Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

RJdxer · Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:13 pm

But that's pretty much what they'll be, just we won't have military officers in charge. This could well turn into President Elect Obama's "don't ask don't tell" policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_el_pr/obama_guantanamo

WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent what happens to them then? They can easily plead political asylum if they come from any one of a number of countries in which they can claim they face death if returned to. Nice way to set them up right here at home!

A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

I guess the name "tribunal" is a little too tarnished for them. Why is it that wonder kids always feel they have to reinvent the wheel when the wheel is still the most efficient way of moving things around?

Just let them all go. Play it the way they did in the 19th century. We let you go on the condition you don't fight anymore. We catch you fighting again, we execute you on the spot.

Kiwirob · Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent what happens to them then? They can easily plead political asylum if they come from any one of a number of countries in which they can claim they face death if returned to. Nice way to set them up right here at home!

Since you arrested and detained them if they are innocent then the US needs to compensate them for the amount of time they were locked up. Asylum is the least you can offer.

RJdxer · Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:05 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 1):
Asylum is the least you can offer.

Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble, just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked. It's what America is all about right?

seb146 · Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:42 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked.

Obama has not even taken office and it is all his fault. Nice.

Let's not forget which administration "detained" people without cause. Some even Americans. Let's not forget which administration actually started the "fight" against Americans. Obama, right? Don't forget the spying on all communications. The government already has records on everything from Aunt Maybell's chicken soup recipie to where all the people with the same name as any felons are.

The new administration is trying to show he is willing to take the country in a different direction: innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty by lineage. If these people actually commit crimes, they will be dealt with. Until then, they can prove themselves.

StuckInCA · Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:52 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble

If they aren't guilty of anything then why should they be treated like criminals?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
It's what America is all about right?

Closer to what we're all about than holding them indefinitely without any charges.

AirCop · Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:03 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 3):
Obama has not even taken office and it is all his fault. Nice.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...themedia9-2008nov09,0,800478.story
And Rush is blaming the recession squarely on the back of Obama. I don't think Rush has ever met an African-American that he liked.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
close the Guantanamo Bay prison

Boy, I thought closing of Guantanamo Bay and upholding the values of America would be a good thing..

StuckInCA · Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:11 pm

Here's a poignant snippet from that article AirCop:

But many on the losing end of last week's election want to hold on to their anger. And there are those in the media -- led by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity -- only too ready to feed that animus, along with their own ratings.

Translation: Bitter angry people falling for the vitriolic nonsense of pill popping loudmouths who profit from divisive politics and stoking rage.

Klima · Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:13 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble, just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked. It's what America is all about right?

Well, it would be a lot easier to keep tabs on them in the US than in NW Pakistan.

Should some of these individuals be found innocent, and they are allowed to stay in the US, I'm sure someone will have a watchful eye on them for at least sometime, even if the government says otherwise.

max550 · Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:21 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent what happens to them then? They can easily plead political asylum if they come from any one of a number of countries in which they can claim they face death if returned to. Nice way to set them up right here at home!

I don't understand your point, should we lock up anyone ever accused of a crime? What about all the people who are found innocent and released onto our streets everyday. You're still innocent whether you were on trial for being a burglar, murderer, or terrorist.

What do you suggest we do, put them on trial in Guantanamo, then if they are found to be innocent we either send them back to be killed in their country or we let them stay in prison in Guantanamo?

I really don't understand your viewpoint. Once we accuse someone of terrorism we should lock them up forever regardless of guilt?

searpqx · Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:20 pm

Quoting Max550 (Reply 8):
Once we accuse someone of terrorism we should lock them up forever regardless of guilt?

That's basically the argument. The mentality is that its better safe than sorry, and we should trust our government to know enough that they'll only accuse those that are mostly likely really guilty.

The sad part about this, is that those that espouse this view will then turn around and tell you horror stories of what will happen if we let the government get more involved in health care. So, the feds aren't competent to administer national health care, but we should trust them completely in deciding who should be locked up for life. . . .

JakeOrion · Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:35 pm

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 9):
The sad part about this, is that those that espouse this view will then turn around and tell you horror stories of what will happen if we let the government get more involved in health care. So, the feds aren't competent to administer national health care, but we should trust them completely in deciding who should be locked up for life. . . .

I would rather have the government focus on national security than a national health care system. Leave the health care system up for the free market (consumer choice), leave the security up to the government. In fact, isn't this supposed to be written in the Consititution?

Oh, by the way; Hawaii tried a universal child health care system and guess what? It failed. After 7 months.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...Sr7A7sLEd5t6wAG8jdaXxhR7QD93S3VNG0

Any you seriously want the government to take over health care? Good grief man...

Arrow · Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:05 pm

There's a serious touch of irony in this. Of the 250 or so detainees, all but a small minority are probably innocent of the terrorism activities they were accused of. They must be because no charges have been laid and no trials conducted.

But when those 250 are let go -- after 5-6 years of abuse at the hands of Americans -- there's a better than even chance they'll want some revenge. I sure as hell would. So they weren't terrorists to begin with, but they probably are now. What a pickle.

My solution? Obama should order a special compound built at Crawford, Texas -- maybe on somebody's ranch -- and send them all there. And there's a couple of guys I know, soon to be unemployed, who would make ideal wardens.

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 9):
The sad part about this, is that those that espouse this view will then turn around and tell you horror stories of what will happen if we let the government get more involved in health care. So, the feds aren't competent to administer national health care, but we should trust them completely in deciding who should be locked up for life. . . .

Now now; we don't want to shine too bright a light on those glaring inconsistencies; a whole bunch more might pop up.

SkyyKat · Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:11 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent

If they are innocent you need to applaud your justice system, if they are really guilty and found innocent then it needs to be reviewed.. You yourself expressed concern within your own justice system, so do you still support capital punishment?

And are you really contesting 'innocent until proven guilty'? Whatever they did or did not do, being held without trial leaves the option open for many innocent people having their lives destroyed on the basis of suspicion....

I FULLY support Obama on this initiative, although I am not a full supporter of the man... This is an attempt to bring justice to the guilty and the innocent being held without trial, and to eliminate interrogation centers in in places such as my home country of Poland that I believe you have no business conducting this activity in.

RJdxer · Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:06 pm

Quoting AirCop (Reply 5):
And Rush is blaming the recession squarely on the back of Obama. I don't think Rush has ever met an African-American that he liked.

And this has what to do with tribunals?

Quoting Klima (Reply 7):
Well, it would be a lot easier to keep tabs on them in the US than in NW Pakistan.

It just gives them a head start is all.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 8):
I don't understand your point, should we lock up anyone ever accused of a crime?

No, they should have had their day in court long ago and would have except so many liberals got all wound up about using military tribunals. But now that they are in charge what are they going to do?

Quoting Max550 (Reply 8):
What do you suggest we do, put them on trial in Guantanamo, then if they are found to be innocent we either send them back to be killed in their country or we let them stay in prison in Guantanamo?

As I said, let them go. Tell them that if we catch them on the field of battle again or engaged in terrorist activities again we will execute them summarily.

StuckInCA · Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:13 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
No, they should have had their day in court long ago and would have except so many liberals got all wound up about using military tribunals. But now that they are in charge what are they going to do?

So... the Bush administration sets up Guantanamo and stocks it with detainees - - charged with nothing. For years. At the outrage of many people in this nation - - mostly liberals. And now you have the gall to blame them (liberals) for the fact that there are potentially innocent people still in there? Do you blame them for the weather too?

Your logic is akin to: I'm raising taxes 10%. Wait, Republicans slowed me down, now it's 70%. Blame Republicans for the tax increase.

QANTAS077 · Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:18 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
No, they should have had their day in court long ago and would have except so many liberals got all wound up about using military tribunals. But now that they are in charge what are they going to do?

day in court for what? you seem to be missing the fact that a majority have been charged with nothing.

RJdxer · Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:22 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 14):
So... the Bush administration sets up Guantanamo and stocks it with detainees - - charged with nothing. For years. At the outrage of many people in this nation - - mostly liberals. And now you have the gall to blame them (liberals) for the fact that there are potentially innocent people still in there?

Exactly what has the Bush administration proposed doing since setting up Gitmo? Tribunals were suggested before the first prisoner even arrived. Through litigation and political game playing the liberals have succeded in delaying the start of virtually all of them up until this past year. Now who's to blame? And now that they are in charge what are their plans? A "special" court? One that is not as open as a normal court to handle sensitive materials, gosh that sounds familiar.

FruteBrute · Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:02 am

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Just let them all go. Play it the way they did in the 19th century. We let you go on the condition you don't fight anymore. We catch you fighting again, we execute you on the spot.

I could live with that. Cheaper.

That or airdrop them into the center of Africa. Don't ask. Don't tell. Then pull a Cheney.... deny, deny, deny. Hell, just have Cheney do it on his way out of office and going back to Wyoming on Inguaration Day.

SkyyKat · Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:05 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
A "special" court? One that is not as open as a normal court to handle sensitive materials, gosh that sounds familiar.

I don't think I fully understand your opinion here. What is it you would like to see happen to detainees in gitmo and other prisons? What do you think is the best solution?

Although I am fairly informed on this topic, you might be a better candidate to explain a better alternative than the new proposal.

I don't think the current approach is sufficient, but once again I am no expert on the topic

RJdxer · Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:15 am

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 15):
day in court for what? you seem to be missing the fact that a majority have been charged with nothing.

They, for the most part, are being held as enemy combatants. That has been the charge against most of them since day one. The Bush administration wanted to set up military tribunals to determine their guilt or innocence but due to litigation and political interference, that has been next to impossible.

Quoting SkyyKat (Reply 18):
What do you think is the best solution?

As I said, cut them loose. Give them the warning that soldiers of 19th century got, that if we catch them again, they will get a summary execution.

Quoting SkyyKat (Reply 18):
Although I am fairly informed on this topic, you might be a better candidate to explain a better alternative than the new proposal.

The new proposal, at this point as described in the article, is no different than the old proposal, it just won't be called a military tribunal.

StuckInCA · Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:26 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
Exactly what has the Bush administration proposed doing since setting up Gitmo? Tribunals were suggested before the first prisoner even arrived.

Kangaroo courts. No transparency, military attorneys. Lax rules of evidence. A sham.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
A "special" court? One that is not as open as a normal court to handle sensitive materials, gosh that sounds familiar.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
The new proposal, at this point as described in the article, is no different than the old proposal, it just won't be called a military tribunal.

You seem to think this is all a bit more defined that it actually is at this point.

"the plan being crafted"

...

"Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final."

And this doesn't even apply to all of them. For others:

"some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials.

Lets see how the details of the plan shakes out, eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/...;_ylt=AjZK_f_f3sO2q0IFMef4.8Ks0NUE

RJdxer · Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:06 am

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 20):
Kangaroo courts. No transparency, military attorneys. Lax rules of evidence. A sham.

And how is that different than.....

Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few options

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 20):
Lets see how the details of the plan shakes out, eh?

I think I already know how they are going to "shake" out.

BTW, as the story relates, all they are doing is trying to reinvent the wheel when for over 200 years the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of people.

BN747 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:19 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 21):
BTW, as the story relates, all they are doing is trying to reinvent the wheel when for over 200 years the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of people.

" the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of INNOCENT people"

Really?

Because Gitmo has deterred...nothing.

BN747

ltbewr · Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:19 am

We have tried terrorists in the Federal trial courts for years and got convictions still protecting security of evidence and witnesses. .
Perhaps a hybrid court could be a branch of a Federal District Court (Northern District of Virginia) within Quantico Military Base (in Northern Virginia) and judges selected by lot to serve trials there. If held on a Military base, that would mean good security and limiting public access. The defense attorneys may have to be Military lawyers to protect military and national security.

WunalaYann · Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:25 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
As I said, cut them loose.

I assume you are talking about the ones that would be found innocent after trial. I agree with you.

But wouldn't you say that locking up innocents in Guantanamo for years would require the "Coalition of the willing" to compensate these innocent people? Somewhat generously?

To add to the pickle, where exactly should we cut them loose? In the US? Back to "where they come from"?

Honestly, that goes against what the US has always stood for in my ideals - freedom and justice.

Dougloid · Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:35 am

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
But that's pretty much what they'll be, just we won't have military officers in charge. This could well turn into President Elect Obama's "don't ask don't tell" policy.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going to move the terrorists into the whitehouse and do the boogaloo on the front lawn with the rest of the Knee Grows, RJ.

Steve King thinks so.

RJdxer · Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:14 am

Quoting BN747 (Reply 22):
" the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of INNOCENT people"

And you know they are innocent how?

Quoting BN747 (Reply 22):
Because Gitmo has deterred...nothing.

And you know that holding them at Gitmo has deterred nothing how?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 24):
I assume you are talking about the ones that would be found innocent after trial. I agree with you.

I'm talking about all of them right now. The time when these trials could have done in timely, fair, and professional fashion are long over with. No matter where they are tried now their cases have been so corrupted by legal delays and political wranglings that a trial now, open, closed, or anywhere in will have an outcome that will be challenged till the end of time. There comes a time when even if a person is guilty as sin you just have to throw up your hands and let them go. Hmmmm....now that sounds like someone we know as well!

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 24):
But wouldn't you say that locking up innocents in Guantanamo for years would require the "Coalition of the willing" to compensate these innocent people? Somewhat generously?

Nope, if they had had their day in court, been found guilty,and then their innocence proved I would agree with you. Many of them delayed their trials through legal wrangling so in effect kept themselves from trial. But what the hell, if we can give $700B to a bunch of banks, and $50B to the auto manufactuers I guess we can go a little deeper in debt throwing some money at these people. What would you say is fair?

As to where to send them? Send them back to where they were captured and cut them loose. Those that are innocent will fade back into the lives they were in before. Those that are guilty will get caught again, and when they do it should be documented, and then they should be executed as quickly as possible.

Charles79 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:33 am

Aren't we all jumping the gun here? The new administration does not take office until Jan 20th, until then it's all speculation.

Fact is that we have some dangerous men down there who should be locked for the rest of their lives. Instead of bickering about how to do it let's get it done quickly within the bounds of existing international conventions (which exist not to make our life more difficult but rather to protect innocently convicted civilians).

The best thing we can do about Guantanamo's X-ray camp is to close it, provide a permanent, cozy cell for the fools who deserve it, and hope that we learned from our mistakes.

WunalaYann · Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:46 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 26):
No matter where they are tried now their cases have been so corrupted by legal delays and political wranglings that a trial now, open, closed, or anywhere in will have an outcome that will be challenged till the end of time.

Maybe then comes a time when we have to draw a line in the sand and say "ok, this is the time for a real trial, with lawyers and juries, and whatever the outcome is, no coming back over it". Perfect? No. Better than keeping a bunch of people in (non-democratic and very costly) custody forever? In my opinion, yes.

Just like you, I am looking for a solution to a problem that probably does not have any particularly palatable one.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 26):

Nope, if they had had their day in court, been found guilty,and then their innocence proved I would agree with you. Many of them delayed their trials through legal wrangling so in effect kept themselves from trial.

What about those who did not try to delay their trials? What about those who actively tried to come to court to plead their case? If these ones are proven innocent, what should we do?

As for the guilty ones, I reckon it is easy - keep them locked up until they meet their maker.

Smile

PPVRA · Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:47 am

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Ugh, sounds like another excuse to circumvent laws.

This kind of attitude if continued will surely lead us to a better tomorrow Yeah sure

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:04 am

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 27):
Fact is that we have some dangerous men down there who should be locked for the rest of their lives. Instead of bickering about how to do it let's get it done quickly within the bounds of existing international conventions (which exist not to make our life more difficult but rather to protect innocently convicted civilians).

I would like to ask, where were these people captured? was it on the streets of New York, or London? I think if my memory serves me, they were captured while fighting against our troops with weapons in their hands and some by intelligence operations. Imagine that, why these poor innocent guys, why don't we let them claim asylum and come live near all you bleeding hearts. would any of you guys like to sponsor them? Maybe we can let them claim unemployment benefits, give them different job training than they were taught. I have never heard such bull in my life, and it is sickening. Just appoint me warden down there for a week, the place would be empty, problem solved, never to return.

vikkyvik · Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:13 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble, just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked. It's what America is all about right?

America indeed is all about the ability to express your opinions - even radical opinions, long as you're not breaking any laws.

And America is just as importantly about the ability to completely ignore those who spout these radical opinions, long as they're not breaking any laws.

And if they do break the law, America is all about having them pay for their crimes.

And frankly, adding "...attend Mosques..." in there was completely unnecessary.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 30):
I think if my memory serves me, they were captured while fighting against our troops with weapons in their hands and some by intelligence operations.

Obviously I don't know all the details (nor does anyone else, I suspect), but if they were captured whilst fighting, then they should be treated as prisoners of war, no?

Falcon84 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:17 am

The end of the shame and embarrassment of Gitmo can't come soon enough. It has disgraced this nation, RJ, and flies in the face of everything the U.S. has come to stand for over 200-plus years.

BN747 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:18 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 26):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 22):
" the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of INNOCENT people"

And you know they are innocent how?

the same way that you KNOW they're guilty....and you don't.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 26):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 22):
Because Gitmo has deterred...nothing.

And you know that holding them at Gitmo has deterred nothing how?

Because activity continues whether Gitmo remains opened....or closed. It has changed absolutely NOTHING.

BN747

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:44 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 31):
Obviously I don't know all the details (nor does anyone else, I suspect), but if they were captured whilst fighting, then they should be treated as prisoners of war, no?

No, this is not conventional warfare. Quite different, and they should be treated unconventionally. This is a terrorist war fought in the name of a prophet. An eye for an eye, is the saying, they deserve no less themselves. I think you catch my drift.

WunalaYann · Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:47 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 34):
No, this is not conventional warfare. Quite different, and they should be treated unconventionally.

In which case the US consciously places itself on the sidelines of legality as it signed on it when it created the UN. No easy way out. Smile

But of course, who cares about the UN?

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:57 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
The end of the shame and embarrassment of Gitmo can't come soon enough. It has disgraced this nation, RJ, and flies in the face of everything the U.S. has come to stand for over 200-plus years.

I do not know what I can say to restore your faith in this country, maybe the fact that we are still alive and not covered with nuclear ash may help your anguish. Words will get you one thing when you use them against the wrong people. That is dead. Many have found out the hard way, let us hope we do not again.

Charles79 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:01 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 30):
I would like to ask, where were these people captured? was it on the streets of New York, or London? I think if my memory serves me, they were captured while fighting against our troops with weapons in their hands and some by intelligence operations. Imagine that, why these poor innocent guys, why don't we let them claim asylum and come live near all you bleeding hearts. would any of you guys like to sponsor them? Maybe we can let them claim unemployment benefits, give them different job training than they were taught. I have never heard such bull in my life, and it is sickening. Just appoint me warden down there for a week, the place would be empty, problem solved, never to return.

I'm sorry but why the uncalled for attack? Did I call them innocent? Did I ask for unemployment benefits? Where the heck all this BS you are talking about comes from?

All I did was suggest that we give them the trials they are due and lock them up. I mean, if we are holding them for this long then we must have a mountain of evidence, shouldn't you say?

And please, before you make these type of attacks putting words on one's mouth do yourself a favor and think before you post. It only makes you look foolish.

StuckInCA · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:01 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 30):
I think if my memory serves me, they were captured while fighting against our troops with weapons in their hands and some by intelligence operations.

"By intelligence operations" is a LOT different than "with weapons in their hands" and in some (or many) cases it was by intelligence only. Our intelligence operations weren't showing themselves to be too reliable in 2003, were they? What about the Al-Jazeera journalist held there for 6 years? The military claimed he was a courier for a "militant Muslim organization."

Reprieve, the British human rights group that represents 35 Guantanamo prisoners including al-Haj, said Pakistani forces apparently seized al-Haj at the behest of the U.S. authorities who suspected he had interviewed Osama bin Laden.

But that "supposed intelligence" turned out to be false, Reprieve said in a news release.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/02/8663

DocLightning · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:05 am

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):

And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent what happens to them then? They can easily plead political asylum if they come from any one of a number of countries in which they can claim they face death if returned to. Nice way to set them up right here at home!

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):

Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble, just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked.

If they're INNOCENT then I suppose we don't have to worry about that, do we?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):

No, they should have had their day in court long ago and would have except so many liberals got all wound up about using military tribunals. But now that they are in charge what are they going to do?

Oh no. Don't blame this one on Liberals. Don't even try, amigo. It's a lie and you know it.

Proof: Who was the President on 9/11 and every single day since? Who has been in charge of Congress on 9/11 and every day up until 2 years ago?

Answer: Not liberals.

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:09 am

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 35):
In which case the US consciously places itself on the sidelines of legality as it signed on it when it created the UN. No easy way out.

But of course, who cares about the UN?

I think we can say those poor guys in Cuba do not care a bit about the UN. they follow their own rules, which involve terrorism and killing. You do have to admire their tactics, so humane compared to us big bad Americans, who do illegal things. Bad, guys we are. Sad

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:13 am

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 37):
And please, before you make these type of attacks putting words on one's mouth do yourself a favor and think before you post. It only makes you look foolish.

One could say, it is a matter of perception, does one look foolish defending the rights of terrorists? or does one look foolish defending his country and it's government.

Falcon84 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:13 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 36):
I do not know what I can say to restore your faith in this country,

Just say "January 20th, 2009". That will restore a lot of faith, simply because the days of this embarrassment of a President of ours will be gone, and we can start anew under President Obama.

Charles79 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:18 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 41):
One could say, it is a matter of perception, does one look foolish defending the rights of terrorists? or does one look foolish defending his country and it's government.

One looks foolish when attacking for no other reason than bitterness. A, I did not defend the rights of terrorists, I called for my government to do what's right. B, I served my country as a military officer for 4 years, following on the footsteps of my father and grandfather, so don't even try to lecture me about defending my country.

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:26 am

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 38):
"By intelligence operations" is a LOT different than "with weapons in their hands" and in some (or many) cases it was by intelligence only. Our intelligence operations weren't showing themselves to be too reliable in 2003, were they? What about the Al-Jazeera journalist held there for 6 years? The military claimed he was a courier for a "militant Muslim organization

Inform me again, where do you get you inside information about terrorists and their organization? Was it Great Britain, the CIA? Al-Jazeera, man now their word, you can take to the bank. anything out of Great Britain, you might be a little leery of also. I do not know about you, but I could give a dam about anyone held in Cuba and their so called rights. There are always innocents that suffer, I do not think we should whip ourselves too much about the inmates in Cuba. Watch the next film about suicide bombers, I bet they are just distrought about their victims rights. At least we deal with grownups, catch my drift. Sad

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:27 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42):
Just say "January 20th, 2009". That will restore a lot of faith, simply because the days of this embarrassment of a President of ours will be gone, and we can start anew under President Obama.

On that we can agree.

StuckInCA · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:28 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 44):
catch my drift.

No, not really.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 44):
I could give a dam about anyone held in Cuba and their so called rights

I do. If they are only there on faulty intelligence, haven't been charged, and are being tortured. That's not what the US is about. At least, it's not what we used to be about.

You may not care, but you should.

WunalaYann · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:31 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 44):
There are always innocents that suffer, I do not think we should whip ourselves too much about the inmates in Cuba.

In doing so you actually give fodder to the real fanatics who want nothing more than to make terrorists look like martyrs of the big, bad West. Very counter-productive.

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:38 am

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 43):
One looks foolish when attacking for no other reason than bitterness. A, I did not defend the rights of terrorists, I called for my government to do what's right. B, I served my country as a military officer for 4 years, following on the footsteps of my father and grandfather, so don't even try to lecture me about defending my country.

Well as one veteran to another, I thank you for your service and your family, I had four brothers, we all served.(5) Bitterness, I do not know what that means, you will have to ask the folks who lost family on 9/11, or in Iraq, or Afghanistan, Lebanon. Maybe even in Viet Nam, Korea, World War 1 and 2. I am only defending my country again. Words disappear, the work of these manaics does not.

WarRI1 · Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:46 am

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 46):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 44):
catch my drift.

No, not really.

I am trying to stay with the forum rules, how about the innocent victims like children, women, anybody in the way of a bomb. I like the tactic of one bomb and then the second to catch the fleeing people. You have to love it, what fine folks they are. So deserving of our concerns about their rights. Catch my drift now?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net