Obama Orders Halt To Gitmo Tribunals

CFLarsen said:
I didn't know that everyone detained in Gitmo was apprehended after a long trip overseas with $10,000, a cell phone, and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives.
Click to expand...

They are not. I didn't say they were.

Better lock everyone up forever, so they are not able to commit acts of violence against the US or anyone else!
Click to expand...

I was answering your straw.

I'd like to see the evidence, though.
Click to expand...

There was enough for a jury to find him guilty of conspiracy.
 
This is the best thing he could do with a bad situation.

Bush put us in this pass by refusing to follow the rule of law with Gitmo. Hopefully now we can get these people's status resolved in a timely manner, like they deserve.

Any of the terrorists there I'm sure will be dealt with. As for the logic of 'well what if someone attacks us in the future, despite there being no evidence to convict them now' I could lock up any person in any country for that reason, and never ever release them. That's the 'logic' of fear and despotism.
 
Upchurch said:
Yes, at war until that guy who speaks for Al Qaeda signs a peace treaty.
Click to expand...

Actually this is what I said...

DrBaltar said:
A war is over when it becomes so unbearable to one side or the other that they no longer have the will to keep fighting, or they are unable to keep fighting.
Click to expand...

After that I suppose we could nix the treaty option and execute the rest of them right? We wouldn't want them stinking up our prisons, and we can't just pull back our troops without some assurance that the threat is over.
 
Upchurch said:
Yes, at war until that guy who speaks for Al Qaeda signs a peace treaty.
Click to expand...
I've already pointed out to you that this is not true.

Congress can end the war at any time, at which point all detainees not being charged with war crimes must be repatriated.

But you feel cozy and warm inside your house of straw, don't you?
 
Let's just hope the small guys he releases are sent to the arab countries they were from and not kept here.

Otherwise this is just a disaster waiting to happening. I hope this isn't Obama's goal -- allow a disaster to happen to "reinforce" the "importance" of the Military Tribunal System.


INRM
 
I'm talking about when a war is really over. Yes congress can simply end the war, but until the enemy is truly defeated, he will continue to fight.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
The talking point response is "But lawyers had the right to challenge in court the issue of whether he should have access to a lawyer, and in the end after extensive procedural runarounds they managed to get him access to a lawyer, so the system works! Therefore he was never really deprived of any rights at all in those years when he was held without charges, evidence or legal advice!".
Click to expand...

Isn't the Jose Padilla case an exceptional one though? It certainly created a stir in the US and, in the end, the conviction was mitigated by a mere 17 year sentence. The "Bushbots" don't always win, it seems.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Persons lose such right anytime they enter into a state of war against the United States on behalf of a hostile foreign power regardless of who the president is.
Click to expand...
So are you saying the prisoners at Guantanamo were all taken on the battlefield? Why weren't they prisoners of war?

I can hardly believe this conversation. Guantanamo has been a black mark on American ideals. The only reason it was established was to circumvent laws regarding due process.

Yes, holding prisoners indefinitely without a fair trial (in most cases without even charges being made) is an example of placing "security" ahead of our ideals.

The problem with what to do with prisoners who cannot be repatriated is a real problem, but it won't prove insurmountable.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
So are you saying the prisoners at Guantanamo were all taken on the battlefield? Why weren't they prisoners of war?
Click to expand...
"Prisoner of War" has a specific legal meaning in the framework of the Geneva Conventions. Not all enemy combatants qualify for POW status, the GC is quite clear who qualifies.

I can hardly believe this conversation. Guantanamo has been a black mark on American ideals. The only reason it was established was to circumvent laws regarding due process.
Click to expand...
Perehaps, but those reasons have been neutered by the courts. Today Gitmo is not legally distinct from holding them in the US proper. Moving the detainees to a facility in the US doesn't alter their status at all.

Yes, holding prisoners indefinitely without a fair trial (in most cases without even charges being made) is an example of placing "security" ahead of our ideals.
Click to expand...
When did our ideals prevent us from holding enemies captured in a war? Was the US ever in a war where we didn't hold captured combatants as long as we saw fit without charging or trying them?
 
Last edited:
Tailgater said:
Held by the military either way, compared to a supermax prison where some of the worst prisoners in the US go. Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...

I might call it a toss up as to which is worse. In the Supermax he will be kept in solitary and have very little time outside his windowless cell, so he'll have no contact at all with dangerous prisoners. On the other hand, Padilla alleges that during his military imprisonment he was "subjected to torture, including sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, enforced stress positions and administered with various drugs including possibly LSD and PCP." Wikipedia
 
GreyICE said:
This is the best thing he could do with a bad situation.

Bush put us in this pass by refusing to follow the rule of law with Gitmo. Hopefully now we can get these people's status resolved in a timely manner, like they deserve.

Any of the terrorists there I'm sure will be dealt with. As for the logic of 'well what if someone attacks us in the future, despite there being no evidence to convict them now' I could lock up any person in any country for that reason, and never ever release them. That's the 'logic' of fear and despotism.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It wasn't the right thing to do, but at the time there were terrorist cells succeeding and being broken up all over the world with no prior organized way to deal with them. A detainee might be the link between the plotters and the cell waiting for contact. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback when we were not in the situation rooms or out in the field to know the pressure and numbers of government agencies all trying to work together to put years of intel together.

Now it's a mess, but it's getting worked out. Hopefully, it's a mess that prompts laws to prevent history repeating itself if tried again, with swift trials no matter what the status of the arrested and a clear definition of what is torture all the way down to playing Disney music on loudspeakers. At least there will be a line drawn over this. If that means letting some lesser suspects loose than so be it, but lets be real about Padilla. There was "evidence" and one juror was even quoted as saying it was "strong" and little deliberating was needed. Repeating there was no evidence doesn't make it true. Sure, he should have been entitled to a speedy trial. Now, he can sue or write a book from prison and retire when he gets out when enough time will have passed to make him irrelevant.

That being said, some can ease up on every statement being a bushbot or Republican talking point or others worrying about what some of the prisoners will do if freed. It's a little more complicated than that. Not every person in Gitmo is guilty or innocent and there is a big differences between detaining the Chinese refugess and KSM. While it is worrisome what a bunch of terrorist trained chinese might do on the loose, they can't be kept forever. At least they are identified and some tabs can be kept on them if needed.
 
Ladewig said:
I might call it a toss up as to which is worse. In the Supermax he will be kept in solitary and have very little time outside his windowless cell, so he'll have no contact at all with dangerous prisoners. On the other hand, Padilla alleges that during his military imprisonment he was "subjected to torture, including sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, enforced stress positions and administered with various drugs including possibly LSD and PCP." Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Possibly, you're right, but I've seen alot of horror stories about the Supermax prisons from prisoners and guards. The clean "Hell". Gitmo is under the eye of the world now. Supermax is a world of its own. I guess we'll see if he does any interviews someday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom