JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Would feeding them nut rubbed sandwiches be torture? I don't know, but forcing them to read this board might qualify.
Boomer860 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 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?
Recommended Posts