• 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!

Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

The thing is if we let them go to federal court we would have to give them the same rights US citizens get, but thats kinda hard to give them the same rights to someone who spent 10+ years denying those rights.... Hell thats the whole purpose of Guantanamo

They are unlawful enemy combatants. they are not US citizens. If you want to try them then do it before a military tribunal. Then execute them upon conviction.

How do people on the left get to be so ... never mind.
 
None of them were "top generals"

Right. But they will be now that that son of a bitch on the golf course has let them go.

The timing is good. I hope some House members grow back their testicles and impeach the son of a bitch on the golf course.
 
They are unlawful enemy combatants. they are not US citizens. If you want to try them then do it before a military tribunal. Then execute them upon conviction.

How do people on the left get to be so ... never mind.

So many of them have been approved to sent out of Guantanamo, you wont give them a trial that the USSC has deemed they have a right to? But did you forget that during the military commissions many of those who were formally charged were acquitted? Did you also forget that 8 of 30 people brought in front of a military commission face actual charges? Can you carry this on beyond talking points?
 
Right. But they will be now that that son of a bitch on the golf course has let them go.

The timing is good. I hope some House members grow back their testicles and impeach the son of a bitch on the golf course.

I have nothing to back up my words, so therefore.. OBAMA!!!
 
Ok so here is the hard part, at least for me. It is pretty well established that most of the time POWs do not get released until the end of a war. Sadly we are fighting a stateless war, so it can go on forever. That being the case I guess I could argue either side. Since this is a debate site I will go with the 3 who are members of the enemy should not be released. Harsh, but even in our courts there are some people who if they do a serious enough crime get life in jail as long as they are not minors. Some minors may even be treated that way. Another debate, but I have a hard time with that.

The United States magnanimously decided to give the persons detained at Guantanamo the same privileges as to food, shelter, medical care, Red Cross inspections, etc. that prisoners of war are entitled to under the Geneva Convention. But they were NEVER prisoners of war. They were and are, instead, unlawful enemy combatants, and they were not entitled to ANY of the privileges of legitimate POW's. Unlawful enemy combatants, the best-known examples of which are probably spies and saboteurs, are commonly known as war criminals. Anyone who is unclear about these distinctions--and what they mean for the rights of the person in captivity--should read the "Nazi Saboteurs Case," Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), where the Supreme Court discussed them in detail.

All the detainees at Guantanamo should long ago have been tried before military tribunals. Any who were found innocent should have been released. And every damned Islamic jihadist son of a whore who was convicted of war crimes should either have been imprisoned, or if his crimes were serious enough, marched onto a gallows, hooded, and had his greasy neck stretched--with the proceedings televised live around the world as a message to his friends. I hope that when this country finally gets a serious President, instead of the limpwristed leftist fop now disgracing the White House, whose heart is less with the country he is sworn to defend than with the Islamic supremacist monsters who want to destroy us, that new President will treat those monsters to regular and very large doses of vitamins B-1, B-2, and B-52.
 
The United States magnanimously decided to give the persons detained at Guantanamo the same privileges as to food, shelter, medical care, Red Cross inspections, etc. that prisoners of war are entitled to under the Geneva Convention. But they were NEVER prisoners of war. They were and are, instead, unlawful enemy combatants, and they were not entitled to ANY of the privileges of legitimate POW's. Unlawful enemy combatants, the best-known examples of which are probably spies and saboteurs, are commonly known as war criminals. Anyone who is unclear about these distinctions--and what they mean for the rights of the person in captivity--should read the "Nazi Saboteurs Case," Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), where the Supreme Court discussed them in detail.

All the detainees at Guantanamo should long ago have been tried before military tribunals. Any who were found innocent should have been released. And every damned Islamic jihadist son of a whore who was convicted of war crimes should either have been imprisoned, or if his crimes were serious enough, marched onto a gallows, hooded, and had his greasy neck stretched--with the proceedings televised live around the world as a message to his friends. I hope that when this country finally gets a serious President, instead of the limpwristed leftist fop now disgracing the White House, whose heart is less with the country he is sworn to defend than with the Islamic supremacist monsters who want to destroy us, that new President will treat those monsters to regular and very large doses of vitamins B-1, B-2, and B-52.
It has reached the point where, if there is any evidence whatsoever that anyone who is participating in terrorism, or is planning a terrorist act, they should be eliminated right away. Handle it using much the same procedure as a search warrant.
 
Do you believe this is a criminal matter? If so you will always get the wrong answer.



No, just the US constitution....
and "wrong" answer by whose standards? Those trampling on it in the name of preserving it?

Time to get real. How is Gitmo different than Auschwitz?
 
So many of them have been approved to sent out of Guantanamo, you wont give them a trial that the USSC has deemed they have a right to? But did you forget that during the military commissions many of those who were formally charged were acquitted? Did you also forget that 8 of 30 people brought in front of a military commission face actual charges? Can you carry this on beyond talking points?

No. The supreme court did not have standing to decide this. It is best to disregard their noise.

What are you talking about?

I do not believe you know.
 
No, just the US constitution....
and "wrong" answer by whose standards? Those trampling on it in the name of preserving it?

Time to get real. How is Gitmo different than Auschwitz?

The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Nor does a death camp used to work people to death or otherwise murder them. It is time to remove your head from the very dark place it is currently in.
 
Under what basis are they being held by these other countries?
 
Obama's letting more terrorists go so they can commit more acts of terror, huh?

What part of "cleared for release five years ago" did you not bother to read?
 
The United States magnanimously decided to give the persons detained at Guantanamo the same privileges as to food, shelter, medical care, Red Cross inspections, etc. that prisoners of war are entitled to under the Geneva Convention. But they were NEVER prisoners of war. They were and are, instead, unlawful enemy combatants, and they were not entitled to ANY of the privileges of legitimate POW's. Unlawful enemy combatants, the best-known examples of which are probably spies and saboteurs, are commonly known as war criminals. Anyone who is unclear about these distinctions--and what they mean for the rights of the person in captivity--should read the "Nazi Saboteurs Case," Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), where the Supreme Court discussed them in detail.

All the detainees at Guantanamo should long ago have been tried before military tribunals. Any who were found innocent should have been released. And every damned Islamic jihadist son of a whore who was convicted of war crimes should either have been imprisoned, or if his crimes were serious enough, marched onto a gallows, hooded, and had his greasy neck stretched--with the proceedings televised live around the world as a message to his friends. I hope that when this country finally gets a serious President, instead of the limpwristed leftist fop now disgracing the White House, whose heart is less with the country he is sworn to defend than with the Islamic supremacist monsters who want to destroy us, that new President will treat those monsters to regular and very large doses of vitamins B-1, B-2, and B-52.

Televised hangings? Last I checked, we weren't Saudi ****ing Arabia.
 
Please dont cheer twice, our own CIA says they are counterproductive

Drone strikes counterproductive, says secret CIA report

that is an amazingly nuanced report, considering it's done by the CIA, when the CIA was responsible for the "kill list" ( Brennan) brought daily to Obama.

Report doesn't say completely "counter-productive" -I read it if it aggravates the situation it is, but there are real uses for droning.
Signature strikes by far kill the most civilians, but targeting errors have been problematic like various wedding partys.
I think the classic screw was the one in Yemen. Those should be banned at least.
fr link:
may increase support for the insurgents, particularly if these strikes enhance insurgent leaders' lore, if non-combatants are killed in the attacks, if legitimate or semi-legitimate politicians aligned with the insurgents are targeted, or if the government is already seen as overly repressive or violent
 
What part of the war isn't over do you not get?

Indefinite detention without trial until a nebulous war with no actual ending is over?

That's a thing you're ok with?
 
Is it ever going to be over?
Not if prisoners are going to continue to be released and Obama keeps retreating from the trouble spots of the world. Iraq was 'stable' until he pulled the troops. Now it's a mess and many thousands of people have died as a consequence.

The free world can only hope that the US elects a more knowledgeable person as their next President. I'm sure the leaders of the democracies will all cooperate if they get someone in there who is competent and trustworthy.
 
Not if prisoners are going to continue to be released and Obama keeps retreating from the trouble spots of the world. Iraq was 'stable' until he pulled the troops. Now it's a mess and many thousands of people have died as a consequence.

The free world can only hope that the US elects a more knowledgeable person as their next President. I'm sure the leaders of the democracies will all cooperate if they get someone in there who is competent and trustworthy.

Even before Obama terrorism was on the rise...... How do you win a "war on terror" when the only thing its seems to be doing is increasing terror?
 
Why not? That happens in every war.

This war doesn't have an end to it, nor is there a real definition of who the enemy is.

I don't have that much faith in the government. That's why I demand it present evidence when it wants to lock somebody up forever.
 
Even before Obama terrorism was on the rise...... How do you win a "war on terror" when the only thing its seems to be doing is increasing terror?
No, terror was not on the rise. Do you not recall that barrack Obama said he was leaving behind a "stable and sovereign Iraq"? Obama in 2011: ‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’

Terror has been increasing since Obama pulled the American might out of Iraq, and of course the same thing will happen in Afghanistan. There is only one way to explain Barrack Obama's foreign policy, and his releasing of prisoners, is that he really is a Muslim. Do you see another explanation?
 
This war doesn't have an end to it, nor is there a real definition of who the enemy is.
That's probably because barrack Obama is one f the few people in the world who doesn't know, or won't say, who the enemy is. Do you know?

I don't have that much faith in the government. That's why I demand it present evidence when it wants to lock somebody up forever.
Your lack of faith in this present administration is well founded.
 
Back
Top Bottom