http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96REJ1G0
I know, it is all that horrible Bush guy’s fault. This poor innocent guy is back home-preparing to kill more people.
I feel so bad for the poor guys in Gitmo-they only want to get back to being terrorists!:eek:
So are you saying that the actions of one person can be imputed to all people, and thus because this one guy rejoined the Taliban that ALL the Gitmo detainees (even the ones who had nothing whatsoever to do with this guy) are terrorists simply because he is?
Or are you saying that we don’t need fair and open trial procedures because they wouldn’t have been captured if they weren’t terrorists?
I think the point is that if you arrest people without charge, representation, and any perceived possibility of release, then some of them might harbor some ill will towards you.
Big surprise.
Meh, I look at it like we just get another chance to kill him.
“DREAM REALIZED”??? What the fuck?? Are you saying with your Subject line that President Obama’s fondest wish was that a released prisoner has rejoined the Taliban? Are you really saying that?
I’ve asked that this be moved to the Pit.
<mod>
No Pit material here. I see this more as a Great Debate.
IMHO > GD
</mod>
Can,t beat them now. They just got their forces kicked up by 25 %. . The logic is as easy as 1.2.4.
If I were totally innocent and treated like that I would be going all out for revenge.
He was, according to the article, released to the Afghan Government.
So. Given that the injustice has already been done, are you saying it’s in the best interests of the US to continue to detain these people, even if they are ‘totally innocent’?
In other words, the OP is saying:
“My favoritest president in 30 years fucked up so bad that we have to keep holding otherwise innocent people in direct and complete contravention of the supposed principles on which our country has been based for the last 250 years so that the completely justified wishes for revenge that they hold at this point can’t be fulfilled.”
Nice upholding of the American way, dude.
You do not detain people who haven’t done anything wrong, no matter what they may be thinking after 7 years of torture and isolation. This used to be a bedrock principle of government for the US.
Would you vote that if a police officer breaks into and searches your house without a warrant that you should be able to prosecuted on the basis of the evidence he had found?
Thing is, you can’t just detain random people indefinately without trial.
If the guy was a Taliban fighter, he could be detained until the end of the conflict as a POW.
But the Bush administration decided that captured Taliban fighters were criminals rather than soldiers.
Well, if they are terrorist criminals then they need to be given a trial and then sentenced.
But the Bush administration didn’t have any proof of criminal activity for most of these guys, even for something as simple as shooting at American soldiers. Or for some they had evidence, but that evidence was gathered through torture, and the Bush administration for some reason didn’t want evidence of torture to enter the legal system, so anything torture related had to be kept secret, even from the tribunals.
And so now what do you do with them? They aren’t POWs, they’re terrorists. But you can’t prove that they are terrorists for various reasons. So we just keep them locked up forever, because the Bush administration declares them terrorists?
Of course not. Terrorist criminals need to be tried for their alleged crimes, and sentenced if found guilty and set free if found not guilty. POWs need to be detained until the conflict is over, then released. There is no third option.
If a terrorist criminal can’t be tried, or is tried and found not guilty, and later ends up committing some other terrorist crime, then that’s sad. But our American system of justice designed in our Constitution by our founding fathers does not allow the indefinite detention of people just because we think they are bad guys.
It does allow us to indefinitely detain enemy prisoners of war. And note that enemy prisoners of war CAN be tried for certain crimes. But shooting at our soldiers is not one of those crimes.
In a way, this is somewhat reassuring. I was beginning to get the horrors, thinking that perhaps none of the detainees were actually guilty of anything. Now we can be assured that at least some of them were actually America’s enemies before we got our hands on them. I am pleased to hear it.
But why were they released, one has to wonder? Did the Pentagon succumb to the brutal pressure of wimpy liberals and terrorist coddling activist judges? Even given the dmaning evidence?
Good Lord! Two of them? Two terrorist watches? No doubt there was lesser corroborating evidence, such as the sworn testimony of the persons who were paid the bounty for his capture.
But still! Stuff that, you* habeas corpus* fanatics! *Two *Casio watches!
No pit material?! The thread title is clearly a trolling attempt.
Sure you can. You can do it for seven plus years, even. Just don’t be surprised if there’s some sort of consequences that result from it.
Egads! Imagine those guys in Times Square with hundreds of watches for sale in their trunks. How is it a single New York building is still standing?
-Joe
I don’t give a flying F what is in the best interests of the USA when it comes to basic justice.
By the OP’s logic, if some ordinary criminals, having served their sentence and returned to society, go back to commit more crimes, then no one should ever be released from prison.
Tagos, you’re wrong: you should care, because basic justice is in the best interests of the USA.
Actually, by the OP’s logic, if someone who’s been held in someone’s basement and tortured extralegally for 7 years is rescued by the police, then tries to set fire to the house they were imprisoned in, no one who’s been kidnapped should ever be rescued.