Folks, US law has a really simple concept: if you hold someone and cannot charge them with a crime, they must be released.

If you don't like it, vote in a tyrant.

mattharvest: Folks, US law has a really simple concept

someone hasn't been following 7 years of judicial wrangling

But I need my SKS from November to January during deer jihad season.

mattharvest: Folks, US law has a really simple concept: if you hold someone and cannot charge them with a crime, they must be released.

Fine. Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck.

Nabb1: Fine. Take him back to the shiathole combat zone his goat farm where we picked him up and wish him good luck.

FTFY

Great headline!

mattharvest: If you don't like it, vote in a tyrant.

We did in 2000.

/Well "vote in" isn't exactly what happened

Dancin_In_Anson: Great headline!

i aim to please. and am pleased to aim

Nabb1: Fine. Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck.

Since the "battlefield" is the whole world (according to the previous Administration) that could be anywhere.

Nabb1: Fine. Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck.

Well, we often didn't pick him up in a combat zone, or at least not in a battlefield.

Have you read Corine Hegland's article?

Link (new window)

Do you think that the US acted correctly in imprisoning these people in the first place?

"Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry....your jihadists yearning to be free..."

If we can't prove a case against them, then we have to let them go--end of story. And it's not like we can send the Uighurs back to China where they'd be tortured and killed. They were deemed innocent in Sept 2008. Yes, that's right--the BUSH Administration said they were innocent. And then there's that 22-yo Canadian who got picked up at age 15 and has been sitting in Gitmo all this time. I'm sure he must be royally farked up now.

albo: i aim to please. and am pleased to aim

And it went over everyone's head.

Obdicut: Nabb1: Fine. Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck.

Well, we often didn't pick him up in a combat zone, or at least not in a battlefield.

Have you read Corine Hegland's article?

Link (new window)

Do you think that the US acted correctly in imprisoning these people in the first place?

Well then send him back to wherever we picked him up. Or, why don't you let him sleep on your couch, since you seem to be so concerned.

Dancin_In_Anson: albo: i aim to please. and am pleased to aim

And it went over everyone's head.

No it didn't, but it did reach for straws

Detainee 032 has never been accused of fighting against America. He fell into U.S custody far away from any battlefield. But today, after four years of interrogations and investigations, he is still an "enemy combatant," even though he was never an enemy or a combatant.


Just plain wrong. No excuse for the US to do such a thing to a person. No excuse

Don't worry subby. I'm sure wherever they are in the US, their lives will be made a further living hell by their neighbors, innocence be damned.

Nabb1: Well then send him back to wherever we picked him up. Or, why don't you let him sleep on your couch, since you seem to be so concerned.

I'm sorry, that's not a reasonable answer to my question. It's a rather silly way to look at it.

I also think that if we imprisoned some random white supremacist dude from Bakersfield for a few years, didn't charge him with anything, and admitted we really didn't have any particular reason for picking him up, we'd be wrong to do that.

I wouldn't feel that saying he should be released from prison and that injustice had been done to him would indicate that I should let him sleep on my couch. Though it would make a great sitcom.

Again:

Do you think thin the US acted correctly in imprisoning these people in the first place?

Dancin_In_Anson: albo: i aim to please. and am pleased to aim

And it went over everyone's head.

OMG NOOO GUN GRABBERS AHHHH LIBS LIBS LIBS

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hoped to "add language to the Defense authorization bill that would eliminate habeas rights for detainees captured during the terrorism fight, to halt 'the never-ending litigation that is coming from Guantanamo.'"

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and John McCain (R-Arizona) today issued the following statement "We support President Obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees," said Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain. "The executive orders issued today constitute an important step in the right direction but leave several major issues unaddressed."

Those of you from SC, please don't vote for this guy ever again.

albo: mattharvest: Folks, US law has a really simple concept

someone hasn't been following 7 years of judicial wrangling

Either you're bad at reading the point of my statement, or I wasn't clear enough.

Whichever way, my point was exactly this: the only reason these people have remained behind concrete walls with no windows is that we elected a tyrant.

Obdicut: Nabb1: Well then send him back to wherever we picked him up. Or, why don't you let him sleep on your couch, since you seem to be so concerned.

I'm sorry, that's not a reasonable answer to my question. It's a rather silly way to look at it.

I also think that if we imprisoned some random white supremacist dude from Bakersfield for a few years, didn't charge him with anything, and admitted we really didn't have any particular reason for picking him up, we'd be wrong to do that.

I wouldn't feel that saying he should be released from prison and that injustice had been done to him would indicate that I should let him sleep on my couch. Though it would make a great sitcom.

Only if you were funny.

Again:

Do you think thin the US acted correctly in imprisoning these people in the first place?

Where we should release them is a wholly separate issue from whether or not it is right to release them. I'm not debating you on the latter. Either discuss the topic at hand, or go bait someone else.

Dancin_In_Anson: And it went over everyone's head.

Yeah, sure it did.

The Onanist: Yeah, sure it did.

Well, people seem to be more concerned with the rights of non citizens than they are with citizens.

I expected no less.

Nabb1: Where we should release them is a wholly separate issue from whether or not it is right to release them. I'm not debating you on the latter. Either discuss the topic at hand, or go bait someone else.

Okay. The part I was keying off of was "and wish him good luck," which seemed to indicate you felt that that would end the US responsibilities to the person. If you don't feel this way, then never mind.

If you want to keep the conversation solely about where to release them:

What about the Uighurs, and the others who have reasonable fear for their safety if repatriated? Do you think it is okay for the United States to return people to a place where they face immediate mortal danger?

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, people seem to be more concerned with the rights of non citizens than they are with citizens.

You cannot protect the rights of one group by violating the rights of another. The denigration of one person's rights is a denigration of all persons' rights.

Dancin_In_Anson: The Onanist: Yeah, sure it did.

Well, people seem to be more concerned with the rights of non citizens than they are with citizens.

I expected no less.

Wouldn't you be trying to argue two entirely different topics with vastly different outcomes?

1. The right of man to get a fair trial
2. The right of US Citizens to bear all arms

I don't see how anyone can intelligently argue #1, but I totally see both sides of #2.

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, people seem to be more concerned with the rights of non citizens than they are with citizens.


I'm just concerned about our country abandoning the principles upon which it was founded in the face of fear.

But everyone go ahead and keep crying about how releasing people who shouldn't have been locked up in the first place is a terrible, terrible thing.

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, people seem to be more concerned with the rights of [wrongly incarcerated] non citizens than they are with citizens.

FTFY

Obdicut: What about the Uighurs, and the others who have reasonable fear for their safety if repatriated? Do you think it is okay for the United States to return people to a place where they face immediate mortal danger?

How many detainees do they comprise? Aren't the Uighurs mainly in part of China? And why should they have any rights to seek refuge greater than any one else's? Put them in the same position they would be in had the US not detained them in the first place. If they need to seek asylum, let them go through the regular legal channels. I don't think they are entitled to any special priority.

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, people seem to be more concerned with the rights of non citizens than they are with citizens.

I think most people are still amazed at how the previous administration felt it could abduct people and hold them at their whim. Not giving a crap about human rights riles thinking people.

As for Holder and the scary "ooga booga booga - gonna take your guns away" crap... it ain't gonna happen. Its scare tactic #6 perpetuated by the NRA and pseudo-Constitutionalists (e.g. those who see only the 2nd Amendment).

mattharvest: You cannot protect the rights of one group by violating the rights of another. The denigration of one person's rights is a denigration of all persons' rights.

Exactly.

pixistick: Wouldn't you be trying to argue two entirely different topics with vastly different outcomes?

1. The right of man to get a fair trial
2. The right of US Citizens to bear all arms

I don't see how anyone can intelligently argue #1, but I totally see both sides of #2.

Bullshiat.

Blues_X: I'm just concerned about our country abandoning the principles upon which it was founded in the face of fear.

Like scary looking guns?

The Onanist: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, people seem to be more concerned with the rights of [wrongly incarcerated] non citizens than they are with citizens.

So send them home and let me be able to buy another M1.

Dancin_In_Anson: Bullshiat.

On which part?

Dancin_In_Anson: So send them home and let me be able to buy another M1.

You can't buy an M1 now?

/"Liberal" C&R License holder / Handgun permit

Quit your biatching and moaning people. The United States is about freedom and these people, some of them, have been detained without due process. As such, much like another American concept, the free range chicken, they should be allowed to roam without consequence.

Free range terrorists are as American as free range ranching.

Nabb1: How many detainees do they comprise? Aren't the Uighurs mainly in part of China? And why should they have any rights to seek refuge greater than any one else's? Put them in the same position they would be in had the US not detained them in the first place. If they need to seek asylum, let them go through the regular legal channels. I don't think they are entitled to any special priority.

The Uighurs are a special case because they've already been deemed innocent. The only reason they were in Afghanistan was so they wouldn't be tortured and jailed in China. So, they got rounded up with other Muslims when we invaded, marched to Pakistan, and then taken to Gitmo. Where they've been tortured and jailed by us.

We can't send them back to China, they've now no home to go back to in Afghanistan, so where do you suggest we send them? I have no problem with bringing them here. Why is you don't think they deserve to live in America, after what we did to them?

Nabb1: Put them in the same position they would be in had the US not detained them in the first place.

Oh, so you do want to take about the circumstances they were taken in? If the US hadn't taken them in the first place, we have no idea what position they'd be in now. We can't really put them back to that. The whole "river flows on" thing and everything.

With the Uighurs, for example, they were refugees from China. They escaped into Afghanistan, and then were given to us by villagers. We knew early on that they were not in any way connected to Al-Queda or the Taliban.

So should we return them to China, where they originally came before they crossed the border (almost certainly illegally) into Afghanistan?

Should we return them to Afghanistan, a country that they probably had no legal right to enter, where the villagers turned them over to us in the first place?

Should we extrapolate for the missing years and fill in events, imagine where they would be if we hadn't picked them up?

I_C_Weener: Free range alleged terrorists are as American as free range ranching.

FTFY

pixistick: On which part?

You're all in on both or all out...None of this well..you know I can kind of see bullshiat.

The Onanist: You can't buy an M1 now?

As of right now. However, they are not only scarce but very expensive as they are on the list of scary guns to be banned if we get the votes.

brigid_fitch: The Uighurs are a special case because they've already been deemed innocent. The only reason they were in Afghanistan was so they wouldn't be tortured and jailed in China. So, they got rounded up with other Muslims when we invaded, marched to Pakistan, and then taken to Gitmo. Where they've been tortured and jailed by us.

We can't send them back to China, they've now no home to go back to in Afghanistan, so where do you suggest we send them? I have no problem with bringing them here. Why is you don't think they deserve to live in America, after what we did to them?

I think they should be allowed to apply for asylum. I have no qualms with that. And as for the ones who have been deemed innocent, there is not reason to still be holding them. The issue to me is whether people should just be turned loose in the US without some process determining whether that is in their best interests or ours, same as anyone else applying for entry to the US.

I'd like to see the scumbags back in the slums they came from. They'll be missing the 3 Islam-approved hots and a cot they got in sunny Cuba. Most likely they'll end up here and living on the government dime. Yeah, America!!

Nabb1: The issue to me is whether people should just be turned loose in the US without some process determining whether that is in their best interests or ours, same as anyone else applying for entry to the US.

Nabb1: Fine. Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck.

Do you feel these statements are not in any contradiction with each other?

When you said "Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck", what you meant was "Allow him to apply for asylum"?

Dancin_In_Anson: You're all in on both or all out...None of this well..you know I can kind of see bullshiat.

So you feel that you should be able to own a nuclear bomb then?

Obdicut: Nabb1: Put them in the same position they would be in had the US not detained them in the first place.

Oh, so you do want to take about the circumstances they were taken in? If the US hadn't taken them in the first place, we have no idea what position they'd be in now. We can't really put them back to that. The whole "river flows on" thing and everything.

With the Uighurs, for example, they were refugees from China. They escaped into Afghanistan, and then were given to us by villagers. We knew early on that they were not in any way connected to Al-Queda or the Taliban.

So should we return them to China, where they originally came before they crossed the border (almost certainly illegally) into Afghanistan?

Should we return them to Afghanistan, a country that they probably had no legal right to enter, where the villagers turned them over to us in the first place?

Should we extrapolate for the missing years and fill in events, imagine where they would be if we hadn't picked them up?

Fine. Let them make their case to immigration. They have my full support in that regard, but you shouldn't make their unfortunate circumstances the guidepost for all releases. Assess them on a case by case basis. For example, even by the Pentagon's own standards, most of these guys were cleared, so the DOD has made a determination about their potential security threat. What about others who have been determined a threat but their cases not fully adjudicated?

Obdicut: Nabb1: Fine. Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck.

Do you feel these statements are not in any contradiction with each other?

When you said "Take him back to the shiathole combat zone where we picked him up and wish him good luck", what you meant was "Allow him to apply for asylum"?

Not if we determine that we in fact picked him up in a shiathold combat zone holding a weapon in the first place. If it is determined that a detainee was picked up in a combat zone firing at US troops, would you want him released in the US?

Nabb1: Fine. Let them make their case to immigration. They have my full support in that regard, but you shouldn't make their unfortunate circumstances the guidepost for all releases. Assess them on a case by case basis. For example, even by the Pentagon's own standards, most of these guys were cleared, so the DOD has made a determination about their potential security threat. What about others who have been determined a threat but their cases not fully adjudicated?

Again, that is a perfectly reasonable position, even if I disagree. It is also very markedly different from your original statement, which was the one that I disagreed with.

Nabb1: Not if we determine that we in fact picked him up in a shiathold combat zone holding a weapon in the first place. If it is determined that a detainee was picked up in a combat zone firing at US troops, would you want him released in the US?

Now you're adding things to your statement, whereby it becomes more reasonable.

Please note I have never advocated releasing them into the US, either, which is a position you've just assigned to me.

I have the position that since we have wrongly imprisoned many of these people for many years, we, as a society, owe them something. I don't think we automatically owe them anything in particular, like citizenship or residency, but I do think that they should be treated differently, because we already treated them differently-- real differently.

Obdicut: Again, that is a perfectly reasonable position, even if I disagree. It is also very markedly different from your original statement, which was the one that I disagreed with.

Except that you used the case of a specific class of detainees who have largely been cleared by the Pentagon to argue with me about a point clearly aimed at actual combatants, so you tell me - if the guy was picked up in a combat zone shooting at US troops, do you want him released in the US?

pixistick: So you feel that you should be able to own a nuclear bomb then?

Yep.

Dancin_In_Anson: pixistick: So you feel that you should be able to own a nuclear bomb then?

Yep.

Assuming that you answered in a serious manner, that is really farked up