Gitmo Isn’t Going Anywhere

The CSRT found that Khadr was an “enemy combatant” by employing procedures under which such a finding cannot happen unless the person is found to be an unlawful enemy combatant.

I didn’t see anything in the relevant procedures about the unlawful element.

IF found guilty he should be held accountable.

You know, because he’s not rich, white, powerful, and connected like Libby.

If we are totally legitimate in detaining these people, what’s the problem with allowing them to challenge their detention?

I mean, since you’re so sure that we’re detaining the right people, and that they are all unlawful enemy combatants in an ongoing struggle, then letting them challenge their detentions (and having that challenge swatted down, as you are so sure of) would actually ADD LEGITIMACY to gitmo.

Yet, you and most on the right oppose granting habeus corpus.

It boggles the mind.

What I don’t get is why Curt thinks that Khadr or anyone else at Guantanamo should be “tried” at all. Curt keeps referring to these individuals as “unlawful enemy combatants” and “the enemy of every American.” Since none of these detainees have been charged with anything, and since you have not seen any evidence against them and neither has anyone else outside of a small handful of military officials, then clearly you must have some other way of knowing they are guilty as charged (even though they haven’t been charged).

If you already know that all the Gitmo detainees are terrorists and enemies of all Americans, then why give them a trial. Just for show?

The kangaroo court that the administration set up was a dumb idea and I hope this doesn’t go any further. But there’s still the problem of what to do with these guys. A very few may be tried in other countries for legitimate crimes and convicted. But most of them aren’t really chargable with anything in any legitimate court and we can’t just let them go. All of the ones picked up in Afghanistan, at least, are legitimatly prisoners of war, so I don’t agree that we have no right to hold them. But it isn’t practical to hold them as prisoners of war for the rest of their lives, either. And ideas?

I don’t know what gives in Gitmo. Nobody does. On the other hand, I know, from having read reams and reams of documents from the Catholic inquisition, that people who are isolated and mistreated for years on end will eventually end up telling their captors what their captors want to hear. That’s how the Inquisition could claim that the witches were all alike. They might not have known about the deal with the devil, the kiss sub caudam, or flying to the witch’s Sabbath when they arrived in the dungeon but after enough years of pain and interrogation, they learned the official line.

We’re going to be apologizing for our war crimes for decades. You can claim that our behavior is justified by emergency circumstances; but if acting like thugs works, how come we’re losing the war?

Trying to get information from captives is perfectly sensible, and nobody I’ve ever met suggested otherwise. Leaving teenagers to rot in jail, on the other hand, doesn’t obviously help our side in any way. The logical error of you rightists is pretty elementary. Since cruel actions are sometimes necessary to win a war, you’ve come to the conclusion that acting cruelly is likely to help us win. That doesn’t follow. Trust me.

For the record, this moral relativism business is a bunch of bull. Conservatives are the real moral relativists, for right just means hurrah for our side. Folks like me think that there is a standard of right and wrong that transcends taking sides. There are certain behaviors that are wrong no matter who does ‘em. Torturing people, for example.

“After five years, the intelligence value of the Gitmo inmates is nil but the cost to America’s reputation of holding so many people …”

Not exactly.

The foiled JFK plot revealed another layer of terrorist activity and planning. Without having detainees available to re-interview we might have missed vital information which helped unravel the plot and also future plots.

Also, Many of the detainees have already been returned to their country of origin. What’s left are the hardcore types who would kill an American the minute they were set free.

You libs are constantly bleating about the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq so I presume you would care if released inmates murdered innocent U.S. citizens. No?

And for all those who constantly point to Gitmo as some dark stain on our national character I would remind them that the facility is under constant scrutiny from the International Red Cross. What a shame that the ICRC isn’t permitted to inspect Castro’s prisons located a few miles on the other side of Gitmo’s fence.

And no one ever condemns Castro for holding political prisoners in appalling conditions.

Gitmo’s just another good example of the moral inversion that invalidates the opinion of those on the left.

If they are prisoners captured in war, they are prisoners of war.
To say otherwise is to engage in legalisms.

We shouldn’t send them home, we should give them trials. I’d prefer regular trials, but I would settle for the same kinda military trials one of our own soldiers would get.

I believe we have the best legal system in the world, and as such, everyone subject to American law should have an American trial.

(It’s not “all citizens are created equal,” but “all men are created equal.”)

I understand that Bush & Torquamada Gonzalez see it differently, and that they put rules and laws in place in support of their view. I think they were wrong, and that Congress should change those rules & laws so they reflect the founding documents.

Curt, you BIO says you did a tour in the Corps. If you did then you got the same code of conduct classes I did. So you know what a prisoner of war is and that we, as signatories to the Geneva conventions, are obligated to treat ALL prisoners of war by those conventions whether their country are signatories or not. Were you just not listening? Or are you just another republican asshole who only believes in obeying that laws that are convienient?
Everybody who keeps talking about “trying enemy combatants” need to keep in mine that it isn’t illegal to kill anyone in an invading force. Using regular or irregular tactics. Most of these guys aren’t guilty of anything except being in the Talaban. That used to be the government in Afghanistan, that makes them prisoners of war and entitled to some respect. Even John Walker Lynd wasn’t guilty of what they charged him with. We weren’t at war with the talaban when he joined them. He should have had his citizenship revloked for enlisting with a foriegn power and been kept as a POW, like the rest of them.
The problem with Gitmo is that it’s also being used to house a few people who were picked up as terror suspects and they do need to be tried, convicted and sentenced. Peferrably to death. But the Bushies aren’t doing any of us any favours by mixing the two groups and making us look bad to the rest of the world.
Jim is only partly right about the intellegence value of these guys. Tactical intellegence is worthless after as little as 48 hours, but some of these guys may have strategic knowledge that will be be useful as long as the people they worked for are alive and free. My only problem is with the methods that are being used to extract it. We’re supposed to be the good guys. We don’t do torture. It doesn’t usually work anyway.

“If they are prisoners captured in war, they are prisoners of war. To say otherwise is to engage in legalisms.”

Oh really?

Maybe Repie and Iaintbaccchus should READ the Geneva Conventions:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

You want to show me where these psychopathic murdering terrorists have fulfilled those conditions?

Here’s the video of Khalid Sheihk Mohammed beheading Daniel Pearl:

http://aztlan.net/pearlvideo.htm

Perhaps you can use that video to explain how KSM is following the conditions laid out in Article 4 section 2 and should therefore receive even MORE rights than he currently does at Gitmo?

Again, you folks simply do not offer ANY practical, effective alternative for how to address these very difficult issues. All you do is have a reflexive knee jerk liberal reaction to blindly oppose whatever President Bush is doing to keep us safe and bring monsters like KSM to justice.

It’s this blind, obstructive attitude that emboldens evil men like KSM to commit further murder and mayhem.

To further Mike’s point: Did Joseph Anzack Jr receive due treatment as accorded him under the Articles of the Geneva Convention?

Not one libertard on this thread has complained of the lack of basic treatment of this POW in accordance with the geneva convention. You all have plenty to say regarding the care of the LIVING detainees at Gimo.

Asshat hypocrites.

I wonder if Anzack’s last meal was one that is served in Gimo: ?

Gitmo”>http://www.gitmocookbook.com/“>Gitmo Cookbook

I apoplgize. It was Skye who used the asshat term, not Mike. I would urge skye to use Mike’s link to the full Geneva document and read the entire Article 4 before calling other people asshats.

Curt. I don’t think the term “moral relativism” means what you think it means. Do you think it is always wrong to torture? Answer is no. Do you think it is always wrong to deny rights to people? No you do not. Liberals believe that these are moral absolutes. You do not. You are a moral relativist plain and simple. Buy a dictionary.

“What is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation.”

So what you are saying Curt is that torture is right if we do it, and immoral when terrorists do it. Denying people rights is O.K. when you and your ilk do it but immoral when the terrorists do it. Is that what you are saying Curt? Thanks for providing the definition. You proved my point. YOU ARE A MORAL RELATIVIST!

p.s. You also share many of the same values as Bin Laden.

So anyone acuused of terrorism should have no rights? Is that what you say Moral Relativist Curt. I think you are a terrorist therefore you have no rights Moral Relativist Curt.
I view torture as torture which by the way you favor but only when we do it because you are a moral relativist

“I bet you think they have Habeas Corpus rights also….pathetic.” says Moral Relativist Curt.

You don’t believe in God given inaliable rights?!
I bet your belief in God is just as phony as your belief in freedom , or justice, or America.

“Also, Many of the detainees have already been returned to their country of origin. What’s left are the hardcore types who would kill an American the minute they were set free.”

Mike, Like the kid who was fifteen when picked up with the Taliban (of course the upper echelons of al - qaida would have confided in him) or the Australian David Hicks (who signed a plea bargain) who after five years is SO dangerous he’s being released in Australia at Christmas? (watch out Americans travelling in Australia in 2008). Mike how do you know WHO is in there without Habeas Corpus? Moral relativism is this - OH Habeas corpus is okay for John Walker Lindh (captured with the Taliban) because he is American, but it is not okay for David Hicks because he is a stinking dirty Australian. It is not okay to torture John Walker Lindh cause he is American, but it is okay to torture David Hicks because he’s Australian. Cultural relativism is when you argue one set of standards apply to Americans, but another one to others - like Australians.