Ten years is up.....time to release everyone from Gitmo

[California Girl]

Our own Supreme Court ruled they are covered by our Constitution. Twit

Prepare yourself for a shock. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about our Supreme Court's rulings. They do not live by our Constitution. Fact.

We are talking about people in US custody. Twit

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

 

[dblack]

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

By what 'right' are we holding them. Are you holding to the assertion that we are 'at war'?

 

[NoNukes]

It's time to do something, this legal limbo we hold these men in is an affront to justice. As it stands it seems the plan is to hold them until they die of old age, shouldn't take any more than 40 years or so.

40 years works for me with these terrorists.

First you have to prove they are terrorists.

 

[rightwinger]

Prepare yourself for a shock. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about our Supreme Court's rulings. They do not live by our Constitution. Fact.

We are talking about people in US custody. Twit

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

Try to keep up twit

We took these people from Afghanistan and have been holding them in custody for ten years without charges, without enabling them to see the evidence against them, without the right to face their accuser
Basic rights under our Constitution. Our Supreme Court has declared they are protected by our Constitution

It is long overdue to either try them or release them. That is the American way

 

[California Girl]

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

By what 'right' are we holding them. Are you holding to the assertion that we are 'at war'?

Whether people want to admit it or not, yea, we are. Or are you telling me that there are not terrorists planning attacks on the US, its interests and its allies around the world? If that's your view, then I feel sorry for you. Truly, I do. That we have not been hit since 9-11 is down to our security services, and some dumb luck. When it comes down to it, it is either them or us, and I'm of the opinion that I'd rather it was them. But I care about my fellow Americans.

 

[mudwhistle]

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

By what 'right' are we holding them. Are you holding to the assertion that we are 'at war'?

Uh....yeah!!!

A war they declared on us.

We don't have to have Congress to declare a war to take POWs.

Once hostilities subside they can go home. Until then they can just keep getting fat on 4 squares a day and work on their tans.

 

[NoNukes]

Prepare yourself for a shock. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about our Supreme Court's rulings. They do not live by our Constitution. Fact.

We are talking about people in US custody. Twit

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

Do you not get tired of the term partisan hackery?

 

[NoNukes]

We are talking about people in US custody. Twit

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

Try to keep up twit

We took these people from Afghanistan and have been holding them in custody for ten years without charges, without enabling them to see the evidence against them, without the right to face their accuser
Basic rights under our Constitution. Our Supreme Court has declared they are protected by our Constitution

It is long overdue to either try them or release them. That is the American way

That is what the American way ONCE was.

 

[dblack]

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

By what 'right' are we holding them. Are you holding to the assertion that we are 'at war'?

Whether people want to admit it or not, yea, we are.

Fair enough, if you assume it's a war, then it makes sense that we are holding them. The question then becomes, is it a real war?

Or are you telling me that there are not terrorists planning attacks on the US, its interests and its allies around the world? If that's your view, then I feel sorry for you. Truly, I do. That we have not been hit since 9-11 is down to our security services, and some dumb luck. When it comes down to it, it is either them or us, and I'm of the opinion that I'd rather it was them. But I care about my fellow Americans.

I'm questioning the notion that simply because someone hates our country and wants to do us harm, that we are 'at war'. By that definition, I think it's safe to say the we have always been and war and always will be.

As I mentioned earlier, if we're in a real war, we should be willing to suspend our constitutional freedoms and grant the government ALL the power it needs to win the war. But if we are saying that we're always going to be at war, then you're accepting perpetually unlimited government power. And that leads me to seriously question the original premise.

If you're saying it's a war, you really need to answer the following questions to be taken seriously:

Who are we fighting? Where are they? How can we force them to surrender?

How are they threatening our national sovereignty? How do you see them defeating us?

 

[Article 15]

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

By what 'right' are we holding them. Are you holding to the assertion that we are 'at war'?

Whether people want to admit it or not, yea, we are. Or are you telling me that there are not terrorists planning attacks on the US, its interests and its allies around the world? If that's your view, then I feel sorry for you. Truly, I do. That we have not been hit since 9-11 is down to our security services, and some dumb luck. When it comes down to it, it is either them or us, and I'm of the opinion that I'd rather it was them. But I care about my fellow Americans.

So in your view, so long as there are terrorists somewhere in the world who wish to do us harm then we are at war.

Horray for perpetual war!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We are a nation of laws. One of our most cherished documents is the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, right to see the evidence against you and right to face your accuser

We, as a nation have done none of that and hold men who are "suspected" of being terrorists in indefinite detention. Isn't it time to put up or shut up and either try or release these men?

It's fairly well established the bill of rights does not apply to enemy combatants. You need to pay a little closer attention to the events of the last, oh, decade or so?

 

[Clementine]

We are a nation of laws. One of our most cherished documents is the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, right to see the evidence against you and right to face your accuser

We, as a nation have done none of that and hold men who are "suspected" of being terrorists in indefinite detention. Isn't it time to put up or shut up and either try or release these men?

How soon some forget that military tribunals would have been held nearly a decade ago had it not been for the liberal lawyers, many from Holder's firm, stepping in to delay the tribunals in an effort to get the U.S. courts involved instead of the military. They delayed things and they can take credit for the fact that none of the GITMO prisoners received a speedy trial.

Our laws should cover those on our soil, but these prisoners were captured in other countries, many being involved in the war at the time of their arrest. Since when do the right afforded us by our constitution reach around the world?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We are talking about people in US custody. Twit

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

Try to keep up twit

We took these people from Afghanistan and have been holding them in custody for ten years without charges, without enabling them to see the evidence against them, without the right to face their accuser
Basic rights under our Constitution. Our Supreme Court has declared they are protected by our Constitution

It is long overdue to either try them or release them. That is the American way

I say release them in NYC.. complete with a ten pack of tokens.

 

[Crackerjack]

I say release them in NYC.. complete with a ten pack of tokens.

Don't they have enough cab drivers up there now?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We are a nation of laws. One of our most cherished documents is the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, right to see the evidence against you and right to face your accuser

We, as a nation have done none of that and hold men who are "suspected" of being terrorists in indefinite detention. Isn't it time to put up or shut up and either try or release these men?

How soon some forget that military tribunals would have been held nearly a decade ago had it not been for the liberal lawyers, many from Holder's firm, stepping in to delay the tribunals in an effort to get the U.S. courts involved instead of the military. They delayed things and they can take credit for the fact that none of the GITMO prisoners received a speedy trial.

Our laws should cover those on our soil, but these prisoners were captured in other countries, many being involved in the war at the time of their arrest. Since when do the right afforded us by our constitution reach around the world?

They don't.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I say release them in NYC.. complete with a ten pack of tokens.

Don't they have enough cab drivers up there now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's fairly well established the bill of rights does not apply to enemy combatants. You need to pay a little closer attention to the events of the last, oh, decade or so?

It's not 'established' at all.

And you need to read the entire thread and research Supreme Court decisions:

The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay.

Boumediene v. Bush | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Since when do the right afforded us by our constitution reach around the world?

They don't, no one said they did. The Constitution applies to those held in American jurisdiction, including Guantanamo Bay.

 

[rightwinger]

We are a nation of laws. One of our most cherished documents is the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, right to see the evidence against you and right to face your accuser

We, as a nation have done none of that and hold men who are "suspected" of being terrorists in indefinite detention. Isn't it time to put up or shut up and either try or release these men?

It's fairly well established the bill of rights does not apply to enemy combatants. You need to pay a little closer attention to the events of the last, oh, decade or so?

You need to pay a little closer attention to the law

Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This case ruled Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to full protection of our Constitution

 

[rightwinger]

So what? We are within our rights to hold them. If you would get past your partisan hackery and employ some logic, and a smattering of critical thought, you'd get the issues. Sadly, that is above your intellectual paygrade.

Try to keep up twit

We took these people from Afghanistan and have been holding them in custody for ten years without charges, without enabling them to see the evidence against them, without the right to face their accuser
Basic rights under our Constitution. Our Supreme Court has declared they are protected by our Constitution

It is long overdue to either try them or release them. That is the American way

I say release them in NYC.. complete with a ten pack of tokens.

I was thinking Crawford Texas

 

[mudwhistle]

By what 'right' are we holding them. Are you holding to the assertion that we are 'at war'?

Whether people want to admit it or not, yea, we are. Or are you telling me that there are not terrorists planning attacks on the US, its interests and its allies around the world? If that's your view, then I feel sorry for you. Truly, I do. That we have not been hit since 9-11 is down to our security services, and some dumb luck. When it comes down to it, it is either them or us, and I'm of the opinion that I'd rather it was them. But I care about my fellow Americans.

So in your view, so long as there are terrorists somewhere in the world who wish to do us harm then we are at war.

Horray for perpetual war!

Sucks doesn't it???

You act like this is all our fault.

Btw, looking on the White House site....Obama just gave an executive order which allows him to give weapons the South Sudan.

Afghanistan, bombing in Pakistan and Yemen, bombing in Libya, providing weapons in the Sudan......didn't he send ground troops there this Summer......who's the war-monger here really???