Guantanamo detainees are not human beings

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
And you thought they were only IMPLYING that they could declare anyone they wished less-than-human!

http://presscue.com/node/39 281

Did Cenk talk about this today on the show?

"On the sixth anniversary of the imprisonment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, a United States judge threw out lawsuit brought by four former British detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse, ruling that th the detainees are not "Persons" under U.S. Law, which according to another judge, means that they are less than "human beings"."

This isn't even an exaggeration.  That really is what the decision says.

< Are you registered to vote? [UPDATE] | Austin NAACP President comes to Ron Paul's defense >
 Display:

that's scary, cause working immigrants on legal work visa's (like myself) could be arrested under false pretense, don't have Habeas Corpus, could be sent to Gitmo and theid be SCREWED..

And being Canadian hasn't stopped them in the past. just look at what they did to Maher Arar. And they sent him to SYRIA!!!

seriously scary... 

by yul2las on 01/14/2008 07:47:52 PM EST


You should have remained a blastocyst, or even just a zygote.  Then the religious right would be falling all over themselves to insure that you are legally termed a human being.

I don't know if you could get work as a zygote though. 

 

by bfaul on 01/15/2008 04:02:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
if you're part of an al Qaeda sleeper cell.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether the President has the right to permanently detain enemy combatants, and deny them habeas corpus access to U.S. civil courts during time of war.

Gitmo is no more “American soil” than leased military bases in Okinawa or Germany. So the detainees are non U.S. citizens who have never set foot on U.S. soil. The ACLU is trying to give these enemy combatants rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution, which is unprecedented during time of war. Does anyone remember German POWs or Japanese POWs being afforded habeas corpus? They were housed in POW camps in places like TX, LA, MS (on U.S. soil). Sure, the big guys received an international trial prior to their hanging, but it had nothing to do with our constitution.

We already know that Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas will rule against this nonsense. In fact, listen to Scalia describe his amazement that the Court could even consider such a ridiculous case.

“Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."

Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.”


A few weeks ago, the Gitmo detainees presented their case to the Court. Scalia was not very sympathetic.

''We had 400,000 German prisoners -- 400,000 -- in our country in World War II,'' Justice Antonin Scalia noted, ``and there was not a single habeas petition.''


''Do you have a single case in the 220 years of our country . . . in which habeas was granted to an alien in a territory that was not under the sovereign control of the United States?'' Scalia asked the detainees' attorney, Seth Waxman, adding later that ``there's not a single one in history.''


Antonin Scalia is arguably the smartest guy sitting on the Court, and he’s certainly smarter than any of the liberal wiener dogs that you guys read on the moonbat liberal blogs. He is having problems finding a precedent for giving a jury trial to a non-citizen POW who has never even visited America.

by KenTX on 01/15/2008 04:48:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Here's a riddle.  What's the difference between the War on Terror and World War II?

SHORT ANSWER:

The War on Terror isn't World War II. 

by OneHitKill on 01/15/2008 08:12:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's a riddle:  What's the difference between the constitutional rights of a German POW in custody of the U.S. Military, and the constitutional rights of an al Qaeda terrorist in custody of the U.S. Military?

SHORT ANSWER:
Neither detainee was entitled to constitutional rights. Both are from foreign countries. Can you dig it?

by KenTX on 01/15/2008 11:07:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What's the difference?  German POWs are POWs captured in actual combat.  Their status is certain.

"al Qaeda terrorists" can be Bob down the street who was suddenly disappeared by some men in black paramilitary outfits, with no justification and no accountability.  Their status is entirely UNCERTAIN.

Savvy, mate?

by jarett on 01/16/2008 01:47:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Gitmo only has room for about 500 detainees. As a result, we can only house the world's most dangerous, high value terrorists.

When a detainee is found to have no intelligence value and no provable potential threat, he is voted off the island. This has happened in thousands of cases. We don't have room for bench warmers in Gitmo.

When "Bob" is apprehended on an American street, he is given his full constitutional right to a judicial hearing. I challenge you to provide an example to the contrary.

When Bobhammed is taken captive by special forces in Afghansitan, he has no constitutional rights. He is a POW in the War on Al Qaeda, and he can be held as long as the military deems appropriate and convenient.

The Supreme Court is curently reviewing these cases. When they make their decision, you liberals have no choice but to shut up and accept it. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not you.

The reason that conservatives keep winning in the courts and in the Congress on every issue is because we are right and you are wrong.

by KenTX on 01/16/2008 03:18:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When Bobhammed is taken captive by special forces in Afghansitan, he has no constitutional rights. He is a POW in the War on Al Qaeda, and he can be held as long as the military deems appropriate and convenient.

Yeah, see, what happens when Bobhammed is some random dad who has nothing to do with terrorism, as has happened over and over and over again?  Is he compensated for his trouble?  Why does he not have the right to sue the US government for its callous disregard of international law?  We are NOT at war with Afghanistan.  There is no "terrorist state" that we can be at war with, so we can't "capture POWs."  This should be a law enforcement matter, possibly an Afghani law enforcement matter, but disappearing citizens from their countries is not what the Good Guys are supposed to do.

The reason that conservatives keep winning in the courts and in the Congress on every issue is because we are right and you are wrong.

No, it's because there is a conservative majority in the Supreme Court that delights in denying people human rights and pretending we have sovereignty over the entire planet.  As for the Congress, well, we've discussed ad nauseam how the Democrats suck entirely independent of whether they're right or wrong.

by jarett on 01/16/2008 04:31:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobhammed is a citizen of Afghanistan or Iraq. He remains in the custody of the government of Afghanistan or Iraq. He is subject to that country's laws and customs.

If Bobhammed is a high value al Qaeda target, he might make the list of the "chosen 500" who are relaxing in a tropical island in the Carribean. 

by KenTX on 01/16/2008 11:34:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know if Ken realizes that he's not helping us by "keeping it simple."  Keeping it simple is what got him into his current state.

by OneHitKill on 01/16/2008 07:33:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: