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.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: DieGloke
They WERE quickly sorted out, there are no Farmers that were erroneously detained still there, there haven't been since about 2004. I have personally seen the evidence on the detainees that were there in 2006 and it is substantial.
Jaden
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: DieGloke
You're talking about CIA arrested detainees then the only thing I can tell you is that CIA is corrupt. They're a leftist new world order entity controlled by people that want to further that agenda and you can't trust them to do anything it should be disbanded.
If you want to talk about legislation that was passed it allows American citizens to become detainees then that's absolutely wrong. All I can speak to is what the military intelligence did and what the military did up until 2006. We did not torture anyone unless you count offering the McDonald's and Papa John's torture, we did not detain anyone who didn't deserve to be there and we will continue to do our jobs and take our oaths seriously.
Jaden
i only post this as the detention of gitmo detainees (41 of them) is most likely headed to the SCOTUS as well and the above ruling could be an example of which way the wind will blow on this case
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that US immigration officials can detain immigrants within the US indefinitely, without offering periodic bond hearings. Immigrants with permanent legal status and those seeking asylum would not be exempt from this policy. In 2015, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigrants must be given a bond hearing every six months, so long as they are not deemed a flight risk or a threat to national security. The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the lower court’s ruling and remand the case for reconsideration by the Circuit Court marks yet another victory in the Trump administration’s xenophobic crusade against immigrants.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment, saying that officials were reviewing the filing. The new legal action could present a test of the Trump administration's resolve in keeping the controversial prison in operation and breaking with the previous administration's practice of releasing detainees overseas, which many Republicans allege has threatened American security. With 41 prisoners remaining, the population at Guantanamo is a fraction of the more than 700 it housed in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Trump, criticizing the actions of his predecessor, vowed after his election that he would end detainee transfers and fill the detention facility, perched on a corner of Cuba, with "bad dudes." Trump has backed off that promise in recent months, suggesting that it would take too long to try the suspect in a November terrorist attack through the dysfunctional process for trying Guantanamo detainees. More than 16 years after the 9/11 attacks, trials for those suspects are stuck in years of logistical and security delays and could be years away from conclusion. A spokesman for the National Security Council, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said decisions regarding "terrorists" were made on an individual basis, grounded in the particulars of each case. "President Trump remains committed to using military detention and all available tools to defeat terrorism and protect the United States and its interests abroad," he said.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Lumenari
They are enemy combatants.
Oh really? Which courts ruled that they were guilty of the charges laid upon them? Is this not the point of the OP?
Most Guantanamo detainees are innocent: ex-Bush official
There's something called innocent until proven guilty sweetheart. I'm sure you've heard of it.
Innocent until proven guilty is a part of our legal system, of course. It is also not in our Constitution.
It also does not apply to enemy combatants.
The Geneva convention is something you can bring up, of course.
Which applies to lawful combatants.
There is no court needed to levy charges on them because they are enemy combatants.
Told you that you didn't understand the word.
Enemy Combatant
Captured fighter in a war who is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he or she does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as established by the geneva convention; a saboteur.
So they have no rights, either by our Constitution, our laws or under the Geneva convention.
They should be happy to be alive, because by law we can kill them in battle and keep going.
Hope that helps your misconceptions on reality, sweety.
originally posted by: DieGloke
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: dug88
Last I checked we are still at war with terrorists. Detention without charges during a war and dealing with enemy prisoners is allowed.
And when the Central LACK of intelligence agency picks someone up by mistake? What then? Because that has happened.
originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Terrific. Held without trial 1000's of miles from home and the Administration thinks it's perfectly fine and legal.
Another source:
Twenty-six prisoners at Guantánamo remain detained without charge or trial, including the eight men represented in court Wednesday, who have been at Guantánamo between 10 and 16 years. Two of them have been cleared for release by a government review panel. Lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights, along with other attorneys, are challenging the prisoners’ detention both as a violation of due process and also under the laws of war as dictated by the authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF
The government countered that as long as operations continue against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the original theater of the war on terror, the authority underpinning the AUMF still holds. When Judge Thomas Hogan asked if, in the government’s view, the war could last 100 years, Justice Department attorney Ronald Wiltsie said, “Yes, we could hold them for 100 years if the conflict lasts 100 years.”
Can we just come to a consensus that Gitmo is a massive stain on the country and the constitution? This is down right disgusting. The place was a stain under Bush, it was a stain under Obama, and now it's a stain under Trump and this administration makes no bones about preserving Gitmo at its core function. Imagine that? Being held, jailed, without trial? Without a proper defense? for the rest of your life.
originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: highvein
No where.
Exactly. Moving on.