Hey, subby? You lost. Get over it, asshat.

Since this is from the NRO, I think we can safely assume the opposite actually occurred.

BWAHAHAH!

Hell, in 2002 *I* would have supported detaining known terrorists in a cage in Cuba.

It's when they started using GITMO as a secret prison to hold captured opposing forces, child soldiers, and persons of "interest" without charge, without any form of legal recourse, and without representation that the idea went from "arguable" to a downright betrayal of American values.

But you enjoy your self-delusion, Subby.

I didn't realize Obama was already in office.

Let's hope Obama sets him straight. Because he's wrong about this one. Period.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Let's hope Obama sets him straight. Because he's wrong about this one. Period.

Well, he could be saying that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, so they get treated as criminals. There's nothing in the quote saying 'stick 'em in Gitmo'

It is a thing little understood in certain circles, but a group of intelligent people is far more likely to disagree over many things than a group of dimwits.

This is why Obama seems to be gathering intelligent people, unlike Bush.

Oh yeah? Well f*ck that guy.

There's an interesting article in Newsweek about Gitmo...

The (obviously lefty) author says "Obama should, and probably will" about 5 times.

I had to force myself to continue reading after the phrase "Obama's global constituency."

JacksBlack: I had to force myself to continue reading after the phrase "Obama's global constituency."

And now I know how to get rid of you, were it ever to become necessary. Just chant "global citizenship" over and over.

Correct, they are not POWs. They are criminals.

newmoonpuppyhead: I didn't realize Obama was already in office.

It's interesting, isn't it? Obama is still nailing down his appointments and working on his transition while prepping to take the oath of office, and 'the usual suspects' are working equally as hard to find something for which to blame him and his 'administration'.

I think articles like this have more to do with a Republican party that's in chaos rather than any real opposition to Obama's policy decisions.

Y'know, as an aside I think I might have detected a slight sense of pre-emptive 'smug' from certain elements of the vast right wing conspiracy. It's almost as if some of those sick ass bastards are silently hoping and praying for some sort of terrorist attack after Obama takes office. I dunno, maybe i'm wrong. It just seems to me as if some of the more rabid right wing types are looking forward to seeing their fellow citizens die so that they can pat themselves on the back for not voting Obama into office.

DamnYankees: Correct, they are not POWs. They are criminals.

Criminals that get due process. That's the part that the Bush Administration has gotten criminally wrong.

Occam's Chainsaw: DamnYankees: Correct, they are not POWs. They are criminals.

Criminals that get due process. That's the part that the Bush Administration has gotten criminally wrong.

I agree.

FTFA:
That was the view of Eric Holder, Oama's choice for Attorney General

If he can't be bothered to even spell the President elect's name correctly, can we expect him to be any better with the facts?

Let's hope Obama is playing a little good-cop bad-cop with his AG.

/anxiously awaiting the appearance of 'good-cop' January 20th.

Newsflash: Unlawful combatants...are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

That's the problem. Get it? It's a fact. A fact stated by Obama's new AG. That doesn't mean he supports the classification or would classify criminals as unlawful combatants.

DamnYankees: Occam's Chainsaw: DamnYankees: Correct, they are not POWs. They are criminals.

Criminals that get due process. That's the part that the Bush Administration has gotten criminally wrong.

I agree.


Thirded. We should treat prisoners with human dignity. We can't win a war for hearts and minds without taking the moral high ground.

I think it's frustrating these neo-cons beyond all means that Obama supporters aren't surprised or upset about any of these things Obama is doing. It's pretty amusing to watch when it's not being downright annoying.

Changey-Hopey heads nod...great...if not the GC, then...due process!

Neocons heads look startled and then go pop.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: ...due process!

Due process is for pussies.

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: ...due process!

Due process is for pussies.

Kill them all and let God sort it out, that's my motto. The people at the office got nervous when I first put up the banner over my cubicle, but things have settled down.

Occam's Chainsaw: Criminals that get due process.

I'd give an exception if some national government would stand forward and say "no, these people were committing an act of war on Our behalf," and the prisoners agree. At that point (were I President), I would grant the offenders prisoner of war status for the duration of the conflict (to be tried afterwards for war crimes if needed), talk to Congress about a declaration of war, and then reduce said nation to... something somewhat less than that.

If not, treat them as international criminals; any experts on 1800's piracy laws?

abb3w: If not, treat them as international criminals; any experts on 1800's piracy laws?

I think in most jurisdictions, it simply read, "Pirate + rope + yardarm = win."

abb3w: any experts on 1800's piracy laws?

1: Eyepatchs must be black.
2: Maximum of three seconds to an Arrrrrrrrrrrr.
3: Rape.
4: Murder
5: Pillage.
6. Rape.
7: Maintain global climate equilibrium.

Something like that?

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss?

I would think the difference is that he is not saying "No Geneva Convention also means indefinitely leaving them to rot at GITMO." I mean, I don't know if I've heard him say that at any time in the past.

I would think it is perfectly reasonable to think that they are not covered under the Geneva Convention. However, they are still afforded a whole host of rights through the US Constitution considering they are being held on American soil.

ninjakirby: abb3w: any experts on 1800's piracy laws?

1: Eyepatchs must be black. Arrrrr.
2: Maximum of three seconds to an Arrrrrrrrrrrr. Arrrrrrrrrrrr.
3: Rape. ARRRRR!
4: Murder ARRRRRRRRRR!!!!
5: Pillage. HYARRRRR!!!!!
6. Rape. HYAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
7: Maintain global climate equilibrium. HYAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHH!

Something like that?

Ftfyarrrr.

Guess what? Since 2001, Bush has gone overboard. The context of what anybody said back in 2002 no longer applies. Everything has shifted ten feet to the right. Nobody is arguing that we treat terrorists exactly the same as POW's, but I bet if he was asked whether we should lock up people who may very well be innocent, and make zero attempts to determine what they actually did, he'd say "no."

ragekage: any of these things Obama is doing

Such as?

ninjakirby: abb3w: any experts on 1800's piracy laws?

1: Eyepatchs must be black.
2: Maximum of three seconds to an Arrrrrrrrrrrr.
3: Rape.
4: Murder
5: Pillage.
6. Rape.
7: Maintain global climate equilibrium.

Something like that?

You said rape twice.

POAC: Newsflash: Unlawful combatants...are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

I'm not so sure about that. Sure: unlawful combatants are not mentioned by the Geneva conventions, but it is unclear that creating a new legal defenition for the sole purpose of evading the juristirction of a convention is a valid legal tactic.

ninjakirby: Something like that?

Hey, rape is in their twice!

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: ninjakirby: Something like that?

Hey, rape is in their twice!

He likes rape.

culebra: You said rape twice.

He likes rape.

/Ally-oop snark?

MindfulModeration: Word for farking word. I think we just caught teh gay.

Tough on drugs. Tough on Terror. Established history for increasing ATF jurisdiction. fark yeah, Eric Holder.

At first, I thought Obama might be a little soft on issues that matter, cave into you farking libertytards and your weird infatuation with the Constitution.

My man, Eric Holder's coming down to put a jack-boot on your liberal throats. He's like a conservatives wet dream.

A diminutive, black Janet Reno with a Super Trooper mustache ready to rid our cyberwebs of filth and free content.

Mr Logo: I'm not so sure about that. Sure: unlawful combatants are not mentioned by the Geneva conventions, but it is unclear that creating a new legal defenition for the sole purpose of evading the juristirction of a convention is a valid legal tactic.

Depends on the purpose. If it is "creating a new legal definition for the sole purpose of evading the jurisdiction of a convention" (like Bush did), then its farked up.

If it's "because we need a new legal definition because this type of situation wasn't common when the convention was wrote" then its different.

either way, we shouldn't hold someone with no charges and no intention of trial no matter what their legal definition is.

Shvetz: Nobody is arguing that we treat terrorists exactly the same as POW's,

I am....

The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is that beligerents cannot arbitrarily define people in such a way as to justify treating them inhumanely.

Interestingly, the Geneva Conventions doesn't just set rules for the basic treatment of military prisoners.

It also sets rules for the basic treatment of civilians.

And if a terrorist or insurgent is not a military prisoner, they are a civilian. There are no other options.

The guy at the end of the thread: Tough on drugs. Tough on Terror. Established history for increasing ATF jurisdiction. fark yeah, Eric Holder.

At first, I thought Obama might be a little soft on issues that matter, cave into you farking libertytards and your weird infatuation with the Constitution.

My man, Eric Holder's coming down to put a jack-boot on your liberal throats. He's like a conservatives wet dream.

A diminutive, black Janet Reno with a Super Trooper mustache ready to rid our cyberwebs of filth and free content.

My first thought was, "Man, I want some of what he's smoking." But on second thought, yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa no thanks.

log_jammin: If it's "because we need a new legal definition because this type of situation wasn't common when the convention was wrote" then its different.

either way, we shouldn't hold someone with no charges and no intention of trial no matter what their legal definition is.

The idea that 'this situation is not covered by the law, so we need to make it up' is quite dangerous. As we saw with bush, it was used as an expedient when the existing law was perfectly capable of dealing with the situation.

The RIchest Man in Babylon: My first thought was, "Man, I want some of what he's smoking." But on second thought, yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa no thanks.

Step 1: find an unused bathtub and purchase a case of brake fluid?

Mr Logo: The idea that 'this situation is not covered by the law, so we need to make it up' is quite dangerous. As we saw with bush, it was used as an expedient when the existing law was perfectly capable of dealing with the situation.

The Geneva Conventions do cover the situation. Civilian criminals are to be punished according to the law. This means a trial, a jury, and so on.

Or they are to be released, if they have done nothing wrong.

Mr Logo: The idea that 'this situation is not covered by the law, so we need to make it up' is quite dangerous.

I agree.

I don't mind the "title" of enemy combatant. but it should have been something like "they don't qualify for the GC but we'll give them a trial by civilians" or try to still stay as close as possible to the GC.

DamnYankees: Correct, they are not POWs. They are criminals.

A little unclear on the concept of due process, aren't we?

JacksBlack: There's an interesting article in Newsweek about Gitmo...

The (obviously lefty) author says "Obama should, and probably will" about 5 times.

I had to force myself to continue reading after the phrase "Obama's global constituency."

No serious leftist would be an imperialist. We'd need the article to figure out where the political compass would point.

Ed Grubermann: DamnYankees: Correct, they are not POWs. They are criminals.

A little unclear on the concept of due process, aren't we?

Alleged criminals. Point still stands.

/Man, everyone's getting snippy over non-legalese tonight.

Obama, who has yet to assume the presidency, should assume full responsibility for Bush's policies over the last 8 years. Cripes, not even POTUS yet and he's already full of FAIL.

/just like subby