why is gitmo bad ?

[washamericom]

you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the questions remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

 

[Sallow]

you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the queations remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

Well yeah.

And the fact that alot of these people were not "Battle field captures" in which an argument can be made for an exception, as provided, in the United States Constitution.

But there has been no war declared.

Many of these people were "captured" because of tips provided by civilians.

What the Bush administration succeeded in doing was creating a legal quandry because what it wanted to do was create a legal limbo land.

It's now extremely difficult to try any of these people.

 

[washamericom]

the only enemy combatants mentioned in the constitution are britsh, with rgard to quartering. do you mean "settled law" ?

Do you know this phrase "enemy combatants" is a relatively new phrase, dreamed up by the Bush administration as a term for getting around providing Constitutional protections to those otherwise entitled to them?

The idea isn't new. Lincoln suspended Habeas but was on much more firm constitutional ground to do so. Bush's use of this legal technique has absolutely no grounding in the United States Constitution. And his administration used many dodgy legalities to justify some very appalling violations of US law. Even if you hold up the argument that rights are only granted to citizens, which is completely and utterly wrong, Bush violated the rights of citizens as well. Most notably in the Jose Padilla case.

you left out this part.... Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. and lincoln was still president of one nation. i gotta ask, to whom other than citizens are u.s. rights gauranteed?

 

[Bern80]

It's sorta Unconstitutional.

But most conservatives never bother to read it.

Oh, they read it. They just ignore it when it suits their authoritarian purposes to do so.

Oh come on. Do you really want to pretend the left is the staunch protector of the constitution. Did you forget that health care bill you guys just passed?

 

[washamericom]

you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the queations remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

Well yeah.

And the fact that alot of these people were not "Battle field captures" in which an argument can be made for an exception, as provided, in the United States Constitution.

But there has been no war declared.

Many of these people were "captured" because of tips provided by civilians.

What the Bush administration succeeded in doing was creating a legal quandry because what it wanted to do was create a legal limbo land.

It's now extremely difficult to try any of these people.

i suggest that it was a "best available tool" for a commander in chief at a time whe the "battlefield" is D.C. N.Y.C. and shanksville. i'll defend president bush all day on doing what he thought was right after 911. and the avoiding of cries of "you didn't do anything" if he hadn't done anything. no win situation, but he picked the right answer in my mind. history will tell

 

[Sunni Man]

i'll defend president bush all day on doing what he thought was right after 911. and the avoiding of cries of "you didn't do anything" if he hadn't done anything. no win situation, but he picked the right answer in my mind.

 

[Sallow]

Do you know this phrase "enemy combatants" is a relatively new phrase, dreamed up by the Bush administration as a term for getting around providing Constitutional protections to those otherwise entitled to them?

The idea isn't new. Lincoln suspended Habeas but was on much more firm constitutional ground to do so. Bush's use of this legal technique has absolutely no grounding in the United States Constitution. And his administration used many dodgy legalities to justify some very appalling violations of US law. Even if you hold up the argument that rights are only granted to citizens, which is completely and utterly wrong, Bush violated the rights of citizens as well. Most notably in the Jose Padilla case.

you left out this part.... Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. and lincoln was still president of one nation. i gotta ask, to whom other than citizens are u.s. rights gauranteed?

Being found guilty doesn't excuse he was held without access to lawyers, a speedy trial, possibly tortured..for over a year.

And rights are granted to everyone under US jurisdiction..citizen or not.

 

[Sallow]

you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the queations remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

Well yeah.

And the fact that alot of these people were not "Battle field captures" in which an argument can be made for an exception, as provided, in the United States Constitution.

But there has been no war declared.

Many of these people were "captured" because of tips provided by civilians.

What the Bush administration succeeded in doing was creating a legal quandry because what it wanted to do was create a legal limbo land.

It's now extremely difficult to try any of these people.

i suggest that it was a "best available tool" for a commander in chief at a time whe the "battlefield" is D.C. N.Y.C. and shanksville. i'll defend president bush all day on doing what he thought was right after 911. and the avoiding of cries of "you didn't do anything" if he hadn't done anything. no win situation, but he picked the right answer in my mind. history will tell

One doesn't simply get to break the rules...especially since the "emergency" had passed and the damage was done. We have a process..and that process has worked well for quite some time.

 

[George Costanza]

you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the questions remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

Prisoners of war? WHAT "war"? You can call a pile of dog poop ice cream. That does not make it so.

 

[goldcatt]

you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the questions remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

Prisoners of war? WHAT "war"? You can call a pile of dog poop ice cream. That does not make it so.

Not only that, but if they were labeled POWs there are laws for their treatment conforming to Geneva. Laws Gitmo and the term enemy combatant were specifically put in place to circumvent.

 

[Jeremy]

It's sorta Unconstitutional.

But most conservatives never bother to read it.

Oh, they read it. They just ignore it when it suits their authoritarian purposes to do so.

 

[washamericom]

And rights are granted to everyone under US jurisdiction..citizen or not.[/QUOTE]


the right to vote? the right to healthcare for illegals "under u.s. jurisdiction"
how about any one that visits american soil, do they all have the same rights as we do? this is the kind of "it's that simple" logic that won you the white house

 

[washamericom]

you are correct ! enemy combatant is a newly coined phrase with ties to "unlawful combantant" in use for a century or so. then the supreme ct. ruled that e.c. s should have access to civilian law. it's a sticky set of definitions that's for sure. "prisoners of war" may be a better expression. still the questions remain. do we try them at all? standard precedent has previous wars ending, not this one, is that a factor? also it's technically not a war

Prisoners of war? WHAT "war"? You can call a pile of dog poop ice cream. That does not make it so.

as i've said, when the plane hit the first tower it became a war, america one of many battlefields.
and addressing the hypocricy issue and the precious speedy trial for combatants. last year they were going to try KSM in front of the world in N.Y.C. presumably to demonstrate "the right to speedy trial, for anyone", another year later, what happened, are they still "thinking about it?" come to think of it, wasn't gitmo going to be closed (campaign promise) in one year? i see lots of wheelspinning and libeal bs

 

[goldcatt]

the right to vote? the right to healthcare for illegals "under u.s. jurisdiction"
how about any one that visits american soil, do they all have the same rights as we do? this is the kind of "it's that simple" logic that won you the white house

Speaking of simple logic, I suppose you conveniently overlooked Article 6 when you read the COTUS last.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not only of its citizens. And that includes land leased or otherwise not within the confines of our borders but under US jurisdiction and control. So you tell me. Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

 

[washamericom]

the right to vote? the right to healthcare for illegals "under u.s. jurisdiction"
how about any one that visits american soil, do they all have the same rights as we do? this is the kind of "it's that simple" logic that won you the white house

Speaking of simple logic, I suppose you conveniently overlooked Article 6 when you read the COTUS last.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not only of its citizens. And that includes land leased or otherwise not within the confines of our borders but under US jurisdiction and control. So you tell me. Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

i think you're confusing laws and "rights" this is article six isn't it?

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

 

[rikules]

can someone remind me why guantanamo is a bad thing?

it's complicated

but i'll try to explain .....


one of the reasons we took out saddam was because he was torturing his own people.

and THAT was bad!

so we took out saddam and now WE are torturing his own people....

which is GOOD!

understand?


when homosexuals get together and do naked things with each other for FUN it is BAD!
SICK!
PERVERTED!


but when u.s. soldiers or our police do these things to prisoners...
it's FUNNY!

and a good way to relieve stress!



when the vietnamese stripped and blindfolded American prisoners and set vicious dogs on them it was
PROOF of how EVIL COMMUNISTS (and liberals and democrats) REALLY ARE!

when u.s. government agents do it to "enemy combatants" and prisoners then it's "a good way to get vital information to defend America!"


basically...when we do it it is a-ok!
but when our enemies do it it is PROOF of how EVIL they are

 

[ConHog]

I'll tell you what is wrong with Gitmo, the ONLY thing wrong with Gitmo is that the world knows it exists. The CIA needs such facilities to exist in order to be able to do their jobs properly; any reasonable person with a functioning brain realizes this. But we shouldn't be advertising it.

and fuck the terrorists and their rights. They have none. This is war. You want the US to abide by the Geneva Convention when dealing with them? Okay, then at the very least you should also be petitioning the World Court to go after the Muslims for their War Crimes.

 

[goldcatt]

the right to vote? the right to healthcare for illegals "under u.s. jurisdiction"
how about any one that visits american soil, do they all have the same rights as we do? this is the kind of "it's that simple" logic that won you the white house

Speaking of simple logic, I suppose you conveniently overlooked Article 6 when you read the COTUS last.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not only of its citizens. And that includes land leased or otherwise not within the confines of our borders but under US jurisdiction and control. So you tell me. Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

i think you're confusing laws and "rights" this is article six isn't it?

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

When we're speaking of habeas and other enumerated rights as they apply to Gitmo, we're speaking specifically of liberties that are protected by law. In other words, enforcement of our constitution and laws promulgated under it.

So answer the question.

 

[washamericom]

can someone remind me why guantanamo is a bad thing?

it's complicated

but i'll try to explain .....


one of the reasons we took out saddam was because he was torturing his own people.

and THAT was bad!

so we took out saddam and now WE are torturing his own people....

which is GOOD!

understand?


when homosexuals get together and do naked things with each other for FUN it is BAD!
SICK!
PERVERTED!


but when u.s. soldiers or our police do these things to prisoners...
it's FUNNY!

and a good way to relieve stress!



when the vietnamese stripped and blindfolded American prisoners and set vicious dogs on them it was
PROOF of how EVIL COMMUNISTS (and liberals and democrats) REALLY ARE!

when u.s. government agents do it to "enemy combatants" and prisoners then it's "a good way to get vital information to defend America!"


basically...when we do it it is a-ok!
but when our enemies do it it is PROOF of how EVIL they are

that really clears things up, thanks for taking the day to work on it. we're all better people for it.

 

[washamericom]

Speaking of simple logic, I suppose you conveniently overlooked Article 6 when you read the COTUS last.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not only of its citizens. And that includes land leased or otherwise not within the confines of our borders but under US jurisdiction and control. So you tell me. Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

i think you're confusing laws and "rights" this is article six isn't it?

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

When we're speaking of habeas and other enumerated rights as they apply to Gitmo, we're speaking specifically of liberties that are protected by law. In other words, enforcement of our constitution and laws promulgated under it.

So answer the question.

i'm sorry... the question? i missed the question