Terrorists in Prison: is there anything the Right doesn't fear?

ahh see but they are declared enemy combatants.. not soldier of the opposing army, which gives the US army freedom to basically do whatever they want, be damned the rules of war

I wonder who really changed the "rules of war"? The legitimate armies or the terrorist groups that basically ignore standard conventions of war?

The rule of war is to kill the other bastard before he kills you.

Last time I looked

The 'war' is on-going, so it is perfectly legal to hold the combatants til it ends. This puts the ball in the terrorists'court.

If you want to get home, help end the war. Talk and give information. Simple eh.

The 'war' can't end because there isn't any definable objective or end goal. The 'war on terror' is won when _____. I don't know of anything that can reasonably go in that blank. When people stop making scary movies? When all beds are made transparent so kids can see there are no monsters under there? Without an objective there's no possible way to determine that it's over. So what do you do? They can never be let go if it's tied to concluding the 'war'. Hold them forever?

How long is a piece of string? How does one determine when any war ends? I assume when both sides yell uncle. But wars these times no longer seem "conventional". With so many defaulting to guerrilla and terrorist methods will future wars ever really end?

As long as someone is caught up in such scrimmages the conventional rules of war should be brought into play wherever possible.

Obama just stated that he will never release anyone that possess a threat to the United States.

So, imo, he is currently looking for another Gitmo to keep people in, or, in the alternative, trying to find a way to keep Gitmo open.

The War on Terror can go on as long as the United States says it will. As long as there are militant Islamic Extremists that want to kill the U.S., who can blame the United Staes for keeping the war alive? And , in war, there are prisoners taken.

I suppose terrorists can possess a threat to the USA. So okay. No absofucation of the English Language involved.

everyone loves my spelling

oops...you know what I mean....poses a threat....

The "war on terror" cannot be won.

For decades, the authorities have been trying to stop domestic groups who utilize personal terrorism - the mafia, etc., but they have failed.

Organized crime definitely terrorizes. Why have we been unable to stop them?

There is a difference. Mostly organized crime does not go after innocent citizens with home made bombs and killing dozens of innocent women and children.

Even the moron local gangs aren't indiscriminately targeting and killing hundreds of innocent peeps. The one-offs are bad enough. But big difference.

And yeah, I guess you can't eliminate terrorism. Or organized crime for that matter. But let's make it very very uncomfortable for them if they want to play their games in our back yards...

Maybe we label all organized crime and gangs as terrorists. Then put the US Homeland Security on them. That might put a dent in their activities.

True, most organized crime groups are not into bombings, but they most certainly go after innocent people in families, including women and children and friends, etc. They make it all very personal. That's sheer terror, if they are onto you.

I fear high-level organized criminal groups have become so integrated with society that many people prefer to tolerate them, again out of incredible fear of the alternative.

JT Estoban wrote:There's another tricky issue that will come into play here as well....

Some of these detainees, well, they aren't charged with anything....at all, yet the government claims that they are still dangerous...so they can't be released.

So what to do with them....the "limbo" detainees as it were...

In a world without oh-so-brave-but-scared-shitless-of-everything Republicans, Obama would personally meet every single limbo detainee, publically apologize, offer reparations in the form of money and a flight ticket to a country of their choosing (provided said country would accept them).

If the military don't have enough evidence against them to actually indict them, they have neither the right nor a reason to hold them, no matter how paranoid they are. There's dangerous people everywhere, it's not new and people shouldn't freak out just because there are people with ill intentions out there. It never was any different and never will be.

This so-called "war on terror" is supposed to be to protect basic western principles like freedom and democracy. If we can't even live up to our own expectations of basic fricking principles like the presumption of innocence, why the hell should be even bother saving ourselves from terrorist attacks?

Give me liberty or give me death, that's what I say. I'd rather be killed in a terrorist attack than forsake these just and basic principles. They're not too much to ask. If they've got evidence against the detainees, then charge them with a crime and give them a fair trial. Why are we even arguing about this? Why do we have to act as if this is even up for debate?

Since when has the right to a fair trial and being charged by evidence become negotiable? I thought we sorted this stuff out after WW2!

Well helgihg, debate is what we do here. Mostly. I'd rather we debate a topic then dismiss it altogether.

Anywho... Are they not prisoners-of-war? Do prisoners-of-war deserve trials and release? There is a war underway. They are prisoners (detainees??? WTF?) until the war is declared over. If they are not to be tried for war crimes I expect they will be released to their home country.

Until then they belong in a prison no?

Yes, thats exactly the point. They should be detained. This crap about trials is absurd. Were there trials for the hundreds of thousands of Germans captured during WWII?

Ah, I see. Prisoners of war.

Well, I was under the impression that both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were over. What remains is sectarian violence, although sadly enough plenty of it. When exactly will this war on terror be over? What will define victory?

Oh, by the way, I don't accept the notion of the war on terror being a war in the classical sense, nor that terrorism is any kind of a "new threat" requiring changing the definition of war, nor that individual countries have the right to change the rules as they please. If these are prisoners of war, which war? (Let's say Afghanistan.) And if not now, then when will this war be over?

What enemy need be crushed for victory to be claimed? What is required for these prisoners to be released to their home countries like normal prisoners of war?

These are not rhetorical questions, by the way. I'll take the POW argument if these questions can adequately be answered.

Yes I would love to see the American might win this war on terror as they are not even sure of who they fight . America needs to come to grips with the fact it doe's not run things in this world . As much as it once did .

By definition kinda', the War on Terror will only be officially over when the Americans say it is. Til then, they can hold their prisoners of war as long as they wish.

Any bets that Gitmo won't be closing?

JTF wrote:Any bets that Gitmo won't be closing?

Actually... I'm quite optimistic. Obama has defended his decision very well lately. It doesn't look like he's going to compromise on it.

Kind of neat as usual, the topic expands into a bunch of different subjects.
Granted that the war on terror is not the same type of war that our fathers fought, but what do you do when you have troops on the ground and capture the folks that are trying to kill them? Practical answers only, no political issues.

If not Gitmo, where? I heard an interesting comment on one of the American news channels yesterday, that Obama made the committment to close Gitmo, before he had developed a plan as what to do with the detainees?

While the United States may "not run things in this world", there is no denying that they are the "Super Power". Quick history lesson shows that twice in the last century, the United States tried to remain neutral and avoid becoming involved in major wars, and that even caused dissension internally, as well as externally. And yes, twice they were drawn into both World Wars. Without their industrial might and manpower, the world would be a very different place now. Such is the price of leadership.

It is difficult to predict what would have and what will happen in the Middle East with or without US involvement. It is reported that Iraq is continuing their development of nuclear weapons. Granted they won't have the delivery systems to launch them directly on us, but their we all know what the obvious target it.

Simple solution for closing Gitmo and the war detainees. Ship them back to whatever country they were captured in. Make that country keep charge of them until such time as USA withdraws. If even one of them is let go on purpose, USA withdraws.

The generally accepted concept is to remove prisoners far from the theatre of operations as quickly as possible.

they have "secured" many areas in those countries.....

It wouldn't be wise to send them back to Afghanistan or Iraq, nor Canada for that matter. They'd be back in battle within months, so what would be the point? There's enough new ones out there to kill.