Its Now Official: 'Obomba The Butcher' Exposed in Supreme Court Ruling

[onthecuttingedge2005]

Them moving the detainees to the continental US where they may claim habeas corpus is one step closer to blurring the line between enemy combatant and suspected terrorist citizen.

Doesn't anyone realize this.  Being able to declare it and moving them are two different things.

Some US citizen will find themselves in a cell right next to them, and there will be no difference.

any 'legit' enemy combatant of any province should be automatically executed, they are inherently dangerous to release and to expensive to detain. capital punishment is the only way to save us money and worrying time with that particular individual.

enemy combatants that are actually U.S citezens should be tried as such but if they are convicted of enemy combatant crimes against their resided country they should be executed for treason.

this world has grown to soft on murders. get with the old program, don't let them be released to kill more then what they might of already killed.

Capital punishment gets rid of the 'current' problem. there are more problems waiting. there will always be more problems waiting, Capital punishment will lesson the problems that remain.

[jadaro2600]

The only problem with you reasonaing is in determining what is "legit", who..and why.

And surely, when groups of people conspire to get it right, ...then, they've obviously paid for the procedure with their time, and see no reason to be, ..."forgiving", or "merciful"

After all, you or they, have defined them in such a way as to make this impossible.  By proxy, the prejudice is more affective, in a grabastic accusation, than proof.

When proof is exchanged only through secret authorities who are already working towards the same goal - there was no trial; there won't be, and and there won't be justice to be published or accurately portrayed.

That is that.  It's a two-sided ordeal and both parties are affirmative in their convictions. ( as you've pointed out )

Our legal system is supposed to provide a four party system for these types of affiars.. there is the court ( judiciary ) independent of the executive and responsible to their oaths to the constitution and responsibilities therein.
there is the prosecution ( in this case, the military ) ..and there duties and proclamations.
there is the jury
and there is the accused.

In a military tribunal, there is only prosecution and the accused.

This is why people call it a show trial.  All parties involved are under the employee of the same branch of a government ( the same government which has the faculties to provide otherwise )

I will note, that if you are a citizen, then this is not supposed to happen to you.  But since most people have assumed that being declared ( accused ) a terrorist; then somehow, by miraculous extradition, you are no longer a citizen.

Bullshit!  These types of circumventions are BULLSHIT (unconstitutional). regardless of where they've blotted it out in the fine print of legalese, amendments, and other endeavors to move power to do such a thing is exactly the type of situation I just explained.

There is them, and prosecution.  This is obviously an unbalanced situation, regardless of whether we perceive justice ( whether they are declared not guilty or guilty ) the functions were present, but they were / are not accounted for.

Our eyes wide shut to the matters, we know not how they are done IN OUR NAME!  and it is because of these doings IN OUR NAME that they persist as thus.

Impossible a situation as it is, it should be our moral prerogative to aspire to better.

FURTHERMORE: ...the topic at hand, regarding some court case which we have half-assed information to, is inflammatory.  Just the idea of not getting to see what was talked about, hear the original material, and have it presented to us in a summary style with little indication as to what has really occurred is out-right media treachery.

It would be nice to have some journalistic integrity ( this goes for both the coverage AND the proceedings of the trial ) ..having such a thing means respecting the constitution in multiple fashions.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

The only problem with you reasonaing is in determining what is "legit", who..and why.

And surely, when groups of people conspire to get it right, ...then, they've obviously paid for the procedure with their time, and see no reason to be, ..."forgiving", or "merciful"

After all, you or they, have defined them in such a way as to make this impossible.  By proxy, the prejudice is more affective, in a grabastic accusation, than proof.

When proof is exchanged only through secret authorities who are already working towards the same goal - there was no trial; there won't be, and and there won't be justice to be published or accurately portrayed.

That is that.  It's a two-sided ordeal and both parties are affirmative in their convictions. ( as you've pointed out )

Our legal system is supposed to provide a four party system for these types of affiars.. there is the court ( judiciary ) independent of the executive and responsible to their oaths to the constitution and responsibilities therein.
there is the prosecution ( in this case, the military ) ..and there duties and proclamations.
there is the jury
and there is the accused.

In a military tribunal, there is only prosecution and the accused.

This is why people call it a show trial.  All parties involved are under the employee of the same branch of a government ( the same government which has the faculties to provide otherwise )

I will note, that if you are a citizen, then this is not supposed to happen to you.  But since most people have assumed that being declared ( accused ) a terrorist; then somehow, by miraculous extradition, you are no longer a citizen.

Bullshit!  These types of circumventions are BULLSHIT (unconstitutional). regardless of where they've blotted it out in the fine print of legalese, amendments, and other endeavors to move power to do such a thing is exactly the type of situation I just explained.

There is them, and prosecution.  This is obviously an unbalanced situation, regardless of whether we perceive justice ( whether they are declared not guilty or guilty ) the functions were present, but they were / are not accounted for.

Our eyes wide shut to the matters, we know not how they are done IN OUR NAME!  and it is because of these doings IN OUR NAME that they persist as thus.

Impossible a situation as it is, it should be our moral prerogative to aspire to better.

FURTHERMORE: ...the topic at hand, regarding some court case which we have half-assed information to, is inflammatory.  Just the idea of not getting to see what was talked about, hear the original material, and have it presented to us in a summary style with little indication as to what has really occurred is out-right media treachery.

It would be nice to have some journalistic integrity ( this goes for both the coverage AND the proceedings of the trial ) ..having such a thing means respecting the constitution in multiple fashions.

Okay, then where do you think we should move them? maybe somewhere around your neighborhood would suffice? I bet you would have no problem housing these individuals right? I mean, you are a caring individual right? I am sure they would just turn over a new leaf because you cared for them right?

just to save you and your family the misery of being killed by such individuals I say just execute the criminals and be done with it, don't weep for these criminals, they don't give a crap about you or yours.

I do!

[jadaro2600]

Okay, then where do you think we should move them? maybe somewhere around your neighborhood would suffice? I bet you would have no problem housing these individuals right? I mean, you are a caring individual right? I am sure they would just turn over a new leaf because you cared for them right?

just to save you and your family the misery of being killed by such individuals I say just execute the criminals and be done with it, don't weep for these criminals, they don't give a crap about you or yours.

I do!

You act as if I don't want murderers prosecuted. ..they shouldn't have moved them in the first place ...toting them around is a sign that our military had no intention of securing the war zone in the first place.  Abu-Griab was a disaster...  but these people are criminals to their own state for waging war in such a way ....  would you want US citizen soldiers extradited over there for committing crime against them?

But obviously there is a mutual distrust.

You come off as an extremist of sorts yourself, assuming that it would be doable to move them to my neighborhood; I'm surrounded by military and law enforcement as it is... i'm not sure things would work out too well.    I wonder how those Cubans feel, we've been on their doorstep for so long and done nothing?

It would have been best to detain them, give them reasonable attention, make determinations, assign a third part as a judiciary, and then proceed to more conventional measures later.

What we hear about is the extreme ..they've actually done these things; moving them HERE is what I have a problem with; and so do many others, there is a reason they were sent to Guantanamo - I understand this.

I don't weep for the criminals, I do take profound interest in the possibility that justice may not be served on such terms as you or I am afforded.  This lack of respect for human rights --- we should aspire to be better than that.  It only enforces our initial claims.

I'm aware of them not giving a crap about 'you or yours'.. i'm also aware of the fact that some of us don't give a crap about "them or theirs".

This complacency has defined the war, altogether.

More should be published about the positive outcomes, hopefully without an air of arrogance or propaganda.

But, good luck getting Al-Jezera to go along with that, eh?

I hope, with all sincerity that my views don't come off as dissent.  But I suppose it would depend on who's prosecuting, wouldn't it?

onthecuttingedge2005, it shakes me to the core to think about what horrors await a victim of their terrorism, believe me, it's not my intentions to be lenient on their behalf, but I do believe in expediting justice in a manner compliant with the constitution; it is the precipice for our own actions.

( this is what I like to believe anyway, ..other theories abound as to the real cause, and surely, after-the-fact, some of them sound more likely than others )