|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/12/2008 10:51:18 PM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 706
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
quote:
They do have basic human rights
Look at how they have been treated at Gitmo; Islamic food. Korans, Prayer Rugs. All their needs.
Poor souls.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/12/2008 11:04:20 PM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1296
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: The Great Sioux Empire
Status: offline
|
The war on drugs has done far, far more to advance police power against the citizenry than the WOT ever could.
As to this decision, and it's cheerleaders, it just backs up my theory that the ideological left in this country hates this administration to the point where they're more comfortable rooting for the enemy. Every time anything breaks against the current US regime, there's a host of people jumping out of their skin to claim it's some kind of victory for freedom and/or human rights. It's like we've slipped into bizarro world, like a family where you're pretty sure your brother would sell you out to the highest bidder if given the least chance except he won't admit it to your face.
_____________________________
Molon Labe
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/12/2008 11:14:52 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
The war on drugs has done far, far more to advance police power against the citizenry than the WOT ever could. Yeah, another war with no end that's a huge waste of money.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/12/2008 11:46:12 PM
|
|
|
PhunkD
Posts: 217
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
|
To those who say the constitution does not apply to non-citizens: On what do you base this opinion? I cannot find this in the constitution.
Second question: where do rights come from? I believe that the declaration of independence got it right: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights endowed by our creator. Maybe this reality trumps any constitutional argument.
I understand that a person may forfeit these rights, but I don't believe that it should be without due process.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 12:43:12 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2201
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The act of doing so is immoral and evil not to mention illegal and in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Then quote it please or at least tell us which Geneva Convention applies in the instance you are talking about. Collie is completely correct because those who we are fighting are nothing but a bunch of yellow bellied cowards who don't even deserve to be in Gitmo they deserve to be executed. Any yellow bellied man or woman who decides to cowardly attack our soldiers or the soldiers of any country or the security personnel of any country has no rights except the right to be shot.
quote:
Taf you are correct, but for the wrong reason. The administration does not call them POW's. That was a strategic decision made in order to avoid the Geneva Convention. By making this colossal blunder, the admin then had to invent this tribunal system, thereby throwing open the door for lawyers ready to get some headlines.
This isn't even a war. It ceased to be an actual war when the Iraqi army laid down its guns and when the Afghani army collapsed. People can call it whatever they think it is but a war it isn't. An insurrection maybe. What makes these men unprotected PoW's is their method of fighting. If they were part of a uniformed group of regulars with an obvious heirarchy then that is an exception. That doesn't apply to these men.
I don't have a problem with the SCOTUS ruling because I don't believe that all of the men there are even insurgents or threats to us. This has been discussed and proven in other threads on CW in the past. Gitmo is also a black eye to the US in front of the world. Liberals couldn't make the US look as bad as Gitmo does. I am not afraid of the terrorists or terrorism so I see no reason why we should have a Gitmo and run it like we do.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 1:00:59 AM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2070
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, Roger, I agreed with your first two paragraphs. Two outta three ain't bad.....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 2:27:00 AM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
As to this decision, and it's cheerleaders, it just backs up my theory that the ideological left in this country hates this administration to the point where they're more comfortable rooting for the enemy.
Ironically, in this case it would appear that at least some of them are rooting for the rule of law.
quote:
Maybe I'm missing something and I don't know diddly about the Geneva Convention, but...it seems odd that foreigners...no, not just foreigners, but foreigners who want us dead...would have any constitutional rights whatsoever.
Well, for better or worse, all humans have human rights. Fortunately, we also have a legal process in place for apprehending, trying, convicting, and punishing those who kill others, or conspire to kill others. Why shouldn't that process be followed in this case?
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we were to be "detainees" in a Middle Eastern country, how would we be treated??? Would they even worry about our "basic human rights", much less our constitutional rights?
One of the difficulties of having morals is that it means you can't always stoop to the level of your enemies.
quote:
In my line of sight, it looks like another case of political correctness. God forbid that someone should be offended by being detained in a country club after trying to annihilate our country!
If there's evidence that someone at Guantanamo tried to annihilate your country, it ought to be a fairly simple matter to try them, convict them on that evidence, and make sure they'll never again be in a position to attempt to do so. No one, including the Supreme Court, has denied the U.S. government the power to follow this process.
< Message edited by fiat_lux -- 6/13/2008 2:36:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 2:43:22 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1184
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
Anyone have a link to the recent ruling the OP is talking about?
I know the supreme court ruled in the past that the Geneva convention and the constitution don't necessarily apply to detainees at Guantanamo, however with the caveat that they still must have some legal means of challenging their detentions and that the Bush administration has to follow basic things like habeas corpus, etc (and the Bush administration originally tried to maintain that the army could basically keep them as long as they wanted without any real legal recourse at all -which is a position that I think any reasonable American, be they conservative or liberal, should find somewhat disturbing).
I'm wondering if this is the same ruling, or a new ruling that clarifies things further.
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 3:13:45 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Let me guess, you're not in favor of police roadside stops where they check your license out and look in your car....
See how conservatives justify the literal trampling of your 4th amendment rights against illegal (in other words, warrantless) search!! Unbelievable!!! The Bill of Rights has no meaning to them and then they are the ones to wrap themselves in the flag and scream "freedom and democracy" at the top of their lungs!
What's your probable cause officer for stopping me and shining a flashlight in my family's and my face! You're driving a car! I didn't know that very fact made me suspicious.
BTW, Henny here's your link.
In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
If these are proven bad guys, then PROVE IT!!!! The government has had more than enough time to make a case.
< Message edited by mapachito13 -- 6/13/2008 4:01:43 AM >
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 3:51:40 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 352
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
SCOTUS has got it exactly right.
quote:
Look at how they have been treated at Gitmo; Islamic food. Korans, Prayer Rugs. All their needs. Except the ability to challenge their detention. Freedom in other words.
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 4:22:57 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1184
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
On a civilian charge this is true, but this is war.
If the war on terror is, in fact, a "war" in the real legal sense of the word (and not just a rhetorical flourish, like, for example, the "War on drugs" or "the war on obesity"), I think the legal ramifications of this still need to be hashed out.
Personally, I don't think the term "War" has much meaning at all when applied to terrorism, as the way terrorism operates is different enough from our traditional understanding of "war" that it requires new definitions. The Bush administration seems to understand this, but it hasn't prevented them from rather cynically taking advantage of the ambiguity of the term within the context of terrorism to suit their agenda.
I think the case of Guantanamo is a good example of their contradictory view of the term, and how they wish to "have it both ways" when it comes to it's legal application. On the one hand, they have argued that the "war on terror" constitutes a "War" in the traditional sense, and because of this, the president, acting in a time of "war," can take advantage of certain additional powers to protect the people. However, on the other hand, as this case points out (and in direct contradiction of their original stance), they have also attempted to argue that "enemy combatants" in this "war" are not subject to the same laws under which we have traditionally conducted "wars" in the past. Or in other words, the "war on terrorism" is not really a "war" in the traditional sense at all.
So while they have employed the idea of "War" in certain contexts when it suits them, in other contexts they are just as ready to claim that the war on terrorism really isn't a "War" at all. Which should worry people, as I think it basically shows that they really aren't interested in the law as much as they are interested in doing what they want regardless of the law.
The climate of fear and paranoia after the 9/11 attacks basically allowed them to do what they want (I really do see September 12th 2001 -not September 11th - as our nation's most vulnerable time in centuries, not because of any outside threats that terrorism posed, but rather because of how the climate of fear that terrorism created allowed for certain groups to take advantage of that fear in order to further their own agendas). I do think we are starting to wake up from this though, and I think people are starting to be more cynical when it comes to the politics of "fear" (which is a good thing, as I don't think people think straight when they are terrified and hysterical).
I personally am completely fine with passing news laws to give our government the tools they need to combat terrorism, just as I understand that certain laws will be applied differently in a time of war, but I am entirely skeptical of using the rhetoric of "war" (as it has traditionally been defined) to classify how we deal with terrorism. Mainly because, I don't think we've tested what exactly "War" means in terms of terrorism. When, for example, does the war on terrorism end? What constitutes victory? Who are our enemies?, etc, etc. All of these questions are easily answered when it comes to traditional war, but I'm not sure they can be applied in the same way to terrorism.
If winning the war on terrorism means eradicating all forms of terrorism entirely, then the USA will never and can never win the war on terrorism. Which I think is why it's absurd to talk about terrorism in terms of "War" as well as in terms of "winning and losing." It's a war we'll never win, mainly because it really isn't a war in the first place. There will always be terrorism just like there will always be crime. We can lessen and prevent terrorism, but as long as some nut has the ability to strap a bomb to himself and blow people up, or to open fire on a shopping mall, etc, etc, there will always be terrorism. Defining our fight against terrorism as "War" in the traditional sense should worry people, just because it basically opens the possibility that a president can claim "war time" exceptions/rights perpetually.
And as a final note, I really don't see any of this as a "conservative" vs "liberal" issue. Rather, I see it as a "Bush administration/neocons" versus "The American people" issue. There's been enough conservatives that have come out against the administration's policies post 9/11 (i.e. the patriot act, Gitmo, Iraq, etc, etc), that I don't think a lot of his actions square all that well with conservative ideals (and a lot of his actions are really aimed at giving the government MORE power, so it kind of boggles my mind why so many conservatives supported a lot of this stuff in the first place. Although there were many democrats who basically laid back and gave him a blank check to do whatever he wanted after 9/11 as well, so I won't claim that they are any better).
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 4:43:47 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1184
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
What are our solidiers on the battlefield to do when the capture someone? Read them their Miranda Rights? The best thing to do is just to kill them before they are capture. With this ruling the thugs and killers in Gitmo have the right to sue the US government! Just shoot first and leave them on the battlefield to rot.
The problem with this in terms of GITMO, is that the vast majority of detainees at Gitmo (I think it was something like 86%, if I remember correctly, but I might be wrong on that) were not captured on a field of battle. Rather they were turned in as suspected terrorists by other Afganies, often times for a cash reward. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see some of the potential problems here, as well as the potential for abuse.
I think the US army is genuinely trying to do whats best for the country, so I personally don't think they maliciously imprisoned innocents just for the fun of it or anything like that. However, they are also human, and thus mistakes can be made (and there are several documented cases of innocent people being held at GITMO just because their friends had grudges against them and turned them in for the money, cases in which even the army itself admits that there was no good reason to hold any of these people).
Because we are human despite our best intentions, I think there has to be some legal means in place by which the army justifies the reasons for holding any given prisoner to some sort of impartial governing board (even if this board is "Secret" for the interest of national security) and allows the prisoners some means of challenging their detentions. This doesn't mean that these prisoners will have the same rights as the constitution (they won't, unless they are American citizens), nor does it even mean that they will have all the rights of Geneva (although I personally see no good reason not to use Geneva in these cases), it just means that there has to be some system of checks and balances in place to insure that power is not abused and that mistakes can be corrected when they are made. As the supreme court has stated in the past, even if the constitution/Geneva do not apply, these detainees cannot exist in a legal "limbo" were they have no means of challenging their detentions and where the army can basically hold them forever without answering to anyone if it wished (which, in effect, is what the Bush administration originally argued).
I don't see how this is an unreasonable requirement, nor do I think it would prevent the army from prosecuting those criminals that truly deserve it.
Anyways, I post this constantly whenever this issue comes up, so I hate to harp on it again (I'm totally the NPR posterboy  ), but "This American Life" did a really good episode on this issue that I think takes a interesting and balanced look at some of the legal issues surrounding gitmo:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331
Transcript:
http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 4:48:38 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
On a civilian charge this is true, but this is war.
If the war on terror is, in fact, a "war" in the real legal sense of the word (and not just a rhetorical flourish, like, for example, the "War on drugs" or "the war on obesity"), I think the legal ramifications of this still need to be hashed out.
My vote would be for rhetorical flourish! That's why he can play the legal and political shell game and talk out of both sides of his mouth.
quote:
The climate of fear and paranoia after the 9/11 attacks basically allowed them to do what they want (I really do see September 12th 2001 -not September 11th - as our nation's most vulnerable time in centuries, not because of any outside threats that terrorism posed, but rather because of how the climate of fear that terrorism created allowed for certain groups to take advantage of that fear in order to further their own agendas). I do think we are starting to wake up from this though, and I think people are starting to be more cynical when it comes to the politics of "fear" (which is a good thing, as I don't think people think straight when they are terrified and hysterical).
Very astute reflection of that time!
quote:
When, for example, does the war on terrorism end? What constitutes victory? Who are our enemies?, etc, etc. All of these questions are easily answered when it comes to traditional war, but I'm not sure they can be applied in the same way to terrorism.
But this grey area is desireable to this administration. That allows them to create their own political reality and justify almost anything in the pursuit of the terrorists. Those that do not support this anti-terrorist carte-blanche for the President are labelled "un-patriotic", "socialistic", etc. It seems like the usual ad hominem attacks to try and silence opposition.
quote:
If winning the war on terrorism means eradicating all forms of terrorism entirely, then the USA will never and can never win the war on terrorism. We can lessen and prevent terrorism, but as long as some nut has the ability to strap a bomb to himself and blow people up, or to open fire on a shopping mall, etc, etc, there will always be terrorism. Defining our fight against terrorism as "War" in the traditional sense should worry people, just because it basically opens the possibility that a president can claim "war time" exceptions/rights perpetually.
Another astute observation. The government likes the possibility of those "war time" rights with no expiration date. It allows them to remove those pesky roadblocks to their agenda called constitutional rights. Get in their way, you get steamrolled!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 5:05:16 AM
|
|
|
ik3900
Posts: 53
Joined: 7/30/2007
Status: offline
|
I think its a good ruling that will be a step towards restoring America's (for the most part) good name around the world.
Anyone who thinks that detention without charge is a good way to defeat terrorism need only look as far as Northern Ireland. Internment of innocent civilians as suspected terrorists was one of the best public relations coups the IRA could have asked for.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 9:48:22 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ik3900
Anyone who thinks that detention without charge is a good way to defeat terrorism need only look as far as Northern Ireland. Internment of innocent civilians as suspected terrorists was one of the best public relations coups the IRA could have asked for.
And the fact that we say we stand for rule of law, freedom and protection of human and civil rights and then we act with disregard to those very principles in a "war" without end!! It makes us look like a bunch of hypocrits. American speak with forked tongue!!
Come to think of it our government has a long and rich history of talking out of both sides of its mouth!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 10:02:43 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
American speak with forked tongue!! Yup, just ask the Native Americans! Our government, especially this current administration, really does not like to have any of its shortcomings pointed out, however. I am glad the SC made this ruling. At least now they will have to do something with all those detainees....either charge em and prove it, or not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 10:06:03 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
See how conservatives justify the literal trampling of your 4th amendment rights against illegal (in other words, warrantless) search!! Unbelievable!!! The Bill of Rights has no meaning to them and then they are the ones to wrap themselves in the flag and scream "freedom and democracy" at the top of their lungs! Yup. In fairness, they aren't all like that, but there are enough in the Republican party to be one of the MAJOR reasons I probably would never vote for another one. Most buy into some level of that reasoning. They want to intrude via legislation and laws into my personal life and my liberties just waaaaay to much.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 10:22:49 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3972
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
The Supreme Court had this mess dumped in their laps. The SC did not create the problem and by the vote it is clear the court was divided. This administration has time and again shown it's lack of competency in carrying out the WOT. This decision is simply another validation of what many of us already knew.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 10:34:30 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Come to think of it our government has a long and rich history of talking out of both sides of its mouth!
Drop the "our" and I'll agree with you 100%.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:01:39 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5693
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
This administration has time and again shown it's lack of competency in carrying out the WOT.
No attacks on US soil since 9/11; the administration is doing something right.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:05:00 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5693
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
If these are proven bad guys, then PROVE IT!!!! The government has had more than enough time to make a case.
Well shucks I guess the next batch of enemy comabtant terrorist that we catch will have to be sent to Egypt for interviews.
Thsnks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:12:55 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
quote:
They do have basic human rights
Look at how they have been treated at Gitmo; Islamic food. Korans, Prayer Rugs. All their needs.
As well as being waterboarded and some held for six years without charge. Both are violations of basic human rights. Just because they would have likely done worse is no justification either. The ends never justify the means.
You also just can't summarily execute someone that you charged with a crime. That is also a violation of basic human rights. The same can be said of a kangaroo court which has no intention of holding an actual trial but merely serves as a tool of political expediency.
The law applies to everyone or not at all.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:15:14 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2201
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think the case of Guantanamo is a good example of their contradictory view of the term, and how they wish to "have it both ways" when it comes to it's legal application. On the one hand, they have argued that the "war on terror" constitutes a "War" in the traditional sense, and because of this, the president, acting in a time of "war," can take advantage of certain additional powers to protect the people. However, on the other hand, as this case points out (and in direct contradiction of their original stance), they have also attempted to argue that "enemy combatants" in this "war" are not subject to the same laws under which we have traditionally conducted "wars" in the past. Or in other words, the "war on terrorism" is not really a "war" in the traditional sense at all.
I agree with you for the most part except that the way these cowards fight us in the field is absolutely reprehensible and there is nothing in the Geneva Convention that says they get treatment as PoW's. The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War grants cowardly insurrectionists, those who dress up in uniforms of their adversaries NO SPECIFIC RIGHTS. An insurrection with some kind of identifiying mark, with an established heirarchy running it IS GRANTED RIGHTS. Those we are fighting are a bunch of yellow bellied cowards and they deserve to be executed. If these and these only were being tortured and primed for info then executed I probably wouldn't make a skunk about that either- I'm not saying I'd like it but it wouldn't bother me so bad since in my book they should be executed anyway.
quote:
The problem with this in terms of GITMO, is that the vast majority of detainees at Gitmo (I think it was something like 86%, if I remember correctly, but I might be wrong on that) were not captured on a field of battle. Rather they were turned in as suspected terrorists by other Afganies, often times for a cash reward. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see some of the potential problems here, as well as the potential for abuse.
This is quite true though I haven't heard of a percentage so high. There is more than enough to convince me that enough are in Gitmo that have no business being detained and no due process to challenge it. THAT is my problem with Gitmo.
quote:
The Supreme Court had this mess dumped in their laps. The SC did not create the problem and by the vote it is clear the court was divided. This administration has time and again shown it's lack of competency in carrying out the WOT. This decision is simply another validation of what many of us already knew.
That was worth repeating. I will say that this isn't a GWoT but more of a GWoR (Great War of Rhetoric).
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:15:48 AM
|
|
|
Conundrum
Posts: 107
Status: offline
|
I'm a dyed in the wool American. Stab me, and I bleed red, white, and blue.
However...
I'm in agreement with the Supreme Court on this one. Some of those detainees have been there SIX YEARS! And they haven't been charged of any crime!
quote:
At least now they will have to do something with all those detainees....either charge em and prove it, or not.
Exactly.
If they're guilty, then certainly, they deserve to be detained and/or have consequences. But so far none have been proven to be guilty. Do we throw out "innocent until proven guilty" just because they aren't American, didn't wear a uniform, and somehow fall through the cracks of the Geneva Convention? What about human decency?
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
quote:
They do have basic human rights
Look at how they have been treated at Gitmo; Islamic food. Korans, Prayer Rugs. All their needs.
So I can put a bunch of people behind bars, give them food, their religious trappings, and say that that's all they need, so they're being treated well? What about freedom? What about their families? What about simply being able to walk around without chains on your hands and feet?
Remember, this is all without trial. If these folks were tried and convicted, it wouldn't nearly be as volatile an issue. They've only been accused. What if they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and got detained? It can happen, ya know. After all, all those Arabs look alike.  
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:17:21 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
This administration has time and again shown it's lack of competency in carrying out the WOT.
No attacks on US soil since 9/11; the administration is doing something right.
Thanks
RC
I'll say it again. The ends never justify the means. You cannot do evil to others and then justify it if the outcome is good.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
