Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

ddukded1@cox.net — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:43:18 GMT

I think they should not be tried in a U.S. court. I spent over 20years protecting this country and see we are giving more rights to non U.S. people, then the one's trying to destroy it. We need judges that believe in the U.S and not rewrite history to fit their LIBERAL view.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

Pat, Cheyenne WY — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:54:07 GMT

Interesting. I am tired of hearing the anti-Bush people accuse the US government of "torture". Whatever tactics we use at Gitmo do not scare these people. They laugh at us. What they're really afraid of is being sent back to their homelands. That should should tell you which culture values human rights the least.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

john male — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:17:32 GMT

Hi

Surprising that this article does not mention the person who was placed in Gitmo as a teenager. Very doubtful some who was 15 could be considered a High value prisoner.

Basically the US has locked up a juvenile for 6 years. Mind you my own country Canada finds the teenager too hard to deal with on our own, so we let him languish in Gitmo.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

j.j. Atlanta — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:23:32 GMT

Why don't you ask the persons responsible for detaining these detainees who is more mistreated? The Medical care is first rate, many have never seen a dentist before. Most detainees gain 30+ pounds eating 3 meals a day, which they never have before. They pray 5 times a day. The detainees treat those caring for them very poorly; splattering nurses and other care givers with a cocktail of 1, 2 and 3. Yes, the detainees even masterbate onto those trying to keep them healthy or protect them in court. Ask the soldiers and sailors...show that on night line.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

Mike in Sac — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:07:14 GMT

Pat,

It isn't just anti-Bush people saying the US has tortured some of these people, water-boarding and all that. It is also moderates, independents, and some republicans.

They say it because it is true. Some just think it is OK. Like McCain even though he was tortured. Boy is that amazing.

Of course these people are afraid to get sent home if they are going to be tortured or killed. Wouldn't you be afraid? Which is it? Are they laughing at us or afraid? Seems you can't have both.

The decision by the Supreme Court is a landmark in turning around the habitual violations of the constitution that the current administration has pursued.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

Luke Gilmore, Portland, Oregon — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:11:41 GMT

Bush propaganda. Everyone deserves a fair and impartial trial. Our Constitution has been violated for the last 7 years. When we respect human rights, it makes us safer- not in any way more threatened. The excuse that their countries do not want them is absolutely no reason to deny these individuals a trial. Who knows, maybe some of them are innocent- now that would be a novel concept- innocent until proven guilty.
Bush/Cheney probably didn't attend that course.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

Walter Lippmann, Los Angeles, California — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:12:00 GMT

We can see the system of justice which Washington would impose on the rest of the island if it were able to get its hands on it.

It seems to me that those who've been held without any charge for all these years should be allowed to come and live in the United States if they want to as their home governments would wonder what had become of them during all their years under the custody of the United States.

Thanks for your report.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

Ted, Portland Oregon — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:24:59 GMT

If the Bush administration had observed the rule of law, this continuing disaster would not have happened. For those who care, google these names: Murat Kurnaz or Khaled al-Masri. Read their stories, then ask yourself who are the terrorists. There is no doubt that our military must be able to detain enemy combatants in time of war without having to go to court to keep them locked up. So why is there no outrage at the Bush administration for compromising that principle by kidnapping innocent civilians far from the field of battle? Bad enough that their methods have been no different than those of the terrorists they are supposed to be protecting us from, but once you know a person is completely innocent (as in the case of Mr. Kurnaz) send him home, don't keep him incarcerated for 4 more years!

As a Republican, I resent deeply this botched 'war on terror', which has resulted in justifying and legitimizing a handful of despicable "entrepreneurs of mayhem" who cut people's heads off with kitchen knives, send women wearing dynamite to kill and maim children, and who are willing to murder people because of cartoon. But botch it they have!

George Bush has not only violated our own national security laws (a felony, and clearly a high-crime), he has demonstrated himself to be the most incompetent person ever to hold the Presidency. He has upstaged the Nazis by an endless series of human rights atrocities, some high profile, even more we never hear about. In spite of numerous specific warnings from our intelligence community concerning a potential civil-conflict and insurgency, he swaggered into Iraq thinking he could take out Saddam Hussein, and go home a hero. If anyone thinks he had considered the consequences of his actions any further than that, they haven't watched his famous fly-in to the aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, in May of 2003. He was wearing his flight clothes for that photo-op, but in retrospect, we now know the emperor had no clothes (or perhaps more accurately, he had no brains).

Now, today, we are losing the real war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, as these two groups have all but setup a new country of their own in the mountains of Pakistan. Every strategic initiative the Bush administration has tried has failed, and this most important one carries with it the risk that Al-Qaeda might soon take power in a country which already has nuclear weapons.

I am thankful for the 5 Justices on the Supreme Court who held for the Constitution after the 8 years battering it has taken at the hands of President Bush. I can only hope that one consequence of the ruling will be to expose the moral vacancy of this President, and his henchmen in Congress, notably Senator Graham and Senator McCain (who I contemplated voting for in November just a few weeks ago).

I want to know how many more like Mr. Kurnaz and Mr. al-Masri have been held there. When we reach the point where agents of the United States are routinely guilty of kidnapping, torture, and consignment of innocent civilians to what amounts to an American Gulag, those of us who fail to see it, and those who fail to speak up about it, don't deserve the blessings of liberty Thomas Jefferson wrote about so eloquently in 1776, and for which so many of our countryman have fought and died since then.

Who's staying, who's going at Gitmo

KYJurisDoctor, KY — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:41:10 GMT

While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."

I guess one can REASONABLY conclude that the Court's Majority knew where they wanted to end up, and proceeded to get there, however s-l-o-w-l-y they weaved their way through precedential minefield!

OsiSpeaks.com