They're really going to try this guy in civilian court!

[top gun]

PLC1 you properly highlight the vast array of special circumstances here with these prisoners.

In reading some like Gen it's a not so cleaver play on... we can do whatever we want to with them. Which of course is incorrect. We should follow a fair guideline especially if the death penalty is on the table.

They built their "we can do anything we want" case by using a wild array of "are and are nots".

They aren't criminal mass murders because Bush called fighting terrorism a "WAR". We call the war on drugs a "WAR" but I don't seen many military tribunals for even drug cartel kingpins... it's Federal Court for them.

They aren't POW's because although we officially designated them the aforementioned other side in a "WAR" they don't wear officially licensed Reebok apparel uniforms it appears. But then if they're NOT POW'S then there is no basis to keep them without a trail until after the "WAR" ends.

So the Bush administration comes up with a designation which to them meant they can be TORTURED, waterboarded sometimes 138 times, black bagged and stood on a box with alligator clips stuck to them telling them they are wired to a bomb and if they move they'll blow up. Stripped naked and have dogs rip away at them... things like that. And as far any trial first it was to be none... then well maybe someday a military tribunal.

OK now we've sifted through all the Bush crap. Now let's actually do something constructive. President Obama wants to try some in federal court (I'm presuming the ones most likely to have done something to deserve the death penalty). This is a good thing. We've tried terrorists before without a problem and it shows the world that America doesn't put people to death without going through an open and fair process.

This is how this ends. And it needs to end. We try in Federal Court and when coonvicted give the death penalty to some and try the others in military trbunals for long prison sentences.

We even create some good jobs right here at home. We open some previously closed super max for them right here in the states. The terrorists will actually have less freedom than at GITMO and we extricate ourselves from what Bush/Cheney created as the poster child for American TORTURE.

God bless President Obama and God bless the United States of America for finally doing the right things.

 

[BigRob]

OK, so if all of the Gitmo detainees are the wost of the worst, what do you think we should do with them?

If they took up arms against the United States and were captured on the battlefield, how is it that they are not POW?

Because they do not fit the classification of a POW under the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, they are entitled to nothing.

If they are POW, then we keep them until the war is over. If they are criminals, then we give them a trial, either military or civilian. If they're guilty, then they get jail sentences.

We can hold them if we like or not, but they are not POW's. If you want to have trials, a military tribunal is the way to do it.

But they can't be POW, because then the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used were not legal.

Wrong, they cannot be POW's because they do not fit the criteria for such. Therefore, "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not illegal unless we say they are illegal. Since we did not, they were not illegal.

Further, since we're bringing up what has already been posted over and over, we know that there was a lot more to such "enhanced interrogation" than waterboarding a few of the worst terrorists.

Making up new words to describe what would otherwise not be acceptable is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Just to call them all the "worst of the worst" and lock them up indefinitely is contrary to our idea of justice, isn't it?

We didn't "make up a new word." We followed the laws that were on the books.

The bottom line is that there is no good solution to the detainees un Gitmo, nor to the ones held elsewhere.

The good solution is to try those we can in military tribunals. If you are not prepared to accept those into the country that have no other place to go, then send them back and wash your hands of the outcomes.

 

[top gun]

Because they do not fit the classification of a POW under the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, they are entitled to nothing.

We can hold them if we like or not, but they are not POW's. If you want to have trials, a military tribunal is the way to do it.

Wrong, they cannot be POW's because they do not fit the criteria for such. Therefore, "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not illegal unless we say they are illegal. Since we did not, they were not illegal.

We didn't "make up a new word." We followed the laws that were on the books.

The good solution is to try those we can in military tribunals. If you are not prepared to accept those into the country that have no other place to go, then send them back and wash your hands of the outcomes.

Well we've been through this and we have agreed to disagree.

Let me say this without any fear of being wrong whatsoever.

We need to classify all terrorists in a way differently than the Bush administration did.

A war on terror just like a war on drugs will never end. There will always be some terrorist somewhere. And these groups often aren't even under the same command. You cannot just hold people forever TORTURING them or kill them without a trial. As we've noticed some that were picked up were even later released without ANY trial. So the method for detaining in the first place is obviously much less than perfect.


In addition: AMERICA HAS NO RIGHT TO TORTURE BOUND DEFENSELESS DETAINEES IN OUR CARE & CUSTODY! I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS PRACTICE SHOULD NOW BE ENOUGH IN THE PUBLIC EYE THAT DOING SO IN THE FUTURE SHOULD BRING ON SWIFT PROSECUTION.

That said there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a terrorist to Federal Court. We've done exactly that numerous times in the past. The fact is I think as many as possible SHOULD be taken to court and tried like common criminals.

It only builds up their own reputation when we raise them to some Soldiers for Allah status. They are criminals. Calling them something else was nothing more than Bush/Cheney trying to score political points as tough guys.

When you get caught with your pants down like they did on 9-11 perhaps that's their way of coping. But you can put a prom dress on a pig and it still ain't the homecoming queen. It's just a pig in a dress.

 

[GenSeneca]

In other words, treat them like POW.

In some ways, yes. Only they are not POW's, so in other ways we would treat them differently.

Which would make them ordinary criminals, wouldn't it?

I really cannot relate to where you are coming from on this... Terrorists as ordinary criminals, thats like equating nuclear weapons with handguns... they can both kill people, so that makes them the exact same thing.

If they are POW, then executing them would not have been in accordance with our own agreements. If they aren't, then they are criminals.

The problem with your cute little box full of answersr is that it doesn't fit all the realities, only the ones you want to deal with are in there.

But, it does seem that this war (It is still a war, or is it?) is going on indefinitely.

No, this is not a war... Its an "overseas contingency operation".

Terrorism no longer exists in the world... now we have only "man caused disasters".

Obama has made the world safe from terrorism by banning use of the word terrorism.

For some one who complains about Bush "making up words", you don't seem to have a problem with the Orwellian double-speak that the current administration has constructed to hide from a difficult reality.

 

[BigRob]

Well we've been through this and we have agreed to disagree.

Yes yes.

Let me say this without any fear of being wrong whatsoever.

We need to classify all terrorists in a way differently than the Bush administration did.

Alright, how?

A war on terror just like a war on drugs will never end. There will always be some terrorist somewhere. And these groups often aren't even under the same command. You cannot just hold people forever TORTURING them or kill them without a trial. As we've noticed some that were picked up were even later released without ANY trial. So the method for detaining in the first place is obviously much less than perfect.

Yes, many were cleared for release and not tried, you are correct. I view that as our system working more than anything else.

In addition: AMERICA HAS NO RIGHT TO TORTURE BOUND DEFENSELESS DETAINEES IN OUR CARE & CUSTODY! I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS PRACTICE SHOULD NOW BE ENOUGH IN THE PUBLIC EYE THAT DOING SO IN THE FUTURE SHOULD BRING ON SWIFT PROSECUTION.

Waterboarding was not torture at the time, but as you say, we have been through all this.

That said there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a terrorist to Federal Court. We've done exactly that numerous times in the past. The fact is I think as many as possible SHOULD be taken to court and tried like common criminals.

We have yes, and in some of those cases information has leaked that we did not want to. I have no problem trying these people, but a system must be put in place to protect all classified information that might be presented. A military court is the best manner to do that in my opinion.

It only builds up their own reputation when we raise them to some Soldiers for Allah status. They are criminals. Calling them something else was nothing more than Bush/Cheney trying to score political points as tough guys.

Raises their reputation with who exactly? If they want to die for Allah, why does giving them a criminal case and then doing it matter to them or their followers?

When you get caught with your pants down like they did on 9-11 perhaps that's their way of coping. But you can put a prom dress on a pig and it still ain't the homecoming queen. It's just a pig in a dress.

Blaming 9/11 on Bush requires an ignorance of how our government did business for 30+ years. In fact, you could even say maybe we missed it due to the 1993 trail when OBL was tipped off (due to a trial in US court) that he was being monitored, and hence dropped off the map.

 

[top gun]

Alright, how?

I see much of what terrorists do as a criminal action similar to organized drug cartels and the killing & terror that they commit. Those cases should be ran through our judicial system under SOP.

Those picked up on an overseas battlefield should be treated as POW's and awarded the protections from abuse that that designation brings.

We can call them canned ham if we want that doesn't matter. It's that the canned ham should be treated in a way far different than the Bush administration authorized.

Yes, many were cleared for release and not tried, you are correct. I view that as our system working more than anything else.

See just like your interpretation of "acceptable TORTURE" I see this completely differently. You fail to see that a system that could remove someone's freedom for a substantial length of time and then just let them go or hold indefinitely indisputably shows that they are being judge and jury without the qualifications nor oversite to do same.

Waterboarding was not torture at the time, but as you say, we have been through all this.

It is TORTURE under the AFM and under international law and we have prosecute other for doing the same.

We have yes, and in some of those cases information has leaked that we did not want to. I have no problem trying these people, but a system must be put in place to protect all classified information that might be presented. A military court is the best manner to do that in my opinion.

We have tried several terrorist cases and our system has held together just fine. You have no right to complain. Had your side not decided to start water suffocating people and the other array of torture maybe the transparency would not have been so needed. You brought this on yourselves.

Raises their reputation with who exactly? If they want to die for Allah, why does giving them a criminal case and then doing it matter to them or their followers?

Their followers see them even all that more as military heroes, patriots. Because even we are calling them a military force. And it raises their standing throughout the world. They aren't just thugs, murders & killers... they are an actual army fighting for their God.

Blaming 9/11 on Bush requires an ignorance of how our government did business for 30+ years. In fact, you could even say maybe we missed it due to the 1993 trail when OBL was tipped off (due to a trial in US court) that he was being monitored, and hence dropped off the map.

With that logic you would have praised General Custer as well. Sure he actually was the one who allowed his troops to be ambushed because HE made a mistake in battlefield judgment. But under your definition he is exonerated because others before were also ambushed & killed by Indians.

You can't escape history my friend. George Bush was at the helm fully in charge and even warned about Bin Laden and commercial jet attacks. For 9-11 the buck stops there.

 

[BigRob]

I see much of what terrorists do as a criminal action similar to organized drug cartels and the killing & terror that they commit. Those cases should be ran through our judicial system under SOP.

Bin Laden declared open war on us. Are we at war or not?

Those picked up on an overseas battlefield should be treated as POW's and awarded the protections from abuse that that designation brings.

Only if they meet the criteria outlined to get them such protection.

We can call them canned ham if we want that doesn't matter. It's that the canned ham should be treated in a way far different than the Bush administration authorized.

Than the Bush Administration and Congress authorized.

See just like your interpretation of "acceptable TORTURE" I see this completely differently. You fail to see that a system that could remove someone's freedom for a substantial length of time and then just let them go or hold indefinitely indisputably shows that they are being judge and jury without the qualifications nor oversite to do same.

A system that removed the freedom of who? If they are POW's then they have no right to a trial, and if they are not, they don't either in my view.

It is TORTURE under the AFM and under international law and we have prosecute other for doing the same.

The circumstances that we prosecuted people for were drastically different. The manner it was conducted was very different, and our soldiers were legitimate POW's under the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, they were entitled to normal POW protections.

Further, the Army Field Manuel does not circumvent the law at the time, which was clear that the manner we conducted ourselves was not a crime.

We have tried several terrorist cases and our system has held together just fine. You have no right to complain. Had your side not decided to start water suffocating people and the other array of torture maybe the transparency would not have been so needed. You brought this on yourselves.

Our system did make it through, yes. However, those cases have had problems as well. The 1993 example I gave was a major problem that no one seems to be willing to address.

Their followers see them even all that more as military heroes, patriots. Because even we are calling them a military force. And it raises their standing throughout the world. They aren't just thugs, murders & killers... they are an actual army fighting for their God.

Their followers will see them the same no matter how we treat them. If we lined them up and shot them, they are Martyrs. If we tried them and executed them, then they are Martyrs...

With that logic you would have praised General Custer as well. Sure he actually was the one who allowed his troops to be ambushed because HE made a mistake in battlefield judgment. But under your definition he is exonerated because others before were also ambushed & killed by Indians.

I am not sure what this example has to do with the manner the United States has conducted itself for the previous decades. There were a lot of reasons 9/11 happened, and just to say "Bush" is short-sighted and simplistic.

You can't escape history my friend. George Bush was at the helm fully in charge and even warned about Bin Laden and commercial jet attacks. For 9-11 the buck stops there.

Bin Laden also warned us all by declaring war on us years before Bush came to office. As for the warning, we have had warnings like that for years before, no one took them seriously.

What did you want him to do anyway? Had he immediately shot all the hijacked planes down, the Left would call it a massacre of American citizens by the Bush Administration.