Report: Obama To Release 55 Prisoners From Gitmo

These Islamo animals are NOT entitled to constitutional protection or our glorious civil rights which these Islamonazi losers hate. SCrew them, they should be thankful that we do not take them out a few miles from Cuba nd make shark bait out of their worthless asses.

 

Read the following and get back to this foreigner who understands your laws and Constitution a (*)(*)(*)(*) sight better than you do, Mr. American genius. https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/krooseve/workingpapers/153UPaLRev2017(2005)..pdf

 

Because you say so? Sorry, but yes they are. Do you need another lesson? https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/krooseve/workingpapers/153UPaLRev2017(2005)..pdf
If you want to amend your laws and Constitution I suggest you contact your representative who, I'm sure, will be delighted to indulge you.

 

They are guaranteed a trial under the US constitution. The SCOTUS has affirmed previously that a) the Declaration of Independence is a foundational document and part of our Constitutional rule of law and that b) the 4th, 5th, ad 6th amendments covered foreign citizens based off the premise that all men are created equal and endowed with rights.

Moreover, what sort of junta or Soviet style system do you want for the US? Why not try them and convict them, not just for their sake but for ours? You sit on this board daily and talk about how Obama is not to be trusted and how he is the worst human being in the history of the world...why do you trust his word that these men are enemies of the United States?

Trials hurt no one and help everyone. The soul of the United States is more important than expediency.

 

Either prosecute them in a court of law or release them.

Jesus, when did American's stop believing in the most basic rule of law?

 

Does the UPenn law review deny the legality of the Nuremberg trials? Do you, Mr. Foreigner?

Never Left properly summed things up several posts ago. You should have stopped then instead of carry on and making a fool of yourself.

 

These people don't want to listen. They just want to be allowed to hate Muslims unconditionally. The apex of ignorance and stupidity is evidenced in their posts here.

 

Nuremberg has absolutely nothing to do with this, but nice strawman attempt. Do you deny the Guantanamo detainees have equal legal rights to US citizens under the US Constitution, or do you want another arse-kicking lesson?

 

Total bullcrap. Enemy combatants are NOT entitled to the rights of US citizens, despite the Leftpretense otherwise.

THe Constitution refers to US Citizens ONLY< unless SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE , (which it does, in a few places).

Enemy combatants, are covered under the UCMJ....

 

Is this an admission that Bush's policies were poor as he did the same thing?

What is your solution then? Should the government continue to violate the Constitution and hold people without charging them or giving them a trial?

 

The Constitution does not only apply to US Citizens. It is a blanket restriction on the actions of the government.

 

The question was whether Al Qaeda jihadists are protected by the Geneva Convention. They are not, as they observe none it's rules of conduct. When they get their military tribunal I'm confident their own behavior will be the key to their prosecution.

Oh, bravo! Crying racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Or for you, the first, perhaps.

 

This might jog your conveniently short memory:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061201695.html

 

"Enemy Combatants" is a cop out that the Bush Administration invented in order to get away with violating international law and the Constitution.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5048935&page=1

Would you like some more?

 

Ah, here you go mate:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...s-US-bid-to-limit-lawyers-access-to-detainees

 

Nuremberg has everything to do with this, unfortunately for you amateur constitutional jurisprudence "experts".
With regards to trials a military tribunal, under which those detained on the battlefield would be held, with it's differing levels of proof
and conduct, is all the Gitmo guests are entitled to.

 

The definition of "enemy combatants" came from Bush in a dictator like move. It is nowhere in the US Constitution.

Sorry, I don't like Nazi's or Commies. I like the constitutional government our founders gave us and that includes checks and balances to prevent our leaders from having runaway powers and forming a dictatorship.

Why someone who loathes dictator Obama wants to hand him the unconstitutional right to declare someone an "enemy combatant" without trial makes no sense to me. None.

You need to remember that the rules and exceptions you make now may not go to Romney, they may stay with Obama. Wait til the rules change and you and Tea Party folks can be labeled as enemy combatants and see where you can turn should the constitution be suspended because we are at war.

 

Ok, well we agree then that both Nuremberg and Guantanamo disregard accepted and established legal practise, precedent and principles. In that they do indeed have much in common.

 

What are you talking about? Those trials were held by Allied Forces and in an international court because of an actual WAR that was declared by the US Congress.

And the key words here are TRIALS. We didn't go in and say: I think you're an enemy combatant so just sit there in prison indefinitely. We even gave Nazis a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing trial.

 

I find it strange that freedom loving americans support unlimited detainment without due process...

 

They aren't freedom loving, anymore. They're a uniparty of security-loving centrists. It's disgusting.

 

You don't deal very well with disappointement, do you.

The practice of differing standards for criminal law and military law have long been recognized by people that can appreciate the difference between a battlefield and a street corner, between military and civilian life. This seems beyond your capabilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

 

And the Military code discuss following lawful orders not unlawful.....

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm



The Military Oath
The Commissioning Oath

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The Enlistment Oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


Talk about ignorance....

 

And what are you on about?
These military tribunals were held by allied forces...who stated otherwise? And the principles of the trials would apply whether congress formally declared war, or not (as in Korea or Viet Nam...and yes, Iraq and Afghanistan). Military hostilities are the key.
Try having an actual arguable point before you "shout" at me, okay?

I am for giving every Gitmo inmate a trial under a military tribunal. How about you?