Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Gitmo Terrorist Acquitted on all but One Charge

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Gitmo Terrorist Acquitted on all but One Charge

    http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feed...temid=29599152

    This is what happens when you treat national security events as law enforce matters. Those who make war on us are not suspected criminals, they are our enemies and should experience the full force of swift military justice.

    Used to be they did: In 1942, eight German saboteurs were smuggled into the US. One of them ratted the others out. Within two months of the landing, all were tried and convicted by military courts, and the sentences to death for six of them were carried out--and they hadn't killed anyone or blown anything up--yet (that was their intention).

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Your method is so much more efficient: guilty until proven innocent. I wonder why our founding fathers weren't smart enough to implement such a system.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216
    ... and the Muslim apologist weighs in !

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Hunterdave View Post
    ... and the Muslim apologist weighs in !
    If supporting the Constitution, its ideals, and equal protection of the law makes me a Muslim apologist, then dammit, I apologize...er, defend them.

    Seriously, is that the best retort you have? "Oh look, the atheist defends Muslims, waaaah!" Look, if I were in the company of bigoted ******* Muslims who were bashing on Christians, I'd be defending the Christians from unfair attacks as well. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of both (all?) religions, why resort to idiotic exaggerations and/or outright lies?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Attacks from any terror group is a military matter and this should have never gone to a civilian trial period.Those who think it should be a law enforcement matter have no clue who and what our enemies are. They will use these sham trials as a soapbox for their hate for Americans.
    Last edited by zack991; 11-18-2010 at 10:32 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    Attacks from any terror group is a military matter and this should have never gone to a civilian trial period.Those who think it should be a law enforcement matter have no clue who and what our enemies are. They will use these sham trials as a soapbox for their hate for Americans.
    Exactly. The actual waging of war, and the execution of all its attendant tasks, is the purview of the Executive Branch. The courts might weigh in as to whether a particular incident was part of the war or whether it was an ordinary criminal activity. But, unless they say that the act was not at all part of the war, then the Executive Branch should unilaterally deal with POWs, spies, enemy combatants, war criminals, and the like using a military justice system.

    To take cases that belong in the Executive Branch and push them off on a Judicial Branch that is ill-equipped to deal with national security issues and the reality that terrorists are not usually brought in by law enforcement and interrogated with the goal of prosecuting (instead being brought in by intelligence operatives or military members and interrogated with the goal of gaining intelligence to assist in defending our Republic) undermines the intent of the Constitution and hamstrings our ability to defend ourselves from terrorists by treating them as criminals instead of war criminals.

    I firmly believe the only reason that these terrorists are being tried in civilian courts is because of the current administration's vanity. They are trying to prove that they are somehow more humane than the previous administration. They are only proving that they are more incompetent.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216
    Nobody was bashing Muslims !! You rejected Eye's analogy ,on some premise, the Constitution , you said.
    Surly that can't be ! You want an enemy of the U.S. afforded the same rights as an U.S. citizen.
    We are at war with these people ! Why would you want to coddle these terrorist ? From what I've
    read of your posts, my conclusion is Islamic apologist or Mohammedan !!!

    I call em,like I see em and that is all !
    Last edited by Hunterdave; 11-18-2010 at 11:17 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Hunterdave View Post
    Nobody was bashing Muslims !! You rejected Eye's analogy ,on some premise, the Constitution , you said.
    Surly that can't be ! You want an enemy of the U.S. afforded the same rights as an U.S. citizen.
    We are at war with these people ! Why would you want to coddle these terrorist ? From what I've
    read of your posts, my conclusion is Islamic apologist or Mohammedan !!!

    I call em,like I see em and that is all !
    You'll note that YOU brought Muslims into this, by calling me a "Muslim apologist."

    Regardless, when the anti-gunners convince enough of the population to consider gun owners "enemies of the U.S.", then what? How do I coddle anybody, when I advocate justice be done, but in a just fashion? Certainly, the rights and methodologies of our republic are so worth preserving we would apply them everywhere if we could?

    You call them like you see them, and that's half blind with ignorance, hatred, malice, and misunderstanding borne on the wings of ill will. If you knew anything about me you'd know that I'm certainly not an apologist for any religion, much less a Muslim. I am just above your level of bigotry, designed to inflame prejudice.

    My art isn't great, but perhaps I'll make a contribution for the next "Draw Mohamed" day. At least then your foolish claims would ring even hollower than they do now.
    Last edited by Tawnos; 11-19-2010 at 12:33 AM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This is what happens when you treat national security events as law enforce matters. Those who make war on us are not suspected criminals, they are our enemies and should experience the full force of swift military justice.

    Used to be they did: In 1942, eight German saboteurs were smuggled into the US. One of them ratted the others out. Within two months of the landing, all were tried and convicted by military courts, and the sentences to death for six of them were carried out--and they hadn't killed anyone or blown anything up--yet (that was their intention).
    In 1942, we were at war. Yes, there is the "war on terrorism," but we're no longer officially at war. The Iraq War began on March 20, 2003, and ended by Presidential declaration on August 31, 2010. At the end of war, prisoners of war are to be returned.

    I agree with you 100% they should have been declared prisoners of war. They were not so declared for a few reasons, but in the end, the ends don't justify the means.

    I believe it was the wrong thing to do.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Your method is so much more efficient: guilty until proven innocent. I wonder why our founding fathers weren't smart enough to implement such a system.
    Warfare. Crimes and Punishment. Two different things.

    One is about asserting dominance over another. The other is about reinforcing the rules, morals, and norms of society.
    Last edited by Kirbinator; 11-19-2010 at 04:54 AM.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    In 1942, we were at war. Yes, there is the "war on terrorism," but we're no longer officially at war. The Iraq War began on March 20, 2003, and ended by Presidential declaration on August 31, 2010. At the end of war, prisoners of war are to be returned.

    I agree with you 100% they should have been declared prisoners of war. They were not so declared for a few reasons, but in the end, the ends don't justify the means.

    I believe it was the wrong thing to do.
    You are thinking of POWs captured lawfully during wartime. One action that typically occurs, as one condition of a peace treaty or an armistice, is the mutual return of POWs who are not accused of war crimes.

    This particular terrorist, and the others that we are debating whether to try in NY or at Gitmo, are not part of the Iraq War. In essence, they committed unlawful acts of war on us. (This is quite possible without a declaration of war.) War criminals are generally NOT turned over at the cessation of hostilities (there isn't one, anyway; the terrorists from his group are still trying to kill us), they are generally tried even after the last shot is fired.

    In short, your point is moot on two grounds:

    1. We are still very much at war with the group from which these guys come. They were not part of the Iraq War.

    2. They are not POWs. They are war criminals who targeted and murdered innocent civilians in terror attacks. They are not afforded the protections of being declared POWs, and should not be!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirbinator View Post
    Warfare. Crimes and Punishment. Two different things.

    One is about asserting dominance over another. The other is about reinforcing the rules, morals, and norms of society.
    He is putting up a strawman. No one proposed the idea that they should be treated as guilty before proven such in a trial. The only question is in which venue would it be best to try them.

    You can see the reason why I don't read his tripe any more. He constantly uses dishonest tactics like strawmen.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Unless congress declared war, or voted that the action committed is a war crime, then you are most certainly calling him guilty without trial. Saying "they committed unlawful acts of war on us" presumes that to be true prior to any trial or determination of fact. If it is true, I expect it to be found so by a fair trial, not by your presumption and subsequent commitment to conviction. I ask you: are we a nation that holds the ideals of fair, open, and unbiased trials as a sign of liberty, or do we collectively shiat our pants and curtail our liberties because of "omg terrorists"?

    The only straw in play here is the stuff filling your head.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Maybe inalienable rights are alienable to aliens?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You are thinking of POWs captured lawfully during wartime. One action that typically occurs, as one condition of a peace treaty or an armistice, is the mutual return of POWs who are not accused of war crimes.

    This particular terrorist, and the others that we are debating whether to try in NY or at Gitmo, are not part of the Iraq War. In essence, they committed unlawful acts of war on us. (This is quite possible without a declaration of war.) War criminals are generally NOT turned over at the cessation of hostilities (there isn't one, anyway; the terrorists from his group are still trying to kill us), they are generally tried even after the last shot is fired.

    In short, your point is moot on two grounds:

    1. We are still very much at war with the group from which these guys come. They were not part of the Iraq War.

    2. They are not POWs. They are war criminals who targeted and murdered innocent civilians in terror attacks. They are not afforded the protections of being declared POWs, and should not be!
    *clap*clap*clap* You've successfully reproduced the party line justifying their continued detention.

    Meanwhile GTMO detainees are being afforded all the rights of prisoners in a Siberian gulag.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    *clap*clap*clap* You've successfully reproduced the party line justifying their continued detention.

    Meanwhile GTMO detainees are being afforded all the rights of prisoners in a Siberian gulag.
    That is a disappointing reply. I wish you would have dealt with the substance of what I said rather than being dismissive.

    As far as the gulag comment goes, the prisoners at Gitmo are among the best treated prisoners in the world. Of course, they don't have freedom, but that is the idea of a prison. Had the Obama administration not played the games it did, trials would be well under way for those who will be tried. Of course, combatants aren't guaranteed a trial, just those whom we wish to hold for war crimes. Others can be held indefinitely, usually until hostilities end. Al Qaeda is continuing to pursue hostilities. Therefore, we can keep any al Qaeda terrorists without trial--unless, like I said, we want to try a particular detainee for a war crime.

    That's the difference in holding someone as a POW or an enemy combatant or a war criminal, etc. as opposed to holding a criminal awaiting criminal trial. The former are national security issues and the purview of the Executive Branch. The latter are law enforcement issues and the purview of the Judicial Branch. Politicians of late have blurred that important line. And some of the citizens have been duped into no longer seeing that line.

  17. #17
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    As far as the gulag comment goes, the prisoners at Gitmo are among the best treated prisoners in the world.
    Citation needed. Badly.

    However, believe it or not, I do agree with eye this time. For the most part anyway. It depends on the individuals, those being held on suspicion of or providing material support or other non direct combatant crimes, sure give them a fair and legal trial.

    The others being held because of direct involvement in terror acts or combat actions against coalition forces, leave it to the military to handle.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is a disappointing reply. I wish you would have dealt with the substance of what I said rather than being dismissive.
    I have a lot of respect for you, eye95, but we're not seeing eye to eye on this (pun intended, ).

    I was certainly not being dismissive. When I mentioned "the party line," I meant the Bush/Cheney-era justification for stablishing and perpetuating the Gulag, er, Gitmo detention facility. And my comment there was on target, as well, although not in terms of housing in temperature-controlled environments, being well-fed, and given appropriate medical care.

    Beyond those basics, they've been tortured:

    "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." - Source

    Furthermore, regardless of their classification as prisoners of war, terrorists, or international criminals, they've been held for years without trial.

    Finally, I strongly disagree with your assertion that a "war on terrorism" constitutes valid justification for holding them as POWs, as they flat out do not meet the qualifications for prisoner of war status:

    - They're not lawful combatants.

    - They have not conducted military operations in accordance with the laws of war.

    - They do not wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

    As a final point, there is no distinct country with whom to conduct negotiations towards armistice or peace treaty, which means there's no end in sight for the longevity of the war.

    Don't get me wrong, eye95, as I'm not saying "let them go." I'm saying "try them and either find them guilty under our laws or the laws of the country in which the offense was committed, punishing them accordingly, or let them go."

    It's not fun to let a known bad guy go, but we do it all the time. It's an integral part of our justice system, as the overriding principle is to avoid inadvertantly convicting the innocent, rather than convicting all who may be guilty.

    Continued lack of progress and ongoing incarceration is nothing more than sentence in absentia.
    Last edited by since9; 11-21-2010 at 05:17 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    You were dismissive, and I expect better.

    If you want to rail against psychological tactics and waterboarding on terrorists captured and held outside the US in order to obtain intelligence on future terrorist attacks, have at it.

    Anyway, the point that seems to have gone unnoticed is that none of these people are due a trial. None. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. When we choose to try one of them, it is because we want to add a conviction for a war crime to an already 100% justified detention--in some cases yielding a death penalty. The choice to conduct a military trial, and then the conduct of that military trial, is strictly the purview of the military. The only part a civilian court should play in it would be to declare that an individual does not fall into any of the categories that warrant them being captured (not arrested) and held by the military.

    By foolishly, totally moronically, introducing the civilian justice system to the mix, we force our military to act like LE, rather than soldiers, making them worry about the rights of members of opposing forces, instead of just prosecuting war and gathering intel.

    It is the stupidest thing this administration has done in a mountain of stupid things--blurring the normally crystal clear line between defending this nation and enforcing law.

    We can see the result: We can't get a single murder conviction for a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

    This trial itself is the ultimate demonstration of the stupidity of trying those who make war on us in civilian courts. But, if you're OK with that, I'll just...

    move on.
    Last edited by eye95; 11-21-2010 at 04:16 PM.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You were dismissive...
    Horsehockey.

    Furthermore, from "If you want to rail..." to "...move on," all you did was rail, and without providing one iota of evidence, link, federal or international law to back up any of the nine distinct claims you made in your post.

    Meanwhile, you apparently chose to overlook my own comment in the post to which you responded: "Don't get me wrong, eye95, as I'm not saying "let them go." I'm saying "try them and either find them guilty under our laws or the laws of the country in which the offense was committed, punishing them accordingly, or let them go.""

    Or: "Continued lack of progress and ongoing incarceration is nothing more than sentence in absentia."

    Respond to those, please. References (quotes links) justifying my comments were also given in my preceding post.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Are our rights just ideas that can be suspended on the whim of a government unconcerned with due process? How do you decided who "these people" are that don't deserve a trial? What prevents the very same suspension of rights and holding in an offshore torture facility from happening to you, or those you care about?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Are our rights just ideas that can be suspended on the whim of a government unconcerned with due process? How do you decided who "these people" are that don't deserve a trial? What prevents the very same suspension of rights and holding in an offshore torture facility from happening to you, or those you care about?
    For me its easy. If the answer to the question "are they citizens of the United States of America?" is yes then they deserve a civilian trial. If the answer to the question "were they captured outside the boarders of the United States of America" is yes and the answer to the previous question is no then they deserve and are entitled to nothing except arguably a quick death. If they are not citizens they should not be automatically protected by our civil system and if they are not part of a foreign state's military then they are not protected by the rules of war. By performing an illegal war they should not get extra rights.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The one count he was convicted of was "conspiracy to destroy US buildings and property."

    My only question is who was he conspiring WITH, and why aren't they named, indicted, and tried as well...

    But then again, I doubt Dick Cheney really wants to spend his holidays in Gitmo, unless it's to gleefully watch a bunch of his patsy's get tortured...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 11-21-2010 at 09:57 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    For me its easy. If the answer to the question "are they citizens of the United States of America?" is yes then they deserve a civilian trial. If the answer to the question "were they captured outside the boarders of the United States of America" is yes and the answer to the previous question is no then they deserve and are entitled to nothing except arguably a quick death. If they are not citizens they should not be automatically protected by our civil system and if they are not part of a foreign state's military then they are not protected by the rules of war. By performing an illegal war they should not get extra rights.
    To me, the key is easier: Are they making war on the US for another nation or for an external terrorist organization? If yes, the the action is not a law enforcement issue, they are a war-fighting issue. One is dealt with by the police and the courts, the other by the military. It has been such since the beginning of the Republic and should be now.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The one count he was convicted of was "conspiracy to destroy US buildings and property."

    My only question is who was he conspiring WITH, and why aren't they named, indicted, and tried as well...

    But then again, I doubt Dick Cheney really wants to spend his holidays in Gitmo, unless it's to gleefully watch a bunch of his patsy's get tortured...
    Damn, I need an asprin now. That comment is so insipid it actually caused a headache.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	shmh.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	59.9 KB 
ID:	4620
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SHH_D.gif 
Views:	53 
Size:	39.9 KB 
ID:	4619  
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •