Report: Obama To Release 55 Prisoners From Gitmo

All for it in this country where they can not be threatened with torture. Torturing someoen and then having a trial isnt a legit trial.

 

Speaking of ignorance...what is your point?

 

Could you cite some legal or textual precedent for this? Because, I can tell you from my study of the Constitution, the sources I know of say exactly the opposite, including quotes from no less than James Madison, who referred to the Constitution as a document designed to limit the government, not the people.

 

I encourage you to pull up a seat and wait awhile. All they have is the military code of "justice" and some quotes from Bush or ...whoever had his hand up Bush's ass that day making his mouth move.

 

Having claimed to have read and understood the Constitution; tell us where the Constitution gives foreign citizens who have never set foot on our soil the right to anything?

Article 1
Section 8
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Here we have the power of the Congress to define what to do with people captured in places other than our soil.

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

More authority for the Congress to make rules about terrorists that attack us from foreign lands.

Article 2
Section2
3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

More authority to set trials of terrorists who conspire to attack us from foreign lands in the place of our choice.

Section 3
1: 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.

Sorry, that one only applies to BH Obama for giving aid to the terrorists that still want to kill us.

Amendment 5
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;

Nothing there about non citizens but an acceptation for crimes that are committed by our troops in time of war so I doubt that terrorists would get a better deal than our own troops.

 

I'm for giving people a timely trial where they haven't been waterboarded into confessing to something, yes. I'm for being better than the people who want to hurt us. I'm for being the children of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, and Adams.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html

The SCOTUS maintained that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. When you read the opinions of the judges (even dissenting) affirmed that the Constitution did not protect US citizens alone.

 

Your problem is you completely misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution does not give anyone any rights. What it does is limit the government's powers against free men, who have unlimited rights except those they voluntarily cede to the government via the Constitution and other founding documents such as state constitutions.

 

That's the law while you are in a conflict. People picked up on the battlefield can be held indefinitely until hostilities are over. It's ALWAYS been like that.

 

Can you show us that anyone at Gitmo was "picked up on [a] battlefield"? What battlefield? In what war? Who declared war? Who are the participants?

And what is the rule you are referring to that allows a nation to hold enemy combatants until hostilities end?

 

Here we go...

 

You have to charge them first, and to do that you need evidence. So far over 600 'enemy combatants' have been released without charge. 779 were originally detained. Where was the evidence then, and why is it taking 10 years, in some cases, for them to be released?

 

It seems so many on this thread don't know the military laws that apply during a conflict. ANYONE picked up on the battlefield for fighting against us or helping the enemy in any way are considered enemy combatants and CAN be held INDEFINITELY until hostilities are over. That has ALWAYS been the law for this type of stuff. Also, GITMO IS American soil!

 

And that is true, if you don't know that, then stop posting.

 

I'm not the one forgetting it.

 

Arbeit Macht Frei!

 

Your post seemed as if you had something against what was said.

 

Labor brings you freedom? OK......

 

What are those laws? How do those laws define a conflict? Who in Gitmo was picked up on the battlefield?

 

This deserves no answer. I can't help the ignorant. That's up to you. I'm pretty sure almost ALL of the prisoners in GITMO were picked up on the battlefield. Where else did they come from?

 

So people that have been waterboarded get to go home free and clear? Is that what you are saying?
Because in civil criminal court a confession beat out of someone would not necessarily invalidate all charges against a suspect.
It seems you are advocating a new, higher standard of rights for Gitmo inmates that not even our civil courts endorse. Why is that?

We plainly already are far better than the people that bombed us on 9/11 and nothing we have done in Gitmo changes that! The guests at Gitmo get a new soccer field to play on, kosher
halal meals strictly prepared with Muslim practices observed at all times, rigorously observed prayer sessions, etc.
Prisoners taken by jihadists have their heads forcibly removed from their body.

I suggest you look up the fate of John Andre and the military trial that George Washinton convened to deal with him. You have a childishly naive view of how the Fathers dealt with enemies of America. In fact chidish naivete is a thread that runs through much of your posts.

 

Great. At least you admit people are being released for lack of evidence.
Why are you bit8ching then?

 

If police beat people into a confession, then that confession would be suppressed evidence.

Maybe we shouldn't torture confessions out of people like some 3rd world military junta. We are supposed to be the good guys.

It would negate the testimony.

Bah, stop with that straw man. I'm not playing.

What goes on at Gitmo? Do you know? I would suspect you don't know because it is a secret base off our coast, a "Gulag Archipelago" if you will. We are bouncing up against Soviet style governance and it got sold to us under the banner of patriotism.

I want us to live up to the promise of our founders.

Guests get to go home. They are prisoners, some of which kept there for years for no reason and sent home after we couldn't figure out what they were doing there to begin with.

They deserved a speedy trial and then if guilty, speedy execution or return to their home.

These are some low standards that you want to judge our behavior by. How about judge our military today by the measure of US General Grant after the Civil War?

What is the key word there again...? Oh yes...TRIAL.

 

I asked if you believed that a coerced confession should invalidate all charges against a detainee. I note you did not answer.

Soviet style governance? That must be why Gitmo is crawling with ACLU lawyers defending detainees? http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...defense-lawyer-orders-his-attorneys-not-agree

Your hyperbole is amusing, if not accurate.

I would refer you again to the fate of John Andre', speaking of our founder's values.

This sounds like our civil system where defendants can sometimes spend years in jail before getting their chance at justice. I don't see that Gitmo is especially slow in this regard. Just typical.

Ideally yes. But we are dealing with people taken from chaotic battlefied conflicts in some of the most backwards and least civilized places on earth!
Would you like to conduct a judicial investigation in the mountains of Waziristan perhaps? We are dealing with cultural, physical and liguistic barriers you can only imagine. There is that childishly naive view of the world again.

We aren't fighting a bunch of Ulysses Grants. We are fighting Muslim zealots that dwell in the 12th century, no matter what year it is. This was done to demonstrate dissatisfaction with mere prisoner mistreatment in Abu Ghraib prison.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-616901.html

We would have to drop a long, long, long, long way to come down to those standards. I'm hardly worried about our behavior here.

Do you suppose George Washington would have appointed ACLU lawyers to monitor John Andre's treatment and demand American troop movements in order to defend Andre? I don't.
If you truly want to be a "child" of George Washinton you should stop idealizing him and realize how he treated our enemies.

 

Because you're asking me about something completely generic. What is the other evidence?

And why is it crawling with ACLU lawyers? Because of Soviet Style governance.

You mean the British Officer who helped Benedict Arnold spy on our revolutionary forces and was given a trial?

If they can't make bail or bail is denied after an appearance in front of a judge, you mean?

Straw man.

We removed people from their country instead of holding them there as we did with some for the purpose of interrogation, then left them indefinitely without trial.

Never said we were. You brought up a comparison that was extreme, and I brought up an instance where there were more benevolent conditions upon surrender, ie Grant to Lee.

I am merely, as Lincoln said, appealing to our better angels. It appears now that we have none.

I suppose the fact that he had a speedy trial and execution means little to you?

Trial...execution...not that hard to understand.