• 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

Grant said:
Suspicion is fine. Why not? Do you understand what war really is?
Click to expand...

How long can anyone be held on suspicion? Ever heard of Habeas Corpus? It's kind of an important founding principal of who we are.

Again without a declared war there can be no prisoners of war.
That is why they are called" detainees", not POWs.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
They have been cleared for release. Does not matter "what landed you there". Hell being a brown taxi driver in the middle east landed someone there..


Im not cheering any drone strikes.
Click to expand...

Again with the racism, when will you stop?
 
Deuce said:
Indefinite detention without trial until a nebulous war with no actual ending is over?

That's a thing you're ok with?
Click to expand...
Considering 1 in 3 of these people end up back on the battle, yep.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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?
Click to expand...
So, we should just withdraw and allow ourselves, and our interests to be attacked, or taken eh? That's just foolish
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...
The war is over when it is won. Period.
 
j-mac said:
Considering 1 in 3 of these people end up back on the battle, yep.
Click to expand...

I agree. All the releases do is return their fighters and in some cases leaders to raise havoc and kill other people once again. I would say any blood spilled by GITMO returnees or releases is directly on the president's hand. He could have prevented all this extra killing and maiming. But for politics, he didn't and doesn't. It is almost real close to condoning these acts.
 
d head said:
I don't care what Islamists think , but we all should care what is in our own Constitution.
Click to expand...
Our constitutional protections only apply to people on this country's soil.
 
j-mac said:
They were charged with being enemy combatants, amd terrorisim
Click to expand...
Terrorism is a convictable criminal charge.
If there was any evidence they would have been brought to trial.
 
d head said:
Terrorism is a convictable criminal charge.
If there was any evidence they would have been brought to trial.
Click to expand...
Then why hasn't Obama just released them all if they are all just innocent farmers and taxi drivers?
 
j-mac said:
Our constitutional protections only apply to people on this country's soil.
Click to expand...

Not true;
Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution - Salon.com
"It is indisputable...that the Constitution [protects both] citizens and foreigners." | Young Americans for Liberty
In a 2009 Supreme Court decision,] none of the 9 Justices -- and, indeed, not even the Bush administration -- argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens. That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim....It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that.
Click to expand...
If a foreign national is arrested and accused by the U.S. Government of committing a crime, does anyone believe they can be sentenced to prison without a jury trial, denied the right to face their accusers, have their property seized without due process, be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and be denied access to counsel? ...Does anyone believe that [would be ok]? Would it be Constitutionally permissible to own foreigners as slaves on the ground that the protections of the Constitution -- including the Thirteenth Amendment -- apply only to Americans, not foreigner
Click to expand...
Our constitution declares that ALL men are created equal, not only American men.
Either you support the principals of our constitution or you do not.
The document only makes rights exceptions in the case of foriegners for voting and running for elected office.
 
j-mac said:
Then why hasn't Obama just released them all if they are all just innocent farmers and taxi drivers?
Click to expand...

Some have real evidence against them and pending trials.
One can be detained at Gitmo on hearsay evidence and suspicion alone, but our constitution will not allow us to detain them indefinitely on that alone.
Without formal charges and due process they must be released.
If you don't like that idea, then you don't like our constitution.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
2 are self proclaimed jihadis. 2 are "possible members". 1 is "assed to be a member of Al-Qaeda".
Click to expand...

Yea, so I'm sure they'll just go back home and play nice from now on....not join up with any terror networks again....

I wish I was taking the Naive pills that you have.
 
j-mac said:
They were charged with being enemy combatants, amd terrorisim
Click to expand...

Exactly. Enemy combatants are subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the United States Constitution. The mere fact that Obama is treating this as a US citizen committing a crime, is quite sickening to anyone who served this country.
 
11Bravo said:
Exactly. Enemy combatants are subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the United States Constitution. The mere fact that Obama is treating this as a US citizen committing a crime, is quite sickening to anyone who served this country.
Click to expand...

Unless they can be charged as being enemy combatants or terrorists they can not be held indefinitely on suspicion alone. Only if such charges are brought do they come under military jurisdiction.
Detainees may be at Gitmo because some informant said, I think he is one of the bad guys. Thats all it takes.
If more evidence can not be mustered up then there is not enough to hold them indefinitely.
The detainees are not protected by the constitution so much our government's actions against them are limited by it.
Again, if you don't like it, you don't like the constitution you swore to defend if you served.
 
d head said:
Unless they can be charged as being enemy combatants or terrorists they can not be held indefinitely on suspicion alone. Only if such charges are brought do they come under military jurisdiction.
Detainees may be at Gitmo because some informant said, I think he is one of the bad guys. Thats all it takes.
If more evidence can not be mustered up then there is not enough to hold them indefinitely.
The detainees are not protected by the constitution so much our government's actions against them are limited by it.
Again, if you don't like it, you don't like the constitution you swore to defend if you served.
Click to expand...

Can you cite me which article of the UCMJ you are stating in your first sentence? I am not calling you a liar, I just didn't see it. I was under the assumption that until the safety of our citizens was gauranteed DURING THE WAR (which we are technically still in), they can be held no matter what.
 
d head said:
I don't care what Islamists think , but we all should care what is in our own Constitution.
Click to expand...
What does the Constitution says about terrorists who are trying to murder American citizens during a time of war?
 
11Bravo said:
Can you cite me which article of the UCMJ you are stating in your first sentence? I am not calling you a liar, I just didn't see it. I was under the assumption that until the safety of our citizens was gauranteed DURING THE WAR (which we are technically still in), they can be held no matter what.
Click to expand...

What war?
 
Grant said:
What does the Constitution says about terrorists who are trying to murder American citizens during a time of war?
Click to expand...

Again. What war?
Murder is a charge that can be brought at anytime against anyone. The released detainees were never charged.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom