View Full Version : Gitmo, dishonorable and unamerican
aiki14
06-06-2007, 07:36 AM
From the editorial page of the NY Times this morning:
Gitmo: A National Disgrace
Ever since President Bush rammed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 through Congress to lend a pretense of legality to his detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, we have urged Congress to amend the law to restore basic human rights and judicial process. Rulings by military judges this week suggest that the special detention system is so fundamentally corrupt that the only solution is to tear it down and start again.
The target of the judges’ rulings were Combatant Status Review Tribunals, panels that determine whether a prisoner is an “unlawful enemy combatant” who can be tried by one of the commissions created by the 2006 law. The tribunals are, in fact, kangaroo courts that give the inmates no chance to defend themselves, allow evidence that was obtained through torture and can be repeated until one produces the answer the Pentagon wants.
On Monday, two military judges dismissed separate war crimes charges against two Guantánamo inmates because of the status review system. They said the Pentagon managed to get them declared “enemy combatants,” but not “unlawful enemy combatants,” and moved to try them anyway under the 2006 law. That law says only unlawful combatants may be tried by military commissions. Lawful combatants (those who wear uniforms and carry weapons openly) fall under the Geneva Conventions.
If the administration loses an appeal, which it certainly should, it will no doubt try to tinker with the review tribunals so they produce the desired verdict. Congress cannot allow that. When you can’t win a bet with loaded dice, something is wrong with the game.
There is only one path likely to lead to a result that would allow Americans to once again hold their heads high when it comes to justice and human rights. First, Congress needs to restore the right of the inmates of Guantánamo Bay to challenge their detentions. By the administration’s own count, only a small minority of the inmates actually deserve a trial. The rest should be sent home or set free.
Second, Congress should repeal the Military Commissions Act and start anew on a just system for determining whether prisoners are unlawful combatants. Among other things, evidence obtained through coercion and torture should be banned.
And Congress should shut down Guantánamo Bay, as called for in bills sponsored by two California Democrats, Representative Jane Harman in the House and Senator Dianne Feinstein in the Senate. Both lawmakers are intimately familiar with the camp and have concluded it is beyond salvaging.
Their bill would close Gitmo in a year and the detainees would be screened by real courts. Those who are truly illegal combatants would be sent to military or civilian jails in the United States, to be tried under time-tested American rules of justice, or sent to an international tribunal. Some would be returned to their native lands for trial, if warranted. The rest would be set free, as they should have been long ago.
The Guantánamo camp was created on a myth — that the American judicial system could not handle prisoners of “the war against terror.” It was built on a lie — that the hundreds of detainees at Gitmo are all dangerous terrorists. And it was organized around a fiction — that Mr. Bush had the power to create this rogue system in the first place.
It is time to get rid of it.
TonyM
06-06-2007, 09:28 AM
I second that. For a view from the detainee's side, the movie "Road to Guantanomo" is a good watch.
monco123
06-06-2007, 07:34 PM
boo hooooo for hajji
TonyM
06-06-2007, 07:37 PM
boo hooooo for hajji
Typical uninformed flag waving neocon sycophant.
I have no sympathy for religous lunatics and I hope Gitmo stays. Yeah there are most likely several that do not belong there, but if it keeps actual terrorists then its doing our country a service. Dont call me a neocon either, lol, I'm pretty liberal and have much disdain for Bush. But that doesnt change my distrust in the islamic extremists who will use every tactic to their advantage and are not concerned with the value of human life. We should have and take advatage of any loophole to delay/withhold/cheat the system against them.
TonyM
06-06-2007, 08:35 PM
I have no sympathy for religous lunatics and I hope Gitmo stays. Yeah there are most likely several that do not belong there, but if it keeps actual terrorists then its doing our country a service. Dont call me a neocon either, lol, I'm pretty liberal and have much disdain for Bush. But that doesnt change my distrust in the islamic extremists who will use every tactic to their advantage and are not concerned with the value of human life. We should have and take advatage of any loophole to delay/withhold/cheat the system against them.
Do you have any proof that any of the detainees are guilty of crimes against America? Because our government sure doesn't, not one conviction even with the "secret" evidence.
Taking advantage of loopholes? What loopholes? You mean raping the Constitution and setting up a dictatorship? The President of the U.S. can declare anyone a terrorist based on "secret" evidence that is not subject to judicial review or oversight of any kind. Read the bill of rights and get back to me.
The constitution is for Americans not enemy combatants. :roll:
Dont get high and mighty with people, jeese, your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you want to be mad at Bush, there are scores of other reasons than not being fair to some extremists that want to kill americans. Boohoo cry me a river! :lol: Here are some better reasons for ya, take your pick.
-Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
-Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
-First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
-Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
-Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
-Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
-Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
-All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
-First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
-Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
-In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
AND then my all time favorite, since I'm a veteran and it directly effects me..............
-Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans!
My question to you Tony is this. How are going to feel about Gitmo if another terrorist cell succeeds in killing a few thousand Americans again?? Are you going to break out your dusty little flag and start waving it again? :roll:
TonyM
06-07-2007, 02:45 PM
Who are the enemy combatants? If Bush chose to, you could be declared one and he is not required to disclose the secret evidence he based the decision on. Who is in Gitmo and why? We must trust Bush, the CIA and the military because....they say so? Why can't the government convict these "enemy combatants" even with illegal laws passed that should guarantee a slam dunk conviction on every one of them? Why are people detained for years and then released without being charged let alone convicted? Why have the Geneva Convention rules for pow's been bypassed to allow torture? Why have the citizens of this country stood by and cheered on the abuse of human rights, the very foundation this country was built on?
U.S. foreign policy is a joke, a completely two faced operation. The government invades other countries to protect people from ruthless dictators that are violating human rights and then does the very same thing that they chastised the dictatorship for. America is supposed to represent democracy, freedom and the protection of human rights, and no the Constitution is not just for "Americans", and "enemy combatants" can be of any nationality including the U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/ So where does that leave your weak and uninformed argument?
Like I said, go do some reading so that you can intelligently argue your position. You think you're a patriot because you served in the military and blindly support an anti-constitutional act in the illegal detention of so called enemy combatants? think again, you are a part of the problem. I see you don't like it when the government does something that affects you directly like your benefits, but you don't give a damn about others' rights....boohoo cry me a river and buy your own insurance.
Flag waving is for zealots, protesting illegal government action is what real defenders of the Constitution do. It is absolutely amazing that so-called patriots do not know how the government is supposed to work nor what it's function is supposed to be. We are not to obey and deify the government, it is to obey us by defending the rights guaranteed the people under the Constitution.
Does this sound familiar? :
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Have you actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights? I doubt it.
Who are the enemy combatants?
Muslim extremists who plot death and destruction against Americans.
If Bush chose to, you could be declared one and he is not required to disclose the secret evidence he based the decision on. Who is in Gitmo and why?
I dont care. Are any of them Americans? If so, they have rights, I agree then, lol.
We must trust Bush, the CIA and the military because....they say so?
No, I never said to totally trust them. :mrgreen:
Why can't the government convict these "enemy combatants" even with illegal laws passed that should guarantee a slam dunk conviction on every one of them? Why are people detained for years and then released without being charged let alone convicted? Why have the Geneva Convention rules for pow's been bypassed to allow torture? Why have the citizens of this country stood by and cheered on the abuse of human rights, the very foundation this country was built on?
Again, I dont care. They do not care about human life, why should I care about theirs?
U.S. foreign policy is a joke, a completely two faced operation. The government invades other countries to protect people from ruthless dictators that are violating human rights and then does the very same thing that they chastised the dictatorship for. America is supposed to represent democracy, freedom and the protection of human rights, and no the Constitution is not just for "Americans", and "enemy combatants" can be of any nationality including the U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/ So where does that leave your weak and uninformed argument?
Yes, you think you are more informed than everyone else, doesnt that make you the sicophant? lol
Like I said, go do some reading so that you can intelligently argue your position. You think you're a patriot because you served in the military and blindly support an anti-constitutional act in the illegal detention of so called enemy combatants? think again, you are a part of the problem. I see you don't like it when the government does something that affects you directly like your benefits, but you don't give a damn about others' rights....boohoo cry me a river and buy your own insurance.
Flag waving is for zealots, protesting illegal government action is what real defenders of the Constitution do. It is absolutely amazing that so-called patriots do not know how the government is supposed to work nor what it's function is supposed to be. We are not to obey and deify the government, it is to obey us by defending the rights guaranteed the people under the Constitution.
Does this sound familiar? :
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Have you actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights? I doubt it.
Yes I have. :roll:
TonyM
06-07-2007, 03:38 PM
Muslim extremists who plot death and destruction against Americans.
Really? Based on what evidence, can you provide any proof of this?
I dont care. Are any of them Americans? If so, they have rights, I agree then, lol.
"I don't care" That statement really illustrates your ignorance, and yes if you could actually read then you would know that some are in fact "Americans"...citizens even.
No, I never said to totally trust them. :mrgreen:
Your previous statements contradict this statement
Again, I dont care. They do not care about human life, why should I care about theirs?
More ignorant talk; because they have human rights and have not even been convicted of not caring about human life, as you put it. You have no proof of the accused's acts, but torture them anyway? Brilliant Herr Reef, Sieg Heil
Yes, you think you are more informed than everyone else, doesnt that make you the sicophant? lol
I'm quite obviously more informed than you are, and I even know the definition of sycophant, and can even spell it correctly, lol
Yes I have. :roll:
You sir are either an idiot lacking in reading comprehension skills or simply dodging the facts staring you in the face. Go back to your pretend trading and leave the tough subjects to the adults.
Dont you think your going a tad overboard? :lol:
It's funny, your almost just like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield - anyone who differs from you is wrong and you are more informed than anyone so we should just believe you are right, so screw what anyone else thinks. Enjoy your self-rightous blindness. :mrgreen:
TonyM
06-07-2007, 04:52 PM
Dont you think your going a tad overboard? :lol:
It's funny, your almost just like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield - anyone who differs from you is wrong and you are more informed than anyone so we should just believe you are right, so screw what anyone else thinks. Enjoy your self-rightous blindness. :mrgreen:
Typical response from an indefensible position, you cannot argue the points because you have zero proof to back your argument. I am presenting the Constitution as an indisputable proof against the illegality of the entire 'enemy combatant' and Gitmo subject.
I am talking about facts which are easily provable, you are the one who resembles Bush et al, you are defending their illegal actions. Reading comprehension truly eludes you.
Self-righteous blindness? Do you own a mirror?
TonyM
06-07-2007, 05:10 PM
Senate Begins Real Push on Habeas Corpus
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.
Habeas corpus was revoked by last year's Military Commissions Act, which has been assailed as unconstitutional and un-American by leaders across the political spectrum. Today's habeas bill was backed by the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Chairman, Patrick Leahy, and its Republican Ranking Member, Arlen Specter. "The drive to restore this fundamental right has come from both sides of the aisle," said Sharon Bradford, an attorney at the bipartisan Constitution Project, in response to today's vote. "Restoring America's commitment to the rule of law is not a partisan cause; it is a patriotic one," she added.
Today's vote means the habeas bill can now be brought to the Senate floor at any time. One source with knowledge of the legislative plan said Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to bringing the bill to a vote within the month.
Some Democrats are pushing Reid to go further, advocating more comprehensive human rights protections and a repeal of the entire Military Commissions Act. Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions. "We must recognize that our security is enhanced by upholding our nation's historic legal principles as we vigorously pursue terrorists," he said in a statement today. Dodd is giving a major address about his proposal at the Cardozo School of Law Commencement exercises in New York on Thursday, part of a larger effort to prioritize Constitutional rights on the national agenda – and in the presidential campaign. The Dodd Campaign has gathered over 10,000 "citizen cosponsors" for his bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act, while using YouTube, blog and netroots outreach to rally more support.
Obama, Clinton and Biden, the other Senators in the presidential race, have cosponsored the habeas legislation but not Dodd's bill, which currently has eleven cosponsors. The legislation faces an uphill battle in the Armed Services Committee, a much less hospitable venue for Constitutional rights than the Judiciary Committee. But there is one influential Armed Services member who opposed the Military Commissions Act and could jump start the effort to restore Constitutional rights: Hillary Clinton.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=203303
TonyM
06-07-2007, 05:18 PM
A short video, particularly helpful for those with reading difficulty and short attention spans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEzD8Wll1Ns
Who let Jack back on the forum?
TonyM
06-07-2007, 06:19 PM
Who let Jack back on the forum?
Did someone say "cash is king"? Or is that just an attempt at a pithy and snide remark?
Did someone say "cash is king"? Or is that just an attempt at a pithy and snide remark?
I dont understand why there is so much anger on this forum. And Im sure someone is saying "cash is king" today. No doubt about that.
TonyM
06-07-2007, 08:52 PM
I dont understand why there is so much anger on this forum. And Im sure someone is saying "cash is king" today. No doubt about that.
Anger on the forum? Or this thread? The anger I have seen in this thread are the comments about muslims and "hajis" Very reminiscent of the old "hang all n***ers" days in this country of ever-increasing racially and religiously intolerant hypocrites.
Your reference to Jack in this thread does not make sense to me, I do not see the connection. He was a Cramer basher, and egotistical permabear.
Well you seem to be an angry person. :lol:
TonyM
06-07-2007, 09:24 PM
Well you seem to be an angry person. :lol:
If by angry you mean presenting facts then I guess I'm guilty. My definition however would describe people that condone the torture of people based on their religion and/or color of skin.
You are very delusional. I said terrorists/muslim extremists and never once mentioned a color of someones skin. You should be carfeful how you spin someones words into your tone of hatred. You and Bill O'Rielly have alot in common.
Your tone is pierced with anger which skews the way people view your opinion. I dont care how informed you say you are, you are way too delusional to take serious. Have a nice one buddy boy!
TonyM
06-08-2007, 12:09 AM
You are very delusional. I said terrorists/muslim extremists and never once mentioned a color of someones skin. You should be carfeful how you spin someones words into your tone of hatred. You and Bill O'Rielly have alot in common.
Your tone is pierced with anger which skews the way people view your opinion. I dont care how informed you say you are, you are way too delusional to take serious. Have a nice one buddy boy!
And you still cannot read, I stated how I saw anger in this thread which included a post other than yours, but you are so quick to react that you do not bother to comprehend what you read. You are only interested in typing a response based on your pre-conceived ideas and refusal to think about the words presented to you.
Your interpretation of anger in my posts is merely your opinion, maybe you should come down off of your high horse? Detecting the tone of the author's writings is an arduous task that even open-minded people have difficulty with.
"I don't care" seems to be a recurring theme with you, it reveals a lot about your character.
Funny you mention O'Reilly, I am not making any claims to be more informed than anyone (even though it is obvious that I have made an effort to gather facts unlike yourself), you have formed that opinion and decided that I think I am more informed than everyone else and followed that up with falsely accusingly me of saying that I am. Indeed you do have a common element with O'Reilly.
Delusional people ignore facts, the fact that Bush has violated the law of the land cannot be disputed, but you choose to ignore this and you fail to provide any proof otherwise.
Many people, myself included have a difficult time taking someone seriously whose posts are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, sure a few here and there are understandable, but repeated and frequent errors convey a lack of education and overall slovenliness.
You have turned the direction of this thread into an attack on my character and have failed to prove that Gitmo is not dishonorable and unamerican. I answer all of your myopic statements and you fail to counter. You make false statements and when confronted with facts to prove the falsehoods you avoid further debate on those points, you repeatedly resort to "I don't care" which is quite juvenile, you try to use words that you neither know the meaning of nor how to spell them. Debating just isn't your forte is it, buddy boy?
Now, why don't you try debating on the topic of the thread, or run along and spend your pretend money from your pretend trading?:roll:
I have answered you already about the subject, they are not americans, they are terrorists, the U.S. Constitution doesnt apply to them.
The reason I dont care is because they dont care when they plot to kill thousands of American in one boom. But you want them to have OUR constitution to protect them??? Yeah, ok.
Besides, Gitmo serves purposes other than detaining terrorists. In its history it has been used several times for humanitarian efforts.
As for other crap...
You quoted my reply and didnt refer to anyone else, dont try to slick your delusional hairbrained B.S. into something else. You implied something that wasnt true and you got set straight. :lol: Its not my problem your ignorant.
As for the pretend trading, Im just trying to learn how the market works. Whats wrong with that? Im just trying to learn about the stock market. Is that all you have? To pick on the newbie for using a sim instead of losing his real money? Sniff :oops: Sniff!! :lol: That's a pathetic attempt to antagonize me. What for when there are most likely a whole list of other stuff we agree on? But your going ballistic over an opinion that differs from yours.
Im not going to reply to this anymore, obviously it's a waste of my time when your going to put some other spin on my words, lol. Good Luck! :cool:
TonyM
06-08-2007, 04:06 AM
I have answered you already about the subject, they are not americans, they are terrorists, the U.S. Constitution doesnt apply to them.
Wrong, the Constitution does protect non-americans, I already quoted the Declaration of Independence for you. Again, I ask for your proof that the detainees are terrorists
The reason I dont care is because they dont care when they plot to kill thousands of American in one boom. But you want them to have OUR constitution to protect them??? Yeah, ok.
Due process is guaranteed by the Constitution, the KKK used the tactic that you condone. It does not matter if a hundred people see a man kill another man, he is still entitled to a trial by jury. This is the law, or at least it was until Bush got rid of it last year. Did you even notice the bill to reinstate the writ of habeas corpus today? I suppose all of those lawmakers are delusional too?
Besides, Gitmo serves purposes other than detaining terrorists. In its history it has been used several times for humanitarian efforts.
This is not the capacity in which you want it used for though is it?
As for other crap...
You quoted my reply and didnt refer to anyone else, dont try to slick your delusional hairbrained B.S. into something else. You implied something that wasnt true and you got set straight. :lol: Its not my problem your ignorant.
Wrong again, here is my exact statemnet "My definition however would describe people that condone the torture of people based on their religion and/or color of skin.". I already set the precedent for this statement in my response to Lou, did I say "you" or mention your name? You really do have trouble with comprehension don't you? Did you even graduate high school? Yeah, you really set me straight on that one:roll:
As for the pretend trading, Im just trying to learn how the market works. Whats wrong with that? Im just trying to learn about the stock market. Is that all you have? To pick on the newbie for using a sim instead of losing his real money? Sniff :oops: Sniff!! :lol: That's a pathetic attempt to antagonize me. What for when there are most likely a whole list of other stuff we agree on? But your going ballistic over an opinion that differs from yours.
You've been playing at trading for over a year now, when are you going to man up and put some real money on the line? This is after all a forum for traders and investors of which you are neither. You think this is going ballistic? What a sheltered little life you must lead, I'm taking it easy on you since you're obviously a bit to the left of the IQ curve
Im not going to reply to this anymore, obviously it's a waste of my time when your going to put some other spin on my words, lol. Good Luck! :cool:
First smart choice you've made all day, spinning your words? You mean calling you on your bull$hit? Truth hurts eh?
Anger on the forum? Or this thread? The anger I have seen in this thread are the comments about muslims and "hajis" Very reminiscent of the old "hang all n***ers" days in this country of ever-increasing racially and religiously intolerant hypocrites.
Your reference to Jack in this thread does not make sense to me, I do not see the connection. He was a Cramer basher, and egotistical permabear.
Both. "Egotistical"
TonyM
06-08-2007, 10:18 AM
Both. "Egotistical"
Is there some reason you choose not to name the subject of your accusation? Seems a bit cowardly not to just come out and say "Hey I think you are angry and egotistical"
It's sad that the subject of the thread is not being discussed, instead vilifying someone for daring to speak out against the government.
Is there some reason you choose not to name the subject of your accusation? Seems a bit cowardly not to just come out and say "Hey I think you are angry and egotistical"
It's sad that the subject of the thread is not being discussed, instead vilifying someone for daring to speak out against the government.
Tony, I dont see the point taking shots at people. I liked you better when you brought strong points on futures and options. As for not discussing a thread, well I guess you know how I feel. As for speaking out against our govt, God Bless You. Thats what makes this country great. Politics is a tough area and dialogue is only beneficial.
Where did you attend college?
TonyM
06-08-2007, 11:16 AM
Tony, I dont see the point taking shots at people. I liked you better when you brought strong points on futures and options. As for not discussing a thread, well I guess you know how I feel. As for speaking out against our govt, God Bless You. Thats what makes this country great. Politics is a tough area and dialogue is only beneficial.
Where did you attend college?
That's almost funny, you are taking pot shots but hiding behind a general statement so that a person cannot say you are talking about them specifically, as thinly veiled as your pot shots are.
I'm not here for you to like me, you can put me on ignore if I offend.
It's incredulous that your only contribution to this thread is to make wisecracks and throw a few labels around and then go and start a new thread asking for opinions on CIA secret prisons...are you $hitting me, whiskey tango foxtrot?
I did not attend college, and why is that germane to the conversation? Are you trying to figure out my politics or just take more veiled pot shots?
That's almost funny, you are taking pot shots but hiding behind a general statement so that a person cannot say you are talking about them specifically, as thinly veiled as your pot shots are.
I'm not here for you to like me, you can put me on ignore if I offend.
It's incredulous that your only contribution to this thread is to make wisecracks and throw a few labels around and then go and start a new thread asking for opinions on CIA secret prisons...are you $hitting me, whiskey tango foxtrot?
I did not attend college, and why is that germane to the conversation? Are you trying to figure out my politics or just take more veiled pot shots?
Neither. Just wanted to know your background.
concrete
06-08-2007, 12:25 PM
You are very delusional. Have a nice one buddy boy!
Does hurling an epithet on the playground and running away constitute an argument?
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.