View Poll Results: What will happen if the Gitmo were transported to jail facilities in the U.S.?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Nothing

    12 50.00%
  • We will be attacked from those detainees

    3 12.50%
  • OMG all hell will break loose because our jail security will suddenly become weaker

    0 0%
  • Other

    9 37.50%
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 84

Thread: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

  1. #41
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    If they are POWs, you don't charge them with anything. You detain them, scrupulously observing the protocols of the Geneva Convention, until the cessation of hostilities.

    If they are unlawful combatants, YOU CHARGE THEM WITH THAT.
    Yes... and this is what I have been asking...
    What specific LAW were they violating?

    If I typed slower, would it help?
    No, but worthwhile content might.

  2. #42
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,338
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I didnt see an answr to my question.


    Irrelevant. All combatants captured on the battlefield are held 'for the duration'.
    You do not see an answer because I am not going to let you frame what I am arguing.

    You have arrived at the crux of my argument. I don't believe that "for the duration" is a good idea at this time, it should be re-examined.

  3. #43
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You do not see an answer because I am not going to let you frame what I am arguing.
    Actually I dont see an answer because you have not given one.

    All you need to do is cite a crime that combatants captured on the battlefield can be charged for.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 04:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes... and this is what I have been asking...
    What specific LAW were they violating?

    No, but worthwhile content might.
    Ex Parte Quirin, Supreme Court, 1942:

    Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
    They would be charged with whatever conduct they engaged in that was unlawful, and that would vary, based upon the combatant's actions, under the uniform code of military justice.

    Their charges would likely be determined by JAG officers based upon the circumstances of their conduct. In these instances, their conduct might include, but would not be limited to, unlawful insurgency, spying, etc.

    Since I can tell that you have a sincere desire to learn more about this subject, this article might be of assistance to further explain:

    http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw....orce103rpt.pdf
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 05-28-09 at 02:30 PM.

  5. #45
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,338
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Actually I dont see an answer because you have not given one.

    All you need to do is cite a crime that combatants captured on the battlefield can be charged for.
    I am not giving one because I reject the premise of your question.

    Have you stopped beating your wife? Why are you not answering my question?

  6. #46
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Ex Parte Quirin, Supreme Court, 1942:
    They would be charged with whatever conduct they engaged in that was unlawful, and that would vary, based upon the combatant's actions.
    Ok... and those would be... what?

    If you cannot specity a 'crime' then you cannot bring charges.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 04:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Ok... and those would be... what?

    If you cannot specity a 'crime' then you cannot bring charges.
    If you cannot specify a crime, why are they being held?

  8. #48
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I am not giving one because I reject the premise of your question.
    You can reject it all you want -- doing so does not change the fact that it is a legimate question, based on the argument presented.

    If you cannot specify what law has been broken, you cannot charge someone with a crime.

  9. #49
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    If you cannot specify a crime, why are they being held?
    Because they are combatants captured on the battlefield while fighting US troops.

    So, back to my question...

    What were their unlawful actions?

    If you cannot specity a 'crime' then you cannot bring charges.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Wrong. Unlawful combatants DO, in fact, have a right to trial, per the U.S. Supreme Court, 1942. Do you have significant authority to overrule them?
    The 1942 case you reference is Ex Parte Quirin, which held something very different.

    In Ex Parte Quirin, the petitioners sought a civilian trial by jury rather than military tribunal:
    Petitioners' main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses. In any case it is urged that the President's Order, in prescribing the procedure of the Commission and the method for review of its findings and sentence, and the proceedings of the Commission under the Order, conflict with Articles of War adopted by Congress-particularly Articles 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70-and are illegal and void.
    Chief Justice Harlan Stone framed the issue thus:
    An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law [317 U.S. 1, 29] of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions. We are concerned only with the question whether it is within the constitutional power of the national government to place petitioners upon trial before a military commission for the offenses with which they are charged. We must therefore first inquire whether any of the acts charged is an offense against the law of war cognizable before a military tribunal, and if so whether the Constitution prohibits the trial. We may assume that there are acts regarded in other countries, or by some writers on international law, as offenses against the law of war which would not be triable by military tribunal here, either because they are not recognized by our courts as violations of the law of war or because they are of that class of offenses constitutionally triable only by a jury. It was upon such grounds that the Court denied the right to proceed by military tribunal in Ex parte Milligan, supra. But as we shall show, these petitioners were charged with an offense against the law of war which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury.
    In fact, Stone's opinion rejects your assertion rather directly:
    Our Government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those who though combatants do not wear 'fixed and distinctive emblems'. And by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to 'the law of war'.
    If you want to argue right of trial for the detainees, you would be better off starting with something directly applicable, like Hamdan v Rumsfeld.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •