GITMO

[Purplehood]

Anygunanywhere wrote"They are not a few hundred, they are in the thousands. Maobama's executive order also applies to the terrorists held in Iraq and Afghanistan. When you made the statement in an earlier post that only a few were captured in combat, you were wrong. Most of them were actually captured in combat by US and our Iraqi and Afghani allies. Most were not sent by other nations. Take another drink of kool aid. These are not cab drivers being railroaded. They are murdering thug terrorists. Go ahead and say it along with me. M-U-R-D-E-R-I-N-G T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. Not freedom fighters. Not uniformed military combatants. Not POWs. They do not even rank as criminals.

The difference in Afghanistan (I can't speak for Iraq, having never been there) is that those [insert your name for them here] captured there are kept in a military detention facility. They have access to counsel, they are not coddled, and they are detained.

ExtremeDuty.45 wrote"It is amazing to me how many people dont get that they are NOT US CITIZENS but

TERRORISTS

Thats the bottome line. They are not an organized military fighting another military but TERRORIST whom have killed INNOCENT civilians!!! They deserve NO rights and have NO rights from the US. Why should we waste taxpayers money in giving them a trial. They dont deserve a trial. They deserve to be hung, shot, electrocuted or anything else you can think of so long as they are executed for commiting the evil acts that they have done.

After looking carefully through the posts, it looks like folks are jumping to conclusions. Who claimed they are US Citizens? Who is saying that they should enjoy the same Constitutional rights as a US Citizen? Who has said that they should be released to conduct further mayhem on an unwitting and innocent populace?

Speaking strictly for myself, I completely disagree with statements like

they are not an organized military fighting another military but TERRORIST

. Yes they are. They are both. They are not a new phenomenon in human history. They are using tactics that work when someone else is militarily superior, and can't hope to operate on an even playing-field.

Before you jump to conclusions, I do not endorse, support or like these folks at all. What I object to is that we (the USA) lowered our standards when it comes to how we handle combatants. They are combatants, they are trying to kill you and me. I see all of these statements and quotes where our forefathers talk about not giving up our rights in the interest of a false sense of security. I see that also as a belief that we don't give up our principles for the same reason.

IMHO we should take all of these individuals in Gitmo and send them to Military Tribunals like we did in any other war (it is a war, there is a medal for it --- GWOT medal) where they get evaluated, judged and a sentence executed. If in the rare instance that they are "innocent" of wrong doing (which I doubt), then we release them like we have been doing all along. The rest of these folks that are still sitting in Gitmo should be put through the regular prosecution process like any other combatant, and disposed with accordingly.

Sitting on them and doing nothing is not the way to go.

[Frost]

If you insist that those in captivity at Gitmo were tortured then you have a skewed understanding of what torture is.

I was referring to your suggested punishment:

4. When captured they should have been questioned in a manner consistent with the way they treated Americans they have held captive. Since the world does not define the way they treat us as barbaric then it must be just fine.

5. Once all valuable information was gleaned they should have been executed in a manner consistent with the way they have executed Americans they have held captive. Again, since the world does not define the way they execute captives as barbaric then it must be just fine.

However, I am also not willing to take it for granted that no torture beyond water boarding taken place at gitmo or elsewhere.

They are not a few hundred, they are in the thousands. Maobama's executive order also applies to the terrorists held in Iraq and Afghanistan. When you made the statement in an earlier post that only a few were captured in combat, you were wrong. Most of them were actually captured in combat by US and our Iraqi and Afghani allies. Most were not sent by other nations. Take another drink of kool aid. These are not cab drivers being railroaded. They are murdering thug terrorists. Go ahead and say it along with me. M-U-R-D-E-R-I-N-G T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. Not freedom fighters. Not uniformed military combatants. Not POWs. They do not even rank as criminals.

We can easily deal with them all without allowing the government to arbitrarily detain people. There is a rather large difference between being captured in combat and being bought from warlords in Afghanistan. It is worth considering that those "allies" may have lied in exchange for a stack of cash.

It is amazing to me how many people dont get that they are... TERRORISTS

That is a question of fact for a justice system. Not necessarily the US civilian justice system, but it must be one that respects the inalienable rights of all people.

[Captain Matt]

When we're talking about TERRORISTS we're talking about someone who attacks noncombatants. People who attack combatants may be soldiers, guerillas, partisans, or many other things but I reject the premise that the Continental Army were terrorists.

[bdickens]

The US Constitution only applies to US citizens and resident aliens.

Putting underwear on someone's head is not torture. At least those guys still had heads. The barbarians we're fighting cut people's heads off.

Unlawful combatants are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor are they entitled to due process. This whole idea of treating these Islamofascist terrorists as if they are criminals is absurd. The Clinton administration started that nonsense because they didn't have the stones to deal with terrorism properly - like an act of war - and look at the mess he left for his successor.

[bayou_chl]

The US Constitution only applies to US citizens and resident aliens.

The above statement is 100% false. A person has rights under the US Constitution if they are on US soil or territories. Therefore, people who sneak into the US have rights. Lucky for them, it is the law. Now this concept is different for enemy combatants captured during a war. Special exception is made because of the circumstances. Truth be told we dont know how the detainees got to GITMO. They could have been shooting at our troops or some may have been taken due to mistaken identity. We need to find a good way to identify who is a threat and who isn't. I think the real threats will be proud of what they did, spill their guts, and swear to do it again. Some might lie to get out of American control but I think we have experienced interrogators who can call bull and get the real story. I am not in favor of torturing anyone. Torture has the potential to make the tortured do or say whatever the torturer wants them to so they can get out of a very uncomfortable situation. This is one of the reasons confessions coerced by torture are unreliable, unconstitutional, and not admissable in any American court.

The way I see it, we are fighting a war against an unknown enemy. The harsh reality is that we create more terrorists by grabbing the wrong persons. If we make a mistake and kill the wrong guy because we think he is a terrorist, how do you expect his family will react. Do you think they will understand we made a mistake and let bygones be bygones? His family is going to be filled with rage and want to kill Americans because we killed their loved one. Now I understand the same argument can be made for terrorists but at least the real terrorist had it coming. Why not have a tribunal similar to what was done with the Nazis after WW2. If found guilty of acts of terror then be sentenced to death. Seems simple enough to me.

[Frost]

Unlawful combatants are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor are they entitled to due process.

An authority declares you to be an unlawful combatant. What are you going to do about it without due process?

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I am not gonna give them a reason to call me an unlawful combatant AKA TERRORIST! Therefore I will not have to worry about due process.

There is a reason these scumbags are in GITMO.

[Purplehood]

Zoooooooom~!

[Frost]

I am not gonna give them a reason to call me an unlawful combatant AKA TERRORIST! Therefore I will not have to worry about due process.

Without due process, especially habeas corpus, they don't need a reason. You can be detained arbitrarily.

There is a reason these scumbags are in GITMO.

That may very well be. I am asking for a just process to make sure that that is true. Have i not been clear on that?

[bdickens]

bayou_chl:
I don't know about yours, but my copy of the Constitution starts out "We, the people of the United States of America...." [emphasis mine], not "We, the people of the United States of America and anyone else that happens to wander in ...." I'd like for you to cite me a reference for the idea that the Constituion applies to the whole world.

Frost: Actually, the Geneva and Hague conventions are what define lawful and unlawful combatants.

Some of y'all really need to get some perspective. Hacking someone's head off with a dull knife: that's torture. Who's doing that? It ain't us. So we make a bunch of barbarians a little bit uncomfortable. Big deal.

[Frost]

Frost: Actually, the Geneva and Hague conventions are what define lawful and unlawful combatants.

Without habeas corpus they can simply assert that you meet that definition.

ETA: You should also note that actual torture has been advocated for in this thread. I am not sure what you are responding to in the rest of your post.

[bradfromearth]

We as americans and gun owners should support the shutting down of GITMO. In my opinion anything that teters towards the boundaries of our constitution should be eliminated. It just leaves room for other issues to to be pushed against the boundaries as well.

[bayou_chl]

bayou_chl:
I don't know about yours, but my copy of the Constitution starts out "We, the people of the United States of America...." [emphasis mine], not "We, the people of the United States of America and anyone else that happens to wander in ...." I'd like for you to cite me a reference for the idea that the Constituion applies to the whole world.

Interesting you mention that. Before I get into citation that support my position, let me start with your lack of understanding. First, I did not state that the US Constitution applies to the whole world. I stated that the US Constitution applies to US soil and territories. If you are suggesting that the world is US territory then we can dedicate a separate thread for that. Support for my position will be provided shortly. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

Second, you cite the Preamble as determing the territorial jurisdiction for the US Constitution. The Preamble is not a legal authority and is rarely if ever cited for support to a legal position.There is this clause in the constitution called the Supremacy Clause. In case you don't remember it states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Im sure I dont need to explain what is considered US land and what isn't.

Third and most importantly, you claim that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens. I think the drafters of the Constitution and the US Supreme Court disagree with you. The 5th and 14th amendments guarantee "persons" not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If the founders meant only citizens, they would have put it in the constitution the same way they limited the presidency to people who were born citizens.

You now have three citation from the US Constitution that support my position . I would use more but this is where it starts. If you need more examples I will gladly provide a few to help your understanding further. If you still think I am wrong in my initial or subsequent statements, please show me one legal authority that supports your position. I will be patiently waiting on your cites.

[stroo]

In an earlier post you asked why we couldn't use the same procedures that we used on the Nazis after WW II. Are you aware that they procedures currently being used by the military tribunals give the Gitmo detainees more procedual rights than the Nazis had in the war crimes tribunals after WW II.

[bdickens]

I'm not going to argue with a troll.