Should we be force feeding gitmo prisoners?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We have enough to detain them, obviously.

Unless of course you think we're in the habit of imprisoning just any regular joe because we can.

"We" have nothing. The U.S. government has certain justifications, but the fact that it will not bring these people to trial or allow them to go on their way is unconstitutional.

You have no idea what evidence they had. But logic would dictate that they had enough evidence to send their ass to Gitmo!

The fact that they refuse to bring this "evidence" to trial would logically dictate that they either don't have any evidence, or the evidence is paltry.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

These are not "pretrial detainees," they are detainees who will never receive a trial which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Have they been to trial yet? And again, they are not protected under our Constitution. Our Constitution protects US citizens. Try going to Saudi Arabia and exercising your Constitution rights. Do you honestly think they will honor OUR Constitution?

It's painfully obvious you've never left Kansas (or whatever state you're from).

The term "pretrial detainees" rests on the assumption that there will be a trial in the future. These detainees will never receive a trial, thus they are not "pretrial detainees."

You're looking at the Constitution from the wrong perspective. None of us are "protected under our Constitution," but the United States government is limited by the Constitution. The Saudi Arabia quip is the same straw man argument Meathead came up with regarding the Czech Republican, and that I already effectively addressed.

That would be Ohio. Which is what it says right next to "Location." Also, I was recently in New Jersey, so yes, I have left Ohio.

Well Again, that phrase is really speaking about citizens not enemy combatants who in this case are not citizens. We can hold them clowns indefinitely and it's all legal per the National Defense Authorization Act.

The fact government is limited does protect us as does the Bill of Rights.

Try venturing to other nations and see how many of them recognize and honor your Constitutional rights.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"We" have nothing. The U.S. government has certain justifications, but the fact that it will not bring these people to trial or allow them to go on their way is unconstitutional.

You have no idea what evidence they had. But logic would dictate that they had enough evidence to send their ass to Gitmo!

The fact that they refuse to bring this "evidence" to trial would logically dictate that they either don't have any evidence, or the evidence is paltry.

So you suggest letting them go knowing the recidivism rate is almost 30 percent?

Would like them to be turned loose in Ohio?

Most of their home countries don't want them back. So what do you want to do with those that can't go back to their home countries?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Have they been to trial yet? And again, they are not protected under our Constitution. Our Constitution protects US citizens. Try going to Saudi Arabia and exercising your Constitution rights. Do you honestly think they will honor OUR Constitution?

It's painfully obvious you've never left Kansas (or whatever state you're from).

The term "pretrial detainees" rests on the assumption that there will be a trial in the future. These detainees will never receive a trial, thus they are not "pretrial detainees."

You're looking at the Constitution from the wrong perspective. None of us are "protected under our Constitution," but the United States government is limited by the Constitution. The Saudi Arabia quip is the same straw man argument Meathead came up with regarding the Czech Republican, and that I already effectively addressed.

That would be Ohio. Which is what it says right next to "Location." Also, I was recently in New Jersey, so yes, I have left Ohio.

Well Again, that phrase is really speaking about citizens not enemy combatants who in this case are not citizens. We can hold them clowns indefinitely and it's all legal per the National Defense Authorization Act.

The fact government is limited does protect us as does the Bill of Rights.

Try venturing to other nations and see how many of them recognize and honor your Constitutional rights.

What's the constitutional definition of an "enemy combatant?" As the Constitution doesn't recognize any such designation the NDAA is unconstitutional.

Yes, we're protected in the sense that the government is limited. However, non-citizens are also protected because our government is limited. The U.S. government doesn't suddenly get more power under the Constitution because it's dealing with non-citizens.

Repeating the straw man doesn't make it any more relevant than it was before.

 

[Dot Com]

U.N. officials: Force-feeding Guantanamo protesters violates international law | The Raw Story

I don't believe we should. I don't know the law on this but it seems wrong to me.

I also heard the interview w/ a Doctor on the radio saying that it violated International Law as well.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have no idea what evidence they had. But logic would dictate that they had enough evidence to send their ass to Gitmo!

The fact that they refuse to bring this "evidence" to trial would logically dictate that they either don't have any evidence, or the evidence is paltry.

So you suggest letting them go knowing the recidivism rate is almost 30 percent?

Would like them to be turned loose in Ohio?

Most of their home countries don't want them back. So what do you want to do with those that can't go back to their home countries?

I suggest letting the ones who cannot be charged with a crime go, yes. That's how the justice system works.

If there's no evidence they committed a crime I don't care where they go. The U.S., back to their home countries, some other country. What does it matter if they're guilty of nothing?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The term "pretrial detainees" rests on the assumption that there will be a trial in the future. These detainees will never receive a trial, thus they are not "pretrial detainees."

You're looking at the Constitution from the wrong perspective. None of us are "protected under our Constitution," but the United States government is limited by the Constitution. The Saudi Arabia quip is the same straw man argument Meathead came up with regarding the Czech Republican, and that I already effectively addressed.

That would be Ohio. Which is what it says right next to "Location." Also, I was recently in New Jersey, so yes, I have left Ohio.

Well Again, that phrase is really speaking about citizens not enemy combatants who in this case are not citizens. We can hold them clowns indefinitely and it's all legal per the National Defense Authorization Act.

The fact government is limited does protect us as does the Bill of Rights.

Try venturing to other nations and see how many of them recognize and honor your Constitutional rights.

What's the constitutional definition of an "enemy combatant?" As the Constitution doesn't recognize any such designation the NDAA is unconstitutional.

Yes, we're protected in the sense that the government is limited. However, non-citizens are also protected because our government is limited. The U.S. government doesn't suddenly get more power under the Constitution because it's dealing with non-citizens.

Repeating the straw man doesn't make it any more relevant than it was before.

The Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives.

The Constitution does not apply to any non-citizen outside our borders. So it can't have more power when it's never applied.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well Again, that phrase is really speaking about citizens not enemy combatants who in this case are not citizens. We can hold them clowns indefinitely and it's all legal per the National Defense Authorization Act.

The fact government is limited does protect us as does the Bill of Rights.

Try venturing to other nations and see how many of them recognize and honor your Constitutional rights.

What's the constitutional definition of an "enemy combatant?" As the Constitution doesn't recognize any such designation the NDAA is unconstitutional.

Yes, we're protected in the sense that the government is limited. However, non-citizens are also protected because our government is limited. The U.S. government doesn't suddenly get more power under the Constitution because it's dealing with non-citizens.

Repeating the straw man doesn't make it any more relevant than it was before.

The Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives.

The Constitution does not apply to any non-citizen outside our borders. So it can't have more power when it's never applied.

No, the Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives. It is, however, specific about every aspect of the U.S. government's power.

The Constitution always applies to the U.S. government, however. So, regardless of whether someone is a non-citizen outside U.S. borders or a citizen within the borders, the U.S. government is still given no power in the Constitution to treat them differently.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The fact that they refuse to bring this "evidence" to trial would logically dictate that they either don't have any evidence, or the evidence is paltry.

So you suggest letting them go knowing the recidivism rate is almost 30 percent?

Would like them to be turned loose in Ohio?

Most of their home countries don't want them back. So what do you want to do with those that can't go back to their home countries?

I suggest letting the ones who cannot be charged with a crime go, yes. That's how the justice system works.

If there's no evidence they committed a crime I don't care where they go. The U.S., back to their home countries, some other country. What does it matter if they're guilty of nothing?

I'll make sure the powers that be knows that they have your blessing to send them to Ohio.

 

[Mertex]

Personoally I could care if every dirtbag in Gitmo died today.

If they don't want to eat then let em starve.

No skin off my ass.

how many have been cleared by all the entities involved and they wanted to send them home.

The republicans wont let it happen.

why?

Because Republicans are the party that call this nation a Christian nation, then prove that they are not by supporting the most anti-Christian actions possible.

It doesn't matter whether some of these detainees are innocent of a crime, they are Muslims and as far as Republicans are concerned they deserve to be dead. That is, unless they live in Iraq and due to Bush's biggest mistake ever (to invade Iraq), they (Republicans) are perfectly comfortable with us helping those Muslims create a Democracy, they are willing to sacrifice our own soldiers in order to do it. Go figure.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What's the constitutional definition of an "enemy combatant?" As the Constitution doesn't recognize any such designation the NDAA is unconstitutional.

Yes, we're protected in the sense that the government is limited. However, non-citizens are also protected because our government is limited. The U.S. government doesn't suddenly get more power under the Constitution because it's dealing with non-citizens.

Repeating the straw man doesn't make it any more relevant than it was before.

The Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives.

The Constitution does not apply to any non-citizen outside our borders. So it can't have more power when it's never applied.

No, the Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives. It is, however, specific about every aspect of the U.S. government's power.

The Constitution always applies to the U.S. government, however. So, regardless of whether someone is a non-citizen outside U.S. borders or a citizen within the borders, the U.S. government is still given no power in the Constitution to treat them differently.

Look travel the world for a while exercise whatever right you think you have and get back to me in about ten years. I'd suggest going to Saudi Arabia first and try exercising your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendment rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you suggest letting them go knowing the recidivism rate is almost 30 percent?

Would like them to be turned loose in Ohio?

Most of their home countries don't want them back. So what do you want to do with those that can't go back to their home countries?

I suggest letting the ones who cannot be charged with a crime go, yes. That's how the justice system works.

If there's no evidence they committed a crime I don't care where they go. The U.S., back to their home countries, some other country. What does it matter if they're guilty of nothing?

I'll make sure the powers that be knows that they have your blessing to send them to Ohio.

The powers that be should not be sending people convicted of no crimes anywhere.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives.

The Constitution does not apply to any non-citizen outside our borders. So it can't have more power when it's never applied.

No, the Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives. It is, however, specific about every aspect of the U.S. government's power.

The Constitution always applies to the U.S. government, however. So, regardless of whether someone is a non-citizen outside U.S. borders or a citizen within the borders, the U.S. government is still given no power in the Constitution to treat them differently.

Look travel the world for a while exercise whatever right you think you have and get back to me in about ten years. I'd suggest going to Saudi Arabia first and try exercising your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendment rights.

As this has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread, or anywhere else, and has, in fact, been debunked by me on three separate occasions in this very thread, I have to assume that you continually return to this straw man because you find yourself unable to respond to my actual position.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I suggest letting the ones who cannot be charged with a crime go, yes. That's how the justice system works.

If there's no evidence they committed a crime I don't care where they go. The U.S., back to their home countries, some other country. What does it matter if they're guilty of nothing?

I'll make sure the powers that be knows that they have your blessing to send them to Ohio.

The powers that be should not be sending people convicted of no crimes anywhere.

Now you want to leave them there!

Damn make up your mind!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, the Constitution is not specific about every little aspect of our lives. It is, however, specific about every aspect of the U.S. government's power.

The Constitution always applies to the U.S. government, however. So, regardless of whether someone is a non-citizen outside U.S. borders or a citizen within the borders, the U.S. government is still given no power in the Constitution to treat them differently.

Look travel the world for a while exercise whatever right you think you have and get back to me in about ten years. I'd suggest going to Saudi Arabia first and try exercising your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendment rights.

As this has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread, or anywhere else, and has, in fact, been debunked by me on three separate occasions in this very thread, I have to assume that you continually return to this straw man because you find yourself unable to respond to my actual position.

It has everything to do with you spouting off about Constitutional rights as if they were universal and everybody and their momma has them. Go try exercising them in any Middle Eastern country.

 

[Circe]

[
Because Republicans are the party that call this nation a Christian nation, then prove that they are not by supporting the most anti-Christian actions possible.

It doesn't matter whether some of these detainees are innocent of a crime, they are Muslims and as far as Republicans are concerned they deserve to be dead.

NONE of that is anti-Christian, be sure.

Ask a Crusader.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

U.N. officials: Force-feeding Guantanamo protesters violates international law | The Raw Story

I don't believe we should. I don't know the law on this but it seems wrong to me.

It is ethically challenged to force feed them according to certain "ethical" standards.

I am of mixed mind on that one.

On the one hand, if it chaps their asses to be force fed when they wish to starve themselves to death, I am fine with the idea of cramming feeding tubes down their fucking throats.

On the other hand, if force feeding them prevents them from dying, I am opposed to force feeding them.

Generally speaking, I guess it boils down to a hearty "fuck them."

 

[Circe]

The U.S. government has certain justifications, but the fact that it will not bring these people to trial or allow them to go on their way is unconstitutional.

No, the policy and practice has very carefully avoided being unconstitutional: that's why they are in Cuba.

It works. Let's keep it.

 

[Circe]

U.N. officials: Force-feeding Guantanamo protesters violates international law | The Raw Story

I don't believe we should. I don't know the law on this but it seems wrong to me.

It is ethically challenged to force feed them according to certain "ethical" standards.

I am of mixed mind on that one.

On the one hand, if it chaps their asses to be force fed when they wish to starve themselves to death, I am fine with the idea of cramming feeding tubes down their fucking throats.

On the other hand, if force feeding them prevents them from dying, I am opposed to force feeding them.

Generally speaking, I guess it boils down to a hearty "fuck them."

I'm opposed to torture, and also it would be better for us all if they were dead, so I am opposed to force-feeding. Several might die, which would be good, and they'd stop trying to get world attention and power this way, which would be VERY good, and there wouldn't be any torture.

So no force-feeding, is my opinion. But that's not what's happening, of course. Whatever is stupidest, that's what the government runs as fast as it can to do. They just sent down 40 more medics, I read today. [Sigh]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll make sure the powers that be knows that they have your blessing to send them to Ohio.

The powers that be should not be sending people convicted of no crimes anywhere.

Now you want to leave them there!

Damn make up your mind!

Nonsense. I said they shouldn't be sent anywhere. Meaning that they should be free to go wherever they want.