"After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials."
More here...
http://uruknet.info/index.php?p=m61201&hd=&size=1&l=e
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 18, 2009, 07:48:32 PM
"After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials."
More here...
http://uruknet.info/index.php?p=m61201&hd=&size=1&l=e
Regards...
Hi Cap.
I see what you are saying here but don't you think that the persecuted severe combatants should be tried by capital punishment?
I mean, this should be with any country that captures national enemy combatants, they are inherently dangerous for the well being of any state and the people going about their happy lives.
how would you handle it, I mean if you had the power to change this, how would you do it? I really would like to know, some of these enemy combatants are Sophisticated killers, they actually call countries an enemy and not a home land, there are many jihads just waiting for the opportunity to wipe you and everyone else off the map including I. I don't find that to comfortable.
what is the answer?
The answer is to first, haul ass out of the middle east...second put Bush, Cheney etal on trial for war crimes...as its now known they purposely orchestrated the whole false 'war on terror'...from 9/11 on up.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 18, 2009, 09:39:01 PM
The answer is to first, haul ass out of the middle east...
once a Jihad and or a Crusade is called it will not stop until either goals are achieved, this is the tough part, if you was to call off Bushes Crusade(and he did call a Crusade) the Jihad will not stop, no U.S president in office would ever dare to call off a Crusade once started, the Jihad will carry out every effort to build their resources again to destroy targets inside what ever country they have a Jihad with. this is factual in History, Jihads and Crusades can not end until they are accomplished.
Quote
second put Bush, Cheney etal on trial for war crimes...as its now known they purposely orchestrated the whole false 'war on terror'...from 9/11 on up.
I won't deny that Bush and his minions are not guilty of war crimes, but it is up to the tribunal to decide, not I. the tribunal is apart of the higher powers.
I never voted for Bush, I never liked Bush. but I will always try to protect our country, the whole national system isn't corrupt, it is the one holding the gun that 'could be' dangerous.
I have never voted for one president in history because I know they are only human.
Jerry
The 'etal' includes Obomba.
Those behind the scenes pulling the strings of Bush and Obomba, are also behind all global conflict.
Only when we jump off the virtual game board they have us on, their rein of terror will end...and then we can all live in peace.
Regards...
We've seen Obomba bowing and scraping to his visible global arab superiors...now we see him nearly on his knees to his chino bosses in Copenhagen.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-continues-practice-of-bowing-his-way-around-the-world.html
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 18, 2009, 10:03:41 PM
The 'etal' includes Obomba.
Those behind the scenes pulling the strings of Bush and Obomba, are also behind all global conflict.
Only when we jump off the virtual game board they have us on, their rein of terror will end...and then we can all live in peace.
Regards...
but what of the Jihad, it will not end with 'any' president in office. it will not end period until they win their trophy.
I mean, if you can get rid of the Jihad then I see a chance of calling off the Crusade that Bush declared.
from one president to another, a Crusade can not end until its trophy is accomplished.
Illuminati are only insiders that know important people in power, if you had that power, what now would you say?
Jerry
They're looking out for the best of us in the worst possible ways.
Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 18, 2009, 10:21:45 PM
They're looking out for the best of us in the worst possible ways.
So are the Jihadist.
Jihad was declared before the Crusade, the Jihadist don't see you as friends or kindly foreigners, they see you as something to conquer. their word for you is Enemy! period!
Jihadist will cut your head off just below your jaw line, they will bury you waist deep and stone you to death, they will drill holes into your body until you are dead, they will just shoot you after they are satisfied, they will use you to test their explosive devices to see if they meet requirements of the tribe. do you actually like these people.
they will not call off the war against what they call infidels. wave a little white flag with these folks and you'll get your neck cut.
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.
Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 18, 2009, 11:03:52 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 18, 2009, 11:43:43 PM
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!
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 18, 2009, 11:58:04 PM
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 )