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.

 

U.S. Attorney General hired by GITMO Detainees

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's private firm represents 17 Yemeni detainees held at GITMO. How can he say he will protect this country when he has a vested effort in trying to release murderers who want to kill us?

michellemalkin.com...




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jnewell33
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's private firm represents 17 Yemeni detainees held at GITMO. How can he say he will protect this country when he has a vested effort in trying to release murderers who want to kill us?


What happened to the concept of everybody deserving a fair trial? If that's still gone...democracy lost. Your call.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I am all for fair trials as long as both sides are equally represented, I just don't see how it is possible to for our U.S. AG to represent two parties at the same time when one party wants us dead. Kinda like Obama saying we shall not torture no matter what, America has a set of principals that need to be upheld. In my opinion this whole line of thinking is flawed. We elect our leaders to represent and protect us and in my opinion both parties have done neither in the name of the American people. I wish people would realize our presidents have always done what was necessary to keep us safe without thought of ideals or values, only safety for our children. When it comes to the lives and safety of my children I will throw ideals and values out the window. I am not afraid to die or to kill for the safety of my family, but hey that's just me...anyone who takes up arms against our military, especially combatants from other countries who create an exodus to the theater of war to kill our troops should be taken to labor camps in my opinion. I don't really care if I am considered just like them, at least my family will be safe and in the worst case at least I will be giving them a Reason to hate me and want to kill me. Twist em, tear em, and throw em away, that's what I think about those prisoners. Maybe a little insensitive but I not much else really matters other than the safety of America, who really needs ideals when you are DEAD. Sorry, JMO

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Jnewell33]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I also think we deserve fair prosecutions as well. Fair trials are nice but I would have rather seen military tribunals for non-citizens captured on foreign soil.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
The thing that gets me, is everyone thinks they are guilty.

What ever happened to innocent and the law needing to prove beyond any doubt, that they are murderers or what ever.

Precrime does not exist. It is just a way to kill innocent people, and america sure loves making up stuff and killing anyone they want.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
The thing that gets me, is everyone thinks they are guilty.

What ever happened to innocent and the law needing to prove beyond any doubt, that they are murderers or what ever.


This is exactly where you and other libs have it all mixed up. These are enemy combatants, not alleged criminals. As such, they do not deserve and should not receive the same constitutional protections as a U.S. citizen does.

Still don't get it? Wait until one or all of these thugs gets off based on a PC technicality. Then wait and see what that does to obama's presidency.


Precrime does not exist. It is just a way to kill innocent people, and america sure loves making up stuff and killing anyone they want.


The only possible answer to this comment is that it is total BS.




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Precrime does not exist. It is just a way to kill innocent people, and america sure loves making up stuff and killing anyone they want.


The only possible answer to this comment is that it is total BS.



My life was destroyed on such a thing, without me ever commited a crime. SO i know what rubbish precrime is.

We do not know anything about the people in gitmo, and your apathy shows of how you care about there rights.

America kills people just for thinking there country murders people. How many in the last 100 years, where killed by usa, just for either speaking out against usa, or just thinking they hated usa?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Posted on another related thread:

Anyone that thinks having civilian trials in New York is a good idea should read the following. Don't shoot the messenger, just read the article (for a change):

article


Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?


Many valid comments/questions in this article, with no answers - valid or otherwise - coming from the administration.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by centurion1211

Precrime does not exist. It is just a way to kill innocent people, and america sure loves making up stuff and killing anyone they want.


The only possible answer to this comment is that it is total BS.



My life was destroyed on such a thing, without me ever commited a crime. SO i know what rubbish precrime is.



The gitmo prisoners are one thing and our personal experiences are another because our personal experiences do not affect national security. Why you would choose to group yourself with the gitmo prisoners might be an interesting study in itself.

That said, I think I also know what you are talking about. The police in many places in the U.S. have changed from "to serve and protect" roles into being nothing more than predators. Whether this is due to trying to make up budget shortfalls, or something else, I do not know.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
The gitmo prisoners are one thing and our personal experiences are another because our personal experiences do not affect national security. Why you would choose to group yourself with the gitmo prisoners might be an interesting study in itself.


Doing the right thing is doing the right thing. Bad guys are subject to due process just like the rest of us. When they are stripped of rights...then they have won.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by centurion1211

Precrime does not exist. It is just a way to kill innocent people, and america sure loves making up stuff and killing anyone they want.


The only possible answer to this comment is that it is total BS.



My life was destroyed on such a thing, without me ever commited a crime. SO i know what rubbish precrime is.



The gitmo prisoners are one thing and our personal experiences are another because our personal experiences do not affect national security. Why you would choose to group yourself with the gitmo prisoners might be an interesting study in itself.

That said, I think I also know what you are talking about. The police in many places in the U.S. have changed from "to serve and protect" roles into being nothing more than predators. Whether this is due to trying to make up budget shortfalls, or something else, I do not know.


You have no idea what i have been through in london. But i will say that just look at the irish innocent people who where locked up in uk, and they did nothing, but the police just picked them up and accused them. The same hysteria arrived in uk. Those irish where tried and convicted, but as time showed, they where framed by the police in uk, just for the police needed someone irish.

Irish peopel are still paying for the rubbish that went on, between teh two countries, and what do you guys think those innocent irish peopel felt about being in prison for no reason, other than the murderers in teh police just making it all up.

Seems pretty similar story here in the gitmo thing and those people.

Like i said earlier this will probably be like the hungary trial that is quite famous on net where soviets had a priest who the west thought was brainwashed on trial.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


What is the right thing. Most often I agree with your positions but on this one I can't concur. We are not in a conventional war where our battalions are battling another nations security forces. These people are using every possible means to attack us, just as we must be afforded the right to use any means to defend ourselves. Is it also not a gross conflict of interest that Eric Holder may have personally helped form the defense strategy for the accused?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jnewell33
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


What is the right thing. Most often I agree with your positions but on this one I can't concur. We are not in a conventional war where our battalions are battling another nations security forces. These people are using every possible means to attack us, just as we must be afforded the right to use any means to defend ourselves. Is it also not a gross conflict of interest that Eric Holder may have personally helped form the defense strategy for the accused?


When in doubt, fall back on the rule of law...not the politically expedient or popular decision. If it is our way of life on the line, if 'they hate us for our freedoms' (Jayzus thunderin' #, I hate that phrase) and you play by the bad guys rules...they've won.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Funny how the MSM is starting to look into these connections,lol. Better late then never I guess.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
What happened to the concept of everybody deserving a fair trial? If that's still gone...democracy lost. Your call.


That's all well and good, but the American people also deserve for these to be fair trials. I'm not at all certain that its fair to the public or to the detainees to have a situation like this where the US Attorney General is directly linked to both the prosecution and defense.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
What happened to the concept of everybody deserving a fair trial? If that's still gone...democracy lost. Your call.


That's all well and good, but the American people also deserve for these to be fair trials. I'm not at all certain that its fair to the public or to the detainees to have a situation like this where the US Attorney General is directly linked to both the prosecution and defense.


Like I said, when in doubt fall back on the rule of law. If we don't take the high road...the bad guys won, pure and simple. As is, nobody even knows what a War Criminal is any more. That ain't right.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
The thing that gets me, is everyone thinks they are guilty.

What ever happened to innocent and the law needing to prove beyond any doubt, that they are murderers or what ever.

Precrime does not exist. It is just a way to kill innocent people, and america sure loves making up stuff and killing anyone they want.


When you take a prisoner on a battlefield, there is NO presumption of innocence.

That concept exists for American citizens accused of a crime in American courts.

Enemy combatants are NOT accused "criminals." They are in violation of international law and captured in battle.

They "deserve" nothing from OUR courts, which they would rather see destroyed along with the rest of our customs.

Deny ignorance!

jw



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by andy1033
The thing that gets me, is everyone thinks they are guilty.

What ever happened to innocent and the law needing to prove beyond any doubt, that they are murderers or what ever.

Precrime does not exist. It is just a way to kill innocent people, and america sure loves making up stuff and killing anyone they want.


When you take a prisoner on a battlefield, there is NO presumption of innocence.


Well then, that is a prisoner of war and entitled to certain other benefits and protections. You'll recall that your founding revolutionaries were sneaky bastards as well, and fought their colonial masters in ways that were considered patently unfair and uncivilised. It's the underdog that is forced to find unorthodox ways of leveling the playing field.

A suicide bomber blows up police station in Iraq. A video-jockey controls a Predator strike on a wedding in A-stan, from a chair in Langley. Who is the coward? Who is the war criminal? When you fudge those lines, the ambiguity goes both ways...not just in favour of the West.

Best to cut one's losses and walk away...we all know it's a fool's errand.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
That concept exists for American citizens accused of a crime in American courts.
Enemy combatants are NOT accused "criminals." They are in violation of international law and captured in battle.

This is completely false.

While it may be true that enemy combatants aren't protected under US law—this is debatable—they are, at least, protected under international law and treaties, many of which, having been signed and ratified, the United States is obligated to follow them as if they are “supreme law of the land” as specified under Article VI of the United States Constitution.

Article 3 of the IV Hague Convention (1907) states that “The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.” Moreover, Article 8 of the same convention states that “Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are.

Even arguing, as the Bush administration argued, that the status of people apprehended weren't of enemy combatants, alluding to the doubt concerning their status, it doesn't mean we are allowed to treat them however we like. The III Geneva Convention (1949), under Article 5, makes it clear how to proceed in these cases:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
It's explicit that when there are doubts regarding the status of prisoners they are to be afforded the same protections as of those of prisoners of war, unless, and until, determined otherwise by a “competent tribunal.”

The Bush administration and their cheerleaders argued that apprehended al-Qaeda members “and other extremists” aren't considered prisoners of war under Article 4 of the convention, the one Article 5 I just quoted mentions. Article 4 states that,

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
Don't take my word or interpretation for it, take the Supreme Court's—in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to people apprehended in conflicts during the so called “War on Terror.”

Finally, and addressing jdub297's statement that enemy combatants “are in violation of international law,” this is also untrue. International law contemplates resistance movements to fight occupation. Just because people are fighting us doesn't mean they are violating any laws—how egotistic of us. This determination is to be made by a competent court, not by the opinion of politicians in the executive branch.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by converge]




top topics



 
2

log in

join