Posted on 01/12/2008 11:17:25 AM PST by khnyny
Yes, there are consequences, but it looks like Huckabee has the audacity to say anything if he thinks that will get him one more vote.
Their legal status isn't determined by their location
The truth is that whether we try them in civilian courts, courts martial, ad hoc military tribunals, or not at all, the al Qaeda and at least some of the Taliban captives may be too dangerous ever to be released. Assuming that many or most of them will not be subject to the death penalty, that commits the United States to detaining them indefinitely. The Administration's response to this problem is to deem the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters unlawful combatants who are not entitled to anything better than indefinite detention. As we have seen, the contention that these fighters are unlawful combatants is based upon a plausible reading of the Geneva Convention. Indeed, it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion when applying the Geneva Convention's four-part test to al Qaeda fighters.
As long as they are unlawful combatants, nothing changes. Closing Guantanamo is a political, not a legal decision.
Waterboarding is torture. It is designed to scare the bejezus out of someone to think they are going to die. It is directly equivalent (only worse) to putting an empty gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger (which is illegal). Now we can argue that it is necessary, but the constitution and treaties to which we are signatories prohibit it. I am for torturing AQ, but not for torturing you guys who disagree with me. Unfortunately, if you allow government to determine who gets tortured and who doesn't eventually we all get tortured. It's like letting a Clinton administration interpret what keep and bear arms means. You want torture, pass a constitutional amendment allowing cruel and unusual punishment.
Romney mentioned Huck’s statements re Guantanamo the other night in the debate, IIRC, but there was no rebuttal by Huck or follow-up by the moderators.
I say let’s just throw them in a room and let them all have at it, lol. We’d probably get more information on their actual positions on issues.
Ok, what should be done then?
History:
Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine, the top-ranked Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was against any plan that would move people he called terrorists to American communities.
After a committee meeting Thursday, Hunter released a list of 17 U.S. facilities that he said were being considered to house the detainees. They include multiple locations in California as well as other states.
“Many of these terrorists held at Guantánamo have killed or threatened Americans,” Hunter said. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted earlier this month to masterminding the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11.”
Hunter on video/Guantanamo
http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/mike-huckabee-stands-with-the-aclu-on-guantanamo/
You are absolutely wrong:
those at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights, they are not covered by RFRA because they are not “persons” in the constitutional sense, she wrote. (The ruling that the detainees have no constitutional rights is now under review by the Supreme Court in two pending cases on detainees’ legal rights, Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196).
Once on US soil they are considered "persons" covered by the US Constitution. So yes, their legal status under the US Constitution does change once they are on US soil.
Thanks for ruining my fun, lol./s
While searching the internet for Huckabee’s Gitmo trip I found this story. LOL. Huckabees set up gift registry.
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/172962/
First, thank you for a civil response :0)
I think Huck has a lot to learn. He thinks that closing Gitmo would help our image in the world. It wouldn't in my opinion. Gitmo is just an excuse to hate us. I also would personally torture terrorists if given a chance, but the Constitution prohibits it. That's why the interogation tapes were destroyed in my opinion. It can be argued theoretically that it isn't torture over coffee, but to see it would make it clear that it is.
Do you want to know what I would do as king of the world, or what I believe Huck would do?
D**m. That’s just poor-white- trashy, tacky, and petty.
Sorry. :)
Why, there's a BIG difference between the two!
It's so simple that many overlook it.
Bill Clinton is a Democrat and Huckabee is a Republican! /s
Hey, I always try to be civil, don’t always succeed, but I try. One of the reasons I try is because I think we’re all Americans here (for the most part) and we care about this country and the world. We may have differing views re policy and personalities, but that’s ok. Imho, mutual respect is the only way we can accomplish anything.
I was interested in your ideas/solutions. I understand your concerns re the Constitution and torture. Trust me, I “get it”. We’re walking a dangerous tightrope. That being said, let me share something with you. I’ve talked to people, people who should know what they’re talking about, (at least a wee bit, don’t get alarmed) who say it’s not just a matter of if a dirty bomb goes off in an American city, but when.
A POTUS’ first obligation is to protect the American people.
Why would any governor visit Gitmo if their directive as a governor is to promote the state that they govern?
Perhaps he had a vision of promoting the economy of Arkansas by drumming up Gitmo business by convincing the residence of Gitmo that Arkansas has much to offer?
A well put statement khnyny.
Federalism is what keeps us a free society via Constitutional dictate.
We aren't 50 united states just because it looks good on a map after all.
I agree. The question is then, to torture or not to torture. If I was a devout Christian, I would say it is never right to torture. That's what I think Huck's position is. The rest are supposedly strict constitutionalists. Since we have an amendment that prohibits torture, we as a nation need to decide if it has to changed. If so, there is a constitutional process for doing it. It is a very hard thing to say, but a hundred dirty bombs aren't worth trashing the constitution. Trashing the constituion is the same as defeat.
is it just me, or is there a glaring red flag in this quote!!!
good article. The Huckabees do seem to be fond of gifts! Bet the wrapping paper really flys at their house Christmas morning. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.