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