RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five!

RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 3:42:24 PM)
and Merc, its funny your little cobbled up scenario, and if the constitution is that meaningless after the last 8 years, amd KSM gets a walk, then we aint got the aplomb to be a country. I've always said, this country could do even better than it does (at what it does good, which aint everything) with a couple of communists in the government. What they did is against the law of our nation and the globe. If that is somehow found to be technically in violatoin of my countrys law.....................

Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 3:44:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How you managed to wrap that around Bush is amazing. For once I agree with you, Holder made a complete ass of himself. My points to you are as follows. Firstly, why have you never held anyone in the Bush administration to the same standards you hold the Obama administration to ? Secondly, your comment about me holding Bush to account for everything seems a tad ironic with your zillion threads on Obama. Pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 3:47:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 . Many of those at Gitmo are not enemy combatants, but people kidnapped of the streets due to hearsay or rewards or personal vendettas. Which system do you suggest they get tried under ? How many is "many". What substantiation do you have for that claim. And ultimately, even if they were, it doesnt matter where they are tried, they will be acquitted.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 3:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 . Many of those at Gitmo are not enemy combatants, but people kidnapped of the streets due to hearsay or rewards or personal vendettas. Which system do you suggest they get tried under ? How many is "many". What substantiation do you have for that claim. And ultimately, even if they were, it doesnt matter where they are tried, they will be acquitted. and what substantiation do you have for that claim? Seems to me you been arguing a slippery slope out here that says, in effect, our constitution does not have the effect (in the us) or the force (in the world out large) of law. I say it does. Stand, sit, get the fuck out of the way.

Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 4:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 . Many of those at Gitmo are not enemy combatants, but people kidnapped of the streets due to hearsay or rewards or personal vendettas. Which system do you suggest they get tried under ? How many is "many". What substantiation do you have for that claim. And ultimately, even if they were, it doesnt matter where they are tried, they will be acquitted. The question being asked is how they should be tried, not if they will be aquitted or not. As for substantiating my point, I seem to recall posting a link on this from the someone in either the CIA or State Department. I will try and find it again for you.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 4:05:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 . Many of those at Gitmo are not enemy combatants, but people kidnapped of the streets due to hearsay or rewards or personal vendettas. Which system do you suggest they get tried under ? How many is "many". What substantiation do you have for that claim. And ultimately, even if they were, it doesnt matter where they are tried, they will be acquitted. The question being asked is how they should be tried, not if they will be aquitted or not. As for substantiating my point, I seem to recall posting a link on this from the someone in either the CIA or State Department. I will try and find it again for you. Ive already answered that question. It is up to the court that does try them to determine whether they were "kidnapped off the streets" or were enemy combatants. Obviously it is a military court that has jurisdiction.

Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 4:14:50 PM)
Juristiction ? You`re kidding me right ? How can any military court of any country have Juristiction over people kidnapped off the streets. The link below makes sobering reading, especially the numbers at the bottom. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/19/MNFH16JM02.DTL

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 4:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Juristiction ? You`re kidding me right ? How can any military court of any country have Juristiction over people kidnapped off the streets. The link below makes sobering reading, especially the numbers at the bottom. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/19/MNFH16JM02.DTL Siggghhhh. some court has to adjudicate the case, since according to you there are conflicts over who was or wasnt an enemy combatant. Since they were military detainees (rightfully or wrongfully) the military initially has jurisdiction. Then : "The attorney general doesn't have the authority to mandate that the secretary of Defense turn somebody over to him and yield jurisdiction so that something that would have been done in a military setting is done in a civilian setting," Ashcroft told the Christ Stigall show on KCMO radio this morning."

Mercnbeth -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 4:23:12 PM)
quote: Merc, its funny your little cobbled up scenario, and if the constitution is that meaningless after the last 8 years, amd KSM gets a walk, then we aint got the aplomb to be a country. Ron, My scenario occurring would back up the Constitution's provisions. One of the key ones being every 'citizen''s right to a fair trial. The decision was made to give KSM, those rights. The President says you're guilty and deserve to die - it can be argued that on a point of jury trail nullification. Just being pragmatic.

Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 4:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Juristiction ? You`re kidding me right ? How can any military court of any country have Juristiction over people kidnapped off the streets. The link below makes sobering reading, especially the numbers at the bottom. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/19/MNFH16JM02.DTL Siggghhhh. some court has to adjudicate the case, since according to you there are conflicts over who was or wasnt an enemy combatant. Since they were military detainees (rightfully or wrongfully) the military initially has jurisdiction. Then : "The attorney general doesn't have the authority to mandate that the secretary of Defense turn somebody over to him and yield jurisdiction so that something that would have been done in a military setting is done in a civilian setting," Ashcroft told the Christ Stigall show on KCMO radio this morning." So the CIA are now classed as military, I stand corrected if wrong but i thought they were part of the civil organisation. I cant and wont accept that people captured by the CIA can be deemed to have been captured on the battlefield, except in those cases where there is clear evidence of invlovement. Hearsay is not evidence.

TheHeretic -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/22/2009 9:16:24 PM)
Here's a development in the case: 9/11 defendants want platform for views It almost sounds like they are going to claim something like a "justifiable homicide" defense. Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/22/2009 9:55:10 PM)
and if they've been mirandized, they will be hung after the show.

TheHeretic -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/22/2009 10:05:29 PM)
Well, Ron, there might be a little problem, there. Do the Green Berets carry those little cards? There are probably going to be a lot of other little problems that would be avoided completely by keeping these assholes under military jurisdiction through the final phase.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/22/2009 10:11:34 PM)
Stuff and nonsense, and what do the green berets of yore have to do with anything? The miranda warnings were modeled after the military warnings and FBI warnings and in any case, Obama said that most of the detainees at Gitmo were mirandized and further said that Bush administration had mirandized most to the Gitmo detainees as well. if they stand in court and confess................

rulemylife -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/22/2009 11:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 . Many of those at Gitmo are not enemy combatants, but people kidnapped of the streets due to hearsay or rewards or personal vendettas. Which system do you suggest they get tried under ? How many is "many". What substantiation do you have for that claim. And ultimately, even if they were, it doesnt matter where they are tried, they will be acquitted. Well, if you haven't noticed all those that have been released after being held for years without trial, I don't know what to tell you, except to try to stay more involved in the issues you are commenting on.

rulemylife -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/22/2009 11:22:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Do you two ever come up with and answer that doesn't involve "well Bush did it first"? Yeah, those guys should know the new rules that Bush is ancient history. But let's talk about that evildoer Clinton. (I heard he cheated on his wife.)

rulemylife -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/22/2009 11:42:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Countries no longer declare war on each other (it's passé, it's sooooo nineteenth century) and as recent history has shown us, you don't have to be a country to wage a war - an organization can get it's hands on military equipment and wage war quite effectively. So, I've been wondering - perhaps it is time to update the Geneva Convention (as well as the Hague Convention and the Geneva Protocol) to accommodate current realities? And maybe that annoying Constitution thing. You know, the one that requires Congress to declare war before we engage in a war.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/23/2009 10:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And maybe that annoying Constitution thing. You know, the one that requires Congress to declare war before we engage in a war. Teeeeeechnically, it doesn't "require" Congress to declare war, it allows it to. Congress didn't declare war when President Jefferson sent the U. S. Navy off to fight the Barbary States in 1801, even though one or more of them had declared war on us. It just authorized military intervention. While these battles were known as the First and Second Barbary Wars, the United States never actually declared war. Since the Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution were still alive at this time, I sort of assume these actions (authorizing military intervention without declaring war) were viewed as within the purview of the powers granted Congress and the U. S. government.

luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/23/2009 11:34:34 PM)
Not to mention the Indian Wars which the founders fought with an intensity, the modern left is opposed to. Washington had the families of conquered chiefs brought back to east as hostages. Read about the war for Ohio. A lot of people like to ignore that part of our history, but if the founders had acted as the modern left wants, there would be no Country.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/24/2009 11:01:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Not to mention the Indian Wars which the founders fought with an intensity, the modern left is opposed to. Washington had the families of conquered chiefs brought back to east as hostages. Read about the war for Ohio. A lot of people like to ignore that part of our history, but if the founders had acted as the modern left wants, there would be no Country. Of course there would be a country. It would just be one with a casino and 3 tobacco stores on every other block. [Its a joke, dont get your PC panties in a bunch]

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 [15] 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875