Jurisdiction over detainees at Guantanamo Bay [Archive]

Jersey Devil

29th May 2005, 16:01

In regards to human rights abuses. As we can see from Appendix 1 of the following document there are 27 cases of confirmed deaths of detainees under U.S custody each have small summaries of the circumstances in which the detainees died which most include being shot and beaten do death and one case which dying of hypothermia after being stripped and assaulted by authorities.

In the next part of this post I will make a somewhat large comprehensive argument about how the Bush administration is denying detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to have their cases heard before a United State Court.

From now on my comments will be in red.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005

It seems rather contrary to an idea of a Constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check.
US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Rasul v. Bush, oral argument, US Supreme Court, 20 April 2004.

What is this that Supreme Court Justice Breyer is referring to you say? Justice Breyer is referring to the fact that in late 2001 the Justice Department sent a memo to the Defense Department stating that no foreign national held in Guantanamo Bay has the right to appeal his case before any United State's District Court. Where are the checks and balances that this country rightfully prides itself in? Why not let detainees appeal their case before the U.S court? What is the justification?

The following is the document itself in PDF format. I suggest some of you gentlemen read it.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/01.12.28.pdf

We conclude that the great weight of legal authority indicates that a federal district court could not properly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an alien detained at GBC. Nonetheless, we cannot say with absolute certainty that any such petition would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A detainee could make a non-frivolous argument that jurisdiction does exist over aliens detained at GBC, and we have found no decisions that clearly foreclose the existence of habeas jurisdiction there. On the other hand it does not appear that any federal court has allowed a habeas petition to proceed from GBC, either. While we believe that the correct answer is that federal courts lack jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by alien detainees held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, there remains some litigation risk that a district court might reach the opposite result.-Patrick F. Philbin and John C. Yoo Deputy Assistant Attorney General

It should be noted that this document, although written in late 2001, were not released until the nefarious Abu Graib scandal.

According to the document Mr. Philbin and Mr. Yoo are warning the Department of Defense that detainees in Guantanamo Bay arguing that they have the right to be heard before a U.S court is in fact not "frivolous" and has some merit to it. Could I be wrong? Could Mr. Philbin and Mr. Yoo also be wrong? As a matter of fact, could the Supreme Court of the United States be wrong?

The following is a link to the "Center of Defense Information". It regards the case Rasul v. Bush where the Supreme Court ruled that U.S courts do indeed have jurisdiction over alien detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm

With a decision notably brief for the mountain of argument leading up to it, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.

Justice John Paul Stephens' majority opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Conner, David Souter, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in the decision but disagreed sufficiently with the majority's analysis to issue a separate concurring opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Indeed, now the alien detainees have the right to judicial review, or do they? In response to this ruling by the Supreme Court, the Bush Administration then went on to set up three man panels of military officers in order to decide whether detainees were "enemy combatants", basically a rubberstamp used to replace legitimate judicial review. The following is from the AI article itself regarding these three man Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT).

The detainee has no access to secret evidence used against him in this process or to legal counsel to assist him. The CSRT, meanwhile, can draw on evidence extracted under torture or other ill-treatment in making its determinations. The CSRTs began in July 2004 and were completed for the current detainee population in January 2005, with the final decisions issued in late March 2005. In 93 per cent of the 558 cases, the CSRT affirmed the detainee’s "enemy combatant" status. Eighty-four per cent of the 38 cases where the detainee was found not to be an "enemy combatant" were decided later than 31 January 2005, when a federal judge, District Judge Joyce Hens Green, found that the CSRT process was unlawful, but before the government’s appeal against her ruling was heard

The 32 of the 38 cases where detainees were not found to be "enemy combatants" by the CSRT's only came after Judge Joyce Hens Green's ruling thus showing that in fact this is a rubberstamp that does not replace judicial review and the administration is continuing the legal battle to overturn this ruling therefore proving that this administration does not want U.S District Courts to hear these cases and by definition advocating centralized power instead of checks and balances.

As usual in my threads I ask for no spam, no trolling, no children, let's have a serious debate about this. I hope we can instead of 50 posts about how "AmeriKKKa sucks" and "Bu$h=Hitler".

Jersey Devil

31st May 2005, 01:56

No response while the other childish threads get several responses. Why am I not surprised?

truthaddict11

31st May 2005, 02:26

I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.

hopefully someone applies now Jersey.

Professor Moneybags

31st May 2005, 16:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.
The geneva convention only applies to soldiers with an internationally recognised rank, who have a commander responsible for them, who carry their weapons openly and follow the Geneva convention themselves. Terrorists do not meet any of those criterion.

"Name, rank and serial number" isn't military bravado. It's your passport to protection under the Geneva convention. If you don't have these, you're not entitled to protection.

Jersey Devil

2nd June 2005, 23:36

I suggest that you two gentlemen re-read my post very carefully to get a clear understanding of what I am arguing in favor of. I never even mention the Geneva Convention.

truthaddict11

3rd June 2005, 05:12

I did in the begging of my post, the reason why detaines are not being tried in united states courts is because they were not captured there, we have however put terror suspects caught inside the united states in us courts. We just this week put 2 suspects before a grand jury, it was on the news. And since the Gevena Convention does not apply to them I believe we can hold them indefinitly as enemy combatants and about not lettting them see the evidence against them we also dont have to do that since they dont apply to the Geneva Convention.

So the Geneva Convention and how it applies or doesnt in this case for detainies is the reason behind not letting them see the evidence and not trying them in US Courts is because they were not captured in the United States but in Afghanistan, Iraq, ect.

Jersey Devil

3rd June 2005, 06:40

No, I am arguing that the Rasul v. Bush Supreme Court decision confirmed that foreign detainees in Guantanamo Bay have the right to have a U.S district court hear their case and as a replacement to judicial review the current administration had CSRT committees of three military officers created to decide who could be labeled an "enemy combatant" and that this is not a legitimate replacement for judicial review as Federal District Judge Green has ruled it unconstitutional. However, the administration continues to push a legal battle for this ruling to be overturned which shows that the administration is trying to eliminate this check which keeps the executive branch from having more centralized power.

This has to do with U.S law, not international law.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

4th June 2005, 09:30

I suggest we give round trip plane tickets to the orphans and widows/widowers of 911 to Gitmo. Give them each a club or brass kuckles, let them have fun for a few hours. Fly then back home. The ones who had family jump from the 82nd floor to escape burning to death but died hitting the sidewalk should be first in line.

Don't forget, these are them men who trained, ate, slept, studied, and played poker with 911 hi-jackers. Thier warefare is 'take no prisoners and kill them all', so then by thier rules, they are lucky to be alive. They should thank us.

BTW checks and balances, full rights, and protections under the Constitution only applies to US citizens inside US borders.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

4th June 2005, 09:51

Bloody innoncents have been beaten to death, tortured and bombed away. I could write dramatic stories about the millions of victims of American imperialism, but I won't since you don't have any sympathy or feeling for that matter.

Don't forget, these are them men who trained, ate, slept, studied, and played poker with 911 hi-jackers. Thier warefare is 'take no prisoners and kill them all', so then by thier rules, they are lucky to be alive. They should thank us.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. . .

They didn't even get a showtrial. They haven't even been proofen guilty. People were set free years after they were captured with a sorry ass: "sorry you were in the wrong place, wrong time". How does that ever justify years of torture and enslavement? Ow, yes you are right torture is so much better then death. You should try!

BTW checks and balances, full rights, and protections under the Constitution only applies to US citizens inside US borders.

100% motherfuckin' idiot. They were talking about the Geneva convention and the Geneva convention applies to all involved in war or "conflict". No matter if you label them "terrorists", "illegal-enemy combatants" or the "boogey-man", they do apply. The US shouldn't sign treaties if they don't intend to hold on to them. Nor should you talk in the "we" form. You have nothing to say about those policies, you are nothing but a yes-nodder. Most probaly you didn't know/were in denial about it, untill the pictures got stuffed in your face.

How about all those victims of American imperialism, where is your sympathy for them? Where are your grievance and warcry for them? Do I smell chauvanism?

And please do tell me what is a terrorist?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

4th June 2005, 16:13

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 4 2005, 09:51 AM
Bloody innoncents have been beaten to death, tortured and bombed away. I could write dramatic stories about the millions of victims of American imperialism, but I won't since you don't have any sympathy or feeling for that matter.

Don't forget, these are them men who trained, ate, slept, studied, and played poker with 911 hi-jackers. Thier warefare is 'take no prisoners and kill them all', so then by thier rules, they are lucky to be alive. They should thank us.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. . .

They didn't even get a showtrial. They haven't even been proofen guilty. People were set free years after they were captured with a sorry ass: "sorry you were in the wrong place, wrong time". How does that ever justify years of torture and enslavement? Ow, yes you are right torture is so much better then death. You should try!

BTW checks and balances, full rights, and protections under the Constitution only applies to US citizens inside US borders.

100% motherfuckin' idiot. They were talking about the Geneva convention and the Geneva convention applies to all involved in war or "conflict". No matter if you label them "terrorists", "illegal-enemy combatants" or the "boogey-man", they do apply. The US shouldn't sign treaties if they don't intend to hold on to them. Nor should you talk in the "we" form. You have nothing to say about those policies, you are nothing but a yes-nodder. Most probaly you didn't know/were in denial about it, untill the pictures got stuffed in your face.

How about all those victims of American imperialism, where is your sympathy for them? Where are your grievance and warcry for them? Do I smell chauvanism?

And please do tell me what is a terrorist?
OK.

I assume that since these gitmo prisoners were in AFGANISTAN, with AL-QUEDA, fighting with AL-QUEDA, with WEAPONS, SHOOTING at US soldiers, don't SPEAK AFGAN languages; and 911 hijackers were AL-QUEDA, with AL-QUEDA leadership planning 911, that these guys never trained, ate, and slept in the same places.

Jersey Devil

4th June 2005, 18:14

And thus the trolls take control of my thread. As I said since the begining, no children, please don't post on this thread, both of you.

Urban Rubble

4th June 2005, 18:37

Amerikkka sucks. Buck Fush! Nuke the whales!!!!

Anyway......

I assume that since these gitmo prisoners were in AFGANISTAN, with AL-QUEDA, fighting with AL-QUEDA, with WEAPONS, SHOOTING at US soldiers, don't SPEAK AFGAN languages; and 911 hijackers were AL-QUEDA, with AL-QUEDA leadership planning 911, that these guys never trained, ate, and slept in the same places.

You see, that point might have some merit, but there is the small issue of them not having a trial, thus these allegations haven't been proven, thus they shouldn't be used as justifications for torture.

You see, this is why us "crazy commies" actually believe in the right of due process. I'm not going to shed a tear if a bunch of men who kill innocent people for political ends is being mistreated. However, the issue is that we don't know which of these men are innocent and which are guilty. Do you really believe the U.S. military and intelligence agencies are above making mistakes? Do you think it is impossible that some of these men may have been falsely accused? That is the point. Very few of us are worried about the rights of murderers, what I am concerned with is keeping some shred of civilized society intact and giving these people a chance to have their cases heard.

It really amazes me how quickly you people will abandon the ideals your country is supposed to stand for as soon as a those ideals make it harder for your government to excersize it's authority. When it's child molestors and murderers from the states you're all in favor of giving them a trial to make sure they aren't falsley accused, but when it's a filthy stinking towelhead you're content to let them rot for 4 years in a Cuban gulag.

Jersey Devil

4th June 2005, 18:44

At the end of the day this is about the rule of law and the Supreme Court has ruled to have the foreign detainees to have the right to have their case heard before a U.S District Court. The Administration responded by setting up CSRT committees to replace judicial review. A federal judge responded by ruling these committees unconstitutional. By continuing this legal battle to overturn this ruling and thereby attempting to centralize the power of the executive branch this administration is saying that they do not believe in judicial review and checks and balances.

Guerrilla22

4th June 2005, 18:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.

hopefully someone applies now Jersey.
Supposedly. The US government's whole justification for denying the so called "detainees" at Guantanamo is that they are not officially part of a national army because they were not wearing official uniforms. The US has special forces soldiers running around in civillian clothes all the time. The detainees are in fact kidnap victims.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

4th June 2005, 22:54

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jun 4 2005, 06:46 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jun 4 2005, 06:46 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.

hopefully someone applies now Jersey.
Supposedly. The US government's whole justification for denying the so called "detainees" at Guantanamo is that they are not officially part of a national army because they were not wearing official uniforms. The US has special forces soldiers running around in civillian clothes all the time. The detainees are in fact kidnap victims. [/b]
Kindnap victims? Yes they are, and so what. Let them rot amd why do you care? I applaud any tactics that will make thier life miserable here on earth. Why should you care? I don't. If I had it my way, I would gladly pay for plane tickets for relatives of 911 to fly down to gitmo to get a bit of pay-back. Would YOU want these men free? The ones that did go free are harmless, the ones that are left there is a 100% chance that when they get out they will be looking to blow up Europeans and Americans around the world. Don't forget, these people when they kidnap Europeans and Americans, they end up on the internet minus a head. So by thier rules of warm, we are doing them a favor, they should thank us.

So again, why do you even care?

Intifada

4th June 2005, 23:50

Kindnap victims? Yes they are, and so what. Let them rot amd why do you care? I applaud any tactics that will make thier life miserable here on earth. Why should you care? I don't. If I had it my way, I would gladly pay for plane tickets for relatives of 911 to fly down to gitmo to get a bit of pay-back. Would YOU want these men free? The ones that did go free are harmless, the ones that are left there is a 100% chance that when they get out they will be looking to blow up Europeans and Americans around the world. Don't forget, these people when they kidnap Europeans and Americans, they end up on the internet minus a head. So by thier rules of warm, we are doing them a favor, they should thank us.

So again, why do you even care?

You have again avoided the fact that the detainees have not been given a fair trial that clearly finds them guilty of "terrorist" activity.

Jersey Devil

5th June 2005, 00:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:50 PM

Kindnap victims? Yes they are, and so what. Let them rot amd why do you care? I applaud any tactics that will make thier life miserable here on earth. Why should you care? I don't. If I had it my way, I would gladly pay for plane tickets for relatives of 911 to fly down to gitmo to get a bit of pay-back. Would YOU want these men free? The ones that did go free are harmless, the ones that are left there is a 100% chance that when they get out they will be looking to blow up Europeans and Americans around the world. Don't forget, these people when they kidnap Europeans and Americans, they end up on the internet minus a head. So by thier rules of warm, we are doing them a favor, they should thank us.

So again, why do you even care?

You have again avoided the fact that the detainees have not been given a fair trial that clearly finds them guilty of "terrorist" activity.
They can have a case heard before a court, now since the district court judge ruled the CSRT unconstiutional. The Administration is taking it to the Court of Appeals to try and reverse this ruling. However, it was until just recently that they could have their status questioned before a court, so for a long period indeed, they could not have their case heard before a court.

Commie Girl

5th June 2005, 00:33

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 4 2005, 09:13 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 4 2005, 09:13 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 4 2005, 09:51 AM
Bloody innoncents have been beaten to death, tortured and bombed away. I could write dramatic stories about the millions of victims of American imperialism, but I won't since you don't have any sympathy or feeling for that matter.

Don't forget, these are them men who trained, ate, slept, studied, and played poker with 911 hi-jackers. Thier warefare is 'take no prisoners and kill them all', so then by thier rules, they are lucky to be alive. They should thank us.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. . .

They didn't even get a showtrial. They haven't even been proofen guilty. People were set free years after they were captured with a sorry ass: "sorry you were in the wrong place, wrong time". How does that ever justify years of torture and enslavement? Ow, yes you are right torture is so much better then death. You should try!

BTW checks and balances, full rights, and protections under the Constitution only applies to US citizens inside US borders.

100% motherfuckin' idiot. They were talking about the Geneva convention and the Geneva convention applies to all involved in war or "conflict". No matter if you label them "terrorists", "illegal-enemy combatants" or the "boogey-man", they do apply. The US shouldn't sign treaties if they don't intend to hold on to them. Nor should you talk in the "we" form. You have nothing to say about those policies, you are nothing but a yes-nodder. Most probaly you didn't know/were in denial about it, untill the pictures got stuffed in your face.

How about all those victims of American imperialism, where is your sympathy for them? Where are your grievance and warcry for them? Do I smell chauvanism?

And please do tell me what is a terrorist?
OK.

I assume that since these gitmo prisoners were in AFGANISTAN, with AL-QUEDA, fighting with AL-QUEDA, with WEAPONS, SHOOTING at US soldiers, don't SPEAK AFGAN languages; and 911 hijackers were AL-QUEDA, with AL-QUEDA leadership planning 911, that these guys never trained, ate, and slept in the same places. [/b]
WTF is Gitmo? :blink: People from the U$ seem to have a hard time using proper words, therefore they have to invent acronyms...9/11, Gitmo.

This is your logic:

YOU are in the U$, supporting the U$ military, and the U$ military are "foreign fighters", shooting at Afghan and Iraqi people, don't speak Arabic, then we should send plane tickets to ALL the families of Iraqi and Afghan people murdered on your behalf....and let them have some pay-back

Jersey Devil

5th June 2005, 00:43

Stop trolling my thread please.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

5th June 2005, 01:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:13 PM
OK.

I assume that since these gitmo prisoners were in AFGANISTAN, with AL-QUEDA, fighting with AL-QUEDA, with WEAPONS, SHOOTING at US soldiers, don't SPEAK AFGAN languages; and 911 hijackers were AL-QUEDA, with AL-QUEDA leadership planning 911, that these guys never trained, ate, and slept in the same places.
Some of the people kept captive were innoncent. I wouldn't give a shit about the guilty ones, just like I don't give a shit about any scumbag. The point is that their guilt has never been proofen, they have just been abducted and tortured for months or even years. The US isn't right, because they have more powerfull guns.

And I still want to know, how come you don't show any grievance for victims of US imperialism and what is a terrorist?

Edit: A thought that just entered my head. I know that you cappies love private property, liberty and are against initiation of force :rolleyes:. Then how come destroyed homes, farmlands, civilian deaths and posessions aren't repayed by the US army? Not repaying it would go against all the so-called "principes" that the free-market nuts stand for. I especially would love a response of Moneybags on this. I know it will be humorous.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

5th June 2005, 02:40

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+Jun 5 2005, 01:56 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ Jun 5 2005, 01:56 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 04:13 PM
OK.

I assume that since these gitmo prisoners were in AFGANISTAN, with AL-QUEDA, fighting with AL-QUEDA, with WEAPONS, SHOOTING at US soldiers, don't SPEAK AFGAN languages; and 911 hijackers were AL-QUEDA, with AL-QUEDA leadership planning 911, that these guys never trained, ate, and slept in the same places.
Some of the people kept captive were innoncent. I wouldn't give a shit about the guilty ones, just like I don't give a shit about any scumbag. The point is that their guilt has never been proofen, they have just been abducted and tortured for months or even years. The US isn't right, because they have more powerfull guns.

And I still want to know, how come you don't show any grievance for victims of US imperialism and what is a terrorist?

Edit: A thought that just entered my head. I know that you cappies love private property, liberty and are against initiation of force :rolleyes:. Then how come destroyed homes, farmlands, civilian deaths and posessions aren't repayed by the US army? Not repaying it would go against all the so-called "principes" that the free-market nuts stand for. I especially would love a response of Moneybags on this. I know it will be humorous. [/b]
Oh but they are. Iraqi get in line every day for damage to thier property via the US Department of Defense. It happens everyday, they get in line, and a young officer opens a bag of money and hands it out.

Commie Girl

5th June 2005, 18:36

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 4 2005, 07:40 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 4 2005, 07:40 PM)
Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 5 2005, 01:56 AM

[email protected] 4 2005, 04:13 PM
OK.

I assume that since these gitmo prisoners were in AFGANISTAN, with AL-QUEDA, fighting with AL-QUEDA, with WEAPONS, SHOOTING at US soldiers, don't SPEAK AFGAN languages; and 911 hijackers were AL-QUEDA, with AL-QUEDA leadership planning 911, that these guys never trained, ate, and slept in the same places.
Some of the people kept captive were innoncent. I wouldn't give a shit about the guilty ones, just like I don't give a shit about any scumbag. The point is that their guilt has never been proofen, they have just been abducted and tortured for months or even years. The US isn't right, because they have more powerfull guns.

And I still want to know, how come you don't show any grievance for victims of US imperialism and what is a terrorist?

Edit: A thought that just entered my head. I know that you cappies love private property, liberty and are against initiation of force :rolleyes:. Then how come destroyed homes, farmlands, civilian deaths and posessions aren't repayed by the US army? Not repaying it would go against all the so-called "principes" that the free-market nuts stand for. I especially would love a response of Moneybags on this. I know it will be humorous.
Oh but they are. Iraqi get in line every day for damage to thier property via the US Department of Defense. It happens everyday, they get in line, and a young officer opens a bag of money and hands it out. [/b]
:ph34r: Really? How generous!

"Dr Aziz said that only 10% of the promised compensation had been paid out to date, and added that the health situation was "horrible, we are now having cholera outbreaks".

Recent drinking water tests performed by SCHRDF found that there was no potable water available inside Fallujah. "Everybody knows this, and this is why we are making announcements for people to boil their water for 10 minutes," said Abdulla.

According to him, two-thirds of the city lacks electricity because so many electrical wires were cut, and any reconstruction occurring at the moment is only being carried out by the residents of Fallujah, with no outside help. "There is little financial aid coming from the government, if any at all."

Dr al-Obeidy said the same. "There are some payouts being made, but it is a small amount. But then recently the Iraqi government stopped all the compensation payments. So now the people are very angry about this, especially because the Americans promised to give each family $500, but there is nothing until now," he said. "So if a house is completely destroyed, how can $500 be enough? It cannot."

While it is estimated that 80% of the residents of Fallujah have returned home, roughly 60% of the houses and buildings inside the city sustained enough damage to make them inhabitable. Most people continue to live in tents, or amid the rubble of their homes. Curfews remain in the city, with residents not allowed on the streets past 9pm, and entire districts remain without power."

Source (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000251.php#more)

ahhh_money_is_comfort

5th June 2005, 22:52

Originally posted by Commie Girl+Jun 5 2005, 06:36 PM--> (Commie Girl @ Jun 5 2005, 06:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 5 2005, 01:56 AM

[email protected] 4 2005, 04:13 PM
OK.

I assume that since these gitmo prisoners were in AFGANISTAN, with AL-QUEDA, fighting with AL-QUEDA, with WEAPONS, SHOOTING at US soldiers, don't SPEAK AFGAN languages; and 911 hijackers were AL-QUEDA, with AL-QUEDA leadership planning 911, that these guys never trained, ate, and slept in the same places.
Some of the people kept captive were innoncent. I wouldn't give a shit about the guilty ones, just like I don't give a shit about any scumbag. The point is that their guilt has never been proofen, they have just been abducted and tortured for months or even years. The US isn't right, because they have more powerfull guns.

And I still want to know, how come you don't show any grievance for victims of US imperialism and what is a terrorist?

Edit: A thought that just entered my head. I know that you cappies love private property, liberty and are against initiation of force :rolleyes:. Then how come destroyed homes, farmlands, civilian deaths and posessions aren't repayed by the US army? Not repaying it would go against all the so-called "principes" that the free-market nuts stand for. I especially would love a response of Moneybags on this. I know it will be humorous.
Oh but they are. Iraqi get in line every day for damage to thier property via the US Department of Defense. It happens everyday, they get in line, and a young officer opens a bag of money and hands it out.
:ph34r: Really? How generous!

"Dr Aziz said that only 10% of the promised compensation had been paid out to date, and added that the health situation was "horrible, we are now having cholera outbreaks".

Recent drinking water tests performed by SCHRDF found that there was no potable water available inside Fallujah. "Everybody knows this, and this is why we are making announcements for people to boil their water for 10 minutes," said Abdulla.

According to him, two-thirds of the city lacks electricity because so many electrical wires were cut, and any reconstruction occurring at the moment is only being carried out by the residents of Fallujah, with no outside help. "There is little financial aid coming from the government, if any at all."

Dr al-Obeidy said the same. "There are some payouts being made, but it is a small amount. But then recently the Iraqi government stopped all the compensation payments. So now the people are very angry about this, especially because the Americans promised to give each family $500, but there is nothing until now," he said. "So if a house is completely destroyed, how can $500 be enough? It cannot."

While it is estimated that 80% of the residents of Fallujah have returned home, roughly 60% of the houses and buildings inside the city sustained enough damage to make them inhabitable. Most people continue to live in tents, or amid the rubble of their homes. Curfews remain in the city, with residents not allowed on the streets past 9pm, and entire districts remain without power."

Source (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000251.php#more) [/b]
Who is Dr. Aziz?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

5th June 2005, 23:54

Don't you ever react with some reason, thought. You didn't even read the article, because simply you are not interested in debate. Plus how the hell are the greatest losses repaid: human lives! The US troops are way too trigger happy, by any standard.

Jersey Devil

6th June 2005, 00:08

I was foolish to think a serious discussion could be had.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th June 2005, 00:33

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 5 2005, 11:54 PM
Don't you ever react with some reason, thought. You didn't even read the article, because simply you are not interested in debate. Plus how the hell are the greatest losses repaid: human lives! The US troops are way too trigger happy, by any standard.
Yes I did read it.

He is a nameless face in the internet. I don't believe any nameless face on the internet. My question is why have YOU not asked yourself the same question.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

6th June 2005, 01:38

I did ask myself this. But on the other hand, American behaviour in Afghanistan has been the same as described in the article. People would get their houses flattend, their families murdered and then could count themselves lucky if they even received 100 bucks. I have no reason to assume why the US regime attitude would be different in Iraq, then in all the other places that it has destroyed.

Interesting though. The entire "proof" for the invasion of Iraq existed out of "anonoymous classified trustry sources". I don't know what your position is on the Iraq war, but that would be hypocritical.

Severian

6th June 2005, 02:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:26 PM
I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.
That's wholly false. There are no categories of people without rights under the Geneva Convention. Not everyone qualifies as a prisoner of war; but those who don't have certain rights as well. The distinction, essentially, is that those combatants who do not qualify for POW status may be charged and tried for fighting. Which is precisely what the Bush administration does not want to do.

And irrelevant in any case, as Jersey Devil pointed out.

I'm not sure there is any issue to seriously discuss here, JD. Saying Guantanamo and other overseas prisons are outside the jurisdiction of US courts is a pretty transparent dodge. These prisons were set up solely for the purpose of evading that jurisdiction - after a similar dodge had been accomplished with Cuban and Haitian migrants. The ony question is whether the courts want to cooperate with this maneuver for stripping them of their constitutional powers, or not.

And I don't think you're going to get a lot of deep discussion on OI; the quality of pro-capitalist posters on this board is pretty low. So it doesn't evoke a lot of deep thought in response - even from people who might make more substantial contributions on other topics.

If you really want a substantive debate with people on the right, you probably have to find a board where they hang out. I used to post on a mostly-conservative board where, well, the average level wasn't real high, but because of numbers there'd be a few thoughtful and knowledgeable responses. It doesn't exist anymore though.

Guerrilla22

6th June 2005, 18:52

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 4 2005, 09:54 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 4 2005, 09:54 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:46 PM

[email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.

hopefully someone applies now Jersey.
Supposedly. The US government's whole justification for denying the so called "detainees" at Guantanamo is that they are not officially part of a national army because they were not wearing official uniforms. The US has special forces soldiers running around in civillian clothes all the time. The detainees are in fact kidnap victims.
Kindnap victims? Yes they are, and so what. Let them rot amd why do you care? I applaud any tactics that will make thier life miserable here on earth. Why should you care? I don't. If I had it my way, I would gladly pay for plane tickets for relatives of 911 to fly down to gitmo to get a bit of pay-back. Would YOU want these men free? The ones that did go free are harmless, the ones that are left there is a 100% chance that when they get out they will be looking to blow up Europeans and Americans around the world. Don't forget, these people when they kidnap Europeans and Americans, they end up on the internet minus a head. So by thier rules of warm, we are doing them a favor, they should thank us.

So again, why do you even care? [/b]
Why do I care if people are being illegally held captive while being tortured? Gee, I don't know, maybe because I'm a human being. Besides, you assume that all the so called "detainees" are "jihadist" "terrorist" who would be otherwise attack the US. I say its highly likely that a good number of the detainees were taken kidnapped solely on the suspicion that they were involved with al-Qaeda or the taliban, not actual evidence.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th June 2005, 21:38

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jun 6 2005, 06:52 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jun 6 2005, 06:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:46 PM

[email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.

hopefully someone applies now Jersey.
Supposedly. The US government's whole justification for denying the so called "detainees" at Guantanamo is that they are not officially part of a national army because they were not wearing official uniforms. The US has special forces soldiers running around in civillian clothes all the time. The detainees are in fact kidnap victims.
Kindnap victims? Yes they are, and so what. Let them rot amd why do you care? I applaud any tactics that will make thier life miserable here on earth. Why should you care? I don't. If I had it my way, I would gladly pay for plane tickets for relatives of 911 to fly down to gitmo to get a bit of pay-back. Would YOU want these men free? The ones that did go free are harmless, the ones that are left there is a 100% chance that when they get out they will be looking to blow up Europeans and Americans around the world. Don't forget, these people when they kidnap Europeans and Americans, they end up on the internet minus a head. So by thier rules of warm, we are doing them a favor, they should thank us.

So again, why do you even care?
Why do I care if people are being illegally held captive while being tortured? Gee, I don't know, maybe because I'm a human being. Besides, you assume that all the so called "detainees" are "jihadist" "terrorist" who would be otherwise attack the US. I say its highly likely that a good number of the detainees were taken kidnapped solely on the suspicion that they were involved with al-Qaeda or the taliban, not actual evidence. [/b]
Guess what? I won't shed a tear or worry about Al-Queda being crapped on in gitmo. Frankly I don't understand why anyone would even care about someone bent on trying to kill you? Don't you realize as a westerner your a dog, your scum, and the devils co-consipirators all rolled into one. There are no such thin as a good westerner to an Al-queda. Is that about right? Did I pretty much sum up the attitudes of an Al-queda. Are there Al-Queda in gitmo?

Intifada

8th June 2005, 17:06

Are there Al-Queda in gitmo?

Not that we know of.

Unless you can prove it?

Guerrilla22

10th June 2005, 17:59

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 7 2005, 08:38 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 7 2005, 08:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:46 PM

[email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.

hopefully someone applies now Jersey.
Supposedly. The US government's whole justification for denying the so called "detainees" at Guantanamo is that they are not officially part of a national army because they were not wearing official uniforms. The US has special forces soldiers running around in civillian clothes all the time. The detainees are in fact kidnap victims.
Kindnap victims? Yes they are, and so what. Let them rot amd why do you care? I applaud any tactics that will make thier life miserable here on earth. Why should you care? I don't. If I had it my way, I would gladly pay for plane tickets for relatives of 911 to fly down to gitmo to get a bit of pay-back. Would YOU want these men free? The ones that did go free are harmless, the ones that are left there is a 100% chance that when they get out they will be looking to blow up Europeans and Americans around the world. Don't forget, these people when they kidnap Europeans and Americans, they end up on the internet minus a head. So by thier rules of warm, we are doing them a favor, they should thank us.

So again, why do you even care?
Why do I care if people are being illegally held captive while being tortured? Gee, I don't know, maybe because I'm a human being. Besides, you assume that all the so called "detainees" are "jihadist" "terrorist" who would be otherwise attack the US. I say its highly likely that a good number of the detainees were taken kidnapped solely on the suspicion that they were involved with al-Qaeda or the taliban, not actual evidence.
Guess what? I won't shed a tear or worry about Al-Queda being crapped on in gitmo. Frankly I don't understand why anyone would even care about someone bent on trying to kill you? Don't you realize as a westerner your a dog, your scum, and the devils co-consipirators all rolled into one. There are no such thin as a good westerner to an Al-queda. Is that about right? Did I pretty much sum up the attitudes of an Al-queda. Are there Al-Queda in gitmo? [/b]
Are there al-Qaeda in Gitmo? Possibly. Who knows for for sure. The US government has no way to confirm that these detainees are in facr members. Besides, the point is it is against US law to hold people without charging them and against international law. It is also against US and international law to torture people.

Admit. All the Bush administration's talk of freedom and democracy and criticism of countries like Syria, North Korea and Cuba is pretty hypocritical considering the US is illegally holding hundreds captive for the reason that they COULD possibly be connected to a terrorist orginization.

D'Anconia

10th June 2005, 23:15

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 3 2005, 05:40 AM
No, I am arguing that the Rasul v. Bush Supreme Court decision confirmed that foreign detainees in Guantanamo Bay have the right to have a U.S district court hear their case and as a replacement to judicial review the current administration had CSRT committees of three military officers created to decide who could be labeled an "enemy combatant" and that this is not a legitimate replacement for judicial review as Federal District Judge Green has ruled it unconstitutional. However, the administration continues to push a legal battle for this ruling to be overturned which shows that the administration is trying to eliminate this check which keeps the executive branch from having more centralized power.

This has to do with U.S law, not international law.
Conveniently leaving out the fact that Rasul v. Bush is a questionable decision at best. Not only does it contradict over 50 years of precedent (see Johnson v. Eisentrager-- "[T]hese prisoners at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States.") but it makes no sense in light of the language of the applicable statute.

28 USC s. 2241 reads in part:

"Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions."

"[t]he order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had."

a petition "addressed to the Supreme Court, a justice thereof or a circuit judge ... shall state the reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held."

Prisoners in Guantanamo are not within the territorial jurisdiction of any of the federal courts. Therfore a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued. It's just that simple. Rasul v. Bush is wrong.

EDIT:

You also seem to ignore the fact that Congress specifically delegated the power to detain these people to the President. See Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub.L. 107-40.

"[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

ahhh_money_is_comfort

19th June 2005, 07:32

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jun 10 2005, 05:59 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jun 10 2005, 05:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:46 PM

[email protected] 31 2005, 01:26 AM
I think the reason for not letting detaines be represented in US courts is because they were not captured inside the United States,and cannot be prosecuted in American courts, terror suspects caught inside the United States can and have been prosecuted in US courts, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to detanies at Guantanamo. I'll have to do research on that.

hopefully someone applies now Jersey.
Supposedly. The US government's whole justification for denying the so called "detainees" at Guantanamo is that they are not officially part of a national army because they were not wearing official uniforms. The US has special forces soldiers running around in civillian clothes all the time. The detainees are in fact kidnap victims.
Kindnap victims? Yes they are, and so what. Let them rot amd why do you care? I applaud any tactics that will make thier life miserable here on earth. Why should you care? I don't. If I had it my way, I would gladly pay for plane tickets for relatives of 911 to fly down to gitmo to get a bit of pay-back. Would YOU want these men free? The ones that did go free are harmless, the ones that are left there is a 100% chance that when they get out they will be looking to blow up Europeans and Americans around the world. Don't forget, these people when they kidnap Europeans and Americans, they end up on the internet minus a head. So by thier rules of warm, we are doing them a favor, they should thank us.

So again, why do you even care?
Why do I care if people are being illegally held captive while being tortured? Gee, I don't know, maybe because I'm a human being. Besides, you assume that all the so called "detainees" are "jihadist" "terrorist" who would be otherwise attack the US. I say its highly likely that a good number of the detainees were taken kidnapped solely on the suspicion that they were involved with al-Qaeda or the taliban, not actual evidence.
Guess what? I won't shed a tear or worry about Al-Queda being crapped on in gitmo. Frankly I don't understand why anyone would even care about someone bent on trying to kill you? Don't you realize as a westerner your a dog, your scum, and the devils co-consipirators all rolled into one. There are no such thin as a good westerner to an Al-queda. Is that about right? Did I pretty much sum up the attitudes of an Al-queda. Are there Al-Queda in gitmo?
Are there al-Qaeda in Gitmo? Possibly. Who knows for for sure. The US government has no way to confirm that these detainees are in facr members. Besides, the point is it is against US law to hold people without charging them and against international law. It is also against US and international law to torture people.

Admit. All the Bush administration's talk of freedom and democracy and criticism of countries like Syria, North Korea and Cuba is pretty hypocritical considering the US is illegally holding hundreds captive for the reason that they COULD possibly be connected to a terrorist orginization. [/b]
Bush did this, Bush did that, capitalism did this, capitalism did that, waaaaah, waaaah , waaaaah, waaaaah.

Hey grow up. Concentrate on what communism is doing. No matter how bad capitalism is, it does not make communism right. Communism has a very bad image you see, it is not much better than capitialism. It has a poor image because Stalinist seem to very naturally progress out of revolutions, it has a poor image because economic growth takes a nose dive under communist. So if you want people to buy into what your selling, you need a better product. Not a product that is just as poor and defective as capitalism.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

19th June 2005, 17:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:06 PM

Are there Al-Queda in gitmo?

Not that we know of.

Unless you can prove it?
Let me see.

Saudi Arabian citizen in Afganistan. Captured or wounded with weapons in a camp with videos and CDROM with instructions to make bombs, fake passports, and rent appartments in New York City. Can't posssssssibly be Al-Queda, now way can be Al-Queda.

Urban Rubble

19th June 2005, 21:05

Saudi Arabian citizen in Afganistan. Captured or wounded with weapons in a camp with videos and CDROM with instructions to make bombs, fake passports, and rent appartments in New York City. Can't posssssssibly be Al-Queda, now way can be Al-Queda.

Contrast that with this:

Lebanese citizen on vacation in Spain. "Captured" (captured meaning plucked off the street for doing absolutely nothing) with camera, legit passport, laptop and some Spanish cash. Charged with nothing. Does 3 years in "Gitmo" without being charged or tried. Muuuuuuuuuuust be Al-Qaeda, right?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

21st June 2005, 02:59

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 19 2005, 09:05 PM

Saudi Arabian citizen in Afganistan. Captured or wounded with weapons in a camp with videos and CDROM with instructions to make bombs, fake passports, and rent appartments in New York City. Can't posssssssibly be Al-Queda, now way can be Al-Queda.

Contrast that with this:

Lebanese citizen on vacation in Spain. "Captured" (captured meaning plucked off the street for doing absolutely nothing) with camera, legit passport, laptop and some Spanish cash. Charged with nothing. Does 3 years in "Gitmo" without being charged or tried. Muuuuuuuuuuust be Al-Qaeda, right?
Ok so then if this guy is there? Then there are NO, none, ZERO Al-queda in Gitmo; and everyone should be set free?

How about this? Has anyone been released from Gitmo, been sent home to thier native country, then shown up in Afganistan with a weapon again?

Urban Rubble

21st June 2005, 03:16

Ok so then if this guy is there? Then there are NO, none, ZERO Al-queda in Gitmo; and everyone should be set free?

Do you actually read what people write or do you just reply based on what you think the average stereotypical leftist would say?

I never said there were no terrorists in "Gitmo" (I know saying Gitmo makes you feel all rugged like you're in the military, but it isn't that hard to type Guantanamo, that took about half a second). Actually, what I said was that there are probably a lot of disgusting people in there who deserve every bit of ill treatment they get, I make no excuses for people who murder innocent humans for political ends. However, as common sense will tell you, I don't want to see innocent people be caught up in that, thus I think it's fair to give them trials and decide who is guilty and who should be let go.

Since when does due process equate to "Let them all go without a trial"? We have a justice system in this country for a reason. It isn't because we think serial killers should be let go, or that we should give them any consideration at all. The reason we have a justice system is because sometimes people get accussed falsely, and since that sometimes happens there should be a way to ensure that innocent people don't rot in jail (or be tortured in an American gulag).

How about this? Has anyone been released from Gitmo, been sent home to thier native country, then shown up in Afganistan with a weapon again?

I don't know, why don't you tell me since you're obviously chomping at the bit?

Even if that had happened, is that an argument against due process? It seems to me that if they gave someone a trial, judged him innocent, sent him home and then found out they were wrong that is the fault of the prosecution in the case, not the legal system.

I mean, are you actually arguing that people shouldn't be given trials when accused of a crime? Does this only go for political terrorists or does this apply to all criminals?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

21st June 2005, 07:37

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 21 2005, 03:16 AM

Ok so then if this guy is there? Then there are NO, none, ZERO Al-queda in Gitmo; and everyone should be set free?

Do you actually read what people write or do you just reply based on what you think the average stereotypical leftist would say?

I never said there were no terrorists in "Gitmo" (I know saying Gitmo makes you feel all rugged like you're in the military, but it isn't that hard to type Guantanamo, that took about half a second). Actually, what I said was that there are probably a lot of disgusting people in there who deserve every bit of ill treatment they get, I make no excuses for people who murder innocent humans for political ends. However, as common sense will tell you, I don't want to see innocent people be caught up in that, thus I think it's fair to give them trials and decide who is guilty and who should be let go.

Since when does due process equate to "Let them all go without a trial"? We have a justice system in this country for a reason. It isn't because we think serial killers should be let go, or that we should give them any consideration at all. The reason we have a justice system is because sometimes people get accussed falsely, and since that sometimes happens there should be a way to ensure that innocent people don't rot in jail (or be tortured in an American gulag).

How about this? Has anyone been released from Gitmo, been sent home to thier native country, then shown up in Afganistan with a weapon again?

I don't know, why don't you tell me since you're obviously chomping at the bit?

Even if that had happened, is that an argument against due process? It seems to me that if they gave someone a trial, judged him innocent, sent him home and then found out they were wrong that is the fault of the prosecution in the case, not the legal system.

I mean, are you actually arguing that people shouldn't be given trials when accused of a crime? Does this only go for political terrorists or does this apply to all criminals?
Eheeem. Fair trails in the Constitution only applies to US CITIZENS, inside US borders.

LSD

21st June 2005, 07:47

Eheeem. Fair trails in the Constitution only applies to US CITIZENS

Where did you get that from?!? :blink:

Originally posted by US Constitution Article 3; section 2+--> (US Constitution Article 3; section 2)The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.[/b]

US Constitution Ammendment IV
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

inside US borders.

Many people at Guantanamo were captured "inside US borders".

As for the rest, well, they're within US borders now!

Now that they are on US soil they are afforded all rights that anyone else, prisoner or otherwise, accused or otherwise, is afforded.

Well, at least that's how it's supposed to work... <_<

Urban Rubble

21st June 2005, 08:20

Eheeem. Fair trails in the Constitution only applies to US CITIZENS, inside US borders.

Well, as the poster before me just pointed out, what you just said is wrong in every possible way.

And regardless of what our Constitution says, are you telling me you disagree with the right to due process? Are you saying it should only be applied to Americans?

Why don't you try to actually debate what I said. You continue to ignore entire posts and reply with one line statements that are usually proven incorrect within a post or two. What is your reason for being here? It isn't debate. At least guys like Pubilus form arguments and respond to direct statements.

You really are worthless.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

22nd June 2005, 03:33

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 21 2005, 08:20 AM

Eheeem. Fair trails in the Constitution only applies to US CITIZENS, inside US borders.

Well, as the poster before me just pointed out, what you just said is wrong in every possible way.

And regardless of what our Constitution says, are you telling me you disagree with the right to due process? Are you saying it should only be applied to Americans?

Why don't you try to actually debate what I said. You continue to ignore entire posts and reply with one line statements that are usually proven incorrect within a post or two. What is your reason for being here? It isn't debate. At least guys like Pubilus form arguments and respond to direct statements.

You really are worthless.
No. I'm am merely stating a non-debatable fact:

US Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens inside US borders.

What ever rights forgeiners have at Gitmo is not defined legally or basically they have what ever rights we decide they have. What ever we do with them and thier 'rights' is what ever we want to do. They basically don't have the right to due process in a US court. I say we give them the same justice they would experince in thier native country, for example: Sauidis, get a religious tribunal and judgement in 5 minutes. If found guilty by thier standards then we apply thier punishment, which is typically death by beheadding. How do you like that justice?