Posted on 06/15/2005 3:35:00 PM PDT by AgThorn
Bad example. Spys we caught and tried during the Cold War were traded to the Soviets for our spys. I think the only spys executed by our government in recent history was the Rosenbergs and they were American Citizens.
Specter is correct in saying that we need to define their rights. We are creating a new breed of prisoner, and we need to show leadership and spell out the rules.
The whole War on Terror has been a mismanaged embarassment after our initial success in Afghanistan. Iraq is taking way too long, our borders are not secure, and those prisoners in GTMO need to start getting tried and executed, or released.
I also noticed the expressions and agree that those testifying exercised amazing restraint - it must have been difficult not to have dragged one of those pissants over the desk and kicked his butt. The islamofascists who started this war need to understand that one of the downsides of terrorism is that you have no Geneva Convention rights. If the terrorists won't play by our rules, we must play by theirs.
"Well, what troubles me was reinforced by the testimony today. There is no endpoint given and when a government says that they can hold people in perpetuity without some type of review, I get nervous"
Have the terrorist scum given us an endpoint as to when they'll stop? You can be nervous for the terrorist. I prefer to be nervous for the innocent Americans they want to kill. You must be a democrat since your sympathies lie with the enemy and not with our fellow countrymen and women, in and out of uniform. You should be posting crap like that on the AirAmerica boards.
Or put them on a C-130, airlift them halfway home, and make them take a walk. Either way works for me.
'those prisoners in GTMO need to start getting tried and executed'
The only part of your post with which I agree.
Try them, then shoot them.P> What I don't understand is why we let people like John Walker Lhind to stand trial as civilians.
Why? What good are they to us alive?
Try them and execute them.
Defining their rights is the right thing to do. We are the leaders of the world, striving for peace... we need to be better than them.
Even Graham is a dunderhead.
They are "unlawful combatants," not "enemy combatants". The are not afforded "due process" under any legal definition and are specifically non-addressed by the Geneva Conventions.
It's a whole lot better fate than we would have if the shoe were on the other foot. At least they have their heads.
"Why? What good are they to us alive?
Try them and execute them."
While I agree with you, I don't see it happening, the US government is losing the PR war on this one.
Return them to their jihadistans. They can disembark at 20000 feet.
You don't have to be a Democrat to be nervous about giving a government the ability to lock people up without the ability to appeal. In fact, quite the opposite. In fact, the irony is that, in most situations, Democrats find it quite acceptable to yield nearly unlimited power to the government. It is the person who is suspicious of government power in the first place, as Republicans used to be before they fell in love with Big Government, who tends to be wary of giving up liberty for a little security. The defense of the country is one of the few Constitutionally enumerated powers of the government. My alarm arises not from the treatment of enemy combatants per se, but from the inevitable expansion of this initial precendent that it is ok to hold people without trial and without appeal for indefinite periods. We trust the current administration to not apply this to American citizens. Do you trust all future administrations to do the same? Do you trust that the definition of what constitutes a threat to national security not to be expanded to include domestic terrorists? Don't forget, the Clinton administration classified disagreeing with the view that HIV is the cause of AIDS as a threat to national security. Should we someday imprison people who disagree with that view? Sounds ridiculous, I know, but 200 years ago, the concept of a living Constitution would have sounded incredible. What changed? People's perception of what a Constitution is for. Is it such a stretch to see this as the start of a slippery slope? I think not. If you disagree, then you obviously have a much greater degree of trust in the ability of people in power not to abuse that power. If these detainees are indeed such a threat to the security of the nation that they need to be held for an indefinite period, then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a little more proof to justify that decision than "Trust us, we know what's best for you." It doesn't have to be done in the open press, but there should be a mechanism in place that has the power to review the decision of one or of a few people. It can even be done in such a way as to provide the President with the ability to overturn the decision of the tribunal if he indeed feels that the risk of release is too great. It is that mindless acceptance of the party line that leads inevitably to loss of all liberty. Again, if they are indeed a threat, I don't object to holding them indefinitely, and with many fewer amenities and much more aggressive interrogation than they are currently afforded. What I do object to, however, is the mindset that they can be held indefinitely without some mechanism for occasional review of their circumstances by some tribunal that doesn't have a vested interest in covering up some mistaken initial assumption that they were indeed dangerous. No one is infallible. To state that isn't disrespecting anyone. To say that the military could possibly make a mistake isn't disrespecting them. I have nothing but admiration for the military and have several friends and family members in the service, several in Iraq. But as I said in previous posts, anyone, even those with the best intentions can make a mistake. To sentence someone "in perpetuity" without some type of occasional review is wrong.
It is a matter of law, but it is not a matter of criminal law. It is a violation of the laws of Land Warfare, ie, they were illegal combatants. The only court with jurisdiction are military tribunals. IOW, we're doing exactly what is required by international convention, Hague, Geneva, etc.
"Well, if we decide we can't hold them forever, and they need to be tried, it seems to me that the appropriate thing to do is to give them full due process rights and full-dress criminal trials under the law...of the place they committed their crimes."
What an absolutely brilliant idea. Let's try them under Sharia law for taking up jihad against the infidel crusader imperialist Americans and International Zionism.
Right you are!! This is the most logical end result for Gitmo that I have seen yet.
The Dem morons can keep squawking; after the legal justice systems are well established in their respective countries, they can have thier "citizens" back...to try them under their own laws.
The GC defined their 'rights'. If after a year they can offer no new info, they should be executed to make room for the next group. Their value is only as repositories of information, once emptied, they are worthless. They could have chosen another status, but declined and took this path by themselves.
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.