Spy on Your Neighbors for Homeland Security

[marharth]

@ RZ1029

 

That is referring to spending tax money, and gitmo would not be justified by that.

Providing for the common defense. It's in the Preamble.

9-11 was not a invasion, it was a signle attack. There is a large difference between a single attack and a invasion.

It was four attacks, three were successful. And 9-11 was not the first time, the WTCs were attacked before without success.

 

Also I find it hard to beleive anyone can say that things that happen in gtimo are not cruel and unusual punishment.

I didn't say it wasn't. I'm also not saying I have a problem with it.

 

Also many of the people in gitmo were captured without being a armed enemy combatant.

Orly? And pray tell, where did you find the list of the inmates and their alleged lack of involvement? And besides, the armed ones aren't the dangerous ones, it's the head of the snake that does the most damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees

 

There are many people on that list who were never proven enemy combatants, or even to be associated with terrorism.

 

The 5th 6th 7th and 8th are in clear violation as well. These are for people who are not proven to be enemies after all.

 

The government could pretty much put anyone they wanted in gitmo without much reason.

[ub3rman123]

I'm growing confused here. What's the problem with Gitmo? It's just a prison. We have tons of those. Unless it's got people who aren't guilty in it or something.

[Kendo 2]

The 5th 6th 7th and 8th are in clear violation as well. These are for people who are not proven to be enemies after all.

 

No, they are not. Gotta be a U.S. citizen or have your feet planted on U.S. soil. Territories and military bases do not qualify in this instance.

 

The government could pretty much put anyone they wanted in gitmo without much reason.

 

No, they cannot. U.S. citizens must be given due process when on U.S. soil. This also applies to aliens, legal or not. That's why the lock up Gitmo was established.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

I would call 9-11 an invasion.

 

I also never called them prisoners of war, nor does that excerpt say anything about prisoners of war.

 

They are criminals in the fact that they were conspirators in the planning or execution of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, including the failed attempt at the White House.

 

And as they are NOT prisoners of war, as you stated, the Geneva Convention does not apply and we are not bound by it, legally, at any rate.

The US have never been invaded, man. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif Attacked does not equal invaded. The closest time to the US being invaded under even the most extreme definition was in WWII when those Nazi spies disembarked on the East Coast from their sub. And there were what? Three of them? That's not an invading force. Ask King Harold what an invading force is. He got a good look at one when we landed at Pevensey.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif

 

Then, if they're not prisoners of war, you can't just kidnap people without time in court. You can only suspend rights in war, right? and there is no war against British civilians or residents in Italy (see below).

 

 

The 5th 6th 7th and 8th are in clear violation as well. These are for people who are not proven to be enemies after all.

 

No, they are not. Gotta be a U.S. citizen or have your feet planted on U.S. soil. Territories and military bases do not qualify in this instance.

 

The government could pretty much put anyone they wanted in gitmo without much reason.

 

No, they cannot. U.S. citizens must be given due process when on U.S. soil. This also applies to aliens, legal or not. That's why the lock up Gitmo was established.

The point is that that place was set up to specifically go around the law, and that's what they use it for by and large. Or they did, before the exposes forced them to farm out the work. You can tell by its track record. There have been exposes/documentaries on this...CIA kidnappings of citizens of other countries, or of people with legal visas, and then hustling them out under cover in CIA-hired private planes on American and British military bases. Those kidnapped have ended up in Middle-Eastern allies' prisons, where the torture is overt as opposed to what happens in Guantanamo Bay, or they were flown in the past to Guantanamo Bay.

 

There was a very clamorous case here in Italy, where when it finally went to court, the regional head of the CIA was found guilty of violating I don't remember how many national and international laws. The cases in England have stirred up controversy because they were using British airstrips and thereby implicating the British gov in those said illegal actions.

 

I'm growing confused here. What's the problem with Gitmo? It's just a prison. We have tons of those. Unless it's got people who aren't guilty in it or something.

All that above. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif

And you're right. I'm sure there are people there with connections to terrorism. There are also cases of people having been there for long periods of time with no provable connections whatsoever. And yeah, we have a lot of prisons, bases, etc. The fact that this one is tainted with nefariousness makes you wonder why it was necessary in the first place when the structures are already in place to handle any legal necessity....just like making an app to warn ze Homeland Zecurity when you can simply dial 911.

[Harbringe]

The 5th 6th 7th and 8th are in clear violation as well. These are for people who are not proven to be enemies after all.

 

No, they are not. Gotta be a U.S. citizen or have your feet planted on U.S. soil. Territories and military bases do not qualify in this instance.

 

The government could pretty much put anyone they wanted in gitmo without much reason.

 

No, they cannot. U.S. citizens must be given due process when on U.S. soil. This also applies to aliens, legal or not. That's why the lock up Gitmo was established.

 

Then how do you explain this ruling that say's differently

 

US Supreme Court Ruling

[RZ1029]

@marharth

You have a list of detainees that doesn't say why most of them are there...

For all you know, every last one of them was caught with an AK pointed at a soldiers head.

 

@uberman

I'm right there with you.

 

@Kendo

Danke.

 

@Wizard

in·va·sion

   /ɪnˈveɪʒən/ Show Spelled[in-vey-zhuhn] Show IPA

–noun

1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.

 

Just because they didn't land thousands of troops on the beaches doesn't mean it's not an invasion. Invasion simply means entrance by an enemy, and I would consider them an enemy.

 

And for the record, I wasn't aware there were any true laws governing the actions of the CIA, really.

 

Their mandate: "sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures...subversion [and] assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation movements, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world"

 

Sabotage, anti-sabotage... underground resistance movements... etc. and you want them to play by the book? Every country in the world has their CIA that does the dirty work nobody likes to talk about. It's a necessary evil and one that I think we handle quite well. The difference between us and most other countries, we don't shoot the reporters who start whining about what they do to give them the right to whine.

 

@Harbringe

What the supreme court says is what the supreme court wants to say, doesn't mean it makes it right, or wrong, for that matter.

Edited April 16, 2011 by RZ1029

[DeTomaso]

Oh yes. Most people on this planet are absolutely not interested in the US Constitution, And not every foreign soldier that enters a house leaves it on his own feet as well. That's a problem, isn't it?

Being that the thread is a discussion about internal American security issues, then I think the Constitution is relevant. That you might find it a document that means not much to you is understandable but not germain to the discussion, my point was that the Constitution is ONLY relevant to the internal affairs of the Untied States..not foreign countries.

What I might find or not shouldn't bother you. It doesn't bother me either what you might find or not as long as the threads in question are marked as internal US - from now on! This would at least warn the non-US perhaps not to participate in your internal discussions. Keep in mind that this forum is a public one and the US are just a part of the public.

[marharth]

@marharth

You have a list of detainees that doesn't say why most of them are there...

For all you know, every last one of them was caught with an AK pointed at a soldiers head.

 

@uberman

I'm right there with you.

 

@Kendo

Danke.

 

@Wizard

in·va·sion

   /ɪnˈveɪʒən/ Show Spelled[in-vey-zhuhn] Show IPA

–noun

1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.

 

Just because they didn't land thousands of troops on the beaches doesn't mean it's not an invasion. Invasion simply means entrance by an enemy, and I would consider them an enemy.

 

And for the record, I wasn't aware there were any true laws governing the actions of the CIA, really.

 

Their mandate: "sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures...subversion [and] assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation movements, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world"

 

Sabotage, anti-sabotage... underground resistance movements... etc. and you want them to play by the book? Every country in the world has their CIA that does the dirty work nobody likes to talk about. It's a necessary evil and one that I think we handle quite well. The difference between us and most other countries, we don't shoot the reporters who start whining about what they do to give them the right to whine.

 

@Harbringe

What the supreme court says is what the supreme court wants to say, doesn't mean it makes it right, or wrong, for that matter.

You can click on their name and read notes to find out why they are detained.

Al Qeuda was not a enemy to the USA prior to the attacks, in fact Al Qeuda was a ally to the USA prior to the attacks.

 

Invasion implies that there are groups of the enemy occupying the country after a attack.

 

You would have to remember the reason Al Qeuda was formed anyways, it was pretty much partly done by the USA.

 

By that logic every drug dealer that goes over the border is invaded the country.

Edited April 16, 2011 by marharth

[csgators]

Al Qeuda was not a enemy to the USA prior to the attacks, in fact Al Qeuda was a ally to the USA prior to the attacks.

 

This not true in any way, you are letting propaganda color your view. What you may be referring to is the USA's aid given to the Mujaheddin against the Soviet invasion. The Mujaheddin broke up into many smaller factions including the Northern Alliance and the Taliban after the Soviets left.

 

al-Qaeda was founded 1988 or 89 in Pakistan

 

al-Qaeda declared war on the USA and performed attacks on the USA well prior the Sept 11 attacks.

Edited April 16, 2011 by csgators

[Kendo 2]

@Harbringe

That opinion is three years old and besides, the Supreme Court can bluster all they want as they have no jurisdiction over military courts and the appeals process for civilian and military courts are completely different anyway. They can hand out opinions like raffle tickets but it won't change anything.

 

@marharth

How wrong can you be? IN FACT the embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 brought bin Laden and Al Qeuda into our crosshairs. Then President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach and staged missile attacks targeting bin Laden. He and Al Qeuda were already wanted terrorists by 9/11. You keep coming up with these half-baked notions and presenting them as facts for the purpose of this debate. It's kind of embarrassing. :confused: