That goes back to my first post about the US having the right to remove them from the country in which the crimes were committed. Further you could ask, what laws did they break? Sounds like a silly question but try to answer it.
Gitmo Camp Closed, Vacation Site Opened
- Thread starter dadofthree
- Start date
That goes back to my first post about the US having the right to remove them from the country in which the crimes were committed. Further you could ask, what laws did they break? Sounds like a silly question but try to answer it.
yea you guys are right, we should just quit, pack our bags and let em all loose.. really, I think I like that idea.. saves a lot of debate, headaches and pot and pan banging by the PC.. sure is a lot easier and cost a lot less time money and resources too..
cumabaya....
cumabaya....
jaywoo
Registered
How about affording them a fair trial for their alledged crimes? If they are found guilty, then punish them. If the government doesn't have enough evidence to prove their guilt, then take them back to whatever country they came from.
On that, what proof do you have that they are innocent?
jaywoo
Registered
The burden is on the government to prove guilt, not innocent. It's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Some people haven't heard of it I guess.
I am not saying they are innocent of anything, they could be guilty as heck, but of what? All I am saying is what do you charge them with? Nothing they did occured in the U.S. so they broke no U.S. laws, right? If they broke the law in a particular country shouldn't that country be the one to put them on trial?
tegbusa
Registered
Last edited by a moderator:
again, that is a right that is provided under the US Constitution. These people aren't Americans and aren't afforded the same rights as a US Citizen.
As for having a trial for them in the US, the biggest problem is not having evidence it is with how the evidence was collected. Many of the techniques used in a war zone would not stand in court. Once again this is evidence which was not collected in the US so it again does not fall under constitutional rights.
Projekt
Registered
The Geneva conventions are what they should have a right to. That is not being followed through.
HT_USMC
Registered
It has nothing to do with guilt versus innocence. They are supposedly interrogating them, remember? Which means, they don't want to let them go. They want to keep pressing them for information.
They may not want to ever put a single one of them on trial but as long as they feel there is intel to be obtained through keeping them there, they will. End of story.
Welcome to international politics. They were citizens of Iraq. They are still citizens of Iraq. Unfortunately, the "new Iraq" is a different government so they don't have any reason to desire the release of these people. This means there is very little international pressure to release them. In addition, these people are not US citizens and are therefore not entitled to the laws / rules a US citizen would be entitled in a US facility. This boils down to the fact that the captors have a LOT of gray area to play in while keeping these people detained.
Personally, if these people were in a place that some 22 year old Marine or soldier on the ground viewed them as an asset, they need to be held and "talked to". There is no, "wrong place at the wrong time" clause when it comes to war and people dying. If you aren't taking cover, you must be doing the shooting.
My thoughts as well...
jaywoo
Registered
Except for the fact that the constitution (and Bill of rights) isn't just for American people.
"The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms[3] and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. "
It doesn't say "Any American", it says "Any Person".
It's not so much about breaking local laws in another country, it's more about crimes committed during war. With Iraq not having any form of government how do you propose they handle the task of trying them?
If these people are afforded certain rights don't you think the US Supreme Court would have put an end to Gitmo years ago? Let's not forget Gitmo has been there for awhile now and has operated under several presidents and many justices of the US Supreme Court.
I'm no expert on laws of war and international law as I doubt many of you are either. The point I'm making is that if there was a major violation occuring it would have drawn much heat way before Obama was even a player in politics.
mike1180
Banned
My problem with it is..
With all the problems looming over him and us all, this was what he thought was most important?
To Make his first decision on?
And in the 15 minutes that he thought about it and consulted with everyone else around (Joint Chiefs etc.) he was able to make an informed decision, as to the overall consequences?
But...as I took a particular stand in an earlier thread, I did not vote, so I can't complain?
With all the problems looming over him and us all, this was what he thought was most important?
To Make his first decision on?
And in the 15 minutes that he thought about it and consulted with everyone else around (Joint Chiefs etc.) he was able to make an informed decision, as to the overall consequences?
But...as I took a particular stand in an earlier thread, I did not vote, so I can't complain?
I'm no expert on the Geneva Convention, but if it was being violated wouldn't there be a much bigger outcry from the rest of the world?
jaywoo
Registered
This was a campaign promise. I think it's pretty refreshing to see a politician following through with what he said he was going to do.
mike1180
Banned
Oh so he made it before hand, without the 15 minutes of consultation I referred to.
he has already backpedaled and revised this "promise"
GTMO has only recently been a detention facility, prior to that is was a military installation.
As to your question, I honestly don't know. I think that is the big problem what do you do? However if we are to wave the American flag as the standard for the free world then whatever we do it should be, open, fair and above board.
"The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms[3] and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. "
It doesn't say "Any American", it says "Any Person".
This is a great catch and it certainly could be used as a baseline for determining how we deal with these guys.
Projekt
Registered
Do you think the rest of the world really gets to know about all of the bad sh!t that happens or happened there.
We barely know a fraction of what really happens there.
GITMO is not closing down, only camp x-ray.. The entire base will not fall
because of this.
Like it was said above, This facility will close down only to result in another clandestine facility opening.. Maybe with our friends in the nation of Georgia. Remember all the controversy that caused Abu Gharaib to close down? Lots of those folks ended up at X-Ray. What is next?
Similar threads
