Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on July 26, 2007, 10:48:39 AM
-
I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw)
-
I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw)
meeeee tooooo!!!! He wouldn't have a shot in hell... Hillary could dump Bill and hook up with a bull dike and still win in a landslide.
-
I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw)
He makes some good points and he's certainly qualified, but I think Berserker is right that he would almost guarantee president Hillary.
I think he forfeited his right to be president by screwing around on his wife during the Clinton impeachment.
But I think your larger point is that the field of candidates is weak and unimpressive?
-
Yeah - we really want a guy who says things like this running our country
At a dinner honouring the sanctity of the First Amendment this week, Newt Gingrich stood up and gave a talk about restricting freedom of speech.Gingrich stated:
"My Prediction to you is that either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology that we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us."
"I want to suggest to you right now that we should empanelling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it were not for the scale of this threat. This is a serious long term war and it will lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, it will lead to us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous."
“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”
-
But I think your larger point is that the field of candidates is weak and unimpressive?
Yes! And I think that's across the board, no matter which party you are affiliated with. :-\
There just HAVE to be better representatives from these two parties than what we are given right now.
meeeee tooooo!!!! He wouldn't have a shot in hell... Hillary could dump Bill and hook up with a bull dike and still win in a landslide.
Berserker, would this statement mean that you are admitting that Senator Clinton will not win the general election should she get the nod as the Democratic nominee for president?
-
“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”
If Newt said this, ummm ya I just might vote for him
-
“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”
If Newt said this, ummm ya I just might vote for him
You beat me to it, LH! It makes alot of sense to me.
-
“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”
If Newt said this, ummm ya I just might vote for him
Does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists?
-
Yes! And I think that's across the board, no matter which party you are affiliated with. :-\
There just HAVE to be better representatives from these two parties than what we are given right now.
Berserker, would this statement mean that you are admitting that Senator Clinton will not win the general election should she get the nod as the Democratic nominee for president?
First, I don't want Hillary for President, but what I said only means what I said, I would be happy as hell to have Newt as the republican candidate as he would guarantee any dem candidate would win. There's zero chance in hell Newt could win even if you cloned Rove a dozen times to do it :-X I absolutely do not want a republican in the whitehouse again. Fucking end times WWIII corrupt mafistic group of psychos who don't give two shits about the people. Yea, there's dems who are the same, that's for sure, but nowhere near as completely evil as the republican party have demonstrated themselves to be. Bunch of goddamned demons... At least there's a glimmer of hope that the dems can be forced to do good at some point... I could hold no such hopes as remotely possible for the republican party.
-
Does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists?
No, they are held to be "unlawful combatants" Not only does this designation apply to terrorists but to all combatants not in uniform... This is the brainchild of Alberto Gonzales, who was inspired by the North Vietnamese who were the first to come up with this designation to go around the Geneva conventions to torture Americans. Our policy toward that policy has since changed a bit since the Vietnam war :D
-
No, they are held to be "unlawful combatants" Not only does this designation apply to terrorists but to all combatants not in uniform... This is the brainchild of Alberto Gonzales, who was inspired by the North Vietnamese who were the first to come up with this designation to go around the Geneva conventions to torture Americans. Our policy toward that policy has since changed a bit since the Vietnam war :D
Where do you get that definition? You referring to the Military Commissions Act, which expressly does not apply to American citizens?
-
Where do you get that definition? You referring to the Military Commissions Act, which expressly does not apply to American citizens?
I only replied in context to the quote by LH and question by you, I did not know it was in the context of only American Citizens, but non the less, what I just said is true of how the use of "Unlawful Combatant" was used to go around the conventions and who was first to use it. Also, I believe the designation may also be given to American Citizens too. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. The only desitinction that I believe there to be is the courts have granted citizens habeas corpus and non citizens are completely fucked.
-
I only replied in context to the quote by LH and question by you, I did not know it was in the context of only American Citizens, but non the less, what I just said is true of how the use of "Unlawful Combatant" was used to go around the conventions and who was first to use it. Also, I believe the designation may also be given to American Citizens too. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. The only desitinction that I believe there to be is the courts have granted citizens habeas corpus and non citizens are completely fucked.
Not sure if there was a need to go around the Geneva Convention if it didn't apply to terrorists in the first place. I'm not sure it does, which is why I asked the question.
Military Commissions Act does not apply to U.S. citizens.
Habeas doesn't apply to unlawful alien enemy combatants. So what. I'm in favor of less, not more, rights for foreign terrorists.
-
Not sure if there was a need to go around the Geneva Convention if it didn't apply to terrorists in the first place. I'm not sure it does, which is why I asked the question.
Military Commissions Act does not apply to U.S. citizens.
Habeas doesn't apply to unlawful alien enemy combatants. So what. I'm in favor of less, not more, rights for foreign terrorists.
I suspect we're not on the same page to begin with because as I said I didn't know we were talking about citizens and I wasn't addressing it from that angle... We should not be going around the conventions with clever legal definitions period. So we can torture? no, I'm against that. Come on, we went to war with a country and rounded up the prisoners of that war and defined them as unlawful combantans so the conventions wouldn't apply... hello???? not cool...
-
I wish Newt Gingrich would run for the Rep. nomination.
Sounds like someone wasn't of voting age when Mr. Gingrich was having his character issues last time around.
-
I suspect we're not on the same page to begin with because as I said I didn't know we were talking about citizens and I wasn't addressing it from that angle... We should not be going around the conventions with clever legal definitions period. So we can torture? no, I'm against that. Come on, we went to war with a country and rounded up the prisoners of that war and defined them as unlawful combantans so the conventions wouldn't apply... hello???? not cool...
Define torture. :) Is it making someone sleep in a cold cell with the lights on like we are alleged to have done, or the removal of body parts like Al Qaeda advocates?
I think they came up with the MCA so they could detain foreign suspected terrorists without having to go through the normal court system. I'm okay with that, but I don't favor holding people indefinitely without charges, including foreigners.
-
Define torture. :) Is it making someone sleep in a cold cell with the lights on like we are alleged to have done, or the removal of body parts like Al Qaeda advocates?
I think they came up with the MCA so they could detain foreign suspected terrorists without having to go through the normal court system. I'm okay with that, but I don't favor holding people indefinitely without charges, including foreigners.
We're not Al-Qaeda nor should we act like them so I don't give two shits what they advocate... Don't for a second try to indicate it is a trustworthy way of obtaining information. You know what torture is and is not so I won't sit here and play fucking stupid games with you... You know full well the pain that can be inflicted without causing organ failure so the administration's definition is pathetic.
-
from an article in todays Washington Post written by Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley who served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987 and Robert F. Turner who is co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
"To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections"
The same article also cites The Supreme Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions
The article which was published today and titled "War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions" can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html
-
We're not Al-Qaeda nor should we act like them so I don't give two shits what they advocate... Don't for a second try to indicate it is a trustworthy way of obtaining information. You know what torture is and is not so I won't sit here and play fucking stupid games with you... You know full well the pain that can be inflicted without causing organ failure so the administration's definition is pathetic.
Feel free to throw around words like torture and use them any way you deem fit. Plenty of people do it.
We don't act like Al Qaeda. We don't torture. Just ask all those fat detainees in Cuba.
-
Where do you get that definition? You referring to the Military Commissions Act, which expressly does not apply to American citizens?
Chalmers Johnson also cites the same information, Gonzo set it up.
-
from an article in todays Washington Post written by Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley who served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987 and Robert F. Turner who is co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
"To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections"
The same article also cites The Supreme Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions
The article which was published today and titled "War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions" can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html
good post... I find it more likely that one would get more and better information through decent treatment (Christ Like???) than through torture. During the first gulf war they surrendered in droves knowing that, do to our reputation, they would not be treated badly... It's safe to say that now, with a new reputation of brutality... our enemies will fight to the death no matter how much they may no longer wish to do so... Brilliant... And contrary to Beach Bum's delusions, we have and do torture and in some cases to the death.
Recipe for disater: go into a country and round up as many adult males as you can and detain them for months, humilate and torture them and then set them loose. If an occupying force took you or a member of your family and did this or just flat out killed them, how long would it take you to join whatever insurgency you could to drive out the occupying army? Yea, no shit questions that make you go hmmmm....
-
this prick delivered divorce papers to his former wife while battling cancer in the hospital.
great choice, another compassionate scumbag.
Wouldn't you agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate that satifies the moral foundation of all America?
Plus, the older I get, the more I realize how much of a hypocrite I am.... though we might be at different levels of hypocriticism, you and I are no different than President Clinton, New Gingrich, or the like.
-
Feel free to throw around words like torture and use them any way you deem fit. Plenty of people do it.
We don't act like Al Qaeda. We don't torture. Just ask all those fat detainees in Cuba.
Where did you see their food on? I saw a sample clip all I can say is damn! That is alot of good looking food, they even had a choice of two different choices per meal.
I think I read they get 3500-4k calories a day.
-
Wouldn't you agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate that satifies the moral foundation of all America?
Plus, the older I get, the more I realize how much of a hypocrite I am.... though we might be at different levels of hypocriticism, you and I are no different than President Clinton, New Gingrich, or the like.
We all fall short of the good graces. But you have to admit, Gingrich's serving his bedridden cancer-racked wife with divorce papers in the hospital is not your run-of-the-mill indiscretion.
He abandoned his marriage when his wife needed him most...just so he could shack up with his mistress.
As a political leader, he couldn't even hold the speakership at the height of the run to impeachment...he was mired in ethics scandals. Small wonder.
-
The rule of Law, yeah right..being holier then thou is great when u fight people who have a basis in Western morals, these scumbags don't. They don't understand anything but force. If we don't show strength and unity they will win this war. We can all sit around the fall-out craters with a warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that we had the moral high-ground, that was of course before they blew it up. Gimme a break.
-
Where did you see their food on? I saw a sample clip all I can say is damn! That is alot of good looking food, they even had a choice of two different choices per meal.
I think I read they get 3500-4k calories a day.
Torture, American style:
Meals totaling a whopping 4,200 calories per day are brought to their cells, well above the 2,000 to 3,000 calories recommended for weight maintenance by U.S. government dietary guidelines. And some inmates are eating everything on the menu.
One detainee has almost doubled in weight, to 410 pounds, said Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, spokesman for the detention facilities at Guantanamo, a U.S. Navy station in southeast Cuba.
. . .
Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo picked up in Afghanistan and other conflict zones were slightly underweight when they arrived. Since then, they've gained an average of 20 pounds, and most are now "normal to mildly overweight or mildly obese," according to the most recent measurements, he said.
The meals include meats prepared according to Islamic guidelines, along with fresh bread, vegetables and yogurt. With nearly all detainees fasting in the daytime during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, authorities have arranged for a post-sunset meal and a midnight meal. Traditional desserts and honey also are served during the Ramadan observances.
. . .
Prisoners at Guantanamo who behave well get more exercise time. The most compliant get up to 12 hours a week, including access to treadmills, stationary bikes and other fitness equipment, Durand said. Guantanamo officials say compliance is gauged solely by whether a detainee follows detention center rules and avoids causing disturbances, and has nothing to do with whether he is providing information to interrogators.
. . .
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/10/03/international/i134745D60.DTL
Geeze Louise. Hotel Guantanamo.
-
I'm sure everything is prepared in sanitary conditions as well. Unlike in a friggen cave. With all the eyes on Gitmo, is anybody going to be mistreated.
-
Torture, American style:
...
No this is torture american style: Photographs of dogs snarling at prisoners, of women being forced at gunpoint to expose their breasts, of hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and of forced homosexual acts were among those shown to members of Congress yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1215645,00.html
or these beauties:
Urinating on detainees
Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
Sodomization of detainees with a baton
Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
Not really in the traditions and customs of US treatment of prisoners is it?
-
No this is torture american style: Photographs of dogs snarling at prisoners, of women being forced at gunpoint to expose their breasts, of hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and of forced homosexual acts were among those shown to members of Congress yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1215645,00.html
or these beauties:
Urinating on detainees
Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
Sodomization of detainees with a baton
Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
Not really in the traditions and customs of US treatment of prisoners is it?
I've read alot of books on the militarism of America, but once you discover other countries "standards" of torture...gitmo looks like a resort.
I'm not saying it's alright, but I'm just pointing out, that this is war, and our troops would not even recieve 1/3 of the luxuries we grant those in US custody.
None of that even compares to a US soldier being torched alive, or a innocent Iraqi kid being tortured just for his family giving a US soldier a wave or a smile or accepting clean water and some crayons.
-
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, a member of the House of Representatives armed services committee who viewed some of the pictures, told the Guardian they were "not dramatically different" from those already published but said some of the pictures showed the aftermath of a dog attack on a prisoner.
While several Republican senators argued that the photographs were no more shocking than those already seen, Democrats such as Senator Joseph Lieberman argued that "it just deepens the conclusion that this was a cellblock that had gone wild, had no standards".
The sense of disgust was compounded yesterday by the airing of an American soldier's video diary on CBS's 60 Minutes. The video showed her talking about two Iraqi prisoners who died in custody at Abu Ghraib prison: "Who cares? That's two less for me to worry about."
So we have two stories..either way..I only care because the story was leaked and hurt American soldiers..no leak no problem, these people are scumbags.....
-
I've read alot of books on the militarism of America, but once you discover other countries "standards" of torture...gitmo looks like a resort.
I'm not saying it's alright, but I'm just pointing out, that this is war, and our troops would not even recieve 1/3 of the luxuries we grant those in US custody.
None of that even compares to a US soldier being torched alive, or a innocent Iraqi kid being tortured just for his family giving a US soldier a wave or a smile or accepting clean water and some crayons.
Right on....these guys we're fighting do horrible things, horrible things. We made these prisnoers feel bad, humiliated them. I'd rather be "humiliated" then drilled with a power drill or set on fire. We make manmids with our prisoners, they behead theirs.
-
No this is torture american style: Photographs of dogs snarling at prisoners, of women being forced at gunpoint to expose their breasts, of hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and of forced homosexual acts were among those shown to members of Congress yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1215645,00.html
or these beauties:
Urinating on detainees
Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
Sodomization of detainees with a baton
Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
Not really in the traditions and customs of US treatment of prisoners is it?
You could also come up with a litany of instances of police brutality all across America. Those involved in the incidents at Abu were punished. And those incidents pale in comparison to the kinds of torture used by our friendly neighborhood terrorists.
Hotel Guantanamo is a much better example of how America treats suspected terrorists.
-
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, a member of the House of Representatives armed services committee who viewed some of the pictures, told the Guardian they were "not dramatically different" from those already published but said some of the pictures showed the aftermath of a dog attack on a prisoner.
While several Republican senators argued that the photographs were no more shocking than those already seen, Democrats such as Senator Joseph Lieberman argued that "it just deepens the conclusion that this was a cellblock that had gone wild, had no standards".
The sense of disgust was compounded yesterday by the airing of an American soldier's video diary on CBS's 60 Minutes. The video showed her talking about two Iraqi prisoners who died in custody at Abu Ghraib prison: "Who cares? That's two less for me to worry about."
So we have two stories..either way..I only care because the story was leaked and hurt American soldiers..no leak no problem, these people are scumbags.....
Right. The offenders are in prison. What those guys did was not part of our SOP.
-
You could also come up with a litany of instances of police brutality all across America. Those involved in the incidents at Abu were punished. And those incidents pale in comparison to the kinds of torture used by our friendly neighborhood terrorists.
Hotel Guantanamo is a much better example of how America treats suspected terrorists.
Sorry Beach Bum but when I see the hubris of your claim that US treatment of SUSPECTS is just dandy, we have to remind ourselves that we do torture people thanks the military commissions act.
-
I've read alot of books on the militarism of America, but once you discover other countries "standards" of torture...gitmo looks like a resort.
I'm not saying it's alright, but I'm just pointing out, that this is war, and our troops would not even recieve 1/3 of the luxuries we grant those in US custody.
None of that even compares to a US soldier being torched alive, or a innocent Iraqi kid being tortured just for his family giving a US soldier a wave or a smile or accepting clean water and some crayons.
You are likely correct. But we are the USA and we are better than any other country. I don't care for degrees of relativism when quantifying US morality.
-
Sorry Beach Bum but when I see the hubris of your claim that US treatment of SUSPECTS is just dandy, we have to remind ourselves that we do torture people thanks the military commissions act.
Decker I just posted a story showing precisely how we treat suspected terrorists at Hotel Guantanamo. Those fatties eat better than me.
Who has the American government tortured under the MCA?
And don't forget this: "President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/20/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html
-
You are likely correct. But we are the USA and we are better than any other country. I don't care for degrees of relativism when quantifying US morality.
I agree with you! We hold ourselves in such a high standard, but what in the hell is going on with our morality. It topples from the top! Look at the sports situation today, would you want your kid idolizing any of these athletes, or white collar wizards today?
Then look at NASA, holy crap.
"Aim as low as you can so you won't be dissapointed" Homer Simpson
-
Decker these are horrible people who would love to kill and eat u...I understand your point but come on, they suck.
-
I just need to understand one thing... Beach, is there a valid reason you're just looking at what came out on Gitmo? Do you not consider the torture that happened at the secret CIA prisons in other countries worth mention? You want to put three hots and a cot down on the table and say see, it's all good ::)
-
I just need to understand one thing... Beach, is there a valid reason you're just looking at what came out on Gitmo? Do you not consider the torture that happened at the secret CIA prisons in other countries worth mention? You want to put three hots and a cot down on the table and say see, it's all good ::)
I never said I was just looking at Hotel Guantanamo. I'm using that resort as an example. We need to put those fatties on an Atkins diet. Who knew American torture could be so enjoyable? They have more ready access to cardio equipment than I do.
What needs to be mentioned about the alleged torture at a so-called secret CIA prison? What about it? And how is it secret if you're talking about it on a message board?
-
Maybe the people in Gitmo are fat because they are idle 23 hours a day and are being fed more calories than they are burning.
That fact is not any kind of proof that they not also being tortured to say nothing of the fact that some of them may be totally innocent of anything.
-
Yeah and some of those innocents that we let out...
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-10-2004_pg7_54
WASHINGTON: About 10 former detainees have rejoined the fight against US forces after being released from a US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in the belief they no longer posed a threat, Pentagon officials said on Friday.
Some have been recaptured, others reportedly killed and an unknown number remain at large, the officials said.
“From the beginning, we have recognized that there are inherent risks in determining when an individual detainee no longer had to be held at GTMO and that the assessment process is not risk free,” said Lieutenant Commander Alvin Plexico, using the military acronym for Guantanamo.
They include an Afghan teenager who was a minor at the time of his first capture in the wake of US-led offensive that toppled the Taliban regime, a Pentagon official said, asking not to be identified. He and two other minors captured in Afghanistan were separated from other inmates at Guantanamo and schooled in English and other subjects until their release in January.
But rather than reintegrate to Afghan society as US officials had hoped, he rejoined the Taliban.
“He was recaptured participating in an attack” near Kandahar, the official said. “At the time of his recapture he was carrying a letter confirming his status as a Taliban in good standing.”
Or this guy....http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/27/world/main2987393.shtml
) A man formerly held in the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was killed Wednesday in a shootout with security agents in a restive North Caucasus republic, Russia's top security agency said.
Ruslan Odizhev was killed amid gunfire that erupted when agents tried to arrest him and another man in Kabardino-Balkariya, a region near Chechnya that is plagued by violence linked both to crime and to religious tensions, the Federal Security Service said in a brief statement
former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who took up arms alongside the Taliban after he was released from detention has blown himself up to avoid capture, Pakistani security forces said today.
Or this guy.....................
Abdullah Mehsud photographed in 2004
Abdullah Mehsud killed himself with a hand grenade after he was cornered by troops at a house in the south-western Pakistani town of Zhob. He was wanted for the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in 2004.
Yup great guys..all innocent ........we're idiots and let em go ::)
"My information is that (he) killed himself," said Atta Mohammed, the head of the police in Zhob. "Thanks be to God that only he was blown up and our men were safe."
Mehsud, 32, was released from the US detention centre in Cuba after two years in 2004 but immediately went back to violence when the Pakistani government began an offensive against the Taliban in the troubled region along the border with Afghanistan.
-
What the hell are they feeding these guys..maybe Ho Ho's and Ding Dongs are torture......
-
Not sure if there was a need to go around the Geneva Convention if it didn't apply to terrorists in the first place. I'm not sure it does, which is why I asked the question.
Military Commissions Act does not apply to U.S. citizens.
Habeas doesn't apply to unlawful alien enemy combatants. So what. I'm in favor of less, not more, rights for foreign terrorists.
::) We have been through this so many times before...
The Military Commissions Act DOES indeed apply to American citizens,
...and with the advent of the military Commissions Act, habeas doesn't apply to anyone any more.
-
Wouldn't you agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate that satifies the moral foundation of all America?
Plus, the older I get, the more I realize how much of a hypocrite I am.... though we might be at different levels of hypocriticism, you and I are no different than President Clinton, New Gingrich, or the like.
If the new intern arrives at work wearing a blue dress, lock the humidor, ...and keep it zipped. :-X
You know what the "it" is
-
Decker I just posted a story showing precisely how we treat suspected terrorists at Hotel Guantanamo. Those fatties eat better than me.
Who has the American government tortured under the MCA?
And don't forget this: "President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/20/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html
Which detainees haven't the American government tortured?
It seems to me that if the president goes to the trouble of having congress retroactively implement (unconstitutional) torture exceptions to the Geneva Conventions prohibition of torture, he would use that newfound power.
As for Bush's order re CIA torture, so what? The CIA is not the military in charge of these suspects. Everything the CIA does stays secret so we don't know what the hell they do. I'm supposed to take solace in the fact that Bush is the 'check and balance' of the CIA interrogation techniques--the same man who sought to codify torture in the MCA of 2006?
-
Decker these are horrible people who would love to kill and eat u...I understand your point but come on, they suck.
I think we'll have these disagreements b/c fundamentally, we are on different sides of how to handle the terrorist problem.
I think the Iraq invasion was a mistake. I think it was illegal and that the invasion has been nothing short of a breeding ground for Anti-American sentiments around the world.
I think battling terrorism is better suited to police work and not military strikes.
I think that implementing torture of suspects eliminated the US's moral highground creating even more terrorists.
I know you've alluded to this answer but do you think that attacking Iraq was the best course of action for battling Al Qaeda?
Likewise, do you think that torturing (inflicting stress up until major organ failure) suspects is the best approach for getting information?
-
What the hell are they feeding these guys..maybe Ho Ho's and Ding Dongs are torture......
LOL. :D
-
::) We have been through this so many times before...
The Military Commissions Act DOES indeed apply to American citizens,
...and with the advent of the military Commissions Act, habeas doesn't apply to anyone any more.
::) ::)
"(a) PURPOSE.--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants . . . ." 948b.
"The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." 948a(3).
"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." 948c.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
-
Which detainees haven't the American government tortured?
It seems to me that if the president goes to the trouble of having congress retroactively implement (unconstitutional) torture exceptions to the Geneva Conventions prohibition of torture, he would use that newfound power.
As for Bush's order re CIA torture, so what? The CIA is not the military in charge of these suspects. Everything the CIA does stays secret so we don't know what the hell they do. I'm supposed to take solace in the fact that Bush is the 'check and balance' of the CIA interrogation techniques--the same man who sought to codify torture in the MCA of 2006?
Which detainees haven't been tortured?? All of those fatties on 4,000 calorie a day diets being fed specially prepared desserts and having access to cardio equipment.
How many have been tortured under the Military Commissions Act passed on 17 Oct. 06? I say zero.
-
Which detainees haven't been tortured?? All of those fatties on 4,000 calorie a day diets being fed specially prepared desserts and having access to cardio equipment.
How many have been tortured under the Military Commissions Act passed on 17 Oct. 06? I say zero.
So the president and republican Congress go through all the trouble of passing a retroactive law defining torture to eliminate any chance of repurcussions from the Geneva Conventions (we are talking about torture here) just to not use the newly created power to torture?
Sounds like spin to me Beach Bum.
"So we are reduced to fighting over a word, “torture”. President George W Bush’s preferred terminology is “alternative interrogation techniques” or “coercive interrogation” or “harsh interrogation methods”, or simply, amazingly, his comment last Thursday that a policy of waterboarding detainees is merely a policy to “question” them." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article648370.ece
How many times are you going to defend the indefensible Beach Bum?
-
The MCA does apply to american citizens.
"The first prong of the bill's definition (of unlawful combatant) is unjustifiably broad. But the second prong of the definition is far worse. It appears to delegate to the President or Secretary of Defense unrestricted power to deem anyone an unlawful enemy combatant. All it requires is that a "competent tribunal" like a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) make the determination. (CSRTs are the administrative boards that review detentions at Guantanamo.) The bill itself says nothing about the substance of the criteria that the tribunal should apply." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20061009.html
Although US citizens cannot be tried under the MCA, they can be detained indefinitely.
.
-
So the president and republican Congress go through all the trouble of passing a retroactive law defining torture to eliminate any chance of repurcussions from the Geneva Conventions (we are talking about torture here) just to not use the newly created power to torture?
Sounds like spin to me Beach Bum.
"So we are reduced to fighting over a word, “torture”. President George W Bush’s preferred terminology is “alternative interrogation techniques” or “coercive interrogation” or “harsh interrogation methods”, or simply, amazingly, his comment last Thursday that a policy of waterboarding detainees is merely a policy to “question” them." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article648370.ece
How many times are you going to defend the indefensible Beach Bum?
I'm not defending anything Decker. I'm just refusing to engage in wild unsupportable conjecture. You choose to believe detainees are being tortured under the MCA. I say that is malarkey. No proof.
-
The MCA does apply to american citizens.
"The first prong of the bill's definition (of unlawful combatant) is unjustifiably broad. But the second prong of the definition is far worse. It appears to delegate to the President or Secretary of Defense unrestricted power to deem anyone an unlawful enemy combatant. All it requires is that a "competent tribunal" like a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) make the determination. (CSRTs are the administrative boards that review detentions at Guantanamo.) The bill itself says nothing about the substance of the criteria that the tribunal should apply." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20061009.html
Although US citizens cannot be tried under the MCA, they can be detained indefinitely.
.
That woman doesn't know what she's talking about. The MCA says in no uncertain terms that it applies to aliens. Let me know when an American citizen is indefinitely detained under the MCA. I won't be holding my breath.
-
That woman doesn't know what she's talking about. The MCA says in no uncertain terms that it applies to aliens. Let me know when an American citizen is indefinitely detained under the MCA. I won't be holding my breath.
She acknowledged that an american citizen cannot be tried under the MCA (it's a military court) but that an american citizen can be held without trial as an enemy combatant.
Reread 948(a)(1)(ii) where it says that the president and Sec. of Defense have the absolute power to put together a tribunal to determine that any person is an unlawful enemy comabatant.
Is the tribunal for determining unlawful enemy combatant status the same as the military commission that limits its jurisdiction only to aliens?
No it is not. How do I know? The authors would have written "military commission" instead of "tribunal" in the glaringly overbroad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant".
-
She acknowledged that an american citizen cannot be tried under the MCA (it's a military court) but that an american citizen can be held without trial as an enemy combatant.
Reread 948(a)(1)(ii) where it says that the president and Sec. of Defense have the absolute power to put together a tribunal to determine that any person is an unlawful enemy comabatant.
Is the tribunal for determining unlawful enemy combatant status the same as the military commission that limits its jurisdiction only to aliens?
No it is not. How do I know? The authors would have written "military commission" instead of "tribunal" in the glaringly overbroad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant".
I disagree. The entire purpose of the MCA plainly says it applies to aliens. You cannot simply read the word "person" in one section and interpret that word separate and apart from the purpose of the Act. The MCA was not enacted to apply to American citizens and I'm unaware of the military or U.S. government using the MCA to indefinitely detain American citizens.
-
I disagree. The entire purpose of the MCA plainly says it applies to aliens. You cannot simply read the word "person" in one section and interpret that word separate and apart from the purpose of the Act. The MCA was not enacted to apply to American citizens and I'm unaware of the military or U.S. government using the MCA to indefinitely detain American citizens.
Wasn't there some guy they did detain? You and 240 were debating about it a few months ago.
-
Wasn't there some guy they did detain? You and 240 were debating about it a few months ago.
You're thinking of Jose Padilla. 240 and Ribo made the absurd argument that Padilla was detained in 2002 under the provisions of the MCA, when the MCA wasn't enacted until four years later in 2006.
-
You're thinking of Jose Padilla. 240 and Ribo made the absurd argument that Padilla was detained in 2002 under the provisions of the MCA, when the MCA wasn't enacted until four years later in 2006.
Ok so, Padilla was held without a charge or judge etc.. for a period of months or years?
-
Ok so, Padilla was held without a charge or judge etc.. for a period of months or years?
He was held for years without charges. He's currently on trial.
-
He was held for years without charges. He's currently on trial.
That's not legal is it? to be held without charges for years?
-
That's not legal is it? to be held without charges for years?
I'm not sure. Some courts/judges did say Padilla could be held indefinitely. We shouldn't be holding anyone indefinitely without charges IMO.
-
I'm not sure. Some courts/judges did say Padilla could be held indefinitely. We shouldn't be holding anyone indefinitely without charges IMO.
Yeah i agree.
We went through this MCA thing before. the language gets a little vague doesn't it? but it does say it applies to aliens and not citizens. We will have to see if it is ever abused. i hope not.
-
Yeah i agree.
We went through this MCA thing before. the language gets a little vague doesn't it? but it does say it applies to aliens and not citizens. We will have to see if it is ever abused. i hope not.
I don't think the MCA language is vague at all ("This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants."). I'll be very surprised if the government tries to use the MCA to detain and/or prosecute an American citizen and whether that attempt is upheld by the courts.
-
I disagree. The entire purpose of the MCA plainly says it applies to aliens. You cannot simply read the word "person" in one section and interpret that word separate and apart from the purpose of the Act. The MCA was not enacted to apply to American citizens and I'm unaware of the military or U.S. government using the MCA to indefinitely detain American citizens.
This is why the law is overbroad. You can look at that section and see that tribunals for determining the 'unlawful combatant' status of any person is distinct from the military commissions which apply to only aliens.
Under the MCA, US citizens accused of terrorist sympathies/acts are tried under the judicial system. Non-citizens are subject to the military commissions.
The MCA's military commissions do not apply to US citizens but the determination of status could apply to anyone.
Everything in Sec. 948(b) purpose is correct:
`(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
That is a true statement. But it does not contradict my conclusion that 948(a) applies to US citizens. 948(b) simply says that this law's purpose is to establish military commissions for accused non-citizens.
But 948(a) says more than that. It says anyone can be an enemy combatant if determined so by a tribunal chosen by the president or Sec of State.
If the president and congress wanted the tribunals for determining enemy combatant status to apply only to non-citizens, it could have been phrased that way. It wasn't.
Instead we get a statement of the obvious--military commissions will apply to non-citizens. No kidding. But as I said, the Act comprehends much more.
Therefore the language is vague and overbroad. This happens all the time in statutory construction. Under the Bush regime though, I find it typically nefarious and not accidental.
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Again, the above is a true statement but it says nothing of the tribunals which determine enemy combatant status.
-
That's not legal is it? to be held without charges for years?
yes, it is legal for that American citizen to be held without charges for years.
Bush made it legal by signing the MCA which applies retroactively.
-
yes, it is legal for that American citizen to be held without charges for years.
Bush made it legal by signing the MCA which applies retroactively.
Show me where this has happened and where it says that in the MCA.
I've seen nothing that says that.