Heard last night that all of the detainee's in GITMO

[katmondoo]

will be released and sent home? Nothing in todays news about this. The reason given was that the courts say it is illegal to hold these people without charges.

[knowbody0]

1. gitmo release

i saw this report on CNN as well, evidently it's reported in the times also. must be a quiet report. im thinking they will have much to say.

[sleipnir]

2. That's great news if true!!!

Finally the US government will stop illegally holding innocent civilians who got caught up in our own Salem witch trials.

[getoffmytrain]

3. Nope, not a single...

one there ever fired a shot at an American soldier. Spare me.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. sniff sniff

[getoffmytrain]

7. I am a freeper because I don't...

think that everyone at Gitmo is an innocent civilian?

[mike_c]

17. does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell...?

Not one of the prisoners still at Gitmo has been proven anything. No due process, no independent advocacy, no opportunity to confront their accusers in open court (the sham tribunals notwithstanding).

[getoffmytrain]

21. They are not US citizens and not subject to the same legal

right that we have as American citizens. To my knowledge, the Americans citizen, Hamdi, was released.

Agreed..... you won't find anyone who will kick and scream louder than I about being able to label AMERICAN CITIZENS as 'enemy combatants'.

[HFishbine]

35. Ummm

Can you tell me what legal rights are not Constitutionally granted to non-US citizens in US jurisdiction? Is there a list (maybe you can post it) of what due process rights citizens have and which ones are denied to non-citizens?

[TahitiNut]

38. This is a gargantuan load of MANURE.

The notion that citizens of the US are afforded legal rights, including rights to due process, that are denied or deniable to non-citizens is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

(1) The Constitution does not afford rights, nor does any law subordinate to it. In fact, the very legitimacy of the Constitution itself is premised upon those rights, to which the Constitution is subordinate. The Constitution defines and establishes a government, one which derives its power from the governed and which is, by that very derivation, forever constrained from violating the rights of people which are defined as "inalienable."

(2) Even a superficial reading of the Constitution indicates that it's recognized that "people" have rights, not just "citizens." Citizenship is an entitlement, not a right. Rights are far superior and broader than entitlements. Entitlements are a function of government acting, as it only may, subordinate to the people.


On edit: The specious notion that only citizens have rights is a fecal fingerprint of Fascism or National Socialism (i.e. "Nazis"), a notion stolen from the corrupted days of the Roman Empire. It was this very notion that rationalized the denial of citizenship to Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and other "undesirables" as they were then treated as subhumans by fascist regimes.

But they did make the trains run on time. :eyes: :eyes:

[HFishbine]

40. Thank you, Mr. Nut

It's amazing how eagerly some people will discuss Consitutional rights without the vaguest understanding.

[mike_c]

42. uh huh, you and Ashcroft agree on that one....

eom

[Djinn]

44. good that only americans deserve legal rights

basically you seem to be saying that if someone WAS caught bang to rights as an actual terrorist but they were AMERICAN they should get due process if however they are brought in after a NA sweep of an area in Afghanistan (including all the people "dobbed in" for personal revenge, and those grabbed to make up numbers - payment for suspects anyone...) then they get locked up with no access to family or legal representation for over 3 years???

Mamdouh Habib was picked up in Pakistan - a US ally - sent to Egypt for convenient torture, was told his family were all dead and has been in Gitmo ever since - there has never been the slightest shred of evidence that he's guilty of ANYTHING.

Even David Hicks (and others picked up after fighting/training with the Taliban) were NOT committing a crime under US law or the laws of their own nations at the time.

DOes your logic work the other way around - any US citizens in Iraq can be held incommunicado without any evidence they committed a crime until those hostilities are over, or are US citizens deserving of some special protections the rest of us are not??

Yes there probably are some "terrorists" in Gitmo(people fighting with the Taliban against the NA are no more automatically terrorists - although they clearly wouldn't be pals of mine - than those serving in the US army are all war criminals)- so fucking what?

If I arrested EVERY adult in your neighbourhood and held them all without charge I'd most likely have a few criminals in that bunch - wouldn't make me any less of a fascist.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Don't start that crap!! Once you start denying rights to ONE,....

...it's a very steep slippery slope to denying rights to EVERYONE.

That's the way things started out in Germany when the Nazis came to power in 1934.

[OneTwentyoNine]

30. Uhhhh,then why don't they bring charges against the guilty ones??

Because their not guilty,no evidence??

I guess Bush and his regime think their innocent or the would have been in a court room YEARS ago. Yes,I said YEARS...


David

[TexasSissy]

37. I'm not a freeper, and I think there are some terrorists there.

Just for the odds alone, there would be. They were picked up in Afghanistan, I believe, in the fighting.

I'm sure some were probably not fighting and just got picked up in a sweep, and I'm sure some are not terrorists. But there no doubt are some terrorists there.

I think that if they were picked up on the battlefield, and they are not U.S. citizens, they can be held for years. It is those who are U.S. citizens that the U.S. has to show cause in a court to hold past a certain length of time. Even then, they can still hold them, if they can show enough proof that they were aiding the enemy or something like that.

Only one was a U.S. citizen, I think (Hamda or something?). He's being released I saw on teh news, because the U.S. has to go to court to show cause to hold him longer, so they decided to release him instead. Guess they didn't think they had proof. But he's the only one I've heard is to be released.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. Then they're POWs, under the Geneva Convention?

No, they're not?

Even the soldiers of Nazi Germany, who killed millions of Allied troops, were released after the war.

"Spare me," you say? First, I think others need to be spared much worse.

[getoffmytrain]

12. Is the war over?

We still have roughly 20k troops on the ground doing combat patrols. I don't think the war is over.

[Minstrel Boy]

14. And your argument for holding these men and boys indefinitely,

without charges or legal representation, isolated from family and subject to torture, is what? That some of them may have fired upon American soldiers?

Do you believe that such picayune details don't really matter in this case because, well, they're not really like us, are they? Or are you going to say everything changed after September 11? (Please, say that.)

[getoffmytrain]

20. No....

My argument for holding them is that the conflict is not yet over. In the history of warfare, soldiers, which is a loose term when used to reference most of the people at Gitmo as many of them have not fought for an organized and internationally recognized body, are held until the conflict is over. (Unless an exchange agreement is reached)

When the conflict is over, they should be released or tried. We are still in daily firefights with the factions the Gitmo detainees fought for and support. To release them while the conflict is ongoing, would be tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy.

The point is, they are the enemy and the war is not over. DId we release Nazi soldiers captured in France before we moved on to Berlin? No... of course not.

Obviously, I don't support the abuse or torture of any prisoner held by any body.

[Minstrel Boy]

25. "aiding and abetting the enemy"

is precisely what such illegitimate confinement is doing.

Gitmo is an al Qaeda recruitment poster.

[getoffmytrain]

26. I don't...

I don't deny that Gitmo is an 'alamo' of sorts to militant Islam... however, you know as well as I do... fanatics will find ANYTHING to use as a lamp unto their cause. If it weren't Gitmo, it would be something else and so forth and so on. Jihad is part of the militant culture of Islam, they would be recruiting fine without us.

[Zensea]

28. The reason Gitmo is an issue has NOTHING to do with Islam

It is an issue because if the Bush administration had had its way, any U.S. citizen could have been labelled an enemy combatant and picked up anywhere in the world, including on the streets of the US and held without being allowed to consult with counsel. Since the "war on terror" is a war that has no national boundaries, ergo you can be an "enemy combatant" in that war ANYWHERE.
At least according to the implications of Bush policy and the arguments they made in front of the Supreme Court, which I have read since the place I work had something to do with the Friend of the Court brief filed on behalf of some of those enemy combatants.
Fortunately the enemy combatants had the Federal Public Defender on their side who presented a damning indictment of the Bush position.
The case cited precedent clear back to the beginning of the country and quoted the Federalist Papers and Alexander Hamilton in defense of the enemy combatants' right to counsel.

Recall-- the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 against the Bush administration.

Obviously they understood the issue.

You should be damn glad they did.

[getoffmytrain]

29. Refer to my post..

Refer to my post #21 in this thread.

[Zensea]

33. Hamdi was held for 3 years without counsel

As I recall he was held as an enemy combatant.
He would probably still be being held without counsel if the Supreme Court had not ruled the way they did.

Not being a US citizen does not mean you don't have rights.
The Supreme Court also ruled against Bush on that issue. They were not as sharply divided (as in it was less than 8-1) but they still ruled against Bush and said the Gitmo folk had a right to counsel even if they were not US citizens.
So the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

This is one of the reasons I am not as worried as some are regarding the state of our democracy.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Gitmo violates major provisions of 4th Geneva Convention

In order for a detainee to be adjudged as 'unlawful combatant', there must be a hearing before a neutral adjudicator with due process procedural safeguards as to the status of the detainee, where the detainee is allowed to challenge the gov't claim that he\she is an 'unlawful combatant'.

BushCo have violated international law. We can expect U.S. soldiers captured abroad to endure similar treatments in the future.

[snowFLAKE]

18. I've been told the War is Over . . .

and

[getoffmytrain]

19. Both...

Chimpy's aircraft carrier show and the letter you have there are both conerning the Iraq war. To my knowledge, there are no detainees in Gitmo from Iraq. This conversation has nothing to do with Iraq.

[ParanoidPat]

22. War? Was there a war declared?

I don't remember there ever being a war declared against Iraq. :(

I distinctly remember an invasion against a fundamentally disarmed country based on lies and exaggerations but I can't for the life of me remember there being a 'declaration of war' being issued.

Did I miss that or did you imagine it? :shrug: :evilgrin:

[getoffmytrain]

23. talking about Afghanistan here...

Thanks for your input though.

[ParanoidPat]

27. Can you give me a link to the DECLARATION OF WAR.....

.....against Afghanistan? :shrug: :evilgrin:

I'm beginning to believe you could have stopped at the three words "I don't think" that you posted in #12 above.

The rest of your BS is just further redundant proof of that point. :)

[getoffmytrain]

31. Under the Geneva Conventions

under the Geneva Conventions terrorists do not fit into the only two categories provided by the document, pow or war criminal. The US does not need to make a declaration of war to detain 'terrorists'.

do you have anything to say or are you just going to continue to attempt to personally insult me?

[bloom]

39. so we call someone a "terrorist" and take away their rights...

sounds like we're the terrorists if that is the case.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. The U. S. is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and choose to....

...ignore it when convenient to do so.

The minute we started rounding up large groups of people and detaining them without cause is the minute we lost the moral high ground.

You know, I've read your posts in this thread and you just flat-out don't know what the heck you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and leave now to spare yourself any further embarrassment...if you even recognize the fact that you're being embarrassed.

[getoffmytrain]

32. WAR

war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.


Care to tell me how I misused the term in #12, smart guy?

[DrWeird]

34. If we're having a "war on terrorism", then captured terrorists...

are prisoners of war, and thus subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Of course you can always try and bend the rules so you can go ahead and torture people, but if you do that then you aren't any better then the terrorists.

[mike_c]

43. an unwinnable war, thus war without end...

...justifies indefinite detention of POWs? :puke:

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. That's quite possibly true

since America put very few ground troops in during the early stages in Afghanistan; and many of the 'really dangerous' ones are actually being held elsewhere in the world, like Bhagram airbase, or Diego Garcia, where even the Red Cross doesn't get to see them, and there are no limits on what torturers can do to them.

As the later links in this thread show, what was actually predicted (but not yet ordered) was releasing 'most' of the prisoners. The same general also said most of them had been running, not fighting. Guantanamo prisoners have been arrested not just in Afghanistan (where the Americans paid Afghans to turn in other Afghans, without evidence), but also Pakistan, Europe and Africa.

[leesa]

4. It's been illegal for years now and it hasn't made a bit of difference

[notadmblnd]

5. I heard a casual mention of it on one of the cable news shows

Olberman maybe? I remember the number mentioned was 586 being released. It's curious that they made no mention as to the reason why they were suddenly being released.

[B3Nut]

9. Found on MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180373/

They need to empty the whole damn thing. There's no excuse for an allegedly civilized nation to be engaging in any form of torture or incommunicado detentions. None.

Todd P

[notadmblnd]

10. I know , but we argued that before

the first prisoner was ever sent there, Ashcroft and Rumsfeild both basically told the American public tough titty, they're doing it. Was this a decision that the court made recently?

on edit: ok, so it was a Brig General who made the decision to release them. So my next question is why isn't iT being fought by Ashcroft and Rumsfeld? Has the administration flipflopped? Is this a pentagon official going against the admin? Will he suffer retribution for his insubordination? Tune in tomorrow for another episode of As the government Spins.

I've always told people that following politics was better than soap operas.

[radwriter0555]

11. So that means so far bush's war on terror has caught ZERO TERRORISTS...

which I have asserted from day one.

Ask ANY freeper / neocon to tell you the name of ONE SINGLE terrorist caught in bush's war on terror in iraq.

They shut up and run like roaches real real fast.

[baldguy]

13. How do you say "lawsuit" in Arabic?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. al Hague?

[crispini]

24. Found it on Yahoo news and rated it up

Please do the same so more will see this.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041005/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_dc_1

It's being kept very, very quiet. Nothing in the dead-tree edition this AM. Gee, I wonder why.

[Disturbed]

36. Terrorist?

A strict legal definition of this term needs to be spelled out
by the US Supreme Court. Also, "Enemy Combatent".

I don't believe that the Geneva Convention is a qaint concept or that the US Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution are merely words that no longer apply.