|
Post by Rich Fisher on Jan 21, 2009 15:35:25 GMT -4
This was quick!
>>Draft Order Shows Possible Closure Of Gitmo Within A Year
(WNAV) -- A draft order indicates President Obama would order the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year. That is where the government is holding suspected terrorists. If the President signs the draft order, his administration would immediately start reviewing how to deal with the remaining prisoners. That review may examine possibly transferring those terrorist detainees to prison facilities in the U.S.
Obama had pledged throughout his campaign to close the facility known as Gitmo. The President ordered a four-month break in all cases at Guantanamo Bay just hours after taking office. The controversial prison has hurt America's human rights image, coming to symbolize detainee abuse and detention without charge under the Bush administration. While Obama is unlikely to sign the draft order today, a senior official said the President could do that soon.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Jan 21, 2009 18:23:54 GMT -4
yea, okie doke... Lets send terrorists to our prisons where they are treated better than many who aren't in prison.
I am sorry, if your a terrorist or suspected terrorist (or a criminal for that matter) you lose any rights that you have to be treated humanely, after all did you treat your subjects humanely. Uhhhhh Nope.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 21, 2009 18:58:42 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights?
|
|
|
Post by island tech on Jan 21, 2009 19:10:53 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights? Why would you think they should? No they shouldn't. If your a terrorist you have no rights. Do you really think that when they would walk themselves in a coffee shop to blow it up with themselves, there going to see if anyone there has rights?.....Please
|
|
|
Post by AquaHolic on Jan 21, 2009 19:20:29 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights? If they have been convicted absolutely NOT...why should they get free medical care...free food...and a free place to sleep that is warm and airconditioned....I have no tolerance for terrorists...personally I think if they have been convicted they should all be lined up..and shot...not killed...just shot...and left in the middle of the dessert to feed the animals. I know...sounds harsh...but I will forever have the vision of the woman falling from the Twin Towers because she had no choice...or the voice message from the pregnant woman to her husband about going to the top of the twin towers to be rescued...only to die a horrible death. So when it comes to Convicted terrorists...they can all burn in hell slowly roasted with a bit of salt for the vultures. Barb Oh..and one more thing...I see you put the word "might" into the sentence...and in my opinion if anyone is associated with a terrorist and knows it...or if there is any doubt that they might be a terrorist...then THEY put themselves in the position and should be interrogated. I would rather err on the safety of Innocent human lives...then to let them go free and have them blow up something else in the name of their warped beliefs. d**n..I must have PMS...time to go to the shooting range.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 21, 2009 20:06:49 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights? Why would you think they should? No they shouldn't. If your a terrorist you have no rights. Do you really think that when they would walk themselves in a coffee shop to blow it up with themselves, there going to see if anyone there has rights?.....Please Read what I said again please. I think you skipped a word.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 21, 2009 21:40:48 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights? Why would you think they should? No they shouldn't. If your a terrorist you have no rights. Do you really think that when they would walk themselves in a coffee shop to blow it up with themselves, there going to see if anyone there has rights?.....Please They (the prisoners in gitmo) have rights primarily because of that document that was signed about 120 years ago that some of us have pledged to support and defend. If we can disregard some parts of it some of the time then we might as well disregard all of it all of the time. This country isn't special because of how it treats its good people in good times, it is special because of how it doesn't mistreat its bad people in bad times. Try them, convict them if proven guilty, then deal with them in that capacity, but don't skip the steps just because it is more convenient.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jan 21, 2009 21:43:07 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights? Not these ones. no. Considering most (all?) of these captives were caught either in the act, or with enough suspision to warrent locking them up, Considering more than 12% of the over 500 "detainees" that have been RELEASED from gitmo have been CAUGHT AGAIN in terrorist activities..... yeah, no rights. they gave them up when they practice holy war against us. Now we'll pay more to house them and defend them, they tie up OUR already over burdened court system, oh boyee. Just ship them back to Iraq, and arm them to make it a quicker demise.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jan 21, 2009 21:45:53 GMT -4
Problem is in the "trial", IF, or WHEN the defense asks for sensitive data, POOF, Trial over, case dismissed, and probably a civil damages case brought against our gov't.... more expenses.....
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jan 21, 2009 21:47:38 GMT -4
They live to destroy what we covet, including OUR freedoms. If they don't live BY our constitution, they shouldn't be protected by it. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jan 21, 2009 22:09:28 GMT -4
Whoo-hoo!! you go, girl! Sounding like my twin soul here! best ten out of ten? ;D
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 21, 2009 22:22:53 GMT -4
They live to destroy what we covet, including OUR freedoms. If they don't live BY our constitution, they shouldn't be protected by it. Sorry. In a way, it is exactly that sentiment that makes my point. Those that we call "criminals" today aren't living BY our constitution, are they? The murderer, the bomber, the thief; are these people living BY our constitution? Yet it is our constitution that protects them and demands they be treated in a particular manner and so that's the way we treat them. Off American soil, we can decide to not follow our constitution and others can decide the same. We don't expect to have the same rights in Kakastan that we have in the US. But, once we are back in the US, once anyone is in the US, the constitution demands and guarantees certain things. We can't just decide to ignore it when it suits our purpose. Or, if we do ignore it, then we can't complain when others choose to ignore it for their convenience.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 21, 2009 23:08:25 GMT -4
I'm all for closing Gitmo. We wouldn't need it if we executed the terrorists when we caught them (after we torture them for information of course).
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Jan 22, 2009 7:13:16 GMT -4
agree with robmoore.... LOL!!!! Short, sweet and to the point!!! That's RM!! LOL
|
|
|
Post by shoreterp on Jan 22, 2009 8:38:56 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights? The vast majority of prisoners at Gitmo did not commit their crimes in this country, so why should they be held in an American prison where they can benifit from the American Constitution and the American judicial system? Closing Gitmo means that they will need to be detained in this Country with all the benefits afforded American prisoners. Just takes one more weopen away from the prosecuter...
|
|
|
Post by kl on Jan 22, 2009 8:50:31 GMT -4
And remember, many of these "prisoners" have been in Gitmo for 5+ years, without even being charged with any sort of war crime.
Not to Hijack, but what do you this about the delay in the Holder confirmation? Repubs want to be sure that no charges are to be brought against any that approved the torture of prisoners?
|
|
|
Post by Kryo on Jan 22, 2009 9:55:44 GMT -4
I have personal experience with these people, and I'll leave it at that. Trust me, you dont want them anywhere near our shores, you dont want them in our prison system, and you dont want to give them the slightest hope that they might be able to escape from U.S. prisons someday.
They are not American citizens, they are not accused of crimes within the United States (I believe those people directly linked to 9/11 have already been tried and sentenced). They are however international criminals, who, for the most part, are not welcome by, nor want to be dealt with by, their home countries.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jan 22, 2009 10:27:56 GMT -4
So, anyone who might be a terrorist shouldn't have any rights? Thats correct! Those that are sent to Gitmo arent there because our government 'THINKS they MIGHT be part of a terrorist ring', they are there because there is already overwhelming evidence. No rights, no privileges, no special treatment! Whatever it takes to get the job done is fine with me. Not that Im inhumane its that I believe 'OUR' lives & safety should be protected at any cost. Unfortunately I think this is the presidents 1st error in judgment. I dont feel we need to worry about our IMAGE. We need to worry about OUR PEOPLE. Anyone who thinks differently needs to go to the scene of a terrorists concern for others rights. Believe me you will change your opinion in a heartbeat. Ask those that worked 'The Towers' or the Pentagon on 911. What about those peoples rights? Nope. Sorry, NO RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS or those that 'might be'.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 22, 2009 11:14:31 GMT -4
Trying terrorists as common criminals in U.S. courts and getting a conviction will require evidence that meets the standards that have been set by the Constitution and the courts. Unfortunately most of these guys were not captured by police, they were captured in battlefield situations by soldiers, often in situations where preserving a chain of evidence was not as high on their agenda as surviving the mission.
Looks like a lot of "homecoming" celeberations in the Middle East ofver the next couple years, at least until we are reminded in some way that these terrorists aren't comparable to bank robbers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2009 11:51:20 GMT -4
The ends should never justify the means of getting there.....
One very important item I don't see being discussed here is that if we are known for "mistreating" detainees, what happens to American citizens or service members that are detained and labeled a "terrorist" in another part of the world. Probably won't be good for them.
That was one of the main arguments against the Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prison situation. John McCain understands that. My uncle Mack was a pow in the Vietnam war (visualize Rambo strung up in Ramdo II), he understands it all to well too.
To me, if your an American citizen....we should all abide by what the Constitution and Bill of Rights states, regardless of your role or profession in the country. It defines who we are as a nation, we are supposed to be better than the bad guys and a role model to the world for democracy.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 22, 2009 12:20:52 GMT -4
I'm just going to say that I disagree with most of you. I believe that we are required to abide by the Geneva Convention, which we signed, and that our treatment of "enemy combatants" has broken that agreement. And that's all I'm going to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Jan 22, 2009 12:47:52 GMT -4
The ends should never justify the means of getting there..... One very important item I don't see being discussed here is that if we are known for "mistreating" detainees, what happens to American citizens or service members that are detained and labeled a "terrorist" in another part of the world. Probably won't be good for them. That was one of the main arguments against the Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prison situation. John McCain understands that. My uncle Mack was a pow in the Vietnam war (visualize Rambo strung up in Ramdo II), he understands it all to well too. To me, if your an American citizen....we should all abide by what the Constitution and Bill of Rights states, regardless of your role or profession in the country. It defines who we are as a nation, we are supposed to be better than the bad guys and a role model to the world for democracy. It seems the only country who abides by the Geneva Convention is us. Our soldiers and american's are ambushed and caught and held as POWS still to this day in other countries and many of them aren't treated humanely... Let's ask the reporter who was beheaded....Let's ask the soldiers who were dragged from their helicopter and drug thrue the streets of Somalia, what about the missionarys in the Phillipenes who were tortured... An eye for an eye. The world is not the same as it was when the Geneva Convention was held,written or agreed to Gone are the days at the end of the day the batttle is suspended and the wounded are gathered up and tended to, some times even returned to the other side. Mess with us....endure the consequences. It's a conscious choice they make.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 22, 2009 13:46:22 GMT -4
Most if not all of these terrorists do not meet the standards of lawful enemy combatant as defined by the Geneva Convention, and are not actually entitled to it's protections, but generally accorded that standard of treatment anyway.
As einebierbitte pointed our, our soldiers and citizens have rarely, if ever been treated properly when taken prisoner by other nations, and certainly never by terrorists. This pre-dates Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo by decades.
|
|
|
Post by jake on Jan 22, 2009 17:23:54 GMT -4
The terrorists have not signed the Geneva Convention and they do not abide by it, so they are not covered by it. They are not a state. We have broken no agreement. These terrorists want you and your family DEAD! We should be doing everything possible to protect our people from them. They play by no rules. This is not some Jimmy Stewart movie where military men on both side play by some code of conduct. These terrorists "want" to kill as many of us as they can, any way they can. I demand our leaders do whatever it takes to stop them. I put my concerns with the American people first, not the d**n terrorists!
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Jan 22, 2009 17:46:34 GMT -4
What happens is the same thing that happens now and a thousand times before, Its do what you want to Americans but protect the enemy! Funny the libs will defend the terrorist at gitmo yet attack the United States. Strange but I think thats a little backward! The new york times even told bin ladan how we were tracking him.
|
|