🔒 Locked

Gitmo

Started by LilBudyWizer Sep 7, 2006 at 10:54 AM 8 replies 1.2k views

Original Post

145

Sep 7, 2006 at 10:54 AM

I have severe reservations about the transfer of these high profile people to Gitmo. Particularly this guy they believe is responsible for 9/11. Our courts can handle that little sob. Dead is dead and he'll be dead if there's evidence to convict him. I have no problem with him setting on death row for ten years appealing his conviction. It's the one form of torture our society condones and it's completely at the descretion of the convicted. Do you want to spend ten years begging for your life or do you want to just go ahead and die now? Hehe, sorry, we have some manditory appeals just to get you in the spirit of things. It even broke Bundy. Today you live, but most likely tomorrow I'll kill you. Gitmo? Who knows? We haven't even passed the laws yet. If it's a law the adminstration disagrees with do we even have confidence that they'll obey it anyway? Can we trust them not to butt heads with congress and the courts right past the point at which the courts order everyone held at Gitmo released without further delay? Personally, I'm much more comfortable with a bird in the hand than two in the bush. Dead is dead and given evidence in support of the allegations that little sob is dieing in our system of criminal justice. Oh, well, we need to protect sources so we can't go into open court. We're saving money for a rainy day, but the waters six foot high and rising. What exactly are we saving these sources for if it isn't to bring the sob responsible for 9/11 to his knees begging for mercy? Saving them for Osama? He isn't Saddam, we aren't going to find him hiding in a hole ready to surrender. If we take him alive it's will only be because we rushed him to a hospital to revive him after filling him with holes. Prevent another terrorist plot? How long have we been holding this guy? Plus, whatever sources we have obviously weren't worth a shit at preventing jack.

Sneftel

297

Sneftel

Sep 7, 2006 at 11:01 AM

It's depressing how little time it took for America to forget the lessons of Manzanar.

LilBudyWizer

Author

145

LilBudyWizer

Sep 7, 2006 at 12:43 PM

Hehe, guess I did as well. I forgot about the people they picked up off the streets here that are rotting away there still. I keep thinking of them all as combatants picked up on the field of battle. I guess the spin machine is pretty effective. Using the term enemy combatants makes people naturally assume they were holding a gun firing at our soldiers.

LessBread

558

LessBread

Sep 7, 2006 at 3:43 PM

Does anyone really believe Bush when he says there are only 14 "rendered" detainees? If he's been lying about it all this time, why should believe that he's not lying about it now? Or lying about not torturing these detainees?

Doubts surface if architects of Sept. 11 attacks will ever go to trial

Quote:

...
But some legal experts questioned whether their trials will ever occur - and whether Bush's maneuver is merely a power play to win congressional support for special military courts similar to those already struck down by the Supreme Court.
...
Administration lawyers also want to use incriminating statements that might have been coerced with interrogation techniques that Bush described as tough and safe, but others liken to torture.
...

I think the best thing that could happen would be for the airplane transporting these detainees to Gitmo to explode in mid flight. These detainees will never get a fair trial and will only serve the Bush administration in it's continueing efforts to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

LilBudyWizer

Author

145

LilBudyWizer

Sep 7, 2006 at 6:47 PM

I think it's pretty much a given that they will not receive a fair trial when we start by saying their special and need to handled with special rules. It's sad, but I would be satisfied with a trial that simply has a good chance of accurately determining their guilt or innocence. If for no other reason than to just be sure we got the right sob and that the guy that really did it isn't still running around free. I have no doubt they are as confident these guys are the right guys as they were that Iraq had WMD's. Regretably that turned out to be false in the full light of the day.

My fear isn't just that they not recieve an prejudicial trial, but that they recieve no trial at all. That resulting not in them being held indefinitely without trial, but rather walking free when we could have easily convicted them with existing procedures the day we captured them. I suppose if that is what happens in the end then they will receive justice. Regretably letting a criminal walk free is what is just and fair when the government fails to play by the rules because it is the lesser evil.

That is really my biggest objection to moving these guys to Gitmo. If they did what we claim they did then it is too important to convict them of their crimes to be playing political games with them. I just can't buy that this is a whole new bred of people never before seen in the entire history of the world and thus we have no existing procedures capable of dealing with them and must make up some new ones. Far more likely is that we are trying to do what has been proven wrong time and again and thus why the rules we want aren't there.

LessBread

558

LessBread

Sep 7, 2006 at 7:35 PM

Quote:
Original post by LilBudyWizer
I think it's pretty much a given that they will not receive a fair trial when we start by saying their special and need to handled with special rules. It's sad, but I would be satisfied with a trial that simply has a good chance of accurately determining their guilt or innocence. If for no other reason than to just be sure we got the right sob and that the guy that really did it isn't still running around free. I have no doubt they are as confident these guys are the right guys as they were that Iraq had WMD's. Regretably that turned out to be false in the full light of the day.

My fear isn't just that they not recieve an prejudicial trial, but that they recieve no trial at all. That resulting not in them being held indefinitely without trial, but rather walking free when we could have easily convicted them with existing procedures the day we captured them. I suppose if that is what happens in the end then they will receive justice. Regretably letting a criminal walk free is what is just and fair when the government fails to play by the rules because it is the lesser evil.

That is really my biggest objection to moving these guys to Gitmo. If they did what we claim they did then it is too important to convict them of their crimes to be playing political games with them. I just can't buy that this is a whole new bred of people never before seen in the entire history of the world and thus we have no existing procedures capable of dealing with them and must make up some new ones. Far more likely is that we are trying to do what has been proven wrong time and again and thus why the rules we want aren't there.

As I see it, the problem with a trial, beyond the issues of prejudice, is that lingering issue of torture and evidence obtained through torture. In short, if they don't let that evidence in, these guys go free, if they do, it sets a horrible precedent.

slackey

Sep 7, 2006 at 8:22 PM

Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Quote:
Original post by LilBudyWizer
I think it's pretty much a given that they will not receive a fair trial when we start by saying their special and need to handled with special rules. It's sad, but I would be satisfied with a trial that simply has a good chance of accurately determining their guilt or innocence. If for no other reason than to just be sure we got the right sob and that the guy that really did it isn't still running around free. I have no doubt they are as confident these guys are the right guys as they were that Iraq had WMD's. Regretably that turned out to be false in the full light of the day.

My fear isn't just that they not recieve an prejudicial trial, but that they recieve no trial at all. That resulting not in them being held indefinitely without trial, but rather walking free when we could have easily convicted them with existing procedures the day we captured them. I suppose if that is what happens in the end then they will receive justice. Regretably letting a criminal walk free is what is just and fair when the government fails to play by the rules because it is the lesser evil.

That is really my biggest objection to moving these guys to Gitmo. If they did what we claim they did then it is too important to convict them of their crimes to be playing political games with them. I just can't buy that this is a whole new bred of people never before seen in the entire history of the world and thus we have no existing procedures capable of dealing with them and must make up some new ones. Far more likely is that we are trying to do what has been proven wrong time and again and thus why the rules we want aren't there.

As I see it, the problem with a trial, beyond the issues of prejudice, is that lingering issue of torture and evidence obtained through torture. In short, if they don't let that evidence in, these guys go free, if they do, it sets a horrible precedent.

I'm not saying whether or not I agree, but some argue that these prisoners are prisoners of war, and/or that they are not citizens and therefore their rights are not protected by the Constitution.

LilBudyWizer

Author

145

LilBudyWizer

Sep 7, 2006 at 8:59 PM

We either hold some truths to be self-evident or we don't though.

LessBread

558

LessBread

Sep 7, 2006 at 9:00 PM

Quote:
Original post by slackey
I'm not saying whether or not I agree, but some argue that these prisoners are prisoners of war, and/or that they are not citizens and therefore their rights are not protected by the Constitution.

If they are POW's then the Geneva Conventions apply and I seriously doubt they allow evidence obtained through torture to be used. According to this op-ed trying to put the issue in a larger context, Bush Fears War Crimes Prosecution, Impeachment:

Quote:

With great fanfare, George W. Bush announced to a group of carefully selected 9/11 families yesterday that he had finally decided to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 13 other alleged terrorists to Guantánamo Bay, where they will be tried in military commissions. After nearly 5 years of interrogating these men, why did Bush choose this moment to bring them to "justice"?

Bush said his administration had "largely completed our questioning of the men" and complained that "the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions and has put in question the future of the CIA program."

He was referring to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the high court recently held that Bush's military commissions did not comply with the law. Bush sought to try prisoners in commissions they could not attend with evidence they never see, including hearsay and evidence obtained by coercion.

The Court also determined that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to al Qaeda detainees. That provision of Geneva prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

Bush called on Congress to define these "vague and undefined" terms in Common Article 3 because "our military and intelligence personnel" involved in capture and interrogation "could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

Congress enacted the War Crimes Act in 1996. That act defines violations of Geneva's Common Article 3 as war crimes. Those convicted face life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.
...

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

Quote:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms ... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely ... To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons ... violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture ... outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment ... the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

The media reported that the Bush administration was trying to retroactively revoke the 1996 War Crimes law, Retroactive war crime protection drafted, but buried that story for the most part. Now that it provides context for Bush's latest move, don't expect the media to suddenly remember this story. Here is more analysis of the bigger picture: A free pass on war crimes?. And here is some legal analysis from last year: The New CIA Gulag of Secret Foreign Prisons: Why it Violates Both Domestic and International Law.

LilBudyWizer

Author

145

LilBudyWizer

Sep 7, 2006 at 9:30 PM

I don't think two wrongs make a right. Destroying our case by torturing them would be one wrong, failing to try them would be a second. Just how many wrongs do you commit in the name of covering up the first wrong. You torture one to get evidence against three more, torture those to get evidence on another ten and pretty soon you have no case against hundreds and they all walk. When had you faced the consequences of the first mistake you might well not have made 99 more mistakes.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.