The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris on October 07, 2009, 03:41:09 PM
-
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday reached an agreement that would allow the Obama administration to continue bringing foreign terrorism suspects from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States to face trial.
Negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate included the agreement in a $42.8 billion bill that would fund the Homeland Security Department for the current fiscal year.
Both chambers still must pass the bill before President Barack Obama can sign it into law.
The Obama administration hopes to bring some of the 223 detainees remaining in the facility to the United States to face charges in American courtrooms. Republicans and some Democrats have worried that housing the suspects on U.S. soil could create security risks.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5965MH20091007
-
Great put them on our soil so they can say "Where are my rights" WTF??
-
Great put them on our soil so they can say "Where are my rights" WTF??
WTF, indeed! Just when you think these morons can't go any lower and have reached bottom, they start digging....
-
I'm not worried about security so much as what our legal system will do with them. A supermax isn't letting anybody out by accident, but some ACLU lawyer might convince a judge to let some of them off on a technicality.
-
I'm not worried about security so much as what our legal system will do with them. A supermax isn't letting anybody out by accident, but some ACLU lawyer might convince a judge to let some of them off on a technicality.
Which is f'd up because they didn't commit a crime under our legal system's jurisdiction.
The American Citizen - fewer rights in America than anyone else.
-
I wonder if this encourages those serving to take no prisoners, ya know?
-
Where are they going to send them to Leavenworth or spread them out?
-
Send them to DC. Seriously.
-
Then they will feel at home with all of the corpution there
-
Which is f'd up because they didn't commit a crime under our legal system's jurisdiction.
The American Citizen - fewer rights in America than anyone else.
It is a pretty messed up situation. They aren't innocent, but what legal grounds do we have for holding them? If they're criminals, they should go through the criminal justice system. To be a POW and therefore protected by the Geneva Convention, you have to be a "lawful combatant," which these people don't qualify for. We conveniently label them "unlawful combatants" who basically don't have any rights.
Moving them to the US forces our legal system to deal with them, but I'd bet after all this time the documentation that would be proof of guilt is no longer available for at least some of them.
Maybe we really should take the high road and let them go. A lot of them were just kids when captured.
I dunno.
-
It is a pretty messed up situation. They aren't innocent, but what legal grounds do we have for holding them? If they're criminals, they should go through the criminal justice system. To be a POW and therefore protected by the Geneva Convention, you have to be a "lawful combatant," which these people don't qualify for. We conveniently label them "unlawful combatants" who basically don't have any rights.
Moving them to the US forces our legal system to deal with them, but I'd bet after all this time the documentation that would be proof of guilt is no longer available for at least some of them.
Maybe we really should take the high road and let them go. A lot of them were just kids when captured.
I dunno.
How about we afford them the full Geneva Convention protections for an unlawful combatant: summary execution. I guarantee they won't fight any more Americans after that.
-
It is a pretty messed up situation. They aren't innocent, but what legal grounds do we have for holding them? If they're criminals, they should go through the criminal justice system. To be a POW and therefore protected by the Geneva Convention, you have to be a "lawful combatant," which these people don't qualify for. We conveniently label them "unlawful combatants" who basically don't have any rights.
Moving them to the US forces our legal system to deal with them, but I'd bet after all this time the documentation that would be proof of guilt is no longer available for at least some of them.
Maybe we really should take the high road and let them go. A lot of them were just kids when captured.
I dunno.
Holy hell. Are you seriously this intellectually challenged?
-
Holy hell. Are you seriously this intellectually challenged?
It's more of a general depression about the situation. It's a conflict between due process and what's actually right that bothers me.
-
We conveniently label them "unlawful combatants" who basically don't have any rights.
It doesn't really seem like that has afforded any sort of "convenience" for us, by any stretch of the imagination. It's made this situation one big cluster****, honestly.
I echo docstew's comment that we afford them what's coming an unlawful enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions.
They have no rights, Deuce. They could've just left well enough alone and never crossed paths with a white American devil. Instead, they took arms against the United States of America fighting for an idea no more profound than, "I hate you." They will stop at nothing. They will kill themselves, their children, their wives, anyone, in the hopes of even hurting an American, civilian or military. In fact, civilian targets are their favorite (emotional appeals and all). It's messy and it's not a popular message, but these people need one bullet point-blank. Our paramount responsibility at all times is the safety of our nation and its citizens, not the whining of some cocksucker getting three square meals, room to exercise, and free medical treatment. The only truly sick aspect of the debate is that we're even having it.
-
Maybe we really should take the high road and let them go. A lot of them were just kids when captured.
Yeah, let them f*cking go...
So we can see more of this?
Ex-Gitmo Detainee Believed Responsible for Homicide Bombing In Iraq
Monday, May 05, 2008
Three years ago, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti soldier who deserted to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban, sat in a detention cell at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while lawyers argued whether he was an "enemy combatant."
Last week, a Dubai-based television channel reported that al-Ajmi was killed carrying out a homicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.
While the report did not specify which attack Abdullah carried out, Iraqi officials reported that Mosul was hit on April 26 by three homicide attacks, killing seven people.
CBS News reported that al-Ajmi carried out an attack on Wednesday, April 30, according to an unconfirmed report posted on a jihadist Web site.
Al-Ajmi's cousin, Salem, reportedly told Al-Arabiya television that , "We were shocked by the painful news we received ... from one of the friends of martyr Abdullah in Iraq."
Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354209,00.html)
:bird:
-
I wonder if this encourages those serving to take no prisoners, ya know?
It would to me if I was still wearing the uniform.
-
How about we afford them the full Geneva Convention protections for an unlawful combatant: summary execution. I guarantee they won't fight any more Americans after that.
Works for me.
-
It's more of a general depression about the situation. It's a conflict between due process and what's actually right that bothers me.
What due process are you talking about? Unlawful combatants aren't afforded any under the Geneva conventions.