• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush 'knew Guantanamo prisoners were innocent'

Dav said:
Al-Qaeda is not a representative of a nation and did not sign the Geneva Conventions, thus they can be prisoners of war without being protected by them.
Click to expand...

How do you declare war on a non-nation? Can some one declare war on the Republican party?
 
Erod said:
So now we're supposed to try every prisoner of war as a U.S. citizen?
Click to expand...

Don't follow the news much? SCOTUS said all prisoners in U.S. custody on U.S. soil, including GITMO, have a right to Habeus Corpus. Citizenship does not matter. The Constitution agrees.
 
Redress said:
How do you declare war on a non-nation? Can some one declare war on the Republican party?
Click to expand...

Well, you can define words however you want I guess. If you can't go to war with a non-nation though, we're not at war right now.
 
Dav said:
Well, you can define words however you want I guess. If you can't go to war with a non-nation though, we're not at war right now.
Click to expand...

Technically, I don't think we are. Too bad that does not stop the dying.

Note: I always hated the phrase "war on terror".
 
 
Redress said:
So they are not prisoners of war. You want to have things both ways, but it don't work that way.
Click to expand...

They are enemy combatants who seek to harm this country, and they're not U.S. Citizens. Who cares what we do with them?
 
So because a hyper-left blogger and semi-journalist claims that Gitmo detainees were innocent, they were indeed innocent. Then claims that Bush and Cheney knew it. Then claims they did nothing about it.

R.I.P. Transitive Property (1*** - 2010)
 
Erod said:
They are enemy combatants who seek to harm this country, and they're not U.S. Citizens. Who cares what we do with them?
Click to expand...

Except most likely some are not. And we should care. The fact we do care is why we are better than them.
 
Gipper said:
So because a hyper-left blogger and semi-journalist claims that Gitmo detainees were innocent, they were indeed innocent. Then claims that Bush and Cheney knew it. Then claims they did nothing about it.

R.I.P. Transitive Property (1*** - 2010)
Click to expand...

No, the chief of staff of the Secretary of State under Bush(Powell, the first one) claims that some where innocent and that Bush/Cheney knew it. Significant difference from what you said.
 
Redress said:
No, the chief of staff of the Secretary of State under Bush(Powell, the first one) claims that some where innocent and that Bush/Cheney knew it. Significant difference from what you said.
Click to expand...

But did he say that Bush and Cheney knew of specific individuals in Gitmo who were innocent and decided to not release them anyways, or just that they knew that some of them were probably innocent, but didn't know which ones? There's a big difference.
 
Dav said:
But did he say that Bush and Cheney knew of specific individuals in Gitmo who were innocent and decided to not release them anyways, or just that they knew that some of them were probably innocent, but didn't know which ones? There's a big difference.
Click to expand...

I am not certain, though I would guess the later.
 
mpg said:
From a technical legal perspective, they're not covered by the Geneva Convention or the US Constitution. From a moral and practical perspective, they're not entitled to a trial any more than a POW is.
Click to expand...

But again, you are doing the same thing. They are not prisoners of war, except that we should treat them as prisoners of war, except when we shouldn't.

Edit: ok, I know I saw this post here a minute ago...
 
You know its pretty amusing that this political hack thread has been kept un breaking news while the Obama socialist thread was moved to the partisan forum.

How exactly is this more "newsworthy?"
 
texmaster said:
You know its pretty amusing that this political hack thread has been kept un breaking news while the Obama socialist thread was moved to the partisan forum.

How exactly is this more "newsworthy?"
Click to expand...

Just a word of warning: questioning mod decisions in threads is infraction worthy. I doubt what you said so far would get you infracted, but careful.
 
texmaster said:
And as usual, this is based off zero evidence. What is the point of this baseless accusations of yours?
Click to expand...

The linked story in the OP. Duh...
 
ADK_Forever said:
The pattern is that kool-aid drinking rightees don't believe any proof when it is provided by anyone except their kool-aid dispensing lying leaders. That's not what "justice is blind" means. :roll:

It's always entertaining how the right "eats their own" when one of their former heroes comes forward after witnessing illegalities. Wilkerson and Powell were well respected military men and Republicans serving on a very neo-con administration. Both of them have come forward chastising the Bush administration on a number of issues. To do so takes honor and courage. Qualities their former bosses never possessed.

This country has a credo, make that a law, stating "innocent until proven guilty". Yet, right wing zealots don't think that applies to anyone taken prisoner under the banner of Bush's "War on Terror". Rewards were offered and people were "given up" for the reward. No proof was required before those people were thrown in jail. How is this a Repub or Dem issue?
Click to expand...
Innocent until proven guilty......unless your name is Bush. :roll:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Don't follow the news much? SCOTUS said all prisoners in U.S. custody on U.S. soil, including GITMO, have a right to Habeus Corpus. Citizenship does not matter. The Constitution agrees.
Click to expand...
Changing the subject....what about the proof of thier innocence? Got any?
 
Redress said:
But again, you are doing the same thing. They are not prisoners of war, except that we should treat them as prisoners of war, except when we shouldn't.

Edit: ok, I know I saw this post here a minute ago...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I deleted it because I'm not sure that I was technically correct about the Constitution. You must've replied quickly because I deleted it quickly.

OTOH, I still don't see why these guys should get a trial when POWs don't. It seems like POWs should have more rights than these guys.
 
American said:
Changing the subject....what about the proof of thier innocence? Got any?
Click to expand...

That's kind of like proving a negative, doncha think? However, Bush and Cheney and Powell and Wilkerson all agree there were innocents. Ain't that good enough for you?
 
mpg said:
Yeah, I deleted it because I'm not sure that I was technically correct about the Constitution. You must've replied quickly because I deleted it quickly.

OTOH, I still don't see why these guys should get a trial when POWs don't. It seems like POWs should have more rights than these guys.
Click to expand...

This to me is the whole problem with this situation. It's a new situation we don't really have rules and laws for yet. They are not PoWs, the potential for misarrests(what do you call it?) is high, but there is no system really to weed out those who belong in custody and those who don't.

All that is why I again mention that I think we need to investigate the whole issue, how we detain people, what rules are right, the torture issue, everything, and make a proper set of rules. No prosecutions, no pointing fingers, just investigate to find ways to improve the system, cuz right now, it's too confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom