Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SC Rules Guantanimo Prisoners Can Challenge Their Detentions In US Courts

Will result?

They're not filling Gitmo with a continuous supply of fresh prisoners, are they?

- Tom

GMAFB,


are we at war with these raghead muthas or not?


even though we house, feed, doctor them and give them recreational activity, they still ain't gettin none.


there's 72 virgins awaitin them

and one .223 round is all it takes to expedite them to Paradise.

I can't believe we ever took them prisoner unless we thought we could gain intel from them.

get in a streetfight and follow the rules of boxing while your opponent does whatever it takes to win and see where that gets you.


am I the only guy old enough to remember Vietnam?

???Was that for me??? I hope not because I am the bloodiest minded S.O.B. you'll run ito for a bit. Deguello!!

No buddy. Randy is pissed at the Ruling.

Randy is one of the very good guys.

Heck no ET, I've a firm grasp that you of the many that post here understand the reality of war.


I just replied after you posted is all.


in just pizzes me off to no end that we put our soldiers in harms way to kill or be killed and then want to second guess how they [bleep] do so.

wanting them to come home in one piece does NOT mean I want them to come home to stand trial.

just trying to shine some light on the fact to some posters here that it is WAR for chrissakes, not the NFL.

kill until there's no one left to kill and if there happens to be any survivors tell them to play nice or else.

I'm so fed up with politicians and especially liberal politicians.

Baah.. I'm tired of Gitmo anyway. Let's farm out the illegal combatants to a camp maintained by residents of Iraq and be done with it. Can't see where anybody should complain if the Iraqi's get to handle combatants captured on their soil.

I'm thinking the Kurds should run the new camp.. I'm sure they'll run the camp in perfect accords with local customs and we'll be out of it.

Now Afghani's.. don't know who should run their camp. I'm sure we can find somebody who could do it appropriately.

:::SIGH::: where General Pinochet when you need him...jorge

roasting would be my guess......

I have pictures of him and Generalisimo Franco in my office...jorge

Next our soldiers will have to account for every round fired and spend their lives in court justifying every round, because the person trying to kill them didn't have the correct "uniform" on.

they are most likely sharing a common area currently......

I tend to forgive Franco. Most of his "victims" were communist mass murderers anyway.

That is pretty absurd. We can call a �time out� and send in CSI Iraq with their lab coats and tweezers to process the whole scene, take statements from both sides (we'll need interpreters for that), put those numbered cones (hope they go up to thousands in numbering) all over the place. Of course, we�ll need mobile evidence lockers and a team of observers to maintain chain of custody records. Then we�ll need a whole system for issuing subpoenas and serving and transporting the witnesses, some of whom may be beyond the subpoena power of even the U.S. government. I guess we also should be doing the same thing every time someone takes a shot at one of our guys or an IED goes off, just so we could make sure we got THE RIGHT GUY insted of just some guy with an AK pointed in the wrong diretion at the wrong time.

Yeah, I�m sure that�s what the founding fathers had in mind all along.

The Ruling just simply requires,essentially, a preliminary hearing to justify the detention. Simple testimony as to the where, what and how of the enemy combatant will quickly culminate in a ruling that there was probable cause to detain.

As I said earlier, it's simply more taxpayer money and a little extra time for government and appointed counsel,that's all.

It has no practical or, for that matter, any pragmatic substance to it whatsoever.

It's a little liberal massage before we get a awesome 2nd Amendment ruling this or next Monday.

I wasn't commenting on the ruling so much as disagreeing with one of our esteemed members of the Fire.

Si. Or sanctimonious, romantic American and English lefties, dying for the Comintern. While Stalin chuckled.

I knew where you were coming from, Cheyenne. Once you get a chance to sort through the whole ruling, it's much more benign than the new's headline.

It also probably changed the ROEs, as well. Shoot on sight may become the rule. F*** taking prisoners!!

No, the ruling requires the recognition of the habeas corpus rights (among other aspects of due process) of all those held in US custody, no matter where in the world the US is holding them. It amounts to no more than a restatement of the relevant provisions of the US Constitution, and thus flies in the face of both the President and his rubber-stamp Congress.

I talked to my Brother about this today. He spent 30 years in the Navy JAG, and was highly placed.
He says he was not surprised by the ruling, and that he expected it to come down just about the way it was worded.
He knew well, the lawyers that first drew up the Gitmo rules, and I believe he had some input himself, based on his knowledge base and his experience.
He says that the lawyers that advised Bush, and drew up the ground rules, were sailing in uncharted waters, from a Constitutional standpoint, and wanted to do things that had really never been done before, or certainly were not vetted by previous court decisions.

Guess there will be quite few moe dead on the battlefield in that case. Les