Obama's Pre-crime indefinite preventive detention for future crimes
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You don't really believe he wants you barefoot and pregnant, do you? I think he may have disagreed with forcing people to supply birth control if it was against their beliefs , but that's hardly stopping you from getting it on your own. What state bills are you referring to?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Yawn. "Not as bad as expected" is the new "good"?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Compared the stock market today to this time 3 years ago?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I don't think he has suggested either.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Stock market doesn't really affect me directly, unemployment would directly affect me. Stock market is going up because businesses are hoarding their money, a symptom of a poor economy, not a indicator of a healthy one.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Take an extra coat and long johns. It's cold in the cargo hold. You could freeze to death.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Double the money supply, double the market. How are stocks doing compared to gold?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Good on you Red. I hold as well that unless it is absolutely evident, no American really wants to see this country or its citizens diminished. I thought about this and I can't remember anything that would indicate that Romney wants women barefoot or pregnant.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i hate that i must defend obama and his idiocy, but he is almost right in this, while rachel maddow (who i would totally fuck brainless) is as usual, a dim witted knee jerk liberal who demands free shit and a pony.
the guantanamo detainees are prisoners for damned good reasons. just like germans and japanese captured on the battlefeilds of our last actual war before iraq 1, iraq 2 and afghanistan (which were all duly authorized by the congress with broad majorities from both sides of the ring, including heels and faces) these "detainees" who cannot be called prisoners of war because they are not members of any recognized army, cannot be simply released for numerous reasons. included are their status as war criminals (spies saboteurs etc)
the bitch insists that bush and company violated their civil rights,, forgetting that they were acting as soldiers in violation of the laws and customs of war in an active war zone,, with no rank,, privilege or insignia to distinguish themselves from the populace of non-combatants. fuck dont take my word for it,, heres the relevant part of the third geneva convention:
- Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
- 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
- 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
- that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
- 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
- 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
- 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
- 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
- 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
- Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
meanwhile here is the information on dealing with spies saboteurs resistance fighters and others in an occupation zone under the fourth convention:
Part I. General Provisions
... Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. ... Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict ... Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.
these clowns are not prisoners of war, and thus have limited protections under the geneva convention,, and they are not technically criminals as they are not engaged in crimes in their jurisdictions of action, so they fall under the heading of spies and saboteurs.
spies and sabotuers can also be summarily shot in the field upon capture. i wonder if you and rachel think thats a better more "lawful" method of dealing with these guys?
most of these guys were either under arms without a uniform,, engaging in sabotage (planting bombs) harboring spies and saboteurs or are suspected of engaging in sabotage,, but the military field of action is not trenton new jersey or casper wyoming, and soldiers are not fucking cops. these prisoners are prisoners by their own actions, and should remain prisoners as long as they pose a threat to our personnel in the field and their security. when we fully withdraw from iraq and afghanistan we should send back all the gunmen and keep the alquaeda operatives and money men for interrogation, eventual military tribunal and if convicted, execution by firing squad.
deprave
New Member
keep on believing what they tell you, amazing you have made a rant without using the word savage or marxist in it, congrats.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
You do know that most of the GITMO prisoners would of been released already
If their countries wanted them back.
Not only do their countries not want them back.
We are actually paying other countries to take them
If their countries wanted them back.
Not only do their countries not want them back.
We are actually paying other countries to take them
deprave
New Member
oh really? Is that what you read in the huffington post?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
cbs news et al
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
"The first thing is this repatriation issue -- which is that, if you have detainees at Guantanamo that you want to send home but cannot be sent back to their home country because of human rights concerns, what do we do with them? The second problem is that you do have countries which have not taken, are not able to take, the security measures that you feel are required to return the people to those countries. And then lastly, you have to figure out what do you do with the residual population? The people that we can’t find a way to send home and that we can’t prosecute." ~ Vijay Padmanabhan, Former State Department Lawyer
Read the full interview with Vijay Padmanabhan >> One of the toughest barriers to closing Guantanamo is the question of what to do with prisoners whom the U.S. government does not wish to prosecute or to continue holding. In the case of prisoners such as the remaining Uighur detainees from China, whom the U.S. government has not been able to find a country willing to take, one option would be to release some of them into the United States. Recently, a few European nations, such as Portugal, Germany, Switzerland and France, have signaled a willingness to accept some detainees for resettlement, as a gesture of goodwill to the new administration. Another subset of prisoners whose disposition the government will need to resolve includes roughly 90 Yemenis whom the Bush administration has been unwilling to release because of concerns that the Yemeni government cannot sufficiently monitor them.
Read the full interview with Vijay Padmanabhan >> One of the toughest barriers to closing Guantanamo is the question of what to do with prisoners whom the U.S. government does not wish to prosecute or to continue holding. In the case of prisoners such as the remaining Uighur detainees from China, whom the U.S. government has not been able to find a country willing to take, one option would be to release some of them into the United States. Recently, a few European nations, such as Portugal, Germany, Switzerland and France, have signaled a willingness to accept some detainees for resettlement, as a gesture of goodwill to the new administration. Another subset of prisoners whose disposition the government will need to resolve includes roughly 90 Yemenis whom the Bush administration has been unwilling to release because of concerns that the Yemeni government cannot sufficiently monitor them.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
This is from Newsmax
hardly Huffingtonpost
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- The United States wants to close the
prison at Guantanamo Bay but needs assurances that detainees won't pose a
security risk or face torture when they're sent to other countries, a senior
U.S. State Department official said Monday.
"It really shows the conundrum that we're in," said John B. Bellinger III,
the State Department's legal adviser. "We want to get out of the Guantanamo
business while continuing to protect ourselves and protect others."
Bellinger said the U.S. wants to return many detainees but has been blocked
by countries who don't want the men or who don't recognize them as nationals.
Another obstacle has been getting assurances that detainees won't face human
rights abuses upon their return or pose a threat to the United States.
"Many of these countries do not want their nationals back," Bellinger said.
"It's difficult to even get to square one in terms of discussion with different
countries if individuals can go back there."
President Bush has said he would like to close the prison, where some 450 men
are held on suspicion of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Only 10 detainees have been charged with crimes and face military tribunals
ordered by Bush, the first such trials since World War II. The Supreme Court
could rule this week on the legality of the tribunals.
Senior European Union leaders pressed Bush during a recent EU-U.S. summit in
Vienna to shut down Guantanamo and redouble efforts to make sure that human
rights are not sacrificed in the war on terror.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Obama doesn't "wish" to take your rights away.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Of course. He's probably going to tell the DEA to leave people alone any day now right? Of course, he'll get right on that.
Oh wait a minute....do we have the "right" to control our own bodies ? Hmmm.