The sheer stupidity of closing Gitmo

[Bob98SR5]

I was watching the news yesterday, and they said somebody (don't remember who-congressman maybe?) suggested reopening Alcatraz and moving all the Gitmo prisoners there. Nancy Peloski shot down the idea quickly since she didn't want the suspected terrorist held in her district.

What about the rest of us Americans? Some of us don't want them in our districts either.

That's typical liberal double speak right there. "Oh no, we need to shut down Gitmo, but don't put the prisoners in our town!" Seriously, that would be fitting justice in my book to house the worst of the worst in the SF Bay area including Berkeley. Maybe put one in the care of those bizatches from Code Pink.

[Bob98SR5]

Now if these truly are former Gitmo prisoners, this is what happens when we lose our resolve, cave into political pressure from our so-called Saudi allies, and release Gitmo prisoners. These guys want to kill you now that they are out. For all of you who want to allow our so-called justice system to "fairly" try these guys in court, remember, our judicial system is a f'g joke. I'm sure you all can come up with an egregious example of how our judicial system fails us.

Enjoy your new credibility in the world, folks. Here's some of the guys who want to bring that to you:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ef_1233072449

[scottiac]

Perhaps, just for thought, it isn't Gitmo the place that became the problem, but Gitmo the practice. It's location wasn't a problem for anyone. The questionable decisions on due process as defined by any publicly known American standard was the problem.

Now I don't research things closely, so y'all may call me an idiot (wouldn't be the first time), but the Gitmo "guests" didn't get military or civilian or international legal rights. At least pick ONE to adhere to.

If you make an exception to due process for accused (keyword there) terrorists, then shouldn't we make the exceptions for accused murderers, child molesters, etc, etc? Where does the line get drawn? If you don't like the "f'd up" civilian due process, at least adhere to military due process. Or hell, create one especially for "amorphous enemies of the state that we don't recognize as being in a state of war", but make it a *process*, and one that we can be proud of and retain our identify as Americans.

To clarify, I don't think Gitmo needed to be closed because it was an off-shore prison, but because the practices there caused it to become a government-level embarrassment to the USA. For my money, all prisons should be built on an island with 300 miles of open water around them.

I don't think the Gitmo prisoners should be released, they should be tried. If they are found not guilty, by whatever reasonable standard, they must be released. If not, then lock 'em up in knowing that they've had reasonable due practice.

But keeping them as guests for six plus years without resolution doesn't meet my definition of reasonable due process.

[fustercluck]

Scottiac, I understand the concern, but it presumes a few things. Firstly, it bestows on foreign combatants constitutional protection. I am not aware of any provision for such consideration in the constitution nor has there been an historic precedent establishing such. The murderers and rapist you mention have constitutional rights guaranteed by virtue of their birthright were they citizens of the US or caught in the U.S. The questionableness (I think I made that word up...) comes from political opposition applying a new standard to war practices for political gain by turning ignorant public opinion agaist the Bush admin.

In this case, even the Geveva Convention standards do not apply since these folks were not part of a State military force in uniform. They have no protection as a result. So there can be no legal expectation of such.

The only other protection possible is that of moral human rights. These folks were caught in the act of providing physical and/or material support of terroristic activities. Being that terrorism is mainly focused on the murder and/or maiming of the innocent for socio-political gain, it is therefore immoral and deserves no presumption of more than basic human rights; food, shelter, clothing.

Diligent legal processes, presumption of innocence, due process of law are luxuries we bestow on folks found under constitutional protection. Watch what they did to Daniel Pearl and tell me they have not devolved out of humanity. Now after having watched that, imagine that in Daniel's place is your child innocent and helpless. Still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt? This is not fantasy. They have hissed their desire to do that to us and our children and demonstrated the will and ability to do it.

Examine for a moment what the Roosevelt admin. did to the German spies found on our soil during WWII. They were here for sabotage and information; not to slit our chilren's throats on camera to broadcast proudly later...their hands still sticky with coagulating blood.

What did Lincoln do to those who even spoke about secessesion from the union during the civil war? What was his policy relative to habeas corpus? (Not that it really applies here)?

I think Pres Bush has been slandered and villified so that the weak willed and weak minded would lose their resolve to support him and the political oppostiton could benefit while the nation's interests and security hangs in the balance. You watch, Obama will move them to satisfy the seathing and frothy Left, but if he understands the nature of those prisoners and has self interest foremost, he will change nothing but geography.

The Left was willing to trade our interests, our lives, our security for political power. I defecate in their general direction.

[slomatt]

"These folks were caught in the act of providing physical and/or material support of terroristic activities."

That's the core of the issue right there, the statement above assumes that every single detainee is guilty. If you look into how and where some (not all) of the detainees were picked up it is obvious that some of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many were turned in by bounty hunters or members of warring tribes who were rewarded for each "terrorist" they could find. Our own government is very aware of this fact, of the original 775 detainees they only plan to try about 70 of them and to eventually let the rest go (there are about 270 left in Gitmo). The problem is that there is nowhere to send them after they are released.

I agree with scottiac that there has to be a process to deal with the detainees so we can determine which are dangerous and deal with them as needed. The remaining innocents should be released as soon as is reasonably possible.

- Matt

[fustercluck]

Which of the 270 left were turned in for bounty?

[DHC6twinotter]

I defecate in their general direction.

Sounds like something from Monty Python.

I think Pres Bush has been slandered and villified so that the weak willed and weak minded would lose their resolve to support him and the political oppostiton could benefit while the nation's interests and security hangs in the balance. You watch, Obama will move them to satisfy the seathing and frothy Left, but if he understands the nature of those prisoners and has self interest foremost, he will change nothing but geography.

Totally Agree!

[slomatt]

Which of the 270 left were turned in for bounty?

I'm not sure what you're asking here, are you looking for individual names? As far as I'm aware specifics on each detainee are not available to the general public, so there is no way to know. What we do know is that of the ~270 detainees at Gitmo the government has no plans to try ~200 for any kind of crime and those 200 people will be released at some point. The remaining ~70 will be tried and dealt with as necessary.

- Matt

[Bob98SR5]

Jeez, I guess I am not up on the latest news. In July 08, the Supreme Court voted to grant these scumbags constitional rights:

In a sweeping decision that will have myriad consequences-- foreseen and unforeseen --the Supreme Court found that the right of habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution applies to terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In a controversial 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy that is already being reported as a major loss for the Administration’s detainee policy, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus; that the Detainee Treatment Act’s (DTA) procedures for reviewing their statuses was not an adequate and effective substitute for the habeas writ; and that section 7 of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) is an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. In other words, the Constitution applies to unlawful enemy combatants at Gitmo, and the one-time Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT’s) didn’t cut it.
According to the majority opinion, the writ may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion. None of the cases cited by either side in this dispute, regarding the writ’s geographic scope at common law, was dispositive.

Source: http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed061308a.cfm

So yes, this is exactly what I fear the most: terrorist a-holes now have an opportunity to use our f'g joke of a judicial system against us. Who wins in court these days? Right. The one with the most money, fame, the right lawyer, the right skin color, the most connected, etc. Interesting point here: the article points out one interesting scenario. Those folks who have no country to go to *could* petition for asylum here in the US. Welcome to your next Jihadist neighbor! From the article:

"Although it is too early to tell, other unintended consequences of this decision might include detainees petitioning the government for asylum once ordered released by a federal judge (because no country wants them), and/or suing the United States for millions of dollars for “unlawful imprisonment.”

Isn't that wonderful. I hope they pick a nice progressive city like Berkeley.

[oly884]

Bob, it's only a matter of time before people become fed up with how things are run before we take matters into our own hands.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Call me crazy, but people are getting pretty sick and tired of the government running over our rights, endangering OUR lives, and not listening to we the people. How much longer do you think people will be willing to hand over their rights?