So Obama released 15 terrorists to plot & resume their terrorist actions

[JakeStarkey]

Most of those released go right back to the terrorist activity.

The military tribunals were getting ready to start and douchebag in the WH put a stop to that so the fact that they are still in Gitmo is his fault.

Loads of them were picked up on battlefields and as far as I'm concerned don't take any prisoners. Kill the bastards on site.

SCOTUS put a stop to that until the admin agreed to play by the rules.

 

[Claudette]

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

 

[rightwinger]

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

 

[depotoo]

Really?
You must really come up with a better story.
Check them out-
Guantanamo Bay: The Remaining Detainees - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

What were they convicted of?

They were enemy combatants released during an ongoing battle. What will we get in return?

No they weren't

They were suspects identified by neighbors and anonymous informants. They were not in battle when captured. If we believe they are terrorists, the obligation is on us to prove it. We have had 13 years to do so
If they are enemy combatants, we need to extend them the rights of POWs. We have not done so

 

[Claudette]

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

 

[rightwinger]

Really?
You must really come up with a better story.
Check them out-
Guantanamo Bay: The Remaining Detainees - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

What were they convicted of?

They were enemy combatants released during an ongoing battle. What will we get in return?

No they weren't

They were suspects identified by neighbors and anonymous informants. They were not in battle when captured. If we believe they are terrorists, the obligation is on us to prove it. We have had 13 years to do so
If they are enemy combatants, we need to extend them the rights of POWs. We have not done so

Sorry, I'm not going to watch a 4 hour video
The claim seems to be these are really bad guys. If they are really bad guys we should have ample, verifiable evidence to prove their crimes. That evidence needs to be formally submitted in a trial and they need to be formally sentenced to a defined term

 

[rightwinger]

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

 

[depotoo]

So, in other words you don't care. Got it. Others might.
https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/files/documents/Guantanamo Detainee Transparency Report.pdf

Really?
You must really come up with a better story.
Check them out-
Guantanamo Bay: The Remaining Detainees - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

What were they convicted of?

They were enemy combatants released during an ongoing battle. What will we get in return?

No they weren't

They were suspects identified by neighbors and anonymous informants. They were not in battle when captured. If we believe they are terrorists, the obligation is on us to prove it. We have had 13 years to do so
If they are enemy combatants, we need to extend them the rights of POWs. We have not done so

Sorry, I'm not going to watch a 4 hour video
The claim seems to be these are really bad guys. If they are really bad guys we should have ample, verifiable evidence to prove their crimes. That evidence needs to be formally submitted in a trial and they need to be formally sentenced to a defined term

 

[depotoo]

You can't be serious. We are talking about a battlefield here.
"Don't capture me. The fact you saw me shoot someone or carrying a bomb, doesn't mean I'm guilty. It is your word against mine."
Please.

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

 

[rightwinger]

So, in other words you don't care. Got it. Others might.
https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/files/documents/Guantanamo Detainee Transparency Report.pdf

Really?
You must really come up with a better story.
Check them out-
Guantanamo Bay: The Remaining Detainees - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

What were they convicted of?

They were enemy combatants released during an ongoing battle. What will we get in return?

No they weren't

They were suspects identified by neighbors and anonymous informants. They were not in battle when captured. If we believe they are terrorists, the obligation is on us to prove it. We have had 13 years to do so
If they are enemy combatants, we need to extend them the rights of POWs. We have not done so

Sorry, I'm not going to watch a 4 hour video
The claim seems to be these are really bad guys. If they are really bad guys we should have ample, verifiable evidence to prove their crimes. That evidence needs to be formally submitted in a trial and they need to be formally sentenced to a defined term

I do care

That is why I stand up for the legal rights of those who are being detained indefinitely without trial

 

[rightwinger]

You can't be serious. We are talking about a battlefield here.
"Don't capture me. The fact you saw me shoot someone or carrying a bomb, doesn't mean I'm guilty. It is your word against mine."
Please.

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

If that is the case, it should be easy to provide evidence and give them a fair trial



x

 

[depotoo]

So, in other words you don't care. Got it. Others might.
https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/files/documents/Guantanamo Detainee Transparency Report.pdf

Really?
You must really come up with a better story.
Check them out-
Guantanamo Bay: The Remaining Detainees - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

They were enemy combatants released during an ongoing battle. What will we get in return?

No they weren't

They were suspects identified by neighbors and anonymous informants. They were not in battle when captured. If we believe they are terrorists, the obligation is on us to prove it. We have had 13 years to do so
If they are enemy combatants, we need to extend them the rights of POWs. We have not done so

Sorry, I'm not going to watch a 4 hour video
The claim seems to be these are really bad guys. If they are really bad guys we should have ample, verifiable evidence to prove their crimes. That evidence needs to be formally submitted in a trial and they need to be formally sentenced to a defined term

I do care

That is why I stand up for the legal rights of those who are being detained indefinitely without trial

Yet you are only willing to look at what you want to see-not any facts of what it is like on a battlefield, nor what has been found on those detainees and why they were listed as high risk.
What do you think war is? A simple street fight?

 

[Claudette]

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Nope. Not when it comes to terrorists. Those assholes would kill you without a second thought.

 

[depotoo]

You are a joke. You could care less about our men and women serving out on that battlefield.

You can't be serious. We are talking about a battlefield here.
"Don't capture me. The fact you saw me shoot someone or carrying a bomb, doesn't mean I'm guilty. It is your word against mine."
Please.

Since none of them wear uniforms or are part of a standing army the SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. Our laws should never apply to them. Neither should the protection our law provides.

These people will go back to killing just as soon as they are released and they still won't be wearing uniforms or be part of a standing army.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

If that is the case, it should be easy to provide evidence and give them a fair trial

 

[rightwinger]

So, in other words you don't care. Got it. Others might.
https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/files/documents/Guantanamo Detainee Transparency Report.pdf

Really?
You must really come up with a better story.
Check them out-
Guantanamo Bay: The Remaining Detainees - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

No they weren't

They were suspects identified by neighbors and anonymous informants. They were not in battle when captured. If we believe they are terrorists, the obligation is on us to prove it. We have had 13 years to do so
If they are enemy combatants, we need to extend them the rights of POWs. We have not done so

Sorry, I'm not going to watch a 4 hour video
The claim seems to be these are really bad guys. If they are really bad guys we should have ample, verifiable evidence to prove their crimes. That evidence needs to be formally submitted in a trial and they need to be formally sentenced to a defined term

I do care

That is why I stand up for the legal rights of those who are being detained indefinitely without trial

Yet you are only willing to look at what you want to see-not any facts of what it is like on a battlefield, nor what has been found on those detainees and why they were listed as high risk.
What do you think war is? A simple street fight?

It is not up to me to look at the facts, it is up to a court of law

If they are terrorists, provide proof that they are terrorists, convict them and formally sentence them
If you believe them to be enemy combatants, identify them as such and provide them with the Geneva Convention protections as prisoners of war

 

[rightwinger]

You are a joke. You could care less about our men and women serving out on that battlefield.

You can't be serious. We are talking about a battlefield here.
"Don't capture me. The fact you saw me shoot someone or carrying a bomb, doesn't mean I'm guilty. It is your word against mine."
Please.

If you believe they are terrorists rather than armed combatants, the onus is on you to prove they are involved in terrorist activities

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

If that is the case, it should be easy to provide evidence and give them a fair trial

The fact is that I do care about the men and women serving on that battlefield

I do not want them subjected to torture when captured, I do not want them whisked away to some remote camp where they have no rights and are detained indefinitely without charges

If that is how we treat others, we have no expectation that our captured soldiers should be treated better

 

[Claudette]

So, in other words you don't care. Got it. Others might.
https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/files/documents/Guantanamo Detainee Transparency Report.pdf

Really?
You must really come up with a better story.
Check them out-
Guantanamo Bay: The Remaining Detainees - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Sorry, I'm not going to watch a 4 hour video
The claim seems to be these are really bad guys. If they are really bad guys we should have ample, verifiable evidence to prove their crimes. That evidence needs to be formally submitted in a trial and they need to be formally sentenced to a defined term

I do care

That is why I stand up for the legal rights of those who are being detained indefinitely without trial

Yet you are only willing to look at what you want to see-not any facts of what it is like on a battlefield, nor what has been found on those detainees and why they were listed as high risk.
What do you think war is? A simple street fight?

It is not up to me to look at the facts, it is up to a court of law

If they are terrorists, provide proof that they are terrorists, convict them and formally sentence them
If you believe them to be enemy combatants, identify them as such and provide them with the Geneva Convention protections as prisoners of war

Kind of hard to go to a battlefield to get proof doncha think??

Since they don't wear uniforms and serve no standing Army the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

Oh and its nice to know idiots like you think it does.

 

[Claudette]

You are a joke. You could care less about our men and women serving out on that battlefield.

You can't be serious. We are talking about a battlefield here.
"Don't capture me. The fact you saw me shoot someone or carrying a bomb, doesn't mean I'm guilty. It is your word against mine."
Please.

Well if they were shot on site we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because there would be no one at Gitmo. End of problem.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

If that is the case, it should be easy to provide evidence and give them a fair trial

The fact is that I do care about the men and women serving on that battlefield

I do not want them subjected to torture when captured, I do not want them whisked away to some remote camp where they have no rights and are detained indefinitely without charges

If that is how we treat others, we have no expectation that our captured soldiers should be treated better

Oh like that would happen you idiot.

Any of our men and women who are captured sure as hell wouldn't be treated well.

Terrorists don't follow that Geneva Convention that you think we should follow when it comes to their treatment.

If they were lucky they would be shot. If not they would be beheaded on Al Jazera.

Jesus you are one clueless moron looking at the world through rose colored glasses and you are just the kind of idiot that the terrorist love. An idiot who has their best interests at heart. Clueless moron.

 

[rightwinger]

So, in other words you don't care. Got it. Others might.
https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/files/documents/Guantanamo Detainee Transparency Report.pdf

Sorry, I'm not going to watch a 4 hour video
The claim seems to be these are really bad guys. If they are really bad guys we should have ample, verifiable evidence to prove their crimes. That evidence needs to be formally submitted in a trial and they need to be formally sentenced to a defined term

I do care

That is why I stand up for the legal rights of those who are being detained indefinitely without trial

Yet you are only willing to look at what you want to see-not any facts of what it is like on a battlefield, nor what has been found on those detainees and why they were listed as high risk.
What do you think war is? A simple street fight?

It is not up to me to look at the facts, it is up to a court of law

If they are terrorists, provide proof that they are terrorists, convict them and formally sentence them
If you believe them to be enemy combatants, identify them as such and provide them with the Geneva Convention protections as prisoners of war

Kind of hard to go to a battlefield to get proof doncha think??

Since they don't wear uniforms and serve no standing Army the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

Oh and its nice to know idiots like you think it does.

You can't have it both ways

They are either legal combatants or are terrorists guilty of a crime. And no, it is not difficult to document what happens on a battlefield. After action reports are filed after every engagement. The conditions of how a suspect was captured and under what conditions are fully documented

 

[rightwinger]

You are a joke. You could care less about our men and women serving out on that battlefield.

You can't be serious. We are talking about a battlefield here.
"Don't capture me. The fact you saw me shoot someone or carrying a bomb, doesn't mean I'm guilty. It is your word against mine."
Please.

Oh and if they can't prove it that makes them not a terrorist?? Only a simpleton like you would believe that.

You do not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

If that is the case, it should be easy to provide evidence and give them a fair trial

The fact is that I do care about the men and women serving on that battlefield

I do not want them subjected to torture when captured, I do not want them whisked away to some remote camp where they have no rights and are detained indefinitely without charges

If that is how we treat others, we have no expectation that our captured soldiers should be treated better

Oh like that would happen you idiot.

Any of our men and women who are captured sure as hell wouldn't be treated well.

Terrorists don't follow that Geneva Convention that you think we should follow when it comes to their treatment.

If they were lucky they would be shot. If not they would be beheaded on Al Jazera.

Jesus you are one clueless moron looking at the world through rose colored glasses and you are just the kind of idiot that the terrorist love. An idiot who has their best interests at heart. Clueless moron.

Our men have been captured for over a hundred years. Some were well treated, some were abused. In cases where our soldiers were abused beyond the normal conduct of war, we prosecuted those who violated the rules of war. Look at Nuremburg.
Now lets fast forward to where we try someone who had tortured our soldiers, water boarded them, denied them clothing, subjected them to stress conditions, sleep depravation and hypothermia
As Americans, we have no right to complain if our soldiers are subjected to that type of treatment.....we have done the same