Date: 2010-01-08 10:13 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Wow, Supreme Court decisions are "anti-Bush spin" now?

I don't think anybody is arguing that there is not a legal definition called "Unlawful Enemy Combatant," and that many, if not most, of the Gitmo detainees meet the criteria.

What people object to are the following:

1. That a detainee's status as an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" means he is afforded no protections under the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, or any other applicable treaties or laws. References to case law have been provided to you demonstrating that this is not the case.

2. That all the detainees at Gitmo are "CLEARLY" unlawful combatants. The status of the detainees is a complicated issue, but just take a look at all the legal challenges, investigations, and allegations, and I think it's pretty damn crazy to pronounce they're "CLEARLY" anything. There's a lot of shit to sort through, here.

Also, I can't speak for anybody else, but I find the notion that the only yardstick for success is "being safer" to be completely disgusting. People who would casually toss aside individual civil liberties, the rule of law, and hell, basic human decency in order to feel safer are goddamned cowards. Why are so few people willing to stand up and say yes, those things are worth preserving, even if it's hard and expensive and dangerous?

Number 127
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

elfs: (Default)
Elf Sternberg

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
111213141516 17
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 18th, 2025 07:20 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios