Laugh derisively all you want; glad I can entertain you. Since you are now attempting to ridicule me for a comment I withdrew (rather bad form, IMO), lets go ahead and continue the discussion. Your original post seems to make it clear that, based on something you half-remember from some unnamed Time Magazine article, you believe no remaining Guantanamo detainees should ever be released, because of something they might do if they are ever freed. We are apparently not supposed to question the logic of this opinion of yours in any way. Meanwhile, someone who has presented evidence that you may be basing your opinion on non-factual information must, for some reason, present a ‘real cite’, as if the cited information is not real. If that is not the case, feel free to correct us on your position.
Sorry for my stupidity in not understanding your no doubt perfectly clear post.
And let’s see how far your strategy of summary execution of all prisoners will go.
You do know that the military prefers for enemy fighters to surrender, right? Why would an enemy fighter surrender if they’ll be summarily executed? Your idea is that there are a finite number of enemy fighters, and the fighting will be over once we’ve killed them all. That turns out not to be the case.
I am well aware of that. Obama’s handling of detainees is one of the increasing number of things that I have been disappointed about with his presidency.
The whole Gitmo and detention ball of wax involves several multi-faceted issues. Personally, I disfavor the continuance of Gitmo and indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, and favor any moves away from them. Tho Obama has not progressed as far or as quickly as I wish, he certainly has made some progress, and more than I believe anyone would have suspected to have occurred under McCain or the preceding administration.
It is perfectly reasonable to detain enemy Prisoners of War until hostilities are concluded. Enemy POWs need not have committed any crime to be detained.
Of course, enemy POWs are entitled to be treated as outlined under the Geneva Conventions.
It is also perfectly reasonable to hold trials for criminals and convict them to prison terms. But there has to be some sort of, you know, evidence.
And note that it is also perfectly reasonable to capture enemy soldiers, and detain them for the duration of hostilities, and determine that some of those enemy POWs commited crimes that they can be tried for. But note that enemy POWs can’t be tried simply for shooting at US soldiers. Fighting in a war is not a war crime.
What will actually happen is that a former Gitmo detainee returning to terrorism will be a sobering reminder that you cannot cure violent radicals by locking them up. Therefore your choices are the same as always: keep them locked up forever; define a shorter term of lockup by trial or some other means; or release them.
The political calculus is the same: the witless will blame you if a released prisoner goes bad again, and the softies will blame you if keep them locked up indefinitely without fair trial.
The moral calculus is unchanged.
I do not see Mr Obama altering his position: a public one of given these fruitcakes some sort of due process and a closeted one of trying internally to figure out which ones seem to have the most potential for being dangerous and using every possible means to lock them up indefinitely.
Winning the hearts and minds of the keep-em-all-locked-up-forever crowd is a low-yield for him anyway, so I think he’ll just muddle on and try not to be too soft on the ones with the clearest record of badness.
Hmmm. Recent registration, low post count, extreme positions. Interesting.
Also, shooting at American forces is not necessarily illegal. Whole buncha Germans, Japanese, Koreans, and even Iraqi regulars did it without being considered criminals subject to indefinite detention. Part of the problem is that the GITMO detainees are not considered P.O.W.s, nor are most of them considered criminal defendants. They’re in some sort of nebulous legal limbo.
The Guantanamo release is a red herring. The fact that you even know about it shows that they had all the intel they needed. So the problem has NOTHING to do with Gitmo. The Gitmo stuff is irrelevant. The same is true for any new security measures they put through. ‘Don’t get out of your seat an hour before landing.’, wtf is that supposed to accomplish?
No, what needs to be done is intelligence agencies need to be sharing information better than they are. It’s that simple.
Ignoring the expected posturing from several predictable posters on both sides of this issue, one point that has been made remains true: if we do not have sufficient evidence that a person has actually engaged in terrorist actions that we can use to try them in a court of law, (civilian or military), what is our justification for holding them for the rest of their natural lives simply because some E-2 found them on the wrong spot on an Afghanistan hillside or some neighbor decided to sell them as bad guys to the invading U.S. troops?
I think it is pretty clear that after we have locked someone up for several years, surrounded by people who really do hate the U.S. or the West, even if (especially if?) that person was innocent, they are more likely to emerge with an attitude inclined to support anti-U.S. actions. We see the same thing in our prisons, where youthful offenders are likely to discover that prisons are good training grounds for more serious and more violent crime.
Is the answer that anyone who ever happens to get locked up for any reason automatically incurs a life sentence to keep the rest of us safe?
If we have evidence that a person actually took violent action against the U.S. or an ally, then let us prosecute that person under existing laws. If we have no evidence that they have done anything wrong, then we need to free them and, if they use our incarceration as a prompt to become violent toward us, then we need to use that as a salutory lesson in the future to avoid detaining people for long periods without sufficient cause.
Let’s keep the comments about other posters out of this discussion. His comments are right or wrong on their own merit, not because they do or do not have a recent join date.
Actually, particularly in Afghanistan, this is factually inaccurate.
Afghanistan has had an armed populace forever–and a firearmed populace since firearms made it into the region from the Ottoman Empire. They have used those weapons for defense against European/Western powers for around two hundred years, but have also used them in internecine warfare among the various brigands and tribal feuds in which many of them engage. The posssession of a weapon means only that a person feels the need to defend himself or herself from neighbors, nearby tribesmen, or the local pack of bandits–none of whom the U.S. or NATO troops have the manpower to control, particularly during the period when the U.S. and the Northern Coalition had not even secured most of the country when the majority of the Gitmo detainees were rounded up.
Your logic is flawed and based on inaccurate assumptions.
This.
POWs are not criminals, they have not commited crimes (simiply by fighting, that is).
The problem with many POWs in Gitmo is that there is no clear end to the war, there is no clear VE/VJ day, so it is an open-ended war and technically the detention can still be indefinite without violating the letter of the Geneva convention.
I too wonder whether Bricker now favors Sen. Jim DeMint’s hold on Obama’s nominee to head TSA ? Is wartime really the time to play such petty political games, or does DeMint have the nation’s best interests in mind here?
Ají de Gallina obviously meant that the two theaters in WWII had a definite “We won” moment to them – the surrender of the appropriate government. There’s no such clean “win” to be had in the current conflicts. We beat Afghanistan’s government years and years ago. But we weren’t really fighting against a government, we’re fighting largely against an ideology that is never going to say “Ok, we give up now. You win. Time to let the POWs go.”
You Betcha!
Still, when a senator talks about health care reform as “Obama’s Waterloo”, it’s reasonable to suspect that his obstruction of Obama’s TSA candidate may also rise from mere partisan antipathy rather than any actual issue regarding the nominee’s ability to do the job.