a similar point about gay marriage -- there are a decent number of Republicans who support it, and a quite a few Democrats who oppose it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but support of the war on drugs (war against drugs, in their parlance) is a plank in the Republican platform as well, while it is not in the Democratic platform, like gay marriage.
To quote the platform:
quote:After witnessing eight years of Presidential inaction on the war against drugs during the prior Administration, we applaud President Bush for his steady commitment to reducing drug use among teens.
There are only two mentions of illegal drugs (one largely incidental) in the Democratic party platform. There are nine in the Republican platform (two or three are incidental).
So his views on the war on drugs certainly seem to line up more with the Republicans than the Democrats, by a similar criteria to what you use for gay marriage.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The key difference between gay marriage and the war on drugs is that Republicans actively oppose gay marriage, whereas Democrats do not actively oppose the war on drugs. This means that one supporting the latter is not acting contrary to the party, whereas one supporting the marriage amendment IS acting contrary to the party.
So it might be true that OSC lines up more with Republicans on the drug war, but it doesn't seem this makes him less of a Democrat in the same way that his gay marriage stance does.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, we're generally talking in the context of elected officials here.
Of course, most Dems voted for the DOMA (signed by Clinton, too), and have voted against measures considered part of the war on drugs.
However, you're right, the war on drugs doesn't strongly resonate with any particular party (though OSC and the Republicans clearly thinks Clinton wasn't working towards it, at least).
To pick a few other positions though: divorce law, the Clinton impeachment, global warming, domestic oil drilling, legal consequences against media that 'run with a story that they knew would provoke outrage in Muslim lands, without first making sure it was true', and his desire for the government to fire a large number of professors at public universities.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"France still rejects any military action against France," said the newreader on Fox News on Monday night. Of course she meant "against Iraq," but when people say things incorrectly they expect the audience to be alert enough to ignore mistakes and get the main point.
I don't have a staff here to catch the mistakes I make. So I appreciate it when alert readers catch misstatements. For instance, my having spoken of the sincerely anti-war (and Germanophile) "Joseph" Chamberlain, when of course I meant Neville.
If someone had asked me to explain the difference between Joseph and Neville Chamberlain, I would have had no problem doing so. But in giving examples of sincere anti-war activists of an earlier era, I put down (accurately) the names "Chamberlain" and "Lindbergh"; then, on second glance, I decided to violate the old Jeopardy rule "last names only" and added first names.
That's when the name "Joseph" popped into mind and went into print uncorrected.
I've made other mistakes. Like conflating Clinton's meaningless (but legal) bombing of Iraq at the time of the House impeachment vote with his grossly illegal and disastrous bombing of Serbia, which began months later. And having the Chinese shoot at their own people at Tiananmen Square because they "remembered" the fall of Romania's dictator -- which didn't happen till afterward.
But it's worth pointing out that in not one of these cases did my error show anything other than the fact that I'm as susceptible as anyone to the human tendency to mix up names and dates. The errors had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make -- and correcting the error did not in any way undo my argument.
Some of those who have corrected my errors have done so as a cheerful public service, and I'm glad of it (even though of course I feel foolish).
Some, however, have corrected my errors with the glee of a high school debater who thinks that by catching an opponent in any mistake, no matter how trivial, he has somehow "refuted" the opponent's argument.
There are, of course, legitimate arguments that can be advanced in opposition to any of mine; I'm not so foolish as to think there aren't good and wise people who, using the same evidence, reach different conclusions.
But intelligent people aren't going to make up their minds on vital issues of national policy because one guy on Side A (me) made an inattentive mistake in a particular example I used.
If you want to oppose my ideas, then take on my arguments -- don't just pounce on tangential errors.
posted
Incidentally, if I had internet access at home and if Dagonee wasn't so capable at defending his points, I'd be trying to myself; I've agreed with pretty much everything he's said in this thread. Dunno if he'd consider that a good or bad thing, *grin* but there it is.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Wait... why is it worth it to read the rest of the column...? To watch OSC spew invective at huge chunks of the country and world?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The key difference between gay marriage and the war on drugs is that Republicans actively oppose gay marriage, whereas Democrats do not actively oppose the war on drugs. This means that one supporting the latter is not acting contrary to the party, whereas one supporting the marriage amendment IS acting contrary to the party.
So it might be true that OSC lines up more with Republicans on the drug war, but it doesn't seem this makes him less of a Democrat in the same way that his gay marriage stance does.
What makes him a Democrat then, besides the fact that he is registered as a democrat? As far as I know he doesn't act "contrary" in your definition, to any of the republican party platforms- immigration included, since that is not as much a party issue as it is made out to be; members of the republican party have widely varying opinions on immigration, and his is not unreasonable for a republican to have. On the other hand, many of his beliefs are not unheard of for an (ordinary) democrat to have, even if the party leaders are dead set against them, like marriage ammendments. Still, his support for the war in Iraq seems strange in light of these comments he made years ago. Different situation yes, but we'd have to believe that OSC sees this war as having no political motivations which are selfish or self-serving. I somehow doubt he is really capable of convincing himself of that, despite the probability that selfish motives are involved, (as they are in all wars). It would seem though, at least to me, that any reasonable person would be against any war not fought purely in self-defense, or with the *extremely* clear consent of other world powers, and for a very clear purpose. Our purpose here is obviously less than clear.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because anyone can register as a democrat regardless of his politics. If I told you I was a registered democrat (I am) that would still tell you nothing definitive about my beliefs, or my actual loyalties or affiliations. My Dad was a registered Republican for about 40 years before he finally re-registered democratic, but he'd already been voting democratic for 20 years.
I think OSC allows the fact that he is registered democratic to be used in his defense- so that "he's one of us after all." But the reality is, the fact that he is registered Democratic (and has been a very long time right?) says little to me about his current politics.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And having the Chinese shoot at their own people at Tiananmen Square because they "remembered" the fall of Romania's dictator -- which didn't happen till afterward.
But it's worth pointing out that in not one of these cases did my error show anything other than the fact that I'm as susceptible as anyone to the human tendency to mix up names and dates. The errors had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make -- and correcting the error did not in any way undo my argument.
I would point out that in the specific case cited -- arguing that Tiananmen "happened" at least in part due to a recollection of what happened in Romania -- the error does in fact wind up undoing the argument.
It's true that OSC's arguments in his articles are rarely subject to fact-checking, since (like the Tiananmen instance) they often consist entirely of bald assertions of motive. But when you assign motives to someone and give reasons for that assignment, it does hurt your argument (such as it is) to have those reasons directly invalidated.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I reveiwed our conversation. Here is how is sounds from my perspective:
While agreeing with your premise that it is possible to have one's thinking changed by 9/11, I said that I thought it was wrong to have that change your thinking. That 9/11 should not change our ideals
You then said that (from what I heard) that I shouldn't say that we have those ideals because we have always done bad stuff anyway. Which I said sounds like you are saying that America shouldn't be concerned with those ideals.
The analogy of a battle comes to mind. Things are happening, events are taking place, decisions are being made all around us. Things that I hold very dear are being attacked. "Our" side is being blown to bits with imprecise, scattershot ammo that works . You are standing there saying, "Nope can't use that weapon - it isn't quite precise enough. They may be able to counter it, so I'll counter it for them just in case." It doesn't help.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, that sounds a bit too much like "you're either with us or against us," or "criticism of the Iraq war is unpatriotic" for my comfort.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What it is is frustration that people who are generally in agreement are too busy nit-picking to make any forward movement. That we have screwed up in the past should not be an arguement that it is okay to screw up now.
posted
Dag, I do understand that, being above the fray, you need to take time to consider, but actual human beings - some surely innocent, some of them minors - have been held, without trial, for four years.
I do understand that it isn't "safe" to release these people. It won't ever be safe. Even the ones who hadn't harmed us before are likely to want to now.
It is still unjust to hold them. And being just is more important to me than being safe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What it is is frustration that people who are generally in agreement are too busy nit-picking to make any forward movement.
It's not nitpicking. It's ensuring that steps taken to affect change now don't come back to bite us later.
When I'm making a correction, it is almost always with a specific argument in mind that the uncorrected statement could be used to advance.
Typically I disagree with the arguments I'm envisioning, and I will not sacrifice those in order to obtain something else I also want.
In other words, when statement X is wrong in some way, and statement X is advanced in support of cause A by many people, there is a tendency to attribute statement X to all who support cause A.
When statement X can also be used to support cause B, with which I disagree, it becomes imperative to not let statement X stand unchallenged.
Note: this is a prioritization decision concerning my posting time, not an "I don't care about untruths that don't hurt my causes" decision.
The other problem is that much of the disagreement over policy does not acknowledge the intricacies of the situation.
When someone makes a statement such as "it's against American principles to hold people without criminal charges," I feel that needs to be qualified. We held PoWs without charges for years in WWII. Until I see a reasoned argument that we should have shipped captured soldiers back to Germany as soon as we decided not to criminally charge them, I'mnot really going to entertain that as a premise in this scenario.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dag, I do understand that, being above the fray, you need to take time to consider, but actual human beings - some surely innocent, some of them minors - have been held, without trial, for four years.
I do understand that it isn't "safe" to release these people. It won't ever be safe. Even the ones who hadn't harmed us before are likely to want to now.
It is still unjust to hold them. And being just is more important to me than being safe.
Again, I'm waiting for some analysis that acknowledges the principles underlying the concept of PoW.
I'd also appreciate if you clarified the first sentence, because I'm not entirely sure what it means.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
POW's are under the protection of the Geneva Convention (something that this administration tried to deny them), are sometimes exchanged, and have a reasonable expectation of being released at the end of the conflict.
There is no foreseeable end to this conflict. Do we just keep people in prison forever?
Or we could deal with them as criminals. Give them trials. Have sentences based on what they have done.
When Great Britian was in the throes of the Troubles, it actually did both with the IRA. The trials were rather a joke, but there were trials. We don't even do that. There was a public record of who was there. The prisoners were allowed council and visitors. Their friends and relatives knew where they were and could communicate with them.
And before and after Margaret Thatcher's disasterous criminalization program, they also had POW protections and priveleges.
You can't imagine how horrifying it is to me that I am holding up Long Kesh as an example of better than what we are doing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:POW's are under the protection of the Geneva Convention (something that this administration tried to deny them), are sometimes exchanged, and have a reasonable expectation of being released at the end of the conflict.
There is no foreseeable end to this conflict. Do we just keep people in prison forever?
Or we could deal with them as criminals. Give them trials. Have sentences based on what they have done.
It's this insistence that it's either/or that makes me unwilling to not challenge the categorical statements.
I'll note that there was no foreseeable end to WWII until about 1943 or so, and even then there was no guarantee it was going to end within 3 years.
This situation has attributes of both PoW and of criminal prosecution. I'm suspicious of a solution that ignores either side of that analysis. And I am NOT going to allow someone to restate my insistence on such analysis as wanting to keep people in prison forever, nor to artifically limit the options to "criminal trial or permanent detention." There are other options.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what other options do you propose? The reality is that right now they are in the worst of possible worlds. While we are analyzing and being suspicious, people's lives are being taken away. Their families are without them - likely without knowing if they are alive. Their children are growing up. How long should it take us to come up with other options?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some real mechanism for determining if people are enemy combatants, or not, and if they don't meet the criteria, either releasing them or putting them trhough standard criminal proceedings, and if they are enemy combatants granting them protections given to POWs would seem perfectly reasonable and just to me.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, Paul, with just granting them POW protection is that we don't even know if they are "enemy soldiers". And the "War on Terror" is one with no forseeable end.
I don't agree that WWII also had no foreseaable end. It was a declared war with sovereign nations. Treaties were at least likely.
In the "war" on drugs, for example, we don't keep people suspected of dealing drugs in prison until we've "won" the "war on drugs".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Some real mechanism for determining if people are enemy combatants, or not, and if they don't meet the criteria, either releasing them or putting them trhough standard criminal proceedings, and if they are enemy combatants granting them protections given to POWs would seem perfectly reasonable and just to me.
I agree.
Some things to keep in mind concerning such a plan:
1.) This is not a criminal trial. What is being proven is not act and mental state, but status. 2.) This guarantees that people will be detained without criminal charge, let alone conviction, and that this detention will be fore a length of time not determinable now. 3.) The protections and decision making will be much different than that of criminal guilt, although many protections from criminal prosecution should be used during the status determination proceedings.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"1.) This is not a criminal trial. What is being proven is not act and mental state, but status."
Yup. But that still means that the state has to prove that the person being detained actually meets certain criteria, and thus have to produce evidence, and the detained person should be able to see that evidence and provide opposing evidence.
"2.) This guarantees that people will be detained without criminal charge, let alone conviction, and that this detention will be fore a length of time not determinable now."
If they are enemy combatants, then we do have the right to detain them, just as we have a right to detain soldiers in war time.
"3.) The protections and decision making will be much different than that of criminal guilt, although many protections from criminal prosecution should be used during the status determination proceedings."
Agreed. Although the basic rights of procedure through the court system should be retained.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not disagreeing with most of Paul's statement.
Could you please explain the sentence I quoted, then? Because, to my reading, it looked like you were objecting to people being granted PoW status when "we don't even know if they are enemy soldiers," something not possible under Paul's plan.
(Of course, it is possible that the proceedings will reach the wrong result, but some factfinding method is necessary.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problems holding people indefinetely if they are, indeed, people who were trying to kill our soldiers. Thats what the POW thing is all about... you hold them til their side stops shooting at our soldiers.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Given that we agree, how would you go about drafting legislation to make sure that the points we agree on are secured?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Broad outline only, reserving the right to change my mind when I think more about it.
1. Forum: military entity of some kind.
2. Judge: JAG member, minimum rank of Lt. Col or Col.
3. Defense counsel: appointed military JAG, maybe allow independent but prescreened advocates.
4. Finder of fact: 3-5 officer commission. Not really a jury, but more than just a single judge deciding. No unanmity requirement, maybe more than majority.
5. Standard of proof: not sure. Probably less than reasonable doubt. Maybe preponderance, maybe clear and convincing.
6. Hearsay: likely allowed in certain forms. For example, capturing soldier fills out a report, that report should be admissible. I'm more torn on recounts of eyewitness testimony. For example, if the soldiers come into a situation and someone tells them so-and-so had a gun and shot at the troop transport 30 seconds ago, and the guy was found nearby with the gun, I might admit that. Must think more on this. (Note: I wouldn't allow most hearsay in war crimes trials.)
7. Exclusion: All involuntary statements using the "so as to overcome the will of the average person" standard. This bars far more than torture, but allows many interrogation techniques. But no Miranda or 4th amendment exclusion.
8. Speedy trial: don't know enough about the circumstances to judge, although the length of time for Gitmo is almost certainly too long. There would be two stages: Local review (where captured) by JAG official within a week or so, with a probable cause threshold. Preliminary hearing, some relatively short amount of time (a month or two), also with a probable cause threshold for detention until the full proceeding occurs, in order to allow consideration of knowledge gained after immediate combat operations settle down. Final review within some time, can't say what yet.
9. Double jeopardy: a hybrid. If new evidence comes out before we release someone found to be an enemy combatant, we can reopen the issue. But there must be a strict time limit on release so this isn't gamed.
10. Review: One level of review de novo (including new fact finding) within the military system. One level of appellate review within the military system. Not sure what kind of access to civillian courts should be allowed.
11. Collateral attack (habeas corpus): limited to procedural issues ("I'm detained and I didn't get my full review"). This would allow allegations that the fact-finding violated general due process requirements of fairness such as known false testimony.
12. Mandatory review of status based on categorization of allegienace. For example, the Taliban might be pacified before the Iraqi insurgency. People identified as Taliban should be let go if an accord with the Taliban is released.
I'm sure I left things out, not sure what.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No unanmity requirement, maybe more than majority."
Maybe 4 out of 5?
"Standard of proof: not sure. Probably less than reasonable doubt. Maybe preponderance, maybe clear and convincing."
Agreed. Probably clear and convincing. This is more then a civil trial, but less then criminal.
"This bars far more than torture, but allows many interrogation techniques. But no Miranda or 4th amendment exclusion."
Agreed on miranda and 4th amendment (unless the person involved happens to be a US citizen or resident). We'd have to be careful with the interrogation techniques. Generally speaking, anything we'd dissalow in a police investigation is something we want to be very wary of.
"Not sure what kind of access to civillian courts should be allowed."
Possibly for the habeas corpus portion?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed on miranda and 4th amendment (unless the person involved happens to be a US citizen or resident). We'd have to be careful with the interrogation techniques. Generally speaking, anything we'd dissalow in a police investigation is something we want to be very wary of.
Agreed. There need to be two sets of deterrents: exclusion of evidence, and punishment of wrongdoing.
quote:Possibly for the habeas corpus portion?
Definitely for habeas. That's listed in number 11.
Number 10 is referring to direct appeal. Maybe DC circuit court appeals then cert.
Do you know the difference between direct appeals and habeas review?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Definitely for habeas. That's listed in number 11.
Number 10 is referring to direct appeal. Maybe DC circuit court appeals then cert."
Oh. Ok. I see.
"Do you know the difference between direct appeals and habeas review?"
I know that the habeas review is to challenge the reasons you are being held, and a direct appeal is to challenge whether a trial was properly conducted. Thats about the extent of it though.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's correct as far as it goes. I'll post a fuller explanation later tonight. It's worth understanding the difference.
It might also shed some light on why I see habeas suspension as very serious, very solemn, and not to be done lightly, but not something mere discussion of which should be feared.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
