GUANTANAMO

andynap

Senior Insider
Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo Trials
Decision Marks Setback for Bush Administration
By GINA HOLLAND, AP

WASHINGTON (June 29) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees."

Horray for the Rule of Law.
 
hamdansmall.jpg
 
OK, now take a day or two and explain to me how the Geneva Convention applies to the detainees.....who, BTW, are NOT in uniform and represent no nation.
 
OK, now take a day or two and explain to me how the Geneva Convention applies to the detainees.....who, BTW, are NOT in uniform and represent no nation.

It has to be understood that The Radical Left has inculcated such a sense of Bush Hatred in their legions of followers that they will cheer ANY victory ANYONE achieves fighting George Bush.

My personal view here, partisan though it is, is that George Bush probably is not the most dangerous person out there that we need to worry about. I know people will say that I am wrong. Alas, I fear future events, like past ones, will prove me correct.

My enemy's enemy is my friend.

If you hate George Bush, and want to see him fail, then you are pulling for his enemies to succeed.

Damn.
 
You guys really ought calm down. It doesn't mean these people will be released- only that they will be tried according to some semblace of law. I couldn't care less about these prisoners but I do care about upholding the constitution or War Treaties which our president doesn't time and time again. You think by saying the word "terrorism" this admisitration can get away with anything they damn well please. At least 5 Supreme Court justices don't think so.
 
OK, here's my take on it.
9/11 deaths: 2973
Gitmo pop: 450, plus or minus

So, here's what we do:
Line em up, shoot em all, bulldoze the bodies.

we're still down by 2523, for those of you keeping score, but it's a start.
I'm more than happy to either shoot the guns, or drive the dozers.
I'm dreadfully sick of the devoted readers of the NYT, who simply fail to understand that we're dealing with an enemy that would happily slit their throats and video tape the result.
these people want to exterminate us....we need to exterminate them first.

"Ooops!...aw gee, that guy was INNOCENT".

So was every American killed on 9/11

(hmm, why do I sound like ann coulter here..)
 
I couldn't care less about these prisoners but I do care about upholding the constitution or War Treaties which our president doesn't time and time again. You think by saying the word "terrorism" this admisitration can get away with anything they damn well please. At least 5 Supreme Court justices don't think so.

Okay, several points:

1. First, THANK YOU And
 
The thing is Fred- you have them convicted of 9/11 already. Don't they have trials in New York anymore or do you still do lynchings? Why bother? Shoot them- no trial- no evidence. I'm sure Cheney would volunteer to pull the trigger but he would probably hit a friend instead.
 
Line em up, shoot em all, bulldoze the bodies.

So, you're a moral relativist, no due process needed. Does My Lai ring a bell?

How about this poem, translated from the original German?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 
The thing is Fred- you have them convicted of 9/11 already. Don't they have trials in New York anymore or do you still do lynchings? Why bother? Shoot them- no trial- no evidence. I'm sure Cheney would volunteer to pull the trigger but he would probably hit a friend instead.

Not to be disagreeable, but were not the present administration proposing trials for these fellows?

If I wear a uniform and attack targets of military or strategic importance under a national declaration of war, I am acting within the accepted rules of war. If I wear no uniform, attack nonmilitary or nonstrategic targets as I choose with no governing body to declare war, then my status is different.
 
Well then the question is: what is a uniform? Does it have to have soldier stripes or insignias? Isn't a burnoose a uniform of some sort.Wasn't the fellow who was the plaintiff in this case going to a wedding and NOT fighting at the time he was picked as was many of the detainees in Guantanamo??
 
So what we really have here is this:

1. Bush wants military trials for these guys, the same kinds of trials our own sons and daughters are undergoing

2. The Left wants Bush to fail

3. A decision has gone out that these guys, whose status is uncertain at best, can't be tried by the military

4. The Left claims Bush wanted to hang them without a trial

The logic there is, well, not there.
 
Well then the question is: what is a uniform? Does it have to have soldier stripes or insignias? Isn't a burnoose a uniform of some sort.Wasn't the fellow who was the plaintiff in this case going to a wedding and NOT fighting at the time he was picked as was many of the detainees in Guantanamo??

Don't know. There hasn't been a trial yet.
 
Wasn't the fellow who was the plaintiff in this case going to a wedding and NOT fighting at the time he was picked as was many of the detainees in Guantanamo??

So you can only be picked up while you are fighting? If you call Time Out and stop fighting, you can't be picked up?

I missed something in my time in the military.
 
I'm emphatically NOT a moral relativist....I'm as clear minded about this as any other right wing conservative...LOL....and consistent...hell, i favor the damn death penalty for child abusers as humane punishment for something that can't be cured or corrected.....

I do, however, completely fail to see the relevance of the "when they came for me" quote....


I am a big fan of the term, 'outlaw', in the most literal sense of the word...as in, 'outside the law'...and I have a hard time understanding how folks in violation of the most basic of Laws, are still provided the protection of the US Constitution.

FWIW, I pride myself on not being as highly evolved as you other guys....if you whack me in the nose, I'm not going to ask you to explain your deprived childhood or attempt to understand why your parents didn't love you...I'm smackin back.

and i do understand that by wiping out the population of Gitmo, AIDS may go uncured, cancer research will be set back a few years, and the world may well be deprived of significant advances in all sorts of areas by the brilliant Islamofascists whose lives were snuffed out all too soon.

I'll take my chances.
 
In the meantime, trying to Build A Clintonian Bridge here, who would you fellows rather see in the WW Contest: Ann Coulter or Madeline Albright?
 
<<<If I wear no uniform, attack nonmilitary or nonstrategic targets as I choose with no governing body to declare war, then my status is different>>>

and you can be shot as a spy...

OK, Andy, you win.
Just open the gates and let the b*stards run for it....all nice and legal, like.
 
<<who would you fellows rather see in the WW Contest: Ann Coulter or Madeline Albright? >>

One of the Bush girls...LOL

WW is a self selecting universe...only the emaciated need apply.
 
Top