I am asking you about a specific policy and you reply in generalities. Lower the deflector shields, Spock. Indeed, because we know for a fact that all the old gulags in the Soviet Union all had a full compliment of ACLU lawyers looking after the rights of people held there...right? Respect your own sense of credibility even if you don't respect others. Yes. You repsonded to my post when I said Gitmo detainees should have trials so I KNOW you are having a one man circle jerk when you trot this tiresome straw man out again. Do you not have anything constructive to add? Are you suggesting we let jihadist detainees out on bail? Only you would call the realities of doing investigations in Pakistan or the tribal Waziristan region a straw man. Utterly brainless. Whether we leave them in Afghanistan, or take them to Las Vegas, you still struggle with the very real problems of conducting investigations in a war zone with hostilities still going on. Perhaps you would like to conduct such investigations yourself? I encourage you to lead the way. Well it must have entered your thinking, I hope, that my "extreme" example was rooted in reality, whereas yours was not. We are no longer fighting the Civil War, in case you missed the news. But prisoners in the Middle East are actually being beheaded, as if this were the 12th century again. Bizarre, considering the circumstances. Lincoln never encountered the Taliban or Al Qaeda. I suppose the fact that his trial was done by military tribunal meant nothing to you. I've called for trials in Gitmo. How many times must I repeat myself?
We have the ACLU there now, why again? Nope. If we are both saying that they deserve trials, then let's mentally shake hands and be done with this because we are in accordance.
Well if you ask me it's to please progressive scum bags like Lynne Stewart who deliberately and provocitavely crossed the line from defender to acive participant in Jihad through her defense of Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...months-i-aiding-terrorists/andrew-c-mccarthy# I think that's what one is bound to see in Gitmo when you flood the compound with lawyers in absolute simpatico with "poor abused brown Muslims". Well I did say that some time ago.
So, you can't cite the law then? You can't tell me whether that law would define this situation as a "conflict" where the people involved can be considered "enemy combatants"? Because I know of no law that would allow these people to be detained indefinitely. Actually, no. Most, in fact, were not even captured by U.S. forces, but instead were turned over by various other factions in Afghanistan, with little if any evidence collected by Americans. My suspicions that your position is rooted in ignorance of the problem are henceforth confirmed.
They are there because we caught them killing Americans, I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt and send them home. I think we should just drop them off about miles from their shore and point in the direction they should swim.
The streets of Baghdad, and all because the USA was handing out tempting bounties for anyone turned in. That's why the vast majority have been released-a greedy neighbour decided he could use a wad of greenbacks.
Nonsense. They are there because they were routinely swept up by patrols for looking suspicious, or because greedy neighbours preferred dollars to friendship.
A) They were in their own country and the Americans were the invaders - if the tables were turned would you want your soldiers treated differently than these people were? b) Many were non-combatants - some were not even in Afghanistan i.e. Mandoub Habib who was in Pakistan c) A number of "detainees" were young children 13-14 years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minors_detained_in_the_global_war_on_terror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp Out of the 779 people 3 and only 3 have been "convicted" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp Don't even go there with the conviction of someone under retrospective legislation let alone convicting someone of being a chaffer This has been one of the most expensive, ridiculous, incompetent farces of all time and reparation should be made to every person who has been affected by this
Does it mean they are guilty? We wouldn't know without a trial. OR...we can quit this dicking around towards totalitarianism and just ...go hard or go home and forget about justice and mercy and just start torturing and executing muther(*)(*)(*)(*)ers!
When considering the pros and cons of the American invasion of Iraq, Americans should ask themselves why it is that the primary action conducted by their military was to secure the Oil Ministry. On that action alone, everything else falls neatly into place for everyone - other than the average American.
I was against the invasion, but...this is strategic. Naturally you would wish to secure them after the fires of Kuwait.
Theres no need to torture them, theyve been in jail for 10 years. Start the military tribunals and let justice be done.
Until proven guilty, yes. So far, of 779 original detainees, only 3 have been convicted of anything. The vast majority have been released. You generally only do that if people are innocent. I guess that hadn't occurred to you...
Naturally! It's amazing how a building with papers in a cabinet can be responsible for fires in Kuwait.
Obama wont hold the trials, and wont allow military tribunals. Releasing them kills Americans and other innocent civilians around the world.
Why are you suggesting that detainees in the USA have trials when they are already convicted by the masses with the Constitutional use of abuse of free speech?
They ARE innocent, until proven guilty. Or is that not important to you anymore? 1) They aren't being released. 2) They aren't being brought to trial because there isn't enough evidence. Do you agree that, if there isn't enough evidence, they should be released? Or, do you think the United States should be holding people indefinitely with no evidence of wrongdoing?
Thats all BS. obama himself ordered the tribunals last freaking year, and now hes ignoring his own executive orders... How many US Ambassadors need to die before you wake up?
Ahhh....well ain't that special?? It's all about his unbroken promise that he made on Day One January 22, 2009. I think he's afraid he'll be getting that question at the debates, so he quickly releases a bunch. Way to go Obama. Let's make these decisions based on how it might benefit you politically. Good leadership skills.
Wow! Here is a somewhat related discussion that I just began reading about two days ago! Personally, I believe that there is something wrong with Mr. Omar Khadr running around essentially free while Mr. Peltier is still behind bars?! Mr. Khadr and his family seem to be just as zealous an advocate of violence against America and Israel as he was at the time that he almost certainly threw a hand grenade at an American medical officer! Mr. Leonard Peltier on the other hand within two centuries may be widely regarded as a something of a hero once we realize and understand all aspects of how dangerous some of mining operations may actually be to the environment!??!!??!! http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...d-peltier-released-prison.html#post1062520852