RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights.

RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 5:34:51 PM)
Two issues thus far omitted from this thread are the following: (1) What precedent does GITMO send to other governments in how they treat US detainees abroad? (2) The totalitarian stance of GITMO is a miniature US GULAG, which undermines our ability to be an example of human rights and to claim our government operates by rule of law and due process. Every tin pot dictator, autocrat, and totalitarian party in history suspends due process and rule of law under the catch all of "national security." Are we as sure these detainees are terrorists as we were that Saddam Hussein had WMD? People also forget that the GITMO regime and mentality was tranferred to Abu Ghraib ---- by Donald Rumsfeldt --- with disastrous results.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 5:34:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Merc, I've said this to Firmhand and now I guess I have to say it to you, what is wrong? You're better than the patent bullshit you've been shoveling recently. As someone who respected your opinions let me urge you to take a hard look in the mirror. You're not cyberdude or sanity or one of the other posters that give conservaties a bad name around here but recently you have become virtually indistinguishable from them and that is saddening. This argument is beneath you. Your attempts at twisting everything everyone else writes to mean things they patentl;y don't is not something to be proud of. Oh God! lol

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 6:17:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Dans ce cas, ce serait "putain de merde, quel bordel." Ok, let's see if I can figure this out from the little Latin I was taught. "Putain" would mean "whore" i.e "butana" Ital. "De" ="of" or from "Merde" means "shit. And "quel bordel" means "from the whore house?" Am I close?

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 6:19:59 PM)
Literal translations seldom work. "What the fuck, this is a bloody mess."

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 7:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Literal translations seldom work. "What the fuck, this is a bloody mess." Holy moly, yeah, not in French obviously. No wonder they lost so many wars. "Acu zee dubois le tankem." "Eh? Chooze a tankard?" "For le beer?" "NO! Shoot the fuckin' TANK for God's sakes!!!"

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 7:40:48 PM)
Good job they helped America win against the British before they lost so many other wars. By the way, tell that to the many French resistants who were tortured, executed and who died during WWII. Next! [8\|]

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 8:22:47 PM)
Kittin, that was called..."zee joke!" How do you say "humorless" in French?

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 8:26:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Kittin, that was called..."zee joke!" How do you say "humorless" in French? Collaboration.

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 8:30:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Good job they helped America win against the British before they lost so many other wars. By the way, tell that to the many French resistants who were tortured, executed and who died during WWII. Next! [8\|] Kittin we paid that back twice as I recall there was Black Jack Pershing and th AEF...and than a couple of years later we helped liberate France after Petain surrendered it....I'd say we're more than even

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 9:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Merc, I've said this to Firmhand and now I guess I have to say it to you, what is wrong? You're better than the patent bullshit you've been shoveling recently. As someone who respected your opinions let me urge you to take a hard look in the mirror. You're not cyberdude or sanity or one of the other posters that give conservaties a bad name around here but recently you have become virtually indistinguishable from them and that is saddening. This argument is beneath you. Your attempts at twisting everything everyone else writes to mean things they patentl;y don't is not something to be proud of. Well Ken, if you didn't have an argument why don't you just say so. I can't say I would either in your position of wanting to enforce selectively a worldwide US Constitution. I'd say it's below you to attempt insult instead of addressing the issues, but obviously it isn't. Whether you agree with my opinions or not, is as immaterial as your being saddened by them. As a last point, both Conservatives and Liberals who lock themselves into a position based upon their label, are very amusing to observe when confronted with their own hypocrisy.

DomKen -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 10:06:53 PM)
Ok Merc, I tried to be nice but so be it. You have now repeatedly tried to conflate people being held by the US government having the privilege of Habeas Corpus to somehow be meaning a world wide enforcement of the US Constitution on uninvolved parties. The question then becomes who does have the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus under the US Constitution. Who, where, when and Constitutional references please. Note that you've already repeatedly stated that simply being in the custody of the US government is insufficient.

Vendaval -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 10:07:01 PM)
If the detainees were tried in a military court would they then be either returned to their home countries or held in US military prisons?

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 10:10:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval If the detainees were tried in a military court would they then be either returned to their home countries or held in US military prisons? I will assume you meant if found guilty...Unlike the small town sherrif who assures his prisoner of a fair trial and then we'll hang you

Vendaval -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 10:24:13 PM)
Yes, I am asking about the process.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 10:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Could it possibly be that some of these people are completely innocent of the things they're being accused of (yet, not charged with anything)? Of course not, Kitten. If they are there, they must be guilty, because our perfect right-wing government doesn't arrest innocent men. Q.E.D.

Racquelle -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 10:41:08 PM)
quote: WHY should we care about your ass? Because we are not animals, and nor are they. We expect U.S. Citizens to be treated with decency abroad, yet somehow we have the hubris to think that this only applies to us. I prefer to support universal well being. I read through the posts here and I keep reading "them, they, those guys" - THEY are US - as in human beings. Rights don't belong just to one ethnicity, or one nationality, or a select few... I am in favor of bringing criminals to justice, but, to do that, we have to actually try them and convict them. Though there may very well be people who mean us incredible harm now housed at Gitmo, no one has bothered to diferentiate them from the rest of the people who got caught in the net. This kind of behavior is shamefully un-American. But we are too caught up in jeuvenile revenge fantasies to stop and actually stand for the principles we claim to value. Justice and humanity are not mutually exclusive.

Archer -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 10:50:57 PM)
The problem I have always had was: OK I'm with you these guys are illegal combatant. They fit the catagory to a T. So the law requires a simple process to confirm that. A hearing that conforms Yes This is the man I captured in Halugia, on 3-4-04 The prisoner tag bears my mark, the tag was logged in and the chain of custody is unbroken. Get the man that far through the process and then I'm right there with the folks saying hold them until the group they came from is neutralized completely. (even if that takes 20 years). If there are major crimes like those of KSM and the guys who are just now going to trial then process them quickly, convict or don't, carry out sentances and be done with it. The fear I have here is that when it comes to battlefield encounters with people who fit the catagory of illegal combatants there will be a shift in policy from capture and interrogate all to pick and choose who you capture and summary execution for the rest. (The Geneva Accords can be easily read to afford terrorist group members in the same catagory as spies who get no protection) In other words 4-5 years is inexcusable for not getting them through the catagorization process, and many if not most of those left after the earlier releases have not had that hearing.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 11:01:03 PM)
Seems to me the entire Bushista argument hinges on their assertion that Guantanamo is not the Sovereign territory of the US, and, therefore, US jurisprudence in inapplicable. However, Gitmo has soldiers stationed at the perimeter of the territory to prevent any incursion of Cuban troops, so the US de facto asserts US sovereignty. SO which is it? If the US continues to deny sovereignty, then Guantanamo is a leasehold like any other anywhere and subject to the laws of the nation granting the lease, in this case, Cuba.

Archer -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 11:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval If the detainees were tried in a military court would they then be either returned to their home countries or held in US military prisons? The process as I understand it goes like this: If captured by US personel they hand off the prisoner to a MP unit at first possible opportunity. When transfered the unit that captured them fills out a chain of custody tag, and photographed. If captured by some other government and turned over to US personel First US personel to handle the prisoner photographs and fills out a chain of custody form. They are then transfered from place to place with a file containing the previous tags. When they arrive at a place where they are to be held long term they are supposed to have a hearing that confirms that they are the person that goes with the tags. (That is the military court's equivolent of a Habius Corpus Hearing) The circumstances of the capture will give the court information that can determine if the person is: A. legal combatant B. Non Combatant C Illegal combatant D any of the various Geneva Accords catagories The idea of trials for a illegal combatant is really pretty new. In past wars they simply got housed with the POW's or they got summary executions inthe field.

DomKen -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 11:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The idea of trials for a illegal combatant is really pretty new. In past wars they simply got housed with the POW's or they got summary executions inthe field. Generally the only people usually classified as illegal combatants were spies and summary execution or prisoner swaps were the usual order of the day. The concept that we should take prisoner and interrogate long term anyone taken in combat is a very new idea with a fairly murky logical underpinning. Declaring these prisoners illegal combatants was the only way that allowed the ongoing interrogation since such treatment of POW's is forbidden by one of the Geneva Conventions. One of the major issues in all of this is whether some of these prisoners can be legally classified as illegal combatants. Some at least claim they were taken in Taliban uniforms which would arguably make the legal combatants and therefore legally POWs subject to the Geneva Conventions. Some claim to have not been taken on the battlefield which would make them run of the mill prisoners not illegal combatants which would definitely make them subject to civilian court jurisdiction. All in all the trials should have gotten underway a long time ago so these guys could be under court sentence which appelate courts are unlikely to simply order their release while at this point a lot of these guys look to have real strong cases for being released as soon as their writs get heard.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02