Maybe he was applying for a position with Blackwater USA? He's somewhat short of their impressive murder record. This story is UNTRUE. Any real checking would confirm this. To bolster his argument that the Guantánamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false. According to a new report by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research,[i] "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document subm... And you got to wonder, if this guy was such a danger, why not use whatever evidence they had and you know send him a real court, try him and give him a life sentence. Unless of course the DoD did not have the goods on this guy and he only committed a crime after he was released. Thats like the sherriff locking you up for drunk driving, turns out you where not drunk that night but two night later you total your car because you where drunk. Should we excuse the sheriff and say he can keep you in jail longer because at some future time you might, just might drive drunk even though he has no evidence that you did so in the past of in the night in question (and no I am not comparing terrorism w... Thats like the sherriff locking you up for drunk driving, turns out you where not drunk that night but two night later you total your car because you where drunk.More like he was black and there was another black guy who was regularly drunk but couldn't be caught by this sheriff. So, as he was wont to do, the sheriff rounded up some blacks that fitted the profile. This was usual when all blacks look the same to you and you needed to prove that you were not totally incompetent. To discourage the real drunk and other potential black drunks, the sheriff retained his prisoner by suspending his civil rights, even after the courts said he was wrong. His logic was that at least ... So... in other words the story is accurate, but you wish it weren't because it hurts your preconceived notions and doesn't fit the view of false reality that you hold dear. It's okay, just admit that you aren't a fan of facts and that you would rather falsely paint the U.S. as the monster that you wish it to be.Oh please? Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just making this up as you go along? As for the Geneva Conventions, they do not cover terrorism, a crime, they cover armed insurrection and war. So what is it, an insurgency or a criminal act? Besides, this goverment has ignored the Geneva convention, calls it "quaint"? And it is not the U.S. that its a monster, ... Because if your going to invoke the Conventions.... In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those place... No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm They want to believe the very worst of America; this President, our military court system, our military, our system of checks & balances, etc....I mean the very worst! My Country isn't perfect because it and the world are populated with imperfect people; but I'll take it and our system of government over any other. While not denying it's and individuals faults, I choose to look for things that it does right. Some find a perverted joy in looking & finding every morsel and hint of it's shortcomings. My opinion and that of the minority of the Justices (at this time) is that the detainees should be tried by military courts if they were captured on the *battlefield* or overtly involved in pursuits of terrorism. Who are they? And why use military courts? And what does the battlefield entail? And how do you define "overtly involved in pursuits of terrorism"? Really...it's not that hard. Is it? I see a lot of loopholes here and no need for military tribunals for criminal behavior. Besides, many so called "battlefield" detainees where not in fact captured on the battlefield, many where picked up on the streets of Karachi or Kabul, by people seeking monetary rewards. Courts around the world (including the U.S.) have done very well in prosecuting terrorist cases. And also, what happens on the next woman's health clinic bombing or the bombing a federal building? Do you round up all the suspects and send them to Guantanamo? Strawmen? I am arguing the premise behind the title of the piece. Examples are not strawmen. |
This is a private clip |
||
|
|
|||
