Ex-Bush Official: Many at Gitmo are Innocent

[Facial_King]

So, Chef, do ya think you were possibly a little too hard on Wilkerson ????

 

[marquis2]

There can be no doubt that some detainees were innocent.Some detainees in ordinary prisons are innocent too , even though they have gone through due process of law.There are frequent miscarriages of justice in even the most rigorous systems, so imagine how many there would be if no proper investigation has taken place.

 

[Hot Mega]

Judge orders Guantanamo detainee freed

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 46 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The discovery of suicide martyr videos seemed certain proof that Abd al Rahim Abdul Rassak was part of al-Qaida. A closer look at his video, though, showed he was actually being tortured by al-Qaida.

The confusion over the video collection found in an al-Qaida safehouse is one of the stranger twists in the unusual case of Rassak, a Guantanamo detainee. On Monday, a federal judge ordered Rassak released, chastising the government for claiming he was still part of the same terror network that tortured, imprisoned and abandoned him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_release;_ylt=AliXcUgsXYKeFQrkhMriuQz9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNiYzg5OXUxBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDA5MDYyMy9hcF9vbl9nb19jYV9zdF9wZS91c19ndWFudGFuYW1vX3JlbGVhc2UEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDanVkZ2VvcmRlcnNn

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

See, I really don't see what the big deal is, bitches. During WWII thousands of German POWs were brought to the US so they couldn't be put back on the line after being repatriated.

These douches are getting three square meals a day, access to their spiritual advisors and for the most part decent and humanitarian treatment. Which is more than they'd offer a Westerner they may have captured. If they capture any American or Brit, chances are that person is going to have his or her head slowly sliced off with a dull scimitar. With that in mind, they're lucky to not have received a 5.56mm round in the fucking grape when they raised their hands in surrender.

We don't owe these people due process if they were caught on the battlefield. They're not Americans, they're not subject to constitutional rights, and they're subject to the rules of land warfare, nothing more. The Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to the enemy combatants who aren't even Iraqis since their participation in the war is illegal, anyway.

 

[Dawn]

I can't beleive there still people supporting and arguing in favor of Guantanamo...

 

[Facial_King]

(Hey, now that the thread's been bumped it reminds me that Chef never answered my question...)

 

[Hot Mega]

See, I really don't see what the big deal is, bitches.

We don't owe these people due process if they were caught on the battlefield. They're not Americans, they're not subject to constitutional rights, and they're subject to the rules of land warfare, nothing more. The Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to the enemy combatants who aren't even Iraqis since their participation in the war is illegal, anyway.

Well you're flat wrong on a couple of points in your post but beyond that the "big deal" isn't that there are innocent people swept up in error (as our own justice is guilty of the same). The problem is that the status of these individuals wasn't being rendered...and when you don't have a mechanism which charges and tries detained individuals....that is tantamount to state sponsored kidnapping.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

If it keeps them from killing servicemen I'd say that's a win-win scenario. And here's what happens when we release them.

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=271416

 

[Dawn]

If it keeps them from killing servicemen I'd say that's a win-win scenario. And here's what happens when we release them.

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=271416

As you point out another thread to explain yourself, let me repost here what i have posted over there:


I fail to follow the logic of people considering it's better to keep few hundreds civilians in prison just in case one of them might be a terrorist...

If that is your idea of justice, i beleive we don't use the same definition for that word.

I also fail to see the democratical value of that logic as justice is one of the foundation of any form of democratical system.

 

[Hot Mega]

If it keeps them from killing servicemen I'd say that's a win-win scenario. And here's what happens when we release them.

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=271416

Makes sense to me. Release the one's that are trying to kill us and keep the one's who are actually innocent.:1orglaugh

That'll keep us "safe".

There is no greater, more quintiscential case to be made against the practices that are the product of the GTMO process than these two.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Robert Bork from a Newsweek interview about how bad a choice Sotomayor is and on the decision to grant these people habeas corpus:

On another front, the court has decided three cases against the Bush administration on Guantanamo, the most recent one giving habeas corpus rights to supposed enemy combatants. What do you make of that whole line of cases?

It strikes me as preposterous to begin to extend rights to enemy combatants that we never extended to captured Germans, Italians and Japanese in World War II. It's also dangerous once we begin to judicialize the conduct of a war. It can only make our forces less effective. But something has changed in the attitude. I think it was the invasion of Grenada, when a commanding officer refused to let the press come to the front lines, and a reporter said "in World War II we were allowed in the front lines," and the commander said "in World War II you were on our side."

I know its ironic that someone who was disqualified from serving on the SCOTUS should be making any comments on this confirmation, but this line of thought about enemy combatants is exactly what I have been writing about since this crisis has started.

 

[Dawn]

What's your point exactly?

After justice now it's the freedom of speech that should be abandonned?

There is a price to pay to maintain democratical values and liberties in war time. It's quite disturbing how easily those are discarded in the process...

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

These values are to be extended to Americans, not to those we're at war with. What's hard to understand about that?

 

[BlueBalls]

Robert Bork from a Newsweek interview about how bad a choice Sotomayor is and on the decision to grant these people habeas corpus:


I know its ironic that someone who was disqualified from serving on the SCOTUS should be making any comments on this confirmation, but this line of thought about enemy combatants is exactly what I have been writing about since this crisis has started.

If you had read even the title of this thread you would see that many of these people are not "enemy combatants". Unless you are assuming that all people from the middle east are targets? Which is down right wrong, why should the many be punished by the actions of the few? This is exactly the case with the GitMo prisoners, people being held without proper charge, I dont care if they are suspected of anything you should not be able to hold someone for that long without them having a proper trail to allow an imparcial judge to decide on the case.

Why isnt this being done? Because the US has not got enough evidence to convict these people and they're are using all of their power to basically kidnap innocent people.

Now lets say as you have already brought it up that one of these prisoners gets let out and they are radicalised when they are. Can you seriously blame a person who had been taken from their home and put in prison for however many years not to have a hatred towards their captors? If it was me I waould want revenge to. Does that mean we should keep people locked away there because they could turn out to be a threat in the future, no because those are the actions of a tyrants. People who should be hated and dispised because they have no understanding of the basic human rights of all people not just their own.

And if one day one of these men blows himself up, who's to say the US wasnt to blame for it.

 

[Facial_King]

Robert Bork from a Newsweek interview about how bad a choice Sotomayor is and on the decision to grant these people habeas corpus:



I know its ironic that someone who was disqualified from serving on the SCOTUS should be making any comments on this confirmation, but this line of thought about enemy combatants is exactly what I have been writing about since this crisis has started.

Bork. Bork? Bork??!!?

That guy is a royal, hypocritical, sack-of-shit pussy:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11062.html
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/bork.html
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/borks_big_lawsuit.php