If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Updated NDAA: 166 prisoners will remain at Guantanamo Bay pretty much forever   (aclu.org) divider line 347
    More: Fail, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo, ndaa, freedom of conscience, inauguration day, indefinite detention, signing statements, Anthony Romero  
•       •       •

7853 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 3:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



347 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-04 06:44:07 PM  
166 people that can never be let loose alive, due to national security risks? I did not see any provision to allow them to add more prisoners. I don't have a problem with this. Execution would only make matters worse. Besides, there is only way that they will no longer be taking prisoners.
 
2013-01-04 06:44:34 PM  

orbister: RobertBruce: Why aren't the Nuremberg Trials a valid blueprint we could use to try these combatants, uniformed or not?

It was answered upthread. They might be found innocent.


That's fine, if so.

I thought the problem was if they were found innocent in civilian courts.
 
2013-01-04 06:45:01 PM  

Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?

Ideally or realistically?

Ideally, I'd like a neutral party to judge them as criminals or not. If they're not criminals they should get tickets home and the same sort of compensation package that US convicts get when they're exonerated by DNA evidence.

Realistically? Turn them loose as far from our shores as possible.

I can accept both of your propositions accordingly: A) Ideally, please; B) Realistically, if necessary and sufficient, thank you. *)


P.S. The War On Terror (tm), i.e. Indubitably-speak=WOT, is a shell game. End the war, now, please. Thank you.
 
2013-01-04 06:46:31 PM  
If knowledge of these prisoners has prevented even one young man from strapping on a homicide vest, throwing acid in a girls face, gang raping a virgin, taking pot shots at NATO troops, or setting up an IED then they have served a noble purpose. This life is forfeit for these martyrs but Allah, most merciful, will reward them in the next.
 
2013-01-04 06:48:22 PM  

BronyMedic:
According to your opinion, no country in the world can wage war without the blanket approval of the rest of the world. Not only is that absurd, it's not based in any reality.


It's also not what I said. There are laws governing the conduct of war. Now, that seems a bit off to me, because I'me with Sam Vimes that war is breach of the peace on a massive scale. But given that those laws exist, and that a country wishes to gain advantage from them, it can't go around changing the definition of "war" whenever it feels like it.

War is against a specific actor. World War II was not a war with the German people, and Mr. Fritz Herndorf at 14 Bratwurst, Munich was not the target of the action. It was the Nazi Government.

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a
final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were
prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would
exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that
consequently this country is at war with Germany." (Neville Chamberlain PM, 1939)

I note, however, that Congress declared war on the Governments of Germany and Japan. Didn't stop you bombing their civilians, though.

Similarly, the war with Afghanistan was not with individual Afghanis, but with the Taliban Government.

Got a link to the text for that?

You were more than welcome to - just remember an act of war against your primary trading and financhial partner might not be a smart move.

An act of war against the US? Good heavens no. It would have been an act of war against terrorism. Surely you're not against acts of war on terrorism?
 
2013-01-04 06:52:53 PM  

BronyMedic: Give it up, dude. You're arguing with a foreign exceptionalist. Americans are the evil imperials looking to expand their colonial empire. There's no other explanation, you see.


No, he's arguing with someone who admires the founding principals of the US enormously and wishes you would all live up to them. I'm also someone who wishes you would realise that blanket oppression, either directly or through tame dictators, never was a moral strategy and is no longer a practicable one either.

You may also note that I have repeatedly pointed out that we (the UK) have also taken part in these wrong-headed enterprises. I'm just as big a critic of our involvement.
 
2013-01-04 06:56:03 PM  

BronyMedic: And you don't have the power to enforce your opinion (which is actually incorrect according to the Geneva and Hague conventions) on the United States. See, that's the thing about "international law" when it comes to international actors in a war. You can cry all you want, but you have to have the military and world political power behind you to prove that claim.


What you're basically saying, then, is "We're big, we're strong, we can do what we want". Well you can, you know. But even if you set all moral considerations aside (what would Fluttershy say?) sheer pragmatism ought to be ringing warning bells.
 
2013-01-04 06:57:12 PM  

elsuavio: Boudica's War Tampon: The Senate Roll Call:

YEAs ---54

....
Not Voting - 5
DeMint (R-SC)
Heller (R-NV)
Kirk (R-IL)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Wyden (D-OR)

The House

Republicans are 190 to 43 in favor.
Democrats are split 93 to 93

Look at all those R's in front of the YEA votes in both houses.
Look at all those D's in front of the Nay votes in both houses.

Why, if I wasn't a patriot, I would say those Republicans are trying to straight-jacket the President to prevent him from seeing another of his campaign promises fulfilled. But that would be a terrible thing to do with a Defense spending authorization act. No one would be that politically m ...

This is incorrect. Please cite where you found this.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/actions_votes

More dems voted for this than you think. Also, Paul was the one that flipped out on the senate floor because of this bill. If you think he gave it a yea vote after that, you're crazier than a congressman.


The Senate vote for NDAA 2013 from senate.gov

the House vote for NDAA 2013

I did unfortunately link to the 2012 House vote instead of the 2013 House vote. This time it was 222 R for; 16 R against. 77 D for; 104 against. With a few wusses who abstained or didn't vote.

If I got it wrong again, I'm going back to posting pics of hot, bendable women.
 
2013-01-04 06:57:54 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The best war would be the one that never happened; but since that's clearly never going to happen, the better war is one which kills the minimum number in the shortest time at the least expense. Now, you can do that via precision bombing and drone strikes; or you can use mass artillery and carpet bombing. I'm not sure why you seem to feel the latter is somehow preferable to the former although your language and attitude certainly conveys that impression.


I don't. I'm consistently agin' both sorts. It was BronyMedic who said he liked precision bombing but wanted war to be hell, and I'm trying to find out which he actually prefers.
 
2013-01-04 06:59:57 PM  

sprawl15: orbister: Civil wars are a different matter.

Yugoslavia's internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. Yugoslavia was at war with no countries; and therefore is not beholden by international law to behave as if they were


Is there something about the phrase "a different matter" which is causing you problems? Yugoslavia was not at war with anyone, but bits of Yugoslavia were undoubtedly at war with each other.
 
2013-01-04 07:01:26 PM  

BronyMedic: False comparison. The United States government never made it a policy of allowing the IRA to operate on it's soil to train,  actively prosecuted those people who were found to be supporters of them and seized assets intended for their support, and did not shelter fugitives from justice from the UK and Northern Ireland while providing financial and material support to the IRA.


Ha ha ha. Your government tolerated overt political, financial and military support for IRA terrorists for three decades.
 
2013-01-04 07:01:27 PM  

orbister: I'm also someone who wishes you would realise that blanket oppression, either directly or through tame dictators, never was a moral strategy and is no longer a practicable one either.


You're also not a reader, apparently.
 
2013-01-04 07:02:13 PM  
Dammit. That's the Senate roll call to an amendment vote. Gottdammitsomuch. Well, never let it be said I'm not a man of my words...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-04 07:02:48 PM  

phrawgh: If knowledge of these prisoners has prevented even one young man from strapping on a homicide vest, throwing acid in a girls face, gang raping a virgin, taking pot shots at NATO troops, or setting up an IED then they have served a noble purpose.


Knowledge of these prisoners has probably produce more vest wearers and IED builders than any other single factor.
 
2013-01-04 07:05:47 PM  

FLMountainMan: Having said that, I think it's absurd that if a politician changes his mind on something over the course of time we consider it flipflopping and hypocrisy of the highest order.

If someone you meet in real life changes their mind on something over the course of time, we call it "learning".



Exactly. Obama started out having principles, and he learned how to ignore them. You know -- "learning".
 
2013-01-04 07:07:52 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Crotchrocket Slim: BSABSVR: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

This is actually a case where most everyone comes off badly.  The GOP thinks that a key component to winning the war on terror is to lock every suspect up and then compete to see who can come up with the toughest sounding way to make them confess.  Democratic politicians are scared of being labeled appeasers or soft on terror, and the only critic of this  with any sort of a megaphone is Glenn Greenwald, who comes with his own (mostly self-induced) set of flaws that cost him credibility.

I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.

Obama is the commander in chief of the united states military and the prisoners are held in military custody. If Congress wont fund an official transfer he could just order the navy to dump them off in Florida and just tell the FBI when so they can decide whether to show up and arrest people or not.


I really don't think an end-run around Congress would be very... legal.
 
2013-01-04 07:08:26 PM  
What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?
 
2013-01-04 07:08:36 PM  

sprawl15: Try to be a bit less obvious about never having read the 9/11 AUMF.


The big problem is the US desire to have it both ways. You change the declaration of war to include war on a concept, but then demand that your arbitrarily defined opponents must now, because of your decision, act like traditional opponents: wearing uniforms and so on.

Just decide once and for all whether the prisoners are Guantanamo are enemy combatants to be treated as prisoners of war or civilians to be treated as suspected criminals. Even in this thread we have seen people arguing for both, sometimes simultaneously.
 
2013-01-04 07:10:49 PM  

computerguyUT: What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?


Welcome to American politics, man.

Are you new?

*)
 
2013-01-04 07:11:16 PM  

computerguyUT: What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?


You think you're adding anything of value to the conversation that won't be refuted in 5 minutes, or would be if the thread wasn't going to sleep now?
 
2013-01-04 07:11:41 PM  
Sprawl15 Gdalescrboz: Authorization for use of force is not a declaration of war.

I would suggest you look up the War Powers Resolution so you don't look a fool.


Did you even read the item you suggested I read?

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

In fact, what you linked, says that The War Powers Resolution allows the President to use military force in upwards of 60 days WITHOUT a declaration of war or authorization of the use of military force. As we know, Congress passed the Authorization of Use of Military forces on Sept. 14, 2001, they did not declare war. Maybe you should read your effing link before you try to use it a a citation in your argument. Way to make yourself look a fool. Thanks for playing champ
 
2013-01-04 07:13:23 PM  

orbister: Knowledge of these prisoners has probably produce more vest wearers and IED builders than any other single factor.


nah
 
2013-01-04 07:16:37 PM  

orbister: sprawl15: orbister: Civil wars are a different matter.

Yugoslavia's internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. Yugoslavia was at war with no countries; and therefore is not beholden by international law to behave as if they were

Is there something about the phrase "a different matter" which is causing you problems? Yugoslavia was not at war with anyone, but bits of Yugoslavia were undoubtedly at war with each other.


They were not at war. They could not have been at war without a declaration of war, per your assertions. Are you now suggesting that a formal state of war can exist outside of a formal declaration of war?

Gdalescrboz: In fact, what you linked, says that The War Powers Resolution allows the President to use military force in upwards of 60 days WITHOUT a declaration of war or authorization of the use of military force


Are you suggesting that a country can not be in a state of war without a declaration of war or other Congressional/Presidential act?

That would mean people who defended themselves at Pearl Harbor would have been committing illegal acts by doing so.
 
2013-01-04 07:19:23 PM  
Is this the thread where we try to pretend that the guy who spent last year doing this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Ever really wanted to end indefinite detention in the first place?

Lying politician was lying.
 
2013-01-04 07:21:00 PM  

hubiestubert: We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty?  Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...


I think what you wrote is spot on. I do differ on opinion of what to do with them. The thought that we cant, if I may paraphrase, 'let them go due to them becoming heroes back home, or the current climate overseas' should have fark all to do with the US needing to do the right thing and let them go (should trial find them innocent). I don't care if they become the biggest propaganda coup in world history for their cause,the US did wrong and now it needs to right it, damn the consequences.
 
2013-01-04 07:21:29 PM  
Since Bush being president was a big mistake, what Obama should have done on day one was make everything be the way it would have been if Al Gore had been president for 8 years, and then proceed with making changes he wanted to make from that point. My vote for Obama was intended to retroactively delete every effect George W. Bush had on the present.
 
2013-01-04 07:23:05 PM  
sprawl15
Gdalescrboz: In fact, what you linked, says that The War Powers Resolution allows the President to use military force in upwards of 60 days WITHOUT a declaration of war or authorization of the use of military force

Are you suggesting that a country can not be in a state of war without a declaration of war or other Congressional/Presidential act?

That would mean people who defended themselves at Pearl Harbor would have been committing illegal acts by doing so.


That makes no sense. Don't cite documentation to back up your argument and then pretend that same source document is irrelevant when I explain to you that you didn't understand it correctly.
 
2013-01-04 07:26:00 PM  

Indubitably: computerguyUT: What? I'M OUTRAGED.

O-Butthole PROMISED he'd close guantanamo.

You mean he LIED?

Welcome to American politics, man.

Are you new?

*)


P.S. Crap. My New Year's Resolution was to limit, if not abolish, my sarcasm, and I have already failed. Oh well. I was saying...
 
2013-01-04 07:28:44 PM  

orbister: phrawgh: If knowledge of these prisoners has prevented even one young man from strapping on a homicide vest, throwing acid in a girls face, gang raping a virgin, taking pot shots at NATO troops, or setting up an IED then they have served a noble purpose.

Knowledge of these prisoners has probably produce more vest wearers and IED builders than any other single factor.


Either way. This is the type of enemy that we can't identify until they act against us. In the beginning we used tactics like a couple psyops guys in a up-armored Humvee with loudspeakers that drove around seemingly alone, blasting things like "Muslims with beards have smaller dicks than their inevitable daughters" or some such crap that riles the weird beards, until somebody takes a shot. Then the two LMTVs full of infantry that followed at a distance, race in and mop up. I don't know how its done now, that was ten years ago. I can see the club gitmo guys serving a similar purpose though.
 
2013-01-04 07:29:33 PM  
sprawl15
Are you suggesting that a country can not be in a state of war without a declaration of war or other Congressional/Presidential act?

That would mean people who defended themselves at Pearl Harbor would have been committing illegal acts by doing so.


And where the fark did you get that i suggested you can't be in a state of war w/out a Presidential/Congressional act? You went full retard on me didnt you? Damn dude, you dont go full retard
 
2013-01-04 07:31:20 PM  

Gdalescrboz: That makes no sense.


No shiat. But that's what you're arguing.
 
2013-01-04 07:43:57 PM  

Banned on the Run: Solution: Let them all go.

[calitreview.com image 533x300]

GPS in the collar. Must return every few years for a battery change or kaboom.
If they are found misbehaving , either kaboom or a hellfire on their position.
Problem solved.


we can also do this to people convicted of a crime because fark those people. The only people who get imprisoned by the court system are the bad ones that deserve to be treated as less than human.
 
2013-01-04 07:52:30 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: I'm a little curious about what the Democrats are supposed to do in this situation then, considering they know they don't have the majority they'd need to push through legislation needed to close Gitmo considering the inevitable resistance from Boehner & Co. I'd hate for your handle to stop being ironical there.


I honestly have no idea.  If I were in charge, I'd reframe the debate.  "America is the greatest country in the world, right?  Real Americans aren't scared of some 16 year old from Pakistan who hasn't seen the sun in a decade!  Only snivelling, unamerican weenies would be sacred of  such a foe.  And we will obey our constitution (the greatest the world has ever seen), and still bring the evildoers to justice just as the founders intended.  To do less would be to spit in the face of Alexander Hamilton or whoever Glenn Beck is fetishizing this week."

Right now the frame is that it is too dangerous and irresponsible to do anything but abandon people to gitmo and render them to torturing countries.  If civil libertarians want to change the debate, they ought to change it so that it's the right, honest, macho, patriotic thing to do, and anything less is bush league at best, utter cowardice at worst.
 
2013-01-04 07:55:47 PM  

BronyMedic: sprawl15: And, again, because the 9/11 AUMF is specifically targeting organizations or persons, captured members of those organizations or those persons are POW's per Article 4 Section 1.

Direct from Article 1:

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Most of the nations of origin for members of known terrorist groups are not parties to the Geneva Convention. In addition, protection under the act requires the prisoner to have acted in accordance to the laws and customs of warfare as spelled out in the convention. You know, like not murdering US Soldiers who are captured, and posting the video on youtube?

In addition to this, I think you might want to read Article 4, Section 1. It does not say what you think it says.

[p.46] A. -- ' On the territory of belligerent States: ' protection is accorded under Article 4 to all persons of foreign nationality and to persons without any nationality. The following are, however, excluded:

(1) Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention;

(2) Nationals of a neutral or co-belligerent State, so long as the State
in question has normal diplomatic representation in the State in
whose territory they are;

(3) Persons covered by the definition given above under A who enjoy
protection under one of the other three Geneva Conventions of August
12, 1949.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationa ...


You are correct in stating that "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it,: however, you will note that Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United States (as well as every current member nation of the United Nations) acceded to the Geneva Conventions and thus, are bound by them. The United States acceded to the 1949 Conventions in 1955, Afghanistan in 1956, and Iraq in 1956. Thus, when the Taliban came to power in 1996 and Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, both nations were already signatories to the 1949 conventions, and neither withdrew their accessions to the Conventions--then or since. In 2009, Afghanistan ratified Protocols I & II. In 2010, Iraq ratified Protocol I. In 2007, the United States ratified Protocol III.

Protocol I - protection of victims in international armed conflicts
Protocol II - protection of victims in non-international armed conflicts
Protocol III - distinctive emblem, referring to the protection of medical, religious, and humanitarian personnel displaying distinctive emblems and the requirement of all parties on all sides of any conflict to protect these individuals

Note that the United States has NOT ratified Protocols I & II, but has signalled "intent" to do so. Note that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq has ratified nor signalled intent to ratify Protocol III (nor has Iraq signalled intent to ratify Protocol II, for that matter). Protocol III is an amendment allowing the red crystal in addition to the red cross and red crescent. The first Geneva Convention makes it a violation of international law to fire upon or misuse either of those symbols.


TL;DR - All three nations are parties to the Geneva Conventions and you don't get to pick and choose who has violated them when humanitarians who have identified themselves as such have been deliberately murdered. Neither side comes out of this smelling like a fragrant flower. Further, human rights are just that-HUMAN rights, however, the rights afforded under the United States Constitution apply only to citizens of the United States. Try picking the Constitution up and reading it; it's quite clear on that point. US Constitutional rights do not apply to those at Gitmo, human rights most certainly do... but I will not weigh in on whether those at Gitmo right now are having their human rights violated when they have far more than many of our own citizens (and possibly their own countrymen) do in terms of food and shelter and freedom to worship as they will despite being in a cell which their actions may or may not have earned them.
 
2013-01-04 08:13:00 PM  
Should have just shot them out of hand.

Like a feral cat. Now we are going to be responsible for feeding them, and cleaning their litter boxes, fo rthe rest of their miserable lives.
 
2013-01-04 08:27:52 PM  

bikkurikun: Is it a travesty? Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...


But there is a solution, and that is to give them a trial. Even if it means you will have to let them go and give them generous amounts of compensation, it is still the only right thing to do. That is what justice is all about. If you cannot prove a case, or do not follow the right procedures, the suspects walks away free. Too bad, it will serve as a lesson for future generations to do it right.

So, give them a trial, let them walk, and then give the people responsible for this shameful travesty a trial as well and put them in prison instead.



he's part of the authoritarian wing of the democratic party.
he believes habeas corpus is a regular pain in the ass.
no sense mentioning the reasonable answer, which is of course indict them immediately or set them free, he'll just say it is too complicated, too painful, for our government to be required to deliver justice.
 
2013-01-04 08:36:14 PM  
Try them in court.
 
2013-01-04 08:37:40 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Holocaust Agnostic: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

How did closing gitmo become clodding titmouse? Fark you android!


I thought "clodding titmouse" was a farker from another political thread that I hadn't read....
 
2013-01-04 08:38:35 PM  

Frederick: Try them in court.


Agreed.

What were you afraid of before, banker?

Equal under law.
 
2013-01-04 08:50:42 PM  
Good.

And even better if any of them ex-pat Americans.

They all should rot especially the ones who take up arms against their own country.
 
2013-01-04 09:07:25 PM  
Good, I'd prefer they didnt continue breathing, but oh well. But I thought it was promised it would be closed, I guess Obama lies, no surprise there.
 
2013-01-04 09:21:54 PM  

gorgon38: Good, I'd prefer they didnt continue breathing, but oh well. But I thought it was promised it would be closed, I guess Obama lies, no surprise there.


Wrong answer.

Are you a believer of justice from beyond the grave? Justice is court by a jury of your peers in America.

And that's that.

*)
 
2013-01-04 09:23:58 PM  

Indubitably: gorgon38: Good, I'd prefer they didnt continue breathing, but oh well. But I thought it was promised it would be closed, I guess Obama lies, no surprise there.

Wrong answer.

Are you a believer of justice from beyond the grave? Justice is court by a jury of your peers in America.

And that's that.

*)


P.S. I shaman. Please listen to me, for these spirits make certain you do, no? Words and Peaces. Thank you.
 
2013-01-04 09:35:29 PM  

orbister: BronyMedic: False comparison. The United States government never made it a policy of allowing the IRA to operate on it's soil to train,  actively prosecuted those people who were found to be supporters of them and seized assets intended for their support, and did not shelter fugitives from justice from the UK and Northern Ireland while providing financial and material support to the IRA.

Ha ha ha. Your government tolerated overt political, financial and military support for IRA terrorists for three decades.


fayinc.files.wordpress.com

The United States has both still-existing factions of the IRA listed as terrorist groups, and have had them for some time listed as such. But if you have an official source which states it was a matter of Government policy to fund and support the IRA in their war against the UK, please, by all means, link it.
 
2013-01-04 09:37:56 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: hubiestubert: We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty?  Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...

Fine, then put a farking bullet through their heads and call it done. "We can't stop abusing the rights of these people, because then there would be consequences to our actions" has got to be the biggest pile of hogshiat I've heard in a long damn time. Let them go and deal with the consequences, try them and deal with the consequences, or keep/kill them and admit that you aren't an awesome country. If you're fine with admitting that your a country that has no problem with trampling the rights of people for no provable reason then by all means hold on to them. But don't try to say that you are a country that respects people's rights and does everything to protect them while continuing with this bull.


Brown people have less rights. Anyone living in a red state can tell you this. Driving While Brown is still probable cause down here
 
2013-01-04 09:49:53 PM  
That section 533 worries me. I'm afraid that congress will pack the military brass with right wing ideologues like they've done with the federal bench. Last thing we need is a bunch of evangelical holy warriors running the military. Or more than we already have.
 
2013-01-04 09:55:12 PM  

Champion of the Sun: That section 533 worries me. I'm afraid that congress will pack the military brass with right wing ideologues like they've done with the federal bench. Last thing we need is a bunch of evangelical holy warriors running the military. Or more than we already have.


Dereligion, now.

Thank you.
 
2013-01-04 09:56:22 PM  

Indubitably: Champion of the Sun: That section 533 worries me. I'm afraid that congress will pack the military brass with right wing ideologues like they've done with the federal bench. Last thing we need is a bunch of evangelical holy warriors running the military. Or more than we already have.

Dereligion, now.

Thank you.


P.S. Religion seldom informs good military policy, please.
 
2013-01-04 10:14:28 PM  
i think the rule of thumb should be, if they were captured in their own country of origin, release them, it's been enough (unless they're honest to god highly placed AQ operatives...), whereas if they were captured in a country other than their own, they pretty much committed themselves to jihad against the west... and we may as well let them have their virgins...
 
2013-01-04 10:15:49 PM  

proteus_b: and we may as well let them have their virgins...


or we could follow the rule of law and admit that we screwed up and that no judge, civilian or military, would actually allow them to be tried and just let them go.
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report