*d* said:
As usual you have twisted reality to suit your flimsy position. These detainees are not POWs. The US government does not give them POW status or rights. The 'historical moral imperative practice' you speak of has not been implemented by the US in Gitmo. Instead they stripped them of their legal right to habeas corpus with the Detainee Treatment Act, against a Supreme court ruling I might add, and detain them as something sub-human -a combatant/non-POW. So, as required under the Geneva Conventions, unless they are charged with criminal offenses or could face serious human rights abuses, non-POWs are to be returned to their home countries.
Now wait a minute. They are not POWs, but you say they have the status review rights of POWs. Nonsense, they are classified by the US government as enemy combatants with no rights. But a status review tribunal was created as a farce. And it is under these ambiguous conditions that puts the military review tribunal and commission under question by the US courts as being legit. So I ask again, there must be war crime charges against these detainees to have held them this long? Where are they? If there are none, and they're not POWs, than they are INNOCENT and free to go.
By whom? Who determines when non-POWs/non-civilians/sub-humans are free to go? A US military tribunal that is under question by US courts as being legitimate for such proceedings?
That's for a judge and jury to decide. No one cares about your prejudice opinions.
"As usual you have created a maze of nonsense that leads to one big deluded RIFT-hugging and RIFT-supporting conclusion."
These detainees do not meet the requirements of being classified as POWs according to the Geneva Convention. Hence, they do not fall under the 'umbrella' of the Geneva Convention.
These detainees do not meet the requirements of being 'indicted' for actions that rise to the level of crimes. Hence, they are not afforded status as 'alleged criminal defendants' either under the Geneva Convention nor the American Judicial system.
These detainees do meet the requirements of being 'unlawful enemy combatants'(engaged in hostile actions in a theatre of war while being not in a uniform or other recognizable symbol of a designated combatant). Hence, once captured they are detained and if their actions do not rise to the level of 'crimes' they are detained with full and regular reviews regarding their 'detention status' till they are considered not to be a threat anymore or till the cessation of hostilities.
Think, think, think enemies captured during battle and detained. That's it *d*.
For example: Canadian soldiers engage in a battle against a group of combatants just outside Kandahar. Some Canadian soldiers are wounded and one dies of his wounds. The soldiers capture 16 men in the area where they were coming under fire from. Some were armed and some were not. They are certain all of these men in some way or another were part of the group the engaged in hostile actions against them.
What should they do with these prisoners? Charge them with crimes? Release them because they can't conclusively prove with 'evidence required by a civilian court' that they were responsible for hostilities that led to injury and death? Detain them in accordance with the moral historical imperative of detention of the enemy during conflict?
You would like and fervently do wish to believe that these detainees are just innocent, ordinary Afghani, Saudi, Pakistani, Yemeni, Chechnyan, etc civilians who were somehow 'just unfortunately caught up in a big hullabulla of misfortune'. When the reality and the facts completely grind away at your delusion.
Detainees have historically been and can be detained till they are determined by a competent tribuanal NOT to pose a threat anymore or till the cessation of hostilities. They are granted the priviledges in accordance to a POW status even though they do not LEGALLY meet the requirement. They are granted 'detention reviews' on a regular basis. They are granted access to American civilian courts to boot. Congress has legitimized IN LAW the legitimacy and neccesity of GITMO.
Sorry *d* your fervent desire and deeply held wish that these detainees are just INNOCENT CHILDREN OF LOVE AND PEACE is not only legal hogwash it also flies in the face of reality and more disturbingly pure morally deluded RIFT-pandering and RIFT-supporting.
You are one special case, *d*. "Oh yes, these RIFT killers are just ordinary, innocent children of love and peace."
These detainee killers just absolutely love people like you who foolishly and naively champion their cause.
They laugh in incredulousness at the complete idiocy of their deluded and naively 'enlightened, holier than thou' supporters.
I for one do not endorse, support nor legitimize these RIFT killers. Why support and cry for the release of those who do and attempt to kill your fellow countrymen? Why?
'Innocent they all are! Innocent I tell ya!!!" Unfrigginbelievable *d*.
