Gitmo

[Dr Grump]

right, but I cant see them JUST returning home. As mentioned if they didnt hate us they do now and probably all their relatives as well ... its a no win.

Don't ya just love how Cheney and his cabal think? I could have told them that would be the end result BEFORE they sent innocents and the guilty to Gitmo. Talk about tying a rope around your own neck...

 

[doeton]

Don't ya just love how Cheney and his cabal think? I could have told them that would be the end result BEFORE they sent innocents and the guilty to Gitmo. Talk about tying a rope around your own neck...

restitution payments to the innocent?

 

[jillian]

restitution payments to the innocent?

because that so works with people who want to blow you up.

the problem will be figuring out what to do with the people who are now radicalized but who weren't before. because if anyone let out of gitmo actually does commit a terrorist act, Obama is screwed.

 

[Lycurgus]

yeah, the monkey has left us with another problem no doubt.

The only problem with gitmo is that is was ever made public.

 

[Tech_Esq]

He needs to close Gitmo because it's a symbol of abuse of legal process. The U.S. doesn't disappear people... we don't take away the right to habeas corpus... we don't torture people.

Or didn't until Bush.

That's why.

That said, these people should be tried and convicted if there's evidence against them.

Jillian, how, as a practical matter, could you possibly try them? Chain of Evidence on the battlefield? What? Soldiers aren't trained for that.

Maybe in some circumstances where one of the guys is grabbed by the FBI or something, then you could try him. But people that were captured on the battlefield, there would be no, or next to no, evidence that would stand up in court mostly because nobody was concerning with preserving the integrity of evidence or ensuring the proper handling of evidence.

Further, what rights should properly be accorded to terrorists according to the Geneva convention?

However, here is a somewhat persuasive argument they should be treated as POWs In this case they would not be tried and would not be released until a cessation of hostilities entitles them to repatriation.

 

[Tech_Esq]

because that so works with people who want to blow you up.

the problem will be figuring out what to do with the people who are now radicalized but who weren't before. because if anyone let out of gitmo actually does commit a terrorist act, Obama is screwed.

Since they have been able to document that 61% of those released so far have returned to the battlefield, that really doesn't look like a promising avenue.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, how, as a practical matter, could you possibly try them? Chain of Evidence on the battlefield? What? Soldiers aren't trained for that.

Maybe in some circumstances where one of the guys is grabbed by the FBI or something, then you could try him. But people that were captured on the battlefield, there would be no, or next to no, evidence that would stand up in court mostly because nobody was concerning with preserving the integrity of evidence or ensuring the proper handling of evidence.

Further, what rights should properly be accorded to terrorists according to the Geneva convention?

However, here is a somewhat persuasive argument they should be treated as POWs In this case they would not be tried and would not be released until a cessation of hostilities entitles them to repatriation.

There are no formal hostilities. That argument is specious. It was never intended to be used as a lifetime means of divesting someone of the right to habeas corpus.

And therein lies the problem. Most of these people were NOT taken off of the battlefield, that is simply fabrication. Massive numbers of them were ratted out by people from rival factions who GOT PAID to give up names.

They aren't terrorists because they haven't been found by any tribunal to BE terrorists. They are alleged terrorists, most of whom probably weren't radicalized when they were imprisoned. But they are now. And that makes them dangerous now.

So, getting rid of all the blather and all of the propaganda from the neo-cons, what is a rational answer? Gitmo has to be closed. The U.S. doesn't run gulags. If it were run by the soviets during the height of the cold war, we'd have been the first country objecting. How dare we be made to look this bad in the eyes of the world. Bush burned all of our moral authority.

But now this president is left to clean up Bush's mess. Can they just be freed? Probably not, because NOW they hate our guts. So they have to be tried. There really isn't any other choice. But Obama is going to take the blame if someone illegally and improperly held by the last admin has to be released and does something horrible because they've now had six years to be radicalized. Hell, what would you do if some government held you without charges for six years and you didn't even know what you were being held for?

Again, the U.S. doesn't do gulags... or it didn't used to.

 

[jillian]

Since they have been able to document that 61% of those released so far have returned to the battlefield, that really doesn't look like a promising avenue.

who's "they" and what "documents"? the same ones that said Saddam had WMD's?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, considering that Cheney has several borderline illegal prisons here in Texas, and considering all the crap that has come to light about GITMO and waterboarding, I kinda think that the whole place needs closed.

I mean, if the foundation of your house is fucked up, you can't keep building on it. Same here, the principles that were put in place when GITMO was started, well......they were based on fucked up ideals.

Close the place down, and if a reason comes up that they need to be placed on trial, put 'em in US prisons (we've got several supermax prisons), and give them a trial according to US law. Let GITMO go back to what it was originally intended for......

A Naval Training Base.

Besides, those were crimes against American people, which took American life. Why the hell SHOULDN'T we try them according to our laws?

Unless.......of course.......they're doing something illegal........

How good were those SEAL teams you trained with at collecting evidence? Did they understand the concepts and requirements of maintaining the chain of evidence and protecting it from tampering while they were on the battlefield until it was safely deposited with NCIS?

Did they train on forensic investigation and collection of evidence on the battlefield? How available will they be to testify at hundreds of trials?

 

[Tech_Esq]

who's "they" and what "documents"? the same ones that said Saddam had WMD's?

My bad, 61 not 61%.

CNN Reporting

 

[jillian]

My bad, 61 not 61%.

CNN Reporting

Better... but at that point, we've created the monster and it has to be rehabilitated or destroyed.

But again...what would you do if a country held you without charges for six years, with no reason given to you; with no way to contact your loved ones?

come on...be real. pretend it's the saudis who held you.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Basically folks, if we're going to try them, we should just let them go now and save ourselves the time and expense of having otherwise high-dollar defense attorneys get them off one by one.

Next time we see them, we can shoot them instead of capturing them.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Close Gitmo and send the prisoners home.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Better... but at that point, we've created the monster and it has to be rehabilitated or destroyed.

But again...what would you do if a country held you without charges for six years, with no reason given to you; with no way to contact your loved ones?

come on...be real. pretend it's the saudis who held you.

I have a hard time believing that most of the people in Gitmo we just harmlessly walking down the streets of Kandahar one day when suddenly and violently they were grabbed up by SEAL Team 8 and whisked away to Gitmo.

It is far more likely that most, if not all, are bad guys. How bad? Do they deserve to be in Gitmo instead of other possibilities? I'm not sure what other possibility there is. Like the guy who was OBL's driver. Well, he's definitely hanging with the terrorists. He's probably not making too many plans or anything though. But, in a conspiracy trial, you can probably prove that he made an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Does he "deserve" to be in the same trouble as Khalid Sheik Mohammad? Probably not. But, we don't have Gitmo Jr.

That's a long way of saying, if I'm a bad actor acting in furtherance of the goals of a bad organization and the people I'm acting against capture me, I'm screwed. I kinda know that up front. Doesn't mean I like it, but I have no illusions about what I've gotten myself into.

But, I assume you mean what if I'm the innocent guy. The Cary Grant in North by Northwest, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well shit, that just sucks. I wouldn't like to be the guy who is in Federal Prison doing 20 to life because someone thought I was the guy either. But I don't think you can run the program looking for the one or two guys that you made a mistake on. I think the stakes are a little too high for that.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Pure speculation.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Close Gitmo and send the prisoners home.

That's part of the problem. Their "homes" won't take them back. And, in some cases we're scared to send them back because their home countries will torture or kill them. (Real torture that leaves a mark, not water on a towel).

 

[ABikerSailor]

Are you sure it was the SEAL teams that picked them up and not that idiot company Blackwater?

I'd lean more towards Blackwater.......

And yes......SEALS are trained for quite a few things. Why do you think they are called Special Operations?

 

[Tech_Esq]

There are no formal hostilities. That argument is specious. It was never intended to be used as a lifetime means of divesting someone of the right to habeas corpus.

And therein lies the problem. Most of these people were NOT taken off of the battlefield, that is simply fabrication. Massive numbers of them were ratted out by people from rival factions who GOT PAID to give up names.

They aren't terrorists because they haven't been found by any tribunal to BE terrorists. They are alleged terrorists, most of whom probably weren't radicalized when they were imprisoned. But they are now. And that makes them dangerous now.

So, getting rid of all the blather and all of the propaganda from the neo-cons, what is a rational answer? Gitmo has to be closed. The U.S. doesn't run gulags. If it were run by the soviets during the height of the cold war, we'd have been the first country objecting. How dare we be made to look this bad in the eyes of the world. Bush burned all of our moral authority.

But now this president is left to clean up Bush's mess. Can they just be freed? Probably not, because NOW they hate our guts. So they have to be tried. There really isn't any other choice. But Obama is going to take the blame if someone illegally and improperly held by the last admin has to be released and does something horrible because they've now had six years to be radicalized. Hell, what would you do if some government held you without charges for six years and you didn't even know what you were being held for?

Again, the U.S. doesn't do gulags... or it didn't used to.

A little strong on the hyperbole considering FDRs record don't you think?

A least Bush didn't throw an entire race in the Gulag right?

But, leaving that aside. And, I guess we have to leave aside, what we should have done instead, but I'd like to come back to that. As a practical matter, how can you try them with any hope of getting convictions given that these guys we mostly from conflict areas. Can you imagine even 1/3 of government "evidence" will be admitted? I'll bet it's so full of taint that a 1L could have 90% of it thrown out.

But, let's say that you go through the process (cuz justice is process, right? You send it through the sausage machine and what comes out on the other end is justice). And the result is that most of the detainees are let off for lack of evidence, as they most surely will be or 'fruit of the poisonous tree' etc etc. So most go free as a result of the process. For a time, Bush gets to look even more horrible, keeping all these innocent people imprisoned. Until we start catching these guys committing more acts of terror. Seems to me you're back where you started. Obama set up some easy process where all the terrorists could get off. I'm just not sure you would get enough of these guys put away by trying them to make it come off well in the long run.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That's part of the problem. Their "homes" won't take them back. And, in some cases we're scared to send them back because their home countries will torture or kill them. (Real torture that leaves a mark, not water on a towel).

There are options. We can either return them to their home country, release them, transfer them to a third country, or transfer them to another US detention facility.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You realize that some of the "terrorists" at Gitmo weren't captured on the battlefield. They were turned in by neighbors. Funny, but some of those neighbors may have had a blood feud with the people they turned in for generations.

Bush or Cheney, whoever was really in charge, set up Gitmo for the specific purpose it ended up serving. Locking up suspects for as long as they wanted them with no legal process or possibility of release.

Now we have people who have been in prison and some who were tortured who did not committ any crime against us and others who comitted crimes and because they fucked this up so bad, we may not be able to legally try them.

If any country did this to our citizens, we would bomb them off the face of the earth. In fact, after WWII we tried and killed them for this shit.

Bush and Cheney are criminals by our laws and by international laws. Worse they have set up a situation where the innocent were punished and now the guilty may go free. Great work for a bunch of chicken shits.

Jose Padilla, one of the few convicted, (not in the military courty) is for all intents and purposes a vegetable now. I don't think that was from giving him all the great meals that some of the Republican Senators talked about.

Torture is against our laws and international laws.