Guantanamo bay

the number the dept. of defense put forth (made up) was 61.
http://www.topnews.in/pentagon-more-guantanamo-detainees-have-gone-back-terrorism-2109415
so, you got your cookie.
what about the rest? the ones being held without charges? the ones in secret CIA prisons.
i'll tell you what about them: it's a toss of some cheaters dice whether or not they'll turn terrorist.
5% of these guys were captured by the US using intel. and vetting to verify whether or not they were
"enemy combatants". the other 95% were given to us by foreign troops and tribal leaders for a promised bounty, no doubt a good motive to make some cash while "legaly" getting rid of someone you don't like. it was convenient at first, but like any structure with a weak foundation, it is bound for inevitable collapse. it is an embarrasing and unamerican way to conduct a 'justice' system.

there was no verification, no actual charges. just the blind trust that comes from being afraid. being afraid is for the weak, America is stronger than that. terrible wrongs have been done in your name and mine. let it fucking end already.

tinyTURTLE.. i do not understand your point ... are you for or against this?

I dont give a shit either way because gitmo is being closed down .... i dont give a shit if the whole base is closed of just the prison... we gotta start somewhere

if anybody does not like the fact that we closed GITMO then read the mother fucking CONSTITUTION you fuckin fagots (no disrespect to the gays cause i am one)

Learn your constitutional rights mother fuckers

greenearth5 said:

tinyTURTLE.. i do not understand your point ... are you for or against this?

I dont give a shit either way because gitmo is being closed down .... i dont give a shit if the whole base is closed of just the prison... we gotta start somewhere

if anybody does not like the fact that we closed GITMO then read the mother fucking CONSTITUTION you fuckin fagots (no disrespect to the gays cause i am one)

Learn your constitutional rights mother fuckers

Click to expand...

well, i am for the prison being closed, and it would be nice if cuba could have their own island back, we could just as easily se up again (the marine base, not the prison) in Belize... they like us there.
i do agree that some of the innocents being released after nearly a decade of unjust captivity might turn to the battlefield. even if they never had before.
who can blame them? i think it's what i might do in their shoes.

Tiny makes a valid point that the bushwhacks can't seem to comprehend ... torturing those people had nothing to do with them returning to fight what they view as oppression ... they are just simply bad people ... never mind the damage the US had done to their homes ... their families ... their just bad people ... right?
These bushwhack minds will never comprehend why torture and gitmo are wrong ... they simply are not evolved enough spiritually. They really and truly don't get it ... and probably never will in this lifetime.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Pentagon's terror 'recidivism' claims blasted as 'propaganda'[/FONT]

Ever wonder how many of President Bush's terror war detainees were released, only to "return to the fight"?
"Their numbers have changed from 20, to 12, to seven, to more than five, to two, to a couple, to a few, 25, 29, 12, and then 24," quoted Keith Olbermann on Thursday's edition of Countdown.

http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2009/shl_defense_dept_wrong_on_gtmo.htm

i was gonna quote olberman too, but i couldnt find the facts to back it up. or at least a credible source. that has changed.

http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/propaganda_numbers_11509.pdf

after some digging i found the above.

or an education?

And the hits keep on coming..................
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

cheeseysynapse said:

And the hits keep on coming..................
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

Click to expand...

Thats the same guy in your other article

natrone23 said:

Thats the same guy in your other article

Click to expand...

The IHT article only mentions Said Ali al-Shihri. The AP article has him, and includes Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi.

Looking to Keith Olbermann for "facts," is like looking to Pravda for truth.

For our naive Gay friend, greeneart5, who said this:

"Learn your constitutional rights mother fuckers..."

Enemy combatants have no constitutional rights. This is no different from German and or Japanese prisoners that were taken during WWII. Further, non-uniformed combatants captured on the battlefield are not covered by the Geneva Conventions either.

Now, go whack off or suck a dick. kiss-ass

For the rest of you Regressives ... I'm sure your hearts are bleeding for the poor prisoners in Gitmo, but have you considered what American inmates are going to do to them if/when they are put into a federal prison? Would you prefer a 24/7 lock-down in solitary to keep them safe?

If you won't believe what the Defense Department has been reporting, here's some stats from your fellow Regressives at the liberal leaning Brookings Institute:

http://www.examiner.com/x-701-National-Defense-Examiner~y2009m1d14-Brookings-study-shows-Gitmo-inmates-are-threat

Vi

cheeseysynapse said:

The IHT article only mentions Said Ali al-Shihri. The AP article has him, and includes Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi.

Click to expand...

so, thats two.
what about the other supposed 59.

and this a qhote from the article that vi posted
"...prison systems have been one of the primary incubators for this violent extremism."
and this is a situation you want to allow to continue?
disgusting. one day this will bite this country in the ass.
you people think the US is infallable for some retarded, blind reason i cannot even imagine.
just because they are enemy combatants means they have no rights under the gneva convention, sure.
but if we are holding them, they have rights under the ujustice system.
much the same as the geneva convention is irrelevant if you get busted smoking weed, there are still basic
rights as defined in the bill of rights. 6th amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

see how it says "in ALL criminal prosecutions"?
you can call me a bleeding heart all you want.
but those rules apply to EVERYONE. those are the same protections YOU enjoy,
i cannot imagine you being docile and forgiving were you to be denied due process
for nearly a decade. you are callous and insensitive, i feel sorry for any children you might happen to be raising.

tinyTURTLE said:

so, thats two.
what about the other supposed 59.

Click to expand...

To take a page out of the liberal's playbook:

Why tiny, if only one life is saved ...

Vi

The 6th amendment applies to U.S. citizens. See how you said "criminal prosecutions" Its not criminal..........Its military.

We have civil courts, criminal courts, and military courts.

Trying these individuals in criminal courts, in effect, bestows upon them the rights of U.S. citizenship. Now, I was under the assumption that we should not be an imperialistic nation. But, the left wants to expand the rights of citizenship beyond our borders? Is that what I am to infer?

525 have been released. We are not, contrary to popular mythology, torturing them for our own sadistic pleasures. We are torturing them, quite mildly I might add when compared to the competition, to prevent further attacks on this country and others.

When you consider the magnitude of the attack compared to previous attacks on this nation's soil and efforts made on behalf of the U.S. government at protecting its citizenry, I still think we're making progress.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that just about 800 individuals captured may have some involvement in terrorist activities that we can learn valuable information about. And those that we have evidence did indeed commit an attack upon this country and its soldiers should not be freed, or imprisoned with U.S. criminals. They are not citizens of this country, nor, should we bestow the benefits of citizenship if they are found guilty.


Perhaps, considering the fluid dynamics of underground terrorist cells, these remaining individuals can no longer offer valuable information. However, if there is evidence that they had direct involvement in an attack on this country or its soldiers in a war-time theater, U.S. criminal law does not apply. Furthermore, bestowing the rights of U.S. citizenship on a suspected terrorist taken capture in a theater of war only devalues U.S. citizenship.

cheeseysynapse said:

And the hits keep on coming..................
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

Click to expand...

Looks like bullshit to me ... why don't they have a picture of the gitmo mug shot with their prison number of the two men? ... How do we know they just didn't take a picture of a couple of guys and say they were from gitmo? Naw ...with no mug shot to compare ... I don't believe them.

ViRedd said:

Looking to Keith Olbermann for "facts," is like looking to Pravda for truth.

Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of accurate articles on Pravda ... but for someone that believe fauxnews is a for real news outlet ... that is fair and balance ... what a joke! ... you wouldn't think anyone other that faux could have facts.

ViRedd said:

Enemy combatants have no constitutional rights. This is no different from German and or Japanese prisoners that were taken during WWII. Further, non-uniformed combatants captured on the battlefield are not covered by the Geneva Conventions either.

Now, go whack off or suck a dick. kiss-ass

Click to expand...

More of your bushwhacked talking point Vi ... the Geneva Convention covers any combatants captured ... so keep blowing it out your ass

instead of Vi, i will call you 6.
here is article 4 of the geneva convention. pay attention to section 2.
i know your reliable sources in the bush administration and Fox news SAY
enemy combatants arent covered, they are.
the US is bound by this.
ARTICLE 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (al qaeda has a flag see?http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&pwst=1&resnum=0&q=al+qaeda+flag&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title)
; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

*****

PS.
I understand you are angry or scared about something. or at least you must be in order to hold such inexplicably copious rage. Perhaps it is YOU who should seek counseling. myself, i have been the benificiary of hours and hours of counseling, the world is complex enough where i could see it scaring someone like you who tries to simplify and homogenize complex and multi-faceted issues.

cheeseysynapse said:

The 6th amendment applies to U.S. citizens. See how you said "criminal prosecutions" Its not criminal..........Its military.

Click to expand...

show me where in the constitution it says the bill of rights is only for US citizens.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html
go for it.
or dont bother, because it does not.

wellthen, if it is military, does the geneva convention not apply?

not many solid places left for you to base THAT argument.

they are prisoners taken by the government (the CIA and the FBI too)
so federal criminal court is the proper venue.

stop arguing against yourself, 6 wouldnt like it.

About damn time is all I have to say.

(c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

And hiding under the skirts of women, hiding in schools occupied by children and hiding in Mosques among the faithful, all while non-uniformed sans a flag, is following the laws and customs of war?

Just for shits & giggles, tiny ... tell us where these people should be placed. Would you try them in civilian or military courts? Would you release them back into their home countries? Would you place them into our federal prisons?

Vi