Bush Gets Burned by Supreme Court

[StanAE86]

First trying to hold them without any possibility of resolution, no trial, nothing. About time the wheels of justice start rolling again. I'm not saying I support the "criminals", but I feel it's absolutely injust to hold them without possibility of trial or anything...that's absolutely unfair and something that the US would not accept, had one of our citizens or troops been captured by another country. The thing that bothers me about the US is at times, we practice, "Do as we say and not as we do..." which is why so many countries are at odds with us...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/?GT1=8211

[StanAE86]

Geezus...now I have to put on my thinking cap.

bmw06m6:

They absolutely were my own comments and not those of any other, but I certainly invite a meaningful discussion regarding the issues. I wasn't trying to be controversial and I doubt my opinions were groundbreaking or Earth shattering. It'll be interesting if anyone else chimes in, given the international membership of JW. I appreciate your comments and your take on the situation addressed in the article, but you may be mis-interpreting me to some degree. Here's a few issues I feel the need to respond to:

First, you are correct that the Constitution protects the rights of US citizens. However, it also affords rights to non-citizens who are on US soil. This is not relevant here, since the prisoners are not officially on "US soil", however, some would argue they are in an area which is controlled and being utilized exclusively by the United States. In the effort to trim the issues, and given the fact that I agree, I do concede that the protected rights set forth in the US Constitution are not afforded to those terror prisoners being held by the US in Guantanamo Bay. Although I can see and appreciate the opposing argument and thought I'd mention it.

Second, regarding the Geneva Convention, the last time I checked, Congress had not declared war against any country. President Bush has declared a "War on Terror" and a "War On Terrorism". Those being held are not citizens of "Terror". Therefore, I find your reference to the Geneva Convention and your argument that prisoners can be held for the duration of a war, lacking substance and lacking relation to the issues at hand. I say skip checking your watch and instead, suggest checking your facts.

With regard to my comments and your opinion that is it "Liberal Appeasement", you have misinterpreted, mischaracterized and apparently failed to grasp the concepts I alluded to originally. You have flatly indicated that you fear the prisoners appearing before a judge and being let out on bail. I can assure you, I can figure out no set of circumstances where a Federal Judge would fail to appreciate the seriousness of the allegations against these individuals, to the point of allowing any of the prisoners the option of bail. Further, they would likely be tried in a military court by a military judge, and I don't think they even use "bail". Under the facts and circumstances, I doubt it's even a possibility, but they say, never say never. Actually, you know what, I'll say it...it would NEVER happen.

You also demonstrate a fear of letting the accused (ACCUSED: someone being subjected to ALLEGATIONS of misconduct) actually having a day in court. Why? Why not send them to trial and use the facts and evidence? Rather confusingly, you suggest simply returning them to their country of origin RATHER than trial? To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all. WTF would you want to do that, rather than set out appropriate punishment, if they are in fact terrorists? Send them home so they can attack another day? Maybe if we pull all our troops back, everything will just go away?

My comments, and the opinion of the Supreme Court is that the Bush Administration cannot hold these prisoners indefinately. Charge them with a crime and give them a trial. I doubt any of them are "innocent", but it's possible. If that's the case, they should be let go. In the other case, they're determined to be terrorist criminals, hand out the appropriate punishment swiftly.

My comment regarding the US sometimes exercising "Do as we say and not as we do" policy was designed to bring about reflection. If North Korea just captured a US citizen and accused him of spying on their military operations regarding their nuclear testing, do you think the US would be a little more than pissed, if they never charged that person with an official crime, but instead, held that person indefinately? Korea says, "Geneva Convention does not apply, the US and Korea is not at war." Korea also says, "the spy is not a citizen, so our laws regarding a right to trial does not apply." You can be damned sure the US would throw a fit. Yet, this is what we're doing right now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when other countries see this, the US's credibility is severely tarnished.

[Stikz]

Originally Posted by StanAE86 My comment regarding the US sometimes exercising "Do as we say and not as we do" policy was designed to bring about reflection. If North Korea just captured a US citizen and accused him of spying on their military operations regarding their nuclear testing, do you think the US would be a little more than pissed, if they never charged that person with an official crime, but instead, held that person indefinately? Korea says, "Geneva Convention does not apply, the US and Korea is not at war." Korea also says, "the spy is not a citizen, so our laws regarding a right to trial does not apply." You can be damned sure the US would throw a fit. Yet, this is what we're doing right now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when other countries see this, the US's credibility is severely tarnished.

Amen Stan. America holding people in Guantanomo Bay hasn't been legitimised. Even if their innocence or guilt has been established. America has lost the right to the moral indignation that has been driving this "war". In fact, there was never any right in the first place. America has retained the right to pre-emptive war, but there has never EVER been a precedent that established a case like this. And with America retaining this "right", does it not make sense that other countries might be a little uneasy about who America plans on taking out next? Can anyone then be surprised at the boom that is currently taking place in nukes by countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc? These are all countries that could run afoul of America's interests at some point. Got a little off topic, but my main point is that America refuses to accept that they could be wrong in any of their judgements or actions. Therefore the double standard exists. Its ok for America to hold people for no reason, but God help any country that holds an American citizen. America can produce all the nukes it wants, but God help anyone who wants one too. The history of American foreign policy has basically been governed by this double standard, yet the American government continues to do whatever it wants while continuing to denounce any other country with similar self-determination. I'm not saying those other countries should be doing what they are doing, but if America can get away with it, then who is America to tell ANYONE else what to do?

[ae86_16v]

Originally Posted by bmw06m6 Liberal Appeasement does not win wars, maybe if they knew what the hell was going on it would be ok, I say send them back to Afghanistan and Iraq, ignore the asswipes in the media, the left coast, and The DNC!

And they say Liberals were the ones that make irrational and illogical statements.

[Mattk]

Hmm....Guantanamo is turning sour for Bush. I might get a hold of the ruling later and look at it.

Guantanamo Bay is for prisoners of war. They can be held indefinitely, from what I know, but there needs to be some sort of charge, according to the Geneva Convention (I think).

I don't think letting the courts judge the terrorists would be detrimental. The crims would still get punished severely.

[graywolf624]

Second, regarding the Geneva Convention, the last time I checked, Congress had not declared war against any country. President Bush has declared a "War on Terror" and a "War On Terrorism". Those being held are not citizens of "Terror". Therefore, I find your reference to the Geneva Convention and your argument that prisoners can be held for the duration of a war, lacking substance and lacking relation to the issues at hand. I say skip checking your watch and instead, suggest checking your facts.

Not quite correct Stan. Congress granted Bush the power to declare war against Iraq and Afghanastan. If you consider the two to be linked then they are prisoners of war.

[ae86_16v]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 Second, regarding the Geneva Convention, the last time I checked, Congress had not declared war against any country. President Bush has declared a "War on Terror" and a "War On Terrorism". Those being held are not citizens of "Terror". Therefore, I find your reference to the Geneva Convention and your argument that prisoners can be held for the duration of a war, lacking substance and lacking relation to the issues at hand. I say skip checking your watch and instead, suggest checking your facts. Not quite correct Stan. Congress granted Bush the power to declare war against Iraq and Afghanastan. If you consider the two to be linked then they are prisoners of war.

Graywolf, you are correct. Congress authorized Military Actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. So okay, consider it war then. So if you consider those two military actions as war, you have to treat the prisoners at "Club Gitmo" per bmw06m6, as Prisoners of War.

It can't be a matter of convenience.

Either it was a war or it was not. If it was, they are prisoners of war and thus protected. If not they are then they are "illegal combatants" and you will have to do something with them.

[graywolf624]

Graywolf, you are correct. Congress authorized Military Actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. So okay, consider it war then. So if you consider those two military actions as war, you have to treat the prisoners at "Club Gitmo" per bmw06m6, as Prisoners of War. It can't be a matter of convenience. Either it was a war or it was not. If it was, they are prisoners of war and thus protected. If not they are then they are "illegal combatants" and you will have to do something with them.

See I tend to disagree only from the stand point that I believe its a gray area. Im honestly not sure how they should be treated. I think the version of what the UN calls torture is a jk, and that some form of interrogation is needed. I however condemn the acts of physically beating a prisoner.
I think that keeping them without trial is necessary for military secrets and cause trying everyone in a war is impossible.. But I think they need to be given investigation.

It really is a gray area and not as black and white as others make it sound. If you dont make them sleep deprived or cold for a short while (the same thing we subject troops to every day for training) and millions die cause you dont have the info, then at what point do costs lose to reward? I draw the line at physical torture, everyone has their point. If the US beheaded or started busting knee caps or something Id be on your side in a heart beat. So far the majority of the complaints havent been to that extent (with one noteable exception where the soldier is now in jail) If someone who tried to blow up or behead a civilian has to feel a bit cold so I can keep one American safe it isn't going to keep me up at night.

[nthfinity]

have people forgotten what a concentration camp was? what happened there?

to call Guantanamo a "modern day concentration camp" is irrisponsible, false, and a farce...

[Stikz]

Originally Posted by nthfinity have people forgotten what a concentration camp was? what happened there? to call Guantanamo a "modern day concentration camp" is irrisponsible, false, and a farce...

Yeah, its too much of a stretch. Regardless, what America is doing in Gitmo is wrong. America seems to have turned to the viewpoint that the ends justify the means, which is something that its legal system is totally opposed to. But as usual, America only behaves morally when it wants too, yet demonizes everyone else's actions as threatening to peace and law and order. You can't have it both ways, or you shouldn't have it both ways, but try telling that to Dubya.

[nthfinity]

In the 40's people didn't knew what was going on in there, they only found out after the war. And we will only find out after paradise hotel is out of business.

except there are various groups that have gone in and reported on the conditions in which they reside; and again, are FAR FAR AWAY from anything remotely resembling a concentration camp.

Locking up people without trial, reason of imprissonment and explenation resembles a concentration camp for about 99%. The only thing that is missing is stating because it is of their religion, but everybody knows that is why they are in there...

As you may or may not know; the courts said that it wasn't constatutional that they have the specific form of tribunal; In fact.... it was ruled that Congress needs to pass a law to have a tribunal try the combantants.

If guantanamo were there to house all muslims, then... uh... lets face it, those guys are direclty linked to, and are themselves terrorists, trained as such, planned out attacks on innocent civilians... its not as if they are kept in sub standard living conditions like Americans were in Viatnam, Japan, China, Korea etc.

the fact that they are religious terrorists makes it an extra scary thought, as believing you are killing for God.. well... this usually is fostered in eneducated areas of the world.... they dont just want to kill americans... but all of western society.

Face it, it is still "we are the us of assholes and we can do everything we want" that rules this world. And just to screw with all those fucking republicans in the us, the next president should be a black muslim woman that's concerned about public health, education and the environment! Instead of some idiot that try's to mask his little penis. Nothing more nothing less, penis-envy...

since when isn't the US, and ol' Bush II concerned about public health, education, and conservation?

we make do quite well w/out being taxed out of existance

why do so many foriegn bodies come to our universities ?

why does the hospital never turn ANYBODY away?

[graywolf624]

Locking up people without trial, reason of imprissonment and explenation resembles a concentration camp for about 99%. The only thing that is missing is stating because it is of their religion, but everybody knows that is why they are in there...

Actually, it sounds like any prisoner of war camp.. Or are you going to name me a single example of a pow getting a trial during war time to determine if they should be held.

[StanAE86]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 See I tend to disagree only from the stand point that I believe its a gray area. Im honestly not sure how they should be treated. I think the version of what the UN calls torture is a jk, and that some form of interrogation is needed. I however condemn the acts of physically beating a prisoner. I think that keeping them without trial is necessary for military secrets and cause trying everyone in a war is impossible.. But I think they need to be given investigation. It really is a gray area and not as black and white as others make it sound. If you dont make them sleep deprived or cold for a short while (the same thing we subject troops to every day for training) and millions die cause you dont have the info, then at what point do costs lose to reward? I draw the line at physical torture, everyone has their point. If the US beheaded or started busting knee caps or something Id be on your side in a heart beat. So far the majority of the complaints havent been to that extent (with one noteable exception where the soldier is now in jail) If someone who tried to blow up or behead a civilian has to feel a bit cold so I can keep one American safe it isn't going to keep me up at night.

I agree. I tend to be more middle ground on the issue, although just slightly left of center. Although the technicalities of it all might be in the grey area, my sense of "justice" pushes me into wanting them to get a trial so they can be at least held accountable for what they are accused of...although, I now feel I am being shortsighted in that they could potentially have information that would help. Still, another part of me feels that just holding them in limbo is not the right thing either. Although, in hostile times, doing what is "right" is often made grey as well.

My understanding is that Congress granted GW the power to utilize the military, but unless there was a Constitutional amendment recently, the president still cannot "declare war". Only Congress declares war. It's a technicality that I don't really understand fully, although I assume it has to do with the amount of power the president has the ability to utilize, in numbers, time, and expense. Although, what we're doing now, comp the military. Even before GW, the president could commit American armed forces to hostile areas, but only for a limited time. I think what happened, was that Congress granted GW the ability to use the military indefinately, without a declaration of war.

BMW06M6:

I'm not into politics as much as I should be. I follow the latest stories in the left-minded media. However, what I don't do is enter into a conversation and attempt to debate the issue by pointing fingers. I have no idea what issue you're referring to with the Gore picture, although I'm sure it's got it's own bottle of worms. However, if I were to debate the issue with you, I would not have attempted to do so, by saying, "Yeah? Well George Bush did X! What about that?" So, I guess you got me on this one...Gitmo is perfectly okay, because Al Gore did something bad too.

Lastly, a citation to Rush Limbaugh is basically useless unless you're citing it to another conservative person with the same views as yourself. Rush is so far to the right, that anyone left of Rush thinks he's a fool and doesn't listen to a word he says. For more a persuasive argument, a citation to what would be considered a "legitimate" source of news and information would be better received - ABC, NBC, CBS, MSN (although the media tends to be left sided, it's considered more nonprejudicial than a conservative talk show host).

[dmuz]

I thought that holding someone in prison without trial was 'UNAMERICAN'. I guess it depends who you ask. I thnk it does not matter where it happens, whether it be on US soil or not.
Years ago McCarthy went after the Communists, now THEY 'the US Govt' are going after the Terrorists....

Put simply, a plane crashes into a building and 3000 odd people die... and obviously America loses face. The American response is to kill
100 000 odd people in the ensuing bombings... so 'we can teach 'em a lesson'... OH and of course stop the Terror!
And did someone say weapons of mass destruction??

I thought it was the US that had all the weapons.
We should have all bought shares in some defense contractor-Bush did!

You Americans will eat anything you are fed...

[nthfinity]

You Americans will eat anything you are fed...

the same can be said for you, just because it may be commonplace for wherever you may be to think such anti-american thoughts doesn't mean you are fed the truth. Clearly it is a prejudice.

since when do you win wars by killing = number of people?