View Full Version : Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo detainees
I Guess he is the fastest speed reader in the world. BHO is planning on bringing all the GITMO children into the US and giving them all the rights and protections as you and me. He is also going to set up a new Justice system for the National Security special cases. I wonder what the Supreme court will have to say about this. Does this Idiot know that kind of box he is opening? Even if convicted.. would you want to unleash these guys into our prison system to start to learn and interact with our gangs. God help us if they started to convert some of our well established gang types and they then spread JIHAD with a twist.
Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo detainees
By MATT APUZZO and LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.
During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.
Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.
A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.
The move would be a sharp deviation from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. Obama's Republican challenger, John McCain, had also pledged to close Guantanamo. But McCain opposed criminal trials, saying the Bush administration's tribunals should continue on U.S. soil.
The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But it is almost certain to face opposition from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. and from Democrats who oppose creating a new court system with fewer rights for detainees.
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, said discussions about plans for Guantanamo had been "theoretical" before the election but would quickly become very focused because closing the prison is a top priority. Bringing the detainees to the United States will be controversial, he said, but could be accomplished.
"I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on U.S. soil as anywhere else," Tribe said. "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."
The tougher challenge will be allaying fears by Democrats who believe the Bush administration's military commissions were a farce and dislike the idea of giving detainees anything less than the full constitutional rights normally enjoyed by everyone on U.S. soil.
"There would be concern about establishing a completely new system," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. "And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system — trying to establish that would be very difficult."
Obama has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.
"It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts," Tribe said. "It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard."
Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few other options.
Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises a host of problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.
In theory, Obama could try to transplant the Bush administration's military commission system from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. prison. But Tribe said, and other advisers agreed, that was "a nonstarter." With lax evidence rules and intense secrecy, the military commissions have been criticized by human rights groups, defense attorneys and even some military prosecutors who quit the process in protest.
"I don't think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent," Schiff said.
That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn't be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what that something would look like remains unclear.
According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.
Whatever form it takes, Tribe said he expects Obama to move quickly.
"In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark," Tribe said. "It has to be dealt with."
Ok I have a question about this for those of you with more knowledge of the law than I. Rush brought this up the other day and asked the question "What do you do with the ones who will be inevitably be acquitted under our justice system? Release them into the population?" This got me thinking what are the total legal ramifications of this? Also during a proceeding such as these would U.S. service members still be held under UCMJ? While suspected terrorists are given Constitutional rights? If this is the case then it would seem in a way that this would grant enemy combatants greater rights than servicemen. Someone please tell me I'm really wrong on this.
"What do you do with the ones who will be inevitably be acquitted under our justice system? Release them into the population?"
The term is deportation. I'd wager a number of these guys will have their home country justice systems awaiting their return, also. ;)
Also during a proceeding such as these would U.S. service members still be held under UCMJ? While suspected terrorists are given Constitutional rights? If this is the case then it would seem in a way that this would grant enemy combatants greater rights than servicemen. Someone please tell me I'm really wrong on this.
IMO, you're wrong. The UCMJ's authority is predicated upon US Code, and although some of an SMs 'Constitutional rights' are abridged under the UCMJ, they aren't lost as you suggest. And like trying organized crime cases or certain espionage cases, there are a number of specialized federal courts and laws to handle such threats. I personally think Gitmo was a necessary 'stop-gap' measure which has now reached a point where our government needs to be creative and update our justice system to deal with such matters more effectively and systematically in the future--because there will be more of them.
FWIW and MOO, I personally don't listen to RL. He was very popular on AFN radio when I was at the AmEmbassy and peers were telling me how RL 'told it like it was.' I listened a couple of times and found his daily diatribes to be based primarily upon taking a snippet from the news and blowing it out of both context and proportion. Being a pol-mil advisor, I found myself disagreeing with his 'take' on the events he was citing in his program vs what I had read or knew from involvement...and haven't listened to him since.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
11-14-2008, 10:45
"What do you do with the ones who will be inevitably be acquitted under our justice system? Release them into the population?"
The term is deportation. I'd wager a number of these guys will have their home country justice systems awaiting their return, also. ;)
Also during a proceeding such as these would U.S. service members still be held under UCMJ? While suspected terrorists are given Constitutional rights? If this is the case then it would seem in a way that this would grant enemy combatants greater rights than servicemen. Someone please tell me I'm really wrong on this.
IMO, you're wrong. The UCMJ's authority is predicated upon US Code, and although some of an SMs 'Constitutional rights' are abridged under the UCMJ, they aren't lost as you suggest. And like trying organized crime cases or certain espionage cases, there are a number of specialized federal courts and laws to handle such threats. I personally think Gitmo was a necessary 'stop-gap' measure which has now reached a point where our government needs to be creative and update our justice system to deal with such matters more effectively and systematically in the future--because there will be more of them.
FWIW and MOO, I personally don't listen to RL. He was very popular on AFN radio when I was at the AmEmbassy and peers were telling me how RL 'told it like it was.' I listened a couple of times and found his daily diatribes to be based primarily upon taking a snippet from the news and blowing it out of both context and proportion. Being a pol-mil advisor, I found myself disagreeing with his 'take' on the events he was citing in his program vs what I had read or knew from involvement...and haven't listened to him since.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I kinda have to agree with Richard, RL has lost me also. He's manipulated the news many times........ :rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
I Guess he is the fastest speed reader in the world. BHO is planning on bringing all the GITMO children into the US and giving them all the rights and protections as you and me. He is also going to set up a new Justice system for the National Security special cases. I wonder what the Supreme court will have to say about this. Does this Idiot know that kind of box he is opening? Even if convicted.. would you want to unleash these guys into our prison system to start to learn and interact with our gangs. God help us if they started to convert some of our well established gang types and they then spread JIHAD with a twist.
I know I am going to catch a load of heat on this one, but it won't be the first time, or the last time, so here it goes.
I personally have been saying what BHO has been for the past few years, when it comes to this subject. If we are going to be spreading democracy throughout the world because it is such a great ideology, then we should be trying these guys in our courts here in the US.
If our justice system is so screwed up that we are concerned that some of these guys are going to get off when they are truly guilty, then a)our justice system really really sucks and no one should be tried under it until it gets a complete overhaul b) if it sucks so bad why are we trying to export it to other nations throughout the world? How are we to convince others that our way is the right way if we aren't willing to put these guys on trial here? We are talking out of both sides of our mouth IMO.
Secondly, the ones that are acquitted will more than likely be deported, as Richard stated.
Finally, what makes you think that this ideology isn't already running rampant throughout our criminal justice system? From the studying I have been doing on terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalism has already infiltrated our prison system. The answer should be putting these guys in solitary confinement, if they are found guilty of their crimes.
The answer should be putting these guys in solitary confinement, if they are found guilty of their crimes.
I'll disagree on your last point. I'm for placing them in the prison's open population...won't take long to get them 'off our books' that way. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'll disagree on your last point. I'm for placing them in the prison's open population...won't take long to get them 'off our books' that way. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Great point!!! My only problem with that, is then they will be touted as martyrs for their cause. Put them in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, let them die old men, and let the world forget about them. To me that may be a worse punishment for most of them.
The Reaper
11-14-2008, 11:04
I know I am going to catch a load of heat on this one, but it won't be the first time, or the last time, so here it goes.
I personally have been saying what BHO has been for the past few years, when it comes to this subject. If we are going to be spreading democracy throughout the world because it is such a great ideology, then we should be trying these guys in our courts here in the US.
If our justice system is so screwed up that we are concerned that some of these guys are going to get off when they are truly guilty, then a)our justice system really really sucks and no one should be tried under it until it gets a complete overhaul b) if it sucks so bad why are we trying to export it to other nations throughout the world? How are we to convince others that our way is the right way if we aren't willing to put these guys on trial here? We are talking out of both sides of our mouth IMO.
Secondly, the ones that are acquitted will more than likely be deported, as Richard stated.
Finally, what makes you think that this ideology isn't already running rampant throughout our criminal justice system? From the studying I have been doing on terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalism has already infiltrated our prison system. The answer should be putting these guys in solitary confinement, if they are found guilty of their crimes.
In my limited experience, we do not follow criminal procedures when taking prisoners or detainees in military operations.
While we have moved toward some efforts to take evidence and to maintain chain of custody, we do not Mirandize, nor provide attorneys for detainees captured during military operations as a US court of law would require.
Asking soldiers to perfom as cops and lawyers, while under fire, is going to be a pretty tall order.
The court appointed, ACLU supported attorneys are going to get killers of US soldiers off on technicalities routinely.
These people we are capturing are not (in most cases) American citizens, are religious zealots straight out of the Middle Ages, are not rehabitatable, and if released, would come right back to attack us again. They are NOT nice people.
I would not count on countries such as Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, etc. to take any action against them once they are repatriated.
I would personally expect the number of detainees and prisoners to drop significantly after such a policy was implemented, and the kill count to go up.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
magician
11-14-2008, 11:44
In fact, returnees to Saudi Arabia have been routinely released.
It is just a matter of time before one of them picks up a gun again.
I know I am going to catch a load of heat on this one, but it won't be the first time, or the last time, so here it goes.
I personally have been saying what BHO has been for the past few years, when it comes to this subject. If we are going to be spreading democracy throughout the world because it is such a great ideology, then we should be trying these guys in our courts here in the US.
If our justice system is so screwed up that we are concerned that some of these guys are going to get off when they are truly guilty, then a)our justice system really really sucks and no one should be tried under it until it gets a complete overhaul b) if it sucks so bad why are we trying to export it to other nations throughout the world? How are we to convince others that our way is the right way if we aren't willing to put these guys on trial here? We are talking out of both sides of our mouth IMO.
Secondly, the ones that are acquitted will more than likely be deported, as Richard stated.
Finally, what makes you think that this ideology isn't already running rampant throughout our criminal justice system? From the studying I have been doing on terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalism has already infiltrated our prison system. The answer should be putting these guys in solitary confinement, if they are found guilty of their crimes.
Your right about catching a load of S@&t....You don't shut down POW Camps and release prisoners until THE WAR IS OVER
If we are going to be spreading democracy throughout the world because it is such a great ideology, then we should be trying these guys in our courts here in the US.
But is there really a connection between democracy and the U.S. civilian criminal justice system? France is a democracy, but (as I understand it) has a court system based on the Napoleonic code, whereas the U.S. system is founded on English common law. The justice system (again, within my limited understanding) is quite different.
Then we turn to the issue of a fair trial. Do the military courts provide a fair trial, one in which the rights of the accused are protected? I suppose that they do. I get the impression that the fine people in the U.S. military are careful to protect the rights of prisoners, even under challenging circumstances.
There is also another side to a fair trial. The rights of the accused are on one side. However, the rights of the State - by implication, the rights of the people of our nation - also deserve a fair hearing. Are civilian judges, prosecutors, and judges capable of conducting a trial with such defendants? Is it possible for a civilian court and jury to understand the combat environment - or the mindset of an insurgent?
I have a suspicion that they will find willing listeners within the U.S. prison system. I'm under the impression that Islam is a force within the prison system; is there a possibility that a few might be receptive to the jihadist message? There is a lesson in the actions of Lee Malvo - one we might wish to reflect on.
In fact, returnees to Saudi Arabia have been routinely released.
It is just a matter of time before one of them picks up a gun again.
There have been several to date that after being returned have gone out and picked up and used arms and 2 that I remember committed suicide as a walking bomb.
Your right about catching a load of S@&t....You don't shut down POW Camps and release prisoners until THE WAR IS OVER
Unfortuantely our government has not classified them as POWs. If they had this probably would not be the hot button issue it is today.
I am not trying to be a smart ass but first of all how do you have a war against a tactic? When do you predict the War on Terror is going to end? Is it when the United States no longer has to deal with terrorism, or is it when it is abolished from the world as a whole and no nation has to endure it. If so then we must identify what exactly is terrorism. For arguments sake lets say that the definition of terrorism is: The use or threateneduse of violence, directed against victims selected for their symbolic representative value, as a means of instilling anxiety, transmitting one or more messages to, and thereby manipulating the preceptions and behavior of a wider audience.
Is it only terrorism when it is something that we don't like, therefore it is used as a pejorative term? Or is it a tactic and as a tactic it is used not only by our enemies, but us as well? Many throughout the world would classify the firebombing of Japan and Berlin as an act of terrorism, but we do not because we are the ones that did it. As McNamara once said, if we had lost WWII he would have been tried as a war criminal for his part in firebombing Japan. Based on the definition of terrorism above, the bombing of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan can be said to be a terrorist act.
So if we are indeed fighting a war against a tactic, that implies there is no end to such war. So what do we do with these enemy combatants? And if we are justified in holding them, what is to say that our own military personnel will not be held in the same manner by our enemies, not only in this war, but wars of the future.
Additionally, nowhere did I suggest they should be released unless they were found not guilty of the charges brought against them.
I know the QPs have a different perspective on this than I do. And my experiences are no where in the same constellation let alone the same universe as yours. But I have loved ones who are in combat, so this question is just as imperative to me as it is to you all. If this matter was based solely on what is happening on the battlefield then it would not be an issue in my estimation. We would keep on keeping on. But this is now a matter in the political realm, and as much as we may not like it or agree with it, it will not be solved by us in the military. It will be solved in the political arena.
Afchic--
You always offer well-argued positions. I agree with your premise that the current methods of handling the detainees is highly problematic. If I had my druthers, the facility would have been closed years ago, the U.S. would not have practiced extreme renditions, and a review board of former POWs, including Senator McCain, would have vetted every interrogation technique.
I respectfully disagree with you on three points.
First, I do not believe the U.S. can benefit politically by incarcerating convicted terrorists in the existing prison system because doing so would draw attention to the fact that our system for holding prisoners is not the best example of a democratic society in action.
It is my understanding that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons determined in the mid 1970s that the American prison system is an unsalvageable failure in its core mission of rehabilitating criminals. From that point forward, the federal prison system was seen as a place to put convicts to punish them.
With this sensibility in place, do we really want prisons to be an international political symbol of the American way? Because of the death penalty, the United States is lambasted by other industrialized nations. During the 1980s, the leftist faction of the anti-apartheid movement gleefully argued that the brutality of the American prison system was exceeded only by South Africa's. Critics of GWOT would quickly bombard the media and the blogosphere with story after story of miscarriages of justice. Unless the evidence was air tight three times over, there would be an endless re-examination of the cases against the convicted.
In intellectual circles, there would be other issues. These issues form my second reason for disagreeing with you.
Thanks to the work of the late Michael Foucault, a French philosopher, many of the same intellectuals and academics who currently berate America's efforts to combat terrorism would have additional 'evidence' to prove their case. Foucault, the founding father of post-structuralism, devoted much of his short life arguing how Western civilization used institutions like prisons to silence legitimate social, political, and cultural dissent.
Criticism informed by the scholarship of Edward Said would also benefit from the incarceration of convicted terrorists in American prisons. Said, an intellectual giant and decent human being, argued effectively that Westerners evaluate the Middle East through a lens that distorts more than it reveals. The implications of this argument raise significant and, as yet, unresolved challenges to many intellectuals and academics who would question the moral legitimacy of trying men (and women) from drastically different cultures in American courts.
Even if the evidence against the terrorists was absolutely air tight, I do not foresee any argument that would win over such critics.
I believe that the U.S. would be better off if it could avoid having to climb into such an intellectual debate. Many academic disciplines in the United States attempted to engage post-structuralism as part of what is known as the Linguistic Turn (or Cultural Turn) in the 1960s. In many cases, but especially history, this effort led to a crisis of legitimacy from which they've not yet recovered.
The response to Said's scholarship, also a part of the linguistic turn, has caused a rift that has disrupted disciplines including English, comparative literature, cultural anthropology, and middle eastern studies.
In short, in classrooms at colleges and university throughout the U.S., undergraduates would ask "what is going on about these terrorists being put in American prisons?" More likely than not, they'd get answer that was aimed more at indoctrination than education.
My third reason for disagreeing with you is that I do not believe the U.S. has maximized other options.
The U.S. has not, for example drawn national and international attention to the increasingly large body of open source documents that show how Salafists view themselves, the Western world, and their own civilization. Information that counters effectively the thesis that terrorism is just a tactic also remains underutilized.
With the publication of the findings of the Terrorists Perspectives Project, and other works published by academic presses, we have publicly available a number of documents in translation that make, in my view, a pretty convincing case that the enemy regards democracy in all of its forms a man-made construct that keeps all men from knowing the will of Allah.
These documents suggest that many of the Salafists believe that terrorism is not only an acceptable tool of jihad but a necessary one because they are engaged in a war of all against all. In many respects, the Salafist theory of warfare is much like the Nazis theory of war.
As Michael Geyer has demonstrated, the Nazi theory of warfare did not simply see organized violence as a means to an end, but the end in and of itself. Somehow, the Nazis believed that Second World War was going to be an experience that freed the German race by cleansing the rest of the world (and most of the Germans as well) with fire so that a new racially pure global order could take hold in the aftermath.*
Similarly, it seems that the Salafists intend to use jihad not simply to expel the West from the Muslim world, but to liberate mankind from the grip of heresy and apostasy In short, if you're not with them, you're against them. If you're against them, you are also a legitimate target.
It is, I believe, this totalizing, no compromise allowed, aspect of Salafist ideology perspective that makes a way of war into a way of life. And I wonder what the American people would think if this information were presented to them through a series of national addresses.
A post script. I agree with those who find Mr. Limbaugh unimpressive. He'll seize upon the least part of an argument, find a flaw, and then trash the whole argument. The first two times, it seems focused and rigorous. After that, not so much.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
*Michael Geyer, "German Strategy in the Age of Machine Warfare, 1919-1945," in Peter Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy, from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 527-597.
See - we should have just done it the legal way - shot on the spot.
No problems.
See - we should have just done it the legal way - shot on the spot.
No problems.
1. We needed information.
2. We followed the 5 S's of POW handling with these guys--when did they add 'Storage, PW, Ea, Indef' to the list? And what's the expiration date?
3. How many of these guys were innocent (relatively, of course) and then turned against the West because of their experiences at Gitmo? And will we know? How? :confused: Speaking for myself, I doubt if I'd ever become a suicide bomber--wrong Myers-Briggs (TNTJ) personality type--but I might want to do some harm to 'Westerners' if I'd been innocent and got caught up in something like this. Kinda a, "Well, since I already did the time...maybe I'll now go ahead and do the crime." (Thought translated from the original Arabic for this post so Christian Lowe can plagiarize it for his 'secret squirrels in the know' blog) :rolleyes:
As the line goes in 'Blackhawk Down', "...it's complicated."
Richard's $.02 :munchin
2. We followed the 5 S's of POW handling....
To have POW status your side has to follow a few rules. The opposition fails to follow the rules in a vast number of areas. As such, by the rules, they have no POW staus.
Now our side does follow the rules but the opposition fails to grant our soldiers taken in combat POW status.
Are they POWs? No.
To have POW status your side has to follow a few rules. The opposition fails to follow the rules in a vast number of areas. As such, by the rules, they have no POW staus.
Now our side does follow the rules but the opposition fails to grant our soldiers taken in combat POW status.
Are they POWs? No.
Well, I'm confused...which is something my wife claims happens quite a bit...and I think more and more people are getting that way, too.
But in the world of ideological warfare, language and actions count, and here we are dealing with several cultural points-of-view regarding the language of what is or isn't an enemy combatant, what is or isn't a POW, what is or isn't legal, and whether canonical or secular law (rules) is 'trump.'
IMO, under such circumstances in today's world of openly publicized and broadcast battles of ideological thought, to become a prisoner of our military of any sort in an event labeled by our government to be a Global War On Terrorism, and for which we award our military a GWOT campaign ribbon, would make them a prisoner of that war--a POW...whether they agree in writing to our thinking or not. If not, it makes us appear to be hypocrites of the worst sort and even more vulnerable to the criticism of our enemies abroad and within.
And if not POWs, then we need to defecate or leave the outhouse and decide what they are, label them as such, and deal with them in a way other than sticking them in the closet and leaving them for the 'next guy' (whoever, whenever) to deal with in the manner of E.E. Hale's The Man Without A Country.
I'm confused...and so are many other ffolkes out there in the world who are looking to us for some sort of 'guy in the white hat' leadership on this one. IMO, it's time for us as a nation to 'cowboy up' on this issue and do something tangible about it.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
This is what happens when you try to fight a war by Law Enforcement standards.
If they are POWs then there is no need for trials - they are held until the end of the war. As POWs they can be held on US soil and still not have a trail. Lots of German and Italian POWs were held in US camps during WW II.
The Pres et al went out of their way a few years back to not list them as POWs, because they did not fit the legal description and actions of POWs. Under the law of land warfare most could shot on the spot or right after wringing out as much information and the intell winnies could.
In trying to go halfway between POWs and prisoners the administration has allowed the opposition (libs) to frame the debate into a legal & rights issue.
With a trial will come discovery for the defense. How much of our intell capabilities are going to be ripped open during discovery?
This is what happens when you try to fight a war by Law Enforcement standards.
If they are POWs then there is no need for trials - they are held until the end of the war. As POWs they can be held on US soil and still not have a trail. Lots of German and Italian POWs were held in US camps during WW II.
Yep...most were let go and a number of them were then tried, too, in a court of law. Some were then executed, some received various prison sentences, and some were then found innocent and released. Many were held without such formal hearings by the EastBloc powers and summarily executed or interred for whimsical periods of time. Those initial trials among the Western powers went on for over four years...and some of them are continuing to this day because certain actions have no statute of limitations. We've set a legal precedent for this over a half-century ago predicated on our concept of the 'Rule of Law.'
I think many in the world are asking why we say we believe in the 'Rule of Law' but why we don't seem to want to live by it if things don't go our way? I think that's a good question, and perhaps we are...but--as with a number of issues concerning our government and the GWOT--we certainly need to do a better job of explaining it to our citizens and to others. And if we don't, then what does that say about us? IMO that unnecessarily gives the tin-foil hat crowd and our enemies (foreign and domestic) a basic load of ideological ammunition to take pot shots at our core system of beliefs and government...a dangerous tactic on our part.
FWIW, I'm not trying to yank anybody's chain here, I'm just playing the 'devil's advocate' to make this debate (1) interesting and (2) an example of just how difficult it is to try and resolve such matters w/o suffering the often worse fates of 'unintended consequences' or fulfilling the idea of, as Pogo once said, "I have met the enemy...and he is us."
If this is tiring, let me know and I'll return to Elba.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
There were no trials for standard POWs. They were captured or surrendered, interviewed for intel puposes and then moved to POW camps and held until the end of the War. Some of the Italian POWs captured in North Africa were held at Ft Irwin - and built the Old Officer's Club. A few of the Germans did slip out of the camps, a number of POWs worked on farms and for the most part they seemed to be content to sit the rest of the war out.
Those that escaped where then subject to trial for any crimes commited during the escape.
Those individuals arrested for War Crimes were tried under international law.
The "legal terms" people are using nowdays is causing the confusion.
To be a POW you and your leaders have to follow certain rules. Do not follow the rules and you can be legally shot on the spot.
There were no trials for standard POWs. They were captured or surrendered, interviewed for intel puposes and then moved to POW camps and held until the end of the War. Some of the Italian POWs captured in North Africa were held at Ft Irwin - and built the Old Officer's Club. A few of the Germans did slip out of the camps, a number of POWs worked on farms and for the most part they seemed to be content to sit the rest of the war out.
Those that escaped where then subject to trial for any crimes commited during the escape.
Those individuals arrested for War Crimes were tried under international law.
The "legal terms" people are using nowdays is causing the confusion.
To be a POW you and your leaders have to follow certain rules. Do not follow the rules and you can be legally shot on the spot.
Pete
Question..... What are the exact standard/rules that would entitle you to be a POW as you refer to. That might clear up what people are saying is a gray area.
The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 covered the basics.
In Article 4 is a long description of who is an enemy soldier. Boiled down is they have to wear a distictive sign that is recognizable at a distance and carry arms openly.
Some say that the section that covers civilians who take up arms, I think that is covered in the 4th Convention, applies to the Taliban who were captured.
The debate is now "are the people being held part of an organized resistance force - The Taliban - and, as such, since they are not wearing a distinctive sign they are not covered under the Convention". In that case they can be considered saboteurs or spys.
Or are they just civilians who happened to pick up a rifle and were nabbed by our side. In that case then they are still not covered by the Convention but may still be tried for their crimes.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
There were no trials for standard POWs. They were captured or surrendered, interviewed for intel puposes and then moved to POW camps and held until the end of the War. Some of the Italian POWs captured in North Africa were held at Ft Irwin - and built the Old Officer's Club. A few of the Germans did slip out of the camps, a number of POWs worked on farms and for the most part they seemed to be content to sit the rest of the war out.
Those that escaped where then subject to trial for any crimes commited during the escape.
Those individuals arrested for War Crimes were tried under international law.
The "legal terms" people are using nowdays is causing the confusion.
To be a POW you and your leaders have to follow certain rules. Do not follow the rules and you can be legally shot on the spot.
1. History--other than the standard pablum provided by the local boards of education--says otherwise.
2. Who's rules? :confused:
3. What's a standard POW? :confused:
4. During and after WW2, there were trials by military courts, tribunals, and civil courts for POWs, guerrillas, and local populaces who were discovered to have committed common crimes such as rape, murder, etc.
5. There were also international tribunals which specifically tried those POWs--both military and civilian--who were charged under the newly created law of having committed "Crimes Against Humanity."
6. A goodly number of German and Italian POWs were transported to camps here in the more rural areas of the South-Southwestern US and, although most were simply 'repatriated' at the conclusion of the war, some were returned to their home countries specifically to stand trial in civil court or before a tribunal for common criminal activities.
7. In the WOD--the War On Drugs--do we handle 'narco-terrorists' in the same manner as we handle the 'Islamo-terrorists' of the GWOT? What's the difference? Or is it just those 'legal terms' people are using nowdays that is causing the confusion? And I don't even want to get into the WOP (War On Poverty)! :eek:
8. The handling of POWs and the determination of their status has always been decided by the capturing organization. I suspect this will always be the case.
9. In a world in which we doctrinally prepare to wage war at any of its thresholds, from revolutionary (among some of the most primitive of society's) to nuclear (among the most potentially advanced), if a prisoner taken captive in a military action is not a "POW," then what is he?????
10. Maybe this discussion in itself proves the point that nobody--even those who truly care about the possible repercussions of such a situation--clearly understands the status of why or why not the Gitmo prisoners should be labeled or treated as POWs. I personally think that's a bit disheartening in a democratic republic such as ours.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
ZonieDiver
11-15-2008, 14:07
And I don't even want to get into the WOP (War On Poverty)!
Richard's $.02
I was wondering... would being a POW in the WOP be a good or a bad thing? :)
Seriously though, with the new types of "warfare" extant today, perhaps it is time for an update of the Geneva Conventions in these areas to codify these new
"POW's".
The world stage is part of the battlefield in the GWOT and we delude ourselves if we think our actions don't have repercussions there - like it or not. There are "hearts and minds" to be fought for in many parts of the world if we are to succeed in the fight against these Islamo- / Narco- / Whatevero-Terrorists.
We will have to disagree on this issue.
The world is going to get much worse before it gets better.
ZonieDiver
11-15-2008, 14:31
We will have to disagree on this issue.
The world is going to get much worse before it gets better.
On that, I think most of us CAN agree!
Basenshukai
11-15-2008, 15:50
I agree with TR on the point he initially made on this thread. From personal experience can say this:
- A team captures an enemy combatant and they are burried in paperwork and when they hand the combatant over to higher, the enemy combatant will usually acuse the team of every violation possible, thereby sidelining an officer IOT conduct a thorough investigation on the same team.
- A team kills an enemy combatant and leaves him there on the battlefield and no one bothers no one else.
So, if these enemy combatants become the type that can now get an attorney, file law suits and drag service members in to court, which of the two above do you think will happen most often?
MOO - We, as a nation, will either live by our mission statement or won't. I'd like to believe we will. However, we'll have to live with the consequences either way.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
MOO - We, as a nation, will either live by our mission statement or won't. I'd like to believe we will. However, we'll have to live with the consequences either way.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Sir...with all due respect...what is our mission statement? I'm quite serious with my question.
The constitution, as amended, might be a candidate. But the meanings tend to change over time, especially as the courts interpret the document. And it is my understanding that one can easily avoid jury duty by quoting the constitution in a courtroom.
Is it the law? Or, more specifically, the body of laws, statutes, and regulations having the force of law? I dare say none of us know all of them, or even a substantial fraction. Some are intuitive - but others are counterintuitive. And still worse, they are modified by precedent. There are obsolete laws that remain in force, but are never enforced.
Is it what our elected leaders say? The problem is, leaders say things to control the masses - sometimes for the greater good, and sometimes not. Still worse, what our leaders say changes over time.
Still worse, I am not sure there is a broad consensus on what our values should be. I suspect treatment of prisoners is an example.
Last spring, I had an assignment in an ethics class to write a paper, and I chose to argue that enhanced interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, was ethically required (not merely acceptable) under classic Utilitarianism. The professor, a rather gentle-natured liberal, was sufficiently impressed by the argument that I got an A. :cool:
But if I can argue that such actions are an ethical requirement, and provide abundant quality references to that effect, I wonder if any mission statement actually prohibits it...
Well, it seems like some in Obama's circle are begining to chew on this bone also.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15gitmo.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Life ain't that easy when you're the one behind the desk.
Sir...with all due respect...what is our mission statement? I'm quite serious with my question.
I think it begins here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
And here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The framework and the government organs necessary to resolve this pending matter, which could be very awkward both nationally and internationally, exist. We have to ask ourselves...and our representatives...why we haven't made this a priority? And if it proves embarassing...then what? Do we adopt a law such as the 1911 Official Secrets Act which has been used more often to cover up embarassing individual peccadillos and governmental follies rather than to actually protect official information, mainly related to national security, as originally intended?
The alternative, as Orwellian as it sounds, brings to mind the remarks of Pastor Martin Niemoller in 1946:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
People and governments take seemingly necessary, yet often awkward or overly reactive, actions when they face uncertainty or feel threatened. We all know how that happens. Post-9/11 America took a number of steps to ensure the national security of its citizens, and some of those measures seem less necessary now and, in the brighter light of hind-sight, even poorly conceived or executed. Such is life.
The question before us now is what are we going to do about it? I don't have any 'pat' answers for this issue...but continuing to ignore it is not--IMO--a viable course of action for a nation such as ours.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Life ain't that easy when you're the one behind the desk.
Exactly. Historically, it's referred to as bearing the mantle of command. In the basic branch courses, the scenarios generally offer a situation to be resolved followed by the bucket of cold water in the face phrase, "What now Lieutenant?" ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
7. In the WOD--the War On Drugs--do we handle 'narco-terrorists' in the same manner as we handle the 'Islamo-terrorists' of the GWOT? What's the difference? Or is it just those 'legal terms' people are using nowdays that is causing the confusion? And I don't even want to get into the WOP (War On Poverty)! :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
In regards to ones like ELN and FARC they are handled like common criminals. Monthly FARC people are extradited to Miami under indictment's by AUSA's in support of DEA investigations/cases. They are convicted and put in U.S. Federal Prison..... SO now the US tax payer funds the vacation for that person in the US. There have been a couple of cases that as the individual came up on his release date they filed for asylum in the US. They argued that they would be persecuted and or killed if they were sent back to their country. Guess what some have been granted assalyum.... I know a few that came back and they did not last very long, their old buddy's took care of them as most flipped in the US and gave info.
This is the situation that we may face if we start sending these guys to US Court in the US. Many will plead that if they are sent back to their home country they will be tortured and killed. Many that have been released in the past have stayed because lawyers intervened saying they would be in danger back home. I hate the ACLU........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/guantanamo-barack-obama-draft-order-closure
Okay, fine. Where will these dirtbag America-haters go now?
Rediculous, and IMHO, showing the non-intelligence of what is coming forth from the "new, for-change, idiot administration.":rolleyes:
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
"Barack Obama: Administration drafts order to close Guantánamo camp within year. Draft order would also declare a halt to all trials currently under way at the facility.
The Obama administration is circulating a draft executive order that calls for closing the controversial US military prison at Guantánamo Bay within a year, it emerged today.
The draft order, obtained by the Associated Press, would also declare a halt to all trials currently under way at the facility, where roughly 245 detainees are being held. Most have not been charged. The Bush administration created the camp after the September 11 2001 attacks.
The draft order would start the process of shutting down a facility that has been strongly criticised by human rights groups and European governments.":mad:(typical MSM crap!)
Constant
01-27-2009, 11:56
Who would've thought that the gitmo folks would go back to do Jihad? I was hoping after giving them a hug like some of the left want to do they'd be okay.
link here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483526,00.html)
Unfortuantely our government has not classified them as POWs. If they had this probably would not be the hot button issue it is today.
I am not trying to be a smart ass but first of all how do you have a war against a tactic? When do you predict the War on Terror is going to end? Is it when the United States no longer has to deal with terrorism, or is it when it is abolished from the world as a whole and no nation has to endure it. If so then we must identify what exactly is terrorism. For arguments sake lets say that the definition of terrorism is: The use or threateneduse of violence, directed against victims selected for their symbolic representative value, as a means of instilling anxiety, transmitting one or more messages to, and thereby manipulating the preceptions and behavior of a wider audience.
Is it only terrorism when it is something that we don't like, therefore it is used as a pejorative term? Or is it a tactic and as a tactic it is used not only by our enemies, but us as well? Many throughout the world would classify the firebombing of Japan and Berlin as an act of terrorism, but we do not because we are the ones that did it. As McNamara once said, if we had lost WWII he would have been tried as a war criminal for his part in firebombing Japan. Based on the definition of terrorism above, the bombing of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan can be said to be a terrorist act.
So if we are indeed fighting a war against a tactic, that implies there is no end to such war. So what do we do with these enemy combatants? And if we are justified in holding them, what is to say that our own military personnel will not be held in the same manner by our enemies, not only in this war, but wars of the future.
Additionally, nowhere did I suggest they should be released unless they were found not guilty of the charges brought against them.
I know the QPs have a different perspective on this than I do. And my experiences are no where in the same constellation let alone the same universe as yours. But I have loved ones who are in combat, so this question is just as imperative to me as it is to you all. If this matter was based solely on what is happening on the battlefield then it would not be an issue in my estimation. We would keep on keeping on. But this is now a matter in the political realm, and as much as we may not like it or agree with it, it will not be solved by us in the military. It will be solved in the political arena.
You bring up an interesting point in that the detainees were not declared Prisoners of War. And the key word there is war. Common sense says we are at war with terrorism, but our Government has not issued a legally binding Declaration of War. So I am guessing that legally (BS in text form) you cannot have POW's and the form of justice predicated towards POWs without a Declaration of War. And since we are not at War in the legal sense is not legal to process a 'Detainee' in the same manner as a POW.
Hostile0311
01-27-2009, 13:52
I know I am going to catch a load of heat on this one, but it won't be the first time, or the last time, so here it goes.
I personally have been saying what BHO has been for the past few years, when it comes to this subject. If we are going to be spreading democracy throughout the world because it is such a great ideology, then we should be trying these guys in our courts here in the US.
If our justice system is so screwed up that we are concerned that some of these guys are going to get off when they are truly guilty, then a)our justice system really really sucks and no one should be tried under it until it gets a complete overhaul b) if it sucks so bad why are we trying to export it to other nations throughout the world? How are we to convince others that our way is the right way if we aren't willing to put these guys on trial here? We are talking out of both sides of our mouth IMO.
Secondly, the ones that are acquitted will more than likely be deported, as Richard stated.
Finally, what makes you think that this ideology isn't already running rampant throughout our criminal justice system? From the studying I have been doing on terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalism has already infiltrated our prison system. The answer should be putting these guys in solitary confinement, if they are found guilty of their crimes.
The. U.S. of A is a Republic, not a democracy. As mentioned by earlier members, once it starts where will it stop? Once they are acquitted criminally may they file a civil suit and seek damages? As I think TS put it, what will become of Discovery? This is a very foul can of worms indeed. My contention is send them back to their coutry of origin and let the chips fall where they may. If they are found guilty and put to death elsewhere then too bad so sad it ain't my problem, they were found guilty by a jury of 'their peers'...They died a martyrs death whether they wanted to or not and we taxpayers won't have to foot the bill for their incarceration.
The. U.S. of A is a Republic, not a democracy. As mentioned by earlier members, once it starts where will it stop? Once they are acquitted criminally may they file a civil suit and seek damages? As I think TS put it, what will become of Discovery? This is a very foul can of worms indeed. My contention is send them back to their coutry of origin and let the chips fall where they may. If they are found guilty and put to death elsewhere then too bad so sad it ain't my problem, they were found guilty by a jury of 'their peers'...They died a martyrs death whether they wanted to or not and we taxpayers won't have to foot the bill for their incarceration.
Really, you don't say? Funny how for the past 8 years it seems I have heard the term "spreading democracy" and not "spreading Republicy".
We are a nation of laws. We are a nation that stands for what is right, not only when it is easy to do so, but when it is hard, when it is at its most difficult. It is time to classify what these people are. It is time to either try them or cut bait. Is this an intolerable thought for many? Yes, I find it a hard pill to swallow as well. But until we start living up to our own hype, we have no hope of ever becoming that beacon of light on the hill once again.
...We are a nation of laws. We are a nation that stands for what is right, not only when it is easy to do so, but when it is hard, when it is at its most difficult. It is time to classify what these people are.....
You are so true.
Since they are not and were not following the laws of war they have no protection under international law and as such can be shot on the spot when taken.
Let me throw out some items:
Why do we have to try them in the USofA? We should look at this, not just bring them in and throw them in Jail and bring charges in the Lower district Court of NY.
IF they did what they are suposed to have done why dont we just classify them and open a court (World Court) like we did in Nuremberg?
Oh we do not want to provide info as how the information was divulged to protect the source and assets.
May it be that we do not trust the other guys to process them? Yes it is......
When we extradite the FARC/ELN etc it is after years of investigation by Leo's, cases open, hard evidence obtained via court orders and a AUSA has charged them in a US Court. When they are captured in another country we go through a process to extradite them which makes us show our case and guarantee they will be tried IAW certain agreements. Some countries will not turn them over unless we promise not to go for the death penalty.
These guys are terrorist and should be dealt with on the battle field and sent to their hoard of virgins. Just my 2 cents...
Hostile0311
01-27-2009, 15:02
Really, you don't say? Funny how for the past 8 years it seems I have heard the term "spreading democracy" and not "spreading Republicy".
We are a nation of laws. We are a nation that stands for what is right, not only when it is easy to do so, but when it is hard, when it is at its most difficult. It is time to classify what these people are. It is time to either try them or cut bait. Is this an intolerable thought for many? Yes, I find it a hard pill to swallow as well. But until we start living up to our own hype, we have no hope of ever becoming that beacon of light on the hill once again.
Afchic,
I agree wholeheartedly with your position stated above and I too believe it is time to classify them...for exactly what they are, a barborous people lost in the middle ages who have no hope of 'seeing that beacon of light' and should be dealt with in a similar manner. They (the suspected detainees but not limited to) are a 'hatemongering' people who believe their way is the only way and punishing them by giving them jurisprudence under our justice system would be a waste of time, money and resources. I for one do not believe they deserve shelter under our Constitution. Affording them this basic right we enjoy will only serve to make a mockery of our already over-burdened Justice System.
I'll play along for a bit. Say we do try them and they are found "Guilty" of war crimes, etc. Then what? What do you think the MSM will have to say if we impose a deserving death sentence on one of these detainees much less follow thru and carry it out like after WWII with the Nazi war criminals? Giving them status under our law would only open the proverbial "Pandora's Box".
I'll play along for a bit. Say we do try them and they are found "Guilty" of war crimes, etc. Then what? What do you think the MSM will have to say if we impose a deserving death sentence on one of these detainees much less follow thru and carry it out like after WWII with the Nazi war criminals? Giving them status under our law would only open the proverbial "Pandora's Box".
Why would the imposition of the death penalty on any of these folks be any different than other death penalty cases in this country? You are always going to have those that agree with the practice and those that don't. I don't think it much matters who it is. Until the practice is deemed illegal in our nation, the MSM doesn't really have a leg to stand on. I am sure there are Federal Prisons in Texas that will have no problem carrying out the punishment, and they have proven they are impervious to what the MSM or anyone else thinks about the practice.
I personally feel solitary confinement for the rest of their lives is a much worse punishment than the death penalty. Let them eat our crappy prison food instead of getting their 72 virgins:p
Hostile0311
01-27-2009, 15:42
Why would the imposition of the death penalty on any of these folks be any different than other death penalty cases in this country? You are always going to have those that agree with the practice and those that don't. I don't think it much matters who it is. Until the practice is deemed illegal in our nation, the MSM doesn't really have a leg to stand on. I am sure there are Federal Prisons in Texas that will have no problem carrying out the punishment, and they have proven they are impervious to what the MSM or anyone else thinks about the practice.
I personally feel solitary confinement for the rest of their lives is a much worse punishment than the death penalty. Let them eat our crappy prison food instead of getting their 72 virgins:p
I won't argue with you on that one!:) The only other bone of contention I'd have to pick is the taxpayer would once again have to foot the bill to keep these individuals incarcerated. Old Sparky is much more cost effective since the going rate in Texas is approx. $35,000 per year per inmate. Multiply that x 250 assuming they are found guilty and you get $8,750,000 cumulatively per anum. Thats a pretty penny in my book. Maybe Obama's Redistribution of Wealth will free up some cash to baby-sit these detainees.;)
The Reaper
01-27-2009, 15:55
[/COLOR]
I won't argue with you on that one!:) The only other bone of contention I'd have to pick is the taxpayer would once again have to foot the bill to keep these individuals incarcerated. Old Sparky is much more cost effective since the going rate in Texas is approx. $35,000 per year per inmate. Multiply that x 250 assuming they are found guilty and you get $8,750,000 cumulatively per anum. Thats a pretty penny in my book. Maybe Obama's Redistribution of Wealth will free up some cash to baby-sit these detainees.;)
These are not car thieves or crack dealers, they are lying, murdering, propagandists and recruiters for a cause. They will not be rehabilitated, of rendered less dangerous by incarceration for a given period of time. They are not soldiers, they are not holy warriors, they are not mujihadeen, they are vermin who kill and hide behind women and children while disguised in civilian clothing. They are not entitled to any rights or protections if apprehended as terrorists. IMHO, this makes them saboteurs who can be summarily executed.
Given the gang activity rampant at our institutions, I hardly think we want to see these terrorist scum given the opportunity to proselytize to a captive audience and to pass on their evil, corrosive philosophy and training to their fellow inmates. Most of these pigs have already murdered US or allies in the name of their god.
IMHO, we should dump them into pens of hungry feral hogs, or have the HNs take custody and execute them immediately upon arrival as part of their repatriation. Instead, they will be released after a tropical vacation to attack us again. And this is okay with the Dims.
I guess I just don't get it, and never will.
Color me an unrepentant, unreconstructed, uncivilized sinner.
TR
Hostile0311
01-27-2009, 16:23
These are not car thieves or crack dealers, they are lying, murdering, propagandists and recruiters for a cause. They will not be rehabilitated, of rendered less dangerous by incarceration for a given period of time. They are not soldiers, they are not holy warriors, they are not mujihadeen, they are vermin who kill and hide behind women and children while disguised in civilian clothing. They are not entitled to any rights or protections if apprehended as terrorists. IMHO, this makes them saboteurs who can be summarily executed.
Given the gang activity rampant at our institutions, I hardly think we want to see these terrorist scum given the opportunity to proselytize to a captive audience and to pass on their evil, corrosive philosophy and training to their fellow inmates. Most of these pigs have already murdered US or allies in the name of their god.
IMHO, we should dump them into pens of hungry feral hogs, or have the HNs take custody and execute them immediately upon arrival as part of their repatriation. Instead, they will be released after a tropical vacation to attack us again. And this is okay with the Dims.
I guess I just don't get it, and never will.
Color me an unrepentant, unreconstructed, uncivilized sinner.
TR
TR,
Please don't get me wrong, I agree with you.
"First you chop your body up. And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it's no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You got to starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up body will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies' digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don't want to go sievin' through pig shit, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, 'as greedy as a pig.' " Quote by Bricktop from the movie Snatch.
I wonder if there is any truth to this soliloquy? It would be a fitting albeit ironic method of depsatch for these clowns.
These are not car thieves or crack dealers, they are lying, murdering, propagandists and recruiters for a cause. They will not be rehabilitated, of rendered less dangerous by incarceration for a given period of time. They are not soldiers, they are not holy warriors, they are not mujihadeen, they are vermin who kill and hide behind women and children while disguised in civilian clothing. They are not entitled to any rights or protections if apprehended as terrorists. IMHO, this makes them saboteurs who can be summarily executed.
Given the gang activity rampant at our institutions, I hardly think we want to see these terrorist scum given the opportunity to proselytize to a captive audience and to pass on their evil, corrosive philosophy and training to their fellow inmates. Most of these pigs have already murdered US or allies in the name of their god.
IMHO, we should dump them into pens of hungry feral hogs, or have the HNs take custody and execute them immediately upon arrival as part of their repatriation. Instead, they will be released after a tropical vacation to attack us again. And this is okay with the Dims.
I guess I just don't get it, and never will.
Color me an unrepentant, unreconstructed, uncivilized sinner.
TR
I say your mind set is on the mark.
JumpinJoe1010
01-27-2009, 20:14
I thought this news story was timely for this discussion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html
As President Obama pushes for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison, the debate over where to house the terror detainees being held there is heating up.
An exclusive video of a former Gitmo detainee's martyrdom tape, obtained by FOX News, is a reminder of the concerns that terror suspects — who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay — are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies.
Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi was transferred back to his home country of Kuwait after his release from Guantanamo in 2005. Last April he blew himself up in a homicide attack that killed 12 people in Mosul, Iraq.
Al-Ajmi, known in Guantanamo as Detainee 220, made his martyrdom tape before the attack.
"In the name of Allah, most compassionate, most merciful and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet," al-Ajmi says in the video. "I thank Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who freed me from Guantanamo prison and, after we were tortured, connected me with the Islamic State of Iraq [ISI]. And it is the gift of Allah to follow the path of this nation, the ISI."
In the video, translated by the NEFA Foundation, a non-profit that tracks terror groups, al-Ajmi mentions Guantanamo Bay right away. For many jihadists, having served time at Guantanamo is seen as a badge of honor.
Click here to visit the NEFA Foundation Web site.
Al-Ajmi's attack is one of the most well known and well documented cases of an ex-Gitmo detainee returning to the battlefield as a homicide bomber. His video renews concerns of many in the intelligence community of the potential consequences by releasing these prisoners.
Sixty-two detainees released from the U.S. Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, citing data from December. That's up from 37 as of March 2008, Morrell said.
The new figures come as President-elect Barack Obama issued an executive order last week to close the controversial prison. It's unlikely, however, that the Guantanamo detention facility will be closed anytime soon as Obama weighs what to do with the estimated 250 Al Qaeda, Taliban or other foreign fighter suspects still there.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_guantanamo/print).
Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast
By LARA JAKES, Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 17 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon's senior judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay dropped charges Thursday against an al-Qaida suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing, upholding President Barack Obama's order to freeze military tribunals there. The charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.
The legal move by Susan J. Crawford, the top legal authority for military trials at Guantanamo, brings all cases into compliance with Obama's Jan. 22 executive order to halt terrorist court proceedings at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being.
"It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the president has issued an executive order which mandates that the military commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantanamo," Morrell said late Thursday night.
The ruling also gives the White House time to review the legal cases of all 245 terror suspects held there and decide whether they should be prosecuted in the U.S. or released to other nations.
Obama was expected to meet with families of Cole and 9/11 victims at the White House on Friday afternoon to announce the move.
Seventeen U.S. sailors died on Oct. 12, 2000, when al-Qaida suicide bombers steered an explosives-laden boat into the Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, as it sat in a Yemen port.
The Pentagon last summer charged al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian, with "organizing and directing" the bombing and planned to seek the death penalty in the case.
In his Jan. 22 order, Obama promised to shut down the Guantanamo prison within a year. The order also froze all Guantanamo detainee legal cases pending a three-month review as the Obama administration decides where — or whether — to prosecute the suspects who have been held there for years, most without charges.
Two military judges granted Obama's request for a delay in other cases.
But a third military judge, Army Col. James Pohl, defied Obama's order by scheduling a Feb. 9 arraignment for al-Nashiri at Guantanamo. That left the decision on whether to continue to Crawford, whose delay on announcing what she would do prompted widespread concern at the Pentagon that she would refuse to follow orders and allow the court process to continue.
Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer of the Cole when it was bombed in Yemen in October 2000, said he will be among family members of Cole and 9/11 victims who are meeting with Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon.
Groups representing victims' families were angered by Obama's order, charging they had waited too long already to see the alleged attackers brought to court.
"I was certainly disappointed with the decision to delay the military commissions process," Lippold, now a defense adviser to Military Families United, said in an interview Thursday night. "We have already waited eight years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must allow the military commission process to go forward."
Crawford was appointed to her post in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush. She was in the news last month when she said interrogation methods used on one suspect at Guantanamo amounted to torture. The Bush administration had maintained it did not torture.
Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing only because he was tortured by U.S. interrogators. The CIA has admitted he was among terrorist suspects subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, in 2002 and 2003 while being interrogated in secret CIA prisons.
Soft Target
02-06-2009, 07:37
First, the Gov of my wonderful state has offered prison near here. I sent an message telling him that, if his mansion has twelve bedrooms, he should host eleven of them on a rotating basis in his home. No answer.
Second: "Obama was expected to meet with families of Cole and 9/11 victims at the White House on Friday afternoon to announce the move." They should show how they feel about it in public.
The ruling also gives the White House time to review the legal cases of all 245 terror suspects held there and decide whether they should be prosecuted in the U.S. or released to other nations.
This just gets stranger by the day.
Why is "the White House" going to review these cases?":rolleyes:
Either there are things happening here that the American public doesn't need to know, or the current administration has just bowed to terrorists.
Holly:munchin
Patriot007
02-06-2009, 10:20
Good point Holly, since when does the executive branch have judicial authority over military detainees? I know the President can offer pardons but these detainees haven't even stood trial. Is he now judge and jury as well?
First, the Gov of my wonderful state has offered prison near here. I sent an message telling him that, if his mansion has twelve bedrooms, he should host eleven of them on a rotating basis in his home. No answer.
Second: "Obama was expected to meet with families of Cole and 9/11 victims at the White House on Friday afternoon to announce the move." They should show how they feel about it in public.
I know at least one Family declined his invitation to meet.
This just gets stranger by the day.
Why is "the White House" going to review these cases?":rolleyes:
Holly:munchin
Good question, Holly! I, personally, would love an answer to that question. I know that is wishful thinking. I am so incensed right now I cannot even see straight!!! :mad:
And why is Barry even inviting the families up to the White House? Why didn't he confer with them when he was making this decision in the first place? :mad:
From Robert Gibbs Press Conference discussing the Cole Bombing Victims meeting with Obama.
12:56pm, Friday, Feb. 6th
"The discussion is part of how to move forward. I dont believe the familes have seen...I think the President was thinking, I thought it was important to listen to anything involved in this process."
"Without getting into specifics, the President believed the best course of action was to go though the process of the executive order that was signed."
Typed this word for word from the slimy-looking, (yes, as a woman I find him to look slimy), Robert Gibbs.
Anyone else think that were this man to show up here at PS.com, he would last more than five seconds with the QP's?
Disgusting IMHO.
Holly:munchin
greenberetTFS
02-06-2009, 13:30
These are not car thieves or crack dealers, they are lying, murdering, propagandists and recruiters for a cause. They will not be rehabilitated, of rendered less dangerous by incarceration for a given period of time. They are not soldiers, they are not holy warriors, they are not mujihadeen, they are vermin who kill and hide behind women and children while disguised in civilian clothing. They are not entitled to any rights or protections if apprehended as terrorists. IMHO, this makes them saboteurs who can be summarily executed.
Given the gang activity rampant at our institutions, I hardly think we want to see these terrorist scum given the opportunity to proselytize to a captive audience and to pass on their evil, corrosive philosophy and training to their fellow inmates. Most of these pigs have already murdered US or allies in the name of their god.
IMHO, we should dump them into pens of hungry feral hogs, or have the HNs take custody and execute them immediately upon arrival as part of their repatriation. Instead, they will be released after a tropical vacation to attack us again. And this is okay with the Dims.
I guess I just don't get it, and never will.
Color me an unrepentant, unreconstructed, uncivilized sinner.
TR
TR,
You are unrepentant,unreconstructed & a uncivilized sinner and thank God for you because you are. I believe in what you expressed and I say I don't get it either.........:confused:
GB TFS :munchin
Snaquebite
02-06-2009, 14:04
TR Said:
While we have moved toward some efforts to take evidence and to maintain chain of custody, we do not Mirandize, nor provide attorneys for detainees captured during military operations as a US court of law would require.
Cases DISMISSED.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
02-06-2009, 14:12
I agree with TR 100%
What a circus trials in the USA will be! They will make OJ's trial look good! :mad:
No, I don't understand these actions either. Good reason to take no prisoners.
Soft Target
02-06-2009, 14:34
Robert Gibbs is an incredible BOZO!!!!!! No disrespect meant toward the late, great Clown of the same name.
I have to wonder.. if these trials take place on US soil, how many of their supporters will show up in front of the court houses? What if those of us that oppose this circus show up enmass in protest? Would the pressure of their presence or, for that matter, protestors presence be considered "jury tampering"? The circus may not just be in the court rooms!
Dismissing those cases is equal to spitting in the families faces, in all of our faces. It enrages me!! :mad: :mad: :mad: I don't mean to rant, I am really trying to hold myself together while I am writing this (it really hits close to home for me), but this is just the tip of the iceberg. I am going to try to hold my emotions in check and hold my tongue now! Thanks for letting me spew!
Dismissing those cases is equal to spitting in the families faces, in all of our faces. It enrages me!! :mad: :mad: :mad: I don't mean to rant, I am really trying to hold myself together while I am writing this (it really hits close to home for me), but this is just the tip of the iceberg. I am going to try to hold my emotions in check and hold my tongue now! Thanks for letting me spew!
Agree with you 100 & 20%!!!
It is outrageous, and if any part of America feels otherwise, they should move to the middle east, practice Sharia Law, and be damned, IMHO!:mad:
Holly
Any talk of this is going to drive the left nuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1
Open mouth - insert foot - eat crow. O-bee is facing some reality checks now that he's POTUS and not candidate O-bee. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Officials: Guantanamo court system likely to remain open
USA Today, 3 May 2009
The Obama administration may revamp and restart the Bush-era military trial system for suspected terrorists as it struggles to determine the fate of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and fulfill a pledge to close the prison by January.
The move would further delay terrorism trials and, coupled with recent comments by U.S. military and legal officials, amounts to a public admission by President Barack Obama's team that delivering on that promise is easier said than done.
Almost immediately after taking office, Obama suspended the tribunal system and ordered a 120-day review of the cases against the 241 men being held at the Navy prison in Cuba. That review was supposed to end May 20. But two U.S. officials said Saturday the administration wants a three-month extension.
The delay means that legal action on the detainees' cases would continue to be frozen. Neither of the U.S. officials were authorized to discuss the delay publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
One official said the Obama administration planned to use the extra time to ask Congress to tweak the existing military tribunals system that was created for the detainees. Critics of former President George W. Bush, who pushed Congress to create it, have said the system violated U.S. law because it limits the detainees' legal rights.
Now, faced with looming deadlines and few answers for where to transfer the detainees, the Obama administration may keep the tribunal system — with a few changes.
Asked at a Senate hearing last week if the administration would abandon the Guantanamo system, Defense Secretary Robert Gates answered: "Not at all."
"The commissions are very much still on the table," Gates said, adding that nine Guantanamo detainees are already being tried in military tribunals.
Gates also alluded to the administration's likely request for Congress to tweak to law that created the Guantanamo legal system.
"Should there be any changes to the military commission law, if the decision is made to retain the military commissions?" he asked rhetorically.
Attorney General Eric Holder went further at a recent House hearing, saying the military commissions still could be used but "would be different from those that were previously in place."
Although as many as one-third of the detainees will be released or sent to other nations for trial, Holder said the administration is considering how to prosecute the rest of them.
"We'll be making, again, individualized determinations about where — for that group of people who should be tried, where they should be tried," Holder testified. Among the options he described were "military tribunals that have significant changes made to the manner in which they would be conducted."
The administration has never dismissed the possibility of using the tribunal system to try the suspected al-Qaeda, Taliban and other foreign fighters swept up and ultimately held at Guantanamo after the Sept. 11 attacks.
But administration officials have said they hoped to try many in U.S. federal courts, relying on civilian prosecutors instead of on the military law.
Among the planned changes to the law, both officials said Saturday, would be limits on the evidence used against the detainees. Much of the evidence compiled against at least some of the detainees is classified and cannot be used in civilian courts without exposing the secret material.
The potential 90-day delay was first reported in Saturday's editions of The New York Times. Human rights and civil liberties groups immediately criticized the idea.
"To revive a fatally flawed system that was specifically designed to evade due process and the rule of law would be a grave error and a huge step backward," Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Since Obama ordered the prison closed, Republicans have seized on the issue of where the detainees will go — and the new Democratic administration lack of a plan to deal with them.
"Closing Guantanamo is not a good option if no safe alternatives exist," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Saturday.
Paul F. Rothstein, a Georgetown University legal ethics professor, said the dilemma highlights differences between campaign rhetoric and the realities of the courtroom.
"Once you become president and see the whole panoply of issued that you face, some of the things that seemed easy to promise or talk about during the campaign sometimes appear more difficult," Rothstein said Saturday. "Elections are fought on big slogans without much nuance or detail. I think we want a president who responds to what he sees when he actually gets in there and sees the whole picture, rather than one who adheres rigidly to what he said before."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2009-05-03-guantanamo-trials_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News
Almost immediately after taking office, Obama suspended the tribunal system and ordered a 120-day review of the cases against the 241 men being held at the Navy prison in Cuba. That review was supposed to end May 20. But two U.S. officials said Saturday the administration wants a three-month extension.
Now, faced with looming deadlines and few answers for where to transfer the detainees, the Obama administration may keep the tribunal system — with a few changes.
Hmmm, Well, the current administration is now swollowing hard, and rubbing their skinned up chaffed knees, as They are thinking...
"OH MY!...We actually have to do what we said we were going to do! Well, hay, let's create some kinda scare or two... just to get the American Peoples minds on something other than the fact we are going to release Terrorists that KILLED AMERICAN SOLDIERS!!!"
Am disgusted, and IMHO can only hope that others see through this thin veil of cloth put up by the current administration, and see the grotesque, scaly snakes on the other side.:mad:
Argh, clicking heels...
Holly
alright4u
05-04-2009, 03:43
I am shocked by some of the replies.
Well the Great O is now having to come to reality a Little Bit ref this problem. Wounder who he will bow down to to get help.....
Source is here (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13720499).
American national security
Seeking closure
May 21st 2009
From Economist.com
Barack Obama and Dick Cheney disagree about how best to ensure America's national security
THE contrast was stark: on the one hand Barack Obama, young, idealistic, wet-behind the ears, and on the other Dick Cheney, the former vice-president and the voice of experience, in his best growling form. Both gave speeches on Thursday May 21st: Mr Obama at the National Archives, home of the American constitution, and Mr Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute, the favourite nest of the now-rather-quiet neoconservatives. Mr Obama's voice boomed as it echoed around the walls that house America's revered founding documents, a wheezy Mr Cheney sipped from a water bottle.
Between them, both men represent the two poles of the national-security debate that is raging in Washington. Mr Obama has pledged to shut the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, in Cuba, by January 2010, but even his own party disagrees with him. Democrats in Congress have rebelled and removed money for closing the prison camp, and possibly building another, from war-spending bills that are going through Congress. They will not be happy with the president’s proposal until he produces a thought-out plan that can convince them that wild-eyed jihadists are not about to be released into their neighbourhoods. Mr Obama made his speech to try to persuade them that he does, indeed, have such a plan.
Having admitted that the camp was “quite simply, a mess”, Mr Obama went through the categories of prisoners and how he intended to deal with them. The most dangerous of the 240 detainees would be sent to “super-max” federal prisons—from which, he reminded his audience, no one has ever escaped. Their trials would be held in federal court, where terrorists have already been tried and sentenced. Military commissions were “appropriate” for those who had violated the laws of war, and he had not changed tack on them; he had always approved of them, he said, in a reformed shape. Detainees who were suitable for transfer abroad would be shifted there (though, as Mr Cheney pointed out, other countries are not lining up to take them). Those who had been ordered released would be released. As for those who could not be prosecuted but were still a threat, he had begun to “reshape” standards and construct a “legitimate legal framework” to deal with them. Details were lacking.
The great bulk of Mr Obama’s lawyerly speech, however—which repeated well-worn themes from his campaign and seemed unnecessarily lengthy—was devoted to the theme of principles. Unless America abided by its fundamental values, its people would never truly be safe. Guantánamo had “set back our moral authority”, and had become instead “a rallying cry for our enemies”. In the same way, “enhanced interrogation techniques”—as both he and Mr Cheney fastidiously referred to torture—had not advanced America’s principles, but undermined them. That was why he had released the Bush administration’s torture memorandums, to show the world what America was no longer prepared to do. Ending water-boarding (simulated drowning) and closing Guantánamo were further steps down the path of legality and morality.
Fine, unexceptionable words, delivered with the usual eloquence. But Mr Obama looked like a man whose closest brush with terror had been watching “Independence Day”. Mr Cheney, by contrast, had been there. He recalled the moment on September 11th 2001 when he had been bundled from his White House office into the presidential bunker. It had not made him a different man, he said, but it had focused all his thoughts on the safety of the nation. Another attack might come at any time. So, mindful of that, the Bush administration had invoked Article two of the constitution: “all necessary and appropriate force” could be used to protect the American people. Mr Cheney, too, can bring on the Founding Fathers when he needs to.
Included in that appropriate force, Mr Cheney continued, were wiretapping and the extraction of information from terrorist suspects. It was “lawful, skilful” work, he said. The liberals’ bête noire, water-boarding, had been used on just three notable terrorists, including Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind behind the September 11th plot and beheading of a journalist, Daniel Pearl, who, when captured, said he wanted to speak to his lawyer in New York. The interrogation techniques had been reviewed by lawyers, and the line between toughness and torture carefully followed. To reveal these techniques by releasing the memos had done a “serious injustice” to the officers concerned. In fact, rasped the old bulldog, Mr Obama’s people had whipped up “feigned outrage based on a false narrative”.
The Obama administration had released redacted versions of classified memos that revealed what had been done to extract information, but was silent on the usefulness of that information and the possible atrocities that had been averted. And as for the plan to close Guantánamo, that had been done without proper deliberation; the president might find, “on reflection”, that it was a bad idea to let hardened terrorists go. Mr Cheney was on a roll.
Time still remains for Congress to add Guantánamo funds to the spending bill, if it wants to. The president’s moral argument remains unimpeachable. But his vague and virtuous hopefulness rang a little hollow beside the straight talk of a man who lived through the worst terrorist attack in American history, and did what seemed justified—to some senior Democrats, as well as Republicans—at the time.
For those who are interested here is the full text of Mr Cheney's speech:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-dick-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei/
Source is here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?em=&pagewanted=print).
May 22, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Cheney Lost to Bush
By DAVID BROOKS
President Obama and Dick Cheney conspired on Thursday to propagate a myth. The myth is that we lived through an eight-year period of Bush-Cheney anti-terror policy and now we have entered a very different period called the Obama-Biden anti-terror policy. As both Obama and Cheney understand, this is a completely bogus distortion of history.
The reality is that after Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy. The country was blindsided. Intelligence officials knew next to nothing about the threats arrayed against them. The Bush administration tried just about everything to discover and prevent threats. The Bush people believed they were operating within the law but they did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive.
The Bush-Cheney period lasted maybe three years. For Dick Cheney those might be the golden years. For Democrats, it is surely the period they want to forever hang around the necks of the Republican Party. But that period ended long ago.
By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period. They didn’t win every fight, and they were prodded by court decisions and public outrage, but the gradual evolution of policy was clear.
From 2003 onward, people like Bellinger and Goldsmith were fighting against legal judgments that allowed enhanced interrogation techniques. By 2006, Rice and Hadley brought Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in from a secret foreign prison to regularize detainee procedures. In 2007, Rice refused to support an executive order reviving the interrogation program. Throughout the second Bush term, officials were trying to close Guantánamo, pleading with foreign governments to take some prisoners, begging senators to allow the transfer of prisoners onto American soil. (It didn’t occur to them that they could announce the closure of Gitmo first, then figure out what to do with prisoners.)
Cheney and Obama might pretend otherwise, but it wasn’t the Obama administration that halted the practice of waterboarding. It was a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004.
When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way.
The inauguration of Barack Obama has simply not marked a dramatic shift in the substance of American anti-terror policy. It has marked a shift in the public credibility of that policy.
In the first place, it is absurd to say this administration doesn’t take terrorism seriously. Obama has embraced the Afghan surge, a strategy that was brewing at the end of the Bush years. He has stepped up drone activity in Pakistan. He has promoted aggressive counterinsurgency fighters and racked up domestic anti-terror accomplishments.
As for the treatment of terror suspects, Jack Goldsmith has a definitive piece called “The Cheney Fallacy” online at The New Republic. He lists a broad range of policies — Guantánamo, habeas corpus, military commissions, rendition, interrogation and so on. He shows how, in most cases, the Obama policy represents a continuation of or a gradual evolution from the final Bush policy.
What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”
Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.
Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.
I've never found Mr. Brooks especially thoughtful. This op-ed demonstrates why.
Mr. Brooks is essentially arguing that we are more secure because he feels more comfortable with the communication style of the current president.
The Reaper
05-26-2009, 11:45
I believe that this solution has been mentioned before.
Beware of unintended consequences.
TR
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05262009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/instant_justice_171002.htm?page=0
INSTANT JUSTICE
GITMO? NO, KILL THUGS ON SPOT
Last updated: 4:08 am
May 26, 2009
Ralph Peters
WE made one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield.
The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.
Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.
And, as a side benefit, dead terrorists don't pose legal quandaries.
Captured terrorists, on the other hand, are always a liability. Last week, President Obama revealed his utter failure to comprehend these butchers when he characterized Guantanamo as a terrorist recruiting tool.
Gitmo wasn't any such thing. Not the real Gitmo. The Guantanamo Obama believes in is a fiction of the global media. With rare, brief exceptions, Gitmo inmates have been treated far better than US citizens in our federal prisons.
But the reality of Gitmo was irrelevant -- the left needed us to be evil, to "reveal" ourselves as the moral equivalent of the terrorists. So they made up their Gitmo myths.
Now we're stuck with sub-human creatures who should be decomposing in unmarked graves in a distant desert. Before reality smacked him between the eyes, Obama made blithe campaign promises and quick-draw presidential pronouncements he's now unable to fulfill.
Everything's easier when you're campaigning and criticizing, but the Oval Office view is a different matter. And suddenly your old allies, who rhapsodized about the evils of Gitmo, no longer have your back.
Odious senators, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, damned Gitmo to hell. But they don't want to damn the prisoners to Massachusetts (given that few al Qaeda members can swim, Cape Cod seems a splendid place for a prison). Don't the icons of ethics want to solve the problem?
Or should we send the Gitmo Gang to California's Eighth Congressional District, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's constituents could guarantee an end to waterboarding? The good voters of San Francisco could put up their new guests in a grand Nob Hill hotel and stage teach-ins to explain why America's so nasty.
Another option -- which would save taxpayers millions -- would be to encourage a coalition of MoveOn.org, Code Pink and ACORN to sponsor an "Adopt a Terrorist" program.
The only requirement would be that the terrorist has to live full-time with the sponsor's family so he'd always get plenty of hugs.
On a serious note, it's not just voter NIMBY-ism that makes this problem so difficult. The practical catches came home to me when last I visited Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.
The grounds of a massive federal penitentiary adjoin that venerable Army post. One Washington-isn't-thinking proposal would park the terrorists right there in the Big House. But here's the catch: Ft. Leavenworth's home to the Army's Command and General Staff College, attended each year by hundreds of elite foreign officers.
At CGSC, our officers build international relationships that benefit our country for decades to come, while allies and partners learn how to work together. But with Islamist terrorists confined next door -- hardly a mile as the crow flies from the Staff College -- Muslim countries would withdraw their students from the program under pressure from Islamist factions at home -- who'd claim that Ft. Leavenworth was the new Gitmo.
Do we really want to sacrifice our chance to educate officers from the troubled Muslim world? Do we want to destroy an educational program that's been of tremendous benefit? One that's advanced the rule of law and human rights?
Other proposed prison locations have their own challenges (although Cape Cod still looks pretty good to me). Meanwhile, our foreign "friends" who shuddered at the imaginary horrors of Gitmo are unwilling to share the burden.
Which brings us back to this column's opening credo: Terrorists are anathema to civilization and the human race. By their own choice, they've set themselves beyond the human collective. Better to eliminate them where you find them than to let them live to become a lunatic cause.
Telling them that we'll just lock them up and treat them really nice is a better terrorist recruiting tool than Gitmo ever was. Why not become a terrorist, if the punishment's three hots and a cot, along with better medical care than you've ever had in your life?
Plus, you get your own fan club.
Those who worry about the rights of terrorists ensure that these beasts will continue to slaughter the innocent. In your back yard.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
05-26-2009, 12:33
Great article TR! I agree with it's content 100%!