news.yahoo.com — The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.
Apr 2, 2007 View in Crawl 4
unstablemindApr 3, 2007
You just pointed out his facts, that's an Australian man, not Iraq, and not Afghanistan. Also, I hardly count a handful of people worth the loss of American life, you know in the name of terrorism. Fearmongering at its finest. You know, more people die each year from the flu than do in terrorist attacks. How come no-one is giving up their rights for their safety in the cases of the flu, being that it is more dangerous than a terrorist.
geekeeApr 3, 2007
deleted
infidelalApr 3, 2007
@ jm9206755I understand what you're saying, however, if all people picked up on the battlefield should be treated as such, then why did the authors of the Geneva Convention use so much verbiage to specify who is and who is not afforded such protections. If it indeed should apply to everyone, then they could have said that and saved a whole hell of a lot of writing... However, they DID spend the time to specify which conduct merits such protections. It's not even a matter of splitting hairs here... it's just following established agreements.
gakiApr 3, 2007
It sure can ... if the state is not officially in a declared war, then there is a body of law already in place to handle it ... the CJS. Bush just didn't like the CJS because it prohibits a lot of things he wanted to do and so he did his level best to keep the detainees from every qualifying for it, legally, to the point where he created a parallel legal system out of thin air that fit the bill.If Timothy McVeigh, the previous record holder for terrorism on US soil, was good enough for the CJS, then why aren't these folks? We tried the Twin Tower bombers in the CJS, too, and they weren't even US citizens.
Closed AccountApr 3, 2007
Most of you people are retarded.Bin Laden declared war on us in 1998. Attacked us over and over again. Finally, after Sept 11 we started fighting back. We attacked his bases in Afghanistan. If we catch someone shooting at us in Afghanistan, they are an enemy combatant. If they are shooting at us and not in uniform, they are illegal combatants. Subject to immediate execution, which is what President Lincoln, General Washington, and I believe President Roosevelt all had done with them.
zhulienApr 4, 2007
that legal system is funnier than a Mickey Mouse legal system :D
hagbard72Apr 5, 2007
Really, to all those Americans who think its okay to grab foreign nationals out of their homelands and lock them up in your dungeons, hope you like it when China is the superpower and they're coming into your country and locking your people up in their dungeons. Don't complain to the rest of us, we won't care.
the0justinianApr 5, 2007
'What you believe president Roosevelt did"Alas, there was a great sin in the internment of the Japanese Americans. Restitutions have been paid, apologies made. However, what happened during the Japanese-American internment, what happened to POWs in World War II is a far cry from what is happening at Guantánamo.And your appeal to the past is meaningless, the present is not the past; what is wrong now cannot be judged by the measure of previous contexts. Human Rights is a new concept that the world agreed to after those conflicts you refer to in a document called the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' that our country is party toThis is indeed a different, new kind of invented war. But seeing as our president chose to declare it, we should at least pay some attention to what rights a Prisoner of War has...which the detainees are not even afforded unless 'complaint.'Seriously, go watch Bridge on the River Kwai, Empire of the Sun, or any other iteration of 'Enemy Combatants' being held, enslaved, and degraded. I know that my own humanity is insulted by those acts just as much as is is as what happens at Guantánamo. If we choose to fight this war, which stands on dubious footing at best, then we must appeal to a higher moral standard.
chingazoApr 7, 2007
i can see your point, but do you honestly believe that most or even a good portion of those folks are innocent neighbors that were turned in for money? people in the mideast get killed for far less than that, like adultery or worse, being raped where the woman had no control of being raped, so falsely turning in their muslim brothers for money to the US is probably not looked on lightly and would get you killed. that is fact. i know a soldier from afghanistan, and someone was killed and left hangin on a tree for helping the US and he saw the body. i would also like to point out that the people in afghanistan by and large, liked the american soldiers there, from his account anyway. any change from the taliban is an improvement, and they know that and they know who the real enemy is, and it is not the americans there. again people sensationalize a story of bounty money to assume that all kinds of innocents are getting caught. you do not have one shred of evidence whether those people are innocent, but are assuming some of them are from what you read on the internet.