Obama About to Open His Piehole Regarding Guantanamo Bay

[Skylar]

Gee - I wonder what "Pearls of Wisdom" will come out of that ignorant mouth during his presser on the topic this morning.

Letting more terrorists run amock, free as birds would be my guess.

Jump onboard Libs - there's plenty of Muslim dick to go around for ya...

Holding people for the rest of their lives in a place like that is nothing but torture. If they are guilty, put them on trial. If they are a threat that they can't be returned to a country, kill them. All Guantanamo bay has served is to be a black eye on the U.S. It has served no other purpose.

Wrong...it has kept these murderers locked up and kept them from murdering more innocent people......job well done....

If they are murderers, try and convict them of murder.

 

[charwin95]

And here's another racist asshole who is always on meth with hi octane gasoline.

I eagerly await the day when some Liberal white sissy boy, probably like you, calls me a racist to my face. That will be the last time that idiot tries that trick.

That was directed to Dannyboys shit head.

 

[TooTall]

Torture?? Who the hell are you kidding pal.

They get the food the want. They pray when they want and basically have it way better than they had in the shithole they came from. In fact they are told if they are captured they will be treated well.

Its the Gitmo day care and babysitting facility.

I wasn't aware that daycare involved indefinite imprisonment without charges or trial.

There are a lot of things you are not aware of. They are POW's and should be released at the cessation of armed hostilities

They're not POWs. Surely you are aware of that.

I am aware of the fact that they are POW's. What do you call them?

Except that they're not. The US government has never recognized them as POWs, but instead has actively argued that they are not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be afforded an entire basket of rights that we've agreed to under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they've never been afforded those rights. Nor have our courts ever recognized them as POWs.

Surely you're aware of that. If not, why not?

This is the law of the land as defined by the Supreme Court.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

 

[Skylar]

I wasn't aware that daycare involved indefinite imprisonment without charges or trial.

There are a lot of things you are not aware of. They are POW's and should be released at the cessation of armed hostilities

They're not POWs. Surely you are aware of that.

I am aware of the fact that they are POW's. What do you call them?

Except that they're not. The US government has never recognized them as POWs, but instead has actively argued that they are not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be afforded an entire basket of rights that we've agreed to under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they've never been afforded those rights. Nor have our courts ever recognized them as POWs.

Surely you're aware of that. If not, why not?

affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

 

[TooTall]

There are a lot of things you are not aware of. They are POW's and should be released at the cessation of armed hostilities

They're not POWs. Surely you are aware of that.

I am aware of the fact that they are POW's. What do you call them?

Except that they're not. The US government has never recognized them as POWs, but instead has actively argued that they are not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be afforded an entire basket of rights that we've agreed to under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they've never been afforded those rights. Nor have our courts ever recognized them as POWs.

Surely you're aware of that. If not, why not?

affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

This leaves the release or continued detention of any and all detainees of any nationality up to the DOD, and not to Obama.

 

[Skylar]

They're not POWs. Surely you are aware of that.

I am aware of the fact that they are POW's. What do you call them?

Except that they're not. The US government has never recognized them as POWs, but instead has actively argued that they are not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be afforded an entire basket of rights that we've agreed to under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they've never been afforded those rights. Nor have our courts ever recognized them as POWs.

Surely you're aware of that. If not, why not?

affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

This leaves the release or continued detention of any and all detainees of any nationality up to the DOD, and not to Obama.

So to be clear, you recognize that they are not POWs. And have never been recognized as such.

Yes? You seem to be avoiding this cartoon simple question like it were on fire.

When we've established this simple fact, lets move on to Boumediene v. Bush

 

[TooTall]

I am aware of the fact that they are POW's. What do you call them?

Except that they're not. The US government has never recognized them as POWs, but instead has actively argued that they are not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be afforded an entire basket of rights that we've agreed to under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they've never been afforded those rights. Nor have our courts ever recognized them as POWs.

Surely you're aware of that. If not, why not?

affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

This leaves the release or continued detention of any and all detainees of any nationality up to the DOD, and not to Obama.

So to be clear, you recognize that they are not POWs. And have never been recognized as such.

Yes? You seem to be avoiding this cartoon simple question like it were on fire.

The term POW is not used, but that is exactly what an enemy combatant that is captured on the battlefield is. According to Sandra Day O'Conner's SC opinion.

. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

 

[dannyboys]

As usual Obama doesn't have any legal authority to do fuck all/How many of his 'Executive Orders' have been struck down in the courts? Oh Ya Obama is a fucking genius at Constitutional law.
He fucked himself and his 'legacy' forever appointing another LIB SCJ.
He can't close Gitmo without the consent of the REP controlled Congress.
Fucking First AA negro president indeed!

 

[TooTall]

I am aware of the fact that they are POW's. What do you call them?

Except that they're not. The US government has never recognized them as POWs, but instead has actively argued that they are not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be afforded an entire basket of rights that we've agreed to under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they've never been afforded those rights. Nor have our courts ever recognized them as POWs.

Surely you're aware of that. If not, why not?

affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

This leaves the release or continued detention of any and all detainees of any nationality up to the DOD, and not to Obama.

So to be clear, you recognize that they are not POWs. And have never been recognized as such.

Yes? You seem to be avoiding this cartoon simple question like it were on fire.

When we've established this simple fact, lets move on to Boumediene v. Bush

 

[Skylar]

Except that they're not. The US government has never recognized them as POWs, but instead has actively argued that they are not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be afforded an entire basket of rights that we've agreed to under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they've never been afforded those rights. Nor have our courts ever recognized them as POWs.

Surely you're aware of that. If not, why not?

affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

This leaves the release or continued detention of any and all detainees of any nationality up to the DOD, and not to Obama.

So to be clear, you recognize that they are not POWs. And have never been recognized as such.

Yes? You seem to be avoiding this cartoon simple question like it were on fire.

The term POW is not used, but that is exactly what an enemy combatant that is captured on the battlefield is. According to Sandra Day O'Conner's SC opinion.

Prisoner of War is a very specific designation that brings with it all sorts of obligations and rights. The lack of such a designation means that none of the prisoners are protected under the Geneva Conventions. With the US government actively arguing, in court, that the prisoners are NOT Prisoners of War.

And if you believe that Sandra Day O'Conner recognized anyone at Guantanamo as a Prisoner of War, please quote her finding as much.

The term is never once used in the quotation you offered.

. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

That's not a Prisoner of War. O'Conner quotes to awkward lengths to avoid using that term. As it carries with it tremendous legal baggage.

Go through her entire ruling. You won't find her *once* refer to any detainee at Guantanamo as a 'Prisoner of War'.

 

[TooTall]

affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) triggered the laws of war with respect to combat operations against the Taliban government and members of al-Qaeda who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. She wrote that the AUMF authorized the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" when captured in a zone of active combat operations. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

This leaves the release or continued detention of any and all detainees of any nationality up to the DOD, and not to Obama.

So to be clear, you recognize that they are not POWs. And have never been recognized as such.

Yes? You seem to be avoiding this cartoon simple question like it were on fire.

The term POW is not used, but that is exactly what an enemy combatant that is captured on the battlefield is. According to Sandra Day O'Conner's SC opinion.

Prisoner of War is a very specific designation that brings with it all sorts of obligations and rights. The lack of such a designation means that none of the prisoners are protected under the Geneva Conventions. With the US government actively arguing, in court, that the prisoners are NOT Prisoners of War.

And if you believe that Sandra Day O'Conner recognized anyone at Guantanamo as a Prisoner of War, please quote her finding as much.

The term is never once used in the quotation you offered.

. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

That's not a Prisoner of War. O'Conner quotes to awkward lengths to avoid using that term. As it carries with it tremendous legal baggage.

Go through her entire ruling. You won't find her *once* refer to any detainee at Guantanamo as a 'Prisoner of War'.

What do you call an enemy combatant that is captured engaging in armed conflict during a war against the United States?
The only reason the term POW is not used is because there was not formal declaration of war by the Congress. I will continue to call them POW's, even if that pisses you off.

 

[Skylar]

So you acknowledge that they are not POWs?

And of course, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo at present are US citizens. In its history, only one ever was. And was repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality of the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the United States government to detain the enemy for the duration of the conflict and suggested that the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to those under Army Regulation190-8 to determine whether a detainee merits continued detention as an enemy combatant."

This leaves the release or continued detention of any and all detainees of any nationality up to the DOD, and not to Obama.

So to be clear, you recognize that they are not POWs. And have never been recognized as such.

Yes? You seem to be avoiding this cartoon simple question like it were on fire.

The term POW is not used, but that is exactly what an enemy combatant that is captured on the battlefield is. According to Sandra Day O'Conner's SC opinion.

Prisoner of War is a very specific designation that brings with it all sorts of obligations and rights. The lack of such a designation means that none of the prisoners are protected under the Geneva Conventions. With the US government actively arguing, in court, that the prisoners are NOT Prisoners of War.

And if you believe that Sandra Day O'Conner recognized anyone at Guantanamo as a Prisoner of War, please quote her finding as much.

The term is never once used in the quotation you offered.

. "[D]etention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," she wrote, "is a fundamental incident of waging war..."

That's not a Prisoner of War. O'Conner quotes to awkward lengths to avoid using that term. As it carries with it tremendous legal baggage.

Go through her entire ruling. You won't find her *once* refer to any detainee at Guantanamo as a 'Prisoner of War'.

What do you call an enemy combatant that is captured engaging in armed conflict during a war against the United States?

An enemy combatant. But not a Prisoner of War.

The only reason the term POW is not used is because there was not formal declaration of war by the Congress. I will continue to call them POW's, even if that pisses you off.

More accurately, if a POW was declared, we'd have to grant them all the rights of POW's stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. And we didn't want to do that.

O'Connor avoided the use of the term Prisoner of War as if it were on fire. Because legally, it is. At least for what the US is doing.