A Fine Line Between Stupid And Clever

Now With Electrolytes!

Terrorists Have Rights

Posted by bmac on June 12, 2008


High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

Oh fuck.

11 Responses to “Terrorists Have Rights”

  1. Nigel said

    BULLSHIT.

    I’m pissed off now…thanks for wrecking my day.

  2. bmac said

    Well, technically, the supreme court wrecked your day, but I do what I can!

    “bmac-wrecking days since 2007”

  3. StraightDs said

    Well this is a hard one I think, and brings up big emotions, I understand.

    It basically boils down to either:

    A – I dont want to risk having just ONE bad guy get away with it, so I prefer ALL of them stay behind bars with no trial.

    vs.

    B – I dont want to risk having just ONE innocent guy be locked up indefinitely, so I prefer that ALL of them have their chance to defend themselves

    On the one hand we can assume anyone in Gitmo is guilty because somehow they ended up there in the first place, and if so – then fuck em. I certainly HOPE this is the case, btw.

    But why should we assume that all of them actually are guilty of something without the benefit of knowledge? Just because someone says so? Without knowing who the someone is, and under what circumstances we sink closer to the depravity of what our attackers are. What harm can it do to actually give them their day? I know, I know. The harm is that one of the bastards that IS guilty actually gets off scott-free. Believe me, I agree, that would suck BIG TIME! lawyers can be sleazy no good creeps, and they can work hard at getting even the most guilty off (O.J anyone?), But if there was reason to drag someone off the streets of their country and throw them in jail for as long as we please I certainly HOPE we have some decent info to backup that act. If they are indeed so horrible to deserve their present predicament (which, I assume most – if not all are), I imagine it should be pretty easy to prove it.

    Then we can get on with the executions and be done with this mess. I vote for PUBLIC executions, whose with me?🙂

    Wouldn’t it be better to prove them as bad-guys and move on? I certainly think so.

    And technically, it was Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Ronald Reagan) that ruined your day. Every other justice voted along party lines, Kennedy was the “Conservative” that was the swing vote. I use quotes around conservative, because often it appears he is anything but.

  4. bmac said

    A couple things D, first, guess who gets to pay for their lawyers, and court costs?(you and me)

    Second, it’s not like these guys were pinched stealing a car, or happened to be buying some goat meat at the wrong place and the wrong time.They were pulled off a field of battle, trying to kill Americans.

    Could there be some innocent guys there? Well, our stateside prisons are CHOCK FULL of innocent guys. Just ask em’.

    As far as Kennedy? You are absolutely right. He sucks donkey balls.

    Oh, one more thing, if these guys now have full rights under our constitution, the military will have to become police detectives, collect evidence, read them their rights, establish crime scenes etc. Basically CSI Bahgdad, while dodging IED’s and sniper fire.

    Public executions….hmmmm….you sure you’re a liberal?

  5. cranky said

    This ruling will cut way down on the taking of prisoners. We’ll save all sorts of money on not housing, not feeding, and not providing medical and dental care for them. Plus they’re biodegradable so Gaia will be pleased and I’m sure they’re future diminished need to consume oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide will have a positive impact on Global Warming™ and Climate Change™ [pick one].

    Five members of the Supreme Court are ignorant sluts. I’d like to drop their shrunken balls into a vise.

  6. StraightDs said

    I probably misrepresented myself when I tagged myself a “liberal”.

    I am certainly more liberal than conservative on a lot of issues and wanted to make that clear before stepping into your forum to give you the opportunity to mod or kick me out if you want. It IS your blog afterall.

    I lump myself in with them because I am closer to liberal than con. I am actually registered as an independent because quite frankly, I think both parties have their heads up their arses and the two party system is helping to divide our country and the cause of more harm than good.

    But back to the issue:

    Are stateside prisons full of innocents? No, they are not FULL of them. But it is being proven time and again that there are some that get cleared by DNA. Which is why I am against the death penalty (for now). I have no moral problem with the death penalty, I just dont like the idea of killing someone who is absolutely innocent which goes along with this topic. Once they figure out how to be sure someone is guilty, I say bring back the guillotine and sell it on pay-per-view. ‘I’d buy THAT for a dollar!” (obscure Robocop reference)

    You have some very valid points about the lawyers fees – and the idea that they probably were pinched on the battlefield. The problem I have is that the “battlefield” was a lot of these guys front yards and houses in the first part of an invasion.

    Imagine there’s some screaming Libtard tree-hugging cult or animal rights group (like PETA) going to Canada and bombing some factory for logging and hurting some stupid owl that can’t figure out how to survive extinction and needs people to help its sorry ass. They kill thousands of people. Canada gets their army together and invades mainstreet USA where I am busy watering my lawn. All of a sudden bullets are flying and people are dying. Some of my neighbors shoot back (actually I would be one of those shooting back with my trusty winchester 30-30, but lets pretend I dont for this illustration), the Canadians overwhelm the street shooters and grab all of us up. My hose DID look pretty damn suspicious afterall.

    BOOM, im in a canadian prison for being an “enemy combatant” for the rest of my life with no way of ever saying. “No dude… REALLY. I was just watering my lawn.”

    Pretty ridiculous analogy now that I look at it, but you get the point. Wrong place, wrong time would have been quicker and to the point, but hey, that wouldn’t have been fun.

  7. bmac said

    D, I appreciate the honesty, and welcome a civilized debate with someone of any ideology, as long as it remains respectful, which you certainly have done, and will gladly get in return from me, and my regular commenters.

    To your points:

    That argument is exactly why I have had second thoughts about the death penalty. The “They’re all innocent” thing is an old saying, and I badly attempted to use it as a joke, but enough guys have been falsely imprisoned to make me re-think my position, and there’s a lot of shitty lawyers out there.

    I get your analogy, I just think a line has to be drawn at some point, otherwise all our military resources are spent on petty bullshit, and that’s just not their job, not in the field of combat.

    Our rights, granted to our citizens, cannot be given to enemy combatants, guilty or not. Imagine a big war, with thousands or hundreds of thousands of detainees. If we set this precedent, what then? It could get pretty ugly, and you just gotta do what you gotta do to win a war. A couple hundred guys with maybe a handful of innocent ones, just ain’t enough in the big picture, to make a truly devastating ruling like this one.

  8. Nigel said

    D, I appreciate the honesty, and welcome a civilized debate with someone of any ideology, as long as it remains respectful, which you certainly have done, and will gladly get in return from me, and my regular commenters.

    Well, except for me, D. You’re a liberal? You $%^&!…

    What, bmac? Banned again?

    How many times is that now?

  9. StraightDs said

    “Imagine a big war, with thousands or hundreds of thousands of detainees. If we set this precedent, what then? It could get pretty ugly, and you just gotta do what you gotta do to win a war.”

    Gotta give you that one. Agreed.

    Have a great weekend guys. Even you Nigel🙂

  10. Alfie said

    “Imagine a big war, with thousands or hundreds of thousands of detainees.

    In a big declared war against another sovereign state the people you are concerned about will be P.O.W.’s. They will be protected under the Geneva Convention. The Iraqi armed forces had a number of people that this applied too. The enemy combatants covered by both the Geneva and Hague Conventions are a real entity and are treated differently.These are the people at Gitmo and elsewhere. I will concede we should be better at determining threats and innocence. I would also ask that nations accept their nationals when we bring them how from Gitmo.

  11. Nigel said

    Straight Ds…always in fun, always in fun…

    You have a great weekend too!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: