Obama plans quick move on Gitmo

[Slammer2]

lets build a rainbow colored wall around the city first

 

[zoomie08]

Easy on the liberals, fellas. Most of us aren't so bad. The ones of us who chose to meet, drink with, serve with, and be friends with people of other views, at least...

 

[NozeMan]

can't we just send them to san francisco, berkley and new england? they love to piss and moan about them. maybe they'd welcome the jeeehawd in their cities, since they're so tolerant.

That seems like a viable solution. Everything else about CA is wacked anyways, they'd be a nice addition to this place.

 

[The Chief]

Easy on the liberals, fellas. Most of us aren't so bad. The ones of us who chose to meet, drink with, serve with, and be friends with people of other views, at least...

A. Regret harshness of my post.

B. Bringing those rascals to GTMO was bad decision. I say that now, but thought an excellent idea at the time. That we would be forever stuck with them is exacly why President Clinton refused to even discuss taking Bin Laden when he and his entourage were offered to USA. Of course Clinton could not forsee what was going to happen down the road. No one could have.

C. Lots of talk in circles about sending them to the ICC. Would most likely be seven more years before any trials were completed by the ICC.

D. I have no crystal ball but I believe if we bring them into the criminal justice system here at home, we are forever stuck with them. The same shysters that will get them off, for, the sake of an example, they were not properly Miranda-ized, will be able to get them residency in the USofA. And if we as citizens allow that to happen, the perhaps we deserve them.

 

[RyanF]

can't we just send them to san francisco, berkley and new england? they love to piss and moan about them. maybe they'd welcome the jeeehawd in their cities, since they're so tolerant.

Sounds good to me, but can you just wait till after Friday to do that so I can pick up my SKS and some ammo first?

 

[feddoc]

A. Regret harshness of my post.

B. Bringing those rascals to GTMO was bad decision. I say that now, but thought an excellent idea at the time. That we would be forever stuck with them is exacly why President Clinton refused to even discuss taking Bin Laden when he and his entourage were offered to USA. Of course Clinton could not forsee what was going to happen down the road. No one could have.

C. Lots of talk in circles about sending them to the ICC. Would most likely be seven more years before any trials were completed by the ICC.

D. I have no crystal ball but I believe if we bring them into the criminal justice system here at home, we are forever stuck with them. The same shysters that will get them off, for, the sake of an example, they were not properly Miranda-ized, will be able to get them residency in the USofA. And if we as citizens allow that to happen, the perhaps we deserve them.

I hope we don't bring them here.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50C5JX20090113?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

 

[USNMark]

IMHO, when you capture and ship an individual to a site that is inaccessible by anyone and then label the evidence used against them as "classified," you are certainly going to see some abuses of the system.

So when this guy

suspended the Constitutionally-protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1862 in order to, among other things, protect the capitol, does that mean he "abused the system," too?
It's not an abuse to keep these dirt bags more than an arm's distance from the American people. My hope is they continue to be denied access to the American legal system and will instead face the legal music in military courts. As others have mentioned, with the taxpayer-funded defense lawyer circus that would ensue, I think we would have a fairly decent shit storm in the States.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Absolutely not. Sorry for the confusing wording. I was saying (or attempting to say) that it is a shame that when they were shooting at us, none of our troops or allies killed them. It may sound like a contradiction in thoughts but oh well... Once they are captured, obviously, they are off limits.


Lasers,

The Supreme Court would beg to differ with your statement that they aren't entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights. Read the Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush and other recent cases.

Also, there is a lot more to public policy than your tax dollars. No offense, dude, but to judge all policies based on your (Not singling you out. Anyone who holds this as their primary view through which they judge policy.) precious money is closed-minded, selfish, and shallow. I am not sure if that is what you are saying or not. I agree that spending is an important part of policy but there is much more to it than that. I am simply making the case that our democracy is fragile and working outside the Constitution sets a very dangerous precedent.

And, they aren't simply (or technically) POW's. They have this strange legal status that no one seems to label one way or the other. Read Hamdan v. Bush where the Court decided that tribunals designed for POW's were't adequate for these guys because they didn't meet requirements of the Geneva Convention. (And, I have no idea why. This is way beyond my limited legal mind.)

Are you in an alternate reality? Ever heard of capitalism? You know the idea that the means of producing wealth are in the hands of the people. I make numerous judgements about policy based on how it affects my wallet and if you don't think the federal government does the same thing then you're living in some whacked out utopian society that I've never heard of. What I'm referring to primarily is welfare type policies not our "friends" at Gitmo.

As far as being close-minded, selfish, and shallow....I did not know you were the judge of one's morality. So when you want to make your own close-minded assumption about another person just do me a favor and keep it yourself because I don't a shit if you think I'm any of those things. To be quite frank, I have right to be that way if I so choose.

Did you go out and buy the clif notes of my post? You must've missed the part where I was writing about how the Supreme Court was playing judge and lawmaker. Especially as it pertains to the Rasul v. Bush. Even Judge Scalia suggested that the issue should be solved by Congress. As far as working outside the bounds of the Constitution well pal I hate to break it to you but people just don't agree on how its meant to be interpreted. And at times it's difficult to apply it to a situation.

As far as POW status. As I said before I'm not informed enough about individual cases to even begin to think about whether they should be POWs according to Geneva Conventions. That's a job I'd rather not fill. But in no way am I saying that I think they are POWs.

And as far as being better to play safe than sorry, I disagree. It is most of the time...when we have the luxury of doing so within the bounds of our American principles. We can't stick to those principles only when it is easy or safe or convenient. Justice, freedom, and liberty are what define us as American. We can't give them up...no matter what the cost.

So you think we should risk American lives to so we can be fair to non-Americans? You must not have woken up from your utopian dreams yet. Nations act within their own self interest. If that means stepping away from principles for a moment then that's the way it rolls. I'm a fan of keeping Americans safe. If we could operate on our principles all the time that would be great but reality dictates that we be flexible in the conduct of our policies.

Sometimes doing the right thing is not always legal.

 

[eddie]

So when this guy

suspended the Constitutionally-protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1862 in order to, among other things, protect the capitol, does that mean he "abused the system," too?

Uh, yes, it does. Just because it may or may not have been the right thing to do does not make it any more or less legal.

 

[bubblehead]

So when this guy suspended the Constitutionally-protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1862 in order to, among other things, protect the capitol, does that mean he "abused the system," too?

It's funny that you left out the fact that the Supreme Court eventually restored habeas corpus and ruled what Lincoln did was illegal.

It's not an abuse to keep these dirt bags more than an arm's distance from the American people. My hope is they continue to be denied access to the American legal system.

Yeah.. That makes complete sense.

Why don't we do the same to Mara Salvatrucha 13 gang members who take part in robbery, drug & arms trafficking, extortion, contract killing, and murder?

Mind you, they commit these crimes in cities across the United States, but yet, we give them full and unfettered access to the United States legal system.

 

[m0tbaillie]

So you think we should risk American lives to so we can be fair to non-Americans? You must not have woken up from your utopian dreams yet. Nations act within their own self interest. If that means stepping away from principles for a moment then that's the way it rolls. I'm a fan of keeping Americans safe. If we could operate on our principles all the time that would be great but reality dictates that we be flexible in the conduct of our policies.

Sometimes doing the right thing is not always legal.

And as the most powerful country in the world, people expect us to look above and beyond our own self-interests at times and take the moral high-ground when others turn a blind eye. We are essentially damned if we do, and damned if we don't 99.999% of the time. That is, being the most powerful country in the world politically, economically (debatable), and militarily brings with endless amounts of worldwide scrutiny. People will always complain about what we do do and about what we don't as well.

But, that's just how things are when you're the Fonzi-like underdog of the global stage. :icon_smil

 

[A4sForever]

I vote we move Gitmo to this place, U.S. territory, to boot. Let's see how many lawyers want to make the trek out there. Game over.

Anyone???

 

[eddie]

I vote we move Gitmo to this place, U.S. territory, to boot. Let's see how many lawyers want to make the trek out there. Game over.

Anyone???

Is that Diego Garcia?

 

[Spekkio]

Did you go out and buy the clif notes of my post? You must've missed the part where I was writing about how the Supreme Court was playing judge and lawmaker. Especially as it pertains to the Rasul v. Bush. Even Judge Scalia suggested that the issue should be solved by Congress. As far as working outside the bounds of the Constitution well pal I hate to break it to you but people just don't agree on how its meant to be interpreted. And at times it's difficult to apply it to a situation.

The Supreme Court cannot make laws; it can only rule on whether or not existing laws conflict with the Constitution. This applies on the state level as well. A lot of right-wing pundits like to use "legislating from the bench" as a political phrase, but it's a misinterpretation of what is really happening because they simply don't like the decision.

For example, judges in MA did not "legalize gay marriage." They simply ruled that gay couples have the same protected rights that straight couples do, so the laws barring them from obtaining the benefits of those rights are illegal. They stated "Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. ... The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal." It might seem like symantics, but it's a big difference. The court did not write any laws through their decision; they simply struck down a law that was illegal to make in the first place because it conflicted with the state or federal Constitution, and it infringed upon someone's protected rights. (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying either way whether or not I think this is the 'correct' decision or interpretation of the state Constitution; I simply brought this up as a current example of how the court works compared to how people make it seem like it's working).

Along those lines, the Supreme Court really can't rule whether or not it is illegal for the President to hold 'enemy combatants' in GTMO, since there is no provision in the Constitution that really addresses the issue. So really, the issue is whether or not you believe Constitutional rights ought to be granted to foreigners, and that's why Justice Scalia deferred to Congress.

Sometimes doing the right thing is not always legal.

True, but I would say that what you are advocating isn't right, either. The ends don't always justify the means.

 

[zoomie08]

Are you in an alternate reality? Ever heard of capitalism? You know the idea that the means of producing wealth are in the hands of the people. I make numerous judgements about policy based on how it affects my wallet and if you don't think the federal government does the same thing then you're living in some whacked out utopian society that I've never heard of. What I'm referring to primarily is welfare type policies not our "friends" at Gitmo.

As far as being close-minded, selfish, and shallow....I did not know you were the judge of one's morality. So when you want to make your own close-minded assumption about another person just do me a favor and keep it yourself because I don't a shit if you think I'm any of those things. To be quite frank, I have right to be that way if I so choose.

Did you go out and buy the clif notes of my post? You must've missed the part where I was writing about how the Supreme Court was playing judge and lawmaker. Especially as it pertains to the Rasul v. Bush. Even Judge Scalia suggested that the issue should be solved by Congress. As far as working outside the bounds of the Constitution well pal I hate to break it to you but people just don't agree on how its meant to be interpreted. And at times it's difficult to apply it to a situation.

As far as POW status. As I said before I'm not informed enough about individual cases to even begin to think about whether they should be POWs according to Geneva Conventions. That's a job I'd rather not fill. But in no way am I saying that I think they are POWs.


So you think we should risk American lives to so we can be fair to non-Americans? You must not have woken up from your utopian dreams yet. Nations act within their own self interest. If that means stepping away from principles for a moment then that's the way it rolls. I'm a fan of keeping Americans safe. If we could operate on our principles all the time that would be great but reality dictates that we be flexible in the conduct of our policies.

Sometimes doing the right thing is not always legal.

No cliff notes. I studied this stuff in college and when not drinking, fishing, or riding my motorcycle, I use my seemingly infinite amounts of free time in A-Pool to read a lot of books on public policy. That was all from memory (and if that makes me a dork, oh well.). It's just what I am interested in. And, yes you are right. People disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court just happened to rule one particular way which makes it law.

And, as far as acting in self-interest, I agree...to a point. And, no it's not a utopian dream to think that countries are capable of placing principle and ideas ahead of narrow self-interest. That is exactly what the founders did. Unfortunately, it is not "just the way it rolls" when we sacrifice exactly what makes us unique, what makes us American. To quote the ever-wise Ben Franklin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety and will lose both." Not to sound clichee, but you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. In my most humble opinion, you should NOT be ok with violating the document you swore to uphold because it is easier.

And about capitalism. I think capitalism is wonderful. However, I think people get way too caught up in their obsession with the almighty dollar. You are correct that the government considers the fiscal side of all policies. That should not be the driving force behind policies, though. Maybe our values as the country have gotten off track.

I am not living in some utopian fantasy. You are a realist and I am a liberal. (Not liberal as in the left side of the political spectrum, although I am that as well, but as in Realism vs Liberalism.) I am guilty of being an American idealist and a man of principle.

And, yes, you have the right to be able to live how you want. It is what makes our country what it is. I think all of us on here are willing to give our lives so people can have their own opinions, no matter what they might be. I am just giving you my (admittedly very strong) opinion.