Released to Kill-terrorists who were given "due process" are murdering Americans again.

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | October 27, 2004 | Mark Landsbaum

[xenophiles]

Based on what I've read, prisoners being held by the US are being treated far better than the Geneva Convention requires.

My impression is that the ones at Guantanamo Bay aren't, but until some neutral party like the Red Cross is allowed free access it's hard to be sure. And then there's Abu Ghraib... but perhaps we're talking about different prisoners.

Pretty nice of us since the terrorists haven't signed the Geneva Convention anyway.

A good point, but the central question remains: why not have open and fair inquiry into which of the prisoners are actually soldiers of "the terrorists"?

If these terrorists are as innocent as you imply[...]

Just a moment. I never said that the prisoners were innocent. I never said that any terrorists were innocent. I never said that the prisoners were terrorists. I am arguing for due process, not immunity.

[xenophiles]

Based on what I've read, prisoners being held by the US are being treated far better than the Geneva Convention requires.

My impression is that the ones in Guantanamo Bay aren't, but until a neutral party like the Red Cross is allowed free access (see Article 10) it's hard to be sure.

Pretty nice of us since the terrorists haven't signed the Geneva Convention anyway.

Good point, but the Bush administration says that these people aren't POWs anyway, so it's a moot point.

If these terrorists are as innocent as you imply[...]

Just a moment. I never said the prisoners were innocent. I never said any terrorists were innocent. I never said the prisoners were terrorists. I'm arguing for due process, not immunity.

[nightdriver]

"There has been pressure on the U.S. military to prevent holding prisoners “longer than is necessary” from the so-called Center for Constitutional Rights, whose president Michael Ratner deems U.S. military tribunals that try suspected terrorists to be “kangaroo courts,” lacking credibility in the Muslim world."

So who cares if the tribunals have "credibility" with moose-limbs?

Ol' Mike Ratner and the ACLU types should be incarcerated in Gitmo just on general principles.

[xenophiles]

Sorry for the double post. Browser glitch.

[SJackson]

If they're so obviously guilty, why not give them due process, convict them and lock them up legally?

These aren't American citizens. These are prisoners of war. There's no legal system involved, and they have no right to due process, in fact no right to anything other than humane treatment and release at the cessation of hostilities. Yes, that's something the lawyers could fight about.

If I'm not mistaken all those released from Guantanamo have signed a parole agreement, yes a rather 18th-19th century thing, which they've clearly violated. Back in the day, on recapture, they'd be hung, though I'm sure these guys will get free representation.

[Fletcher J]

Sorry - poor phrasing on my part.

You're not implying that these prisoners are innocent, but rather that there may well be innocents among them, which we wouldn't know until due-process has been applied.

There are a lot of difficult issues here on how we could/should do that. I'm just glad that I don't have to make the decisions. :/

I would tend to disagree with you on two things, though. 1) I think the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are being treated pretty well, based on what I've read, although I could be wrong. 2) My impression of the Red Cross is that it isn't a neutral party. They seem quick to condemn the US for any minor offense.

Fletcher J

[SeaBiscuit]

"Center for Constitutional Rights, whose president Michael Ratner deems U.S. military tribunals that try suspected terrorists to be “kangaroo courts,” lacking credibility in the Muslim world.'

Well, Ratner when they come to kill your children are you going to be concerned about their safety or whether Muslim terrorists think our Military courts are fair? And tell me, how much credibility have the Muslims shown the world that we need be worried about their rights anyway?? Pathetic.. stand in line Ratner, along with all the rest of the dim libs waiting to die, but stop putting the rest of us at risk.

[xenophiles]

These aren't American citizens.

At least one is that I know of, but let that pass.

These are prisoners of war.

You disagree with the Bush administration on that point, but let that pass.

[...]they have no right to due process[...]

How about you? Do you have a right to due process? Do you approve of the U.S. government having the power to seize you, strip you of that right and lock you up until we have world peace?

Why do you think it won't happen to you? Because of your name? Your religion? Your innocence?

Saying "we don't need this cumbersome due process, we lock up only the guilty people" is like saying "I don't need this expensive roof, I always stay dry when it rains".

[xenophiles]

There are a lot of difficult issues here on how we could/should [apply due process].

It's a tricky decision, but as long as we agree that it should be done, that's a start.

I would tend to disagree with you on two things, though. 1) I think the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are being treated pretty well, based on what I've read, although I could be wrong.

Some who have been released report frequent beatings, detention in cages exposed to the elements, systematic sleep deprivation and other abuses and humiliations, but solid information is hard to come by. Maybe it's all lies, or maybe the truth is even worse.

2) My impression of the Red Cross is that it isn't a neutral party. They seem quick to condemn the US for any minor offense.

As long as they're factually accurate, I don't see a problem: let them inspect the prisons in Cuba and Iraq, and if the worst they can scream about is the terrible monstrous inhuman lack of library facilities then we'll know the prisoners are being treated well.