Bush disagrees with Guantanamo ruling

Hey WhatTheory,

What about the "detainees", who ARE US Citizens, that were "picked up" on US soil? Huh? What about them?

reply to post by WhatTheory


Habeus corpus is a human right that even Nazi and Japanese POW's enjoyed from Americans. It's a human right we extend to criminal gangs made of foreign nationals who are operating in the United States, as well. Extending it to the men brought into US custody from Iraq and Afghanistan is something that should have been done from the absolute start of the whole mess.

To President Bush, I say... Who asked?

Hey WhatTheory,

Do you know that a huge percentage of prisioners at Gitmo were given to U.S. forces in return for large rewards? A reward was offered for any taliban fighters so warlords wanting some extra cash would round up innocent civilians and hand them to the U.S. Many/most prisoners held there are being held with very vague evidence.

Do you know about Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham who worked down there who condemns the current legal process? I think I'd take the word of that man over yours that there are some serious legal issues with ignoring the right of habeus corpus and the laws of the Geneva convention. See articles here:
Supreme Court Gitmo Decision
Lt. Col. Abraham Condemns the Kangaroo Tribunals

What about the case of Sami Al-Arian? This guy is a U.S. citizen held as a terrorist when all he has ever done was talk about a more fair policy in the middle east.

The info below is from this article:
Legislating Tyranny

"Sami was professor of computer science at the University of Florida who was a spokesperson for a more even-handed middle east policy who was giving talks and speeches to various U.S. government branches. After 9/11 terrorism and conspiracy charges were brought against him by Ashcroft. After 2 1/2 years in solitary confinement he was finally brought to trial and cleared of all charges. Was this the end of the story?

Knowing that Al-Arian and his family could not stand the strain of solitary confinement for another two and a half years while a new case was prepared, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would retry him. His attorney urged him to make a plea in order to end the ordeal.

Al-Arian’s plea is innocuous and bears no relationship to the serious charges on which he was tried. According to Wikipedia, as part of the plea agreement “the government acknowledged that Al-Arian’s activities were non-violent and that there were no victims to the charge in the plea agreement.”

Under the plea agreement, Al-Arian’s sentence amounted essentially to time served, but he was double-crossed by Judge Moody, who according to Alexander Cockburn used “inflamed language about Al-Arian having blood on his hands” (a charge rejected by the jury) and handed down the maximum sentence.

The “terrorist” prosecutors had yet more in store for Al-Arian. In October 2006, federal prosecutor Gordon Kromberg, reportedly “notorious as an Islamophobe,” demanded, in violation of the plea agreement, that Al-Arian testify before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, investigating an Islamic research center. According to Wikipedia, “in a verbal agreement that appears in court transcripts, federal prosecutors agreed [as part of the plea agreement] that Al-Arian would not have to testify in Virginia.”

Al-Arian’s lawyers saw Kromberg’s subpoena of their client as a setup, and Al-Arian refused to testify. On January 22, 2007, Al-Arian was brought before a federal judge on contempt charges. He described to the judge the extraordinary abuse he had suffered at the hands of federal prison officials. The guards and officers all felt free to abuse Al-Arian, because they had heard the lie on right-wing talk radio and from neoconservative media that he was a terrorist who hated Americans. The hostile judge sentenced Al-Arian to eighteen months more on a civil contempt charge for refusing to testify about a case that he knew nothing about.

I think people in favour of the Patriot Act, Enemy Combatant Act, etc, are not really aware of what is going on. There information is out there".




[edit on 13-6-2008 by ghofer] - Provided article source

[edit on 13-6-2008 by ghofer]

Also, Mr. WhatTheory, as someone who "believes in the constitution", are you aware that under your favorite administration, asserting your rights under it is cause for suspicion of terrorist activity?

Anyway, what I'd really like to know, is how you can claim to be a constitutionalist while defending someone who believes it's just a "goddamn piece of paper". Someone who's policies and agenda have dismantled it piece by piece.

So, in summation, I hereby officially accuse anyone who claims to support both the constitution and George W. Bush a liar. You can support one or the other, but not both. The latter is the number one enemy of the former.

Originally posted by C0le
Also some of those rights are unalienable and without borders that do not require one to be a citizen

Sorry, but that is just not accurate.
You may wish it were so, but the U.S. Constitution clearly states it is for U.S. citizens ONLY!
That is why nobody can show me in the Constitution where is says it applies to people in other countries.

You will find no hypocrisy in my words, I understand through reading and history what the Constitution means to all men not just greedy self righteous Americans

No, I don't find it hypocritical, you are just plain wrong. You are reading what you want to see or cannot comprehend what you are reading. The Constitution, no matter how hard you wish, is for us greedy and self righteous Americans ONLY! You need to get over yourself because you are dead wrong.

It is our duty as American to project our freedom to all who will embrace it, even to our enemies, hypocrisy is injustice, as is the path your kind wishes to travel, because of your misguided patriotism and nationalism...

Right! Following the Constitution by not allowing foreign terrorists the rights of U.S. citizens is misguided?? Is that what you are saying?
If so, you need some serious help because you are totally brainwashed.

Originally posted by C0le
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

I'm not sure maybe you're not getting this but
WE ATTACKED THEM
of course they are trying to kill us I'd do the same thing, Btw one of those most basic rights is the right to defend your own life...

How did we attack the terrorists in Gitmo when they are foreign fighters who are NOT from Iraq? Your statement makes no sense.

Plus, you do remember all the terrorist activities before 9/11 right?
Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

Terror Attacks

Originally posted by Grafilthy
"United States Constitution

Adopted September 17, 1787
Article VI Clause II

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Why did you cite this Article? How does this arctile show that foreign enemies are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens? I don't see it.

How many times must I repeat myself?
The Geneva Conventions do NOT protect terrorists! Dang!

Originally posted by Unit541
Hey WhatTheory,

What about the "detainees", who ARE US Citizens, that were "picked up" on US soil? Huh? What about them?

Show me where this is true and I will give you my response.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Habeus corpus is a human right that even Nazi and Japanese POW's enjoyed from Americans. It's a human right we extend to criminal gangs made of foreign nationals who are operating in the United States, as well. Extending it to the men brought into US custody from Iraq and Afghanistan is something that should have been done from the absolute start of the whole mess.

Ok, for starters your statement does not apply to the current situation because there were no Nazi or Japanese POW who were given the rights of U.S. citizens and able to use the U.S. federal court system.

Secondly, no matter how you WISH it otherwise, the facts and law are not on your side.
These 5 radical judges ignored the Military Commissions Act which states:
GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF
RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva
Conventions as a source of rights.

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Military Commissions Act

They also ignored their own previous ruling:
Johnson v. Eisentrager
The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.

Previous court ruling

So, the only this current court has proved is that the 5 radical judges are putting their own agenda ahead of law and the Constitution.

Originally posted by ghofer
Do you know that a huge percentage of prisioners at Gitmo were given to U.S. forces in return for large rewards? A reward was offered for any taliban fighters so warlords wanting some extra cash would round up innocent civilians and hand them to the U.S. Many/most prisoners held there are being held with very vague evidence.

Please provide some proof of your claim and I will gladly respond.

reply to post by WhatTheory


I got this one...link.

They fed them well. The Pakistani tribesmen slaughtered a sheep in honor of their guests, Arabs and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing U.S. bombing in the Afghan mountains. But their hosts had ulterior motives: to sell them to the Americans, said the men who are now prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Grafilthy]

reply to post by WhatTheory


No, but the Constitution does in fact give the right to due process to (as you're so fond of saying) US Citizens. So, there's still several of us waiting to hear your rationalization as to why those US Citizens should be denied the rights afforded to them by the Constitution you're so supportive of. We're also still waiting to hear why you're not critical of an administration who's policies are nullifying the Constitution you're so supportive of.

It seems to me that the only thing you're really critical of, based on your posts here at ATS, is anyone who, in any way, questions the integrity of the current administration, is unsupportive of the war in Iraq, or isn't chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran.

Seeing as the majority of posters here at ATS fit the the aforementioned paradigm, I wonder why you're here at all? Now, don't take that to mean I don't want you here, after all opposition makes people think, which is good, but what possibly made you join this community in the first place?

I'm bowing out of this thread, I'm to tired to deal with the flag waver...


Heck just for fun everyone lets go back through all the posts in this thread and replace two words

Americans will now be referred to as Aryans/Nazis
And Insurgents/Terrorists will now be referred to as Jews

And remember WhatTheory's opinion of who gets rights will be the valid point of view...


Lets see how far this boat floats.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by C0le]

Originally posted by Unit541
Also, Mr. WhatTheory, as someone who "believes in the constitution", are you aware that under your favorite administration, asserting your rights under it is cause for suspicion of terrorist activity?

A) I don't know why you assume that the Bush administration is my favorite because you could NOT be furthest from the truth.
B) How about some proof of your claim and not just your opinion.

Anyway, what I'd really like to know, is how you can claim to be a constitutionalist while defending someone who believes it's just a "goddamn piece of paper". Someone who's policies and agenda have dismantled it piece by piece.

How am I defending Bush when we are discussing the current supreme court ruling. I have not even mentioned Bush. You must have Bush derangement syndrome or something.
You need to focus and stay on topic.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Unit541
Hey WhatTheory,

What about the "detainees", who ARE US Citizens, that were "picked up" on US soil? Huh? What about them?

Show me where this is true and I will give you my response.

Uh, look like 5 posts up. You're really unbelievable.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
How am I defending Bush when we are discussing the current supreme court ruling.

I have not even mentioned Bush. You must have Bush derangement syndrome or something.
You need to focus and stay on topic.

Uh, how about your first post in this thread. Here, let me save you the trouble and quote you.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Bush is correct on this issue

reply to post by C0le


Sorry I missed you - haven't argued in a while

To Others:

This thread has people defending the indefensible.

I can understand wanting to support your president, but not when your president is a tool

of the oppressors.

Sorry guys who wave the flag, but the CinC is little short of a despot.

This proves that George W Bush *does not* agree with the bill of rights.


Of course, we knew this all along.

So much for defending the constitution.

reply to post by WhatTheory


You know what's funny?

The fact that you have no stars.

And from the sound of it, you are lacking in the stripes department as well.

Lets put our defensiveness aside for a minute, and avoid falling into the classic trap of directly attacking those we are debating, and try to understand each other.

I believe that WhatTheory is trying to express that the Constitution does not directly state any rights for foreign enemy combatants. And he is right, the Constitution of the United States of America does not directly imply rights granted to foreign enemy combatants...

However,

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is from our Declaration of Independence.

Our Founding Fathers have made it quite clear that the Bill of Rights, were not privileges granted to us by our government, but rights inherent to all men, that the government could not trample on. All men have the right to speak their mind, regardless of local laws. All men have the right to defend themselves, whether that means through force, or against accusations.

While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for the benefit of those who are lucky enough to reside in the United States of America, it is beyond question that the framers of our nation felt these unalienable rights applied to all men. Anyone who has studied American history and especially the early (pre-northern aggression) debates regarding slavery can easily understand how the nation feels regarding the rights of non-citizens.

Even IF the right to a fair trial was not granted to our enemies by the constitution, why would you want to deny them that right? If they are guilty then let the evidence speak to that, and ease any doubts that the world might have about the validity of what we are doing? When someone is held, and refused the right to defend himself, then who is to say he really did anything wrong?

Historically, the absence of a fair judicial system in a militarized penal system has led nations down some pretty dark paths. The elimination of political obstacles, the silencing of dissident factions of society, and even genocide are only a few of the consequences of not having accountability for those imprisoned. The men who founded this country had witnessed what a government does when it doesn't have to answer to anybody first-hand. Do you really think they would approve of us doing this to someone else?

But no, the Constitution doesn't come right out and say "Don't lock up foreigners without a trial..."



[edit on 13-6-2008 by N1cotine]