Heres the thing about this whole Gitmo argument that the Repukes do not get

[LSK]

We DO NOT KNOW if the people in Gitmo are actually terrorists. There were MANY STORIES about Afghan warlords and Northern Alliance leaders SELLING anyone who might look like a terrorist. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=northern+alliance+selling+prisoners&btnG=Google+Search

There is NO PROOF that these people are actually terrorists until they can be tried. This is the entire basis of the western legal system. This is what defines a free society and what separates us from true despotism that we supposedly fight against.

What is the basis of this freedom we want to spread around the world? How about the freedom to defend ourselves against those who accuse us.

Innocent until proven guilty has been one of the founding principles of this country. If you want to supposedly spread freedom around the world, perhaps we should practice it.

[Nictuku]

1. It goes even further back in time (1215)

Habeas Corpus was in the Magna Carta.

From Wikipedia:

Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter, literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. It required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.

[weezy2736]

2. If I remember correctly, for a long time, the Magna Carta only applied to

the upper class of some distinction... I'm not sure, it's been a while since I've had a discussion on it. :shrug:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. You remember 1215?

I can't remember a damn thing before the Battle of Agincourt.

(But you're right; Magna Carta was a document members of the nobility forced on King John. Nevertheless, it was a good start.)

[weezy2736]

9. Admittedly, it was a long time ago.

The one thing of those days I remember absolutely clearly was the McCain-Innocent III crusade.

Sadly, McCain couldn't actually participate, as he was too old to make the journey.

[jwirr]

13. That is exactly what it was - a start. England's present form of government

(parliamentarian) developed out of that movement and when our founding fathers were setting our laws into place the magna carta was one basic source of their ideals.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. The thing I don't get is why the right wingers are so afraid of the consequences

of a fair proceeding. All this case means is that the Gitmo prisoners will have the opportunity to go before a court and hear the charges against them. It doesn't mean they will be set free, only that they now have some access to a proceeding that affords some minimal standards of due process. What the hell is so scary about a fair trial? The U.S. Attorney's office managed to try and convict the first WTC bombers in a normal (and fair) criminal trial, and those assholes are now doing life in the Supermax prison in Colorado. Why are the Gitmo prisoners any different?

[VP505]

7. I think we know why the Booo$h Admin

doesn't want them to have any kind of Habeas rights. The way it is they can accuse them of anything, do what they want with them and use them as an example of real life terrorists to keep the peasants skeered, fearful and willing to let them do all the crap we have seen for the last 5 years without proof.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Because they're deathly afraid that their god, George W. Bush, will

be proven wrong. They really are frighteningly emotionally invested in George W. Bush as infallible. In their minds, if Bush did it, it must be right. Scary people, and they're out in force in the reactions to the news on the Strib website:

http://ww2.startribune.com/user_comments/comments.php?d=asset_comments&asset_id=19818144&sort=R§ion=/politics

[hendo]

4. Even if they weren't

They probably will be now. So many years to build up so much personal hate. It really is too bad that so many possibly innocent people had to go through what they did.

[noise]

6. They don't get the disconnect between

pre-9/11 dereliction of duty by their heroes and the post 9/11 claim that torture was required to prevent follow up attacks. They don't get that torture isn't an effective interrogation method. They don't get that Suskind reported that Zuybaydeh was tortured so Bush wouldn't lose face. They don't get that al-Libi's confessions, though productive in the short term for fearmongering/propaganda/justifying an invasion of Iraq purposes, turned out to be false confessions to get the torture to stop. They don't get that the Chief of Alec Station (Rich B.) pressured Tenet so CIA would get interrogation control of al-Libi instead of the FBI. This is the official who couldn't be bothered to tell the FBI that two al Qaeda operatives were in the US. Same official kept his job after 9/11 and was promoted to head the reopened Kabul station in 12/01. Oh yeah, he was named in IG Helgerson's internal review, a review that called for disciplinary panels. The report has never been declassified (just the executive summary) and Goss and Hayden weren't about to hold anyone responsible for 9/11.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. That is PRECISELY what they don't get

See this:

http://ww2.startribune.com/user_comments/comments.php?d=asset_comments&asset_id=19818144&sort=R§ion=/politics

[LSK]

11. one guy is complaining about the taxes of paying for a defender

"will be able to get a public defender (paid for by us)" -----Who do you think is paying for their current relatively high standard of living? And if convicted, will continue to pay? Either way, us taxpayers are paying.

:wow:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Scary people, aren't they?

Perfect little subjects for a dictator.