only immoral people would fall for that glatt. don't believe me? ask flaja.

What were we talking about again??? Did anyone find a coin yet to flip?

BS. You have no proof either.

What proof do you have that only non-citizens are included in We the People and that the expression “no person” in the 5th Amendment means “no citizen”? None. You have no such proof because no such proof exists. You have been shown time and time again that legal due process rights are and have been extended to citizens only that are subject to U.S. law. You are either too dense to see or too obstinate to admit that you are flat wrong. You are not here to discuss, but rather to argue. You are little more than a bully.

BS.

That is a jump you made to make your political points and show your displeasure at current policy and previous history. My values and my family have nothing to do with this discussion. You are nothing more than a dense bully.

:lol2:

Nobody has answered this yet.

If the people at Gitmo are not protected by the constitution 'cuz they arent citizens
and arent protected by the geneva convention cause they arent soldiers

then what law ARE they protected under? none?
thats bull.

TheMercenary was expected to obtain an education. TheMercenary did not even attend college even though it was paid for by his military service. Now he is a Constitutional expert?

Constitutional guarantees apply to all people within American jurisdiction. Citizens and non-citizens alike. Whereas some laws apply differently, still, Constitutional guarantees apply to all. TheMercenary - due to minimal education - routinely uses bully tactics. When he cannot defend himself, as any bully would do, TheMercenary then attacks the poster. The bully here is TheMercenary - who also must be told by extremist talk show hosts how to think.

Why not just quote from the Constitution? Oh. TheMercenary cannot. TheMercenary just knows without reading from the Constitution. He knows non-citizens have no rights only because a political agenda told him so.

Where is that Constitutional phrase that says only citizens have rights? Oh. No such phrase exists except where extremists invent both new legal principals and mythical enemies.

Why are most all Guantanamo prisoner released? Because most all prisoners in Guantanamo - also victims of torture - were guilty of nothing. Now that judicial review must apply, no charges ever existed. TheMercenary also knows this is not true because he was told how to think. How will he prove himself. He attacks other - even accusing others of being a bully when the bully here is TheMercenary. So, TheMercenary - where is quote that proves your point. You have none which is why you attack the messenger - you dumbfuck.

Again, TheMercenary demonstrates why he has no college degree. Not smart enough. Let's see. With military service, he had a free ride and still could not get educated.

Where does TheMercenary cite a source? Mental midget supporters don't need to. TheMercenary tell us how we must think. TheMercenary says any foreign national can be held in America jails for life without judicial review at any time. That is TheMercenary's interpretation of the Constitution.

I'm just asking here, but still...

If these people at Guantanamo were all innocent, then why did we put them there??? and tortured them so we could???? What was the point of it again?? Just for fun? For what?

Fear.

Oh BS - so we round up a bunch of nobodies and torture them because we are afraid? Sorry, I think not. There had to be some reason - probably not a good one, if there is one, but still...

Not suffer fear, instill fear.

Ok let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say that president Barack Obama turned to Barack Mugabe and declared John McCain an 'illegal combatant', saying he discovered 'classified evidence' that McCain is a plant of the terrorist wing of the Vietnemese Comunist party. If Bush administration rules continued under president Obama, McCain has virtually no defense. His citizenship is stripped without due process, and he is sent to Guantanamo Bay with the rest, without a habeas corpus hearing. Would the pro-no due processers be happy then?

Or have it the other way around.

Sounds good to me. :D

Wouldn't work. McCain is white. and has money. and has already been tortured worse than they do at Gitmo. so he'd probably just sit around playing cards with the guards while he waits for his next campaign to start.

wait! I thought the American POW's weren't tortured.

POWs aren't. :headshake

Stop!;)

We weren't the only ones doing the rounding up.

When you offer a reward or considerations for the capture of "terrorists" a lot of people get turned into terrorists overnight.

Neighbor down the street, the one with the loud goats? Yeah, he's a terrorist, damn those goats of his...

The flaw in the argument here is that POW non-citizens (these being de facto if not altogether de jure POWs) aren't reckoned by anyone anywhere as being actually subject to their captor nations' laws.

That's true, and the reason POWs treatment was addressed by the Geneva Convention. The wrinkle is Bush saying these are not POWs but a new class, called "illegal combatants". Being non-POWs, that makes this new class civilian criminals and subject to the laws of the "host":rolleyes: nation.

Would have been a damn sight easier to just adhere to the Geneva Convention and accept them as POWs.

Just send them all back to their "home countries."

second.

Truth and the Gitmo Detainees

Is every prisoner at Guantanamo really a terrorist?

Steve Chapman | July 7, 2008

"Islamic terrorists have constitutional rights," lamented one conservative blog when the Supreme Court said Guantanamo inmates can challenge their detention in court. "These are enemy combatants," railed John McCain. The court, charged former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy of National Review, sided with foreigners "whose only connection with our body politic is their bloody jihad against Americans."

The operating assumption here is that the prisoners are terrorists who were captured while fighting a vicious war against the United States. But can the critics be sure? All they really know about the Guantanamo detainees is that they are Guantanamo detainees. To conclude that they are all bloodthirsty jihadists requires believing that the U.S. government is infallible.

But how sensible is that approach? Judging from a little-noticed federal appeals court decision that came down after the Supreme Court ruling, not very.

The case involved Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim who fled to Afghanistan in May 2001 to escape persecution of his Uighur ethnic group by the Beijing government. When the U.S. invaded after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Uighur camp where he lived was destroyed by air strikes. He and his compatriots made their way to Pakistan, where villagers handed them over to the government, which transferred them to American custody.

You might think you would have to do something pretty obvious to wind up in Guantanamo. Apparently not. The U.S. government does not claim Parhat was a member of the Taliban or al-Qaida. He was not captured on a battlefield. The government's own military commission admitted it found no evidence that he "committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition partners."

So why did the Pentagon insist on holding him as an enemy combatant? Because he was affiliated with the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a separatist Muslim group fighting for independence from Beijing. It had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks but reputedly got help from al-Qaida.

But the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after reviewing secret documents submitted by the government, found that there was no real evidence. It said the flimsy case mounted against Parhat "comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true." And it ruled that, based on the information available, he was not an enemy combatant even under the Pentagon's own definition of the term.

Is this verdict just another act of judicial activism by arrogant liberals on the bench? Not by a long shot.

Of the three judges who signed the opinion, one, Thomas Griffith, was appointed in 2005 by President Bush himself. Another, David Sentelle, was nominated in 1985 by President Reagan—and had earlier joined in ruling that the Guantanamo detainees could not go to federal court to assert their innocence (a decision the Supreme Court overturned).

The administration could hardly have asked for a more accommodating group of judges. Yet they found in favor of the detainee on the simple grounds that if the government is going to imprison someone as an enemy combatant, it needs some evidence that he is one.

Parhat may not be an exceptional case. Most of the prisoners were not captured by the U.S. in combat but were turned over by local forces, often in exchange for a bounty. We had to take someone else's word that they were bad guys.

A 2006 report by Seton Hall law professor Mark Denbeaux found that only 8 percent of those held at Guantanamo were al-Qaida fighters. Even a study done at West Point concluded that just 73 percent of the detainees were a "demonstrated threat"—which means 27 percent were not.

The Parhat case doesn't prove that everyone in detention at Guantanamo is an innocent victim of some misunderstanding. But it does show the dangers of trusting the administration—any administration—to act as judge, jury, and jailer. It illustrates the need for an independent review to make sure there is some reason to believe the people being treated as terrorists really deserve it.

If any particular detainees are as bad as the administration claims, it should have no trouble making that case in court. But there is nothing to be gained from the indefinite imprisonment of someone whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Keeping innocent people behind bars is a tragedy for them and a waste for us.

Send them home.

Because Bush&Co decided that the Afghanistan war against the Taliban would be carried out by local warlords, with US support, the warlords' forces did most of the capturing Taliban/illegal combatants.
Now I know not all the detainees came that way, but that would explain why the majority were not captured by US soldiers.

Hundreds were held in Guantanamo while innocent and without due process because wacko extremists needed bogeymen to lie and remain popular. Hundreds have already been released to their home nations because, after being tortured and held for years in violation of laws, suddenly they are guilty of nothing.

Today another five have had charges dropped because (from the NY Times of 21 Oct 2008) Long time Cellar dwellers can confirm, I have never been so critical of any politician ... ever. But we never had a president so obviously corrupt. We have never had a president who lies so much. We have never had a president so stupid as to almost get us in a hot war with China over a silly spy plane. Who was calling that ignorant back when George Jr almost got us into war?

We are now starting to suffer the economic consequences of a mental midget president supported by people who must be told how to think daily by Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Pat Robertson. (Europeans just cannot appreciate how widespread the propaganda that tells Urbane Guerrilla types what to know. Europeans were lesser people who could even be kidnapped at any time if the US felt threatened.)

Guantanamo is the perfect example of what anti-patriots have done to America.

Five more completely innocent people released because America has too many who are so wacko extremist. How many were patriotic enough to see Saddam did not have WMDs? No other politician has ever earned or received from me so much criticism - including their routine use of torture. Why are Americans so sheepish as to not demand the impeachment of this nation's worst president ever? Because to many Americans even still approve of torture ... and who also call for the murder of Obama. I have even heard it discussed in low voices. Wacko extremism in its many condoned forms (hate, racism, demagoguery) is alive and well and far more embedded in America that most Europeans would realize.

We held and tortured some 800 innocent people for years. And then say, “Sorry about that.” When do we Get Smart?

cite.

First, define torture. This administration has had a more difficult time defining torture than Bill Clinton did defining 'sex'. It would be humorous if the stakes weren't so high. A simple definition of 'torture' is 'treatment you would not want inflicted on your soldiers if they were captured'.

By this definition, stress positions, sleep deprivation, fake executions, and waterboarding are all 'torture'.

In 2004, the Justice Department attempted to set as the legal policy of the US an incredibly narrow definition of torture.

Of course the Justice Department, unlike the Army, had the luxury of knowing that their personnel would never be in a situation where that definition could be used against them.

Since it's inception, the US has maintained the legal fiction that the detention facility at Guantanamo is some legal Limbo. The laws of the US do not apply, because it is in Cuba but is not an embassy. The laws of Cuba do not apply, because it is under US control via the disputed Cuban-American Treaty of 1903. So the US has basically created a legal space in the cracks between the laws of two sovereign nations and dropped the detainees into it.

The Supreme Court at first went along with this to a degree, sort of like the lifeguards at a pool allowing a certain amount of roughhousing in the water. At some point, matters became so severe that the court intervened to apply some legal boundary before the water got bloody.

While nowhere near as brutal as the "Hanoi Hilton", there is not a lot of doubt that even "Class B" torture like sleep deprivation over a period of years would render any confession inadmissible in a normal American court, or even a military court trying members of its own service.

The challenge is that even if any of these defendants are found guilty, the moment that they are shipped back to their own countries or the United States for imprisonment, they will reenter the normal world and be able to appeal their convictions. Fortunately for the US, some of these countries are not democratic but are allies of the US, so they might be safely transported to another legal black hole which will prevent their physical and legal treatment from being examined in detail.

I asked for a cite that torture occurred at Guantanamo. You quoted my request and then wrote a long post that does not contain a cite.

wiki

Then search for the word torture.

OK. There are a few pretty damning things in there, especially regarding the treatment of the suspected 20th hijacker.

The section that claims Cheney admitted waterboarding at the facility was wrong, and I have edited that and removed it. (I know, I know!) The article that they cited was missing, but I found the same article on Common Dreams. Cheney admitted that waterboarding was used, but not that it was used at Guantanamo. The CIA later admitted it too, but the subjects were not at Guantanamo. And none of the prisoners mention it, and the Red Cross doesn't mention it. I cannot connect Guantanamo and waterboarding.

Also, though there are some prisoner complaints of sleep deprivation (and it might be the only thing the prisoner complaints have in common), nobody said sleep deprivation "over a period of years". People just seem to make stuff up sometimes.

Yeah also the FBI Freedom of Information document is chock full of "class B" stuff during interrogations.

(but also, no waterboarding mentioned)

eh. not completely heart broken.

We are well beyond needing citations for torture. Documents now define approval for torture in the White House. Recent revelations report that the CIA was so concerned about their own safety for doing torture as to demand written documents from the White House that approved it.

Current questions are specifically who authorized torture. For example, currently under investigation is AG Gonzales. You can argue these silly needs for citations all you want. At this point, America tortured prisoners in Guantanamo. The recently discovered documents from the CIA state that the White House authorized it in writing. Question now is who in the White House authorized it.

What is just a few rogue plumbers bugging the Watergate? Investigators are now asking the same questions about torture in Guantanamo - and elsewhere.

Bad enough we tortured them, kept them in solitary confinement, denied them due process, and even refused to let the Red Cross tell their families where they were. Worse - hundreds (probably all but maybe 16) were completely innocent. This is the moral and religous George Jr? Torture of innocent people happens when only god tells a leader what to do. A damning reality.

So you can't site it. Ok.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...nce-may-be.php

http://talkradionews.com/2008/07/wat...in-guantanamo/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...es&match=exact

http://cbs5.com/national/hearing.wat....2.563973.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...-_n_87082.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...y_deprivation/

While you may have doubts that Guantanamo prisoners have been waterboarded, there is no doubt that prisoners have been tortured.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...guantanamo.usa

I don't get the defense of this behavior. If it's legal to do against POWs how soon will we see it used against citizens? How soon will a citizen be declared a POW so that torture can be used?

One of the objectives of the law is to prohibit abuses of power. This is the sort of thing that should be specifically prohibited.

Well the first link says nothing about waterboarding at GITMO. After that, none of the links are original source documents. I disregard anything written by the Huffington post. So where is the proof that it happened at GITMO. The liberal press have long used a broad definition of "torture" which is not supported by the facts.

I am not defending it as much as I am getting those who believe it to prove their assertions in these discussions. Most of you can't. Did it happen, sure, most likely, but not at GITMO. Was it a standard practice, no I don't believe it. But hell, if I was locked up in GITMO for as long as some of those poor saps I would claim it too. What defense attorney would not tell their defendant in GITMO to make such a claim, I would.

Well it's going to be very hard to get evidence considering how tight they have Guantanamo locked up, isn't it.

In any case, the very fact that the current administration has policy that allows this kind of torture is reprehensible.

And isn't that the point. You choose to believe everything you hear or read. I do not.

No doubt all wisdom will die with you, Merc.

I don't believe everything I read, but I don't close my eyes either.

But you don't question anything that disparages the military, the Bush administration, the military, or people on the front line of fighting terrorism in the world, and that speaks volumes. I question everything. I doubt much, but I do not buy into the reports of the otherwise liberal press. You seem to me to suck it up lock, stock, and barrel in an effort to support your position. I refuse to accept "the first report".

Nonsense. I fully support the invasion of Afghanistan and the continued presence of the military there. I respect and admire the courage of the men in Iraq, but I do not support their presence there. The men are not at fault, the blame lies with the administration (which is not solely Bush).

I respect your opinion but we disagree on much. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and you are only fed your information from the liberal left-wing web sites. The reality as you see it is not what it seems. You can discount me and ignore my statements as you see fit. I have no problem with it nor do I think you are a lesser person because of it. But give me the same respect.

Merc, you'e starting to sound like UG....except for the respect part, obviously...

Well, I am just not willing to assume that same line of thinking. I am not UG.

I wanted to be clear if I needed to find only waterboarding or if you agreed that the other methods are also torture.
How about the New York Times? It appears we took examples of torture that our military was being taught to withstand and turned it into a "howto" guide.

I have been through SERE training. It is not what you think.

I think it's to learn how to evade capture and withstand torture. The point of the article is that they took the "watch out for this" presentation and turned it into "here are some nifty new techniques" for interrogators.

Actually it is not about "withstanding torture". It is about a delay, long enough for those who know that you are missing to change the data that you may know. After that you can tell them anything you want because all the data will have changed. So all you are taught to do is hang on for about 24 to 48 hours, after that it really does not matter.

So I guess if they can isolate you for a couple of years you're pretty much screwed.

I would say yes, you are basically fucked.

I won't challenge your assertion that you've experienced this training. I won't challenge the fact that our military believes this is an effective policy. But, given that you yourself have first hand experience with this training and that the point of the training is to resist one's interrogators for, say, a couple days, after which the information you could possibly reveal would no longer be uselessly outdated, could you please tell me why we've detained these people at Gitmo for *weeks*?

Actually, I do not believe that the 'military' believes that it is an effective policy. Also, we have detained some individuals for years before releasing them without charges.

The policy in question here is SERE training, not the detention policies at Gitmo.

"years"? orly?

note to self, get new batteries for sarcasm generator

Good question. I don't know. IMHO I would close it down the day I took office, let the majority of them off scott free and send them immediately back to their home countries regardless of their eventual disposition when they get there. Not our problem. But all they would get from me is a free ride on a C-17. Problem over. Take the ones we know are bad players and put them in a Federal Prison and give them lawyers. Hold trials under secret conditions with enough representatives from the civilian court system to be sure all the trials are fair and that the defendants have been duly represented in accordance with our laws. After that they are at the mercy of the courts.

My guess is they think some of them are still a threat coupled (so we will hang on to those) with the fact that the Military did it's job and now they have these people that they don't know what to do with and no one (from the government) is giving them any guidance as to what to do next.

I agree. Many people I have spoken with think they should have either not been taken there or left in home country.

In related news

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/us/03gitmo.html

Am I the only one who sniggers at the acronym SCOTUS?