FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Terrorist Driver gets 5.5 years or 5 months or life sentence

   
Author Topic: Terrorist Driver gets 5.5 years or 5 months or life sentence
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends on how you look at it.

Bin Laden's Driver and possible body guard has been given a prison sentence of 5 and 1/2 years.

He's been in prison for 5 years and 1 month already, so that means his prison term has only 5 months to go.

However, he is still considered an "enemy combatant". This means that he can still be "detained" (kept in a prison) until the "War on Terror" is over. Since "terror" is a concept, which are very difficult to defeat with planes and guns, he may be detained indefinitely. Well, until he dies anyway.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Launchywiggin
Member
Member # 9116

 - posted      Profile for Launchywiggin   Email Launchywiggin         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can imagine that he had no hate for America until AFTER we locked him up for 5 years.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We let this guy's direct superior, one of OBL's top guards, free to be repatriated in Morocco, where today he is a free man. Then we bust the crap out of a stooge for a few extra months.

Oh man, and to think that this miscarriage of justice only took us seven years. Rah rah.

The only reason this court exists is to lend a sort of bankrupt legitimacy to the people who thought they could hold these guys forever. Even that fails. And now, when the kangaroo court still decides he's not a threat, the administration wants to continue holding him indefinitely with charge.

How do people still support this?

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He has five months of sentence remaining. Given that he could have gotten seventy to life, I think he was rather lucky.

The indefinite confinement of "enemy combatants", as ever, makes me kind of sick.

Posts: 3825 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The indefinite confinement of enemy combatants is an accepted part of international law. There are absolutely situations where someone not a prisoner of war can be legally detained by the military for a period of time unknown at the time detention begins. This isn't novel in any way.

Whether the people detained at GITMO are, in fact, being legally detained is currently an unsettled question. There are legal proceedings under way now to settle that question. But the broad condemnation of the very concept seems misplaced.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
I can imagine that he had no hate for America until AFTER we locked him up for 5 years.

In reality though he probably hated America from the beginning.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In this case, I'm referring to those confined by the U.S. and especially those at Guantanamo Bay. And to be more specific, the quotes around "enemy combatants" is in part noting that many suspect that a large portion of the prisoner population should never have been confined at all.

I recognize that there are times when it may be necessary to confine persons for a time until it can be determined if they would pose a threat if released. But it does bother me, in this specific case and in general, that innocent people may be imprisoned for years in legal limbo.

The existence of legal precedent doesn't really prevent my dismay at the notion of the system harming the innocent, here or elsewhere.

Posts: 3825 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dag, the complaints some are expressing against the "enemy combatant" life long imprisonment is not that it is illegal.

Its that in these cases, we believe its immoral.

Some argue its needed because the detained have no rights. US Citizen--you get rights. Not-A-Citizen--No rights. While this is legally true, it goes against the grain of those who believe that All individuals are endowed with these INALIENABLE rights--Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Many of those in Guantanamo may be there not because they forfeited those rights through some inhumane behavior, but because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Their detention may be due no to their intent to cause harm, but due to their detainers intent not to be blamed for mistakes.

A trial has been held and we see justice as being served, if served coldly. Yet the administration has the power to overturn this court, and what justice it has accomplished.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dag, the complaints some are expressing against the "enemy combatant" life long imprisonment is not that it is illegal.

Its that in these cases, we believe its immoral.

I haven't mentioned the legality to prove the morality. I mention the legality to establish the context - that it's widely accepted that when someone is taken into custody by a military force fighting in combat, indefinite detention is the usual result. That's what "prisoner of war" and "enemy combatant" mean.

Moreover, the statement I spoke to was not about "life-long" imprisonment.

Finally, the possibility of "life long imprisonment" exists with the standard prisoner of war concept as well, and I've yet to see an indication that you realize this.

quote:
Some argue its needed because the detained have no rights. US Citizen--you get rights. Not-A-Citizen--No rights.
Could you point me to someone who says a non-citizen has no rights?

quote:
While this is legally true,
No, it's not, as a host of court cases on this matter have proved.

It's not the conclusion "This particular detention is immoral" that gets me. It's the constant misstatement of what's actually going on and a failure to even acknowledge the context that annoys me.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should remember the rule, never debate with a lawyer. Its like racing an Indy driver. Its what they do.

On the other hand, it can be fun and educational.

quote:
I haven't mentioned the legality to prove the morality.
I didn't say that you did. My point was to bring the morality into a discussion. People were talking in outrage, and others were responding with legality. I was pointing out that the outrage was not against the legality, but the morality.

quote:
it's widely accepted that when someone is taken into custody by a military force fighting in combat, indefinite detention is the usual result. That's what "prisoner of war" and "enemy combatant" mean.
This is the crux of the problem. We have captured individuals on the battle-field, many under questionable circumstances (paying bounties, trusting the word of warlords and informers that these people really are Taliban or Al-Queda). So we take them into detention until...when?

Historically prisoners are released after a war, or with some formal prisoner exchange, bounty, or treaty. But these people are prisoners until after the "war on terror." Terror is a concept, a military/political strategy. How do we determine when that fight is over? With whom do we make treaties or exchange prisoners? Indefinite detention means that there is no plan for these people. There is a vague, "when the war is over we'll release them." idea.

Remember the cartoons we watched as children. The superheroes would never kill the bad guys. They would just arrest them, and have faith that the prison system was the solution to the problem. Once in prison the villains were off stage, unimportant, forgotten. That is what I believe many in the military and administration wants to see happen here. We capture the villains. We lock them away. They are offstage, unimportant, forget about them.

People should not be forgotten about.

quote:
Could you point me to someone who says a non-citizen has no rights?
I apologize for the hyperbole. However, these prisoners have already lost the right of Habeus Corpus. They were detained outside the US under the legal assumption that non-citizens not on US soil could not access the US court system to have the violation of their rights heard. There are movements by anti-immigration groups to deny all rights from illegal immigrants, including the constitutional right of citizenship for children born in the US. There are groups that demand "proof of citizenship" be given to police from legal residents that just look foreign.

quote:
It's the constant misstatement of what's actually going on and a failure to even acknowledge the context that annoys me.
And this is one of the thing I appreciate so much about having you on this board. When we get ready to rant and scream, you have your feet firmly grounded in reality, and legality.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
There are absolutely situations where someone not a prisoner of war can be legally detained by the military for a period of time unknown at the time detention begins. This isn't novel in any way.

Right. The novel part is where we make a big deal about bringing them to justice and then we just go on assuming we can continue to keep them in cold storage no matter when the jury, assembled a scant five years of indefinite detention later, says they should be let go.

international credibility hoooooo

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2