Released Guantanamo Detainees Planned Fizzled Plane Explosion

I certainly hope not. The indefinite detention of individuals while denying them no effective process is a horrendous embarrassment and contrary to much of what I think makes the US what it is (or claims to be).

Being supportive of freedom and human rights (instead of just claiming to be)necessarily exposes you to some risks and incurs some costs. I prefer those risks and costs to the alternative.

Rumor, because the guilt of someone on the battlefield with a weapon is always perfect evidence of their crime, no mistakes are going to happen. Not true in other situations.

However we do need to quit pretending truth serum and lie detectors do not exist, and use modern tools like that in criminal investigations. It would just be evidence, and more accurate than the often wrong witnesses that do testify.

But on the battlefield you need no witnesses when you find the enemy with a gun that has been fired, that is the difference. You know with certainty what he was doing.

Dinsdale I do agree, it is crazy to hold people forever, the trials and executions should be fast indeed. Just how do they claim this is OK with the constitution anyway? Where is a separate system for the military even authorized at all? But I also know if they are not our citizens we owe them nothing at all, our constitution is for our people and citizens, and does not apply overseas unless it is a USA territory.

Being on the battlefield with a gun generally isn’t considered a crime, much less an offense for which one can be summarily executed. And there are indeed questions about the guilt of some of the people we are discussing.

This is probably a separate debate but it sounds like you’re grossly misinformed about these items.

You concept of the battlefield is some rolling, tree lined meadow where Team A is on one side, Team B is on the other. Maybe I’m being unfair. By all means, please define this “battlefield” for me.

Politically, I think it almost has to, but it’s still legally cringeworthy. I’m well to the right of most on this board, but I’ve never condoned the notion of indefinite confinement for people that have yet to be convicted of any crime. I still say try the GITMO detainees in open court, and let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama can do that. If the next attempted terrorist attack is successful and traced to someone released on Obama’s watch, he’ll get crucified for it. Not many are going to complain if he just keeps them locked up forever.

Rumor, Any place US forces are being shot at, is a battlefield. Anyone caught with a gun, grenades, military equipment and so on in a battlefield would be a killer of American forces. Very simple to determine.

If there were shepards and farmers and such no I would not harm them if they had no military equipment.

Then you would also know that you’re dead wrong. On multiple levels

the constitution is not exclusively for “our people” (which, btw, has some scary ethno-political connotation to it) or citizens

and federal case law, statutory law, and probably treaty and executive order enlarges the application of certain constitutional principals to extra-territorial situations.

I assume you believe we can give Nidal Malik Hasan a 5-minute one-and-done trial then, right?


So simple eh?

Well it’s the shepherd’s or the farmer’s own bloody country, and one say bloody riddled with warlords and bandits.

And where owning an AK and other “military equipment” (the sort you Americans tend to scream on about as your god given right to Own and Bear arms) is perfectly legal and ordinary (indeed bloody dangerous to go around unarmed…).

And where - as in Afghanistan - hardly unknown, indeed documented in multiple cases where score settling can charmingly involve selling you to the said Americans for a bounty on “terrorists” or Taleban.

Not too bloody clear at all actually.

Actually, it rather seems to be your practice to make sweeping assertions (such as the presumption of terrorist) and then hide behind ambiguities and snarky remarks.

Possibly, but hopefully with an eye towards more complete investigations and determining who is and isn’t a threat. For as many times as I’ve heard the “X many Gitmo detainees are now fighting against the US again!” numbers thrown around, what it says to me is that the old system had critical flaws. I’m not naive enough to believe that everyone in Gitmo is a saint there has to be a better way of determining who is what than imprisoning them for years on end without charges before using whatever criteria they were using to release them.

I know nothing about “truth serums”, but have recently read 2 lengthy articles about recent attempts to come up with effective “lie detectors.” Both of them maintained that there is no scientific theory to explain how - or even whether - polygraphs work.

There is considerable research towards developing reliable tests, such as use of fMRIs. But little useful practical result.

One statement I found curious concerned a guy (I believe the model for the Lie to Me TV series) who offered training on detecting lies through personal observation. Government agencies consistently told him that they were not interested in training, but desired only solutions that involved technology they could buy. Don’t know if it is true, but is sure SOUNDS likely! :stuck_out_tongue:

(Another amusing factoid - the modern polygraph was invented by William Moulton, who also created Wonder Woman - who happened to have a truth-telling Magic Lasso!) :wink:

One of the articles was by a Robin Marantz Henig, originally in the NY Times mag, and reprinted in The Best American Scientific Writing of 2007. (Just happen to be reading the book right now.) I think the other was in Discover mag

No, much of your constitution applies to anyone under US jurisdiction. I assure you that even though I am not a US citizen I cannot be, say, shot for speeding in Utah.

Don’t “tread” on me, buster!

FAIR is quoting other sources, and you are in denial.

After looking at the report, so far I have to agree with this conclusion:

In Iraq when a citizen claimed a neighbor was Al Queada, the citizen got a bonus and we went off with the guy. Then we interrogated him and kept him in jail for years. That treatment has a tendency to radicalize him, his friends and family. To be safe we should round them all up.
But wait, now we have more people who are friends and relatives. Don’'t we have to take them out too? This is such a good way to get people to love America.

This is one of those things that so clearly distinguishes me from folk who feel differently. And it seems neither of us can comprehend how the other could think as they do.

I cannot understand what they are afraid of - what they believe is worth acting in a manner I consider to be contrary to many of what I consider to be the most fundamental American values.

Except that Obama has bought into the indefinite detention policy already. I don’t know that he will be as willing to use it as often as Bush did, but he still plans to use it. So I think you mean that you hope he does change his policies.

When are we going to round up all the gun owners in Texas?

I don’t understand why they think their fear would make a difference. Madmen who kill strangers with household implements are tried with people present and incarcerated alongside other prisoners, and someone like that is more immediately dangerous to the people around him than some shmuck who is accused of plotting to help gather supplies to make explosives or of driving a limousine. I understand that some people are really scared of terrorists, but so what? There’s nothing in any document outlining a prisoner’s rights that features the disclaimer “unless they make Republicans really really scared,” is there?