I hate the Supreme court, they try to help people but make it worse. Now that this is in order, rather than bringing people home to a trial where they can easily get out of prison and fight, our marines and military will conduct an interrigation and execute on site. Too bad they don't want to see another Marine killed before the terrorists, right?
The Supreme court is the body that upholds your civil rights and laws. Im sure you wouldn't be hating them so much when YOUR rights become infringed.Miller wrote:
I hate the Supreme court, they try to help people but make it worse. Now that this is in order, rather than bringing people home to a trial where they can easily get out of prison and fight, our marines and military will conduct an interrigation and execute on site. Too bad they don't want to see another Marine killed before the terrorists, right?
no it isn't, according to the supreme court no less
this ruling has absolutely no effect on the operations of Club Gitmo
the supreme court has been wrong in the past
the supreme court is not more powerful than the other 2 branches of the US government
this ruling has absolutely no effect on the operations of Club Gitmo
the supreme court has been wrong in the past
the supreme court is not more powerful than the other 2 branches of the US government
You mean like our phones that are being tapped without them saying anything?Havazn wrote:
The Supreme court is the body that upholds your civil rights and laws. Im sure you wouldn't be hating them so much when YOUR rights become infringed.Miller wrote:
I hate the Supreme court, they try to help people but make it worse. Now that this is in order, rather than bringing people home to a trial where they can easily get out of prison and fight, our marines and military will conduct an interrigation and execute on site. Too bad they don't want to see another Marine killed before the terrorists, right?
Or our bank records being scoured without them doing anything?
Or Internet spying without them fighting for us?
BAH! They choose WHAT to hear WHEN they want to hear it, there is no impartiality in the Supreme Court. If they don't want to hear a case they refuse it and nothing can be done about it...doesn't sound like I should be loving them that much.
calm down HM1, it's not as bad as John Stewart says, here are some links about.....dammit, I swear I'll get all these links I owe people up as soon as these thunderstorms let up long enough for me to post, I know I owe some on a couple of threads but it's been popping for the last week just about, GAHH!, that one was less than a mile away...........
(neat trick for those that don't know, see lightning, start counting by seconds, every 5 seconds between seeing it and hearing thunder = 1 mile.....holy sh!t gtg)
(neat trick for those that don't know, see lightning, start counting by seconds, every 5 seconds between seeing it and hearing thunder = 1 mile.....holy sh!t gtg)
So the Bush administration is taking away both your and the inmates rights, the supreme court is fighting to get the inmates rights back and you have no animosity towards the administration itself? Its your government, if you don't like what its doing, DO something. If enough people supported your side, the Supreme court cannot ignore it.HM1{N} wrote:
You mean like our phones that are being tapped without them saying anything?Havazn wrote:
The Supreme court is the body that upholds your civil rights and laws. Im sure you wouldn't be hating them so much when YOUR rights become infringed.Miller wrote:
I hate the Supreme court, they try to help people but make it worse. Now that this is in order, rather than bringing people home to a trial where they can easily get out of prison and fight, our marines and military will conduct an interrigation and execute on site. Too bad they don't want to see another Marine killed before the terrorists, right?
Or our bank records being scoured without them doing anything?
Or Internet spying without them fighting for us?
BAH! They choose WHAT to hear WHEN they want to hear it, there is no impartiality in the Supreme Court. If they don't want to hear a case they refuse it and nothing can be done about it...doesn't sound like I should be loving them that much.
These inmates aren't given the luxary of a fair and proper trial that YOU would get. They do not have the power to have their voices heard because they are locked in a box in another country. Hence the supreme courts intervention.
Last edited by Havazn (2006-06-29 13:33:27)
Not quite.RicardoBlanco wrote:
..according to the US supreme court no less.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/newsArt … TANAMO.xml
What's been ruled illegal is using military tribunals to try the prisoners. The ruling does not force Gitmo to close, hence Gitmo is not illegal. The BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5129904.stm has a link to the full ruling.
US Supreme Court wrote:
We conclude that the military commission convened lacks power to proceed
Today's ruling simply entitles the detainees at Gitmo a trial under the standards set forth by article 3 (?) of the Geneva convention, basically a federal trial not a military tribunal.
Beyond that decision it derides Bush's "assumed" capabilities after congress passed the AUMF in 2001 to fight terrorism or the AUMF in 2003 (?) to fight Iraq. Therefore all of these "supposed" powers the president has under the Gonzalez routine are at best tenuous and at worst illegal. It doesn't mean Bush will be impeached tomorrow, or ever for that matter, nor does it mean that all of the Anti-Terror policies are null and void. However this case sets serious precedent for those fighting against the NSA surveillance program as well as the SWIFT program and any changes made to detainee treatment guidelines such as removing them to unknown locations and using coercive techniques which include inhumane or degrading treatment.
For those of you who cry that we are pampering terrorists I'd like to known how you would enjoy being treated should the government ever have cause to arrest or detain you. Including the notion that guilt is assessed only after a fair trial. Once again I bring up the example that Former President John Adams, signer of the Declaration unless I'm mistaken, took on the case of the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. Why? Because he believed with all of his being that justice can only be blind, fair and equal no matter the crime or preconditioned punishment. We don't live in a world where rule of law is dictated by the majority or changes due to circumstances of the period. Our bill of rights is for all peoples, it's a declaration that we WILL NOT be the same as the rest of the nations on this earth. We hold ourselves to a higher standard and the ruling by SCOTUS this morning once again renforces that belief.
I don't care if the guys in Gitmo are terrorists, Nazi Baloon Animal Makers or Satan himself. The moment we start sacraficing the rights that we believe all humans should be afforded is the moment this nation adds another black mark to our record. None of the men on Gitmo will simply be turned loose to attack American's in Iraq or here in America. However each detainee will have the right to a fair trial and appropriate legal defense. Anything less is unpatriotic, unamerican and inhumane by the standards we all live under by being American Citizens.
Scotch
Beyond that decision it derides Bush's "assumed" capabilities after congress passed the AUMF in 2001 to fight terrorism or the AUMF in 2003 (?) to fight Iraq. Therefore all of these "supposed" powers the president has under the Gonzalez routine are at best tenuous and at worst illegal. It doesn't mean Bush will be impeached tomorrow, or ever for that matter, nor does it mean that all of the Anti-Terror policies are null and void. However this case sets serious precedent for those fighting against the NSA surveillance program as well as the SWIFT program and any changes made to detainee treatment guidelines such as removing them to unknown locations and using coercive techniques which include inhumane or degrading treatment.
For those of you who cry that we are pampering terrorists I'd like to known how you would enjoy being treated should the government ever have cause to arrest or detain you. Including the notion that guilt is assessed only after a fair trial. Once again I bring up the example that Former President John Adams, signer of the Declaration unless I'm mistaken, took on the case of the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. Why? Because he believed with all of his being that justice can only be blind, fair and equal no matter the crime or preconditioned punishment. We don't live in a world where rule of law is dictated by the majority or changes due to circumstances of the period. Our bill of rights is for all peoples, it's a declaration that we WILL NOT be the same as the rest of the nations on this earth. We hold ourselves to a higher standard and the ruling by SCOTUS this morning once again renforces that belief.
I don't care if the guys in Gitmo are terrorists, Nazi Baloon Animal Makers or Satan himself. The moment we start sacraficing the rights that we believe all humans should be afforded is the moment this nation adds another black mark to our record. None of the men on Gitmo will simply be turned loose to attack American's in Iraq or here in America. However each detainee will have the right to a fair trial and appropriate legal defense. Anything less is unpatriotic, unamerican and inhumane by the standards we all live under by being American Citizens.
Scotch
I DO have animosity towards the administration, and I feel that inmates should have rights if they are criminals and not POW's. If they are POW's then they have the Geneva Convention guidelines that should be followed to the letter. I would expect the same treatment if I were captured in a war.Havazn wrote:
So the Bush administration is taking away both your and the inmates rights, the supreme court is fighting to get the inmates rights back and you have no animosity towards the administration itself? Its your government, if you don't like what its doing, DO something. If enough people supported your side, the Supreme court cannot ignore it.HM1{N} wrote:
You mean like our phones that are being tapped without them saying anything?Havazn wrote:
The Supreme court is the body that upholds your civil rights and laws. Im sure you wouldn't be hating them so much when YOUR rights become infringed.
Or our bank records being scoured without them doing anything?
Or Internet spying without them fighting for us?
BAH! They choose WHAT to hear WHEN they want to hear it, there is no impartiality in the Supreme Court. If they don't want to hear a case they refuse it and nothing can be done about it...doesn't sound like I should be loving them that much.
These inmates aren't given the luxary of a fair and proper trial that YOU would get. They do not have the power to have their voices heard because they are locked in a box in another country. Hence the supreme courts intervention.
This is really a mixed bag of emotions for me, because I was a 7 year military man. On one hand I can see people captured in a combat zone as POW's. They are then NOT subject to the same laws as say, a carjacker.
On the other hand I know that some of those captured are innocent and should be set free. The big question is, WHICH ONE'S? How do you tell? How do you find out when everyone you have captured pretty much lies through their teeth? There is no magic ball that tells us who is who, and who did what...
I feel bad for those that are innocent and unjustly imprisoned, but if giving more rights to them is going to put another terrorist on the street, then I'm for keeping things the way they are...
See the mixed bag? It's hard to make a decision either way because we're damned no matter what takes place.
Oh, one more thing, as POW's they do not have the right to a trial under our Judicial System. They will be tried in a military court.
Last edited by HM1{N} (2006-06-29 18:45:08)
I'm glad people like Miller have no more power than bashing in forums like this. Same "person" pleads on 1st when it comes to his perversion to own every imaginable weapon there is. Yet he denounces supreme court that makes a decision that fights against his ideology. A decision made couple of hundred years ago is superior to one made today?
Your signature really tells about your intelligence.
Your signature really tells about your intelligence.
Because you were in the military I know you wouldn't really expect fair treatment.HM1{N} wrote:
I would expect the same treatment if I were captured in a war.
I would expect extreme torture and seeing what a bowling ball sees first hand (picture severed head rolling). Infact I can't recall the last country we fought that was part of the Geneva convention... USSR in Vietnam maybe for the stretch... lol
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is this;
If for one day the US was allowed to follow the same rules of war as our enemies, things would be very different.
Now think about the rights of the people we want to come back home. Zilch...
*edit spelling, oh spellcheck? Spellcheck is for sissies! lol
Last edited by Dagger37A (2006-06-29 19:37:29)
this cannot be stressed enoughDagger37A wrote:
If for one day the US was allowed to follow the same rules of war as our enemies, things would be very different.
I do EXPECT those rights, my knowledge of what actually takes place tells me I would never get them and I would be a purple mass of oozing goo before I died...Dagger37A wrote:
Because you were in the military I know you wouldn't really expect fair treatment.HM1{N} wrote:
I would expect the same treatment if I were captured in a war.
I would expect extreme torture and seeing what a bowling ball sees first hand (picture severed head rolling). Infact I can't recall the last country we fought that was part of the Geneva convention... USSR in Vietnam maybe for the stretch... lol
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is this;
If for one day the US was allowed to follow the same rules of war as our enemies, things would be very different.
Now think about the rights of the people we want to come back home. Zilch...
*edit spelling, oh spellcheck? Spellcheck is for sissies! lol
Roger that, sometimes you just have to take off your gloves and get dirty. IMHO. I understand that we are a beacon of Democracy, but this isn't a normal conflict. When your enemies know your ROE better than you do then you have to switch it up.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this cannot be stressed enoughDagger37A wrote:
If for one day the US was allowed to follow the same rules of war as our enemies, things would be very different.
What are you trying to tell? Our army fought russians in WWII with great success. And at least I've been in army...anonymous nobody wrote:
Your signature tells me you are a pussy. STFU. Finnish Army? LMAO
That's a great idea. Go ahead and use the same tactics they are using on your boys. That will get everyone right up behind ya in support.Dagger37A wrote:
Because you were in the military I know you wouldn't really expect fair treatment.HM1{N} wrote:
I would expect the same treatment if I were captured in a war.
I would expect extreme torture and seeing what a bowling ball sees first hand (picture severed head rolling). Infact I can't recall the last country we fought taht was part of the Geneva convention... USSR in Vietnam maybe for the stretch... lol
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is this;
If for one day the US was allowed to follow the same rules of war as our enemies, things would be very different.
Now think about the rights of the people we want to come back home. Zilch...
It doesnt matter that that the country you fight signed the Geneva convention, what matters is that YOU did. And the rules your military are to adhere to are in place in order to act in a civilized manor. Once these men are arrested, they are no longer combatants and as such, should be treated with the same rights as any inmate.
That they did. Decimated the Russians.PekkaA wrote:
What are you trying to tell? Our army fought russians in WWII with great success. And at least I've been in army...anonymous nobody wrote:
Your signature tells me you are a pussy. STFU. Finnish Army? LMAO
we arent suggesting that shit havzn, cmon dont start a fight man. we are saying that if the united states used the same tactics, we wouldnt give a fuck about hearts and minds. their tactics arent about winning hearts and minds, their tactics are about instilling fear in the hearts of the populous so they may conform into whatever image they believe society should fit.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-06-29 20:12:06)
when the enemy combatant fails to follow the standards of the Geneva convention, then they are no longer subject to it's protection, lack of uniform, lack of sponsor nation, purposeful targetting of women/children/civilians, use of children/civilians to gather intel (have you, gunslinger or anyone that's been to the sandbox, ever seen a child counting convoys?), use of civilians as human shields (Haditha), booby-trapping bodies of coalition, just to name a few.........
this ruling only shows that the war on activist judges is not over, it is another attempt by them to legislate new law, which is the job of congress, it's about time some of these judges started getting grilled by some impeachment panels, eminent domain is more than enough reason for me, I've already written my appropriate senators and congressman and am pleased to say they started putting the heat on the judges a couple of years ago, to which I responded with campaign contributions and re-election votes
for some of you non-us citizens out there, the readers digest version of what goes on in DC is:
supreme court (judicial branch)- judges constitutionality of existing law
presidential (executive branch)- executes law, has some ability to introduce new laws to be reviewed by.....
congress (legislative branch)- while just about anyone can get the ball rolling to introduce a bill into congress throught their appropriate reps., it cannot become law until reviewed by the House of Representatives (each state's number of representative is based on population) and then the Senate (each state gets 2, no matter the population), this bi-cameral system of congress prevents densely populated states from overrunning more rural ones in the House, and prevents a few farmers in the more agricultural states from overrunning the more industrialized ones in the Senate
this is not a defeat for Bush, as the media likes to spin it, it is a defeat for the free world in that it hamstrings our ability to cull terrorists and protect ourselves and our allies
this ruling only shows that the war on activist judges is not over, it is another attempt by them to legislate new law, which is the job of congress, it's about time some of these judges started getting grilled by some impeachment panels, eminent domain is more than enough reason for me, I've already written my appropriate senators and congressman and am pleased to say they started putting the heat on the judges a couple of years ago, to which I responded with campaign contributions and re-election votes
for some of you non-us citizens out there, the readers digest version of what goes on in DC is:
supreme court (judicial branch)- judges constitutionality of existing law
presidential (executive branch)- executes law, has some ability to introduce new laws to be reviewed by.....
congress (legislative branch)- while just about anyone can get the ball rolling to introduce a bill into congress throught their appropriate reps., it cannot become law until reviewed by the House of Representatives (each state's number of representative is based on population) and then the Senate (each state gets 2, no matter the population), this bi-cameral system of congress prevents densely populated states from overrunning more rural ones in the House, and prevents a few farmers in the more agricultural states from overrunning the more industrialized ones in the Senate
this is not a defeat for Bush, as the media likes to spin it, it is a defeat for the free world in that it hamstrings our ability to cull terrorists and protect ourselves and our allies
I'm not posting to start any fights. What I am saying is that it seems that everyone is allowing the mistreatment of prisoners because of the tactics used by the enemy are worse. The position that "as long as the prisoners aren't beheaded, anything else we do is acceptable." And as soon as someone as high as the supreme court steps in, their ruling becomes a bunch of bullshit.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
we arent suggesting that shit havzn, cmon dont start a fight man. we are saying that if the united states used the same tactics, we wouldnt give a fuck about hearts and minds. their tactics arent about winning hearts and minds, their tactics are about instilling fear in the hearts of the populous so they may conform into whatever image they believe society should fit.
I didn't want to use the cliche "Be the bigger man" but thats what ROE and the Articles of the Geneva convention are there for. So yes, more of your boys get killed adhering to ROE that is being taken advantage of, but you didn't bomb an entire village to obtain your objective. Isn't that suppose to be the honorable thing?
Easy stud, now I'm saying we should bomb villages? I don't remember typing that...Havazn wrote:
I'm not posting to start any fights. What I am saying is that it seems that everyone is allowing the mistreatment of prisoners because of the tactics used by the enemy are worse. The position that "as long as the prisoners aren't beheaded, anything else we do is acceptable." And as soon as someone as high as the supreme court steps in, their ruling becomes a bunch of bullshit.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
we arent suggesting that shit havzn, cmon dont start a fight man. we are saying that if the united states used the same tactics, we wouldnt give a fuck about hearts and minds. their tactics arent about winning hearts and minds, their tactics are about instilling fear in the hearts of the populous so they may conform into whatever image they believe society should fit.
I didn't want to use the cliche "Be the bigger man" but thats what ROE and the Articles of the Geneva convention are there for. So yes, more of your boys get killed adhering to ROE that is being taken advantage of, but you didn't bomb an entire village to obtain your objective. Isn't that suppose to be the honorable thing?
I am just bringing up the point that WE (soldiers and civillians) don't get the same treatment whatsoever. Is anyone fighting for the Soldiers rights? Negatory.
------------------------------------------------------END OF POINT-------------------------------------------------------
I am, congressional elections are coming soon, so you can too
I recieved some - karma with this attached - "'I hate the Supreme court,'" You hate our country!" My response: No, I love this country dearly. Go to my myspace page sometime and you would see. Though I won't give the URL to you. I hate our Liberal judges, they only seem to make life worse for an honest law abiding citizen. Those soldiers that are always accused of murder aren't doing it for fun. They are doing it to save their skin and the skin of the soldier next to them. I would like to put you in that situation and see what you do. Either shoot and kill the enemy or let him kill you all. My point, don't tell me I hate our country, when I'm not the one trying to make it fail.
What does the Geneva Convention say about the type of combatants the US has at Gitmo? They were not wearing uniforms of another nations army and if they were captured engaging in combat then they are classified as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS. They have no POW rights. The US could execute all of them.Havazn wrote:
That's a great idea. Go ahead and use the same tactics they are using on your boys. That will get everyone right up behind ya in support.Dagger37A wrote:
Because you were in the military I know you wouldn't really expect fair treatment.HM1{N} wrote:
I would expect the same treatment if I were captured in a war.
I would expect extreme torture and seeing what a bowling ball sees first hand (picture severed head rolling). Infact I can't recall the last country we fought taht was part of the Geneva convention... USSR in Vietnam maybe for the stretch... lol
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is this;
If for one day the US was allowed to follow the same rules of war as our enemies, things would be very different.
Now think about the rights of the people we want to come back home. Zilch...
It doesnt matter that that the country you fight signed the Geneva convention, what matters is that YOU did. And the rules your military are to adhere to are in place in order to act in a civilized manor. Once these men are arrested, they are no longer combatants and as such, should be treated with the same rights as any inmate.
Last edited by Souls (2006-06-29 22:16:46)