|
This is very painful for many families who lost loved ones on 9/11.
Plans to close Guantanamo are not sitting well with the Sept. 11 victims’ relatives who sat stunned while two alleged terrorists declared they were proud of their role in the plot.
It is a potentially momentous time for the military detention center. President-elect Barack Obama whose inauguration is Tuesday has said he will close it, and many observers and some officials here expect him to suspend the war crimes tribunals for accused terrorists and move the trials to the U.S.
The victims’ relatives were in the courtroom audience as two Sept. 11 defendants, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, proclaimed their role in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
“We did what we did; we’re proud of Sept. 11,” said Binalshibh, who has said he wants to plead guilty to charges.
“If they’re guilty … then let’s give them the death penalty that they deserve,” said Jim Riches of Brooklyn, N.Y., whose 29-year-old firefighter son, Jimmy, was killed at the World Trade Center.
What do you think? Close Gitmo, at least finish the trials of those involved in 9/11, or leave Gitmo open?
See the question mark at the end and read other posts, especially 77 RBG to get the context. Because that is what Terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did in court and that is my test here for just a wee bit of common sense.
Defending against a direct 9/11 attack and Kuwait invasion is quite something else.
RBG
#91,
So now Kuwait is going to invade us?
Holy good shit !!! I thought I was up on what was happening in the world by to find out I missed Bush confessing in court and the Kuwaitis are about to invade. WOW!!!
So what the eff does that have to do with torture or denying justice to even the worst? I didn’t hear anyone claim to have committed crimes in Guantanamo. BECAUSE IT IS A CLOSED COURT.
Don’t give me someone that has been tortured and use their confession. I don’t believe it. Give me evidence.
# 92 Mr. Fusion said, “Don’t give me someone that has been tortured and use their confession. I don’t believe it. Give me evidence.”
Right. That should NEVER be used against a person in court.
86 smartalix. Any attempt to rationalize idiocy may appear on the surface to be based in reason, but is not.
I take it you don’t have anyone you care about covering your ass in Afghanistan to think this issue not more than “idiocy.”
Detainee went from Gitmo to al Qaeda, official says
Officials estimate more than 60 freed terrorists may have returned to battlefield
CNN: http://tinyurl.com/d8duqu
RBG
No one should be held without trial forever. It clearly violates the US Constitution. Period. We must obey our own laws. If we forsake the Constitution, the terrorists automatically win because we’re too afraid to hold true to our national principles. I feel horrible for those who lost someone on 9/11, but we must obey & defend our Constitution as we seek to punish anyone still alive who helped commit the terrible acts that day. If we can’t do both, what will future generations think of us & our country?
Somehow I thought the US constitution upheld American citizen’s rights. It also applies to lawful and unlawful enemy combatants?
“Critics of the Nuremberg trials (’45-’49) argued that the “crimes” with which the defendants were charged were only defined as crimes after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid.”
I doubt any of the Nazis thought they had automatically won the war.
RBG
#96, RBG,
Somehow I thought the US constitution upheld American citizen’s rights. It also applies to lawful and unlawful enemy combatants?
Since most Canadians aren’t overly familiar with American Supreme Court decisions I can see your not knowing. Yes they are. The same as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also applies to all people on Canadian soil.
“Critics of the Nuremberg trials (’45-’49) argued that the “crimes” with which the defendants were charged were only defined as crimes after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid.”
I don’t know why you put quotation marks on this unless it is a quote. Quotes should always be referenced.
While there are critics of the Nuremberg trials, the trials prevailed. As an outgrowth, today we have the World Court where numerous war criminals have been tried.
# 96 RBG said, “It also applies to lawful and unlawful enemy combatants?”
The only precedent regarding this was WW2. In that war the allies executed “unlawful combatants” & enemy soldiers wearing allied uniforms without resort to US Constitutional rights.
That’s the irritating thing about precedents, isn’t it?
97 M.F. It’s a quote from Nuremberg Trials wikipedia. I wanted to show it wasn’t my creative thought but at the same time believed the sentence too benign to make even a small effort to tinyURL.
While there are critics of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp, the camp prevailed. As an outgrowth, today we have countless patriotic American and innocent foreigners alive with thriving democracies in two formerly despotic outlaw countries… Oh, wait.
I’d tell you I’m a Yankee Imperialist Running Dog, but I’d rather wait for a good moment.
RBG