Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.



So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?

This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
side."

In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.



So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?

This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
side."


That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.


So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

I'm all for having a safe and secure country, but not if it means stuff like
that, because giving a government infinite power like that will lead to some
very bad things.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

Well, the purpose of a trial is to estabish the guilt or innocence of persons
accused of committing crimes. None of the people at Guantanamo have been accused
of committing crimes. They were found fighting against the US forces. That makes
them hostile combatants, and there is no question of or need for a trial, since
they are not criminals. Evidence of commision of a crime is also completely
unnecessary, since that is not the issue here.

There is also no limit on the amount of time they may be detained. Many of the
combatants in WWII were not released until years after the cessation of hostitilies, and this is in
complete accordance with the pertinent laws and
treaties. The people at Guantano are not military personel dedicated to any
particular country, which basically means they are armed civilians, which
basically means (under the Geneva convention) we can execute them. Without
trial.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

("G.R. Patterson III" wrote)
There is also no limit on the amount of time they may be detained. Many of
the
combatants in WWII were not released until years after the cessation of
hostitilies, and this is in
complete accordance with the pertinent laws and
treaties. The people at Guantano are not military personel dedicated to
any
particular country, which basically means they are armed civilians, which
basically means (under the Geneva convention) we can execute them. Without
trial.


The "explanation" by the administration had me howling - not agreeing or
disagreeing, just howling.

The detainees would not be accorded the standard US system of due process,
etc
because they weren't being held on US soil. *Top* people were spouting that
line for weeks.

My thought was, well ok, what does Cuba's system say about this? Oh wait,
now it is US soil ...sort of.

--
Montblack