Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama

[Psycho4Bud]

More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid.

The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to "restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community." The attorneys are representing the detainees in habeas corpus lawsuits, which are efforts to get individual hearings before federal judges in order to challenge the basis for their indefinite imprisonment without trial.
Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html)

Terrorists for Obama.....isn't that special?

Have a good one!:s4:

[thecurious1]

What's wrong with lawyers who believe in The United States Constitution?


Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Do you believe all people in prison are guilty? Believe all people being contained unlawfully are guilty?

I don't know about you ... but I get :wtf: when I see legislation passed that allows the government to label you a terrorist and put you "away" without any judicial oversight.

IMHO ... those lawyers are fighting an important cause.

[Psycho4Bud]

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

They aren't citizens of the U.S., where does it state that terrorists have equal rights to a U.S. taxpayer?

Have a good one!:s4:

[pisshead]

What's wrong with lawyers who believe in The United States Constitution?


Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Do you believe all people in prison are guilty? Believe all people being contained unlawfully are guilty?

I don't know about you ... but I get :wtf: when I see legislation passed that allows the government to label you a terrorist and put you "away" without any judicial oversight.

IMHO ... those lawyers are fighting an important cause.

exactly. we supposedly go into a country that we're liberating, round people up, detain them indefinitely without charge and without being able to face their accusers, and we're supposed to think that's liberation...

people say they're "terrorists" but don't we and shouldn't we have to prove that? isn't that what happens in a free country?

[melodious fellow]

Terrorists for Obama.....isn't that special?



That was really below the belt, bro...

[thecurious1]

They aren't citizens of the U.S., where does it state that terrorists have equal rights to a U.S. taxpayer?

Have a good one!:s4:


Ummm ... you do realize that the current legislation allows the government to detain its OWN people right? Not all people detained without jury are foreign terrorists.

Under current legislation the federal government can detain ANY person ... both foreign and domestic without the approval of a judge. They can hold that person without judicial review for as long as they like.

The lawyers aren't fighting for the rights of terrorists ... they're fighting for the check and balances our original government understood were important.

So what are you saying ... that's it ok for the US to "fight for global liberty" and push the development of a constitution on other governments ... while completely ignoring their own "constitution morale?

The US Constitution doesn't say "all Americans are created equal" or "we the Americans".
Either a government believes that all people are created equal and deserve basic rights (right to trial) ... or it doesn't.

And since when does asking for someone to have a fair trial the same as supporting what they may or may not have done?
Those lawyers are fighting on principle, not because they support terrorism. It's pretty obvious.

[pisshead]

And since when does asking for someone to have a fair trial the same as supporting what they may or may not have done?
Those lawyers are fighting on principle, not because they support terrorism. It's pretty obvious.

Yes, you'd think that would be pretty obvious...

[melodious fellow]

Yes, you'd think that would be pretty obvious...

Exactly. When the best solution is obvious, Americans seem to run as far away as possible.

Like the metric system.

[melodious fellow]

Exactly. When the answer is obvious, Americans seem to run as far away as possible.

Like the metric system.


I meant to type "answer" instead of "best solution" in the original

I was high as a bitch.... apologies :D

:rastasmoke:

[Psycho4Bud]

Ummm ... you do realize that the current legislation allows the government to detain its OWN people right? Not all people detained without jury are foreign terrorists.

PLEASE post a link.........

Have a good one!:s4:

[melodious fellow]

PLEASE post a link.........

Have a good one!:s4:

Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006)

They just call you an enemy combatant, throw you in prison forever with no trial and never tell you what you are accused of...

[Psycho4Bud]

Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006)

They just call you an enemy combatant, throw you in prison forever with no trial and never tell you what you are accused of...

Sorry but if that's it, it's not much of an argument to stand on. I read the entire thing over and to feel that this applies to "Joe civilian" walking down the streets in the U.S. is crazy.

Have a good one!:s4:

[melodious fellow]

Sorry but if that's it, it's not much of an argument to stand on. I read the entire thing over and to feel that this applies to "Joe civilian" walking down the streets in the U.S. is crazy.



Here ya go, bro!

"The Act may apply to U.S. citizens

In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, â??I am a U.S. citizenâ?�. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[25]

One has described the Act as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment"â??referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged.[26] A legal brief filed on Padilla's behalf alleges that during his imprisonment Padilla was subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[27] He continues to be held by the United States.

According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is

engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.

This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because

it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.

As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens.[28] Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, responds to the comment that habeas corpus has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that, using the current sweeping definition of war on terror and unlawful combatant, it is impossible to know where the battlefield is and who combatants are. Also, she notes that most of the detentions are already unlawful.[29]

The Act also suggests that unlawful enemy combatant refers to any person

who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that if the President says you are an enemy combatant, then you effectively are.[30]

* Patrick Leahy, United States Senator:

Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourseâ??is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill. [31].

[dragonrider]

Ummm ... you do realize that the current legislation allows the government to detain its OWN people right? Not all people detained without jury are foreign terrorists.

Under current legislation the federal government can detain ANY person ... both foreign and domestic without the approval of a judge. They can hold that person without judicial review for as long as they like.

The lawyers aren't fighting for the rights of terrorists ... they're fighting for the check and balances our original government understood were important.

So what are you saying ... that's it ok for the US to "fight for global liberty" and push the development of a constitution on other governments ... while completely ignoring their own "constitution morale?

The US Constitution doesn't say "all Americans are created equal" or "we the Americans".
Either a government believes that all people are created equal and deserve basic rights (right to trial) ... or it doesn't.

And since when does asking for someone to have a fair trial the same as supporting what they may or may not have done?
Those lawyers are fighting on principle, not because they support terrorism. It's pretty obvious.

I agree with you 100%. This is not about the rights of terrorists, this is about the rights of me and you. When other countries do what we are doing, we call it a violation of basic human rights. We need to restore our constitutional rights.

It may be apropriate to suspend Habaeus Corpus in times of extreme emergency, but we are more than six years past 9/11! We may still have a so-called "War on Terror" under way, but the emergency is over! The government has created a state of perpetual emergency. It reminds me of something you hear of happening in Cuba or some other communist or fascist state --- "You'll get your rights back when the Revolution is complete, when the emergency is over, when the danger has passed." They want to use our fear to extend these extraordinary powers indefinitely. Is it necessary to destroy our country in order to save it? I do not buy the conspiracy theories that we are coming under some kind of a fascist regime, but some of the aparatus of fascism is now in place. Whether you think our government is abusing that aparatus or not --- it is in place and avaialble for abuse. That's dangerous.

In regards to the rights of non-citizens, it may be that American constitutional protections do not legally apply to foreigners. But they must come under some jurisdiction. The government argues that they are not Americans, so Habaeus Corpus does not apply. And they say they are not truly members of a foreign army, so the Geneva conventions do not apply. Their status is undetermined, so no rights apply whatsoever. It's been six years --- their status should be determined by now! I don't want to see these people set free any more than anyone else if they really are terrorists, but we can't just declare that they are terrorists and lock them up for their whole lives. This country used to stand for freedom and liberty and basic human dignity. We are losing that.

[Psycho4Bud]

Padilla was convicted in August, along with Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifadh Wael Jayyousi [profiles], of conspiracy to commit illegal violent acts outside the US, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists. Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and subsequently detained as an "enemy combatant" [JURIST news archive] at a Navy military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Initially alleged to have planned the explosion of a "dirty bomb" in the United States, Padilla went from enemy combatant to criminal defendant when he was finally charged with other offenses in November 2005.
JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal judge refuses to rule out life sentence for Padilla, co-conspirators (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/federal-judge-refuses-to-rule-out-life.php)

This is NOT "Joe Citizen".........sorry but I could really give a shit less about these types of peoples rights.

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

Padilla was convicted in August, along with Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifadh Wael Jayyousi [profiles], of conspiracy to commit illegal violent acts outside the US, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists. Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and subsequently detained as an "enemy combatant" [JURIST news archive] at a Navy military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Initially alleged to have planned the explosion of a "dirty bomb" in the United States, Padilla went from enemy combatant to criminal defendant when he was finally charged with other offenses in November 2005.
JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal judge refuses to rule out life sentence for Padilla, co-conspirators (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/federal-judge-refuses-to-rule-out-life.php)

This is NOT "Joe Citizen".........sorry but I could really give a shit less about these types of peoples rights.

Have a good one!:s4:

The point is that he was finally charged, tried, and convicted. Now it's OK to lock him up. Everyone agrees with that --- may he rot.

But there was a huge legal fight to get him his trial. The Constitution does not allow the government to lock a US citizen up for three years without charging them with a crime --- this isn't fucking North Korea. We don't just call someone an enemy of the state and toss them in prison without access to the legal system. If they had evidence he was going to blow up a dirty bomb, then that's clearly a crime, and we should get about the business of trying him and putting him away. But if they don't have evidence to try him, then why should we trust that he really committed a crime? "Trust us, we can't prove it in court, but believe us, he was gonna do something bad." That's not good enough.

Don't be so fast to throw away your rights. Go very far down that path, and soon you'll have the cops kicking down your door and tossing you in prison for trafficing weed. Yeah, I'm talking about YOU. They might not be able to prove it, and it might not even be true, but I think it could be argued that there's a good chance you're somehow involved in something illegal if you're so involved with this site. "Can't prove it, but can we take a chance with this guy? Believe us, he was up to something. Better not let him talk to a lawyer, or they'll pull some kind of "technicality" like Habaeus Corpus on us. A few days of waterboarding, and he'll admit he gets his shit from the Taliban."

I like my rights. I don't want to give up mine just so we can take away Jose Padilla's.

[Psycho4Bud]

I like my rights. I don't want to give up mine just so we can take away Jose Padilla's.

This is a new age of terrorism.....unfortunately this type of thing is a must. IF we give these people the sames rights as us they'll bleed the system dry.

The ONLY ones that'll come out ahead are the lawyers. They don't give a rats ass about me, you, or Jose'........just about their fat pockets.

Have a good one!:s4:

[melodious fellow]

"If you are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, you will lose both and deserve neither"


"If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump right out. But if you slowly turn up the heat, you will boil the frog."

The great words of Ben Franklin. Damn, what a crazy cool place this would be if we still gave a shit about the way the founders intended this country to work.

[Psycho4Bud]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Founding Fathers lived in a time where there were no missiles, dirty bombs, suicide attacks, etc.. The one sentence in our Preamble that is highlighted makes a statement. "Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". IF the Founding Fathers had the same set of circumstances that we live in today, I think that the security of the nation would be first and foremost on their minds.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Breukelen advocaat]

I'll go out on a limb and postulate that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have needed to restrict the rights of American citizens if our country had been threatened by these jihadistic baboons. They would have destroyed every last remnant of their religious extremist worlds before it got to the point of having to enforce new laws aimed at the general population of America.

[Dutch Pimp]

"The needs of the many...out weigh the needs of the few"???-Spock

[melodious fellow]

I'll go out on a limb and postulate that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have needed to restrict the rights of American citizens if our country had been threatened by these jihadistic baboons. They would have destroyed every last remnant of their religious extremist worlds before it got to the point of having to enforce new laws aimed at the general population of America.

I will go out on a limb and guess they wouldn't need to participate in false flag terrorism either : )

[Breukelen advocaat]

I will go out on a limb and guess they wouldn't need to participate in false flag terrorism either : )

They wouldn't have needed to participate in "false flag" anything, but I'm not convinced that the threat of terrorism is a "false flag" myself. Maybe where you live it's not much of a threat, but for many of us it is. If a low-risk state such as Alaska does not want to participate in avoiding terrorism because they are not in a position of being a likely target, they should be excluded from receiving homeland security funding and protection so that the monies could be better appropriated to states that do need it, such as New York.

[medicinal]

More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees
I am so sad to see you calling these individuals terrorists. You must not be capable of distinguishing between lawyers for the defense and the defendants. And BTW none of these detainees have been proven to be terrorists yet, Have they?

[melodious fellow]

They wouldn't have needed to participate in "false flag" anything, but I'm not convinced that the threat of terrorism is a "false flag" myself. Maybe where you live it's not much of a threat, but for many of us it is. If a low-risk state such as Alaska does not want to participate in avoiding terrorism because they are not in a position of being a likely target, they should be excluded from receiving homeland security funding and protection so that the monies could be better appropriated to states that do need it, such as New York.

I don't really live in Alaska... yet

I was referring to the fact that our government just let 9/11 happen right under their nose... "O wow, look, an excuse to invade Iraq... the American people won't notice if we invade a different country than the one that harbored the terrorists that attacked us, as long as it is in the middle east they won't know the difference." :D

[Breukelen advocaat]

I don't really live in Alaska... yet

I was referring to the fact that our government just let 9/11 happen right under their nose... "O wow, look, an excuse to invade Iraq... the American people won't notice if we invade a different country than the one that harbored the terrorists that attacked us, as long as it is in the middle east they won't know the difference." :D

If it is true that the government "let it happen right under their nose", as in knowing that it was going to happen and doing nothing to prevent it, then there is reason for impeachment of, and criminal proceedings against, our leaders. I don't believe that the government knew exactly what was going to happen, or assisted it, but I do think that they took advantage of the situation in order get public support for an invasion of Iraq.

My own personal opinion is that we should have started boycotting Middle Eastern oil until bin laden was caught and the terrorist organizations were eliminated by the countries that they operate out of.

[melodious fellow]

My own personal opinion is that we should have started boycotting Middle Eastern oil until bin laden was caught and the terrorist organizations were eliminated by the countries that they operate out of.

Yea, I wonder why we didn't just boycott middle eastern oil?

[Breukelen advocaat]

Yea, I wonder why we didn't just boycott middle eastern oil?
Because Bush & Co. are in the business of making oil money.

The main argument against a Middle Eastern oil bocott is that it does not matter, because other countries would gladly buy all the excess oil that the Arabs can pump.

Bin laden had said numerous times that he and his supporters would cease their attack plans against the United States if we cut off all dealings with the corrupt Middle Eastern regimes. I believe that he would keep his promise. If we did that, the oil sheiks would have to go elsewhere - mainly to China and Inda. Now the terrorists would have new targets. You don't fuck with the Chinese. If the terrorists tried any attacks against the Chinese, they'd hang them from meathooks, burn down the villages that they came from, and slaughter everybody in the area. That would be the beginning of the end of Islamofascist terrorism, you can be sure of that, and we wouldn't have to lose any more American lives in the process.