Held in prison for 10 years without a trial

[jman19]

Its funny how few libs now say anything about Gitmo now that its THEIR traitor in chief doing the same things big bad Bush and Cheney were doing.

Didn't take long for Fear No Dessert to turn this thread in to a political hackery wasteland :thumbsdown:

 

[dali71]

They all should be tried and those found guilty should be housed in a Minimum Security Prison built just for them in Crawford Texas.

Or they could build it in Boston. Of course, considering what a shithole Boston is, that would probably be considered torture.

 

[jman19]

Or they could build it in Boston. Of course, considering what a shithole Boston is, that would probably be considered torture.

What does RD have to do with Gitmo? Did you not understand what he was saying?

 

[Orignal Earl]

I hear echoes.

His post is the sound that has been heard before - un-American, immoral.

A couple dozen American Muslim Marine vets should pay this guy a visit and ask him why he feels this way.

 

[Nebor]

Every person is born with certain rights, and one of those rights is a speedy and fair trial.

Regardless of where they come from, people are not dogs, and should not be treated as such. We would not keep a dog chained up for 10 years. We should not treat other people like that either.

Another soft-hearted "freedom lover" willing to put over-valued and over trumpeted "rights" over the well being of the state.

The people being held at Guantanamo would happily take away YOUR privilege to write such things on this forum.

 

[Jhhnn]

Another soft-hearted "freedom lover" willing to put over-valued and over trumpeted "rights" over the well being of the state.

The people being held at Guantanamo would happily take away YOUR privilege to write such things on this forum.

Channeling Pol Pot, I see...

If you think that any of the guys locked up in Guantanamo are an existential threat to the Greatest Democracy the world has ever seen, you're delusional.

I'll offer the guiding principle of English & American Jurisprudence, one that has served us well for hundreds of years, Blackstone's Formulation-

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Regardless of the reasons, the government's obligation is to make a case in a court of law against anybody accused of a crime whom they wish to incarcerate, other than POW's, . It's really very simple.

Justice Stevens-

At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber.

For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.

 

[Craig234]

Channeling Pol Pot, I see...

If you think that any of the guys locked up in Guantanamo are an existential threat to the Greatest Democracy the world has ever seen, you're delusional.

I'll offer the guiding principle of English & American Jurisprudence, one that has served us well for hundreds of years, Blackstone's Formulation-



Regardless of the reasons, the government's obligation is to make a case in a court of law against anybody accused of a crime whom they wish to incarcerate, other than POW's, . It's really very simple.

Justice Stevens-

I started to write a reply to Nebor pointing out the error of his ways, then I remembered he's a psychopath and it's pointless. I'm being literal, in my opinion.

 

[a777pilot]

Craig234, your screen name ought more appropriately be craig243.

Please, if you must quote, quote me accurately. Thank you.

 

[Craig234]

The prison at Gitmo is shameful, and I've held that view from the start. It's even more shameful that people who espouse libertarian ideals should support it.

The place never was about the WOT, other than peripherally, it was about domestic politics, about showing the base that GWB was "Tough on Terror!" and that he was willing to skirt the Constitution to play that game, to appeal to the baser instincts of many. And it worked- it still works.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? What ever happend to all the usual anti-gubmint raving, let alone the natural tendency to demand proof from the govt in such matters?

The usual ravers are apparently willing to accept the idea that the men held are guilty *because the govt says they are*, even thought the govt hasn't offered a shred of proof in any sort of court, not even one of the kangaroo variety.

I say that the reason that these men have never gone to trial of any sort is because the govt can't make a case against the vast majority of them. There is no real evidence, merely suspicion, hearsay & innuendo. If it were any other way, there would have been trials long ago.

I say stand the accused up before a court of law & let the govt make its case. If the case can't be made, the defendant must go free.

I think the bottom line to a lot of it was that it's better to round up thousands of men for no reason but the possibility they might attack US troops, on the idea that if one attack is stopped that way, that's more valuable than the rights of those men not to be arrested - that logic works when you care only about your side, and not at all about the rights of another group. They'd rather not see one more casualty, have to talk to one more family, than not violate the freedom of any number of foreigners.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234, your screen name ought more appropriately be craig243.

Please, if you must quote, quote me accurately. Thank you.

If there's a point to your first inane sentence, only you know what it is. That's ok.

You confuse 'accurately' with 'making a point'. I changed a word in your post - that was obvious, to make a point. I further bolded the change to make it even more obvious.

I don't think anyone will not understand what was done, and read it as you saying the edit. You missed the point, sadly. Others did not.

 

[Nebor]

I think the bottom line to a lot of it was that it's better to round up thousands of men for no reason but the possibility they might attack US troops, on the idea that if one attack is stopped that way, that's more valuable than the rights of those men not to be arrested - that logic works when you care only about your side, and not at all about the rights of another group. They'd rather not see one more casualty, have to talk to one more family, than not violate the freedom of any number of foreigners.

Those goat ropers didn't even have freedom until we gave it to them. The US giveth and the US taketh away. They're living a better life in Cuba than they would be in their home nations anyway. Speaking of which, anyone looked at the citizenship of some of the people we have locked up @ Guantanamo lately? Some of them are citizens of Western allies. You wonder why their embassies aren't up in arms over us locking up their citizens without trial, then you read their names and can imagine some diplomat going, "Yeah... you can just keep him."

 

[Jhhnn]

Those goat ropers didn't even have freedom until we gave it to them. The US giveth and the US taketh away. They're living a better life in Cuba than they would be in their home nations anyway. Speaking of which, anyone looked at the citizenship of some of the people we have locked up @ Guantanamo lately? Some of them are citizens of Western allies. You wonder why their embassies aren't up in arms over us locking up their citizens without trial, then you read their names and can imagine some diplomat going, "Yeah... you can just keep him."

Nice string of obfuscations & rationalizations.

 

[Nebor]

Nice string of obfuscations & rationalizations.

Thanks. I do work for the .gov after all.

 

[Red Dawn]

Or they could build it in Boston. Of course, considering what a shithole Boston is, that would probably be considered torture.

Lol, you're right about that.

Still Crawford Texas would be poetic justice considering Gitmo is part of Bush's pathetic legacy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Speaking of which, anyone looked at the citizenship of some of the people we have locked up @ Guantanamo lately? Some of them are citizens of Western allies. You wonder why their embassies aren't up in arms over us locking up their citizens without trial, then you read their names and can imagine some diplomat going, "Yeah... you can just keep him."

Which is what is troubling as some of these may just be political prisoners rather than enemy combatants which is why they should have had trials by now. On this issue Obama has really failed.

 

[werepossum]

Which is what is troubling as some of these may just be political prisoners rather than enemy combatants which is why they should have had trials by now. On this issue Obama has really failed.

He has no good choices. (Neither did Bush.) Obama can release these people, but some number of those previously released have been recaptured on the battlefield, planting IEDs, etc. If he orders more of them released, some of them WILL kill Americans. Indefinitely held Islamic radicals equal bad, dead Americans equal worse. If we hold civilian trials as Obama wishes, either they walk free or we radically bend rules of procedure (admissible evidence, legal jurisdiction, right to a speed trial, right to face one's accuser) - and that sets precedence on how citizens must be treated in the future.

 

[911paramedic]

Has ANY President's policies been 100% correct in anyone's book? Yeah I didn't think so .

QFT

 

[Thump553]

A bit of quibble werepossum-but a significant one-I don't think Obama ever called for civilian court trials for all the Gitmo detainees, just certain specified ones-like the mastermind of 9/11. I don't think any responsible politician at the national level has ever called for all civilian trials.

 

[CitizenKain]

I read the title and thought this is terrible. Then I read the article. This person is a muslim. He is where he belongs. Good!

No wonder we lost Vietnam with people like you over there.

 

[Texashiker]

The people being held at Guantanamo would happily take away YOUR privilege to write such things on this forum.

I will still stand up and say being held for 10 years without a trial is a violation of basic human rights.

If my right to say that is taken away, then I will protest even more.

 

[werepossum]

A bit of quibble werepossum-but a significant one-I don't think Obama ever called for civilian court trials for all the Gitmo detainees, just certain specified ones-like the mastermind of 9/11. I don't think any responsible politician at the national level has ever called for all civilian trials.

That's a valid and significant point. And there should definitely be hearings to separate the Islamicist soldiers (including leaders) who can legitimately be detained for the duration from those who committed specific criminal acts which should be prosecuted by civilian or military courts. And of course, from those who should not be there in the first place. If you're in Gitmo simply because you sold your neighbor a sheep that wasn't really a virgin or stole his dung for your field or charged him ten camels for your five camel daughter, everyone is better off discovering that sooner rather than later.

One big grey area is the men who fit both categories. KSM is an Islamic terror mastermind and definitely can't be released. On the other hand, he is also accused of crimes which definitely could and probably should be tried in civilian criminal court. The Obama administration said he would not necessarily be released if found not guilty. Therefore it's a grey area whether trying him civilian criminal court with the understanding that he is not going free in any case is a net positive or negative. Personally I'm of the opinion that if you aren't going to release a man if he's found not guilty, then don't try him. But I can see both sides.