So about those "fair trials" at Guantanamo

Just remember, if it wasn't for liberals, we might still believe the world is flat.

If it wasn't for liberals, the U.S. would still be part of the British Empire after July 4, 1776.

If it wasn't for liberals, part of our population would still be enslaved.

If it wasn't for liberals, half of our adult population would not have the right to vote.

If it wasn't for liberals, our air and water would be dirtier, and our food might have the remains of rats in it.

Liberals seem to have done a lot in the world, doncha think?

 

You're reaching to take credit for America's Independence.

Today's liberal would have appeased the throne.

 

Um, read your history. Most Americans were actually pretty happy to be considered British citizens. Only 1/4 to 1/3 of the American population actually supported the beginning of the Revolution, and the most radical (liberal) elements were the ones who wanted independence. Most Americans just wanted to be treated like British citizens, and more or less left alone. The British, meanwhile, wanted them to pay heavier taxes than their fellow English citizens. That's where the trouble began.

 

You're staking your case on the presence of "uniforms"?

Oh my God.

You really haven't paid much attention to Osama's boys, have you?

And whose universal understanding have we violated? Harry Reid's?

 

I've often noticed that no one really objects to the FDA, even though its existence wasn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

 

I don't think anyone has objected to having to quarter soldiers in their homes either. Yet, our founding fathers thought to make that the Third Amendment, ahead of the right to a fair and speedy trial. It's interesting to wonder what was going on in our Founding Fathers' heads in 1787-1790.

 

I think this excerpt of an article written by John T. Reed answers the question about the "uniforms" issue better than I could:

"Our laws require that we give non-citizens “due process of law.” I repeat, that’s non-U.S. citizens.

As with the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment,” the phrase “due process of law” comes from our English ancestors. The phrase was first used in the Magna Carta which was signed by the British king in 1215. It is in the Fifth (Bill of Rights) and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It basically requires that you not punish or incarcerate people without giving them a chance to present their side of the dispute.

I agree that prisoners of war should not be given due process of law. However, the concept of prisoners of war means uniformed enemy soldiers who make no claim to be anything other than enemy soldiers. The application of the word “war” to such thing as poverty, cancer, and terror, has gone well beyond the original concept of uniformed soldiers of an enemy country with whom we are at war. Now, the word “war” has become mere political spin.

Enemy combatant is not any better. These are civilians who claim to be innocent civilians. Depending upon the process that captured them, they may truly be innocent civilians or guilty civilians who were engaging in violent acts or, more likely, they may be something in between like accessories before or after the fact or supporters of those committing the violent acts.

Phrases like “prisoners of war” and “enemy combatant” are vague and/or applied to widely varying groups of people. Combined with a license to torture, they lead to indiscriminate, instant, mass atrocities.

As I said, our laws normally have always given even foreigners in the U.S. the right of due process of law. Not because they are citizens, but because it is the right way to treat people.

True, prisoners of war in the uniformed-opposing-countries sense cannot be given due process of law because of the exigencies of war. But the fact that we do give due process to foreigners in non-prisoner of war situations belies the notion that only U.S. citizens get the benefits of our magnificent Constitution and rule of law."

 

No, Field Marshal Laptop, I'm staking my case on the ability to read English as my primary language.

 

Jesus, guys. Knock off the third-grade shit.

 

Is it possible that a prisoner could state they were a civilian and yet lie?
Any conclusive proof of select individuals being unassociated to the type of guerrilla warfare these people perfected against the Soviet Union should bring it forward and those particular people sent back where they came from.

Otherwise, they can claim what they want. But propaganda, especially to a hungry left whose eight-year objective has seemed way to often to be nothing more than bringing down a President, can be quite satisfying in this instance.

 

Either they're soldiers who are subject to the Geneva Convention or civilians who are allowed due process.
Regardless of what the president might have done in an attempt to get around a Supreme Court ruling, it's one or the other. There is no third category that has no rights at all.