Bush wrong again

[Voltaire 5,317]

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.

 

I see your point, I see all your points. Nice Vietnam metaphor too. I can see how this can be used as anti-US PR overseas both in Europe and in the Middle East.

 

So what do you recommend we do from here? Other than treat them well from here on in I ... uh ... I dunno.

[The Elevator Killer 558]

Charge them with something.

 

Let's start with a 12 volt battery and work our way up.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I see your point, I see all your points. Nice Vietnam metaphor too. I can see how this can be used as anti-US PR overseas both in Europe and in the Middle East.

 

So what do you recommend we do from here? Other than treat them well from here on in I ... uh ... I dunno.

 

I suggest that Bush works with the Republican-controlled Congress to tighten the laws in place so that these folks can be tried appropriately. I suggest that we conform to the Geneva Convention (which is not so ominous) and allow these folks access to lawyers and to know the evidence against them. Then we try them and convict them according to those rules.

 

This ruling is not the death knell for Guantanamo. It just means that we have to follow the rules that we have been biotching at others about for decades.

[Voltaire 5,317]

I suggest that Bush works with the Republican-controlled Congress to tighten the laws in place so that these folks can be tried appropriately. I suggest that we conform to the Geneva Convention (which is not so ominous) and allow these folks access to lawyers and to know the evidence against them. Then we try them and convict them according to those rules.

 

This ruling is not the death knell for Guantanamo. It just means that we have to follow the rules that we have been biotching at others about for decades.

 

When we gathered Iraqi POWs in '91 (I didn't personally see them rounded up but we got to guard them for one overnight before we moved them on to sombody else) we put them in a circle in the middle of camp and surrounded them with constantina wire around the circle. We circled the camp with our trucks and turned on our truck headlights to light up the makeshift prison. They mostly sat in the middle we guarded them one overnight. I had to stay up all night watching. Didn't talk to them, wouldn't have been able to if I wanted. Actually felt bad for them, they were really well behaved and caused us no problems. Apparently some trucks came and took them away on the shift after mine.

 

Now we had no training in any of this. Was the first sergent's idea -maybe he had training- but we carried it all out OK without incidents. We didn't do any BS with IDing them or look at their paperwork anything like that. I doubt the guys that captured them did either. Most of the stories were they were just hanging around with their arms in the air after they saw us blow up all their sh*t and half their friends.

 

I can't imagine that we had anybody but Iraqi troops but I don't know. I really doubt that these guys were IDed as they went.

 

Back to today, how are we gonna prove they weren't terrorists fighting the US. They'll probably all claim they were selling water to the terrorists or goatfarming. And then what? If we give them a trial we can't prove this one or this one or this one was a terrorist. If it's innocent until proven guilty, these guys'll all walk.

 

So I can't see us coming up with evindence to convict. It's impossible to collect and process those guys and out troops probably weren't ready for doing that. If we try them, I'm afraid they're going to walk.

[torridjoe 48]

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.

 

Which nation is representing al-Qaeda in your concept of an "international" conflict. There's the US and...whom?

[Soonerman 0]

Which nation is representing al-Qaeda in your concept of an "international" conflict. There's the US and...whom?

 

France?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

When we gathered Iraqi POWs in '91 (I didn't personally see them rounded up but we got to guard them for one overnight before we moved them on to sombody else) we put them in a circle in the middle of camp and surrounded them with constantina wire around the circle. We circled the camp with our trucks and turned on our truck headlights to light up the makeshift prison. They mostly sat in the middle we guarded them one overnight. I had to stay up all night watching. Didn't talk to them, wouldn't have been able to if I wanted. Actually felt bad for them, they were really well behaved and caused us no problems. Apparently some trucks came and took them away on the shift after mine.

 

Now we had no training in any of this. Was the first sergent's idea -maybe he had training- but we carried it all out OK without incidents. We didn't do any BS with IDing them or look at their paperwork anything like that. I doubt the guys that captured them did either. Most of the stories were they were just hanging around with their arms in the air after they saw us blow up all their sh*t and half their friends.

 

I can't imagine that we had anybody but Iraqi troops but I don't know. I really doubt that these guys were IDed as they went.

 

Back to today, how are we gonna prove they weren't terrorists fighting the US. They'll probably all claim they were selling water to the terrorists or goatfarming. And then what? If we give them a trial we can't prove this one or this one or this one was a terrorist. If it's innocent until proven guilty, these guys'll all walk.

 

So I can't see us coming up with evindence to convict. It's impossible to collect and process those guys and out troops probably weren't ready for doing that. If we try them, I'm afraid they're going to walk.

 

I seriously doubt people that are wanted for interrogation as part of our fighting terrorism and shipped all the way to Cuba could possibly have no evidence against them. Either these people were of value because of something that they knew or we knew about them or we would not have sent them all the way to Cuba. Remember, there are prisons over in the Middle East.

 

These folks are "persons of importance". If they aren't, then we wasted some serious time and money (which is always possible). Just because someone is found not guilty of "war crimes" does not mean that you send them back to their homeland to fight us. It means that they are treated as POW's with certain rights. You can still keep them out of the war, but they have certain rights and they can go back once the "war" is over.

[torridjoe 48]

I seriously doubt people that are wanted for interrogation as part of our fighting terrorism and shipped all the way to Cuba could possibly have no evidence against them. Either these people were of value because of something that they knew or we knew about them or we would not have sent them all the way to Cuba. Remember, there are prisons over in the Middle East.

 

These folks are "persons of importance". If they aren't, then we wasted some serious time and money (which is always possible). Just because someone is found not guilty of "war crimes" does not mean that you send them back to their homeland to fight us. It means that they are treated as POW's with certain rights. You can still keep them out of the war, but they have certain rights and they can go back once the "war" is over.

Hate to burst your bubble, but we already know that hundreds held at Guantanamo don't have the slightest connection to terror activities--given that they've been released without any charge whatsoever.

 

So yes, we've wasted some serious time and money.

[GobbleDog 997]

You can still keep them out of the war, but they have certain rights and they can go back once the "war" is over.

 

Which "war"? The war on terror? Isn't that sorta like the war on drugs or the war on poverty? The fight will never really stop.

 

"... to help us win the war on terror." Bush

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Hate to burst your bubble, but we already know that hundreds held at Guantanamo don't have the slightest connection to terror activities--given that they've been released without any charge whatsoever.

 

So yes, we've wasted some serious time and money.

 

You're not bursting my bubble. I think that we either have evidence or we don't. Try them under the proper laws and move on.

 

Hence the reason that I said "which is always possible". Waste and gubment always go hand-in-hand.

 

Which "war"? The war on terror? Isn't that sorta like the war on drugs or the war on poverty? The fight will never really stop.

 

"... to help us win the war on terror." Bush

 

Operation Enduring Iraqi Freedom

[GobbleDog 997]

Operation Enduring Iraqi Freedom

 

Ok, I could go along with that. But charge the one's that we plan to keep any longer.

[torridjoe 48]

You're not bursting my bubble. I think that we either have evidence or we don't. Try them under the proper laws and move on.

 

Hence the reason that I said "which is always possible". Waste and gubment always go hand-in-hand.

Operation Enduring Iraqi Freedom

 

well you said you seriously doubted that we'd take people to Cuba that we had no evidence on. That in fact is what happened.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

well you said you seriously doubted that we'd take people to Cuba that we had no evidence on. That in fact is what happened.

I think that you are assuming that we had NO evidence against those people vs. having ENOUGH evidence against them. Both are certainly possible, but I would like to think that we would have at least something before we gave them an all-inclusive Caribbean Cruise to Cuba.

[torridjoe 48]

I think that you are assuming that we had NO evidence against those people vs. having ENOUGH evidence against them. Both are certainly possible, but I would like to think that we would have at least something before we gave them an all-inclusive Caribbean Cruise to Cuba.

 

No, I'm relying on the fact that we've declared them not to be persons of interest, or in the strange term used by the US, "no longer enemy combatants." Either they were or they weren't; they didn't stop being one while locked up.

 

Here's a piece from WaPo last year, documenting at least 33 cases of people released on the basis of it having been determined that they were not what they were picked up for being.

[Voltaire 5,317]

The ting is we probably don't have any evidence other than where they were when they were captured and maybe what theywere doing. These people are almost all violent and almost all guilty and hopefully congress realizes that when it makes a new sentencing guideline. If we go with, innocent until proven guilty, all these guys will be gret heros in their home countries then back in Iraq and Afgahanistan to blow up stuff soon after they get released.

 

They can be treted a lot better, but -and I hate to say this- they can't be given a normal trial. They were at al Qaeda training camps when the US arrived or fought against us.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No, I'm relying on the fact that we've declared them not to be persons of interest, or in the strange term used by the US, "no longer enemy combatants." Either they were or they weren't; they didn't stop being one while locked up.

 

Here's a piece from WaPo last year, documenting at least 33 cases of people released on the basis of it having been determined that they were not what they were picked up for being.

 

After a tribunal, it was determined that they were not of interest. Where exactly does it say that there was NO evidence against them?

[torridjoe 48]

The ting is we probably don't have any evidence other than where they were when they were captured and maybe what theywere doing. These people are almost all violent and almost all guilty and hopefully congress realizes that when it makes a new sentencing guideline. If we go with, innocent until proven guilty, all these guys will be gret heros in their home countries then back in Iraq and Afgahanistan to blow up stuff soon after they get released.

 

They can be treted a lot better, but -and I hate to say this- they can't be given a normal trial. They were at al Qaeda training camps when the US arrived or fought against us.

 

Voltaire, you're simply wrong. The facts prove that many innocent people were held at Gitmo, for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or associated with someone else they considered a suspect.

 

 

After a tribunal, it was determined that they were not of interest. Where exactly does it say that there was NO evidence against them?

 

What's your point? The US admitted they were wrongly held, for they were not in fact enemy combatants. Not that they had not committed a crime, but that they weren't even combatants to begin with.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

What's your point? The US admitted they were wrongly held, for they were not in fact enemy combatants. Not that they had not committed a crime, but that they weren't even combatants to begin with.

 

You were giving me grief for saying that there would be some evidence. You said that there was NO evidence and proceeded to provide a link that says that there was not ENOUGH evidence.

 

Are you trying to say that there was no evidence whatsoever against those folks in Guantanamo (even those released)?

 

Again, it is possible, but I don't think that it is likely.

[torridjoe 48]

You were giving me grief for saying that there would be some evidence. You said that there was NO evidence and proceeded to provide a link that says that there was not ENOUGH evidence.

 

Are you trying to say that there was no evidence whatsoever against those folks in Guantanamo (even those released)?

 

Again, it is possible, but I don't think that it is likely.

 

Yes, I'm saying there was no evidence whatsoever, because that is the case. If there IS evidence, they were transferred rather than simply released, or are still held.

 

There is a difference between saying that someone has been acquitted in a formal trial, and reporting that a person's status has changed. The US is flatly NOT going to say that a person isn't a combatant, if they think he is but just can't prove it.

 

The people who they think they still have something on, they're keeping--indefinitely. If they thought they could prove it, they'd actually charge them with something. The people being released are those who have been determined not to be threats at all--otherwise they wouldn't be released in the first place.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Yes, I'm saying there was no evidence whatsoever, because that is the case. If there IS evidence, they were transferred rather than simply released, or are still held.

 

There is a difference between saying that someone has been acquitted in a formal trial, and reporting that a person's status has changed. The US is flatly NOT going to say that a person isn't a combatant, if they think he is but just can't prove it.

 

The people who they think they still have something on, they're keeping--indefinitely. If they thought they could prove it, they'd actually charge them with something. The people being released are those who have been determined not to be threats at all--otherwise they wouldn't be released in the first place.

 

Certainly plausible, but I still doubt it. Again, you are more into the conspiracy stuff than I am.

[GobbleDog 997]

The people who they think they still have something on, they're keeping--indefinitely.

 

That's the part I don't like. The U.S. shouldn't engage in that.

 

I would support the U.S. announcing that they will be held until most of the troops leave Iraq. That seems reasonable to me. After that, they should either be charged or released.

[Soonerman 0]

Certainly plausible, but I still doubt it. Again, you are more into the conspiracy stuff than I am.

 

Torrid? Conspiracy?

 

Say it isn't so!!!

[torridjoe 48]

Certainly plausible, but I still doubt it. Again, you are more into the conspiracy stuff than I am.

 

What conspiracy are you referring to? I'm relying on the statements of the US government, who has every interest in making people believe they ARE a threat. So when they are reduced to admitting that these people were not in fact threats, how is that a conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theory is that we just let them go, but we still think they're dangerous...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

First of all the Gitmo prisoners do not qualify for Geneva protections, that is a fact.

 

Second of all there has already been 12 (or 15) people we released that have been recaptured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Third, POWs do not have to be tried or released until the war is over.

 

HTH

[torridjoe 48]

First of all the Gitmo prisoners do not qualify for Geneva protections, that is a fact.

 

Tell the Supreme Court:

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Tell the Supreme Court:

 

 

So what.

 

Steven's says the proposed trials don't conform to Geneva, but since they don't qualify for Geneva protections his point is moot. There are certain criteria one has to meet on the battlefield to be eligible for Geneva protections, and these clowns don't meet them.

 

Look it up.

[torridjoe 48]

So what.

 

Steven's says the proposed trials don't conform to Geneva, but since they don't qualify for Geneva protections his point is moot. There are certain criteria one has to meet on the battlefield to be eligible for Geneva protections, and these clowns don't meet them.

 

Look it up.

 

I already did, and printed the results for you: the trials cannot happen, because they violate Geneva and US law.

 

Yeah, so what! Like the SCOTUS has any say on what the law is!

[Uh-huh 0]

I already did, and printed the results for you: the trials cannot happen, because they violate Geneva and US law.

 

Yeah, so what! Like the SCOTUS has any say on what the law is!

You realize you are arguing with an idiot, right?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

First of all the Gitmo prisoners do not qualify for Geneva protections, that is a fact.

 

Second of all there has already been 12 (or 15) people we released that have been recaptured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Third, POWs do not have to be tried or released until the war is over.

 

HTH

 

Gee, thanks for clearing that all up. I never realized that somebody on FF bored had the ability to overrule SCOTUS because of their profound wisdom. I must have been asleep for that Amendment.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I already did, and printed the results for you: the trials cannot happen, because they violate Geneva and US law.

 

Yeah, so what! Like the SCOTUS has any say on what the law is!

 

The SCOTUS is wrong. No way terrorists qualify for Geneva protections.

 

Bush just needs to get Congress to give their approval for the trials and the story is dead. Not that big of a defeat for the administration.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The SCOTUS is wrong. No way terrorists qualify for Geneva protections.

 

Bush just needs to get Congress to give their approval for the trials and the story is dead. Not that big of a defeat for the administration.

 

Of course. When exactly are you speaking in front of Congress to drive that point home? Should be in a couple of weeks considering that they are on a bit of a recess right now, huh?

[Uh-huh 0]

The SCOTUS is wrong. No way terrorists qualify for Geneva protections.

 

Bush just needs to get Congress to give their approval for the trials and the story is dead. Not that big of a defeat for the administration.

:lol:

See what I mean?

 

Recliner Pilot =>

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Of course. When exactly are you speaking in front of Congress to drive that point home? Should be in a couple of weeks considering that they are on a bit of a recess right now, huh?

 

Congress hasn't contacted me yet.

 

I guess you are as unaware as the SCOTUS is as to what is required in order to be covered by Geneva. Terrorists clearly do not qualify.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Congress hasn't contacted me yet.

 

I guess you are as unaware as the SCOTUS is as to what is required in order to be covered by Geneva. Terrorists clearly do not qualify.

 

 

Let's see.

 

If, in your world, agreeing with you makes something right and agreeing with SCOTUS makes me "unaware", then I would prefer to be unaware in your world. For the rest of us, you are officially

[Uh-huh 0]

Congress hasn't contacted me yet.

 

I guess you are as unaware as the SCOTUS is as to what is required in order to be covered by Geneva. Terrorists clearly do not qualify.

:lol:

 

Keep on baiting him, it's entertaining.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Okay, Rumplestiltskin (sp?).

Almost, you mean Rip Van Winkle. First thing I thought of when I read his post too.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Let's see.

 

If, in your world, agreeing with you makes something right and agreeing with SCOTUS makes me "unaware", then I would prefer to be unaware in your world. For the rest of us, you are officially

 

Um no, but according to the GENEVA CONVENTIONS terrorists do not meet the criteria required to be covered. It is clearly stated what one has to do to be accorded the protections.

 

The fact you don't know why they are not covered doesn't make me , it just makes you .

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Almost, you mean Rip Van Winkle. First thing I thought of when I read his post too.

 

Fock! I was halfway through a contract when I typed it, so I did not have time to check the spelling or the person. I should probably not try to multi-task.

 

Um no, but according to the GENEVA CONVENTIONS terrorists do not meet the criteria required to be covered. It is clearly stated what one has to do to be accorded the protections.

 

The fact you don't know why they are not covered doesn't make me , it just makes you .

 

Hmm.

 

I guess you are legal scholar, so enlighten me on how the following is completely wrong in your eyes:

The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission's proceedings, concluding that the President's authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention's full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear.

[Uh-huh 0]

Um no, but according to the GENEVA CONVENTIONS terrorists do not meet the criteria required to be covered. It is clearly stated what one has to do to be accorded the protections.

 

The fact you don't know why they are not covered doesn't make me , it just makes you .

Here you see what Recliner Pilot's shtick is all about: seize a non sequitur just like a starving dog grabs onto a bone. Then he refuses to let go of it, even if the bone is putrid and poisons him.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

J

 

 

Ok Fatboy, I'll give you one hint at one of the reasons terrorists are not covered: Uniforms.

 

Stay tuned for more if you can't figure it out.