Bush and Cheney have nothing to do with this issue so why bring them in it?
|
Bush and Cheney have nothing to do with this issue so why bring them in it?
So... A deserter who left a WRITTEN confession to his crime (which he did do) can't be accused according to Democrats... But ANY repobulican can be... its all part and parcel of the same left wing smear campaign.
I'll wait until that's confirmed if you don't mind. Hey if he deserves military justice, he will get it.
He deserves a bullet to the head... and he doesn't deserve a pardon from the criminal in chief either.
He has a right to due process. Bet that's in the constitution.
Even the Afghans are wondering why they got thrown under the bus.
Not deserters on the battlefield, they don't have a right to due process. Particuilarly AFTER they leave a signed confession like that piece of white trash did.
Because the emperor only cares about emptying GITMO ...and he don't care how ;or who is released . Lurch said there is no concern about the Taliban 5 going back to the battlefield because if they did ,they MAY get killed . What a dope !Quote:
Nothing was happening in Gitmo either so make 'em targets. We need practice. Maybe we get a few of their buddies too.
that's because the emperor refused to convene tribunals .
Lurch never said who he had to blow to get out of Vietnam after only 4 months into a ONE YEAR tour of duty...
That's the job of the military, and congress didn't want them tried in civilian courts if you remember, nor transferred to high security prisons, like so many before there remaining detainees. They can't even charge most of them turned over from outside US jurisdiction for a reward.
Military Tribunals and Presidential Power
Then we have the rules themselvesQuote:
In wartime, presidents are always tempted to expand their authority. But in doing so, they often reach beyond their constitutional mandate.
Although the use of military tribunals can be necessary and even effective in times of war, Louis Fisher contends that these courts present a grave danger to open government and the separation of powers. Citing the constitutional provision vesting Congress with the authority to create tribunals, Fisher addresses the threats posed by the dramatic expansion of presidential power in time of war—and the meek efforts of Congress and the judiciary to curb it.
Presidential Military Order to Try Terrorists in Military Tribunals
Supreme Court deals blow to Guantánamo prisoners challenging their detention - CSMonitor.com
Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal May Force Obama to Close Guantanamo | New Republic
Saying someone is dangerous, and proving it are two very different things.Quote:
For example, Khairullah Khairkhwa, one of the five men released last week's prisoner exchange, held several positions in the Taliban government between 1995 and 2001. He fled to Pakistan after the fall of the Taliban, was picked up near the border by the Pakistani police, and ultimately transferred into Americans custody. During his twelve-year stay at Guantánamo, Khairkhwa admitted Taliban involvement, but vehemently denied participating in terrorist activity; the U.S. has been unable to provide evidence showing otherwise............. "The government has said it must continue to hold some detainees because they are simply too dangerous to let go, but cannot be tried because the evidence against them is tainted. I have seen the evidence against some of these men, and it is not that it is 'tainted' but that it is so skimpy and unreliable, it would never hold up in court," said Wilner..............Regardless of the numbers, the legal argument remains the same. While at war, it is legal to imprison individuals that pose a potential threat on the battlefield. When the war ends, so ends the legality of their detention unless they are charged with a crime. There is no law that allows detention as a preventative manner.
completely disagree with Louis Fisher . This was not an expansion of Presidential power because as CIC in a declared war ,the President has always had such powers .
The New Republic has a point to a degree. We are not required to release prisoners while there is still hostilities ,so as long as we have troops in harms way there then the emperor is not required to close GITMO . 2nd ;almost all the detainees that can't be charged has been released already . The ones remaining are the ones that can and should face tribunal . As I already posted ;2 of them are wanted for war crimes by the UN.
The fact is that tribunals would've already been done if it wasn't for the fautly Hamden ,and Boumediene v. Bush decisions by SCOTUS .
It went WAY beyond just those 5, he relased another 12 secretly as reported by Reuters which can never be considered a conservative news organisation.
US Quietly Moves Detainees Out Of Secretive Afghanistan Prison
US Quietly Moves Detainees Out Of Secretive Afghanistan Prison
By Reuters
On June 13 2014 7:48 AM
(Reuters) - The Obama administration has quietly repatriated a dozen detainees from a small U.S. military prison in Afghanistan, moving a modest step closer toward winding down the United States' controversial post-9/11 detainee system.
President Barack Obama, in a letter to Congress released on Thursday, informed U.S. lawmakers that about 38 non-Afghan prisoners remained at the Parwan detention center outside of Kabul, down from around 50 a few months ago.
A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that a Frenchman, a Kuwaiti and 10 Pakistani prisoners were sent back to their respective home countries at the end of May.
The remaining detainees include Yemeni, Tunisian and more Pakistani nationals, and a Russian who the United States is also considering trying in a military or civilian court.
The transfers, which are not publicly disclosed, underscore the challenges the Obama administration faces in shutting down Parwan and the larger U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has been widely criticized by human rights groups since being populated in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Many of the detainees have not been charged with a crime, but the release of any military detainees has the potential to intensify the political backlash the Obama administration is facing over its handling of suspected militants captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere since 2001.
White House officials have sought to rebuff criticism of the decision last month to send five senior Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to Qatar in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier held by Taliban-linked militants in Pakistan.
The Obama administration is slowly moving to transfer some inmates out of Guantanamo Bay, where about 150 inmates remain. Obama has renewed promises to close the prison despite long-standing congressional opposition.
The non-Afghan prisoners at Parwan are the only detainees remaining in U.S. custody in Afghanistan after U.S. officials shifted hundreds of Afghan prisoners to Afghan government custody last year.
In February, U.S. officials were outraged when the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai released 65 of those prisoners, who Washington insisted were dangerous militants requiring at least further investigation.
The U.S. government considers some remaining non-Afghan prisoners at Parwan, like some at Guantanamo, too dangerous to be freed. Some of them have unclear links to the Afghan conflict, including a Yemeni arrested in Bangkok and secretly moved to Afghanistan.
The Parwan detainees' identities, and the transfer of some of them to other countries in the past, have remained largely a mystery to the public in the United States and Afghanistan.
Last month, the Defense Department provided U.S. lawmakers with a classified report on the identities of the detainees and their alleged militant ties.
Their fate takes on new importance as the end of the U.S. and NATO military mission in Afghanistan approaches. If the two countries can finalize a troop deal, Obama plans to leave just under 10,000 soldiers in Afghanistan after 2014 and withdraw almost all by the end of 2016.
It is unclear under what circumstances the prisoners transferred last month were repatriated.
Pakistani officials have said that returned detainees would be kept under surveillance to make sure they had no militant links. Prisoner advocates say at least some returned detainees were held in secret prisons in Pakistan before being set free.
ah the responsibilities of Empire, it was ever so, what to do with political prisoners, what a great shame you no longer have the arena where they could fight it out, or the salt mines or the crucifix, or even the galleys. Such is the price of progress
political prisoners ? Nah these are prisoners captured in a war . They have no right to release until such time as the war comes to a conclusion.
Will the "war" in Afghanistan ever come to a conclusion?
Yes ,the emperor set a deadline to clock out . Then the Taliban prisoners could be released as long as we haven't determined that they should be charged and sent to trial/tribunal . The AQ prisoners ? That's a different story . They should all be subject to tribunal as pirates have always been handled .
It's already over Tom, you lost, simple as that, you stayed too long and you lost, at least you learned the lesson of Iraq and won't repeat it
What lesson was that ? If you leave before your work is done bad things are likely to follow ?
Exactly... a certain group of people didn't learn THAT lesson after Vietnam either...
There was no victory to be had in Iraq, just a regional destabilization, that cost trillions and many lives. Even more trillions, and lives to maintain. The lesson of Vietnam was stay the freak out of foreign countries. This western notion of dominance through military might has been disproved yet again in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and there is no winning in either unless we stop half stepping and send in a realforce and NOT just a small band of volunteers.
Surges are but a feel good, temporary quick fix, that is unsustainable over the long haul, in both reusing worn out troops and money. I say let these countries clean up their own mess because whatever side we take is the wrong one. That's how you got Saddam in the first place, and the Shah of Iran. Have you guys forgotten that too?
You may be satisfied with radical jihadistan AQ army taking over large sections of Iraq but I think it is a national security issue. Victory was had . All that we needed to do to finish the work was to renew the Status of Forces Agreement .(SOFA) But the emperor had already decided to bug out ;and his poodle Evita set up a convenient excuse to not renewing it .
Had we stayed ,the US would've had the assets in place to not only stop this AQ offensive ;but to prevent them from taking over the anti-Assad rebellion.
Malachi wanted full control of US forces we would have there and that's UNACCEPTABLE Tom. He has done nothing but purge the sunnis, and ISIS is NOT AQ! The sunnis are not ISIS.
Now the fool Malachi is begging for US troops. And you hawks want to get back involved with this tribal BS all over again? Backing shia's against sunni's is NOT victory, or a win for us no matter how scared you are of the boogey man ISIS faction. Iran is a shia state, just so you know since the ignorance of history and setting up western friendly states in the middle east seems to be lost on McCain and the rest of you warhawks.
Without a power sharing government by both sunni's and shia's you waste your time in Iraq, and better start getting foreign contractors the hell out. Malachi and his tactics have to go!!
you're right . They broke off from AQ because AQ wasn't radical enough for them . But think about it . AQ's goal is the creation a califate in the Ummah. The modest goal of ISIS is to create a califate in the Levant.Quote:
and ISIS is NOT AQ!
You don't see any national interest there ? Well since you insist on putting every road block you can think of for the goal of national energy independence then you should consider it a major national security concern.
Funny how Malki was able to live with a SOFA arrangement in 2007 /2008? What changed ? Oh yeah ;we have a different POTUS ;one who made it quite clear to Malki that he was bugging the US out .
Given that change ,Malki had NO OTHER OPTION than to turn to Iran for security . Did you think that would come without a quid pro quo ?
The quid pro quo was the Shiafication of Iraq governance and the renaging of the revenue sharing deals that we brokered .
Yeah the Sunnis have a reason to be pissed . They helped us defeat the radical jihadists in Northern Iraq and now they are sold down the river. So it shouldn't be a suprise to you that they again align with jihadistan . Nor should it be a suprise to you that the emperor ;painted into a corner AGAIN , will make common cause with Iran to defeat ISIS .
Think about how stupid the emperor has been . When Sunni Jihadists are fighting in Syria against Iran backed Assad ;the emperor wants to arm them. Now that they are taking on Iran backed Maliki ,he will align with Iran to defeat the same Sunni Jihadists .
of course the emperor could drop a hashtag or 2 on them .
Attachment 46152
\Quote:
of course the emperor could drop a hashtag or 2 on them .
I see that once again Tom you think that because the US established some sort of benchmark it should stand for all time, this is of couse in line with your eighteenth century thinking, but reality says things change. The ISIS crisis could not have been forseen, if you had established a government which wasn't such a missmash it might have had a chance to succeed, but once again the armed forces of Iraq have shown their heart is not in it and if people will not fight for themselves why should you tarnish your superman image by fighting for them?
No not for all time .Just long enough. The French and Germans did not sign a peace treaty until 1963 . Almost 2 decades after the war ended . Imagine if Truman was the emperor and decided it was time to clock out of Europe in 1945-46. How different the continent would look today .Quote:
I see that once again Tom you think that because the US established some sort of benchmark it should stand for all time
seriously Tom I doubt WWIII would have been fought in Europe. You stayed in Europe because the Soviets were expansionary and a definite threat, it had little to do with the war that had been won. What is happening in Iraq is different. You set up a government but the process has been highjacked by the Shiites, a predictable outcome since they are the majority population. But your idealistic approach lacked the wisdom of understanding the mind of the people, with no history of democracy they just drifted back to their old ways of suppressing and oppressing the opposition. An insurrection like ISIS can only gain strength when a population is oppressed, Bush's democratic utopia was not found or founded in Iraq. If Syria had not happened this would not have happened. Blame shiia Islam not Obama
Yes the Soviet threat was there .Still ,the Elysée Treaty between 2 mortal enemies ( ending a century long enmity between Germany and France ) was a necessary post war reconciliation and it would not have happened if we did not nuture it .Quote:
You stayed in Europe because the Soviets were expansionary and a definite threat, it had little to do with the war that had been won
Hmmm! force it more likely and the aftermath, the EU, like we really needed that.
What I see is that your meddling accounts for a lot of what is wrong in the world, I'm glad you stayed out of Syria and if Iraq falls as a consequence it will be because the people want it that way.
You have to get this in perspective, the Middle East will be fought over for centuries as it has in centuries past, why eludes us except to say the arabs are revolting, a many faceted truth
I already addressed the reason .Since our idiot leaders refuse to make a major push to energy independence ,then securing the world's energy supply is a national security concern. We cannot allow jihadistan to have a steady source of oil wealth to pay for their war against the non-Islamic world .
really, you have alturistic motives and all this time I thought it was about profit
I make no money from the oil industry . But every industry in American depends on a steady source of energy.
why use your own resources when yuo can profit from someoneelse
because you then become dependent on them .
as an example .... June 3 ,just days before the ISIS launched it's offensive in northern Iraq , Putin invited Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal to see him and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Sochi .The Saudi Press Agency then reported June 10 that Lavrov and al-Faisal had a follow-up phone conversation to discuss a" Syrian settlement".
I don't think it is a coincidence that the offensive launched shortly after the meeting . Because of the threat imposed by the attack ,the price of the Breton crude shot up to $113 /bbl. which is in both Russia and the Saudi's interest . Having the US attention diverted from Ukraine also is in the Russian interests ....And, it's in the Saudi's interest to weaken Iraq and by extension Iran.
Why do we want to do any business with any of these skunks ? Because of energy dependence.
It's another mistake by a former President resurrected again! 275 (Military Advisers) troops are being sent to aid the embassy in (Saigon) Baghdad.
Obama Sends Troops to Assist Iraq Embassy, Weighs Strikes - Bloomberg
Carter's Economy
Nixon's coverups
FDR's CCC
What's next? Grant's Reconstruction?
it's all part of our rapprochement with the 12'ers in Tehran . The quid pro quo for their assistance in putting down the ISIS threat will be recognition of the legitimacy of the Persian nuke. ( I still predict that the emperor will do a Nixonian visit to Tehran before leaving office. ) .
that was a predictable outcome of our cut and run .Quote:
American intelligence on Iraq has eroded dramatically since Obama withdrew the last U.S. troops from the country at the end of 2011, according to the U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to discuss intelligence matters or internal policy discussions publicly.
Since then, they said, U.S. military and intelligence agencies increasingly have relied on the Iraqi military and government and on public sources for reporting on Sunni insurgent groups such as ISIL and Shiite militias, most of them backed by Iran. Many of the reports on Sunni groups, said two officials, have proved to be exaggerated, while those on Shiite forces and the role of Iran’s Quds Force and intelligence services in supporting them have been sketchy at best.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM. |