What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- allowners, on 10/08/2008, -7/+43Explaining why the "activist" judiciary has come under a coordinated unrelenting attack from regressives.
- jodimcmullen, on 10/08/2008, -3/+157“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Urbina said.
Thank you Judge Urbina.- kazz67, on 10/08/2008, -0/+20I think the moment has long since passed, but I'm happy to note that at last some semblance of 'the right thing' is being done. -If, indeed, it is allowed to be done by the White House!
- alam555, on 10/09/2008, -0/+10its already blocked.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/court.chinese.mus ...- CosmicJustice, on 10/09/2008, -14/+2Good. This judge doesn't get to decide national security issues.
- prophetpimp, on 10/09/2008, -1/+7your people in the white house have not done a good job at deciding those issues either.
- dysfunction, on 10/09/2008, -1/+13No, CosmicJustice, but this judge certainly does get to decide constitutional rights issues.
- FairDinkumMate, on 10/09/2008, -1/+10You moron! You've bought into the whole "We're erasing your civil liberties to protect the nation" rhetoric hook, line & sinker!
The crazy thing is, not only does what this administration has done breach the quite strict US constitution & civil liberties, it actually breaches the much more lax international & Geneva conventions.
It may be in your interest to read & understand habeus corpus.. It's not exactly a crazy idea. It basically says if the king(or in the case of the US - the government) wants to keep you in jail he has to(if challenged) provide evidence to a judge showing that he has a reason to hold you. The fact that the US government is unable to meet even this simple test proves that in any real court there would be NO CHANCE of a conviction(even when they make up the laws after the event to try to make it possible!)
If you believe for one minute that someone in Afghanistan handed over to US forces in return for a cash reward is without doubt a threat to the national security of the United States of America then you have a very limited view of the world. - mikelieman, on 10/09/2008, -1/+12Know why it's been blocked?
Because the MOMENT these guys feet hit US soil, then have standing to file Felony criminal complaints against Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and John Does #1 - #1000.
Torturing prisoners in your custody is a CRIME. And "Just following orders" as an excuse got Nazis hanged at Nuremberg. - oscenester, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4@mikelieman: One could dream, could we not? There will be many people who pay for their crimes. Unfortunately, I fear not the ones most deserving.
- AriaStar, on 10/09/2008, -0/+8About ***** time.
- makeucash, on 10/09/2008, -14/+2
- kazamx, on 10/09/2008, -1/+14How do you know they are terrorists? Most of them were random people picked up and thrown in there. Many have already been freed as the Americans had zero evidence they did anything, planned anything or could do anything against America.
Dam One kid was taken in there at 14 years old and is still locked up in there. How on earth can you say thats right. - SpacePoet, on 10/09/2008, -1/+7How does it feel to know you've been lied to by your government and in the process were able to get you to give up one of the founding principles of this country based on that lie?
Oh, nmd, I see why you keep your head in the sand. - LinuxLars, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Dude, at least the US prisoners had the advantage of a trial...
- kazamx, on 10/09/2008, -1/+14How do you know they are terrorists? Most of them were random people picked up and thrown in there. Many have already been freed as the Americans had zero evidence they did anything, planned anything or could do anything against America.
- FrankHope, on 10/08/2008, -2/+95....and Justice for All?
These poor Uighurs have been held for 4 years after they were determined to be innocent because reportedly no country was willing to take them in. The judge has ordered that they be settled in the United States immediately. US Church groups have offered to take them in, but the Bush Administration still won't release them.- eyepatch100, on 10/09/2008, -5/+3I love Metallica!
- pseudononymist, on 10/09/2008, -2/+2Bush to Uighurs
so I dub thee unforgiven
- pseudononymist, on 10/09/2008, -2/+2Bush to Uighurs
- Bhima, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4....and Justice for All?
Nope... Just Us. - frenchi, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2I read 7 years not 4, in any case it's unacceptable. Keeping people in prison because we _can't_ put them anywhere else? ridiculous
- YogiWanKenobi, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2for All...who can afford it
- morcheeba, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3It's not a matter of money... a number of good lawyers have offered pro-bono work. Bush argued that he could hold these people without a trial and without legal representation as long as the war on terror continues (100 years?).
- shoegazer666, on 10/09/2008, -1/+0Erm, wouldn't leaving them with the Church groups be a case of out of one hole into another albeit a cleaner one?
- eyepatch100, on 10/09/2008, -5/+3I love Metallica!
- Truzseeker, on 10/08/2008, -3/+9Its been too long, and too long of those that really need to stop thinking about personality labels...GET OFF OF IT ! and start thinking about action is required by law...its that simple, and in this case circumstances demanded a simple solution.
- GunOfSod, on 10/09/2008, -3/+1I of REALLY wonder for circumstance of do English much?
- toetagger, on 10/08/2008, -4/+41No country wants to take them for fear of retaliation by China. That's just great - Communist/Authoritarian China now dictates the humanitarian policies of the "free" world.
- Jerky1312, on 10/09/2008, -0/+11Give respect to Albania, so far the only country to accept 5 of the Uyghurs and stand up to China.
- singularityv, on 10/09/2008, -8/+1Things like this make me wish that full-size nuclear bombs would go off simultaneously in Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Guangzhou, etc.
- prophetpimp, on 10/09/2008, -2/+3leave out nanjing, the chicks out there are hot and leave out guangzhou, need my cheap gadgets. ***** beijing and Shanghai
- pseudononymist, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3Please let me know a couple days before they do, so I have time to get out, thx
- rabbitmo, on 10/09/2008, -2/+3when you read that your government illegaly abducted and detained people you wish that another country gets nuclear bombed?
- toetagger, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1It's not the people, it's the government.
- SpacePoet, on 10/09/2008, -1/+3I think they are making up this 'nobody wants to take them' meme. It's pure political double speak for 'we don't want anyone to know what we REALLY did to these innocent people'.
- anillop, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Get used to it China is going to be doing a lot of that in the future and as they overtake the US there will be no one to serve as a counterpoint.
- toetagger, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Don't buy their *****.
- ad33lshahid, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1in this case, even authoritarian china seems to be more in line with humane treatment than uncle sam. key words: in this case
- TruthinessHurts, on 10/08/2008, -1/+26What about the poor bastards that got swept up in Bush's disaster and were technically free in 2004, but Bush has held them illegally for 4 years rather than admit his retarded error and let them into America.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/09/2008, -11/+3No. Send them back to their own countries.
- pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -2/+10they have suffered needlessly at the hands of our government. they deserve to be here more than most americans. all you did was come out of a vagina in a particular geographic location.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/09/2008, -13/+2@pintomp3
Your shift key must be broken. You should get that fixed. - CosmicJustice, on 10/09/2008, -12/+1@pintomp3
We don't owe them anything. They left China to join anti-US terrorist groups. We don't want them here. They are our enemies. We could maybe let one in if you'll take his place. - pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -1/+13they were found innocent *****. they didn't do anything. you are sitting here claiming they are enemies. you need should worry more about facts than capitalization. read and learn:
MYTH: The detainees at Guantanamo are the “worst of the worst."
Fact: Few of the men sent to Guantanamo are the high-ranking al Qaeda or Taliban members the US government alleges them to be. Hundreds were not even involved in the conflict, but rather sold to the US by bounty hunters or turned over by rival clan members trying to settle a vendetta, while high level al Qaeda operatives with the money to buy their freedom got away. According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1999 until 2004, no more than 10 percent of those brought to Guantanamo Bay were considered high-value detainees.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ... - publiclurker, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3They fled their home country(China) because that country has almost as much contempt for their religion as you do. Sending them back would be pretty much a death sentence, which is why decent people know better.
- jfreeman, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Suffering at the hands of government deserves compensation and restitution, not residency. I could understand asylum, but not injustice, as a reason for letting them into the United States to apply for permanent residency or citizenship.
As a side note, I am happy that the Judiciary is finally standing up the Executive.
- LukasSmith, on 10/09/2008, -2/+1You people are dumbasses.
You don't even know the full story.
The reason they have been at Guantanamo for so long is that basically every human rights organization on earth has said sending them back to their home and native land, China, would be a death sentence. Chinese disagree saying they don't condone torture. The US doesn't want them because they were suspects and plus converting them into flag waving American citizens would be pretty ***** hard. Besides I don't recall any law that says after a year at Gauntanamo you are a US citizen. So the US tried to find a country to take them. 0 countries offer to take any except Albania who took 2. So basically since 2004 these uighars have been living in hotel Guantanamo because their home country is known for bad behavior and no country around the world wants them. Those are the facts, not the left wing crap that gets posted here."
Personally I would have just dropped their asses in China in 2004. But then of course if they were tortured like human rights activists claim they will be, you would bitch about that too.- Rhydeble, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Hotel guantanamo, now with free waterboarding every morning.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/09/2008, -11/+3No. Send them back to their own countries.
- Eiknujrac, on 10/09/2008, -4/+25I'm pretty sure Bush cronies appealed this decision today, and got the Appeals circuit to stay the release of the prisoners......
Sorry to be the killjoy. We need to shut that place down. - infiniphunk, on 10/09/2008, -14/+1Harold and Khumar
- aobtd, on 10/09/2008, -1/+0wooooooooooooooooo
- Alex2, on 10/09/2008, -3/+20If you dress funny, you must be a terrorist.
velvet hats indeed.- DeFex, on 10/09/2008, -2/+1line velvet hats with tinfoil, they might be quite stylish!
- cbodall, on 10/09/2008, -30/+1and this is a good thing why?
why do liberals love terrorists so much?- pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -3/+32why do you hate the constitution so much? if i call you a terrorist, does that automatically make you one?
- jmpeagle, on 10/09/2008, -15/+1is that the same constitution that declares black slaves to be 3/5ths of a person? The constitution isn't some end all, be all, greatest document ever written.
- normlsparky, on 10/09/2008, -0/+10@jmpeagle- why yes, that is the very same constitution. That very same constitution was also amended to abolish slavery and give black people the right to vote. The very same constitution Bush wipes his ass with daily while waving his flag is the same constitution that defines who we are as Americans.
- DeFex, on 10/09/2008, -3/+38why do conservatives hate freedom so much?
- lajaw, on 10/09/2008, -5/+3Conservatives love freedom. Neo-cons and the other leftists don't. They do however like to talk about freedom and Liberty, but they only want it for themselves.
- Dejacque, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4Explain how leftists don't love freedom, please.
Not trolling, I've just heard that idea thrown around too often on here, and I'm curious as to what Digg's rationale is on this regard. - jfreeman, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Please do not mistake cbodall for a conservative.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/09/2008, -1/+9If you talked to the people who can't even spell "Muslim" or "terrorist" on their hate-filled yard signs and asked, "what does a terrorist look like," I'd feel pretty safe in betting all I own that the answer wouldn't be anything close to "like the guy who works at the Magic Wok lunch buffet."
And if most of the people at Gitmo could get their day in court, they'd have to be set free due to the thin or nonexistant reasons we picked them up or were given them in the first place. - redhook, on 10/09/2008, -0/+12Since when is suspicion grounds for arrest? If you believe it is then you should go to Gitmo since I suspect you of being a terrorist who is against America. Don't forget that once you are in Gitmo the current administration says that you can be held indefinitely without legal counsel or charges and you basically have no rights.
- notanidiot, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4Ahhh, so "love" means "the belief that a certain person deserves fair treatment." Right. One day, maybe YOU will match the description of a domestic terrorist, and then I bet those rights would make lots more sense to you. Will you wonder why people "love" you so much then?
- pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -3/+32why do you hate the constitution so much? if i call you a terrorist, does that automatically make you one?
- boot20, on 10/09/2008, -7/+3\supreme courtprovide justice -force
About friggin' time. Jack holes - pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -3/+41sadly, the constitution remains in taters.
Appeals court blocks release of Guantanamo detainees
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081009/wl_mccl ...- DeFex, on 10/09/2008, -2/+18How would you put the constitution inside a potato?
- pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -0/+16through an appeel.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/09/2008, -2/+13"What's 'taters,' precious?"
- pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -0/+8"po ta toes. boil'em, mash'em, stick'em in a stew"
- dysfunction, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4"Spoilin' nice fish. Give it to us raw and wriggling; you keep nasty chips."
- DeFex, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2you and your repliers have all been digged smeagol.
- YogiWanKenobi, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Mmm-Hmm
- jfreeman, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1I like my Constitution with ketchup.
- jmorato, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3"government requests that he stay his order to permit an immediate appeal"
...now they're interested in procedure and due process. how cute is that?
- DeFex, on 10/09/2008, -2/+18How would you put the constitution inside a potato?
- Jakerzon, on 10/09/2008, -1/+12It's about time these judges stood up and said no more to this injustice. Hopefully, this will set a precedent where Guantanamo has to obey the same laws as the mainland and no more screwy back room ***** takes place.
- phyzixphairy, on 10/09/2008, -2/+0What is the injustice, exactly?
You might consider reading a bit further than the word "Guantánamo" before coming to conclusions.
The problem is that the only country which will accept them is China--which wants to try them itself--and the U.S. doesn't want to give them to China because it's afraid of how they'll be treated. *America is being the good guy.*
Now, it would be even nicer of the U.S. to accept these guys as refugees, but it's really not so brilliant to take in suspected terrorists and let them run around in your country. Being "not quite provably guilty" is a great standard for releasing your own citizens but is not such a great immigration standard. And apparently all the other countries agree.
So this ruling is *not about* what you are accustomed to complaining of when you talk about Guatánamo. These guys aren't being tortured, they aren't being convicted of anything or denied a fair trial. They're essentially being given room and board while Uncle Sam tries to find them a home country.
The court ruling, in my opinion, is probably a very bad one, because what the judge is saying is that either these men need to be granted American citizenship or handed over to China. And I'm afraid I don't think the people in Washington will continue to be so averse to handing them over to Chinese cruelty when the alternative involves the possibility that they might turn out to be real security risks.- beernutz, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Plain and simple, they are being held and not allowed to leave. They are being denied their freedom. And "not quite provable guilty"? Are you serious?
If you cant prove a person is guilty of something, you have NO reason to deny them freedom. This is REGARDLESS of their origin. - phyzixphairy, on 10/09/2008, -0/+0Somehow I don't think you have understood anything I said.
Please understand these people are CHINESE. The ordinary process would be to REPATRIATE THEM TO CHINA. The Chinese BELIEVE THEY ARE TERRORISTS. The United states does not want to repatriate them because they are afraid they WOULD BE TORTURED. Do you understand? The United States is not repatriating them in order to PROTECT them.
However, they are suspected terrorists and the United States is not going to give them American citizenship and let them run amuck in the states. The problem is that neither will anybody else. NO COUNTRY WANTS THESE PEOPLE. It's not just the United States, it is ANYBODY AT ALL. (except China, who wants to punish them as an example for its other Muslim citizens)
Do you get this? There are two reasonable choices for the United States:
(1) Repatriate them to their home country, where they will be tortured.
(2) Keep them detained until they can work out a deal for someone else to take them.
Those are the choices. There is not a choice #3 as far people in charge of our national security are concerned. So are you saying you want to go with #1? Because I think the people detained at Gitmo right now are really rooting for #2, and might not exactly appreciate your version of 'standing up' for them. - Jakerzon, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1I don't know about what you're saying regarding the detainees and repatriating and all the other nonsense you're saying. What I do know is that the legal process in Guantanamo was NOT fair and they couldn't represent their case in the proper way as is done in the mainland. This judgment is not about anything else than granting them their due fair and legal process which hadn't happened for way way too long.
- beernutz, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Plain and simple, they are being held and not allowed to leave. They are being denied their freedom. And "not quite provable guilty"? Are you serious?
- phyzixphairy, on 10/09/2008, -2/+0What is the injustice, exactly?
- Ransack, on 10/09/2008, -1/+3Obama or McCain would both shut down Guantanamo anyway. This sad and embarrassing chapter in Americans history is about to come to a close.
- NoozeHound, on 10/09/2008, -0/+6I think you may be stretching it with the second one.
- phyzixphairy, on 10/09/2008, -2/+3Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told a London newspaper he would act quickly to restore the international reputation of the United States if he becomes president. In an interview with The Telegraph, McCain said that would include shutting down the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and taking quick action on global warming. "I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545925/ ...
So where is the "stretch" part? - Smokezz, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3The fact you believe it.
- PaddyUK, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1This.
- phyzixphairy, on 10/09/2008, -2/+3Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told a London newspaper he would act quickly to restore the international reputation of the United States if he becomes president. In an interview with The Telegraph, McCain said that would include shutting down the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and taking quick action on global warming. "I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."
- NoozeHound, on 10/09/2008, -0/+6I think you may be stretching it with the second one.
- alam555, on 10/09/2008, -0/+8dream on, remember, this ain't the same US of A the Boss sang of.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/court.chinese.mus ...- normlsparky, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2I suspect that they will not be released until Bush and his cronies are out of office and in hiding in some other country with no extradition treaties.
- ReFleXxXxXxXxX, on 10/09/2008, -15/+2Sorry, I'm drunk... What's an Uighurs?
- JoshuaGross, on 10/09/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uighurs
Central Asians living in Western China. Most of China's Muslims are Uighurs, and China's had lots of problems with Uighur separatist movements.
- JoshuaGross, on 10/09/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uighurs
- ReFleXxXxXxXxX, on 10/09/2008, -18/+3Sorry, I'm drunk... What's an Uighur?
- ReFleXxXxXxXxX, on 10/09/2008, -3/+3***** you dont have to digg me down... wtf... was an honest question.
- ReFleXxXxXxXxX, on 10/09/2008, -3/+2I'm not like one those people that try to be a smart ass and try to say something witty.
- Gerbil_Juice, on 10/09/2008, -0/+6www.google.com
- algaeturd, on 10/09/2008, -3/+4Yeah, this made it to the front page just in time for it to be blocked. Ironic.
- hellsing47, on 10/09/2008, -1/+3Nobody knows how to correctly use the word ironic anymore.
- jmorato, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2That's ironic.
- hellsing47, on 10/09/2008, -1/+3Nobody knows how to correctly use the word ironic anymore.
- jaxs1984, on 10/09/2008, -4/+1I think we should also credit the lawyers that dedicated their time and resources to make it to the Judges. Last time I checked, it was the dedication of the lawyers that send cases to Judges which they act upon. So all you kids out their that don't know what to do in life , get your a** off Digg and become lawyers and overturn the laws you seem to bitch/moan about that Bush has rammed down your virgin a**. BTW, noBama is a lawyer and can someone please name 1 case that he brought to a Judge on someone's behalf to "free" them?
- cosmicsmudge, on 10/09/2008, -1/+10It's a disgrace the disregard we've given to human rights in the name of protecting the world from so-called terrorists. To quote Bill Clinton, we should lead by the power of our example not by the example of our power.
- FairDinkumMate, on 10/09/2008, -0/+7Please don't even try to include 'the world' in what the US is doing in Guantanamo!
Bush trashed virtually every relationship he had with 'the world' in order to wage this war. The French were among the most loyal allies the US has ever had & when they said "Hey, we don't think invading Iraq is such a good idea", rather than discuss & negotiate it the US Government called them names & renamed fried potatoes!
- FairDinkumMate, on 10/09/2008, -0/+7Please don't even try to include 'the world' in what the US is doing in Guantanamo!
- beerwench, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1the us court of appeals enjoined the decision... no action til next week
this was posted when it was still valid... that totally original button is really there for a reason - bigbangbuddha, on 10/09/2008, -0/+7Guantanamo: "Incubating Terrorists for Tomorrow"
The criminal justice system and prison network works so well inside our country why not apply it globally! Hell, even if GB is holding terrorists, for all those innocents and enemy 'combatants' in there I'd be damn surprised if they don't come out with a whole new found hatred for the U.S. ; just in time for cold war part II too. - lkeg56demn, on 10/09/2008, -1/+13And yet it's already been blocked.
USA USA USA USA USA - westvaco, on 10/09/2008, -2/+7Sometime this week the news will be:
Gitmo Judge found dead of apparent heart attack in his home. - digitallysick, on 10/09/2008, -1/+8Blocked before they could get out, so much for the USA , land of the free and fair.
- rexblade, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3I seen that headline it's true. As if they havent been through enough now they get jerked around more.
- calypsoschnitzl, on 10/09/2008, -2/+24..."the men had never fought the United States and were not a security threat."
Pretty much sums it up.- pintomp3, on 10/09/2008, -0/+6as is the case with many of the detainees in gitmo. many were sold for bounty to the US.
- notanidiot, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3Now that these soldiers have been teased with the prospect of freedom...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/court.chinese.mus ...
That's gotta burn! - makeucash, on 10/09/2008, -16/+3
- GumshoeMike, on 10/09/2008, -1/+10"America is turning into one of the most hypocritical nations. First we say we are going to [uphold the principles of the Constitution], then suddenly we [detain indefinitely a group of persons who the government has admitted are not enemy combatants, which was the original reason they were being imprisoned]. [Attempting to not annoy the Chinese Government, which we owe $500-billion, the Bush Administration says,] I hope nobody notices them."
There, I fixed it for you
(including the spelling and proper form of "hypocritical")
- GumshoeMike, on 10/09/2008, -1/+10"America is turning into one of the most hypocritical nations. First we say we are going to [uphold the principles of the Constitution], then suddenly we [detain indefinitely a group of persons who the government has admitted are not enemy combatants, which was the original reason they were being imprisoned]. [Attempting to not annoy the Chinese Government, which we owe $500-billion, the Bush Administration says,] I hope nobody notices them."
- Solstice, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2According to the article, if they get released, they will be put into the custody of ICE, since they will have no legal status in the US. They will then likely then go through deportation hearings. If they are deported, they will be turned over to China, where they will probably "disappear". Until their legal status in the US is defined, they may want to stay in Gitmo a little longer - at least they'll be alive.
- edrift101, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1I'm sure that's what everyone in Gitmo is thinking...
- Jareth86, on 10/09/2008, -4/+6Those damn dirty activist judges and their stupid constitution...
- AmericanSlave, on 10/09/2008, -0/+7There no motivation to become a terrorist like being held for 4 years without a trial and probably tortured the whole time.
- tumatakuru, on 10/09/2008, -0/+8Every tyrranny will eventually fall, including the American torture centres.
- FAT_PIGGY, on 10/09/2008, -15/+2These terrorists need to be executed by firing squad.
- GrogInOhio, on 10/09/2008, -0/+5Wouldn't it be helpful to hold a trial that PROVES their terrorist before we summarily execute them or have we become Stalinist Russia over the last 8 years?
- GrogInOhio, on 10/09/2008, -0/+5Wouldn't it be helpful to hold a trial that PROVES their terrorist before we summarily execute them or have we become Stalinist Russia over the last 8 years?
- randall82, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4anybody else salivating at the thought of these guys ending up being interviewed, telling us from a prisoners point of view all the things going on in there?
- amightywind, on 10/09/2008, -5/+3Nothing like importing the world's best and brightest.
- ironhide, on 10/09/2008, -1/+3I'd rather have them in this country than you.
- svendm, on 10/09/2008, -0/+8Great. So we've held these guys in prison for SIX YEARS, and when push finally comes to shove, the Bush Administration gives up the idea of even TRYING to prove any kind of guilt on their part.
I repeat: Six years in prison on alleged crimes so weak the prosecutors won't even try!
Guantanamo Bay is a black stain on the USA. It goes against everything the Constitution stands for, and every principle and idea the USA supposedly stands for. It's going to be remembered as an American Gulag. The first Great Shame of the 21st century. Worse than McCarthyism. Perhaps even worse than the Japanese Internment camps. Our reputation is going to carry the stain of Guantanamo for a long time. - pittpat, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3"activist judges legislating from the bench" I can hear O'Riley now.....
- Khast, on 10/09/2008, -0/+9Freedom and Justice for all*
*Offer not available in all areas, some conditions apply.
Bush administration has done a great job in changing this nation from freedom to nothing but a bunch of cowering sheep. We are imprisoning people for no reason, and holding them without judgment. We have some severe problems, which never should have happened in the first place, even with the attacks of 9/11. Restore Habeus Corpus NOW. - mobling, on 10/09/2008, -3/+0While I am in favor of following our constitution to the letter, worries now arise. If the Bush administration had not been so damn arrogant and out of step with the laws we have chosen to live by and for, then this problem probably would not be facing us. Now our law enforcement branch of government is going to have to pony up with 17 separate FBI / CIA / ??? agency teams to keep track of these people. I am not sure who wrote this passage, but it is as relevant today as when it was penned. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive."
- neurofiber, on 10/09/2008, -9/+0I suppose now we have 17 pissed off people with warfare training who hate the United States. Why do these individuals have to be let free in the U.S.? Sounds like another 911.
- LinuxLars, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1If they weren't terrorists before we imprisoned them illegally, they probably are now.
- Cosmo96, on 10/09/2008, -9/+2Obama and the moon-bats must be happy that these poor misunderstood individuals are now free. Maybe ACORN can set them up in some affordable housing.
- ElSnuggles, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2I wonder if it is possible to file for disbarment against the members of the justice department that have shoveled the administrations crap at the judiciary for the past 8 years. The newest lines outlined in this article are juvenile and silly. Releasing somebody is going to harm relations with China? Wha? Detain people indefinitely is an executive power? Huh?
I was under the impression that the justice department hired our greatest legal minds right out of Law School, but I guess I'm wrong.
(sorry, so frustrated, no more coherent thoughts can I make) - joekm, on 10/09/2008, -2/+0meat sandwiches
- MuslimGhost, on 10/09/2008, -8/+2ALLAHU AKBAR!! May Allah curse the oppressors and bless my Muslim brothers for their patience, and may He restore their rights back to them.
- kingUssop, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Cool we've decided to give people legal rights 6 years after we jailed them.
- YogiWanKenobi, on 10/09/2008, -1/+4Since these guys have been in a POW camp for six years, they're obviously qualified for the Presidency.
- bartpieters, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah that would make a nasty question for McCain: could you explain in which respect the situation of the people in Gitmo is essentially different from yours.
- LukasSmith, on 10/09/2008, -2/+2You people are dumbasses.
You don't even know the full story.
The reason they have been at Guantanamo for so long is that basically every human rights organization on earth has said sending them back would be a death sentence. Chinese disagree saying they don't condone torture. The US doesn't want them because they were suspects and plus converting them into flag waving American citizens would be pretty ***** hard. So the US tried to find a country to take them. 0 countries offer to take any except Albania who took 2. So basically since 2004 these uighars have been living in hotel Guantanamo because their home country is known for bad behavior and no country around the world wants them. Those are the facts, not the left wing crap that gets posted here.- Hoffpa, on 10/09/2008, -1/+1be careful liberals don't like to be called liberal. Automatic buried.
- WayneCA, on 10/09/2008, -1/+2So, we're holding them in Guantanamo for their own protection right? Who else believes that?
- NCSD, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1they can stay at your house if you like, hell you can cook them breakfast too, just dont cook bacon
- PhAndrew, on 10/09/2008, -1/+0"U.S. government lawyers say the law forbids the detainees' entry into the United States"
now we are going by the law - LinuxLars, on 10/09/2008, -1/+1FINALLY. It's about damned time. Either charge them, or release them. Our behavior has been unconscionable.
- NCSD, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1It took this long for that? Bull *****, no trial, no court, just throw them out of the plane on their way home.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is