Murtha: OK to send Gitmo prisoners to Pennsylvania.

[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.