[Steevee]

(Original post by aftrglw)
So, the fact that the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional to keep someone in a 'legal black hole' proves they were guilty but couldn't be tried. Man, you're a genius!

The fact that they wanted them tried in such a manner shows that they thought they could gain a conviction, but they were not willing to have them tried in open court. If anything that shows exactly what I said, that they have the information but can't risk having it in the public domain.

[aftrglw]

(Original post by Steevee)
The fact that they wanted them tried in such a manner shows that they thought they could gain a conviction, but they were not willing to have them tried in open court. If anything that shows exactly what I said, that they have the information but can't risk having it in the public domain.

So, even though they could have convicted them they decided to sit on the cases for the three years prior to the Supreme Court's ruling without even charging them... just for the fun of it. Nice try, try again...

[Suetonius]

Lol. Are these the same courts which sentenced Anwar Ibrahim to a mere six years for corruption and nine years for committing the "evil" act of sodomy? You cite this judicial system - which, as has already been pointed out, has been routinely criticized by international non-partisan human rights organisations - as an authority on Bush's culpability for, admittedly, very reprehensible acts? The acts of torture were jus in bello anyway; this has absolutely nothing to do with their launching of the war.

[Steevee]

(Original post by aftrglw)
So, even though they could have convicted them they decided to sit on the cases for the three years prior to the Supreme Court's ruling without even charging them... just for the fun of it. Nice try, try again...

Or other evidence was being gathered, or they were still being interrorgated, or there were ongoing operations that could be put at risk...

[anarchism101]

(Original post by thisisnew)
Yeah and we all know they tend to say one thing to appease their populace whilst underneath it all, they do whatever. That's what I'm saying, there's nothing surprising or significant about this.

Well, that varies from country to country. In Saudi Arabia there used to be a decent bit of anti-US stuff, particularly around the 1970s oil crisis, but they've toned it down a lot recently because they're worried that any anti-US sentiment, particularly among the younger generation will cause a rise in support for Al-Qaeda, who are the only real threat to the House of Saud within Saudi Arabia.

[aftrglw]

(Original post by Steevee)
Or other evidence was being gathered, or they were still being interrorgated, or there were ongoing operations that could be put at risk...

Lack of evidence doesn't explain why they weren't charged: if you have enough evidence to arrest someone you have enough to charge them. And did you forget about the presumption of innocence? So if the US thinks you're a terrorist... they can keep you in a cell on an island as long as they want until they have enough evidence to charge you? Hurray for authoritarianism!

It takes three years to interrogate (or did you mean torture?) someone?

Pray tell how having a suspected terrorist sitting in Gitmo is going to compromise an operation by sitting in a jail cell in a federal prison....

[Steevee]

(Original post by aftrglw)
Lack of evidence doesn't explain why they weren't charged: if you have enough evidence to arrest someone you have enough to charge them. And did you forget about the presumption of innocence? So if the US thinks you're a terrorist... they can keep you in a cell on an island as long as they want until they have enough evidence to charge you? Hurray for authoritarianism!

It takes three years to interrogate (or did you mean torture?) someone?

Pray tell how having a suspected terrorist sitting in Gitmo is going to compromise an operation by sitting in a jail cell in a federal prison....

But that evidence isn't always admissable in court, a point I've already made

That person may talk inside of a normal prison. That person may get a message out at some point during the process.

[aftrglw]

(Original post by Steevee)
But that evidence isn't always admissable in court, a point I've already made

That person may talk inside of a normal prison. That person may get a message out at some point during the process.

It is admissible in a military tribunal, a point I've already made, and they had THREE YEARS to convene a military tribunal before the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision, but didn't.

This is all hypothetical, of course, as is your point, but its hard to see how evidence convicting someone of terrorism would be damaging enough for them to slip a note out of prison that could make it back to Afghanistan and destroy an operation there. It's also hard to believe that a terrorist would last long in prison without solitary confinement, much like child molesters in state prisons. And if somehow the government revealed an uber-damaging secret in the course of a trial, it's hard to believe that they'd allow the convicted terrorist to stay somewhere where it was possible to disclose said uber-damaging secret.

Ultimately, you're making an awful lot of assumptions about the necessary guilt of the detainees and the increasingly implausible reasons why most of them wouldn't be charged or a trial would be implausible and it would be preferable to wait for their eventual release where they would commit more terrorism (if they really were terrorists to begin with). Thus your argument is slowly disintegrating into absurdity. But keep going, please...

[rawkus]

(Original post by Aj12)
Unless you can prove Bush directly ordered all that torture and had knowledge of it himself you got nothing. Would love to see how this tribunal has done that, despite what the article says.

The ironic thing is in that all of these international tribunals, people in the same position as you describe Bush have been put on trial and found guilty.

[xXxiKillxXx]

Bush will get his punishment in the after life inshallah

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by aftrglw)
It's probably worth adding that the Clinton admin's sanctions on Iraq were resulting in something like 500,000 children's deaths. When Madeleine Albright was asked about it, she said it was worth it. Did you want to prosecute the Clinton administration too?

I'm sure every US president (or UK or any other world leader) has made decisions that have resulted in people dying. I'm not sure what the point is of these dog and pony shows. Obama should probably be forced to resign for the fast and furious scandal but nothing will happen