"DSK" wrote
However I *am* claiming (because it is a fact) that there is NO law
saying it's OK to hold prisoners indefinitely,....

You're right. Nowhere will we find "it's OK to hold ...etc." What we do
find is rules that say "I the prisoner meets certain criteria he cannot be
held ... etc." The detainees at Gitmo do not neet these criteria. Ergo they
can be held.

However I *am* claiming (because it is a fact) that there is NO law
saying it's OK to hold prisoners indefinitely,....


Vito wrote:
You're right. Nowhere will we find "it's OK to hold ...etc." What we do
find is rules that say "I the prisoner meets certain criteria he cannot be
held ... etc." The detainees at Gitmo do not neet these criteria. Ergo they
can be held.


Interesting, how you had to snip off the remainder of my statement, so
it would fit your hallucinations.

If the Gitmo prisoners have been given the equivalent of hearings, then
why is the military going to the expense & trouble of granting (at least
some of) them tribunals? Hmmm? If they've already had them, they can
just wave the paperwork and say, "See, all done!"

In other words, you're full of crap. You won't learn and you won't shut
up. Why don't you go work on your boat?

DSK

"DSK" wrote
If the Gitmo prisoners have been given the equivalent of hearings, then
why is the military going to the expense & trouble of granting (at least
some of) them tribunals? Hmmm? If they've already had them, they can
just wave the paperwork and say, "See, all done!"

Maybe the few being given hearings, et., have seen the error of their ways
and are ready to go home?