Obama Orders Halt To Gitmo Tribunals

Darat said:
Oh just the ideal of a fair justice system in the name of "security".
Click to expand...
That is a nice platitude but you still fail to list a specific ideal given up in the name of safety. You are the administrator of a very anti-Bush website. Can you give me any instance of a warning, threat or complaint by the Bush administration in regard to the political opinions of the site you administer?
 
Darat said:
And how long has it taken for some of the captured people to go before such a tribunal?
Click to expand...
Only those that have been charged with war crimes have gone before a tribunal. Much of the delay has been by the defense attorneys in contesting the legitimacy of the tribunals themselves. The rest are captured combatants that are held because their own countries deem them too dangerous to take back or would be subject to mistreatment if repatriated. I am surprised that you are not more knowledgeable about the issues when it comes to GITMO.
 
Darat said:
And how long has it taken for some of the captured people to go before such a tribunal?
Click to expand...

How is this relevant?

Is the war over? Did radical islam surrender?

Even if they aren't charged, they were still captured on the battlefield. Keeping POWs until the end of hostilities is standard operating procedure.
 
Out of 700+ detainees, about 270 are still at the camp. Of those 270, about 1/5 are people who have been "freed", but they cannot be repatriated because their countries don't want them back.

That leaves a little over 200 genuine prisoners there.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
It's a bit embarassing when not only do the resident Republican-party-talking-points providers end up reading from the same choirbook, but they repeat talking points that have already been done to death on this very forum.

Wildcat tried that line out some time ago, here's the thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121721&highlight=freedoms
Click to expand...

Could you point out which specific post in that thread lists the freedoms Americans lost under Bush?
 
When the most powerful nation in the world thinks it can imprison anyone indefinitely, it is a problem for everyone.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Could you point out which specific post in that thread lists the freedoms Americans lost under Bush?
Click to expand...

It would probably benefit you to read the whole thing, but the incontrovertible example was of Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber" and US citizen, who was seized and detained without evidence by the military for years by Presidential order without any evidence.

If you want that phrased as a right, the right of US citizens not to be seized and detained without evidence by the military for years by Presidential order was lost under Bush.
 
The right of any citizen, regardless of nationality, not to be seized and detained without evidence by the US military for years by US Presidential order was lost under Bush.
 
CFLarsen said:
The right of any citizen, regardless of nationality, not to be seized and detained without evidence by the US military for years by US Presidential order was lost under Bush.
Click to expand...


Evidence that the US military seized and detained anyone outside Afghanistan or Iraq?

And yes, the military do have a legal right to seize and detain anyone they want inside a warzone.

Don't confuse the military's seizures inside the warzone with the CIA's illegal seizures outside the warzone. Not the same thing.
 
Do not confuse the military's seizures inside the warzone of combattants with non-combattants (of various nationalities, also other than Afghans and Iraqis).
 
It's wonderfully idealistic to say that these people are being so horribly deprived of justice. In principal I agree with it. I also agree, in prinicpal, with what Obama said about our saftey trumping what is right.

But you all just wait. The first one of these guys that is released and then goes forth and kills anyone.. even just one person, that is going to be on Obama's head. And people are going to scream bloody murder.

I stress that I agree with the ideals, but I'm trying to be pragmatic and realistic.
 
CFLarsen said:
The right of any citizen, regardless of nationality, not to be seized and detained without evidence by the US military for years by US Presidential order was lost under Bush.
Click to expand...

Persons lose such right anytime they enter into a state of war against the United States on behalf of a hostile foreign power regardless of who the president is.

There was a very small handful of US citizens captured (I think only one or two) while serving in the Waffen SS in World War II. And neither of them were released prior to the end of the war.

The poor oppressed Mr. Padilla should have chosen somewhere other than a planeload of American civillians to attempt to detonate his footwear.
 
Oh, and I have to laugh at the notion that this is an anti-Bush website.

After all, remember all those pro-Bush threads that were deleted? Heck, I challenge you to find a pro-Bush poster who isn't immediately banned for their political beliefs. ;)

Attacking the leadership of a website (unfairly imho) rather than attacking his argument is a cheap tactic. Please stop.
 
gumboot said:
I sincerely hope Obama actually thinks very carefully about what he does with these people. This is an incredibly bad area to go wading in to in order to win quick political brownie points, and it could come back to bite the US in the behind big time.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when naive idealism meets reality.
 
Puppycow said:
There are muslims in America and some mosques might take them in. The FBI would have to keep tabs on them. It's not a great alternative but all of the choices are unpalatable ones.
Click to expand...

Or maybe Japan is a better place. Geez.... if they're not worth keeping in Gitmo, send them back to Afghanistan or Iran or wherever they came from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom