Judge orders release of 5 terror suspects at Gitmo, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 20-11-2008 @ 11:09 AM by theindependentjournal

APNewsAlert

www.google.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal judge orders release of 5 terror suspects held at Gitmo for seven years without charges.

(visit the link for the full news article)

timesrecordnews

Mod Edit: To Change The Title So As To Accurately Reflect The Story And Add Another News Link.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by MemoryShock]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:09 AM by theindependentjournal

No other site is showing this yet so its just an AP News Alert and a short and sweet.

This is the beginning of the end for Gitmo I think, Obama said he would close it and Judges are over and over ruling against Bush and the way Gitmo is being run. They will have to release or charge these people as the Law demands. Hopefully they won't sue the U.S. for billions for torture in a class action suit.

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:30 AM by theindependentjournal

CNN is now reporting this story on air, but I haven't found it on their site yet. Still just the AP news wire alert. This is big to the Bush plan, if this holds and they start releasing terror suspects, or innocent people however you look at it. This begs the question, if they truly are terrorists will they attack again on our soil? And if not will the get together and sue like my first response said...

We shall see!!!

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:34 AM by Interestinggg

Yeah I think they have tried this before though.
The Federal court does not have jurisdiction over the military.
Gitmo is a military prison.
The Federal court or any other court cant order them to do anything.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:38 AM by theindependentjournal

reply to post by Interestinggg

I agree but even under the UCMJ they have Rights that are not being adhered to. Our men and women in uniform get most of the Rights we do like facing your accusers and seeing all the evidence against you and cross examining witnesses and a time limit on how long to charge. Holding someone in prison on American Soil for 7 years without charges is abhorrent to American Law and the American Way.

Just my opinion...

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:03 PM by neonine

reply to post by theindependentjournal

www.abc.net.au...

this was rather interesting i thought.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:11 PM by theindependentjournal

reply to post by neonine

Very GOOD FIND, great job. Kinda explains why the Courts are starting to tell them to release them. Judges want to keep their jobs, I knew it couldn't be that they actually cared about the Law or Rights. I think Obama won't change Federal Judges like this one...

We shall see...

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:18 PM by neonine

thanks man, from what iv gathered from the radio they want to put them threw a rehab haha like a get well soon clinic for suicide bombers, but the Yemen government failed once already 3 escaped and hit the US embassy some where. now we don't want to let them go back till we set up the facility

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:21 PM by jd140

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Interestinggg

I agree but even under the UCMJ they have Rights that are not being adhered to. Our men and women in uniform get most of the Rights we do like facing your accusers and seeing all the evidence against you and cross examining witnesses and a time limit on how long to charge. Holding someone in prison on American Soil for 7 years without charges is abhorrent to American Law and the American Way.

Just my opinion...

Actually the UCMJ hardley matches any rights that US civilians have. Shoot our freedom of speech is just about non existent. One article of the UCMJ, I forget which, pretty much states that we could be charged with anything that is unbecoming of a soldier, that is not stated in any articles of the UCMJ. That would could mean, for example, not wearing my beret outside while in ACUs.

We get very few rights that civilians have. I know of a SGT who was facing charges(I wont go into what they were) and he was held a year before he was given a trial.

I'm all for releasing anyone that is being who is innocent. However, under the UCMJ you are guilty until proven innocent. The scary thing about terroists is that they are so hard to single out. It is even harder to prove that they are terroists. All they have to say is that they aren't a terroists and you only arrested me because I wear a towel on my head.

Then they get a lawyer and they end up being tried in a US court of law. Of course we they don't have the money to pay for their lawyer, so we get the bill. Why? Because people think that these people get the same rights afforded to you and me.

Sorry for the rant, I get sick when I see judges who are there to uphold OUR law involving themselves where they have not right to be.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:24 PM by jd140

Originally posted by neonine
thanks man, from what iv gathered from the radio they want to put them threw a rehab haha like a get well soon clinic for suicide bombers, but the Yemen government failed once already 3 escaped and hit the US embassy some where. now we don't want to let them go back till we set up the facility

Hey if a rehabilitated terroist can be friends with our next president, maybe they can become our friend too.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:25 PM by Res Ipsa

This was inevitable.
SCOTUS didn't jump in earlier because it would have been war between the Judicial and Executive Branches. They knew that once Bush was out they could take care of this Constitutional problem. There is no reason now to delay and Bush obviously isn't going to fight it.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:25 PM by neonine

abc.au
here's the radio station i listen to it really good you hear a lot of stuff you wouldn't normal know about. very fresh

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:31 PM by theindependentjournal

reply to post by jd140

Many people are held for years awaiting trial, but NO SOLDIER EVER waited a year to be CHARGED and while being held. They do have many of the same Rights when it comes to trials, it's just done by Military Officers in a Military Court. But the defendant is entitled to an attorney, to know the charges against him, to put up a defense, to cross examine etc. etc.

I know it's a bit less than say a federal court case, but t contains many of the Rights that all Americans are supposed to enjoy. Particularly Americans like Jose Padilla. You have to remember that most of these people aren't even military but civilians from many countries, Bush declared them enemy combatants and that cant be challenged once its done. Gitmo is American soil, and those civilians should enjoy the full Rights of any other foreigner violating American Law. If a Canadian comes over here and robs a store he gets all the Rights of any defendant in a Court. The problem here is that we forcefully removed all those people from other nations and brought them to American Soil.

If any are Military prisoners of war the Geneva Convention covers their treatment. If they are not military they should be charged or released, remember that our system was set up so that 1000 guilty would go free to stop one innocent to be jailed. This doesn't work in practice but it is the way it is supposed to be.

We shall see...

[edit on 11/20/2008 by theindependentjournal]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:40 PM by jd140

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by jd140

Many people are held for years awaiting trial, but NO SOLDIER EVER waited a year to be CHARGED and while being held. They do have many of the same Rights when it comes to trials, it's just done by Military Officers in a Military Court. But the defendant is entitled to an attorney, to know the charges against him, to put up a defense, to cross examine etc. etc.

I know it's a bit less than say a federal court case, but t contains many of the Rights that all Americans are supposed to enjoy. Particularly Americans like Jose Padilla. You have to remember that most of these people aren't even military but civilians from many countries, Bush declared them enemy combatants and that cant be challenged once its done. Gitmo is American soil, and those civilians should enjoy the full Rights of any other foreigner violating American Law. If a Canadian comes over here and robs a store he gets all the Rights of any defendant in a Court. The problem here is that we forcefully removed all those people from other nations and brought them to American Soil.

If any are Military prisoners of war the Geneva Convention covers their treatment. If they are not military they should be charged or released, remember that our system was set up so that 1000 guilty would go free to stop one innocent to be jailed. This doesn't work in practice but it is the way it is supposed to be.

We shall see...

[edit on 11/20/2008 by theindependentjournal]

A terrorist is not part of any military. We are at war with terroist, which means that they are enemy combatants. If they are arrested on the suspicion of terroism then they do not get the rights of a regular foreigner who broke our law. They do not get to use our legal system, they do not get the use of our court rooms and they sure as hell don't get to enjoy our rights as a US citizen.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:40 PM by ZindoDoone

reply to post by theindependentjournal

Being charged as an enemy combatant is a legal charge in itself. They have been charged and just like the Germans and the Japanese prisoners in WW2 the only thing the Geneva Conventions says is that after "THE WAR IS OVER" those combatants must be "REPATRIATED" or charged with further crimes. These men and women are legitamte prisoners of war there for as long as they are treated humanely (don't start with the torture problem) they are right where they belong!

Zindo

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:49 PM by neonine

there's one problem we dropped the charges but we don't want to send them back. its messed up man I'm telling you i couldn't believe my ears when i was listening to it this morning

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:53 PM by theindependentjournal

reply to post by jd140

And just where in the Constitution of the united State of America does Bush or anyone have the Authority to make someone an enemy combatant and thereby deny that group any Rights? Just because they do it don't make it lawful, Constitutional, or Moral.

We used to be a great nation where the Rule of Law and Equal treatment and Rights were paramount to all others concerns.

Franklin said i I believe... Those who give up Rights for security will GET NEITHER.

I aint afraid of any terrorists, but I am afraid of my so called government.

We shall see...

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 01:02 PM by neonine

i dont know about the government. I'm a firm believer that the people are going to do a fine job of tearing this country apart all on there own. there's no respect or honor and more. once that disappeared is when we got into trouble.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 01:16 PM by jd140

Your not afraid of terrorists? Neither were the victims of the first WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole and the family and victims of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11.

Just because you "aint" scared of them doesn't mean that they wouldn't harm you or your loved ones the first chance they get. I for one haven't given up any rights since the war has started. Have you? If so which ones? Enemy combatents lost their rights when they either helped a terroist or shot a single bullet at a soldier.

If you want Equal treatment then I guess we should start decapitating and murdering all those charged with being an enemy combatant. We should put a video of someone reading the charges and then carry out the execution. All things being EQUAL they did it to us.

You mentioned the Geneva Convention. Do you know what it is and why it was put in place? Why complain that we aren't strictly abiding by it if our enemy is doing so much worse to us? I don't hear anything about the way we are treated when captured.

It is a two way street and many people including you want to make it a one way street, where we are the only ones that should be held to it.

So what if they are being held for a long time. They are being fed, clothed and given shelter. Whereas our men and women are being held, starved and murdered on the internet.

Try and change that then complain to us that these poor souls are being held away from their families illegaly.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 01:26 PM by neonine

Originally posted by jd140
You mentioned the Geneva Convention. Do you know what it is and why it was put in place? Why complain that we aren't strictly abiding by it if our enemy is doing so much worse to us? I don't hear anything about the way we are treated when captured

apparently you haven't read the Geneva convention ether. you trying to tell us just because some one else is breaking the rules we can go ahead and do it to? then tell me kind sir where do you draw the line. tormenting humans?, killing possible innocent people? i dont care if they kill some there still human and they deserve to be treated in a humane way not like animals. and i believe if you read that document you might grasp that out of it.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^