You Asked For It, You Got It

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123741378746277081.html

MAYBE THEYLL MOVE TO YOUR TOWN.

 

[R. Richard]

I don't think they would be welcome in my area. The problem is that we have a large abandoned, flooded quarry just outside town. You can always trust a terrorist to steal more chain than he can swim with. The theft of chain would be a major economic hit to the area. OK, maybe we could get a bailout, but who knows?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama will bail them out, maybe board them in your foreclosed house.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I can think of a couple of ways to deal with these guys. One way would be to just leave them alone. By that, I mean keep them locked up in their cells, or whatever, and do nothing with them for a few nonths. Of course, that means no food, water or anything else they might want. After a few months, they wouldn't be a problem any more.

Another way might be to release them in very public places in the US, especially in the western states. Tell everybody which prisoner is to be released and where, and tell everybody what the indicviduals have done, or are believed to have done, and make sure the population knows that no government official or employee, such as cops, will have anything to do with them. Make sure they are very distinctly clad, such as in bright orange jump suits. Drop them off and drive away and leave them there.

Either way, dispose of the remains by taking them to a nearby pig farm and feeding them to the livestock.

 

[oggbashan]

Why is it so different to release these detainees in the US, when we have accepted several of them in the UK?

They have not be proven, in any meaningful court of law, to have done anything. They may have been tortured. They might have been handed over to US jurisdiction just because they annoyed some feudal warlord and had actually done nothing against the US.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle in the US, as it is in the UK.

They have already been punished but not proven guilty. If they didn't hate the US before being handed over to the CIA, they have good reason now.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

I was thinking we'd move them in with Amicus and DP and all those guys here who are heading toward the hills and their tar-paper shacks with their rifles to live the life of opposition to anything the Obama administration does.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I don't think they would be welcome in my area. The problem is that we have a large abandoned, flooded quarry just outside town. You can always trust a terrorist to steal more chain than he can swim with. The theft of chain would be a major economic hit to the area. OK, maybe we could get a bailout, but who knows?

I can think of a couple of ways to deal with these guys. One way would be to just leave them alone. By that, I mean keep them locked up in their cells, or whatever, and do nothing with them for a few nonths. Of course, that means no food, water or anything else they might want. After a few months, they wouldn't be a problem any more.

Another way might be to release them in very public places in the US, especially in the western states. Tell everybody which prisoner is to be released and where, and tell everybody what the indicviduals have done, or are believed to have done, and make sure the population knows that no government official or employee, such as cops, will have anything to do with them. Make sure they are very distinctly clad, such as in bright orange jump suits. Drop them off and drive away and leave them there.

Either way, dispose of the remains by taking them to a nearby pig farm and feeding them to the livestock.

You two are a fucking matched set. NONE of these people have EVER been convicted of ANYTHING. They are therefore INNOCENT! So that means you two fine, upstanding guys are proposing the murder of innocent people. Who are you planning on MURDERING next? Them uppity niggers or the godless queers?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I can think of a couple of ways to deal with these guys. One way would be to just leave them alone. By that, I mean keep them locked up in their cells, or whatever, and do nothing with them for a few nonths. Of course, that means no food, water or anything else they might want. After a few months, they wouldn't be a problem any more.

Another way might be to release them in very public places in the US, especially in the western states. Tell everybody which prisoner is to be released and where, and tell everybody what the indicviduals have done, or are believed to have done, and make sure the population knows that no government official or employee, such as cops, will have anything to do with them. Make sure they are very distinctly clad, such as in bright orange jump suits. Drop them off and drive away and leave them there.

Either way, dispose of the remains by taking them to a nearby pig farm and feeding them to the livestock.

You two are a fucking matched set. NONE of these people have EVER been convicted of ANYTHING. They are therefore INNOCENT! So that means you two fine, upstanding guys are proposing the murder of innocent people. Who are you planning on MURDERING next? Them uppity niggers or the godless queers?

Just making a suggestion of one way to end a problem. Keep in mind that they would do the same kind of thing to you or me or any of us, given a chance.

 

[R. Richard]

You two are a fucking matched set. NONE of these people have EVER been convicted of ANYTHING. They are therefore INNOCENT! So that means you two fine, upstanding guys are proposing the murder of innocent people. Who are you planning on MURDERING next? Them uppity niggers or the godless queers?

The detainees at GITMO have been captured, as armed personnel, in a war zone. Armed personnel in a war zone fall into one of two general categories, combatants or banditry. The GITMO detainees are not combatants, under the Geneva Conventions. The normal method for dealing with banditry in a war zone is a drumhead court martial. The fact that the 'allies' choose not to follow long established rules of war is a violation of law. The failure of local authorities to prevent an escape attempt by people who are, in effect, convicted of banditry is not, per se, a violation of law.

Executing US citizens, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation is a violation of law. I try to avoid overt violations of major laws. [There is a written law, in my area, requiring a motor car to be preceeded by a man on foot, carrying a flag in the day and a lantern at night. I violate that law regularly.]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Back in the 1800s it was lawful in this state to fondle little girls. Courts threw out arrests for fondling and that sort of thing, but it didnt stop the citizens from hanging men who fondled children.

 

[Safe_Bet]

The detainees at GITMO have been captured, as armed personnel, in a war zone. Armed personnel in a war zone fall into one of two general categories, combatants or banditry. The GITMO detainees are not combatants, under the Geneva Conventions. The normal method for dealing with banditry in a war zone is a drumhead court martial. The fact that the 'allies' choose not to follow long established rules of war is a violation of law. The failure of local authorities to prevent an escape attempt by people who are, in effect, convicted of banditry is not, per se, a violation of law.

Executing US citizens, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation is a violation of law. I try to avoid overt violations of major laws. [There is a written law, in my area, requiring a motor car to be preceeded by a man on foot, carrying a flag in the day and a lantern at night. I violate that law regularly.]

Excerpt from Wikipedia: The detainees currently held as of June 2008 have been classified by the United States as "enemy combatants". After the administration of President George W. Bush asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[4] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.[5][6][7]

Excerpt from USA Today: SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — The Pentagon said Tuesday it has dropped war-crimes charges against five Guantanamo Bay detainees after the former prosecutor in their cases complained that the military was withholding evidence helpful to the defense.
There are no plans to free any of the men, and the military said it could reinstate charges later.

ahem......

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard
The detainees at GITMO have been captured, as armed personnel, in a war zone. Armed personnel in a war zone fall into one of two general categories, combatants or banditry. The GITMO detainees are not combatants, under the Geneva Conventions. The normal method for dealing with banditry in a war zone is a drumhead court martial. The fact that the 'allies' choose not to follow long established rules of war is a violation of law. The failure of local authorities to prevent an escape attempt by people who are, in effect, convicted of banditry is not, per se, a violation of law.

Executing US citizens, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation is a violation of law. I try to avoid overt violations of major laws. [There is a written law, in my area, requiring a motor car to be preceeded by a man on foot, carrying a flag in the day and a lantern at night. I violate that law regularly.]

Quote:
Excerpt from Wikipedia: The detainees currently held as of June 2008 have been classified by the United States as "enemy combatants". After the administration of President George W. Bush asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[4] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.[5][6][7]

Quote:
Excerpt from USA Today: SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — The Pentagon said Tuesday it has dropped war-crimes charges against five Guantanamo Bay detainees after the former prosecutor in their cases complained that the military was withholding evidence helpful to the defense.
There are no plans to free any of the men, and the military said it could reinstate charges later.

ahem......

Why do people keep citing the US Constitution in regards to these people? They are not US citizens and most of them, maybe all of them, have never even been in the United States. If they are enemy soldiersm, they should be treated as POW's and, since the war is still going on, that means they should still be held as prisoners. If they are not soldiers, they were bandits in a war zone, and should have been put to death a lng time ago.

SCOTUS has no say in this, because the authroity of SCOTUS does not extend to them. The Geneva Convention might cover them, depending on who they are and what they were doing. The GC probably does not cover them, for various reasons.

If they were captured in Afghanistan, maybe they should be returned there and turned over to the civil authorities, or the tribal authorities where they were taken. They would probably be hanged or beheaded, which would cause me no grief at all, and would solve a thorny problem.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Many years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not follow the flag around the world. A US soldier in a foreign land is subject to the laws of that land NOT the US. So, al Qaeda prisoners are not protected by the Constitution, either. If a Somali pirate attacks a US ship, he isnt protected by the Constitution.

Box is correct. If the al Qaeda prisoners return to Afghanistan they will likely be summarily executed.

 

[oggbashan]

The detainees at GITMO have been captured, as armed personnel, in a war zone...

At least one of those returned to the UK was "captured" in Pakistan's main International Airport, having passed through the security check-in to board a flight. How then could he be "armed personnel in a war zone"?

Others were captured and handed over to Pakistan or Afghanistan's government forces by local warlords. The circumstances of their "capture" or exactly what they were doing before the warlord decided to accept payment for them is not known.

What the US government has been telling the world about its Gitmo detainees has been proven to be false for many detainees.

While some might well have been a genuine threat to US security, many of them were low level disgruntled locals who might have offended the wrong people or misguided western-educated Muslims who couldn't make a bomb successfully and were profitable sales.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

At least one of those returned to the UK was "captured" in Pakistan's main International Airport, having passed through the security check-in to board a flight. How then could he be "armed personnel in a war zone"?

Others were captured and handed over to Pakistan or Afghanistan's government forces by local warlords. The circumstances of their "capture" or exactly what they were doing before the warlord decided to accept payment for them is not known.

What the US government has been telling the world about its Gitmo detainees has been proven to be false for many detainees.

While some might well have been a genuine threat to US security, many of them were low level disgruntled locals who might have offended the wrong people or misguided western-educated Muslims who couldn't make a bomb successfully and were profitable sales.

Og

What you describe sounds like the act of a 'butter bars' bucking for promotion. No, you don't take into custody people who you don't catch in the act.

However, some of those 'innocent' GITMO detainees were released by total idiots and then went back to killing US and British soldiers.

Also, there have been several incidents in Iraq where the locals accused US soldiers of war crimes and subsequent investigation proved the charges false. A lot of people in Iraq, even if not al-Qaeda, are not reliable witnesses.