Murtha: OK to send Gitmo prisoners to Pennsylvania.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

Darin, who did you learn your history from--Bill Ayers, and all those 'wack job' college professors MSNBC trudges on their lunatic broadcasts? Wasn't Gitmo around for Bill Clinton too? I didn't hear the libs worrying about detainees then? Why does it become a problem only after 3000 dead New Yorkers and few hundred others in PA and DC? Is it because your ilk likes terrorists and you want America destroyed? That's why you hate Bush! Because he protects Americans...you fukking traitor!

Breshnev was right..the enemy is inside America--it's the fukking liberals and their alien (as in pod people) thinking!

 

 

Take deep breath...sorry got a little carried away.

[Alaska Darin]

Darin, who did you learn your history from--Bill Ayers, and all those 'wack job' college professors MSNBC trudges on their lunatic broadcasts? Wasn't Gitmo around for Bill Clinton too? I didn't hear the libs worrying about detainees then? Why does it become a problem only after 3000 dead New Yorkers and few hundred others in PA and DC? Is it because your ilk likes terrorists and you want America destroyed? That's why you hate Bush! Because he protects Americans...you fukking traitor!

You likely didn't hear anything about the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay under President Clinton because THERE WERE NO "DETAINEES" HELD THERE UNTIL 2002, you unbelievable nimrod. Thanks though for making me "defend" Bill Clinton.

Breshnev was right..the enemy is inside America--it's the fukking liberals and their alien (as in pod people) thinking!

You're actually correct about that, though you ought to be pointing the finger at yourself because you're the one talking about doing things that are unAmerican. The Detention Facility at Gitmo sounds a lot like a political gulag in the ol' USSR. Breshnev would be proud of you, comrade.

[ieatcrayonz]

The Detention Facility at Gitmo sounds a lot like a political gulag in the ol' USSR. Breshnev would be proud of you, comrade.

EII was never put in a Russian gulag so who gives a crap about gulags?

[DC Tom]

You likely didn't hear anything about the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay under President Clinton because THERE WERE NO "DETAINEES" HELD THERE UNTIL 2002, you unbelievable nimrod. Thanks though for making me "defend" Bill Clinton.

 

How could someone not know that?

 

I like that even better than the "But the US owns Gitmo" argument earlier. Man, the amount of ignorance surrounding Gitmo is absolutely astounding.

[EC-Bills]

If? You mean all of them weren't? Oh, you don't know the answer so you're posing hypotheticals.

 

You hear that Debbie? I'm just like you!

 

I'm glad you're able to speak for them. Or is this an example of a conservative believing what the "liberal media" is telling them because it suits your ridiculous position?

 

I am surprised he hasn't called you a rump ranger or fudge packer yet.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

You likely didn't hear anything about the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay under President Clinton because THERE WERE NO "DETAINEES" HELD THERE UNTIL 2002, you unbelievable nimrod. Thanks though for making me "defend" Bill Clinton.

 

You're actually correct about that, though you ought to be pointing the finger at yourself because you're the one talking about doing things that are unAmerican. The Detention Facility at Gitmo sounds a lot like a political gulag in the ol' USSR. Breshnev would be proud of you, comrade.

 

 

What are you talking about---We've had that land since the turn of the century and have been using that compound since the 70s for holding prisoners, illegal immigrants and other sub-human species there. Just because Bush "expanded" its use doesn't mean it wasn't being used for other kinds of punishment before.

 

Yes, please defend Mr. Bill-the aspirin-company bomber and ethnic cleanser for me.

 

Keep calling me names..I like it--it makes you look like the tolerant liberal that you all claim to be.

[Johnny Coli]

Actually, that's not what the decision was. The decision was that the military tribunals as established didn't meet the requirements of the UCMJ and Geneva Convention, specifically pertaining to detainees being brought up before a tribunal before their POW status was determined (both the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions require a detainee of indeterminate status to have their status as a POW established, positively or negatively, before any other proceedings take place.)

 

It's also a complete rat's nest of a decision, particularly when combined with Rasul v. Bush and thus simultaneously AND ILLEGALLY providing the contradictory protections of habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention. Both decisions combined nicely outline the simple fact that no one knows who or what laws or treaties have any jurisdiction over these gomers.

I don't think the SCOTUS is confused, as they've ruled twice now in Rasul v Bush and Boumediene v. Bush that the detainees at Gitmo have the right to petition the US courts for habeas corpus under the US Constitution's Suspension Clause, AND they are afforded the rights set out by the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ as they held in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, clearly suggesting that the detainees have rights under both US and International Law. There is only confusion because the previous administration kept redefining the detainees' status to skirt around existing laws and/or whenever the administration lost in court, as has often been the case. I think we're getting past that confusion, as most (sane) people agree we are a nation of laws and civil rights that shouldn't be pushed aside, even in the gravest of circumstances, and in fact it is during the gravest of circumstances that those laws and rights should be upheld. These men should and eventually will be tried in a US court of law, found guilty for their acts, and sent to prison (obviously the place and form of imprisonment still TBD). Of the twenty seven so far who have petitioned the US Courts for habeas corpus, only three have been deemed as legally detained. That's not a good track record for an administration that just tried to sell the American people that the 245 that were still there were the baddest of the bad. Clearly, some are, but they should be tried in a transparent enough manner that should leave no doubt as to their guilt.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

I don't think the SCOTUS is confused, as they've ruled twice now in Rasul v Bush and Boumediene v. Bush that the detainees at Gitmo have the right to petition the US courts for habeas corpus under the US Constitution's Suspension Clause, AND they are afforded the rights set out by the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ as they held in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, clearly suggesting that the detainees have rights under both US and International Law. There is only confusion because the previous administration kept redefining the detainees' status to skirt around existing laws and/or whenever the administration lost in court, as has often been the case. I think we're getting past that confusion, as most (sane) people agree we are a nation of laws and civil rights that shouldn't be pushed aside, even in the gravest of circumstances, and in fact it is during the gravest of circumstances that those laws and rights should be upheld. These men should and eventually will be tried in a US court of law, found guilty for their acts, and sent to prison (obviously the place and form of imprisonment still TBD). Of the twenty seven so far who have petitioned the US Courts for habeas corpus, only three have been deemed as legally detained. That's not a good track record for an administration that just tried to sell the American people that the 245 that were still there were the baddest of the bad. Clearly, some are, but they should be tried in a transparent enough manner that should leave no doubt as to their guilt.

 

You know, I'm starting to think I like the idea of sending these bastards to a prison population. Some convicts make for great patriots. Many a drug dealer believe in capitalism.

[GG]

I don't think the SCOTUS is confused, as they've ruled twice now in Rasul v Bush and Boumediene v. Bush that the detainees at Gitmo have the right to petition the US courts for habeas corpus under the US Constitution's Suspension Clause, AND they are afforded the rights set out by the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ as they held in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, clearly suggesting that the detainees have rights under both US and International Law. There is only confusion because the previous administration kept redefining the detainees' status to skirt around existing laws and/or whenever the administration lost in court, as has often been the case. I think we're getting past that confusion, as most (sane) people agree we are a nation of laws and civil rights that shouldn't be pushed aside, even in the gravest of circumstances, and in fact it is during the gravest of circumstances that those laws and rights should be upheld. These men should and eventually will be tried in a US court of law, found guilty for their acts, and sent to prison (obviously the place and form of imprisonment still TBD). Of the twenty seven so far who have petitioned the US Courts for habeas corpus, only three have been deemed as legally detained. That's not a good track record for an administration that just tried to sell the American people that the 245 that were still there were the baddest of the bad. Clearly, some are, but they should be tried in a transparent enough manner that should leave no doubt as to their guilt.

 

Except laws in civilized nations have always treated civilian and military actions separately, and why it's insane to hold military in combat to same standards you would treat civilians under seemingly similar circumstances.

 

If you can nail down the debate in simplest terms is whether the terrorists should be treated under military or criminal statutes. Of course the defendants want everything to be treated as criminals, because of wider defenses available to them, but the actions on the ground are not as clear cut (as Tom described) that they should fall under criminal statutes.

 

The main issue will still remain, there are no set international laws regarding treatment of terrorists operating outside recognized legal boundaries. So far, much more international effort has been devoted to fighting the Bush admin's position on the terrorists than to work out laws within or without the scope of the Geneva Convention that would cement the legal standing of the terrorists caught in battle.

 

Thus, the near term practical solution for the US military faced with them will be to either kill them on sight, or render them to non-US regimes. Again, which solution is more humane?

[Johnny Coli]

Except laws in civilized nations have always treated civilian and military actions separately, and why it's insane to hold military in combat to same standards you would treat civilians under seemingly similar circumstances.

 

If you can nail down the debate in simplest terms is whether the terrorists should be treated under military or criminal statutes. Of course the defendants want everything to be treated as criminals, because of wider defenses available to them, but the cations on the ground are not as clear cuts (as Tom described) that they should fall under criminal statutes.

 

The main issue will still remain, there are no set international laws regarding treatment of terrorists operating outside recognized legal boundaries. So far, much more international effort has been devoted to fighting the Bush admin's position on the terrorists than to work out laws within or without the scope of the Geneva Convention that would cement the legal standing of the terrorists caught in battle.

 

Thus, the near term practical solution for the US military faced with them will be to either kill them on sight, or render them to non-US regimes. Again, which solution is more humane?

The issue isn't what to do with the new detainees going forward, it is what to do with the Gitmo detainees right now. I think the body of the rulings by SCOTUS suggests they have to be treated as prisoners under the Geneva Convention guidelines until at which time they see their day in a US Court to determine the legality of their incarceration.

 

Personally, I agree that moving forward International Law has to be redefined with respect to these types of detainees that aren't fighting under the flag of a specific nation, but retooling existing International Law doesn't fall exclusively into the hands of the US. It will require actual international legal cooperation, unlike the approach taken by the previous admin that couldn't care less about International Law and made crap up as they went along depending on whatever set of laws they didn't feel like adhering to.

[Boomer860]

Except laws in civilized nations have always treated civilian and military actions separately, and why it's insane to hold military in combat to same standards you would treat civilians under seemingly similar circumstances.

 

If you can nail down the debate in simplest terms is whether the terrorists should be treated under military or criminal statutes. Of course the defendants want everything to be treated as criminals, because of wider defenses available to them, but the cations on the ground are not as clear cuts (as Tom described) that they should fall under criminal statutes.

 

The main issue will still remain, there are no set international laws regarding treatment of terrorists operating outside recognized legal boundaries. So far, much more international effort has been devoted to fighting the Bush admin's position on the terrorists than to work out laws within or without the scope of the Geneva Convention that would cement the legal standing of the terrorists caught in battle.

 

Thus, the near term practical solution for the US military faced with them will be to either kill them on sight, or render them to non-US regimes. Again, which solution is more humane?

Thats the best idea or in the Tards case than can play kissy face with them.

[GG]

The issue isn't what to do with the new detainees going forward, it is what to do with the Gitmo detainees right now. I think the body of the rulings by SCOTUS suggests they have to be treated as prisoners under the Geneva Convention guidelines until at which time they see their day in a US Court to determine the legality of their incarceration.

 

I don't believe the interpretation that if they are bound by Geneva Convention that they need US courts to determine the legality of their incarceration. To me that seems to be a contradiction, as I don't believe US courts have jurisdiction over war prisoners.

 

But to me, that's not the main issue as below

 

Personally, I agree that moving forward International Law has to be redefined with respect to these types of detainees that aren't fighting under the flag of a specific nation, but retooling existing International Law doesn't fall exclusively into the hands of the US. It will require actual international legal cooperation, unlike the approach taken by the previous admin that couldn't care less about International Law and made crap up as they went along depending on whatever set of laws they didn't feel like adhering to.

 

This is where I support the administration in that before you can solve all the niceties among the Turtle Bay & Brussels crowd, you have a war to fight and you need to provide clear instructions to the guys conducting the war. Absent clear direction, you are bound to create a bigger mess and I think that you will agree that it's probably not a good idea to have field commanders making up rules on the fly, since the direction from the top is ambiguous.

 

Since the military action in Afghanistan is 7 yrs in the making and we're nowhere near reaching new international accords, I'll take the safer bet of more conservative interpretation of the statutes when dealing with the terrorists than waiting for the international legal cooperation to actually set something on paper. Again, the previous admin did not care less about International Law, because there is no International Law that deals with enemy combatants.

[Alaska Darin]

What are you talking about---We've had that land since the turn of the century and have been using that compound since the 70s for holding prisoners, illegal immigrants and other sub-human species there.

Not true. Go ahead and find a single link that states it's been used since the 70s for holding prisoners.

Just because Bush "expanded" its use doesn't mean it wasn't being used for other kinds of punishment before.

So the detention facility that was built after 2002 was used for other kinds of punishment before? How does KBR do what they do? It's like magic.

 

The first "detention facility" on Guantanamo Bay was "built" in 1991. It was basically a tent city surrounded by barbed wire that held about 100 people. It was constructed to deal with refugees, not hard core criminals. In fact, the first group of "unlawful combatants" in the "War on Terror" were kept in what were basically dog runs.

 

So basically I'm saying "You're totally full of sh--".

Yes, please defend Mr. Bill-the aspirin-company bomber and ethnic cleanser for me.

I guess we can add "unable to recognize sarcasm" to the burgeoning list of stuff you suck at.

Keep calling me names..I like it--it makes you look like the tolerant liberal that you all claim to be.

I've never claimed to be tolerant and I'm certainly not a liberal. You're as good at determining people's political bent as you are with any pertinent facts on pretty much anything.

[KD in CA]

Would feeding them nut rubbed sandwiches be torture?

 

 

I don't know, but forcing them to read this board might qualify.

[Boomer860]

Not true. Go ahead and find a single link that states it's been used since the 70s for holding prisoners.

 

So the detention facility that was built after 2002 was used for other kinds of punishment before? How does KBR do what they do? It's like magic.

 

The first "detention facility" on Guantanamo Bay was "built" in 1991. It was basically a tent city surrounded by barbed wire that held about 100 people. It was constructed to deal with refugees, not hard core criminals. In fact, the first group of "unlawful combatants" in the "War on Terror" were kept in what were basically dog runs.

 

So basically I'm saying "You're totally full of sh--".

 

I guess we can add "unable to recognize sarcasm" to the burgeoning list of stuff you suck at.

 

I've never claimed to be tolerant and I'm certainly not a liberal. You're as good at determining people's political bent as you are with any pertinent facts on pretty much anything.

Better do some self evaluation. You are a liberal. You play kissy face with the enemy.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

I've never claimed to be tolerant and I'm certainly not a liberal. You're as good at determining people's political bent as you are with any pertinent facts on pretty much anything.

 

 

The problem with you is you bend like a pretzel on every issue. Choose a side, Harvey Dent.

[Alaska Darin]

The problem with you is you bend like a pretzel on every issue. Choose a side, Harvey Dent.

I'm sorry my politics don't fit into convenient little boxes like the rest of you tards.

 

I'm not surprised that you chose that tired tactic when confronted with actual hard facts. Pretty typical of you and the rest of the blowhards. Now head back to dittoheadville for your dose, so you can regurgitate more BS.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

I'm sorry my politics don't fit into convenient little boxes like the rest of you tards.

 

I'm not surprised that you chose that tired tactic when confronted with actual hard facts. Pretty typical of you and the rest of the blowhards. Now head back to dittoheadville for your dose, so you can regurgitate more BS.

 

 

Where is dittoheadville? It sounds refreshing.

 

I don't have a problem with "all" of your politics but then as usual with you, it regressed to name-calling--nimrod, blowhard,tard, etc...whatever.

 

Call me all the names you want, hate me as much as you like...even if you are right, you're wrong.

[stuckincincy]

Why not put them in general population, too. Naa, just early release them out into the public, Murtha!

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...A9n1fAD95RRH1G0

 

 

Good 'ole Abscam John. He was a real treat to read about when I lived in Western PA.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha

[DC Tom]

I don't think the SCOTUS is confused, as they've ruled twice now in Rasul v Bush and Boumediene v. Bush that the detainees at Gitmo have the right to petition the US courts for habeas corpus under the US Constitution's Suspension Clause, AND they are afforded the rights set out by the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ as they held in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, clearly suggesting that the detainees have rights under both US and International Law.

 

 

Except that if the Geneva Convention applies as in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, it's then violated in Rasul v. Bush.

 

Forgot that part, did you?

[DC Tom]

What are you talking about---We've had that land since the turn of the century and have been using that compound since the 70s for holding prisoners, illegal immigrants and other sub-human species there. Just because Bush "expanded" its use doesn't mean it wasn't being used for other kinds of punishment before.

 

No, it hasn't.

 

 

Learn something. Then discuss.

[Johnny Coli]

Except that if the Geneva Convention applies as in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, it's then violated in Rasul v. Bush.

 

Forgot that part, did you?

 

I don't see that at all. Rasul v Bush gives them a right to habeas corpus, Hamdan v Rumsfeld says the Military Commisions are bogus and illegal because they don't offer them protection under the Geneva Conventions. I don't see how applying either one would violate the other.

[DC Tom]

I don't see that at all. Rasul v Bush gives them a right to habeas corpus, Hamdan v Rumsfeld says the Military Commisions are bogus and illegal because they don't offer them protection under the Geneva Conventions. I don't see how applying either one would violate the other.

 

Because the Geneva Convention does not permit the domestic judicial system jurisdiction over those protected by it. If the court decides the Geneva Conventions apply, it can't then turn around and decide US domestic law also applies without violating the Geneva Convention itself.

 

 

That's also not what Hamdan v Rumsfeld decided...but...whatever.

[Johnny Coli]

Because the Geneva Convention does not permit the domestic judicial system jurisdiction over those protected by it. If the court decides the Geneva Conventions apply, it can't then turn around and decide US domestic law also applies without violating the Geneva Convention itself.

 

 

That's also not what Hamdan v Rumsfeld decided...but...whatever.

Sure it was. From Oyez

The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal.

[GG]

I don't see that at all. Rasul v Bush gives them a right to habeas corpus, Hamdan v Rumsfeld says the Military Commisions are bogus and illegal because they don't offer them protection under the Geneva Conventions. I don't see how applying either one would violate the other.

 

My reading is that the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision was very narrow that Hamdan couldn't be listed as a conspirator on a charge in front of the military tribunals. SCOTUS did not address the legality of the tribunals, and more emphatically did not challenge, nor address, "the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm."

 

That's why you didn't see mass releases nor drastic changes in policy nor legal activities as a result of the SCOTUS rulings. What you did see since the legal challenges at Gitmo started was a blanket stoppage of prisoner entries to the island. Amazing, isn't it? It's like the terrorist captives suddenly ceased to exist.

[RI Bills Fan]

What are you talking about---We've had that land since the turn of the century and have been using that compound since the 70s for holding prisoners, illegal immigrants and other sub-human species there. Just because Bush "expanded" its use doesn't mean it wasn't being used for other kinds of punishment before.

 

Yes, please defend Mr. Bill-the aspirin-company bomber and ethnic cleanser for me.

 

Keep calling me names..I like it--it makes you look like the tolerant liberal that you all claim to be.

 

In reading your posts I thought that the law of averages would let you get something right at some point.

 

I was wrong.

 

You sir, are one of the very few people who could roll a single six sided die and have it legitimatly come up 3.5.

 

Unfracking believeable...

[erynthered]

In reading your posts I thought that the law of averages would let you get something right at some point.

 

I was wrong.

 

You sir, are one of the very few people who could roll a single six sided die and have it legitimatly come up 3.5.

 

Unfracking believeable...

 

You think Gitmo should be closed? Excuse the retard, they've be running rampant for the last few days here.

[RI Bills Fan]

You think Gitmo should be closed? Excuse the retard, they've be running rampant for the last few days here.

 

Which Gitmo?

 

US Naval Base Guantanimo Bay Cuba? No!

 

US Naval Training Facility, Guantanimo Bay Cuba? No!

 

Whatever the actual name of the "enemy non-combatant/combatant/we think they are terrorists but don't want to have to prove it in court" facility is? YES!

 

 

Despite Tom's defense of the Bush Administration's legal obfuscation of the situation, IMO that facility violates both US Law and the Genieva Convention.

 

Try them and prove them guilty in a court of law, or set them free. It's not the easy way out but it's the right thing to do whether you like it or not.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

Which Gitmo?

 

US Naval Base Guantanimo Bay Cuba? No!

 

US Naval Training Facility, Guantanimo Bay Cuba? No!

 

Whatever the actual name of the "enemy non-combatant/combatant/we think they are terrorists but don't want to have to prove it in court" facility is? YES!

 

 

Despite Tom's defense of the Bush Administration's legal obfuscation of the situation, IMO that facility violates both US Law and the Genieva Convention.

 

Try them and prove them guilty in a court of law, or set them free. It's not the easy way out but it's the right thing to do whether you like it or not.

 

I say let'em free in Rhode island. The state is small enough you just might have an encounter with one...packed to the gills with explosives. Wouldn't that be a kick-in-the-ass!

 

Bye!

[/dev/null]

I say let'em free in Rhode island. The state is small enough you just might have an encounter with one...packed to the gills with explosives. Wouldn't that be a kick-in-the-ass!

 

Bye!

 

They'd never survive in Rhode Island. The Giant Chicken would beat the crap out of them and the Evil Monkey would scare them away

[DC Tom]

Which Gitmo?

 

US Naval Base Guantanimo Bay Cuba? No!

 

US Naval Training Facility, Guantanimo Bay Cuba? No!

 

Whatever the actual name of the "enemy non-combatant/combatant/we think they are terrorists but don't want to have to prove it in court" facility is? YES!

 

 

Despite Tom's defense of the Bush Administration's legal obfuscation of the situation, IMO that facility violates both US Law and the Genieva Convention.

 

Try them and prove them guilty in a court of law, or set them free. It's not the easy way out but it's the right thing to do whether you like it or not.

 

It's my defense of the law, not of the administration. These are foreign nationals captured on a battle field represented by no combattant nation. There is no law that covers them. In my opinion, the Geneva Convention SHOULD cover them...but it doesn't. US law can't...their capture violates due process, being as it is extra-judicial.

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that the laws simply don't cover this situation?

[DC Tom]

Sure it was. From Oyez

 

That doesn't actually say what you think it says. The Supreme Court ruled there that the tribunal in front of which he was tried was illegal because his status under the Geneva Convention wasn't determined first. He was, in effect, tried and convicted before the tribunals ever established jurisdiction (and, in fact, if they had established jurisdiction under the Geneva Convention first, the tribunals would have been completely legal).

 

Again, it gets back to everyone's inability to figure out exactly what the legal status is of the detainees. That's why they're held at Gitmo - because they effectively are in legal limbo. The real problem is that all of the parties who should have been figuring out their status - the Bush Administration, SCOTUS, the UN, the Hague - are too busy arguing from "higher principles" to worry about the damn law. That's why the Bush administration went off and did whatever the hell they wanted with the detainees, and SCOTUS overturned centuries of case law and precedent, and the UN...did nothing (they go with their core competencies, I guess).

[Chilly]

Hay I think terrorists shouldn't be held and/or tortured in the name of not creating more terrorists. I must be a liberal too.

[/dev/null]

Hay I think terrorists shouldn't be held and/or tortured in the name of not creating more terrorists. I must be a liberal too.

Nah, you're just a Texas fan.

 

From what I have learned about Texas fans recently, I have come to the conclusion that you guys suck (Guy from Austin that I work with hates on Penn State and has been hating in the Steelers, which means he sucks, and therefore all Texas fans are lame)

[RI Bills Fan]

It's my defense of the law, not of the administration. These are foreign nationals captured on a battle field represented by no combattant nation. There is no law that covers them. In my opinion, the Geneva Convention SHOULD cover them...but it doesn't. US law can't...their capture violates due process, being as it is extra-judicial.

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that the laws simply don't cover this situation?

 

And why is it so hard for you to understand that despite your opinion the SCOTUS has ruled that both the Genieva Convention and certain provisions of US Law do apply to the prisoners held in Gitmo?

 

And even if that weren't a fact what could possibly be more un-American than locking up a group of people without charging them with anything in any court other than public opinion, without providing them an oportunity to defend themselves from the charges that haven't been leveled against them, and subjecting them to conditions and treatments which are in direct violation of both international treaty and the high moral standards we claim that our nation personifies and upholds?

[yall]

Hay I think terrorists shouldn't be held and/or tortured in the name of not creating more terrorists. I must be a liberal too.

 

I actually have no problem with that. I'd take it one step further and execute them (assuming by 'terrorist' we mean someone hell-bent on killing innocent civilians in the name of religion).

 

Where I do have a problem is that there is no way of knowing which of the detainees are actually 'terrorists'. How many were farmers that picked up a gun because some local Taliban commander forced them to do so, and they were then captured? How many were falsely accused and turned in by someone for a bounty?

 

If there was some litmus test that was 100% accurate in determining who was guaranteed to go commit murder in the name of religion, I'd have no problem shooting them. But unfortunately, we live in the real world and we have to have some kind of due process to protect the one innocent guy.

 

edit: Wasn't really directing it at you BF, just spring boarding off your post...

[VABills]

And the real problem is what we allow the media to call these guys. These are people who have been fighting or involved in espionage, to harm the USA, who were caught in a land not of their own. The guys are what is simply called foreign agensts or spies. The book is pretty clear on what should have happened. They should have been questioned, tortured, and put to death where they were found. But the USA decided to be humane and bring them back here and have tribunals. The tribunal should have happened in the field with the unit capturing them. If they were found guilty the only sentence is death. If inncocent returned to their host country and warned not to return.

 

Again, the last adminsitration tried to give these agents too much ability to defend themselves. I hope we now go back to what we are allowed to do by all conventions of war.

[VABills]

I actually have no problem with that. I'd take it one step further and execute them (assuming by 'terrorist' we mean someone hell-bent on killing innocent civilians in the name of religion).

 

Where I do have a problem is that there is no way of knowing which of the detainees are actually 'terrorists'. How many were farmers that picked up a gun because some local Taliban commander forced them to do so, and they were then captured? How many were falsely accused and turned in by someone for a bounty?

 

If there was some litmus test that was 100% accurate in determining who was guaranteed to go commit murder in the name of religion, I'd have no problem shooting them. But unfortunately, we live in the real world and we have to have some kind of due process to protect the one innocent guy.

 

edit: Wasn't really directing it at you BF, just spring boarding off your post...

None the only people in Gitmo are people who are foreign to the land they were captured in. if they were afghan farmers forced into fighting by taliban and they are captured in afghanistan they would be POW's and put in a POW camp or handed over to the afghan government for trial. These were non-afghan or non-iraqi caught in one of those places. Or someone who was captured elsewhere (maybe a foreign US military base) trying to harm US interests. These are not POWs.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

And the real problem is what we allow the media to call these guys. These are people who have been fighting or involved in espionage, to harm the USA, who were caught in a land not of their own. The guys are what is simply called foreign agents or spies. The book is pretty clear on what should have happened. They should have been questioned, tortured, and put to death where they were found. But the USA decided to be humane and bring them back here and have tribunals. The tribunal should have happened in the field with the unit capturing them. If they were found guilty the only sentence is death. If inncocent returned to their host country and warned not to return.

 

Again, the last adminsitration tried to give these agents too much ability to defend themselves. I hope we now go back to what we are allowed to do by all conventions of war.

 

Agree 100%!!

 

Just today there was some news of a freed Gitmo prisoner under Bush (I missed the details of his release ) is now one of the top AL-Queda leaders. The left is going to get us killed yet. They are worrying about our image with the rest of the world. As if these people understand anything other than 'Death to America'. I'll never forget the vision of those innocent people jumping off the WTC building.

 

What a bunch of pansies in this country. Good Lord!

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

I actually have no problem with that. I'd take it one step further and execute them (assuming by 'terrorist' we mean someone hell-bent on killing innocent civilians in the name of religion).

 

Where I do have a problem is that there is no way of knowing which of the detainees are actually 'terrorists'. How many were farmers that picked up a gun because some local Taliban commander forced them to do so, and they were then captured? How many were falsely accused and turned in by someone for a bounty?

 

If there was some litmus test that was 100% accurate in determining who was guaranteed to go commit murder in the name of religion, I'd have no problem shooting them. But unfortunately, we live in the real world and we have to have some kind of due process to protect the one innocent guy.

 

edit: Wasn't really directing it at you BF, just spring boarding off your post...

 

 

I don't maybe it's just me...but I rather not take my chances and execute one 'maybe' with a gun than let 100 murderers walk over the one 'maybe.' But... that's just me.