Obama plans quick move on Gitmo

[m0tbaillie]

^ Instant satisfaction society. He promised a lot in a short time and now he has to deliver.

Well, the current Administration has been sitting on this issue for 7 years with absolutely no intention for affording due process in any respect to a good chunk of these guys sitting in GITMO, many of whom cannot be deemed enemy combatants nor soldiers at all and end up falling betweens the cracks in the legal system because you can't apply the Geneva Conventions to [some of] them yet they don't want to accuse or try many of them.

It's about a damn time something gets done. Right or wrong, someone needs to make a move. 7 years is by no means "instant", IMHO.

 

[ChunksJR]

Well, the current Administration has been sitting on this issue for 7 years with absolutely no intention for affording due process in any respect to a good chunk of these guys sitting in GITMO,

Not true. Without going into details, the President's CABINET reevaluate each detainee's value of being detaineed. See below.

many of whom cannot be deemed enemy combatants nor soldiers at all

Many times we're wrong when we determine "threat" or not. See Below article.

It's about a damn time something gets done. Right or wrong, someone needs to make a move. 7 years is by no means "instant", IMHO.

Again, I appreciate your frustration, but it's based on inaccurate info and you should be careful of getting upset on wrong perceptions (I mean, if you want...it's your blood pressure). I'd hardly say that 500 released personnel is a "7 year status quo."

Based on "public press releases" I'll quote the below:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/index.html

"Of the more than 500 detainees released from Guantanamo since the detention camp was opened in 2002, 38 have been stripped of their "enemy combatant" status and determined to pose no future threat to the United States. The remaining 462 were repatriated to home countries or resettled to third-party countries and still considered a threat, Pentagon records show."

That's a great article btw that emphasizes the dangers that some (not all) detainees pose. But when it comes to funerals in Arlington, I prefer to err on the side of US.

 

[NozeMan]

Hey zoomie.....circumventing the Constitution with respect to the detainees is not the issue. They aren't American citizens, so they aren't afforded the rights. The real arguement is whether or not to try them as enemy combatants and give them rights in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The more recent cases that have gone down at GITMO afford the accused plenty of rights.

 

[NozeMan]

Well, the current Administration has been sitting on this issue for 7 years with absolutely no intention for affording due process in any respect to a good chunk of these guys sitting in GITMO, many of whom cannot be deemed enemy combatants nor soldiers at all and end up falling betweens the cracks in the legal system because you can't apply the Geneva Conventions to [some of] them yet they don't want to accuse or try many of them.

It's about a damn time something gets done. Right or wrong, someone needs to make a move. 7 years is by no means "instant", IMHO.

The number of detainees at GITMO has been decreasing since we first started holding them there. As Chunks pointed out, some have been released and some have gone back to the battlefield. I'll grant you that the administration wrote the original rules to aid the US "cause", but that has changed dramatically in the years since. The more recent cases are evidence of that.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

I'm just wondering Zoomie... how many German soldiers got trials when they were held in WWII? And I don't mean war crimes trials like Nuremburg. A captured combatant is just that. Your prisoner until hostilities are over.

 

[NozeMan]

I'm just wondering Zoomie... how many German soldiers got trials when they were held in WWII? And I don't mean war crimes trials like Nuremburg. A captured combatant is just that. Your prisoner until hostilities are over.

That brings up another interesting point. So we deem the dudes we are holding as enemy combatants because we found them on a battlefield. Technically they are now POWs. As we've seen in war, we don't do anything with POWs did said conflict is over. How do we determine when the war on terror is over?



Not taking a side, just making the point.

 

[ChunksJR]

The more recent cases that have gone down at GITMO afford the accused plenty of rights.

Young Padme, you are correct and wise beyond your years...$hit, Geneva doesn't cover 1/2 of the policies down here, but we've gone over and above the rights provided in the GC.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Young Padme, you are correct and wise beyond your years...$hit, Geneva doesn't cover 1/2 of the policies down here, but we've gone over and above the rights provided in the GC.

Interesting....

 

[bubblehead]

IMHO, when you capture and ship an individual to a site that is inaccessible by anyone and then label the evidence used against them as "classified," you are certainly going to see some abuses of the system.

 

[zoomie08]

No one cares. If it's not this it's "why didn't they stop Gaza?" or "why didn't they prevent Rwanda?" No one cares.


Now I'm confused...you're saying we should have killed them on the battlefield (as in when we had them in custody after disarming them) which would be a war crime, but also arguing for constitutional rights?

Absolutely not. Sorry for the confusing wording. I was saying (or attempting to say) that it is a shame that when they were shooting at us, none of our troops or allies killed them. It may sound like a contradiction in thoughts but oh well... Once they are captured, obviously, they are off limits.


Lasers,

The Supreme Court would beg to differ with your statement that they aren't entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights. Read the Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush and other recent cases.

Also, there is a lot more to public policy than your tax dollars. No offense, dude, but to judge all policies based on your (Not singling you out. Anyone who holds this as their primary view through which they judge policy.) precious money is closed-minded, selfish, and shallow. I am not sure if that is what you are saying or not. I agree that spending is an important part of policy but there is much more to it than that. I am simply making the case that our democracy is fragile and working outside the Constitution sets a very dangerous precedent.

And as far as being better to play safe than sorry, I disagree. It is most of the time...when we have the luxury of doing so within the bounds of our American principles. We can't stick to those principles only when it is easy or safe or convenient. Justice, freedom, and liberty are what define us as American. We can't give them up...no matter what the cost.


And, they aren't simply (or technically) POW's. They have this strange legal status that no one seems to label one way or the other. Read Hamdan v. Bush where the Court decided that tribunals designed for POW's were't adequate for these guys because they didn't meet requirements of the Geneva Convention. (And, I have no idea why. This is way beyond my limited legal mind.)


Chief,

I know. It will be extremely difficult to find a country to accept these guys. I am not sure we would want them going to the countries who would accept them. It's a difficult situation. But, the alternative of keeping them locked up without charging them (therefore, illegally) is unacceptable.


*Exhales....*

 

[ChunksJR]

IMHO, when you capture and ship an individual to a site that is inaccessible by anyone and then label the evidence used against them as "classified," you are certainly going to see some abuses of the system.

Hardly Inaccessible!!!! Type "lawyers in guantanamo" and tell me that that's inaccessible.

Jesus people...the press is evil. Watch Fox, CNN, ABC, BBC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS and your local broadcast to make sure you get at least 25% of the truth!!!!!:icon_rage

 

[bubblehead]

I think the horse is dead here...

 

[zoomie08]

I think the horse is dead here...

I feel like I killed it....And then shot it a few more times for good measure. My bad.

 

[ChunksJR]

<Sigh> It is a dead horse. Good to know that we're as unsure about this whole thing though as the rest of the administration/public. </Sigh>

 

[scoolbubba]

can't we just send them to san francisco, berkley and new england? they love to piss and moan about them. maybe they'd welcome the jeeehawd in their cities, since they're so tolerant.