Yeah, they wouldn’t be put in Gitmo. They’d either be put in a navy brig to rot (Padilla) or sent to a black site in Eastern Europe or the ME.
Indeed, location of arrest/targeting is apparently the main operative distinction, rather than white versus brown.
My question is, why would someone caught other than on US soil for a US terrorist attack be thrown in Guantanamo?
Agreed. But some idiot on Hannity radio yesrerday was advocating exactly that. No trial, no rights, the whole nine yards. Put up him in gitmo as an enemy combatant and torture him to find out everything he knows. Not some crazy caller either, but a guest on the show, Apparently we dont need the Constitution when the going gets tough.
Emphasis added. There’s a difference?
You guys remember that Bush isn’t president any more, right? Black sites were his thing. So was the waterboarding. For that matter so was Guantanamo; I don’t think anyone has been brought there since 2003 and most of the people who were there have been released. I was as angry about this stuff as anybody, but people railing about it in 2013 need to get their shit straight. Padilla may be a counterexample, but again, that was in 2002 and he was tried in a civilian court eventually.
So you don’t think the CIA has used black cites for decades before Bush and/or they were all closed when Obama came in because they said they did because torture is so bad and they were shocked it was happening and they were very sorry we found out about it, I mean, sorry for doing it? I mean, isn’t the point of having a black site that it’s secret? It’s Bush’s fault he blabbed about 'em so loudly.
If they really wanted to twirl the mustache they’d just use extraordinary rendition and get some client state to do it.
I’ll skip what sounds like the prelude to a conspiracy theory say that yes, Obama said he would close the black sites when he took office and Leon Panetta confirmed they were no longer in operation in early 2009.
Why’s it gotta be a black site.
That’s just crazy talk Marley23. I mean who am I going to believe - your cite from the BBC quoting Obama and the former director of the CIA, or an internet loon who claims that secret sites still exist because “they’re secret”.
And drone attacks. Those were Bush’s thing too. Thank God Obama doesn’t do that.
Do you think they’re going to send drones after the Boston suspects?
Why would the answer to this question be any different in or out of the pit? 
It’s my understanding we blow the building up when we think el hombre is still in it.
Seriously, come off it. We use drones because the locals aren’t willing to tie the perps to a tree in a vacant field for easier collection, or they’re actively hiding them.
It would be interesting to see how loyal the locals would be to their little heros if we gave them some notice to the effect of, “At noon, April 19, 2013, the residences at 123 Baghdad ST, 34 Doha Ave, and 2875 Baklava way will be vaporized unless Mohammed Mahmoud ibn Mohammed alHashidi (you know the one we mean) is delivered to (easily recognized landmark outside of town). Furthermore, upon verification said individual is delivered by 11:30 a.m. as demanded, $5,000 (in the currency of your choice) will be delivered to the above addresses in lieu of a Predator-delivered air-to-ground warhead.”
I feel like a complete idiot for even posting in this thread.
I’d be all for this.
Still, you gotta wonder, exactly who gets to decide that the 12 year old girl that happens to live next door to Mohammed Mahmoud ibn Mohammed alHashidi (an extremist, who has never detonated any bombs, but who has said some very nasty things about the U.S, and also trained in an al qaeda camp, where he learned to roll, and to traverse dangerous looking jungle gyms) needs to die a horrible death so that no jungle gyms in America are threatened by mr alHashidi?
If that was your daughter, would you be ok with that? Hell, we got a POSSIBLE dangerous terrorist, so you should be ok with it, right? I’m sure the parents of little Afsana would also agree. Or maybe not.
So it’s like any other day for you?
I don’t know, who gets to decide that 90,000 people in Tokyo are going to die to a fire bombing or that we’re going to bomb most German cities into large piles of rubble?
Evil sacks of shit, which should be removed from power post haste, IMHO.
We need transparency in government, SPECIALLY when it comes to decisions that mean life and death for innocents.
We CANNOT possibly be ok with the government padding us on the head and saying “Don’t worry your pretty little head over this”.
That is just not right.
Yeah, I’m bringing up this recent tragedy as a sort of metaphor, rightly or wrongly. Imagine if we were subject to the methods WE OURSELVES use on other countries. Your son, your daughter, all become possible collateral damage, all in the name of keeping America safe.
We wouldn’t stand for it. We think it would be absurd. And yet it’s a daily reality for some people.
So Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Churchill etc should have been removed from power during WWII?
That’s what representative government is. Ok, that’s an overgeneralization so big it’s almost absurd, but everybody else was doing it and I wanted to fit in.