kevbone Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 "To the House Republican leader, it's an "ill-conceived plan" that would bring terrorists into the U.S. despite opposition by Congress and the American people" Don’t you mean completely innocent people that have not been found guilty in a court of law? Terrorists….pffff Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 "To the House Republican leader, it's an "ill-conceived plan" that would bring terrorists into the U.S. despite opposition by Congress and the American people" Don’t you mean completely innocent people that have not been found guilty in a court of law? Terrorists….pffff Link If they are not terrorists they can let them go, if they are terrorists, they can hold them there as well as hold them inside the US border. If they are going to have a tribunal why not there? How much do you think this move will cost? What will it really do? IMO It's just expensive window dressing that will do nothing and cost you money. Stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share Posted August 3, 2009 "To the House Republican leader, it's an "ill-conceived plan" that would bring terrorists into the U.S. despite opposition by Congress and the American people" Don’t you mean completely innocent people that have not been found guilty in a court of law? Terrorists….pffff Link If they are not terrorists they can let them go, if they are terrorists, they can hold them there as well as hold them inside the US border. If they are going to have a tribunal why not there? How much do you think this move will cost? What will it really do? IMO It's just expensive window dressing that will do nothing and cost you money. Good points bill. I believe all these SUSPECTS are completely INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. Don’t you think that? What happened to this very important concept? If you are held by our government….IMO you should be held to the same standard that we hold ourselves too. The government needs to bring charges against these INNOCENT SUSPECTS and try them in a court of law….if they cannot bring charges against them….then they have to let them go. Period! You cannot hold someone solely on suspicion alone. That is bullshit. You cannot call them terrorist until you have proof they have terrorized the US. How would you like it if the guy down the street told the police you broke a law and the cops held you for 3 years solely on suspicion? Not very fair way to live IMO. Gitmo is a complete disregard of our constitution. Just makes me sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I just knew with this topic and poster, it had to be an intelligent conversation in the works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I just knew with this topic and poster, it had to be an intelligent conversation in the works. And yet you showed up and then contributed less than Kevin E-rock...hmmmm interesting. Bone, you and I are close to agreeing here. It is wrong to hold people, many on flimsy if any evidence, indefinitely. It goes against what our country stands for and what makes us strong. Give them a trial or set them free. The difference is that most of these are POWs, battlefield warriors who were captured. Imagine if in WW2, the US had tried all of the captured German troops. What would the charge have been anyway? How would you provide evidence? It can't be processed that way. However, it should have been processed via tribunal by now, and the real badasses locked up or hung and the rest let go. In a sense, that has been occurring at a glacial pace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share Posted August 3, 2009 I just knew with this topic and poster, it had to be an intelligent conversation in the works. And yet you showed up and then contributed less than Kevin E-rock...hmmmm interesting. Bone, you and I are close to agreeing here. It is wrong to hold people, many on flimsy if any evidence, indefinitely. It goes against what our country stands for and what makes us strong. Give them a trial or set them free. The difference is that most of these are POWs, battlefield warriors who were captured. Imagine if in WW2, the US had tried all of the captured German troops. What would the charge have been anyway? How would you provide evidence? It can't be processed that way. However, it should have been processed via tribunal by now, and the real badasses locked up or hung and the rest let go. In a sense, that has been occurring at a glacial pace. I think the difference is German troops had German uniforms on and all spoke German and were caught firing guns at US troops. A lot of these suspects were hunted down by bounty hunters or tribal leaders and sold to US forces. Solely on suspicion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 "To the House Republican leader, it's an "ill-conceived plan" that would bring terrorists into the U.S. despite opposition by Congress and the American people" Don’t you mean completely innocent people that have not been found guilty in a court of law? Terrorists….pffff Link If they are not terrorists they can let them go, if they are terrorists, they can hold them there as well as hold them inside the US border. If they are going to have a tribunal why not there? How much do you think this move will cost? What will it really do? IMO It's just expensive window dressing that will do nothing and cost you money. Good points bill. I believe all these SUSPECTS are completely INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. Don’t you think that? What happened to this very important concept? If you are held by our government….IMO you should be held to the same standard that we hold ourselves too. The government needs to bring charges against these INNOCENT SUSPECTS and try them in a court of law….if they cannot bring charges against them….then they have to let them go. Period! You cannot hold someone solely on suspicion alone. That is bullshit. You cannot call them terrorist until you have proof they have terrorized the US. How would you like it if the guy down the street told the police you broke a law and the cops held you for 3 years solely on suspicion? Not very fair way to live IMO. Gitmo is a complete disregard of our constitution. Just makes me sick. well dumbass obama wants to let them go, the same guy who called a cop stupid before the cop was proven stupid. i think they should have another BEER SUMMIT and invite all the gitmo detainees and feed them beer with our tax dollars and make all the stupid libtards pay for it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 i think they should have another BEER SUMMIT and invite all the gitmo detainees and feed them beer with our tax dollars and make all the stupid libtards pay for it.... better yet, move them into a halfway house next to Kevbone, and he can invite them over to his home for a bowl and a brew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponderosa Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I just knew with this topic and poster, it had to be an intelligent conversation in the works. And yet you showed up and then contributed less than Kevin E-rock...hmmmm interesting. Perhaps, E-rock perceives the waste in engaging the Josh Lewis of Spray in ten pages of intellectual lolly-gagging. Closing Gitmo is showing to be little more than expensive political window dressing. " The president has said some detainees will be tried in civilian courts, some in military commissions. Others, he said, will be held without trial because they are considered too dangerous to risk acquittal and the evidence against them cannot be used in court, either because of flaws in how it was obtained or secrets it would reveal." from USAToday sounds familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share Posted August 3, 2009 " The president has said some detainees will be tried in civilian courts, some in military commissions. Others, he said, will be held without trial because they are considered too dangerous to risk acquittal and the evidence against them cannot be used in court, either because of flaws in how it was obtained or secrets it would reveal." from USAToday Am I the only one who thinks this statement is utter bullshit. Innocent until proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I just knew with this topic and poster, it had to be an intelligent conversation in the works. And yet you showed up and then contributed less than Kevin E-rock...hmmmm interesting. Perhaps, E-rock perceives the waste in engaging the Josh Lewis of Spray in ten pages of intellectual lolly-gagging. Closing Gitmo is showing to be little more than expensive political window dressing. " The president has said some detainees will be tried in civilian courts, some in military commissions. Others, he said, will be held without trial because they are considered too dangerous to risk acquittal and the evidence against them cannot be used in court, either because of flaws in how it was obtained or secrets it would reveal." from USAToday sounds familiar. Only part window dressing. Closing Gitmo, closing CIA prisons, and banning torture go a long way to right the fascism of the Bush years (get it?). Now the administration has a classic politics versus rule of law dilemma: what to do with the remaining detainees with some evidence against them...gained under torture and therefore inadmissible in civilian court. If he lets them go the ReCunts scream "soft on terrorism!". If not, he violates our basic rule of law. The DOJ has tried to float an 'attenuation' policy. i.e., if you were legally interrogated more than say 6 months after being tortured, the effects have 'worn off' and that new evidence is therefore admissible. Yeah. Whatever. And you thought 'serious constitutional discussions of our time' has somehow got to be of a higher standard than our drivel. Guess again. It's a fucked situation all the way around, thanks to George Bush. Our belief in the rule of law is no longer credible. Our reputation abroad continues to be fucked. The guy never was much for thinking ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponderosa Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Got anything on the "closing of CIA prisons"? Some might soon be heard to claim "Soft on Terrorism" with his recent appointment of Arif Alikhan as Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Kareem Shora Appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). Both hail from American-Muslim organizations who have been described as apologists for and/or labeled Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO as "freedom fighters". It's a fucked situation all the way around, thanks to George Bush. The guy never was much for thinking ahead. Well then, the Obama campaign shouldn't have consulted GW and used his suggestions for campaign promises. It would seem GW isn't alone in shortfall in thinking ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 You wouldn't consult with the outgoing prez if you were newly elected? OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.