U.S. To seek death penalty for Guantanamo prisoners with 9-11 ties

Originally posted by BlueRaja

My assumptions are based much closer to reality than some of the assumptions that get posted here. The blind hatred of anything Bush has caused a total lack of objectivity, that is painfully obvious to those with any other view points. It's an institutional myopia. You all don't know the first thing about what evidence exists, yet have the gall to try to speak with some authority on the subject, speaking in absolute terms.

What you are saying is this. Lock people up because others think those people are guilty, detain them indefinitely, and then given them a kangeroo court hearing, in which they are already found guilty, subject to sentencing, and no proof required. That is the same way the Bush administration thinks and acts.

Would that be OK if another country's people or this country's people treated you the same way? Or would you be screaming foul from day one it happened?

If you were waterboarded, would that be torture?

Originally posted by OrionStars

What you are saying is this. Lock people up because others think those people are guilty, detain them indefinitely, and then given them a kangeroo court hearing, in which they are already found guilty, subject to sentencing, and no proof required. That is the same way the Bush administration thinks and acts.

Would that be OK if another country's people or this country's people treated you the same way? Or would you be screaming foul from day one it happened?

If you were waterboarded, would that be torture?

A- you are ASSUMING that they are being held based solely on opinion or forced confessions.

B- they will be tried, and the tribunal will look at the evidence. If they find it compelling then they will come to a verdict which may or may not be the death penalty.

C- give the waterboarding a rest

Originally posted by BlueRaja

A- you are ASSUMING that they are being held based solely on opinion or forced confessions.

B- they will be tried, and the tribunal will look at the evidence. If they find it compelling then they will come to a verdict which may or may not be the death penalty.

C- give the waterboarding a rest

Why on C? Is the thought of it happening to you uncomfortable for you? It is a major part of the reason those detainees are being held without due process - tortured "confessions".

Yes, I always suppose a person innocent until proved guilty. You keep telling us you do not.

You have a great deal of chutzpah to accuse anyone else of assuming anything, when you stated you did nothing but assume guilt until proved innocent or not proved innocent.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by OrionStars]

reply to post by BlueRaja

My assumptions are based much closer to reality than some of the assumptions that get posted here. The blind hatred of anything Bush has caused a total lack of objectivity, that is painfully obvious to those with any other view points. It's an institutional myopia. You all don't know the first thing about what evidence exists, yet have the gall to try to speak with some authority on the subject, speaking in absolute terms.

Not everyone here has always hated Bush, but he earned it. No one knows what evidence, if any, exists. That's the whole point. After holding prisoners in Gitmo for years, the finally decide to release some of them, because they didn't do anything wrong!

The only "absolute terms" I speak in are core American values of a true Patriot, not an apologist for the Skull and Bones of America.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by BlueRaja

A- you are ASSUMING that they are being held based solely on opinion or forced confessions.

B- they will be tried, and the tribunal will look at the evidence. If they find it compelling then they will come to a verdict which may or may not be the death penalty.

C- give the waterboarding a rest

Why on C? Is the thought of it happening to you uncomfortable for you? It is a major part of the reason those detainees are being held without due process - tortured "confessions".

Yes, I always suppose a person innocent until proved guilty. You keep telling us you do not.

You have a great deal of chutzpah to accuse anyone else of assuming anything, when you stated you did nothing but assume guilt until proved innocent or not proved innocent.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by OrionStars]

You're still assuming that the only evidence that exists is as a result of forced confessions. Waterboarding was never a standard procedure in interrogation- in fact it has been used in only 3 of the cases being discussed, and was last used 5yrs ago, right after 9/11. Every detainee knows that all they need to do to win over the left is to claim that they were tortured, weren't permitted to pray/read the Koran, watch cable TV, etc..
They haven't been convicted yet, so you're still the one assuming. The fact that they're at Gitmo is due to some evidence. What's being established is the level of guilt, not the existence of guilt.