for terror suspects be closed as president obama is demanding?
Comments
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 03:00 PM
The noise levels at my home are either annoying, very annoying, or extremely annoyin [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 01:16 PM
I want to call attention to this also, hopefully she is found soon. I cannot imagine [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 10:56 AM
More information on safety, from PBS.org
"Making a living as a jockey is a dan [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 09:09 AM
All in Spanish? So... a call to I.C.E. might cause all the watchers to run for cove [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 09:08 AM
The plant noise is unbelievable at times. Saturday night it sounded like planes were [...]
Recent Stories
- A preview of the 5.21.2013 edition of The Herald-Gazette
- Monday, May 20 2013
- Venable named Provost at GSC
- Monday, May 20 2013
- Organic vegetables thriving at Honeywood Farm
- Friday, May 17 2013
- Hunt still on for woman missing since July
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Farmer's Market offers pro cooking demo
- Thursday, May 16 2013
Archives
I think the issue is with the basic operating principles of the facility. In its three camps Gitmo houses mostly terrorists affiliated with al Queda, Taliban fighters, and other guerilla fighters. Therefore, the rules of the Geneva Convention are rendered useless. Those prisoners have no rights. This allows for poor operating conditions and makes us, the emprisoning, no different than them, the prisoners.
I don't think it would display our soft underbelly as much as it would show our respect of humanity, policy, and world order. It is estimated that it will take up to a year to actually close the facility. Within that time our government can do a lot of things to make sure that those that would harm us or transported to other, more abiding, facilities.
Yes, it does bother me primarily because of the word used in this context - SUSPECT. That is not due process and I have a hard time asking people to follow laws and rules you won't follow yourself.
It houses a totally different kind of criminal. Criminals that would like nothing more than to destroy the USA and its people.
I think that Obama was making a power play and he should have perhaps got the facts he wasn't privy to as a senator. You can bet that in the interest of national security, most of the intelligence gathered at GITMO was on the highest need to know basis. As a junior senator, I'm sure without a doubt that Obama did not have that need to know.
Additionally these persons are committed to eliminate the infidels that are described by their religions. Their religion has admitted that Christians, Jews, and anyone else that is not a Muslim, fall into the category of infidel.
I think Obama is following his Muslim upbringing.
You liberals baffle me, I cannot fathom what you are thinking when it comes to this nations security.
Obama did in fact have a Muslim up-bringing. He wasn't accused of being a Muslim, only that his exposure to it as a child may have played a role in his action.
I guess that makes you the "ignorant people" now. Wear the title proudly. You've convinced me.
1. Build several remote control automobils.
2. Fill the auto's with powerful explosives.
3. Place a "crash dummy" dressed in typical Islamic Terrorist garb at the wheel of the car.
4. Drive the autos into the prison gates and blow them up thus releasing them by using their own example.
Just because someone is of Arab descent or happens to follow muslim or islamic beliefs does not mean they are automatically seeking a jihad.
If I am not mistaken none of us would be here if the pilgrims who escaped british rule and sought religious freedom (freedom to worship the god of their choice)had been given the same treatment.
Unlike your presumption, (assuming you are conservative) you conservative do not baffle me. You think there is a black/white answer to all questions.
These are people(for lack of a better term) that showed at some point the potential to kill other human beings, in this case Americans, all based on their religious belief that it is their duty to rid the world of the infedel.
Please don't use patriotic and noble analogies for these people.
If all of these prisoners are, in fact, American-hating murderers who would love to slit my throat then why were the "Tipton Three" released in 2004 without charge. Why was detainee Mehdi Ghezali freed without charge? Why was Omar Deghayes detained and then freed? And what about Juma Al Dossary? Oh, and lest I forget briton David Hicks.
Is our ability to find real killers or real terrorists that bad that we have freed 420 of the 725 in Gitmo since 09/11? Our nations government as well as the U.N. couldn't find anything to charge them with after extensive research. Do we just not know what we were looking for?
It is also claimed that some detainees were turned over to the U.S. by Afghan tribesmen in return for cash bounties. In fact, there have been leaflets, flyers and posters shown in major newspapers in the U.S. that the Government distributed to advertise the bounty program; some of which offered bounties of "millions of dollars."
Let's neither of us be naive. Gitmo was set up to detain threats to the U.S. I agree with that. But I don't agree with us finding every Arab possible and immediately linking them to terrorism.
Your statistics show that they have freed people that do not belong. That would indicate that they are not just throwing people down there for the thrill of it.
No I do not know if it is because "we do not know what we are looking for" nor will I ever be privy to that information, but I must say, whatever we have done the past 7 years has kept terrorists from killing innocent people on our soil.
My main concern here is will closing gitmo and all that implies make us any safer?
Do you think incorporating these potential threats into our legal system is more effective at keeping us safe?
You have obviously investigated the situation, what do you think would be a better solution to gitmo?
Who is this "we" you speak of...? These are not US citizens. They were captured in a foreign country while trying to kill Americans.
The only guarantee these goat pokers deserve is a 5.56 FMJ through the forehead, or a swimming lesson out the back of a helicopter.
Of course The Kenyan will bring this human waste into the country so the ACLU can have fun "defending" their "rights".
Stay tuned for Washington DC to nuked off the map. Coming soon.
Of those found guilty we need to place them in MAXIMUM security prisons. It is obvious that they are still capable of operatives while in jails. However, between jailhouse justice and the idea of 24 (not 22 or 23.5) hours isolation I think we could really root out the problem we currently have.
Of those freed, well, we are going to have to really up our radar in terms of watching their activity. Our justice system is capable of making mistakes and should any of those released actually be guilty, we should be on their every move for a couple of years to catch them when they slip.
...combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples...
That would cover every single detainee. Due process was not just covered in the Constitution, but echoed again in the Geneva Convention.
Do you not see 'Peery' that your desire to goat poke them and push them out of a helicopter is every bit as inhumane as the acts they are being convicted of? Please don't lump yourself into an archaic philosophy.
I assume by "the Kenyan" you are referring to our President (of which he has to be born a citizen to be elected). ACLU would not be able to defend these convicts, first of all, because they represent only U.S. Citizens in an effort to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The rest I will let you research so the next time you comment you will come across as less of a threat to a humane way of life.
Close Gitmo, which they will, but it is only a political gesture to satisfy the President's constituents that got him elected, but don't bring them here.
It is interesting you mention letting jailhouse justice and 24 hour isolation take care of these alleged terrorist, as if that is more "Due Process" than their current conditions. As a matter of fact jailhouse justice is probably alot worse, but that is another topic.
I can see no reason to bring them into our already overburdened and sometimes broken legal system to handle matters of national security. this is what the military was created for.
Even though we disagree, it is nice to see some other thought processes on this site other than racial remarks and hate speak.
No, jailhouse justice and isolation is not due process. I only mention that if they ARE, in fact, found guilty and put into an American prison. I especially advocate 24 hour isolation.
You are right on the fact that our system is already overburdened. It is hard to think that we have gotten to such a disparaging part of humanity.
Thank you for your dialogue 'J'. I truly enjoy hearing other informed opinions.
IF YOU THINK 9/11 WAS JUSTLY OVER DUE.
GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM.
I repeat, do not fall under the Geneva Convention.
That is why they could be held the way they were held. This is what happens when people with power exercise that power without any knowledge of the results.
The argument initially was that certain protections of the Third Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, claiming that Article 4 of the Geneva convention only applies to "uniformed soldiers and guerrillas who wear distinctive insignia, bear arms openly, and abide by the rules of war."
After these claims were made that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29 June 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under its Common Article 3. Following this, on 7 July 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners will in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.