Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him

@okie,

In that case okie, you should know that Bush began the process of closing the facility a while ago. Bush knows intimately the issue of Gitmo, he is closing it. The difference between Bush and Obama on the issue is how the place is closed, not if it is closed.

Cylco is right too. Just because we suspect they will do something against us, doesn't mean that we can hold them. Let them experience justice for crimes they commit, not injustice for the crimes we dream up.

Beyond that, the point is to put them in trial. A guilty man has a better chance of freedom in a fraudulent court than a sound one. I want terrorist's to meet justice, but we don't do that by making mickey mouse trials.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Cyclops and Diest, this all hinges upon the problem of dealing with this as a criminal problem, not a military problem or act of war. Clinton made the very same mistake and gave us 9/11. You guys just watch, I will hate to tell you when the nonsense starts as soon as this problem is once again treated as a criminal problem. And Diest, I am not president making policy, if I was, I would at least visit Gitmo. It strikes me as silly and amateurish to close Gitmo without even having visited the facility.

You don't have to visit Gitmo to know it's wrong. Why would visiting help, Okie, exactly? The question isn't 'how are they being treated,' it's a question of legality and morality. I don't have to witness murders to know that they are wrong and should be banned, which they of course are.

The problem is, Okie, that many of those in Gitmo were not captured during fighting or on the battlefield or anything, and many we know are innocent. They are not a 'war problem.' They are just people. We cannot hold them indefinitely and the 'war' is a little specious to begin with, so I'm not sure what you propose doing with these people. Bush didn't know what to do either and so he passed the buck. Obama will not do that. He will likely release hundreds from Gitmo and transfer the rest to military prisons here in America, where they will be tried and convicted for their crimes based on the evidence available.

It is a criminal problem whether or not you want to admit it, Okie. Even if it occurred during wartime, which is a questionable assumption to begin with, they are still being accused of crimes. We need a system to deal with these crimes, not a claim that they are 'acts of war' and therefore no system is needed, we just keep them in limbo for years...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops and Diest, this all hinges upon the problem of dealing with this as a criminal problem, not a military problem or act of war. Clinton made the very same mistake and gave us 9/11. You guys just watch, I will hate to tell you when the nonsense starts as soon as this problem is once again treated as a criminal problem.

In the Nuremberg Trials, the indictments were for:

- Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
- Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
- War crimes
- Crimes against humanity

Just my opinion, but I'd say that if proceedings in a criminal court were a good enough method to deal with the most prominent members of the leadership of Nazi Germany (who were, after all, responsible for millions of deaths), it should be good enough for a bunch of terrorists, too.

2 Replies

@old europe,

The problem is, according to Okie and guys like him, there can be no acquittals. They would never accept any trial which lets anyone in Gitmo go free. The point isn't to find out the truth, not to them. The point is to defend America at all costs, and they don't even understand that those costs - in this case - are so high that they are destroying what it means to be America in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, there were acquittals even in the Nuremberg Trials. I'd say that the efforts of the Allies to act within international law and to avoid the appearance of victor's justice played an important role in the transition of Germany back from Nazi dictatorship to modern democracy. It's not unrealistic to claim that it made many people realize that these Nazi celebrities were really nothing but criminals.

And I'd also say that dealing with this as a criminal problem rather than as a military problem has been very successful so far. We haven't had another dictatorship in Germany since the end of WWII.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem is, according to Okie and guys like him, there can be no acquittals. They would never accept any trial which lets anyone in Gitmo go free. The point isn't to find out the truth, not to them. The point is to defend America at all costs, and they don't even understand that those costs - in this case - are so high that they are destroying what it means to be America in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

You seriously need to get off that high horse before someone blasts your ass off of it, son.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Cyclops and Diest, this all hinges upon the problem of dealing with this as a criminal problem, not a military problem or act of war. Clinton made the very same mistake and gave us 9/11. You guys just watch, I will hate to tell you when the nonsense starts as soon as this problem is once again treated as a criminal problem.

In the Nuremberg Trials, the indictments were for:

- Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
- Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
- War crimes
- Crimes against humanity

Just my opinion, but I'd say that if proceedings in a criminal court were a good enough method to deal with the most prominent members of the leadership of Nazi Germany (who were, after all, responsible for millions of deaths), it should be good enough for a bunch of terrorists, too.

oe, how naive can you be? There is a vast difference between Nazis and their political activities and terrorists or enemy combatants that may be caught on the battlefield. What do you tell the soldiers to do, read them their rights before shooting them before being shot? Do we send forensic experts to the crime scene, as if it is a domestic crime? The Bush administration had the best legal experts and military experts to look at this problem, which we did not create by the way, and they were having to devise a way to deal with these people, and Gitmo worked. We got alot of information, that has undoubtedly saved alot of lives. This is a war, not a crime problem. I am surprised that so many people, including Europeans, are so blind to the magnitude of what we are dealing with, and pass these people off as garden variety criminals not involved in acts of war.

Appeasement does not work, oe, you should know that. These people fall into a window, between genuine prisoners of war and criminals, they are prisoners of war, but they don't even deserve the Geneva Conventions standards, even though we provide them anyway. But no way do these people qualify as criminals for a domestic court system.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Quote:

And I'd also say that dealing with this as a criminal problem rather than as a military problem has been very successful so far. We haven't had another dictatorship in Germany since the end of WWII.

Wow - all of 63 years!

Though I guess that for Germany, this is a long time between dictators. Wink

In any case, it is hard to see how the Allied response to Nazi Germany's threat to dominate the world can be catergorized as law enforcement rather than warfare.

The Nuernberg Trials took place after Germany was utterly defeated. There was very little concern that anyone acquitted during the trials would, within a matter of weeks or months, resurface on a battlefield trying to kill members of the Allied forces.

Being the undisputed victor in a fully finalized war has something to do with the decisions that can be made about the vanquished.

This does not mean that Gitmo should or should not be closed, but Nuernberg is a poor analogy.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

There is a vast difference between Nazis and their political activities and terrorists or enemy combatants that may be caught on the battlefield.

There's certainly a difference between the ~200 people tried in Nuremberg and the inmates that are being held in Gitmo.

You can't even show that all of the inmates in Guantanamo are "enemy combatants" that were "caught on the battlefield", can you? You working off of unverified assumptions.

okie wrote:

What do you tell the soldiers to do, read them their rights before shooting them before being shot?

You don't even know where these people come from. You have no idea where they were apprehended, or for what reason. You don't know whether they were caught "on the battlefield" or simply handed over to the Americans by somebody else.

Again: you're working off of unverified (and at the moment unverfiable) assumptions that may or may not be true.

okie wrote:

This is a war, not a crime problem.

And what was the Second World War? A bank robbery? Did US soldiers read Göring his Miranda right before they locked him up?

Come on now. You're claiming that the "War on Terror" is worse than WWII, that the people who are being held in Gitmo are worse than the Nazi elite that was tried in Nuremberg?

You've got to be kidding.

okie wrote:

I am surprised that so many people, including Europeans, are so blind to the magnitude of what we are dealing with, and pass these people off as garden variety criminals not involved in acts of war.

1. You don't even know whether the people held in Gitmo have done anything.
2. If some of them are terrorists and responsible for hundreds of deaths, I don't think that makes them more evil than the Nazis that were tried at Nuremberg, in a criminal court.

Clear enough?

[quote="okie"Appeasement does not work, oe, you should know that. If we had conducted WWII in that manner, it would not be over now.[/quote]

And there's the rub, okie: you did conduct the trials against the Nazis as criminal trials.

1 Reply

@cjhsa,

cjhsa wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem is, according to Okie and guys like him, there can be no acquittals. They would never accept any trial which lets anyone in Gitmo go free. The point isn't to find out the truth, not to them. The point is to defend America at all costs, and they don't even understand that those costs - in this case - are so high that they are destroying what it means to be America in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

You seriously need to get off that high horse before someone blasts your ass off of it, son.

Someone like who? I'm not a scared little pussy like you Republicans are, cj.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

oe, to take your reasoning the ridiculous conclusion, do we treat enemy combatants in a war as criminals? Where are the police in Afghanistan and Iraq, oe? Why is the military even over there, why not send the police or FBI? Where are the crime investigators, fingerprint specialists, etc.? where are the search warrants before we do anything? Do you realize what you are advocating here?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In any case, it is hard to see how the Allied response to Nazi Germany's threat to dominate the world can be catergorized as law enforcement rather than warfare.

Sure.

Just as the American response to terrorism falls into the category of warfare rather than law enforcement. That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about what should be done with those responsible for the respective acts of aggression.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The Nuernberg Trials took place after Germany was utterly defeated. There was very little concern that anyone acquitted during the trials would, within a matter of weeks or months, resurface on a battlefield trying to kill members of the Allied forces.

Fair enough. If your only concern is the prevention of recidivism rather than justice for the millions of deaths caused by the Nazi regime, than you do have a point.

However, that would generally make a criminal trial against any terrorism suspect, whether domestic or international, very difficult. How could you bring Timothy McVeigh to trial if there was a chance that he, if acquitted, might resurface in front of another Federal building, trying to kill hundreds of people?

Oh, right: you trust in the American justice system.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

oe, to take your reasoning the ridiculous conclusion, do we treat enemy combatants in a war as criminals?

You usually treat them, if apprehended, as Prisoners Of War.

The Bush administration refused to adhere to that practice, though, and created the situation that you're faced with now: a system that was created to operate outside domestic and international laws, treaties and agreements.

okie wrote:

Where are the police in Afghanistan and Iraq, oe?

Are you claiming that all inmates in Gitmo come from either Afghanistan or Iraq? What's your evidence for that, okie?

okie wrote:

Why is the military even over there, why not send the police or FBI?

Because your government decided to fight a war. Then it refused to treat those apprehended in that war effort as prisoners of war. Bad idea, I agree.

okie wrote:

Where are the crime investigators, fingerprint specialists, etc.? where are the search warrants before we do anything?

You would need none of those if your government had simply decided to treat people allegedly "caught on the battlefield" accordingly: as prisoners of war.

Your government decided that it didn't want to do that. Now you have to deal with the consequences.

[quote="okie"Do you realize what you are advocating here?[/quote]

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just saying that a procedure that was good enough to deal with the Nazi elite should be good enough to deal with a bunch of terrorists.

You're saying that that's not good enough - so let me ask you: what do you propose?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
oe, to take your reasoning the ridiculous conclusion, do we treat enemy combatants in a war as criminals?

You usually treat them, if apprehended, as Prisoners Of War.

Okay then they should not receive rights as if they are part of the criminal system. That much we agree on then, so it seems to me that most of your arguments have just been rendered pointless, oe.

Quote:

The Bush administration refused to adhere to that practice, though, and created the situation that you're faced with now: a system that was created to operate outside domestic and international laws, treaties and agreements.

Here I disagree with you completely. We have not refused to adhere to standards of treatment, oe, and this is very important to point out the following - that these prisoners do not wear a uniform and do not represent any nation that signed the Geneva Convention. We have actually done more than we are obliged to do. And lastly, I totally disagree that we created this situation. The situation was thrust upon us by a new type of warfare, that we did not condone nor did we create, they created it, and I would point out that there has not been any clearcut domestic or international law to deal with this problem satisfactorily. So we have had to look at this with the best military and legal minds to see just how it can most efficiently be dealt with, okay.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Where are the police in Afghanistan and Iraq, oe?

Are you claiming that all inmates in Gitmo come from either Afghanistan or Iraq? What's your evidence for that, okie?

Where did I claim that? What I think is however is that many of them did come from Afghanistan and Iraq. I have not claimed to know everything about every single prisoner and where they came from, have you?

Quote:

okie wrote:
Why is the military even over there, why not send the police or FBI?

Because your government decided to fight a war. Then it refused to treat those apprehended in that war effort as prisoners of war. Bad idea, I agree.

Again I disagree, we do treat them as prisoners of war, but not quite the same as previous wars, because of all the reasons stated above. One of the principle reasons is that this war seems to have no resolution or end, as these people will not have the honor to surrender, nor do they fight with any honor whatsoever, they hide behind women and children. Did we tell them to do that? No, oe. What is complicated about this for you to understand?

Quote:

okie wrote:
Where are the crime investigators, fingerprint specialists, etc.? where are the search warrants before we do anything?

You would need none of those if your government had simply decided to treat people allegedly "caught on the battlefield" accordingly: as prisoners of war.

Your government decided that it didn't want to do that. Now you have to deal with the consequences.

Again I think you are just plain wrong on this. Conversely, our government did not treat these people as common criminals either, for obvious reasons, but that is what the Democrats want to do, which is totally bizarre in my opinion. Again, it is not our fault that these people that are committing acts of war do not neatly fit into any traditional category, but if there is any way that we have treated them, it is closer to that of prisoners of war, for obvious reasons.

Quote:

[quote="okie"Do you realize what you are advocating here?

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just saying that a procedure that was good enough to deal with the Nazi elite should be good enough to deal with a bunch of terrorists.

You're saying that that's not good enough - so let me ask you: what do you propose?
[/quote]
To compare terrorists with the Nazi elite is pretty naive, oe, I can't believe you actually think this is a good comparison.
What do I propose, I propose pretty much exactly what the Bush Administration has done, with the best military and legal advice that they have, what more can you do. And along with that, I would not blame us for the problem, okay. And I would also propose accurate reporting by reporters and politicians that have actually visited Gitmo and know something about it. I have listened to some of those people and their take is pretty close to mine.

2 Replies

@okie,

Okie:

A challenge: without looking it up, describe the current process the Bush administration has in place for dealing with the prisoners in Gitmo and detail what the long-term plans are for those who we aren't planning on putting to trial at all, for we know that they are not guilty of what we imprisoned them for.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Does anybody else find this comparison to Lincoln and this whole "channeling" Lincoln thing a little... premature, egotistical & a little unnerving? This is the latest Newsweek cover:

http://www.etonline.com/media/photo/2008/11/66056/400_obama_ET_11242008_DOM_200dpi.jpg

and here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/169170 they all ready have him on the penny.

2 Replies

@jpinMilwaukee,

I would consider it more 'egotistical' if Obama was the one making the comparisons. The word 'fatuous' might be better suited to those who would pre-judge him as a success.

Close fantasy match from last week btw, was a nailbiter.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@jpinMilwaukee,

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Does anybody else find this comparison to Lincoln and this whole "channeling" Lincoln thing a little... premature, egotistical & a little unnerving? This is the latest Newsweek cover:

And jp, how about the line that says "The Sarah Palin Photo Diaries/ Murder in Beijing" Newsweek is a worthless shameless rag of a magazine. The people are pathetic, and the comparison to Lincoln is not only wrong, but downright stupid. But the line with Palin and murder shown together, this is standard operating procedure for those jerks at Newsweek. I have no respect for them at all. Their journalistic standard is non-existent.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think that would fit as well, but Obama (or at the very least Obama's campaign people) have been trying to draw the comparison too. Check out that Newsweek article to see what I'm talking about.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Fantasy Football has not been my friend this year. My A2K team STINKS and I'm in another league where my team is really good but has been plagued by injuries all year

0 Replies

@okie,

I'm not a big fan of Newsweek either, but the whole Palin/murder thing, even if intentional, is not worth getting worked up about. I just continue not buying their mag Smile

0 Replies

Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know