What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

[Cilogy]

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

Tell me, tell me.

 

[hiswoman]

I'm thinking they wouldn't last long if they were put in with the general population.

 

[Redress]

Nothing of note will happen. They will be detained in other facilities, tried eventually, and whatever is appropriate done to them post trial.

 

[celticlord]

• 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.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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?

 

[celticlord]

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.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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.

A few reasons:

1) A fair and open trial is an essential human right that separates free and open societies from tyrannies.

2) Because it demonstrates to the world the difference between us and the closed societies we are trying to reform.

3) Because it will ultimately HELP our efforts in the middle east, and the hard work of our soldiers.

Those are the main reasons.

Your post is a misguided attempt to slice the line of human dignity so finely that you will push us, as a nation, over the line into tyranny and shame.

I don't care that they are terrorists. They are human beings accused of criminal acts. That's enough for me.

Punish them to the the fullest extent of the law, up to and including execution. But do it legally and in full view of the world, in such a way that who we are is made clear to all.

 

[Ikari]

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.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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.

What bothers me is the use of this term terrorist, as if it means someone who was adjudicated guilty.

These people in GITMO are SUSPECTS. Suspects who were deprived of a trial. That's b.s. You say they're guilty? Then it should be easy to adjudicate them as such.

It's a way of avoiding basic human rights, while pretending that butter wouldn't melt in your mouth and you were trying to do so for our protection.

B.s. -- God protect me from people who want to incarcerate suspects without a trial. That alarms me far more than terrorism.

 

[kjyoung]

• 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.

Proof? As so many here seem to jump up-n-down about, where are the citations and substantive proof behind these assumptions you've made about what may happen if Gitmo detainees were incarcerated here on US soil?

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.

Impressive. A violent response to a culture/group of people. Hmmm, is that not what many complain so loudly about with regard to Muslims and Islam in general? That they, and their religion, are violent nasty people? Your concluding statements sure make American Independent Libertarians look similar.

Personally, I'll stand with Catz Part Deux on the human, civilized side of this fence. I don't choose to have an attitude that can be equated with those we, as a nation, are fighting against.

Nothing will happen if detainees are brought here and incarcerated. So long, of course, as those who want to promote and perpetuate violence and hatred don't stir the general population up so much that incidents are caused as a result of the stirring rather than the actual detainees' presence.

-k

 

[Redress]

• 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.

Where do you get the idea that holding these people in the US equates to releasing them in the US? The one does not necessarily follow the other.

 

[Redress]

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.

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.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

• 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.

Speaking of hysteria, see above.

 

[Goobieman]

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?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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?

Were they designated as unlawful combatants? Or, were they part of the civilian populace?

 

[Goobieman]

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...?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Not relevant to your position, as you're discussin ALL human beings.

So...?

Actually, it is relevant. these individuals in gitmo are being detained as unlawful COMBATANTS. The supreme court decision in 1942 stated clearly that such individuals are subject to TRIAL by military tribunal.

Nice dodge, though. You're really quite graceful. Are you, perchance, a gymnast?

:wink:

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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.

As someone who predominately resides slightly to the right of the middle of the spectrum, let me state clearly that a LOT of us understand this concept, and how the term "enemy combatants" is nothing more than a cleverly disguised way of acting unlawfully.

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, it is relevant.

It WOULD be relevant had you stated:

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.

But, you didn't.

So, my questions stand.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

It WOULD be relevant had you stated:

But, you didn't.

Okay. You win. I rephrase. Happy now? Are we in agreement?

I do believe, as our founding fathers did, that a free and just society gives people accused of criminal acts access to a trial. EVEN IF they are unlawful combatants.

Hope that helps to clarify my position.

 

[SpotsCat]

• 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.

Actually, they'd almost certainly join Jamiyyat Ul Islam Is Saheeh - the radical Muslim prison gang.

Then they'd get their asses beatdown by a combined allegiance of the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Guerilla Family, and La Nuestra Familia - who would immediately go back to beating each other down after they took care of JUIIS.

Maybe this is what is meant by the saying "Politics makes for strange bedfellows!"

 

[Goobieman]

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.

 

[Redress]

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.

Where all of the prisoners held in Gitmo captured on the battlefield? or is this all a red herring?

 

[Goobieman]

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.

 

[Redress]

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.

I would still argue that a trial would be a good thing. This "war" shows no sign of ending, so why hold people forever who are unlikely to be a threat?