Deanimator wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
uncoolperson wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
xd45_in_TX wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.
What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
What due process did these "terrorists" get?
I agree with you about the rights of people, but what I don't understand and haven't heard about is what they are going to do with the detainees. Will they get a speedy trial or will they just be released into the U.S.?
They can come live with me for all I care. It hasn't been PROVED they've done anything wrong, so why shouldn't they go free? While they're free maybe the government can start the investigations and then maybe detain them for trial, kind of like what should have happened in the first place.
pow's have very limited rights.
Actually, under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have very well-defined rights.
But these prisoners have been denied POW status.
Taliban? Yeah, POWs maybe.
Al Qaeda? Exactly what "country" do they represent? What uniform do they wear? When have they EVER abided by the Geneva Conventions themselves? The President has the right to order "reprisals", and FDR made no secret of the fact that he would do so against the Germans if necessary. We should render Geneva Convention protections only to those who render them to us. What part of the Geneva Conventions allows you to saw somebody's head off alive OR dead?
We find ourselves in the position of Britain or Canada if Charles Manson was sending killers from the US (and other places) into their countries to commit random murders. Is Squeaky Fromm a member of the US military? Do they represent the US? What if Charley sends people to kill French troops in Chad? What parts of the Geneva Convention would apply to them?
The truth is that this is a situation probably unprecedented since the "Old Man of the Mountains" sent the "Assassins" (Hashishins) against the Mongols. The Mongols solved that problem and completely without the concepts of "collateral damage" or "disproportionality" in their lexicon.
Applying previous standards to these freaks is a losing proposition, ESPECIALLY treating them like POWs.
At BEST, they should be treated the way the Soviets treated SS men. They're not soldiers, but to treat them like car thieves or O.J. is as crazy as anything Al Qaeda says. They're out of uniform. SHOOT them within 72 hours unless they have some intelligence value. Then shoot THEM when that value is over.
This is an interesting conundrum. But lets be clear that these folks have been getting trials, but they ar military trials and they have not been particularly speedy in coming. As has been pointed out the GC does not actually cover these folks because they are not combatants as defined under the GC, but rather essentially detached armed combatants. They have never agreed to the GC protections either for themselves or others.
But they are still humans, and a large part of our cultural heritage is that we recognize that humans have rights and we value human life. As such it violates everything we stand for to ignore the rights of the Gitmo prisoners.
But they are not just street criminals. Just as there is no definition in the GC for these people, there is nothing in criminal or civil law in the US that covers armed combat outside the jurisdiction of the courts. SO if they are brought to US soil, on what charges would they be held? If there are no valid charges, then they must be released, If they are released, are we to release them onto the streets here? Many of the countries they came from have already told us they will not take them back.
So are we to over fly those countries and just shove these guys out with a parachute? I think not.
It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.
I certainly support reaching some kind of end to this situation that is consistent with our values as a culture. It does not matter if the cultural values of these people is not in alignment with our own, what matters is what WE do. For me the issue at Gitmo was the torture, and the time it was taking to get these people to trial, not the type of trials (military or civilian).
The way to close the place is to get the trials finished, and process the people accordingly. But while they are awaiting trial, they should be afforded military rights. That might mean that we have to determine as a matter of military law that they are not guilty of any crime under military law due to the nature of the war itself. Our opposition in that war is a confederation of individuals, not an organized nation. So one would expect to find a lot of people without uniforms.
