Bush III: Obama Denies Guantanamo Detainees Had Constitutional Protections - Sides With Rumsfeld (terrorists, troops)

[odanny]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

I'll say it as many times as I need to say it for the forum *******s:


The Solicitor General is the White House advocate cases heard by the Supreme Court. More simply put for the slower forum participants, the Solicitor General is tasked with communicating the view of the White House for cases that are heard by the Court.

So, yes, Obama did in fact have his voice heard in this matter.

He was only tangentially involved. Your title was misleading and duplicitous.
This case centered on the actions and complicity of the war criminal Donald Rumsfeld. It was ruled on by the Judicial Branch, not the Executive.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by nicet4

What I don't get is why would it have been illegal to line most of these guys up against a wall and shoot them in the head after they were captured?

Basically because you don't know if they are guilty of something

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by odanny

He was only tangentially involved. Your title was misleading and duplicitous.
This case centered on the actions and complicity of the war criminal Donald Rumsfeld. It was ruled on by the Judicial Branch, not the Executive.

Ah, but you see, his Administratin could have taken a completely different stance if it wanted to, but it didn't. No matter how you try to spin it, the Obama Administration sided with Don Rumsfeld. Hurts to hear that don't it?

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Of course, of course. Rumsfeld said so, and so did Limbaugh. Don't get carried away though: unlike Rummy, you do not have a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Terrorists, or terrorists suspects? Remember that vast majority of the prisoners have been released, because it turned out they were NOT terrorists.

Did you know that many who were released went back to fighting U.S. troops?

Yet another C-D member who defends terrorists!

[odanny]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Ah, but you see, his Administratin could have taken a completely different stance if it wanted to, but it didn't. No matter how you try to spin it, the Obama Administration sided with Don Rumsfeld. Hurts to hear that don't it?

If true, then yes, it would. Siding with the scumbag for any reason is a Faustian bargain

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Did you know that many who were released went back to fighting U.S. troops?

What is revelant is what they did BEFORE their arrest, not AFTER. The fact remains, that a lot of those people turned out to be innocent.

[odanny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-wEi...layer_embedded

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

What is revelant is what they did BEFORE their arrest, not AFTER. The fact remains, that a lot of those people turned out to be innocent.

Lol. Are you kidding? If they went back to fighting U.S. troops after their release, it a pretty sure bet they were doing that before.

Why are you defending those who are shooting at our troops?

[odanny]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Lol. Are you kidding? If they went back to fighting U.S. troops after their release, it a pretty sure bet they were doing that before.

Why are you defending those who are shooting at our troops?

It's also a pretty sure bet if you torture someone and detain them/imprison them without any evidence or charges they are going to hate you.

What part of that rationale are you having trouble with? Maybe I can help you out.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by odanny

It's also a pretty sure bet if you torture someone and detain them/imprison them without any evidence or charges they are going to hate you.

Who was tortured?

What part of that rationale are you having trouble with? Maybe I can help you out

Maybe you can help. I am wondering why some people are so concerned about terrorists and those who are shooting at our troops.