A sad day for America Constitution.

[lowtech1]

I now can some what understand why foreigners dislike America, because of our policies. Justice and fairness only works when you are the one that holding the gun.

What the Alqueda have done to America can't ever be forgiven or forget, but we are no better than the terrorist magots if we condemming others with out a fair trial.

How can the good American people let their government bend/warp human rights & the Geneva convention when the basis of America law is base upon upholding rights & just?

Distant voices tell of life for Britons caged in Camp Delta - This could be bias, but I'm sure that there is a hint of thruth in it.

 

[Ryan]

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that their suppost to be held in luxurious rooms, and fed bon-bons

Their is a reason why it's called an "ISOLATION CAMP"

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that their suppost to be held in luxurious rooms, and fed bon-bons

Their is a reason why it's called an "ISOLATION CAMP"

i'm going to guess you didn't even read the article.

it is pretty sad (though i don't really see what this has to do with the constitution) how we are imprisoning people that have not been convicted or even tried of any crime in such a horrible fashion.

 

[ElFenix]

what the? i hit reply to this and it replied ot a thread i have open in a different tab!

 

[Ryan]

I was replying to this: "How can the good American people let their government bend/warp human rights"

Aren't they suspected terrorists? I don't think we would keep them their unless we didn't have proof that they were, right?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what the? i hit reply to this and it replied ot a thread i have open in a different tab!

LMAO - that's always fun I just hate triple posting (for some reason it happens to me a lot)

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that their suppost to be held in luxurious rooms, and fed bon-bons

Their is a reason why it's called an "ISOLATION CAMP"

i'm going to guess you didn't even read the article.

it is pretty sad (though i don't really see what this has to do with the constitution) how we are imprisoning people that have not been convicted or even tried of any crime in such a horrible fashion.

they are effectively prisoners of war. i wasn't aware you needed to charge them.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that their suppost to be held in luxurious rooms, and fed bon-bons

Their is a reason why it's called an "ISOLATION CAMP"

i'm going to guess you didn't even read the article.

it is pretty sad (though i don't really see what this has to do with the constitution) how we are imprisoning people that have not been convicted or even tried of any crime in such a horrible fashion.

they are effectively prisoners of war. i wasn't aware you needed to charge them.

if they are "effectively" pows, then perhaps the geneva convention should "effectively" apply to their situation.

 

[Ryan]

I wonder how they are sending the mail to their relatives? I hope on tourist postcards that say "Greetings from Cuba!" LMAO

 

[Lucky]

BTW, that's a horrendously written article. A laughable joke in its bias.

 

[Evadman]

if they are "effectively" pows, then perhaps the geneva convention should "effectively" apply to their situation.

But this is the US (or a base in cuba anyway ) we are above the law. Or conventions. Duh!

Truely, it is f'ed up though. Charge them at least.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

This is America, land of the free. We don't need a tyranous Constitution.

 

[Dragoon42]

Its only wrong if they keep the ones that can be prove to be innocent. If they're POW they don't need to be charged with anything

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Dragoon42
Its only wrong if they keep the ones that can be prove to be innocent. If they're POW they don't need to be charged with anything

it's still wrong, because if they are POW, they should be treated in accordance with the geneva convention

 

[Kadarin]

I have no sympathy whatsoever for poor, sweet Asif Iqbal, or the brave, yet scared Mullah Faisal Mazloom, nor even Mohammed Sadiq, who complains of being "kept like an animal".

lowtech: The Constitution covers US citizens, not foreign terrorists. These people can die in filth (or by firing squad) for all I care. Get over it.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I have no sympathy whatsoever for poor, sweet Asif Iqbal, or the brave, yet scared Mullah Faisal Mazloom, nor even Mohammed Sadiq, who complains of being "kept like an animal".

lowtech: The Constitution covers US citizens, not foreign terrorists. These people can die in filth (or by firing squad) for all I care. Get over it.

No.. it doesn't.... and what do you think the Geneva Convention was for?
People who are SUSPECTED of being terrorists should die in filth because they aren't American? You're the kind of person that makes all of us Americans look like ignorant, self absorbed, hypocritical, asses. Maybe you could consider living in a country without standards to uphold and live by?
Despite what Colin Powell thinks, or thought, these people are not POWs, they are detainees, which is a nice way of saying they are illegally held.
Try them or make them POWs.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I have no sympathy whatsoever for poor, sweet Asif Iqbal, or the brave, yet scared Mullah Faisal Mazloom, nor even Mohammed Sadiq, who complains of being "kept like an animal".

lowtech: The Constitution covers US citizens, not foreign terrorists. These people can die in filth (or by firing squad) for all I care. Get over it.

another fine example of concepts getting mixed up... since when did taliban equal terrorist? you're the one i have sympathy for...

the old men who were released claim innocence, should they have died in filth? how would you like it if your grandfather was walking to the doctor, got abducted by foreign troops, detained for a year without contact with family, then "died in filth", and some punk looked at you and said "get over it"?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: gopunk


the old men who were released claim innocence, should they have died in filth?

I can't argue very many points in this thread, since I don't have many facts about any of this stuff, but many guilty people claim innocence. That's kind of irrelevant.

That said, no one should be detained unless there is evidence that they did something wrong. Since I'm 99% sure that no one here is privy to any personal information about any of those being detained, I don't see how anyone can argue one way or the other.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: gopunk


the old men who were released claim innocence, should they have died in filth?

I can't argue very many points in this thread, since I don't have many facts about any of this stuff, but many guilty people claim innocence. That's kind of irrelevant.

well they are what, 70 years old? and they were released... government didn't say anything about their guilt, so i am presuming they are innocent. i will admit i'm wrong when our government says they are guilty, but until that day, i'll assume they are innocent given those 3 reasons.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: gopunk

well they are what, 70 years old? and they were released... government didn't say anything about their guilt, so i am presuming they are innocent. i will admit i'm wrong when our government says they are guilty, but until that day, i'll assume they are innocent given those 3 reasons.

70 year olds can back terrorist activities easily. Money, training, providing aid. That's not my point though. I don't know that they are innocent or guilty. My point is that claiming innocence means nothing.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: gopunk

well they are what, 70 years old? and they were released... government didn't say anything about their guilt, so i am presuming they are innocent. i will admit i'm wrong when our government says they are guilty, but until that day, i'll assume they are innocent given those 3 reasons.

70 year olds can back terrorist activities easily. Money, training, providing aid.

which would mean they wouldn't be combatants... much less illegal combatants

That's not my point though. I don't know that they are innocent or guilty. My point is that claiming innocence means nothing.

i included it there to show that it was quite possible they were innocent, given that they have been released, nobody is saying they are guilty, and they say they are innocent. the guy seemed to assume they were guilty, i was just showing that it wasn't necessarily true.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: gopunk

which would mean they wouldn't be combatants... much less illegal combatants

Of course, a 70 year old *could* be a combatant. No one here knows if they are or not. If they aren't, I'm glad that they were released. The only thing worse than letting a guilty person go is imprisioning an innocent person.

 

[SuperTool]

The constitution was on flight 93.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: gopunk

which would mean they wouldn't be combatants... much less illegal combatants

Of course, a 70 year old *could* be a combatant. No one here knows if they are or not. If they aren't, I'm glad that they were released. The only thing worse than letting a guilty person go is imprisioning an innocent person.

yea, i know, a 70 year old *could* be a combatant. but the odds are low, which makes it more probable that they were innocent.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: gopunk

well they are what, 70 years old? and they were released... government didn't say anything about their guilt, so i am presuming they are innocent. i will admit i'm wrong when our government says they are guilty, but until that day, i'll assume they are innocent given those 3 reasons.

70 year olds can back terrorist activities easily. Money, training, providing aid. That's not my point though. I don't know that they are innocent or guilty. My point is that claiming innocence means nothing.

Claiming guilt means more than claiming innocence though right?