Held in prison for 10 years without a trial

[fskimospy]

Unlike liberals I am able to use common sense and logic to come to a conclusion. I could be wrong but at least my opinions are based on facts other than touchy feely feelings.

Your opinions are based on viewing politics like a football game where you're supposed to cheer for one side. The fact that you believe your opinions are based upon facts and not an emotional response is a pretty amazing act of self delusion.

 

[Texashiker]

He is not in the US.

Wrong place, wrong time.

Every person is born with certain rights, and one of those rights is a speedy and fair trial.

Regardless of where they come from, people are not dogs, and should not be treated as such. We would not keep a dog chained up for 10 years. We should not treat other people like that either.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Ah - harm/hurt the terrorists,... but they need a just and fair trail,.. when Obama is in house!

Egad, you are assholes in a bleed heart's clothing!!!

 

[woolfe9999]

Unlike liberals I am able to use common sense and logic to come to a conclusion. I could be wrong but at least my opinions are based on facts other than touchy feely feelings.

As for referring to this forum I most certainly did, not in my original response but subsequent ones.



LOL. Now's there's some logic I can't refute!

You said "liberals" in your first post, saying what you meant and meaning what you said. You'll have to forgive him for missing the fact that you shifted the goal posts later on.

On a more serious note, there is a difference between Bush and Obama regarding national security. Both are bad for different reasons. Bush was a committed neo-con. Obama isn't a neo-con. He just doesn't want to take a political hit for being perceived as "weak on national security." One is principled loon. The other an unprincipled politician.

This IMO is the biggest problem with Obama. He's a sellout. If you actually did read what liberals are writing about Obama, you'd know that this is fast becoming the liberal consensus. So far as ATP&N goes, you can read a lot of that position in Craig's posts, for example. But you probably don't read those any more than you read the liberal blogs.

- wolf

 

[Texashiker]

Ah - harm/hurt the terrorists,... but they need a just and fair trail,.. when Obama is in house!

Egad, you are assholes in a bleed heart's clothing!!!

Everyone has a right to s speedy trial. Either put those people on trial, or let them go.

Would you want to be held for 10 years without a trial?

 

[Thump553]

Conservatives have such short memories. Don't you remember back to 2008-2009 when the Obama Administration proposed trying terrorists in the USA and the GOP went all hysterical about it-even so far as to introduce legislation to bar such trials in the US?

YOu have a right to a speedy trial in a crimminal matter. These people are akin to prisoners of war where they can be legally held until the end of hostilities.

No one likes this system at all-it is anathema to the very nature of our government and of our justice system-but I still haven't heard any reasonable alternative solutions proposed yet.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Conservatives have such short memories. Don't you remember back to 2008-2009 when the Obama Administration proposed trying terrorists in the USA and the GOP went all hysterical about it-even so far as to introduce legislation to bar such trials in the US?

YOu have a right to a speedy trial in a crimminal matter. These people are akin to prisoners of war where they can be legally held until the end of hostilities.

No one likes this system at all-it is anathema to the very nature of our government and of our justice system-but I still haven't heard any reasonable alternative solutions proposed yet.

Judging by the results of the Casey Anthony trial it seems like avoiding the civilian courts is about the smartest thing we could have done. Do the liberals forget back to 2003-2008 when they were calling for war crimes charges against Bush and Cheney for the same behavior as Obama?

 

[thraashman]

You said "liberals" in your first post, saying what you meant and meaning what you said. You'll have to forgive him for missing the fact that you shifted the goal posts later on.

On a more serious note, there is a difference between Bush and Obama regarding national security. Both are bad for different reasons. Bush was a committed neo-con. Obama isn't a neo-con. He just doesn't want to take a political hit for being perceived as "weak on national security." One is principled loon. The other an unprincipled politician.

This IMO is the biggest problem with Obama. He's a sellout. If you actually did read what liberals are writing about Obama, you'd know that this is fast becoming the liberal consensus. So far as ATP&N goes, you can read a lot of that position in Craig's posts, for example. But you probably don't read those any more than you read the liberal blogs.

- wolf

I'm not gonna lie, I'm a proud liberal, and even I largely don't read Craig's posts anymore. And really, any self respecting conservative wouldn't read ProfJohn's posts anymore for the same reason. They are the same personality with opposite political views. And yes, I like many other liberals have a problem with Obama's unwillingness to tell the right to shove it when they insist that everything has to be their way. Even though their way has consistently proven to be the wrong way.

 

[umbrella39]

Its funny how few libs now say anything about Gitmo now that its THEIR traitor in chief doing the same things big bad Bush and Cheney were doing.

Funny how you try and deflect all your bullshit onto the "libs".

 

[werepossum]

What would the founding fathers have to say about this?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/16/kuwaiti.guantanamo.detainees/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Every person should have the right to a speedy trial.

This depends on whether you consider the War on Terror an actual war, like Afghanistan or Iraq or World War II, or a catchy phrase for police action, like the War on Drugs. If the latter, certainly everyone has a right to a speedy trial. But if the former, there is no right to a speedy trial because detainees aren't being detained for trial. Rather they are detained as captured enemy combatants. In World War II for instance there were British soldiers who were captured in '39 and not repatriated until '45. No one was screaming about their right to a speedy trial, they were being detained until the war was over. Same thing for Brits (or even Americans) detained not as enemy combatants, but as security risks; you're usually in until the issue has been decided, or at least until the captors no longer consider you a risk.

Personally I have no problem with people considered to be enemy combatants detained indefinitely. I do think though that each should have a timely military hearing to determine if the detaining is justified, or merely an accusation for ulterior motives. And I think that Congress should have to pass a clearly worded declaration of war detailing with whom we are at war. No "authorization of military assets" or "War on Terror", but "We declare war on al Qaeda and associated Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters" or some such.

 

[werepossum]

Conservatives have such short memories. Don't you remember back to 2008-2009 when the Obama Administration proposed trying terrorists in the USA and the GOP went all hysterical about it-even so far as to introduce legislation to bar such trials in the US?

YOu have a right to a speedy trial in a crimminal matter. These people are akin to prisoners of war where they can be legally held until the end of hostilities.

No one likes this system at all-it is anathema to the very nature of our government and of our justice system-but I still haven't heard any reasonable alternative solutions proposed yet.

Very well said. Had I bothered to read page 2 I'd just have quoted and said "This."

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not gonna lie, I'm a proud liberal, and even I largely don't read Craig's posts anymore. And really, any self respecting conservative wouldn't read ProfJohn's posts anymore for the same reason. They are the same personality with opposite political views. And yes, I like many other liberals have a problem with Obama's unwillingness to tell the right to shove it when they insist that everything has to be their way. Even though their way has consistently proven to be the wrong way.

I do understand not reading Craig's posts - they are extremely TLDR, though there is often value in there for those who are patient. Anyway, I wasn't criticizing FNE on the particular point of not reading Craig's posts. However, I disagree that he has the same personality as ProJo. Craig more or less reads liberal and progressive sources then repeats them here as fact. Yet it's pretty clear he believes everything he types. ProJo is just flat out dishonest.

 

[Throckmorton]

Its funny how few libs now say anything about Gitmo now that its THEIR traitor in chief doing the same things big bad Bush and Cheney were doing.

LOL. What is your opinion based on? Wishes and fairy dust? The left is constantly bitching about Guantanamo.


Obama tried to give them trials, and Republicans blocked him. So what do you and progressives expect him to do? Free them?

 

[a777pilot]

I read the title and thought this is terrible. Then I read the article. This person is a muslim. He is where he belongs. Good!

 

[EagleKeeper]

He is not in the US.

Wrong place, wrong time.

Sorry, Bourmedine v. Bush.

If that is so, then why has not Obama done anything about this?

He campaigned on Gitmo and being the anti-Bush.

Why has not everyone gone to trial then if the SCOTUS has ruled against the imprisonment

I am not saying that it is right to hold him; just that not being on US aggravates the situation.

those that are not scheduled for trial should be given one of two options.
Airlifted back to where they were taken into custody or their native country.
Their choice.

 

[Texashiker]

Personally I have no problem with people considered to be enemy combatants detained indefinitely.

Define "enemy combatants".

How about something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

to interfere with military recruitment

Post something on a blog that speaks poorly of the military, get charged as a "enemy combatant" and held forever without a trial.

Regardless of the situation, people should not be held forever without a trial.

And as for the "war on terrorism" - there is no war on terrorism. We are in a war of ideology.

 

[Whiskey16]

He is not in the US.

Wrong place, wrong time.

Although you have been briefly corrected, I believe a specific citation is required to lecture those in the USA who continue desire to pass false opinion upon their own laws due to being blissfully ignorant of them:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.

2(c) The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The Government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected.

...

2(c)(iii) The Government’s sovereignty-based test raises troubling separation-of-powers concerns, which are illustrated by Guantanamo’s political history. Although the United States has maintained complete and uninterrupted control of Guantanamo for over 100 years, the Government’s view is that the Constitution has no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed formal sovereignty in its 1903 lease with Cuba. The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.”

Anyone else desiring to pass that US possession of Guantanamo Bay places it beyond the auspices of the US Constitutional law, you do not have an argument. Concede to reality.

 

[Craig234]

I read the title and thought this is terrible. Then I read the article. This person is a dirty Jew. He is where he belongs. Good!

I hear echoes.

His post is the sound that has been heard before - un-American, immoral.

 

[Lithium381]

not right......not right

 

[Pocatello]

We should release them, then kill them with Predator drones. It's a lot easier to kill them than to capture them, which seems to be the current administration's mantra, considering the step-up of Predator strikes.

 

[Doppel]

Is shameful and holding them in gitmo to pretend they somehow are not allowed basic rights is cowardice.

 

[randomrogue]

Am I the only one that recalls the executive order to close Guantanamo? Am I the only one who remembers that Obama tried to move this from indefinite detentions and military tribunals to federal courts? Am I the only one who remember Congress being the problem and blocking this? There's blame to be had for sure, but Obama actually did try to change this, the blame belongs to Congress.

The blame generally ALWAYS belongs on Congress. Considering the House writes the checks it's a safe bet that everything you've ever been upset about regarding politics can be blamed on Congress.

 

[Pocatello]

Every person is born with certain rights, and one of those rights is a speedy and fair trial.

Regardless of where they come from, people are not dogs, and should not be treated as such. We would not keep a dog chained up for 10 years. We should not treat other people like that either.

We don't kill dogs with Apache attack helicopters armed with Hellfire missiles either, waste of resource and not very humane. But it's perfectly OK for the average Taliban fighters.

 

[Jhhnn]

The prison at Gitmo is shameful, and I've held that view from the start. It's even more shameful that people who espouse libertarian ideals should support it.

The place never was about the WOT, other than peripherally, it was about domestic politics, about showing the base that GWB was "Tough on Terror!" and that he was willing to skirt the Constitution to play that game, to appeal to the baser instincts of many. And it worked- it still works.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? What ever happend to all the usual anti-gubmint raving, let alone the natural tendency to demand proof from the govt in such matters?

The usual ravers are apparently willing to accept the idea that the men held are guilty *because the govt says they are*, even thought the govt hasn't offered a shred of proof in any sort of court, not even one of the kangaroo variety.

I say that the reason that these men have never gone to trial of any sort is because the govt can't make a case against the vast majority of them. There is no real evidence, merely suspicion, hearsay & innuendo. If it were any other way, there would have been trials long ago.

I say stand the accused up before a court of law & let the govt make its case. If the case can't be made, the defendant must go free.

 

[jman19]

That is definitely sad... that dump Gitmo should be shut down.