Oh snap! re: Joe Biden vs. Bushie

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/...ran/index.html

"Sen. Joe Biden on Tuesday was incredulous over President Bush's statement that he learned only last week that a recent intelligence estimate says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "If that's true ... he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history." Biden said"

I love that the Dems are finally starting to show a little backbone. It's a little late, but I suppose better late than never.

[zcwilly]

Joe Biden is a pussy. There, I said it

Why??

He wants to give every terrorist overseas a US attorney a shot at trial, courtesy of the US taxpayer.
Voted YES on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

He doesn't think people who live and work in the USA should speak English.
Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)

He wants to hand every illegal alien a check when they get here, even though they haven't put one dollar in the system.
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

Oh and he is trying to score political brownie points.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

Joe Biden is a pussy. There, I said it

Why??

He wants to give every terrorist overseas a US attorney a shot at trial, courtesy of the US taxpayer.
Voted YES on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

Just a point of clarification...

foreign nationals captured on foreign soil held on foreign territory never had any habeus rights in the first place...

unless, of course, one thinks Nazi soldiers (lawful combatants) captured in France during WWII had habeus rights one cannot think unlawful soldiers captured in Afganistan have them....

Originally Posted by xian

Just a point of clarification...

foreign nationals captured on foreign soil held on foreign territory never had any habeus rights in the first place...

unless, of course, one thinks Nazi soldiers (lawful combatants) captured in France during WWII had habeus rights one cannot think unlawful soldiers captured in Afganistan have them....

Considering that they've been held there for years now with absolutely no proof of any wrongdoing or any end in sight, I do think they deserve some sort of trial with fair representation. That's a simple human rights issue because, the thing is, not all of them are soldiers. At this point, we don't even know *who* we have or for what reasons necessarily.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

Considering that they've been held there for years now with absolutely no proof of any wrongdoing or any end in sight, I do think they deserve some sort of trial with fair representation.

So do I. But they never had any habeus rights.

Originally Posted by xian

So do I. But they never had any habeus rights.

Well, yeah. Agreed.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

Well, yeah. Agreed.

sig'd

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by xian

Just a point of clarification...

foreign nationals captured on foreign soil held on foreign territory never had any habeus rights in the first place...

unless, of course, one thinks Nazi soldiers (lawful combatants) captured in France during WWII had habeus rights one cannot think unlawful soldiers captured in Afganistan have them....

Thanks for clarifying... they DO deserve a shot at trial, but not a trial that has the same public defender attorneys paid for by the US taxpayer and the same presumption of innocence as a common criminal or murderer (who often get off the hook with probation and tie up the court system for years) on US soil.

Originally Posted by zcwilly

Thanks for clarifying... they DO deserve a shot at trial, but not a trial that has the same public defender attorneys paid for by the US taxpayer and the same presumption of innocence as a common criminal or murderer (who often get off the hook with probation and tie up the court system for years) on US soil.

I think, first and foremost, they deserve to be informed what they're being held for and why. There needs to be a review on a case by case basis to determine if there's enough evidence to justify the detention. If there's not, they should be freed immediately. I think after that, the remaining prisoners at least deserve a hearing overseen by an unbiased third party to investigate the allegations and help determine a course of action. These people are in limbo right now and something has to be done, otherwise we're no better than the "uncivilized" governments we're supposed to be fighting against.

Oh, and I know this thread was supposed to be about Iran, but since it's veered off into this direction, here's an article that's on the front page of msnbc.com about the Supreme Court taking a look at Gitmo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22012138/

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

I think, first and foremost, they deserve to be informed what they're being held for and why.

Sure... for the overwhelming majority though ... there's no confusion

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

There needs to be a review on a case by case basis to determine if there's enough evidence to justify the detention.

presumably that was done when they were detained after shooting at American marines... if not that then presumeably the information provided by informants was vetted... if not either of those then... yeah... more facts would be good... but the threshold is going to be low

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

If there's not, they should be freed immediately.

Indeed... if they are of no intelligence use there is no need to hold them... send them home

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

I think after that, the remaining prisoners at least deserve a hearing overseen by an unbiased third party to investigate the allegations and help determine a course of action. These people are in limbo right now and something has to be done, otherwise we're no better than the "uncivilized" governments we're supposed to be fighting against.

this was addressed through a compromise between the Congress and Executive and the process continues

[zcwilly]

"Excuse me sir, you are being held because you were caught holding an EID trigger on the side of a dirt road in Afghanistan. Now can you please give me the name of your US appointed attorney so we may further this matter and give you the benefit of the doubt and possibly some community service?"

Please.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

"Excuse me sir, you are being held because you were caught holding an EID trigger on the side of a dirt road in Afghanistan. Now can you please give me the name of your US appointed attorney so we may further this matter and give you the benefit of the doubt and possibly some community service?"

Please

those guys should simply be beheaded on the spot while praising allah

Originally Posted by xian

this was addressed through a compromise between the Congress and Executive and the process continues

It was addressed, but there are still questions of how unbiased these hearings actually are.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

It was addressed, but there are still questions of how unbiased these hearings actually are.

there will always be those questions... however, the issues of constitutionality have been addressed by two branches who have agreed on a process... and frankly, my slight familiarity with military courts suggests that they will be treated fairly prior to allegations being proved up .... but harshly if convicted. I would be much happier to trust the integrity of a military jury if I was innocent than a civilian one. And much more frightened to face a military jry knowing I was guilty of the facts asserted if I faced a military jury. The sense of duty of integrity is greater, in general, imo, amongst the people I know who serve in our armed forced vs those who didn't find a way to escape jury duty.