Archive

should we put Gitmo detainees inside the U.S.?

  • BCSbunk
    The better question is why where they brought to GITMO and why does GITMO exist?

    We have handled war criminals before and they were handled by tribunals not held in concentration camps which is what GITMO is.

    You cannot leave them in GITMO there has been no trial to determine their guilt.

    This should have been handled better by the Bush/Cheney administration but alas it was not.

    They deserve to go to trial to defend themselves arbitrary rendering of justice would be a product of a fascist regime.
  • RoyalNut
    BCSbunk wrote: The better question is why where they brought to GITMO and why does GITMO exist?

    We have handled war criminals before and they were handled by tribunals not held in concentration camps which is what GITMO is.

    You cannot leave them in GITMO there has been no trial to determine their guilt.

    This should have been handled better by the Bush/Cheney administration but alas it was not.

    They deserve to go to trial to defend themselves arbitrary rendering of justice would be a product of a fascist regime.

    And bringing enemy combatants captured on the field of battle to the united states and offering them the same rights you and I have under the Constitution is right how?
  • unique_67
    Yes, put them in the USA.
  • dwccrew
    ccrunner609 wrote: ^^^They dont deserve the puplic trial they are going to get. If you want to be all liberal and care about scum like this then you wouldnt want them in the system. They will all be killed within weeks/months.
    So what exactly do you propose is done about them? Just leave them in Gitmo? Believe it or not, war criminals (which these accused of terrorism are considered) do have some rights under the Constitution, albeit limited, and those rights do give them the right of habeas corpus.

    http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/63459-Habeas-corpus-rights-restored-to-enemy-combatants/

    Whether you agree with it or not, the US Supreme Court has people on it that are smarter than all of us and they seem to think that the prisoners do have the right to habeas corpus.
    ccrunner609 wrote: So you give them a platform to spew their venomous hate and Jihad.......they get the same rights as everyone else?

    Its empowering them and showing our weakness. Its not good for our country. If you cant see that then you need to continue your schooling.
    Sorry, they won't get the same rights as us. So it won't make it the U.S. look weak, no matter how much Fox News wants you to believe it will.
    ccrunner609 wrote:
    Either way they would slit your throat if they could.
    But they can't even if they are in a Supermax in the US.
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    Of course it is! You really don't think terrorists fear trying to attack the military at Gitmo more than they would taking out a (basically) civilian target like a prison in N. Dakota (or wherever)?
    I don't buy this. I think the likelihood of terrorists attacking a US prison is no different than attacking Gitmo. These people don't fear attacking US military installations, they are doing it in the middle east all the time. They are not afraid to die, they feel they are dying for their cause.

    When I was in Iraq at Balad Air Base we were attacked on a daily basis. These people had no fear of attacking the base.
    ccrunner609 wrote: Nope dont really listen to Hannity.

    As for how we are viewed in this world. Its starts with out weak president who parades around the world willing to talk to any terrorist states leaders.

    Remember how the international community acted when Obama won? Thats because they didnt want McCain to win because they knew McCain was a military guy and a tough one at that. THey knew Obama was a pushover.

    This proves it.
    You still haven't provided a link or any proof that Obama has talked to a leader of a terrorist state. You post is pointless and irrelevent.
    RoyalNut wrote:
    And bringing enemy combatants captured on the field of battle to the united states and offering them the same rights you and I have under the Constitution is right how?

    Again, no one is saying give them the same rights as you and I have, give them the limited rights that is outlined in the Constitution for foreign combatants.
  • war_admiral
    In this paramilitary war, many of the combatants were never identified as terrorist. Warlords collected bounties and turned in other warlords/enemies that owned property and poppy fields etc. to get rid of their competition. Hundreds were found to be innocent and had no connection with Al-Qaeda. Just caught up in a war in their sand box. Many terrorist were captured though.

    We have had Al-Qaeda prisoners in our super max prisons for many, many years now. Now one said blah about it then. Funny.

    Well, I guess will be getting a visit from the boys in room 641A or (SG3) Study Group 3. lol
  • majorspark
    dwccrew wrote:Again, no one is saying give them the same rights as you and I have, give them the limited rights that is outlined in the Constitution for foreign combatants.
    It is my understanding that trying them in a civilian court rather than a military tribunal would afford them the same rights as a US citizen.
  • war_admiral
    I know the only NATION BUILDING that needs be going on is in the US. The School of AMERICAS needs to be closed for good. We need not train leaders of other countries.

    We have learned nothing from Vietnam! We calculated the costs and benefits to the extent that they could be related to different courses of action and make choices accordingly in Afghanistan. If force and coercion are applied with large troop levels the will of both the populace and insurgents will be broken and the war won. Costs will outweigh the benefits, resulting in the decline of the insurgency.

    But that's where our error in the Vietnam was and it's where the error is in Iraq/Afghan conflict is. They underestimated the enemy and the nature of the war. They underestimated the WILL OF THE POPULACE! They were prepared to accept limitless casualties in its conflict with the United States. To fight the "oppression" of the US Foreign Policy in the WORLD. Just not Vietnam.

    Too this day they debate whether or not the Vietnam war was for a just cause. Are we not asking that at this precise moment? That the Iraq and Afghan theaters are not a "just cause". We knew/know that about Iraq.

    I applaud the President for taking the time and not just send more troops into theater. This war needs to be fought by the (CIA) Paramilitary and (SOF) Special Operations Forces. In the early part of the Afghan war this very type of unit tracked the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda members into the regions of the Tora Bora mountains. But then were diverted to Iraq.

    Terrorism will never be defeated. It's a state of mind. I do not feel terrorized. Let me ask this question; After the Fort Hood shootings did the National threat level go up to Red like when Bush used to announce it 24/7. Sure some military installations went on alert. But the country didn't.
    In my mind, I'm safe....this is what they, the Terrorist, want you to feel. Terrorized!. They fight this in public opinion

    My heart goes out to all those serving in this Conflict of Foreign Oppression. Because terrorism is not a war it's a state of mind.
  • dwccrew
    majorspark wrote:
    dwccrew wrote:Again, no one is saying give them the same rights as you and I have, give them the limited rights that is outlined in the Constitution for foreign combatants.
    It is my understanding that trying them in a civilian court rather than a military tribunal would afford them the same rights as a US citizen.
    I honestly haven't heard any news of anyone wanting to try them in a US court; but aren't there non-citizens tried in civilian courts all the time? No, I don't think it necessarily means they will be given the same rights as a US citizen just because they are tried in a civilian court.
  • majorspark
    BCSbunk wrote: The better question is why where they brought to GITMO and why does GITMO exist?

    We have handled war criminals before and they were handled by tribunals not held in concentration camps which is what GITMO is.
    GITMO is hardly a concentration camp. It is club med compared to incarceration in a supermax facility. GITMO is nothing more than a political football.
    You cannot leave them in GITMO there has been no trial to determine their guilt.

    This should have been handled better by the Bush/Cheney administration but alas it was not.

    They deserve to go to trial to defend themselves arbitrary rendering of justice would be a product of a fascist regime.
    I agree that we cannot leave them in GITMO. I would argue they be tried by a military tribunal to determine their fate. It does not make sense to me to try them in a civilian court. They were captured in foreign lands.

    Would the federal government have to submit classified evidence to a public jury? Were they read their rights under our civilian courts? Did they have legal counsel during questioning? Were warrants issued to search and seize their property? Were they compelled to be a witness against themselves? These are walking papers in our civilian court system. Anyone tried in the civilian court system by law is to be treated equally.

    I will say this, the legal arguement to try these prisoners in a military court is weakend by the federal government's failure to officially declare a legal state of war against defined enemies. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq.
  • majorspark
    dwccrew wrote:I honestly haven't heard any news of anyone wanting to try them in a US court; but aren't there non-citizens tried in civilian courts all the time? No, I don't think it necessarily means they will be given the same rights as a US citizen just because they are tried in a civilian court.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/911-suspects-including-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-york/story?id=9072922
    Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other so-called high-value detainees accused of plotting the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people will be tried in a federal court in New York, the scene of the crime, Attorney General Eric Holder announced today.

    Refer to my reply to BCSbunk on my concerns for trial in civilian court.
  • Mr. 300
    New York Governor says no!!

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ny-governor-sept-trial-bad-idea/
  • JU-ICE
    From todays Washington Post on why trying them in NY is a bad idea:

    Now, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.

    Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
  • fish82
    I heart Eric Holder. He's the gift that just keeps on giving.
  • derek bomar
    he didn't say no, he said he wouldn't have made that decision, but he will help the fed gov't any way he can...there's a difference. Also, I'm sure there's a New Jersey joke somewhere for SNL fans
  • dwccrew
    majorspark wrote:
    dwccrew wrote:I honestly haven't heard any news of anyone wanting to try them in a US court; but aren't there non-citizens tried in civilian courts all the time? No, I don't think it necessarily means they will be given the same rights as a US citizen just because they are tried in a civilian court.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/911-suspects-including-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-york/story?id=9072922
    Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other so-called high-value detainees accused of plotting the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people will be tried in a federal court in New York, the scene of the crime, Attorney General Eric Holder announced today.

    Refer to my reply to BCSbunk on my concerns for trial in civilian court.
    I agree with you that most of the detainees should be tried in military tribunals.

    The 9-11 suspects, however, are a tricky situation. While they were caught in foreign lands, the crime they committed was within the U.S. borders. I'm not real sure how that would or should be tried.

    Gitmo detainees that were caught in foreign lands and are accused of crimes committed against US soldiers and interests in those foreign lands should absolutely be tried on military tribunals.

    The 9-11 suspects though might be better off if they are tried in civilian court since their crimes were committed in the United States.
  • Hesston
    no
  • queencitybuckeye
    Yes, we should load them on a giant transport that develops mechanical issues and crashes into the sea.

    Fortunately, the flight crew ejects just in time.
  • CenterBHSFan
    haha!! ^^^ There would be all kinds of investigations on that. Everything from insurance, business, political and emotional.
    Even more so than the norm!
  • Fab4Runner
    derek bomar wrote:
    ccrunner609 wrote: So you give them a platform to spew their venomous hate and Jihad.......they get the same rights as everyone else?

    Its empowering them and showing our weakness. Its not good for our country. If you cant see that then you need to continue your schooling.
    well I am currently getting my MBA at Fisher, so thats about as far as I plan to go with school...but what you're saying doesn't make sense. By not giving them rights, we're causing more venomous hate and "Jihad" than we ever will by letting them speak in a court of law. People need to know the U.S. is a nation of laws, and we don't pick and choose how we follow them and who they apply to. It doesn't show our weakness, it shows we're strong, and that we have these people on evidence, not on suspicions...
    We don't pick and choose which CITIZENS ours laws apply to. These terrorists are not US citizens and should not have the same rights.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Fab4Runner wrote:
    well I am currently getting my MBA at Fisher, so thats about as far as I plan to go with school...but what you're saying doesn't make sense. By not giving them rights, we're causing more venomous hate and "Jihad" than we ever will by letting them speak in a court of law. People need to know the U.S. is a nation of laws, and we don't pick and choose how we follow them and who they apply to. It doesn't show our weakness, it shows we're strong, and that we have these people on evidence, not on suspicions...
    [/quote]
    We don't pick and choose which CITIZENS ours laws apply to. These terrorists are not US citizens and should not have the same rights.
    [/quote]

    Exactly. Well said and to the point.
  • bigdaddy2003
    Fab4Runner wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    ccrunner609 wrote: So you give them a platform to spew their venomous hate and Jihad.......they get the same rights as everyone else?

    Its empowering them and showing our weakness. Its not good for our country. If you cant see that then you need to continue your schooling.
    well I am currently getting my MBA at Fisher, so thats about as far as I plan to go with school...but what you're saying doesn't make sense. By not giving them rights, we're causing more venomous hate and "Jihad" than we ever will by letting them speak in a court of law. People need to know the U.S. is a nation of laws, and we don't pick and choose how we follow them and who they apply to. It doesn't show our weakness, it shows we're strong, and that we have these people on evidence, not on suspicions...
    We don't pick and choose which CITIZENS ours laws apply to. These terrorists are not US citizens and should not have the same rights.
    Very well put by a good looking lady.
  • derek bomar
    Fab4Runner wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    ccrunner609 wrote: So you give them a platform to spew their venomous hate and Jihad.......they get the same rights as everyone else?

    Its empowering them and showing our weakness. Its not good for our country. If you cant see that then you need to continue your schooling.
    well I am currently getting my MBA at Fisher, so thats about as far as I plan to go with school...but what you're saying doesn't make sense. By not giving them rights, we're causing more venomous hate and "Jihad" than we ever will by letting them speak in a court of law. People need to know the U.S. is a nation of laws, and we don't pick and choose how we follow them and who they apply to. It doesn't show our weakness, it shows we're strong, and that we have these people on evidence, not on suspicions...
    We don't pick and choose which CITIZENS ours laws apply to. These terrorists are not US citizens and should not have the same rights.
    they have rights under the Geneva Conventions Fab
  • BCSbunk
    Fab4Runner wrote:
    derek bomar wrote:
    ccrunner609 wrote: So you give them a platform to spew their venomous hate and Jihad.......they get the same rights as everyone else?

    Its empowering them and showing our weakness. Its not good for our country. If you cant see that then you need to continue your schooling.
    well I am currently getting my MBA at Fisher, so thats about as far as I plan to go with school...but what you're saying doesn't make sense. By not giving them rights, we're causing more venomous hate and "Jihad" than we ever will by letting them speak in a court of law. People need to know the U.S. is a nation of laws, and we don't pick and choose how we follow them and who they apply to. It doesn't show our weakness, it shows we're strong, and that we have these people on evidence, not on suspicions...
    We don't pick and choose which CITIZENS ours laws apply to. These terrorists are not US citizens and should not have the same rights.
    I understand they should not have the same rights but should they have any rights at all?

    Which "rights" that US citizens have should be eliminated for non-citizens accused of a crime?

    Would it be alright to void the writ of habeas corpus?
  • queencitybuckeye
    derek bomar wrote: they have rights under the Geneva Conventions Fab
    As do we, which includes shooting them today should we so choose. Two can play the "Geneva Convention" game.
  • cbus4life
    Why wouldn't we?

    We had World War II POW's in the States.

    I really do not understand the big deal.

    Not to mention, if we're treating this as a "real" war, they do have rights under the Geneva Convention.

    And, they do deserve a fair trial, considering it is a well-known fact that some of those there were essentially "sold" into that position by local warlords and the like, or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Yes, many are obviously guilty, but not all. And those who are innocent deserve a chance to return to their lives.

    They deserve a fair trial.