IMMINENT: 17 Gitmo combatants about to be released

[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.

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.........

Nor is anyone arguing that they are, or should.

So....strawman.

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.

Except they're not POWs. Not only have we failed to *ever* recognize them as such or provide them any protection for POWs under the Geneva conventions, we've explicitly declared repeatedly and in open court that they are NOT prisoners of war. But instead, enemy combatants.

So your entire argument requires that we ignore they're declared legal status under US law, by the US government.

Um, no.

 

[eagle1462010]

List of released captives....................who returned to the fight.................Some were KILLED by U.S. forces back in Afghanistan upon their return.....................

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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.........

Nor is anyone arguing that they are, or should.

So....strawman.

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.

Except they're not POWs. Not only have we failed to *ever* recognize them as such or provide them any protection for POWs under the Geneva conventions, we've explicitly declared repeatedly and in open court that they are NOT prisoners of war. But instead, enemy combatants.

So your entire argument requires that we ignore they're declared legal status under US law, by the US government.

Um, no.

Your a Hypocrite..................No one is asking them to do as the caption mentions........but then you DEMAND A TRIAL and EVIDENCE for why they should be held.................How the HELL are you going to do that unless you turn our troops into Detectives?????? Which is exactly why they have no right to a trial........

Your final comments are Legal Splitting Hairs as I've already stated.....................

I repeat to not have to listen to Legal Eagles like yourself in the future..........TAKE NO PRISONERS.

 

[Skylar]

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................

I would apply our laws and values. Wiping our ass with both quite publicly mints more enemy combatants. Our enemies uses Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. As it demonstrates that we violate rights, that we ignore our own laws and values, that we lie.

Guantanamo is far more dangerous as a recruiting tool for the enemy that these men are.

Worse is the danger to our freedoms and our republic when the constitutional rights to habeus corpus can be turned 'off' in violation of the constitution merely by applying a label. That's a massive erosion of our freedoms and constitutional protections. And is far greater danger than these men are.

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..............

Says you. Under our laws they're enemy combatants. And NOT prisoners of war. If they're prisoners of war they have all sorts of rights that we've been denying them. So once again, you'd insist that we ignore our laws, the legal designation of these men, their rights, the USSC, everything....

.....and just do whatever we want to these men in violation of our laws and values.

That's a mind set that's *far* more dangerous to our people and our country than these men.

 

[eagle1462010]

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................

I would apply our laws and values. Wiping our ass with both quite publicly mints more enemy combatants. Our enemies uses Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. As it demonstrates that we violate rights, that we ignore our own laws and values, that we lie.

Guantanamo is far more dangerous as a recruiting tool for the enemy that these men are.

Worse is the danger to our freedoms and our republic when the constitutional rights to habeus corpus can be turned 'off' in violation of the constitution merely by applying a label. That's a massive erosion of our freedoms and constitutional protections. And is far greater danger than these men are.

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..............

Says you. Under our laws they're enemy combatants. And NOT prisoners of war. If they're prisoners of war they have all sorts of rights that we've been denying them. So once again, you'd insist that we ignore our laws, the legal designation of these men, their rights, the USSC, everything....

.....and just do whatever we want to these men in violation of our laws and values.

That's a mind set that's *far* more dangerous to our people and our country than these men.

BS................You release them and they kill again................Period...........and parents or wives of those they kill over there aren't gonna give a damn about your NOBLE INTENTIONS.....................

You let them go and they kill, I suggest you go to the fallen's families and tell them this BS on why your Noble Intentions got their father's, Husbands, and etc. killed...............I'm sure they'll HUG YOUR NOBLE INTENTIONS.

AGAIN...............TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD..............so we don't have to listen to Legal Eagles any more............

 

[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.

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.........

Nor is anyone arguing that they are, or should.

So....strawman.

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.

Except they're not POWs. Not only have we failed to *ever* recognize them as such or provide them any protection for POWs under the Geneva conventions, we've explicitly declared repeatedly and in open court that they are NOT prisoners of war. But instead, enemy combatants.

So your entire argument requires that we ignore they're declared legal status under US law, by the US government.

Um, no.

Your a Hypocrite..................

Yeah, I don't think hypocrite means what you think it means. As you're using it as generic pejorative.

No one is asking them to do as the caption mentions........but then you DEMAND A TRIAL and EVIDENCE for why they should be held.................How the HELL are you going to do that unless you turn our troops into Detectives?????? Which is exactly why they have no right to a trial........

I'm demanding that we apply our laws. We've already determined that these men are NOT prisoners of war, but enemy combatants. *You* say the are prisoners of war. The US government explicitly contradicts you. And in the status of these men under our law, the US government is authoritative. You aren't.

Since the AREN'T prisoners of war, then they have constitutional protections under our law. With the USSC recognizing these protections as applying to the prisoners at Guantanamo.

My position is simple: Apply the constitution. Done.

Your position is just as simple: fuck the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

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................

I would apply our laws and values. Wiping our ass with both quite publicly mints more enemy combatants. Our enemies uses Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. As it demonstrates that we violate rights, that we ignore our own laws and values, that we lie.

Guantanamo is far more dangerous as a recruiting tool for the enemy that these men are.

Worse is the danger to our freedoms and our republic when the constitutional rights to habeus corpus can be turned 'off' in violation of the constitution merely by applying a label. That's a massive erosion of our freedoms and constitutional protections. And is far greater danger than these men are.

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..............

Says you. Under our laws they're enemy combatants. And NOT prisoners of war. If they're prisoners of war they have all sorts of rights that we've been denying them. So once again, you'd insist that we ignore our laws, the legal designation of these men, their rights, the USSC, everything....

.....and just do whatever we want to these men in violation of our laws and values.

That's a mind set that's *far* more dangerous to our people and our country than these men.

BS................You release them and they kill again................Period...........and parents or wives of those they kill over there aren't gonna give a damn about your NOBLE INTENTIONS.....................

You let them go and they kill, I suggest you go to the fallen's families and tell them this BS on why your Noble Intentions got their father's, Husbands, and etc. killed...............I'm sure they'll HUG YOUR NOBLE INTENTIONS.

AGAIN...............TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD..............so we don't have to listen to Legal Eagles any more............

These aren't prisoners of war. The only one saying they are is you citing yourself.

The US government, the folks that captured them and jails them to this day says they're NOT prisoners of war.

You lose.

 

[rcfieldz]

Pray for Obama...n...

 

[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.........

Nor is anyone arguing that they are, or should.

So....strawman.

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.

Except they're not POWs. Not only have we failed to *ever* recognize them as such or provide them any protection for POWs under the Geneva conventions, we've explicitly declared repeatedly and in open court that they are NOT prisoners of war. But instead, enemy combatants.

So your entire argument requires that we ignore they're declared legal status under US law, by the US government.

Um, no.

Your a Hypocrite..................

Yeah, I don't think hypocrite means what you think it means. As you're using it as generic pejorative.

No one is asking them to do as the caption mentions........but then you DEMAND A TRIAL and EVIDENCE for why they should be held.................How the HELL are you going to do that unless you turn our troops into Detectives?????? Which is exactly why they have no right to a trial........

I'm demanding that we apply our laws. We've already determined that these men are NOT prisoners of war, but enemy combatants. *You* say the are prisoners of war. The US government explicitly contradicts you. And in the status of these men under our law, the US government is authoritative. You aren't.

Since the AREN'T prisoners of war, then they have constitutional protections under our law. With the USSC recognizing these protections as applying to the prisoners at Guantanamo.

My position is simple: Apply the constitution. Done.

Your position is just as simple: fuck the constitution.

Tell me the Americans being held at Gitmo???????
The Constitution should only apply to those..........

Give me the list please.................did they all become citizens there?

 

[eagle1462010]

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................

I would apply our laws and values. Wiping our ass with both quite publicly mints more enemy combatants. Our enemies uses Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. As it demonstrates that we violate rights, that we ignore our own laws and values, that we lie.

Guantanamo is far more dangerous as a recruiting tool for the enemy that these men are.

Worse is the danger to our freedoms and our republic when the constitutional rights to habeus corpus can be turned 'off' in violation of the constitution merely by applying a label. That's a massive erosion of our freedoms and constitutional protections. And is far greater danger than these men are.

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..............

Says you. Under our laws they're enemy combatants. And NOT prisoners of war. If they're prisoners of war they have all sorts of rights that we've been denying them. So once again, you'd insist that we ignore our laws, the legal designation of these men, their rights, the USSC, everything....

.....and just do whatever we want to these men in violation of our laws and values.

That's a mind set that's *far* more dangerous to our people and our country than these men.

BS................You release them and they kill again................Period...........and parents or wives of those they kill over there aren't gonna give a damn about your NOBLE INTENTIONS.....................

You let them go and they kill, I suggest you go to the fallen's families and tell them this BS on why your Noble Intentions got their father's, Husbands, and etc. killed...............I'm sure they'll HUG YOUR NOBLE INTENTIONS.

AGAIN...............TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD..............so we don't have to listen to Legal Eagles any more............

These aren't prisoners of war. The only one saying they are is you citing yourself.

The US government, the folks that captured them and jails them to this day says they're NOT prisoners of war.

You lose.

So designated as your side demanded trials in the United States for Non citizens....................SPLITTING HAIR ambulance chasers trying to find LOOP HOLES to free them...............

They were captured on the battlefield in a TIME OF WAR........................to me that is a POW..............no matter how you try to redefine it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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................

I would apply our laws and values. Wiping our ass with both quite publicly mints more enemy combatants. Our enemies uses Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. As it demonstrates that we violate rights, that we ignore our own laws and values, that we lie.

Guantanamo is far more dangerous as a recruiting tool for the enemy that these men are.

Worse is the danger to our freedoms and our republic when the constitutional rights to habeus corpus can be turned 'off' in violation of the constitution merely by applying a label. That's a massive erosion of our freedoms and constitutional protections. And is far greater danger than these men are.

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..............

Says you. Under our laws they're enemy combatants. And NOT prisoners of war. If they're prisoners of war they have all sorts of rights that we've been denying them. So once again, you'd insist that we ignore our laws, the legal designation of these men, their rights, the USSC, everything....

.....and just do whatever we want to these men in violation of our laws and values.

That's a mind set that's *far* more dangerous to our people and our country than these men.

BS................You release them and they kill again................Period...........and parents or wives of those they kill over there aren't gonna give a damn about your NOBLE INTENTIONS.....................

You let them go and they kill, I suggest you go to the fallen's families and tell them this BS on why your Noble Intentions got their father's, Husbands, and etc. killed...............I'm sure they'll HUG YOUR NOBLE INTENTIONS.

AGAIN...............TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD..............so we don't have to listen to Legal Eagles any more............

These aren't prisoners of war. The only one saying they are is you citing yourself.

The US government, the folks that captured them and jails them to this day says they're NOT prisoners of war.

You lose.

So designated as your side demanded trials in the United States for Non citizens....................SPLITTING HAIR ambulance chasers trying to find LOOP HOLES to free them...............

And who, other than you citing you, recognizes them as prisoners of war?

Remembering of course that you're nobody. And your personal opinion has no relevance to their status under the constitution or any law.

 

[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.

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.........

Nor is anyone arguing that they are, or should.

So....strawman.

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.

Except they're not POWs. Not only have we failed to *ever* recognize them as such or provide them any protection for POWs under the Geneva conventions, we've explicitly declared repeatedly and in open court that they are NOT prisoners of war. But instead, enemy combatants.

So your entire argument requires that we ignore they're declared legal status under US law, by the US government.

Um, no.

Your a Hypocrite..................

Yeah, I don't think hypocrite means what you think it means. As you're using it as generic pejorative.

No one is asking them to do as the caption mentions........but then you DEMAND A TRIAL and EVIDENCE for why they should be held.................How the HELL are you going to do that unless you turn our troops into Detectives?????? Which is exactly why they have no right to a trial........

I'm demanding that we apply our laws. We've already determined that these men are NOT prisoners of war, but enemy combatants. *You* say the are prisoners of war. The US government explicitly contradicts you. And in the status of these men under our law, the US government is authoritative. You aren't.

Since the AREN'T prisoners of war, then they have constitutional protections under our law. With the USSC recognizing these protections as applying to the prisoners at Guantanamo.

My position is simple: Apply the constitution. Done.

Your position is just as simple: fuck the constitution.

Tell me the Americans being held at Gitmo???????
The Constitution should only apply to those..........

The constitution applies to anyone in its jurisdiction. Which Guantanamo most certainly is.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf

Shows legislation in 2006 later challenged by SCOTUS as you referred..................Of course at that time everyone was screaming bloody murder over what happened at abu over there..........................

enemy combatants versus POW's..................splitting LEGAL HAIRS.................in a WAR.............

 

[Skylar]

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf

Shows legislation in 2006 later challenged by SCOTUS as you referred..................Of course at that time everyone was screaming bloody murder over what happened at abu over there..........................

enemy combatants versus POW's..................splitting LEGAL HAIRS.................in a WAR.............

The military doesn't recognize them as prisoners of war. Neither does the US government. Nor does it state anywhere in the law that you cited that the Guantanamo prisoners are prisoners of war? No US law does.

Who, other than you, citing yourself, recognizes the Guantanamo prisoners as 'prisoners of war'?

Its such a simple question. And it stumps you cold.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

I would apply our laws and values. Wiping our ass with both quite publicly mints more enemy combatants. Our enemies uses Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. As it demonstrates that we violate rights, that we ignore our own laws and values, that we lie.

Guantanamo is far more dangerous as a recruiting tool for the enemy that these men are.

Worse is the danger to our freedoms and our republic when the constitutional rights to habeus corpus can be turned 'off' in violation of the constitution merely by applying a label. That's a massive erosion of our freedoms and constitutional protections. And is far greater danger than these men are.

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..............

Says you. Under our laws they're enemy combatants. And NOT prisoners of war. If they're prisoners of war they have all sorts of rights that we've been denying them. So once again, you'd insist that we ignore our laws, the legal designation of these men, their rights, the USSC, everything....

.....and just do whatever we want to these men in violation of our laws and values.

That's a mind set that's *far* more dangerous to our people and our country than these men.

BS................You release them and they kill again................Period...........and parents or wives of those they kill over there aren't gonna give a damn about your NOBLE INTENTIONS.....................

You let them go and they kill, I suggest you go to the fallen's families and tell them this BS on why your Noble Intentions got their father's, Husbands, and etc. killed...............I'm sure they'll HUG YOUR NOBLE INTENTIONS.

AGAIN...............TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD..............so we don't have to listen to Legal Eagles any more............

These aren't prisoners of war. The only one saying they are is you citing yourself.

The US government, the folks that captured them and jails them to this day says they're NOT prisoners of war.

You lose.

So designated as your side demanded trials in the United States for Non citizens....................SPLITTING HAIR ambulance chasers trying to find LOOP HOLES to free them...............

And who, other than you citing you, recognizes them as prisoners of war?

Remembering of course that you're nobody. And your personal opinion has no relevance to their status under the constitution or any law.

I will continue to state my opinions..............I don't give a fuck about the legal mumbo jumbo on this one..........they were captured during a WAR..........on the battlefield......................to me they will always be POW's of a war irregardless of the DONUT EATING LAWYERS pushing this fight.......including SCOTUS............................forcing the ACT I just posted............

Either way............You want them released..........and they will KILL again..............possibly our troops on the battlefield...............SO NICE OF YOUR MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO KILL OUR TROOPS...................

So sorry.............it was the NOBLE thing to do to release these animals.............too bad you had to die for our decisions.

 

[Ravi]

Nice going Obama, you're the best player on their team.



Source: 'Al Qaeda followers' among 17 being transferred from Gitmo

The group of 17 detainees expected to be transferred out of Guantanamo Bay as early as this week includes “multiple bad guys” and “Al Qaeda followers,” a source who has reviewed the list told Fox News.

Little is known publicly about which prisoners are being prepared for transfer, but the Obama administration has notified Congress it plans to ship out 17 detainees – some of whom could be transferred within days.

While the identities of the men are closely held, the source who spoke with Fox News said it includes “multiple bad guys … not taxi drivers and cooks.”

This is a reference to the administration’s transfer of Ibrahim al Qosi to Sudan in 2012. Despite entering a “re-integration program,” the one-time cook for Usama bin Laden has now fled to Yemen, where he is among the leadership of Al Qaeda in Yemen. That transfer is now said to be a source of considerable heartburn for the Obama administration.

As for those on the docket for immediate transfer, the source told Fox News the administration will not identify the detainees until they are relocated in their new home countries -- because knowing who they are in advance would create further roadblocks and increase the controversy.

Multiple countries have agreed to take the men, in small groups, and the source said some of the countries were so-called first timers -- a reference to the fact those countries had not taken Guantanamo detainees in the past.

The move to clear out 17 detainees is seen as part of the administration’s long-term plan to ultimately shutter the detention camp.

The transfer of 17 prisoners would bring the number of detainees left down to 90 – the bulk of whom cannot be transferred to another country.

Many in Congress, though, fiercely oppose any plan to bring those detainees to the U.S.

President Obama in his year-end news conference justified the closure of the detention camp, claiming “Guantanamo continues to be one of the key magnets for jihadi recruitment.” But the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, which tracks jihadist propaganda, said that terrorist groups have moved on from using Guantanamo in their recruitment efforts.

“The topic of Guantanamo prisoners appeared rather frequently in Al-Qaeda's propaganda in past years,” MEMRI’s Eliot Zweig said. “However, the topic has received little to no attention in the last year or two ... Gitmo hasn’t received much attention in official ISIS releases.”

Source: 'Al Qaeda followers' among 17 being transferred from Gitmo | Fox News

Cool. They can legally own guns! Yay NRA!

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf

Shows legislation in 2006 later challenged by SCOTUS as you referred..................Of course at that time everyone was screaming bloody murder over what happened at abu over there..........................

enemy combatants versus POW's..................splitting LEGAL HAIRS.................in a WAR.............

The military doesn't recognize them as prisoners of war. Neither does the US government. Nor the US law.

Who, other than you, citing yourself, recognizes the Guantanamo prisoners as 'prisoners of war'?

Again, because of the Legal BS..........................enemies captured on the battlefield have always been prisoners of WAR..............until someone decided to change the danged name of what they are................

All to suppress people like you..............and the ACLU...................demanding trials with evidence from the battlefield...........LOL

Moronic at best.

 

[Skylar]

I would apply our laws and values. Wiping our ass with both quite publicly mints more enemy combatants. Our enemies uses Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. As it demonstrates that we violate rights, that we ignore our own laws and values, that we lie.

Guantanamo is far more dangerous as a recruiting tool for the enemy that these men are.

Worse is the danger to our freedoms and our republic when the constitutional rights to habeus corpus can be turned 'off' in violation of the constitution merely by applying a label. That's a massive erosion of our freedoms and constitutional protections. And is far greater danger than these men are.

Says you. Under our laws they're enemy combatants. And NOT prisoners of war. If they're prisoners of war they have all sorts of rights that we've been denying them. So once again, you'd insist that we ignore our laws, the legal designation of these men, their rights, the USSC, everything....

.....and just do whatever we want to these men in violation of our laws and values.

That's a mind set that's *far* more dangerous to our people and our country than these men.

BS................You release them and they kill again................Period...........and parents or wives of those they kill over there aren't gonna give a damn about your NOBLE INTENTIONS.....................

You let them go and they kill, I suggest you go to the fallen's families and tell them this BS on why your Noble Intentions got their father's, Husbands, and etc. killed...............I'm sure they'll HUG YOUR NOBLE INTENTIONS.

AGAIN...............TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD..............so we don't have to listen to Legal Eagles any more............

These aren't prisoners of war. The only one saying they are is you citing yourself.

The US government, the folks that captured them and jails them to this day says they're NOT prisoners of war.

You lose.

So designated as your side demanded trials in the United States for Non citizens....................SPLITTING HAIR ambulance chasers trying to find LOOP HOLES to free them...............

And who, other than you citing you, recognizes them as prisoners of war?

Remembering of course that you're nobody. And your personal opinion has no relevance to their status under the constitution or any law.

I will continue to state my opinions.............

Yeah, but your opinion have jack shit to do with the status of any prisoner. As our laws aren't based on your opinions. Nor is our constitution.

So, who other than you citing yourself recognizes these men are 'prisoners of war'?

Say it with me......"Nobody."

 

[eagle1462010]

BS................You release them and they kill again................Period...........and parents or wives of those they kill over there aren't gonna give a damn about your NOBLE INTENTIONS.....................

You let them go and they kill, I suggest you go to the fallen's families and tell them this BS on why your Noble Intentions got their father's, Husbands, and etc. killed...............I'm sure they'll HUG YOUR NOBLE INTENTIONS.

AGAIN...............TAKE NO MORE PRISONERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD..............so we don't have to listen to Legal Eagles any more............

These aren't prisoners of war. The only one saying they are is you citing yourself.

The US government, the folks that captured them and jails them to this day says they're NOT prisoners of war.

You lose.

So designated as your side demanded trials in the United States for Non citizens....................SPLITTING HAIR ambulance chasers trying to find LOOP HOLES to free them...............

And who, other than you citing you, recognizes them as prisoners of war?

Remembering of course that you're nobody. And your personal opinion has no relevance to their status under the constitution or any law.

I will continue to state my opinions.............

Yeah, but your opinion have jack shit to do with the status of any prisoner. As our laws aren't based on your opinions. Nor is our constitution.

So, who other than you citing yourself recognizes these men are 'prisoners of war'?

Say it with me......"Nobody."

I don't fucking care buddy...............You will get people killed by your DEMANDS..................and the rules were changed as was the name enemy combatants to put a damned pacifier in the mouth of people like you.........

Release them.................the blood of those they kill is on your hands................NOT MINE.

 

[Skylar]

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf

Shows legislation in 2006 later challenged by SCOTUS as you referred..................Of course at that time everyone was screaming bloody murder over what happened at abu over there..........................

enemy combatants versus POW's..................splitting LEGAL HAIRS.................in a WAR.............

The military doesn't recognize them as prisoners of war. Neither does the US government. Nor the US law.

Who, other than you, citing yourself, recognizes the Guantanamo prisoners as 'prisoners of war'?

Again, because of the Legal BS..........................enemies captured on the battlefield have always been prisoners of WAR..............until someone decided to change the danged name of what they are................

All to suppress people like you..............and the ACLU...................demanding trials with evidence from the battlefield...........LOL

Moronic at best.

Says you citing yourself. You may be willing to use you citing you as a basis to wipe your ass with the law, the constitution and our values.

But I'm not. As your personal opinion has no relevance to the status of these men. And you arbitrarily 'declaring' them prisoners of war has no more relevance than you 'declaring' them Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepsstakes winners.

And it certainly doesn't form any basis for their imprisonment for 10 YEARS with no charges or convictions.