another guantanamo releas-ee "goes off"....

[gardenweasel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2/22/AR2009022202384.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

and the washington post figures out a way to blame it on the u.s....

shocker!...lol

the wash. post/"But there is also a view in some quarters of the U.S. government" yadda yadda yadda......

ah, those elusive "some".... as in "some believe that..."....that's what libs call "rock solid journalism"...

well,"some" people i i know think this is bullshit....lol

according to standard ultra-lib logic, there are no voluntary criminals, terrorists, or any other bad folks...all their evil deeds are triggered when we mistreat them. ...osama bin laden is just responding to american imperialism....and all his drones had their feelings hurt, somewhere along the way......

if we hadn't locked this guy up, he never would have done a thing....:grins: ....


boy, I can't wait until they close that place altogether and the world loves us yet again....:lol:

/moonbat mode off:142smilie

this is just the beginning...many more to come...

 

[rusty]

Weas ,this otta make them stay passive.Or who knows maybe retaliate?:shrug:

Knew Bush was a lie,but know hes a criminal to:shrug: go figure!:mj07:

Bush-era memo claims unfettered rendition powers

WASHINGTON ? A newly released Bush administration legal memo from 2002 claimed that the president has an unfettered right to transfer suspected terrorists to other governments without regard for whether they would be subject to torture.

The memo appears to underpin the Bush administration's use of extraordinary rendition, a secret program of moving terror detainees to nations where they were imprisoned and, in some cases, reportedly tortured.

The document is one of nine made public Monday detailing the Bush administration's expansive definition of presidential power.

When the memo was written on March 13, 2002, the White House legal office had already decided that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees were not protected by the Geneva Conventions, the international treaty the governs the treatment of prisoners of war.

The Obama White House is reviewing the entire detention and rendition program.

CIA Director Leon Panetta has said the United States will continue to engage in extraordinary rendition but will use it rarely and will be more selective about the countries prisoners are sent to. Some of the prisoners who have been transferred by the United States to other countries claim they were tortured.

The memo on extraordinary rendition, written by Jay S. Bybee, then assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel, further said that prisoners held outside the United States were not protected by U.S. laws against torture, nor against an international treaty banning torture.

The Bybee memo also said that a 1998 law making it U.S. policy not to hand over prisoners to country where they may be tortured was invalid because it unconstitutionally interferes with presidential powers.

However, the possibility that prisoners might be tortured after a transfer to another government outside the criminal justice system appeared to be on the minds of George W. Bush's White House lawyers. The memo suggested ways to U.S. officials could transfer prisoners to countries where they may indeed be tortured without making them legally liable for their treatment.

"To fully shield our personnel from criminal liability, it is important that the United States not enter in an agreement with a foreign country, explicitly or implicitly, to transfer a detainee to that country for the purpose of having the individual tortured," Bybee wrote.

"So long as the United States doe not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer, however, no criminal liability will attach to a transfer even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him," he wrote.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, said the memo, taken with the others released Monday, shows the White House used the war on terror to claim broad powers.

"These memos were meant to provide the president with a blank check with respect to the rights of not only prisoners overseas but people in the United States as well," he said.

Steven Bradbury, the Bush administration's last principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a Jan. 15 parting memo that the expansive findings about presidential powers had long since been superseded or withdrawn.

 

[gardenweasel]

Weas ,this otta make them stay passive.Or who knows maybe retaliate?:shrug:

Knew Bush was a lie,but know hes a criminal to:shrug: go figure!:mj07:

Bush-era memo claims unfettered rendition powers

WASHINGTON ? A newly released Bush administration legal memo from 2002 claimed that the president has an unfettered right to transfer suspected terrorists to other governments without regard for whether they would be subject to torture.

The memo appears to underpin the Bush administration's use of extraordinary rendition, a secret program of moving terror detainees to nations where they were imprisoned and, in some cases, reportedly tortured.

The document is one of nine made public Monday detailing the Bush administration's expansive definition of presidential power.

When the memo was written on March 13, 2002, the White House legal office had already decided that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees were not protected by the Geneva Conventions, the international treaty the governs the treatment of prisoners of war.

The Obama White House is reviewing the entire detention and rendition program.

CIA Director Leon Panetta has said the United States will continue to engage in extraordinary rendition but will use it rarely and will be more selective about the countries prisoners are sent to. Some of the prisoners who have been transferred by the United States to other countries claim they were tortured.

The memo on extraordinary rendition, written by Jay S. Bybee, then assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel, further said that prisoners held outside the United States were not protected by U.S. laws against torture, nor against an international treaty banning torture.

The Bybee memo also said that a 1998 law making it U.S. policy not to hand over prisoners to country where they may be tortured was invalid because it unconstitutionally interferes with presidential powers.

However, the possibility that prisoners might be tortured after a transfer to another government outside the criminal justice system appeared to be on the minds of George W. Bush's White House lawyers. The memo suggested ways to U.S. officials could transfer prisoners to countries where they may indeed be tortured without making them legally liable for their treatment.

"To fully shield our personnel from criminal liability, it is important that the United States not enter in an agreement with a foreign country, explicitly or implicitly, to transfer a detainee to that country for the purpose of having the individual tortured," Bybee wrote.

"So long as the United States doe not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer, however, no criminal liability will attach to a transfer even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him," he wrote.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, said the memo, taken with the others released Monday, shows the White House used the war on terror to claim broad powers.

"These memos were meant to provide the president with a blank check with respect to the rights of not only prisoners overseas but people in the United States as well," he said.

Steven Bradbury, the Bush administration's last principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a Jan. 15 parting memo that the expansive findings about presidential powers had long since been superseded or withdrawn.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

how`s that grab ya`,rusty?...

/and these are the "innocent" ones being set free:lol: ..... just wait....

 

[rusty]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

how`s that grab ya`,rusty?...

/and these are the "innocent" ones being set free:lol: ..... just wait....

Everytime you counterpost its garbage.I read it and first of the war on terror was in its early stages and 2nd the article states that Clinton asked if any suspects were being treated fairly.

Then it states that things "Changed"under the Bush administration.Dont think Clinton was handed a blank check.Kinda like comparing apples to oranges no..?

Not trying to disagree to disagree ,but sounds like Bush went overboard no?:shrug:

 

[Turk 58]

Torture the hell out of them if it saves one American civilian or solider

 

[gardenweasel]

Everytime you counterpost its garbage.I read it and first of the war on terror was in its early stages and 2nd the article states that Clinton asked if any suspects were being treated fairly.

:

bwahahaha...:mj07:

"Clinton asked if any suspects were being treated fairly."....
""And we answered, 'yes, we're 'fairly' sure'."...

well theres your checks and balances...:142smilie

that`s rich,rusty....

you know who sandy berger is?...:142smilie

of couse to the "rustys" of the world, gitmo made them do it.....

one small problem,bud....then how do you explain 9-11, when at 8:30 a.m. on sept. 11, 2001, the fuehrer bush had yet to open gitmo, invade iraq, or abu ghirab?....

rusty`s response/"easy one,weas.... down is up, black is white, good is evil, and evil is good"........

thanks for the yuks,partner...:grins:

 

[rusty]

bwahahaha...:mj07:

"Clinton asked if any suspects were being treated fairly."....
""And we answered, 'yes, we're 'fairly' sure'."...

well theres your checks and balances...:142smilie

that`s rich,rusty....

you know who sandy berger is?...:142smilie

of couse to the "rustys" of the world, gitmo made them do it.....

one small problem,bud....then how do you explain 9-11, when at 8:30 a.m. on sept. 11, 2001, the fuehrer bush had yet to open gitmo, invade iraq, or abu ghirab?....

rusty`s response/"easy one,weas.... down is up, black is white, good is evil, and evil is good"........

thanks for the yuks,partner...:grins:

My point is Bush had hidden adjendas.Somehow under the extraordinary redition Clinton may of used it,but did he abuse it??

 

[rusty]

Torture the hell out of them if it saves one American civilian or solider

I would suspect that a toutured prisioner,would only increase hostilities overseas.Thats just my opinion.Me personally detain but refrain.

 

[gardenweasel]

it all makes perfect sense...because the natural reaction for a normal law abiding person to being wrongly locked up for committing a crime is to go out and actually commit that crime when you are released.......:yup


:mj03:

 

[Turk 58]

In tell we get on the same level of this terrorist we will lose. They will kill are women, children and anyone Else who disagrees with there believe.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

I think we should lock Turk up for seven years without anything more than "possible terrorist" as a reasoning. We'll release him, and see what happens. Anyone else game?

Turk: Please don't respond. You don't have a say.

 

[rusty]

In tell we get on the same level of this terrorist we will lose. They will kill are women, children and anyone Else who disagrees with there believe.

What are we barbarians!:nono:
Fight what there against,but not on there level.
Does Abu Ghraib ring a bell.

 

[gardenweasel]

yeah...give them the same constitutional rights as american citizens....

" "We cannot ask other nations to stand by us in the pursuit of justice if we are not viewed as being in pursuit of that ideal ourselves," he added.

of course...we wouldn`t want the islamists to change their staunch stance in defense of the rights of the americans,russians,turks,nepalese etc that they`ve captured....

wouldn`t want to jeopardize that by by "pouring water" on their faces in an effort to possibly save 1,000`s of innocent lives....

and who can argue with their civil rights record?...it`s well documented...

(check the bottom of the page on the first link to experience a real time reality check) .....

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/046686.php


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/russian-hostages-beheaded-by-al-qaeda.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6172.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islatroc.htm

[/eric holder and the obama administration...3 fries short of a happy meal...

 

[kosar]

In tell we get on the same level of this terrorist we will lose. They will kill are women, children and anyone Else who disagrees with there believe.

Where's Saint when we need him?

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Where's Saint when we need him?

Does Saint know a 3rd grade English teacher he can sick on Turk?

 

[Turk 58]

gmroz22 what's 38% of 1 million ?

 

[jer-z jock]

In tell we get on the same level of this terrorist we will lose. They will kill are women, children and anyone Else who disagrees with there believe.

Maybe you havent seen the numbers for the innocent slaughtered during the occupation, but we are and have been at that level for awhile. Are you suggesting only uniformed soldiers and insurgents have been killed over there by us

 

[Turk 58]

I hope we kill a shit load more during the occupation. Hey how many buddies do you have that are taken part in the occupation? I have four that have done aleast two tours or more. Don't give me sum bullshit on what going on. Oh it must be because msnbc said so.

 

[gardenweasel]

and who can argue with their civil rights record?...it`s well documented...

(check the bottom of the page on the first link to experience a real time reality check) .....

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/046686.php


:

btw.."chopping the head off" is a misnomer....it`s more like "sawing" the head off slowly and deliberately....

chopping would be merciful compared to what`s happening to that"detainee"...

 

[rusty]

btw.."chopping the head off" is a misnomer....it`s more like "sawing" the head off slowly and deliberately....

chopping would be merciful compared to what`s happening to that"detainee"...

Weas ,your not saying that our ways dont compare by showing this video?

Comparing that to water touture:142smilie
Well I guess after seeing that its ok if we hang them by there ankles for a few hours:142smilie

There barbarians,theres no compromise.
So should we act like baby touturers ,and then thats justified??:nono: