The GOP's Guantanamo Scare Tactics

Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Dankdude said:
I hate to break it to you, but considering that Guantanamo Bay is a Military Base then they would be on US soil anyway. Funny how conservatives can say that a military base is US soil when someone like John McCain (who was born in Panama) wants to run for president.
Being that a US military base is US soil by this law then they would be afforded Constitutional rights anyway.
You see you can't have it both ways. Either a US Military Base is US soil or it's not.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. McCain was granted citizenship rights because his parent were citizens. This would have applied even if he were born in Kenya and his parents moved to Hawaii shortly after his birth.

Gitmo is not within the jurisdiction of any state. A military reservation outside the borders of the United States falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If what you claim were the case, each detainee's individual cases would have been in front of civilian criminal courts already. One of the constant complaints from the left during the previous administration was precisely the fact that the detainees cases in Gitmo were not being treated as criminal cases in U.S. courts. The left appeared to want to treat each detainee's case as a law enforcement matter rather than as a national security issue.

The first of the detainee hearings are scheduled to be held in New York once the Gitmo drawdown begins, if I remember correctly. We shall see.
 
Loftiest

Loftiest

Member
Johnnyorganic said:
One of the constant complaints from the left during the previous administration was precisely the fact that the detainees cases in Gitmo were not being treated as criminal cases in U.S. courts. The left appeared to want to treat each detainee's case as a law enforcement matter rather than as a national security issue.
Click to expand...
I suppose in order to be a civil libertarian these days you must be part of the left. Not to even mention virtually every legal organization criticized the handling of detainees as well.
 
I

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Ok, I understand that under whatever law we are operating under they arn't POW's.
But if they arn't POW's and they arn't criminals then what are they?
As far as I'm conserned if your firing on soldiers in wartime,
your a soldier or a potential murderer wether your in a uniform or not, that is a BS rule.
Designed to keep rebels and freedom fighters down, IMO.
Furthermore if they arn't POW's or Criminals
and we are holding them ageinst their will, they have been kidnapped.

Either try them or send them back to where ever they came from.
Let them fight us in the field so we can kill them fair and square.
This is rediculous, If they did anything we could just execute them like the Werewolves after WWII.
This can't be this complicated.
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
I guess you were addressing me: Point of fact. What you did was actually a form of plagairism. If you write an article word for word or cut and paste, you need to reference it to the author, either with a link or a name. What you wrote makes it look like you attended the meeting which by most intelligent reasoning, one would know in fact you did not. Why did I know right away? The spelling was correct.
Click to expand...
I had said, I think twice now that I didn't write it. Once where I said that It was simply an oversight on my part that the author's name was not in the story. Rarely do I mis-spell anything. Again, what's your point.
You see when try to dig at me, you end up looking like an idiot.
When you get an original thought and not spew your emotions and hurl insults, then come and talk to me.
I actually like to debate people who have intellect and don't follow the pack.
You sir, are the direct opposite, you neither have an ounce of intellect and you are a huge pack follower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top