It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ryan: House will block Obama’s Gitmo closing plan in court as well as in Congress

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Of course they are different. POWs had certain rights.

Gitmo victims have none.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Pows have rights as they are protected by being a signatory to the Geneva conventions.
Terrorist are not covered since they are not signatories.

However

They are receiving some of the same rights as pows.

I dont recall the powers from WWII filing complaints because their captured soldiers didn't get charged or a trial while being held.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I see the GOP is proving they don't care about the Constitution. As usual. But 'Murica!



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Xcathdra

Of course they are different. POWs had certain rights.

Gitmo victims have none.


If there are innocent victims in Guantanamo, I will be the first to stand by them.

The issue of American citizens being unwillingly expatriated and denied constitutional due process is very real and where we can all agree that such a policy is reprehensible.

However, enemy combatants captured on the field of battle out of uniform and with no clear national allegiance are a completely different story. I don't know if any particular inmate is guilty or innocent but, the idea that we should grant de facto citizenship and all of the commensurate rights associated is impossible.

POWs are conspicuously identifiable conscripts performing their duty.

We respect the soldiers of signatories of the convention only with the expectation of reciprocity, something which no reasonable person could assert is afforded our people.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TrueBrit

Pows have rights as they are protected by being a signatory to the Geneva conventions.
Terrorist are not covered since they are not signatories.

However

They are receiving some of the same rights as pows.

I dont recall the powers from WWII filing complaints because their captured soldiers didn't get charged or a trial while being held.


Except the CIA have picked innocent people by accident and tortured them!

Safeguards need putting in place to stop that hence due process and anto torture laws.

It's one thing to detain a known terrorist in active war zone but another to rendition someone travelling in Europe with no weapons or just cause because there name sounds like a wanted terrorist (which happend!).



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
All anyone needs to do is look at this,
Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, for any reason to close Gitmo.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I see the GOP is proving they don't care about the Constitution. As usual. But 'Murica!


Explain?

Obama signed the national defense authorization bills each year, and those bills included provisions that prevents prisoners from gitmo being transferred to the US.

Kind of difficult to argue congress doesnt care about the constitution when the president signed them into law.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
All anyone needs to do is look at this,
Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, for any reason to close Gitmo.


And force the CIA underground?




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, indeed. However you bought up the point of extraordinarily rendered persons, and there have been many, from your nation. I would also bring up the fact that some of my nations citizens have been caught up in this sort of thing before also.

Are we sure that everyone there ought to be? If not, the place needs closing, and things need reorganising, the red tape issues need cutting through, today, now, last week, and until there is an absolute assurance that everyone there needs to be, no such operation should ever be enacted again.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
However, enemy combatants captured on the field of battle out of uniform and with no clear national allegiance are a completely different story. I don't know if any particular inmate is guilty or innocent but, the idea that we should grant de facto citizenship and all of the commensurate rights associated is impossible.


I urge you to read about the Algerian Six. Six men of Bosnian descent born in Algeria and living in Bosnia were captured in Bosnia and sent to Guantanamo. Their case went all the way to the SCOTUS where it was decided "the detainees and other foreign nationals had the right to file habeas corpus suits in federal courts and were covered by habeas protections of the US constitution."

It's already been decided that these prisoners have specific judicial rights while under our control. It was decided over 7 years ago. Yet here we are, imprisoning people that we can't release because they're too dangerous but we can't prove they're too dangerous because they were tortured and no evidence of their guilt was kept.

They're not POW's because terrorists aren't recognized as such, they are civilians and are afforded specific rights. All foreigners have US constitutional rights while on US soil because of the 14th amendment, this was decided by the SCOTUS in 1896.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: links234

The military Commission Act of 2009, signed into law by Obama, addressed the SCOTUS ruling that dealt with the the military commission act of 2006 (Unconstitutional / Habeas Corpus denial). The 2009 act included the ability of people in gitmo to exercise that right within the military court system.

Also Habeas Corpus is not a criminal application but civil. It allows the procedural challenge to validity of detentions and nothing else and it is still up to the court to decide validity.

* - Military Commission Act of 2006 (ruled unconstitutional)
* - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (included the 2009 MCA
* - Military Commission act of 2009 (addressed SCOTUS ruling)
* - 28 U.S. Code § 2241 - Power to grant writ

Legal definition established by the court - Enemy Combatant

“ ‘Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”


Last I saw 5 of the 6 were released in 2009.

They are enemy combatants and not civilians. Under the Geneva conventions it defines what a civilian is. The moment a civilian engages in an action that is inconsistent with civilian status they lose the civilian protections. A scotus ruling in the 1940's established that a civilian engaging in military action was required, if captured, to face charges and a trial. The same ruling stated those actions would occur in the military judicial system and not civilian. The 2009 MCA also requires the cases to be heard in military courts.

I bring this up because people seem to fixate on something from the past that was later corrected.
edit on 27-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for that information. It still doesn't help the situation. We've got people in there we tortured and thus, can't try fairly. A lot of people were rounded up with little or no evidence of wrongdoing, just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully, those people are free now.

My comment was more towards the 'de facto citizenship' remark. The fact that the US government can just lock up anyone, anywhere at anytime without a trial or a charge is terrible. Guantanamo is the poster-child for those actions we took. It should be closed.

How long do we hold them for? The War on Terror is very ambiguous and could, essentially, never end. I don't understand how people defend keeping Guantanamo open, we tortured people there. Innocent people. For what? For in-actionable intelligence or getting answers that we wanted to hear rather than what the truth was? Guantanamo should be closed, send the prisoners to real prisons or send them to prison in their own countries.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

The law does not apply to US citizens and the courts reaffirmed that when they stated the same thing. Foreign nationals held at gitmo will get their day in military court as required by law / scotus rulings. As for how long we hold them I have to ask - was that same questioned asked during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The gulf wars? Secondly I dont remember the US demanding American prisoners be charged or released.

As for closing gitmo... We cant just drop these people off in another country. The country must be willing to accept them and as we see some of those countries dont want these people back. The law currently prohibits the transfer of detainees to US soil. I know there was talk about sending to the military prison in Ft. Leavenworth Kansas but until the prohibition is changed we are in a holding pattern.

As for torture that is a moral question that im not going to wade into.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Previous wars at least had a suitable ending, one side would win. There is no end in sight to our current conflict.

The law preventing the transfer of detainees was written, specifically, to prevent the closing to Guantanamo. Again, I think it's a bad idea. That place should be closed.

I'm not trying to argue with you, just so you know.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Of all the bs to take a stand on this is where the feckless rinos grow a pair. Guatamimo is like club med and half the Muslims have been released and went back to making bombs already, but you're so tough Paul Ryan.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Can't shut it down before Trump stuffs it full.



Haha
Do you have any idea what the current administration does with suspected terrorists? The current administration has shown the middle east and it's people are NOT even worth bringing in to interrogate. Easier to vaporize the whole family with a hellfire fired from 20,000 feet. Is that better than taking the suspected terrorist into custody? I don't agree with either side of this process. But you really need to gather all the facts before making half cocked comments fishing for stars from other Trump haters. Shame on you...



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980
Jay
e
You sure gave my little line more thought than I did. Here was a thread about a new Republican Speaker of the House vowing to block a Democrat president's plan to shut it down, just like they have vowed to block EVERYTHING he does. No news there.

So that was O's promise to do first thing when he got to office and here we are now almost 8 years later and has he done it yet? No, only talking about it. So we can see his resolve on the issue right there. Meanwhile the very possible new potus, a guy who is the darling of all things reactionary is promising to not only keep it open but to fill it to the brim.

My comment was meant to be ludicrous. I had a silly vision of all these detainees being told to pack up their bags and wait at the cell door only to be told hold up there move over and make room for three more.
The campaign promises of one juxtaposed with the campaign promises of another. And now look what you have done. Now I have to go back and see if I got any stars. Oh yeah, gotta get them stars alright.

edit. OK. I'm back. Six whole stars. I'm sooooo disappointed.


edit on 29America/ChicagoSat, 27 Feb 2016 18:16:02 -0600Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:16:02 -060016022016-02-27T18:16:02-06:00600000016 by TerryMcGuire because: OK. I'm back. Six whole stars. I'm sooooo disappointed.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join