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

[derek bomar]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/governor-pat-quinn-senator-richard-durbin-guantanamo-bay-thomson-correctional-center.html

there seems to be a push to move them into Illinois...personally, I say bring them in. Creates some jobs here and I don't realistically see them as being any less dangerous than those we already lock up in terms of a threat to escape.

[pmoney25]

I say put them in with the worst of the worst and see how long they last.

[CenterBHSFan]

No. I also don't believe that they deserved to be given the same rights as civilians enjoy.
If you're going to try them, let the military handle it completely.

[derek bomar]

No. I also don't believe that they deserved to be given the same rights as civilians enjoy.
If you're going to try them, let the military handle it completely.


Do you feel they're a threat if they come here?

[ccrunner609]

Bomar are you serious. Your initial post may be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Do you realize these people want you dead?

[derek bomar]

Bomar are you serious. Your initial post may be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Do you realize these people want you dead?


so you're saying you don't feel our prison systems can hold them? you think they'd escape from a super-max?

[CenterBHSFan]

Derek, I don't know. I don't really care, either - to be honest.

[ccrunner609]

^^^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.

[derek bomar]

^^^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 why wouldn't that be a good thing? I don't really care what happens to them inside a prison, I just don't see the big fuss about whether that prison is in the U.S. or on some island...they ain't breakin out either way

[CenterBHSFan]

Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.

[derek bomar]

Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.


why? what's the harm?

[ccrunner609]

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.

[CenterBHSFan]

Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.

why? what's the harm?


I'm assuming that you're just stirring the pot here a little and maybe get an argument or two. Because I KNOW, I KNOW that you already know the answer to that. Even though your political leanings differ than mine, I can tell from your postings that you're smart, intelligent and have an education.

[derek bomar]

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...

[derek bomar]

Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.

why? what's the harm?


I'm assuming that you're just stirring the pot here a little and maybe get an argument or two. Because I KNOW, I KNOW that you already know the answer to that. Even though your political leanings differ than mine, I can tell from your postings that you're smart, intelligent and have an education.


Thanks for the compliment, I think...but seriously, I don't think there is harm in trying them in a civilian court as long as they have sufficient evidence. If they don't, then you shouldn't be holding them anyway.

[ccrunner609]

Dude their jihad and hate for us isnt going to get worse if we treat them the way prisoners/terrorists should be treated. They want us dead. Its in their fundamental beliefs. Us not showing that we are fair and lawful means nothing to them.

Either way they would slit your throat if they could.

[derek bomar]

Dude their jihad and hate for us isnt going to get worse if we treat them the way prisoners/terrorists should be treated. They want us dead. Its in their fundamental beliefs. Us not showing that we are fair and lawful means nothing to them.

Either way they would slit your throat if they could.


It means nothing to terrorists, but it should and does mean something to those who are in a position to become potential terrorists. You can't do anything most likely about those who already believe that we are the great satan, but you can try and limit the next generation of them by actually acting like a country with some dignity and not hiding these people. Bring them out, show what they've done, and punish them. Our jails can hold them.

[majorspark]

Well, I DO think that if they would RIGHTFULLY have a military trial, it would be best suited not to have it in the states.
It really should have never ever ever been considered to be dealt with as a civilian-type case.


why? what's the harm?


Some of the problems with trying them in civilian courts will be the presenting of evidence that is currently classified. Also how many of these fellows were read their rights, had lawyers present during questioning. I would hate to see one of these clowns get off on some kind of technicality.

[CenterBHSFan]

DB,

Can't the military offer them a fair trial?

[derek bomar]

DB,

Can't the military offer them a fair trial?


I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.

[ccrunner609]

Gitmo is a vacation compared to what they are going to get. You are so into Obama politics that you think Gitmo is such a bad place.

[derek bomar]

Gitmo is a vacation compared to what they are going to get. You are so into Obama politics that you think Gitmo is such a bad place.


No, I think the rest of the world thinks Gitmo is a bad place, and I am right...they do. So put them in an empty U.S. prison, bring some jobs to a small town in need of it, and help our reputation. This isn't a hard call...seems to me you would just rather say anything Obama says is wrong even if it is right...

[Writerbuckeye]

DB,

Can't the military offer them a fair trial?


I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.


I do not believe a civilian prison has the security to keep these folks where they belong. Putting them in such a setting automatically makes that area a target for terrorism (to either free their comrades, ill the infidels who put them there, or both).

[derek bomar]

DB,

Can't the military offer them a fair trial?


I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.


I do not believe a civilian prison has the security to keep these folks where they belong. Putting them in such a setting automatically makes that area a target for terrorism (to either free their comrades, ill the infidels who put them there, or both).


Is it the threat of our armed forces in Cuba that has prevented it from happening at Gitmo?

[ptown_trojans_1]

Yes. A supermax is good enough to hold these people. Besides, for international legitimacy and power in the international chessboard, closing the prison at Gimto is a better move.

I'm on the fence about KSM and others getting tried in NY. But, as to holding them in the U.S., I have no problem with it.

[Writerbuckeye]

DB,

Can't the military offer them a fair trial?


I'm not trying to argue the military can't...I Just want any kind of trial, civil or military, and I want them moved off of Gitmo and into a super-max here in the states. IIRC there was a town in either Montana or North Dakota that was begging for them because they had an empty prison.


I do not believe a civilian prison has the security to keep these folks where they belong. Putting them in such a setting automatically makes that area a target for terrorism (to either free their comrades, ill the infidels who put them there, or both).


Is it the threat of our armed forces in Cuba that has prevented it from happening at Gitmo?


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)?

[ccrunner609]

moving our trash to a public/federal prison is showing the world we are weak.

That is not good.

[eersandbeers]

moving our trash to a public/federal prison is showing the world we are weak.

That is not good.



Been listening to Hannity lately?

Please expand on that comment because it really makes no sense whatsoever.

[ccrunner609]

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.

[eersandbeers]

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.



What terrorist leaders has Obama talked to? Reagan? Because from what I can remember, he was quite the supporter of terrorism around the world.

I'd say you are probably quite far off on why the international community was happy when Obama won. They were happy because we no longer had a war monger in office and they could resume normal diplomatic relations.


With that aside, your claim that moving detainees to the US shows our weakness isn't all that true.

[ptown_trojans_1]

Let's deconstruct this CC:

1. The President isn't weak, or at least hasn't shown it to me yet. The defense budget is increasing, funds are going to the areas where commanders see fit. He has stayed in Afghanistan, with debates on how much force he will send. If he was weak, wouldn't he pull them out? I see nothing really, actual policy wise that shows weakness.

2. Have we really talked to terrorist state leaders yet......no. Are we, not in the near future. So, that point makes no sense today and is false.

3. A military guy? Ok, what does that mean really? Bomb a country, sometimes that is not the best option. In the 21st century and with wide ranging threats, sometimes force has the opposite effect. As for showing weakness, the U.S. still has all the hard power, and closing this facility increases soft power, which is crucial in COIN operations worldwide.

The world celebrated as it is a turn away from unilateral action and a move toward more multilateral action-which is everyone's best interest, U.S. included. Countries did not sense that the U.S. power was dropping, actually in some areas, they saw U.S. power as rising.

4. So, let's play this out even more. What do you speculate would be going on if McCain was President? How would he tackle what is going right now?

[RoyalNut]

Let's deconstruct this CC:

1. The President isn't weak, or at least hasn't shown it to me yet. The defense budget is increasing, funds are going to the areas where commanders see fit. He has stayed in Afghanistan, with debates on how much force he will send. If he was weak, wouldn't he pull them out? I see nothing really, actual policy wise that shows weakness.

Oh no he just sits on his hands for months on end while our troops are in harms way. Bows to every world leader he runs into. I'm surprised he didn't ask Hugo Chavez if he could shine his shoes. Not to mention his world apology tour.

2. Have we really talked to terrorist state leaders yet......no. Are we, not in the near future. So, that point makes no sense today and is false.

No he just imported 200,00- misplaced members of hamas to the states on the tax payers dime. Don't believe me? Look it up!

3. A military guy? Ok, what does that mean really? Bomb a country, sometimes that is not the best option. In the 21st century and with wide ranging threats, sometimes force has the opposite effect. As for showing weakness, the U.S. still has all the hard power, and closing this facility increases soft power, which is crucial in COIN operations worldwide.

You make me want to puke! soft power! Tell that to the Chinese soldier that is loading your stupid but on a fema bus , so his cousin can move into your home.

The world celebrated as it is a turn away from unilateral action and a move toward more multilateral action-which is everyone's best interest, U.S. included. Countries did not sense that the U.S. power was dropping, actually in some areas, they saw U.S. power as rising.

I cannot even comment on this statement comrade

4. So, let's play this out even more. What do you speculate would be going on if McCain was President? How would he tackle what is going right now?


It would be the same as we are getting now. They are both progressives, McCain would have just done it a little more under the radar. But the results would have been the same.

You answer me one simple question. How are we going to pay for all these programs?

[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]

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]

^^^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.



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.




Either way they would slit your throat if they could.


But they can't even if they are in a Supermax in the US.




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.



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.




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
http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/secretroom1_f.jpg

[majorspark]

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 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PG3ew_iFi3A/SKwsPZ7wPJI/AAAAAAAADio/NjwdSmyAku0/s400/photo1.jpg

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]

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]

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]

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]

New York Governor says no!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ny-governor-sept-trial-bad-idea/


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Mr. 300]

Obama was O'k with a war crimes tribunal in 2006.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/context-of-obamas-2006-ksm-remarks

[CenterBHSFan]

Obama was O'k with a war crimes tribunal in 2006.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/context-of-obamas-2006-ksm-remarks


I have been told before that Obama's thoughts and opinions are totally different now. :dodgy:

[ccrunner609]

Obama has no idea what he is doing. Its all political with him. He probably asks himself "what would Bush do?" Then do the opposite.

This will lead to his fail in 2012

[CenterBHSFan]

Obama probably asks himself "what would Bush do?" Then do the opposite.

:angel:

[derek bomar]

Obama has no idea what he is doing. Its all political with him. He probably asks himself "what would Bush do?" Then do the opposite.

This will lead to his fail in 2012


doubt it, unless you can dig someone out of left field for you guys who isn't a far right nutbag

[Writerbuckeye]

I'd argue they have no rights under Geneva since they don't represent any country or wear the uniform of any country.

They are terrorists and should be treated as such.

[bigdaddy2003]

Obama is definitely gone in 2012.

[Fab4Runner]

FYI I didn't say they don't have rights. I said they should not have the same rights as US citizens. Big difference.

[eersandbeers]

FYI I didn't say they don't have rights. I said they should not have the same rights as US citizens. Big difference.


Aren't those the rights we want to spread throughout the world? What does it hurt to grant those, who are possibly guilty of crimes against the United States, the same rights as American citizens? I think that would perfectly demonstrate how great this country is.

[ccrunner609]

^^^I doubt its a 2 way street when you are dealing with these people. They dont belong to a country or established organization.

They belong to a radical religion. How will they give us rights when they are bound to nothing?

[derek bomar]

^^^I doubt its a 2 way street when you are dealing with these people. They dont belong to a country or established organization.

They belong to a radical religion. How will they give us rights when they are bound to nothing?


isn't that the point man? we want to be better than them

[ccrunner609]

We are better then them regardless what we do. Smothering them in kindess isnt the way to deal with these people.

Like I said before....they want us all dead. Giving them a public trial/forum isnt changing that.

[eersandbeers]

We are better then them regardless what we do. Smothering them in kindess isnt the way to deal with these people.

Like I said before....they want us all dead. Giving them a public trial/forum isnt changing that.


I would say we aren't better than them regardless of what we do. We need to be better than them through our actions. Acting like them does not make us better than them.

I don't think they really care about killing a bunch of Americans. They have a political goal in mind and that is their disgusting method to achieve it.

[ccrunner609]

Sure they have an agenda.......I cannot believe you would say we arent better then them. Last time I checked people in this country dont go around blowing themselves up for 72 virgins.

We are better then them. Smarter then them. More compassionate then them ect...... they randomly blow up little kids and women.

Yeah they are equal.

[eersandbeers]

Sure they have an agenda.......I cannot believe you would say we arent better then them. Last time I checked people in this country dont go around blowing themselves up for 72 virgins.

We are better then them. Smarter then them. More compassionate then them ect...... they randomly blow up little kids and women.

Yeah they are equal.



Where did I say we aren't better than them? You were arguing we should act like them, which would not make us better. The US is better than those terrorists because we do things like granting them fair and impartial trials in our justice system.

Compassionate is one I'm not so sure about though. There are many within this country who would have had argued we shouldn't worry about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there are others who have no problems with indefinitely detaining possibly innocent people at Gitmo with no chance for a fair trial. I wouldn't call that compassion.

[ccrunner609]

Where did I say we aren't better than them?



I would say we aren't better than them

Wow, do you actually read what you type?

[eersandbeers]

Where did I say we aren't better than them?



I would say we aren't better than them

Wow, do you actually read what you type?



Since you are selectively editing my quotes to make yourself appear correct then I said that.

Here was my actual statement: "I would say we aren't better than them regardless of what we do."

You said we are better than them "regardless of what we do." I said we are not better than them "regardless of what we do."

[fish82]

Obama has no idea what he is doing. Its all political with him. He probably asks himself "what would Bush do?" Then do the opposite.

This will lead to his fail in 2012


doubt it, unless you can dig someone out of left field for you guys who isn't a far right nutbag


Yeah...'cause the far left nutbag is really kicking ass and taking names.

[CenterBHSFan]

Compassionate is one I'm not so sure about though. There are many within this country who would have had argued we shouldn't worry about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there are others who have no problems with indefinitely detaining possibly innocent people at Gitmo with no chance for a fair trial. I wouldn't call that compassion.


Wouldn't that be President Obama being one of those? Standing in front of the original constitution, he bashed the Bush administration for prolonged detention, but then said that that is what he was going to do, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

See. This is NOT a very smart move. At least, not from President Obama's point of view...or it shouldn't be.
The politics involved in this are wanting to nail the Bush administration to the wall. But, I guess they never thought that Obama's words can be used against him also. It WILL be a two way street, and if it isn't...well then, that's dirty politics, eh?

[ccrunner609]

eers dont argue that last post......you contradicted yourself plain as day

[NNN]

POWs were housed in the U.S. during WWII. In fact, most of them were put to work and shown the best of America; quite a few went back to Germany after the war, packed up their family, and moved here.

But you know something? No POW taken by the U.S. was given a trial by a military tribunal, civilian court, or traffic court. When the war was over, they were sent back and were free to go on with their lives.

So when the war on terrorism is over, we can release everyone. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to give them a trial....they're enemy combatants who were captured. When the war ends, so does our ability to detain them.

[eersandbeers]

eers dont argue that last post......you contradicted yourself plain as day


In no way did I contradict myself. You selectively edited my quote to fit your agenda to make your claim appear to be correct. I provided my whole statement which completely changed the meaning of the statement.



So when the war on terrorism is over, we can release everyone. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to give them a trial....they're enemy combatants who were captured. When the war ends, so does our ability to detain them.



When does the War on Terror end? Who will surrender for the other side?

Basically you are saying we should hold possibly innocent people for an indefinite period of time.

[les_diables_bleus]

They are not guaranteed the right to a fair and speedy trial since they are not US citizens, but I would give them one anyway immediately before we hanged them. Actually hanging is too good for them. I believe we should use one of the heinous, torturous methodes employed in their country on them. Does anyone quarter people anymore?

[CenterBHSFan]

eers,


Basically you are saying we should hold possibly innocent people for an indefinite period of time

President Obama is saying this as well. Just like Bush did.

[derek bomar]

you people are nuts - try them if we have evidence, kill them if convicted...if they dont have any evidence let them go...why is this a hard concept?

[CenterBHSFan]

DB,

Nobody wants them to be tried here in the states by a civilian courts. That's the debate. People want them to be tried. Just by a military court instead.
Why is that a hard concept?

[dwccrew]

As do we, which includes shooting them today should we so choose. Two can play the "Geneva Convention" game.


Please show me where under the Geneva Convention it states we can just shoot people even though they haven't faced a tribunal/trial or anything. This is not true. Now if they were tried and evidence proved they were guilty, I'd have no problem with whatever justice was given.



eers dont argue that last post......you contradicted yourself plain as day


No, he didn't. He never said they were better than us, he said 'we are not any better'. You interpreted it as him saying we aren't better, but how I interpreted it and how he explained it is that we are no better, meaning he believes we are equals. Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying how I interpreted it and how I think he meant it.



you people are nuts - try them if we have evidence, kill them if convicted...if they dont have any evidence let them go...why is this a hard concept?


I agree with this. There have been numerous reports of innoncent people getting "sold" as 'terrorists' by warlords and rivals to the U.S. military.

Sadly, since these men aren't being tried, they are being held indefinitely while being innocent. Now do I think all of them are innocent? No, but we need to start trying them so we can differentiate between the two groups (guilty and not guilty).

[derek bomar]

DB,

Nobody wants them to be tried here in the states by a civilian courts. That's the debate. People want them to be tried. Just by a military court instead.
Why is that a hard concept?


it doesnt matter where you try them if you have the evidence to put them away

[dwccrew]

I think people would argue over this no matter what. People just want to argue over this even though it doesn't matter where they are tried.

[cbus4life]

I agree with this. There have been numerous reports of innoncent people getting "sold" as 'terrorists' by warlords and rivals to the U.S. military.

Sadly, since these men aren't being tried, they are being held indefinitely while being innocent. Now do I think all of them are innocent? No, but we need to start trying them so we can differentiate between the two groups (guilty and not guilty).


Exactly. Why people don't understand this, and why they seem to ignore the fact, is beyond me. Evidence suggests that there are certainly innocent men who have been detained at Gitmo, but are innocent.

This needs to be remedied asap.

[cbus4life]

President Obama is saying this as well. Just like Bush did.


And i disagree with both of them.