Closing GITMO was a Major Blunder

[BigRob]

I'm sure you can provide proof of such rhetoric....I mean....you know.....'cause the list (of such incidents) is soooooooooo long....and, well-documented.....kinda like those WMDs.

​

Try reading the news.

 

[Bunz]

Because international law creates international responsibilities. They ignore them all. Further, the part of the Geneva Conventions that would cover these people, the US is not party to. According to the law, we are therefore not bound by it.

Since when are we not signators to the third Geneva convention? We ratified it in the 50s.

It is a poor argument. It is hardly as if these people were picked up doing nothing and put here.

Maybe a poor argument, but an even worse counter point. Rob, with all due respect, you, me, and the vast majority of Americans dont know if they were doing something or not. That is the basis of the disagreement here.

Tell me what they did, provide evidence. And then throw them in prison, or execute them if warranted, but this notion that we hold people indefinately, at the decision of who knows, for arbitrary reasons goes against the very concept of what this country was founded on.

OK, so address the CIPA issue then. Further, the law states these people are not entitled to Geneva protections, so no, they are not POW's.

CIPA was designed for these exact reasons, the ability to still have a fair trial, but while protecting classified information. Also, a judge has the discresition of allowing a defendant to represent themselves exists. Most of these guys dont have the understanding of that will easily dismiss the notion of representing themselves. I also think the CIPA has a measure that requires them to have professional legal council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedures_Act

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Try reading the news.

You mean, like.....The NY Post (The National Enquirer's little-sister)???


​

"We have captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We have earned bounties totalling millions of dollars. Those who habitually accuse us of not doing enough in the war on terror should simply ask the CIA how much prize money it has paid to the Government of Pakistan," says Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf in his recently published memoir In the Line of Fire."

 

[BigRob]

Since when are we not signators to the third Geneva convention? We ratified it in the 50s.

Protocol II (which would cover this) has not been ratified by the United States.

Maybe a poor argument, but an even worse counter point. Rob, with all due respect, you, me, and the vast majority of Americans dont know if they were doing something or not. That is the basis of the disagreement here.

So it simply is a question of faith in the US system of government in my mind. I still have some.

Tell me what they did, provide evidence. And then throw them in prison, or execute them if warranted, but this notion that we hold people indefinately, at the decision of who knows, for arbitrary reasons goes against the very concept of what this country was founded on.

If we were holding US citizens as you say then I would agree. I do not agree that Constitutional protections apply to the whole world, or that we are bound by the Geneva Conventions in this matter. If we lined them up and shot them (as we very well could under the conventions we are party to) it would still be a huge problem, even though we were following the law.

CIPA was designed for these exact reasons, the ability to still have a fair trial, but while protecting classified information. Also, a judge has the discresition of allowing a defendant to represent themselves exists. Most of these guys dont have the understanding of that will easily dismiss the notion of representing themselves. I also think the CIPA has a measure that requires them to have professional legal council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedures_Act

So far, the manner that the act has been used in has (with certain exceptions) been basically show the information to the defense or do not use it.

Should the President apply it in a manner to avoid this, that is acceptable, however given that his advisers comment was "does this apply" I have low hopes.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Because international law creates international responsibilities. They ignore them all. Further, the part of the Geneva Conventions that would cover these people, the US is not party to. According to the law, we are therefore not bound by it.



It is a poor argument. It is hardly as if these people were picked up doing nothing and put here.



OK, so address the CIPA issue then. Further, the law states these people are not entitled to Geneva protections, so no, they are not POW's.

I novel idea...if they did something wrong...ummm charge them? do something about it? What if they had done nothing wrong? you would not not, because they get no trail, no evidence against them, nothing....Some cant even be found to have plotted to attack the US, nor where they in the US.

 

[Andy]

So put them on trail, show some evidence, and jail them here. I know its a hard concept....or send them back home, sorry but we cant make laws in other nations...not our fault.

You have to be the only one who doesn't get the idea that you support either shooting our own intelligence sources, or letting terrorist free to kill again.

Then after more terror attacks happen, you'll be complaining that our CIA should have know, even though your the one the killed off all our sources of information or released the terrorist to go kill again.

No one else is going to support terrorist going back to the Taliban to kill more American troops, or to have the CIA release their sources of information, that will get killed.

Like a 5 year old that complains when they can't have candy, and then complains when they have an upset stomach.

Instead of realizing the dangers of the problem at hand, you just want to play the "blame bush" game. Sorry, that make work for an elementary school, but grown ups are not so simplistic.

 

[Andy]

I novel idea...if they did something wrong...ummm charge them? do something about it? What if they had done nothing wrong? you would not not, because they get no trail, no evidence against them, nothing....Some cant even be found to have plotted to attack the US, nor where they in the US.

Let's review this again...

If we reveal the sources for our information, classified CIA informants and such, those people will die. Are you willing to have their blood on your head? Cause that's what you support. Their death will be all on you and those like you.

Or since it is classified information that will get our informants killed, we likely will not reveal it, resulting in them being released. Are you willing to accept the blood of those killed by these terrorist on your head? Cause that is what you support. Their death will be all on you and those like you.

See, this is why right-wing pundit claimed leftist and similar are anti-American and support the terrorist. And they are right.

You would rather let people die, than to simply hold them at gitmo.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Let's review this again...

If we reveal the sources for our information, classified CIA informants and such, those people will die. Are you willing to have their blood on your head? Cause that's what you support. Their death will be all on you and those like you.

Yeah....this is what we need....the insight of some Jr. NeoCon-wannabe on protecting CIA-informants.

Rave on, Skippy....Rave on.....​

​

 

[Andy]

Yeah....this is what we need....the insight of some Jr. NeoCon-wannabe on protecting CIA-informants.

Rave on, Skippy....Rave on.....​

​

Well if all our CIA informants were as accurate as you Shaman, then I likely wouldn't have a problem releasing information on them, and getting them killed. Fortunately, they are much more accurate, and therefore more valuable, then you.

 

[BigRob]

I novel idea...if they did something wrong...ummm charge them? do something about it? What if they had done nothing wrong? you would not not, because they get no trail, no evidence against them, nothing....Some cant even be found to have plotted to attack the US, nor where they in the US.

Why should we give them constitutional rights when they are not legally entitled to them?

Further, I do not think "being in the US" have anything to do with being a threat to the US.

As for trials, I would be open to giving them military trials set up at GITMO itself. Bringing them onto US soil that is covered by an appeals court however I think is a mistake. Whatever we do must be done in a way that does not compromise HUMINT sources. They are simply to valuable.