Thread: Are there innocent people in Gitmo ?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1 Are there innocent people in Gitmo ? 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    272
    Well ? Are there innocent people in Gitmo ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    Your post implies these people have had access to Habeas Corpus rights.
    Actually no, it doesn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    272
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    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.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    272
    Ask yourself this very simple question...

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

  9. #9  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    ...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.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •