IMMINENT: 17 Gitmo combatants about to be released

[Muhammed]

OP is lying. They're not being "released".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are being sent to prisons so they can radicalize the Muslims.

 

[Claudette]

I am no fan of Pres Obama.

But I applaud him for freeing these innocent men who have never been charged with a crime or had a trial. ......

Actually, the entire situation was regretable...

Since they were caught on the battlefield (out of uniform), our troops should have just gone by the terms of the Geneva Conventions and summarily put a bullet in their heads...

Problem solved...

I agree. They should all be executed now, not released to go kill some more people.

Execute them all. End of problem.

 

[gipper]

Can't BO at least get an American traitor released for these terrorists?

 

[Katzndogz]

These men are so dangerous, obama won't identify them until they are back on the battlefield.

 

[rightwinger]

What crimes have they been convicted of?

 

[Katzndogz]

They are not criminals. They are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. It's not like they robbed a 7-11. Criminal jurisprudence is inapplicable.

 

[gipper]

These men are so dangerous, obama won't identify them until they are back on the battlefield.

There is a theory that some of these terrorists have been turned by American agents, and will spy for America, once they are back in their hellholes.

 

[Skylar]

It's a Legacy thing to Obama. He wants his Legacy to say see I closed Gitmo. He doesn't care the damage done by doing so.

Only the hard core remain, and they will return to fight and possibly kill Americans.....Obama is PATHETIC.

On what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one?

Let alone hold them for more than 10 years.

 

[Katzndogz]

These men are so dangerous, obama won't identify them until they are back on the battlefield.

There is a theory that some of these terrorists have been turned by American agents, and will spy for America, once they are back in their hellholes.

No one else has been turned. More than a third have gone back to fighting. If anything, obama has a side deal to let them in the US as refugees so they could do more serious damage.

 

[Skylar]

They are not criminals. They are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. It's not like they robbed a 7-11. Criminal jurisprudence is inapplicable.

Then apply military jurisprudence and try them in military court.

But they haven't been tried in ANY court, criminal, civil, or military. They haven't even been charged with a crime. By anyone.

And the Supreme Court already ruled that they have the right to petition habeaus corpus to federal court, and that Constitutional protections of habeas corpus run to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So.....charge them in the court of your choice and try them, or let them go. What we've done at Guantanamo is an *outrageous* violation of our own values and our own laws. You don't hold people for a DECADE with no charges or convictions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"IMMINENT: 17 Gitmo combatants about to be released"

The failure of GWB to secure sufficient evidence to charge them, put them on trial, and win a conviction.

Now, consistent with the right to due process and the rule of law, the detainees must be released because the government has no grounds to continue their detention, the consequence of the Bush administration's incompetence.

 

[eagle1462010]

It's a Legacy thing to Obama. He wants his Legacy to say see I closed Gitmo. He doesn't care the damage done by doing so.

Only the hard core remain, and they will return to fight and possibly kill Americans.....Obama is PATHETIC.

On what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one?

Let alone hold them for more than 10 years.

They are prisoners of War. A War against terrorism.

Are we still in a WAR against Terrorism???????? Please tell me when that War has ended and we can talk about their release.
Other than that, they deserve NO TRIAL, nor early release........they can rot there until the War on Terrorism ends........

Please post when that War is over.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Skylar]

It's a Legacy thing to Obama. He wants his Legacy to say see I closed Gitmo. He doesn't care the damage done by doing so.

Only the hard core remain, and they will return to fight and possibly kill Americans.....Obama is PATHETIC.

On what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one?

Let alone hold them for more than 10 years.

They are prisoners of War. A War against terrorism.

Then we've committed *flagrant* war crimes, denying them all of the rights of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. Worse, the US has denied that they are prisoner's of war. In open court. At least 3 times.

The most recent being in 2008 when arguing before the supreme court that they were enemy combatants outside the jurisdiction of US law. And thus weren't subject to constitutional guarantees.

The USSC shot that idea to shit, contradicting them on virtually every point. See Boumediene v. Bush.

So ask again, on what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one? Let alone for 10 years?

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Skylar]

Is that your way of telling me you can offer no explanation as to what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one? Let alone for 10 years?

I didn't think you could. But don't feel bad. No one can. As there is no such basis. We've flagrantly violated our own laws and our own values in Guantanamo.

 

[eagle1462010]

It's a Legacy thing to Obama. He wants his Legacy to say see I closed Gitmo. He doesn't care the damage done by doing so.

Only the hard core remain, and they will return to fight and possibly kill Americans.....Obama is PATHETIC.

On what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one?

Let alone hold them for more than 10 years.

They are prisoners of War. A War against terrorism.

Then we've committed *flagrant* war crimes, denying them all of the rights of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. Worse, the US has denied that they are prisoner's of war. In open court. At least 3 times.

The most recent being in 2008 when arguing before the supreme court that they were enemy combatants outside the jurisdiction of US law. And thus weren't subject to constitutional guarantees.

The USSC shot that idea to shit, contradicting them on virtually every point. See Boumediene v. Bush.

So ask again, on what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one? Let alone for 10 years?

I will look at the case, but they are NOT AMERICANS and do not qualify for the rights of the Constitution as POW's. Take a look at the cartoons I posted.............and try to get a drift that our MILITARY doesn't do danged crime scenes on the battlefield.......Only the worst ones are left there. Letting them go ensures they will go back and get back into the fight. I've shown articles about that as well........

You release them. You are letting the enemy of this country go free. They may very well kill Americans as a result............SO........when the WAR ends against Terror they may get to go...............

 

[eagle1462010]

Is that your way of telling me you can offer no explanation as to what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one? Let alone for 10 years?

I didn't think you could. But don't feel bad. No one can. As there is no such basis. We've flagrantly violated our own laws and our own values in Guantanamo.

Which part of the caption don't you understand? Hmmm. Our soldiers are not Detectives. They have time for Crime Scenes and collecting evidence on the battlefield.........they are there to Kill, or capture the enemy. Not read them their danged rights.........

Military version of reading them their rights...........put your hands up and do as I say or I will kill you............That is how it is on the battlefield..........

A Trial like we have here............People like you have taken too many of your meds................They deserve no trial as they are POW'S of a War..................we are under no obligation to give them a trial or let them go.

 

[Skylar]

It's a Legacy thing to Obama. He wants his Legacy to say see I closed Gitmo. He doesn't care the damage done by doing so.

Only the hard core remain, and they will return to fight and possibly kill Americans.....Obama is PATHETIC.

On what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one?

Let alone hold them for more than 10 years.

They are prisoners of War. A War against terrorism.

Then we've committed *flagrant* war crimes, denying them all of the rights of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. Worse, the US has denied that they are prisoner's of war. In open court. At least 3 times.

The most recent being in 2008 when arguing before the supreme court that they were enemy combatants outside the jurisdiction of US law. And thus weren't subject to constitutional guarantees.

The USSC shot that idea to shit, contradicting them on virtually every point. See Boumediene v. Bush.

So ask again, on what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one? Let alone for 10 years?

I will look at the case, but they are NOT AMERICANS and do not qualify for the rights of the Constitution as POW's.

Same problem as before. If they're POWs, then we've committed *flagrant* war crimes. As we've denied them all of their rights as prisoner's of war for 10 years under the geneva convention. Of which we're a signatory.

So that would make us war criminals.

Second, per the US government they're not POWs. The US government has repeatedly argued that they are enemy combatants and NOT prisoners of war. Meaning that we would have no basis to hold them as POWs.

Or enemy combatants. Or suspects of any crime. Or....at all.

You release them. You are letting the enemy of this country go free. They may very well kill Americans as a result............SO........when the WAR ends against Terror they may get to go...............

I apply our standards, laws and values. Which are of far greater value to us then these men are a danger.

What's dangerous....is turning the constitutional protections of habeus corpus on and off in violation of the constitution whenever we wish. And that's a danger I'm unwilling to subject us to any longer.

 

[eagle1462010]

It's a Legacy thing to Obama. He wants his Legacy to say see I closed Gitmo. He doesn't care the damage done by doing so.

Only the hard core remain, and they will return to fight and possibly kill Americans.....Obama is PATHETIC.

On what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one?

Let alone hold them for more than 10 years.

They are prisoners of War. A War against terrorism.

Then we've committed *flagrant* war crimes, denying them all of the rights of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. Worse, the US has denied that they are prisoner's of war. In open court. At least 3 times.

The most recent being in 2008 when arguing before the supreme court that they were enemy combatants outside the jurisdiction of US law. And thus weren't subject to constitutional guarantees.

The USSC shot that idea to shit, contradicting them on virtually every point. See Boumediene v. Bush.

So ask again, on what basis would we hold people that have been convicted of no crime, nor even charged with one? Let alone for 10 years?

I will look at the case, but they are NOT AMERICANS and do not qualify for the rights of the Constitution as POW's.

Same problem as before. If they're POWs, then we've committed *flagrant* war crimes. As we've denied them all of their rights as prisoner's of war for 10 years under the geneva convention. Of which we're a signatory.

So that would make us war criminals.

Second, per the US government they're not POWs. The US government has repeatedly argued that they are enemy combatants and NOT prisoners of war. Meaning that we would have no basis to hold them as POWs.

Or enemy combatants. Or suspects of any crime. Or....at all.

You release them. You are letting the enemy of this country go free. They may very well kill Americans as a result............SO........when the WAR ends against Terror they may get to go...............

I apply our standards, laws and values. Which are of far greater value to us then these men are a danger.

What's dangerous....is turning the constitutional protections of habeus corpus on and off in violation of the constitution whenever we wish. And that's a danger I'm unwilling to subject us to any longer.

People like you would release them and they would kill again.............................and that blood would be on your hands................

enemy combatants..............bunch of Lawyer HOG WASH.........They were captured on the battlefield.............in a War...........and Lawyer SPLIT HAIRS on it trying to find Legal LOOP HOLES TO RELEASE EVENTUAL TERRORISTS..............

I've shown that 30% of the ones already released have returned to fight...........

BEST way to deal with this in the future is TO TAKE NO PRISONERS................You can read your habeus corpus to their corpses.....................

YOU RELEASE THEM THEY WILL KILL...........PERIOD..................and you damned well know it..............