Guantanamo Detainee Found Innocent, Set Free

Is this the reason CIA agents and military personals have to hide in USA like criminals because of the arrest warrant for them in Italy and Germany and USA has to refuse the extradition orders like a third world country? Wasn't this exactly the same thing that USA was blaming Libya for? Gulags, torture, kidnapping and not respecting international laws, it seems USA under this administration is having more and more in common with dictatorships and terrorists states than civilized world.

 

why did the judges said they were held illegally?

 

Is it, gworld? Or are you just making things up again on behalf of your friends?

Where did a judge say your friends were held illegally?

 

Only a fool tries to deny what is a public knowledge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555660.stm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,490514,00.html

 

Only a fool sources something that proves him wrong.

Your friends are still wanted and still behind bars where they belong.

 

Only a fool tries to deny something that anybody in this forum can see with his/her own eye and see you are just full of it and don't admit to being wrong when you are owned time after time.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-bay_legal.htm

This has been presented before by GRIM. Are you going to continue ignoring it?

 

Only a fool makes allegations of gulags and torture, then posts something that has nothing to do with such as evidence.

I'm sure your friends will be pleased, but you really need sources to back up those claims.

 

I never ignored it in the first place. That you would dishonestly suggest I had, continues to illustrate who you are supporting.

When our (not your) SC makes a decision about something then it changes. Up to that point, it was not illegal. That's why we have SC judges to make such determinations in the first place.

Further more, this covers the commissions, not their incarceration, which you dishonestly said was illegal. They are not illegally detained. Your friends will get their trials. You are always welcome to start a defense fund for them too.

 

I think Gtech is becoming a masochist in his old age and actually enjoys being owned every time he turns around and makes a post. I honestly can not believe that anyone can be such a fool that deny the obvious and public knowledge without expecting to be proved wrong time after time.

 

I've still seen nothing to support either of your friends regarding torture or being illegally detained.

I'm sure they appreciate your efforts, but so far, neither of you are doing them any favors here, despite your best attempts.

 

A few quick points.
#1 as far as the facts as we know it at the moment we are not holding anyone illegally at GB, as for that I agree with Gtech
#2 the decision itself was for the commissions, however the decision invoked the Geneva Convention which by any logic shows the GC does apply even for the incarceration which is why even the Bush administration is following it as such with the quote I had provided earlier.
#3 As far as the law not being broken before the Supreme Court ruled, that is not entirely true. The Supreme Court ruled that in fact what was being done was illegal, that does not equal the prior case being legal. The ruling however makes no doubt as to what is legal and what is not.

I trully hope you do not turn this into more than what it is Gtech, I understand you want them fried, I do as well. If you can put differences aside just for a second, can you see how side stepping the rule of law in the first place has actually hurt us now?

Now with these rulings and with the outrage of those against the war, those in other countries we have to be extra careful about what we do. So much in fact that some might very well be set free that normally had we followed the laws in the first place might have been able to be held until after the conflict is over. The loose terminology of the GC could realistically hold the terrorist until they die 'I believe' as the conflict is not going to die down like a normal war.

I simply 100% seriously see how the administration originally acted and 'if' we continued to act that way after our Supreme Court ruled that yes it in fact was illegal has hurt us much more than most are willing to admit. This is not pro terrorist, it is completely the other way around.

Simply something to think about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

I'm not a lawyer, but everything I have read makes it pretty clear that in order to be an unlawful combatant a tribunal must take place. Even then there are rules and regulations that apply, they can however lose POW status and can be tried under municipal law. Am I incorrect in determining here if we had simply followed this first step, and not bypassed it that we could have in fact executed many of them?

I think we do actually want the same thing Gtech, believe it or not. I simply am seeing where how things were done loopholes were found, any time we break a law it can come back to haunt us. Had we followed the law from the beginning perhaps many of those originally detained would no longer be living, no longer a threat.

 

I disagree here. This is an assumption. If you read the entire page, you will note that these have been in and out of court, stays have been issued, rulings have been made, rulings have been overturned. We have precedent regarding illegal enemy combatants. As observed in the reading, one military judge completely dismissed the case of one terrorist on a technicality because the word "illegal" was not used.

I disagree here. Having read (scanned), I came across no such wording. Again, we have legal precedent on dealing with enemy combatants in military tribunals. Judges have both ruled and been overturned in these decisions. The current stance, as I read it (pending any further information) is that military tribunals are off the table for now. This certainly does not mean they were illegal before. The last time they were used was WWII. Now, as a judge has determined them "currently" (pending, yet any further judgement) off limits. This does not equate to the fact that they were illegal, but rather sets a precedent for current day legality. They were not previously illegal.

I can put aside differences, however, I disagree that the rule of law was side-stepped in the first place. We had in place, rules for military tribunals for enemy combatants. The only reason it was overturned, was because it was challenged. That does not mean it was previously illegal. It means that "today's" SC agreed to hear the case and made a modern day ruling.

Here's another example (yes, a hypothetical, but it paints the story)...Next week Roe vs. Wade is overturned by the SC. Previously it was legal to get an abortion, but now it's not. That doesn't mean it was previously illegal.

We did follow our laws in the first place. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise. I also do not believe we are globalists...in that we need a permission slip or other country's approval for how we deal with terrorists that threaten our country or world peace.

This is a false assumption though. While I can appreciate a dire discontent for Bush, reading the ENTIRE page that you sourced, does not conclude such. In fact, it shows that multiple times, these very cases have been heard, ruled on, overturned, ruled on again, and here we are at the most recent decision.

Military tribunals for enemy combatants were never illegal in the first place. The SC simply heard new arguments and made new rulings.

I believe we do as well. I simply do not believe that laws were broken here. Clearly we had established laws on dealing with enemy combatants. All that has taken place is, the SC heard new arguments and made a new decision.

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and I believe we have. Everything I've read clearly indicates such.