Posted on 03/21/2016 8:33:37 AM PDT by HarborSentry
Note: This could be a post I'll be referencing in the future — not just a thought for the day. I could be making changes periodically. Apologies in advance for the length.
A guest of Bill Maher recently complained of Guantanamo, “people have not been charged, or tried, and what happened to rule of law? That’s the whole principle of the Constitution.”
She apparently has been lied to, and it's about time we clear this up. We see a lot of articles about Guantanamo detainees being “released without charge” or “never charged with a crime.” They want us to believe we'd have convicted them if they weren't innocent.
The short answer is: The founding fathers knew charges and trials are for crimes. This is a war.
That's not a flippant answer either. Where the Bill of Rights says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless…,” — right there you can see they are obviously talking about crimes. They were very careful about the words they used (much like the way they outlawed torture but only as punishment).
People have gotten the mistaken idea that one can either be a civilian entitled to due process, or a prisoner of war entitled to the rights and privileges of the Geneva Conventions, but nothing else. Well, that's not true. We have often held people without trial during wartime without POW status — and in peacetime as well.
Think back to the cases that the Bush administration lost in the Supreme Court regarding Guantanamo detainees. At each loss, the end result affirmed that Guantanamo detainees had more rights:
(Excerpt) Read more at randkoch.wordpress.com ...
Well, this is a war. We're dealing with terrorists, not pickpockets.
I don’t see why we couldn’t give them POW status. “OK, you guys did nothing wrong, but we’re holding you until al-Qaeda and ISIS sign a surrender.”
The GC covers these people. They’re unlawful combatants who can, under the laws of warfare, be given drum head Courts Martial and executed. That’s what should be happening.
All else is distraction.
L
Because they are illegal combatants.
POWs are soldiers captured. Soldiers wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. Soldiers do not deliberately target civilians.
Illegal combatants may be summarily executed - per the Geneva Convention. They have less rights than even spies, to my understanding. And spies have just about no rights.
“...Terrorist Organizations Are Not Entitled To The Protection Of The Geneva Conventions...”
Forbes
“I don’t see why we couldn’t give them POW status.”
Same reason that they don’t wear a uniform - they are not POWs. They are partisans or guerrillas, carrying firearms and planting explosives in a war zone. As such, they are subject to summary execution - similar to an enemy soldier caught on the battlefield wearing the uniform of another country.
“Well, this is a war. We’re dealing with terrorists, not pickpockets.”
This is true, my ONLY issue with this is who is defining what a terrorist is. According to our current administration, most of us here might meet that definition.
The founding fathers knew charges and trials are for crimes. This is a war.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrongo. It was war until January of 2008, elections have consequences.
The war ended with the Secretary of State hiring Huma Abedin ,of the Muslim Brotherhood, as an employee of the US State Department.
Hillary committed treason against the USA, The Constitution and the allies of the USA by using her own personal e-mails to violate OPSEC and establish her personal values as the policy of the USA.The result was millions of deaths throughout Libya, Syria, Iraq and Egypt, the genocide of Yazidhis, Kurds, Israelis, Egyptian and Iraqi Christians.
Do not ever think that there is a war on. There has not been a war on since January of 2008, its all been treason, right down to ROE for our soldiers which tie their hands and get them purposefully killed by Obama, the Remander in Chief ( if you know what I mean.)
If it was war, the detainees of Guantanimo would have by now graced the bottom of the Carribean , as pirates, combatants without a national flag outside of the Geneva Convention. That’s what they should have gotten for disfiguring our soldiers with Iranian made roadside bombs and rendering our veterans with terrible physical and mental injuries.
There is still time for that justice, but Obama is about to return Guantanimo to the Cubans as we speak.He will do that to take the heat of off the wilely Hitlery Clinton, who all of a sudden has taken a huge public turn away from Palestinians to become the worlds purist lover of Jews at AIPAC. Hitlery has learned the Muslim art of taqiya well.
May Obama and Clinton themselves have a dose of justice in their future.
They need summary judgment on the battlefield and execution.
Better yet, take no prisoners. Pork products and gunshots mean never having to say you're sorry.
There are two reasonable approaches: Question them and then execute them, or just execute them on the battlefield without taking prisoners. Under no circumstances should we play "catch and release" with unlawful combatants who want to rape/murder civilians.
Storing H->! in Gitmo sounds appropriate.
So what if Congress declares war on Al Qaeda, ISIS or “radical Islam.”
Does that make it easier to grab and hold jihadis in GITMO?
Well, it is even worse than that: Today’s Muslim terrorists are not really even in a “declared war” by a “national state” which even HAS a “uniform” or “Code of Conduct” that they are fighting under, over, beside, or above.
There simply is NOTHING they can be accused of “violating”, much less be accused of “not complying with” except the violent overthrow of all that is civilized and decent. Well, because they are fighting for all that IS uncivilized and indecent since the 7th century. They have been captured as armed and fanatic religious extremists.
So, what can you accuse them of - except being sharia-compliant Muslims? Is that not enough? This IS war, not a “police action” and our former establishment (Bush) and today’s anti-establishment/anti-American Obama politicians in Washington (in the White House AND the Pentagon AND the State Dept AND the Department of Sanity) refuse to even recognize that.
The aren’t entitled to POW status, because POW status is reserved for armed forces in uniform. Caught without a recognized uniform and they should be shot as a spy or saboteur.
should be
January of 2009
bkmk
The Supreme Court still recognizes there’s a war on — legally, if not in actuality.
I hope that’s enough to keep the important detainees locked up. Unfortunately for the innocent victims of future terrorism, the less important ones are getting released. Most of those victims, if not all of them, will be in the third world.
The country has to hold together until January.
It’s easy enough right now to hold detainees in Gitmo.
Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force after 9/11. The Supreme Court said that’s enough. It doesn’t need to actually say “Declaration of War.”
But there is one good reason not to use Guantanamo: The Court also said in 2004, and further in 2008, that the detainees there should have access to habeas corpus rights. They don’t get full trials, but they get simple tribunals that federal judges can review later.
It’s a lot easier to do what Obama’s been doing: Killing some with drones, and letting our allies keep and interrogate the others.
Actually if you want to be technical, the democrat operatives in the State Department started their program of training Muslims from all over the ME how to use social media to organize politically in 2006, resulting in the later Arab Spring using Google and Twitter. Google opened its office in Cairo in 2006.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.