Guantanamo ruling

arm-spin · 06-13-2008, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

I hear you. I didn't say anything about executing them......

On the other hand, I don't have any faith that we'd have the guts to force people to scrub floors. A court would stop it at this rate.

I was thinking the same thing. How do you make someone who's already got a life sentence with no chance of parole scrub floors? If you bribe him with rewards, you're making his life more pleasant instead of more unpleasant. If you want to use threats, well, the guy's already stuck in a jail cell for the rest of his life, what more can you do to him without it becoming torture?

Finally I don't imagine you'd want a captured terrorist out in public, no matter how well guarded he is, there's pretty limited work he could actually do. And a guy who wants to a) kill you and b) die a martyr's death would have to watched so closely it would be a security nightmare.

zappacy · 06-13-2008, 07:53 AM

There is a prison in Colorado that is perfect for them.

JensenS · 06-13-2008, 08:35 AM

If the one you're talking about is the one that I'm thinking of, chances are I think they may wind up there should they be convicted after a trial.

zappacy · 06-13-2008, 09:00 AM

It is the only place for them. ADX at Florence Colorado. Unabomber and bombers of the WTC in 93 are there.

FloggingSully · 06-13-2008, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

I'm sorry, but I do not want to pay for that. Scrubbing floors and mopping for plotting to kill Americans? U.S. interests?

Not on my watch.

It's cheaper to keep prisoners in jail for life than it is to execute them.

Tight-Waist · 06-13-2008, 11:29 AM

These terrorists now have more rights than an American soldier.

If these men are to be granted trials, they should be military trials, not civil.

matclone · 06-13-2008, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by M Richardson

The position the government takes on this (and it has merit) is that they cannot be effectively tried without revealing secret information. It is the usual "Catch 22" of counterintelligence - the trial will have to reveal information on how we caught them. That gives the enemy information on our capabilities.

Imagine you were arrested in a foreign country for murder. The govt argues it can't try you in a regular court because the trial might reveal their "secrets" as to how they discovered the murder and, in doing so, other, hypothetical, murderers might glaum on to their methods. The underlying premise to this argument is that the govt (in olden days the king) can do no wrong.

Damn that constitution.

Cyclone85 · 06-13-2008, 12:50 PM

I have not read the decision but the result appears to be one of the dumbest legal holdings that I have ever seen. Not the worst decision, that would be Roe v Wade in my opinion, but probably the dumbest. The reason that it is beyond comprehension is that it gives due process rights to combatants that were captured on the battle field. How can these people, who our soldiers could have killed on the battle field, have due process rights? We could have killed them without penalty -- but now that they are captured, they all of a sudden have all these rights. As I said, it does not make sense. Our soldiers are being killed and maimed by high-level explosives and if we capture the people doing this, they can now challenge their detention. As John McEnroe used to say: You cannot be serious.

FloggingSully · 06-13-2008, 01:03 PM

"We could have killed them without penalty -- but now that they are captured, they all of a sudden have all these rights. As I said, it does not make sense"

-How does that not make sense, it's the way our law works. If you shoot at cops they can shoot back and kill you without penalty, but if they catch you you all of a sudden have rights. Makes sense to me.

matclone · 06-13-2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

[The ruling] it gives due process rights to combatants that were captured on the battle field. How can these people, who our soldiers could have killed on the battle field, have due process rights?

Their status as "combatants" as opposed to "prisoners of war" is in dispute even if you and the pimps of talk radio proclaim it to be undisputed.

They're entitled to due process, probably in part because they're human beings--despite your evident wish that they hold some inferior status.

Guantanamo ruling

Politics & Religion