We talked to Black voters in 5 battleground states. Here's what they said.
-
Democrats are hopeful they'll come home. Some voters aren't so sure.
2 hours ago
Monday, May 4
Shepard Smith, Fox News' oasis of sanity
I'm sorry, but you can't detain someone for 7 years just because it's difficult to build a case against them. Better to release a terrorist than put an innocent through that for so long.
Or are we to value the potential harm of released possible-terrorists over the freedom of possible-innocents now? Is this what the right would have us become?
Relatedly, see Jon Stewart's extended interview with Cliff May.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It looks like Cliff May is the spokesman for sanity there.
ReplyDelete"I'm sorry, but you can't detain someone for 7 years just because it's difficult to build a case against them."
Of course you can. People are indefinitely detained in wartime. The problem is that this is a nebulous, hard-to-define war. Whether we can "build a case against them" should be irrelevant, since this isn't or shouldn't be law enforcement matter anyway. These aren't domestic criminals.
If we are convinced that we are holding people who aren't dangerous, they should be released. Known terrorists should be executed, transferred somewhere where someone else will imprison or execute them, or as a last resort, be held indefinitely. People who fall into neither category need to be tried somehow -- preferably by military tribunal.
"Or are we to value the potential harm of released possible-terrorists over the freedom of possible-innocents now?"
Again, of course. When acting against potential foreign enemies, the U.S. government should err on the side of protecting the U.S. The U.S. government is supposed to be protecting U.S. citizens, not giving the benefit of the doubt to possible terrorists.
"Is this what the right would have us become?"
People that exercise some basic common sense and worry about U.S. security first? Yes.
> If we are convinced that we are holding people who aren't dangerous, they should be released.
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound so magical. How would we ever be convinced if there isn't enough evidence?
And what is the justification of holding someone for 7 years without charges? Is the not suspecting them of being "domestic criminals" of comfort to anyone?
Detaining someone within a theater of war may be necessary and tenable. Shipping them to another country and detaining them indefinitely without charges is not.
"You make it sound so magical. How would we ever be convinced if there isn't enough evidence?"
ReplyDeleteBecause we can investigate and come to a conclusion about whether each individual represents any sort of threat?
"And what is the justification of holding someone for 7 years without charges?"
Because it's a wartime situation. You don't have to charge enemies with something. They are held because they have been identified as enemies.
" Shipping them to another country and detaining them indefinitely without charges is not."
You are aware that we shipped prisoners all over the place during other wars right? Prisoners are actually rarely held right in theater for long in most wars.
The problem isn't that we shipped prisoners to Gitmo. It's that we did a lousy job of deciding who to ship, and had no idea exactly what we were going to do with them once we sent them there. We apparently had no process for correcting mistakes, or for doing any sort of investigation other than just holding them.
Look at the Uighars. Some basic investigation at the start would have revealed that those people were enemies of China, not the U.S. We should have either turned them loose right away, or sent them to China. Bringing them to Gitmo was idiotic and created a problem where none had existed.
Obviously we should do whatever is practical to prevent mistakes, something the Bush administration was terrible at. But even the most competent people with the best of intentions are going to make mistakes in war, especially asymmetric conflicts that span many years.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing is to right such wrongs before they become ridiculous. That's why once detainees are transported to a secure non-warzone location, they must have a recourse like the courts after a certain period of detention (measured in months, not years).
You continue to live in magical pretend land where "we should have done this" and "we shouldn't have done that" and mistakes like the Uighars would not happen. But mistakes do happen, which is why you need to stop pining for the Divine Right of King-lite, quit pretending we can depend on an idealized nearly-infallible executive, and join us all in the real world.
"You continue to live in magical pretend land where "we should have done this" and "we shouldn't have done that" and mistakes like the Uighars would not happen."
ReplyDeleteExcept I'm not pretending any such thing. Obviously mistakes are going to happen. I'm saying we should have realized that and had better thought out policies for handling prisoners.
"why you need to stop pining for the Divine Right of King-lite"
Huh?
"quit pretending we can depend on an idealized nearly-infallible executive, and join us all in the real world."
Who are you talking to? It's obviously not me.
You don't favor giving prisoners not being held in warzones access to civilian courts. And Bush's military tribunals with more limited rights (e.g. defendants being unable to review and challenge the evidence against them) obviously failed.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you favor?
"You don't favor giving prisoners not being held in warzones access to civilian courts."
ReplyDeleteI do as a last resort for those for those prisoners whose guilt or innocence is unclear. And I mean unclear in an actual sense, not a legal sense.
Military tribunals of some sort seem to be the best method of cleaning up the mess. Apparently the Obama administration is looking into that option.
> I do as a last resort for those for those prisoners whose guilt or innocence is unclear.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that exactly what habeas is fer determining? And haven't you railed against its availability in the past?
If you position has changed then ok, but otherwise I don't follow your reasoning.