A solution to the Guantanamo problem that's almost too simple ...

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Now come on SD, you know I have thicker skin than that!!!

Trust me!!

But I also know that you are not familiar with each individual case of every individual detainee.

I don't need to be, nor would I care to be..

To take such a general and simplistic stance

I don't see it as general or simplistic..

Question: Are there innocent people in U.S. Jails right this minute?
Answer: Yes

Sad but true fact of life.. But what we can't do is release every prisoner in the U.S. just because we know some small percentage is innocent..Do you think the American Public would stand behind that?

The equivalent of what this Admin is doing at Gitmo

I can't imagine that to acknowledge the above paragraphed statement is an automatic betrayal to your comrades

It would not of course.. That is not the essence of what I meant..

I said I trusted them. But I am also aware that they are human and can make mistakes. I would not however free all of the enemy combatants on the knowledge that some small percentage is innocent. No more than I would release every prisoner at Sussex Correction Institute in Delaware or Walla Walla in Washington.

If you are comfortable enforcing the law knowing that just because you arrested someone it doesn't make them guilty

OK, let's make sure we have this straight...

If I arrest them, I know FOR A FACT that they are guilty or I would not, will not arrest them. In the eyes of the Legal System, they are innocent until proven guilty; that is our system. But I KNOW they are guilty. It is a different thought process I know, but it is essential for the proper enforcement of law..

And honestly the semantic manipulation between POW and enemy combatants

Wasn't aware there was any manipulation. A POW is an Enemy Combatant.. At least in the cases at Gitmo..

understandable dogmatic defense of all things military

Not completely true.. I am proud that I am a Marine, but being a Marine I know the inherent flaws in the system. I do not think I am an ignorant man, nor am I gullible or brainwashed. As you are aware from our other conversations, I was not a typical Marine. But being aware of problems in the system and desiring to remove the system and free the "Foxes into the Hen House" is stupidity to the extreme.

isn't what this country was founded on.

You are correct. This Country was founded on good strong conservative, Christian principles; things sadly lacking now.

Also consider what the Founding Fathers would have done with these people.

They would have long ago been either executed or banished..

It is almost as if the worst thing that could come from the trial process is that some might be found innocent because they are, and in the process embarrass those whom you consider above reproach.

I never said there should not be a MILITARY TRIBUNAL.. Not a trial. Let the military deal with this, that is what the JAG Corps is for..

Things don't always move swiftly in the military, and I really don't care. They can wait..

Do you really believe that if some Liberal Court rules any of them innocent, it will change my mind? Most of the Liberal Courts, especially the Courts of Appeal, don't care about the truth, just the latest PC of the day..

The truth is what it is and it should never be feared.

See that is what really is lacking, but not in the manner you are implying..

The Liberal Media's policy of calling the naked pictures taken as torture.. That is a subjugation of the truth. Morally reprehensible, yes, but not torture.
Water Boarding is NOT torture.. Sure the Liberals bleeding hearts all tell them it is. Where is the compassion for the soldiers that were killed? Where is the compassion for the victims of these prisoners?

See SD, that is where my compassion and concern is; with the victims of these creatures.

Also let me say one thing more.

Back a few years when the military did not have to worry so much about the Libs and the MSM that caters to every left wing bleeding heart, we did some good..

There were no embedded reporters in Lebanon. There were none in Panama.
We did what was necessary to make sure the might of the United States Military was respected or feared...

I used to have a policy when I worked the projects. The criminals there either respected me, or feared me. I did not care which. I worked hard to earn respect on the street. After many concussions and a stab wound or two, I had the respect of most, but the others? As long as they feared me, I was fine.

Same thing applies to the military, and should.

Remember this..

The Liberal influx of Socialist Ideals is relatively new. Think back on what made this country great. Socialism? OH HELL NO...

What do you think happened in WWI? WWII? Korea? Do you think we pussy-footed around like we are doing now?

We got to be the mightiest country this world has ever seen, powerful, strong and either respected or feared, by doing what was necessary at the time. With Conservative values and at times, a ruthless tendency towards action. Now all of a sudden the Left wants to change us, to make us more friendly. So that the rest of the world likes us.. WHO CARES!!! I sure don't... I would much rather they feared us...

Remember how quickly the hostages were freed when Reagan was elected? Wonder why? I could tell you, but that is for another thread...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

I don't think they deserve a trial, they are not citizens, but enemy combatants.. War Crimes Tribunal eventually.. But I see no hurry..

They fought against my brothers in arms. The same ones I fought beside, slept with and bled with. I could care less what happens to them except bringing them into this country.

Hey Semper...You seem to have a horse before the cart type of logic. You don't think they deserve a trial...yet you declare them "enemy combatants"...which would be best determined by trial.

I don't think any of these folks should have been relocated from the originating battlefield. Once in US custody at a facility like Gitmo..well it gets complicated fast. Bad decision making in that regard.

But more to the point. We offered bounties for suspected enemies..."suspected" and then quickly shipped these folks off to Gitmo.

Innocent people were kidnapped by local thugs and turned over to the US for easy money...I have NO DOUBT this happened.

Yes there are bad people at Guantanomo, but there are very likely many innocent folks as well and as long as we are the USA then we need to sort it out and make sure anyone who is innocent gets a chance to get on with their lives...otherwise we start to look alot like the dictatorships we claim to ditest.

If we are still America...then we must act like it. Innocent until proven guilty..lest you find yourself in similiar circumstances some day.

law.shu.edu...

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamodetainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents.

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters.

Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United Statescustody.

This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

Guantanamo inmates say they were 'sold'
Warlords, others 'trumped up charges' for U.S. cash rewards
www.msnbc.msn.com...
A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

In March 2002, the AP reported that Afghan intelligence offered rewards for the capture of al-Qaida fighters — the day after a five-hour meeting with U.S. Special Forces. Intelligence officers refused to say if the two events were linked and if the United States was paying the offered reward of 150 million Afghanis, then equivalent to $4,000 a head.

That day, leaflets and loudspeaker announcements promised “the big prize” to those who turned in al-Qaida fighters.

Said one leaflet: “You can receive millions of dollars. ... This is enough to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life — pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.”

Helicopters broadcast similar announcements over the Afghan mountains, enticing people to “Hand over the Arabs and feed your families for a lifetime,” said Najeeb al-Nauimi, a former Qatar justice minister and leader of a group of Arab lawyers representing nearly 100 detainees.





[edit on 7-5-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by semperfortis
I never said there should not be a MILITARY TRIBUNAL.. Not a trial. Let the military deal with this, that is what the JAG Corps is for..

Oh ok, I understood you to say that they weren't entitled to any form of due process.

A military court is better than nothing, although I just did a brief search on the subject and could not find anything supporting that JAG has any jurisdiction on foreign nationals. I was under the impression that they were there for internal military criminal matters, rules of war/engagement consultation, etc.

Can they prosecute POW/enemy combatants?

[edit on 7 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by _Phoenix_

 

Every human being on this planet deserves a trial

Your opinion, not mine.

Okay, so not every human being deserves a trial. But who's going to decide which human being deserves a trial and which human being doesn't?

Post self-deleted for being unnecessarily smart-ass.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by Jazzyguy


The guy that makes the decision is the one with the gun in his hand.

I don't mean to sound like the cold SOB I am, but to tell the truth, I am sick and tired of the whining, bitchy, hand-wringing pansies who are more concerned with form than substance.

There likely aren't too many innocents in Guantanamo. Of course some that we've turned loose from Guantanamo, are active leaders of guerrilla forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So much for the frikking innocence bit.

When we were at war in WWII, here in the US we had thousands of German POW's. They weren't released until the war was over. They weren't given access to our courts.

Is there anything else possible, that we can do to provide our enemies some more advantages?

Is there anything we can do to enable more American blood being spilled due entirely to imprudent, premature release of these men who weren't just out for a Sunday walk when they were picked up?

Our forefathers, our founding fathers would have already have held a military hearing and shot the SOB's.

We are the whining-est, sissy group of Americans to date.

And it's going to bite us right in the ass.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by dooper]

Give them $50 and a used car and let the navy send them home.

www.strangemilitary.com...

reply to post by ANNED


I assume you mean the "detainees."

I would hope we could cull and do that to the pansies that bitch and moan about every "unpleasantry" they can wring their hands over.

Just wait until we have a real problem.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I don't know if JAG does it specifically, I would presume they are used for representation as the official legal authority for that area of the military..

Regardless, the military tribunal is a sound, tried and true method of dispensing with such matters. It is however routinely convened AFTER the hostilities.. Not during...

Semper

Send them to Puerto Rico. And then give the land where Gitmo is on, back to the Cubans.

Edit for second line.

[edit on 5/9/2009 by haika]

reply to post by semperfortis


Semper is entirely right. I think civilians think that the US military tribunals, and legal system could never find someone innocent, or that they are a kangaroo court with the sole purpose of "justifying" a conclusion they've already arrived at.

Nothing could be futher from the truth. A military court is just a tad different from a civilian court, but the principles of law are the same.

They are fair, and knowing that they are being evaluated carefully from outsiders, they are quick, efficient, and fair.

It doesn't get any better than that.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by dooper]

I'll try to cover all the bases here......

For the "righties"........
Load theme all on a C-5A on a 3,000 mile journey towards home. Fuel the plane with enough fuel for a 1,500 mile journey and give the pilots and crew parachutes.

For the "lefties".........
Send them to live with GWB in Dallas in the private, guard-gated enclave. Let Cheney be the warden and arm him with a bird hunting rifle.

For the OP...........
Area 51 is fine as long as the Aliens are all given "probes" so we can "reverse engineer" the suspected terrorists.

Sorry if I missed anyone.

Regards...KK

[edit on 10-5-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by semperfortis

 

Semper is entirely right. I think civilians think that the US military tribunals, and legal system could never find someone innocent, or that they are a kangaroo court with the sole purpose of "justifying" a conclusion they've already arrived at.

Nothing could be futher from the truth. A military court is just a tad different from a civilian court, but the principles of law are the same.

Like I said a military court would be fine, I'm just not sure they have the jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals. If they do by all means try them in that manner, but like you said that there will be many who will find it difficult to perceive impartiality in that format. And it's not as easy as saying "we don't care what the world thinks."