More on Detainees

| | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a pretty interesting site at which seems to be documenting the releases of detainees from Guantanamo.

Also, a link to a report by Mark Denbeaux and Josh Denbeaux, Esq. Mark is a Professor at Seton Hall University School of Law and both he and Josh are counsel representing 2 detainees. It's actually pretty interesting.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: More on Detainees.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Kevin, the second link is pretty interesting, but after a brief skim I think all it's saying is the Administration does not have rock-solid proof all the detainees at GB are guilty, right? Some are only proven 'guily by association' so far. Some may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. So the solution is, what: Let them all go?

zimzo said:

Joe acting stupid, part 2. The solution is to give people that we detain due process. Here's the text of the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that the first two clauses refer specifically to "citizens" and the second two clauses very specifically refers to "persons" not just citizens.

I happen to think the Constitution is a pretty good document. It's sad that you don't seem to agree with its principles.

I'm sad to see you live in a reality where prisoners of war get the benefit of due process. Yes, let's have all the soldiers involved in capturing them take the stand and defend their actions.

"Corporal, did you read this man his rights before apprehending him?"

Most of those detained should, I suppose, be granted bail, no?

I think proper appreciation of the Constitution requires the reader have a modicum of common sense.

kevin said:

The issue of "proven" being the major issue. I think they argue that the US argues it was "proven" they were enemy combatants simply because they were arrested. Which belies how we (sic) netted them in the first place. The part about "they must be enemy combatants, they wore Casio watches" was curious. . . And no, I wouldn't say letting them all go was the solution but neither is torturing them, particularly as they continue to sift through and realize many had nothing to do with anything save "wearing olive drab clothing".

zimzo said:

You are forgetting, Joe, that supposedly they are not prisoners of war because then they would fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Can't you get your right-wing talking points straight? Tell me honestly that you see no problem with the President of the United States having the power with no oversight whatsoever to detain anyone he wants with no due process and do anything to them that he wants. That is seriously your idea of democracy?

Ok, enemy combatants, because they do not belong to a country that we can hold responsible for their behavior. The point is the same: Zimzo says, Let my people go.

zimzo said:

What point, Joe? I'm afraid I got lost in all of your misstatements. Where in the Constitution does it mention "enemy combatants"? Do you really want to give the President unrestrained power to declare anyone an enemy combatant, detain them without due process and torture them?

Jack said:

The U.S. Constitution DOES give the President the power to suspend Habeas Corpus in case of invasion or insurrection.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President's first responsibility is to surrender?

zimzo said:

Who said anything about surrendering, Joe? What a stupid question. Do you really have so little faith in the Constitution that you believe following it is the same as surrender?

For once Jack actually made a more intelligent argument than you did. However, it's hard to argue that any of the prisoners at Guantanamo, most of whom were picked up in Iraq, were invading or rebelling against the U.S. Jose Padilla is not even being charged with the crime he was ostensibly arrested for--planning to set off a dirty bomb--and nobody is arguing that his actions were part of some rebellion. Even if you see September 11 as evidence of an "invasion" (an attack, yes, an invasion?), even after Pearl Harbor Roosevelt did not suspend habeas corpus (except for his detention of Japanese) and the Hawaii governor did so only briefly.

Seriously, Joe if you can't have an intelligent discussion about something and you are only going to mouth the talking points of right-wing talk show hosts, why even bother?

Jack said:

As you mention, Roosevelt DID suspend habeas corpus. That was NOT just for Japanese. AMERICAN CITIZENS were also detained in those camps!! Are there any American Citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay?

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, on expired visas. There are probably more. (When you see one roach, you can bet there are a hundred more hiding in the walls.) Thus, we have an invasion.

Zimzo aka Genius,

"it's hard to argue that any of the prisoners at Guantanamo, most of whom were picked up in Iraq, were invading or rebelling against the U.S."

So what were they picked up for, genius?

kevin said:

"So what were they picked up for, genius?"

For wearing "Casio watches" or "olive drab clothing" apparently. Or enough money "to fulfill all your dreams","millions", etc.

These guys are saying almost all weren't picked up by the US? But surely some of them were hoping to do the US harm. That cannot be denied.

zimzo said:

Most were picked up on the Iraqi battlefield. You would be hard put to prove that they were "inavding" or "rebeling" against the U.S. from there. Many turned out to be innocent bystanders. Some were even children. Jose Padilla is an American citizen incarcerated at Guantanamo.

You don't have to be a genius to know this. You just have to pay attention to something besides Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for your information.

Zimzo, I think your Rush Limbaugh infatuation is getting out of hand, and I for one wish to help you overcome it. You're a fine fellow, in some respects, and deserving of society's assistance.

1) I don't personally know anyone who is a devotee of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, and I have not listened to either in many months (I've been a Glenn Beck guy since May). So I think you are in the league of those who still rail against the "commies." But I'll help you work through it.

2) If they were picked up on the battlefield, there is the outside chance someone decided they needed to be incarcerated. I guess you will say - "someone insane" would have wanted them incarcerated. Or would you simply attribute this to cultural ethnocentrism?

zimzo said:

Aww c'mon, Joe, don't be ashamed of your past. I know for a fact that you were at least at one time a Dittohead. Even if you don't listen to Rush anymore or watch Fox News, you're getting their talking points from somewhere unless it's just a coincidence that you just repeat the same things that they do. And Glenn Beck and World Net Daily are even worse.

I love how you reduce everything to someone somewhere decided something would be good so you don't think we have any business challenging it. Yes, some soldier decided to detain someone in Iraq. But a whole bunch of other people decided that they should be taken to Guantanamo and tortured and for at least half of them then released. And none of the people who made those decisions were from the Judiciary, which is the branch of government that is supposed to make those decisions. And seeing as half of them were released a bunch of people made some big mistakes in detaining them in the first place.

I bet you were one of the ones screaming about how Clinton had to be impeached in order to uphold the law. But now suddenly you could care less about the law.

Heh, you are a freak, a wild man. What in god's name made you think I ever listened to Rush? I have not had a commute of more than 10 minutes since 1994. But I appreciate the sentiment, and right back at ya.

zimzo said:

OK Joe. Whatever you say.

Jack said:

Padilla is in MIAMI, not Guantanamo.

If the prisoners at Gitmo were picked up "on the battlefield," then they are POWs, and we can hold them until the war is over.

zimzo said:

As I already pointed out to Joe the Bush Administration claims they are not POWs because then they would fall under the Geneva Conventions. Whether Padilla was actually held at Guantanamo or not he was tortured.

Jack said:

What torture did Padilla undergo? What evidence is there besides his allegation?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here