SuicideGirls > Boards > Current Events > Guantanamo suspects have right to challenge . . .

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA

January 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:20 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
It's plain as day given that statistic that we're making sure we capture the right guys and release the wrong ones.

Good. Then you have some evidence and can charge them, right? Right?

There's a gap between being held because your a security risk (which is far easier to prove), and being tried and found guilty in a court of law. It's quite possible a detainee may be a security risk (maybe he has knowledge of bomb making, or terrorist plots or something, or maybe he's an important cog in the machine), and still be legally innocent (he didn't actually go out and blow some one up).

Here's another thing to think about: By having captured terrorists being tried in a civilian court, that's more favorable than trying them by a military war tribunal. And when you consider their unlawful combatant status, that they hide among civilians, that they commit acts like suicide bombing (not to mention what they do in the few instances that they capture one of our guys), they should at the very least be treated as regular war criminals. So, your basically rewarding people for not following the accepted rules of warfare. Take off your insignia, hide among non-combantants so our side might accidently kill some of them too, and bam! You go from Military Tribunal to Criminal Court. And as we all know, you get more of the behavior you reward.

Man, you're really not paying attention, are you? Let me break this down:
Johnson v. Eisentrager established in 1945 that an enemy alien, and particularly an enemy combatant wasn't allowed habeas corpus access to U.S. courts. So, Boumediene, which doesn't in any way overturn Eisentrager, specifically does not give enemy alien 'terrorists' the constitutional privileges that we enjoy. It does not mean the military does not need to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean enemy combatants captured in the theater of war will have full access to our court system. They will not be treated like civilians. Jack Bauer can still torture them to keep L.A. from blowing up.

The case simply means that when asked why the detainees are enemy combatants, the executive branch can no longer reply 'because we said so.' Enemy combatants aren't getting any new rights here, we're just recognizing that the executive branch can no longer declare open season on foreign nationals by making an unsubstantiated claim that they are enemy combatants.

Why do you hate freedom?

Ascanius

South Royalton, VT

October 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:27 PM

RudieCantFail said:

Why do you hate freedom?

Because 'freedom kissing' will never be as good as the French kind.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:45 PM

Ascanius said:

RudieCantFail said:

Why do you hate freedom?

Because 'freedom kissing' will never be as good as the French kind.

Apparently you weren't aware that the French invented freedom fries.

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA

January 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:50 PM

Ascanius said:

RudieCantFail said:

Why do you hate freedom?

Because 'freedom kissing' will never be as good as the French kind.

I think you need a 'freedom search'.

OneWithAll

Charlton City, MA

October 2005

JUN 20, 2008 12:16 PM

how do you spin this?

The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.

"It's sort of an admission that the original returns were defective," said attorney David Remes, who represents many detainees and attended Wednesday's meeting. "It's also an admission that the government thinks it needs to beef up the evidence."

"They're not just talking about making a little supplement where they've learned something new," said attorney Charles H. Carpenter, who was in the meeting. "They're talking about possibly amending every single one."

LSlice

Montclair, NJ

December 2007

JUN 20, 2008 01:30 PM

Sergeant Psycho: Here is the crux of it. In the absence ofof habeas corpus, there is no check on the executive branch's ability to hold someone. All you have to go on is trust that the executive branch is doing the right thing. While you personally may trust Bush, would you trust any furture president, regardless of who they may be or what their political affiliation is, with this power? If so, why?

coyotemike

Kearney, NE

May 2006

JUN 20, 2008 01:51 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
It's plain as day given that statistic that we're making sure we capture the right guys and release the wrong ones. Likewise, it's logical to assume that a good number of dangerous detainees will be released on a technicality, or something of that nature, and then re-enter circulation.

Really? We're capturing the right ones? So, that must be why we've released nearly 2/3 of the prisoners held there, mostly after keeping them there for 5 years.

How would you like to disappear for 5 years for the simple reasons that your neighbors didn't like you and could make a few dollars by turning you in as a "terrorist."

LSlice

Montclair, NJ

December 2007

JUN 20, 2008 01:53 PM

coyotemike said:

SergeantPsycho said:
It's plain as day given that statistic that we're making sure we capture the right guys and release the wrong ones. Likewise, it's logical to assume that a good number of dangerous detainees will be released on a technicality, or something of that nature, and then re-enter circulation.

Really? We're capturing the right ones? So, that must be why we've released nearly 2/3 of the prisoners held there, mostly after keeping them there for 5 years.

How would you like to disappear for 5 years for the simple reasons that your neighbors didn't like you and could make a few dollars by turning you in as a "terrorist."

Well theoretically, you couldn't since you're not a foreign national. But without habeas corpus, there is no way to challenge your designation as such.

felony187

Denver, CO

June 2007

JUN 20, 2008 01:59 PM

LSlice said:

coyotemike said:

SergeantPsycho said:
It's plain as day given that statistic that we're making sure we capture the right guys and release the wrong ones. Likewise, it's logical to assume that a good number of dangerous detainees will be released on a technicality, or something of that nature, and then re-enter circulation.

Really? We're capturing the right ones? So, that must be why we've released nearly 2/3 of the prisoners held there, mostly after keeping them there for 5 years.

How would you like to disappear for 5 years for the simple reasons that your neighbors didn't like you and could make a few dollars by turning you in as a "terrorist."

Well theoretically, you couldn't since you're not a foreign national. But without habeas corpus, there is no way to challenge your designation as such.

It's called a hypothetical statement, meant to imply a point. And Senor Coyotemiguel it was a very fine hypothetical statement.

SockPuppet

I'm lost

July 2006

JUN 20, 2008 05:20 PM

Torture at Guantanamo reported.

Medical examinations of former terror suspects held by US troops showed proof of physical and psychological torture, a US-based human rights group said.

SockPuppet

I'm lost

July 2006

JUN 20, 2008 06:10 PM

Toku666 said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Toku666 said:
That's the amazing thing about Sarge's new argument. Why on earth would one think that you couldn't find a non-juried venue that would have the clearance to try these cases? Or, failing that, as has been pointed out several times, create one?

WAKE UP and look things up before you type, Sarge! You're only hurting yourself by hurling the circular invective at this situation.

You certainly didn't look anything up about the detainee rentention rate at Gitmo before going on to paint it as Bush's personal gulag where random people are locked up forever. It's plain as day given that statistic that we're making sure we capture the right guys and release the wrong ones. Likewise, it's logical to assume that a good number of dangerous detainees will be released on a technicality, or something of that nature, and then re-enter circulation. Besides, it's not like our courts are perfect, unless you believe that OJ didn't kill his wife.

Don't put words in my mouth, cock-nugget.

I can give a fuck about the detainee retention rate. People have been held there, WRONGLY, for more than five years. So what is "plain as day" to me is (and I'm going to repeat myself here, because you obviously have some kind of neuron calcification) we released the wrong ones (TWO-THIRDS of them, so far) after FIVE fucking years. Five years. Here's an idea: go put yourself in a box for five years and don't do anything but eat shitty food and watch some TV. Then come back and let us know what that did for you. In normal circumstances I would expect it would effect a change in your point of view, but, Sarge, this is you we're talking about, so:

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

...and congratulations on the new user pic. It makes you look exactly like the brain-dead mutant zombie that you are. You actually looked like you could maybe be an okay guy in your old one.

I applaud. Loudly.

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA

March 2004

JUN 20, 2008 08:37 PM

Toku666 said:
Five years. Here's an idea: go put yourself in a box for five years and don't do anything but eat shitty food and watch some TV.

don't forget to have someone waterboard you every day and question you about crimes you didn't commit.

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA

August 2005

JUN 20, 2008 08:46 PM

SockPuppet said:

Toku666 said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Toku666 said:
That's the amazing thing about Sarge's new argument. Why on earth would one think that you couldn't find a non-juried venue that would have the clearance to try these cases? Or, failing that, as has been pointed out several times, create one?

WAKE UP and look things up before you type, Sarge! You're only hurting yourself by hurling the circular invective at this situation.

You certainly didn't look anything up about the detainee rentention rate at Gitmo before going on to paint it as Bush's personal gulag where random people are locked up forever. It's plain as day given that statistic that we're making sure we capture the right guys and release the wrong ones. Likewise, it's logical to assume that a good number of dangerous detainees will be released on a technicality, or something of that nature, and then re-enter circulation. Besides, it's not like our courts are perfect, unless you believe that OJ didn't kill his wife.

Don't put words in my mouth, cock-nugget.

I can give a fuck about the detainee retention rate. People have been held there, WRONGLY, for more than five years. So what is "plain as day" to me is (and I'm going to repeat myself here, because you obviously have some kind of neuron calcification) we released the wrong ones (TWO-THIRDS of them, so far) after FIVE fucking years. Five years. Here's an idea: go put yourself in a box for five years and don't do anything but eat shitty food and watch some TV. Then come back and let us know what that did for you. In normal circumstances I would expect it would effect a change in your point of view, but, Sarge, this is you we're talking about, so:

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

...and congratulations on the new user pic. It makes you look exactly like the brain-dead mutant zombie that you are. You actually looked like you could maybe be an okay guy in your old one.

I applaud. Loudly.

I'm a one-man standing ovation over here.

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Intercourse, PA

January 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:20 PM

South Royalton, VT

October 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:27 PM

Germany

July 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:45 PM

Intercourse, PA

January 2006

JUN 15, 2008 08:50 PM

Charlton City, MA

October 2005

JUN 20, 2008 12:16 PM

Montclair, NJ

December 2007

JUN 20, 2008 01:30 PM

Kearney, NE

May 2006

JUN 20, 2008 01:51 PM

Montclair, NJ

December 2007

JUN 20, 2008 01:53 PM

Denver, CO

June 2007

JUN 20, 2008 01:59 PM

I'm lost

July 2006

JUN 20, 2008 05:20 PM

I'm lost

July 2006

JUN 20, 2008 06:10 PM

Pittsburgh, PA

March 2004

JUN 20, 2008 08:37 PM

San Diego, CA

August 2005

JUN 20, 2008 08:46 PM