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.

 

Donald Trump ‘Fine’ With Prosecuting U.S. Citizens at Guantánamo

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Yes. Which is why I have zero problem with Guantanamo. Give them a shot in our legal system? Hell no, they are terrorists.


We're still responsible for Gitmo though. If it's up to us to open and close it then we're responsible for it just the same.




posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I think you mistook my use of the words "them" and "they" to portray a certain demographic.

You would be completely mistaken.

If someone, anyone has the intention to blow up, shoot up, attack anything in general, I really don't care to see them given the opportunity to face an established justice system. Especially one that can be manipulated due to errors in itself.

Terrorists do not deserve our justice system, and hell, even Guantanamo is being nice to them. Terrorists deserve eye for eye punishment plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blueracer

So it doesn't matter if it stays open as long as those in power say they want to close it? If those in power didn't close it, how can anyone complain about Trump when he's NOT in office? If Trump gets in, will people give him 8 years before judging him?



No. It doesn't matter because the people in there now can't change anything even if they did want to. Only the next person can. So for those who think it needs to be closed down, it's the next guy who's gonna have to do it.

If you just want to talk history or complain about something that doesn't do any good to complain about, then by all means talk about how Obama didn't shut it down.

But if you actually want to talk about shutting it down and changing things then you have to talk about the next one taking over.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Vector99
Yes. Which is why I have zero problem with Guantanamo. Give them a shot in our legal system? Hell no, they are terrorists.


We're still responsible for Gitmo though. If it's up to us to open and close it then we're responsible for it just the same.

And I'm completely fine with it's existence. Look at my last couple posts and you will see why.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Given that many, if not most of the people moved to Gitmo to begin with were innocent - it should be enough to give anyone pause about dealing in absolutism.

Exactly what I'm discussing here is exactly what happened there... Our State Department offered a bounty for "terrorists" and then warlords in Afghanistan and Pakistan used that as an opportunity to silence their rivals and those they didn't like. It was as easy as saying "Oh, well that guy is a terrorist. Take him. Now where's my money?"

Legal protections are in place to prevent such opportunistic abuses - removing such protections opens the door to abuse.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
And I'm completely fine with it's existence. Look at my last couple posts and you will see why.


In that case it sounds like Trump is exactly what you're looking for.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

You really think most of the people in Gitmo are innocent? If so I have a bridge to sell you.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Vector99
And I'm completely fine with it's existence. Look at my last couple posts and you will see why.


In that case it sounds like Trump is exactly what you're looking for.

Why? Because common sense and Trump go hand in hand?



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
That has nothing to do with the location of where it is carried out at. It has to do with the laws in place.


The location matters. If it's a place they can make an argument the Constitution doesn't apply to (such as a base on foreign soil), then the laws in place are different.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

That's the beauty of it, I don't have to think it. It's well documented. Information over emotion.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

The ironic thing is that people here pretend that they're against a police state & pretend they're pro-constitution. They even had major conspiracies about the govt using FEMA camps to lock up Americans without due process.

But the second those policies are actually being discussed against American Muslims, they support them. Suddenly it's ok to violate the constitutional rights of Americans, as long as it's the right kind of Americans being attacked.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose.

Socialists lauding the Constitution is a complete joke, too. Did you see Hillary pandering to Mormons the other day by applauding their reverence for the Constitution?

I threw up in my mouth a little.

I think it's obvious that partisan ideologues on both "sides" pick and choose the instances wherein the Constitution is important and when it isn't. Both are guilty.

Oh really? There's nothing in the US Constitution that says this has to be a capitalist country. However, it does mention "the general welfare" twice, including the "General Welfare Clause". So what are you using to back your argument?



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: Tardacus
I wonder how hillary feels about gitmo? I guess we could look and see how she voted on extending the patriot act.
what trump is proposing is already legal under the patriot act.

you can`t try terrorist in a civilian court for the simply reason that the means for gathering the evidence against them is classified and would never be divulged in a civilian court trial,resulting in the evidence being inadmissible.
She voted yes under Bush in 2001. In the period following 911.
In 2011 she wasn't in a position to vote .

I believe military courts are different. How is any case based on top secret information tried? That's a good question. I don't know.


They use lawyers and judges that have clearance. The problem is, these lawyers tend to be expensive, so even if you win the defendant is financially ruined. You're basically forced to pay for one of them. There also comes the issue that while your lawyer can see evidence against you, you can't see the evidence yourself so you never really get to face your accuser.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Trump says mean things about muslim terrorists so he is an "islamophobe" who hates muslims!

Meanwhile Obama and Hillary have murdered countless muslims and displaced millions more.




posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Vector99

That's the beauty of it, I don't have to think it. It's well documented. Information over emotion.

So one op ed by the ny daily news and you're sold?

Did you hear about when Obama traded 5 terrorists for a deserter? Those 5 terrorists also happened to be key individuals.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Kali74

The ironic thing is that people here pretend that they're against a police state & pretend they're pro-constitution. They even had major conspiracies about the govt using FEMA camps to lock up Americans without due process.

But the second those policies are actually being discussed against American Muslims, they support them. Suddenly it's ok to violate the constitutional rights of Americans, as long as it's the right kind of Americans being attacked.


The only people I have ever heard who feel the way you are specifying is the Obama administration. Obama signed off on being able to kill American citizens without any due process if they are considered enemy combatants, to which they very loosely applied it. But now because of all the hoopla surrounding "radicalized" Muslims your pushing it off on common citizens feeling this way? I don't think so.

Did you read the OP? Did you read the posts in this thread where some people are agreeing with Trump on this? Do you even realize what the legal process is in Gitmo and the multitude of ways that it would violate the rights of American citizens? You know that the Bush administration chose Guantanamo Bay, Cuba specifically because it's not on US soil, right? But why? That's what this thread and its implications are about.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the fake "pro-constitution", fake "America has the moral high ground", fake "we can't allow the federal govt to lock up American citizens in FEMA camps without due process" crowd.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Trump says mean things about muslim terrorists so he is an "islamophobe" who hates muslims!

Meanwhile Obama and Hillary have murdered countless muslims and displaced millions more.


If you knew anything about Gitmo, you'd know that the vast majority of people sent there were not terrorists. People sold for bounties, people were tortured there, people were "suicided" there, and even kids were sent there. Some were literally imprisoned for more than 10 years without ever being convicted of a crime. And so far, only 8 of the nearly 800 people sent there were actually found guilty. The Bush Admin alone released more than 500 prisoners from there.

But let's ignore all of that because Trump says it's ok to send American citizens there. Even though virtually every single step in the process in Gitmo violates the law of how to treat American citizens in detention and American suspects.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Dude, I'm agreeing with you for once, if you could see past the obligatory jab at socialism.

Take it easy.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All while lobbing authoritarian labels at us.

Every law and policy proposed/passed/implemented should be given a basic sniff test. Will I like xyz if wielded by officials I'm ideologically opposed to?

They're just deflecting. I like the sniff test idea, though I doubt they care how the laws affect us. I mean, I responded to someone a few days ago that was only against voter suppression if it affected them.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Dude, I'm agreeing with you for once, if you could see past the obligatory jab at socialism.

Take it easy.

LOL Sorry.

I'm in a thread where some posters are agreeing with sending US citizens to Gitmo. Of course I'm a bit on edge, especially since some people that I thought would be pro-constitutional rights seem to be arguing the opposite. It makes it hard to know who's who on this issue.

ETA: I think I'm a tad bit "triggered" lol. I fully expect Trump to be crushed in November, so this is all moot. But still, I'd rather nip it in the bud now before it festers into something more repulsive.
edit on 14-8-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Doesn't surprise me at all. Populists have always liked "camps".

But why is GITMO so important to you? Because it is on U.S. soil?
You do know that your Gov has torture-prisons all over the world, right?

Or is is it because soon the U.S. citizenry gets some first-hand-experience?
It was always clear that karma will catch up to you...







 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join