These People Are Nuts!

[R. Richard]

Hillary wants to try the high profile GITMO terrorists in federal or traditional military court and she will take steps to see that it hppens that way. Obama also wants to try the high profile GITMO terrorists in federal or traditional military court but hasn't said how it is to be accomplished.

FACT: The terrorist organizations that the detainees belong to use suicide bombers against civilians, including innocent bystanders. The judge/judges in a federal court trial would be sentenced to death by suicide bomber. If the judge is masked, the death sentence is extended to the pool of judges. These people are nuts!

FACT: The lawyers for the detainees would be entitled to a list of witnesses against their clients. The witnesses in a federal court trial would be sentenced to death by suicide bomber. Even if the witnesses are masked, the death sentence can be carried out by use of the names. These people are nuts!

FACT: If some of the witnesses are fake/former terrorists who sold out the high profile detainees, these witnesses do not need to fear suicide bombers. No these witnesses will be hunted down and tortured to death. The process of getting inside informants to sell out terrorist leaders would come to a crashing halt. These people are nuts!

FACT: Some of the evidence against the high profile detainees was obtained by highly classified spy systems. If the details of said spy systems are revealed to the terrorist lawyers, the usefulness of said spy systems comes to an abrupt end. These people are nuts!

What Hillary and Obama propose is a death sentence for any number of US citizens. The correct way to proceed is to send Hillary and Obama into Iraq to conduct personal, face-to-face diplomacy with the terrorist leaders there. How will Hillary anbd Obama find the terrorist leaders? Don't worry, the terrorist leaders will find them. Send them NOW!

Comment?

Candidates weigh in on Guantánamo trials

With the death-penalty trials of alleged 9/11 conspirators expected to extend into the next administration, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said as president she would ask the Justice Department to investigate whether the captives could be tried in federal or traditional military court.

Clinton offered a more far-reaching response to questions from The Miami Herald about the trials than her Democratic opponent in the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama. The Illinois senator has said that the ''high-value detainees'' at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should be tried in federal or traditional military court, but he did not say what actions he would take to move the trials.

Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, said he plans to continue the military commissions now held at the remote Navy base in southeast Cuba.

The Clinton proposal came in response to a Miami Herald inquiry after a prosecutor's disclosure a week ago that the Pentagon was planning to try six alleged al Qaeda co-conspirators simultaneously at the war court, among them reputed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The prosecutor is proposing to execute the men, if convicted, for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and in New York, which Clinton represents in the Senate.

''As president, she would direct the Justice Department to evaluate the evidence amassed against these prisoners and make a determination,'' said Lee Feinstein, the Clinton campaign's national security director.

Feinstein said that Clinton would ask the Justice Department to consider two possible alternatives to the military commissions: indictments in federal courts, as some al Qaeda captives have faced, or trial by regular courts-martial in the military system.

The Pentagon announced the complex conspiracy case in its embryonic state on Feb. 11. A more senior official has yet to approve the charges, and uniformed American military defense lawyers have yet to be found for five of the six men, held at Guantánamo in national security segregation.

''As a candidate to be the next commander-in-chief . . . I think it's important to be careful about commenting on specific cases pending before the tribunals at Guantánamo Bay,'' Obama said in a statement.

But he said the ``trials are too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges.''

''As I have said in the past, I believe that our civilian courts or our traditional system of military courts-martial are best able to meet this challenge and demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law,'' Obama said.

Critics say the commissions were created to suit circumstances of the war with fewer protections for defendants, and that traditional military or civilian trials in existing courts can handle the national security cases.

They point to the prosecution of former enemy combatant Jose Padilla in a federal court in Miami, where a jury on Aug. 16 convicted him of conspiring to provide material support for al Qaeda.

Federal prosecutors crafted a case that excluded evidence involving military interrogations of Padilla while he was held in a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina for more than three years. Instead, prosecutors relied on FBI-collected evidence to win the conviction, which resulted in a 17-year prison sentence.

In contrast to Clinton and Obama, McCain said he would stick with the military commission trials -- wherever they were held.

McCain has proposed moving Guantánamo detainees to the military's maximum-security lock-up at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where, some legal experts argue, the foreigners would be able to invoke more constitutional rights because they would be on U.S. soil.

''There is nothing that says if they are in Guantánamo or [Camp] Lejeune [in North Carolina] or Fort Leavenworth that the process doesn't take place,'' said Randy Scheunemann, who handles foreign policy and national security for the Arizona senator's campaign. ``The last thing Senator McCain wants to see is Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting all the legal protections of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation or a criminal violation in the United States.''

McCain voted for the Military Commissions Act, which passed the Senate 65-34. Both Obama and Clinton voted against it.

All three have said the United States needs to close the prison camps in southeast Cuba because they hurt the nation's international standing.

None have offered a specific formula for where to send 275 detainees whom the Pentagon has decided to release, but the State Department is having difficulty repatriating.

The Defense Department has said it expects to try about 80 by military commission, including the 15 ''high-value detainees'' who were interrogated for years by the CIA as suspected key al Qaeda insiders.

''While the policies at Guantánamo have hurt America's image, this is more than just an image problem,'' Feinstein said.

''Senator Clinton believes those who have committed crimes against the United States should be brought to justice. And that justice is long overdue,'' Feinstein said. ``Proper military commissions are established to expedite battlefield justice, but the deeply flawed military commissions set up by the Bush administration and blessed by the Republican Congress in 2006 have only delayed the administration of justice in these cases.''

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

RR, it is not clear that the Gitmo Military Commission Trials are even legal. Any legal basis the Bush Administration might claim comes from a poorly written paper from the Office of Legal Council authored by the now dicredited, Yoo. This was the basis for the "Military Commission" Law passed in Congress.

Okay, they have a law now. The problem is two fold. First, the accused are not given their Constitutional Rights because the trials on not held on "American Soil." Bullshit! A U.S. Military base anywhere in the world is concidered American Soil.

Secondly, the trials are being held in secret, the accused are not given access to the evidence against them and the Government interfers with the attorneys for the accused.

Frankly, the whole mess stinks to high heaven. Clinton and Obama are correct in wanting to straighten this mess out. The trials don't need to be moved, they need to be opened up to public and professional scrutiny.

This is another example of the Bush Administration's chain of illegal activities instigated to cover up more illegal activities.

 

[R. Richard]

Secondly, the trials are being held in secret, the accused are not given access to the evidence against them and the Government interfers with the attorneys for the accused.

When you deal with people who use suicide bombers against civilians, you have to find ways to protect yourself. Secrecy is one of those ways. I have no proof, but I can assure you that the founding fathers did not consider suicide bombers when they wrote the constitution.

Again, much of the evidence against the detainees was gathered via inside informants or highly classified intelligence means. Revealing the inside informants is worse than a death sentence. Revealing the classified intelligence means not only renders said means useless, but puts US soldiers at risk.

The 'interference' with the detainees' lawyers is denying them information that would result in the deaths of any number of people who are not on trial.

However, the whole mess can be avoided if Hillary and Obama will just go to Iraq and conduct direct, face-to-face negotiations with the terrorist leaders. Why not?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

When you deal with people who use suicide bombers against civilians, you have to find ways to protect yourself. Secrecy is one of those ways. I have no proof, but I can assure you that the founding fathers did not consider suicide bombers when they wrote the constitution.

Again, much of the evidence against the detainees was gathered via inside informants or highly classified intelligence means. Revealing the inside informants is worse than a death sentence. Revealing the classified intelligence means not only renders said means useless, but puts US soldiers at risk.

The 'interference' with the detainees' lawyers is denying them information that would result in the deaths of any number of people who are not on trial.

However, the whole mess can be avoided if Hillary and Obama will just go to Iraq and conduct direct, face-to-face negotiations with the terrorist leaders. Why not?

Clearly the framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended any kind of secrecy in the judicial system. There are more problems here than you have concidered. Some of the "detainees" were kidnapped from foreign countries illegally and would, therefore, be released under U.S. Law. Much of the evidence against them was obtained by means of illegal wiretap and torture. Again this is clearly illegal under both U.S. and Military Law.

The idea that any judge who presides over open court against a detainee is simply more of the Bush Environment of Fear manufactured by him and his cronies to cover their illegal activities.

It is not inherent in the Military Commission as outlined in the law passed by Congress nor was the bill presented to mean that this would be a secret "Kangaroo Court" designed to extract retribution for possible and alleged crimes against the United States. It was meant and presented to be something like a Military Court Martial with transcriptions, attorneys and possible scruteny at a later time.

What I see, is this whole thing falling apart after Bush is gone from office, everything coming to light in open court on appeal, leaving a stench that will last for decades.

 

[R. Richard]

Clearly the framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended any kind of secrecy in the judicial system. There are more problems here than you have concidered. Some of the "detainees" were kidnapped from foreign countries illegally and would, therefore, be released under U.S. Law. Much of the evidence against them was obtained by means of illegal wiretap and torture. Again this is clearly illegal under both U.S. and Military Law.

By and large, the detainees were captured as armed enemy combatants in war zones. An armed enemy combatant, who does not wear identifying insignia is, and has been for many, many years, a bandit. The normal penalty for a bandit in a war zone is summary execution. Well, not quite summary execution. First the captured bandit is interrogated. The interrogation normally favors physical force over clever psychological ploys.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended any kind of secrecy in the judicial system. However, the same framers were considering the rights of US citizens. Of course, as was custom with the force of law in those days, the protections under the US constitution were extended to citizens of countries with whom the US had diplomatic relations. [You might recall that the framers of the constitution did not too much concern themselves with the rights of African slaves or the Irish bond servants that the English brought with them.] The same framers clearly never considered suicide bombers.

Once again, you fail to address my suggestion about sending Hillary and Obama to Iraq for the face-to-face diplomacy with the terrorists. Both publically support face-to-face diplomacy with terrorists.

 

[elsol]

Either our principles mean something or we should have a Constitution burning party and stop pretending.

I'm for burning... and while we're at it let's burn the law books so that I can start killing people. (I'm not kidding... I really do have a list of people that are going to die the second I don't have to go jail for it.)

 

[R. Richard]

Either our principles mean something or we should have a Constitution burning party and stop pretending.

The principles of law that apply to the GITMO detainees have been in place for several centuries. The problem is that the people in charge of the situation are not willing to apply generally acknowledged and accepted items of military law. [By the way, said items of military law have existed for far loinger than the US has been a country.]

I'm for burning... and while we're at it let's burn the law books so that I can start killing people. (I'm not kidding... I really do have a list of people that are going to die the second I don't have to go jail for it.)

Elsol, you are an amateur. You are contemplating actions that would bring you into a professional environment. There are, under current US law several ways to kill a person legally, under written law. Let me quickly add, the ways have not been tested judicially.

The termination of a person under extreme prejudice is a professional task, best left to professionals.

 

[3113]

I'm for burning... and while we're at it let's burn the law books so that I can start killing people.

I like this idea. Can I bring marshmallows and graham crackers and chocolate to the burnings so we can make s'mores? Then we could go kill people. Group violence is so much more fun then having to do it all on your own.

 

[elsol]

I like this idea. Can I bring marshmallows and graham crackers and chocolate to the burnings so we can make s'mores? Then we could go kill people. Group violence is so much more fun then having to do it all on your own.

Hmm... what if our lists clash.. Like I want to off people that you want to keep around?

If you can accept three out of five Rock/Paper/Scissor deciding whether they go or not, I'm game.

I'm cool with you adding people to the list at will... EXCEPT playboy or sports illustrated swimsuit issue models. Those get to stay, no matter what!

 

[xssve]

So, you're basically saying that prosecuting a war on terrorism is not a job for castrati.

This is not news to millions of servicemen.

 

[oggbashan]

We Brits managed for years with IRA terrorist suspects.

We had to modify the process because jurors could have been threatened.

We didn't deprive the accused of defence lawyers.

Vulnerable witnesses were hidden behind a screen but were subject to cross-examination by the defence.

We still managed to make mistakes but the accused had as fair a trial as we could manage.

Og

 

[gauchecritic]

We Brits managed for years with IRA terrorist suspects.

We had to modify the process because jurors could have been threatened.

We didn't deprive the accused of defence lawyers.

Vulnerable witnesses were hidden behind a screen but were subject to cross-examination by the defence.

We still managed to make mistakes but the accused had as fair a trial as we could manage.

Og

Yeah but they didn't use little kids tricked out in explosive waistcoats or go run and take off their masks and berets and hide in a group of civilians. We should've nuked the bastards, Ireland ain't go no oil, what good is it any way.

Now where did I put that tongue in cheek smiley?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Wait a minute. We have to decide is we truely are a nation of laws as the founders intended some 230 years ago or are we to sink to the same level as the terrorists?

That's what this is really about here. If we were to follow Bush we would end up in the same sewer as ben Laudin and his crowd.

I, for one, am not ready to go there.

 

[Liar]

So, because of potential threat against judges and witnesses, it's ok to compromise due process?

Tell me, does the same thing apply to the mafia? Or to random gang thugs with gang thug friends? If not, why not? It's the same principle, only at a lesser scale.

But ok, i can buy the innocent bystander argument, to a point. because that's what it's actually about. They are terrorists. Not asssassins. If they want to exceed pressure to help the Gitmo prisoners, they don't go after a single witness or a single judge. They blow up a random American school. That's what terrorism is all about. Terror. The threat of random violence.

But again, if the people fighting against terrorism cower at the threat of it to the extent that they abandon their own rule of law and principles...

...who is really winning?

Being the good guy is no fucking picnic. It takes sacrifices.

 

[R. Richard]

So, because of potential threat against judges and witnesses, it's ok to compromise due process?

Tell me, does the same thing apply to the mafia? Or to random gang thugs with gang thug friends? If not, why not? It's the same principle, only at a lesser scale.

Currently, witness against the MAFIA and/or gang hoodlums are routinely put into a federal witness protection program that hides them, under new identities, in remote communities.

Why don't the bad guys retaliate against judges [some of them do, but rarely.] Because the feds know where the bad guys are and they will go after the bad guys if they challenge the system. Why don't the fed gos after the terrorists? Because the terrorists are hard to find and because many of them live under the protection of sovereign governments. The MAFIA and/or gang hoodlums don't live under the protection of sovereign governments.

As to due process. The GITMO terrorist are enemy combatants. They have no right, under the law, to due process. If they fought as an army, they would have rights under the Geneva Convention. The terrorists don't fight as a Geneva Convention army and thus have no rights under the Geneva Convention. The accepted method of handling enemy combatants is that they fit under the definition of banditry. Bandits normally are questioned and then put to death after a drumhead court martial. The defendant in a drumhead court martial doesn't get a lawyer. The defendant in a drumhead court martial can make appeal only to his god(s).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Since 1891 the Supreme Court has ruled several times that the Constitution does not follow the flag around the globe. Foreign nationals have no Constitutional Rights outside of US borders, and there is no Constitutional Right when a foreign national confronts the US Government outside of the United States. The United States overseas can act by RIGHT OF CONQUEST. If you throw coconuts at US warships the sailors can legally kill your ass where you stand.

So, if you attack the US military overseas and it grabs your ass, and youre not covered by Geneva Conventions as a POW, youre fucked.

Hillary and Obama are shouting out their asses.

Even US Territories, such as Puerto Rico, dont have full Constitutional protections, and they sure as shit dont pay Federal Income Taxes required by the 18th Amendment.

 

[SlickTony]

The GITMO terrorist are enemy combatants.

All of them at GITMO? Many of them are hapless schlemiels who were handed over to the American forces by warlords for bounty money.

So, Bush & Co. decide to decide that theyare "enemy combatants," and there they are, stuck. Without a proper trial, it will never be known whether they were actually guilty or not.

 

[R. Richard]

All of them at GITMO? Many of them are hapless schlemiels who were handed over to the American forces by warlords for bounty money.

So, Bush & Co. decide to decide that theyare "enemy combatants," and there they are, stuck. Without a proper trial, it will never be known whether they were actually guilty or not.

OK, let's examine your scenario. We have any number of detainees at GITMO. We know that some of them are terrorists. Hell, some of them have confessed, with enough detail that we used the information against other terrorists. However, there are guys in detention who just may not be terrorists. How do you determine who are the innocent and the guilty?

Well, you have an open, public trail. Right. The poor, innocent terrorist brings in 'eye witnesses' from the old country and they all claim that Hassan was just a peaceful farmer. Peacful farmer and entourage then disappear back into the 'old country' and peacful farmer gose back to being a terrorist [several sterling examples.] Now then, what about the lying witnesses? Why they are citizens of a sovereign state and the sovereign state aint about to extradite them. That was a fair trial?

Now, did we read the ass holes at GITMO their Miranda rights? Almost certainly not. They were captured by military not scumbags. You may recall Padilla, the guy who wanted to blow up any number of US citizens? Poor Padilla didn't get his Miranda rights, so a number of charges against him had to be dropped.

A fair trail in the US includes access to a lawyer. If I give the ass holes at GITMO a lawyer, then the enemy [al Qaida, Islamic Jihad, etc.] know which of their killers have been caught, where they were caught and maybe why they were caught. If they can identify a possible betrayal guy, the guy is dead [these are people who use mentally retarded suicide bombers, remember?] The net result is that the US loses valuable informants.

But wait, the ass hole in question was captured due to a sophisticated US intelligence scheme. If it is a fair and open US trial, I have to tell the ass holes lawyers about a classified US intelligence scheme. The release of information about a claasified US intelligence scheme is insanity.

Did the US soldiers who caught the ass hole have a search warrant? Say what? The terrorists are shooting and bombng people [including their own people] and you want US soldiers to go to an Iraqi judge and say we want a warrant to search 123 Terrorist Lane; we got a killer holed up there. If you ask, not you don't.

You are talking about scumbag action. However, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is war deteriorated into banditry.

 

[Liar]

Bandits normally are questioned and then put to death after a drumhead court martial.

Yes they are. By other bandits or warlords in savage and/or despot societites with no functional rule of law.

Is that a fitting description of your precious united states? I tend to think of it as a fairly civiliced nation. Normally.

If you throw coconuts at US warships the sailors can legally kill your ass where you stand.

Just becasuse they can, does it make it all fuzzy and wonderful? Do you have a spine or do you cower behind what fat men in robes say?

 

[SlickTony]

How do you determine who are the innocent and the guilty?...Well, you have an open, public trail. (sic)

So how many innocent people are you prepared to throw into the hopper? We have people right here in America who have done some very heinous things, and we manage to handle them by legal means--and convict them, and put them away, too.

 

[R. Richard]

So how many innocent people are you prepared to throw into the hopper? We have people right here in America who have done some very heinous things, and we manage to handle them by legal means--and convict them, and put them away, too.

Yes, we have here in the US criminals. They commit crimes, often violent and terrible crimes. They are normally caught by the scumbags, convicted after a criminal trial and put into prison.

However, your typical US criminal doesn't belong to an organization that will send suicide bombers after those who convict the apprehended criminals. Also, your typical US criminal is caught by the scumbags by traditional techniques, including testimony of the honest people the criminal must associate with [it takes many people to support a crook.] Thus, it is often not possible for the crook to determine who fingered him. If it is possible, the government has a witness protection plan.

The typical terrorist belongs to an organization that will send suicide bombers after those who convict the apprehended criminals. Also, the US military has people with some skill in field interrogation. [Terrorist: I am a simple shepherd. FI: "Do sheep sleep standing up or lying down?" Terrorist: I meant to say, I am a shoemaker. FI: "Describe the normal method of attaching a heel to a shoe." Terrorist: "No spikka al english." FI: "Have you ever been to Cuba?"]

Innocent people? Right. When the police raid a whorehouse, they typically find only 'seamstresses' and guys who like the piano music. When the US military finds a guy with a dozen AK-47s, 10,000 rounds, two RPGs and several pounds of explosive , they tend to think terrorist, not a shepherd who is having a lot of trouble with wolves.

 

[R. Richard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard
"Bandits normally are questioned and then put to death after a drumhead court martial."

Liar: "Yes they are. By other bandits or warlords in savage and/or despot societites with no functional rule of law."

When you are a military officer and you find some ass hole roaming about a war zone with military weapons, no visible insignia and no identification, you basically have three choices: 1) You stop your combat operation, endangering not only your me, but other US soldiers, and escort the bandit to a US military prison. 2) You turn the bandit loose to prey on civilians in the area, ignoring the cries of those who will be raped and murdered. 3) You conduct a drumhead court martial and solve the problem under normal military law.

Liar: "Is that a fitting description of your precious united states? I tend to think of it as a fairly civiliced nation. Normally."
We are not fighting a war in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are fighting terrorists and bandits. The rules for fighting terrorists and bandits are a little less civilized than a normal war, where the rules are more or less followed.

 

[keeblercrumb]

I don't know........ but it just seems to me there is enough hypocrisy floating around to drown us all in the bullshit.

First..... "Well they do it" defense.... Hmmmm. You know that didn't cut it with my Dad when I said my "brother did it first!"... I think his words were... "We are discussing YOUR behavior, not your brothers"...

So we will sink to the levels of barbaric behavior of our enemies.... and then we are left to ponder why they are our enemies... obviously for no moral reason.....

But these heinous and awful suicide bombers.... which justify whatever actions we may take..... this senseless slaughter of innocents that we decry! How inhumane!! How barbaric!!

Of course, if a unmanned predator missile takes out the home of some "terrorist"... and happens to kill a couple dozen women and children... that is.... "collateral" damage”... a distinction that perhaps our enemies deprived of the economic capability of producing their own "humane" weapons.. seem to have trouble grasping.

I am having a little trouble grasping it too.

The irony hardly stops there.... The constitution didn't anticipate "suicide bombers".... so we may safely ignore what it says.... Perhaps I have you confused with someone else... but I thought you were in the "The constitution didn't say anything about universal health care..." strict interpretation crowd. Apparently, it is only flexible when it comes to torturing and dispatching people.

And shit keeps rolling in..... They "confessed" so they must be guilty... John McCain "confessed" to the Vietnamese too...... and their confessions are worth exactly the same as far as any military value they will have. As I recall, I think the Vietnamese learned the names of the entire front line of the Green Bay Packers….. What do you think we learned?

We need to decide just what the hell we are doing. Are we fighting a war? If so then the enemy are POW's...... whether they "deserve it" or not. Period.

Some Japanese did not recognize our prisoners as human let alone deserving of humane treatment.... They shot, beheaded, and in at least one particularly gruesome episode, ate our prisoners....

And we hung them for it. It was against the laws of humanity, apparently.

"but they do it....."

Perhaps. But, as my Dad wisely said.... We are talking about OUR behavior here.

-KC

 

[Liar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard
"Bandits normally are questioned and then put to death after a drumhead court martial."

Liar: "Yes they are. By other bandits or warlords in savage and/or despot societites with no functional rule of law."

When you are a military officer and you find some ass hole roaming about a war zone with military weapons, no visible insignia and no identification, you basically have three choices: 1) You stop your combat operation, endangering not only your me, but other US soldiers, and escort the bandit to a US military prison. 2) You turn the bandit loose to prey on civilians in the area, ignoring the cries of those who will be raped and murdered. 3) You conduct a drumhead court martial and solve the problem under normal military law.

And which of those does Gitmo most resemble.

#1. Capture, ship away and detain where they can do no harm.

...and that's where you normally start sorting shit out.

Just that when they got there, we, the good guys, had resorted to cowering in fear of the terrorist bogeyman and, for the reasons you FACT-ed out in your opening post, didn't know what to do with them.

 

[R. Richard]

And which of those does Gitmo most resemble.

#1. Capture, ship away and detain where they can do no harm.

...and that's where you normally start sorting shit out.

Just that when they got there, we, the good guys, had resorted to cowering in fear of the terrorist bogeyman and, for the reasons you FACT-ed out in your opening post, didn't know what to do with them.

The prisoners at GITMO have been a very useful source of information for the US military. Of course, much of the information extracted has been obtained by clever torture, such as playing rock 'n' roll music and forcing terrorists to deal with female interrogators. However, the life of a terrorist is not an easy one.