Guantanamo - should we let them all go?

[wcknight]

The US still holds over 500 “detainees” in Guantanamo. Most have been there for several years. Many are non-Iraqis. They have not been charged with anything yet. They are denied due process, they are denied rights even under the Geneva convention.

They have been subjected to interrogations and humiliation and unlawful incarceration. The commander who set up and initially ran Guantanamo is the very same commander who oversaw the prison in Abu Grave. Don’t be surprised if stories of atrocities show up at “Getmo” as they did in Iraq.

The US readily admits that these are NOT the more dangerous terrorists as they are held elsewhere in more secure prisons.

Why are we still holding these folks ??? Is it because most of them are Muslims ? The administration says they pose a threat, yet they will not try or charge them with anything. The administration says they will be tried by a military tribunal, with military judges, military prosecutors and military defense lawyers. By anyone’s definition this constitutes a kangaroo court.

Is there not a huge conflict of interest in this so called system of justice ???

The prisoners’ only crime is that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and mainly that they are not Americans and that they are Muslims.

The whole situation stinks and is totally unAmerican BUT in light of the interment camps of WWII, one can easily see that there has been precedence. Obviously we did not learn from the grave injustices that we imposed on own citizens. How could we possibly apply this to non-citizens ???

This administration has not only led us into a war that should never have been fought, but has subverted the very human rights issues that they have so hypecritically sought from other countries.

IF the US were not the superpower that it is, the international community would have Bush tried for war crimes, and starting an illegal war. IS it any wonder that Muslims hate Americans ?

The very things that we fought against in WWII and throughout the cold war, and probably throughout most of our history are being perpetrated by American soldiers today. This administration has turned this country into our own worst enemy. We are the bullies and human rights violators of the 21st century.

The excuse of fighting terrorists and memory of 9/11 has allowed this administration to use fear as a justification to subvert the law.

While not on the scale and magnitude of Nazism, we have imitated their tactics in undermining justice and basic human rights.

 

[FightingFat]

Well, treat them according to international law would be a good start, no?

 

[wcknight]

That would be a good start. BUT we’ve already held some for more than 3 years, much longer than any international standard for a speedy trial date.

 

[gilliam]

wcknight:

That would be a good start. BUT we’ve already held some for more than 3 years, much longer than any international standard for a speedy trial date.

Not sure where you are getting your info.

• How many have been there for 3 years, you know?
• What international standard for a speedy trial date?
• Isn’t this is in line with the Geneva convention on war prisoners?

 

[2shelbys]

wcknight:

The US still holds over 500 “detainees” in Guantanamo. Most have been there for several years. Many are non-Iraqis. They have not been charged with anything yet. They are denied due process, they are denied rights even under the Geneva convention.

“Due process” is an right enjoyed by American citizens, not foreign terrorists. The Geneva Convention only applies to POW’s. POW means uniformed soldiers of a combatant nation. No civilians have ever enjoyed Geneva Convention protection. Not partisans, not mercenaries, and not trerrorists.

They have been subjected to interrogations and humiliation and unlawful incarceration.

Interrogations and humiliation? Oh the horror!
Their incarceration is not unlawful but participating in a war as a civilian is.

Why are we still holding these folks ??? Is it because most of them are Muslims ? The administration says they pose a threat,

You have answered your own question.

The administration says they will be tried by a military tribunal, with military judges, military prosecutors and military defense lawyers. By anyone’s definition this constitutes a kangaroo court.

Only someone who is completely unfamiliar with the law. This is exactly how they are supposed to be tried. Do you feel that the Nuremberg Tribunal was a kangaroo court as many people do?

I

s there not a huge conflict of interest in this so called system of justice ???

No.

The prisoners’ only crime is that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and mainly that they are not Americans and that they are Muslims.

So you have access to and have reviewed all of their cases and all related evidence and made this determination from an informed position?

The whole situation stinks and is totally unAmerican BUT in light of the interment camps of WWII, one can easily see that there has been precedence. Obviously we did not learn from the grave injustices that we imposed on own citizens. How could we possibly apply this to non-citizens ???

Because in reference to non-citizen, non-uniformed, illegal combatants this is the correct, legal way to handle the situation according to international law.

The very things that we fought against in WWII and throughout the cold war, and probably throughout most of our history are being perpetrated by American soldiers today.

This is the most despicable, unwarranted attack on our military I have ever heard. You should be ashamed of yourself. Actually comparing our men and women that are risking their lives for others to Nazi and communist mass murderers. Disgusting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Catch and release” is a good philosophy for sport fishermen – it ensures we will always have plenty of fish.

When applied to terrorists, it ensures we will always have plenty of terrorists.

 

[walstan]

“Due process” is an right enjoyed by American citizens, not foreign terrorists. The Geneva Convention only applies to POW’s. POW means uniformed soldiers of a combatant nation. No civilians have ever enjoyed Geneva Convention protection. Not partisans, not mercenaries, and not trerrorists.

Now that’s a very interesting reaction, If it was uttered anywhere in Europe you would probably fall foul of the existing encitement of racial prejudice laws. You also refer to them as Terrorists without a shred of evidence or proof and, if you did have either why are they not yet in court?

Interrogations and humiliation? Oh the horror!
Their incarceration is not unlawful but participating in a war as a civilian is.

Try reading the CCC:

**1930 **Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

Only someone who is completely unfamiliar with the law. This is exactly how they are supposed to be tried. Do you feel that the Nuremberg Tribunal was a kangaroo court as many people do?

Those charged at Nurenburgh were FULLY informewd of the charges, had the choice of legal representation and even WENT TO COURT. And those in Gitmo?

So you have access to and have reviewed all of their cases and all related evidence and made this determination from an informed position?

No, and neither has anyone NOT CONNECTED with the administration.

Because in reference to non-citizen, non-uniformed, illegal combatants this is the correct, legal way to handle the situation according to international law.

No, International Law (that’s the one the States doesn’t believe in) requires that anyone charged under international law is taken into court and the case held in OPEN COURT so that everyone has the opportunity of seeing justice being done. Not hidden away in a Cuban military base where everything is controlled.

This is the most despicable, unwarranted attack on our military I have ever heard. You should be ashamed of yourself. Actually comparing our men and women that are risking their lives for others to Nazi and communist mass murderers. Disgusting.

No, it’s a very necessary attack on an administration that continually flouts International Law (the one the States doesn’t believe in) and common human values.

 

[walstan]

Oh… in answer to the question, NO they should not just be released, they should be put on trial, all the evidence should be presented and judgment made, guilty, not guilty or whatever.

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

Oh… in answer to the question, NO they should not just be released, they should be put on trial, all the evidence should be presented and judgment made, guilty, not guilty or whatever.

And that should happen after the war is over.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

And that should happen after the war is over.

This portion of the debate is sounding very familiar…

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

This portion of the debate is sounding very familiar…

Mike

How many German and Japanese prisoners did we let go in WWII before the war was over?

You may have noticed we did let some prisoners go from Guantanamo – and they popped up in terrorist organizations fighting against us almost immediately.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

How many German and Japanese prisoners did we let go in WWII before the war was over?

They were prisoners of war. That was a proper war.

I’d say I was getting deja vu, but that’s only when you think you have been somewhere before. We actually have been here before.

You may have noticed we did let some prisoners go from Guantanamo – and they popped up in terrorist organizations fighting against us almost immediately.

Really? The 9 Brits who were eventually released after immense diplomatic pressure by the UK? They are in terrorist organisations fighting the US? That’s news to me - and the UK police.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

They were prisoners of war. That was a proper war.

When one becomes a terrorist one assumes the associated risks. It’s not our fault they aren’t legitimate soldiers serving a recognized nation – it’s their fault.

Are we expected to release terrorists under circumstances where we would hold legitimate combatants?

MikeWM:

Really? The 9 Brits who were eventually released after immense diplomatic pressure by the UK? They are in terrorist organisations fighting the US? That’s news to me - and the UK police.

Mike

I believe I’ve explained before that when you play the fool people will think you aren’t playing.

Some of those we released – but not those specific nine – went back and took up arms against us again.

 

[wcknight]

Just because you are arrested does NOT mean you are guilty. One of our infamous AGs made that insane statement and it was not true when he made it and it is not true now.

IF these folks are guilty of terrorism then lock them up, execute them or whatever BUT if they are innocent, give them a fair trial and let them go back home.

This so called war on terrorism will never be over, to wait until it is over, is nuts.

The comparison to Nazis or Communists is NOT an indictment of our soldiers BUT IS an indictment of our Administrations policies.

When you take away basic human rights, promote torture and abuse prisoners, you are in fact doing what these other folks did.

You can not say that torture and abuse is okay when Americans do it BUT not okay when Germans or Chinese do it.

 

[2shelbys]

walstan:

Now that’s a very interesting reaction, If it was uttered anywhere in Europe you would probably fall foul of the existing encitement of racial prejudice laws. You also refer to them as Terrorists without a shred of evidence or proof and, if you did have either why are they not yet in court?.

Because trials are not started until after a war has ended.

Try reading the CCC:

**1930 **Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

Sorry, but wars are not fought according to the teachings of our church. An unfortunate fact of life.

Those charged at Nurenburgh were FULLY informewd of the charges, had the choice of legal representation and even WENT TO COURT.

Not until well after the war ended and they were charged with crimes that did not exist at the time of commission. And those at Gitmo?

No, International Law (that’s the one the States doesn’t believe in) requires that anyone charged under international law is taken into court and the case held in OPEN COURT so that everyone has the opportunity of seeing justice being done. Not hidden away in a Cuban military base where everything is controlled.

Not in the case of illegal combatants. And as far as I cand find there is no reference to speedy trials as we have in the U.S. Not conducting trial until after the end of the war is not a violation of any law.

No, it’s a very necessary attack on an administration that continually flouts International Law (the one the States doesn’t believe in) and common human values

No, he did not even mention the administration he said “troops”. That is despicable and treasonous because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy and necessarily endangers the troops he is attacking, period.

 

[walstan]

vern humphrey:

And that should happen after the war is over.

If it is a war then they are prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Convention. If tghey are not subject to the convention then it is not a war and they are therefore subject to either the International or American justice systems. So what is it? a war and the Geneva convention or a criminal act subject to the civilian courts?

 

[vern_humphrey]

From washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm

Ex-Gitmo detainees return to terror
http://images.washtimes.com/images/clear.gif
http://images.washtimes.com/images/twt-grey2.gif ASSOCIATED PRESS
At least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence.
At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid on a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. Others are at large.
Additional former detainees have expressed a desire to rejoin the fight, be it against U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq or Russians in Chechnya.
http://images.washtimes.com/images/clear.gif

 

[2shelbys]

walstan:

If it is a war then they are prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Convention. If tghey are not subject to the convention then it is not a war and they are therefore subject to either the International or American justice systems. So what is it? a war and the Geneva convention or a criminal act subject to the civilian courts?

You need to read the law. The fact that there is a war going on does not make everyone involved a legal combatant. There is no logic at all in your assertion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

If it is a war then they are prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Convention. If tghey are not subject to the convention then it is not a war and they are therefore subject to either the International or American justice systems. So what is it? a war and the Geneva convention or a criminal act subject to the civilian courts?

They are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. We have a right to defend ourselves against terrorism, and that right includes taking prisoners and holding them while the fighting goes on.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

Are we expected to release terrorists under circumstances where we would hold legitimate combatants?

In that case you should treat suspected terrorists the same as you should hold legitimate combatants.

Alternatively, being a combatant is a status designated by your uniform. Being a terrorist is a crime, as determined by a court of law. Last time I looked, one was innocent of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore these people are not legally terrorists.

You can’t twist the laws one way to suit you, and then another in the opposite way also to suit you.

I believe I’ve explained before that when you play the fool people will think you aren’t playing.

Oh good

Some of those we released – but not those specific nine – went back and took up arms against us again.

So some of the people in there are nasty terrorists who should be locked up. Others like the British nine weren’t, and were victims of mistaken identity.

I’ve got a great idea! Give them trials, and then we can punish those who are guilty, and release those who are innocent! Yep, that sounds like the way to do things to me.

Mike