Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Morals and values are not for when times are easy. Morals and values are for when times are tough.
If, because our civilians were attacked, our response is to break our own laws, to violate our own standards, in the name of "the gloves came off," then we are morally bankrupt, too.
The lawyers crying foul are the former prosecutors from the military tribunals, including the Chief Prosecutor!
This is a sign that what we have been doing in Guantanamo is wrong. This is a sign that the direction our military 'justice' system is heading in is diametrically opposed to the direction that our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Uniform Code of Military Justice would have them go.
You talk about "combatants captured on the battlefield," but that's the problem. Many of these people were:
1) Not combatants,
2) Not on the battlefield,
and
3) Not even captured by us.
Our military has been trying to fix these cases. They've tried to have evidence from torture admitted. They've withheld exculpatory evidence.
This is all incredibly bogus.
I got a new word for you, "allegedly". Defense lawyers suppose all sorts of misconduct. That's what they get paid to do.
The point you're missing here is lawyers suck and WTH do you know about the UCMJ? And why would it apply to these people in any case?
"Morals and values are not for when times are easy. Morals and values are for when times are tough."
I totally agree. My number one moral obligation is to protect the ones I love, period. If that makes me a war criminal in your eyes, so be it. It is always the ones on the sidelines doing all the b*tchin' anyway. It is a different situation when you personally are responsible for the safety of others. Biden, Clinton and McCain all approved of the Iraq invasion for the same reason; to prevent another, possibly worse attack on US civilians. If you don't get the big picture of Islamic terrorism and their end game (forcibly converting the world to Islam and overthrowing all the non-Islamic governments) after all they've done to Americans over the past thirty years, nothing I could say at this point would make any sense to you. It's a gut-check issue. For me, it is simple. I have people that I'm responsible for protecting. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. My duty is to them and it is absolute. link
I got a new word for you, "allegedly". Defense lawyers suppose all sorts of misconduct. That's what they get paid to do.
WTF?
Let me try this again, since you are not responding to what I wrote.
The lawyers crying foul are the former prosecutors from the military tribunals, including the Chief Prosecutor!
THE PROSECUTORS. Not the defense lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The point you're missing here is lawyers suck and WTH do you know about the UCMJ? And why would it apply to these people in any case?
It has to do with conduct of trials and how the prosecution is handled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
"Morals and values are not for when times are easy. Morals and values are for when times are tough."
I have people that I'm responsible for protecting. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. My duty is to them and it is absolute. link
The problem is that your position fails in your duty to them.
Gut check is right.
Punishing people and imprisoning people and torturing people whom our own government has admitted had no enmity towards the United States is not protecting the people you are responsible for. It is putting them at greater risk.
This is a squib from Newsweek, with related stories below it:
Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Guantanamo+Bay - broken link)
Foreign combatants? Of the 250 detainees still in Guantanamo Bay, do you know where they came from? Only a few are linked to 9/11. I'm not saying just let them go. Put them up for trial if there is such clear evidence against them.
And where did you find a quote that Biden thinks I'm wrong?
He proposed to change "or" to "and" and it now excludes US citizens which doesn't apply to my assertion. Closing Gitmo doesn't change the definition of unlawful enemy combatant or extend to them the rights enjoyed by US citizens. This is the law and Biden's proposed change.
"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SEC. 201. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF `UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT' FOR PURPOSES OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
Section 948a(1)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `means'; and
(2) by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
`(i) means a person who is not a lawful enemy combatant and who--
`(I) has engaged in hostilities against the United States; or
`(II) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States (other than hostilities engaged in as a lawful enemy combatant); and
`(ii) does not include any person who is--
`(I) a citizen of the United States or legally admitted to the United States; and
Guantanamo is an ugly reminder to the rest of the world that our American sense of moral superiority is a steaming pile of ****.
Yes, and isn't it nice that Obama will get credit for getting rid of it, earning more goodwill from other countries who may now start admiring us and trusting us, helping us, siding with us (maybe even WILLINGLY).
Why would get-mo be closed before these folks are tried or released to begin with. You do know that 500+ have already been released right?
You presuppose they are terrorists, and they countries don't want some simply for the fact that they are terrorists. That's a double negative, fallacy fallacy. Congrats, ignorance is bliss.
"If you and your ilk simply read once in a while, then you would understand the issues better."
Yes Moonbeam, reading is fundamental!
"Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. But, underscoring the difficult decisions Obama must make to fulfill his pledge of shutting down Guantanamo, the plan could require the creation of a new legal system to handle the classified information inherent in some of the most sensitive cases."
Obama plans US terror trials to replace Guantanamo - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo - broken link)
"Barack Obama will move swiftly to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office, his aides said yesterday, in a clear and early sign of how determined he is to break with President Bush.
Mr Obama is planning to ship dozens of terrorist suspects from the camp to face criminal trial in the US. It is a controversial move but one that demonstrates how abruptly he plans to change Washington in terms of policy, personnel and tone the moment he enters the Oval Office."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
