Runescape Bits & Bytes
https://www.rsbandb.com/forums/

Debate: Detention without Trial
https://www.rsbandb.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=78014		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Aquw VettelS 776 [ January 3rd, 2010, 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Debate: Detention without Trial
Should detention without trial (internment) be allowed? This is the imprisonment of someone for a substantial amount of time, without a court trial (civil, military or otherwise). This could be for many months or years- indefinitely. Please vote in the poll above, and then discuss in the thread below.

Here's what I think. Feel free to quote, pick holes in, disagree with or add to my argument against detention without trial:

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned nobody has the right to lock somebody else up for no reason. Detention without trial happens (mainly) because there is a lack of evidence to secure the prosecution of an individual. Now I don't care how serious the alleged crimes are, whether it's theft of a loaf of bread or intent to go on a suicide mission, the saying still stands- innocent until proven guilty. And that's really all it boils down to- it's the prosecuter's job to build a case of legitimate evidence against someone, and if they can't do that, the prisoner in question should be released.
Author:  Adbot [ January 3rd, 2010, 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear
Author:  Duke Juker [ January 4th, 2010, 1:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
Hmm...the problem that I have with this is that you don't define the parameters enough. Are we talking universally or just certain countries like the United States? If the United States, are we talking anyone except U.S. citizens or everyone? You have to be more specific in what you're talking about. I will approach it from the way I think you are trying to do, which is just the U.S. Now, in that regard, I believe the Constitution directly addersses this subject, though somewhat a little vaguely:

The United States Constitution

Quote:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Quote:
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Quote:
Article III - The Judicial Branch/Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

I believe these are the three best parts of the Constitution that address your question. The trick here is that this only applies to you if, and only if you are an actual U.S. citizen. If you aren't, your are in some serious ####. But, if you are a U.S. citizen, then the Constitution guarantees you the right to a fair trial and speedy trial, that excessive bail not be imposed or levied on you, that you don't have to be a witness against yourself, and that you don't have to submit to a search and seizure without a warrant. That being said, there is also the section in Article III on Treason, the only offense to be defined in the Constitution. That deals, of course, with people who knowingly help an enemy of the United States.

But what does all that gobbledygook above have to do with your question. A lot. As it pertains to your question, the only people affected are non-U.S. citizens (e.g. Guantanamo Bay detainees, terrorists, etc.) Anyone who doesn't have citizenship is not protected by the Constitution and can really be treated any way the retainers see fit.

Now I'm not saying that detaining someone against their will is right. I agree with you that it isn't and really shouldn't be allowed. But, as the law stands, anyone the United States catches and considers an enemy with good reason can be kept pretty much for however long the U.S. feels. Movie example, The Rock. Sean Connery's character is captured and held captive for an indefinite amount of time by the United States for attempting to steal microfilm holding some of the nation's greatest secrets. He is not allowed to leave or to have a trial as he is not a U.S. citizen and won't cough up the film. In the end, it's all good cause he escapes and leaves the film behind. Another movie example, Saving Private Ryan. In the film, the squad captures a German machine gunner after a long struggle and with a dead medic to boot. The men want to kill the man, but the captain has compassion and sets him off to hopefully turn himself in to the next Allied checkpoint. Later on, that same man kills the captain at the end of the movie. The point in my eyes comes down to this. Detention without a trial may seem horrible and unjust, but, if it is in the nation's best interest to detain someone for wanting to attack or hurt the United States, than so be it. I'd rather have them kept in prison where they can't do any harm rather than let go with the possibility of hurting the United States. If it was a U.S. citizen getting their rights taken away, that's on thing. But, if it is an enemy of the United States who can possibly be a threat and especially isn't a U.S. citizen, then I have no problem with indefinite detainment. :|

Paraphrase for light readers and skimmers: The United States should be allowed to indefinitely detain non-U.S. citizens only if it's in the best interests of national security and with the proper just cause (evidence).
Author:  CreepyPirate [ January 4th, 2010, 3:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
If there suspected terrorists? Yes. Lock them up and hold them.

We're at war. It might not be war in the traditional sense but the rules apply. We didn't let the germans come over on there holidays when we was fighting them and the Americans rounded up a ton of the Japenese living in there country too.

Only way to fight these cowards is to **** with there plans and take them apart before they get going. And as these things can take months to organize, plan and put into action we should be allowed to hold them.

End of the day I'd rather protect British citizens than give a **** about the rights of some foreigner. As for the ones that have lived in the UK all there lives they too should held. The police don't pick you up cause of your skin colour you have to do something to get there attention first.
Author:  Brad [ January 4th, 2010, 5:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
I can express my opinions on this subject very concisely.

Yes, but only for a maximum amount of time. If you don't have the evidence to charge them with an offense, they shouldn't be held indefinitely.
Author:  trekkie [ January 4th, 2010, 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
same with brad. even now you can only hold somebody 24 hours without solid evidence.
Author:  CreepyPirate [ January 4th, 2010, 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
trekkie wrote:
same with brad. even now you can only hold somebody 24 hours without solid evidence.


Couple of weeks if your suspected of terrorism in the UK i believe. And that is a cut back from what it previously was. Something i disagreed with tbh
Author:  Adbot [ January 4th, 2010, 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear
Author:  Shane [ January 4th, 2010, 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
Yes, but only in cases involving national security or other high profile detainees.

If you've got a terrorist (even suspected) floating around detaining them could ultimately prevent an attack. If you let them go they will head deeper into hiding never to be seen again.

Part of reason as to why people don't agree with this is they feel it is against what is right to do. The same can be said about racial profiling, it's not a preferred method but if it works, that's fine. I invite you all to read this article about profiling in general.

As Creepy said, it's a time of war. If you've got flags painting you as a terrorist would that's perfect reason to be detained.

In summary, if it's a time of war and the person is suspected of having terrorist/enemy ties: the ends justify the means.
Author:  colinsoccer123 [ January 4th, 2010, 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
You can't just hold people against their will without trial indefinitely, that's a slippery slope and is what ALL the dictatorships in the world do.
There's a reason we're better than dictatorships, we value human rights and if there isn't enough evidence to convict there should be a maximum holding time of, say a month to collect some but after that if you still don't have the evidence your case obviously wasn't that strong in the first place and they should be released.
Author:  Veggie Eater [ January 5th, 2010, 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
I watch too much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit

I think that people should be locked up but only with a maximum time period.

Say a child is raped by her father and she confides to someone about this and the police know it but the girl is too traumatized or too young to stand up in trial. If the police don't have any other evidence they can't bring the case to trial. The father should definitely be put in jail for a bit so the daughter feels safe and the police have some time to find evidence.

Wow that's really awkwardly worded but I need to do some homework so I don't feel like fixing it.
Author:  Duke Juker [ January 5th, 2010, 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
There is one more thing to add to my thoughts since you brought up Law and Order (which I tremendously enjoy).

1. Law and Order is still fiction and sometimes exaggerated for effect, and I don't think the majority of cases on there are actually realistic in nature, even if they are based off true stories. Real life hits much more closer to home.
2. It's hard to judge something like Detention without Trial until you have actually felt or know the effect of not having it is. It's like watching a murder and trial unfold on Law and Order rather than having someone close to you murdered and actually being at the trial. It's not the same experience.

So, in my opinion, it's easy to judge it from an observer's standpoint and say it's wrong. But I think if everyone saw the effects up close and personal and saw both sides, indefinite detention would probably be viewed a little more differently. Just throwing that out there.
Author:  Aquw VettelS 776 [ January 6th, 2010, 4:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
Duke Juker wrote:
Paraphrase for light readers and skimmers: The United States should be allowed to indefinitely detain non-U.S. citizens only if it's in the best interests of national security and with the proper just cause (evidence).


I see no reason for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens.

CreepyPirate wrote:
If there suspected terrorists? Yes. Lock them up and hold them.


The problem is define how sure you are that somebody is a terrorist. Lock someone up who's suspected of terrorism, but with very little evidence, and where does that leave the guy you locked up? You could be searching for evidence for months or years, only to conclude in the end that actually, he's innocent.

Shane wrote:
As Creepy said, it's a time of war. If you've got flags painting you as a terrorist would that's perfect reason to be detained.


Of course, if you have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone to be a terrorist, they should be detained. In the mean time evidence should be gathered and case built against them. But that doesn't mean you should be hunting around for evidence that simply isn't there, holding the suspect indefinitely in the process.

CreepyPirate wrote:
End of the day I'd rather protect British citizens than give a **** about the rights of some foreigner. As for the ones that have lived in the UK all there lives they too should held.


Shane wrote:
Yes, but only in cases involving national security or other high profile detainees.


It is, of course, the job of a government to protect its citizens. However it also has a responsibility to the people it detains, citizens or not. Locking someone up for as long as you want with insufficient evidence to charge them is a breach of human rights.

Brad wrote:
Yes, but only for a maximum amount of time. If you don't have the evidence to charge them with an offense, they shouldn't be held indefinitely.


Veggie Eater wrote:
I think that people should be locked up but only with a maximum time period.


I agree. The only debate from thereon is the maximum time allowed.

Shane wrote:
If you've got a terrorist (even suspected) floating around detaining them could ultimately prevent an attack. If you let them go they will head deeper into hiding never to be seen again.


As far as I'm concerned, that's a risk you'll have to take. I guess for me it's a question of how long. I think up to 3 months is acceptable, but in order to hold someone for this long you should be reasonably expecting a successful prosecution.

CreepyPirate wrote:
trekkie wrote:
same with brad. even now you can only hold somebody 24 hours without solid evidence.


Couple of weeks if your suspected of terrorism in the UK i believe. And that is a cut back from what it previously was. Something i disagreed with tbh


Is it 24 hours? I'm not sure, but it sounds about right. As Creepy says however, this does not apply to suspected terrorists- I believe this is now 48 days? Can anyone confirm this?

colinsoccer123 wrote:
There's a reason we're better than dictatorships, we value human rights and if there isn't enough evidence to convict there should be a maximum holding time of, say a month to collect some but after that if you still don't have the evidence your case obviously wasn't that strong in the first place and they should be released.


Exactly what I think. A government has a responsibility to the people it detains, whether or not they're citizens. Although I do think in some cases 1 months may not be enough- maybe 3 months, but only if there's a good chance that the person will be charged successfully.

Note about wartime situations: There are different laws regarding prisoners of war (POWs). I don't know the ins and outs of them, but I do know they allow indefinite detainment until the war has ceased.
Author:  Brad [ January 6th, 2010, 4:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
I believe in the UK it's currently 28 days.. I think just for offenses relating to terrorism. Blair tried to extend it to 90 days in '05 and Brown tried to push it to 42 in '08. Blair's was defeated in the commons, and Browns was struck down in the lords, then they just gave up.

As much as I hate the Lords, more often than not they've bailed us out from stupid laws being forced through by a majority government.
Author:  Duke Juker [ January 6th, 2010, 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
Quote:
Quote:
Paraphrase for light readers and skimmers: The United States should be allowed to indefinitely detain non-U.S. citizens only if it's in the best interests of national security and with the proper just cause (evidence).


I see no reason for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens.

The reason to distinguish is because citizen's actually have rights, where as non-citizens/foreigners don't. For example, there is no basis for the Guantanamo Bay trial to be brought to court because the detainees are not citizens, and as such aren't guaranteed a fair and speedy trial by the Constitution (especially before the Supreme Court). Granted, I'm not saying it wasn't fair and that 'bad things' should continue to happen to prisoners at military bases. All I'm saying is, if you don't live here, we aren't going to protect you, especially if you are in prison for being an enemy combatant or terrorist. What's the whole point of having the Constitution if you can't distinguish between what people have rights and who doesn't? Then nobody knows and it's chaos. The Constitution only applies to citizens, not to outsiders. If you don't like it, then change it. But that's the way it is right now. You don't have 'guaranteed rights' if you aren't a citizen. And it you aren't protected, then the U.S. can hold you for however long they want. Sucks to be you! :-({|=
Author:  ryan1 [ January 7th, 2010, 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
Duke Juker wrote:
The reason to distinguish is because citizen's actually have rights, where as non-citizens/foreigners don't.

O_o! Really??
I guess I'll just take a trip up to Canada, bring Shane back to the USA, say he was a suspected terrorist and lock him in my basement for the rest of his life. He's foreign, so clearly he has no rights... Don't be absurd.

From this article on Wikipedia, it is clear that the US does acknowledge rights of foreigners, including arguably the most important right, known as a writ of habeas corpus, or the right to a fair trial.
Quote:
"On June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush recognized habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners. On October 7, 2008, the first Guantanamo prisoners were ordered released by a court considering a habeas corpus petition."



It is impossible to imprison any criminal without at least a small window of no evidence/trial, but there should be a maximum time before they are brought to court to defend themselves against presented evidence.
Author:  Duke Juker [ January 7th, 2010, 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Debate: Detention without Trial
Let me rephrase...only U.S. citizens have U.S. rights fully. Foreigners may have rights recognized, but because they are not citizens, they are not entitled to the same rights as a normal U.S. citizen.

As for Guantanamo, I don't side with the court. Why would you let suspected (and most likely probable) terrorists demand habeas corpus when we ourselves clearly put them in prison for a reason? It's a total contradiction between the judicial and executive branches of the government.

I don't think habeas corpus should be given to people who probably just want to get out, turn around, and hurt the system they just escaped from.

Again, I'm not saying that detaining someone indefinitely is right, but sometimes, with the right evidence and probable cause, it may be necessary, and only then would it be allowable.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/