Playing Games at Gitmo

[Hoosier]

Ya well at least it help to expedite your Redistributor check.

Trying to help out in the worst way regards

Bubba

Yes I've been getting unsolicited checks since Nov.4. Can't figure it out

[Uncle Bill]

Easy there, U.B. . .

None of us "side" with the terrorists. Instead, we feel that certain rights apply to people who have been arrested by the U.S. government.

That's the entire jist of what's being discussed here. NONE of those terrorists were 'arrested' in the sense your pot smokin' buddies would be. They are terrorists that were "CAPTURED". They were attempting to kill American soldiers during a war.

When they get released, unless they are sent home, wherever that may be, so 'justice' can be done, they will again start killing more American soldiers if given the opportunity.

Please tell me you understand the significant differences here.

UB

[YardleyLabs]

That's the entire jist of what's being discussed here. NONE of those terrorists were 'arrested' in the sense your pot smokin' buddies would be. They are terrorists that were "CAPTURED". They were attempting to kill American soldiers during a war.

When they get released, unless they are sent home, wherever that may be, so 'justice' can be done, they will again start killing more American soldiers if given the opportunity.

Please tell me you understand the significant differences here.

UB

What I see is that, under our laws, there are two options. Either they are combatants entitled to all considerations afforded to them under the Geneva Convention, or they are prisoners entitled to all the rights granted to accused persons under our Constitution and laws. We are a nation of laws and claim that as one of the good things that differentiates us from so many other countries in the world. The administration, however, seems to only like laws that apply to others and has been trying to say that no laws protect the prisoners at Gitmo. Fortunately our courts have rejected these arguments. Our Constitution provides for two types of emergency under which the right of habeas corpus may be suspended temporarily: insurrection or invasion. Even under these dire circumstances, the suspension must be explicit and temporary, not a lawless action by the executive. I hope we never become the type of lawless nation that ignores such protections. If we do, I believe it may be time for true patriots to follow the lead set by our forefathers in 1776 when another George acted in a similar manner.

[Uncle Bill]

Could we rely on you to be one of those "true Patriots", Jeff. Or would you be one of the CO's that so many photographers become in a war zone.

After you have looked down the business end of a rifle held by a crazed animal determined to wipe you out, I'd be anxious to then get your views of how many rights these unprincipled, non-uniformed cowards hiding among women and children should be given.

Let's say, just for the hell of it, their rights were NOT read to them at the time of their capture...does the ACLU need to go any further in their defense? Isn't that enough for everyone to see how unfair these poor souls are being treated? It would be an automatic mistrial.

The Geneva Convention was developed for the humane treatment and exchange of prisoners of war. Remember seeing your countries soldiers that were detained in concentration camps in WW II? Would you call those camps in Germany and Japan as being 'humane' in their treatment of our soldiers? We don't see much of those pictures anymore. Back then the press and the picture takers were looking for the truth, not distorting it with their agenda-led stories.

Terrorists are no part of a recognized militia, that this nation or any other nation for that matter, needs to adhere to a Geneva Convention guideline. As to their treatment, I'd be willing to bet they all are living a better life than their 'buddies' in the caves of Afghanistan.

You can continue to look down your nose at all of us conservatives that see these hoodlums and brain-washed morons for the mindless terrorists they are, but as much as I would like to see it differ, your being protected the same as we are, despite your views and desires for the enemy to be treated like they were just some mis-guided pranksters.

UB

[Bruce MacPherson]

What I see is that, under our laws, there are two options. Either they are combatants entitled to all considerations afforded to them under the Geneva Convention, or they are prisoners entitled to all the rights granted to accused persons under our Constitution and laws

They are neither, therefore it gets thrown to the courts. There it will be determined by the political inclinations of those involved. Nation of laws made up on the fly with the nod going to the political party that is in power or has the most appointments.

[YardleyLabs]

Could we rely on you to be one of those "true Patriots", Jeff. Or would you be one of the CO's that so many photographers become in a war zone.

After you have looked down the business end of a rifle held by a crazed animal determined to wipe you out, I'd be anxious to then get your views of how many rights these unprincipled, non-uniformed cowards hiding among women and children should be given.

UB, considering that you don't know me at all, you seem happily willing to make lots of assumptions about my character. I have noted before that I am not a pacifist. I have also never served in the military. I have been assaulted more than once by armed attackers, and I know I am not a pacifist based on my responses to those attacks. I learned early in life that when you are attacked by someone stronger, by multiple people, or by someone who is armed that you do whatever is needed in that moment to defend yourself and others. I am not a clean fighter. However, that doesn't give me the right to go out attacking people that I think might be a threat. With respect to your contemptuous comment about photographers, I would note that photographers and journalists covering the Iraq (and prior) war zones are probably more likely to be shot or kidnapped than members of our armed forces.

Let's say, just for the hell of it, their rights were NOT read to them at the time of their capture...does the ACLU need to go any further in their defense? Isn't that enough for everyone to see how unfair these poor souls are being treated? It would be an automatic mistrial.

The "evidence" that has been thrown out in the small number of cases that have been heard and decided has been discarded because it was acquired through hearsay and not backed by other evidence, or because it was acquired through torture in the eyes of the military officers hearing the evidence. Those are not exactly technicalities.

The Geneva Convention was developed for the humane treatment and exchange of prisoners of war. Remember seeing your countries soldiers that were detained in concentration camps in WW II? Would you call those camps in Germany and Japan as being 'humane' in their treatment of our soldiers? We don't see much of those pictures anymore. Back then the press and the picture takers were looking for the truth, not distorting it with their agenda-led stories.

Terrorists are no part of a recognized militia, that this nation or any other nation for that matter, needs to adhere to a Geneva Convention guideline. As to their treatment, I'd be willing to bet they all are living a better life than their 'buddies' in the caves of Afghanistan.

The Geneva Convention, as has been reaffirmed by our courts, defines combatant very broadly and in a manner that covers the Taliban. The administration claims to the contrary have been rejected.

You can continue to look down your nose at all of us conservatives that see these hoodlums and brain-washed morons for the mindless terrorists they are, but as much as I would like to see it differ, your being protected the same as we are, despite your views and desires for the enemy to be treated like they were just some mis-guided pranksters.

UB

If I have said anything suggesting that I look down my nose at conservatives, I apologize. With respect to the protection, I will admit that I feel much more threatened by the administration's activities to "protect" me than I ever have by terrorists despite having frequently attended meetings in the WTC, having a cousin who missed being on one of the top floors of the WTC only because her train was late, having a friend who was in the building but escaped before the collapse, and a friend and employee whose son was one of the last surviving security guards in the Towers because he worked a double shift the night before and was given the day off, and another friend and former employee who escaped from the World Financial Center but was almost hit by the person who fell to the street in front of her.

The rights and laws we have in our country are about how we choose to live our lives and the type of country we choose to be. They were not written to protect criminals or terrorists. However, unless we protect the rights of all in our care, we will never be protecting those innocents among us who may at any time be wrongfully accused of being either a terrorist or a criminal. When we choose to adopt the behaviors of those we detest in the name of security, we have already lost what we were fighting to protect.

[Marvin S]

None of us "side" with the terrorists. Instead, we feel that certain rights apply to people who have been arrested by the U.S. government.

Watching this discussion with interest & trying to stay out as I believe these vermin being discussed are no different than a rabid coyote, except maybe they are less honorable. So, if you are sticking up for them you must be siding with them.

I have a Webster's, when I look up rights it only shows right, would you mind explaining which of the 62 different explanations for right applies in your statement.

[Gerry Clinchy]

SN05329602 Originally posted by Yardley LabsThe Geneva Convention, as has been reaffirmed by our courts, defines combatant very broadly and in a manner that covers the Taliban. The administration claims to the contrary have been rejected.

This has been my question all along. If they are POWs, it would seem they can be held until the end of hostilities (barring any prisoner exchanges, which are unlikely with the group, or groups, these combatants represent).

In some cases, due to the nature of the combatants in this conflict, it might be reasonable to speculate that some of those captured were not actually combatants. Hence, the reason some have been released?

or because it was acquired through torture in the eyes of the military officers hearing the evidence.

This could be strong evidence that our military have a very high sense of what they are fighting for against those forces that would have much less mercy on them if the situation were reversed.

When we choose to adopt the behaviors of those we detest in the name of security, we have already lost what we were fighting to protect

I believe that is the crux of this whole debate. How can we avoid doing the above, but also not act stupidly in ignoring what might be a true threat to security.

[Joe S.]

So, if you are sticking up for them you must be siding with them.

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion, shall we:

Since the SCOTUS has REPEATEDLY found in their favor, they must be siding with them, too.

And, since the SCOTUS decides was is and is not CONSTITUTIONAL, siding with them would seem to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

That said, it seems the continuing to seek to deny rights afforded by the CONSTITUTION would be in violation of the CONSTITUTION and is an attempt to destroy that which is the cornerstone of our great nation.

So, Marv, why don't you support the Constitution of the United States of America?

Just Asking Regards,

Joe S.

[Joe S.]

You can continue to look down your nose at all of us conservatives that see these hoodlums and brain-washed morons for the mindless terrorists they are, but as much as I would like to see it differ, your being protected the same as we are, despite your views and desires for the enemy to be treated like they were just some mis-guided pranksters.

UB

Hummmm...yeah, about that:

So, to be clear Bill, you are advocating that law abiding US citizens who speak in disagreement to your position be denied their CONSTITUTIONAL right to free speech simply because they disagree with your position.

Please, tell me again how you, Bob, and Marv are actually defending the constitution and guys like Jeff, Remington, and me are trying to destroy it because I must have really missed it the first time.

Thanks In Advance For Clearing This One Up For Me Regards,

Joe S.