Reply With Quote
Well, apparently, because they had good liars...I'm sorry, lawyers...on their side. I know, you think they aren't represented...but, obviously, you'd be wrong.
How do you explain how they ended up back on the front lines?
They didn't have to release them. Why did they? I expect a real answer.Why are they being released? Because of the efforts of people such as yourself. Thanks alot.
Well, apparently, because they had good liars...I'm sorry, lawyers...on their side. I know, you think they aren't represented...but, obviously, you'd be wrong.
How do you explain how they ended up back on the front lines?
They were released.How do you explain how they ended up back on the front lines?
Why were they released?
Well, apparently, capturing them on the battlefield wasn't good enough for those haranguing the Administration into releasing them. Or, maybe, after they were questioned -- after being captured on the battlefield -- it was determined they were victims of cir stances and released.
What a bunch of pussies the administration is.Well, apparently, capturing them on the battlefield wasn't good enough for those haranguing the Administration into releasing them.What's this maybe bull ? Don't you know?Or, maybe, after they were questioned -- after being captured on the battlefield -- it was determined they were victims of cir stances and released.
I got some news for you, there is only one fact that Al Qaeda needs to win this battle of ideas:
1. The one nation on earth that is the richest and pushes the loudest for democratic reforms based on the ideals of fairness and liberty, has said that holding people forever without trial and torturing captives is ok.
I will ask my question yet again.
HOW DOES INDEFINITE DETAINMENT WITHOUT TRIAL AND TORTURE COMBAT THE IDEA THAT WE ARE EVIL?
...except the Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson administrations...
Oh, I forgot, one of those "enemy combatants" of old actually assassinated McKinley...
because we've lowered our standards to meet equally with those we accuse of having lower standards.
It's odd. The detainees of which Yoni speaks are sometimes released after a military board of review takes a look at them and determines whether they are a continued threat to the US. Detainees have been let go after doing something as simple as signing a piece of paper saying they won't do it again.
Is that the kind of thing he's afraid would happen in a real court trial?
Yeah, I think this guy is one of them.
I could see where it could be eventually determined this guy no longer posed a risk. I don't know, I don't have access to the entire file.Qari Esmhatulla, for example, told the tribunal that he agreed to be a Taliban cook because his friends challenged him to do so, and he was with the Taliban for just four days before he was arrested by the Northern Alliance while carrying a radio and a few grenades. U.S. officials accused him of joining the Taliban to participate in jihad.
"Out of everything on that paper, the only thing that was right was I had the radio and the grenades with me," Esmhatulla said, adding that he dropped the grenades and was unarmed when he was captured. "Other than that, everything else is false. I did not say or do any of those things."
But, if the military review board were to determine this guy no longer posed a risk and sent him home...I'd be okay with it. But, considering his admission to joining the Taliban and carrying grenades, I can certainly understand why he was detained until we were satisfied he no longer posed a risk.
I'm not even sure if this guy has been released yet...but, it's an example of why I believe there are conditions under which release, even after extended detention, might be warranted.
So you are ok with releasing detainees after some procedure to determine whether they are a threat to the US.
What were you complaining about again?
Yep.
Who determines whether or not they are a continuing threat and whether or not this should be done in our judiciary or by our military. Isn't that what this entire argument is about?
It was until you started spouting off about releasing any of them.Who determines whether or not they are a continuing threat and whether or not this should be done in our judiciary or by our military. Isn't that what this entire argument is about?
But getting back to that, now you say that the military and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have made rather obvious mistakes in their assessments, right? What makes them so much better than the court system? Their track record in this case?
In what way?
If you're talking about split decisions, made on a battlefield, I wouldn't characterize that as a mistake.
If I'm getting shot at and are able to overtake and capture those who are doing the shooting, everybody that even looks like they were involved are going to have to convince me they weren't before I let them go on their merry way.
Releasing combatants that ended up back on the battlefield, dumbass.In what way?
The court system isn't on the battlefield capturing suspects.
It says they had nothing but their gut instincts on continuing to hold them and, apparently, that's not good enough.
I wouldn't call it a mistake that you don't have enough information on which to hold a person.
Yeah, but it wants to be.
Where does "it" say? Good enough for whom? They determine all the criteria.It says they had nothing but their gut instincts on continuing to hold them and, apparently, that's not good enough.Link?Yeah, but it wants to be.
Why else would the military release them? I think it's a logical conclusion to say they were getting a lot of pressure from domestic bleeding hearts and international U.N. types to release them and they have made a best effort to do so. Sometime resulting in releasing combatants back into the fray.
, there are some -- some of whom have posted in this forum -- who believe everyone in custody at Gitmo should be released.
I think the military is bending over backwards to treat the detainees fairly and to make good judgement on whether or not they belong there, and when they can find no compelling reason to do so, releasing them.
What's your point here ChumpDumper?
You don't believe there was a push to move the Gitmo status hearings from the military to the civil judiciary?
You don't believe there is a generally held belief, by the ACLU types, that our military should be able to immediately determine the combatant status of everyone they encounter on the battlefield?
, there was even talk of extending fifth amendment rights, up to mirandizing captured combatants, for awhile.
Right so 469 seperate hearings in 9 days is the absolute best way to determine the the threat level of those 469 detainees right?Why else would the military release them? I think it's a logical conclusion to say they were getting a lot of pressure from domestic bleeding hearts and international U.N. types to release them and they have made a best effort to do so.My point is that, in their haste to respond to pressure, the administration set up a badly flawed system that could be worse than a civilian court remedy.What's your point here ChumpDumper?I don't believe the courts are calling to be on the battelfield as you said they were.You don't believe there was a push to move the Gitmo status hearings from the military to the civil judiciary?
Apparently.
A civilian court remedy would have required sensitive sources and methods as well as dangerous witnesses to be available for the defense to see and pass along to non-detained enemy combatants. Any process would be better than that.
I know you don't.
How can that be? You admitted they made mistakes.Apparently.So one that's just lets them go at their word to kill again is better? You support letting terrorists go on their word.A civilian court remedy would have required sensitive sources and methods as well as dangerous witnesses to be available for the defense to see and pass along to non-detained enemy combatants. Any process would be better than that.You haven't convinced me that officers of civilian courts want to be on the battlefield making decisions about whom to detain, no.I know you don't.
Okay, first of all, I can admit nothing on behalf of the U. S. Military. I wasn't involved in the decisions. Just to bring you back to reality, everything you and I say in here is just two peoples' opinions.
It all boils down to whether or not I believe this administration is being straightforward in dealing with it's prosecution of the war on terror and I do.
Obviously, some people were released that shouldn't have been but, without knowing facts that were on hand when the decision was made, neither you nor I can say it was a mistake or just a lack of information that led to the release.
I'm opposed to this being moved to a civil court not because I believe they won't make better decisions but because it opens all the evidence up to the defense, including sensitive sources and methods.
Besides, neither you nor I have any evidence they let anyone go "at their word." It was mere speculation.
I'm sure if you or I were interested enough, we could find the criteria under which the U. S. Military made these determinations. My interest isn't doesn't lie there, it lies with keeping our intelligence sources and methods out of the reach of the enemy despite the Left's bets efforts to force it into the civilian domain.
Some people being released that shouldn't have been is a mistake. "Not knowing the facts that were on hand?" has it's answer included.
Blame the bleeding hearts is a typical Yoni spin. No responsibility.
If the war on terror is a war of ideas:
How do secret trials, indefinite detention without trials, torture, and rendition combat the Al Qaeda idea that we are evil?
Isn't that just basically handing them a weapon that is more deadly than any truck bomb that can be used to recruit more people to their cause?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
