[TITAN]

All you have to do is read the headline to realize it's just political BS aimed at getting votes for November...

More 'compassionate conservatism'...

[Specop_007]

Which is a bunch of bullshit.
They dont wear uniforms and dont openly carry arms, and yet people think they should be protected by the Geneva Convention?

[foodnotlawns]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'W')hich is a bunch of bullshit.
They dont wear uniforms and dont openly carry arms, and yet people think they should be protected by the Geneva Convention?

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hich is a bunch of bullshit.
They dont wear uniforms and dont openly carry arms, and yet people think they should be protected by the Geneva Convention?

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'W')hich is a bunch of bullshit.
They dont wear uniforms and dont openly carry arms, and yet people think they should be protected by the Geneva Convention?

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Administration: Detainees have no rights

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Mon Nov 13, 6:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Monday that Guantanamo Bay prisoners have no right to challenge their detentions in civilian courts and that lawsuits by hundreds of detainees should be dismissed.
ADVERTISEMENT


In court documents filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Justice Department defended the military's authority to arrest people overseas and detain them indefinitely without access to courts.

It's the first time that argument has been spelled out since
President Bush signed a law last month setting up military commissions for the thousands of foreigners being held in U.S. prisons abroad.

[NEOPO]

Yes and then HR6166 to cover their asses and expand the definitions of the war on everyone.
We arent even worth a good lie anymore and our enemies are worth-less.
At the very least the "reasons" made good SNL/comedic fodder.....

[Zardoz]

Immigrants don't have any rights, either:

Who's next to be put on the no-rights list?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')mmigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

..."It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."

[emailking]

Why is both the title of this thread and the label of the quote intentionally misleading? They said they have no right to challenge their detentions, which is a far cry from saying they have no rights. Several articles have pointed out now that these detainees live much better than our soldiers on the battlefield. That's plenty of rights respected, plus many additional privileges we just give them. Sorry, I disagree with the administration on this of course, but I call them like I see them.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'W')hy is both the title of this thread and the label of the quote intentionally misleading? They said they have no right to challenge their detentions, which is a far cry from saying they have no rights. Several articles have pointed out now that these detainees live much better than our soldiers on the battlefield. That's plenty of rights respected, plus many additional privileges we just give them. Sorry, I disagree with the administration on this of course, but I call them like I see them.

[emailking]

I can think of two Constitutional rights being respected off hand.

1. right to life
2. right to worship as they please

I'm sure we could come up with many more. I see your point, but this rubbed me the wrong way. I see a big difference between what was actually said and what this thread implies they said, which would be far more inflammatory.

[NEOPO]

I call em as I see em as well

[emersonbiggins]

I'm sorry that the title irked you, but it is taken verbatim from the Yahoo news site.

A couple of quick comments about the supposed 'rights' of the detained:

1. right to life, spent being detained in a cell, without the ability to contest your imprisonment.
2. right to worship as they please, spent being detained in a cell, without the ability to contest your imprisonment.

I suppose they also have the right to eat and sh!t on a commode as well, but these, too, are only found within the confines of an indefinite and nebulously justified imprisonment, leading me to believe that these folks, indeed, have no rights at all.

I have no doubt we treat (most) of the detained with the utmost respect, even to the point of accommodating their religion with copies of the Qu'ran, but it still doesn't change the fact that men are sitting in cells, unknown of what they are charged with (if anything) and how long they might be there. Justice is not being served; if they have done wrong, punish them. Otherwise, let them go.

[emailking]

I agree with you on that point.

[NEOPO]

question is...... why did it offend you in the first place?
I dont care for your answer but I do think that you need to know it

Now just sit and wait as more come along to take the bait ...

[emailking]

It was the deception that rubbed me the wrong way, not the title on its own.

[Kingcoal]

This is the old "Special Maritime Jurisdiction." This jurisdiction belongs to the Federal government of the US and is completely outside (legally) the States. The Constitution says:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[emailking]

You're saying the people in DC do not have the rights outlined in the Bill of rights? That is nonsense. The Constitution itself says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. When it says "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" it's saying that no state or city entities have any right to exercise legislation in the District...only the federal government does. But everything specified in the Constitution is automatically the law as it itself states.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'W')hy is both the title of this thread and the label of the quote intentionally misleading? They said they have no right to challenge their detentions, which is a far cry from saying they have no rights. Several articles have pointed out now that these detainees live much better than our soldiers on the battlefield. That's plenty of rights respected, plus many additional privileges we just give them. Sorry, I disagree with the administration on this of course, but I call them like I see them.

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')f an immigrant has no right to challenge his detention, that meanshe/she can be picked up on any pretext and thrown in the clink. Tell me what part of "has no rights" this contradicts.