|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
WASHINGTON — The detainee who died on Saturday at the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a Yemeni man who had been ordered freed in 2010 by a Federal District Court judge but remained in captivity after the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year. The military on Tuesday publicly identified the detainee, whose death was announced a day earlier, as Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif. He was captured at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in December 2001 and was among the first detainees taken to the prison when the Bush administration opened it in January 2002. Mr. Latif was found unresponsive in his cell and could not be revived, the military has said. An autopsy was performed, but the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has not yet made public its findings about how he died. The United States Southern Command, which oversees Guantánamo, is also conducting an investigation into the death. “Autopsy results and cause of death determinations take time, and therefore are not available for release,” the military said in a statement. “Following the autopsy, a Muslim military chaplain, the Joint Task Force Guantánamo cultural adviser and Islamic volunteers from the staff were on hand to ensure the appropriate handling of the body.” Mr. Latif was a former hunger striker who was in the “disciplinary” lockup for throwing bodily fluids on guards. He also had a history of depression and erratic behavior, including an episode in 2009 in which he threw his blood onto his volunteer lawyer, David Remes. In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Remes described Mr. Latif as a “talented poet and deeply devout” man who was “mentally fragile and was at times sedated, placed on suicide watch and sent to the prison’s psychological ward.” Mr. Remes said he last saw his client in May and had been planning to visit him again next week. “Every hope held out to him was dashed,” Mr. Remes said. “He felt that his spirit was dying, that he couldn’t continue to bear his conditions.” There was no dispute that Mr. Latif traveled from Yemen to Pakistan in August 2001 and later made his way to Afghanistan before trying to flee once the war began. He claimed that he was sent to the region by a humanitarian aid worker to seek charitable medical treatment for problems stemming from a head injury he had suffered in a car accident in 1994. The military instead maintained that he had been recruited by a Qaeda figure to help the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance. Still, the military did not see him as a particular threat. His classified assessment file, made public by WikiLeaks, showed that the military had recommended that he be released in December 2006 and again in January 2008. A detainee task force under President Obama also approved him for transfer, Mr. Remes said. But both the Bush and the Obama administrations were reluctant to repatriate detainees to Yemen because of poor security conditions, so he remained locked up. The central piece of evidence against Mr. Latif was an intelligence report prepared shortly after his capture that said he had incriminated himself. In his habeas corpus lawsuit, the question was whether to credit that report as sufficient evidence to justify keeping him locked up indefinitely. In 2010, Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. of Federal District Court in Washington wrote that the report was unreliable and granted his habeas corpus petition. While many details in his ruling were redacted, Judge Kennedy cited flaws with the report, noted that no other detainees said they had seen Mr. Latif at a safe house or training camp linked to Al Qaeda, and said Mr. Latif had presented a “plausible alternative story” for what he was doing in the region. But last year, a divided three-judge panel for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated that ruling. Citing inconsistencies in Mr. Latif’s account, the two judges in the majority, Janice Rogers Brown and Karen LeCraft Henderson, also said the report was entitled to “a presumption of regularity.” The ruling drew a sharp dissent from the third judge on the panel, David Tatel, who also focused on the flaws of the report. He faulted his colleagues for giving nearly conclusive weight to a sketchy report “produced in the fog of war,” saying their standard effectively required judges to accept as true virtually whatever the government claims, severely undermining a 2008 Supreme Court ruling granting the detainees habeas corpus rights. In June, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Mr. Latif’s case without comment. Judges Kennedy and Tatel were both appointed by President Bill Clinton. Judge Henderson was appointed by President George Bush, and Judge Brown by President George W. Bush. Mr. Latif was the ninth detainee known to have died at Guantánamo. Some prisoners apparently committed suicide, while others apparently died of natural causes. Mr. Latif’s death lowered the inmate population to 167. link
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
The issue - in my opinion - with Gitmo is that if you hold people for years or decades in horrible conditions, never charge them with a crime and basically let them rot, all it does is turn people against you - in some cases people that weren't extremists when they were sent to Gitmo. Add to that, holding people indefinitely with no charges makes the USA look hypocritical on an international stage, and you have a bad situation all around.
If we are going to claim to go to these countries in the name of freedom, we should use our judicial process to show that OUR way is superior and that we do things "by the book" and hold those who commit atrocities accountable by taking them to through a judicial process and not just locking them up without any charges.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921 |
Quote:
The issue - in my opinion - with Gitmo is that if you hold people for years or decades in horrible conditions, never charge them with a crime and basically let them rot, all it does is turn people against you - in some cases people that weren't extremists when they were sent to Gitmo. Add to that, holding people indefinitely with no charges makes the USA look hypocritical on an international stage, and you have a bad situation all around.
If we are going to claim to go to these countries in the name of freedom, we should use our judicial process to show that OUR way is superior and that we do things "by the book" and hold those who commit atrocities accountable by taking them to through a judicial process and not just locking them up without any charges.
What horrible conditions? You are right about holding them there. We should just kill them with drones so we don't have to intern them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544 |
Weren't these guys taken from the battlefield, where they were trying to kill our servicemen and women?
Let them all die in Gitmo and feed their carcases to the swine.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921 |
I believe the vast majority were. I think Joker said this guy was picked up on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border trying to get into Afghanistan. He was from some other Muslim country. Reason for going to Afghanistan was healthcare?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544 |
I don't know about guys like that, but active participants in the war against us can rot for all I care.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I don't know about guys like that, but active participants in the war against us can rot for all I care.
That is the problem with this type of war. In a conventional war where the combatants are loyal to a nation, when the war is over, prisoners get returned and reintegrated into society and there is no fear that they are going to keep fighting. This war will likely never be over, so returning them is just going to put them back into fighting mode. It's a tough call.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
If they are actively trying to kill our military members or doing something illegal, then why not charge them with terrorism, war crimes, or literally any crime (domestic or international)?
I'm not defending the guilty, I'm just saying holding people indefinitely and not charging them with anything a) turns moderate/neutral people against the US b) makes our allies less willing to work with us and I think is a huge issue since if those two things continue, any hopes of ending this conflict diminish greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544 |
I think that we should have tried them in a military tribunal, and executed them if found guilty.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
I don't disagree with that. My point is/was there are numerous channels in which we can make sure justice is served in a "legitimate" way, and locking people up until they die without ever doing anything is not the right move since it just causes further escalation of terrorism and international mistrust.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544 |
Then why are we doing it? Bush wanted to run Military Tribunals and was fought tooth and nail to stop this from happening. The law approving this was passed in 2006. In 2009, Obama ordered that the tribunals be stopped. We were going to try them all in US courts .. which made no sense at all. Eric Holder felt that the Tribunals lacked sufficient legal protection for the right s of those in Gitmo.  He (Obama) then restarted the Tribunals in May of last year. What a cluster. *Edited for clarity
Last edited by YTownBrownsFan; 09/24/12 07:08 PM.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817 |
Quote:
Quote:
The issue - in my opinion - with Gitmo is that if you hold people for years or decades in horrible conditions, never charge them with a crime and basically let them rot, all it does is turn people against you - in some cases people that weren't extremists when they were sent to Gitmo. Add to that, holding people indefinitely with no charges makes the USA look hypocritical on an international stage, and you have a bad situation all around.
If we are going to claim to go to these countries in the name of freedom, we should use our judicial process to show that OUR way is superior and that we do things "by the book" and hold those who commit atrocities accountable by taking them to through a judicial process and not just locking them up without any charges.
What horrible conditions? You are right about holding them there. We should just kill them with drones so we don't have to intern them.
I agree. In the scheme of things, a military prison is probably the place to be in so far as prisons go.
I'll bet the prisoners are eating the same chow as the GI's....pretty good compared to the food you get in other prisons.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The issue - in my opinion - with Gitmo is that if you hold people for years or decades in horrible conditions, never charge them with a crime and basically let them rot, all it does is turn people against you - in some cases people that weren't extremists when they were sent to Gitmo. Add to that, holding people indefinitely with no charges makes the USA look hypocritical on an international stage, and you have a bad situation all around.
If we are going to claim to go to these countries in the name of freedom, we should use our judicial process to show that OUR way is superior and that we do things "by the book" and hold those who commit atrocities accountable by taking them to through a judicial process and not just locking them up without any charges.
What horrible conditions? You are right about holding them there. We should just kill them with drones so we don't have to intern them.
I agree. In the scheme of things, a military prison is probably the place to be in so far as prisons go.
I'll bet the prisoners are eating the same chow as the GI's....pretty good compared to the food you get in other prisons.
I would reccomend you both read this report or this report or this one
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817 |
I'll save my time. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn about the guy.
You want to fight the good fight, go for it. You're young and full of ideas just like I was many years ago.
Good luck to you.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I don't know about guys like that, but active participants in the war against us can rot for all I care.
What's the current cost of a .22 caliber bullet in the back of the head? That's what every single one of the detainees at Gitmo deserves.
I give them one opportunity to tell everything that they know or it's death at Gitmo with a .22 caliber in the head (oh, I know, it might not be enough to kill them immediately - but that's part of the beauty of it).
Of course, I make sure that each one of them sees what happens (or doesn't) to the detainee immediately questioned before them. If the detainee spills the beans, they get taken out of the interrogation and the information checked (by Muslims wearing eavesdropping microphones).
If the information doesn't pan out, they get taken back in front of the whole lot of remaining detainees and shot. If they do not spill the beans, they die with the next detainee to be questioned witnessing their death. Of course, the questioning takes place in a swine barn with them holding a copy of the koran so that their corpses are defiled in their own views and their holy book is destroyed also.
Yeah, I'm vicious like that. Sadly, I think that the violent Muslim is the norm and the much-balleyhooed 'moderate' Muslim is the exception - even among the women and children and elderly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921 |
Amnesty International? I know someone in that organization that tried telling me there were no terrorist there. Funny group.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Amnesty International? I know someone in that organization that tried telling me there were no terrorist there. Funny group.
Which is why I provided alternate sources (including American attorneys appointed to represent the detainees who just happen to be Yale and Harvard Law Professors, Law School Deans, etc. and not just some average schmos. Thomas Fleener is both a Harvard Law educated attorney and a Major in the US Army and is just one of the attorneys who is both a member of the military and a lawyer in Guantanamo Bay cases) just in case one source was not sufficient or because people had an issue with a specific source.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921 |
The Guardian isn't any better, the Times story did not show the conditions, just people who claimed they were bad, The Navy denied it. I'll believe that Navy.
Those facilities were just built in the last 10 years. They have amenities much better than any US prison where violent offenders are housed.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Honestly. Do I have to find like 40 different sources so you can find one that's "just right" for you? The whole reason why I brought this up was because you asked "what horrible conditions?". Instead of nitpicking because they don't provide you the information you need, why not use the same internet you're using now and research the information? My point isn't that this is some mass conspiracy, but a well-known fact that prominent Americans INCLUDING MILITARY MEMBERS/ATTORNEYS have spoken on. If you can't find the information, it's not because it's not there, it's because you don't want to see it. The New York Times story is important because the report referenced was written exclusively by high ranking militiary officials who happen to be attorneys and are the ones most familiar with the situation. Did you miss this line? Quote:
The letter contends that conditions at Camp 7 fall short of the minimum guarantees of humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions. The lawyers asked for the letter to be treated as a report of a possible “violation of the law of war.” Under military policies, that sets off a requirement to investigate and remedy any problems.
While the letter does not include many specific details, it refers to a companion Top Secret memo, also dated Feb. 24, entitled “Detainee Account of Violations.” And it lists other memos dating to March 2009, suggesting there has been a long dialogue about conditions in Camp 7.
When the high ranking military members that are working there tell you there may be possible violations of the Geneva Convention and attach Top Secret information as evidence, red flags should go up and things should be investigated and not just swept under the rug.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Tell me again how the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists?
Anyway - I thought Gitmo was closed. Obama said it would be if he were elected president. Are you telling me Gitmo is still open and in business?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Ok, honestly, you guys are aware that Google exists and all this information can be found within literally seconds right? But I will answer your questions even though actually looking it up yourself would have cost you less time than asking me. Quote:
Tell me again how the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists?
Supreme Court in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision ruled that that the Guantanamo Bay detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and both the Bush and Obama White Houses sent out memos requiring compliance with this decision since you know, the Supreme Court kind of has that authority.
Quote:
Anyway - I thought Gitmo was closed. Obama said it would be if he were elected president. Are you telling me Gitmo is still open and in business?
On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and that the detention facility would be shut down within the year.[9][10] On January 29, 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviews how America puts Guantanamo detainees on trial.[11] On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[12] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated December 15, 2009, ordering the preparation of the Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois so as to enable the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners there.[13] The Final Report of the Guantanamo Review Task Force dated January 22, 2010 published the results for the 240 detainees subject to the Review: 36 were the subject of active cases or investigations; 30 detainees from Yemen were designated for 'conditional detention' due to the security environment in Yemen; 126 detainees were approved for transfer; 48 detainees were determined 'too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution'.[14]
link
So he tried on multiple occasions, including an executive order but the measure and funding was blocked by Congress.
I used Wikipedia for ease of formatting and discussion points, but you are free to look into the linked sources if you are actually interested in learning about the situation instead of trying some faux-Socratic method of empty questioning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Now wait a minute - in one post you say gitmo doesn't meet the geneva convention for treatment of prisoners, Here is your quote: Quote:
The letter contends that conditions at Camp 7 fall short of the minimum guarantees of humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions. The lawyers asked for the letter to be treated as a report of a possible “violation of the law of war.” Under military policies, that sets off a requirement to investigate and remedy any problems.
While the letter does not include many specific details, it refers to a companion Top Secret memo, also dated Feb. 24, entitled “Detainee Account of Violations.” And it lists other memos dating to March 2009, suggesting there has been a long dialogue about conditions in Camp 7.
Okay, then in your next post you say this: "
Supreme Court in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision ruled that that the Guantanamo Bay detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and both the Bush and Obama White Houses sent out memos requiring compliance with this decision since you know, the Supreme Court kind of has that authority.
So, to sum up - gitmo doesn't meet the geneva convention practices - but on the other hand, the white house under both Bush and Obama have demanded it.
What's going on there?
Anyway, O promised he'd have gitmo closed. He hasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
The issue is: The Supreme Court rules that they are entitled to the protections, the White House sends the memo, and the Guantanamo Bay people choose to not follow it (at least according to the military lawyers who wrote the report). Now the military lawyers want an investigation to see why they are not listening to the White House. What is the source of confusion for you there? You're old enough (I believe) to remember segregation and Brown v. Board of Education. Just because the Court rules something and the President tells people to do something, it doesn't mean they will listen hence why the National Guard had to go to Arkansas to actually enforce desegregation. Quote:
Anyway, O promised he'd have gitmo closed. He hasn't.
What more can he do honestly? If Congress won't approve it, what can he do? You are aware that we have this thing called a balance of powers right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544 |
Hell, he's done everything else he wanted to with a signature ..... why not this?
Besides, he had all of the power in his 1st (almost) 2 years. He could do anything he wanted to with a Democrat House and Senate, and with a Filibuster-proof majority.
It's like the immigration crap. He could have done that if it was important enough to him However, and I give him credit for being rather brilliant politically ....... he saved these issues for his campaign, and he used his power in a way that even he said he couldn't ........ and he turned it beautifully into a political issue for this campaign. He's a solid politician, even if a lousy President.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
YTown, you're a smart guy. He signed the executive order. Congress is the branch that controls budgets and funding. What recourse does he have when he can't get funds to do what he wants? And I agree with you that the Democratic Party was weak on this issue and many others because they sat on their majority and did absolutely nothing with it and it reflects poorly on both Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
What funds would it take to close gitmo? I don't get it. He didn't need money to close gitmo. We've been there for decades. Close the prison, like he promised. Doesn't take money to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
What funds would it take to close gitmo? I don't get it. He didn't need money to close gitmo. We've been there for decades. Close the prison, like he promised. Doesn't take money to do that.
It takes funds to move the prisoners, process them out, arrange new cells (probably in a SuperMax jail), etc. Just because you close Guantanamo Bay doesn't mean you're letting everyone go. You can't just let everyone out, lock the door and walk off into the sunset. They have to go somewhere and moving 100+ terrorist suspects is not something that can be done via schoolhouse bus, especially since that bus has to leave Cuba. I don't have the exact numbers, but paying to move the prisoners, process them, and do all the technical things costs a pretty penny, I would imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
What funds would it take to close gitmo? I don't get it. He didn't need money to close gitmo. We've been there for decades. Close the prison, like he promised. Doesn't take money to do that.
It takes funds to move the prisoners, process them out, arrange new cells (probably in a SuperMax jail), etc. Just because you close Guantanamo Bay doesn't mean you're letting everyone go. You can't just let everyone out, lock the door and walk off into the sunset. They have to go somewhere and moving 100+ terrorist suspects is not something that can be done via schoolhouse bus, especially since that bus has to leave Cuba. I don't have the exact numbers, but paying to move the prisoners, process them, and do all the technical things costs a pretty penny, I would imagine.
So, if you're going to lock them up somewhere else, why close gitmo. If you're going to close gitmo in order to move the prisoners somewhere else and lock them up - why say you're going to close it? The more you explain for O, the worse it sounds.
He flat out said he'd close gitmo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,544 |
He could easily use the military to move prisoners from Gitmo to wherever they decided to house them. Much of the military is already funded, and no one is going to cut their funding.
There are about 250 prisoners at Gitmo. It's not some massive undertaking.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,921 |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/guantanamo-bay-us-five-echo-block_n_1140273.htmlThis is about 5 Echo, not 7. However the lawyers have the same type of complaints. I see nothing wrong with it. If I read things right none of these lawyers have seen Camp 7 either. They have drawings from prisoners. Camp 7 is the worst of the bunch. Echo 5 is for trouble makers. Camp 6 looks more like this. I reread the article and there are no specifics given where I can see any violations of the Geneva Convention. Yes, some military lawyers complained but go back and see these types of complaints are nothing new. This only deals with the top 15 terrorists. From all accounts the general population are treated more than fairly. Can we at least agree on that?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If they are actively trying to kill our military members or doing something illegal, then why not charge them with terrorism, war crimes, or literally any crime (domestic or international)?
NRTU but ... Ok, I am far from a bleeding heart liberal but I have to ask a question....
We went into Iraq, we initiated the war, we overthrew the government and set up our own government, we patrolled the streets of another country with armed military personnel, we started rounding up people who didn't want us there... and some of them fought back... and now those people are terrorists?
If another country, say the Chinese, invaded the US and overthrew our government to set up a government more to their liking and had armed military patrolling the streets of your town and you formed a small rebel group of fellow Americans and tried to blow them up and ultimately drive them out, would you consider yourself a terrorist? .... or a patriot?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
would you consider yourself a terrorist? .... or a patriot?
we would consider ourselves patriots and the militant government would consider us terrorists. you can be both.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
would you consider yourself a terrorist? .... or a patriot?
we would consider ourselves patriots and the militant government would consider us terrorists. you can be both.
And if the Chinese military packed you up and shipped you to a prison in the south pacific for 10 years, I doubt you would find any solace in those semantics. I'm guessing that, at best, you would consider yourself a POW and demand to be treated in accordance with the international laws that govern such acts...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
Quote:
If another country, say the Chinese, invaded the US and overthrew our government to set up a government more to their liking and had armed military patrolling the streets of your town and you formed a small rebel group of fellow Americans and tried to blow them up and ultimately drive them out, would you consider yourself a terrorist? .... or a patriot?
I'd consider myself a.....
WOLVERINE
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
I thought we closed Gitmo. #sarcasm
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Gitmo Prisoner Dies; No Charges
for 11 Years,3 Reccomendations for
Release
|
|
