Originally Posted By X-san ***Nor should they be treated as vermin with no rights whatsoever.*** Caveat...I have two reasons for this statement, neither of which means I consider TRUE TERRORISTS to be people deserving of any rights whatsoever. 1) it's necessary in order to regain the moral high ground in the global community, that we treat even the worst criminals fairly. 2) it's possible that some who are captured truly ARE innocent, something we'll never find out if they have no rights to defend themselves and face their accusers and all that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I am concerned with some of Obamas comments myself however, why is it so impossible to find the middle ground here?> Until the Supreme Court threw it out, there was middle ground. The law dealing with them passed with healthy majorities. <Why can't they be treated the way society has always handled war criminals?> Swiftly executed? I think we're a little more advanced than that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you kidding me the Taliban just broke a bunch of Taliban and Al Quida guys out of prison and are taking over villages in Afgahnistan. Or did you miss that.> And we're taking them back and killing the bad guys in the process. That's war. Every little setback does not mean we are losing.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Until the Supreme Court threw it out, there was middle ground" No, Douglas. Until the Supreme court threw it out they had a railroad to prosecution. To sit in front of your accusers without being told what your crime is, no defensive representation, and no access to the evidence against you is not Middle ground. Douglas your blind allegiance is amazing. And that is what it is "BLIND ALLEGINCE".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Until the Supreme court threw it out they had a railroad to prosecution.> And yet, some Gitmo detainees were released. How do you square that with your theory? <To sit in front of your accusers without being told what your crime is, no defensive representation, and no access to the evidence against you is not Middle ground.> What is your evidence that that is what was happening?
Originally Posted By dshyates Duh, its what the Supremes said was going on, thats why they threw it out. Try and follow along here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Duh, its what the Supremes said was going on, thats why they threw it out.> No, it's not.
Originally Posted By DAR I thought the Supremes said Stop in the Name of Love before you break my heart. Think it oooover.
Originally Posted By X-san So Douglas you are of the belief that the Supreme Court is inept? Or, at least, in this case anyway?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<There's nothing in that quote that, if followed, makes us less safe.>> <Of course you'd think that. It doesn't make it so.> Your saying it does, doesn't make THAT so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So Douglas you are of the belief that the Supreme Court is inept?> Of course not. I just believe that 5 Justices decided this matter wrongly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your saying it does, doesn't make THAT so.> Of course. You have to understand the facts of the issue to understand what is wrong with the quote. That's why I posted the link.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Your saying it does, doesn't make THAT so.>> <Of course. You have to understand the facts of the issue to understand what is wrong with the quote. That's why I posted the link.> You posted the link to link to someone's opinion that matches yours. Once again, you confuse that with "the facts." Here's a rather different view that includes the story of the former (US) chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions resigning in protest over the procedures. <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle" target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...3/tuttle</a>
