|
|
|
|||||||
| Politics Politics, politicians, and their actions and policies. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
Jun-13-2008, 12:52
|
||||
|
||||
|
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain today called the U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantanamo detainees to challenge their status in civilian courts "one of the worst I've ever seen."
McCain made his comments while traveling on his campaign bus to a town hall meeting at Burlington County College in Pemberton. "These are not American citizens. They are enemy combatants," McCain said. "I think this is one of the biggest mistakes that's been made in terms of our ability to defend our nation in a long, long time." He called Thursday's 5-4 ruling "a stunning reversal" of World War II precedents empowering the president, as commander in chief, to deal with enemy combatants. McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling - Breaking News From New Jersey - NJ.com With McCain wanting to close Club Gitmo I'm suprised but pleased with his stance. Have a good one! 
|
| Cannabis Links |
|
Legal Bud | Rolling Papers | Herbal Smoke | Herbal Vaporizer Scales & Accessories | Cheap Vaporizers | Seeds Cannabis
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 13:02
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's truely disgusting that we would attempt to give the same rights we get to enjoy to someone who attempted to harm our country. whether you believe in Gitmo or not; you have to admit that giving terrorists or people that are not Americans the same rights that we have is just pain wrong.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator. The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers. None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis. Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!! Check out my Mothering Log!!!
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 13:07
|
||||
|
||||
Obama's Stance.......
Obama, by contrast, went on the offensive against McCain in his response to the ruling. Forget about McCain's promise to close Guantanamo in the future, Obama observed -- remember that the former prisoner of war supported creating the military commissions system that the high court struck down today.
"The court's decision is a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain," Obama said. Fallout from the Gitmo ruling | Deadline USA | guardian.co.uk Is this the type of change people want? People like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the master mind of 9-11, having the same constitutional rights in our courts as our own citizens? I'm also sure they'll enjoy the media circus that'll be televised in the Middle East. During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts? We now know what type of people Obama wants on our Supreme Court........NOT a good change. Have a good one!
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 13:35
|
||||
|
||||
"The needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few"-Spock
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 16:58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Everyone the US takes into custody needs to be given some kind of legal "status" and some kind of legal recourse. I don't know if full access to civilain courts is the answer, but the Supreme Court does not provide suggestions on what to do, they rule on the legality of esxisting laws and lower court decisions. Maybe there is a better answer, but it's not the job of the court to say what it is.
But I believe there absolutely needs to be some kind of legal status and legal recourse. If you capture a member of an enemy army during a war, that soldier has a legal status as a POW --- they don't have access to civilian courts, but they don't just disappear into a hole. If you take an accused criminal into custody, that criminal has a legal status too and doesn't just disappear into a hole. The administration has said basically that these accused terrorists are not members of a foreign army, so they are not POWs. And they are not accused criminals in the normal legal sense. Since they aren't either of those two things, they are some other class of prisoner "enemy combatant," and they have no rights at all. I think it's un-American. If these detainiees are neither POWs nor accused criminals, then the governemnt needs to develop a legal definition for them and rules for processing them that are constitutional. You can't just leave it at, Oh heck, we're not sure what you are, so we're just going to lock you up forever with no access to lawyers or courts. We're not going to tell you why you're here. We're not going to tell your family or your government where you are. Too bad you are just so legally confusing! The reason these people need some kind of legal recourse is that we know for a fact that some people have been held as "enemy combatants" WHO WERE NOT TERRORISTS! 60 Minutes had a feature a couple of months ago about a German guy who was picked up in Pakistan, accused of a bogus terrorism-related charge, held for several years in Gitmo and tortured during that time. Is that what this country is about? Tell someone he is German, so he doesn't get to enjoy the rights of an American citizen? Accuse him of terrorism without any proof, hold him incommunicado, and torture him? Doesn't sound American to me. That is a slippery slope to YOU losing YOUR rights, people! When you ask, "During the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, etc....were ALL prisoners allowed their day in our civil courts?" No, probably none of them had access to civilian courts, but at least in WWII they had a legal status as POWs. It's up to the government to develop a new legal status if one is needed. EDIT: Before anyone gets on me for being "soft" on terrorists, let me just say I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If they are found to be terrorists, I'm OK with hanging them. I just don't think the US should be able to snatch someone up without even saying what they are accused of and hold them in prison indefinitely with no access to any legal status. It's been 7 years. We've had time to figure out what we are going to do with them!
__________________
More of the same: Renger's Rantings Last edited by dragonrider; Jun-13-2008 at 17:03.
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 20:44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Who knows what these people are guilty of. There needs to be some sort of a process. They can't be just locked up and left to die. This is a lot closer to Nazi Germany than it is America.
And now the bigger problem is. If these people weren't terrorists before they certainly will be now with the way we've treated them. Theyeither need to charged with something or released. If they are terrorists put the evidence before some sort of a military court and be done with it. If they are guilty kill them,if they're inncocent let them go.
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 21:16
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is another example of really incredibly simple-minded, myopic stuff coming out of right-leaning surface-comprehension. Seriously incredible.
Of course there needs to be some process. Due process. The same things that we ask in other countries and even as a part of the Geneva conventions have to be afforded to those so-called enemy combatants. They're not convicted enemy combatants. They're alleged. It is an absolute no-brainer for there to be some sort of due process. If they're just locked up and alleged as criminals until the ends of their lives, then our so-called big talk about spreading Democracy and freedoms in the parts of the world they hail from is a complete joke. The languishing-in-captivity-until-death approach is also precisely the sort of dark-ages judicial process we're expending millions of dollars to correct in Iraq and Afghanistan through our provincial judicial reconstruction teams. Go spend some time reading about provincial reconstruction if you don't believe me. This is why folks need to be better informed here. To say we shouldn't have to give Gitmo detainees the same rights as Americans when we're in Iraq and Afghanistan spending millions to give those countries the same sort of judicial freedoms we enjoy--and also to insist that, if Americans were in the same circumstances, we would have to be given those same rights as detainees in their prisons, either civilian or military--is an incredible form of hypocrisy. What's particularly amazing to me about McCain's current stance--which I don't for a moment believe is about anything other than appearing to fall on the side he thinks is going to get him the most right-wing support, not about what he actually thinks about due process for alleged combatants, particularly considering what he's repeatedly said about Gitmo and torture and Geneva in the past--is how he, an alleged "enemy combatant" war criminal/POW in Vietnam for nearly 6 years, could have concluded otherwise in response to the Supreme Court ruling. I still maintain that this is more about partisan stance than it is about his actual response, however, and I have to keep in mind that he's not a lawyer or a judge, which probably affects his perception, too.
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 21:41
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And I also agree that McCain's statements on this issue seem very inconsistent with what I understood to be some of his CORE BELIEFS. Is it an extreme pander, or is he not the person I thought?
__________________
More of the same: Renger's Rantings
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 21:52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
  
__________________
Pimpin Since Pimpin __________________________________ If it aint weed I wont smoke it. Keep the crack to yourself. PEACE 
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 22:35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is a privilige of the American People not for people suspected of terrorism. The people at GITMO do not deserve American rights. They obviously need some process there, but giving them American rights is not the way to go about it. Like someone else said earlier.. maybe something similar to being a POW or the like, but having equal rights to an American who pays his dues to his country through taxes or through serving is just insane!!! These people have contributed nothing to America and you want to give away our rights to them? 
__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator. The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers. None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis. Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!! Check out my Mothering Log!!!
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 23:01
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Pimpin Since Pimpin __________________________________ If it aint weed I wont smoke it. Keep the crack to yourself. PEACE
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 23:16
|
|||
|
|||
|
McCain blasts Supreme Curt's Guantanamo ruling
Guess McCain liked his treatment in Viet Nam as an 'enemy combatant!" People, right or wrong, should have rights. They took our rights away right along with those guys! Why arent' they looking more at all the new laws we have to obey as a result of the terroist policies! I'd like to be able to jokingly say, I'd kill for that, without worrying about going 2 jail!
Example: Was having a garage sell; someone kept stealing a sign. Put a note on it requesting they not do so and I'd look them up! No threat, etc. Police came and threatened to take me to jail. I laughed at him and he got madder. Now, can you threaten someon u don't even know the identity of? Anyway, tit 4 tat went on for days. His Sarg. would talk to him! As a taxpaper here, all my life, that was not enough and I still went for it! Nothing came of it. That creep even phoned me later on the phone and was threatening to come to my home and take me to jail. Who are the real terroists?  I imagine, he is only one of a few--I would hope! But, my faith in protection was diminished. Glad, I was having a garage sell to move from that city. I was glad to hear the ruling!! If we don't stand up for everyone's right's, we will lose our own! The day of 'minding your own business', in the realm of politics, has to change! Protect your fellow mankind, give them a voice! 
__________________
The time you give is the most precious gift of all-to all!  If a person is hungry, teach um to fish! HATE DESTROYS-SO LEAVE HATE TO THOSE TOO WEAK TO LOVE! Imagine WORLD PEACE! 
Last edited by painretreat; Jun-13-2008 at 23:22. Reason: add
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 23:24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And yes.. they do have full constitutional rights in court. They are not Americans and should not get our rights. There needs to be another process for them. While some of these people are suspected terrorists a LARGE NUMBER of them have admitted to terrorism and are proud of the fact. Yet now these people who have admitted to crimes are going to get constitutional rights. We are having our own privildges turned against us. Using our own judicial system to stick it to us. Please research what rights come to constitutional court rights; because if you're unaware it's alot of protection and rights and they get all of them. Our rights are not for just anyone. Why don't we start giving random rights to people from russia and china and mexico. Let's invite them to come here and murder people.. then let's give them full constitutional court rights. Do you agree with that scenario? Allowing people who come in and murder US citizens to have full constitutional court rights? Or should they be treated as an enemy combatant. Do you at least agree that there should be a process set for them that was fair given the situation but not the same constitutional rights as us? Even the habeas corpus act does not grant rights to people who commit Treason. I feel that, AT BEST, the people at GITMO should have no more rights than a person who has committed treason.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator. The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers. None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis. Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!! Check out my Mothering Log!!! Last edited by daihashi; Jun-13-2008 at 23:26.
|
|
Jun-13-2008, 23:29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
As nonsensical as that may seem to some who cannot see past the hang-'em-high approach, it's not. Affording Gitmo's so-called enemy combatants the same due process Americans receive is the only logical approach we can take when we've spent all this time and money to inflict our American freedoms and democracy on their part of the world. If Bush and his cronies hadn't talked such a big game all this time and spent hours justifying the war(s) in the Middle East on the grounds that we're fighting the good fight to spread freedom and democracy, then this would be a totally different matter. We've been talking the freedom-and-democracy talk now for years, however--and insisting, after the greatly embarrassing Abu Graib situation, for instance--that we must be exemplary in treating their prisoners in our U.S.-overseen Iraqi military jails with humanity and respect and due process. That being the case, then we damn well better set the example--just like we agreed to do under the Geneva conventions in our approach to torture and insistence that Americans not be tortured as war criminals in other parts of the world--and lead the way as examples of the freedom, democracy, and due process when we're holding alleged criminals or combatants in our jails. We need to look, too, to what I mentioned earlier, which is the huge effort we're making to implement American-style judicial processes in both Iraq and Afghanistan through our provincial reconstruction efforts. Your tax dollars are doing that work this very minute and will be for many decades to come. If we're going to bring those parts of the world and their people out of the dark ages, then we need to lead the way with our exemplary treatment of their citizens in our detention facilities. It's worth reminding everyone here that you first have to understand the basic differences between alleged criminals and convicted ones. What I want to know is what makes you hang-'em-high/waterboard-'em-deep types think that we have possibly been 100% accurate in identifying and jailing only guilty combatants at Guantanamo. Because we say so? Well, that's a laugh a minute. We said we were going into Iraq on the basis of WMDs and we'd only be there for a year or 18 months. Then we said mission accomplished. Ooops! Then we said we weren't inciting further ire in that part of the world and weren't stirring up terrorists, but you've seen how accurate we were in our claim there by how subdued Al Qaeda in Iraq has been (to be read as sarcastic). Ooops! Then we said we could withdraw troops and begin a draw down. Then we had to about-face on that and do a surge instead. Had to replace the top guy at Defense along the way. Ooops! We promised adherence to the Geneva conventions and insisted that Americans not be tortured, yet we had those troubling photographs at Abu Graib and the convictions of those amazing American soldier-humanitarians (again, to be read sarcastically) who were their jailers. Ooops! I'm sorry, but if you're really so gullible as to think that our intelligence has been so infallible as to only result in the detention of 100% guilty parties at Gitmo, then I have some swamp land for sale in Florida. If we hadn't made all the claims about spreading freedom and democracy and if we weren't working so hard to instill our justice freedoms in the Middle East, then judicial due process to the Gitmo detainees wouldn't be such an issue at all. I daresay there are probably plenty of real dangerous terrorist creeps in detention at Gitmo who don't deserve due process, but since we've been pretending with great piety for these years to be the arbiters of goodness and freedom and democracy in the world, then we pretty much have to give it to them so we can avoid the allegation of hypocrisy on this topic (even if we can't avoid it on many many others). Here's some homework. No one will do it, but it'd still be worth your while: 1. Read about Iraqi and Afghanistan reconstruction efforts. There are provincial reconstruction teams and embedded provincial reconstruction teams. It's the ePRTs who're doing most of the legwork on justice, under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Use Google to do this. 2. Familiarize yourselves with the third and fourth Geneva conventions. Then read the first and second after that. Good agreements, those.
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 00:40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Have you seen any of my posts on the forum aside from the politics forum? I'm a chill lay back guy.. I definitely am not gung ho hang'em high and I don't support torture. What I find odd is that no one looks at the Democrats. The democrats approved Afghanistan.. they approved Iraq and they approved guantanamo bay!!! The problem occured on both sides of the coin. Just so you know I don't disagree with you on any of your points made in your thread. I don't like the Bush administration and I never have... I felt we never should've been in Iraq at all... I do feel we were right in going to afghanistan but feel we should've finished our job there and not left to go to Iraq. I agree that the people at GITMO need to have some sort of process. While there are some people who are suspected terrorists there, remember that there are also many many more admitted terrorists there. People seem to ignore this fact as well. I honestly found your post a little condescending. Maybe it's just the way I interpreted it but it was not appreciated. As a moderator I would think that you would practice better tact than that. If I'm simply misinterpreting the tone of your reply then I sincerely apologize. It simply feels that way since you quoted me. ps: did you see the part where I said that I pretty much agree on you on all things? It's just from a different point of view, that's all. We're on the same side here.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator. The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers. None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis. Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!! Check out my Mothering Log!!! Last edited by daihashi; Jun-14-2008 at 00:46.
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 02:15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Daihashi, if you read my "attitude" as directed at you, please accept my apologies. It was not, I assure you, but as I look back and see that I quoted your question at the top, of course you would have read it that way. My first sentence and then the first two full paragraphs were in response to you, and then I went off in a general scoffing direction at the hypocrisy of the war itself. I have respect for you and you do seem to be better read on this stuff than most. You're also clearly literate and verbal, which is wonderful! The attitude you picked up on was a combination of disrespect I have for some of the other attitudes that have been allowed to go unchallenged too much in this particular area mixed with a huge amount of disdain and bitterness about the hypocrisy of an unjustified, lies-based war. All the "Oops!" comments were about that.
Normally during the school year, I don't have time to argue here, but I wish I did. When i do, though, I can be rough and I know that. I care a heck of a lot more about this stuff than I let on during non-vacation times. Please know that I wasn't directing my attitude at you, though, and try to forgive me if you can. These are important discussions we're having here. You're fairly new to these boards in comparison to some of the old stuff under the bridge here! Lucky enough for everyone here, I have exactly one more week of vacation before I begin my third-year med school rotations. When that happens, I'll go back into "political remission" and you and Dragonrider and others will have to speak for reason and thorough understanding on much of this stuff and encourage people to base their arguments on facts and history rather than on editorial opinions and small electronic newsbytes. I'll be off starting to do pipsqueak medical procedures on patients at Parkland Hospital! Peace? Here, at least? We aren't going to have peace in the Middle East for a long, long time to come. I have two cousins over there in the Army and an old law school friend from 23 years ago who's spent six years working on legal reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I feel this stuff more keenly than I should, I'm sure, because I get direct info from folks who're in the thick of it all every single day. We all need to be very concerned about the legacy we're leaving in Iraq. And we need to be very aware that the re-Talibanization of Afghanistan is a burgeoning problem as well. That's a topic for another thread, however.
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 02:29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's a Weekly Standard editorial, just published a couple of hours ago. My own opinion is that we have been spared more attacks thanks in part to the interrogations at Gitmo, so for this alone I would agree with Matthew Continetti. All the legal and political mumbo-jumbo (can't wait for a reaction to that expression
 ) in the world won't convince me that it wasn't worth keeping the detainees there. The Gitmo Nightmare Matthew Continetti Fri Jun 13, 11:15 PM ET It's hard to summarize a decision as long and complicated as the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling last week in Boumediene v. Bush. But we can try. Unprecedented. Reckless. Harmful. Breathtakingly condescending. The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that non-citizens captured abroad and held in a military installation overseas--the remaining 270 or so inmates at the terrorist prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba--have the same constitutional right as U.S. citizens to challenge their detention in court. Furthermore, the current procedures by which a detainee's status is reviewed--procedures fashioned in good faith and at the Court's behest by a bipartisan congressional majority in consultation with the commander in chief during a time of war--are unconstitutional. The upshot is the prisoners at Camp Delta can now file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. district courts seeking reprieve. Hence lawyers, judges, and leftwing interest groups will have real influence over the conduct of the war on terror. Call it the Gitmo nightmare. As it happens, some of the most effective arguments against Boumediene come from the decision itself. For example, Justice Kennedy wrote that in cases involving terrorist detention, "proper deference must be accorded to the political branches." Then he overrode them. Kennedy further noted that "unlike the President and some designated Members of Congress, neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people." They had better start, because the courts are about to be flooded with petitions to release terrorists sworn to America's destruction. He also wrote that now the "political branches can engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism." But that is precisely what Congress and the president were doing when they passed legislation laying out a process for detainee review, one that in fact addressed concerns previously raised by the Court. The Court now says this process is inadequate. What would be adequate? Kennedy's answer: I'll get back to you on that. In his opinion, Kennedy conceded that "before today the Court has never held that non-citizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution." Inventing rights seems to be what some of today's Supreme Court justices do best. In 1950 the Court ruled in Johnson v. Eisentrager that foreign nationals held in a military prison on foreign soil (in that case, Germany) had no habeas rights. But, without overruling Eisentrager, Kennedy said the Guantánamo detainees are different from the German prisoners 58 years ago. Why? Kennedy wrote that Eisentrager had a unique set of "practical considerations," and the United States did not have "de facto" sovereignty over Germany as it does over Guantánamo Bay. That territory, "while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government." But these slippery distinctions only raise more questions. Doesn't the United States government exercise "complete and total control" over its military and intelligence facilities worldwide? If so, what's to stop foreign combatants held in those locations from asserting their habeas rights? And what precise form will these habeas hearings take? What standards of judgment are the courts to apply? Will plaintiffs' attorneys be allowed to go venue shopping and file their petitions in the most liberal courts in the nation? Will they conduct discovery? Will they recall soldiers and intelligence agents from the field to testify? What happens when the available evidence does not satisfy judges who are used to adjudicating under the exclusionary rule? Will the cases be thrown out? Will the detainees be freed, able to return to the battlefield? That, after all, is what some 30 released detainees seem already to have done. The Supreme Court does not worry about such things. Instead it piously reminded the people that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." No kidding. Has anyone ever argued otherwise? Kennedy's sanctimony points to the ultimate tragedy of the Boumediene mess. In their visceral, myopic hatred of President Bush, liberals will see the ruling as a blow to the president and not the broad, foolish, and dangerous judicial power grab it is. The New York Times's editorialists wrote that "compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats" allowed Bush to deny foreign enemy combatants during wartime "the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency." Give us a break. One day soon Bush will be gone. But thanks to the Court, we'll still all be living the Gitmo nightmare. --Matthew Continetti, for the Editors Last edited by Breukelen advocaat; Jun-14-2008 at 02:37.
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 03:18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sorry for the confusion. ps: I have fairly thick skin, no harm done here. We're all friends here on cannabis.com even when we Agree and/or disagree. That's the beauty of being human; we're all different
__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator. The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers. None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis. Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!! Check out my Mothering Log!!! Last edited by daihashi; Jun-14-2008 at 03:24.
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 06:32
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's about human rights, not american citizen rights. Gathering information through water torture doesn't stand up in a real court which is why they wanted them trialed in a military tribunal where they could be sentenced to death and not appeal. Justice was served, you're wrong McCain.
__________________
PEACE 'Why should one be judged by the colour of their skin, instead of the qualities they show from deep within?' - Peter Tosh Quote:
http://boards.cannabis.com/recreatio...rger-then.html
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 13:07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The reason why habeas corpus was granted because in the court system they had in guantanamo the detainees were subjected to things such as having evidence brought out that they were not aware of. Not being allowed to see the evidence.. etc etc. Previously to this they already had limited Habeas rights. The problem is that these people are considered "enemy combatants" by our government. Which if you ask me sounds like a POW. They're in our prison camp, they're an enemy combatant and therefore should fall under the guidelines of POW. Everyone is lashing out at McCain when McCain was one of the few people on both the Republicans or Democratic side who were against Guantanamo since DAY 1!!! McCain is right, these people should not receive our rights... they should fall under the guidelines of POW which have their own set of rules. but that's just my interpretation/opinion on it.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator. The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers. None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis. Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!! Check out my Mothering Log!!!
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 14:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I would like provisions for cases of kidnapping children though. If some assclown has kidnapped children, has admitted to it, but won't disclose the location of where they're hid....I say do what has to be done in order to save the innocent instead of having them starve in some hole. Quote:
And I have to agree with your idea on treating them as POW's....how many past POW's have found safe haven in our court systems? In the United States, at the end of World War II there were 175 Branch Camps serving 511 Area Camps containing over 425,000 prisoners of war. The camps were located all over the US but were mostly in the South because of the expense of heating the barracks. Eventually, every state with the exception of Nevada, North Dakota, and Vermont had POW camps. List of POW camps in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems that the left wing can't decide whether these people's rights fall under the Geneva Convention or our own Constitution. I think this is where McCains stance is....these people SHOULD be treated as POW's and therefore have rights based on the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Also concerning the left wing....if I recall correctly during the New Hampshire debate, Clinton stated that torture should be reserved for Presidential discretion if there was imminant danger. Over 18,000,000 people apparently agreed.  Have a good one!
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 16:46
|
||||
|
||||
|
How will these gained rights protect them if they're guilty? I don't see how they can, so go on, someone tell me the worst thing that can happen, now they have the rights, plead the
5th? Well if you say McCain disapproved of Gitmo then i'll accept that.
__________________
PEACE 'Why should one be judged by the colour of their skin, instead of the qualities they show from deep within?' - Peter Tosh Quote:
http://boards.cannabis.com/recreatio...rger-then.html
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 19:35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Keep in mind that some of the people that are being held could have been released but their own governments don't want them back....what do we do with these people? Turn them into U.S. citizens because of the mistreatment that they'll receive when the plane lands in their home country? If their own country won't take them back I'd hate to think that they'd be cruising the streets here!
As for the rest...why should they have the rights of appeals courts, etc...that drags on cases for YEARS? Waste of taxpayer money on a person that hates our system to begin with. How many people are currently on our death rows dragging it out with appeal after appeal? Have a good one!
Last edited by Psycho4Bud; Jun-14-2008 at 19:36.
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 19:56
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This does nothing but hurt AMERICANS. Another well put post.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator. The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers. None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis. Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!! Check out my Mothering Log!!!
|
|
Jun-14-2008, 21:03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guys, we have innocent until proven guilty here, and I preferred if it stayed that way.
I'd rather let 1000 "terrorists" get away without punishment, than 100 innocent people rot there for life. It's not like those who get away won't get on all sorts of government watchlists anyways. AND the tribunals offered to US citizens were not due process. They were more like some communist law process. Many US citizens were stuck there without a fair trial too.
__________________
all posts under this user name are purely for role playing purposes
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
