• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gitmo Terrorist Acquitted on all but One Charge

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=113&itemid=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).
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
... 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?
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
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:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
903
Location
Middle of the map, Alabama
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
*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.
 

ChiangShih

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
628
Location
KC
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Top