Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo detainees

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by reflexblue, Nov 10, 2008.

  1. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,349
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +130 / 4 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Good, its about time we got this over with.

    Obama planning US trials for Guantanamo detainees - Yahoo! News

    Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

    During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

    Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.....con
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2008
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,198
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +667 / 2 / -9

    America will wind up "paying them millions" Jimmy Sissy Carter will build them all a new house "free" then they will start making bombs in the cellar of their new "Carter House"

    GOD DAMN AMERICA
     
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    This is a good thing, I am a big fan of the constitution..
     
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    As soon as a detainee is in US custody, they should be brought to the nearest place under US jurisdiction for a civil trial unless specific crimes against US troops can be identified. Saying someone is a terrorist because he shoots at US troops on a combat mission on foreign soil does not automatically make them a "terrorist". Gitmo is as much US territory as the Panama Canal Zone was before its return to the Panamanians. US presence in Cuba has to end. We can patrol the Carribean from Miami just as easily today.

    While I reserve judgement on Obama for now (I didn't vote for him because of the Wall Street Ripoff), I think we'll be seeing the breakdown of the Wolfowitz Doctrine in terms of who is a "terrorist" and we can finally begin to use the language of reason and logic instead of the jingoism and Orwellian distortion of meaning we've had to put up with from the anti-intellectuals who have been in control (if you can call it that) for the last 8 years.
     
  5. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    Me too, for American. I was actually hoping Paloma would have wiped the whole place out and killed every inmate in there. That would have been an equally satisfactory ending as well.
     
  6. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,349
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +130 / 4 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I get a kick out of the people that they have held there for prosecution. People they picked up in the "area" one guy was going to wedding,i think they held him for five years before they let him go. Or even OBL's driver he!! after WW11 they didn't go after Hitler's driver,or his secretary,or his personal body guard, or his DR. or his personal attach'. I know i've seen interviews with all of them.
     
  7. TheGodInAGreyHoodie

    TheGodInAGreyHoodie Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    That's because Hitler was dead, and we had captured much of the leadership was in custody and stood trial.

    But damn you can bet your bottom dollar that had Hitler and his leadership escaped and were in hiding and years after the war were still in hiding plotting the re-rise of the 3rd Reich and releasing tapes .... well then the government would have jailed Hitler's driver to claim those responsible are being held accountable and distract the American people.

    If we had Osama we wouldn't need his driver. But as we have utterly failed to bring those responsible to justice we need his driver to prove the war on terrorism is working.
     
  8. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    That story infuriated me. The international media kept harping on the fact that OBL's driver was arrested and barely mentioned the fact that the guy had two frickin' RPG's in his trunk. One doesn't use an RPG for self defense, its for killing soldiers.

    Edit: for those that never played Counter Strike, an RPG is a Rocket Propelled Grenade.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2008
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,131
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +524 / 6 / -2

    What are you talking about? I'm guessing you don't live in Chelsea! :D
     
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,131
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +524 / 6 / -2

    Well, if I were Charlie Manson's "driver", and was shuttling him from place to place, while he planned/conducted his murdering spree's, do you think I'd be able to walk free?
     
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,131
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +524 / 6 / -2

    I'm not a fan of Gitmo. I don't think you can just snatch someone, and hold them indefinitely, regardless of whether they're murderers or not. I totally understand why Gitmo exists, and in essence, don't have a problem with it as a detention facility. My problem is with the indefinite detentions. Afterall, Gitmo, in and of itself, is merely a jail. I've been saying for a few years now that Gitmo needs to be "closed". In saying that, I mean that we need to find some type of end game for the people being held there. 9/11 changed the world, and in an unfortunate sort of way. It legitimized some things that we would never accept prior. However, 7+ years later, I think we've reached a point where some wrongs need to be righted. The process at Gitmo is one of them.
     
  12. TheGodInAGreyHoodie

    TheGodInAGreyHoodie Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    Then charge him with a crime. Give him a lawyer. Present evidence. Let his atty challenge the evidence. Convince 12 ordinary people he committed the crime. And then lock his ass up in jail for the rest of his life.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,131
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +524 / 6 / -2

    Is he a US citizen? No. Is he a uniformed soldier? No. Is he a terrorist, an accessory to terrorism, or an enemy combatant? Yes. Therefore he isn't afforded the same rights, or due process, a uniformed soldier, or citizen is. In a court of law, with 12 "ordinary" people acting as a jury, there'd be issues with protecting national security. Can the defense call Robert Gates, or a covert CIA operative to the stand, and cross examine to the point of revealing identities, intelligence secrets, or informants? There are significant issues in prosecuting terrorists.
     
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,198
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +667 / 2 / -9

    Moonbat Loon Solution To All Crime:

    Turn The Criminal Loose Put The Cop In Jail

    GOD DAMN AMERICA (a presidents preacher said this) but the president didn't hear it--------:singing::singing:
     
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I've raised this issue before, but here goes: Where in US Law is it stated that the Constitutional Protections apply only to US citizens? I'm on lunch, so I can't get too deep into it, but I can't find any language to support such a claim. Under the "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure" there are actually rules which govern the application of criminal proceedings to foreign defendants.

    Regarding who is protected under the US Constitution and Laws, (for the sake of arguement) what about this little ditty?:

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    And here's one that throws a wrench into the works: Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

    Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial
    Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.

    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - Rule 18 (LII 2007 ed.)

    NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 2002 AMENDMENT

    Rule 1(a) contains language from Rule 54(b). But language in current Rule 54(b)(2) - (4) has been deleted for several reasons: First, Rule 54(b)(2) refers to a venue statute that governs an offense committed on the high seas or somewhere outside the jurisdiction of a particular district; it is unnecessary and has been deleted because once venue has been established, the Rules of Criminal Procedure automatically apply. Second, Rule 54(b)(3) currently deals with peace bonds; that provision is inconsistent with the governing statute and has therefore been deleted. Finally, Rule 54(b)(4) references proceedings conducted before United States Magistrate Judges, a topic now covered in Rule 58.

    Advisory Committee Notes

    ....so THERE!
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2008
  16. TheGodInAGreyHoodie

    TheGodInAGreyHoodie Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    Bush's enemy combatant definition is part of the reason why we have so many problems diplomatically.

    They are either POWs or criminals. Treat them like POWs and give them the rights as defined under international law that we agreed to. Or treat them as criminals and prosecute them.
     
  17. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    I suspect a good way to proceed is somewhere in the middle, military tribunals with representation may be viable.. to say that they can subpoena Gates, Rumsfield and anyone else is probably not something they can do. Develop a system that would work and look like they are getting a fair trial.. most will be convicted anyways.

    You can do something that resembles the American Due Process, with some limits.. it is far better to do something than to just let them sit in Cuba for the rest of their lives.. that gives America a black eye. it is also cheaper to do it on the mainland, put them on some big military base.. you already have a perimeter and a supply of troops to do the hands on.
     
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,131
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +524 / 6 / -2

    They're not prisoners of war, since they are not uniformed, or a member of a nation, and thus not privy to the protections under the Geneva Convention. Terrorists present a conundrum of sorts. What are they, what protections are they afforded, or if undeterminable, what protections should they get? I'm opposed to simply holding someone indefinately. However, I see the problems in processing terrorists. In 1942, the SC stated the following in the Ex parte Quirin decision:

    I think people need to be charged with something, processed, prosecuted, or whatever. You simply can't hold people indefinately IMO, even if it means setting a suspect free, only to see his face on the battlefield again. However, I don't think a terrorist should be given the same rights afforded a US citizen under the Constitution, nor do I think they should be given the protections a uniformed soldier recieves under the GC. Terrorists, and terrorism, have evolved and become their own animal. There needs to be an agreed to process, that separates them from the civilized, yet protects the rights of the falsely charged. I don't know what that process would be specifically though.
     
  19. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,349
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +130 / 4 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I didn't know that. Maybe they weren't his ;) Just because he had rpg's in his trunk doesn't make him a higher up worthy of a trial worth a fortune. I'm sure there were a lot of people caught with ak's and rpg's that were returned home. It was the fact that the guy was OBL's personal driver.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>