Another Guantanamo thread

Originally posted by SMSBear716
You still refuse to answer my question. MAybe its because you don't know or maybe its cause you won't say. So who is Jumah? Is he real?
And what did he do to get to Club Gitmo. If you can't answer these basic questions, what is there to debate?

Your whole argument is flawed for one very good reason. I'm a citizen of the United States of America and h ...[text shortened]... tates don't have any rights either. Well maybe the right to get the heck back to Mexico.

You cannot deprive people of basic human rights just because they aren't Americans.

1) Persons granted permission to visit the United States still have rights -- among them the right to return to their country of origin.
2) Persons entering the United States illegally still have rights (a good example is people seeking asylum). Even if not, the usual maximum that can be done to them -- barring other criminal activity -- is deportation.
3) Persons brought to the United States against their will still have rights that depend on why and how they were apprehended.

This person apparently falls in the third category. The issue is whether the Bush admin is depriving such people of their rights -- to me, the answer is clearly yes.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
A terrorist is rotting in the sun.....boo hoo, Wait while i bust a nut worrying about him.

So, how many dead bodies do a terrorist make ? I for one would rather they didn't drive 4x4s at our airports, and sat in guantanamo till they die....no offence.

Your missing the point, we aren't sure if this person is a terrorist, because he has been denied a fair trail, where we could find out wether or not he is one.

Originally posted by Rajk999
'Never'... is the correct answer.
Communist regimes detain, jail, torture, execute dissidents ie those who simply disagree with the govt.

Aren't you the lady who doesn't know what a boor is? {snicker-snicker}

Originally posted by spruce112358
You cannot deprive people of basic human rights just because they aren't Americans.

1) Persons granted permission to visit the United States still have rights -- among them the right to return to their country of origin.
2) Persons entering the United States illegally still have rights (a good example is people seeking asylum). Even if not, the usua ...[text shortened]... er the Bush admin is depriving such people of their rights -- to me, the answer is clearly yes.

Wrongo, illegal immigrants have no rights in the United States. They aren't citizens get it? Which part of illegal do you fail to understand?

That means, they aren't entitled to any government programs, Despite what Nancy Pelosi thinks, they aren't entitled to programs to send their kids to college, they aren't entitled to health care , they aren't entitled to Social Security which they don't pay into(although some jerks in the Congress think they should be.) They aren't entitled to make the schools do bilingual education. And the list goes on and on .

They are entitled to a free ride from ICE to get back to the border or a plane/boat trip(which ever is cheaper for the American taxpayer) back to their country of origin.

And if you think thats harsh, too bad. If I was working or residing in a foreign country illegally, they'd throw my butt in prison.If I was getting money from government programs illegally in a foreign country, what do you think the penalties would be? Restrictions in other countries for foreigners to be able to work are significantly more restrictive than they are in the US. I have a good friend who lives/works in Australia now, what he had to go through to get a job was kinda incredible.

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Wrongo, illegal immigrants have no rights in the United States.

Wrong.

Originally posted by Barts
Your missing the point, we aren't sure if this person is a terrorist, because he has been denied a fair trail, where we could find out wether or not he is one.

We aren't sure if this guy is a terrorist because all we have is is his first name.

I'm sure if his identity was revealed, where and when he was captured would become apparent. I for on ethink that being caught in a al Qaeda training camp is reason enough for these inbreds to be kept under lock and key for life.....sorry bout that.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://www.avaaz.org/blog/en/close_guantanamo/


"Jumah has been at Guantánamo for more than five years. The government has never charged him with a crime and does not accuse him of taking any action against the United States. For several years, Jumah has been held alone in solid-wall cells from which he cannot see other detainees or communicate except b ...[text shortened]... forever on an island where there is no law. He may well be right."

Saw the large, awkward copy-pasted block of text and decided not to read it.

In case anyone cares.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Saw the large, awkward copy-pasted block of text and decided not to read it.

In case anyone cares.

well if you haven't anything to contribute either way we really don't care. next time i will make sure i insert teddy bears and little flowers in the copy-pasted block of text i post so you could find it pretty and lovely and not awkward and decide to read it, maybe even share some of your wisdom.

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Wrongo, illegal immigrants have no rights in the United States. They aren't citizens get it? Which part of illegal do you fail to understand?

That means, they aren't entitled to any government programs, Despite what Nancy Pelosi thinks, they aren't entitled to programs to send their kids to college, they aren't entitled to health care , they aren't ent ...[text shortened]... ves/works in Australia now, what he had to go through to get a job was kinda incredible.

Man do you represent all that people hate about americans. idiocy, smugness, ignorance, and some.

you just fail to see that basic human rights are not american rights which means it is not only the americans who are entitled to them but all humans. of course if you want to debate that americans are the only ones deserving of the title of human being, then that is for another thread. for now, for the sake of argument let us assume jumah is human and thus has the right to freedom just like you and me(although commitment to a mental hospital does seem like a valid option for you)

Because jumah is human, he should be free. loss of freedom can only occur if he committed a crime. Unfortunately we must also assume that he didn't because he wasn't accused of anything, let alone given a trial and convicted. thus, his loss of freedom is one of the crimes Amerika is committing now.

So unless he and others detainees at guantanamo are given a fair trial(or even an unfair one), you should rot in that jail just as much as he should. Did i explained it clear enough for you, you stupid redneck jerk?

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Wrongo, illegal immigrants have no rights in the United States. They aren't citizens get it? Which part of illegal do you fail to understand?

That means, they aren't entitled to any government programs, Despite what Nancy Pelosi thinks, they aren't entitled to programs to send their kids to college, they aren't entitled to health care , they aren't ent ...[text shortened]... ves/works in Australia now, what he had to go through to get a job was kinda incredible.

I agree with most of your post except where you say "no rights". Dogs aren't citizens either, but even they have certain rights -- the right not to be mistreated, etc.

You can deport illegals, but you can't mistreat them.

That's largely the point with this guy in Gunatanamo -- I don't know what he did -- but caging a human indefinitely without explanation is mistreatment. And he doesn't have to be a citizen to warrant having that mistreatment stopped.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
We aren't sure if this guy is a terrorist because all we have is is his first name.

I'm sure if his identity was revealed, where and when he was captured would become apparent. I for on ethink that being caught in a al Qaeda training camp is reason enough for these inbreds to be kept under lock and key for life.....sorry bout that.

Hans van Temsche shot 3 persons in the middle of Antwerp in broad daylight. He was then shot by a police officer only minutes after he killed his last two victims. Not one person in the whole of Belgium has any doubt as to his guilt and yet, he gets a trial.

Why doesn't that person captured in Afghanistan or Iraq get a trial ? Maybe it was the towns baker who was selling his croissants just when the americans arrived, wrong place, wrong time. More likely is that he was terrorist, but to make sure of that, a trial should be held.

Now, once more in big bold letters
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN COURT IS THE BASIS OF THE WESTERN JUDICAL SYSTEM, THERE SHOULD BE NO EXECPTIONS TO THIS RULE.

Originally posted by Barts
Hans van Temsche shot 3 persons in the middle of Antwerp in broad daylight. He was then shot by a police officer only minutes after he killed his last two victims. Not one person in the whole of Belgium has any doubt as to his guilt and yet, he gets a trial.

Why doesn't that person captured in Afghanistan or Iraq get a trial ? Maybe it was the towns baker ...[text shortened]... N COURT IS THE BASIS OF THE WESTERN JUDICAL SYSTEM, THERE SHOULD BE NO EXECPTIONS TO THIS RULE.

He can be proven guilty of attending a terrorst training camp. What more do you need to convict him?

Originally posted by Cartan
He can be proven guilty of attending a terrorst training camp. What more do you need to convict him?

That hasn't been established....as SMS says, more info is needed to determine whether we feel this person is guilty.

And anyway, were it to be so, then why hasn't there been a trial to "convict and punish" him?

The questions still remain, what possible threat to "National Security" do these individuals represent now, what gives Bush's Administration the right to effectively dissolve these individuals' human rights, and why haven't they been brought to book for their crimes?
Surely, each conviction would be a "feather in the cap"?
It makes you think there could not be convictions, and so this is a "convenient" way for Bush not to have to say sorry.....again.

As it stands, incarcerating persons without rights, and without justification further than some finger-pointing is near lynch-mob mentality.

Originally posted by Cartan
He can be proven guilty of attending a terrorst training camp. What more do you need to convict him?

I need more than a "can be proven guilty", I want a "has been proven guilty in a courtroom."