SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Again TheMercenary denies that torture and extraordinary rendition was ongoing.

Wrong again, you are the wacko. I quoted you and as you have done with other who try to nail you down and get you to post original source supporting documents you have failed.

You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.

tw, note your use of the word ROUTINE. This is what I expect you to prove. Since you seem so sure of yourself it shouldn't be to hard.

:
tw="You blindly believe what George Jr decrees."

You cannot support that satement either.

Further you have not answered to your statement:

:
Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…

So I would like you to post your facts surrounding this allegation. Like I said Tommy ole boy, put up or shut the fuck up.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.

Define 'routine'. If there are procedures in place for it and it is being done under the color of law, isn't that routine?

Everyone talks about Jack Bauer from '24'. If Jack Bauer needed to kill a 9-year-old girl to save a million lives, he might do it. Does that mean that someone needs to add a page to every manual on the methods and circumstances for killing 9-year-old girls?

The North Vietnamese were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. In theory, US prisoners had the same rights we grant detainees, which is whatever we decide and think we can get away with. Any intelligence the North Vietnamese could get could save lives, including civilian lives, so they considered themselves justified in their behavior. Do we consider that an excuse? I don't, and I don't think anyone else does except the North Vietnamese and their allies.

At this point there are probably as many people in the world who agree with the U.S. interrogation/rendition/detention policy as agree with North Vietnam's treatment of American POW's, and for pretty much the same reasons. Of course these aren't the same people.

We've already released prisoners from Guantanamo without charges. This was either a huge security breach or an admission that there was not enough evidence to find the suspects guilty even under a military tribunal.

A few decades from now, history will judge us. Unlike the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war and the Alien and Sedition Act, or the Japanese-American detentions, this is not an internal issue. It involves foreign nationals and affects our standing in the world.

I consider it simpler to allow prisoners and their lawyers to make nuisances of themselves than to give traction to the idea that America has lost it's values. A lot of talk has been made of civil suits. The fact is that the burden of proof is much lower in civil suits. OJ Simpson is an example of this. I can only assume that if we have detained these people for years, we must have enough evidence to at least deflect a civil suit. If this isn't the case, then the question becomes how flimsy was the case for their detention?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Define 'routine'. If there are procedures in place for it and it is being done under the color of law, isn't that routine?

Everyone talks about Jack Bauer from '24'. If Jack Bauer needed to kill a 9-year-old girl to save a million lives, he might do it. Does that mean that someone needs to add a page to every manual on the methods and circumstances for killing 9-year-old girls?

The North Vietnamese were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. In theory, US prisoners had the same rights we grant detainees, which is whatever we decide and think we can get away with. Any intelligence the North Vietnamese could get could save lives, including civilian lives, so they considered themselves justified in their behavior. Do we consider that an excuse? I don't, and I don't think anyone else does except the North Vietnamese and their allies.

At this point there are probably as many people in the world who agree with the U.S. interrogation/rendition/detention policy as agree with North Vietnam's treatment of American POW's, and for pretty much the same reasons. Of course these aren't the same people.

We've already released prisoners from Guantanamo without charges. This was either a huge security breach or an admission that there was not enough evidence to find the suspects guilty even under a military tribunal.

A few decades from now, history will judge us. Unlike the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war and the Alien and Sedition Act, or the Japanese-American detentions, this is not an internal issue. It involves foreign nationals and affects our standing in the world.

I consider it simpler to allow prisoners and their lawyers to make nuisances of themselves than to give traction to the idea that America has lost it's values. A lot of talk has been made of civil suits. The fact is that the burden of proof is much lower in civil suits. OJ Simpson is an example of this. I can only assume that if we have detained these people for years, we must have enough evidence to at least deflect a civil suit. If this isn't the case, then the question becomes how flimsy was the case for their detention?

The mere fact that we can have a discussion about the legitimacy of torture as a law enforcement/national security tool in the United States shows how far America has sunk when it comes to respecting the Constitution and the rights and liberties that we have fought and died to maintain for hundreds of years. America is not long for this world.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.

Anyone with basic intelllgence has read the numerous facts that the United States government authorized torture. Today, another source states facts again and cites names - senior George Jr administration officials. From the Washington Post of 17 Jun 2008:

Report Questions Pentagon Accounts
Officials Looked Into Interrogation Methods Early On
A Senate investigation has concluded that top Pentagon officials began assembling lists of harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002 for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and that those officials later cited memos from field commanders to suggest that the proposals originated far down the chain of command, according to congressional sources briefed on the findings.

The sources said that memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.

... military lawyers raised strong concerns about the legality of the practices as early as November 2002, a month before Rumsfeld approved them. The findings contradict previous accounts by top Bush administration appointees, ...

"Some have suggested that detainee abuses committed by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and at Guantanamo were the result of a 'few bad apples' acting on their own. It would be a lot easier to accept if that were true," ... "Senior officials in the United States government sought out information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

... memos and e-mails obtained by investigators reveal that in July 2002, Haynes and other Pentagon officials were soliciting ideas for harsh interrogations from military experts in survival training, according to two congressional officials familiar with the committee's investigation. By late July, a list was compiled that included many of the techniques that would later be formally approved for use at Guantanamo Bay, including stress positions, sleep deprivation and the hooding of detainees during questioning. The techniques were later used at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq.

Haynes was General Counsel for the Defense Department and Rumsfeld.

Haynes and other senior administration officials also visited Guantanamo Bay in September 2002 to "talk about techniques," said one congressional official. Also on the trip was David S. Addington, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. ...

The Senate committee's findings echo earlier claims by many congressional Democrats, human rights groups and other administration critics who have maintained that responsibility for the controversial interrogation practices lies at the highest levels of the administration.

Wacko extremists approve of extraordinary rendition, torture, and even lie about it. TheMercenary, for the glory of his political agenda, again denies what was well known. Personal attacks on anyone who challenges their immorality is also expected since TheMercenary never has facts (that would also require an education).

Nobody decent doubts what the Senate investigation again confirms. Wacko extremists will deny it to defend a despicable George Jr. Since torture and other civil rights violations were authorized by the mental midget administration, wacko extremist must deny another report that says same. To dispute the Senate investigation, wacko extremists (ie TheMercenary) must again attack the messenger.