Criminal Justice

Typical of Congress's lack of regard for the waste of taxpayers' money.  Millions were spent on gitmo.  We should continue to use that facility for the purpose for which it was designed.

How many are in favor of importing piranhas?  Shouldn't prudence dictate that we keep these folks out of the U.S..  The argument that there is no space in supermax may be false but there is still ample reason for leaving these terrorists where they are.  We know there is plenty of room there so why incur the expense of moving them and why waste the money already spent to house them in gitmo?

Gordon, I am extremely adamant when it comes to bad people trying to blow up our world. 

I would say it safe to say that more than 1 out of every 231 that a jury tries and convicts have been innocent.  But that is supposed to be the fairest system devised to put bad people away.

You know, if one of these bleeding hearts had one or two of these trained 14 year olds with sub-machine guns come into their home and blow away their mom and dad or a couple of their children just because they had been trained to hate Americans and our way of life, I would almost bet their attitudes would quickly change about their so called justice and the "American Way".  You can bet that most of them have never been sent to another world country and put in harms way to protect our safety.

I personally think that these "terrorists" should stay in Gitmo until they die of old age.  And, that would still be to good for most of them.

Pam, obviously you don't care about these prisoners, but the fact is--- in this country we have a constitution.  This constitution protects the citizens of this nation.  We must care about what others think about our country!

Yes, but are they all terrorists? That is the problem. Most detainees have not even been charged with a crime, yet they are being held indefinitely because of proximity, e.i. being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or even being remotely connected to someone who may very well be a terrorist. If we really want to abide by our Constitution and claim that we are a fair and humane nation, we MUST abide by the rule of law and the Geneva Convention. We have not done this, especially in the situation at Guantanamo and other black prison sites around the world. Added to that, we have basically gotten rid of habeaus corpus. That being said, yes prosecute those who are guilty, but we can't just assume they are, because they have been "collected". Our courts work fairly well, most of the time, but we must hold these prisoners to our own code of ethics standards, and try them with due process, accordingly. By not doing so, we become guilty of tyranny, and we can no longer call ourselves a democracy.

I have to agree with Pam.
After all the terror they released on us - I haveno sympathy for these low-lifes.
And sorry to say - I have no sympathy on their being treated badly there.
Let's use our "feelings" for something tha really matters,,,,child abuse, animal abuse and murder.
As far as I'm concerned - they can stay right where they are and those in charge can continue to do what it is the are doing to this scum.
Sorry - but I have no sympathy for them

I agree with Pam,And since the Constitution is supposed to stand for our beliefs, I say to you that if you don't feel the same way about the people held at Gitmo as you would someone who killed members of your own  family and kidnapped the rest, then you're no better than anyone else here voicing negative opinions about the detainees at Gitmo.

This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.  Whether a detainee is in a supermax or at gitmo, he or she is still incarcerated.  Why make a fuss about the location.  The Congress wasted millions of dollars building gitmo why not use it.  I'm in favor of leaving these villains where they are and affording them prompt justice using the military tribunals for their intended purpose.  The bleeding hearts are wrong as usual on this issue.  Leave these prisoners where they are as a symbol to the world that we will deal harshly with those who threaten our security.

Most Gitmo detainees were not captured in the US so why would our Constitutional protections apply to them? They are under Military Law as combatants and since many are foreign to the Country in which they were captured they don't even deserve Geneva protections. Leave them at Gitmo. We're wasting enough money on other projects. Campaign promise payback is no reason to do the wrong thing once you discover it.

Pam, maybe if we sent Mary Acostas about 4 of these terrorists to live with her, she could teach them about our consitutuion.  I'm sure they would be willing learners.

Barbara misses a couple of important points; we
designate them as "terrorists" because they were
engaged in acts of war without being in the
uniform of, or acting under the discipline of, a
country.  Under the Geneva Convention, armed
individuals engaging in combat activities in a war
zone, or in acts of "sabotage" (like terror
bombing) while out of uniform have no right to
surrender and be treated as prisoners of war.
The rules for dealing with such people under
the Geneva Convention are harsh, because when
"civilized war" was contemplated, it was assumed
that such people were acting on their own behalf,
and posed special a danger to the combatants
and civilians in the war zone who were trying to
play by the rules.   Our Constitution does not
extend any guarantees to foreign citizens on
foreign soil; this is one of the main reasons for
locating this facility in Cuba.  Since they do not
meet the definition of prisoners of war, bringing
them here would open numerous legal channels
that do not apply to them as long as they remain
on foreign soil.  Further, applying criminal law
to their cases does does not work to anyone's
advantage.  Under criminal law, a person who
deliberately kills another in cold blood because
of that persons loyalties is a murderer; under
military law, in most cases such a person is not
guilty of anything, he's just a soldier doing his job.
Prisoners of war do not get trials, they are held
until the conflict is resolved and a treaty providing
for their repatriation is put in force.  We're much
better off acting as if these people were regular
prisoners of war, to the extent this is possible.

Barbara McNamara is 100% correct in her assessment! So preak on, even if most people are to ignorant and stupid to understand the follies of their own arguments.
It troubles me very very deeply to read all these oposing views of simple "unalienable" human rights and dignity for all, mocking our constitution and world progress on human decency. Perhaps we have forgotten that we are a country that rules by LAW. Perhaps we have forgotten that we are a country where any person is INNOCENT until proven guilty. And it must needs be that way, or tyrrany quicky ensues.

Jim says "prisoners of war do not get trials, they are held until the conflict is resolved." But in a "global war on terror" when is the conflict resolved?? And when is justice served? Never. Torturing these innocent people (who are not proven guilty) is no form of civilized justice! It's -in fact- very illegal. Actually, America has become the very British colony that our forefathers deemed "monsters" and vowed to never become again.
God bless America? Yes, that She return to living her pure and virtuous values and principles. I believe we can do it, but evidently it's gonna take a huge effort by everyone.

The war on terror is unlike the usual forms of war and criminal or hostile behavior; therefore a  different kind of response is entirely appropriate.  Just because no end of hostilities is in sight that does not justify changing our approach to these prisoners of war.  The Pentagon has already indicated that a significant number of those already released have rejointed terrorist organizations.  As a condition of their release, they should have been put on notice that if they are ever apprehended again in circumstances that leave no doubt about their continued terrorist activities, they will be summarily executed.

It is not some imagined violation of our ideals in dealing with prisoners of war that is the problem here.  It is the Socialist utopian to every new problem that places our country in the greatest jeopardy.  Empty the jails and the prisons, release the prisoners of war, redistribute wealth, encourage public ownership of the means of production and distribution and see how far that advances American ideals.  These signs of weakness are what will be our undoing not the measures necessary to secure our country from terrorists and other enemies, foreign and domestic.

We can't release terrorist's and tell them if they ever murder people again - then they will go to jail, instead of going there the first time around.  If we let these people go, other people are going to die.  Period.  They don't care on bit about any warnings we can give them.  A lot of them could be suicide bombers, anyway.  A lot of them kill themselves before they are caught, if they can get away with it.  Releasing them will end in the deaths of innocent people.

   Here is a link with an article some of you might find interesting.  It's about terrorists who have already been released. It's horrible to think that we had them in our custody and then we let this happen:

 http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49162

Theses are not all terrorist's, there are MANY amoung them that are completely INNOCENT, they also have toddler's amoung them. Could you picture a TODDLER TERRORIST!!! I say let us have an INVESTIGATION into 9/11 and get the TRUE story!!! A 9/11 INVESTIGATION!!!

I doubt there are toddlers there, unless they came there with their mom's or families.  What we do need to be concerned about is the many prisons in third world countries that really do jail kids.  Innocent people.  Woman who have done nothing wrong.  Woman who have children in these prisons.  The ones that torture and beat innocent people everyday.  Prisons where innocent people die because they don't believe in the killing of other innocents by their government's.  These are the places we need to concentrate on, so we can help these people.

Nina, I strongly recommend that you change your sources of information.

I agree Diane!! I'am SO at a lost for words when it comes to this.

If they were all guilty then we would have had trials by now.  No trial = not (yet) guilty. 

And by the accounts of the DOD at LEAST one prisoner was in there by ~ age 12 (they are approx. 17 now).

To stop wasting tax payer money means to use the super max'es we have now vs. maintaining international prisons.  Just bcs we've built Gitmo for millions does not justify continuing it's funding if we could save money by transfering them here.

Anyone that convicts another without there first being a trial is begging for our country to turn into SOVIET-style America.

I wasn't going to respond to your comment Brad, but the more I thought about it the more I felt I needed to.
"If they were all guilty then we would have had trials by now.  No trial = not (yet) guilty."
Perhaps. But my guess is that they were at first considered to be prisoners of war and no trials were planned or expected because they would eventually be let go.  But then something happened, like government interference that said they must be tried and either imprisoned or let go.  Then things probably got really complicated, because we didn't know which rules do we follow. What evidence is allowed. Etc. Just guessing.  It's my understanding there is one attorney representing a detainee at Gitmo that has been holding up everything for months using various legal maneuvers. Justice is slow when the rules are not clear.

"And by the accounts of the DOD at LEAST one prisoner was in there by ~ age 12 (they are approx. 17 now)." I know nothing about this.  There obviously must be a reason for this or Obama or the attorney general would have already said let them go.

"To stop wasting tax payer money means to use the super max'es we have now vs. maintaining international prisons." If we still have international prisons for prisoners of war, do you really want them all brought to the USA to go into US prisons without trials? Wouldn't we need to keep the separate from those already found guilty? And do you really think anything we do here is cheaper than done 'there'? And what about the logistics of moving them around. And should the military do it? Or US marshals? or some other group? And are they staffed for 'all of them', if they exist?
"Just bcs we've built Gitmo for millions does not justify continuing it's funding if we could save money by transfering them here."  And how do we save money?  Gitmo has already been built. It has trial rooms. It already has what it needs to carry out justice in one place. Its a very lost facility with barbed wire and tents! Its a very cheap place to run compared to US standards. The prisoners of war, now war criminals, would probably need to be dispersed if they came here due to space limitations, and shouldn't we need to keep them separate from the other prisoners that have already had trials? And we would end up with the logistics problem again.  And there's the problem with trial rules again, and the right judges, and the right legal oversight.  And what about the media circus?
"Anyone that convicts another without there first being a trial is begging for our country to turn into SOVIET-style America." On this we agree.  That's why IMO it's best to keep them there until we know what to do and how to do. Perhaps then things will go so smoothly they could just stay until their fate is decided. 

Come on I would rather spend My tax money on keeping these people off the streets of the U.S. than bailing out car companies!!  And for the most part Guatanamo Bay is a place for those who are, without a doubt, guilty! How about this..why don't we let them come and stay at your place. You house them, feed them and make sure they stay out of trouble! Would you lock your bedroom door at night or do you think you will be just fine!! When someone asks me next where I think the prisoners should go I'am going to tell them Brad Kennedys house!!

That's a wonderful idea, Jenna.

Did you know that a 13 year old boy and a 94 year old man was also 'rounded up'. They were held for years, but fortunately, they have been released just recently because, guess what, it was determined that they were NOT guilty of anything. Having a speedy trial, or any kind of trial may have saved them from this unfortunate incident! You give our government too much credit when you fully believe it is aways going to do the right and ethical thing. It will make mistakes, but it must also correct the wrongs that it does. Holding people without due process is a crime - one WE are guilty of. If they are guilty, then let's allow them a FAIR trial to be able to prove that they are.
PS: By our very Constitution, they must be given a fair trial, or we cannot hold them. Also, International Law and the Geneva Convention also protects their rights. The very same rights you yourself would want to have should you be imprisoned in another country for whatever reason.

Barbara, do you live in a cocoon?  Every day many countries around the world are training 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 year old children to fight and kill who they have been told is the enemy.  Which is you and your family if only they have the chance to do so.  Believe it.

Barbara, this goes to you and Mary Acosta. The United States Constitution applies to its Citizens, not its enemies fighting it on foreign soil. If, in fact a 13 yr old and a 94 yr old were rounded up, then its most likely they were on the battlefield or in some other manner affiliated with combatants against us.  Further, the Geneva convention does NOT apply to them in the least bit, you should read it. They are neither under a flag nor in a uniform. They are NOT soldiers they are terrorists. You know the ilk that strap on backpacks and blow up innocent people eating lunch on a sidewalk diner just because they are not of the same religion.  Perhaps you recall their ilk flying planes into the the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field, killing our citizens.  Maybe you can recall their ilk driving a boat filled with explosives into the USS Cole.  I can go on an on about the murderous rampage these animals continue to carry out on a daily basis, all across the globe.  So, spend $80 million to get them out of Gitmo and bring them here? No way.  I say toss em' onto an Afghan battlefield and off 'em where they stand...get them on the express train to their 72 virgins. 

Lastly Barbara, I would expect no rights if I were terrorist imprisoned for whatever reason.  The fact that we give them Korans, prayer mats, ethnic food, and in some instances a better existence than they had before is beyond the pale for me.

It is interesting that so many are drawing conclusions about who among the prisoners of war are terrorists and who are not without any detailed knowledge about any of them.  This is the blind leading the blind.

It is interesting that so many are drawing conclusions about who among the prisoners of war are terrorists and who are not without any detailed knowledge about any of them.  This is the blind leading the blind.

And, Jamie that's a real fact that the bleeding hearts fail to accept.

Given the chance, these animals will not hesitate one milisecond to kill an American.

In principle I agree Emily. I wish Clinton had killed Bin Laden when he had the chance; I wish the CIA hadn't talked Bush into creating the Gitmo interrogation site.  But we make decisions in war that we later reflect on deeply - Read what Roosevelt asked/told General LeMay to do during WWII - it will make your hair stand up! But we won.  It would be interesting to know how the world would be today if we didn't drop the 2 H bombs, and the number of US lives we would have lost around the world, and right here in the USA.  

Diane, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if America had achieved clear cut victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the Allies did in WWII, then what's been done to prisoners at Guantanamo would be justified.

No Emily, I'm saying that we make mistakes.  Gitmo was a mistake.  Canceling Gitmo was a mistake. Saying that we will use our justice system was another mistake.
Its a mistake because our legal system won't work because the rules of evidence were not followed. So they need to stay at Gitmo until the military type trials can determine what should be done with each of them. 

What we did to prisoners at Gitmo was justified and was no mistake. We achieved a lot of useful information and saved many lives. We willcease using some techniques because it has been determined that the American people oppose them. Let's stop the self flagellation and move forward. Gitmo still serves its purpose, leave it alone.

So to tease the logic out of that, Diane, you're saying that we should address a mistake by perpetuating that mistake's existence?  

That's an easy one.  It wasn't a mistake, at least no one has presented evidence to the contrary.

Emily and Gordon, If we are talking about the creation of Gitmo, to me it was a mistake only because 'its purpose' was not made clear leaving open all the current disagreements and criticism. If the CIA or the Bush administration had said Gitmo is a prisoner of war facility, as I believe that it was intended to be, then no one could argue now that they are criminals and should be judged by criminal law without severe criticism.  
As for teasing the logic and perpetuating a mistake, each decision should stand on its own based the intended purpose of the action.IMO, the CIA, the attorney general or Obama should say what the purpose of Gitmo is now, and that will define what is to be done there.  If they intend it to just be a holding area for criminals, as is suggested, until they close it in several months, then they confuse the purpose when they now say they want to hold trials there because the trials will take years!  In other words they don't seem to know what they are doing because they keep changing their minds, and IMO this is happening because it seems that no one is following any sequence of logic. But I suppose that's what politicians do.

"The point is not how we feel about these people as individuals. The point is that we're a nation of laws -- our own laws, and international laws that we've agreed to, as Barbara explains. 
And these laws apply equally to people who's motives we distrust, and whose actions we deplore, as to those who we admire."
Okay.  Emily and Barbara, which laws are you referring to? The reason I ask is, are the these 'people' 'prisoners of war', to be held until the war is over per the GC (Geneva Conventions)?  Or are they 'Enemy combatants' or 'illegal enemy combatants' under the GC, and subject to military law? Or are they terrorists for which there is no law? (Which probably allows us to do whatever we want - unsure here.) Or are they international criminals for which there seems to be no laws either, unless we are supposed to use the laws of the country they were caught in?  Or are they just plain criminals subject to US law?

One thing not mentioned above is that these people committed violations of international law and not US law. I'm afraid Emily you are wrong about GITMO. The CIA pushed for it to be opened only because no other country wanted to house these people.

US law does not apply here, therefore these people should not have access to the US court system or the prison system for that matter. Anyone see the news about the 4 who were arrested recently? They were converted into Muslim extremeists in Prison.

"These people committed violations of international law and not US law" Not true! Most of the 250 Gitmo prisoners have not even been CHARGED with a crime, let alone seen a trial, let alone been found guilty.

See Binyam Mohamed's story, for example: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=86612&sectionid=3510203&c=

You know Matt Kelley, it's people like you with your bleeding heart syndrome that has our country so screwed up right now.

Will you agree to take about ten of these sweet little people in Guantanamo, innocent as they are, into your house to live among you and your family and care for them as if they were part of your family?  Are do you just want to turn all of those rotten bastards loose in my country so they can go to work building more bombs to blow your bleeding heart to smithereens?

I THINK THAT YOU ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO GET IT!  THESE PEOPLE HATE ALL AMERICANS (INCLUDING YOU AND YOUR FAMILY) AND THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.
dO YOU THINK THAT OUR MILITARY JUST WENT AROUND AND PICKED UP A FEW PEOPLE HERE AND THERE AND CLASSIFIED THEM TERRORIST?

We have young soldiers out there in some other country sacrificing their lives every day trying to keep our country safe from these horrible people so that your sorry ass will be safe to protest the treatment of these rotten people.

Matt, according to US law they are not prisoners. They are accused of crimes. We cannot put them in prison until they have trials and they are judged to have committed crimes. Gitmo is a holding area, not a 'prison'.

Diane, our country puts people in "prison" all the time without trials, subjecting them to the most inhumane treatment possible, either through direct implementation or by ignoring their pleas for help. Whatever label you choose to put on Gitmo, it is a confinement area designed specifically to imprison man and the definition of a prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison

The people detained at Guantanamo were captured under circumstances that would
make them prisoners of war if this were a normal
war, and if they had been wearing the uniform of
a country that was a party to the conflict.
Prisoners of war do not get trials, they are
typically held until a treaty ends the war and
provides for their repatriation.  Combatants captured in a war zone who are not wearing uniforms identifying them as soldiers subject to the authority of a country that is a party to the conflict are not accorded any rights or protections under the Geneva Convention or any other international law.  Armed individuals captured
out of uniform in a war zone can be summarily executed without violating any provision of international law.  The primary reason for creating
the facility at Guantanamo was that these people
do not fit any of the available norms; they don't
meet the legal definition of prisoners of war, nor can they be indicted under our criminal code. But
as long as they are not on US soil we can hold them as if they were legitimate prisoners of war, without violating our Constitution.  Nothing in our Constitution gives any rights to foreign natonals on foreign soil, and that's what they are as long as they stay in Cuba.

I agree with your argument Mark except when you compare seasoned professionals working under government regulations to 'cops'.  You should also consider the difference between a war on terror and street crime.  And, what it takes to win a 'real war' as Roosevelt and Truman had to do.

Diane,
    My comparision's are based upon my experience dealing with these "seasoned professionals".
    http://www.evri.com/media/article?entity_uri=%2Fperson%2Falberto-gonzales-0x3eae2&page=http%3A%2F%2Fcrooksandliars.com%2Fjon-perr%2Fdid-alberto-gonzales-lie-to-congress
     ON that fateful day in September, my heart wept for those lost souls and as I shed tears watching those planes tear our country asunder, my US Army mind (1972-1974) wanted to bomb everyone and kill all those involved.  Believe me, I know the difference between "crime wars" and "terror wars."
     But I am also well aware that our officials appointed to posts and positions often use those appointments as a personal platform to accomplish agenda's that we are often not informed of and would not agree with were we told the truth. 
      Matt is trying to bring the Guantamano Bay debacle to an end.  http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/21/us-drop-plan-detention-without-trial and I support that wholeheartedly.  It is entirely possible that were these alleged terrorists transferred around the country to some of our more secure prisons the light of the public eye would shine of the deplorable treatment being rendered, in the name of justice, to our citizens, and the administration would then be forced to release those non-violent offenders who are being imprisoned for knowing a drug dealer, living with one, or heaven forbid, introducing one to another.
     Our systematic destruction of this country by imprisoning non-violent offenders for the myriad laws they violate has cost us hundreds of Billions of dollars and achieved very little in the effort to reduce crime in this country. http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/the_right_and_wrong_ways_to_shrink_a_prison_population
    It is about time for us, as a nation, to care about the treatment we mete out to others, "in the name of justice." http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/end_this_sentence

Mark, you should know that when I said seasoned professionals I was comparing the equivalent men and women in the government to cops, not reaching into the justice department.
As for what we know compared to what they know, do you really expect to know what that is as an ordinary citizen?

As for Matt's intentions, he seems to be saying we should be scared of the GOPs intentions,  whenin fact everything depends on what Obama intends to do. And what Obama intends to do is both unethical and immoral, while at the same time he says he wants to uphold the Constitution and obey the law. Because he wants the congress to create laws that will imprison some of the Gitmo detainees without trails to prevent future crimes.
I'm not interested in the rest of your argument because it goes off the subject.
I believe that we all wish Gitmo was never created.  But there is it.  I believe that we all want justice the American way, but that is not what is being proposed.

That, I agree with, if, as proposed, Obama is seeking to create laws to continue the imprisonment of these people in order to "protect us" from their future percieved dangerousness, then that is patently illegal.  They should be afforded public trials, where the evidence is displayed for all to see.
      It is about time for us, as a nation, to care about the treatment we mete out to others, "in the name of justice." That my friend, IS the argument.

Mark, a lot of this argument here on this blog would have been unnecessary if the soldiers that took these "terrorists" into custody would have just shot all of them where they stood.

Then we wouldn't have to worry about these 231 terrorists or whatever you want to call them coming back and harming anyone again, no matter what country they want to persecute.

That is exactly correct, and were I still in the Military and been involved in the apprehension, I assure you, there would be no argument to have.
Unfortunately, circumstances dictate otherwise and we are in the position we are in, as a nation, and should accord humane treatment to those we hold, unless and until they have trials. And all should be afforded public trials!

The terrorists are trained in our court system's.  If we give them a public trial, they will use any and every loophole they can find.  They have been trained to do this.

Ah, yes, Joyce, we are finally getting around to it.  This issue is not about what "they" believe (which we don't know, yet, as the haven't been tried), but what "we" believe. 
Less than 20 took those planes that day and they are all dead, over two hundred are still imprisoned at Gitmo and they can't be guilty of the 9/11 deaths.  It appears they are being charged with scaring us.  In fairness, let's get this thing done.  Stop this brutal fear reaction.  Our acts will define our beliefs.  Not compromise, but fairness, justice and the rule of law as the Constitution laid out.

If you truly believe that Joyce then you better start protesting. Because the president is asking congress to create laws that will allow us to imprison those being held at Gitmo without trials to prevent future crimes. He's a reasoning and law abiding man who believes in the Constitution; why do you suppose he wants to do that?

Diane I don't have an answer to that question regarding President Obama's motives. I am disappointed to be sure. I also understand that the issue is extremely complex. It is my understanding that the DOJ ultimately is the decision-maker as to investigating and filing charges. I am writing AG Holder frequently about his as well as supporting organizations like the ACLU, AI and Human Rights First.

I believe this vastly overstates the case.  Perhaps as Conrad Cook suggests the issue is merely one of "prisoner of war" vs.  "detainee".  If so, the issue can be easily resolved by abandoning the eupemism "detainee" and declare them to be prisoners of war.  Then the questions of the Constitution, ideals, etc. become academic.  After all, German and Japanese prisoners of war during WW II did not elicit the kind of sentiments expressed here.  What kind of tragedy must America endure before we all recognize that we are at war, albeit perhaps a different kind of waras shown in the utube video I cite below.  Try the outcome described in that video on for size and then lecture us about ideals a la Sharia Law. 

" I believe this vastly overstates the case.  Perhaps as Conrad Cook suggests the issue is merely one of "prisoner of war" vs.  "detainee".  If so, the issue can be easily resolved by abandoning the eupemism "detainee" and declare them to be prisoners of war.  Then the questions of the Constitution, ideals, etc. become academic.  After all, German and Japanese prisoners of war during WW II did not elicit the kind of sentiments expressed here.  What kind of tragedy must America endure before we all recognize that we are at war, albeit perhaps a different kind of waras shown in the utube video I cite below.  Try the outcome described in that video on for size and then lecture us about ideals a la Sharia Law. "
Gordon, I agree with you and Conrad.

Assuming these folks were apprehended in the course of the war on terror, what do we charge them with?  What were the German, Italian, and Japanese prisoners of war charged with?  Making war?  No, they were not charged with anything.  They were simply incarcerated until the war ended.   The fact that the end of the war on terror is not in sight, despite Obama's overtures to the Muslim world, is largely irrelevant.  The terrorists should be incarcerated until a peace treaty is signed by Al Qaida, the Taliban, and others that insist on violence, sometimes against their own people, especially women.

"How's that for Truth and Justice and the American way?"

No place for that.  The Bill of Rights is a beautiful document:  but it's up to you to protect it.

Doesn't the Bill of Rights only pertain to those who are American citizen's?

Who was tortured Patricia? The attorney general said no one was tortured. It's called aggressive  interrogation and only 3 top al-Qaida members were subjected to it. 

"What goes around comes around" Does that mean we have to start cutting of heads and body parts as 'they' are accustomed to doing?

And does your last paragraph now mean that you are so angry that you now promote an eye-for-an-eye because someone did something you didn't approve of?

Have you ever thought that maybe we are helping the people over there?

Since when have judges become experts on national security?

This article might be interesting to some of you.  It's by no means written by an expert, but the facts are real.  So is the point.

http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryJeffrey/2009/04/22/cia_waterboarding_produced_intel_that_stopped_attack_on_los_angeles

Excellent article Emily - anything that helps to show that we were saved from further terrorists acts by using interrogation is good. And the attorney general already said that what we did was NOT torture.  Thank you

Oops! Sorry. I meant to say thank you Jamie.  Sorry.

Excellent Response Jeff. I agree. Thanks. 

(We will have related issues when it comes to providing a path to legal immigration for illegals who are in reality spanish speaking terrorists, who will then have an easy path to getting jobs, getting weapons, getting access to places they cannot get access to now, etc.)

In the realm of unintended consequences, by insisting that terrorists held at Gitmo be given the same rights as citizens in the court, they now want to represent themselves and the few trials that exist have become very long (full of legal challenges and motions), expensive (the US continues to pay for legal advisors and translators) and stages for middle-east Islamic rhetoric, and technical abuse of the US legal system because it was never meant for this type of legal proceeding.