Obama revives controversial Guantanamo tribunals

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Obama revives controversial Guantanamo tribunals

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With respect to military tribunals, I'm against them because they were unnecessary and because of the purpose behind their creation back in 2002, and that is to create a legal 'no-man's-land' to deny those accused of terrorist activities the protections of certain legal rights, not just under the Geneva Convention, but under the US constitution. </div></div>

I agree with you but with 49% of the pop not minding torture it is a great advance just to give them trials with rights that Barack claims they will get.</div></div>

Incremental change - as opposed to bold moves - is characteristic of Obama's nature. At the time the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills were debated in Congress, a significant segment of America's population opposed them. But there was enough support from members of congress and senators to get them passed. Prez LBJ, a southerner, did the right thing though he predicted, accurately that the dems would loose the South for a generation.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Obama revives controversial Guantanamo tribunals

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Incremental change - as opposed to bold moves - is characteristic of Obama's nature. At the time the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills were debated in Congress, a significant segment of America's population opposed them. But there was enough support from members of congress and senators to get them passed. Prez LBJ, a southerner, did the right thing though he predicted, accurately that the dems would loose the South for a generation. </div></div>This is not equitable as there are bodies that he has to dispose of whether he closed the facilities or not.
Some of these guys have to go to third countries, those countries might want to be assured that they have legal cover when making their decisions hence some form of tribunal.

If he moved them to the USA, he would still need to offer some kind of method of disposal of the cases against them.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Obama revives controversial Guantanamo tribunals

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Incremental change - as opposed to bold moves - is characteristic of Obama's nature. At the time the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills were debated in Congress, a significant segment of America's population opposed them. But there was enough support from members of congress and senators to get them passed. Prez LBJ, a southerner, did the right thing though he predicted, accurately that the dems would loose the South for a generation. </div></div>This is not equitable as there are bodies that he has to dispose of whether he closed the facilities or not.
Some of these guys have to go to third countries, those countries might want to be assured that they have legal cover when making their decisions hence some form of tribunal.

If he moved them to the USA, he would still need to offer some kind of method of disposal of the cases against them.
</div></div>

Not making an equivalence between the two. My point was only to show that because significant groups may support/oppose (depending on the issue) a decision doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued if it is the right thing to do.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Obama revives controversial Guantanamo tribunals

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not making an equivalence between the two. My point was only to show that because significant groups may support/oppose (depending on the issue) a decision doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued if it is the right thing to do. </div></div>Ok but I still can't get around to how wrong it is when he said they will have rights. Now if the rights are limited in some ways that fall outside of what such tribunals generally accord the accused then it is totally wrong....
As of no I am saying politically right but not quite morally wrong.