|
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?
#40, Ah Yea,
So you have to fight Cow-Paddy’s battles now?
from your link
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to the fight” and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.
“This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world,” he told reporters.
But we don’t know and don’t want to tell you
…
“Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism,” said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.
Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining “the fight” because they spoke out against the U.S. government.
So more bullshit from the right wing nuts trying to justify their inexcusable behavior.
After the treatment they received though, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised that some otherwise innocent people have developed a real hatred towards the US.
Cow-Paddy,
Once again you made a bogus claim and expected some other wing nut to come to your defense. That must make you feel good to know there are other people with similar insight as yours. None.
As I once told you, don’t make a claim if you are unwilling to back it up.
*
Guantanamo is a disgrace and a blight on the belief in law and order. To claim that we are a nation of laws while allowing this to happen quite openly is a shame. It is wrong. And the American public does not want it or the stain it leaves.
What happens to the current prisoners is a dilemma of Bush and company’s doing. That they have tainted any true sense of having a fair trial is not the fault of the incoming Administration although it will be their problem.
That some 9/11 victims families are upset is too bad. All of them received huge payouts that other criminal victims never receive. Their voices deserve no more input on this than do those of other victims. Justice is supposed to be blind and conducted impartially. That is America’s way. If we can’t afford justice to everyone, we are no better than those we condemned.
Bring them to the U.S. and give them fair trails.If they are found innocent release them.Blame Bush if we can’t prosecute successfully and move on to a new American era.The people that support what has been done in our name do not read history or understand the great country we live in.When we do not give justice to everyone we demean ourselves.
Simple. Think “Wild Kingdom”.
Radio tag the lot and release and track. Eventually you get Osama!
“We should have never invaded Iraq.”
That is one of the few things you have posted that I agree with.
# 51 Paddy-O
Please provide the “on the ground investigators” the Pentagon used.
Can we put President Truman on trial for conducting the Nuremberg Military Tribunals?
Why didn’t he put those guys in the US court system?
I want justice! But only for me!
I could not eat how much I like to vomit.
Sure, release the detainees. Then stick some of these DUers on the Afghan front lines alongside American soldiers to quickly foment a wholly cathartic change in attitude towards their cushy armchair Utopian societies.
RBG
The military should make all decisions regarding Gitmo, since they know more about what they are dealing with better than anybody else. Whatever they think is best, I trust would be the best course of action.
It may well be that some of the people at Getmo need to be freed.
Some of them are guilty as sin or only innocent of killing Americans because none happened to pass in front of their sights.
Some of them don’t want to go home because the people at home will most likely deal with them harshly.
Some Governments have refused to take some of these guys so we can’t send them home.
So the real question is if the option is keeping Getmo open or bringing them state side what do you want to do? If you bring them state side you may end up having to free people state side that have a high interest in killing American Pigs.
FFS don’t bring them back in the U.S. for prison. Once they are released they will take all the jobs as 7-11 managers.
What would be wrong would be to continue as is. It’s limbo, hardly any rules very little guidelines. That’s just wrong no matter what they’re guilty of, if we’re going to be a nation that respects human rights there should be no exceptions. They could get due process by military tribunal and jail time in some hole somewhere. Hey why not bring back Alcatraz, it’s perfect for the purpose. But at least have a clear plan.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
~William Blackstone (1723–1780), British jurist, in Commentaries on the Laws of England [vol. 4, ch. 27 (1765-1769)]
Yes, better for the philosophers – certainly not for all the innocents involved.
RBG
#67, Lyin’ Mike,
Can we put President Truman on trial for conducting the Nuremberg Military Tribunals?
No. Truman is dead.
You are such an idiot Mike. There is nothing similar between these two cases.
The Nuremberg Trials were conducted openly. The charges were well know ahead of time. The accused were allowed lawyers of their choosing. The trials themselves were conducted on the basic principals of justice found in all western nations. All the Judges were competent and fair, excepting the Soviet Judges. There was no torture used to elicit confessions. The accused were allowed to call their own witnesses. All the evidence was presented in open court. The trials were held in a city that allowed defense lawyers to have offices. And, they were overseen by the United Nations.
Contrast that to some prisoners being held for six years now with no charges. It has been alleged that every prisoner has undergone physical torture and it is widely known every prisoner has been psychologically tortured. The evidence is subject being shielded from the accused and even the lawyers. Much of the evidence has been obtained through torture making it of dubious veracity. The trials are being held in Guantanamo where the non-military lawyers are not allowed private space.
Yup, Mike, you really know a few things. Is this what Rush was blabbering about today?
More pertinently, the war was over and won.
RBG
Terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: “Yeah, I’m proud to kill those 9/11 Americans. Next time I’ll kill twice as many. And keep on killing them. It is God’s will.”
Liberals: “Well, I don’t like it any more than you do, but if he’s found not guilty, even on a technicality, we have to let him go. We must uphold our civilized principles.”
RBG
#74–RBG==nice little rant you got going there. Yes==protecting the rule of law/respect for authority/the foundation of society can be made to look silly when you isolate and restrict yourself to one single case.
The philosophers point though is that the harm caused to the innocents by releasing a guilty person on errors by the State are far outweighed by harm caused to the innocents if the State is allowed/encouraged to continue violating the law. You have to “project” the harm for a few years before it can be appropriately appreciated.
The only other option after encouraging the State to violate Constitutional Rights is Armed Rebellion. How much harm does that cause.
RGB–using the argument all dictators make==correct in the short term, WRONG in the long term.
If America didn’t try to shit all over the world we wouldn’t have this problem…..
The east hates you because you just won’t f**k off and stop interfering in EVERYTHING…
in the uk all we see are the worst American politicians…the ones which are so obviously b*st*rds…except Ron Paul….we like him
If America didn’t try to shit all over the world we wouldn’t have this problem…..
The east hates you because you just won’t f**k off and stop interfering in EVERYTHING…
I don’t think the worlds problems are a result of bad judgement etc, but more a matter of a lack of human decency.
In the uk all we see are the worst American politicians…the ones which are so obviously b*st*rds…except Ron Paul….we like him..although we have been treated to some late night “american style” biased reports on him….
I’ve noticed some scary trends in our broadcasting recently, as have many of my friends…it appears the bbc are adopting an american style of interviewing politicians now…we used to be rational but now it looks like rationality is out the window and propaganda is the way forward
ps, When I appear anti american i’m actually referring to the image of America that we see (fox news), I do realise there are alot of intelligent Americans, many of them on this site:)
RBG,
You have an incredibly myopic view of the world. Your idiotic comment about letting innocents suffer for bad jurisprudence would mean (at the 10% error rate you allow) a couple hundred thousand people in jail. That’s a lot of innocents, even for a fascist like you, to want to sit in jail for no reason.
81 Smartalix. The point that I am leading you to is that people are so black & white in their precious ideals that it can be impossible for reason and tangible security to predominate.
My RBG 77 is an extreme but correct and actual example that is upon us. It *should* be nearly impossible to argue against it except for the philosophical extremists like yourself who put their theoretical and artificial “principles” above pragmatism and reality.
RBG 77 is no different in my view than the British redcoats who lined up and advanced in a bright red line on a battlefield and believed hiding and camouflage was unprincipled, uncivilized. Eventually leading to jackbooted anarchy and the end of civilization, as you would also like to believe.
Letting obvious killers go for the sake of similarly artificial and flawed principles & laws will someday seem equally quaint, and equally stupidly dangerous.
I’m not advocating jailing thousands of innocents – though a pragmatist would weigh that against the killing of thousands. I’m saying – brace yourself – that people have to use commonsense judgement sometimes. You know, like the same kind of life & death judgements thousands of individual people make every day. You and your principles assume all people must be vacuous-headed morons, incapable of analysis and decision-making.
If it makes you feel better, codify the use of commonsense. The law is already an ass anyway when more expensive lawyers means a better brand of justice. Your principles are already compromised right from the get-go. What you are left with is justice that is far, far better than nothing and not the absolutes you would presume to be upholding.
And you know, common-sense already ignores your ideals anyway as evidenced by the constant stream of judges’ rulings that so easily provide paradigm flip-flops (ie: abortion) depending upon the currently preceived will of the people.
So I’m telling you not to blindly walk in a line to slaughter because someone’s current definition of “civilization” seems to demand such things. Toss off your crappy redcoat and “civilized” ideals and start wearing some camo.
RBG
82,
How nice to hide behind rationalization. Our smudging of the law is one of the problems with this society.
RATIONALIZE 1 to explain according to reason.
Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary.
RBG
85,
Run and hide behind obfuscation all you like. Any attempt to rationalize idiocy may appear on the surface to be based in reason, but is not.
Well, I just never thought of that. “You’re wrong, I’m right.” It’s brilliant. I must yield to your usual fact-based and compelling arguments.
RBG
#83, RBG,
Letting obvious killers go for the sake of similarly artificial and flawed principles & laws will someday seem equally quaint, and equally stupidly dangerous.
Then we can use your “rationalization” to charge Bush and his minions with Crimes Against Humanity. Damn, they are guilty, so why even bother with a trial. Throw them in Gitmo and we can then have some cultural diversity.
We wouldn’t have to worry about those expensive lawyers finding loopholes to get them off. We wouldn’t have to worry about some Judge flip flopping. Yup, great rationalization.
Sorry, I must have missed that. Bush bragged formally in court that he was guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and planning to carry on with more of the same? Or are you referring to 9/11 or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? You see, Mr. Fusion, that’s where that thing they call common-sense comes into play.
RBG
#89, RBG,
Bush bragged formally in court that he was guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and planning to carry on with more of the same?
??? I missed that. Maybe you could post a link.
In fact, your entire post is confusing. What does 9/11 and Kuwait have to do with torture?