<p>And yes, if they're guilty of something that is an imprisonable offense, then yes, they should be in prison. But we won't know that until they're accused and tried for something that's imprisonable.</p>
<p>Never supported this war. Went to a peace march, didn't agree with most of the things said by those attending except the people who held signs that said that the war would create far more terrorists than it would kill.</p>
<p>Never believed in the stupid notion that the war would create a bastion of peaceful democracy that would be favorable to us in the midst of the Arab Middle East. One doesn't impose democracy and peace by invasion from the outside; it grows up from within.</p>
<p>Never believed that the threat of Iraq to the US was anything other than completely overblown. Thought it was a massive distraction from a response to 9/11. One shouldn't confuse Baathism (essentially socialism) with Islamic fundamentalism.</p>
<p>Always believed the Administration wanted the war and wasn't responding to weapons of mass destruction threats.</p>
<p>Always perceived that the Administration stupidly pursued a unilateral strategy with an endgame aimed at going to war, not at disarming Iraq per se.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you have the right to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG. They have NO RIGHTS under the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. [Gitmo detainees] are NOT US citizens therefore they have NO RIGHTS!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So non-citizens living in the US have no rights under the Constitution? Hmmm – that’s news to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes you so sure that the taliban butchered people?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There have been plenty of reports of the Taleban butchering people or raping women (often those who do not belong to the Pashtun ethnic group).</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is not to say they are any less brutal or murderous than NATO or UN forces, but they are more deliberate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While there have been a no. of incidents which have gone way too far – I don’t think one can really compare the actions of the Taleban to that of UN/NATO forces.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would I rather hold a member of the al Queda organization in a military prison or would I prefer another September 11? What would you prefer? We are at WAR. The prisoners being held at Guatanemo Bay are ENEMY COMBATANTS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem is that many are just accused enemy combatants. Many of the detainees were pointed out to US forces as enemy combatants on the basis of petty local arguments, reward $$, etc. and had nothing to do w/ being a combatant.</p>
<p>Otoh, for those who are known to be actual enemy combatants (i.e. - captured in combat, names listed on captured militant documents, etc.) - then, it's a totally diff. story.</p>
<p>LALALLALALALAA</p>
<p>The United States is a corrupted country.</p>
<p>So no one reeeeeaaaaaally knows WHY we even WENT to WAR in the FIRST place. gosh</p>
<p>Apparently being at war gives us carte blanche to abolish the constitution :rolleyes: We are a NATION OF LAWS. </p>
<p>Tell me your name so I know NOT to vote for you if you ever run for president.</p>
<p>Gee, but the CONSTITUTION doesn't seem to stop people from trying to ban firearms. In direct violation of the 2ND AMENDMENT. But wait, that argument isn't in your favor, so it doesn't count.</p>
<p>Why should enemies of the United States be given the same rights as American citizens under our laws?</p>
<p>You guys are awesome. No wonder there's 11 million Mexicans living within our borders ILLEGALLY. You guys seem to have no problem with that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gee, but the CONSTITUTION doesn't seem to stop people from trying to ban firearms. In direct violation of the 2ND AMENDMENT. But wait, that argument isn't in your favor, so it doesn't count.
[/quote]
First, that is SO off topic and has no bearing on this thread. Second, direct violation? There's even argument among constitutional scholars whether it gives citizens the right to bear arms since the Second Amendment itself says "for the purposes of a well-regulated militia."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why should enemies of the United States be given the same rights as American citizens under our laws?
[/quote]
Because it would be unconstitutional to do otherwise. Apparently you're the one who only likes the Constitution when it suits your purposes...</p>
<p>
[quote]
No wonder there's 11 million Mexicans living within our borders ILLEGALLY. You guys seem to have no problem with that.
[/quote]
I do believe that you're the first person to say anything about immigration...</p>
<p>No Jarn, I would not be the first. </p>
<p>k&s stated this:
[quote]
So non-citizens living in the US have no rights under the Constitution? Hmmm – that’s news to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"So non-citizens living in the US have no rights under the Constitution? Hmmm – that’s news to me." bears no relevance to (plus I think he was talking about visitors) "No wonder there's 11 million Mexicans living within our borders ILLEGALLY. You guys seem to have no problem with that."</p>
<p>It is perfectly constitutional to send illegal immigrants back to their home country - unless you support torturing them first, to discourage them from coming back?</p>
<p>No I'd be just fine with sending them back. Our government representatives, on the other hand, seem to have no problem giving to these Illegal Immigrants freely.</p>
<p>I think sending them back to their country is torture enough.</p>
<p>First of all, I didn't even make a comment about what you said. I just can't believe you explicitly stated that you'd more readily have the death of 2,000 more Americans than to have [probably] guilty killers in prison without attorneys.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know we're all scared, but the bill of rights, we MUST live up to that. We simply MUST. This is our duty and obligation not only to the founding fathers, but our troops, who FOUGHT AND DIED for these rights. If we want to be grateful to our troops, that's the first step.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Second of all, stop being all self-righteous on me. I dont think the soldiers would rather have those shooting at them back on the battlefield rather than in a jail where they can be controlled.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gee, but the CONSTITUTION doesn't seem to stop people from trying to ban firearms. In direct violation of the 2ND AMENDMENT. But wait, that argument isn't in your favor, so it doesn't count.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Objection. Relevance. Strike that remark.</p>
<p>And when did I ever talk about gun control? By the way, I'm generally opposed to gun control, for the record.</p>
<p>Remember beefs, under the constitution, and Coffin v. US, PROBABLY guilty isn't enough to throw someone in prison. The requirement for incarceration is guilty, BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. We won't be able to prove or know guilt beyond all reasonable doubt until they get a fair and impartial trial. To me, and under the eyes of the law, PROBABLY guilty isn't good enough. Alleged guilt isn't enough. It must be guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.</p>
<p>By the way, for the record, Tim McVeigh, the guy that blew up the Oklahoma city building, DID get a fair and impartial trial. He was found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I have no objections to him sitting behind bars for the rest of his life.</p>
<p>Isn't Tim McVeigh also a citizen of the US? =</p>
<p>So what? He gets due process because he's a citizen and because the detainees aren't? We've already established that the constitution applies to EVERYONE on US soil.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I dont think the soldiers would rather have those shooting at them back on the battlefield rather than in a jail where they can be controlled.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe you should be sitting in a jail, where you can be controlled, without access to a lawyer, the right to confront your accusers or the right to know what you're being held for when you get pulled over for speeding. I don't think people who lost their loved ones to reckless drivers would appreciate you speeding.</p>
<p>Maybe you should be on the frontlines of Iraq, a setting you make numerous references to in your "defense of th bill of rights"</p>
<p>While I agree that wiretapping the American public and giving up my own civil liberties is not a good thing (nice one on the Ben Franklin quote) I think that Gitmo is valid for several reasons.</p>
<p>First, we are at war. This is essential to understand. We took enemy soldiers in WWII and we are taking them now. It is more difficult though because we aren't positve who friend and who is foe. No one is wearing uniforms on the oppositions, only guns pointed at American soldiers. I am willing to give up THEIR civil liberties for MY well being. Selfish? Deal with it.</p>
<p>Second, the patriot act (although I hate it with every fiber of my being) was passed through the supreme court. So stop saying it stamps on the constitution. (Its wiretapping that does in my opinion).</p>
<p>Lastly, how many of the founding fathers supported the civil liberties of the Native american public? How many of the founding fathers supported the civil liberties of black persons? They were not the ideals of freedom. Sorry to rain on your parade. </p>
<p>Gitmo is vital to our WAR in Iraq, which while I do not support, as long as it continues will have to be fought to the best of our abilities. Do I think we should be there? No. BUT do I think that housing enemy soldiers in cramped quarters is bad though as long as we fight this long, stupid war? No.</p>
<p>More than a fifth at Gitmo are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers.</p>
<p>20% of the people there are cleared for release but are still there according to Bush's people. what do you say to that?</p>
<p>I say the American beaurocracy is terrible. I say that our country and our government needs to get its act together. I do believe that Gitmo is neccessary though, and you have proved it for me. What of the other 80%. I am a liberal, I just believe that in a war its better to err on the side of caution.</p>
<p>What of the other 80%</p>
<p>Um, exactly, what of them??????? Why hasn't the other 80 percent even been tried or anything, they're just chillin like a villain over therre.</p>