The Red Cross has never been given a “permanent presence” at prisoner of war camps, at any time in history, as far as I know. Do you believe that is a demand of theirs or required under International law?
Yes…if they were given POW status with all the conditions that go with it. But they haven’t been. They are called “enemy combatants”. With none of the rules governing POW’s.
Who gives a fuck what they are called? Since you and the rest of the prattling monkeys don’t actually have any evidence of mistreatment at Gitmo, and since the contrary is demonstrably true, don’t you think a cup of steaming hot cup of shut the fuck up is in order, regarding Gitmo?
Yes, I did see the post about how this is probably a horrible mistranslation. However:
What’s this? People acting on what they believe God tells them, regardless of logic or common sense? That’s never been a … problem, has it? Yup. We got nothing to worry about.
I was wondering when you would stick your belligerent ass in this thread.
Of course it matter what they are called.
And I don’t recall where I ever said they were being mistreated. Unless of course you consider the lack of proper representation mistreatment. Oh, and the never getting out unless we decide it’s in our best interest. Is that mistreatment? Perhaps being forced to live in a cage far from their homes with no real charges brought against them. Is that mistreatment?
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Being held without charge or recourse to law IS mistreatment. If they showed up at your door and hauled you away to Guantanamo Bay, would that be okay by you? If the administration wins that case, there’s nothing stopping them from doing it.
The reason I don’t object to a filibuster is because I’d rather have one guy STOPPING the relentless wheels of government than one guy RUNNING the relentless wheels of government.
Majority, schmajority. There are locations in the U.S. where if there was “majority rule,” being black, gay, or even a little odd looking could get you strung up. This is why we have a Constitution, and federal laws, instead of simply letting every little locality decide things for itself.
That, and I’m not a big believer in “obstructionism.” I’ve noticed that “obstructionism” seems to be what the opposition party says when the other party won’t roll over and let them have their way. I don’t see any sane congressman standing up and being a big flaming dick unless he has considerable support from other members of congress.
…and if he does, it is likely he won’t be a congressman for long. That’s what POLITICS is all about… you know, getting other people to see things your way? People who choose to behave like idiots are not being very good politicians. Bad politicians tend not to do well in politics, and consequently tend to get unelected. Even the dumbest constituency is going to get bent if their congressman can’t get anything done.
In short, when you have a filibuster, what you really generally have is a group of congressmen who have decided to block a bill for one reason or another. Who is to say whether they’re right or wrong? I guess that would depend on the circumstances, wouldn’t it?
You’ll notice that filibusters are an old congressional tradition. If it’s just going to be a simple matter of majority rule, why has no law or ruling against them ever been passed? Because it’s the court of last resort for a minority what’s being steamrollered, and cannot or will not be convinced to jump on the bandwagon for one reason or another.
…but I’m kind of flogging the obvious. Seems most everyone who’s posted here seems to feel that the chief executive merrily appointing judges without congressional approval does constitute an end-run around the spirit of the law, if not its letter.
As to POWs… well… I don’t object to POWs. I do object to purposely leaving their legal condition out in total friggin’ limbo, so’s to avoid having to actually obey any laws or international agreements as to what to do with them. I also don’t much care for locking ANYONE up for an indefinite period of time, without allowing them contact with a lawyer or family members. Hell, I’d have given the Nazis at Nuremberg at least that. But, for some reason, the current administration has decided to deny that to a fair number of persons arrested following 9/11, some of whom, I understand, have been locked up ever SINCE 9/11.
And now, that same administration wants the power to do it to YOU and to ME, should they deem it necessary, desirable, or convenient.
Do you believe this is appropriate? For the United States of America, that is; I figure it’d be totally appropriate for the Third Reich, but some people don’t seem to like that analogy.
Try taking your own advice sometime. This is a public discussion board, the discussions go where they go, and who the fuck are you to tell anyone to shut up? You want to defend the existence of our little concentration camp? Want to see it made bigger? Make a case for it, and we’ll see if your case holds water.
This has been an interesting discussion, or at least it was till Bluto showed up. Anyway, while I generally side with the with the OP on the prisoner issue, should we not be hailing the fact that consideration of the status of at least some of the Gitmo prisoners will be going before the Supreme Court? I mean, I would have thought it would have had to at some point, and the sooner the better. I guess I’m asking, do we have some reason to believe that SCOTUS would automatically rule in favor of the administration on the Padilla case?
I could cheer a lot louder for the prisoners’ case in the Supreme Court if the administration wasn’t trying to do the same thing to American citizens that they have already done to a fair number of non-citizens.
The very idea that this could friggin’ happen in America appalls me.
The idea that a President could try to MAKE it happen appalls and angers me immensely, particularly considering some of the insane misuses various law enforcement agencies have found for segments of the Patriot Act.
You really don’t have any concept of what a ‘concentration camp’ is, do you? You throw out the phrase so easily, almost as easily as you and your idiot comrades throw out the words ‘racist’, ‘nazi’, ‘bigot’, et cetera. You guys sure love your loaded little attack phrases.
You either are amazingly stupid, and really can’t see the difference between Treblinka and Gitmo, or you are intentionally trying to poison any attempt at rational discussion regarding Gitmo. After all, who could possibly be in favor of concentration camps? :rolleyes:
From dictionary.com…
Does that not describe Guantanamo? Or do you insist on comparing “gitmo”…your words… to Nazi death camps?
I agree with you on the outrageous nature of what the administration is trying to do, but, well, you know, checks and balances, and all that. Now, if the highest court rules against the administration, and the administration ignores the ruling, that would be closer to a Third Reich, or at least Zimbabwe-type situation.
As for Bluto, “concentration camp”, as far as I’m concerned, seems a not unreasonable decription of facility established to imprison people, without, as yet, charge or trial, yet not as POWs, and outside of the current and IMO perfectly adequate justice system. That’s all I’ll say here; feel free to continue talking to yourself, but I have no intention of responding to you further in this thread. I’ll consider entering a discussion with you should I ever note that you’ve grown up a bit and lost the attitude.
Well, you found an online dictionary, and that is a good start. Now you just need to start looking up the correct words, and you’ll be unstoppable!
Bolding mine. Mistake yours. There is zero evidence of any wrongdoing at Gitmo. The ‘exit interview’ of a released detainee shows that conditions were excellent. Not ‘harsh’ or ‘unusually harsh’.
Uh, first paragraph was directed to the OP.
Given that “concentration camps” were firstdevised by the Spanish military authorities during the Third Cuban War of Independence to gather together large numbers of enemy civilians into one place to keep an eye on them, the use of the term to refer to the prisoners in Gitmo is both apt and ironic. The automatic linking of the term exclusively to the Nazis reflects Brutus’s lack of education more than it does Reeder’s zealotry.
'Specially in light of the fact that from where I am sitting it is only a couple hour drive to Topaz, a US run concentration camp for japanese AMERICANS after 1941.
Slightly off topic but here if anyone is interested.
An interesting point, but it IS sort of off topic.
The problem with the court case cited in the OP is not what precisely defines a “concentration” camp. It’s that it could pretty much end the protection of due process and the Bill of Rights. It would, in effect, give the government absolute power to arrest and imprison someone for life, for any reason at all. They could arrest and imprison you for terrorism - or for opposing the President, or being inconvenient, or anything. If they don’t have to show cause or give you a day in court, what’s to stop them?
That’s where Brutus’s ignorance shows - not in the argument over what a concentration camp is (and he should know anyway) but the fact that, like a lot of dimwits, he forgets that the protection of civil rights isn’t to protect CRIMINALS, it’s to protect EVERYBODY.
I tried to tell 'em.
But some folks just ain’t gonna get it until American citizens whiter than a brown paper bag and with names like “Jones” or “Murphy” are seized by men who don’t need to show you any ID or prove any authority, and arbitrarily locked up for years on end, with no charges brought and no explanation offered.
This is the highly possible end result of locking up American citizens with names like “al-Rashid” who have funny accents and may, for all I know, be Bin Laden himself, in disguise, living in downtown Cleveland.
And still, people wanna argue about what a concentration camp is…
Whoops. Better make that “This is the highly possible end result of locking up American citizens with names like “al-Rashid” who have funny accents and may, for all I know, be Bin Laden himself, in disguise, living in downtown Cleveland, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, GUARANTEED ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS, NO MATTER THEIR COLOR, RACE, OR POLITICAL AFFILIATION, ETC.”
After all, we can’t have anyone pouncing on any misstatements, now, can we?