Why, why, in the name of all that is right and holy WHY do some people persist in this maddening delusion that the terrorists at Gitmo are criminals who require fair trials and fair sentences?Exactly what should happen. They will be given fair trials. They will have an opportunity, as ALL human beings should, to confront their accusers and present the evidence in their favor. If found guilty, they will be sentenced appropriately.
Do we really want to become a country that incarcerates people on the basis of suspicion, without a fair trial? REALLY?
Why, why, in the name of all that is right and holy WHY do some people persist in this maddening delusion that the terrorists at Gitmo are criminals who require fair trials and fair sentences?
They are illegal enemy combatants captured in battle and properly detained until their terrorist organizations either cease to exist or until they die. There should be no trial, no punitive action of any kind. They have no right to any such charity, for they are not criminals. They are terrorists. There is a difference.
Why, why, in the name of all that is right and holy WHY do some people persist in this maddening delusion that the terrorists at Gitmo are criminals who require fair trials and fair sentences?
Because not everyone in Gitmo was a terrorist. We had bounties out on turn ins. 5,000 bucks; huge money in the area we concentrated on. You turn people in, you get 5,000 bucks. How much would it take to get you to turn in your neighbor you hate? What I find maddening is the delusion that somehow everyone in Gitmo was picked up fighting American troops and that they were all terrorists. They weren't. That's why we're in this mess from the get go. Things would have been a hell of a lot easier if they were all terrorists.
- al-Qaeda would be able to tap a new population of recruits.
- Prison riots would increase.
- the new al-Qaeda recruits, upon release, would bring domestic terrorism into our current stew of social problems.
If they have no more information to divulge, execute the lot of them and be done with it. Bullets are cheaper than beds for life.
If they have no more information to divulge, execute the lot of them and be done with it. Bullets are cheaper than beds for life.
- al-Qaeda would be able to tap a new population of recruits.
- Prison riots would increase.
- the new al-Qaeda recruits, upon release, would bring domestic terrorism into our current stew of social problems.
Why, why, in the name of all that is right and holy WHY do some people persist in this maddening delusion that the terrorists at Gitmo are criminals who require fair trials and fair sentences?
They are illegal enemy combatants captured in battle and properly detained until their terrorist organizations either cease to exist or until they die. There should be no trial, no punitive action of any kind. They have no right to any such charity, for they are not criminals. They are terrorists. There is a difference.
If they have no more information to divulge, execute the lot of them and be done with it. Bullets are cheaper than beds for life.
- al-Qaeda would be able to tap a new population of recruits.
- Prison riots would increase.
- the new al-Qaeda recruits, upon release, would bring domestic terrorism into our current stew of social problems.
In 1943, we captured more than 200,000 Germans in Tunisia.Exactly what should happen. They will be given fair trials. They will have an opportunity, as ALL human beings should, to confront their accusers and present the evidence in their favor. If found guilty, they will be sentenced appropriately.
In 1943, we captured more than 200,000 Germans in Tunisia.
All of these people should have had an opporunity to confront their accuser?
And, what should they have been tried for?
Not relevant to your position, as you're discussin ALL human beings.Were they designated as unlawful combatants? Or, were they part of the civilian populace?
Not relevant to your position, as you're discussin ALL human beings.
So...?
Any number of the "illegal enemy combatants"(does any one else notice the preponderance of clever euphemisms from our friends on the right designed to hide their real meaning?) have already had to be released because they did not actually do nothing wrong. The purpose of a trial is to find out if some one is actually guilty of a crime.
It WOULD be relevant had you stated:Actually, it is relevant.
Exactly what should happen. They will be given fair trials. They will have an opportunity, as ALL unlawful combatants should, to confront their accusers and present the evidence in their favor. If found guilty, they will be sentenced appropriately.
It WOULD be relevant had you stated:
But, you didn't.
If they have no more information to divulge, execute the lot of them and be done with it. Bullets are cheaper than beds for life.
- al-Qaeda would be able to tap a new population of recruits.
- Prison riots would increase.
- the new al-Qaeda recruits, upon release, would bring domestic terrorism into our current stew of social problems.
Nope.Okay. You win. I rephrase. Happy now? Are we in agreement?
Nope.
When you're captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops, you arent detained because you've committed a crime, you're detained because you are a combatant that was fighting our troops. You dont have a right to a trial because there's nothing to charge you for or try you for.
"Unlawful" means that you aren't following the rules of warfare, not that you are breaking come criminal law, and so being an 'unlawful enemy combatant' doesnt grant you any rights under the usual criminal codes.
And so, not ALL enemy combatants have a right to a fair trial, to confront their accusers and present the evidence in their favor, or to some finite sentence.
I am not the person that qualified his statement with an "all".Where all of the prisoners held in Gitmo captured on the battlefield? or is this all a red herring?
I am not the person that qualified his statement with an "all".
I -did- state that "not all enemy combatants have a right to a fair trial, to confront their accusers and present the evidence in their favor, or to some finite sentence" because some of them WERE captured as combatants on the battlefield.