Right now down at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, we are holding several Islamic terrorists prisoners. These scumbags are the worst of the worst: captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as well as other high-value targets and enemies of the state.

Hopefully there are a few Democrat thrown in as well.

These people are not soldiers in any sort of organized Army. They are simply enemy combatants...people without a country who took up arms against the United States and tried to kill Americans. So here's where the controversy comes in....what to do with them?

Legally, we can do anything we want. Since they don't even come close to meeting the definition of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. It would even be well within our rights to line them up and shoot them. But, we're the United States, and we don't do that sort of thing. We treat people humanely. So, with that in mind, the accommodations down at Club Gitmo are quite deluxe. The best thing that ever happened to these worthless Islamic terrorist dirt bags is that they were captured by us. Free room and board in a tropical climate...plus daily prayer service....what else is there?

So now the Bush Administration wants to put these terrorists on trial...give them military tribunals. The U.S. Supreme Court stepped in awhile back, saying the administration had to change their plans a bit. So this leads us to the United States Senate. The Bush people want to change how we interpret the Geneva Conventions, to keep CIA interrogators from being tried as war criminals.

But Senators John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham, both Republicans, say no. They say that would set a dangerous precedent because other countries would try to do it. Were other countries attacked on 9/11? I think not. Talk about irony...who would've thought Al-Qaeda would've found such allies in the Senate?

What's next? Running all the terrorists at Gitmo through our own court system? It could be.


By: Boortz

Ok, first if you're going to detain someone or imprison them then you'd better charge them with something. I care about the system that we've set up; checks and balances, due process... and I don't like to see it get subverted just because some president believes that he's above the law.

I know that someone will say that presidents in the past have done it all the time, but that doesn't make it legit.

Legally, we can do anything we want. Since they don't even come close to meeting the definition of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.
Yea, they do. They fill this criteria right here:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

They were armed, they were forces of the Al Queda who was party to the conflict. Thats about as black and white as you can get.

What's next? Running all the terrorists at Gitmo through our own court system? It could be.
Do you think that our court system is not fair? You're leaning in that direction. Why would it be a bad thing to charge them in our courts? You are basing your decisions off your emotions, not from reason. You would like to see them suffer more, as most of the US would - but that is not humanitarian and luckly the judges in our country have learned to think logically and make decisions based on facts rather than on their emotions.

Believe me, if I was on that plane I would gladly tear those bastards limb from limb - but I don't want our legal system subverted because of them. I don't want our nation regressing because of these terrorists and because our emotions clouded our reason.

They were armed, they were forces of the Al Queda who was party to the conflict. Thats about as black and white as you can get.
Al Queda isn't a political party - it's an organization. Being a "party" to the conflict doesn't mean anything based solely on the fact that they're clandestine killers. Their whole goal is to blend in and use people as shields. In all honesty, they could give a shit about the Geneva Conventions, and let's face it - those conventions were set up to protect the uniformed soldiers of a nation, not terrorists.

What we have going on here is a game of pick up sticks. The liberals have no problem letting the insurgents play using their hands, but they're insistent that we play using our butt cheeks. According to you, all someone has to do is change the rules a bit, and voila’ – our military and our politics are as useful as an asshole on an elbow. These people are not American citizens, they have NO right to due process, and I firmly believe the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply.

A few days ago I heard a fellow by the name of Simpson speaking. He has the title of Deputy Assistant Attorney For Detainee Affairs.
He said that now the detainees are receiving good care including medical and dental.
When asked about detainees throwing human feces on guards and assaulting guards he said yes, on a weekly basis.

Al Queda isn't a political party - it's an organization. Being a "party" to the conflict doesn't mean anything based solely on the fact that they're clandestine killers.
I'm not trying to defend them here, but the issue is not whether they are a political party or not, just that they are a party. The terrorists may not care about the convention, but we are bound by it.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

What we have going on here is a game of pick up sticks. The liberals have no problem letting the insurgents play using their hands, but they're insistent that we play using our butt cheeks.
If a terrorist mutilates one of our soldiers and drags him around the streets, does that make it alright for us to do it? Should we compromise our values simply because they have none?

These people are not American citizens, they have NO right to due process, and I firmly believe the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply.
What would you label them as? Prisoners of war, meaning that they are protected by the Geneva Convention, or as criminal immigrants who should be tried in court with due process?


Here is the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like due process should be granted to any person in that definition, regardless of if they are a US citizen.



Consider this; you are asking that we break our own rules and backtrack upon our values because of these terrorists.

wait, I though the men at gitmo were just randomy grabbed off the streets of kabul? you mean they are terrorists?

Here is the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
================================================== ====

To me, the Fifth Amendment, like the Constitution itself, was for the governing and protection of citizens of the United States of America-not its enemies.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like due process should be granted to any person in that definition, regardless of if they are a US citizen.
Call me silly, but I'd assume that the US Constitution is for the protection of US citizens, and logically speaking, those protections can't extend to every part of the globe. They're designed protect foreign nationals visiting our nation legally, but outside of that, they should be considered null and void. They sure as shit won't protect my ass in China if I'm accused of murder there, so why should they be used to protect some Muslim terrorist ::ahem...detainee:: half way around the world?

thats what I am saying prae, if they are to be granted protection under our constitution then they should have to abide by it, so every one of them is guilty of treason and should be executed. you cant have your cake and eat it too.

Article 3 section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What would you label them as? Prisoners of war, meaning that they are protected by the Geneva Convention, or as criminal immigrants who should be tried in court with due process?
==========================================

Mad dog killers. A killer that would cut off the head of everyone that you hold dear and love. Killers that hate you because you are you. Will kill their own people to reach out for you. Each one acting independently, as his own agent, his every thought- every breath he takes, is to rid the world of all he considers infidels.

This is a fight we are not accustomed to. Conventional methods will not work. Any show of compassion will be interpreted as weakness. Weakness to be used against us.

We commerate our dead by placing flowers at the death site, crying and giving speeches. These people sharpen their knives and seek revenge for their dead.

Where are our politicians? Giving political speeches and squabbling over a damn abc movie. Not ONE has looked at the cameras, shook his fist and told the terrorist we are coming for them. That we will kill every one of the bastards that took American lives. Where is the guts? Where is the anger?
Passive bastards!

"Terrorist Rights", I say we should put hot pokes to their feet until they tell us everything we need to know to protect American lives. You show weakness and they will spit in your face and cut your friggin head off.

You try to handle this situation like conventional warfare and you will lose everything that you hold dear.
Screw what the world thinks. Where will the world be when these bastards are on your street killing your loved ones? Not here helping us. They will be fighting in their own neighborhoods for their own lives.

I hope Americans are prepared to stand in their doorway(yes you) and kill to protect themselves, it will come to that if they are not stopped dead in their tracks.
They will not stop on their own, it will continue, it is not going to go away. You will not wake up one morning and it is over.

You say this can not happen in America, just wait and see.

Perhaps the US govt. should return them to Afghanistan. Give them to the women they so horribly mistreated and let the women mete out justice.

Well Dan, I'm usually not this undiplomatic, but that was a load of alarmist crap. The people who commit the barabaric acts you speak of are extremely rare, yet you speak of us having to defend our streets and homes from a vast horde of bloodthirsty killers. Nonsense. There are a few individuals who probably fit your description pretty well, but they are rare even among terrorists. They are also very likely psychotic IMO.

Just out of curiosity, how does our treatment of prisoners fit in with your "get them before they get us" philosophy? What should we do with our prisoners?

[FONT=Helv][SIZE=2]thats what I am saying prae, if they are to be granted protection under our constitution then they should have to abide by it, so every one of them is guilty of treason and should be executed. you cant have your cake and eat it too.

They could only be guilty of treason against the US if they were US citizens.

Well Dan, I'm usually not this undiplomatic, but that was a load of alarmist crap. The people who commit the barabaric acts you speak of are extremely rare, yet you speak of us having to defend our streets and homes from a vast horde of bloodthirsty killers. Nonsense. There are a few individuals who probably fit your description pretty well, but they are rare even among terrorists. They are also very likely psychotic IMO.

Just out of curiosity, how does our treatment of prisoners fit in with your "get them before they get us" philosophy? What should we do with our prisoners?

Not so alarmist as you might want to believe. Europe will probably experience the situation before the U.S., and at least here, a large percentage of the populace is armed.

What to do with the ones already captured? Why not try out some of these non lethal (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004847857) toys that have been in the news lately? Might even be more fun than shooting gang-bangers in LA!

They could only be guilty of treason against the US if they were US citizens.

yet they should be granted protections under the constitution? why should they get the benefits but not have the responsiblity? we dont even get that.

This is a fight we are not accustomed to. Conventional methods will not work. Any show of compassion will be interpreted as weakness. Weakness to be used against us.

We commerate our dead by placing flowers at the death site, crying and giving speeches. These people sharpen their knives and seek revenge for their dead.

Dan. This is a fight we are accustomed to. Terrorism has been around for ages. There is very little one can do to prevent terrorism and bombings. You cannot convince me that you know that they don't morn their dead and instead only seek revenge.

Where are our politicians? Giving political speeches and squabbling over a damn abc movie. Not ONE has looked at the cameras, shook his fist and told the terrorist we are coming for them. That we will kill every one of the bastards that took American lives. Where is the guts? Where is the anger?
Passive bastards!
We are not a nation of words, we never have been.

"Terrorist Rights", I say we should put hot pokes to their feet until they tell us everything we need to know to protect American lives. You show weakness and they will spit in your face and cut your friggin head off.
They are called human rights, and the right to a fair fucking trial. I will not live in a country run by a fucking mob mentality where people base their decisions on their emotions. If it were up to you, all the detainees would be dead, along with the innocent ones there as well - or did you forget that they are not all guilty?

[FONT=Helv][SIZE=2]thats what I am saying prae, if they are to be granted protection under our constitution then they should have to abide by it, so every one of them is guilty of treason and should be executed. you cant have your cake and eat it too. Great, great point.

yet they should be granted protections under the constitution? why should they get the benefits but not have the responsiblity? we dont even get that.

It is a constitution to run OUR country. It is to guide us and to restrain us from acting as uncivilized dogs.

My question earlier was to place them in a category - either as enemy combatants where they would be protected by the Geneva Convention, or as alien criminals where they would be tried under the respective courts here.
btw, due process applies to non-US citizens as well.

The Supreme Court just ruled that they were protected by the Geneva Convention and that our government fucked up bigtime. Now, if you don't trust the decision of our highest court then please continue to explain why we should detain them without a charge, and why we should torture them and why those should both be legal.

Trav - do you even think about what you are typing?

"In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor."

The 14th Amendment gives them protection under US juridiction. If they are not under US juridiction then they are POWS.
you cant have your cake and eat it too.
...

The 14th Amendment gives them protection under US juridiction. If they are not under US juridiction then they are POWS.
To crib a line from your camp - "only if we're at war", right? Show me where congress has declared war, and we'll talk. Until you can prove that, I guess they're not prisoners of war, are they? Besides, most of the detainees are being jailed and prosecuted by proxy. I think the onus should be on their shoulders to try, prosecute, and convict the men and women charged with acts of terrorism, not ours.

A wise man would keep in mind that war crimes are argued and settled on the international stage.

Legally, we can do anything we want....It would even be well within our rights to line them up and shoot them. ---- .... But, we're the United States, and we don't do that sort of thing. We treat people humanely. ______Neal Boortz

Oh brother.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mad dog killers. A killer that would cut off the head of everyone that you hold dear and love. Killers that hate you because you are you. Will kill their own people to reach out for you. Each one acting independently, as his own agent, his every thought- every breath he takes, is to rid the world of all he considers infidels.


Ok..........wait a minute.

Are you talking about Cheney, or Rumsfeld......or both of them together?

:thumbs:

We commerate our dead by placing flowers at the death site, crying and giving speeches. These people sharpen their knives and seek revenge for their dead.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I mean, we all know that the U.S. would never seek revenge by going out and dropping a few thousand bombs on anyone.

If these people are neither covered by the Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions then perhaps we need a new set of laws specifically addressing this brand of prisoners.

nah - more useful for your administration to keep them in a legislative vacuum. I doubt we'll that happen anytime soon.

Well Dan, I'm usually not this undiplomatic, but that was a load of alarmist crap. The people who commit the barabaric acts you speak of are extremely rare, yet you speak of us having to defend our streets and homes from a vast horde of bloodthirsty killers. Nonsense. There are a few individuals who probably fit your description pretty well, but they are rare even among terrorists. They are also very likely psychotic IMO.

Just out of curiosity, how does our treatment of prisoners fit in with your "get them before they get us" philosophy? What should we do with our prisoners?
================================================== ===

I really hope that I am wrong Vile, but I do not think that I am very far off base. One thing is for sure, time will most certainly tell.

As far as the prisoners are concerned. Since obviously most seem to disagree with what to do with them, why don't we take a few of them and publicize that they informed, fake films of them as great American buddies, then simply send them home with much fanfare. Then we can see how humanely they are treated by their comrads.

Dan. This is a fight we are accustomed to. Terrorism has been around for ages. There is very little one can do to prevent terrorism and bombings. You cannot convince me that you know that they don't morn their dead and instead only seek revenge.
=================================
O.K., so there is no need to try.


We are not a nation of words, we never have been.
=======================================
Not only words, but the back bone to back them up.


They are called human rights, and the right to a fair fucking trial. I will not live in a country run by a fucking mob mentality where people base their decisions on their emotions.
=========================
Better stay out of the Middle East then.

================================================== ===

I really hope that I am wrong Vile, but I do not think that I am very far off base. One thing is for sure, time will most certainly tell.

True enough Dan.


As far as the prisoners are concerned. Since obviously most seem to disagree with what to do with them, why don't we take a few of them and publicize that they informed, fake films of them as great American buddies, then simply send them home with much fanfare. Then we can see how humanely they are treated by their comrads.

I don't think we should use the terrorists, or the laws of their home countries as a model. Do you?

If these people are neither covered by the Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions then perhaps we need a new set of laws specifically addressing this brand of prisoners.
I'd be willing to concede that point. Fundamentally, (and this is the only problem I have with it) it seems unfair to me to detain people indefinitely without a trial. I think everyone should have that right (even if they wouldn't offer it to us, or much less, their own people).

But Senators John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham, both Republicans, say no. They say that would set a dangerous precedent because other countries would try to do it. Were other countries attacked on 9/11? I think not.

What does other countries being attacked on 9/11 have to do with whether or not they would use excuses to bypass the Geneva Convention to do nasty things to our troops?

Talk about irony...who would've thought Al-Qaeda would've found such allies in the Senate?


Well, they're trying to protect our troops from having the same thing done to them. They were all in the military and at least one of them was actually a POW.

Why do you hate our troops, GM? Why don't you want to protect them?

Right now down at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, we are holding several Islamic terrorists prisoners. These scumbags are the worst of the worst: captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as well as other high-value targets and enemies of the state.

No one knows for sure whether the Gitmo detainees are scumbags or not. No proof has been offered beyond the standard trust me - they're bad guys from the Bush administration.

As far as anyone knows, these are simply people picked up off the streets and never did a thing wrong in their lives. Or they could indeed be bad guys.

Additionally, keep in mind that Bush is a product of a the state of Texas which is infamous for dealing out the death penalty to what we find out later are innocent prisoners. He even laughs in their faces while on the way to the gallows ... witness Carla Faye Tucker.

So go ahead and trust them with unlimited executive powers but don't come crying when the day comes that you or one of your loved ones is the victim of imprisionment without charges, without representation and in general, dissappeared.

=========================
Better stay out of the Middle East then.
Exactly, that's one of the reasons I live in the US

I'd be willing to concede that point. Fundamentally, (and this is the only problem I have with it) it seems unfair to me to detain people indefinitely without a trial. I think everyone should have that right
Thank you Prae!

(even if they wouldn't offer it to us, or much less, their own people).I think we're in agreement that life over there sucks ass.

one of the stupidiest things I have heard in a long time is the belief that if we somehow treat the guys in gitmo well that our trops will be treated well by al qeada when they get captured. If you dont believe in holding them fine, but dont blow smoke and try and tell us how we treat alleged terrorists has any bearing on how our guys get treated when they get kidnapped from checkpoints in the middle of the night. An dplease, above all else, ddont point out what terrorists say their reasons for such things are, we all know they will try and play off of what our media says. Its like the media and the terrorists have some sort of wierd symbiotic relationship or somehting, each gives the other ammo to use against the US government

and prae, you know whats unfair? kidnappiong someone then cutting their head off in fron tof a camera then sending that tape to their family. What is even more twisted is the many people who get bent out of shap over Gitmo try and justify such acts as some sort of last ditch desperation move to combat imperialist america.

one of the stupidiest things I have heard in a long time is the belief that if we somehow treat the guys in gitmo well that our trops will be treated well by al qeada when they get captured.
You're right, I highly doubt that treating them better will mean that our troops are better treated (with regards to terrorists)

and prae, you know whats unfair? kidnappiong someone then cutting their head off in fron tof a camera then sending that tape to their family. You're right, it's not fair. It's not just and it's pretty much everything that we don't stand for. But just because they sunk to that level is no reason that we should sink to their level as well.

To crib a line from your camp - "only if we're at war", right? Show me where congress has declared war, and we'll talk. Until you can prove that, I guess they're not prisoners of war, are they? Besides, most of the detainees are being jailed and prosecuted by proxy. I think the onus should be on their shoulders to try, prosecute, and convict the men and women charged with acts of terrorism, not ours. Well then if we are not at war then Bush should be immediatly jailed for breaking the law. And if we are not at war then we have no right what-so-ever to be going into foreign countries and kidnapping their people. If we want them arrested we have to convince their government to arrest them and turn them over.