McCain: Guantanamo Decision One Of the Worst Ever

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You call someone that is captured in Afghanistan Taliban training camps an innocent bystander? You call someone that was turned back at the Miami International airport before 9/11/01 then months later captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban an innocent bystander? How would you like to go see each family member of the dead from those attacks and care to explain to them you think those terrorists locked up are innocent bystanders!

Why do you think there have not been anymore terrorist attacks on the USA for past 7 plus years? You think those innocent bystanders are not giving up valuable secret information? There is a very serious deadly war going on here that the liberal left media is not privy to nor could they handle reporting on anyway, this is a national security measure, and I for one have not forgot what it was like that day on 9/11/01 traveling in an airport or airline and the mass fear and chaos, and then how could any of you forget those airplanes being crashed and all of those innocent victims, it is sickening and disgusting to hear this drivel. My only regret is that for all of you that want to support those innocent bystanders locked up as terrorists, should have been on those planes, then we would see how you felt or forgot or if you would want to support the rights to these terrorists you think they should get! Truly sad how people soon forget what happened on 9/11/01. It was an act of war or terrorism plain and simple. It is time the gloves come off and every terrorist or anyone harboring them or associating with them to be imprisoned or punished severely. There is not excuse for having any association with terrorists or killers, it is inexcusable!

I find it very acceptable. If you think that the other 9 were faultless then you haven't a clue. Very few of them were just innocent bystanders. They just didn't rise to the level of the worst of the worst. If we have to sift through this human garbage to find the really bad ones then so be it.

Well great - if they are not innocent bystanders, there must be plenty of evidence to charge them with terrorism, right?

So if that's the Gitmo population and if it is all this clear and easy then where are the charges? And why are 90% of those detainees released w/o ever having been charged with anything? If these are the worst of the worst, the most dangerous motherfcukers out there then why is this government not seeing to it that they are tried and kept under lock and key for good but rather setting them free at a fcuking rate of 9 out of 10? Following your argument, one would have to conclude that the government is purposely endangering this country by recklessly letting go of the most dangerous motherfcuking terrorist scum known to man.

Your outrage over innocent ppl being held for no reason is selective. You wanna talk about China and theyre human rights record? Of course not! Its always about how bad america is.

You want to use dictatorships as the measure for right and wrong in the US? I don't.

[zqt3344 21]

And what about Belarus holding political prisoners now? What about Russia whacking former KGB agents speaking out against Mother Russia or Czar Putin?

I suppose that is ok and those countries can hold people indefinitely for decades in the Gulag in Siberia or have them killed or jailed for whatever reason and you think that is ok but then you get on the USA for protecting itself from terrorists?

Hysteria, I suppose that is hysteria then in Russia and Belarus? nothing more. And by the way Algeria is a major hotbed for jihadists and bombers and terrorists, so sorry to diffuse your hysteria.

They are under military tribunal court not US citizens court nor are they to be afforded the same rights, they have none but what is afforded under military tribunal.

Sorry about allowing the facts to butt into your hysteria, zqt3344, the people that brought the action the court decided on are Algerians, arrested in Bosnia. Not on any battlefield. After their initial arrest, the high court in Bosnia released them because there was no evidence against them. They were subsequently turned over to the US military which has held them for years without charge and, who knows, without cause.

Habeas corpus became part of our judicial heritage because governments, unchecked, have a tendency to take and hold people indefinitely for no cause. The Supreme Court ducked the issue as long as they could, and made a ruling that the plain language of the Constitution means what the words mean.

Yes there is debate, they are military tribunals and those people are enemy combatants with no country or rights, nothing but scum of the Earth terrorists.

The constitutional arguments against Guantanamo are pretty clear. Is there even a debate I wonder...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Marc,

Remember...

America and Western Civ = bad

Islamic Terrorism = freedom fighters

Any religion the is not Christian or Jewish = good

Take the above into consideration every time you read one of their posts and all will be clear.

So here you have a President that swore to uphold the Constitution but ended up trampling on it. He's been told for the third time now by the Supreme Court that what he feels is okay in Gitmo simply isn't. Then you have his Poodle getting all up in arms about a pretty clear decision that's been handed down in due course and this is all you got in response? And you call yourself a libertarian?

[GaryC 7]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

[zqt3344 21]

Oh but you do give these other countries a free pass, what about the UK and their abuses?

There is much debate to this SC ruling and there are other ways around it by the US military to continue on with their mission which they will do. Not to worry.

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Curious have you ever laid in the VietKong prison for 5 years and been abused or shot at like McCain. I would think if anyone was an expert or knew about this subject he would. My do you good to listen to McCain for once, he might be right and you might be wrong.

Marc,

Remember...

America and Western Civ = bad

Islamic Terrorism = freedom fighters

Any religion the is not Christian or Jewish = good

Take the above into consideration every time you read one of their posts and all will be clear.

So here you have a President that swore to uphold the Constitution but ended up trampling on it. He's been told for the third time now by the Supreme Court that what he feels is okay in Gitmo simply isn't. Then you have his Poodle getting all up in arms about a pretty clear decision that's been handed down in due course and this is all you got in response? And you call yourself a libertarian?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh but you do give these other countries a free pass, what about the UK and their abuses?

Example?

Please show me where, when and how I'm giving these other countries a "free pass" on human rights abuses.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

[GaryC 7]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

Respect yes. I will live with the decision. Agreement, hell no.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

Respect yes. I will live with the decision. Agreement, hell no.

Well, if you respect the high court's decision, then there's no argument.

This is the final authority on the matter so any argument about it is really futile.

[GaryC 7]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

Respect yes. I will live with the decision. Agreement, hell no.

Well, if you respect the high court's decision, then there's no argument.

This is the final authority on the matter so any argument about it is really futile.

Just because I accept it does not mean I agree with it. This will stand until McCain gets elected and appoints of few real judges that follow the constitution.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

Respect yes. I will live with the decision. Agreement, hell no.

Well, if you respect the high court's decision, then there's no argument.

This is the final authority on the matter so any argument about it is really futile.

Just because I accept it does not mean I agree with it. This will stand until McCain gets elected and appoints of few real judges that follow the constitution.

What part of the Constitution have the 5 judges that handed down the majority decision not followed?

[GaryC 7]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

Respect yes. I will live with the decision. Agreement, hell no.

Well, if you respect the high court's decision, then there's no argument.

This is the final authority on the matter so any argument about it is really futile.

Just because I accept it does not mean I agree with it. This will stand until McCain gets elected and appoints of few real judges that follow the constitution.

What part of the Constitution have the 5 judges that handed down the majority decision not followed?

The constitution does not apply to people outside the US. Extending it to people outside the US is wrong. Those people are classified as POW's or unlawful combatants. The Geneva convention is the applicable law.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

Respect yes. I will live with the decision. Agreement, hell no.

Well, if you respect the high court's decision, then there's no argument.

This is the final authority on the matter so any argument about it is really futile.

Just because I accept it does not mean I agree with it. This will stand until McCain gets elected and appoints of few real judges that follow the constitution.

What part of the Constitution have the 5 judges that handed down the majority decision not followed?

The constitution does not apply to people outside the US. Extending it to people outside the US is wrong. Those people are classified as POW's or unlawful combatants. The Geneva convention is the applicable law.

You really feel that you are more qualified to make such finding than the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court? I sure do not.

[GaryC 7]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

No respect for the Supreme Court unless it installs an inept President?

Respect yes. I will live with the decision. Agreement, hell no.

Well, if you respect the high court's decision, then there's no argument.

This is the final authority on the matter so any argument about it is really futile.

Just because I accept it does not mean I agree with it. This will stand until McCain gets elected and appoints of few real judges that follow the constitution.

What part of the Constitution have the 5 judges that handed down the majority decision not followed?

The constitution does not apply to people outside the US. Extending it to people outside the US is wrong. Those people are classified as POW's or unlawful combatants. The Geneva convention is the applicable law.

You really feel that you are more qualified to make such finding than the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court? I sure do not.

Wrong is wrong. Remember that 4 justices did not agree. This fell along party lines. When McCain is elected this travesty will be corrected.