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.

 

US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
The same rights they afforded the 3,000 innocents that they murdered on 9/11


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then strap a bomb on them and leave them in the desert somewhere alone waiting to blow up!!!

Gladly. Just round them up and deliver them to me - I'll be happy to oblige.




posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You may try all you want to classify them as mere criminals, but it won't work. They attacked our soil; that is an act of war. Play word games all you want if that's all you got.

How did they attack your "soil"? Tell me who in Gitmo is charged or even suspected of involvement in 9/11? Not even the CIA is looking for Bin Laden any more, they wrapped up their search for him at the end of 2005.

You are seriously confused.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Typical. You're so worried about the human rights of the terrorists.

Im worried because they are not terrorists they are suspected combatants. Your country invaded theirs and they had the audacity to fight you. These people are not being given a trial so they are exactly the same as the people awaiting trial for other crimes. They are innocent until proven guilty. You've let the terrorists win, you've totally let them destroy your previous way of life, well done.


Originally posted by jsobecky
They lost those rights when they launched an act of war on our soil. They cannot be classified as soldiers under the GA, so they are enemy combatants. They lost a lot of privileges when they did that.

Again, how did they launch an act of war on your soil? The Taleban had nothing to do with 9/11, they merely didnt/couldnt give you Osama Bin Laden after they carried it out. You are seriously confused jsobecky.

And while you're bleating on about launching acts of war on peoples soil, does that mean Americans are fair game to be held in indefinate detention by Iraqi and Afghans? Whats good for them should be good for Americans. Does the same go for the captured Israeli soldier? Why cant the Palestinians abuse his human rights when Israel has carried out an act of war on their soil? Friggen wasting my time on you.

[edit on 4/7/06 by subz]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Don't be a hater because you are losing the argument, subz.


The last time I checked, the Twin Towers had been built on American soil. Look it up.

As far as American captives being held indefinitely, you're right - they usually aren't. They usually get beheaded.

But you forget that in your fervor to coddle the terrorists.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Why aren't these individuals being held on American soil?

Why are they being held on an island that American citizens can't get to from their homeland? They have to get there from Canada, or elsewhere?

OK, 3 questions but interesting imo.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Why aren't these individuals being held on American soil?


Simple answer and this is just a guess mind you. Once they would be on American soil they would have to be tried according to our civilan laws, which I assume most Americans do not want. Also it is very hard if not impossible to escape from Cuba
I think we learned that tactic from the French




Why are they being held on an island that American citizens can't get to from their homeland? They have to get there from Canada, or elsewhere?


Your last two are not relevant. Why did you ask them?

[edit on 7/4/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid
Why aren't these individuals being held on American soil?


Simple answer and this is just a guess mind you. Once they would be on American soil they would have to be tried according to our civilan laws, which I assume most Americans do not want.


Why, then you would have to treat them properly?





Why are they being held on an island that American citizens can't get to from their homeland? They have to get there from Canada, or elsewhere?


Your last two are not relevant. Why did you ask them?


Same as real estate man, location, location, location.


No can see, no can diss.


I'm surprised you didn't figure that one out for yourself. They'll detain people there, man a camp there, spend money there but won't let YOU go there.

I think all 3 questions are important, you should too if you are willing, or allowed, to think about it.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Same as real estate man, location, location, location.


No can see, no can diss.


I'm surprised you didn't figure that one out for yourself. They'll detain people there, man a camp there, spend money there but won't let YOU go there.

I think all 3 questions are important, you should too if you are willing, or allowed, to think about it.


You are making no sense. Travel between the US and POWs are not relevant. Now kindly explain what you're getting at here.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots


You are making no sense. Travel between the US and POWs are not relevant. Now kindly explain what you're getting at here.



Oh jeez, do I have to spell it out, or get the hand puppets out?

Can you, or any other American, fly to Cuba FROM the States?

It's VERY relevant imo.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Oh jeez, do I have to spell it out, or get the hand puppets out?

Can you, or any other American, fly to Cuba FROM the States?

It's VERY relevant imo.



Well you could spell it out or if you prefer you can get the puppets out but then I could not see them anyhow, so that way you would be making as much sense as you are now, which is none BTW.

Kindly explain how wither or not Americans can fly directly it is relevant too POWs



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots


Kindly explain how wither or not Americans can fly directly it is relevant too POWs




TO CUBA. What's so damn hard about that?

Sorry, I've just got to :bnghd:

I'm sorry man, I don't mean to insult but are you really that dense? It's not that hard to understand.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Sorry, I've just got to :bnghd:



No insult taken. but now that you have possibly knocked some sense into your head do you care to explain just what you are getting at



I understand you are talking about getting to CUBA that is not the point here since American travel to Cuba has absolutely no relevance to Americans and their ability to fly to the country and the detention of POWs



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots



I understand you are talking about getting to CUBA that is not the point here since American travel to Cuba has absolutely no relevance to Americans and their ability to fly to the country and the detention of POWs


No prob man, you may not see it but everyone else reading this will get the point.

Sad.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
No prob man, you may not see it but everyone else reading this will get the point.

Sad.

No travel means no oversight.

Im doing my stress levels a favour and have placed a few key antagonists on ignore. I can handle debates with people who are open minded and consistant but some here....sheeeeeeesh.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Don't be a hater because you are losing the argument, subz.


The last time I checked, the Twin Towers had been built on American soil. Look it up.


Yes, they were. How many of those currently held in Camp X-ray are suspected of involvement in or charged with conspiracy over that attack?

Look it up, if you can.



As far as American captives being held indefinitely, you're right - they usually aren't. They usually get beheaded.

But you forget that in your fervor to coddle the terrorists.


Right, coddling is what you were doing in Abu Ghraib...

But I forgot, didn't you try to buy Iran off once before? Over hostages they weren't holding...Maybe Ahmedinjad should offer to sell the US a few guns in return for the hostages in Camp X-ray and then give the profits to the Islamist courts in Somalia...

Don't bring in red herrings because you are losing the argument, jsobecky, it just makes you look sad.

You declared those held without charge for the last 4 years were terrorists, where is your proof? You declared them "illegal combatants", what about their combat was illegal?

To paraphrase Kerry when he had to remind Bush of a somewhat salient fact:

The Afghanis didn't attack you, Al Qaeda did.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by jsobecky
Don't be a hater because you are losing the argument, subz.


The last time I checked, the Twin Towers had been built on American soil. Look it up.


Yes, they were. How many of those currently held in Camp X-ray are suspected of involvement in or charged with conspiracy over that attack?

Look it up, if you can.

Gee, this whole time I thought Gitmo was for enemy combatants. Silly me.


Right, coddling is what you were doing in Abu Ghraib...

Talk about your red herrings...


But I forgot, didn't you try to buy Iran off once before? Over hostages they weren't holding...

Now that's relevant to the discussion.


That herring is beginning to smell...


You declared those held without charge for the last 4 years were terrorists, where is your proof? You declared them "illegal combatants", what about their combat was illegal?

If you don't know the answers to such simple questions, you are way too far behind in class.


To paraphrase Kerry when he had to remind Bush of a somewhat salient fact:

The Afghanis didn't attack you, Al Qaeda did.

Yes, I know. All Afghanistan did was give them a place to hide and hang out.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   
just wondering, were the afghani's also illegal combatants when they were fighting the Russians? were we helping them in this illegal venture?? were we ....oh no!!...aiding and abetting terrorists?

by the way....maybe if the US had stuck around after russua split from afghanistan, ya know provided a little help to get them back on their feet and such, they wouldn't have had to relay on bin laden's bank account?

[edit on 5-7-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
just wondering, were the afghani's also illegal combatants when they were fighting the Russians? were we helping them in this illegal venture?? were we ....oh no!!...aiding and abetting terrorists?

The Russians invaded Afghanistan. Different situation.


by the way....maybe if the US had stuck around after russua split from afghanistan, ya know provided a little help to get them back on their feet and such, they wouldn't have had to relay on bin laden's bank account?

They have always relied on their poppy fields for money. Osama's money went to finance terrorism around the world. The Taliban harbored him and supplied him with manpower.

I'm not sure why you are so against the US. You seem to believe that we have been the unprovoked agressor in all of this. That is just not the truth.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
If Gitmo closes, and the normal courts can't convict them, it doesn't worry you that hundreds of (suspected) bad guys get to go home and cause more problems?

I don't know the numbers, but I know some detainees have been released already. Probably there are hundreds more who are still detained, but I suspect that we don't keep them in there just for fun. If the Generals say they are still dangerous then keep them locked up I say.

What's that? Human Rights? oops OK I'm sorry. I was wrong. Best let 'em all go.
Safest thing to do, right?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
No travel means no oversight.


Wrong there is oversight. Members of the senate and Red Cross have visited it. Do not believe me look it up. Next Geeeesssh.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moley
Safest thing to do, right?

The safest thing to do would be to line them all up and shoot them, but thats safest for us. What about the hundreds of innocent people in Gitmo who were handed over to Americans for the bounty? These people were unlucky enough to have an argument or long standing fued with some one poor or callous enough to claim they were part of the Taleban.

The very same arguments used here apply to all our legal cases. It would be safest to lock suspects up instead of giving them a chance to get off on a technicality in court. So what? We do away with our legal traditions because we're scared? That would be good if you're suspected of a crime, you're innocent but you're locked up for the rest of your life any way....just to be safe.

If the goal of terrorists were to destroy our way of life then: Mission Accomplished



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join