Guantanamo detainees not enemy combatants, says U.S. court

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you’re assuming guilt based on incarceration.
The only thing I’ve stated related to this is file charge and prosecute or free them. This essentially means release the innocent. I don’t care about the guilty, they deserve punishment.
Using cut off the head is a reactionary approach to this debate. How many heads have been cut off?
Set aside your emotion for a bit. Weigh the evidence then construct an objective unbiased opinion.

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
You have made no claims to actually having first hand experience at Guantanamo. Even if you were a guard at Gitmo that still wouldn’t give special knowledge on the lack of due process.
Being shot at or being a resident of an embassy bombing certainly are horrible experiences. But, those experiences give you no special insight on Guantanamo. You simply are revenge motivated.
Again, nobody here is defending terrorists. We do have a concern there MAY be innocent people being held for years with no trial and no opportunity for representation. Effectively complete inability to prove their innocence.

Foresttoday wrote:

<quoted text>
The court has no place on territory owned by another country.
( I once again repeat what I said and at least 4 members of the court agree with my thoughts.)

( Once again, I agree with you on this as that is what I said. Just not our Civilian laws.)

Not at all, or are you suggesting the US federal government is a rogue government and that it answers to no laws when it operates outside the territory of the USofA.
( You do not make any sense with this statement.)

(just as happens in our U.S. system),

(You have no idea what a Gulag consisted of or you would not even bring it into this conversation)(I find that remark very sad)

(If I am dumb enough to be in a position of where I am arrested for high crimes against the U.S. Government, then I am ready for the lock up.)

(You are right, we should just stand back and let rogue nations

do what they please and wave that index finger at them.

Iraq was thumbing its nose at the U.N. mandates and even Saddam said that he was putting on a good show to convince people he had WMD’s and just lately it does come out that he had and there was found “Yellow Cake” but does our newsmedia put that on the front page, no somewhere back on page 7-8 or futher.

erg wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll try to keep this simple. The laws of the United States apply anywhere the US government has a presence or is under US jurisdiction. That is what the USSC ruled, whether 4 justices agree with you or not is irrelevant, 5 did not.
<quoted text>
There is military law, civilian (civil and penal) law and admiralty law. Military law is not applicable to civilians. What law are you referring to then?
<quoted text>
What part confuses you? A government that does not answer to it's own law would be generally accepted as a rogue government. If any faction of the US government operates outside the US, are you stating that it answers to no law and that it can do as it damn well pleases? Not quite an American attitude.
<quoted text>
That is no excuse.
<quoted text>
I don't? How exactly do you know? I find your attitude both sad and anti-American.
<quoted text>
It matters not whether you are dumb or an evil genius, it matters what one person (The President) thinks. Whether it's true or false can be determined in 10-15 years? That is what you seem to think is acceptable when it's actually pathetic. And yes, it is a Gulag.
<quoted text>
So you do understand what a rogue nation is.
<quoted text>
Yet we should be able to so as we please with impunity? Pot, kettle, black.
<quoted text>
We thumb our nose at UN mandates, Israel has been doing it since 1948, so what? Saddam was never a threat to the US in any way, form or manner. You can produce all the excuses in the universe and that fact does not change.
And if all of this "yellow cake" has been found, why hasn't the Bush Maladministration hoisted it up for review? Yep, more BS. Seems like you've not learned to filter it out yet.

Anathema wrote:

<quoted text>
At this point I have to assume that English is not your first language, since you are making less sense.
Learn English.

erg wrote:

<quoted text>

Foresttoday wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you must be having a bad day, I feel sorry for you that you must take every comment so seriously.

However, as to the yellow Cake, until it was moved it was very wise of our President to take his shots from you and all the other people that hate our President. If he had made it known to early, every terorist in the country would have been trying to get their hands on it.

You really are not thinking too well on this and we are off target on this so I will drop it as it must not be too important for you to not realize that we would have been painting a large bulls eye on the backs of every GI or Marine guarding it once it became known.

I for one admire the man for not letting it out until it was moved. I also thank God, the president is a man of honor and willing to take a little heat instead of putting our military in the line of fire.

Lighten up, you will live a longer life.

Foresttoday wrote:

<quoted text>
My comment:(You have no idea what a Gulag consisted of or you would not even bring it into this conversation)(I find that remark very sad)
Your comment: I don't? How exactly do you know? I find your attitude both sad and anti-American.
My father-in-Law is a general in the Ukrainian army, he was a colonel in the Red Army when they opened the gates to Berlin at the end of the Great Patriot War. If I could only put into English what he has told me, but i am still learning, so I need a translator. But, the Gulags were a terrible place, and would make a fair comparison to Hitlers concentration camps. People were used as slaves, in some, as experimental humans in others and on and on. Nothing as tame as water boarding or name calling or being stripped naked and made fun of by women. Very few people got out of the Gulags alive, and anyone that tried to excape could not beg food or shelter from citizens or the citizen and his or her family would be eliminated, no trials, no courts, no questions.

roofgoof wrote:

<quoted text>
\
you are correct. i was never stationed at gitmo, and i never said i was. my comments for the most part are based on first hand experiences dealing with terrorists, mainly in the middle east.even the UCMJ provides for legal representation. revenge can be a motivating factor,however the only one here that is really motivated by revenge here is the current president.

erg wrote:

<quoted text>
What happens within the Gulag is irrelevant, the purpose of it's existence is what's relevant. Whether it's nice or not doesn't excuse barbarous and unjustified incarceration. That is one of the differences between America and the rest of the planet. Read the Declaration of Independence.

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
We’re in full agreement on Bush. Only about 6 months to go and he’s history. Let’s hope he doesn’t start another war before leaving office.
I didn’t state you were a guard at Gitmo, I stated even if you were it wouldn’t give you special knowledge on the current topic.

Unperson _911 wrote:

911 was an inside job.There were no planes.Watch 911 Taboo,September Clues,911 Mathematics,911 Octopus,South Tower Anomalies 3 and other great truth documentaries.

eternal cynic wrote:

The military may not go around arresting people because they have nothing better to do. But, they have and do arrest people because of their proximity to an incident. They have arrested people based on the accusations of others. They’ve arrested many people based on circumstantial evidence. This sounds very familiar, our various police agencies in this country do the very same thing. There is a difference though, the suspects are afforded legal representation. This is the point you continue to miss.
Your experience doesn’t give you an insight on the zealousness of “these people”. Your experience gives you an insight on the zealousness of *SOME* of “these people”.

roofgoof wrote:

<quoted text>
but they are afforded legal representation just not necessarily civillian lawyers, as per the JAG of the us navy
heres the website
http://www.jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG/Vol.1GTMO%20Co...
now you can believe what you want but these "people are being afforded legal representation.

erg wrote:

<quoted text>
What happens within the Gulag is irrelevant, the purpose of it's existence is what's relevant. Whether it's nice or not doesn't excuse barbarous and unjustified incarceration. That is one of the differences between America and the rest of the planet. Read the Declaration of Independence.

No Mercy wrote:

The court's wrong!
What a surprise...I just know that the justices can't read historic cases that are the opposite precedent.

Danniboy wrote:

<quoted text>
It most certainly is. And people like Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin are up there with Kant and Voltaire (if not quite Aristotle) as some of the most influential Liberal theorists of all time. And they are because they valued the Latin root of liberalism - liber, freedom. As opposed to conservat(us)- to keep the same or to preserve in the same condition.
Isn't it sad and scary how the ideals and principles that founded the United States are now a curse on so many people's lips? I'm not quite sure whose agenda is served by that but they have done an amazing job at turning people against what they once, and for some reason think they still do, hold so dear.
Mark the words - if people who hate liberal ideals these days were as powerful a few hundred years ago, the United States would not have declared independence from the British, there would be no separation of powers, the country would still practise slavery and would refuse women the vote. Every single one of these things was achieved by a recognised liberal (generally more than one). It is worth thinking about those things before saying liberal is automatically bad and conservative is good.
I truly do mourn for the principles US has lost. It is one of the greatest tragedies of modern times that the place that once described itself as the Land of the Free now throws people in prison for years without charge or trial and even sadder that people in the street think it is somehow good. The saddest part is that those people are probably some of the most proud when they sing the song that ends with 'Land of the Free'...
Hopefully it isn't a permanent loss. Until then, my pity is with the country.

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
In your opinion it appears the judges are clueless. You know this because you’ve read a story or two, you’ve watched a few short segments on television and you have a gut feeling. All of that is fine, but you don’t have all the information to make such a determination.
Do you think the court was working with the same information you and I have available? They most likely had volumes of information to review. Judges are REQUIRED to uphold our laws, they’re our safety valve against unjust imprisonment and sometimes even unjust laws.
These are educated people. They’re required to review the evidence, review current law and render a legal decision. Not make a political or popular decision.
Our government, like you and I are bound by a set of rules. Like us our government is required to follow the rules.
This leaves us with are you content if our government violates the laws of this nation? Do you think it’s appropriate our government violate the Constitution simply because the prison is in Cuba? While the detainees aren’t granted rights under the US Constitution the government is bound to grant them rights because our government is bound by the Constitution.
There have been two recent rulings regarding the detainees. This one and a recent Supreme Court ruling on 6/12/08. Like with that ruling people like you misunderstand the intent. The 6/12 ruling required the government to file charges or release prisoners. It DOESN’T require all prisoners be released.
The ruling simply changes the status of the prisoners. Initially the Bush Administration referred to them as prisoners of war. That status because inconvenient because then the third Geneva Convention would apply granting the prisoners of war certain rights under a treaty our nation signed.
We as proud Americans claim to have the market cornered on morality and human rights. How moral are we when our nation violates it’s own laws and violates basic human rights? The Bush administration has done substantial damage to our reputation. People such as yourself seem to think we follow the law only when it’s convenient. No, we must follow the law all the time, as should our government.
The courts appear to have made the correct decision. The people the courts are attempting protect didn’t attack us. You, like many others make the assumption they did attack us. The courts are simply sending the message charge them with crimes and prove them to be guilty or let them go.
Now, I suppose my opinion that our government should follow the law is liberal. If you deem that to be true then I’ll be proud to stand as a liberal.