PDA

View Full Version : Are there innocent people in Gitmo ?



Ringo
01-22-2009, 08:14 AM
Well ? Are there innocent people in Gitmo ?

biccat
01-22-2009, 08:29 AM
Well ? Are there innocent people in Gitmo ?

Innocence is presumed in all cases (military and criminal) and since all of the individuals haven't been convicted yet, there more certainly are "innocent" people in Gitmo, at least with regard to their specific crimes.

It appears to me that you don't really understand our judicial system. We most certainly do incarcerate innocent people, I'm sure a great number of people in our prisons today are innocent.

There's also the minor issue to consider that a number of Gitmo detainees have been cleared for release, but no countries are willing to take them in, especially because they're terrorists and want to kill innocent people.

Ringo
01-22-2009, 08:31 AM
Innocence is presumed in all cases (military and criminal) and since all of the individuals haven't been convicted yet, there more certainly are "innocent" people in Gitmo, at least with regard to their specific crimes.

It appears to me that you don't really understand our judicial system. We most certainly do incarcerate innocent people, I'm sure a great number of people in our prisons today are innocent.

There's also the minor issue to consider that a number of Gitmo detainees have been cleared for release, but no countries are willing to take them in, especially because they're terrorists and want to kill innocent people.

Your post implies these people have had access to Habeas Corpus rights.

biccat
01-22-2009, 08:34 AM
Your post implies these people have had access to Habeas Corpus rights.

Actually no, it doesn't.

Ringo
01-22-2009, 08:40 AM
Sorry you posted it....

Innocence is presumed in all cases

Not for Gitmo detainees. We have released people from Gitmo that were innocent ...and were tortured.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-22-2009, 08:47 AM
Your post implies these people have had access to Habeas Corpus rights.


Do you mean the Habeas Corpus rights that have been expanded to cover people it NEVER covered before???

Habeas Corpus rights cover more people now, BECAUSE of President Bush, than at any time in our history.

Now, admittedly, President Bush was unwilling in this endeavor. He was working under the existing law of the time and fought this unwarranted and idiotic expansion.

biccat
01-22-2009, 08:47 AM
Sorry you posted it....

Innocence is presumed in all cases

Not for Gitmo detainees. We have released people from Gitmo that were innocent ...and were tortured.

Do you even know the meaning of the words you are using?

Specifically I'm looking at the definitions of innocent, torture, and Habeas Corpus.

If you don't know the meaning of these words, that's fine, just admit that you're spewing political crap and we can move on to the insults and personal attacks.

But if you're interested in serious debate, at least try to make an effort.

Ringo
01-22-2009, 08:52 AM
Ask yourself this very simple question...

If waterboarding ISN'T torture....then why wouldn't Bush's AG say as much ?

Constitutionally Speaking
01-22-2009, 08:52 AM
Sorry you posted it....

Innocence is presumed in all cases

Not for Gitmo detainees. We have released people from Gitmo that were innocent



Sorry, war is hell. When you are on the battlefield with people who are shooting at us. We have the right to detain you. It has been that way in EVERY WAR we have EVER been in. Sorry, that is just a fact.



...and were tortured.




Bull shit. They are treated better than they are in their own countries. You seem VERY willing to take their word for it. I have seen no verdict that says we tortured those we found innocent at Gitmo.

biccat
01-22-2009, 08:59 AM
Ask yourself this very simple question...

If waterboarding ISN'T torture....then why wouldn't Bush's AG say as much ?

"I believe a report of waterboarding would be serious, but I do not believe it would define torture"
- John Ashcroft, Attorney General under George W. Bush.

Want to try again? Or have you had enough?

Do you know what Habeas Corpus means?

Do you know what innocence means?

Do you know what torture means?

Ringo
01-22-2009, 09:01 AM
Mukasey changed that opinion ...and he came AFTER Asscrack.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-22-2009, 09:02 AM
Ask yourself this very simple question...

If waterboarding ISN'T torture....then why wouldn't Bush's AG say as much ?

Because some people believe it is and unlike the PIGS on the left, he realized this was an opinion and has never been determined legally.

He also knows how the Democrat traitors on the congressional committees work. He would have been lying if he said a definitive answer - no matter WHAT he said. They would have then turned it into even more of a circus and tried to get him for lying.

Scooter Libby anyone??? You DO realize this is exactly what they did to him. He did not out Plame, but he couldn't remember the order of who he spoke to a year earlier. (and neither could the prosecution witnesses by they way)

biccat
01-22-2009, 09:06 AM
Mukasey changed that opinion ...and he came AFTER Asscrack.

Your position was that a U.S. Attorney General refused to state that waterboarding was not torture.

I provided a quote from a U.S. Attorney General that said waterboarding was not torture.

The least you could do is admit that you're wrong.

Here's a simple question: is O.J. Simpson innocent of killing his wife?

Constitutionally Speaking
01-22-2009, 09:06 AM
Mukasey changed that opinion ...and he came AFTER Asscrack.

Just who are you responding to??? Mukasey is not germane to this.