You miss the bigger picture. The issue here is not really Jumah.
Sure his predicament is very touching and him being detained without a proper trial is wrong. What really bakes my noodle is how he got there.
He was labeled an "enemy combatant". Under current American laws, anyone labeled enemy combatant may be held without trial indefinitely. So the real issue here is how can we talk about a democracy when a government has the power to throw anyone they want in jail under the pretext of him being an "enemy combatant". And to all the Americans shouting "wait I am American, I have rights": you have no rights. Because of this law, anyone can be thrown in jail. It is just that if you are American, your family might scream for your release earlier and you might get out in a year or so whereas jumah and his fellow inmates of the right amount of arab might never get out.
“The Supreme Court was saying it might consider the detainees' cases, but not until the detainees subjected themselves to proceedings created by the Military Commissions Act.
It is a disturbing ruling because the government says the purpose of these proceedings is not to determine if a detainee is actually an ''enemy combatant'' but rather to determine if the military followed its own rules in applying the ''enemy combatant'' label. For that reason, detainees will have no chance to produce evidence of their innocence that the military didn't consider or to challenge the use of evidence obtained through torture. Worse yet, these procedures will be held before the same appeals court that recently found the detainees have no rights at all.” Can’t anyone see this screams of anything but democracy?
Originally posted by agrysonenglish is not my first language. so understand that for me assume is almost the same to me as presume and serves the purpose. as a non-english i am not familiar with the subtleties.
You're both wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_innocence
The principle is called the presumption of innocence, which is the principle of assuming innocence "until finally convicted by a court". If it was merely that they presume that they were innocent, that presumption can change during the trial, before the final conviction. That's why t ...[text shortened]... arguing over bloody semantics, you're all perfectly aware of what is meant.
Children....
"Using the term assuming suggests that it will not change until proven beyond reasonable doubt." are you by any chance saying that a person might be convicted if they aren't proven guilty beyond doubt? because that is not nice.
anyway, this is beside the topic, i consider the matter closed. i never argued with the 5 year old about my semantics, i thought he would get the meaning. as i thought you would read more than his post and see i never argued with him.
Originally posted by ZahlanziOK. But cutting all the cackle about this bloke, if there is the slightest chance (and there is much more than that) he is guilty hold him until he is no longer capable of causing murder and mayhem.
english is not my first language. so understand that for me assume is almost the same to me as presume and serves the purpose. as a non-english i am not familiar with the subtleties.
"Using the term assuming suggests that it will not change until proven beyond reasonable doubt." are you by any chance saying that a person might be convicted if they aren' ...[text shortened]... the meaning. as i thought you would read more than his post and see i never argued with him.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe "5 -year old" understands where you are coming from, and craves your forgiveness for his unecessary and distracting sematics argument .
english is not my first language. so understand that for me assume is almost the same to me as presume and serves the purpose. as a non-english i am not familiar with the subtleties.
"Using the term assuming suggests that it will not change until proven beyond reasonable doubt." are you by any chance saying that a person might be convicted if they aren' ...[text shortened]... the meaning. as i thought you would read more than his post and see i never argued with him.
To go back to the point, your comment "are you by any chance saying that a person might be convicted if they aren't proven guilty beyond doubt? because that is not nice."...this is accurate, and exactly what we have here.....a bunch of pople convicted without having been proven guilty.
Originally posted by CartanNo, in our justice system people are only punished when their guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, we should not change these rules because of a couple of psycho arabs.
OK. But cutting all the cackle about this bloke, if there is the slightest chance (and there is much more than that) he is guilty hold him until he is no longer capable of causing murder and mayhem.
Originally posted by ZadadkaYou started it. So there! You big bully you!
The "5 -year old" understands where you are coming from, and craves your forgiveness for his unecessary and distracting sematics argument .
To go back to the point, your comment "are you by any chance saying that a person might be convicted if they aren't proven guilty beyond doubt? because that is not nice."...this is accurate, and exactly what we have here.....a bunch of pople convicted without having been proven guilty.
I say let's give a fair trial to all the prisoners.
Where would this take place?
Would soldiers, CIA and intel. persons be pulled from the field to testify? What do you think they would say?
Would we find people in Afgan. to testify For the defendent?
How would all this take place?
Granny. 102 yrs old.
Originally posted by smw6869So you're counter-argument is none other than: "Because it's impossible to imprison you legally, we're going to do it illegally."?
You started it. So there! You big bully you!
I say let's give a fair trial to all the prisoners.
Where would this take place?
Would soldiers, CIA and intel. persons be pulled from the field to testify? What do you think they would say?
Would we find people in Afgan. to testify For the defendent?
How would all this take place?
Granny. 102 yrs old.
I'm sure the founding father's are having a field time turning in their grave.
Originally posted by BartsHow are they Not being treated as POW's. Are rhey being treated worse?
If only they were treated as POW's. The Geneva conventions aren't really being followed in Guantanamo, even G.W.Bush agrees to that so he calls them "enemy combatants" so he can ignore the convention.
As a little extra : POW's should have been released some time ago as both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have endend. If there is any change of them joining t ...[text shortened]... ield, so many of your witnesses are US soldiers, their memories are hardly classified info.
The war in Afgan. and Iraq have ended????? I never heard of any peace treaty. You're supposed to wash your dirty shorts......Not Eat Them! You're out of your mind!
Granny.
Originally posted by smw6869Yes. The US government has refused them the rights according to the Geneva convention (thus making themselves war criminals).
How are they Not being treated as POW's. Are rhey being treated worse?
For example, disallowing Red cross packages and visits. Look it up. It is truly shocking.
Originally posted by shavixmirNo, I'm saying there should be fair trials. I'm just wondering how this would all be possible. Details please.
So you're counter-argument is none other than: "Because it's impossible to imprison you legally, we're going to do it illegally."?
I'm sure the founding father's are having a field time turning in their grave.
G.
Originally posted by shavixmirIsn't a defendent responsible for his own defense? Would the prisoner obtain an Afgan lawyer to aid in his defense? Or would the UN appoint one? Sounds like this could take a long time.
I don't know if it is possible. But if it's not then the case is dismissed and the prisoners go free. That's the law.