Ten years is up.....time to release everyone from Gitmo

[Crackerjack]

What makes you think they surrendered.

By the circumstantial evidence that they were alive to be captured.Why we gathered evidence is immaterial. The evidence is the evidence and can be used for multiple purposes.

To release them now would have made it all for nothing.

If the evidence is not strong enough to convince a neutral finder of fact of their guilt, than we should release them. Why would you want to hold an innocent person?

They don't need a day in court but rather a date with the executioner.

What harm will a day in court be to a government with overwhelming evidence of their guilt?

 

[The T]

Don't you guys just love it when conducting WAR has become like scenes from CSI?

I don't think the government would need to show anything more than the circumstances of their capture and ten years' worth of confessions to damn 99% of these guys. But the point is that the government should show it. I think it is a dangerous precedent to just take the state's word on this.

If you're upset about the 2012 NDAA, you should definitely be pulling for this sort of transparency.

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

What changed?

WAR is ugly business.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Don't you guys just love it when conducting WAR has become like scenes from CSI?

I don't think the government would need to show anything more than the circumstances of their capture and ten years' worth of confessions to damn 99% of these guys. But the point is that the government should show it. I think it is a dangerous precedent to just take the state's word on this.

If you're upset about the 2012 NDAA, you should definitely be pulling for this sort of transparency.

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

What changed?

WAR is ugly business.

We got soft.

 

[Crackerjack]

Don't you guys just love it when conducting WAR has become like scenes from CSI?

I don't think the government would need to show anything more than the circumstances of their capture and ten years' worth of confessions to damn 99% of these guys. But the point is that the government should show it. I think it is a dangerous precedent to just take the state's word on this.

If you're upset about the 2012 NDAA, you should definitely be pulling for this sort of transparency.

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

What changed?

WAR is ugly business.

We're not talking about saboteurs.

 

[The T]

I don't think the government would need to show anything more than the circumstances of their capture and ten years' worth of confessions to damn 99% of these guys. But the point is that the government should show it. I think it is a dangerous precedent to just take the state's word on this.

If you're upset about the 2012 NDAA, you should definitely be pulling for this sort of transparency.

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

What changed?

WAR is ugly business.

We got soft.

Liberal Progressives got hold of us.

Pussies that are afraid of the real enemy whilst they wage social war on thier own countrymen.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

By the circumstantial evidence that they were alive to be captured.Why we gathered evidence is immaterial. The evidence is the evidence and can be used for multiple purposes.If the evidence is not strong enough to convince a neutral finder of fact of their guilt, than we should release them. Why would you want to hold an innocent person?

They don't need a day in court but rather a date with the executioner.

What harm will a day in court be to a government with overwhelming evidence of their guilt?

Our govt is mandated with protecting us and that is what they are doing. All you and those who think like you are doing is undermining that very mandate.

 

[The T]

I don't think the government would need to show anything more than the circumstances of their capture and ten years' worth of confessions to damn 99% of these guys. But the point is that the government should show it. I think it is a dangerous precedent to just take the state's word on this.

If you're upset about the 2012 NDAA, you should definitely be pulling for this sort of transparency.

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

What changed?

WAR is ugly business.

We're not talking about saboteurs.

But enemies none the less.

~Go Figure.

 

[Crackerjack]

They don't need a day in court but rather a date with the executioner.

What harm will a day in court be to a government with overwhelming evidence of their guilt?

Our govt is mandated with protecting us and that is what they are doing. All you and those who think like you are doing is undermining that very mandate.

Non-responsive answer.

Just remember this thread when the government starts pulling people off the streets under the new powers it's granted itself and turns them in to the military without trial or an attorney. Don't think it won't happen, either.

 

[Crackerjack]

Saboteurs in WWII were executed on the spot.

What changed?

WAR is ugly business.

We're not talking about saboteurs.

But enemies none the less.

~Go Figure.

So we should just kill all of our enemies at once?

Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, here we come!!

 

[mudwhistle]

We are a nation of laws. One of our most cherished documents is the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, right to see the evidence against you and right to face your accuser

We, as a nation have done none of that and hold men who are "suspected" of being terrorists in indefinite detention. Isn't it time to put up or shut up and either try or release these men?

They will be released when they decide never to take up arms against us ever again.

Until then.....fuck em.

 

[The T]

We are a nation of laws. One of our most cherished documents is the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, right to see the evidence against you and right to face your accuser

We, as a nation have done none of that and hold men who are "suspected" of being terrorists in indefinite detention. Isn't it time to put up or shut up and either try or release these men?

They will be released when they decide never to take up arms against us ever again.

Until then.....fuck em traitor.

And smack 'em down every time they misbehave.

 

[The T]

We're not talking about saboteurs.

But enemies none the less.

~Go Figure.

So we should just kill all of our enemies at once?

Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, here we come!!

There's diplomacy and then there's active WAR footing.

Try to differentiate would ya guy? Please?

 

[Intense]

You might want to study this Link, RW. Mastermind that you are. Obviously, Release should be case by case.


History

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[1] Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities".[3]

In a press briefing on March 6, 2007 a "Senior Defense official" commented[4]:

"I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight."

Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.

On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12]

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely make it case by case

Define the crime they are alleged to have committed and the evidence against them. If you have a case...use it

Illegal Combatant.

 

[Crackerjack]

But enemies none the less.

~Go Figure.

So we should just kill all of our enemies at once?

Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, here we come!!

There's diplomacy and then there's active WAR footing.

Try to differentiate would ya guy? Please?

So basically you're saying that the military was wrong in giving them quarter and should have mowed them all down regardless of whether they were attempting to surrender, right?

 

[The T]

You might want to study this Link, RW. Mastermind that you are. Obviously, Release should be case by case.


History

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[1] Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities".[3]

In a press briefing on March 6, 2007 a "Senior Defense official" commented[4]:

"I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight."

Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.

On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12]

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely make it case by case

Define the crime they are alleged to have committed and the evidence against them. If you have a case...use it

Illegal Combatant.

As Most terrorists ARE.

 

[Intense]

Absolutely make it case by case

Define the crime they are alleged to have committed and the evidence against them. If you have a case...use it

Illegal Combatant.

As Most terrorists ARE.

Yep. Some think that We Alone are bound by the Geneva Convention.

 

[The T]

So we should just kill all of our enemies at once?

Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, here we come!!

There's diplomacy and then there's active WAR footing.

Try to differentiate would ya guy? Please?

So basically you're saying that the military was wrong in giving them quarter and should have mowed them all down regardless of whether they were attempting to surrender, right?

The purpose of the Military is to kill people and break property to force your opponent to capitulate.

Get it yet?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What harm will a day in court be to a government with overwhelming evidence of their guilt?

Our govt is mandated with protecting us and that is what they are doing. All you and those who think like you are doing is undermining that very mandate.

Non-responsive answer.

Just remember this thread when the government starts pulling people off the streets under the new powers it's granted itself and turns them in to the military without trial or an attorney. Don't think it won't happen, either.

Baseless rhetoric.

 

[rightwinger]

You might want to study this Link, RW. Mastermind that you are. Obviously, Release should be case by case.


History

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[1] Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities".[3]

In a press briefing on March 6, 2007 a "Senior Defense official" commented[4]:

"I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight."

Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.

On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12]

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely make it case by case

Define the crime they are alleged to have committed and the evidence against them. If you have a case...use it

Illegal Combatant.

Fine

Bring them up for trial, present the evidence and convict them if it will stand up

 

[Crackerjack]

There's diplomacy and then there's active WAR footing.

Try to differentiate would ya guy? Please?

So basically you're saying that the military was wrong in giving them quarter and should have mowed them all down regardless of whether they were attempting to surrender, right?

The purpose of the Military is to kill people and break property to force your opponent to capitulate.

Get it yet?

Kindly answer the question put to you above.