Gimpo Options

[THECHICKEN]

I was interested to see how many people think that Gitmo should be closed? In World War II we had over 450,000 germans, italians, and japanese (not so much) held indefinitely, which is easily legal under law of war. There were no trials or releases during the middle of the war. Yet people are working to have these people put to trial or released at gitmo.

Considering over 60 released prisoners have returned to fight against our soldiersSource , do you think its a wise decision to send more back to fight?

[Mommy]

Keep it open. If they want to try them, cool. I'm sure there are only a handful of innocents in that prison.

[woody]

if they close it all they do is transfer the prisoners around

not like they're just releasing them to the wild.

[cmac]

hasn't president barack the rock already said he's closing it?

[chook]

of 520 released 61 returned to fight according to your source. I am pretty sure more like 30-40% were fighting against the US and many haven't returned to the fight. Problem is in our country you should be innocent until proven guilty, its part that makes us great.

Close that place and give real trials.

[Mommy]

Woody, Switzerland said they would take some. Australia said they would but then keeps backing off when they propose a prisoner to send there.

CMAC, yeah, he said he going to do it by executive order.

[Mommy]

i say close the place and have real trials

i'm 100% sure though that after obama "reviews" the "process" that he'll reinstate gitmo and then all the obamabots who were anti-gitmo will suddenly turn pro-gitmo because their messiah can do no wrong

agreed

[THECHICKEN]

Ok so trials...

here is my question then. Should we have tried the 450,000 men we held as enemy combatants in WWII? If you try someone you are saying they are a criminal. We are currently holding these men as enemys from a WAR. You are condemning soldiers fighting thier enemy into criminals. The reprecocity of this could lead to U.S. soldiers being held as CRIMINALS in islamic countries and tried under those rules of law. And by your reasonings, that would be "fair"...

I think its insane to think these people NEED trials. They are Enemy Combatants in a war that are being detained until war is over. How is this wrong? Under rule of law its completely legal and makes sense.

Secondly, since these men are enemy combatants most of the evidence used to detain them is hearsay and classified. In a criminal TRIAL the government will be forced to give up all its sources (something you don't do while at war) to the prisoner in order to get convictions, as well as have A LOT of evidence thrown out because of hearsay and other due process issues. ... Effectively meaning these men GO FREE. Free to join war again, or walk our streets.

Which takes me to the next problem. 250 men have already been labeled as releasable and THIER OWN COUNTRIES WON'T TAKE THEM BACK. This means that even if we wish to release them back to thier own countries, they won't take them. Hell Germans who were all up in arms against gitmo would NOT take back a man BORN IN BERLIN when we tried to release him. So if we aren't able to even release them to their own countries what do we do with them? Its not legal to hold a civilian without charge (if not going by law of war... which allows for indefinite detention of enemy combatants) so we are required to release these men into the UNITED STATES. These are men that have actually said they still plan to kill americans (but we just don't want to hold them anymore).

So the question is that if you think these men need trials, then what do we do with them when we CAN'T convict them and can't send them back to their own countries?


Oh and to Woody saying we'll just move the enemy combatants to other places: thats not true if the HOUSE bill is accepted instead of the Senate bill on the matter. The house bill gives no allowance for holding enemy combatants under laws of armed conflict from gitmo.

[chook]

The WW 2 camps were a human rights violation.

[THECHICKEN]

The WW 2 camps were a human rights violation.

I am not talking about the internment camps for the civilian japs. Im talking about the Soldiers we held.

[chook]

I am not talking about the internment camps for the civilian japs. Im talking about the Soldiers we held.

The guys in Gitmo did not fight under the nation of a flag. If they did, then they would be returned already. They need criminal or military trials that are fair. What if Obama came and put you in a camp for just being a Texan, and no fair trial?

[THECHICKEN]

The guys in Gitmo did not fight under the nation of a flag. If they did, then they would be returned already. They need criminal or military trials that are fair. What if Obama came and put you in a camp for just being a Texan, and no fair trial?

Are you saying the war against "Al'Queda, taliban, and supporting groups" is over? Because thats the war. Im not sure where you are getting they would be returned already if they fought under a flag (considering many are taliban we captured, which IS a flag). There doesn't need to be military trials if they are mere soldiers, but if they are soldiers for "taliban, al'queda, or support groups'' they should be DETAINED until war against those factions are over. Its basic law of war that if you capture enemy combatants you hold them until war is over and as long as you don't abuse the detainees it is completely legal.

Oh... and if Texas was at war with the united states i would say it is COMPLETELY fair, to hold be until war over instead of convicting me of being a CRIMINAL...

[Psykopath]

if they close it all they do is transfer the prisoners around

not like they're just releasing them to the wild.

this.

Closing that legal black hole doesn't mean we just hand all of those prisoners a "get out of jail free" card.

[THECHICKEN]

this.

Closing that legal black hole doesn't mean we just hand all of those prisoners a "get out of jail free" card.

So why are we closing down a multi-million dollar facility already designed to hold these enemy combatants? Purely political? Should that be done?

[chook]

Are you saying the war against "Al'Queda, taliban, and supporting groups" is over? Because thats the war. Im not sure where you are getting they would be returned already if they fought under a flag (considering many are taliban we captured, which IS a flag). There doesn't need to be military trials if they are mere soldiers, but if they are soldiers for "taliban, al'queda, or support groups'' they should be DETAINED until war against those factions are over. Its basic law of war that if you capture enemy combatants you hold them until war is over and as long as you don't abuse the detainees it is completely legal.

Oh... and if Texas was at war with the united states i would say it is COMPLETELY fair, to hold be until war over instead of convicting me of being a CRIMINAL...

Problem is that they are not given the rights of POWs as we do with other people we combat. You are not allowed to torture POWs, and waterboarding is torture. Problem is that they are not fighting for a country but an ideal. Are militant black panthers POWs? Are the Branch Dividians POWs? We toppled their country already, so the war agaisnt that country should be over.

You can go over semantics and rhetoric until you justfy your position to yourself (which is what lawyers do), but you are violating the natural laws of man.