Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if you mean inherency wise, but this plan has been dead for a while inherency wise-

 

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- The Pentagon released the names of hundreds of detainees held for years at a U.S. military prison Friday after a federal judge sided with the Associated Press in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

 

The names were scattered throughout more than 5,000 pages of hearings transcripts, but no complete list was given and it was unclear how many names the documents contained. At the hearings, the detainees defended themselves against allegations that they were enemy combatants.

 

That classification, Bush administration lawyers say, deprives the detainees of Geneva Conventions prisoner of war protections and allows them to be held indefinitely without charges.

 

Most of the men were captured during the 2001 U.S.-led war that drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

 

Once surnames are known, it should be possible to figure out how many detainees are from what Muslim countries, indicating foreigners who may have teamed with the Taliban.

 

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York, ruling last week in favor of a lawsuit filed by the AP, ordered the documents released.

 

Administration's side: The men were accused by the United States of taking up arms against the country. The administration argued that releasing their identities would violate the detainees' privacy and could endanger them and their families.

 

Guantanamo's toll: The United States opened the prison in January 2002. It now holds about 490 prisoners. Ten have been charged with crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure if you mean inherency wise, but this plan has been dead for a while inherency wise-

 

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- The Pentagon released the names of hundreds of detainees held for years at a U.S. military prison Friday after a federal judge sided with the Associated Press in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

 

The names were scattered throughout more than 5,000 pages of hearings transcripts, but no complete list was given and it was unclear how many names the documents contained. At the hearings, the detainees defended themselves against allegations that they were enemy combatants.

 

That classification, Bush administration lawyers say, deprives the detainees of Geneva Conventions prisoner of war protections and allows them to be held indefinitely without charges.

 

Most of the men were captured during the 2001 U.S.-led war that drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

 

Once surnames are known, it should be possible to figure out how many detainees are from what Muslim countries, indicating foreigners who may have teamed with the Taliban.

 

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York, ruling last week in favor of a lawsuit filed by the AP, ordered the documents released.

 

Administration's side: The men were accused by the United States of taking up arms against the country. The administration argued that releasing their identities would violate the detainees' privacy and could endanger them and their families.

 

Guantanamo's toll: The United States opened the prison in January 2002. It now holds about 490 prisoners. Ten have been charged with crimes.

 

how does that make it dead inherency wise? i think infact that it proves the other way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how does that make it dead inherency wise? i think infact that it proves the other way...

Not just the underlined part, but the detainees are getting trials.

 

"Guantanamo's toll: The United States opened the prison in January 2002. It now holds about 490 prisoners. Ten have been charged with crimes."

 

" At the hearings, the detainees defended themselves against allegations that they were enemy combatants."

 

It also took them out of the protections of the geneva convention which many gitmo cases were based on violations of the geneva convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not just the underlined part, but the detainees are getting trials.

 

"Guantanamo's toll: The United States opened the prison in January 2002. It now holds about 490 prisoners. Ten have been charged with crimes."

 

" At the hearings, the detainees defended themselves against allegations that they were enemy combatants."

 

It also took them out of the protections of the geneva convention which many gitmo cases were based on violations of the geneva convention.

 

 

490 being detained NOW dispite 50 people getting charged - plan solves this...

plus the underlined/bolded part just says that when detainees got up to their first (purely formality) hearing, they said 'i didnt dooo it'...

 

if you were trying to go for the 'its gonna be closed soon' argument you might wanna look for cards in these areas

 

http://english.people.com.cn/200605/31/eng20060531_269957.html

^^^Hunger Strike^^^

 

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/05/31/10043569.html

^^^Relatives^^^

 

http://www.ain.cubaweb.cu/idioma/ingles/2006/may29prision-guantanamo.htm

^^^EU^^^

 

http://www.domlife.org/DomTest/2006Stories/UN_GuantanamoBay_May06.htm

^^^UN^^^

 

 

although all this could easily be grouped and answered by arguments that are probably true like this

 

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652787.htm

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected out of hand a U.N. committee's suggestion that the United States close down the Guantánamo Bay detention camp"

 

...yup gitmo's probably still inherent

 

 

also this answers any case attacks to guantanamo

http://www.deadbrain.com/news/article_2006_05_26_0710.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry this is late, man, but where's that "fact" from? Even if the rest of your post has some legitmacy (although I don't remember any "liberal" (read: mainstream) media calling Bush a dictator), when have trials ever been scheduled for people who aren't Hamdi or Padilla (who wasn't even at Gitmo)?

 

See, that's all that makes Gitmo that bad: if the government can violate the constitution in one instance without being checked, what's to stop them from doing it repeatedly in the future?

 

EDIT: To everyone besides Katz who responded to Matt's post: you just make your side look incompetant and unfounded, just like Matt said. Props to Katz for his post.

As strange as this sounds, i actually have to agree with you. I will respond to all of Will later, its just like i dont feel like doing it at midnight AZ time. But if you look into it there is numerous stuff out there for what makes GITMO good .

 

AND yes Charles I ran gitmo 1 round out of the hundreds this year, and no that doesnt mean I like guantanamo bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you look into it there is numerous stuff out there for what makes GITMO good .

 

I've looked into it.

 

Response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you're not serious, they are NOTHING alike, read above. First Africans haven't committed a crime. Second detainees aren't being whipped and forced to do manuel labor. Third, i don't know who tought you that slaves were paid, but any decent history teacher would teach you otherwise. Even the maybe handfull who did get paid couldn't even do anything with their money, what the hell would a slave do with money??? Finally, slaves DID indeed die, many even suffered from serious illness, if not on the boat on the plantation.

 

It's people like you that make me want to register republican now that I'm 18.

 

 

So how are you able to defend the abuse that happens to GTMO detainees but not the exact "same" mental abuse that happens to slaves? How can you say "x group of people" deserves rights and "y group" doesn't?

Fucking Douche.

 

and, thread is locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...