Should we be force feeding gitmo prisoners?

[HereWeGoAgain]

half have been cleared of any wrong doing

If they're so harmless why dont you offer to take in a dozen or so?

 

[Truthmatters]

Inside the Gitmo Task Force's Final Report | The Weekly Standard

 

[Katzndogz]

They are there because they are so dangerous their home countries don't want them back. That's why they are there. The only other alternative is to bring them here and let them go.

 

[Circe]

There is the reason that it's against the rules of war!!

No nation is supposed to TRY soldiers fighting for the other side as criminals: that's basic.

When the war is over, you let them go, that's all.



So is the war over, or not?

Shouldn't we be treating these worthless nothings as prisoners of war and just let them go home ? (I'm okay with a delay of a few months while not force-feeding, of course --- get the numbers down, if they are so foolish as to do that. Whenever. They've probably mostly aged out of violent terrorism, anyway, by now.)

They are not POW's, and calling them that only validates their cause. They don't deserve to be treated like POW's.

These people took up arms against us. What would you prefer us to call them?

Oh and if given the chance they would take up arms against us again.

You think we haven't let any of them go?

We have let hundreds of them go and the recidivism rate is an estimated 27.9 percent.

In a summary report, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in militant activity.

So lets just turn these clowns loose so we can fight them again.

Certainly they are prisoners of war, AmyNation: just because people hate, hate, hate the enemy like the bosche, krauts, gooks, and Japs in other wars doesn't mean they aren't prisoners of war, it just means you hate them. The rules are still the rules: after the war, let them go back to their homes.

Lonestar Logic, you make good points that we are all worried about, and unfortunately your stats seem to be correct, at least, I've read them too.

This is why I'm okay with not force-feeding them for a few months, then letting the few remaining go as a surprise. Or waiting for another president, when they are all older.

It is obvious they are prisoners of war and there is an obvious and ancient process for those. We were just too mad to see it for the first ten years, and there is the problem that this is a terrorism war of bombs and sabotage, not one of soldiers in ranks with uniforms. We can't try them! They aren't criminals, they are enemy soldiers. That's different.

We have to let them go, but WHEN we let them go is not prescribed. I'd say age them out awhile more and let them starve themselves if they like. Then let them go when they aren't dangerous.

I'm not sympathetic with enemies; I don't see why anyone would be, unless they are on the other side.

 

[Truthmatters]

Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says

 

[Truthmatters]

Guantanamo Review Task Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Publication of the names of the cleared

On September 21, 2012, the United States Department of Justice published a list of the names of 55 Guantanamo captives who had been cleared for release.[8][9][10] Danica Coto of the Associated Press reported that the publication of the names surprised human rights workers who had been seeking this information through Freedom of Information Act requests

Carol Rosenberg, writing in the Miami Herald, reported that State Department officials had confirmed a 56 man's name had been left off the list, even though he too had been cleared for release, because his name was under seal.[11] She reported that now that the captives's names have been published, the secrecy agreement their lawyers signed would no longer prevent them from contacting third countries to seek asylum themselves.

Fausto Biloslavo, writing in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale told his readers about six Guantanamo captives, who had lived in Italy, and might be transferred to Italy.[10] Those six men were Al Khadr Abdallah Muhammad Al-Yafi, Adel Bin Ahmed Bin Ibrahim Hkiml, Ridah Bin Saleh al-Yazidi, Yunis Abdurrahman Shokuri, Abdul Bin Mohammed Bin Abess Ourgy, and Bensayah Belkacem

 

[Circe]

They are there because they are so dangerous their home countries don't want them back. That's why they are there. The only other alternative is to bring them here and let them go.

Ohhhhhh, there are a LOT of alternatives. A whole lot.

I can think of several and I bet you can too. Publicity not wanted, but dropping them in the Atlantic would most definitely solve our problem.

 

[Truthmatters]

denying facts that do not fit your poltical veiws makes your political veiws FLAWED

 

[Truthmatters]

there are facts here folks wether you use facts to deside things or not doesnt make these facts non exsistant.


You people are failures as thinking human beings

 

[AmyNation]

Are Al-Qaida Prisoners of War?

"The Hague and Geneva Conventions lay out four criteria defining prisoners of war. This is a direct quote.

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
that of carrying arms openly.
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The conventions further stipulate:

That guerrillas and resistance movements are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they fit the four criteria above.
That if a populace spontaneously rises up in defense of its territory without having time to organize formally, they are still entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they meet criteria c. and d.
That persons whose status is in doubt enjoy the protection of prisoner of war status until their status is determined by a "competent tribunal." They are not prisoners of war, but are to be given the same treatment until their status is determined.
If Al-Qaida had never attacked the United States, but had merely fought us in Afghanistan, they would probably be entitled to the status of prisoners of war. But in its operations against the United States, Al-Qaida fails all four tests. While Al-Qaida has a chain of command, it does not accept responsibility for the actions of its operatives (or more to the point, considers any act that harms Americans legitimate). Open operations and conduct of operations in accord with the laws of war hardly need comment."

 

[AmyNation]

As it stands right now, Al-Qaida doesn't even really exist. Wha we have now is a bunch of small terrorist cells who aren't connected to each other, and a bunch of terrorist wannabes who all use the name "al-Qaida" because its well known.

 

[Claudette]

Personoally I could care if every dirtbag in Gitmo died today.

If they don't want to eat then let em starve.

No skin off my ass.

how many have been cleared by all the entities involved and they wanted to send them home.

The republicans wont let it happen.

why?

YOu must be loosing it ther Splatters. They have released loads of those at Gitmo. Only problem is they go right back out to the nearest battlefield to kill our men.

As far as I'm concerned they could all die tomorrow and good riddance. The only good dirtbag is a dead one.

 

[Circe]

Are Al-Qaida Prisoners of War?

"The Hague and Geneva Conventions lay out four criteria defining prisoners of war. This is a direct quote.

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
that of carrying arms openly.
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The conventions further stipulate:

That guerrillas and resistance movements are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they fit the four criteria above.
That if a populace spontaneously rises up in defense of its territory without having time to organize formally, they are still entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they meet criteria c. and d.
That persons whose status is in doubt enjoy the protection of prisoner of war status until their status is determined by a "competent tribunal." They are not prisoners of war, but are to be given the same treatment until their status is determined.
If Al-Qaida had never attacked the United States, but had merely fought us in Afghanistan, they would probably be entitled to the status of prisoners of war. But in its operations against the United States, Al-Qaida fails all four tests. While Al-Qaida has a chain of command, it does not accept responsibility for the actions of its operatives (or more to the point, considers any act that harms Americans legitimate). Open operations and conduct of operations in accord with the laws of war hardly need comment."

Your site you cited is thoughtful and gives a good balanced discussion of the issue, unlike the points you pulled to support your position, which seems to be that we should try these people. Wow, if we were to try all the prisoners of war from every war, our courts could never deal with any domestic crimes. From your site:

While it's clear we don't have to regard Al-Qaida captives as POW's, would it do any harm if we were to give them that status? Probably not, provided (and given the commentary so far, this is a big if) it is clearly understood that POW status can be revoked if a person is shown to have violated the rules of war.

So there it is. We can call them prisoners of war if we like, or not. Whatever.

Let's think it over a few more years....................in the meantime, it's very clear that force-feeding is unethical and illegal, so let them starve if they like. The fewer prisoners the better. It's up to them. I think it's terminally stupid to give them any power at all via self-starvation. Just ignore it.

Good reason to keep them in Gitmo, in fact, let them do all that and get over it so future prisoners there won't try it on. The IRA stopped the starving ploy as soon as the British let the last lot die. It's the only way. I mean, they are terrorist Muslims who fought us!! Who WANTS these guys alive, you know? Not even their home countries.

 

[candycorn]

Without trials how have they been cleared? And if they have been cleared why are so many of them refused reentry into their home country?

No matter what we've got a mess on our hands.

they were not tried becuase their was no need to try them for anything.

NO EVIDENCE they did anything wrong.


Would you take a person that AQ had controled for 10 years?


Yes its a mess thank the republicans

Just stop TM. Even this post is absurd.
First you say they did nothing wrong then you claim they are dangerous Al quad a operatives.

Be quiet

I agree with the mantra of give them a trial or a bus ticket home.

 

[Circe]

As it stands right now, Al-Qaida doesn't even really exist. Wha we have now is a bunch of small terrorist cells who aren't connected to each other, and a bunch of terrorist wannabes who all use the name "al-Qaida" because its well known.

No problem, then. Let 'em go.

Next year some time, but don't anyone tell them. The more who starve, the better.

 

[candycorn]

They are there because they are so dangerous their home countries don't want them back. That's why they are there. The only other alternative is to bring them here and let them go.

Ohhhhhh, there are a LOT of alternatives. A whole lot.

I can think of several and I bet you can too. Publicity not wanted, but dropping them in the Atlantic would most definitely solve our problem.

Would be a real shame if a freak 156 alarm fire broke out and all of the inmates happened to be in their cells at the time.

 

[Truthmatters]

and they just continue to NOT SEE facts they can not handle and retain their stupid false ideas

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You facts advers idiots are just going to ignore half have been cleared of any wrongdoing huh?

Do you even read the links you post?

The decisions reached on the 240 detainees subject to the review are as follows:

• 126 detainees were approved for transfer. To date, 44 of these detainees have
been transferred from Guantanamo to countries outside the United States.
• 44 detainees over the course of the review were referred for prosecution
either in federal court or a military commission, and 36 of these detainees
remain the subject of active cases or investigations. The Attorney General has
announced that the government will pursue prosecutions against six of these
detainees in federal court and will pursue prosecutions against six others in
military commissions.
• 48 detainees were determined to be too dangerous to transfer but not feasible
for prosecution. They will remain in detention pursuant to the government’s
authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by
Congress in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Detainees may
challenge the legality of their detention in federal court and will periodically
receive further review within the Executive Branch.
• 30 detainees from Yemen were designated for “conditional” detention based
on the current security environment in that country. They are not approved
for repatriation to Yemen at this time, but may be transferred to third
countries, or repatriated to Yemen in the future if the current moratorium on
transfers to Yemen is lifted and other security conditions are met.

FINAL REPORT GUANTANAMO REVIEW TASK FORCE

And remember this is President Obama's interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force.

You know the man you hold in such high regard.

You bitch about these alleged innocent men still being held but not a single harsh word about the man responsible for keeping them there.

 

[Truthmatters]

the stupid party in action

 

[Katzndogz]

Their guilt or innocence has nothing to do with them exercising their absolute right to end their lives according to our laws.

Send them to Oregon, death by starvation and dehydration is legal. Anyone can choose to end their lives like that.