Scott SoCal said:
I think we can disagree on the details of what to do with those still at Gitmo, but Holder wanting to try KSM in NY City was disgraceful. And with that POS, it was just the tip of the iceberg.
It's interesting when an author of the Patriot Act is real uncomfortable with the latest NSA news. Maybe it's just politics, or maybe Obama has taken that ball and has run with it.
Interestingly, you don't draw much distinction between enemy combatants and American citizens, or is my perception wrong?
gooner said:
So Al-Awlaki wasn't a combatant then?
American or not, he deserved to wiped off the face of the earth for the **** he preached on the internet.
So he was a soldier? You really want to convey that designation to criminals who run criminal operations, and who plan (or order to) kill people.
If these guys are indeed soldiers, in your estimation, then under the laws of war, they are legally allowed to blow up american soldiers. In that case, wasn't the Fort Hood shooter just doing his job then, as a combatant/soldier?
On top of that, with signature drone strikes, bombs are dropped on people who display activities that might be considered "terrorist." I kid you not but they include "gathering in and around huts in tribal areas."
Since the US seems to be eager to stretch the meaning of what is and isn't permissible under the laws of war, it has open enormous caveats for those people it wants to fight. The US has expanded the definition of being a combatant to include those "aiding and abetting" terrorist organizations, to include money men, couriers, gun runners and arms dealers, people who preach #%$^& on the internet and other publishers, almost down to "young men with guns in tribal areas."
The knife cuts both ways. Laws apply equally, so these new interpretations also apply automatically to the opposing party. In that case, terrorists (or "soldiers" in a war, "enemy combatants") are allowed to blow up those "aiding and abetting the US regime." In other words, like the US, they are now allowed to blow up training facilities, money men and financiers, publishers of "inflammatory material" (they will determine what is and isn't inflammatory) and contractors and industries supporting the war on terror.
I also can't wait until Russia launches a drone strike on a Chechen Enemy Combatant in Boston. You probably also agreed with McCain and Graham who want to designate the Boston Marathon bomber an enemy combatant (even though it's totally ludicrous).
Next up, in the war on drugs, drug kingpins, couriers, smugglers, and arms dealers, and basically anyone who aids and abets drug cartels are combatants! Just lock them up indefinitely without a trial, or just drone bomb them in the Mexican or Colombian mansions.
Scott SoCal said:
Fine. Try them in court. I really don't have a problem with that. Interesting tho, those still at Gitmo literally have no homes. Their home countries won't take them back. What do they know that we don't?
KSM in NY city was a bit over the top, imho. As insensitive as it gets.
First of all, they are "alleged" enemy combatants. Remember how it works? Pre trial Detention (or in this case indefinite pre-trial detention) -> courts, -> the law -> evidence works. It's funny how you trust big government to decide who needs to be there and who doesn't.
Remember the dozen or so of Uyghurs, who were detained for at least 7 years or something, because they were caught on the battlefield. Let me clarify that, they were lured by ****stanis who were promised monetary rewards if they could find and hand over "terrorists" to the US. As Chinese refugees in Afghanistan, they fled to ****stan, were detained by some people eager to make some money, and then ended up in GTMO. Sorry, no rights for you. China wants them back though, meaning they'll end up on the electric chair, or whatever device they have their.
ATM there are like 85 people
cleared for release. However, they need to be relocated. Some people can't be repatriated, not because they won't take them back, but because they might face torture, disappearance, of death when they are returned. If you did mistakenly end up in GTMO, after a decade in prison without a trial on whether or not you actually were a combatant, you think you would be able to shake that stigma? Ask some of the
British guys who had been detained and subsequently released...
Let me also turn that argument around. If their home country doesn't want to take them,
because the US has labeled them as terrorists for a decade, but now the US has come to the conclusion that they are not terrorists and dangerous, why doesn't the US take them? I mean, they have been held by the US, without trial for a decade. Some accommodation or compensation for their wrongful detention would be nice.
With respect to the trial in NY, it's only what all other countries with terrorist attacks have done. Let me see, UK London, Spain Madrid, India Mumbai...
Surely if those socialist, health care loving, commie-treehugging softies across the pond can hold speedy, fair trials in major cities where the attacks happened, the land of the free and the (maybe not so) brave, must be able to that as well?