Donald Trump ‘Fine’ With Prosecuting U.S. Citizens at Guantánamo

a reply to: M5xaz

Totally wrong again.
Typical low information democrat voter.

Typical of a accusatory jerk.
I am an independent voting libertarian.

Nuremberg trials WERE a precedent for Guantanamo trials, like it or not. By definition, Military trials ARE due process- unless you also wish to invalidate the UCMJ because it is not "civilian".

When I was in the Army I had worked in JAG for a while attached to them where I got to learn quite a bit about the UCMJ and because of that I know you are completely wrong and I even linked in a previous post to the article showing that you are wrong. I don't care if you believe it or not it is your choice to remain ignorant.

Again, where is your empathy for the VICTIMS of the Guantanamo detainees....says a lot about you...google "empathy"...

I am not a emotional knee jerk type of person. I do care a lot about law and reality. We may be polar opposites in that respect.

From what I can determine by your position is that you seem to be perfectly happy on denying US citizens their rights based off of nothing more than an accusation. What I do know about the Guantanamo detainees is that a huge portion of them are innocent of the crimes or associations they have been accused of and have been denied any form of a justice system to prove their innocence and I am not in favor of adding US citizens to such a corrupt an unlawful system.

originally posted by: yuppa
A caveat here. IF you are caught ABROAD the US constitution does not protect you if you betray it.

Yes it does. US citizens are legally bound to US law in every nation they visit. This also means that if the government chooses to go after you, your rights still apply.

However, the Constitution will only protect you against the US Government, if you're prosecuted by that foreign nation you'll instead be subject to their laws (and they get first dibs).

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
There really shouldn't be a question regarding Guantanamo. I think all of us here have, over the last few years, have agreed that Guantanamo is a mess and it needs to be shut down. There's also never been a question to the matter of US citizens committing or suspected of committing terrorism and on charging them at Guantanamo... that it is unconstitutional and that it is illegal. Apparently the Don sees no issue with prosecuting US citizens at Guantanamo though:

During an interview on Thursday with The Miami Herald, a reporter brought up Mr. Trump’s earlier vow to keep the Guantánamo wartime prison open and “load it up with some bad dudes.” President Obama, by contrast, is pushing to close it and has refused to bring new captives there.

“Would you try to get the military commissions, the trial court there, to try U.S. citizens?” the reporter asked.

Mr. Trump responded: “Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all. I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”

www.nytimes.com...

Oh yes he wants to keep it open too. How many people here complained about the fact Guantanamo was kept open under Obama? (Even though Republicans have opposed closing it and States have refused to take on the role when Guantanamo is closed down). Guantanamo is a stain on America and it needs to be done with. I don't know how anybody can continue to justify its existence, yet it remains. There shouldn't be a question really.

I have to LOL at this...where to even begin... You open it up with a blatant straw man. I think all of you at some point have agreed that GTMO should be shut down... LOL

Then you go and start talking about US citizens...There were no us citizens there when I was there and as you have stated Obama hasn't added any new detainees so I don't see how there could be any there now.

I've already discussed why trials could not be conducted to this point, but I have no problem reiterating the issues.

Much of the evidence against the remaining detainees is eye witness testimony from HUMINT assets that are still in the field whom are still providing intelligence. While the war is still being waged, their testimony cannot be revealed without endangering current and further operations and without endangering those assets.

When Obama made his idiotic statements that he would make sure trials were conducted and that GTMO was closed, he was a fool (still is, but a more informed fool) who didn't seem to understand this.

Jaden

^^^^^----------Was at GTMO as a military intelligence operative and know more about it and its operations than 99.99999% of all other ATSers...

originally posted by: Masterjaden

When Obama made his idiotic statements that he would make sure trials were conducted and that GTMO was closed, he was a fool (still is, but a more informed fool) who didn't seem to understand this.

Great post. Thanks.

But, Campaign promises are not always based in practical solutions (or realistic solutions).

I'd say that applies to every political candidate - - - not just Obama.

Are they fools for telling people what they want to hear? Hmmmmm, gotta get elected before you can do anything.

a reply to: Grimpachi

LOL, you know that a large portion of them are innocent of crimes??? LOL You know no such thing. I have personally SEEN the evidence against the remaining detainees and many that were returned under the guise of being prosecuted and held by their host countries that were later released and they ARE mostly very likely to be guilty...

What you are referring to are some early instances where rival goat herders and such wanted to get rid of their neighbors and get offered rewards. Those were discovered within weeks in most cases and they were released almost immediately.

As I've stated, I have personally seen the evidence against 500+ of the detainees that were there as of 2006 and they were all bad dudes, that you don't want to be with in a dark alley EVER...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden

As I've stated, I have personally seen the evidence against 500+ of the detainees that were there as of 2006 and they were all bad dudes, that you don't want to be with in a dark alley EVER...

Jaden

I have a question for you.

Do you think it should be closed?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
LOL, you know that a large portion of them are innocent of crimes??? LOL You know no such thing. I have personally SEEN the evidence against the remaining detainees and many that were returned under the guise of being prosecuted and held by their host countries that were later released and they ARE mostly very likely to be guilty...

You will of course understand my skepticism, seeing as how the court system was circumvented? Maybe you're right and they really were bad guys. The court system has learned of at least a few cases where the opposite was determined. Isn't part of the foundation of our justice system that we will occasionally let the guilty go free in order to avoid imprisoning the innocent? That's not what happened here.

Maybe if things were done properly from the beginning that wouldn't have been the case.

Plus, the evidence you saw was presented by a biased observer, you never saw any defense against that evidence. For example, the case I listed a couple posts ago where we kidnapped the victim of identity theft, because the person using his identity was a terrorist working for Al Qaeda and we never bothered to double check.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: M5xaz

Again, where is your empathy for the VICTIMS of the Guantanamo detainees

how many exactly?
actual facts and figures please, not trump storytelling.

At least a third of detainees released have returned to terrorism
en.wikipedia.org...

You care for the terrorists, not the victims, got it.

originally posted by: M5xaz
At least a third of detainees released have returned to terrorism
en.wikipedia.org...

You care for the terrorists, not the victims, got it.

Did they return to terrorism, or did they become terrorists because of our treatment of them?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So Hillary wins and throws alt right media 'journalists' into Guantanamo... still fun in your opinion?

I'm not a journalist.

Are you a journalist?

No?

Then don't worry your pretty little head about such things.

Hillary won't close it and you won't believe who she'll put in there.

I'd use GPR around the place to look for mass graves after her fall from power, natural causes or a coup.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Hefficide

I think you mistook my use of the words "them" and "they" to portray a certain demographic.

You would be completely mistaken.

If someone, anyone has the intention to blow up, shoot up, attack anything in general, I really don't care to see them given the opportunity to face an established justice system. Especially one that can be manipulated due to errors in itself.

Terrorists do not deserve our justice system, and hell, even Guantanamo is being nice to them. Terrorists deserve eye for eye punishment plain and simple.

Yeah, give em a choice!

Shariah law or Gitmo!

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: M5xaz
At least a third of detainees released have returned to terrorism
en.wikipedia.org...

You care for the terrorists, not the victims, got it.

Did they return to terrorism, or did they become terrorists because of our treatment of them?

What do you think they did?

And what did the other 66% do when they got out?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
A caveat here. IF you are caught ABROAD the US constitution does not protect you if you betray it.

Yes it does. US citizens are legally bound to US law in every nation they visit. This also means that if the government chooses to go after you, your rights still apply.

However, the Constitution will only protect you against the US Government, if you're prosecuted by that foreign nation you'll instead be subject to their laws (and they get first dibs).

i f you are abroad Geneva conventions apply more so. You can be refused r e entry to the US i f you are caught being a un authorized combatant. If you are outside the U S The country you are in laws trump your US rights.(its a juridictional thing)

War on terrorism Law

Read this. it dotn have anything to do with the law you mentioned earlier. Constitution allows for traitors and belligerants to face military tribunals and forgoes their right to a trial by peers.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
What do you think they did?

And what did the other 66% do when they got out?

If I were one of them, I would probably turn to terrorism. Being illegally locked up and tortured for 10 years would probably radicalize me.

That's actually the problem with Guantanamo at this point. The remaining prisoners we can't release, not because of anything we've done but because our treatment of them makes them highly likely to commit crimes against us. It's something of a security issue. We know they'll attack if we let them go, but they're actually innocent of having done anything wrong.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
What do you think they did?

And what did the other 66% do when they got out?

If I were one of them, I would probably turn to terrorism. Being illegally locked up and tortured for 10 years would probably radicalize me.

That's actually the problem with Guantanamo at this point. The remaining prisoners we can't release, not because of anything we've done but because our treatment of them makes them highly likely to commit crimes against us. It's something of a security issue. We know they'll attack if we let them go, but they're actually innocent of having done anything wrong.

How many people do that when they get out of prison?

You make a false premise about them being innocent and tortured.

They even have private chefs to make their halal meals! They got a new soccer field!

TV and books they want, Lawyers, free medical!

And it doesn't cost them a cent! The American people pay their accommodations.

lol, Abu Grab it's not.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: M5xaz
At least a third of detainees released have returned to terrorism
en.wikipedia.org...

You care for the terrorists, not the victims, got it.

Did they return to terrorism, or did they become terrorists because of our treatment of them?

Oh please.
The garbage locked up in Guantanamo is the worst of the worst, identified terrorists so bad even Obama hesitates to release them
Save the tears for the victims

a reply to: mOjOm
Good point.
And I'd absolutely feel guilty about suggesting it, if the retards threatening us had been around when the Amendments were drawn up.
It's time to stop nit-picking, pettifogging ( YES LOOK THAT UP), and all the political correctness c**p, and decide that actually we want to protect our nations. Or maybe we should just say that Sharia law is fine and dandy right now? Play time is over, decide. Accept or fight.
Comprendez?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
How many people do that when they get out of prison?

Have you seen our recidivism rate? It applies to people wrongfully imprisoned too. Those are the ones most likely to turn actually because they have no idea how to reintegrate into a society that betrayed them.

a reply to: Southern GuardianProblem is this isn't the only place of this type that the U.S. has.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
How many people do that when they get out of prison?

Have you seen our recidivism rate? It applies to people wrongfully imprisoned too. Those are the ones most likely to turn actually because they have no idea how to reintegrate into a society that betrayed them.

The real reason its so high is BECAUSE we dont wipe the record after a prison term has been served like we are to do.