Bush wrong again

[Franknbeans 46]

Linky

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Damned liberal Supreme Court.

[edjr 6,593]

 

As if that matters, Bush don't need no stinkin' ruling, he'll make a new law and then lie.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

 

As if that matters, Bush don't need no stinkin' ruling, he'll make a new law and then lie.

 

Nah, he'll just exercise his right to ignore existing laws. Because he is George W Bush. And the other branches of government don't matter.

[Voltaire 5,316]

I'm actually on the president's side with regards to Gitmo. I don't want those assh0les to see the light of day. They were pulled off a battlefield fighting the USA. They can be released when the war is over (never).

[GobbleDog 997]

I'm actually on the president's side with regards to Gitmo. I don't want those assh0les to see the light of day. They were pulled off a battlefield fighting the USA. They can be released when the war is over (never).

 

Charge them with something.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'm actually on the president's side with regards to Gitmo. I don't want those assh0les to see the light of day. They were pulled off a battlefield fighting the USA. They can be released when the war is over (never).

 

Normally, I would be against people working against our troops. However, when you go against our laws and against the Geneva Convention, you are opening up a whole new can of worms. We really need to follow those rules or we are no better than the terrorists and insurgents we are fighting against.

[Voltaire 5,316]

Charge them with something.

 

Pulling the tag off their government issued pillows and matresses.

 

Sentance: Life in prison without possibility of parol.

[Red White and Blue 81]

The President can't indefinitely detain anyone he wants in a foreign prison without ever charging him with a crime?

 

Go figure.

 

Did we really need a Supreme Court to decide that?

[wiffleball 4,790]

Charge them with something.

 

1) Open the cell doors.

2) Wait 4 seconds

3) Charge them with: Trespassing, Being on Federal Property w/o permission, Not having a valid Cuban passsport & loitering.

 

 

Problem solved.

[Voltaire 5,316]

These guys were caught on the battlefield trying to kill US servicemen. It was all likely a haze and a blur as to which particular assh0le was doing what when they were apprehended. If we try them, they'll say they were just hearding sheep when the military came through and snatched their inocent asses. And we won't be able to prove otherwise.

 

Then they'll go free, be treated to a hero's welcome. Then a couple of months later, they'll be back in Afghanistan (or maybe Iraq this time) killing more troops.

 

Seems real clear to me that we need more enemies killed on the battlefield, less prisoners.

[Soonerman 0]

Looks like the Justices in the majority here have as much trouble with the plain meaning of the Geneva Convention as they do with the US Constitution.

[Michael Sieger 0]

These guys were caught on the battlefield trying to kill US servicemen. It was all likely a haze and a blur as to which particular assh0le was doing what when they were apprehended. If we try them, they'll say they were just hearding sheep when the military came through and snatched their inocent asses. And we won't be able to prove otherwise.

 

Then they'll go free, be treated to a hero's welcome. Then a couple of months later, they'll be back in Afghanistan (or maybe Iraq this time) killing more troops.

 

Seems real clear to me that we need more enemies killed on the battlefield, less prisoners.

 

You are completely wrong to assume the GITMO detainees were "caught on the battlefield trying to kill US servicemen." Hamdan himself is a former driver for bin Laden, nothing more. Not even the government claims Hamdan is a terrorist or a member of al-quaeda nor was he ever on a battlefield as far as anyone knows. In fact, most of the GITMO detainees were not captured on the "battlefield" but were sold to the US by ad hoc gangs for bounties we pay them.

 

That said, of course it is important for us to detain and extract any information we can get from someone like the former driver for Bin Laden. We've had him for four years now and can continue to hold him as long as we need to, or, as the Court ruled today "until the end of active hostilities." That's not the point of today's decision. The Court did not rule that Hamdan or anyone else has to be released. The point is that the administration has maintained its position that these guys are neither POW's subject to Geneva nor criminals subject to US criminal procedure and the constitution. That was a stupendously arrogant and stupid position in my opinion and this decision may signify a huge defeat for them. I say "may" because I haven't read it yet (185 pages), only a summary at Scotusblog. If the summary is correct, it appears the Court may have ruled that certain sections of the Geneva treaty apply, which is a de facto ruling that the Government and CIA are war criminals due to the interrogation tactics at GITMO.

[Four More Beers 0]

Looks like the Justices in the majority here have as much trouble with the plain meaning of the Geneva Convention as they do with the US Constitution.

 

Because you're much more qualified to interpret law and treaties than appointees to the nation's highest court?

 

I'm amazed at how much negative reaction there is to this ruling. The court isn't saying these guys are free to go. It just says they have to be handled in accordance with our laws and the treaties we've signed, either as civilian criminals or as POWs - not in some new category made up by Alberto Gonzales.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'm amazed at how much negative reaction there is to this ruling. The court isn't saying these guys are free to go. It just says they have to be handled in accordance with our laws and the treaties we've signed, either as civilian criminals or as POWs - not in some new category made up by Alberto Gonzales.

That is Treason!!!

[Isotopes 1]

Wake me up when he does something right

[Voltaire 5,316]

You are completely wrong to assume the GITMO detainees were "caught on the battlefield trying to kill US servicemen." Hamdan himself is a former driver for bin Laden, nothing more. Not even the government claims Hamdan is a terrorist or a member of al-quaeda nor was he ever on a battlefield as far as anyone knows. In fact, most of the GITMO detainees were not captured on the "battlefield" but were sold to the US by ad hoc gangs for bounties we pay them.

 

That said, of course it is important for us to detain and extract any information we can get from someone like the former driver for Bin Laden. We've had him for four years now and can continue to hold him as long as we need to, or, as the Court ruled today "until the end of active hostilities." That's not the point of today's decision. The Court did not rule that Hamdan or anyone else has to be released. The point is that the administration has maintained its position that these guys are neither POW's subject to Geneva nor criminals subject to US criminal procedure and the constitution. That was a stupendously arrogant and stupid position in my opinion and this decision may signify a huge defeat for them. I say "may" because I haven't read it yet (185 pages), only a summary at Scotusblog. If the summary is correct, it appears the Court may have ruled that certain sections of the Geneva treaty apply, which is a de facto ruling that the Government and CIA are war criminals due to the interrogation tactics at GITMO.

 

I honestly don't know the circumstances regarding their detainment at Gitmo. If you're right, then maybe a few innocents have been taken into custody. Sadly there's no way to identify who.

 

These men -many- weren't taken into custody by police, they were aprehended by our military and the military screws lots of routine things up (believe me) so I've no doubt in the confusion surrounding the detainment of these guys they mistakes were made and thing wern't documented.

 

I just know, legal arguments aside, I don't want these guys released. Period. The vast majority belong there and will kill again if they are released.

 

So far as interrogation techniques, I'm not going to defend what I hear about that. I hope they're treated well and in accords with the Geneva convention. I just don't want them released. Ever.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Wake me up when he does something right

Okay, Rumplestiltskin (sp?).

[Voltaire 5,316]

Because you're much more qualified to interpret law and treaties than appointees to the nation's highest court?

 

I'm amazed at how much negative reaction there is to this ruling. The court isn't saying these guys are free to go. It just says they have to be handled in accordance with our laws and the treaties we've signed, either as civilian criminals or as POWs - not in some new category made up by Alberto Gonzales.

 

Look, if we can hold them indefinatly without trial, I'm all for it. Does POW status mean they can stay there in those cirumstances? If so sign me up.

 

Lord know if we have to try them and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're guilty, 99% will walk free ready to kill again. I'd rather them all stay locked up.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Wake me up when he does something right

 

Bush wrong again

old news

[Voltaire 5,316]

Wake me up when he does something right

 

His tie was out of place and he just straighten it.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Look, if we can hold them indefinatly without trial, I'm all for it. Does POW status mean they can stay there in those cirumstances? If so sign me up.

 

Lord know if we have to try them and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're guilty, 99% will walk free ready to kill again. I'd rather them all stay locked up.

 

Sure sounds like what happened to the Japanese in WWII.

[Soonerman 0]

Because you're much more qualified to interpret law and treaties than appointees to the nation's highest court?

 

I can tell that our conflict with Al Qaeda is "international" which Justice Stevens explicitly denied in order to get the decision he wanted, rather than what the facts would lead to, yes.

[D_House 0]

Sure sounds like what happened to the Japanese in WWII.

or to our guys in Vietnam.

[Voltaire 5,316]

Sure sounds like what happened to the Japanese in WWII.

 

We imprisoned Japanese citizens and legal aliens during the war, that's a totally different argument. Maybe 1% of the Japanese detainees were dangerous, maybe 99% of the Gitmo detainees are dangerous.

 

or to our guys in Vietnam.

 

That's a lot closer. The American troops taken prisoner in Vietnam were captured in a war zone.

[Red White and Blue 81]

I'm actually on the president's side with regards to Gitmo. I don't want those assh0les to see the light of day. They were pulled off a battlefield fighting the USA. They can be released when the war is over (never).

 

Voltaire even the admin isn't claiming that everyone in Gitmo was pulled off the battlefield.

[Voltaire 5,316]

Voltaire even the admin isn't claiming that everyone in Gitmo was pulled off the battlefield.

 

Obviously I have a lot less information than the administration and, further, I miss a heck of a lot of news living overseas. I still want them locked up.

 

Through this discussion, I realize that I made a factually wrong statement. I have no idea the circumstances of half or 75% or 90% whatever of these guys.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

We imprisoned Japanese citizens and legal aliens during the war, that's a totally different argument. Maybe 1% of the Japanese detainees were dangerous, maybe 99% of the Gitmo detainees are dangerous.

 

Then treat them as POW's and conform to the rules of the Geneva Convention. It ain't that hard.

 

We tend to lose sight of what is right and what is wrong when we become reactionary. If you want to say that we are at war and those people are combatants in that war, then they are POW's and should be treated according to rules that we agreed to. We would expect the exact same for our people.

[D_House 0]

That's a lot closer. The American troops taken prisoner in Vietnam were captured in a war zone.

so you're saying the guys at Gitmo are POWs?

[Red White and Blue 81]

Obviously I have a lot less information than the administration and, further, I miss a heck of a lot of news living overseas. I still want them locked up.

 

Through this discussion, I realize that I made a factually wrong statement. I have no idea the circumstances of half or 75% or 90% whatever of these guys.

 

I'm not sure anyone does but the admin has said that Gitmo consists of insurgents captured on the battlefield and others rounded up in connection with al Qaida. Far as I'm concerned, if you're captured on the battlefield you're now a POW and you can rot there. Otherwise I don't know why they aren't charged with a crime. I understand that questioning takes time but you've got suspects sitting in foreign prisons for years. At least some of those people are either innocent or there's no hard evidence to put them away and I wonder how we're ever going to prosecute them?

 

It's a PR disaster. Even if you're 100% OK with essentially kidnapping people and imprisoning them for years without access to council or charging them with a crime, it's the behavior of Soviet Russia and it makes all of the admin's bluster about protecting freedom blah blah look like the hypocritical nonsense it is.

[Voltaire 5,316]

Then treat them as POW's and conform to the rules of the Geneva Convention. It ain't that hard.

 

We tend to lose sight of what is right and what is wrong when we become reactionary. If you want to say that we are at war and those people are combatants in that war, then they are POW's and should be treated according to rules that we agreed to. We would expect the exact same for our people.

 

I agree with this. I don't like the insistence of having them stand trial, if that happens, they walk free. I do think it is incumbent on the US to treat them humanely. Not even that I care so much about these prisoners' rights. It's just that it would be really nice if our troops captured recieved decent treatment.

 

Problem is when we don't treat our prisoners with respect and the insurgents who capture our guys are evil animals with no conscionce who take their frustrations out on our troops.

 

Think of how Saddam's team treated Jessica Lynch. That respect for enemy POWs is lost.

 

Looks like I've been misrepresenting my position. I support treating the Gitmo detainees like POWs. Yes. Provided POW status doesn't entitle them to some sort of lega hearing, only to the physical treatement of their person and ensure they aren't abused.

 

Not that I really care about Gitmo detainees so much, but I do care very much about the US POWs and if we don't treat our captured prisoners with respect, we can never expect these animals that capture US troops to treat our guys with respect.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I agree with this. I don't like the insistence of having them stand trial, if that happens, they walk free. I do think it is incumbent on the US to treat them humanely. Not even that I care so much about these prisoners' rights. It's just that it would be really nice if our troops captured recieved decent treatment.

 

Problem is when we don't treat our prisoners with respect and the insurgents who capture our guys are evil animals with no conscionce who take their frustrations out on our troops.

 

Think of how Saddam's team treated Jessica Lynch. That respect for enemy POWs is lost.

 

Looks like I've been misrepresenting my position. I support treating the Gitmo detainees like POWs. Yes. Provided POW status doesn't entitle them to some sort of lega hearing, only to the physical treatement of their person and ensure they aren't abused.

 

Not that I really care about Gitmo detainees so much, but I do care very much about the US POWs and if we don't treat our captured prisoners with respect, we can never expect these animals that capture US troops to treat our guys with respect.

 

If you think that they are POW's, then you are disagreeing with Bush. He does not want them to be POW's and he does not want them kept as criminals under our laws. He wants them to be in some sort of limbo so that we can do whatever we want with them. That is where SCOTUS disagrees as well.

[D_House 0]

If you think that they are POW's, then you are disagreeing with Bush. He does not want them to be POW's and he does not want them kept as criminals under our laws. He wants them to be in some sort of limbo so that we can do whatever we want with them. That is where SCOTUS disagrees as well.

hence the title of the thread.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

hence the title of the thread.

I can see where he was confused on this one. Since when have the titles to threads on this bored clearly reflected the content?

[Voltaire 5,316]

If you think that they are POW's, then you are disagreeing with Bush. He does not want them to be POW's and he does not want them kept as criminals under our laws. He wants them to be in some sort of limbo so that we can do whatever we want with them. That is where SCOTUS disagrees as well.

 

Is there ever going to be anything else I can agree with him on? Or am I still stuck going back to '91 when he approved the site in Death Valley as a permanent nuclear waste dump.

[Voltaire 5,316]

hence the title of the thread.

 

You know, the link talks about military tribunals and such and that they are a violation of seperation of power. It doesn't talk about POW status at all. I'm just worried that these guys will be subject to rights of normal suspects which require guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be sentanced.

 

The next logical step is to hold hearings and when they can't be proven to have participated in assaults on US troops because of some paperwork screwup and the confusion surrounding the events of their capture, they'll get released. And I don't trust the courts to do the right thing in this matter (to me the right thing is keep them locked up indefinatly like we're doing now).

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You know, the link talks about military tribunals and such and that they are a violation of seperation of power. It doesn't talk about POW status at all. I'm just worried that these guys will be subject to rights of normal suspects which require guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be sentanced.

 

The next logical step is to hold hearings and when they can't be proven to have participated in assaults on US troops because of some paperwork screwup and the confusion surrounding the events of their capture, they'll get released. And I don't trust the courts to do the right thing in this matter (to me the right thing is keep them locked up indefinatly like we're doing now).

 

Read again. Rumsfeld et al (he is the one named in the suit) want to have military tribunals to try these guys for war crimes. That is what is against the Geneva Convention and our laws. It does not mean that they cannot be detained or tried at a later time, it just means that you cannot have a military tribunal.

 

Also, this is the second time that Bush has lost on this one (I think). If I remember correctly, Bush tried to detain these folks indefinitely without ever giving them access to lawyers or the courts.

 

Guantanamo was looking too much like the Gulag for the clear-thinking people.

[phillybear 366]

Don't distract me.

 

What does this have to do with the proposed banning of the burning of American flaming fags?

[Voltaire 5,316]

Guantanamo was looking too much like the Gulag for the clear-thinking people.

 

I'm not sure that I like that comparison either. I read "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" and "Gulag Archipelago".

 

Unfortunatly, the treatment here with humiliation is often just as the Gulag and that's Rumsfeld and friends' fault. I can see the comparison. Fortunatly, that's correctable. Unfortunatly, the damage has been done now that we've lose our credibility by treating our prisoners like this (in the other big prison scandal too).

 

The difference though is that the Gulag was populated by people on trumped up charges on Soviet citizens by the Soviet police. The Soviet state knew these prisoners were no threat to them and knew they were being convicted on proped up charges.

 

These guys are foreign nationals pulled out of al Qaeda terrorists (and a few others) bases where they were trained in the art of jihad and death. (and maybe as others have pointed out earlier some weren't I'm not up on all the circumstances of detainment). But these guys are very clear threats to the US and it's troops and cannot be released.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'm not sure that I like that comparison either. I read "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" and "Gulag Archipelago".

 

Unfortunatly, the treatment here with humiliation is often just as the Gulag and that's Rumsfeld and friends' fault. I can see the comparison. Fortunatly, that's correctable. Unfortunatly, the damage has been done now that we've lose our credibility by treating our prisoners like this (in the other big prison scandal too).

 

The difference though is that the Gulag was populated by people on trumped up charges on Soviet citizens by the Soviet police. The Soviet state knew these prisoners were no threat to them and knew they were being convicted on proped up charges.

 

I did not say it was the same as the Gulag. I said that it was too much like the Gulag. I think that your words actually helped describe why.

 

Suggest you read the opinion on it and you might see that the Court is not saying to let these guys out. It is saying that the manner in which these guys are being tried goes against our laws (even our newer, terrorist fighting laws) and the Geneva Convention. Unless we want to have these trials be considered a sham in a rational World view (I use rational, because the whack jobs will call it a sham either way), we should follow our laws and International Law. Doesn't mean we let them out, it just means that we follow the rules.

 

This is too much like the movie scenes where the US guy is in Vietnam, gets captured, and is "tried" in the rice field by the Vietnamese for war crimes, just before they whack him.