 |
|
The ruling in favor of Huzaifa Parhat comes in the first of what eventually could be 160 or so such court reviews filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Justice Department concedes that Parhat never fought against the U.S. and says it has no evidence he was planning to do so.
Still, our Bush-League politicos find it expedient to imprison people because they feel like it. That sort of policy is part of why we had our revolution in 1776 – you may recall.
Thanks, K B
Funny, I don’t see any complaint in the Declaration of Independence about this.
Why are the courts reviewing military war policy?
1. In the words of the late, great George Carlin, the United States was founded by slaver owners wanting to be free. Gotta keep that in mind.
2. Because this is a democracy, and by the way we haven’t been at war since 1945.
Just send him directly to China, he’ll beg for Guantanamo.
The mistake was calling them “unlawful combatants”, which was obviously just a ploy so that the U.S. could avoid Geneva convention rules.
Instead, call them what they are: Prisoners of War. They can have full Geneva convention rights, visits from the Red Cross, etc.
And, as soon as the Taliban and Al-Qaida declare their unconditional surrender, they will be released.
And, like P.O.W.’s during WWII, if it is determined that any of the prisoners had been engaged in espionage, they can be tried by a military court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
“Earlier this month, Delahunt and Rohrabacher chastised the Bush administration for allowing the Chinese government to interrogate Chinese Muslim detainees who remain at Guantanamo Bay.”
So, now he’ll be sent home (China). He should stay at Gitmo.
So if they release 160, then at least 10-20 or so will be found again on the battlefield.
How about we release them in Havana?