Detaining journalists without charge.

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by fleinn, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    Keith Ellison, only muslim representative in Congress (recently elected by Minnesota's fifth congressional district), is challenging the guantanamo prison policy.

    http://www.startribune.com/10223/story/1523374.html
    So, Ellison points out that one of the detainees is a journalist, and that he cannot have been detained as a prisoner of war. And therefore obviously is held without charge under no recognisable legal authority.

    How much of a political trick is this? How easy would it be to smear Ellison for taking up an issue like this?

    Is this a hint of a confrontation between the judiciary committee (where Ellison has a seat) and the White House on the prisoner problem?
     

  2. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    That depends on the exact circumstances of his detainment. Was he trying to enter a war zone with weapons? As far as I'm aware, a journalist would lose protected status (and thus could be legally taken prisoner) for carrying a gun while trying to cover a war.
     
  3. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    Ellison is a muslim. He's going to find solidarity with muslims. He was elected by muslims in a predominately muslim district. I can't consider him credible. Can't, just can't. He's on the side of the detainees because he feels they are his brothers (in arms perhps).

    I doubt if the photographer would be detained for having weapons. It is a war zone, I imagine everyone would be armed. Giraldo Rivera was armed. Why he was probably detained was because of what he was photographing. I could just see an innocent photographer taking pictures in a sensitive area, then coincidentally attacked by insurgents and his camera stolen. Even Ellsion could spell s e t u p to get those photos into enemy hands and keep the photogs clean to snap another day.

    Arrested for taking pictures, yep, you betcha. This is a war zone, not Hollywood Boulevard and he's a war photographer not paparazzi.
     
  4. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    ...Minnesota - Minneapolis... predominantly muslim. Mhm.

    So, if the circumstances speak for themselves, why not have a trial?
     
  5. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    A trial, for what, getting elected while muslim? It is hardly a secret that muslims would prefer to live under sharia law. It is hardly a secret that muslims sympathize with their terrorist breathern. This is what happens when there is no loyalty to the United States. When the loyalty in fact lies with ideologies in opposition to the safety and needs of the United States. This is, really, what happens with out of control and senseless immigration.

    We know what allowing muslim majorities has done in other countries. France, Demark, Sweden, Norway, we are going to make the same mistakes and hope for a different result. The definition of insanity. But what price insanity when diversity and multiculturalisim is the goal?
     
  6. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    Not really. Medics generally aren't armed, and, in fact, can lose their protected status if they pick up a rifle. In exchange for being unable to participate in combat, they gain protection from the enemy. It's a similar principle that applies to journalists.


    That's also entirely possible. However, it's difficult to see how that could justify detaining him for several years.


    1) No one said that the circumstances speak for themselves. tipsy and I have offered hypothetical scenarios in which a journalist could be legitimately detained, but without the actual details of the situation, it's impossible to say for certain whether al-Haj's detention is justified or not.

    2) There's no need for a trial if he's being detained as a combatant in the ongoing armed conflict between the al-Qaida and United States.


    What an impressive display of ignorance regarding Islam. While it's hardly a secret that there are Muslims who would prefer to live under Sharia, at least in the US it's far from a majority, let alone exclusive, position.


    Islam is no more inherently in opposition to the safety, needs, or ideals of the US than Christianity. It's only accidents of history/geography that can make it seem so.


    I thought it was Mexicans that were "invading" the US...


    Nice job advocating genocide here...


    My response was a bit long, and a bit off topic, so I made a new thread for it.
     
  7. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    (here we go again) ... Because? You lot really care so much about the geneva conventions all of a sudden again? They're not prisoners of war, and the geneva conventions clearly does not allow this sort of "protected status" for civillians. So either military tribunal or a civillian trial is definitively in order, if the person ever was picked up for a real reason in the first place.

    But I forget - because it's the GWOT, anyone can be detained lawfully for as long as the GWOT lasts - because you care so much about the geneva conventions.

    I must also commend you on the concern for having relatively free access of information from the war in Iraq, as only journalists who are terrorists should be detained forever without charge. Well done.
     
  8. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    The Geneva Conventions allow for the detention of those "reasonably suspected" to be spies or sabateurs with virtually no rights. Someone detained under this therefore does not have to be convicted of any crime to be held (though, as I said, it seems doubtful that al-Haj would continue to represent a security threat to the US if he was detained for such a reason). Furthermore, if the US has normal diplomatic relations with the "government" of Sudan, then al-Haj couldn't qualify as a protected person under GCIV anyways.


    Come on, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you say things like this. You couldn't get away with using motives that simplistic for a comic book villain, and I'm supposed to accept that the US is detaining people, and then imprisoning them for several years just cuz?
     
  9. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    So what you're saying is that the geneva conventions is there to excuse any conduct you can possibly think of, for as long as your king declares there's a war? And that since you have this narrowly parsed version of the geneva conventions - there's no problem with imprisoning journalists, or for that matter not bringing prisoners to trial - but instead letting the bastard rot in prison? No matter how exceptionally good reasons there allegedly is for keeping them behind bars?

    I'm sorry.. Are you really saying that pointing out how the US doesn't respect the rule of law, the geneva conventions, prisoner rights in specific or human rights in general is unfair - because we're talking about America?

    Or perhaps you're just saying there's a nicer and better side to torture, "renditions", and indefinite detention? Because "it depends on who does it"?

    *sigh* ..Thanks for today..
     
  10. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    Obviously they don't, and I've never said that.


    Imprisoning journalists in general? No. Imprisoning a journalist who takes part in hostilities against US forces? Yes, for as long as he represents a threat to US security as a participant in an ongoing military conflict. This is not a law enforcement issue. It's a war, and it's never been necessary to try enemy fighters or spies in order to hold them prisoner during a war.


    Not at all. I'm saying that your characterization of the Bush Administration lacks depth. If it were used as a movie villain, it would have less moral complexity than the evil sorceress in Sleeping Beauty.

    I doubt there's ever been a government on the planet that has imprisoned people for no reason. Unjust reasons, yes, but never just because it can. If you actually think that's what the Bush Administration is doing, then your opinion is pretty much worthless because either you view the world with the moral sophistication of a four-year-old, or you're too biased against Bush (or perhaps the US) to give any rational assessment of him.


    You really do a great job of arguing against what you (mistakenly) think I mean to say, but an amazingly terrible job of arguing against what I've actually written. In other words, stop putting words in my mouth. I've never said anything in support of torture, rendition, or indefinite detention.
     

Share This Page