Reply With Quote
As has happened in 32 of forty or so habeas cases involving irregular detainees.U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's pe ion for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...589769,00.htmlJudge Orders Release of Gitmo Detainee With Ties to 9/11 Attacks Monday , March 22, 2010
A suspected Al Qaeda organizer once called "the highest value detainee" at Guantanamo Bay was ordered released by a federal judge in an order issued Monday. Mohamedou Ould Slahi was accused in the 9/11 Commission report of helping recruit Mohammed Atta and other members of the Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany, that took part in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Military prosecutors suspected Slahi of links to other Al Qaeda operations, and considered seeking the death penalty against him while preparing possible charges in 2003 and 2004. U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's pe ion for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him. The order was classified, although the court said it planned to release a redacted public version in the coming weeks.
As has happened in 32 of forty or so habeas cases involving irregular detainees.U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's pe ion for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him.
In case after case, our government fails to present adequate evidence for the detention.
In six or seven years time, the USG failed to create a legally usable record against Mohamedou Ould Slahi.
I'm so scared.
Hard to tell what SnC's intention was in posting it, but fear-fapping sounds about right to me.
He wants to show just how much he hates America.
Obviously, SnC finds fault with America needing a legal reason to imprison someone. Shouldn't our say-so be enough, evidence be damned?
bingo
we should not have to worry about evidence when capturing people we are at war with.
Whottt answered this in another thread; will you?
When will the war be over? I'd like some defined metrics, in your mind, please.
Also, please define where a "battlefield" is. For instance, would you be kosher if they locked up a friend of yours who had been declared a terrorist suspect, resulting in limited access to legal resources?
If you have no evidence, how do you know he's the enemy in the first place?
Hearsay?
They should have gotten all information they could have from him then put a bullet behind his ear.
"Pussies don't like s, because pussies get ed by s. But s also assholes: assholes that just want to on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can an asshole is a , with some balls. The problem with s is: they too much or when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us this asshole, we're going to have our s and pussies all covered in ! "
Hopefully he wasn't tortured.
For what?
Why put a bullet behind his ear?
Umm... because he is guilty and some stupid ing judge wants to let him out because the army isn't good at police work?
Of what is he guilty?
So you know he's guilty simply because he was captured?
So if our military chooses to capture a goat farmer on the outskirts of Kabul and detain him as an enemy combatant (perhaps he refused to allow our military to use his land in pursuing other suspected terrorists), he should be incarcerated, interrogated, and then executed?
It's cheaper than giving them a briefcase of 100's.
Kill a few and see if the next one refuses.
Rawr Internet tough guy
Kill a few for that?
You're quite evil and have no regard for human life.
Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.
In the past we would return majority of POWs to their country after the war is over, because they will no longer be a threat. Since this is different in the fact that we are not at war with an actual state, but groups. But we can still determine which ones are more likely to not be a threat and which ones are will. The military commission is a good way of deciding which detainees stay and which go.
The GWOT will probably never end unless a president and congress decide to push terrorism back to a nuisance. However in the GWOT, there are battlefields, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Iran. All are completely different SOPs.
If I had a friend who was an unlawful enemy combatatent ( non-citizens whom the government deems to be, or to have been, members of the al Qaida organization or to have engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States or its citizens, or to have knowingly harbored such individuals, are subject to detention by military authorities and trial before a military commission), then I would be ok with the three man military commission he were to receive.
Nope have plenty of regard for human life... just not all of it.
Why do you consider the people in your hypothetical worthy of death?
Not everyone is used to taking orders and sitting still, SnC. And you're talking about legal process for so-called POWs that we have never treated like POWs from the very beginning, and very possibly for American citizens in the future.
If we'd limited ourselves to indefinite confinement without the torture, that still would've been very heinous, but the world would probably have forgiven it already, if we had already given it up.
Frankly, I see zero chance of that happening.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
