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.

 

Court Rules Guantanamo Bay Detainees may not Challenge their Detention

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Yes it does need to be here. Im not for protecting lives by pre emptively killing other people before the process is even in the works. If they are here attempting it, I don't care if you should them dead while they are trying. If it is in the process and they are here trying to accomplish this harm, by all means kill them.

I don't believe in pre emptively "saving lives" because its not saving any lives, just switching who gets killed. If they are caught in the act, or come here and caught with the plans to do so, take them down. If they want to kill us, but are half way across the world and aren't even going through with it, then no.

If I am standing out on the street and some guy runs out with a bomb, but some one shoots him down stopping him. I appluad the person. If that person goes half way around the world and kills him before he even buys the plane ticket, I am hoping he gets sent to prison. NO ONE can say whether or not he would have changed his mind and not went through with it. People get tempted to do wrong from time to time, we are human. We must give ALL people the chance to back out of the action before they commit to it and start to physically proceed with the action. If he comes half way around the world with plans to blow up a tower and buys bomb making materials, obviously we don't need to wait for him to make the bomb or anything like that.

I have no problem with spying and keeping the eye out for such individuals, but god forbid you kill them before they even decide to go through with it. If they come here with the intention and plan, thats enough commitment for me to send them away.




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Yes it does need to be here.


Man I sure am glad you are not the president and hopefully you never will be. If you ever made it heaven help the US.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Man I sure am glad you are not the president and hopefully you never will be. If you ever made it heaven help the US.



Well hey, keep thinking your safe because the war. Your not anymore safe then before 9/11. How many attacks happened on US soil that were terrorist attacks before 9/11. Other then Timothy McVeigh, since he was home grown, what other terrorist attacks were there at home? The first WTC bombing? That happens around 9 years earlier? Its been like 5 1/2 years since 9/11 right? So if you think about it, the fact no home terrorist attacks have happened on US soil means little as they weren't all that frequent BEFORE 9/11.

Now what reason do I have to believe that this war fought in the middle east has benefitted the peoples security, AT ALL? It hasn't. Homeland security may have benefitted our security, but the wars in the middle east has made it MORE dangerous because we have destroyed MORE lives then we could have dreamed of.

We fight it at home because its the most effective way to protect our people and not breed terrorists like rabbits at the same time. The best defense is a good offense only in sports. This isn't a game. People die over there, families get destroyed, and countless become bitter with hate. War should only be fought if there is a threat of invasion. Hitler was a threat to our actual country. A war is fought when there is a threat toward our country as a whole.

These terrorists aren't a threat to our country. They are a threat to life yes. No one will dispute that. That doesn't warrant death of countless people and the destruction of nations. How did Iraq threaten the stability of America? Why declare a War on Criminals, thats a daily basis thing. Terrorists are just criminals with political or religious agendas.

You want to fight a war so you don't have to stay on alert and be aware. So you can act lazy and keep the idea that "terrorists" can't get you, fine. It changes NOTHING though, and you should realize that. Why? Because a murderer will murder you whether its over politics, religion, money, or sheer hate. Whatever the reason, they will do it. So maybe we should declare the War on Criminals, and detain everyone indefinately because we all are human and have impulses from time to time. Anyone who hasn't thought about doing something illegal is a liar.

Whether it be something serious or not. Maybe we should start detaining people we think are possibly going to go murder somebody. Maybe they got in a fight and the guy said something, we should detain him without charges until the War On Criminals is over.

The fact is, you are supporting terrorism simply because you support pre emptive "defense" which just causes them to push back harder. You will never be completely "safe" so long as you are even semi free, so come back to reality. We are the most free nation in the world, and some responsibility comes with that. That includes watching out for somebody whos trying to build a bomb. Maybe be a parent and make sure your kids aren't buying AK-47s and building bombs in your garage to shoot up their school. Perhaps we should become a bit more responsible and secure home.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Grim you don't have to write pages of ramblins for crying out loud. I stand by what I said "Heaven help the US if you ever became the president."

Your mind set of let the bomb blow up a few million people before I will do anything is ridiculous. :shk:

[edit on 2/22/2007 by shots]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Grim you don't have to write pages of ramblins for crying out loud. I stand by what I said "Heaven help the US if you ever became the president."

Your mind set of let the bomb blow up a few million people before I will do anything is ridiculous. :shk:


Where did I say let the bomb blow up. If you had read it you would realize that I don't think your any closer to stopping the bomb then before 9/11 to be honest. You want to fight a war, fight it where it counts and where it means something. Fight the war at home and secure our borders, secure our ports, and secure our neighborhoods. Don't run half way around the world, kill a bunch of people, then call us safe because we aren't

If you are under the DILLUSION that any of the mid east wars have stopped a bomb from killing a few million people your so lost I don't even know where to find you.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Fight the war at home and secure our borders, secure our ports, and secure our neighborhoods. Don't run half way around the world, kill a bunch of people, then call us safe because we aren't


Fight the war at home you have to be crazy with a mind set like that. You do not wait for the missiles or bombs to strike before you take action you try to deter it before. After the fact millions of people could be dead.

And I disagree with you when you say we are not safer, because I believe we are by tyring to keep them on their own soil not ours as you would prefer before you took action.

[edit on 2/22/2007 by shots]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Fight the war at home you have to be crazy with a mind set like that. You do not wait for the missiles or bombs to strike before you take action you try to deter it before. After the fact millions of people could be dead.


We have defense systems do we not? If a missle is launched we would pick it up REAL quick. If we would protect our damn country a bit better it wouldn't be so easy to get explosive here in the first place to use. If you would rather kill innocent people you don't know just so you can save your own tail, your a disgrace to the american ideal. That people are innocent until proven guilty. That you don't kill off innocent people because it will make you FEEL safer.



And I disagree with you when you say we are not safer, because I believe we are by tyring to keep them on their own spo; not ours as you would prefer before you took action.


Alright, if you want to believe that fantasy be my guest. This war has done NOTHING to make us more safe. You can kill 100,000 of them, but it only takes a handful to blow up a dirty bomb in america. They don't even have to be in iraq, they could be in malaysia or some other asian country. They could be from anywhere in the world. They don't HAVE their own spot because they aren't a country. They are TERRORISTS that means EVERYWHERE in every country is "their own spot". Lets blow up the world to pre emptively stop terrorists, because the fact is terrorist doesn't have a home turf to attack.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
You can kill 100,000 of them, but it only takes a handful to blow up a dirty bomb in america.


I realize that however they are training them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan for sure and tried to move into Somali however others are trying to kick them out.

I know how you feel but, I feel it would be better to take out their training bases and leaders where they are. Keep in mind no bases to train at no trained insurgents available to attack.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

I realize that however they are training them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan for sure and tried to move into Somali however others are trying to kick them out.

I know how you feel but, I feel it would be better to take out their training bases and leaders where they are. Keep in mind no bases to train at no trained insurgents available to attack.


yes they are training them to fight and such. Unfortunately, in these days, it isn't as hard as you think to make a bomb properly and blow it up. Weathermen underground ring a bell for you? If they believe it, they will have no problem blowing stuff up right here in america with little to no training.

Those people over there train as a part of brainwashing. In boxing they train you to wear you down and do as they tell you to. They break you down and rebuild you. It is a way of remolding you. They do the same thing over there I garentee it. They break you down so you forget everything else that you use to hold on to. They may train them for basic combat and such, but its not as high tech as they would like you to believe.

The real threat comes from people who have nothing to lose, realize how easy it is to make a homemade bomb, and have some one to talk them into blowing something up, or some political/religious goal.

Stopping these people is simply out of the question. Will going over there lower the training? Yes. Will it lower terrorism? Not as long as they take crude bombs and blow themselves up. Until they do something where they need serious training, taking out these camps wont stop that type of terrorism.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Grim, I have to ask this, just how old are you?

I have an idea; just want to make sure before I continue is all.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
"well since we are at war, we dont have to charge them with a crime and we can detain them. We can torture them, why not? They are beheading our people, why should we treat them better."

I think as americans we can hold ourselves to better standards then that. When the opposition stoop to a new low, we have two options. Lower our standards to fight them more effectively on their playing field or hold our honor and keep fighting with the same standard we hold ourselves to. We don't condone the torturing of human beings, and nothing should change that, no outside cause at least.

Nobody is advocating torture that I have seen.

And it's all well and good to talk about noble ideals and standards, but that doesn't cut the mustard. All it does is make their jobs easier, and give them more reason to laugh at us and boost their morale.

Our standards can come into play when we enter them into custody instead of executing them on the spot.



Moving on, how can you say this:

I'll fight for our way of life if threatened. But it hasn't gotten to the point of it being threatened. No force has come into america and actually threatened our way of life.


and then say this:



You can kill 100,000 of them, but it only takes a handful to blow up a dirty bomb in america.

???



Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by shots
That is true however they did not, did they?

In previous conflicts and world wars all prisoners are held until a truce has been signed, therefore the US can detain them until one is signed.


and who do you sign with? osama bin laden? He doesn't represent anyone really. If osama signed, al qaeda would just say hes no longer part of al qaeda and change the positions as though osama just died in a bombing, thus continue to fight.



Terrorists aren't countries. You can sign a treaty with a country, but a terrorist can be anyone, not just al qaeda.


And that is why they are considered enemy combatants, and not POW's.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Nobody is advocating torture that I have seen.


Infinite captivity is no better. If you were taken from everything you knew, charged with no crime, and held in a tightly secured prison indefinately I would say that may not be physical torture but it sure is emotionally and mentally.



And it's all well and good to talk about noble ideals and standards, but that doesn't cut the mustard. All it does is make their jobs easier, and give them more reason to laugh at us and boost their morale.


So is that what it comes down to? Screw the honor, screw the standards, as long as we get the job done who cares who gets hurt? The ends justify the means? I guess we are just two different people here.



Our standards can come into play when we enter them into custody instead of executing them on the spot.


No our standards come into play by how many lives we destroy just to get to this person.



Moving on, how can you say this:

I'll fight for our way of life if threatened. But it hasn't gotten to the point of it being threatened. No force has come into america and actually threatened our way of life.


and then say this:


You can kill 100,000 of them, but it only takes a handful to blow up a dirty bomb in america.

???


Because I know what a couple desperate criminals are capable of, and I also know that a bunch of criminals is not an invading army of any sort, but rather criminals. They are criminals. They are part of no army or country, they are just international criminals. If you go to europe, kill 5 people, then flee to canada, you're an international criminal. If you kill 500 then flee, you're still an international criminal. You aren't suddenly an army. Ill fight when some standing army threatens us. When a bunch of criminals threaten us, I let the police deal with them, unless they are in the act, then I do what is needed to stop them.

The threat that they hold does not determine the status they hold. That status is criminal. Not soldier, not enemy combatant, not anything other then criminal. I will not hold them to any higher standard then a common criminal. They are the scum of the world and nothing more. They are murderers, not generals, the are killers and not leaders. Thats all.

If the New Black Panthers bombed a hotel and killed people, I don't send the army to fight a war against them. We get the authorities and catch the criminals. International criminals should be caught, put to trial, and either thrown in a maximum security prison, or just put to death. Hes no solider, and I wouldn't hold such scum to such a title/name.




And that is why they are considered enemy combatants, and not POW's.


They are criminals. Not POW or enemy combatants or captures soldiers or anything else. They are mere criminals who did a good deal of bad things and should pay for them. They don't warrant an army to fight a billion dollar war against them.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
So is that what it comes down to? Screw the honor, screw the standards, as long as we get the job done who cares who gets hurt? The ends justify the means? I guess we are just two different people here.

I guess we are. They would slice your throat and the throats of your children, and you would worry about their right to carry a knife.






Because I know what a couple desperate criminals are capable of, and I also know that a bunch of criminals is not an invading army of any sort, but rather criminals. They are criminals. They are part of no army or country, they are just international criminals. If you go to europe, kill 5 people, then flee to canada, you're an international criminal. If you kill 500 then flee, you're still an international criminal. You aren't suddenly an army. Ill fight when some standing army threatens us. When a bunch of criminals threaten us, I let the police deal with them, unless they are in the act, then I do what is needed to stop them.


Well, darn! Officer Casey's jurisdiction stops at the city line. So I guess we just have to let the terrorist's slide, don't we?

And I like your move take the stigma of "terrorist" away from them. Sorta makes them seem less dangerous, doesn't it? But that's your goal, isn't it?

And I'll bet that the families of those who are murdered feel a whole lot better, knowing that their loved ones were killed by a "criminal" instead of a "terrorist".



If the New Black Panthers bombed a hotel and killed people, I don't send the army to fight a war against them. We get the authorities and catch the criminals.

American citizens committing crime against other American citizens on American soil. No comparison here.






And that is why they are considered enemy combatants, and not POW's.



They are criminals. Not POW or enemy combatants or captures soldiers or anything else. They are mere criminals who did a good deal of bad things and should pay for them. They don't warrant an army to fight a billion dollar war against them.

They are terrorists who hail from a variety of countries. They receive their funding from other countries, their training in still others, and their weapons from yet others. The problem they pose is a global one, not a local law enforcement issue.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
They are criminals. Not POW or enemy combatants or captures soldiers or anything else. They are mere criminals who did a good deal of bad things and should pay for them. They don't warrant an army to fight a billion dollar war against them.



As someone once said you are an "enemy's dream come true".

No true American that I know of would ever make statements like that, they are enemy combatants period not POWs they wear no Uniforms.






[edit on 2/23/2007 by shots]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."


I guess thats obsolete now? We hold ourselves to a new standard.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all AMERICAN men are created equal...."

Divide the world then conquer it, those people in power love you guys. They don't deserves rights, they aren't american. That sentence has a great deal of power and implications. I imagine the "patriots" of 1930 germany were also very proud to be german. I personally always kind of doubted we were going down that road, but maybe I was wrong.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Divide the world then conquer it


When and where has the US conquered any country?


Oh wait I think that is on Billaries NWO agenda.


[edit on 2/23/2007 by shots]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Divide the world then conquer it


When and where has the US conquered any country?



[edit on 2/23/2007 by shots]


The US are the conquerers. We are just the pawns. We aren't trying to conquer the world, but those in power would love it. The corporations would love to make it easier for them to sell their products. Make countries divided and uncooperative with eachother and things never get done, which is just the way big business wants it right now. They want nothing to get done while they practically loot the system dry.

Lets face it, if we weren't divided and saw all PEOPLE created equal, those sweatshops around the world that big business use wouldn't be used. But so long as americans keep caring about just america, we are nothing more then divided and conquered on an international scale. Big business is international, and big business wants the world to stay divided. Fight wars, think of eachother as less then equal, its all profitable.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The US are the conquerers.


Nice dodge but it will not work you claimed we divide and conquer then doge answering the question Why?

Name those country/countries we have conquered?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The US are the conquerers.


Nice dodge but it will not work you claimed we divide and conquer then doge answering the question Why?

Name those country/countries we have conquered?


well to an extent we are the conquerers. I should have been more specific. We have created businesses that we let go international and divide the world. These businesses use the US as a divider tool. Its not necessarily we are going to take over ther world physcially. We have certian people taking it over economically.

They get us to go to mock wars. We have invaded Iraq twice, vietnam, amoung countless conflicts since WW2 which have been money makers for big business. At the end of the day, you have to follow the money. They conquered the globe economically, so in that sense they don't need to do so physically. They don't want a new world order, thats ridiculous, they want an endless divide amoung the countries. Constant war, struggle, and conflict, because thats what makes money.

What countries have we, the US as a country, conquered? Well it depends on what you define conquered as to begin with. Physically you don't need to conquer a nation if you already control them economically and the country depends on your business. Business which originated in america has spread internationally and taken hold of every country that isn't in complete ruins.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
What countries have we, the US as a country, conquered? Well it depends on what you define blah blah blah


Just as I expected you claim we are conquering people yet you cannot or could not back it up by naming those countries.

I will take that as "NO I cannot prove my logic or argument" with facts all I can give is words.

[edit on 2/23/2007 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join