Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on June 12, 2008, 07:54:39 AM
-
Foreign suspects held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, the US Supreme Court has ruled.
It overturned by five to four a ruling that upheld a 2006 law that took away the rights of suspects to seek full judicial review of their detention.
It is not clear if the ruling will lead to prompt hearings for the detainees.
Some 270 men are held at the US naval base, on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
The court said the detainees "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus".
Justice Anthony Kennedy said: "The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
This is the Bush administration's third setback at the highest US court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charge at the base in Cuba.
The court has ruled twice previously that Guantanamo inmates could go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention.
But each time, the Bush administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to keep the detainees out of civilian courts.
Last week, five detainees, including key suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, appeared before a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dismissed the trial as an "inquisition".
-
HOW PATHETIC
It's already been proven that once released they go right back to killing people.
As if that is not worse US taxpayers will have to pay for 1) court appointed attorney 2) court costs
Liberals must want to either be blown up or innocent people to die
-
Lesson...don't take prisoners or don't admit to taking prisoners.... ;D
-
Lesson...don't take prisoners or don't admit to taking prisoners.... ;D
What's the problem? If they are guilty, it'll be proven in court. If it can't be proven they are guilty they shouldn't be there. How are you gonna spread democracy if you won't play by it's simplest rules?
-
What's the problem? If they are guilty, it'll be proven in court. If it can't be proven they are guilty they shouldn't be there. How are you gonna spread democracy if you won't play by it's simplest rules?
I think we should change the rules, and when a US sodier catches a terrorist with a rocket launcher and a cell phone that connects to a terror leader, he should be shot on the spot.
-
This is a GOOD thing for our country
-
I think we should change the rules, and when a US sodier catches a terrorist with a rocket launcher and a cell phone that connects to a terror leader, he should be shot on the spot.
If that's the evidence then they will be tried, convicted and sentenced as appropriate and that's a good thing
-
I was reading a newspaper article the other day where they quoted US Officials from Guantanamo discussing Khadr, the kid who was paralyzed from the waste down when US troops invaded his house in Afghanistan. His captors were quoted as saying "He is a good kid".
-
I was reading a newspaper article the other day where they quoted US Officials from Guantanamo discussing Khadr, the kid who was paralyzed from the waste down when US troops invaded his house in Afghanistan. His captors were quoted as saying "He is a good kid".
I remember reading the article about the guy who deserted the Kuwaiti army to fight jihad in Afghanistan, was picked up, put in Guantanamo, released, and then blew himself up in the middle of a bunch of Iraqi policemen. ;)
The majority of the people left in Guantanamo are probably there for a reason given the amount of guys that have been released.
I think we should change the rules, and when a US sodier catches a terrorist with a rocket launcher and a cell phone that connects to a terror leader, he should be shot on the spot.
I agree. That's what AQ and the other terrorist groups would do. After torturing their captives, of course.
-
I remember reading the article about the guy who deserted the Kuwaiti army to fight jihad in Afghanistan, was picked up, put in Guantanamo, released, and then blew himself up in the middle of a bunch of Iraqi policemen. ;)
The majority of the people left in Guantanamo are probably there for a reason given the amount of guys that have been released.
I agree. That's what AQ and the other terrorist groups would do. After torturing their captives, of course.
That avatar is most distracting, in a good way. :)
-
That avatar is most distracting, in a good way. :)
Hahaha, it is. For months I didn't know who it was and thought it was some random girl but it turns out she's a Penthouse model named Shay Laren.
Here's a good pic for this thread. ;D
-
Our terrorist, Posada, lives nice and comfortable on US soil under their protection since 2005 despite numerous diploatic requests for him to be extradited. Never mind his *admitted* decade plus spree of bombing an airliner killing all passengers, bombing hotels, schools etc.
I am 100% serious when I say he gets safety there they say we "might" torture him and they do not approve of torturing terrorists.
Need I mention, this is irony defined.
-
Our terrorist, Posada, lives nice and comfortable on US soil under their protection since 2005 despite numerous diploatic requests for him to be extradited. Never mind his *admitted* decade plus spree of bombing an airliner killing all passengers, bombing hotels, schools etc.
I am 100% serious when I say he gets safety there they say we "might" torture him and they do not approve of torturing terrorists.
Need I mention, this is irony defined.
I hate to be a stickler, but our torture tactics pale in comparisons to most other countries and terrorist groups. AQI has been documented cutting people's faces off with piano wire. I really have no sympathy for extremists not getting their rights in their vacation home in Cuba.
-
Our terrorist, Posada, lives nice and comfortable on US soil under their protection since 2005 despite numerous diploatic requests for him to be extradited. Never mind his *admitted* decade plus spree of bombing an airliner killing all passengers, bombing hotels, schools etc.
I am 100% serious when I say he gets safety there they say we "might" torture him and they do not approve of torturing terrorists.
Need I mention, this is irony defined.
Ferdinand Marcos, The Shah of Iran... the list is endless. The USA has always provided asylum to terrorists.
-
America's the bad guy, America's the bad guy, without America things would be wonderful, everybody would live in peace and harmony in fuzzy bunny land....fuck these gitmo assholes....they want u dead..pump for info and leave em in a ditch. Which is more then they would do to u...but again most on here have never been met, dealt with or been effected by these assholes.
-
America's the bad guy, America's the bad guy, without America things would be wonderful, everybody would live in peace and harmony in fuzzy bunny land....fuck these gitmo assholes....they want u dead..pump for info and leave em in a ditch. Which is more then they would do to u...but again most on here have never been met, dealt with or been effected by these assholes.
no one is saying that
America is the Good Guy and that's why this ruling by the Supreme Court is a GOOD THING
-
I hate to be a stickler, but our torture tactics pale in comparisons to most other countries and terrorist groups. AQI has been documented cutting people's faces off with piano wire. I really have no sympathy for extremists not getting their rights in their vacation home in Cuba.
Well, good as you are supporting his on your tax dollars as well, making sure he is nice and comfy in Miami. Also, Cuba was not the main one wanting extradion btw.
20+ nations in the region have requested his extradition as well. They said they will take him to their soil, so any Cuba connection is lost. Mine has, which there is no way we could even be suspected of torture. We have no guns, no armed military, no death penalty, or allow corporal punishment in schools to give you an idea of the vibe. So, no flame, but the thought that we would torture is retarded at best, as all our history shows this. We probably don't even know how, knowing us.
Ferdinand Marcos, The Shah of Iran... the list is endless. The USA has always provided asylum to terrorists.
And they wonder why the international community looks at their "war on terror" weird.
-
It's already been proven that once released they go right back to killing people.
HH6,
If you were taken POW, then released...
would you return to duty?
-
HH6,
If you were taken POW, then released...
would you return to duty?
I thought we released them because they were innocent.
If I was taken captive, and released and presumed innocent I would have nothing to return to except my family and job.
If otherwise I should be kept captive and then shot, instead of being fed five course meals and being allowed to pray.
-
I thought we released them because they were innocent.
If I was taken captive, and released and presumed innocent I would have nothing to return to except my family and job.
If otherwise I should be kept captive and then shot, instead of being fed five course meals and being allowed to pray.
Just because we can't charge them, doesn't mean they're innocent. Everyone in that cage is probably guilty. Problem is, you don't have evidence, and by the rules of law, a guy fighting in a war can't be prosecuted for fighting in a war. You release him when the war is over. It's how it worked in every other war until this one.
Now, we keep the wars going indefinitely (pilfering public treasury and stalling war outcome so we can build pipeline is the goal). So we're stuck with these folks that would normally have returned once 'mission accomplished' was announced. Then, if they choose to attack again, they're a criminal who is fighitng when there isn't a war, and they get hanged by iraq itself.
-
HH6,
If you were taken POW, then released...
would you return to duty?
HH6 would grab a quick protein shake and be back on duty in 5 mins.
-
Donald Rumsfeld says "Democracy is Messy"
and this is probably one of the few topics on which he is right and he probably doesn't even know it.
http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2583/newsletter_info_sub_list.htm?section=Americans%20Wonder%3A%20Can%20Iraq%20be%20saved%3F
-
Just because we can't charge them, doesn't mean they're innocent. Everyone in that cage is probably guilty. Problem is, you don't have evidence, and by the rules of law, a guy fighting in a war can't be prosecuted for fighting in a war. You release him when the war is over. It's how it worked in every other war until this one.
Now, we keep the wars going indefinitely (pilfering public treasury and stalling war outcome so we can build pipeline is the goal). So we're stuck with these folks that would normally have returned once 'mission accomplished' was announced. Then, if they choose to attack again, they're a criminal who is fighitng when there isn't a war, and they get hanged by iraq itself.
I'm pretty sure after we arrest them we have evidence collected. But what if we don't your willing to let those that you know are guilty be set free to kill innocent children and women with bombs strapped to their back? That is not morals, that is murder.
Brits held German troops prisoners for over 5 years after WWI, same with all the other wars we still have soldiers in Vietnam.
-
I'm pretty sure after we arrest them we have evidence collected. But what if we don't your willing to let those that you know are guilty be set free to kill innocent children and women with bombs strapped to their back? That is not morals, that is murder.
Brits held German troops prisoners for over 5 years after WWI, same with all the other wars we still have soldiers in Vietnam.
think hard about the question you're asking here
when you wrote "your willing" I assume you mean "are you willing"
-
yeah, "are you"
I know not many of us in this thread with the exception of one would, haha.
Just brings up a mystifying subject of "morals" and Nietzsche's "will to power" are we willing to save one life (inherently evil) for the risk of hundreds some of which we may say are "good"?
-
I'm pretty sure after we arrest them we have evidence collected. But what if we don't your willing to let those that you know are guilty be set free to kill innocent children and women with bombs strapped to their back? That is not morals, that is murder.
Brits held German troops prisoners for over 5 years after WWI, same with all the other wars we still have soldiers in Vietnam.
Okay. Should US POWs be kept forever, when they're captured, as well?
-
yeah, "are you"
am I what?
willing to assume than I can't (or can) guess the innocence or guilt and thus the future action of certain people?
-
I'm okay with this decision, only because we shouldn't be holding anyone indefinitely without charges.
-
Okay. Should US POWs be kept forever, when they're captured, as well?
They are soldiers. Not terrorists.
In war you act under guidelines. Terrorists don't.
-
to kill innocent children and women with bombs strapped to their back? That is not morals, that is murder.
What do you call it when the bombs aren't strapped to people's backs, ...but dropped from an airplane?
-
What do you call it when the bombs aren't strapped to people's backs, ...but dropped from an airplane?
::)
Strategic warfare, with the world's most sophisticate laser guided weapon systems on the planet.
I have friends in the field that have seen the "mock" scenes terrorist put on, after they have blown up kids, throwing toys around the dead, and stirring up the villages to carry the dead bodies around.
-
HH6 would grab a quick protein shake and be back on duty in 5 mins.
HOORAH!!!!!!
-
What do you call it when the bombs aren't strapped to people's backs, ...but dropped from an airplane?
My head exploded....Ok I'm a lawful combatant under the Geneva convention. These guys are not. They are a mix of terror suspect and enemy combatants. They have special rules. We're following those rules. They don't get American lawyers, they don't fall under the protections of American laws. We could go on forever....this is a hugely bad idea.
As far as CQ and 240 go...were I to get taken captive...I'd end up on utube with my head cut off or dead soon after catupre in some other horrible way...because these are horrible people who don't have rules. But I would do my best to make sure i didn't get captured if possible. The 3 kids we lost over the last few years, that they found. They knew or had a good idea where Maupin was for awhile...i can't go into details. the other two guys..they know where they are but can't get to them, they're dead as well.
-
anyone have alink to the beheading of that kid?
Let's post some real reality for Jag, since she think the terrorists have it so bad.
-
This is what happens to Americans and other "infidels" when captured by terrorists.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/11/al.qaeda.iraq/index.html
"In a vein similar to the Khmer Rouge's grisly accounting of its torture victims, within the files of one al Qaeda headquarters in Anbar alone was a library of 80 execution videos, mostly beheadings, none of which had been distributed or released on the Internet. And all were filmed after al Qaeda in Iraq ended its policy of broadcasting such horrors."
" When three Russian diplomats were kidnapped and killed in June 2006, a well-polished propaganda piece was released. It showed two diplomats being gruesomely beheaded, and yet the third diplomat was shot with a pistol, in a different location. The full video of the slayings answers why.
advertisement
Though bound and blindfolded, the third diplomat struggled so defiantly that his ailing executioners could not draw their knife across his throat. In the horrific and chaotic scenes, the faces of his killer and the cameraman are seen. "
I have no sympathy for terrorists and their "rights" and I would much rather the US execute them.
I wonder how different it would be if the US were to execute every enemy combatant after interrogation in Iraq. I reckon a lot of these so called "insurgents" would think twice knowing they weren't going to a nice prison camp to hang out with their buddies.
Hell, I've seen videos of US soldiers giving medical aid to terrorists and insurgents after they were just trying to kill them. Would one Muslim do that? Fuck no, they would torture said injured soldier and execute them afterwards.
The Russians treat the Chechens like absolute garbage. China treats the Tibetans like garbage. Why should the US worry about what other countries think when said countries can't even follow what they preach?
Jag lives in a little fantasy world up in Canada. Should stick to peddling her shitty gas caps.
-
The Russians tried fuzzybunny land during their first invasion of Chechny..they got their asses handed to them. After that it was media blackouts and flamethrowers (wonderful weapon) for everybody. I'm so glad BF chimed in. Great post.
-
I have no sympathy for these "terrorists" as long as they are terrorists.
-
Obama likes it, ACLU started this.
I wonder why we have to hire extra police and security to guard the courthouses everytime the ACLU rolls into town ::) to "defend" someone
-
Obama likes it, ACLU started this.
I wonder why we have to hire extra police and security to guard the courthouses everytime the ACLU rolls into town ::) to "defend" someone
...'cause there are plenty of terrorists out there.
-
This is what happens to Americans and other "infidels" when captured by terrorists.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/11/al.qaeda.iraq/index.html
"In a vein similar to the Khmer Rouge's grisly accounting of its torture victims, within the files of one al Qaeda headquarters in Anbar alone was a library of 80 execution videos, mostly beheadings, none of which had been distributed or released on the Internet. And all were filmed after al Qaeda in Iraq ended its policy of broadcasting such horrors."
" When three Russian diplomats were kidnapped and killed in June 2006, a well-polished propaganda piece was released. It showed two diplomats being gruesomely beheaded, and yet the third diplomat was shot with a pistol, in a different location. The full video of the slayings answers why.
advertisement
Though bound and blindfolded, the third diplomat struggled so defiantly that his ailing executioners could not draw their knife across his throat. In the horrific and chaotic scenes, the faces of his killer and the cameraman are seen. "
I have no sympathy for terrorists and their "rights" and I would much rather the US execute them.
I wonder how different it would be if the US were to execute every enemy combatant after interrogation in Iraq. I reckon a lot of these so called "insurgents" would think twice knowing they weren't going to a nice prison camp to hang out with their buddies.
Hell, I've seen videos of US soldiers giving medical aid to terrorists and insurgents after they were just trying to kill them. Would one Muslim do that? Fuck no, they would torture said injured soldier and execute them afterwards.
The Russians treat the Chechens like absolute garbage. China treats the Tibetans like garbage. Why should the US worry about what other countries think when said countries can't even follow what they preach?
Jag lives in a little fantasy world up in Canada. Should stick to peddling her shitty gas caps.
Exactly, the US is held to a higher standard than the rest of the world, why?
If we treated their soldiers the way they treat ours, they may think twice before engaging.
Get the media out of Iraq and let the US do what needs to be done.
-
Exactly, the US is held to a higher standard than the rest of the world, why?
If we treated their soldiers the way they treat ours, they may think twice before engaging.
Get the media out of Iraq and let the US do what needs to be done.
Chaos speaks the truth on this.
-
Exactly, the US is held to a higher standard than the rest of the world, why?
If we treated their soldiers the way they treat ours, they may think twice before engaging.
Get the media out of Iraq and let the US do what needs to be done.
we are the ones holding ourselves to a higher standard (first hint = this was a judgement by the US Supreme court)
Do you really think Islamic nutbags who truly believe that they are headed to a never ending gangbang with 72 virgins are sitting around contemplating the pros and cons of engaging our soldiers or committing acts of terrorism
-
we are the ones holding ourselves to a higher standard (first hint = this was a judgement by the US Supreme court)
Do you really think Islamic nutbags who truly believe that they are headed to a never ending gangbang with 72 virgins are sitting around contemplating the pros and cons of engaging our soldiers or committing acts of terrorism
Maybe not the foreign fighters from AQ but I reckon a lot of these homegrown part-time terrorists in Iraq would think twice before engaging coalition forces if they knew it was very likely that they would be executed upon capture. Instead they know that we're nice enough to throw them in a "prison" camp where they get to hang out with others of their ilk until they're released and able to rinse and repeat.
-
...'cause there are plenty of terrorists out there.
plenty of bullets that solve the problem much better
-
Maybe not the foreign fighters from AQ but I reckon a lot of these homegrown part-time terrorists in Iraq would think twice before engaging coalition forces if they knew it was very likely that they would be executed upon capture. Instead they know that we're nice enough to throw them in a "prison" camp where they get to hang out with others of their ilk until they're released and able to rinse and repeat.
I thought this was about habeas corpus
since when have we summarily executed prisoners upon capture and even if we did why would that scare them. If they are engaging our soldiers they already know we're going to try to kill them
-
I thought this was about habeas corpus
since when have we summarily executed prisoners upon capture and even if we did why would that scare them. If they are engaging our soldiers they already know we're going to try to kill them
You're trying to reason with the unreasonable, make sense with the senseless,
and trying to get a pavlovian dog who only knows how to react, to try and think.
Good Luck!
-
You're trying to reason with the unreasonable, make sense with the senseless,
and trying to get a pavlovian dog who only knows how to react, to try and think.
Good Luck!
It's OK - at least we're all being civil
-
What's the problem? If they are guilty, it'll be proven in court. If it can't be proven they are guilty they shouldn't be there. How are you gonna spread democracy if you won't play by it's simplest rules?
They have zero concept of America and our Constitution or the history behind what guided the founding fathers. But hey, they have a support the troops sticker and a tattered made in China flag flying from their SUV.
-
The Russians tried fuzzybunny land during their first invasion of Chechny..they got their asses handed to them. After that it was media blackouts and flamethrowers (wonderful weapon) for everybody. I'm so glad BF chimed in. Great post.
Just finished reading an awesome account of a conscript's life in Chechnya:
http://www.amazon.com/One-Soldiers-War-Arkady-Babchenko/dp/0802118607/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213341283&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/One-Soldiers-War-Arkady-Babchenko/dp/0802118607/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213341283&sr=8-1)
At one point, one of the Russians is found disemboweled and strangled with his own intestines - so in revenge, the Russians castrate every male in the local village. The Russkies don't mess around.
-
HOW PATHETIC
It's already been proven that once released they go right back to killing people.
As if that is not worse US taxpayers will have to pay for 1) court appointed attorney 2) court costs
Liberals must want to either be blown up or innocent people to die
Pathetic my ass.
These are prisoners. Time to take them to court and have them put on trial.
Nothing pathetic with that.
That's what civil persons like us do.
That's what separates us from them.
We treat our enemies like humans, we don't torture, we don't hold without trial et al.
We don't send detainees to dictatures to get them tortured.
One of many reasons for impeaching Bush, is because he's likely responsible for many of these actions.
Liberal my ass.
It's about doing what's right. Knowing what a democracy is.
If you're democratically challenged, like Bush seems to be, perhaps it's time for impeachment.
-
June 13, 2008
Editorial
Justice 5, Brutality 4
For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency to the hundreds of men that he decided to label “unlawful enemy combatants” and throw into never-ending detention.
Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.
The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone.
The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Despite this, the Bush administration repeatedly tried to strip away habeas rights. First, it herded prisoners who were seized in Afghanistan, and in other foreign countries, into the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay and claimed that since the base is on foreign territory, the detainees’ habeas cases could not be heard in the federal courts. In 2004, the court rejected that argument, ruling that Guantánamo, which is under American control, is effectively part of the United States.
In 2006, the court handed the administration another defeat, ruling that it had relied improperly on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to hold the detainees on Guantánamo without giving them habeas rights. Since then, Congress passed another law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that tried — and failed horribly — to fix the problems with the Detainee Treatment Act.
Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees’ habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist.
The court ruled that the military tribunals that are hearing the detainees’ cases — the administration’s weak alternative to habeas proceedings in a federal court — are not an adequate substitute. The hearings cut back on basic due process protections, like the right to counsel and the right to present evidence of innocence.
It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.
There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.
-
That's what separates us from them.
Yes your right we don't behead prisoners.
Instead we give them prayer time, 5 course meals, air conditioned units ( U.S troops sleep in tents), telephone privelage, and their holy shit Koran.
Yeah I think you esablished the fact we are seperate from them. ::)
-
Pathetic my ass.
These are prisoners. Time to take them to court and have them put on trial.
Nothing pathetic with that.
That's what civil persons like us do.
That's what separates us from them.
We treat our enemies like humans, we don't torture, we don't hold without trial et al.
We don't send detainees to dictatures to get them tortured.
One of many reasons for impeaching Bush, is because he's likely responsible for many of these actions.
Liberal my ass.
It's about doing what's right. Knowing what a democracy is.
If you're democratically challenged, like Bush seems to be, perhaps it's time for impeachment.
Reasons like this is why the American public should be kept uninformed on what is going on over there. We need to set a goal and achieve that goal at all costs, people whining and crying about "human rights" don't need to see what should be happening. Instead we get the media coverage and every move our guys make is scrutinized to no end, it's like a choker leash, time to take it off and let ours boys run amok.
And besides, our soldiers are not in America, they are in Iraq, why do they have to follow American rules? They should be held to the same standards and rules as the opposition.
-
Everyone has certain inalienable rights.
-
We need to set a goal and achieve that goal at all costs, people whining and crying about "human rights" don't need to see what should be happening.
I would have no issue with that if it was universal. But if the USA is going to offer refuge, safety even money to terrorists, on the basis that their human rights may be violated by other nations - they should follow the same guidelines. But they hold themself above it, and expect the world to do what they say, when they don't.
In the case of harbouring our terrorist, 95% of us have exemplary human rights records [see my prior post] and offered the USA to act as observer plus the EU always does in major cases anyway here. He is convicted, admitted it, it is like 15 years old, the terrorist group is defunct, his incarceration is all we seek, not knowledge - the reason normally given for torture.
So to use the excuse of our suspected torture [which is ludicrous at best on many levels] to harbour a high level terrorist - then turn around and commit mass scale torture on men for years, deny them rights - when they are not even convicted is irony defined.
US should practice what they preach to the world and not condone it, or simply not preach it. Either works. People will quote nations like China and Russia, and gloss over the the other 217 nations, many of which have solid human rights, democratically run, are "free" - and look at the US's actions with horror. Many Americans themselves have commented how much damage it has done to them in the worlds eyes - and it as.
-
Everyone has certain inalienable rights.
Such as?
-
Everyone has certain inalienable rights.
bhaha who said that Rousseau?
Not
No one has rights this land is not theirs someone else made the rules and the 1 job of the Federal government (reference the constitution) is "protect the people"
Just like John Locke said about the Indians "slay them like ravaged lyons"
But don't worry over this issue too much. Cause it sucks for them, they are going to regret this since Gitmo was like a fairytale after the trials they won't be in the US occupied zones but they will be going to offshore prisons, some very very bad ones.
I doubt they will even be able to have the Koran in these offshore prisons.
-
bhaha who said that Rousseau?
Not
No one has rights this land is not theirs someone else made the rules and the 1 job of the Federal government (reference the constitution) is "protect the people"
Just like John Locke said about the Indians "slay them like ravaged lyons"
But don't worry over this issue too much. Cause it sucks for them, they are going to regret this since Gitmo was like a fairytale after the trials they won't be in the US occupied zones but they will be going to offshore prisons, some very very bad ones.
I doubt they will even be able to have the Koran in these offshore prisons.
Everyone has a right to fair treatment.
Throwing people on secret prison ships, abusing them, etc... Is all good if they are truly guilty, the problem is, some may not be.
-
Point and Question:
Point: People seem to forget that 'friendly' nations citizens have been held for years and tortured. Canada, Sweden, France, Australia, Britain and Germany have all had their nationals held as well. And I don't mean just naturalised people, but born and bred citizens, as in white folk lol. USA freely admits they think it is fine to "kidnap" people from friendly nations, not even need them to be in some combat zone or have any legal right to get them. Australia and Britain fought alongside the USA in Iraq, but had their citizens in Gitmo. Need I say elements of Australia and Britain were outraged by this.
Question - but they let these guys go? If they are so dangerous to be held in cage and tortured, why are they let go? Either they should not have had that happen to them, or they should not be let go? We know the US cares less about their rights or costs, so it's not that. Genuine question - can anyone fill me on on that?
-
i remember when we grabbed that canadian programmer, beat the shit outta him for months in syria, the dropped him off home with a "my bad, wrong guy!"
did he ever sue?
-
Everyone has a right to fair treatment.
Throwing people on secret prison ships, abusing them, etc... Is all good if they are truly guilty, the problem is, some may not be.
Any person still in Gitmo is most likely guilty.
This cracks me up. Why should these guys be entitled to fair treatment? Like any of you actually give two shits about their "inalienable" rights. Just another thing to bitch about. You guys show more sympathy for terrorists than people/soldiers who are kidnapped, tortured (involving such means as eye gouging, amputation, rape) and beheading. Very, very pathetic.
-
"To win at all costs."
Be careful what you ask for.
-
"To win at all costs."
Be careful what you ask for.
To win without having to hold back.
To accomplish a goal without the media scrutinizing every soldiers move.
Get the media out of Iraq, our boys will be home by summer 09.
-
To win without having to hold back.
To accomplish a goal without the media scrutinizing every soldiers move.
Get the media out of Iraq, our boys will be home by summer 09.
Should we withdraw from geneva convention agreement then?
-
Should we withdraw from geneva convention agreement then?
According to some on here, we already violate multiple aspects of the convention. Why stop now? ???
-
According to some on here, we already violate multiple aspects of the convention. Why stop now? ???
Okay. If/when Russia or china or venezueal or Africa captures any of our forces, we should expect mass torture and executions on public tv on a governmental level. Not the 20-30 horrible behadings we've seen of troops in this war. No, we should expect to see hundreds of captured US forces disemboweled on TV, then drawn and quartered by horses in the town square. All on high-def of course, and broadcast to the world.
Is that what you want? Because that will be the result if we quit geneva. You see, you're letting the actions of a few dozen idiots - how many beheadings of Us forces can you name? 20? 30 tops?
You're letting that skew your vision of the bigger picture when we get in a REAL war and geneva keeps our men alive and unharmed in WAY bigger nuymbers. Please don't let iraq war be your only guide to POW history.
-
Okay. If/when Russia or china or venezueal or Africa captures any of our forces, we should expect mass torture and executions on public tv on a governmental level. Not the 20-30 horrible behadings we've seen of troops in this war. No, we should expect to see hundreds of captured US forces disemboweled on TV, then drawn and quartered by horses in the town square. All on high-def of course, and broadcast to the world.
Is that what you want? Because that will be the result if we quit geneva. You see, you're letting the actions of a few dozen idiots - how many beheadings of Us forces can you name? 20? 30 tops?
You're letting that skew your vision of the bigger picture when we get in a REAL war and geneva keeps our men alive and unharmed in WAY bigger nuymbers. Please don't let iraq war be your only guide to POW history.
Russia violates the Geneva conventions ALL THE TIME. China has a horrendous human rights record. Look at the treatment of Chechens and Tibetans. Talk about a broken record. ::)
Yes, the USA is the ONLY country that treats people poorly. Give me a break with that bullshit. Our human rights record pales in comparison to those two countries, PALES. I don't see you crying about them. Instead people care more about terrorists than US soldiers. It's disgusting. The evidence shows a number of these guys going straight back into combat after release.
How come you never cite Russian or Chinese atrocities? Why should we listen to other countries complaints when they can't practice what they preach? I value American lives higher than Russian/Chinese opinion.
I never see people crying about innocent Americans spending time in jail for murders they didn't commit. It's the same exact thing, only worse. But hey, joe blow Saudi Arabian who was handed over by his own government deserves more sympathy. If a few "innocent" guys end up mixed in with the hundreds of bad guys they've got, then that's the way the world works. If they're innocent, they'll end up released, like most of the innocent ones already from Gitmo. I'm not about to call for the abolishment of our justice system just because some innocent guys ended up in jail, am I? ::)
-
i'm not saying these counties don't break the rules.
I'm saying that in the macro sense, thousands of our men and women could face a terrible fate if we're not in geneva. Yes, fvcked up shit happens, but it happens in the small scale. Imagine china putting 1000 troops executions on youtube. it'd break the families heart and just be a horrible thing. Yes, a few jihadists pricks do it, but it's not policy.
I'm not giving any sympathy to "joe blow Saudi Arabia". Stop ignorantly assigning that belief to me, please.
-
Should we withdraw from geneva convention agreement then?
Why not? Does Iraq follow the geneva convention? Does some little wnnabe toweliban follow it? Play by the same rules as your enemy, that's what I say!
Okay. If/when Russia or china or venezueal or Africa captures any of our forces, we should expect mass torture and executions on public tv on a governmental level. Not the 20-30 horrible behadings we've seen of troops in this war. No, we should expect to see hundreds of captured US forces disemboweled on TV, then drawn and quartered by horses in the town square. All on high-def of course, and broadcast to the world.
Is that what you want? Because that will be the result if we quit geneva. You see, you're letting the actions of a few dozen idiots - how many beheadings of Us forces can you name? 20? 30 tops?
You're letting that skew your vision of the bigger picture when we get in a REAL war and geneva keeps our men alive and unharmed in WAY bigger nuymbers. Please don't let iraq war be your only guide to POW history.
You're assuming they won't do that anyway. You're assuming that other countries are going to follow geneva.......big assumptions. You don't think these things happens anyway?
-
Why not? Does Iraq follow the geneva convention? Does some little wnnabe toweliban follow it? Play by the same rules as your enemy, that's what I say!
You're assuming they won't do that anyway. You're assuming that other countries are going to follow geneva.......big assumptions. You don't think these things happens anyway?
in the past, nations have generally followed geneva. Yes, you have people break it all aountries, including ours, and yes, they go to prison for it in other countries, including ours.
that's what ppl here aren't separating... isolated incidents vs policy.
The iraq govt treats their prisoners well, acc'ding to geneva.
Yes, you have a group of killers - lawbreakers - who don't follow geneva.
but 99% of people and groups in war DO follow it, historically.
Ask any military person here if they think we should withdraw from geneva. You're letting 2 dozen horrible youtube clips skew 200 years warfare, and men that were protected from harm due to geneva.
-
in the past, nations have generally followed geneva. Yes, you have people break it all aountries, including ours, and yes, they go to prison for it in other countries, including ours.
that's what ppl here aren't separating... isolated incidents vs policy.
The iraq govt treats their prisoners well, acc'ding to geneva.
Yes, you have a group of killers - lawbreakers - who don't follow geneva.
but 99% of people and groups in war DO follow it, historically.
Ask any military person here if they think we should withdraw from geneva. You're letting 2 dozen horrible youtube clips skew 200 years warfare, and men that were protected from harm due to geneva.
Then why is the focus only on American troops?
I say pull the media out of Iraq, this will be over soon enough. Leave the media there, it drags on forever.
-
Then why is the focus only on American troops?
I say pull the media out of Iraq, this will be over soon enough. Leave the media there, it drags on forever.
The ones doing beheadings have been labeled by the world as lawbreakers.
We are the ones enforcing the law.
We have a higher standard. They get killed when they are found. We get oil. The minute you say "they do it, so we can do it", the UN asks us to leave. No more oil.
-
The ones doing beheadings have been labeled by the world as lawbreakers.
We are the ones enforcing the law.
We have a higher standard. They get killed when they are found. We get oil. The minute you say "they do it, so we can do it", the UN asks us to leave. No more oil.
Like it would be the first time we told the UN to fuck themselves. ::)
They didn't want us there in the first place, right?
-
Like it would be the first time we told the UN to fuck themselves. ::)
They didn't want us there in the first place, right?
I dont want to argue this anymore.
Geneva exists for our troops safety.
-
I dont want to argue this anymore.
Geneva exists for our troops safety.
Agree.
-
I think what is most crazy of all is how anyone in the military, like hh6, could support bush, NOT demand impeachment. Civilians like us all have right to an opinion, but we havent seen brothers and sisters in arms die for obvious lies. Bush, a rich mans son who avoided vietnam combat with some pseudo service in Texas(!) sent these kids out there to die for something that turned out to be entirely false.
The soldiers just served their country - they risked their lives and i think everyone, even their enemies in the field respects that . The responsibility lies with Bush.
He suckerpunched the troops. Why arent they the ones most eager to hold him accountable? Are they gonna let him off to that ranch in uruguay?
-
Any person still in Gitmo is most likely guilty.
This cracks me up. Why should these guys be entitled to fair treatment? Like any of you actually give two shits about their "inalienable" rights. Just another thing to bitch about. You guys show more sympathy for terrorists than people/soldiers who are kidnapped, tortured (involving such means as eye gouging, amputation, rape) and beheading. Very, very pathetic.
No i really don't give a shit about some who committed a terrorist act and killed innocent people. What i do give a shit about is the ones who didn't and are there.
I give a shit about doing the right thing.
I believe the right thing is to severely punish those guilty and prevent them from doing anything again.
I believe it's not right to punish those who are innocent.
To dismiss the detainees as mostly guilty but yet support them not having rights means that WE as a people support punishing innocent people for crimes against humanity they didn't commit.
That's not what America is about. At least on paper.
-
No i really don't give a shit about some who committed a terrorist act and killed innocent people. What i do give a shit about is the ones who didn't and are there.
I give a shit about doing the right thing.
I believe the right thing is to severely punish those guilty and prevent them from doing anything again.
I believe it's not right to punish those who are innocent.
To dismiss the detainees as mostly guilty but yet support them not having rights means that WE as a people support punishing innocent people for crimes against humanity they didn't commit.
That's not what America is about. At least on paper.
Amen!
-
I give a shit about doing the right thing.
What makes you think what you think is the right thing?
-
What makes you think what you think is the right thing?
If you think punishing innocent people is the right thing just say so.
-
If you think punishing innocent people is the right thing just say so.
You got documented proof they're innocent or are you just going on a hunch? Why is there any reason to believe anyone still in Gitmo is innocent? Hell, they've released fighters that were blatantly guilty, why would there still be innocent guys there?
Nevermind, it's Getbig. You're probably privy to highly classified information and your hunch is 100% fact. :-X
As of May 2nd, 270 people were still detained in Guatanamo. 420 have been released, including multiple enemy combatants who were captured in battle. WHY is there any reason to believe any of the 270 guys still there are innocent? What proof do you have? I'm more inclined to believe the 270 still there are probably the worst of the worst and have good reason for still being imprisoned. It's the only explanation when you think about the fact that jihad fighters have been released without charge.
They're probably still there for more than one reason, and as a result, I couldn't give two flying fucks about their imaginary "rights."
-
You got documented proof they're innocent or are you just going on a hunch? Why is there any reason to believe anyone still in Gitmo is innocent? Hell, they've released fighters that were blatantly guilty, why would there still be innocent guys there?...WHY is there any reason to believe any of the 208 guys still there are innocent?
no trial
-
You got documented proof they're innocent or are you just going on a hunch?
Do you have documented proof they are guilty?
Hell, they've released fighters that were blatantly guilty, why would there still be innocent guys there?
how do you know they released fighters that were blatantly guilty? If so, why are they doing that? Isn't that stupid? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of them being detained in the first place? Aren't we supposed to be in some sort of war? why would we release guilty people? That's real stupid.
Nevermind, it's Getbig. You're probably privy to highly classified information and your hunch is 100% fact.
I made no hunch what so ever, you did. You said:
Any person still in Gitmo is most likely guilty.
Most likely is not 100%. that means there are people there who may be punished that are innocent. Are you ok with that? You seem to be ok with them releasing people that ARE Guilty.
You are not making much sense here Fury, which is odd, because you usually make mountains of sense.
As of May 2nd, 270 people were still detained in Guatanamo. 420 have been released, including multiple enemy combatants who were captured in battle. WHY is there any reason to believe any of the 270 guys still there are innocent? What proof do you have? I'm more inclined to believe the 270 still there are probably the worst of the worst and have good reason for still being imprisoned. It's the only explanation when you think about the fact that jihad fighters have been released without charge.
What proof do you have they are guilty? The key word here is "probably". I don;t believe a person should be punished based on "probably." that's why i believe people have certain inalienable rights.....to help prevent that. Why is that such a problem?
Why is it a problem that i believe guilty should be punished and innocent should not be? why is it a problem that i believe when you take away a person's inalienable rights you potentially rob them of the mechanism that can prove their innocence?
They're probably still there for more than one reason, and as a result, I couldn't give two flying fucks about their imaginary "rights."
Same here. IF they are guilty. but "probably", doesn't cut it.
-
See, I understand that some may not be guilty. But that's the way the world works. There are guys sitting on death row for murders and crimes they never committed. As ridiculously shitty as it is, I'm not going to cry out for the abolishment of our justice system and ask for every convicted criminal to be acquitted because of the possibility that a few guys are innocent. No one seems to have a problem with innocent AMERICANS in jail on here. They would rather "fight" for terrorist rights.
The prison concept applies to Guantanamo in my opinion as well. Basing it on the fact that some guys are POSSIBLY innocent is foolish. It's already documented that a number of these so called "innocent" guys that were picked up on the battlefields go right back to what they were doing when they were captured. The world isn't fair. It's a pretty raw deal that these so called "innocent" guys are still there despite the dozens of jihadists already released. It pales in comparison to spending 30 years in jail for a murder you didn't commit. But no one cares about that, because they're American. It's sad.
And let's be honest, the governments information gathering abilities blows mine and yours out of the water. Can you honestly tell me you think any of those guys still there are truly innocent? They've released 420 people already. I'm sure that after all these years they would have been able to determine who is innocent and who isn't. I'd rather err on the side of caution and believe that the 270 left there are probably the worst of the worst. It's not like our government is trying to deny they imprisoned innocent people, so why would they still be holding them? Unless of course it's due to the fact that these other countries don't want to take their citizens back. Life isn't fair.
Frankly, I'd rather see everyone put this effort into freeing innocent Americans, but no one gives a shit about that because it has nothing to do with George Bush. Just like most people care more about dogs than humans.
-
See, I understand that some may not be guilty. But that's the way the world works.
But it doesn't have to. just as it didn't have to before many of the rights we fought along with others over history didn't exist. such as the Magna Carta. It would have been easy to say, as i'm sure many of the noble born did, that that's just the way the world is.
We have an obligation to pursue the truth and progress as a society and summarily punishing people that have even a less than 1% chance of being innocent is a step backwards.
There are guys sitting on death row for murders and crimes they never committed. As ridiculously shitty as it is, I'm not going to cry out for the abolishment of our justice system and ask for every convicted criminal to be acquitted because of the possibility that a few guys are innocent
Who is suggesting we abolish our justice system because f the possibility that there may be innocent people on death row? I'm certainly not. And i've to my best of recollection, haven't ever seen anyone here say that. Not even Jag for heaven sakes.
No one seems to have a problem with innocent AMERICANS in jail on here.
I do. In fact a few months ago, BB and I had a long debate about death row with arguing there are potentially innocent people that have been executed.
They would rather "fight" for terrorist rights.
I don't see that anyone here is "fighting" for terrorists rights. I do see some people here, me included "arguing" for everyone's inalienable rights.
The prison concept applies to Guantanamo in my opinion as well. Basing it on the fact that some guys are POSSIBLY innocent is foolish. It's already documented that a number of these so called "innocent" guys that were picked up on the battlefields go right back to what they were doing when they were captured. The world isn't fair. It's a pretty raw deal that these so called "innocent" guys are still there despite the dozens of jihadists already released. It pales in comparison to spending 30 years in jail for a murder you didn't commit. But no one cares about that, because they're American. It's sad.
I think you are gravely mistaken because their families can with-in the system file for appeals. Many do get released and i believe it's unfortunate that many innocent people are still incarcerated and i hate to think, that America with all it's ideals about freedom and justice, don't walk the walk when they don't have to, and that the supreme court must step in and make them.
And let's be honest, the governments information gathering abilities blows mine and yours out of the water.
That's an interesting statement considering that the "information gathering abilities blows mine and yours out of the water" got the WMD thing totally wrong.
Can you honestly tell me you think any of those guys still there are truly innocent? They've released 420 people already. I'm sure that after all these years they would have been able to determine who is innocent and who isn't. I'd rather err on the side of caution and believe that the 270 left there are probably the worst of the worst. It's not like our government is trying to deny they imprisoned innocent people, so why would they still be holding them? Unless of course it's due to the fact that these other countries don't want to take their citizens back. Life isn't fair.
I am in no way suggesting we should just release them. Here's what Beachbum says:
I have previously said foreign suspected terrorists shouldn't be entitled to habeas and I still believe that, but if the alternative is you leave them in prison indefinitely without charges, then to that extent I agree with the Supreme Court's decision and disagree with McCain. What we've been doing is Kafkaesque.
I disagree with him alot, but for the most part, unless he's f-ing around with his stalkers, he does make some sense.
Frankly, I'd rather see everyone put this effort into freeing innocent Americans, but no one gives a shit about that because it has nothing to do with George Bush. Just like most people care more about dogs than humans.
Much is put there. Can we do more? Yes.
-
That was a good post.
I'm actually going to take back what I said. They should be charged or released. However, if they were to disappear onto CIA prison ships or something along those lines, I would also have no problem with that. Like BB said, I have a problem with people arguing that they should be entitled to habeas, which shouldn't be the case. There is absolutely no reason to give enemy combatants caught in the act of war habeas.
-
It pales in comparison to spending 30 years in jail for a murder you didn't commit. But no one cares about that, because they're American. It's sad.
I do, I've had epic meltdowns on that also. I actually object to the death penalty 99% of the time anyway. Don't get me started there >:(
Just like most people care more about dogs than humans.
Honestly, I have also found this quite weird myself.
[Good post above btw, the longer one, well said]
-
That was a good post.
I'm actually going to take back what I said. They should be charged or released. However, if they were to disappear onto CIA prison ships or something along those lines, I would also have no problem with that. Like BB said, I have a problem with people arguing that they should be entitled to habeas, which shouldn't be the case. There is absolutely no reason to give enemy combatants caught in the act of war habeas.
Imagine giving everyone in WW2 we took prisoner Habeas. yikes. That would still be going on today.
Held with out charges. wasn't that one of our bones of contention with england in 1776?
-
Imagine giving everyone in WW2 we took prisoner Habeas. yikes. That would still be going on today.
Held with out charges. wasn't that one of our bones of contention with england in 1776?
Yeah, when I think about that it's a little deranged. But I care about American safety first and foremost. Knowing that a legal loophole or some other bullshit could get one of these guys back out into the battlefield to kill more Aomericans just isn't my cup of tea. But, they should be charged or released. However, I look at that Kuwaiti guy who deserted the Kuwait army, got captured in Afghanistan, released from Guantanamo and then blew himself up in the middle of 30 Iraqi policemen and it just leads me to believe that the guys still in there are likely the baddest of the bad.
-
If you think punishing innocent people is the right thing just say so.
What makes you think they are innocent? Are they not in prison for a reason?
-
What makes you think they are innocent? Are they not in prison for a reason?
Innocent people never mistakenly go to prison?
-
Innocent people never mistakenly go to prison?
What, you think that trained soldiers mistook the grenades and a stash of bombs for pencils, and an ice cream maker?
-
What, you think that trained soldiers mistook the grenades and a stash of bombs for pencils, and an ice cream maker?
They all had grenades and a stash of bombs?
You were personally at every capture i take it? Impressive.
I'm surprised you are not being actively recruited into Delta Force.
Or maybe you already are. hmmmmmm.
-
Then why is the focus only on American troops?
I say pull the media out of Iraq, this will be over soon enough. Leave the media there, it drags on forever.
30 days dude..30 days..first u burn all population records and then bounce the media...we could leave in 3 months.
-
First asshole I come across who asks for his lawyer gets smoked. ;D
-
The bottom line is... if the American way is the right way, ...it should be able to withstand the war on terror.
If your system cannot handle it, ...if you must resort to the way of the terrorists, ...what does that say about the American system. If you adopt terrorist tactics, ...the terrorists win, ...because they will have destroyed America's way of life, and the American system.
-
The bottom line is... if the American way is the right way, ...it should be able to withstand the war on terror.
If your system cannot handle it, ...if you must resort to the way of the terrorists, ...what does that say about the American system. If you adopt terrorist tactics, ...the terrorists win, ...because they will have destroyed America's way of life, and the American system.
Unfortunately, no one adopted that system in WW2. It's impractical in war. This is a war.
-
Unfortunately, no one adopted that system in WW2. It's impractical in war. This is a war.
Seems to be if a system is sound, it should be practical both in peacetime and in war.
-
Seems to be if a system is sound, it should be practical both in peacetime and in war.
Seems you have no clue as to the enormity of war.
In WW2 alone there were: 425,000 held by the USA alone. Yeah, 425,000 thousand full trials. right. ::)
Typical Ultra lib thing to do, over complicate a simple issue and suggest wasting billions and years of time.
-
Seems you have no clue as to the enormity of war.
In WW2 alone there were: 425,000 held by the USA alone. Yeah, 425,000 thousand full trials. right. ::)
Typical Ultra lib thing to do, over complicate a simple issue and suggest wasting billions and years of time.
How many of those 425,000 were kidnapped and sold to the USA?
I was neither suggesting overcomplicating anything, nor wasting billions and years of time,
...that's the neocon approach. ;D
-
I was neither suggesting overcomplicating anything, nor wasting billions and years of time,
...that's the neocon approach. ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
Many were killed on the spot by our troops during battles when they wanted to surrender.
That's not the point. Many of these combatants where cuaght in battle or by search.
-
there are only, what, 1500 jihadists lef tin iraq, causing all that noise?
label them domestic murderers. The local police will have them strung up in a week.
of course, then we don't give $3 bil a week to the defense contractors, huh? ;)
-
Seems you have no clue as to the enormity of war.
In WW2 alone there were: 425,000 held by the USA alone. Yeah, 425,000 thousand full trials. right. ::)
Typical Ultra lib thing to do, over complicate a simple issue and suggest wasting billions and years of time.
Jaguar isn't an Ultra Liberal. Far from it.
She could be considered a terrorist hugger, and a multi-culti hugger, also she has "democratical" issues. With her support of dictatures and anti-democrats.
But an "Ultra Liberal" is someone is a person who wants to minimize government and is super pro freedom, eg Robert Nozick.
Calling her "ultra liberal" is just ridiculous.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
Many were killed on the spot by our troops during battles when they wanted to surrender.
That's not the point. Many of these combatants where cuaght in battle or by search.
I'm not concerned with those caught in battle. I'm not even talking about terrorists either.
I'm talking about people who were kidnapped and sold to the USA because the US was paying per head.
What about those who were taken during searches by troops who couldn't even read the identification presented to them? How would you like to be John Smith when an army of invading Arabs search through your neighbourhood looking for Mike Jones, ...but because the Arabic soldier can't read the English on your driver's license or passport, ...decides "Screw It", let's take him just the same. He looks like a Mike Jones. those are the people I'm talking about.