Tales from the bay (1) - Kafka goes to Washington  

Yes hatley, I did go overboard. But as people should know by now I have a habit of being provocative now and again. But I digress.

'enemies of our country'

How can you be sure that these people are enemies of your country? Your government itself admits that there is no evidence which would stand up in a court of law. So all you have is suspicion and what your government has told you. This reminds me of that Ann Coulter classic: " Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims."

To condemn on the grounds of suspicion alone is to dispense with justice altogether, rather like people did with witch trials.

To implicitly believe that everything your government tells you is the absolute truth implies that a) your past experience leads you to believe that your government is 100% infallible or b) you are incapable of thinking for yourself and rely on someone else to do it for you or, in the context of the 'war on terror' c)"You're so full of fear you can't function at all" - J. Lennon

'nobody here is going to label me as an enemy combatant'

You think so?: http://www.cnn.com/2003/L...

sorry Hatley, mistyped the link, it should be

http://www.cnn.com/2003/L...

It is a question of balance Holly, the balance achieved by the scales of justice to be precise. These are delicate measuring instruments which are supported by a central pivot - habeus corpus.

Habeus corpus is not known as 'The Great Writ' for nothing. Without it there is no due process; and without that then any system of justice is not worthy of the word justice. Justice must be seen to be done. It has to be able to stand alone in the clear light of day. Any system of justice that does not fulfil this criteria is a justice that operates behind closed doors, a justice which crawls in the shadows, cloaked in suspicion, lies and deceipt. Such a system of justice belongs in the gulags of Soviet Russia and the killing fields of Cambodia. Is this the comparison you would like the rest of the world to make when they think of the land of the free?

'threaten our security'

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklyn

This problem was created by your government Holly and it is up to them to solve it, not the rest of the world. To ask others to solve it for you only shows a lack of self-responsibilty. Why doesn't your government try these people in a court of law?

For the benefit of Americans, the British public suffered a sustained terror campaign carried out by the Provisional IRA, including bombing civilian targets on the British mainland. The British government's idea of fighting this particular 'war on terror' was to institute a policy of warrantless arrest, torture and detention without trial - exactly the same as what we are discussing here. The result was an intensified campaign of bombing civilians. The government was forced to abandon it's policies and negotiate a ceasefire. this began a long series of negotiations ultimately leading to the IRA de-commissioning their weapons. We now no longer have a problem with the Provisional IRA

Hello my friend!

I see my little game of playing Devil's advocate worked--as I was hoping there would be an expansion of this story. That is what happened and I didn't have to do all the work.

Great explanation for those who may think my comments were a viable point of view. Thank you!

Btw--I just wanted to mention that there had been a decision to try some of the Gitmo prisoners in a court of law, in New York about a month and a half ago--before the last attempted airline bombing.

Such a hue and cry over the disrespect to the soil of New York, Ground Zero and to 9/11 victims, survivors and their families, if that should come to pass!!! I think Obama was surprised by the strength of the protests, as I believe he thought people would especially want to see a dispensation of the prisoners here, in acknowledgment and justice for the suffering of New York state in particular. He read that wrong, for the most part.

Much talk here of how dangerous those prisoners are and how to maintain security in New York for both the prisoners and the citizens, if that was to happen. What if they got loose on the streets of New York?? The most heavily guarded prisoners we have might get loose?

Then, Christmas and the Nigerian came and I haven't heard as much as a whisper in the news about it since.

[grabs popcorn]

hi spalladino this seems to be bash America day on here . grrrrr. think I will steal blue bunnys popcorn i need to chew on something. grrrrrrerrrrrrrrrre.

swap you for some carrots?

Yes, Hatley, this does seem to be the case but we don't bow down to things like that here in my neck of the woods.

I hope there are no moths hidden in that popcorn, jb.

[Gun crazed American pops the top on a cold one and starts cleaning her gun]

hello again gun crazed american. i suspect the starter will be back soon and i am certainly not going to annoy people armed to the teeth so have some popcorn

Thanks jb and, don't worry, I never shoot rabbits.

I believe that your Constitution automatically denies Constitutional rights to all foreign nationals, so the question of Constitutional rights does not arise in this case.

And we are not talking about Constitutional rights here, we are talking about unalienable human rights such as those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - to which the United States is a signatory. However, if the US government considers itself to be above international law and treaties such as the Geneva Convention - which expressly forbids the practice of torture under any circumstances - then what right have I, as a non-US citizen, to go poking my nose into that litle area.

I have stated my attitudes to the past crimes and atrocities committed by British governments several times elsewhere Thea. You'll find the last example in my reply to Hatley (box 1) in my 'Ghosts of future past' discussion. I'd give you a link but you'd only say it didn't work and I'm sure you're quite capable of finding it all by yourself anyway.

If a government chooses to withdraw habeus corpus and carry out a policy of indefinite detention without trial then I think it is fair to draw comparisons with other governments who followed the same policies. I believe I only used the word voice as the basis for this comparison. Saying something is not quite the same as actually doing it. At no point did I say that the US has turned into a fascist dictatorship such as Germany under Hitler. That would indeed be stretching things. I leave that one to the konspiracists.

Ah I feared you might be turning a touch konspiricist E.
Actually fill me in, what happened to that guy from the mosque, did he just have the one arm I think. Are we still supporting him or is he back home or in prison now?

The world is full of both konspiracies and theories; but not every konspiracy is a theory and not every theory is a konspiracy. Konspiracy theories have a place and a purpose. Until you understand their purpose, you will forever remain in their place.

I think you are referring to the guy with a hook prosthetic. I can't remember his name and I haven't heard anything about him for a while now, so unless anyone else can enlighten us then your guess is as good as mine. I did hear something about the DHSS secretly whisking him off to a black council flat in Peckham where he was alleged to have been made to eat pot noodles and watch endless repeats of 'On the Buses', but I dismissed it as a konspiracy.

Martin NieMoller raised a very important aspect of all totalitarian regimes when he wrote 'First they came for the communists.' He saw the rise of the Nazi party first hand. It is this potential to escalate from targeting a societal grouping whom most people may either have no liking or concern for, to the targeting of all groups who may pose a potential threat to the leader and the regime itself, that is of concern with regard to all dictatorships. Much like 'boiling the frog'.

Whether or not you can draw any valid parallels with the issues being discussed here and those of dictatorships both past and present, is a matter for the individual.