On 01/10/2011 2:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

Canada and US lock up political prisoners all the time. We are in fact
hypocrites in this regard. See G8/20 in Toronto for a recent good
example. Wall Street and DC have a history of this too.

But when rocks and bullets fly here, they are criminals but in Syria,
Egypt, Yemen, Libya... they are good guys. Just depends on if our
corrupt leaders support the current leader or not.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs.
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.

Unlawful combatants are not afforded the rights of citizens when they
are caught on the battlefield.

On 10/3/11 6:12 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.

Unlawful combatants are not afforded the rights of citizens when they
are caught on the battlefield.

That's nothing but arbitrary.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

On 10/3/2011 6:12 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.

Unlawful combatants are not afforded the rights of citizens when they
are caught on the battlefield.

Bank robbers don't get a trial before a cop shoots back either... And
that is on American soil...

On 10/3/11 9:35 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.


It was actually somewhat legal, particularly if they call them POWs.
That all gets back to whether this is actually a war.
If it isn't a war, why are we bombing people?
Would it be better if we just murdered these people anonymously, like
the Israelis? Perhaps.
I don't think we have much to show from the $3 trillion we spent doing
it with massive force.

Ahh, but POW rights were not extended. Oh, and we have nothing to show
for the trillions of dollars we are wasting on Iraq and Afghanistan, and
the American men and women who are killed or seriously wounded over there.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:45:16 -0400, X ` Man wrote:

On 10/3/11 9:35 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.


It was actually somewhat legal, particularly if they call them POWs.
That all gets back to whether this is actually a war.
If it isn't a war, why are we bombing people?
Would it be better if we just murdered these people anonymously, like
the Israelis? Perhaps.
I don't think we have much to show from the $3 trillion we spent doing
it with massive force.

Ahh, but POW rights were not extended. Oh, and we have nothing to show
for the trillions of dollars we are wasting on Iraq and Afghanistan, and
the American men and women who are killed or seriously wounded over there.

Add Libya to that. And then ask yourself why you voted for the asshole spending the bucks over
there, both in treasure and blood.

On 10/3/2011 9:35 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.


It was actually somewhat legal, particularly if they call them POWs.
That all gets back to whether this is actually a war.
If it isn't a war, why are we bombing people?
Would it be better if we just murdered these people anonymously, like
the Israelis? Perhaps.
I don't think we have much to show from the $3 trillion we spent doing
it with massive force.

I agree, we should have kept it to seal teams and covert activities...
What some folks here are forgetting is it was them that declared war on
us, then killed 3000 to show us they were not fooling...

On 10/3/11 9:52 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/3/2011 9:35 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.


It was actually somewhat legal, particularly if they call them POWs.
That all gets back to whether this is actually a war.
If it isn't a war, why are we bombing people?
Would it be better if we just murdered these people anonymously, like
the Israelis? Perhaps.
I don't think we have much to show from the $3 trillion we spent doing
it with massive force.

I agree, we should have kept it to seal teams and covert activities...
What some folks here are forgetting is it was them that declared war on
us, then killed 3000 to show us they were not fooling...


Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan declared war on us.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:35:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have
laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of
those cases when they finally come to trial.

That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them
there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous
place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in
Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year
that they refuse to cash.
We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up
political prisoners there is the normal thing to do.
Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to
change the situation.

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.


It was actually somewhat legal, particularly if they call them POWs.
That all gets back to whether this is actually a war.
If it isn't a war, why are we bombing people?
Would it be better if we just murdered these people anonymously, like
the Israelis? Perhaps.
I don't think we have much to show from the $3 trillion we spent doing
it with massive force.

I believe, according to law, "wars" are declared, not contrived.

Depends upon whose law you are talking about.

On 10/5/11 1:19 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:10:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:23:22 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:45:56 -0400, wrote:

It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in
particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries
ramifications to this day.


It was actually somewhat legal, particularly if they call them POWs.
That all gets back to whether this is actually a war.
If it isn't a war, why are we bombing people?
Would it be better if we just murdered these people anonymously, like
the Israelis? Perhaps.
I don't think we have much to show from the $3 trillion we spent doing
it with massive force.

I believe, according to law, "wars" are declared, not contrived.

If that was true, we would not have actually had war since 1945.

Truman, Johnson, Reagan and the Bushes (41, 42, 43& 44) never got
the word.

Nor did Nixon until this happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

To use the Obama line, Nixon inherited his war but to take the analogy
even farther, he said he would stop the war and he escalated it, just
l;ike Afghanistan. He also expanded it into another country just like
Obama. They both had their massive leak of government documents about
it.
Why do we believe any of these guys?


My major disappointment with Obama is that he hasn't pulled us
completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I also understand, however, that
he doesn't suffer from a rigid personality disorder. His predecessor
did, but, fortunately, most presidents did not.

It's one thing for a presidential candidate to say "X" before he/she
gets into office and then, upon assuming the office, finding out that
the assumptions were based upon faulty or incomplete information. That's
a challenge that faces just about every political candidate, of course.
I mean, in relation to the economy, I am sure Obama didn't know how big
a mess Bush had created and left behind, and how intransigent the GOP
would be in terms of resolution.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.