Comments on: Tortured logic on Gitmo Military Tribunals

By: RobW

RobW — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:27:50 +0000

Mike, the point of your original post was that the tribunals are fair and credible, and that we should stop our whining when we say they’re not working.

I agree that it looks like the tribunals have been pretty fair.

But if the Pentagon can ignore the tribunals, the tribunals aren’t credible. They don’t mean anything. No matter what the tribunals do, the Pentagon is apparently not bound by what they say. “The system” doesn’t work if the part in charge of deciding how long detainees are held can’t decide how long detainees are held.

Do you honestly believe that these courts mean anything if they can be entirely ignored?

We can argue about whether it’s safe to let this guy out, or whether it makes sense to wait for a “cessation of hostilities” that history tells us will never come. But if a military tribunal has as little say in sentencing as you or I do, you are absolutely wrong when you say that the tribunal system is working. If Hamdam spends more time in jail, it’s not.

By: gamecock

gamecock — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:56:29 +0000

By: dbecraft

dbecraft — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:54:44 +0000

You are the type that would welcome the terrorist into your household and then complain about them killing your wife and children.

Hey, but that’s okay, because you will be justified in that you did not kill another human being…! Geez, can’t you stupid people ever get educated - even by actions of others…

By: dbecraft

dbecraft — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:46:39 +0000

Actually, I know of no better outcome than holding those that would destroy us. It may be a question, but if they are actually caught in the act, don't you think that they are culpable?

If not, I would gladly release them in your neighborhood...

Actually, just what would you do with these fellows (using nice term here) ?

By: gamecock

gamecock — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:37:32 +0000

And charging them with war crimes and having them serve that sentence?

By: RobW

RobW — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:56:25 +0000

Justice is getting what you deserve. The tribunal said that Hamdam deserved to serve a sentence that will end quite soon.

Holding someone past when they deserve because of ongoing hostilities or a threat to the country might be necessary, but it’s not justice. It’s unfortunate that it has to happen, but even in the rare case that it’s warranted (and I think in this case it’s not), it’s not about fairness or the prisoner getting what they deserve.

By: gamecock

gamecock — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:27:52 +0000

we determine he is no longer a threat to the US, whichever is sooner.

Had he gotten a longer sentence and hostilities ceased before his sentence, then he would have to serve the remainder of the sentence for war crime.

By: RobW

RobW — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:27:54 +0000

And he could be held indefinitely, since a “War Against Terror” does not have an end. I agree that it seems justice was done during the tribunal, but if you’re trying somebody with no intention of letting them go, that’s not justice.

By: MikeLaughead

MikeLaughead — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:37:05 +0000

What I’m saying is what is the point of the torture or degradation at all, unless is gets clear intelligence? From what I understand (I’m no expert), torture or degradation is good at getting FALSE confessions, but not good intelligence. I don’t think questioning detainees and holding them for that purpose is a bad thing, but physically hurting them or trying to drive them crazy just seems sadistic, not productive. Does anyone know more than me about the subject that can tell me why torturing/degrading works better than simple continued questioning?

By: Jack_Savage

Jack_Savage — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:10:17 +0000

And this is one of the things that really makes me mad as hell - when Obama spews that he will close Gitmo and "abide by the Geneva convention", he implies that Bush has NOT been doing so, which is patently a crock of crap.

We have been letting them get by with this for so long that we have simply given up correcting them.

By: gamecock

gamecock — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:52:18 +0000

By: gamecock

gamecock — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:51:44 +0000

One of the main reasons Geneva was passed was to make distinctions between soldiers for a nation and illegal enemy combatants that operated among civilians, so as to discourage terror.

They are being treated like many POWs however, as they are being held until hostilities cease and those guilty of war crimes are being tried for same.

By: TheEngine

TheEngine — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:43:30 +0000

After putting some of these terrorists on trial, and finding them not guilty through some loophole, the government will be making them citizens of the USA. What grounds would we have of deporting them, if they're found not guilty.

These are POW's. Prisoners of WAR, not criminals. Treat them as such.

By: GregInFla

GregInFla — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:25:21 +0000

Now, we need to get this idea to SecDef Gates.

By: izoneguy

izoneguy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:44:49 +0000

And that is where most of them are ending up now.
The next few months should see no more Gitmo prisoners arriving.

By: BamaID

BamaID — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:30:39 +0000

This war definitely shows how much America has changed. If that change is for the better is up for discussion. In past conflicts, the detainees at Guantanamo would have been left dead on the battlefield. We would have never worried about capturing prisoners such as these. Now, we’re caught in a Catch-22. If we ever release the 250 or so left in Gitmo, we’ll likely hear from them again. However, how do you convict a guy who was “just doing his job”, as some see it, of a federal crime (not to mention what jurisdiction do we have to try foreign nationals of crimes committed in foreign nations)? We can’t just “disappear” them. That would be too obvious and the lead story in every newspaper world-wide. In retrospect, I don’t know what intel we may have gotten from these detainees, but I hope it was worth the mess we’re in. Personally, although I’ve been behind my President all the way in this war, I’m starting to think we should have left them on the battlefield.

By: speciallist

speciallist — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:46:39 +0000

Money....comment of the Day!

"The definition of torture has been watered down.."

LOL

By: gamecock

gamecock — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:36:29 +0000

That is the problem. “Degrade” is not torture. Torture the “mind”? Please.

By: MikeLaughead

MikeLaughead — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:26:35 +0000

… torture no. I am not even going to try to figure out the best way for our country to go about holding trials and detaining suspects in the war on terror. But I do want to say that I think torture is both immoral and not very useful. Is it not true that just talking to prisoners day after day gets more useful info than torturing their bodies and minds? I’ve heard that the torture is great at getting false confessions, but not necessarily the truth.

By: gamecock

gamecock — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:29:05 +0000