Gitmo Detainee to be Released Next Week

Obama has no power over the detainees. They were never declared POW's by Bush. Therefore it is the supreme court who decides their fate not the president

Im writing this comment in response to Marie. The Obama administration wouldn't know the constitution if it hit them in the face. Obama apposes our second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and quote, Obama says, "the Constitution is an imperfect document, a document that reflects some deep flaws." Marie do not under any circumstance talk about the document this country was built on if you do not know a thing about what Obamas administration is doing to it. On to the topic about Gitmo, Non US citizens do not have the same rights as citizens do, and other right as protected byt the fith and sixth amendments (you wouldent know about that though marie) especialy terrorist organizations who threaten the US as a nation. For the tourture,it is very necessary to do what ever it takes to get the information we need to keep people like you and I safe Marie. You seem to forget about Nick Berg,and maney other soldiers who died at the feet of terrorists by getting decapitated for this contry, letting these terrorist go completely discredits Nick and all the other soldiers fighting to keep you safe. Next time dont speak unless you know what you talking about Marie.

It's remarkable how some Americans and especially avowed "conservatives" seem to care more about "punishing" someone than about the question of whether that person is actually the guilty party, and are so quick to accuse people of causing us such terrible damage and pain even after the former administration determined that there is no evidence upon which to base such an accusation at court. Is this just a continuation of the ill-considered and misdirected policies of the GOP in the former administration, which abandoned its task of rooting out a real enemy in favor if destroying made-up WMDs and pursuing a personal grudge? It remains to be seen, but considering the record of "conservatives" in blaming their woes upon the wrong people, I would not be surprised...

Its remarkable how the Obama Administration and the ACLU seem to care more about the rights of an individual who was part of a group intent on taking US lives and damaging the US as much as was humanly possible. Is this just a continuation of their underlying plans? It remains to be seen....considering the record of the ACLU, I would not be surprised....

If they were killed AFTER they were tortured for information...now that would be ruthless. But America is obviously not so ruthless, hmmm.

camp50, the Democratic leadership has more to fear from domestic fascists and their anthrax attacks.

donnie brasco, history has shown that the UN was right and Bush wrong.

emjay, we don't have to take the detainees word for it, as there is testimony by the guards there as well now.

And finally, Lippold is mislead, there are NO charges against Mohamed.

"Obama said he wanted to close Guantanimo and he did."

What planet is this guy living on? Obama didn't close anything at all. He signed an executive order saying it would be closed within a year. He can extend that period with the stroke of a pen any time he wants to. In the meantime, he is discovering that most of these prisoners are extremely dangerous; the few who are not cannot go home; and no other country will accept the ones who are.

Every single person held at Guantanamo has the right to file a habeas corpus petition in the US federal court system if he believes he is wrongly held.

Meantime, the Obama administration has just announced that, like its predecessor, it deems the thousands of prisoners held in Afghanistan and Iraq to be unlawful combatants who have no right of habeas corpus. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

to the dumbass who think we went into Iraq because "Bush wanted to get Hussein". The reason we went into Iraq is because the UN didn't do their job. Saddam agreed to inspections after the first Gulf War and the UN was supposed to inspect. Saddam thwarted these efforts and 16 times the UN warned him and threatened to use force if he didn't comply. Why didn't he comply? Because Saddam had under-the-table deals going on with Russia, Germany, and France, and he new that he would in turn be protected by them, and their vote, in the UN. Bush finally decided that the USA would do what the UN should have done.

To a moslem terrorist, if they attacked and you did not attacked back, that is a sign of weakness, and they will attacked you more. If you withdraw or fallback without victory or weakening them, they will follow you and attack you some more.

I am also a witness to a General who they gave a gift of peace and during the signing of the peace treaty, they ambushed and killed him and his men. Hence, be careful in trusting them or siding with them.

Please note that most moslems are good nature and do not advocate killings but Jihad is integrated in their religion and "moslem terrorists" follow this.

You people are ridiculous. Obama said he wanted to close Guantanimo and he did. That means we have to transport the prisoners out of there. Do you know how much it cost to keep that prison open?? Our economy can't afford that right now. So there were neighboring countries who have agreed to take some of the prisoners. I believe England and Australia have agreed to take some of them. England is claiming responsibility to watch this guy and I think they know what they're doing. The guy will not be able to leave England under any circumstances. & I'm sure he'll be tapped and watched closely. So how's he going to do anything to us when he's going to be on complete lockdown in society in England? The only thing he'd be able to do is commit a local crime in England, and I'm sure the English government will be all over his a&& before he could do something like that in their town. So please people get off yourselves and get real!!!!

spacerook....we do a very fine job of killing ourselves with drunk drivers... DD's killed 13,000 in 2007, and I don't have the numbers of how many were wounded/cripple by the drunk drivers.

Who wants to start a fund to purchase a house for this looser? How about we find a house next to Dodd, Reid, Frank or Pelosi.... I am sure he would be a great neighbor....spacerook....lets see Obama promised during his campaign against Hillary that he would bring the troops home is he was elected President. I don't think sending the troops to Afghanistan bring home the troops. I will bet you that the war in Afghanistan and Pak will cost more than the Iraq war. Besides terrorist are terrorist no matter what country they live in.

They had no right to get into a airplane and use it
as a weapon killing over 3,000 innocent
Americans. I do not understand what the
administration is doing. If we are attacked again
we will know where to put the blame and it will be
on the White House.
Posted by: jewels |
***************************************
So why under the previous administration ,were we hitting Afghanistan then rushing into Iraq, knowing that Iran and Pakistan were always behind this terror? Because Bush wanted to get Hussein in the worse way.
Why have we wasted almost a trillion dollars, over
8 yrs in 2 wars,almost 5,000 young and old
soldiers dead, wounding 20,000 other solders. Why
are we loosing respect between each other in this
country and respect throughout the world. Because
we can't find Bin Laden? There's something wrong
with this picture.

Jordan, the term "war zone" does not appear anywhere in the Geneva Convention Relavite to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The term "combat zone" appears three times (articles 19, 23, and 47) and in none of those places has anyhing whatsoever to do with anything you have said in this forum.

I am intimately familiar with the convention, having been obliged to observe it on those occasions when I had prisoners in my personal custody.

Here's some more "change" you can beleive in! ABC News forgot to mention that: "President Barack Obama's Justice Department sided with the former Bush administration on Friday, saying detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, department lawyers said the Obama administration agreed that detainees at Bagram Air Base cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detentions.

After Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

It ss not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it.

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets."

Fascist Hyena: the terms are derived from the Geneva Convention - a document with which you clearly have no familiarity whatsoever.

Beam me up, Scotty. It is Friday and there is obviously little or no intelligent life on this forum!

Or maybe the pirates have to be seized in a "war Zone." Go figure.

Why does the Obama administration continue to hold people as unlawful enemy combatants, even though they were not seized in any "war zone" or "combat zone" and even though they have not been charged with any crime? I should think the Messiah and his Attorney General would have ordered their immediate release.

Unless...unless...

Jordan's lengthy disquisition on what he seems to think should be the law comes without citation to any legal authority, and is simply nonsense. Where does he get these daffy notions about "combat zones" and "bellgerent parties" in connection with unlawful combatants?

Do we have the authority to seize and hold pirates, wherever they may be found, or do we have to wait until they show up in some "combat zone" or other?

Comparing the few shiploads of various "land pirates" to WW II is absurd and way out of context. You honor them by declaring them as a "Grand Armada," rather than what they really are.

Fascist Hyena: In war, the entire territory of any nation party to that war (a "belligerent") is considered a "war zone", so in fact the German soldiers found on U.S. soil WERE in a "war zone" (not a "combat zone" in this case). Moreover, unless they were wearing their German military uniforms, they could rightly be considered spies or saboteurs (under the Geneva convention) and therefore executed.

The example I gave was of a citizen of one non-belligerent nation picked up by and in the territory of another non-belligerent nation and subsequently transferred into the custody of a belligerent nation and imprisoned as a POW combatant of ANOTHER belligerent nation from which he DID NOT originate at all - which at least attempts to create an analogy of the case at hand.

As far as American attacks inside Pakistan, the Pakistanis have requested that we NOT do that, and so continued such attacks COULD be construed as acts of war against Pakistan itself. In the case where there is an identified person who represents a specific threat and who is already wanted in connection with an international crime, however, there is SOME precedent for taking such action even despite the request of the "host" nation that we not do so. This is the same reasoning used by, for example, Israel in attacking Gaza, Lebanon and the Golan Heights at various times. Pakistan being a very unstable nuclear power, however (and with nuclear rival India so close) it could have grave repercussions.

Bernie Madoff is a red herring meant to demonstrate the utter stupidity of some of the arguments being made here. That you took the statement seriously merely reinforces the argument being made.