Chuck Hagel: Obama Pressured Me To Release Guantanamo Prisonors

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Queue sneering at Breitbart in 3...2...1....

The parameters of this administration are pretty clear: politically motivated decisions done by people with bad judgment and then lied about to cover for Obama. It pretty well sums up his administration.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Not surprised about this at all. This is what happens when you have a Muslim as a Constitutional ineligible president.


Chuck Hagel White House Pressured Me to Release Guantanamo Prisoners - Breitbart
Well I certainly oppose letting these prisoners free sooner than their sentence requires. So what sentence were they given for the crimes they were convicted of in a court of law?
They're prisoners of war. What part of that escaped your notice?
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
Not surprised about this at all. This is what happens when you have a Muslim as a Constitutional ineligible president.


Chuck Hagel White House Pressured Me to Release Guantanamo Prisoners - Breitbart
Well I certainly oppose letting these prisoners free sooner than their sentence requires. So what sentence were they given for the crimes they were convicted of in a court of law?
They're prisoners of war. What part of that escaped your notice?
And what military are they a part of? The rules of war are pretty specific on what a prisoner of war is. Shall we review it together?
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,659
Reaction score
13,332
Points
2,280
They are enemy combatants, taken off a battlefield. You know that, you just could care less.
Not surprised about this at all. This is what happens when you have a Muslim as a Constitutional ineligible president.


Chuck Hagel White House Pressured Me to Release Guantanamo Prisoners - Breitbart
Well I certainly oppose letting these prisoners free sooner than their sentence requires. So what sentence were they given for the crimes they were convicted of in a court of law?
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
I didn't hear of al qaeda giving our soldiers trial in civilian courts. They just cut off their heads.
And Hagel feeling pressure to release people have been detained for a decade and never charged with any crime is a bad thing because.......?
And? We're better than Al Quaida. We are a nation of laws. And our adherence to our own values shouldn't be dependent on anyone else's actions.

Our duty is to our own laws. And by our laws, these men need to be charged with something or be released.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,659
Reaction score
13,332
Points
2,280
That is asinine. Our civilian laws do not pertain to those caught on the battlefield, as much as Dems wish they did, doesn'-t change that. For you to even suggest it, is nothing more than a way to put our men and women in even more harms way. Or do you expect them to call a time out on the battlefield, and expect the other side to agree so they can gather the type of evidence which would be required within a civilian court of law?
I didn't hear of al qaeda giving our soldiers trial in civilian courts. They just cut off their heads.
And Hagel feeling pressure to release people have been detained for a decade and never charged with any crime is a bad thing because.......?
And? We're better than Al Quaida. We are a nation of laws. And our adherence to our own values shouldn't be dependent on anyone else's actions.

Our duty is to our own laws. And by our laws, these men need to be charged with something or be released.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
That is asinine. Our civilian laws do not pertain to those caught on the battlefield, as much as Dems wish they did, doesn'-t change that. For you to even suggest it, is nothing more than a way to put our men and women in even more harms way. Or do you expect them to call a time out on the battlefield, and expect the other side to agree so they can gather the type of evidence which would be required within a civilian court of law?
I didn't hear of al qaeda giving our soldiers trial in civilian courts. They just cut off their heads.
And Hagel feeling pressure to release people have been detained for a decade and never charged with any crime is a bad thing because.......?
And? We're better than Al Quaida. We are a nation of laws. And our adherence to our own values shouldn't be dependent on anyone else's actions.

Our duty is to our own laws. And by our laws, these men need to be charged with something or be released.
IF they are prisoners of war, they have to meet specific criteria. If they don't, then they're not prisoners of war. They're merely 'prisoners'. We don't detain people indefinitely with no charges.

If you'd like to charge them under military law, do so. But they're not being charged with anything by anyone. They're not recognized as prisoners of war. And even the USSC has tossed out the idea that these prisoners don't get access to constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus petitions.

We don't just hold people. They have to be held in accordance with the law. International law, military law, civilian law, something. And for Guantanamo.....there's nothing. We're just holding them because we can.

We're better than that.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,659
Reaction score
13,332
Points
2,280
Courts have upheld the detentions at Guantanamo under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
And what is this, we are better than that? You do realize those men are there because they are a threat to our military, others, and to our nation, correct?

If you honestly believe that they are fighting a traditional war, and should be treated as two countries fighting one another would with their pow's, you are nuts. This is an ongoing fight, and you better believe they would just as soon slit your throat as to look at you. Remember that. And if you think otherwise then let us take you over there and drop you in their midst and see what happens, even if you tell them you love them, and are sorry for us fighting them. See how long it takes before they either rape you, stone you or slit your throat. Don't believe me? Unfortunately you can't ask the school girls they have slaughtered, then again there may be some of the ones around that were tortured with acid, that is if they are able to still speak. Maybe they can tell you how these guys are just innocent victims sitting in Gitmo. Oh, and don't believe they will retur to the fight? Well, true some may not but many do. And even those that may not may just decide to hit another girls school, since they will do all they can to keep women from being treated as humans.

Go on Skylar, tell me again, we are better than that. And you know what? We are, even detaining them, much better than they will ever be.


That is asinine. Our civilian laws do not pertain to those caught on the battlefield, as much as Dems wish they did, doesn'-t change that. For you to even suggest it, is nothing more than a way to put our men and women in even more harms way. Or do you expect them to call a time out on the battlefield, and expect the other side to agree so they can gather the type of evidence which would be required within a civilian court of law?
I didn't hear of al qaeda giving our soldiers trial in civilian courts. They just cut off their heads.
And Hagel feeling pressure to release people have been detained for a decade and never charged with any crime is a bad thing because.......?
And? We're better than Al Quaida. We are a nation of laws. And our adherence to our own values shouldn't be dependent on anyone else's actions.

Our duty is to our own laws. And by our laws, these men need to be charged with something or be released.
IF they are prisoners of war, they have to meet specific criteria. If they don't, then they're not prisoners of war. They're merely 'prisoners'. We don't detain people indefinitely with no charges.

If you'd like to charge them under military law, do so. But they're not being charged with anything by anyone. They're not recognized as prisoners of war. And even the USSC has tossed out the idea that these prisoners don't get access to constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus petitions.

We don't just hold people. They have to be held in accordance with the law. International law, military law, civilian law, something. And for Guantanamo.....there's nothing. We're just holding them because we can.

We're better than that.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
47,855
Reaction score
11,503
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Another freaking scandal in the administration and nobody in the media seems to care. If a secretary/defense resigned in the Bush administration the media would be on it like flies on shit.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top