Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Gunatanamo Not Again

Posted by labrea 7NYC (My Page) on
Fri, May 4, 12 at 23:13

Yes again till the nit wits of both parties understand understand!
Former Colonel & Former Chief Prosecutor cries fowl & sham for KSM trial. It's nothing new he's claimed this before but it's good to keep this before the dim of wit or otherwise poorly informed that the US has law & right on it' side when it doesn't & hasn't in the past in this regard.
You might think something like this would come out of the defense (in a TV program) but never the prosecutor.

The former chief US prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay has denounced the military trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks due to appear in court at Guantanamo on Saturday, as intended primarily to prevent the defendants from presenting evidence of torture.

Morris Davis, a former colonel who was chief prosecutor when Mohammed was brought to Guantanamo in 2006, said the military commissions will be badly discredited by the use of testimony obtained from waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques used on the accused men.

I'm sure it will be uninteresting topic unless Romney talks about it.

Here is a link that might be useful: in defense of nothing


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Gunatanamo Not Again

I doubt that Romney cares about such things as civil rights. No doubt, another one of the issues that concern mostly "the little people".


 o
RE: Gunatanamo Not Again

The disconnection between Romney and anyone of lower stature is more than apparent. Civil rights are for those who can afford the best attorneys to buy justice.


 o
RE: Gunatanamo Not Again

It's sad that the Obama administration doesn't have enough manhood to bring charges against the Bush administration for torture and war crimes. But then again, when you're doing the same or worse, why would you shed light on such a matter?


 o
RE: Gunatanamo Not Again

330 prisoners 4 trials one a plea bargain several famous cases the most USIANS are continually unaware of or choose to ignore over 10 years.

Boumendiene vs Bush

A 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge. (Hamdi was born in Louisiana)

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 ruling on June 28, 2004, reversed a District Court decision, which held that the Judiciary had no jurisdiction to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, with Anthony Kennedy concurring. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. The claimant whose name the case bears, Shafiq Rasul, was released before the decision was handed down.

n early 2002, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was the first organization to file two habeas corpus petitions, Rasul v. Bush and Habib v. Bush, challenging the U.S. government's practice of holding foreign nationals captured in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban regime and al-Qaida in detention indefinitely. The detainees had been designated enemy combatants and did not have access to counsel, the right to a trial or knowledge of the charges against them. The Supreme Court, over the administrations objections, agreed in November 2003 to hear the cases of the Guantnamo detainees, namely Rasul v Bush and al Odah v. Bush. The arguments were heard on April 20, 2004. In a ruling on June 28, 2004, the Court ruled that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C., 2241, entitled the detainees to challenge the validity of their detention.

The Supremes must have been wrong in each case this has been discussed on here before some posters ignore any posts concerning these cases & proceed with (I think or outright assertions that are contrary to what has been found illegal)

I will again point out the President of Serbia Milosevic felt he had the law on his side (Serbian Law) to cover his war crimes.
"He didn't" according to the world.
That said if KSM were dead tomorrow I would celebrate my opinion that he's guilty is a feeling & assertion that I would bet money on & I will return to being a blood luster if someone one offs the creep) Contrary to popular Opinion I love the US & hate seeing it's legal system dragged & rolled in the mud by this & the previous administration.

At Guantnamo, Mohammed al Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the "First Special Interrogation Plan," that were authorized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Those techniques were implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantnamo, Major General Geoffrey Miller. These methods included, but were not limited to, forty-eight days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory overstimulation, and threats with military dogs. The aggressive techniques, standing alone and in combination, resulted in severe physical and mental pain and suffering. To this day, Mr. al Qahtani has not received any therapeutic medical evaluation of or treatment for the physical or psychological injuries from his abuse. He continues to suffer from ongoing psychological pain and suffering arising from his torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Despite evidence of U.S. officials responsibility for and complicity in his torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, no U.S. official has ever been held accountable.

We have been over this before The Camp went from a position of there was not to torture to well maybe there was enhanced interrogation (worthy of ridicule)

Davis, claimed one of his priorities as chief prosecutor had been to get as much evidence as possible declassified so people around the world could assess the strength of cases against terrorism suspects. He was informed that behind closed doors was much better.

From this weeks Salon

The apologists for Obama’s decision to embrace military commissions call attention to similarities between the commission rules and the rules in federal courts, and they claim those rules are essentially the same. They argue that the two systems are virtually identical and that trial observers will find trials in the two forums nearly indistinguishable. In some things, however, close is just not good enough. An O’Doul’s looks like a beer and has a beer-like flavor, but a real beer drinker would never argue that an O’Doul’s is virtually indistinguishable from a Sam Adams. Just as a near-beer is not practically the same as a real beer, neither is near-justice the equivalent of real justice. The apologists may think they are fooling the rest of the world when they say at long last military commissions do real justice, but they are wrong.
I never drank either since I stopped drinking 34 years ago I don't sniff corks any longer & why on earth would I wan't to drink a fake beer. I Never deluded myself that I drank for the flavor. We should not be deluded as a people that the MC commission under Obama has suddenly become all smurfy & legitimate. It's not & he inherits the stain of criminality himself by perpetuating this charade.

Where I part ways is on the AUMF which congress gave the president power to use military force against those determined to be in a fight against the US including US citizens that are working with AlQaeda. Until such time as congress rescinds this or modifies the provisions I believe the Presidents team has legitimacy only in this ragrd on their side as Congress did not authorize use of force on a case by case basis.

Here is a link that might be useful: Hisss booom baaaaaaah


 o
RE: Gunatanamo Not Again

hate seeing it's legal system dragged & rolled in the mud by this & the previous administration.

I agree 100%.

At Guantnamo, Mohammed al Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the "First Special Interrogation Plan," that were authorized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Those techniques were implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantnamo, Major General Geoffrey Miller. These methods included, but were not limited to, forty-eight days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory overstimulation, and threats with military dogs. The aggressive techniques, standing alone and in combination, resulted in severe physical and mental pain and suffering.

When the results of Major General Miller's 'gitmoizing' of Abu Ghraib were revealed to the world, we were shocked and outraged. But it seems as if the horrorified reactions were confined to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the connection to torture at Guantanamo was lost or weak.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here