SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: cnyndwllr who wrote (121556)6/23/2005 7:51:23 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (1) of 793727
 
Your bias is showing again cnyndwllr. -g-

And they've not been properly charged, much less convicted, of being terrorists. Not in any court of the US, not in any world court and not in the courts of their home nations.

Message 21440469

Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a MILITARY TRIBUNAL, but I guess that isn't good enough for you?

I guess you missed Michael D. Cumming's post yesterday?

I don't think you'd approve of anything this administration, or apparently our Military, does, but here goes anyway.

M

Debunking another Gitmo myth

Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a MILITARY TRIBUNAL. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review TRIBUNALs," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."


Message 21440039
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext