Debunking another Gitmo myth

[HOZ]

A rebuttal to....
The rediculous comparison by Durbin of Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps or Soviet Gulags. As well as the other "Liberal" (in reality Socialists in Liberal drag) bashers.

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.


Debunking another Gitmo myth

[Mike F]

A number of possible conclusions:

1. The story's not accurate,

2. The story's accurate, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are all unaware that adequate due process is available, or

3. The story's accurate, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are aware that adequate due process is available, but they just enjoy being beat up in the media and public opinion so they don't bring it up.

Which do you think is the true case HOZ?

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Mike F@Jun 25 2005, 05:36 AM
A number of possible conclusions:

1. The story's not accurate,

2. The story's accurate, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are all unaware that adequate due process is available, or

3. The story's accurate, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are aware that adequate due process is available, but they just enjoy being beat up in the media and public opinion so they don't bring it up.

Which do you think is the true case HOZ?

You didn't even read the article. Just the bolded quote I provided. Had you read the article you would have run across this little tidbit.

The few critics who acknowledge the existence of the tribunals argue they aren't sufficient. They "provided due process in form, but not in substance," as Newsday put it. That view is shared by a Carter-appointed liberal judge, but an earlier decision by a Bush-appointed judge upheld the tribunals. In the end, courts will almost certainly affirm the legality of the Gitmo tribunals, which as noted, were modeled after the due process standards described in the Hamdi decision.



Now if it is before the courts.....

I will leave it to you to prove it isn't before the courts and prove this article is inaccurate.

[Mike F]

I read the story, thank you, and it's (and your) contention that the Gitmo myth is definitively debunked, and that "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" just isn't accurate.

The fact is they were ruled illegal in the last court hearing. This notion that "In the end, courts will almost certainly affirm the legality of the Gitmo tribunals" is at best wishful thinking.

For a little balance, the other side of the debate, which, as of now, has the support of the US court.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Mike F@Jun 25 2005, 08:32 AM
I read the story, thank you, and it's (and your) contention that the Gitmo myth is definitively debunked, and that "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" just isn't accurate.

The fact is they were ruled illegal in the last court hearing. This notion that "In the end, courts will almost certainly affirm the legality of the Gitmo tribunals" is at best wishful thinking.

For a little balance, the other side of the debate, which, as of now, has the support of the US court.

So....now...you are saying the story is accurate.

[Mike F]

Unbelievable

In easy to follow bullet points:

• The article says the tribunals are sufficient and fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings
• You use the article as proof that the Gitmo "myth" is "debunked"
• The US court has ruled the hearings illegal, therefore they aren't sufficient and the "myth" isn't debunked

The fact that the Bush admin has the right to appeal the ruling doesnt make the tribunals legal and sufficient any more than a convicted murderer's right to appeal makes him/her innocent.

And don't try and pull this "all I was saying that the issue is before the court" stance that you're apparently trying to backpeddle to. It's clear from your headline, quote and the article you chose that that wasn't the case.