Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Forums: Legal, Politics, Terrorism, International-Politics, World-Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The folks in Gitmo shouldn't be allowed to petition the US cort system. They are not being held in civilian jails, are not US citizens and were not caught on US soil. Let the military handle them just as it always has.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,262 • Replies: 72

No top replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Baldimo wrote:

Let the military handle them just as it always has.

Certainly. But they don't and didn't get the status of POW's.

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Let the military handle them just as it always has.

Certainly. But they don't and didn't get the status of POW's.

They would have to be POW to get that status. Being unlawful combatants they don't fall under those rules.

0 Replies

Thats your opinion.

But interesting re "let the military handle them just as it always has".

Btw: you made a typo in your headline: the FOX-headline (not quoted) as well as the quoted report say "Guantanamo Bay detainees" and not terrorists.

0 Replies

What the Bush administration needs to do is to publicly withdraw from any US honoring of the Geneva Conventions, and just get it over with.

Because according the the Geneva Conventions, there is no such category of prisoner as "enemy combattant", simply prisoners of war.

This administration cannot continue to flout "democracy" abroad and do what it does to these men at Gitmo without the entire world seeing what complete, sleazy hypocrites they are when it comes to true human rights.

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Baldimo wrote:

The folks in Gitmo [..] are not being held in civilian jails, are not US citizens and were not caught on US soil.

Plus, according to your thread title, they are all "terrorists" - even though the vast majority of them have never been tried, or even been charged, and the US has already been forced to let a number of them go without charging them with anything.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thats your opinion.

But interesting re "let the military handle them just as it always has".

Btw: you made a typo in your headline: the FOX-headline (not quoted) as well as the quoted report say "Guantanamo Bay detainees" and not terrorists.

It's immature to point out typo's Walter. Especially when you make plenty yourself.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's immature to point out typo's Walter. Especially when you make plenty yourself.

Yessir.

And as pointed out later as well as nimh noted - terrorsts isn't mentioned at all in that report's headline.
Sir.

Beg you pardon.

Sir.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thats your opinion.

But interesting re "let the military handle them just as it always has".

Btw: you made a typo in your headline: the FOX-headline (not quoted) as well as the quoted report say "Guantanamo Bay detainees" and not terrorists.

It's immature to point out typo's Walter. Especially when you make plenty yourself.

Its "typos," not "typo's."

0 Replies

It is in Baldimo's thread title though.

I didn't realize that posters needed to make a thread title the same as an article titled found within the thread.

Maybe that is a European thing?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thats your opinion.

But interesting re "let the military handle them just as it always has".

Btw: you made a typo in your headline: the FOX-headline (not quoted) as well as the quoted report say "Guantanamo Bay detainees" and not terrorists.

It's immature to point out typo's Walter. Especially when you make plenty yourself.

Its "typos," not "typo's."

Not when I write it it's not.

0 Replies

I guess such antiquated concepts as "due process", "human rights" and "innocent until proven guilty" don't apply to foreigners. I recall the good old days when we imposed trade sanctions against countries that committed far less heinous acts. Of course, if so much as one of our citizens is held illegally in another country we scream bloody murder!

0 Replies

When you write it's snot.

Whoops! Another typo.

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

nimh wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
The folks in Gitmo [..] are not being held in civilian jails, are not US citizens and were not caught on US soil.

Plus, according to your thread title, they are all "terrorists" - even though the vast majority of them have never been tried, or even been charged, and the US has already been forced to let a number of them go without charging them with anything.

I forgot that terrorists wear uniforms and annouce who they are before killing people or walking the streets. That way you can always tell who the bad guys are.

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Baldimo wrote:

nimh wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
The folks in Gitmo [..] are not being held in civilian jails, are not US citizens and were not caught on US soil.

Plus, according to your thread title, they are all "terrorists" - even though the vast majority of them have never been tried, or even been charged, and the US has already been forced to let a number of them go without charging them with anything.

I forgot that terrorists wear uniforms and annouce who they are before killing people or walking the streets. That way you can always tell who the bad guys are.

So, you presume that people are guilty until charged with innocence?

I would ask those who think this is a good thing: do you believe that our (American) rights are inherent, or granted by fiat by our government?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
nimh wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
The folks in Gitmo [..] are not being held in civilian jails, are not US citizens and were not caught on US soil.

Plus, according to your thread title, they are all "terrorists" - even though the vast majority of them have never been tried, or even been charged, and the US has already been forced to let a number of them go without charging them with anything.

I forgot that terrorists wear uniforms and annouce who they are before killing people or walking the streets. That way you can always tell who the bad guys are.

So, you presume that people are guilty until charged with innocence?

I would ask those who think this is a good thing: do you believe that our (American) rights are inherent, or granted by fiat by our government?

Cycloptichorn

Why do you suppose he thinks that? Is always an all or none propsition with you lefties?

I presume that those in Gitmo are guilty until charged. That doesn't mena that I think that people are guilty until charged with innocence?

If they were not guilty, they would have been released with the rest of the chaff that has been released.

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
nimh wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
The folks in Gitmo [..] are not being held in civilian jails, are not US citizens and were not caught on US soil.

Plus, according to your thread title, they are all "terrorists" - even though the vast majority of them have never been tried, or even been charged, and the US has already been forced to let a number of them go without charging them with anything.

I forgot that terrorists wear uniforms and annouce who they are before killing people or walking the streets. That way you can always tell who the bad guys are.

So, you presume that people are guilty until charged with innocence?

I would ask those who think this is a good thing: do you believe that our (American) rights are inherent, or granted by fiat by our government?

Cycloptichorn

Why do you suppose he thinks that? Is always an all or none propsition with you lefties?

I presume that those in Gitmo are guilty until charged. That doesn't mena that I think that people are guilty until charged with innocence?

If they were not guilty, they would have been released with the rest of the chaff that has been released.

Sorry, I worded that badly; I meant to say,

'So, you presume that people are guilty until PROVEN innocent? '

I saw you write this tho -

Quote:

I presume that those in Gitmo are guilty until charged.

So, you presume that anyone the US gov't says is guilty, is guilty?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, you presume that anyone the US gov't says is guilty, is guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Nope. Not at all. I presume that the prisoners in Guantanamo bay are guilty. They are not anyone.

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, you presume that anyone the US gov't says is guilty, is guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Nope. Not at all. I presume that the prisoners in Guantanamo bay are guilty. They are not anyone.

So, you presume that anyone the US gov't sticks in Guantanamo bay is guilty?

On what do you base this presumption of guilt?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, you presume that anyone the US gov't says is guilty, is guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Nope. Not at all. I presume that the prisoners in Guantanamo bay are guilty. They are not anyone.

So, you presume that anyone the US gov't sticks in Guantanamo bay is guilty?

On what do you base this presumption of guilt?

Cycloptichorn

No.

Why do you insist on adding such stupid, vague concepts to what I am saying? Is getting a "gotcha" moment that important to you that you can't even grasp the simple statement I have made?

0 Replies

Court Vicrtory against terrorists.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know