“Were” innocent? So if years of imprisonment and abuse makes someone anti-American, he’s no longer innocent?

http://encyclopediaofarkansas……tryID=4248

I bet the Clintons haven’t forgotten.

I keep thinking about the Marielitos who ended up spending the rest of their days in prison because we could not have them at large and we could not send them back to Cuba. Most of those who were freed ended up dead or back in prison for serious crimes or in mental institutions. That was Castro’s revenge on Carter. Big mistake.

yes, well and firmly stated throughout.

but many seem to have something even more fundamental – the need to vote for and support and apologize for Democrats, no matter what they do!

the courage and clarity of your convictions seems to be in the minority these days, Ian, present company largely excepted of course. The true believers stay away in droves the moment criticism of their Leader is uttered, especially criticism that is impossible to refute.

what a travesty – to pitch away principles you yelled for 8 years about in order to become a bunch of dittoheads.

And I don’t give 2 good goddamn’s if someone thinks they will attack again or not. If you can’t prove a crime, you don’t lock people up. Period. To accept otherwise is the direct road to tyranny.

(The US recidivism rate is about 70%, that’s pretty high. Maybe we should just lock them all up permanently… except even that doesn’t correlate, because those people have been convicted of crimes. The recidivism rate for Guantanmo, at most? 1 in 7.)

The majority of detainees at Gitmo do not appear to have committed any crime. Continuing to detain them is a continuing crime on our part. Apparently in many or most cases, Bush failed to document a rational basis for holding these men. He did it because he could. Obama continues with that logic, though he promises to think up a more rational basis, but not until some later date. That’s not enough of a reason in any civilized country in the world.

Either there’s a documented, rational reason to detain these men – based on their prior actions – or there isn’t. If there is, the quality of the evidence should be assessed and if it supports it, these men should be brought to trial. If it doesn’t they should be set free.

Those for whom detention was a Dreyfussian mistake should be freed with an apology and compensation. Those for whom we have suspicions but no evidence not obtained through torture should be set free because suspicion of a crime is not a crime, nor is it proving a crime by any rational process, nor is it an adequate basis to deprive a human being of their liberty.

The remaining prisoners against whom there is reasonable, credible evidence should be tried. If found guilty, they should be sentenced to a reasonable term of years – based on the character of their crimes. A life sentence is currently the default and only punishment. That is reprehensible if it is not commensurate with their crimes. Those not convicted will be set free; courts do it every day. Those convicted will remain in prison a specific number of years – and then be set free.

The kind of substitute “legal system” Obama is talking about, which mirrors Bush’s, but which Obama promises will come with some rationale beyond, “because I said so,” is tyranny. It’s a variation on Texas justice, small town justice, Southern justice – all ironic qualifiers – and the dictatorial regimes of Latin America and Africa.

“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison
without formulating any charge known to the law, and
particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers,
is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation
of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”

~ Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943

Once again, I am not contending folks here are necessarily wrong as to what should be done; rather, I am objecting to the unqualified assertions that Obama is violating the Constitution.