Guantanamo Bay detainees to get Geneva protections

Muzhaman:

As I mentioned yesterday, I would be out of the office most of today and I will not be able to respond to this until tomorrow at the earliest and it may take until Monday. Believe me, my silence is not out of fear that you will overwhelm me in any argument. That said, I would be more than happy to discuss this in greater detail.

From the enemy no less but I will use this to prove that military tribunals sentenced all Guantanamo inmates…

[quote]By Kate Randall
4 June 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The United States is making plans to try prisoners held at the US Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by military tribunal. All of the potential charges carry a possible death sentence. In violation of international law, the estimated 680 prisoners have been held without charges and without legal representation since they began arriving at the US military camp 18 months ago. Previously incarcerated at Camp X-Ray, they are now being held at the newly constructed Camp Delta.[/quote]

and this…

followed by…

Plus…

Perhaps, therefore, we have to clarify the “terms” that we are using in this debate a bit more first. I am or should have been referring if I was not to “military tribunals” and it is my opinion that such tribunals were used in the past including during World War II and that the use of them in Guantanamo is therefore a “norm.” I note that these differ from “military courts” and certainly do not think that these prisoners should be tried in “civilian courts.” The change that will take place now to my understanding because of the Supreme Court decision (Hamdan) is that these prisoners must now be given a trial in a “military court.” The rules and norms of how this will be done are as of yet undetermined, but this may be a good thing since it will force a debate in Congress about just how exactly these prisoners should be treated and what the final, long-term plan for dealing with them should be. Again, prisoners who have been released form Guantanamo have subsequently been captured following additional terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Russia and Afghanistan among other places. They are in many cases trained professionals who have been taught how to use and abuse the system all while generating maximum media sympathy. I further note that any Taliban captured were given full rights under the Geneva Convention (to my understanding) and that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are therefore mostly al Qaeda and other related terrorists.

Please do clarify, however, if you believe that I have made any mistakes in the above assessment. I am not a lawyer by training so this is not my area of expertise.

wsws.org/articles/2003/jun20 … -j04.shtml

You’ll need more than that as the article comes from 2003. Yes, there were plans to try prisoners but according to a lawyer involved in the whole procedure it took 3 years to build a case against a handful of prisoners so that they could even be indicted. I repeat, according to what I have read, very few have gone to trial and no one has been found quilty of a hanging offense. Again, the lawyer wrote that besides being unconstitutional, the military commissions set up by the Bush admin were inefficient.

Here’s the Slate article by Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law prof who’s been involved with the trials at Guantanamo since the beginning, and argued the the case in the Supreme Court. A credible source I would say.

slate.com/id/2145512/

Some quotes:

So again, these commissions, tribunals, whatever you want to call them, were something new. Had they been used in the past the SC would not have ruled against them, and everyone involved would not keep repeating that they ARE something new. Just because they are called tribunals does not mean they are the same as tribunals in the past which were legal. That shouldn’t be hard for you to understand.
[/quote]

A few other poins:

Even wikipedia has seperate entries for the tribunals that determined prisoners status (the tribunals that resulted in scores being released and were applied to all) and the military commissions that the SC struck down (which were applied to very few).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo … commission

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_ … w_Tribunal

In addition, in part the SC ruled on the illegality of the commissions because the violated the GC and the Uniform Code of Miltary Justice. The UCMJ was established in 1951 I believe and the GC in 1949. Hence both were after WWII. Perhaps earlier tribunals would be illegal also under current laws.

You complain about an article from 2003 but you use one from 2001 to support your views?

To my understanding, EVERY prisoner in Guantanamo was given some sort of hearing from a military tribunal NOT a military court. You have shown me nothing to make me think otherwise. I understand that there has been a question about the legality of doing so. I also read the Wikipedia entries but was not able to arrive at anything based on what they stated. The “illegality” of these tribunals has been debated but until the Supreme Court decision no one but “academics” and “legal experts” had officially weighed in with any decisiveness. You have merely supplied one of many voices who have discussed this subject. NOW, we have this Supreme Court decision and I welcome it. Why? Because now it means that Congress is going to have to have a very serious debate on this issue and the Democrats are going to be on record with whatever objections they have. THAT is going to be very important. I would love to see how Hillary Clinton will triangulate on this issue.

At the end of the day, I think the Supreme Court decision means that Congress is ultimately going to have to make the decision which will do exactly what I want. It will take the heat off the Bush administration for any subsequent decisions and they will have a wider range of responsiblity since both the Senate and House are going to have to pass some sort of resolution on this issue. The more public the debate is, the happier I will be. Let the media cover how these decisions are arrived at in the widest possible way. I welcome all the attention. WE have serious concerns regarding these individuals and I am confident that very little will actually change in how they are dealt with once all the facts are known. We get the added benefit of switching the lightning rod on this to someone else. Hurray!

My article was from last week. The writer refers to points he made in 2001. Your article was from 2003 and talked abut things that were to be done.

Looking at your first post it seems you are suggesting that all prisoners were subjected to a tribunal before they went to Guantanamo. Don’t know about that. Got a source?

Frankly though the point is irrelvant in a thread on the SC decision about the legality of trials for prisoners at Gitmo. I doubt people were subjected to a tribunal before going to Gitmo for the simple reason that they were subjected to one in 2004-5 to determine their status. Since so many were released it would seem they had never undergone a proper tribunal before or the original would also have found no reason to hold them. Or was the first hideously flawed?

In any case, the relevant matter here is that there have been very few trials to determine the guilt of anyone at Gitmo. And the trials that have taken place have been determined not to be legal, or effective.

The SC did not weigh in on any tribunal that gave a hearing to every prisoner. You are confused. The SC weighed in on the legality of the commission system set up to try prisoners in Gitmo but has to date tried only a handful (or charged I am not sure).

You are right that every prisoner was subjected to a tribunal. But this tribunal was not the one the SC weighed in on.

[quote]Frankly though the point is irrelvant in a thread on the SC decision about the legality of trials for prisoners at Gitmo. I doubt people were subjected to a tribunal before going to Gitmo for the simple reason that they were subjected to one in 2004-5 to determine their status. Since so many were released it would seem they had never undergone a proper tribunal before or the original would also have found no reason to hold them. Or was the first hideously flawed?

In any case, the relevant matter here is that there have been very few trials to determine the guilt of anyone at Gitmo. And the trials that have taken place have been determined not to be legal, or effective. [/quote]

Damned right.

Just like an ambulance chasing shyster, Freddles continues to defend the indefensible.

HG

Then, I still fail to see where you made your point with that article which referred back to 2001. The issue of Guantanamo mostly arose following the conflict in Afghanistan which was November 2002.

I cannot find one at present. I am still looking BUT the link that I posted showed that extensive preparations were ongoing. Seems as if it would be a bit of a waste of time and effort to set up such a structure (which by the way was being criticized in the article) if you had no intention of using it but fair enough. I will try to find one if you try to find an article that shows that my point is not valid, that all inmates were given a hearing in front of a military tribunal (if not court).

I fully appreciate that and welcome the very public debate of this issue in the US Congress.

Doubt but you have not proven that they were not. I made the assertion that they were and I have not been able to prove that with a link and I fully appreciate that the onus is on me to prove first but I note that you have also not refuted my statement with any proof of your own. I will try harder to find something.

Assumptions here on your part. I assume (deliberate) that you are not a lawyer either so there may be legal reasons or public relations reasons for doing so. I am not sure. I admit that.

No. That is not what I see happening. The Supreme Court has not said that the military tribunals are “illegal” but it has stated that the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists as well. This I personally find incredible but there you have it. It is their decision and one we will all have to live by. It did not find that the tribunals per se were illegal but I think that this pretty much follows. Therefore, again, and I welcome this, the decision about this issue is going to have to be made by Congress and this will be a highly publicized event and all right before the mid-term elections in November. Would I have been able to ask God to give me any greater gift than the televised spectacle of Democrats parading in front of cameras to argue that terrorists deserve better protection while Republicans will have the easy lob of defending American citizens? Can you imagine how gleeful I am that this debate is going to Congress? Do you have any idea what kind of public relations spectacle this will be? Do you see how this plays right into our hands of strong defense of America rather than the opposite?

No, I am not confused. See my points above. I am referring to the decison made that all prisoners are protected by the Geneva convention even though they are terrorists fighting out of uniform and not representing state actors.

That was not what I was arguing. Apologies if I have inadvertently misstated something. I realize in these legal decisions, terms mean everything so please let me know if my use of them is inconsistent and in what respect so I can correct myself.

Really?

[quote]
Just like an ambulance chasing shyster, Freddles continues to defend the indefensible. [/quote]

Ah. So what then do you think should be done with these prisoners? What should the official policy be? You seem to think that this is a simple matter, a clear cut, black-white case of right and wrong but what do YOU say then to the Russians, Afghans and Pakistanis who have been killed because various prisoners have been released from Guantanamo only to strike again? Where is the justice or concern for the victims here?

Also, you can say whatever you like but ambulance chaser? Surely this is not the term that you would have preferred to use here? BUT this is now going to have to go before Congress where a decision based on resolutions passed by both houses is going to have to be made. Think long and hard about that very public debate and right before those all too crucial midterm elections. THINK about it. Think about Nancy Pelosi and all the other “international rights” brigade and wonder how this will play on television in front of the American people during a period when these terrorists have been busy conducting bombing campaigns all over the world and you tell me that this Supreme Court decision was not an absolute God send for the Republican Party. Really, think it over. I could not have prayed for something better than such a spectacle right there in Congress displayed in the front page news on every TV station. I WANT this discussion and the more public, the better.

Here’s what the Washington Post (no friend of Bush’s has to say) and I think that they severely underestimate the political ramifications of this debate…

[quote]At a political level, the decision carries immediate ramifications. It provides fodder to critics who turned Guantanamo Bay into a metaphor for an administration run amok.
Now lawmakers may have to figure out how much due process is enough for suspected terrorists, hardly the sort of issue many would be eager to engage in during the months before an election
.[/quote]

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02300.html

Here is some more from this article which should be directed to Muzhaman…

[quote]The decision to create military commissions to try terrorism suspects, instead of using civilian courts or courts-martial, represented one of the first steps by the administration after the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington to create a new legal architecture for handling terrorism cases.

As described by the New Yorker this week, the executive order establishing military commissions was issued without consultations with then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice after a concerted push by Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, now his chief of staff.

“Rather than push so many extreme arguments about the president’s commander-in-chief powers, the Bush administration would have been better served to work something out with Congress sooner rather than later – I mean 2002, rather than 2006,” said A. John Radsan, a former CIA lawyer who now teaches at William Mitchell College of Law.[/quote]

To me the quote is an indication that military “commissions” were established to deal with these people suspected of terrorism. Anyway, my point is that they received some kind of “hearing” if not necessarily a “trial.” Again, apologies if I am misusing terms that have certain specialized legal definitions. This is not my area of expertise.

AND

Guantanamo’s First Suicides Pressure US
By Julian E. Barnes and Carol J. Williams
The Los Angeles Times

Sunday 11 June 2006 

truthout.org/docs_2006/061106Y.shtml

and then there is this… but it appears to have some information that may be supportive of your views regarding the number of people who have been “charged” by the military commissions. The number was given as four. Later, that is upped to 10 with nearly 300 released. The other cases are still pending, which seems to indicate that they have been given “hearings” but have not been officially “charged.” Now, I am not sure if that is “completed” hearings before the military “commissions” or what. Since this case (Hamdan) went through the court proceedings, some of the other “hearings” before this “commission” were stopped until a decision was made but you can hardly blame that on the government when it was fighting the case from the start. Know what I mean?

[quote]JOHN HENDREN: Well, the administration proposed a separate form of justice, a military commission, which has not been used since World War II. After World War II, the uniform code of military justice was created. I think it was 1951. And that set up a whole new form of justice that allowed you to try your own soldiers. It allowed you to try war crimes, enemy soldiers or even civilians in some cases.

RAY SUAREZ: So was this the case, the one that made its way up to the U.S. District Court, brought on behalf of all 500 detainees, or was there one particular case that was wending its way up through the system?

JOHN HENDREN: This case involved one detainee, the first detainee that came up before a military commission proceeding. His name is Salim Ahmed Hamdan. He’s a 34-year-old Yemeni man who has been held in Guantanamo for about three years.

RAY SUAREZ: So the Bush administration has responded to the judge’s ruling. What do they have to say on their own behalf?

JOHN HENDREN: They say the judge is making a key mistake, that he is equating people that they refer to as terrorists with regular uniformed, armed combat troops, and that the Geneva Convention should not recognize these people as such.

RAY SUAREZ: Has the United States ever done a prosecution, is there a precedent that the Bush administration can point to and say, yes, we can do it this way because, here, we’ve done it this way before?

JOHN HENDREN: They did. They point to that precedent in World War II and before World War II. There were a number of military commission proceedings. They were actually done under a different law in the sense that these proceedings entirely stem from a 2001 law that President Bush authorized; I shouldn’t say a law. It was a finding by the president. But in World War II, there were Nazi saboteurs who were found here on U.S. shores. They were tried secretly in a military commission and executed after being convicted. [/quote]

pbs.org/newshour/bb/internat … 11-09.html

Also, this from the International Red Cross…

mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Gu … 8feb06.htm

and then there is the fact as White House spokesperson Scott McClelland noted that…

These people were not just in the “wrong place at the wrong time,” they were caught with weapons fighting on the battlefield.

The SC has said that the military commissions violate US and international law. They also fail to satisfy the minimum requirements of a fair court system. They violate the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice which was established in 1951. Again, the fact that the commissions might have been based on WWII tribunals is irrelevant. Simply because something was once legal does not mean it it still. Segregation was not ended until the 60s.

AFAIK, the application of the Geneva Conventions was not what the SC was deciding on. They were deciding on the legality of the commissions.

[quote]Here is some more from this article which should be directed to Muzhaman…

"The decision to create military commissions to try terrorism suspects, instead of using civilian courts or courts-martial, represented one of the first steps by the administration after the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington to create a new legal architecture for handling terrorism cases.

As described by the New Yorker this week, the executive order establishing military commissions was issued without consultations with then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice after a concerted push by Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, now his chief of staff.

“Rather than push so many extreme arguments about the president’s commander-in-chief powers, the Bush administration would have been better served to work something out with Congress sooner rather than later – I mean 2002, rather than 2006,” said A. John Radsan, a former CIA lawyer who now teaches at William Mitchell College of Law. "

To me the quote is an indication that military “commissions” were established to deal with these people suspected of terrorism. Anyway, my point is that they received some kind of “hearing” if not necessarily a “trial.” Again, apologies if I am misusing terms that have certain specialized legal definitions. This is not my area of expertise.
[/quote]

Of course they were set up to deal with suspected terrorists. That said terrorists were not all given a trial to determine their guilt of a specific crime is the issue, or part of it.

I really don’t know what you are saying anymore. Do you think that the commissions have tried everyone and found them quilty, hence their continued presence at Gitmo? Or do you think that some of them were tried but not all because appeals have prevented them all from being tried? There is something to this but not much. As Katyal wrote, it took 3 years just to indict a handful of prisoners. The commisions were an ad hoc system opposed for a variety of reasons, not the least is that they did not work well.

In any case, as Katyal also wrote, it is a good thing that the commissions did not try everyone for any rulings would be void after the SC decision. You should be thankful that lawyers held up the process. Otherwise it would have been a much bigger embarassment for Bush.

Look, competent people warnd at the beginning of this that the commissions were not fair, and would not stand up to SC scrutiny. Why did the Bush admin not pay attention? And why are you not angry that once again, they have blundered and wasted time, to say nothing of damaging the US’s reputation worldwide.

You can pretend that people just had an animus against Bush, but the objections to Gitmo were based on both sound legal thinking, and a layman’s instincts that what was going on there was just not right. Who is at fault here, the lawyers and activists who pleaded with the government to obey its laws, to play fair, or the government who once again ignored the experst, and did what they wanted?

Gitmo is controversial for legitimate reasons. It has little to do with anti-Bush sentiments.

And what exactly is your problem with applying article 3 to Al Qaida or suspected Al Qaida? Or do you think people who have not been yet found quilty of anything should have absolutely no rights to be treated fairly and humanely?

Be careful not to read too much into the Supreme Court decision. I believe that it mainly struck down Bush’s right to decide these matters himself. It is now going to Congress where I am thrilled that the opportunity to see this debated will have a strong influence on the midterm elections. The Republicans could not have asked for a greater gift. Wait and see. In elections, do you think most citizens will warm to the ins and outs of international law and how it relates to 500 individuals who are not even American citizens captured on the battlefield or with efforts to protect them and their families?

Again, this is my understanding which I believe is indirectly buttressed by my selected quotes, ALL the terrorists have been given hearings before a military tribunal (commission) but only 10 have been Officially Charged.

Not officially tried or charged but given a hearing.

Appeals to my understanding are not presently granted and Bush is the final arbiter of the matter. THIS is what the Supreme Court found most objectionable and the DoD was a bit quick to rush to guarantee that all prisoners in Guantanamo are going to get Geneva Convention protections. To my understanding, even the Supreme Court was not calling for this other than that they be treated humanely which is something that the US has guaranteed all along or agreed with all along.

If they did not work, it was because of the numerous outside legal challenges. Again, I want to underline and underscore how thrilled I am that this is going to be decided by Congress. I agree with the Supreme Court decision to take this matter away from solely the president to place it squarely before Congress where it quite rightly belongs. Now, let the debate begin and watch Republican numbers start to climb in the polls before the midterm elections in November.

What embarrassment? To me, NO ONE is suggesting that these people just be released. EVERYONE fully understands taht they are dangerous individuals. What we will see now is not a change in policy or in new freedoms for these individuals, we will see a shift in blame from the US president to the US Congress and baby I am all over that.

Again, the commissions are not the problem in my understanding. The sole decision making power by the president was the issue under dispute. It is entirely possible that the Congress will agree to the same military tribunals that were used (as mentioned) in World War II so these are not unprecedented. Do you now agree with that point?

No. Because our reputation around the world has nothing to do with Guantanamo. This is just another excuse to find reason to hate the US by people who are already so inclined. OTHERWISE, they would be just as equally outraged by some of the systems in place in Europe which are far harsher. AND we all know that these individuals are not going to be released just because of the Supreme Court decision. This will be tossed in Congress’s lap just as it should have and it will no longer be the lighting rod for the Bush administration. Hurray!

Yes. I see that. BUT there has been mostly demonizing about Bush and his decisions without giving him the same benefit of the doubt. So again, hurray! the Congress will decide and the more the issue is debated and the longer this stays in the press, the happier I am going to be because make no mistake, this decision is a God send. Do you understand the full ramifications of this? So why aren’t you wondering why this supposed “embarrassment” gets no quibbles from me? Why this “defeat” has me so elated?

haha. Very simplistic read. Again, my understanding is that the Supreme Court took away the sole decision making authority away from the president to give to Congress (shared) BUT it is not necessarily saying such military commissions are out of the question in some form or another. AND the call to treat them humanely as stipulated under the Geneva Convention is fine with me.

Yes, it is controversial but why not give the other side the benefit of the doubt. For the lawyers and legal experts who make up 0.0001 percent of those discussing this issue, it is a legitimate controversy as you say. For everyone else, it is emotional, irrational Bush hatred flowing down another new channel.

Where did I say that? You are confused about the full extent of the Geneva Convention. I am not saying they should not be treated humanely. They have been and they should continue to be treated humanely. I just do not want to see them tried as POWs. I want them tried as terrorists. There is a difference you see. They are NOT legitimate state actors and they were not in uniform. BUT nowhere have I said that they should be tortured or abused. Nor do I believe that they have been, all the endless allegations notwithstanding.

So to recap and simplify since I think you are missing the points here.

The main decision in this case is to take the authority away from Bush and I am thrilled since Congressional debate aids the Republican effort.

The US has never supported torture or abuse of the prisoners.

In the end, some form of the military commission system currently in place is likely to remain but this will have far wider responsiblity because it has been approved by Congress. It will be debated and the more media coverage of who says what the better.

I am happy with the Supreme Court decision. I fully support it. BUT I think you are missing out on how much this helps our “cause.”

[quote=“fred smith”]
I am happy with the Supreme Court decision. I fully support it. BUT I think you are missing out on how much this helps our “cause.”[/quote]

You began this thread with:

If I am “missing” your points it’s because you are all over the map with them as you scramble to understand this issue piecemeal and belatedly.

No. The SC determined that the commisions set up by Bush were in violation of the law. The Supreme Court did not just take power away from Bush, it determined he had acted wrongly. His commissions at the very least did not satisfy the basic requirements of a civilized people.

From the SC summary:

Again, not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear that the court struck down the legality of the commissions themselves, and not just the president’s authority to hold them.

This should be primarily a moral or justice issue not a partisan one. What kind of Christian are you? I am serious. I was raised in a very straightlaced Catholic family and have used a simple faith in right and wrong to guide me through life. Why was I one of the very few liberals to support the Iraq war? Because I believed Hussein was evil and toppling him was for the good in this world. Even as much as I disliked the Bush admin and did not trust them I gave them my support. I felt it was the right thing to do. I did not support what was happening in Gitmo because that did not strike me as just.

You may feel differently but why no qualms at all about a program that has been deemed by the highest court in the land to be in violation of your nation’s laws and international laws governing a just war?

I think I get this point. I did after all provide YOU with the court’s thought on the matter.

But once again, they are not to be tried as POWs. Why do you keep mentioning this?

That Gitmo prisoners (among others) have been abused and tortured is beyond dispute. I think you meant to say that the allegations that your government had a hand in it are not believed by you. Too bad your own government’s reports, and credible witnesses from JAGs, to West Point graduates, to army doctors, to, most recently, General Council Mora disagree with you.

If your desire is Republican victory and protecting the president then I can see how you would refuse to believe that the weight of evidence suggests a high probability that your government is/was engaged in deliberate torture. If your desire is to know the truth, and to live the truth, I cannot see how you are not, at the very least, silent on this matter, and full of doubt.

Try not to sell your soul over this war. The Gitmo guys at least get their virgins. You could get stuck somewhere nasty with Ann Coulter for eternity and not a glass of chablis in sight.

The typ of christian that follows judaeism… A jew… :no-no:

Why bring somebody’s faith or lack of faith into the argument… America is built on many faiths… a secular society… what is this.??? the search for the Scarlet Letter??

Let’s just focus on the Supreme Court ruling. Bush is losing most of his battles there…

Let’s face it… most non Americans have no faith in the US pres as he is very willing to bend the truth and create his own facts to suit his own needs…

Lack of credibility is the US’ most important issue. The SC seems to be restoring some of that…

Long Live the Suprpeme Court which has much more common sense than the US prez

The typ of christian that follows judaeism… A jew… :no-no:

Why bring somebody’s faith or lack of faith into the argument… America is built on many faiths… a secular society… what is this.??? the search for the Scarlet Letter??

Let’s just focus on the Supreme Court ruling. Bush is losing most of his battles there…

Let’s face it… most non Americans have no faith in the US pres as he is very willing to bend the truth and create his own facts to suit his own needs…

Lack of credibility is the US’ most important issue. The SC seems to be restoring some of that…

Long Live the Suprpeme Court which has much more common sense than the US prez[/quote]

Because Fred has made his faith a central part of his online identity and furthermore a guiding light in his take on every other issue he argues. It is therefore entirely fair that I call him on this and ask to approach this issue from a Christian moral standpoint and not a partisan one. What would Jesus think here? Would he favor a president who had deliberately set up a commission to try people that was knowingly unfair and unjust? Would his greatest joy upon hearing that justice was done be that it was going to help Republicans in the fall?

[quote=“Serial Killer On Parole”]The typ of christian that follows judaeism… A jew… :no-no:

Why bring somebody’s faith or lack of faith into the argument… America is built on many faiths… a secular society… what is this.??? the search for the Scarlet Letter??[/quote]

Nonsense. :unamused: Fred has not made his faith a central part of his online identity… I don’t think fred is a Christian. :unamused:

I’m not even certain I understand the above statement. Nonetheless, making assumptions from a position of ignorance is very poor form. :no-no:

If by chance your post is directed at me TM, I have you on ignore and plan to keep you there.

[quote=“Muzha Man”]

Because Fred has made his faith a central part of his online identity and furthermore a guiding light in his take on every other issue he argues. .[/quote]

Then is you know he is not a christian why bait him about it…

His faith and your faith are imho your own private matters… it is not relevant to the SC decisions…

Hopefully the Americans who have not ventured out of their own country and who stilllive in sheltered little bubbles will see the need to have a prez that the whole world respects… being as such you’re the sole superpower left…

Such noble cause the US chases… she got a few barbs in her foot… mostly of her own doing

I’m crushed. :smiley:

Sorry, will try to recap one more time about this issue.

I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling but I am happy that it occurred. I do not see that this is incompatible.

What is the key factor here? My understanding of the ruling is that it is one based on jurisdiction and that the Supreme Court’s key decision was based on their view that Bush was overstepping his authority. I have no problem with that.

The second part of the decision was that the prisoners were to be treated humanely per the Geneva Convention. I have no problem with that either. I would have a problem if they were to be treated as legitimate POWs. THAT involves wearing a uniform and not engaging in activities that deliberately target civilians. Got to play by the rules to be treated fairly by the rules.

As to religion, I am very religious. I make no bones about that.

I believe in justice as the key plank of any ethical system. I do not see that the inmates in Guantanamo, Gitmo or Abu Ghraib are not being treated justly. Those responsible for abuses at Abu Ghraib have been punished. Justice has been served. The belief in justice does not mean that no bad actions will ever be committed but that if and when they do an honest attempt to address them will be initiated. I am satisfied that this has happened.

Again, for the inmates of Guantanamo, what is the big deal with their incarceration? They were for the most part captured on the field fighting US forces. No Taliban were sent to Guantanamo as far as I know because they were considered legitimately covered by the POW aspects of the Geneva Convention no?

Sorry about my partisanship shining through but I look at this as a wonderful opportunity to have a national debate about what should be done with these people if there is controversy about this. I think that an international debate about this should take place as well since many nations with similar policies are allowing their press and public to feed on the anti-American trough. Considering the fact that 1,000 plus “terrorists” have been rounded up in Europe with very few of them actually tried and convicted, I really have to wonder just how and why the Europeans have gotten off the hook on this. Let’s have an international discussion and cover all aspects of who is doing what and where and how we should address very real threats to our open, pluralistic “tolerant” societies.

BUT I also cannot help but be gratified to see this as a major public relations coup. Think of it. In the months before very important midterm elections, there will be a very public debate with the Democrats arguing that these inmates deserve the same rights and protections as Americans? Or something equally nonsensical. Can I not gloat at the spectacle of this impending disaster and be grateful for the opportunity? while still remaining faithful to my beliefs in the importance of the system of justice discussed above while fully recognizing that any and all inmates should be treated humanely, a belief that I have maintained all along?