You learn so much from Watching Fox news - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 07:37 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Show me where the law is that says it is an illegal jail?

And again, what about the description is inaccurate?
Well, that one is easy.

1. GITMO does not follow the rules and regulations of the Geneva Conventions.
2. The United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.
3. The Constitution requires that all treaties made... "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

Now, as for the description, from the descriptions I have read from informed sources, I would say ALL of the description is inaccurate.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 07:53 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Well, that one is easy.

1. GITMO does not follow the rules and regulations of the Geneva Conventions.
2. The United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.
3. The Constitution requires that all treaties made... "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

Now, as for the description, from the descriptions I have read from informed sources, I would say ALL of the description is inaccurate.
Please tell us or link us to where the Geneva Convention describe what a detention facility is supposed be. Or at least the requirements of the facility.

When I read the Geneva Convention this is what it says:

Quote:
SECTION II

INTERNMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Chapter I

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Article 21

The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

Prisoners of war may be partially or wholly released on parole or promise, in so far as is allowed by the laws of the Power on which they depend. Such measures shall be taken particularly in cases where this may contribute to the improvement of their state of health. No prisoner of war shall be compelled to accept liberty on parole or promise.

Upon the outbreak of hostilities, each Party to the conflict shall notify the adverse Party of the laws and regulations allowing or forbidding its own nationals to accept liberty on parole or promise. Prisoners of war who are paroled or who have given their promise in conformity with the laws and regulations so notified, are bound on their personal honour scrupulously to fulfil, both towards the Power on which they depend and towards the Power which has captured them, the engagements of their paroles or promises. In such cases, the Power on which they depend is bound neither to require nor to accept from them any service incompatible with the parole or promise given.

Article 22

Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.

The Detaining Power shall assemble prisoners of war in camps or camp compounds according to their nationality, language and customs, provided that such prisoners shall not be separated from prisoners of war belonging to the armed forces with which they were serving at the time of their capture, except with their consent.

Article 23

No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Prisoners of war shall have shelters against air bombardment and other hazards of war, to the same extent as the local civilian population. With the exception of those engaged in the protection of their quarters against the aforesaid hazards, they may enter such shelters as soon as possible after the giving of the alarm. Any other protective measure taken in favour of the population shall also apply to them.

Detaining Powers shall give the Powers concerned, through the intermediary of the Protecting Powers, all useful information regarding the geographical location of prisoner of war camps.

Whenever military considerations permit, prisoner of war camps shall be indicated in the day-time by the letters PW or PG, placed so as to be clearly visible from the air. The Powers concerned may, however, agree upon any other system of marking. Only prisoner of war camps shall be marked as such.

Article 24

Transit or screening camps of a permanent kind shall be fitted out under conditions similar to those described in the present Section, and the prisoners therein shall have the same treatment as in other camps.
So again how is this an illegal jail?

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #13 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 07:58 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Please tell us or link us to where the Geneva Convention describe what a detention facility is supposed be. Or at least the requirements of the facility.

When I read the Geneva Convention this is what it says:



So again how is this an illegal jail?
Dude, you omitted where the "internment" is executed(country), now why is that?
Were these people POW in a legal sense? If so, why were they tortured? Solitary confinement?
DP is offline  
post #14 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 08:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewprof View Post
Dude, you omitted where the "internment" is executed(country), now why is that?
Were these people POW in a legal sense? If so, why were they tortured? Solitary confinement?
Actually they were legally classified as enemy comabatants and thus not subject to the Geneva Convention.

So again how is this an Illegal Jail?

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #15 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 08:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Actually they were legally classified as enemy comabatants and thus not subject to the Geneva Convention.

So again how is this an Illegal Jail?
Why don't you check with the Supreme Court. They don't seem to have the same confusions that you do.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #16 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 08:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewprof View Post
Dude, you omitted where the "internment" is executed(country), now why is that?
Were these people POW in a legal sense? If so, why were they tortured? Solitary confinement?
They were never tortured.

What part are you referring to with where the internment is.

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #17 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 08:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Why don't you check with the Supreme Court. They don't seem to have the same confusions that you do.
As far as I know the Supreme court ruling only says that they should be granted access to the court system.

Quote:
With a decision notably brief for the mountain of argument leading up to it, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.
This is not an illegal jail under anyone's definition. You all are just wound up in the BDS that makes you irrational.

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #18 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 08:08 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
What in the hell is a BDS?
DP is offline  
post #19 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 08:11 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 11,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 758 Post(s)
It's what many of the libs here are inflicted with

© All photographs and likenesses of Multipurpose are protected under copyright
law. Any use of photographs in whole or in part is strictly prohibited
unless authorization is granted in writing by copyright holder. All rights
reserved.
Multipurpose is offline  
post #20 of 45 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 08:17 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
As far as I know the Supreme court ruling only says that they should be granted access to the court system.



This is not an illegal jail under anyone's definition. You all are just wound up in the BDS that makes you irrational.
Sorry, you apparently don't grasp the meaning of the decision. It means that, by not being given the rights of habeas corpus. they were held illegally.

Any spin you have attempted to put on that is sheer folly. It just doesn't pass any logic test. If they are being held in a prison that was set up specifically to avoid habeas corpus because GITMO is not part of US Sovereignty, THAT is illegal.

By the way, you are quoting the 2004 Bush loss in the Supreme Court, not the 2008 loss. And there is a third.

I had 47 choices of media to pick from for the explanation. I chose Faux for the irony of it.


Supreme Court Allows Guantanamo Prisoners to Challenge Detention in U.S. Courts

Friday, June 13, 2008

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause's protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo," Kennedy wrote.

The Suspension Clause is a constitutional guarantee that blocks Congress from suspending habeas corpus.

"The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The government's argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected," the opinion reads.

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Friday the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo detainees won't affect military trials against enemy combatants.

Mukasey, speaking at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers, said he was disappointed with the decision.

But he told reporters it won't affect military trials to be held at the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Five high-profile Guantanamo detainees appeared in a military tribunal last week, where one, Ramzi Binalshibh, admitted he was guilty of helping plan the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he wanted to be put to death so he could be viewed as a martyr.

The case before the Supreme Court was brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, one of the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. He's been there since 2002.

After the court ruled in 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, that the prisoners were entitled to have access to the American court system, the government established a military tribunal process. As it stands, the prisoners can appeal adverse rulings to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Solicitor General Paul Clement argues the process provides Boumediene "along with the other enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay, [the opportunity to] enjoy more procedural protections than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of warfare."

But the detainees' lawyers contend the current law fails to protect the constitutional rights the court said their clients were entitled to receive in Rasul. They want full habeas corpus rights, a constitutional protection that forces the government to justify in an open courtroom legitimate reasons an individual needs to be behind bars.

Also known as the "Great Writ," it is a universal right that was famously suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

Lawyers for the detainees argued the government, through the 2006 Military Commissions Act, unconstitutionally suspended the Great Writ for their clients. They sought a single remedy: a fair and impartial hearing before a neutral decision-maker to determine if there is a reasonable basis in the law and fact for detaining them.

They have never received such a hearing, although this court ruled more than three years ago that they are entitled to one.

The government contended the Rasul decision does not cover habeas rights and that earlier court rulings make clear that foreign prisoners held outside the United States have no such right. It further argued that the military tribunals passed by Congress are an adequate substitute for what habeas seeks to protect.

Although Congress expressly chose to foreclose detainees from challenging their status via habeas, it decided that aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants should receive administrative hearings before a military tribunal, subject to judicial review in the District of Columbia Circuit.

That system builds additional protections on those available even to conventional prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and it was designed to track the requirements for due process deemed sufficient for American citizens.

Boumediene is an Algerian native who was living in Bosnia at the time of his arrest in October 2001. He and five others are accused of plotting to blow up the American embassy in Sarajevo. They were relocated in January 2002 to Guantanamo Bay, where Boumediene remains incarcerated. He denies any involvement in plots against the United States.

This case had provided one surprising twist. In April 2007, the court decided not to consider the matter but reversed itself in June. It is believed to be the first time in 60 years that the court changed course in such a manner.

The reversal required at least five of the nine justices to grant review. Normally, only four need to agree to hear a case, and even then very few are granted arguments.

FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Allows Guantanamo Prisoners to Challenge Detention in U.S. Courts - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    And to dredge up some old news for you Fox News and Drudge haters... TNTRower Off-Topic 9 11-07-2008 05:40 AM
    Fox News Becoming more Mainsteam gqmagic Off-Topic 1 10-27-2008 05:30 AM
    Fox News does it again FeelTheLove Off-Topic 38 02-09-2008 09:02 PM
    More good news: Fox News continues ratings slide, mirroring Bush FeelTheLove Off-Topic 23 12-12-2006 10:26 AM
    The top 4 news programs are all on FOX NEWS CHANNEL. guage Off-Topic 21 10-19-2006 11:50 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome