White House Announces Resumption of Military Tribunals at Guantanamo

[PapaG]

Keeping Gitmo open and resuming military tribunals.

I applaud this decision by President Obama, and only wish he had come to this understanding at an earlier point of his presidency.

President Obama announced Monday that military trials will resume for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, saying the tribunals are an "important tool in combating international terrorists."

The president, who issued an executive order outlining the changes Monday afternoon, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban against bringing new charges against terror suspects in the military commissions.

Obama said in a statement that the decision was part of a plan to "broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice."

Obama vowed when he took office to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, but officials have recently acknowledged that closure is not likely because of questions about where terror suspects would be held.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/07/obama-resume-military-trials-guantanamo-source-says/

 

[bluefrog]

Keeping Gitmo open and resuming military tribunals.

I applaud this decision by President Obama, and only wish he had come to this understanding at an earlier point of his presidency.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/07/obama-resume-military-trials-guantanamo-source-says/

Good. These people have been in political limbo for entirely too long

 

[MrJayremmie]

Stupid.

 

[Denny Crane]

Stupid.

What do you think should be done with them, and are they ordinary criminals or something else?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

What do you think should be done with them, and are they ordinary criminals or something else?

They're just normal people. No crazy jihadi super powers or anything. Send 'em to US maximum security prisons for life. What are they going to do, summon a ghoul to bust them out and then suicide bomb a nearby suburb?

The ONLY reason we need a prison outside of the US is so we can do whatever we want to these people. I don't understand why we have to torture them when it can be done naturally through Bubba in the shower room.

 

[Ed O]

They're just normal people. No crazy jihadi super powers or anything. Send 'em to US maximum security prisons for life. What are they going to do, summon a ghoul to bust them out and then suicide bomb a nearby suburb?

The ONLY reason we need a prison outside of the US is so we can do whatever we want to these people. I don't understand why we have to torture them when it can be done naturally through Bubba in the shower room.

I don't follow your line of reasoning at all.

The procedures between military tribunals and domestic criminal courts are markedly different. I'm certainly no expert on either, but I know that criminal trials can often result in appeals and involve steps that aren't necessary in military tribunals.

There are a LOT of reasons to keep someone out of the criminal court system that have nothing to do with whatever you think is done to them in Cuba.

Ed O.

 

[jlprk]

How was this handled in all previous wars? You know, the ones in which the body count wasn't kept secret by cowards who are hiding what they are doing?

If a war is going to be eternal, it shouldn't be fought.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I don't follow your line of reasoning at all.

The procedures between military tribunals and domestic criminal courts are markedly different. I'm certainly no expert on either, but I know that criminal trials can often result in appeals and involve steps that aren't necessary in military tribunals.

There are a LOT of reasons to keep someone out of the criminal court system that have nothing to do with whatever you think is done to them in Cuba.

Does that mean domestic courts are unfit to judge on cases of suspected terrorism?

Can you name some of the reasons to keep suspected terrorists out of the domestic court system?

 

[Denny Crane]

Does that mean domestic courts are unfit to judge on cases of suspected terrorism?

Can you name some of the reasons to keep suspected terrorists out of the domestic court system?

Actually, the lone fact that the military aren't domestic police is one reason. Another is they're not read their Miranda warning - enough to summarily dismiss the case against them. They're not arrested in any sense, nor are they detained within our borders where our laws apply.

That's the tip of that iceberg.

Guys captured on the battlefield are held in POW camps. They're lucky to get even a military tribunal.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Actually, the lone fact that the military aren't domestic police is one reason. Another is they're not read their Miranda warning - enough to summarily dismiss the case against them. They're not arrested in any sense, nor are they detained within our borders where our laws apply.

That's the tip of that iceberg.

Guys captured on the battlefield are held in POW camps. They're lucky to get even a military tribunal.

Hmmm. Those seem like pretty good reasons.

 

[maxiep]

These aren't people that are going back to their families or to live a life in peace. These are true believers who have been shown will return to a life of terrorism. See the shitty part of living for the jihad is that you may have to sacrifice your freedom for the rest of your natural life. Sucks to be them. They'd better hope they're right about Paradise.

 

[jlprk]

Yeah a 15-year-old who was captured after a battle. He cries when interviewed, after the years of torture and beatings. He's now 20. What an irretrievable true believer.

Q: How was this handled in previous wars?

A: They were released. Everyone could see that there is no sin in fighting for your country against foreign invaders.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yeah a 15-year-old who was captured after a battle. He cries when interviewed, after the years of torture and beatings. He's now 20. What an irretrievable true believer.

Q: How was this handled in previous wars?

A: They were released. Everyone could see that there is no sin in fighting for your country against foreign invaders.

Uh, no. Those in uniform might have been released after the cessation of hostilities, if they weren't prisoners of those who didn't care about the rules of land warfare (see the Japanese, Nazis, Soviets, etc...that's just in WWII. Add Red Chinese and North Koreans from the Korean War, the Viet Cong w/both us and the French, the Algerians in the 1950's, etc...).

Those not in uniform were hung or shot, and have been throughout history. There's a price to pay for going into battle without state sponsorship or a way to identify yourself as a "legal" target.

 

[maxiep]

Uh, no. Those in uniform might have been released after the cessation of hostilities, if they weren't prisoners of those who didn't care about the rules of land warfare (see the Japanese, Nazis, Soviets, etc...that's just in WWII. Add Red Chinese and North Koreans from the Korean War, the Viet Cong w/both us and the French, the Algerians in the 1950's, etc...).

Those not in uniform were hung or shot, and have been throughout history. There's a price to pay for going into battle without state sponsorship or a way to identify yourself as a "legal" target.

This. How these people are covered under the Geneva Convention I can't understand. They hide behind women and children and then ask to be treated like soldiers.

 

[MrJayremmie]

These aren't people that are going back to their families or to live a life in peace. These are true believers who have been shown will return to a life of terrorism. See the shitty part of living for the jihad is that you may have to sacrifice your freedom for the rest of your natural life. Sucks to be them. They'd better hope they're right about Paradise.

Are you talking about the people held at Gitmo?

Because there have been releases. There have been times where they decided that they had no reason for holding them and released them in the outside world after years of being held. I don't think there is any solid proof to say that everyone who has been at Gitmo and then has been let go has gone back to a life of terrorism. Actually, there may be proof to the contrary, with articles about people who DID go back to their families (I think I saw a story on BBC or something once).

While a majority are most likely Jihadists unless our government is super incompetent (can't rule that out), I think your comment is far to general and incorrect in that sense.

 

[maxiep]

Are you talking about the people held at Gitmo?

Because there have been releases. There have been times where they decided that they had no reason for holding them and released them in the outside world after years of being held. I don't think there is any solid proof to say that everyone who has been at Gitmo and then has been let go has gone back to a life of terrorism. Actually, there may be proof to the contrary, with articles about people who DID go back to their families (I think I saw a story on BBC or something once).

While a majority are most likely Jihadists unless our government is super incompetent (can't rule that out), I think your comment is far to general and incorrect in that sense.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-usa-guantanamo-idUSTRE50C5JX20090113

 

[MrJayremmie]

Sure, 61 did. Out of how many? Some of them WOULD go and TRY to live a normal life in their country if they were released. Some shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[maxiep]

Sure, 61 did. Out of how many? Some of them WOULD go and TRY to live a normal life in their country if they were released. Some shouldn't be there in the first place.

You're changing the argument. I understand why you're trying to do so. Remember, these are only the people they deemed releasable; these were the Boy Scouts of Gitmo or the people that were actually there by mistake. Now, what happens when they actually release the real maggots? The number goes up a lot higher from 61 and the percentage of those released who go back to jihad increases dramatically.

Let me put it another way: If Barack Obama--a strident critic of Gitmo when he was an Illinois State Senator and one of its biggest opponent in the US Senate; who spoke specifically on closing the prison as part of his campaign platform for President (one of the few specifics in that campaign)--now wants to turn his back on a decade of opposition and keep it open, what has he learned since taking office? For him to go back on such a big and specific pledge, there has to be information that is conclusive that these people NEED to continue to be contained outside of the United States.

Frankly, when I heard he was doing a 180, my first reaction was fear. If President Obama can be talked into this position, and if AG Holder isn't resigning over it, they must have learned something scary.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Frankly, when I heard he was doing a 180, my first reaction was fear. If President Obama can be talked into this position, and if AG Holder isn't resigning over it, they must have learned something scary.

IMO it's about trying to help his chances at getting re-elected.

 

[maxiep]

IMO it's about trying to help his chances at getting re-elected.

Perhaps, but there's only so much you can do to piss off your base before they abandon you.

 

[MrJayremmie]

You're changing the argument. I understand why you're trying to do so.

No. Both my posts were talking about how your generalization was wrong. You linked an article saying 61 are back on the battlefield.

Out of how many? What about the ones who didn't go? Not everybody in there would go back to a life of Jihad, some may not have ever done so. There have been articles on people wrongfully detained in there and they did not go back.

I understand why you would link that article, because it supports your position. But again, you are looking at this through only one point of view, the same PoV you are looking at every other political matter on this board.

 

[PapaG]

No. Both my posts were talking about how your generalization was wrong. You linked an article saying 61 are back on the battlefield.

Out of how many? What about the ones who didn't go? Not everybody in there would go back to a life of Jihad, some may not have ever done so. There have been articles on people wrongfully detained in there and they did not go back.

I understand why you would link that article, because it supports your position. But again, you are looking at this through only one point of view, the same PoV you are looking at every other political matter on this board.

You take internet posting way too seriously.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Perhaps, but there's only so much you can do to piss off your base before they abandon you.

I think you misunderstand the left. These are people who believed beyond all reasonable evidence that Obama wasn't just another politician, that he was going to shake things up somehow. The left will still vote for Obama in 2012, no matter what happens. Obama is targeting on-the-fencers with this move, especially since the 2012 elections will probably be in the midst of continued turmoil in the developing world.

 

[maxiep]

No. Both my posts were talking about how your generalization was wrong. You linked an article saying 61 are back on the battlefield.

Out of how many? What about the ones who didn't go? Not everybody in there would go back to a life of Jihad, some may not have ever done so. There have been articles on people wrongfully detained in there and they did not go back.

I understand why you would link that article, because it supports your position. But again, you are looking at this through only one point of view, the same PoV you are looking at every other political matter on this board.

It was Reuters and it was a news story. If anything, Reuters has a left-leaning bias. I don't see how you can deny that we would be substantially worse off by releasing these people. As for your previous question, the number that have been released is roughly 200 prisoners, so we're talking pretty much one in three go back to jihad. And like I said before, those are the choirboys. Do we have much doubt what will happen when we release the real crazies?

 

[maxiep]

I think you misunderstand the left. These are people who believed beyond all reasonable evidence that Obama wasn't just another politician, that he was going to shake things up somehow. The left will still vote for Obama in 2012, no matter what happens. Obama is targeting on-the-fencers with this move, especially since the 2012 elections will probably be in the midst of continued turmoil in the developing world.

You're right; I clearly don't understand the left. How someone could put so much belief in a politician rather than themselves. I guess it's true what they say: Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall into line.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

You're right; I clearly don't understand the left. How someone could put so much belief in a politician rather than themselves. I guess it's true what they say: Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall into line.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but yeah. Pretty much.

My dad always said: Republicans are evil, Democrats are stupid. Same sentiment, I think.

 

[maxiep]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but yeah. Pretty much.

My dad always said: Republicans are evil, Democrats are stupid. Same sentiment, I think.

No sarcasm. I just don't get it. My brother and sister both are really smart and credentialed people (certainly much smarter than I), and to them Obama is some kind of Messiah. They turn off their brains when they talk about him and fawn over him like followers of Jim Jones. Their friends are the same. It's really weird.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

No sarcasm. I just don't get it. My brother and sister both are really smart and credentialed people (certainly much smarter than I), and to them Obama is some kind of Messiah. They turn off their brains when they talk about him and fawn over him like followers of Jim Jones. Their friends are the same. It's really weird.

I don't get it either. Most of my friends are hardcore Obama supporters. We grew up together raging at the Bush administration and its supporters. Now, I see much of the same shit going on in the Obama administration, and they turn a blind eye consistently. They say much of the same things that the Bush apologists did. They use the same kinds of arguments that made us so mad when we were young. It's hard for me to talk politics with them because they refuse to believe that their guy is just another asshole politician.

In my experience, growing up with Bush bittered us to politics to such an extent, Obama was seen as more than a change of president, but a complete change of system. A system that we saw as broke and in need of replacement. It was an emotional investment. When it turned out that that wasn't the case so quickly, many of my friends refused to believe that it was business as usual. They blamed everyone but the administration.

I used the past tense here but I've since stopped talking with them about politics because it's so goddamn frustrating.

 

[maxiep]

I don't get it either. Most of my friends are hardcore Obama supporters. We grew up together raging at the Bush administration and its supporters. Now, I see much of the same shit going on in the Obama administration, and they turn a blind eye consistently. They say much of the same things that the Bush apologists did. They use the same kinds of arguments that made us so mad when we were young. It's hard for me to talk politics with them because they refuse to believe that their guy is just another asshole politician.

In my experience, growing up with Bush bittered us to politics to such an extent, Obama was seen as more than a change of president, but a complete change of system. A system that we saw as broke and in need of replacement. It was an emotional investment. When it turned out that that wasn't the case so quickly, many of my friends refused to believe that it was business as usual. They blamed everyone but the administration.

I used the past tense here but I've since stopped talking with them about politics because it's so goddamn frustrating.

Good stuff. I totally understand. Repped.