Gitmo detainee murders after his release....

[Randy Strausbaugh]

Folks, this point is moot. Gitmo closed down and emptied out in January 2009.
Candidate Barak Obama swore to the nation that one of his first acts as President would be to shut it down. That sort of thing is well within his powers and does not require the approval of Congress, just a stroke of the Presidential Executive Order pen. So clearly this alleged "Gitmo" is purely a plot to make it seem that the President broke his word to the American people. Anyone who claims that we still imprison persons without so much as a military tribunal must be some kind of a... racist.

Damn racists- they're everywhere!

 

[billc]

The detainees are not normal prisoners. The guards that have been interviewed have been told by detainees that they will try to murder the guards families, through surogates, leading to guards covering up any identification that may give away personal information. Also...

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/prisoners-have-attacked-gitmo-guards-440-times

WASHINGTON — The prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay during the war on terror have attacked their military guards hundreds of times, turning broken toilet parts, utensils, radios and even a bloody lizard tail into makeshift weapons, Pentagon reports say.
Incident reports reviewed by The Associated Press indicate Military Police guards are routinely head-butted, spat upon and doused by "cocktails" of feces, urine, vomit and sperm collected in meal cups by the prisoners.
They’ve been repeatedly grabbed, punched or assaulted by prisoners who reach through the small "bean holes" used to deliver food and blankets through cell doors, the reports say. Serious assaults requiring medical attention, however, are rare, the reports indicate.
The detainee "reached under the face mask of an IRF (Initial Reaction Force) team member’s helmet and scratched his face, attempting to gouge his eyes," states a May 27, 2005, report on an effort to remove a recalcitrant prisoner from his cell.
"The IRF team member received scratches to his face and eye socket area," the report said.

Unlike regular criminal prisoners, these guys are radical islamist terrorists who aren't motivated in the same way your average criminal is.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which our military has people locked up, cannot control them. Hmmm. No, I am not able to picture that. Not for more than the time it takes to hook up a fire hose and settle them right down.

Sounds like BS to me.

Where you in the same military I was? I can see ALOT of situations where the military can't keep control. It happens no fault of the military but when we have rules vs people that won't follow rules it happens.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Where you in the same military I was? I can see ALOT of situations where the military can't keep control. It happens no fault of the military but when we have rules vs people that won't follow rules it happens.

Inside of a prison? ********.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The detainees are not normal prisoners. The guards that have been interviewed have been told by detainees that they will try to murder the guards families, through surogates, leading to guards covering up any identification that may give away personal information. Also...

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/prisoners-have-attacked-gitmo-guards-440-times

Unlike regular criminal prisoners, these guys are radical islamist terrorists who aren't motivated in the same way your average criminal is.

So suspending the Constitution is totally OK. Uh, no.

 

[billc]

Yes, that is exactly what I said, not only suspend the constitution, but set it on fire, and then p*** on the ashes. No, these guys are alleged unlawful military combatants, and captured in the course of armed conflict. They were sent to gitmo because while they don't warrant the protections of the Geneva convention, as real prisoners of war do, we had to do something with them. As was pointed out before, in a war with a nation state, under the rules of the Geneva convention, once hostilities are concluded, all prisoners of war are returned to their country of origin, where they cease attacking the country that captured them. Since these guys don't work for a country, and there is no way to insure they won't keep attacking us, and every reason to believe they will, gitmo is the perfect place to keep them until they can be tried under military tribunals. Bush was prepared to go that route but then the courts stepped in, and bogged the whole process down. Then obama came in and stopped the tribunals in order to make political points against the U.S. and Bush, and then when trying these guys in New York was fought by every sane person, they had to restart the tribunal process.

Also, because these guys were captured overseas, by military personel, the regular rules for evidence gathering just can't apply. They weren't given their miranda rights, which as unlawful combatants, they aren't subject to, and military personel aren't trained evidence collectors. Also, as they were captured under military operations, allowing them access to how we operate isn't possible either, as it would be in a civilian court. Also, we can't exactly bring in the soldiers who captured them to testify either, it is just not the same as criminal prosecutions in a civillian court, which is why military tribunals are the only way to handle them.

 

[billc]

Here is a look at military tribunals...

http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/DiscussionStarters/tribunals.shtml

3. How does the Government justify trying Hamdan in a military tribunal instead of in a civilian court?

The government claims that the United States is at War and Hamdan was caught fighting against the United States. Therefore he was an “enemy combatant.” As an enemy combatant, Hamdan is only afforded the due process rights granted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The president claims that constitutional authority grants the executive branch the right to try accused war criminals by military tribunal. Further, the executive branch claims it has the power to do this on its own, without oversight by any other branch of government.
​

4. Can Congress constitutionally suspend habeas corpusduring times of national crisis? Can the President?

Answers will vary. Article I lists the powers of Congress and Section 9 lists limitations on Congress' power, including the specific conditions that must be met if habeas corpus is to be suspended. Some students may say that this implies that the suspension of habeas corpus is something only Congress may do. Others may say that the president's power as commander in chief of the military, explained in Article II, gives him the power to suspend habeas corpus within a military context.
​

5. Do you think the executive branch has the authority to create military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees? Why or why not?

Yes, Congress gave this authority to the administration when they authorized the use of military power by the White House after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. However, the President - as Commmander in Chief - has this power regardless of congressional authorization.
No, the executive branch doesn't have the authority to create military tribunals without the consent of the Congress. Congressional authority and judicial oversight is required under the Constition.

​

also...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/take_our_playbook_please.html

Never in U.S. history have foreign soldiers been given the rights and immunities of U.S. citizens in American courts. Cases such as Mohammed's have always been handled in military tribunals.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Better a continued policy of shipping dozens off to secret torture centers under the watch of black ops, regardless of actual guilt, than risk being afraid.

Arguments such as this fear one thing - rational thought based on actual facts.

When arguing with Bush Apologists who believe that illegal torture, kidnapping and rights violations are actually legal, patriotic, and a good thing, the only sane argument is to walk away.


***Walking Away***

 

[billc]

hmmm...What part of the difference between soldiers capturing prisoners in a foreign country during combat operations, and civilian law enforcement personnel making an arrest in the United States or another Western Democracy are people not understanding? The complete difference in evidence gathering, chain of evidence, witness testimony and the rest as well as the fact that the people captured, per the Geneva conventions, are unlawful enemy combatants seems to get past a lot of people. Hmmm...

Civilian lawyer in courtroom...
"Private smith, is that the man you took into custody?"
Private Smith "I'm not sure sir, we took 20 combatants prisoner and we sped them to the rear pretty quickly, so I couldn't say for sure if that guy is the same guy we captured, he looks completely different from the types of guys we captured. Normally, they are pretty raggedy, and not so well groomed. Besides, we were on a combat patrol and it was over two years ago, and the next day we captured 5 more guys, so I couldn't say for sure."
Civilian Lawyer "What did you do with the weapons and other evidence at the scene?"
Private Smith "the engineer piled it up and detonated it with the rest of the ammo, rockets and mines, we couldn't carry it with us and there was no way to get it back to the forward operating base because we were in the middle of a mountain range and any helicopters coming in were taking pretty heavy fire so the L.T. decided it wasn't worth risking a chopper to get the ammo and stuff back..."
Civilian lawyer "Excuse me. Are you testifying that you destroyed evidence that was at the scene where you apprehended my client?"
Private Smith "Yes sir, there was no way to handle that much ammo and weapons and we couldn't just leave it there for the taliban to just get it..."
Civilian Lawyer "Your Honor, I would like the court to place Private Smith in custody for destruction of evidence in a criminal investigation, as well as the rest of the men in his squad and the military engineer who performed the illegal act, and his immediate supervisor Lieutenant Wolowitz also, I would like to move for the immediate release of my client as the rules governing the collection of any evidence that may have exonerated my client were violated and the evidence was destroyed by the private and his squadmates..."


You see, combat operations and civilian law enforcement are two completely different things and can't be mixed together.

 

[CanuckMA]

Except they were not all taken on the battlefield. The US government was oferring cash rewards. Squad walks in a village, guy fingers his neighbour because he does not like him. Out to Gitmo. You just don't detain people for years with no proof. Convict them or let them go.

 

[billc]

Wow, if only our guys were smart enough to realize that that might happen. In fact, I have heard the process for sending someone to gitmo and it is quite extensive. Are there some innocents who were sent there, probably, but for the most part that isn't the case. There were layers upon layers of checks to make sure only the worst suspects were sent there, not just any sheepherder went to gitmo.

 

[CanuckMA]

Yet, so very few of them were convicted of a crime.

You just can't arbitrarly detain someone forever without cause.

You take someone who's mildly religious and not all that happy about US troops invading his country. Ship him halfway around the world and put him in a cell with nothing to do but exercise and read the Koran. For years. That will make him pretty pissed at the US. I know it would make me.

 

[Big Don]

Yet, so very few of them were convicted of a crime.

You just can't arbitrarly detain someone forever without cause.

You take someone who's mildly religious and not all that happy about US troops invading his country. Ship him halfway around the world and put him in a cell with nothing to do but exercise and read the Koran. For years. That will make him pretty pissed at the US. I know it would make me.

My, aren't we anti Islamic?

 

[billc]

Hmmm...

# of people who have been through Gitmo:

Total number of detainees ever incarcerated at Guantánamo: 779

Detainees released under President Bush: over 500

Detainees at start of Obama Presidency: 242

Number of 242 detainees approved for release: 126

Detainees transferred, repatriated or resettled under Obama: 70

Detainees transferred to US for prosecution: 1

Detainees who died in custody since January 2009: 3

Detainees currently held at Guantánamo: 169

Remaining detainees approved for release: 87

Detainees convicted by military commission before 2009 and still held at Guantánamo: 110

Detainees Obama Administration designated for trial or commission including those tried since January
2009: 36.11

Detainees Obama Administration has designated for indefinite detention without charge or trial: 46
Yemenis not included in above totals under conditional detention: 30
Number of countries that have accepted Guantánamo detainees: 51

Apparently, if you read this post by Bob Hubbard, you will see that quite a few of the detainees were examined and released back into the wild. For example...

Detainees released under President Bush: over 500

so the whole, "getting locked up and never released," isn't true, and in the articles you read, each inmate is reviewed each year to determine their status. Also from the above post..

.Detainees currently held at Guantánamo: 169

Soooo...are all 169 simply peaceful shephards tending their flocks...or could it be that after reviewing the records of these guys, they might just be actual evil bad guys?

 

[billc]

Also, the flawed system works badly both ways. Some innocent guys have been caught up in the process, and I want that fixed. However, there are also real evil A******, who have been released to murder innocent people. The Israelis on that bus probably think the system didn't work real well for them either.

 

[elder999]

Yes, that is exactly what I said, not only suspend the constitution, but set it on fire, and then p*** on the ashes. No, these guys are alleged unlawful military combatants, and captured in the course of armed conflict. They were sent to gitmo because while they don't warrant the protections of the Geneva convention, as real prisoners of war do, we had to do something with them. As was pointed out before, in a war with a nation state, under the rules of the Geneva convention, once hostilities are concluded, all prisoners of war are returned to their country of origin, where they cease attacking the country that captured them. Since these guys don't work for a country, and there is no way to insure they won't keep attacking us, and every reason to believe they will, gitmo is the perfect place to keep them until they can be tried under military tribunals. Bush was prepared to go that route but then the courts stepped in, and bogged the whole process down. Then obama came in and stopped the tribunals in order to make political points against the U.S. and Bush, and then when trying these guys in New York was fought by every sane person, they had to restart the tribunal process.

Also, because these guys were captured overseas, by military personel, the regular rules for evidence gathering just can't apply. They weren't given their miranda rights, which as unlawful combatants, they aren't subject to, and military personel aren't trained evidence collectors. Also, as they were captured under military operations, allowing them access to how we operate isn't possible either, as it would be in a civilian court. Also, we can't exactly bring in the soldiers who captured them to testify either, it is just not the same as criminal prosecutions in a civillian court, which is why military tribunals are the only way to handle them.

So, for the record, you approve of President Obama's actions in this regard.

 

[billc]

You mean where he tried to put on a show trial to attack President Bush, and the foreign policy of America by having the trials in New York, and then, under tremendous pressure from the American people, through their representatives in congress who didn't want to suffer the wrath of the American people, decided to use military tribunals after all? Sure, he was forced to do the right thing after his extreme left wing plans met too much resistance.

 

[Empty Hands]

Sure, he was forced to do the right thing after his extreme left wing plans met too much resistance.

Having trials under normal procedures in normal jurisdictions following the rules of our Constitutionally-based justice system now counts as "extreme left wing plans"?

What ****ing universe do you live in?

 

[billc]

Because, even if you afford unlawful enemy combatants the rights of the Geneva convention, which they are not entitled to, they still rank as prisoners of war, not United States citizens. They were captured in foreign countries so at best, they would need to be tried in their country of origin, not the United States. Since they are at Gitmo, and unlawful enemy combatants, the Military Tribunal is the only logical way to try them since they were captured by military personel, not law enforcement officers and the rules of evidence involving captured prisoners of war is extremely different than those used to try United States civilians in a United States civilian court. The rules of evidence for war crimes, which these guys are accused of since they are unlawful enemy combatants, and not U.S. citizens, are different than for civilian trials. The fact that Obama wanted to try these guys in New York, and the way he was going about it, showed he wanted to use them to go after Bush and the people who helped Bush craft the policies after 9/11. So, since obama and his minions are left wing radicals, yes, it was a desire of the left to try Bush in absentia since they couldn't realistically get him in a courtroom.

That is the universe we both live in, get used to it.

 

[elder999]

What ****ing universe do you live in?