Let your party campaign for that.

freevillage on July 5, 2008 at 12:14 AM

No campaign needed. It is the law that your party is constantly qouting.

I love how finally trying them for horrible crimes they have committed is an option not even worth mentioning. freevillage

We have a policy in place to try them for crimes. But the liberal justices on the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, found rights not mentioned in the Laws of War, the UCMJ, and the Geneva Convention. So we can’t try them as planned.

It took a lot longer to get a procedure because of Democratic and left-wing support for the terrorists (excuse me-you say innocent victims). Do not impugn those trying to solve problem when you are deliberately making the problem-solvers job much harder.
If you would stop reinforcing failure, the US of A can be just and fair.

Look up show trial in the USSR for contrast.

Again, they should have been shot on the spot, like the Geneve convention allows.

Let your party campaign for that.

freevillage on July 4, 2008 at 7:57 PMI love how finally trying them for horrible crimes they have committed is an option not even worth mentioning.

Again, they should have been shot on the spot, like the Geneve convention allows.

It was a mistake to read one of Ed’s commentaries. I’ll now return to the mode of ignoring them altogether.

In a larger scene, I like the idea of terrorists or want-to-be terrorists having an immediate reaction of “It’s suicide to attack Americans, and does’t help my cause at all.” Make it a reflex action to deter future non-state evil.

NaCly dog on July 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM

That’s the point I was trying to get at. But again, nobody in our elected government seems willing to even think along those lines.

So, capturing them on the battlefield fighting our troops, counts as nothing? And how about the German combatants that were hanged in the U.S. during W2 after judgement by a tribunal?

Johan Klaus on July 3, 2008 at 4:39 PM

This does not describe all of the GTMO detainees.

I understand your concern, but justice is a tad too malleable these days to be the standard. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes all absolutes unachievable. So we do the best we can. Justice for whom is the first question.

The military tribunals can be the fairest process for our civilization and the truly innocent. F. Lee Bailey gave a talk once noting that an innocent person has a much better fate under the UCMJ, as opposed to civilian trials. Just think of all the correct Article 15 and Captain’s Mast cases over the years.

We can do scientific tests on nitrate deposition, store fingerprints and GPS data, and use OR databases to increase the probability of nailing the right guy. There will always be some error. I would like to bias the error to protect our civilization.

In a larger scene, I like the idea of terrorists or want-to-be terrorists having an immediate reaction of “It’s suicide to attack Americans, and does’t help my cause at all.” Make it a reflex action to deter future non-state evil.

Well, gee, maybe with a just process, it’s a lot easier to resist political pressure, isn’t it?

olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 2:21 PM

So, capturing them on the battlefield fighting our troops, counts as nothing? And how about the German combatants that were hanged in the U.S. during W2 after judgement by a tribunal?

Terrye on July 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM

you forget that Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginzurg, and that old fart whose name I forget, have god-like powers…they are not like mortal men, they give us mere mortal pronouncements from on high…

we are blessed to have their wisdom to guide us!!!

Thankfully they run the country…Praise Kennedy!!

I think that there is a certain justice in dumping this back in the laps of Congress. After all, Bush has had the responsibility thus far. Let some of these back seat drivers take the wheel. Let them come up with a viable alternative.

I repeat – has the tribunal returned a not guilty?

the tribunal hasn’t had a chance, thanks to the supreme fascists.

Well, gee, maybe with a just process, it’s a lot easier to resist political pressure, isn’t it?

well who says that using the US courts is a just process?? just because the courts say so? please. Using this logic, then being a citizen of the US is meaningless, since all people of the entire world have the same rigths as US citizens…and you have not commented upon the usurpation of power by this court, which is just as frightening as what these terrorists have done.

Also, is it possible that several years of detention without cause might breed hatred enough in a man’s breast to join Al-Q? Just wondering.

olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Is it possible that Al-Q bringing down the WTC and killing thousands of innocent people pushing paper at their jobs might have bred enough hatred to stick them in Guitmo for a thousand years without a trial?

see above

I repeat – has the tribunal returned a not guilty?

Moreover, even if the Pentagon is releasing people before going to a tribunal, that doesn’t make it a just process.
Are they releasing because of political pressure when they should have been detained?

Well, gee, maybe with a just process, it’s a lot easier to resist political pressure, isn’t it?

OK, have dug up a few references, and yes some released have returned as bombings. An old question applies – should we convict the innocent or release the guilty? Your thoughts?

Also, is it possible that several years of detention without cause might breed hatred enough in a man’s breast to join Al-Q? Just wondering.

But specifically, I was referring to the tribunal process, which not many have gone thru yet. The Pentagon has released some before facing such a process. My point is that the process as constructed (under duress – the Bush administration had to be dragged to this point, by John McCain, among others) still has real problems as a credible tribunal.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – The U.S. military confirmed Wednesday that a former Guantanamo detainee from Kuwait carried out a recent suicide attack in northern Iraq.

A spokesman for U.S. military’s Central Command told The Associated Press that Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in an attack in Mosul.

link

Don’t have a problem with that either, but it should be a fair trial or there is no point to it. You can have fair tribunals, but from all I have seen if an innocent man ever was released from Gitmo (Have those tribunals ever come back with “not guilty”) it would be blind luck or because an officer’s common sense overrode the process. The process, as constructed, is not built to produce anything but a guilty verdict.

that is demonstrably false, since we have released people from CLUB GITMO, some of whom have returned the favor by attacking us again.

references? I could easily have missed some, and I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, as some who knew me of old can attest.

In any event, thoughts as to the rest of my argument?

Does anyone agree with fogw?

I fundamentally and wholeheartedly disagree that hate is needed to do anything.

It may be that we are using the term in 2 different ways. To me, hating is an active desire to do harm to someone regardless of anything else.

I don’t have to hate someone to shoot them in self-defense or in defense of others, or in the cause of a just war, and believe I will shoot someone when it is the right thing to do.

What hate does lead to is killing people when there is no other reason to do.

Let me be clear. To me, hating is a sin, it’s an act that is by definition evil. Hate is what the Nazis grew in their propaganda. Hate is the KKK’s weapon of choice. Hate is what Al-Q relies on to recruit suicide bombers. Hate says the other guy isn’t human, he’s a cockroach, you can do anything you want to him and it’s OK.

Is that what we want to be?

You can have fair tribunals, but from all I have seen if an innocent man ever was released from Gitmo (Have those tribunals ever come back with “not guilty”) it would be blind luck or because an officer’s common sense overrode the process. The process, as constructed, is not built to produce anything but a guilty verdict.

olddeadmeat on July 3, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Are you kidding? How many stories have been posted on HotAir about evidently guilty prisoners who’ve been released from Gitmo, only to return to the battlefield?

fogw:

Let me be clearer, since apparently I wasn’t before: HATE IS NEVER GOOD. Not in any circumstance. Not ever as a guide to behavior. That is what “ever” means. It excludes even “sometimes.”

When hate is good. An example.

Your a soldier on the battlefield. Looking through the sights on your weapon you see the enemy, you also see he is preparing an all out assault on your position.

You don’t know this enemy personally, his family, how many children he has, or if he was a good parent. What you know by his uniform or his posturing, is that he is indeed the enemy and he is set on killing YOU. What you also know is this same collective enemy only last week slit the throat of your best friend while he lay sleeping in his tent.

He is in your sights. Do you pull the trigger or not? If you have mustered enough hatred for the enemy, you take him out in an instant. If you’re all wishy-washy about your Christian teachings about turning the other cheek or obeying the Ten Commandments, you can just sit there, do the morally right thing, and have your own head blown off. That’s how you lose wars.

Part of the indoctrination into the military involves igniting our primieval hatred so that the soldier doesn’t hesitate, doesn’t take time to judge himself, and automatically squeezes the trigger to live another day. That’s how you win wars. If you feel otherwise, keep away from military service because your inability to hate and kill the enemy will only end up killing your comrades in arms.

Without hate, good cannot triumph over evil.