Beyond the law

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think it's somewhat telling and that it's always been under the sheets. When push comes to shove, the justice many Americans like to have thought they had wasn't there. When times are trying one's character comes out and much of America doesn't have any. The US, gitmo aside, has knowingly shipped people off to torture-condoning countries so that they could be tortured. How this freedom and justice? Despicable. 911 has been pointing out the clothless emperor.[qWorld opinion is overrated.

Especially when it calls a duck a duck, right?[/quote]
No one is immune when times are trying, and sometimes even when times aren't trying.

Ducks calling a duck a duck? Pffft.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think it's somewhat telling and that it's always been under the sheets. When push comes to shove, the justice many Americans like to have thought they had wasn't there. When times are trying one's character comes out and much of America doesn't have any. The US, gitmo aside, has knowingly shipped people off to torture-condoning countries so that they could be tortured. How this freedom and justice? Despicable. 911 has been pointing out the clothless emperor.[qWorld opinion is overrated.

Especially when it calls a duck a duck, right?[/quote]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I think the Skoorb post is basically almost totally correct and TLC is trying to play the role of a morally bankrupt apologist, I point out one partial error in the Skoorb post.

Its not the USA that is doing most of this, its a GWB&co and a small handful of morally bankrupt officials that are orchestrating almost all of this. And credit where credit is due, GWB&co has been very effective in preventing either the courts or congress from stopping these abuses.

I am optimistic enough to think that the American people will learn the correct lessons, and hopefully, after we the American people learn the full extent of this, those responsible within GWB&co will be held criminally accountable.

 

[herm0016]

i would like someone to address my post. these people are not American citizens and, thus according to our laws do not have access to the same rights as American citizens! I do not know what the rules for a pow are, but i am guessing there is no trial by jury. If i was running a war and capturing people, i sure the hell would not let them out before the end of the war either, why would you let them out so they can go fight against you more?

if you capture a guy who is shooting at you, and put him in a camp/prison, and he yells loudly that he did nothing, are you going to let him out so he can shoot you again?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

So it's actually 12, not 10. Maybe the article I cited didn't get it right because it was written in 2004 and at the time the number was 10, who knows?

FTA:

Thus, at most?of the approximately 445 detainees who have been released from Guantánamo?three (3) detainees, or less than one percent (1%), have subsequently returned to the battlefield to be captured or killed. Two (2) other detainees (Abdul Rahman Noor and Mohammed Nayim Farouq), while not re-captured or killed, are claimed to be engaged in military activities, although the information provided by the Government in this regard cannot be cross-checked."

So 1% that were released have really returned to fight. Wow, so detaining 99% of innocent people is OK with you I guess?

I guess you support locking up forever all suspected rapists and murderers as well, even if they are found innocent, just to make sure they might do something illegal in the future right? It's the same thing.

Their conclusion says it best:

In this country, we assume that people are innocent until proven guilty. It should go without saying that innocent people will die because we adopt this principle. When we let people we suspect committed homicide go free because the government cannot prove the case against them, for instance, we run the risk that they will kill again.

Said by TLC:

Were a few people picked up who probably weren't guilty, because of some sort of mistake, or possibly even malicious intent on the part of another? Of course. Just like some who loudly proclaimed innocence ended up back on the battlefield, gloating about their deception.

As much as we'd all love to have everything be perfect; to only and always have the guilty punished, it just doesn't fucking work that way. Should we also disband the police and the entire judicial system because they aren't always perfect and don't get it right 100% of the time either? Shall we allow the vast majority of criminals who ARE guilty the ability to run free because we might make a mistake or two along the way and apprehend an innocent man?

I think you just made my point.....it's perfectly OK to you to have a 99% wrongly imprisonment of innocent people rate to prevent that 1% guilty people get off. Ceratinly all report show a huge disparity favoring locking up innocent people "just in case". It's isn't 50/50 or even close to it.

Hell yes! We should lock up everybody in America. That's a small price to pay to keep us free.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think it's somewhat telling and that it's always been under the sheets. When push comes to shove, the justice many Americans like to have thought they had wasn't there. When times are trying one's character comes out and much of America doesn't have any. The US, gitmo aside, has knowingly shipped people off to torture-condoning countries so that they could be tortured. How this freedom and justice? Despicable. 911 has been pointing out the clothless emperor.[qWorld opinion is overrated.

Especially when it calls a duck a duck, right?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I think the Skoorb post is basically almost totally correct and TLC is trying to play the role of a morally bankrupt apologist, I point out one partial error in the Skoorb post.

Its not the USA that is doing most of this, its a GWB&co and a small handful of morally bankrupt officials that are orchestrating almost all of this. And credit where credit is due, GWB&co has been very effective in preventing either the courts or congress from stopping these abuses.

I am optimistic enough to think that the American people will learn the correct lessons, and hopefully, after we the American people learn the full extent of this, those responsible within GWB&co will be held criminally accountable.[/quote]This is why I said many, not all Americans. This is done with complete support of literally millions of people in the country. Bush has, afterall, 1/3rd approval rating. From the streets of West Virginia to P&N we can see people who support it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Guess he forgot to mention the following in his article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A52670-2004Oct21.html

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said. In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was someone else.

The cases demonstrate the difficulty Washington faces in deciding when alleged al Qaeda and Taliban detainees should be freed, amid pressure from foreign governments and human rights groups that have denounced U.S. officials for detaining the Guantanamo Bay captives for years without due-process rights, military officials said.

"Reports that former detainees have rejoined al Qaeda and the Taliban are evidence that these individuals are fanatical and particularly deceptive," said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico. "From the beginning, we have recognized that there are inherent risks in determining when an individual detainee no longer had to be held at Guantanamo Bay."

But I expected no balance from the OP's article in the first place.

Far better that we never held any of them and killed them on the field than that we soiled our honor by allowing Bush to commit these crimes. Bush has destroyed the one thing this nation had, a place of honor and decency in the world. He's a big piece of shit on our history.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: herm0016
i would like someone to address my post. these people are not American citizens and, thus according to our laws do not have access to the same rights as American citizens! I do not know what the rules for a pow are, but i am guessing there is no trial by jury. If i was running a war and capturing people, i sure the hell would not let them out before the end of the war either, why would you let them out so they can go fight against you more?

if you capture a guy who is shooting at you, and put him in a camp/prison, and he yells loudly that he did nothing, are you going to let him out so he can shoot you again?

Yes, but if we acknowledge they are POWs, then they gain certain rights under the Geneva Convention, something the Bush administration has been equally loathe to do. (Because they aren't following them either. Acknowledging their status as POWs makes BushCo liable for war crimes.) Bush wants these prisoners kept in a state of legal limbo so there is absolutely no accountability for their treatment and continued imprisonment.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

So it's actually 12, not 10. Maybe the article I cited didn't get it right because it was written in 2004 and at the time the number was 10, who knows?

FTA:

Thus, at most?of the approximately 445 detainees who have been released from Guantánamo?three (3) detainees, or less than one percent (1%), have subsequently returned to the battlefield to be captured or killed. Two (2) other detainees (Abdul Rahman Noor and Mohammed Nayim Farouq), while not re-captured or killed, are claimed to be engaged in military activities, although the information provided by the Government in this regard cannot be cross-checked."

So 1% that were released have really returned to fight. Wow, so detaining 99% of innocent people is OK with you I guess?

Wow! What piss poor logic. That other 99% either didn't return to the battlefield or weren't recaptured so that's a clear indication they were innocent in the first place? How did you come to that astoundingly wrong conclusion?

I guess you support locking up forever all suspected rapists and murderers as well, even if they are found innocent, just to make sure they might do something illegal in the future right? It's the same thing.

If someone is found innocent then they aren't a rapist or murderer in the first place. What we are talking about here is weeding out the important detainees from those that aren't so important and considered not to be any major threat. Innocent vs. guilty is not the primary issue here, though a few of you are trying to build that strawman.

Their conclusion says it best:

In this country, we assume that people are innocent until proven guilty. It should go without saying that innocent people will die because we adopt this principle. When we let people we suspect committed homicide go free because the government cannot prove the case against them, for instance, we run the risk that they will kill again.

Said by TLC:

Were a few people picked up who probably weren't guilty, because of some sort of mistake, or possibly even malicious intent on the part of another? Of course. Just like some who loudly proclaimed innocence ended up back on the battlefield, gloating about their deception.

As much as we'd all love to have everything be perfect; to only and always have the guilty punished, it just doesn't fucking work that way. Should we also disband the police and the entire judicial system because they aren't always perfect and don't get it right 100% of the time either? Shall we allow the vast majority of criminals who ARE guilty the ability to run free because we might make a mistake or two along the way and apprehend an innocent man?

I think you just made my point.....it's perfectly OK to you to have a 99% wrongly imprisonment of innocent people rate to prevent that 1% guilty people get off. Ceratinly all report show a huge disparity favoring locking up innocent people "just in case". It's isn't 50/50 or even close to it.

[/quote]
I think you are desparately trying to make a point because as I've pointed out already, your logic is way off. That's not to mention that you completely twisted what I stated but that seems par for the course in here. Why certain people feel compelled to take that route, I can't understand. Maybe it's because they feel their argument is so weak and full of holes in the first place that it's the only recourse they have? Who knows?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: herm0016

when did being a pow constitute being an American citizen? I am going to bet that most of the people we are talking about here have never been a citizen of the US.

I think you failed to read the last paragraph in my quoted text:

Marri is the last of three U.S. citizens or residents in the Charleston brig. Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, was held for almost three years by the military without charges.

Regardless of their guilt or innocence, the administration has no right to strip them of their Constitutional rights and hold them indefinitely with no contact with the outside world.

The Bushwhackos are a greater threat to our nation than Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and all the Al Qaeda wannabes in the world. At least, they tell the truth when they say they want to destroy us while the Bushwhackos are actually doing it, day by day, piece by piece, from the inside and lying about it.

 

[blackangst1]

I would suggest the biggest cover up in history has yet to be ....uncovered....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think it's somewhat telling and that it's always been under the sheets. When push comes to shove, the justice many Americans like to have thought they had wasn't there. When times are trying one's character comes out and much of America doesn't have any. The US, gitmo aside, has knowingly shipped people off to torture-condoning countries so that they could be tortured. How this freedom and justice? Despicable. 911 has been pointing out the clothless emperor.[qWorld opinion is overrated.

Especially when it calls a duck a duck, right?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I think the Skoorb post is basically almost totally correct and TLC is trying to play the role of a morally bankrupt apologist, I point out one partial error in the Skoorb post.

Its not the USA that is doing most of this, its a GWB&co and a small handful of morally bankrupt officials that are orchestrating almost all of this. And credit where credit is due, GWB&co has been very effective in preventing either the courts or congress from stopping these abuses.

I am optimistic enough to think that the American people will learn the correct lessons, and hopefully, after we the American people learn the full extent of this, those responsible within GWB&co will be held criminally accountable.

This is why I said many, not all Americans. This is done with complete support of literally millions of people in the country. Bush has, afterall, 1/3rd approval rating.

From the streets of West Virginia to P&N we can see people who support it.[/quote]

Why is there no movement for holding the President accountable while he is still in office?