US judge rules against new Guantanamo detainee search policy

[OzMick]

Most would prefer a decade in jail to summary execution, which is the proscribed penalty under the Geneva Convention for many of the actions of terrorists.

Before you start declaring debacle, you should ask yourself where you got the right to assign the rights of US citizens to enemy combatants. And leave discussion of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to a different forum, where I am sure we will also have quite different attitudes.

Why would you summarily execute someone whom you can't link to any crimes? Your position is getting more and more difficult to understand . . . and it wasn't me who 'gave' these people the rights afforded citizens, it was you who brought it up when you alluded to "But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others."

Added to which, what rights do these prisoners 'deny their own people and others'?

The asylum seeker/immigrant issue highlights our attitude and is, therefore, germane as a sidenote.

Have a look at Simple1's post . . .

As usual you attempt to confuse the issues by falsely ascribing attitudes, and including off topic sidelines.

I have clearly stated over a number of posts my belief that detained suspected terrorists should not be allowed the same rights as US citizens. Claiming the reverse of that attitude because I use some rights as an example is puerile after you stated "It is a debacle and takes away any moral highground they ever had.." when referring to prisoners' detention.

The war against terrorism is unlike previous conflicts. However, like in previous conflicts, there should be no need to consult a lawyer before terminating enemy combatants carrying out hostile actions, whether or not it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt those actions were hostile.

If you can't think of any rights available to US citizens not enjoyed by those living in the country's supporting terrorism, or the prisoners of terrorists, I suggest you read the US Constitution and its amendments before continuing posting.

BTW I am quite capable of reading others' posts without the need for you to bring them to my attention.

[simple1]

86 of the present 166 Guantanamo detainees, have been cleared to go to their home country or another country willing to accept them, remain there, and have not been convicted of any offence. As has already been mentioned only 9 of the remaining 166 have been charged or convicted for offences, that leaves 71 detainees. After many years of detention and torture their is insufficient evidence to charge the remaining 71 who are subject to indefinite detention, as I understand from a legal interpretation based upon "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation".

UK government, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law" I agree & the 71 should have access to trial.

S1, Have the countries of the detainees made any specific request to have a detainee released?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/obama-pledge-to-transfer-guantanamo-bay-detainees-sparks-diplomatic-maneuvering/

[jamhar]

S1, Have the countries of the detainees made any specific request to have a detainee released?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/obama-pledge-to-transfer-guantanamo-bay-detainees-sparks-diplomatic-maneuvering/

Thanks S1!

Interesting article.. I cant believe i said that about FoxNews!

"............after another former detainee carried out a suicide bombing that killed at least seven people in Iraq."

........

"The Taliban want their five detainees released to Doha, Qatar, where senior Taliban leaders are living in exile. The U.S. has been reluctant to return detainees to Afghanistan because several have returned to the battlefield."

........

"Obama's decision is not without risk — detainees who have been released to Yemen in the past have joined terrorist fighters in the Arab nation."

Given some of the past history, I could see the foreign countries publicly saying "we want them back" and privately saying "dont rush, check them out carefully"

Why else would Kuwait hire a "lobbyist' to champion the idea to the US? That smacks me as someone who want to save face, but doesn't want to make progress.

A low priority, going thru the motions act.

But I've also seen articles on how some detainees have returned to productive lives after being released.

But thats the problem, How do you tell the good ones from the bad? I wouldn't want the responsibility of letting a potential future 9/11 participant to walk.

The guys evaluating the Gitmo prisoners to see who can be set free,

have a tough job with extreme consequences if they make a mistake.

I say let them do it.

[Sing_Sling]

Most would prefer a decade in jail to summary execution, which is the proscribed penalty under the Geneva Convention for many of the actions of terrorists.

Before you start declaring debacle, you should ask yourself where you got the right to assign the rights of US citizens to enemy combatants. And leave discussion of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to a different forum, where I am sure we will also have quite different attitudes.

Why would you summarily execute someone whom you can't link to any crimes? Your position is getting more and more difficult to understand . . . and it wasn't me who 'gave' these people the rights afforded citizens, it was you who brought it up when you alluded to "But difficult to do while their lawyer is busy explaining their right to remain silent, the 5th, to freedom of religion (or from it) and all the other rights they deny to their own people or others."

Added to which, what rights do these prisoners 'deny their own people and others'?

The asylum seeker/immigrant issue highlights our attitude and is, therefore, germane as a sidenote.

Have a look at Simple1's post . . .

As usual you attempt to confuse the issues by falsely ascribing attitudes, and including off topic sidelines.

I have clearly stated over a number of posts my belief that detained suspected terrorists should not be allowed the same rights as US citizens. Claiming the reverse of that attitude because I use some rights as an example is puerile after you stated "It is a debacle and takes away any moral highground they ever had.." when referring to prisoners' detention.

The war against terrorism is unlike previous conflicts. However, like in previous conflicts, there should be no need to consult a lawyer before terminating enemy combatants carrying out hostile actions, whether or not it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt those actions were hostile.

If you can't think of any rights available to US citizens not enjoyed by those living in the country's supporting terrorism, or the prisoners of terrorists, I suggest you read the US Constitution and its amendments before continuing posting.

BTW I am quite capable of reading others' posts without the need for you to bring them to my attention.

'As usual'? I see we are now reduced to the debating style of five-year olds. You made a statement and I referred to it when you obfuscated the issue - off-topic sidelines are meant as exactly that: sidelines, to illustrate a point. You may hope you don't ever stray from any given topic even one iota lest someone point this out your hypocrisy. Anyway, enough of that - the topic at hand.

Your second paragraph speaks of previous conflicts - I cold be petty and address the fact that the topic is about Guantanamo Bay and a judge's ruling, but I won't. (sorry, had to do it. )

The point here is that due to simply re-naming an opponent and placing him in a jail not not one's home soil one seems to override all previous agreed-to standards.

These people were incarcerated on the belief that they were either part of an enemy or could provide information on an enemy which in a territory one has invaded.

I don't need you to tell me to read the US constitution - have you read it? Hand on heart, have you read it? If you haven't then I would suggest that you are being less than sincere in your post . . . especially because you make this a pre-condition to my continuing to post on this forum.

Are you saying that only those who have read the US constitution are allowed - according to you - to post here?

No need to show your arrogance about being referred to others' posts . . . that is what citing and sourcing and linking is all about.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[Sing_Sling]

But thats the problem, How do you tell the good ones from the bad? I wouldn't want the responsibility of letting a potential future 9/11 participant to walk.

The guys evaluating the Gitmo prisoners to see who can be set free,

have a tough job with extreme consequences if they make a mistake.

I say let them do it.

There's the crux of it, though, jamhar. If they weren't enemies of the US before their abduction and imprisonment they most certainly would be now . . . so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Just everyone get the heck out of Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever else 'our' soldiers may be . . . let the locals take care of their own problems in instances like this

[Credo]

There's the crux of it, though, jamhar. If they weren't enemies of the US before their abduction and imprisonment they most certainly would be now . . . so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Just everyone get the heck out of Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever else 'our' soldiers may be . . . let the locals take care of their own problems in instances like this

I vote yes to getting the heck out. But first there needs to be a couple of agreements. First, they agree not to commit acts of terror on our soil or to train terrorists who will commit acts of terror on our soil. Second, they agree to stop exporting opium to kill our youth (and I know the Taliban cut opium production--but there are more than just the Taliban in the area). Finally, you agree to stop sending copious amounts of people in little rickety boats to places like Australia.

Until some of those agreements are reached, I guess we are stuck with some unsavory people who will unfortunately be denied rights that they would have if circumstances were different.

[simple1]

There's the crux of it, though, jamhar. If they weren't enemies of the US before their abduction and imprisonment they most certainly would be now . . . so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Just everyone get the heck out of Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever else 'our' soldiers may be . . . let the locals take care of their own problems in instances like this

I vote yes to getting the heck out. But first there needs to be a couple of agreements. First, they agree not to commit acts of terror on our soil or to train terrorists who will commit acts of terror on our soil. Second, they agree to stop exporting opium to kill our youth (and I know the Taliban cut opium production--but there are more than just the Taliban in the area). Finally, you agree to stop sending copious amounts of people in little rickety boats to places like Australia.

Until some of those agreements are reached, I guess we are stuck with some unsavory people who will unfortunately be denied rights that they would have if circumstances were different.

Got a lot of 'they", which "they" do you suggest get around the negotiation table & which NATO members & other countries should be represented. Who in your opinion is organising the sending of people in boats?

Edited July 16, 2013 by simple1