The main reason to support "Enhanced Interrogations"

[Freedom4all]

So you would grant civil liberties to Abu Zubaydah who was captured in Karachi? You do know who he is right?There have been NO AMERICAN citizens that were subject to these enhanced interrogations. You are aware of that arent you?

Your Nazi comparison is is entertaining but not even close. You make it seem like there was wholesale roundup of American Islams, which there wasn't. Do you know what the term enemy combatant is?

Those caught on the battlefield are not subject to the same rights we enjoy my friend. If you think that then you have already surrendered to those who seek our destruction.

 

[Freedom4all]

If he is brought to trial in the United States then YES! He gets the same treatment as anyone else. Boumediene v. Bush seems to support my contention



Amusing perhaps, but plausable none the less. Our continuing to detain people indefinitely without affording them the most basic of due process, and fighting the courts endlessly on such matters, runs counter to our laws, our Constitution, and international law!



On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of "enemy combatant".

It appears that the issue has yet to be fully adjudicated, however this court decision was widely considered a "loss" for the Bush regime. It may be helpful to note that on February 20, 2009, the Obama Regime sided with the Bush Regime's interpretation of law when they argued to bar access to civil courts sought by enemy combatants held at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. On March 13, 2009 the Obama administration announced plans to phase out the term "enemy combatant"

Both the Bush & Obama regimes know they are on shaky legal ground and it seems to me like perhaps something is being hidden from the general public that would be damaging to both political parties.

I think we will have to just agree to disagree on this subject. There was far worse things done in the past then this and so far we have been kept safe as a result. We are not a nation of cowards like some have purposed.

 

[nuclearfission]

How is it Off topic? Enlighten me?

Enhanced Interrogations go directly to the safeguards afforded us in the Constitution. What's so confusing about that? Does it bother you that you've ne defense?

Piney, really......Connecting "enhanced interrogations" to the safeguards afforded US(emphasis added) in the US Constitution? The Constitution of the United States of America protects CITIZENS of the USA.......period. Not terrorists who want to kill you, your wife/children, me, and everyone else that does not believe in their saviour, Allah. Not the UN who wants to direct a (New) yea, right"World Order". Not the tin pot dictators of Cuba, Venezuala, N Korea. Not the "great" :unsure: country of Pakistan who are struggling to contain an Al Queda onslaught.....A country with NUKES, as I'm sure your aware.

You may want to revisit some history books on what took place when the Colonists' were fighting for Independence from the King......You know...couple hundred or so years ago?

We are the greatest country in the world, and a beacon for many, as you have said yourself. BUT, that does not mean that we cannot, and will not, do certain things that we have to do to survive as a nation. If that means putting a TERRORIST on a backboard....head tilted down...and pouring water over the face to simulate drowning...and gaining information on attacks.....that never happened since 9/11......then so be it.

WE ARE AT WAR! And until you understand that....I suppose we'll never agree....even to disagree.

GOOD DAY

 

[nuclearfission]

If he is brought to trial in the United States then YES! He gets the same treatment as anyone else. Boumediene v. Bush seems to support my contention



Amusing perhaps, but plausable none the less. Our continuing to detain people indefinitely without affording them the most basic of due process, and fighting the courts endlessly on such matters, runs counter to our laws, our Constitution, and international law!



On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of "enemy combatant".

It appears that the issue has yet to be fully adjudicated, however this court decision was widely considered a "loss" for the Bush regime. It may be helpful to note that on February 20, 2009, the Obama Regime sided with the Bush Regime's interpretation of law when they argued to bar access to civil courts sought by enemy combatants held at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. On March 13, 2009 the Obama administration announced plans to phase out the term "enemy combatant"

Both the Bush & Obama regimes know they are on shaky legal ground and it seems to me like perhaps something is being hidden from the general public that would be damaging to both political parties.

Piney, your turning into a computer.....Your starting to scare me :blink: This "regime"...that "regime"
Hey?? What Militia you belong to?? I want you on my team

 

[Freedom4all]

Obamy likes to say "We dont Torture" but is ok to kill innocent bystanders.

Clinton Says U.S. Deeply Regrets Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan