4 ms·

At this point, anyone still be held has been proven to be directly or indirectly guilty of being involved in cowardly terrorist attacks intended to kill innocen

At this point, anyone still be held has been proven to be directly or indirectly guilty of being involved in cowardly terrorist attacks intended to kill innocent men, women, and children. If you do some research, the ones still there have been confirmed.

semicolon_storm 4y ago
The article in the OP starts off with an artist who has been held there 20 years and not even charged with a crime. How can his guilt be confirmed if he was never even charged?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
How can anything be proven if there was no court and no judge to examine this 'proof'?
labster 4y ago
You’d think so, but no. Non-citizens in United States territories possess no civil rights. None at all. And definitely not a right to trial or to avoid false imprisonment.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > Non-citizens in United States territories possess no civil rights You sure about that? I believe US territories are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is notably not a US territory.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Non-citizens in United States territories possess no civil rights. None at all. I am sorry, but what kind of substance abuse and education is this?! Are you allowed to grab your AR15 and shoot foreign tourists? Can you keep them as slaves? Have you thought about the implications of what you've written for even two seconds? Nobody would ever travel or do business in a country where they have no rights, you'd have as many foreign PHD students as Somalia.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    The US is the one with the rights. They make it illegal to do that, but they don’t have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases > The preliminary answer came from a series of Supreme Court rulings, now known as the Insular Cases, which responded to the question of how American constitutional rights apply to those in United States territories. The Supreme Court held that full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically (or ex proprio vigore—i.e., of its own force) extend to all places under American control. This meant that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico—"even if they are U.S. citizens"—may lack some constitutional rights (e.g., the right to remain part of the United States in case of de-annexation)[2] because they were not part of the United States. Never overturned.
  - upwardbound 4y ago
    Murder and slavery are still violations of customary international law and treaty law. Both murder and slavery are specifically considered to be crimes against humanity and punishments for those offenses can be imposed by the UN, as was the case in the tribunals described below. https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol12p53.pdf https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol12p53.pdf
aallaqh 4y ago
This is just mindless parroting of propaganda.
helloworld11 4y ago
>At this point, anyone still be held has been proven to be directly or indirectly guilty Proven you say? So much proof that they continue to be held without even having been charged (never mind tried and convicted on so much supposed clear evidence) for crimes years after their detention. elementary school level basic rules of justice: If you have evidence, you use it to bring forth charges quickly, otherwise, shut up and release whoever you're holding. The U.S government certainly doesn't lack the resources to just proceed with a trial.
googlryas 4y ago
Why is it so hard to convict them of a crime then?

semicolon_storm 4y ago

The article in the OP starts off with an artist who has been held there 20 years and not even charged with a crime. How can his guilt be confirmed if he was never even charged?

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

How can anything be proven if there was no court and no judge to examine this 'proof'?

labster 4y ago

You’d think so, but no. Non-citizens in United States territories possess no civil rights. None at all. And definitely not a right to trial or to avoid false imprisonment.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Non-citizens in United States territories possess no civil rights You sure about that? I believe US territories are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is notably not a US territory.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Non-citizens in United States territories possess no civil rights. None at all. I am sorry, but what kind of substance abuse and education is this?! Are you allowed to grab your AR15 and shoot foreign tourists? Can you keep them as slaves? Have you thought about the implications of what you've written for even two seconds? Nobody would ever travel or do business in a country where they have no rights, you'd have as many foreign PHD students as Somalia.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The US is the one with the rights. They make it illegal to do that, but they don’t have to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases > The preliminary answer came from a series of Supreme Court rulings, now known as the Insular Cases, which responded to the question of how American constitutional rights apply to those in United States territories. The Supreme Court held that full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically (or ex proprio vigore—i.e., of its own force) extend to all places under American control. This meant that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico—"even if they are U.S. citizens"—may lack some constitutional rights (e.g., the right to remain part of the United States in case of de-annexation)[2] because they were not part of the United States. Never overturned.
- upwardbound 4y ago
  Murder and slavery are still violations of customary international law and treaty law. Both murder and slavery are specifically considered to be crimes against humanity and punishments for those offenses can be imposed by the UN, as was the case in the tribunals described below. https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol12p53.pdf https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol12p53.pdf

aallaqh 4y ago

This is just mindless parroting of propaganda.

helloworld11 4y ago

>At this point, anyone still be held has been proven to be directly or indirectly guilty Proven you say? So much proof that they continue to be held without even having been charged (never mind tried and convicted on so much supposed clear evidence) for crimes years after their detention. elementary school level basic rules of justice: If you have evidence, you use it to bring forth charges quickly, otherwise, shut up and release whoever you're holding. The U.S government certainly doesn't lack the resources to just proceed with a trial.

googlryas 4y ago

Why is it so hard to convict them of a crime then?