Okay who Voted for this Guy?

[Thanos]

In the news.

"what's going to keep the American people safe" and constitutionally guaranteed rights for those imprisoned.
Obama says he is confident the international community will cooperate in accepting some of the militants currently being held at Guantanamo

First off, how is that going to make us more safe? Them being locked up forever makes us safe.

Second, THEY DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!! Not being American citizens, being in the United States or having been here...that keeps them from having Constitutional rights. If we give the people in Gitmo those rights, we are then obligated to give them to others...(read all the people in the world) and required to use force to protect those rights.

Third, the International community? are these the same people we are counting on to stop the genocide in (Insert African country)? Right, and I am sure a hell not intersted in Iran and Syria stepping up to the plate to take these guys.

If you voted for B Hussien Obama, punch yourself in the face for me.

[MikeBjerum]

Mr. Obama and his crowd are about to learn a big lesson that many have known for decades - The United States of America has become the World's police force.  Like it or not, whether we took it or had it thrown at us doesn't matter at this time, because it is a fact.  Officially the United Nations goes tsk tsk while they shake their heads in disapproval, but under the table they say "are you going to let this happen;" France denies us access to air space and protests us while we make it possible for them to live in peace; England and Germany blast their politicians for backing us while they get the benefit of a larger protection force then they have citizenship; Canada lives with comfort because enemies either have to cross the North Pole or come through us to get to them ...

What is the Obama Administration going to do when they turn us into France West without a successor and the World figures it out?

[Timothy]

THE LARK PROGRAM

A Lady liberal wrote a lot of letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo Bay.

She received back the following reply:

 The White House
 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
 Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of  the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.  You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers’ program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.  Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers.

We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.  Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his attitudinal problem' will help him overcome these character flaws.

Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.  Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property.  This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire.  I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka – over time.

Just remember that it is all part of 'respecting his culture and his religious beliefs' -- wasn't that how you put it?  Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job.

You take good care of Ahmed - and remember, we'll be watching.

Good luck!

Cordially, your friend,

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

[1776 Rebel]

Second, THEY DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!! Not being American citizens, being in the United States or having been here...that keeps them from having Constitutional rights.

I believe that was adjudicated last year by SCOTUS. They do have rights according to them. So that is a decided issue at this time. We should have killed them all and left them on the battlefield. It would have been simpler. I don't believe that the SCOTUS decision covered the CIA prisons, but I could be wrong.

[Thanos]

THE LARK PROGRAM

A Lady liberal wrote a lot of letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo Bay.

She received back the following reply:

When do I get my prisoner and the $250K to house him for the next year? Because I can assure you, you give me 250 and he will NEVER cause the US any problems whatsoever. Oh, and his lawyer will be willing to drop all appeals too.

[Sponsor]

[Thanos]

I believe that was adjudicated last year by SCOTUS. They do have rights according to them. So that is a decided issue at this time. We should have killed them all and left them on the battlefield. It would have been simpler. I don't believe that the SCOTUS decision covered the CIA prisons, but I could be wrong.

I don't think it did, I think it was another point about the trial, but it didn't give them all Constitutional rights.

[1776 Rebel]

I am not a lawyer (THANK GOD !). But having read a bit about the SCOTUS decisions on Gitmo, I think they established some baseline of rights. The following is from the June 2008 case decision and you can see the language the court uses...

2. Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.
They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension
Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy
combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo. Pp. 8–
41.

(c) The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The
Government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights
because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval
station is rejected. Pp. 22–42.


And this one is a doozy...

(iii) The Government’s sovereignty-based test raises troubling
separation-of-powers concerns, which are illustrated by Guantanamo’s
political history. Although the United States has maintained
complete and uninterrupted control of Guantanamo for over
100 years, the Government’s view is that the Constitution has no effect
there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed
formal sovereignty in its 1903 lease with Cuba. The Nation’s
basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution
grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of,
and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its
terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution
on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not
this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch
137, 177.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

[Timothy]

When do I get my prisoner and the $250K to house him for the next year? Because I can assure you, you give me 250 and he will NEVER cause the US any problems whatsoever. Oh, and his lawyer will be willing to drop all appeals too.

I wouldn't even ask for the buck to reimburse me for the 185 gr HP that I would introduce him too!

[MikeBjerum]

I wouldn't even ask for the buck to reimburse me for the 185 gr HP that I would introduce him too!

Use at least 250 gr.  185 gr could bounce off if not properly administered, and that would be considered torture by some liberal nut case 

[Thanos]

I can see habeas corpus. this predates the Constitution. But I still bet they left it vague enough that you could get around it. I will have to look at the whole thing.