Let's Help GWB and Rove Out With Their Propoganda

So, for the five hundredth time, why aren't the Guantanomo Bay prisoners being tried (and executed as necessary)?

Why are german spies active in the US given more access to the judicial system than people captured in a foreign country attacked by the US and it's allies?

Trust me, I read all your other posts, obfuscation and all - and you still haven't answered my question.

0 Replies

Could it be because some people think that they cannot be tried since they do not fall under the GC or the US Constitution?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Could it be because some people think that they cannot be tried since they do not fall under the GC or the US Constitution?

Ok, so your saying they haven't committed a crime?

0 Replies

Or how about this one, Sir?

On July 15, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Bush administration on the use of military commissions to try prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The unanimous decision of the three-judge appeals court panel overturned a November, 2004 ruling by US District Court Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Hahmed Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

Judge Robertson's ruling forced the US government to put on hold all cases before its military commissions, also known as military tribunals. The Bush administration welcomed Friday's reversal by the appeals court as opening the way for it to proceed with its military trials of Guantánamo prisone

0 Replies

What are the charges?

The vast majority of Guantanamo inmates have not been charged. Your sourceless quote, if true, does not preclude charging.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

So, for the five hundredth time, why aren't the Guantanomo Bay prisoners being tried (and executed as necessary)?

Why are german spies active in the US given more access to the judicial system than people captured in a foreign country attacked by the US and it's allies?

Trust me, I read all your other posts, obfuscation and all - and you still haven't answered my question.

I don't know? But if we can't answer the question I suppose we have to admit at some point what we are doing.

Does this make them political prisoners?

If they were enemy combatants we would have charged them by now right? Hell, I don't know, What the hell are they? I suppose we don't know

Suspects!

political prisoner
n.
A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I am very much afraid that you did not read my previous post- The US Constitution was written to protect the citizens of the United States. When the US is at war, the Geneva Convention applies,but only to those who are uniformed and under a hierarchy of known leaders who are ultimately responsible for the soldiers under their command. The Terrorists at Gitmo do not fall under those rubrics.

You may be aware that in World War II, three German Saboteurs landed on US shores by Submarine. They were discovered, tried and executed.

Why?

They were not covered by the GC since they were not uniformed!

Complete malarky there Bernard..

The constitution does NOT restrict the rights to citizens only.

Quote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Person does NOT mean citizen in the constitution. Read THIS statement.

Quote:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States

It is OBVIOUS that "person" doesn't mean "citizen" from the number of times the constitution differentiates between person and citizen.

0 Replies

Quote:

If they were enemy combatants we would have charged them by now right?

Charged them with what?
There is law,and the GC is quite clear,about how enemy POW's are supposed to be treated.
IF the people being held in Gitmo were actually soldiers,then the GC would apply,and they would be accorded the rights and priveleges that ALL captured SOLDIERS are allowed.
The operating word is SOLDIERS.

As I understand it,these people do not meet any of the GC requirements to be classified as soldiers,or to get the protections of the GC.

Since they were captured wearing civilian clothes,and since many of them are suspected of being "illegal combatants",they could be classified as partisans,guerilla fighters,spies,resistance fighters,etc.

Now,the GC does NOT give people that fit those classifications any protected status,neither does the US military rules of engagement.
Legally,these people can be shot,as happened during WW2,Korea,and Vietnam.
We havent done that to them (that I know of),so they are better off than if we used a literal interpretation of the rules.

0 Replies

If they aren't POWs then they must be illegal combatants. As illegal combatants they should be charged and tried. German saboteurs were charged and tried as illegal combatants under US law in WW2.

Of course many of those at Gitmo were released which begs the question of whether they were illegal to begin with. Why would we release people that could be shot without a trial according to you?

(For now we will ignore US law and international treaties that US is party to that REQUIRE trials.)

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Since they were captured wearing civilian clothes,and since many of them are suspected of being "illegal combatants",they could be classified as partisans,guerilla fighters,spies,resistance fighters,etc.

For f*ck's sake - I'm not asking for the GC (read the thread), I'm asking them to be charged. You say yourself "SINCE MANY OF THEM ARE SUSPECTED..."

SUSPECTED!!!!

I think five years is enough time to confirm suspicions.

How come all the British citizens in Guantanamo were released?

What a coincidence, the poms just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the rest are clearly an ongoing threat.

What do you think will happen. They'll just leave them there forever? Does that not make you wonder?

By your logic any non-uniformed alleged combatant who had the audacity to be where an American invasionary force turned up should still be in prison. How many viet cong are still in american prisons?

I cannot believe the double standard here.

I'm not saying they are guilty or innocent of anything - I'm just saying find out which and act accordingly. WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG?

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Since they were captured wearing civilian clothes,and since many of them are suspected of being "illegal combatants",they could be classified as partisans,guerilla fighters,spies,resistance fighters,etc.

For f*ck's sake - I'm not asking for the GC (read the thread), I'm asking them to be charged. You say yourself "SINCE MANY OF THEM ARE SUSPECTED..."

SUSPECTED!!!!

I think five years is enough time to confirm suspicions.

How come all the British citizens in Guantanamo were released?

What a coincidence, the poms just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the rest are clearly an ongoing threat.

What do you think will happen. They'll just leave them there forever? Does that not make you wonder?

By your logic any non-uniformed alleged combatant who had the audacity to be where an American invasionary force turned up should still be in prison. How many viet cong are still in american prisons?

I cannot believe the double standard here.

I'm not saying they are guilty or innocent of anything - I'm just saying find out which and act accordingly. WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG?

You are asking good questions,and I would like them answered also.
I was simply pointing out,that even if they are only "suspected" of something,because they were captured in a combat situation,the US is not obliged to release them or charge them.
They can be legally held until the end of hostilities.

0 Replies

Which, luckily for them, is just around the corner! Laughing

0 Replies

Because of Bush's master plan to ensure world victory?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I was simply pointing out,that even if they are only "suspected" of something,because they were captured in a combat situation,the US is not obliged to release them or charge them.

Heh - I wonder for how many of them the 'combat situation' was cowering in a bunker after an air bombardment. As far as I can see the crime of many was 'playing' mujahadeen and having towels wrapped 'round their heads (which may constitute a 'uniform').

mysteryman wrote:

They can be legally held until the end of hostilities.

Two things on that MM - I don't see anything legal about it, nor does your government - which is why they aren't on US soil, and secondly; What hostilities in particular? These guys were captured in Afghanistan, a country now blessed with UN/US instated 'Democracy'. Are we now waiting for victory in Iraq? (I know Squinney, it's coming soon!) Or Iran, Syria or the Sudan?

The arbitrariness of it all is what gets me. There is no process, no transparency, no honesty. If you descend to your enemy's level, what have you won?

100,000 iraqi dead now - is that enough pay back for 911?

0 Replies

A new story out claims that over 50% of those in Gitmo were not found on a battlefield at all. Many of them were turned in for a reward. Turn in your neigbhor and get $500. Yeah.. they were found on a battlefield. What a bunch of BS.

http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=3405

It links to the original story.

0 Replies

Parados and Hingehead--Read and comment, if you will:

May 11, 2006

Guantanamo Dossier
About this dossier
This dossier documents the policy of the United States with regard to U.S. facilities in Guantanamo Bay.

In a nutshell
Unlawful enemy combatants The White House determined in February 2002 that Taliban detainees are covered under the Geneva Conventions, while Al Qaeda detainees are not, but that none of the detainees qualifies for the status of prisoner of war (POW) under the Conventions. The Bush Administration has deemed all of the detainees to be "unlawful enemy combatants," who may, according to Administration officials, be held indefinitely without trial or even were they eventually acquitted by a military tribunal. However, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been allowed to meet with representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and diplomatic representatives of their States of nationality.

Combatant Status Review Tribunals After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear legal challenges on behalf of more than 500 persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in connection with the war against terrorism, the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants.

link

http://www.uspolicy.be/issues/guantanamo.asp
***********************************************************

The detainees are being allowed to contest their status as enemy combatants. No, they are not being beheaded, Islamo-Fascist style, they are able to contest their status because we are country of laws.

We are not savages who capture innocent people,torture them and then decapitate them.

0 Replies

No we hold them for years without telling them the charges against them.

Sounds like a lot of 3rd world dictators.

One of the very things the founders were very much against. Its why they wrote it into the constitution.

0 Replies

Mr.Parados.sir---If you read my post, you will note that the "rule of law" is indeed being followed. The Supreme Court did rule that the US courts have jurisdiction to hear legal challenges on behalf of more than 500 prisoners and now, the Pentagon established administrative hearings called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants.

This was clearly laid out in the post previous to yours, but in case you missed it, I am replicating it.

Your concern about the constitution is admirable but it is the Supreme Court, as you will note in the paragraph above) which ruled.

May I respectfully suggest that you lobby the ACLU or another defender of human rights to reopen the case?

I do not think they will do so since they are skilled enough in law that they are aware that the Supreme Court has spoken and little can be done to reverse their ruling. It is called Stare Decisis.

0 Replies

The courts ruled on it only after the President worked long and hard to keep the courts from even getting the cases.

If the President wasn't challenged NO ONE would have had a day in court.

0 Replies

So, in a nutshell, this White House authored it's own legal definitions (see the writings of Alberto{Shoot, a little torture is okay}Gonzalez, applied those in whatever method seemed expedient in order to limit the interaction of any other country on the planet- an action that seemed odd for a country in need of it's vast "coalition allies"- and delayed the intercession of the Supreme Court for as long as possible in order to achieve what?

Valuable timely intelligence? Hardly. Deep insights into the day to day working of Al Queda? Not according to the transcripts of the few examinations we have been able to read. (Detainee dug two trench latrines, was shown a AK-47... .) A length of time in a secure location to re-educate the detainees to the worthiness of our cause? Um... no.

By the way, what the Supreme Court essentially said was that the entire operation- the classification of the detainees as anything other than POWs, the detention outside the both the boundaries of the country of origin and of the US AND the complete incommunicado imprisonment of those same individuals violated US Law.

Hence, yes, NOW some 500 will get some kind of -and here is a peculiar set of words that mean something more than the ordinary or they used to---- American Justice.

---Do you know what word young angry third world protesters shout?

Guantánamo.

Joe(They will be shouting it for a generation)Nation

0 Replies

Let's Help GWB and Rove Out With Their Propoganda

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know