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

[The T]

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

Military tribunals will do. NOT bringing them to NYC or any other city in the US.

The trials can be held right there in GTMO.

 

[The T]

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.

*I Did*

 

[Crackerjack]

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.

*I Did*

So your position is to kill those who are surrendering, right?

 

[The T]

Kindly answer the question put to you above.

*I Did*

So your position is to kill those who are surrendering, right?

It has NOT been proven that they surrendered in the first place.

 

[rightwinger]

Illegal Combatant.

Fine

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

Military tribunals will do. NOT bringing them to NYC or any other city in the US.

The trials can be held right there in GTMO.

It's been ten years ....do something

If we have evidence against them, use it

The burden of proof is on the accuser

 

[Crackerjack]

*I Did*

So your position is to kill those who are surrendering, right?

It has NOT been proven that they surrendered in the first place.

Non-responsive answer. Is your position that the military should kill those who are attempting to surrender?

 

[The T]

So your position is to kill those who are surrendering, right?

It has NOT been proven that they surrendered in the first place.

Non-responsive answer. Is your position that the military should kill those who are attempting to surrender?

Wrong. NO ONE has shown that ANY of them surrendered.

 

[Crackerjack]

It has NOT been proven that they surrendered in the first place.

Non-responsive answer. Is your position that the military should kill those who are attempting to surrender?

Wrong. NO ONE has shown that ANY of them surrendered.

I'm speaking in general terms.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Or we could just shoot them and dump them into a mass grave with some pig entrails...

Which is what was done with terrorists throughout most of history... No "trials". If you are fighting without a flag, you get executed.

That's what we did to the German terrorists after VE Day... YOu were still fighting, we took you out and shot you.

 

[The T]

Non-responsive answer. Is your position that the military should kill those who are attempting to surrender?

Wrong. NO ONE has shown that ANY of them surrendered.

I'm speaking in general terms.

As a matter of Course? NO. You do not shoot them. They become POW, and are held for the duration of hostilities...with NO TRIAL

 

[dblack]

It's not over.

What war are you talking about?

Look at who is in Gitmo. Look at their tribal affiliations. There's not a country in this Jihadist war.

The war is ongoing. It's called "Islamic Terrorism" even if Obama is not willing to use that term while he continues to castrate the power of American foreign policy.

So, we're in a perpetual state of war? Until the terrorists decide we're not?

 

[Crackerjack]

Wrong. NO ONE has shown that ANY of them surrendered.

I'm speaking in general terms.

As a matter of Course? NO. You do not shoot them. They become POW, and are held for the duration of hostilities...with NO TRIAL

So do you think we should be holding these individuals as POW's now?

 

[dblack]

Fine

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

Military tribunals will do. NOT bringing them to NYC or any other city in the US.

The trials can be held right there in GTMO.

It's been ten years ....do something

If we have evidence against them, use it

The burden of proof is on the accuser

We need to elect a president who will do something about this.

 

[Crackerjack]

Military tribunals will do. NOT bringing them to NYC or any other city in the US.

The trials can be held right there in GTMO.

It's been ten years ....do something

If we have evidence against them, use it

The burden of proof is on the accuser

We need to elect a president who will do something about this.

Some people thought we did!

"Change," my pasty white ass.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Ridiculous.

They were not taken into custody on a warrant. They were committing illegal acts of war.

Evidence that has long gone cold was never gathered.

But you know this.

If you don't, you're a fool.

 

[The T]

i'm speaking in general terms.

as a matter of course? No. You do not shoot them. They become pow, and are held for the duration of hostilities...with no trial

so do you think we should be holding these individuals as pow's now?

yes.

 

[rightwinger]

Illegal Combatant.

Fine

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

Ridiculous.

They were not taken into custody on a warrant. They were committing illegal acts of war.

Evidence that has long gone cold was never gathered.

But you know this.

If you don't, you're a fool.

So we are holding suspected terrorists without any evidence

The US used to stand for better

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't see why any American would want to grant freedom to murderers that have no honor. Men that would kill your family in an instant without a second thought.

Every country these types commit their crimes in tries to grant clemency to them and they go back to their same murderous ways. They think Allah tells them to commit murder. They're evil. You cannot reason with them. They are better off not existing because as long as they live the Earth is a worse place because of it.

 

[The T]

I don't see why any American would want to grant freedom to murders that have no honor. Men that would kill your family in an instant without a second thought.

Every country these types commit their crimes in tries to grant clemency to them and they go back to their same murderous ways. They think Allah tells them to commit murder. They're evil. You cannot reason with them. They are better off not existing because as long as they live the Earth is a worse place because of it.

And within this thread as posted by a couple of us show this to be true. They were repatriated, and were caught doing the same thing all over aging.

Some within this thread are far too trusting or far to wussified...

 

[dblack]

I don't see why any American would want to grant freedom to murders that have no honor. Men that would kill your family in an instant without a second thought.

You're missing the point. Entirely.

If they are murderers or terrorists, convict them and be done with it. Indefinite detention without trial is for cowards. You're arguing for the practice of imprisoning people permanently on sheer accusation. It's insane.