@Aye Chihuahua

My solution – send them back to their country of origin for all those it is believed cannot be tried in US courts for whatever reason. And I reckon the US has enough clout to do this. If they are in danger – tough. Whilst I prefer Obama to Bush – I’m not going to agree on everything Obama does or believe.

Rather than trying to get other countries which are where they are not from and who don’t want them – take them in. It’s the US mess and the US needs to clean it up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ummmm . . . . .

If anyone is still interested in the original topic, Esquire has responded to Kilmer’s denial of the quoted comments.

** I fixed your link for you Janet – Aye Chihuahua **

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@GaffaUK:

And unlawful enemy combatants is so weak as to be laughable.

What’s weak about it Gaffa?

What’s laughable?

Were these people wearing uniforms?

Were they fighting and hiding among civilian populations?

It’s all clearly defined in the Geneva Conventions.

Whether those laws and standards are “outdated” is a matter of opinion. The fact is that those are the laws and standards that we have to work with. Those are what must be applied.

Gitmo is an embarrassment to US values and democracy.

Actually, Gitmo is a perfect representation of US values. Our efforts to be “sensitive” and “politically correct” led us to putting the prisoners there rather than in front of a firing squad or gallows, which is also clearly defined in the GC’s by the way.

Unfortunately if you are a democracy then we have to play by higher values than Al Qaeda etc.

Last time I checked we weren’t beheading civilians or using retarded citizens or children as bomb bearers or flying plane loads of civilians into buildings or blowing up people waiting in line for employment so I don’t think we have to worry about our value system being in any way comparable to that of Al Qaeda etc.

So capture them by all means, get the info you need and if there is any credible evidence of criminality then send them to trial and throw them in jail.

What you’re ignoring in your argument here is the simple fact that there was a system in place to do precisely what you are pointing out should be done.

That system has been fought at every turn and is now being undermined and disassembled at every turn.

So now, the bridge has been crossed. The prisoners are in Gitmo limbo.

Can’t try them in US courts because the rules of evidence would guarantee their release.

Can’t try them in military courts because BO has eliminated that option at least for now even though Congress and the courts have agreed that is the way to proceed.

Can’t continue to hold them because of the bleeding heart lefties whining about it.

Can’t return them to their home countries because a) their countries don’t want them or b) they may be tortured or killed which would cause more whining and crying from the left.

Can’t take them back to the place of their capture for field trials, etc because BO won’t allow that either and the lefties’ heads would be asplodin’.

So, what’s your solution? Got a couple of extra bedrooms?

Of course, BO’s Atty General disagrees with you. So does the Solicitor general nominee:

Solicitor general nominee says ‘enemy combatants’ can be held without trial

Reporting from Washington — Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.

Heh.

How is the new improved HopeyChangey BO legal team position different from the Bush legal team position exactly?

Oh, that’s right. It’s not different.

That ought to cause some additional anxiety amongst the bed wetters.

What’s stopping US citizens being treated the same way? Or are you all protected in you remain on US soil? Would you want to be thrown in jail without knowing what the charge is, without trial? Or would that never happen in the US – unlike so many other countries throughout the world and history.

You’re right. We’re protected here in our own country. We don’t have to worry about being thrown into jail without charge or trial. It doesn’t happen here.

It’s called the US Constitution.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley

I don’t particularly want to stick up for Gitmo detainee’s but the West has to stick to some core principles. The Geneva Convention no doubt needs an update. ‘Probably’ most of the guys that are/were in Gitmo guilty. But who I am to say? How do I know? GWOT is an unconventional war – is the US just going to hold onto prisoners of war until all terrorists no longer exist? At least with WWII there was a practical goal in defeating Germany and Japan.

It wasn’t a Global war on Fascism – as there still fascists today. And unlawful enemy combatants is so weak as to be laughable. Gitmo is an embarrassment to US values and democracy. Unfortunately if you are a democracy then we have to play by higher values than Al Qaeda etc. So capture them by all means, get the info you need and if there is any credible evidence of criminality then send them to trial and throw them in jail.

What’s stopping US citizens being treated the same way? Or are you all protected in you remain on US soil? Would you want to be thrown in jail without knowing what the charge is, without trial? Or would that never happen in the US – unlike so many other countries throughout the world and history.

That’s why I’m not a bleeding heart liberal over the Rosenbergs – they were caught and tried and suffered the consequences.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Gaffa#37.

First, I missread your Fonda statement. Yes I agree her actions fall into the treacherous, if not completely treasonous, category. So sorry.

INRE the “holding without charges” comment. Why is it everyone chooses to ignore actual history?

There most certainly was a carefully planned system in place to interrogate and charge enemy combatants that were held on foreign soil (i.e. detain and try thru military tribunals at Gitmo). They were never to be held without charges, but if found to be a risk, held until combat’s end as allowable via the Geneva Convention. These are not soldiers of state. They are stateless gangs of Islamic thugs.

That system was steadily thwarted, eroded, delayed and finally abrogated by legal challenge after legal challenge by ACLU lawyers. This is *not* holding them without charges. Any delays in their justice were caused by these legal actions.

A prime example of this entire process is exemplified by Judge Pohl, who refused to delay the hearing and process at Obama’s “request” in the interest of justice and due process rights that include a speedy trial.

Today, because of Obama, they are genuinely being held without charges. Unlike Bush, who had his every attempt for trials thwarted, Obama is REALLY holding them without charges while he “ponders” on what to do.

So I’d say if you have a beef with deliberate delays of justice, and holding people without charges (or even a process in which to charge them), you start pointing your finger at the ACLU and Obama. Because they are the only ones throwing the monkey wrench into the system that was set up for enemy combatants.

He did a photo op to the adoring world. And they are so stupid that they can’t see what he is doing is exactly what they have been falsely accusing Bush of doing for years.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@stix1972:

I figured that you probably knew that.

Our unfortunate efforts to be “sensitive” or “politically correct” have run us out to the end of a very flimsy limb.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Aye Chihuahua:
Yes you are correct. I forgot to add that actually, in WWII or any other war they would be considered spies or un-lawful combatants ad could be shot on site.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@stix1972:

Actually Stix, they are not POW’s by any legal definition.

That’s a title, and group of rights, that the left would like to apply to them, but those of us paying attention know better than that.

They are “unlawful enemy combatants” as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

Unfortunately, we chose NOT to apply the GC’s to these prisoners.

Hence the legal/Miranda/military Gitmo quagmire we find ourselves in.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@GaffaUK:
Huh. We are at war. They are POWs and should not be able to use the US court of Law. This is the most confusing and infuriating thing about how people do not realize this is a war, not a police action.

Did we send lawyers after the German Army or Japanese Army in WWII????

IF this was any other war, these prisoners would have been shot on sight

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley
Howabout being detained for many years without ever being charged for a crime or having a trial?

And you disagree with my statement saying that Fonda was treacherous!?

@Wordsmith
If people are accused, charged and found guilty of being spies – treacherous to their country then they deserve such punishment. There is a big difference in finding out such traitors and using the proper criminal proceedings rather than the out of control wide net of suspicion and finger pointing McCarthy used.

Like or Dislike: 0  0