Thread: So these are the types of people the supreme court want to turn loose on US courts?

For those of you who believe the government when they tell you there is "secret" evidence to hold "terrorists" in Guantanamo ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/wa...81uuNlQPtyElXw

I don't care what the case is - anytime a Federal Appeals Court judge cites "The Hunting of the Snark" is a good day for justice.

Originally Posted by Pudu

I don't care what the case is - anytime a Federal Appeals Court judge cites "The Hunting of the Snark" is a good day for justice.

It would have been terrific if the judge could have worked "The Trial" into the findings.

Originally Posted by JohnP

(according to the Germans, apparently, who inspected for human rights violations, etc).

oh come on! It's pretty Ironic isn't it?!? Anyone? Anyone? Germans? Human rights? Oh come on! (giggle)

sorry, back to your regularly scheduled rant/counter rant fest.

Why not the Germans? are you claiming they are still under their 1930's and 40's regime? or perhaps that they are currently known as human rights violators?
Who else would you suggest inspect a prison, anyway?
Americans could do it, but everyone would claim conflict of interest.
British could do it, but guess who taught almost all of the American interrogators...again, conflict of interest.
Middle Eastern nations? Again, conflict of interest, for the other side perhaps,
Poland, Czech Republic, etc? again people would scream conflict of interest. There are too many (IMHO unproven) claims of using those countries for torture.
Russia? still huge conflict of interest. Likewise France. Both had huge losses via oil deals with Saddam, not to mention, France actually has a military job of "Torturer". That would go over well.
Japan? well, if we are using the 1930's to thrash people, they perfected methods right up there with the Germans, only instead of Jews Poles and the like they went after Chinese.
Cuba? Not only are they still an enemy, but if they ran things as well and treated their people as nicely as certain film makers would have one believe, why would people be trying to get to Florida even today on anything they can make float, including milk jugs tied together-on the open ocean.

So....

The problem with the Germans is...??
60 years ago, perhaps that would be ridiculous. In todays age, not so much.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

For those of you who believe the government when they tell you there is "secret" evidence to hold "terrorists" in Guantanamo ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/wa...81uuNlQPtyElXw

So...this would tell me that counter to many accusations, the individuals ARE being considered on a case by case basis. Why is this a problem?
I have reservations about many of these, perhaps they are "our friends" now, because they do not wish to be sent home to China; however, it makes one wonder under what conditions they were captured in Afghanistan. Now, perhaps they hate us less than the Chinese who, well, aren't exactly a "people friendly" regime, but for them to have been captured miles from home by U.S. and other forces who were at the moment in conflict with Taliban and other fighters...
Well, a man fighting alongside the Taliban against Americans is still a man fighting Americans. Unfortunately for this thread and perhaps those doing the capturing, it is likely that when a court says things were "said to be" and deride this, they are basically saying that the word of the Soldiers who captured these individuals amounts to nothing. Perhaps in the future, soldiers will aim video cameras first, so a judge won't have to take their "word".
I am prepared, however, to take this with a grain of salt, although one man's word is good as another. The article seems to take the detainee's "word" that he is pro-American and not an enemy, after all.
As for "secret" information, it is simply a secret, not "secret". How people are found or captured, or battlefield tactics...all of that type of information is secret. Every nation keeps such things secret. It isn't for some sinister "snow some guy in Italy" purpose, it is to avoid loss of life thanks to enemies studying our playbook.

Which, IMHO, is only fair.

John P.

It is funny as all get out to me. Simply as that. Irony knows no time limit! I am not taking this as seriously as you would have me, so, my apologies. My initial reaction was complete mirth! I made no claim, thanks for asking. I am still kinda laughing about it in fact...

Originally Posted by JohnP

Why not the Germans? are you claiming they are still under their 1930's and 40's regime? or perhaps that they are currently known as human rights violators?
Who else would you suggest inspect a prison, anyway?
Americans could do it, but everyone would claim conflict of interest.
British could do it, but guess who taught almost all of the American interrogators...again, conflict of interest.
Middle Eastern nations? Again, conflict of interest, for the other side perhaps,
Poland, Czech Republic, etc? again people would scream conflict of interest. There are too many (IMHO unproven) claims of using those countries for torture.
Russia? still huge conflict of interest. Likewise France. Both had huge losses via oil deals with Saddam, not to mention, France actually has a military job of "Torturer". That would go over well.
Japan? well, if we are using the 1930's to thrash people, they perfected methods right up there with the Germans, only instead of Jews Poles and the like they went after Chinese.
Cuba? Not only are they still an enemy, but if they ran things as well and treated their people as nicely as certain film makers would have one believe, why would people be trying to get to Florida even today on anything they can make float, including milk jugs tied together-on the open ocean.

So....

The problem with the Germans is...??
60 years ago, perhaps that would be ridiculous. In todays age, not so much.

Originally Posted by JohnP

W
Well, a man fighting alongside the Taliban against Americans is still a man fighting Americans.

You have absolutely nobody's word on how many of these folks were apprehended or tracked down. Just a big "trust us" from people who keep showing me they're not worthy of our trust. It is still a big secret-- one, apparently, that doesn't hold up to serious review at all. I have no trouble capturing, detaining, or even executing, bad guys. I have a ton of trouble with secretly holding them on secret evidence with secret reviews.

Again, if these are bad guys, I don't care if we try them, line them up and execute them, so long as we're willing to tell the rest of the world why and how we did it. "Disappearing" people in an organized effort is not worthy of my government.

Originally Posted by JohnP

So...this would tell me that counter to many accusations, the individuals ARE being considered on a case by case basis. Why is this a problem?

RIGHT! After six years in solitary and torture ...

"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist;
When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;
When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf." Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)

Scott, apologies! I do tend to get wrapped around the handle with this stuff. I've seen a lot first hand (as have others on here who aren't as vocal-more willpower than me) and it drives me up the wall the things that are suggested here by people who would not make the same accusations if it were their neighbor-only it IS their neighbors they are accusing of all these things. Guess my sense of humor is a little low at the moment


Chimensch,
I see that a few here think that GitMo is full of people picked up off the streets of Vancouver or London or NYC.
Even the article itself said these particular individuals were captured in Afghanistan.


A little insight on military operations: people are captured on the battlefield or elsewhere after being observed operating with enemy forces.

There is no reason for the typical Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine to out of the blue capture unarmed civilians for no apparent reason.

Secrets such as which unit captured a certain individual, or how they were able to find him, who told, etc. would risk loss of life not only of our own, but of theirs as well.

Imagine a televised trial (because, everyone will scream bloody murder, it seems, unless they see every gory detail) in which terrorist "X" is found to have been captured by SOF team "A" on the night of January the Xteenth, after three locals from his town named ______ , _____ , and _____ indicated him, provided photographs, sworn statements, etc. which backed up their claim. Intelligence agent N confirmed the suspicions by observing "X" passing out information to cells within other countries as well as stockpiling weapons..."

It is difficult to follow, but imagine what happens to the townspeople? The agent? even more simple, by knowing "who" captured him, when-enemy forces can easily triangulate based on fuel and range to figure out not only which unit did the raid, but where their camp is, what their means of transportation was, when they left, etc. so in the future, an ambush will be ready.

It has already happened, incidentally.

Secrets are secrets for a reason. Enemy forces have no right to "trial" as POW's. If they were members of a unit NOT fighting against the United States and other Coalition forces, they would not have been captured by the same. To claim some vague right to trial right away and hope to be freed prior to the end of combat-is ludicrous, but that is exactly what Americans are demanding happen. I just hope it is THEIR family that is then lost in the next attack, not mine. Perhaps that is wrong, but put your families' lives where your mouth is. I (and unfortunately everyone else on this forum) know where I stand on this.

It also bears pointing out that people captured in a war zone, on the opposite side of our troops-are not American citizens. Even if they were in the past, that is one sure way to denounce one's citizenship. They are worse than the enemy, they are traitors.

I have read the same verses you posted, but do not feel they apply. Nobody is coming after American citizens HERE who are not involved with anything. The first line isn't "First they came for the terrorists,....but I was not a terrorist". Communism, Marxism, etc. are political ideals, Jews are members of a religion, none of these is a group bent on murder for media effect.
Terrorists, on the other hand, are.

Police come for murderers every day, and they ARE citizens. The difference to me, is that most of these are non-citizens captured in their own snake holes, who are trying to use various methods to find loopholes to say "I'm not a snake, I was just in the hole next to one by happenstance...".

As the typical 19 yr old Marine having mercy on an enemy who throws his hands up usually is not an attorney, he simply captures the individual. It is not a soldier's job to find a bullet-proof case against the enemy to justify capturing him.

Just because a man after captured gets media attention (they have ALWAYS hated the Military) and a lawyer who treats him as if he were picked up wrongfully by the police down at Kmart,
does NOT mean he was captured wrongfully, nor that he was innocent. Under different rules which apply to CITIZENS, inside the US, it would be difficult to convict. The folly isn't keeping these individuals, it is treating them as citizens in the first place. Treat them nice, sure-they are captives-but trying to give them a jury trial is bordering on the utmost stupidity. IMHO, of course. Unfortunately ANY secret will be thought by many conspiracy-mongers to no doubt be some huge government cover-up in which hundreds of innocents are disappeared from the streets of Manhattan or wherever. It simply isn't so. If someone is there, there is a good reason for it. Unfortunately if one of them gets a judge to declare there's no reason he can be kept, sometimes the secret information would risk more lives than letting it out just to convict one man.

"Not enough evidence" does not mean "not guilty". It means troops aren't "CSI" or prosecution attorneys, and are armed with rifles, not cameras, fingerprint kits, and rubber gloves.


I know of an individual captured with approximately 8 children who later claimed the man was using them as sex slaves for him and his friends. Why, we can't just take their word for it, now can we? They're only CHILDREN, after all. Perhaps we should have waited for him to have more "fun" so we could video tape evidence to use against him? Perhaps if we waited even longer, he would have beheaded another Iraqi townsman for disagreeing with him-that would be GREAT evidence-if we could get it on video. Hmmm. This is exactly what you are suggesting would be preferable, unless there is something in your posts that I misread.

I would have issue if police were knocking on civilian doors HERE and throwing them in prison with no evidence and no trial, however this is not the case, not even with Mr. Padilla who many like to parade. Rather they are caught typically red-handed overseas by military units who've been watching them for some time.

Perhaps you are suggesting we simply let these people go, or not capture them? I'm ok with that, as long as we insure they can't contact their cell leaders, etc....how about the government could turn custody over to YOU? That way, you could feel assured they were being treated as well as you could see to it. Make sure you keep up with feeding them as often as they are fed now, give them time to exercise...do NOT put your hands on their copy of the Koran-wear gloves, unclean infidel....and give them time to pray any time they wish. When fecal matter is flung at you, smile and pretend it doesn't bother you.
If they decide to kill more innocents, unfortunately you would be first, but hey, it's a small price to pay not to imagine the military would have SECRETS (gasp) in how it operates or how certain people are captured.
Forgive me for being a bit of a smart Aleck here but your post definitely rubbed me the wrong way and shows a bias toward "Assume the US is the problem" w/r/t any of the terrorism issues. Which is not a balanced way of looking at things. I do not think the U.S. doesn't make mistakes, but by far know there is not some weird conspiracy to keep innocent people in prison, either. People do make mistakes, but to suggest many of the things you suggest, without knowing, tells me your sympathies are definitely with the terrorists. It's ok, I guess. It just sucks knowing how certain of these people were captured, and then hearing the suggestions people like yourself make suggesting "we" are usually the "bad guy".

Either we capture the terrorists, kill them, or don't do anything at all and keep turning the other cheek or giving them what they wish.
Personally, just because we are the first to actually fight back, does not IMHO make us somehow "wrong" for doing it well. Did you expect us not to play to win against your friends? How many Americans, British, Spaniards, Iraqis, Afghans, women in general, and others have to die before it is ok to go after them in your opinion? Or are you of the opinion "we deserved it-and so did those 3,000" so we should do nothing.

I grow tired of the conspiracy suggestions. People suggest our administration or our president would not be smart enough to tie his own shoes, then suggest in the same breath these elaborate conspiracies and give him credit for fooling almost every major leader on the planet. Which is it.
If mistakes are made, it is because PEOPLE are involved. It doesn't mean all of the horrible things you fear are happening. If you really want to know what is happening, enlist in the Navy and ask to be a guard at Guantanamo. I know people who are working there and who have worked there. I don't want their jobs no matter the special pay. Chimensch, you, however, seem so intent that Americans are doing evil things, perhaps you would feel better if you were there yourself, so you could be relieved the prisoners are actually treated well, and perhaps, not as innocent as you previously suspected.

If I have offended, I am sorry, however I can only tolerate being compared by the misinformed and hate-filled to the Gestapo just so much.

Fair is fair.

ON a lighter note, nicked myself for the first time in ages tonight, shaving the moustache off-wasn't paying attention too well and rather than squeegeeing off the whiskers right under my nose, I tried to slice my upper lip off. Oh well, at least it didn't hurt much-the thing is SHAAAARRP. As it should be.


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Chimensch,
I see that a few here think that GitMo is full of people picked up off the streets of Vancouver or London or NYC.
Even the article itself said these particular individuals were captured in Afghanistan.


A little insight on military operations: people are captured on the battlefield or elsewhere after being observed operating with enemy forces.

There is no reason for the typical Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine to out of the blue capture unarmed civilians for no apparent reason.

Etc., etc...

During the Vietnam war, the Pentagon wanted body count and the result was My Lai. These people weren't terrorists, they just happened to be fighting against US soldiers when their country was invaded. Why were we there in the first place? For the oil maybe but certainly not because the Afghanis or Iraqis had anything to do with 9/11, which they didn't. I respect the fact that you have strong feelings about the issue but your sense of morality is rather blunted. It's all very nice to defend everyone in a uniform but I almost expect you to burst into a chorus of "Oh, the fireman is your friend" when a grown-up would understand that some people wearing a uniform do bad things. In the present case, we have a government of war criminals who would all be hanged if the same standards used in the Nuremburg trials were applied.