Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free

[Tangerine]

Now I'M the one who is LOL. I have no need to earn your seal of "credibility" for anything. All I have done in this thread is point out the blatant factual inaccuracies that you continue to make. To review, here’s a few of them:

We are talking exactly about our legal system

As I already pointed out – incorrect. The detainees at Gitmo are not and never have been a part of our legal system. They will never be arraigned or prosecuted by any court at any level of State or US Government. THAT is our legal system. It is a completely different entity than the military justice system.

locking up people forever without a trial is not something this country has ever stood for

Incorrect. The Japenese Internment camps were a prime example. Obviously, at some point, our country DID stand for this action. I find it amusing that in a later post you snuck in a qualifier of “since WWII” or something to that effect in an attempt to backpeddle from this overly bold statement.

the people we hold in custody are subject to our laws

Incorrect. I would ask that you name the court jurisdiction under which these people are being held and what particular laws they are subject to – but I know you cannot, because they don’t exist. The people at Gitmo are MILITARY prisoners. US Law does not apply. Judges have already made that clarification.


And you obviously enjoy putting words into people’s mouths as well. At NO point did anything I say in any way, shape or form imply that the “actions of the Bush Administration are acceptable.” Never. I also never said that “these people have no rights.” Never. I’ve pretty clearly stated my opinion on the matter already:

Do I have concerns that their human rights are being violated? Most certainly. Should that have been in the past and should be in the future handled differently? Absolutely.

Or did you just choose to not read that part?

Incorrect facts? Poor reading comprehension? And you have the balls to question MY credibility? HAHA!

 

[leo305]

Incorrect. The Japenese Internment camps were a prime example. Obviously, at some point, our country DID stand for this action.

Well at least the Japanese were compensated for the internment of them or their ancestors.

 

[Accountable]

That's weak.

 

[Minor Axis]

Tangerine,
If people who are held in our custody are not subject to U.S. law why are U.S. judges ruling on behalf of their rights? You say you have concerns about human rights violations, but the weight of your statements come down on the side justifying their treatment under the Bush Admin.

 

[Tangerine]

Tangerine,
If people who are held in our custody are not subject to U.S. law why are U.S. judges ruling on behalf of their rights? You say you have concerns about human rights violations, but the weight of your statements come down on the side justifying their treatment under the Bush Admin.

No I have not. I am merely pointing out WHAT their status is - in dispute to what you claim it is. I have never said I think it's RIGHT that they have no standing, only that they don't. I personally think the situation has been - and continues to be handled poorly. But simply because you WISH they were being granted more rights by our Government does not make it so.

 

[henry456]

A very stylish and ambassadorial answer. It’s really considerable and common.


-------------------
Henry Pollick
Which is the best evercleanse?
Best Evercleanse

 

[Minor Axis]

No I have not. I am merely pointing out WHAT their status is - in dispute to what you claim it is. I have never said I think it's RIGHT that they have no standing, only that they don't. I personally think the situation has been - and continues to be handled poorly. But simply because you WISH they were being granted more rights by our Government does not make it so.

You are mistaken. Anyone under the jurisdiction of our laws are subject to our laws. The one exception I know of are diplomats.