Thread: So these are the types of people the supreme court want to turn loose on US courts?

FOXNews.com - Thousands Cheer as Pakistani Militants Decapitate, Shoot Afghans Accused of Spying for U.S. - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News
To my way of thinking, we are at war, and need to proclaim so loud and clear, and then stop pussy footing around! The people in this story aren't pussy footing around!

what does this have to do with the US court system? They are people in another country exacting vengence on those they believe to be traitorous. No implication of our court system as far as I can see.

The court ruled against the constitution as well as precedent and granted enemy combatants the same rights you and I enjoy... to which they are not entitled because they are not citizens of the USA.. And the current enemy consists of Jacque ...donkeys such as those mentioned in the article, many of which are guests at our Gitmo facility.

Different issue. The article about what is going on in Pakistan has nothing to do with the issue of what this country does with enemy combatants. The court ruling applies to those who the US are holding in detention, not to actors in Pakistan. The problem the court addressed is whether those who the US designates as enemy combatants have any standing to challenge the designation, or whether the US government can simply label someone as an e.c. and then lock them up in prison indefinitely, without allowing them the opportunity to challenge the charges. If we have evidence that they are in fact enemy combatants, there shouldn't be any problem in putting these people on trial to prove the charges against them. We should have nothing to fear if the charges are true. What the Bush administration has been doing is illegal and without precedent.

They are the same type of people... It seems kind of silly to have to explain the concept but it is a comparison of the type of individuals we are fighting... not a direct relationship.

Originally Posted by Cyclophile

They are the same type of people... It seems kind of silly to have to explain the concept but it is a comparison of the type of individuals we are fighting... not a direct relationship.

What exactly do you mean, ,"the same type of people?" Be specific so we can be sure we understand you exactly.

j

I think our courts can handle them... I'm not all that concerned about it.

Gents, sorry for the novel, some of the things I read just set wrong with me. Read if you like, skim if not. BJ2, when discussing the murderers in Pakistan vice the people captured, I disagree with you, and believe it is exactly the same issue, as the instigators of such activities are the majority of the "guests" at the prison at Guantanamo, who are mostly getting fat while bureaucrats decide what to do with them.

The true "enemy combatants" as described by Geneva convention and international laws of war, have already been released AFAIK after the old Iraqi Regime fell. Iraqi soldiers, that sort.
Terrorists etc. are specifically excluded from protection, so roving gangs of thugs killing their own countrymen for disagreeing with them are not the same thing as "soldiers".
If the detainees wish to be treated as truly POW's, then they have no right to a civilian trial in the U.S. nor does any non-military court have jurisdiction over them. Furthermore, there is no requirement to free them until hostilities with their claimed "nation" (see how the rules are stretched?) which happens to be a terrorist organization, have ceased.

The thugs in Pakistan are *not* simply good citizens of another country acting against those who they believe to be "traitorous". Pakistan is an ALLY of the U.S. at the moment, therefore people killing those for said suspicions notably did not involve the authorities. It would appear their allegiances are to Al Qaeda and other terror organizations, NOT to Pakistan. In fact, it is likely they themselves, in the strictest sense of the word, are the traitors.

And, BJ2, the acts are not "illegal" nor are they "without precedent". The only difference today is that there is a large populace of the ignorant proclaiming their suspicions as if they were fact, when realistically they have little idea of what is or is not occurring. Terrorists have been captured in the past, also. They've even been questioned before. The main difference is that in the past they were then summarily executed. The only reason the current U.S. administration draws flack is 1) unfounded accusations which when found thin, are not withdrawn 2) the popularity of hating America. It just seems to be in vogue. Tell a Bush joke, complain about horrible treatment at Gitmo (even though you really have no idea), and generally talk about how bad the terrorists have it and how they should be released.

Having seen first hand some of the "handiwork" of some of these fine individuals, I agree, let's close GITMO, even though it is one of the best run prisons in the world (according to the Germans, apparently, who inspected for human rights violations, etc). I would close it with 5 or 10 JDAMs, with the murdering "detainees" still inside.
Since that is not an option obviously, and they continue to be treated with more respect than our own media shows US, if they are international criminals, who were their crimes against, let THEM try them. Obviously some people have issues with getting information to save lives, so on with the trials.

I suggest that each terror suspect be tried by a tribunal of judges from his or her victims, if that many are left. These are not Iraqi soldiers, but devoted members of an organization bent on destruction of anything and anyone western, and who would and have murdered many innocents just for not being on the same page of music. More than once these poor, helpless individuals had to be protected from their own people who wanted to rip them to pieces (yes literally). I was there. One sticks in my mind in particular, didn't seem like such a horrible guy, turns out that the person turning him in was the only surviving member of her family-he'd killed them all-and after paperwork turned up, he was responsible for the deaths of approximately 800 people in Baghdad alone. They simply disappeared.

Much of the commotion and (baseless) accusations of illegal activities concerning capture of these people is IMHO the result of a political campaign in the U.S.
It is an election year, and the media simply abhors president Bush, the democrats abhor the Republican party , and they can and do make ridiculous accusations against both the armed forces and the administration/President in general. Doesn't mean they are true-but just watch. When "their" boy gets in office, the news will be all rosy again, and he will be credited with "cleaning up the mess" of Pres. Bush. Regardless of the fact "their" boy in fact did nothing at all.

Remember Haditha? Turns out at trial, so far 7 of the Marines have been exonerated completely. These same Marines that Sen. Murtha callously called "murderers" without knowing anything about the story. They'd been tried and hanged in the media for a year before they even got to state their case. Locked into prison in shackles for doing their jobs. Did you hear a retraction, or even an apology? No, the story didn't even make front page. No wonder people like you think everything is "illegal". It is because politicians and Media types want you to think the current administration is bad, so "their" people will be elected. It's dirty, but it is apparently how they are playing.

How long did you hear about Abu Ghraib? Let me guess, you STILL hear about it. The offenses took less than a week, no prisoners were actually injured TMK, and guilty parties have already been tried and imprisoned. Yet, it is repeated incessantly as if it is standard procedure and ongoing for months. Cameras are not allowed into GitMo due to new rulings that the detainees be afforded similar rights as a POW (EPW). SO politicians and media types again claim all sorts of horrors are happening, with impunity-and they do. Remember the claim GI's were flushing the Koran? Turned out to be completely invented. People died because of that story. Did the retraction get front page? You tell me. So, slanderous/libelous acts leading to the deaths of American and Afghan people-is OK, so long as the slander is against Americans, but keeping known terrorist enemies *caught in the act* as a general rule in captivity until the end of hostilities is somehow illegal? Are you serious??

Yet people bash Fox news because it doesn't (always anyway) jump on the same bandwagon. Folks, the bandwagon is on the wrong path. I have lots of gripes about the president and the administration but treatment of terrorists etc. is not on the list.
So, next time you make an accusation, make sure it is also backed up by fact. Most of the ones I'm hearing lately simply are not.

Incidentally, you will not likely see pictures from inside GitMo or any other military prison containing personnel who wish to be designated "Prisoners of War". Geneva conventions prohibit photographing POW's and publishing them.

People talk about us "losing so many freedoms" under this administration. Consider that the wiretapping of Americans was not only condoned but widely practiced in the Clinton administration. There is a fifth column operation trying to help Al Qaeda here, and when it found SF were listening to terrorist phone calls in Iraq and Afghanistan, they panicked, and then decided to scare Americans that "Hey...some of those calls were to the U.S. !!!!" Next thing you know, it had become distorted so much that people were saying the taps were on THIS end. Not the case, but it still effectively took one big tool away from those finding the terrorists, as by the time a judge could have been awakened, the call, and any chance to figure its contents or location, have long been ended. Score one for the terrorists.

In fact, when it comes to rights lost-the "assault weapons ban" took a right away from US citizens-under the Clinton administration; [I still remember when "assault weapon" meant a selective fire weapon capable of full automatic fire, not any rifle that didn't meet the aesthetic appeal of the Clinton administration but which doesn't fire any faster than a browning hunting rifle] They change definitions to suit their purposes. Today they do it with the word "torture" for instance....
A church was starved then burned to death after a botched raid where government stormtroopers (not police, either) decided to go in guns blazing rather than knock with a warrant. They were then called a "cult" and blamed for their own deaths. Likewise a hermit was framed by the government, then his son was shot to death in the woods on his own property, as was his wife, shot in the head by a government sniper. Again, the media machine said "these were bad people" and bandied about the words "white seperatist"-what exactly is that, btw? and "compound". Turns out at the trial, the government witnesses were even caught lying under oath, and the charges were dropped. Not to mention the labels were even wrong. The man was framed by the government because he *refused* to infiltrate a white supremacy group for them. So after murdering his wife and son (AND DOG) they accuse him of the very thing he wouldn't do for them. And are caught lying by the judge. No public apologies, nothing. The man's wife and son are dead for something it turns out he didn't even do. Bin Laden was even offered to the Clinton administration. They refused. Yet the media loved the Clinton administration. Why. Perhaps I am imagining this political affinity between the media and the "Hollywood" party. They even bend history. Abraham Lincoln? Republican. Martin Luther King, Jr? Republican. The president that over much protest from democrats integrated schools? Republican. Yet see which party gets credit in the media? It's a huge bias purely for political gain and they will tell you anything to get elected. Bush is guilty of it too, just not in the case everyone is blaming him for.

None of these horrors listed above have occurred under the Bush administration. I vehemently disagree with his immigration policies and his globalist agenda, but ultimately, if we are going to go comparing leaders to Hitler or whatever, it would be Clinton, not Bush. Hitler was extremely popular, so was Clinton-Hitler was a media darling, so was Clinton, people disappeared who had evidence against him, same with Clinton, in fact, the media loved him so much that Turner et al might as well have been his Goebbels and Reifenstahl. Bush doesn't have NEARLY the favorable media image here. Yet people call HIM these names. There are all sorts of rumors and accusations, but ultimately, I've not heard of the government burning down or shooting Americans for some time now.

So, Mr. Billyjeff2 (and others with similar ideology) next time you are demanding "why haven't they captured Bin Laden?" or "why is the war on terror still ongoing?" Simply look in the mirror. there is a difference between being humane and obeying the laws, and stretching them to ridiculous lengths to protect the enemy who is bent on murdering our own citizens, but tying the hands of those we send to deal with the issue and then wondering why the "war isn't over".

John P.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

What exactly do you mean, ,"the same type of people?" Be specific so we can be sure we understand you exactly.

j

Originally Posted by JohnP

G







These are not Iraqi soldiers, but devoted members of an organization bent on destruction of anything and anyone western, and who would and have murdered many innocents just for not being on the same page of music. More than once these poor, helpless individuals had to be protected from their own people who wanted to rip them to pieces (yes literally). I was there. One sticks in my mind in particular, didn't seem like such a horrible guy, turns out that the person turning him in was the only surviving member of her family-he'd killed them all-and after paperwork turned up, he was responsible for the deaths of approximately 800 people in Baghdad alone. They simply disappeared.

The type of people my friend John P speaks of!

Originally Posted by JMS

The type of people my friend John P speaks of!

I somehow think the paperwork would be enough to keep him there after he petitioned the court.

Or do you mean that type of person but we don't have any evidence on them? How can we know they're that type of person without the paperwork noted in John Ps example?