Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 12 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 18 of 19 < 1 2 ... 16 17 18 19 >
Topic Options
#50198 - 12/30/09 03:12 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: alicex4
I don't advocate a trial for a non-citizen terrorist who had 253 witnesses to his crime.


If there are 253 witnesses, then why on earth would it be so hard to convict the guy? What is there possibly to fear? If we have what is supposedly the best system for sorting the guilty from the not guilty, why the sudden lack of confidence when it comes to those who want to do us harm, especially when the evidence seems to be overwhelming?

Everyone gets a trial. Everyone gets a lawyer. Unless we want to go the Alice In Wonderland rules: "'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'" Our adherence to the rule of law is supposedly what makes us different from "them" and what makes this country worth defending in the first place.

As for "execute," I'm against executing anyone, but that's another topic. I'm certainly against executing anyone before a trial. Talk about being "judge, jury, and executioner..."

Top
#50199 - 12/30/09 05:21 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Well, execution was good enough for Tim McVeigh, it should be good enough for this dolt too. Not everyone gets a trial, ask Randy Weaver, David Koresh, and the MOVE members killed by the Philadelphia Police incendiary device how that worked out.

One should take away from this that individual citizens performed better than various and sundry government agencies/organizations to prevent this disaster. Why are we screening "everyone" when there really seems to be a "profile" to these attacks? Blindly allowing PC pressure to spread out the security on everyone instead of concentrating the security and screening on the smaller pool of suspects seems irrational.


Edited by alicex4 (12/30/09 05:23 PM)

Top
#50200 - 12/30/09 05:45 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Your changing the subject.

Adding to Daniels reply, didn't the government (GW himself) tell us Guantanamo prisoners were the worst of the worst just like your description "the latest knicker bomber…a non-citizen terrorist who had 253 witnesses to his crime"? One important part of the trial is that it should be public. Wouldn't we have freed those who should never have been taken prisoner in the first place is the truth had been made public. "God" I hope so!

I as far as I can tell, we held some prisoners simply to save GW the embarrassment of admitting a mistake! Again - yes trials for those prisoners would have helped!

Top
#50201 - 12/30/09 06:37 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: mworking]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"as far as I can tell, we held some prisoners simply to save GW the embarrassment of admitting a mistake! Again - yes trials for those prisoners would have helped!"

Please provide accurate documentation for your statement, otherwise it is just your fantasy that GW's embarrassment prevented the release of detainees.

According to the Pentagon's own report, 1 in 7 released detainees returned to terror.
Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shihri. He was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in late 2007 and later emerged as a leadership figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He was reported killed in a recent attack on Al Qaeda strongholds in Yemen, claims that have been disputed by family members.

Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi. He too was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and then emerged as a leadership figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula before turning himself in to Yemeni authorities in February.

Abdullah Saleh Ali al-Ajmi. He was returned to Kuwait in 2005 and in April 2008 conducted a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq, which killed many Iraqi citizens.

Ibrahim bin Shakaran and Mohammed Bin Ahmad Mizouz. These two Moroccans were returned to their home country in 2004, only to be convicted in 2007 for involvement in trying to recruit fellow Moroccans for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Ibrahim Shafir Sen. He was returned to his home country of Turkey in 2003, and was arrested in the Turkish city of Van in early 2008. He was indicted for being a leader of Al Qaeda cells in Van.

Ravil Shafeyavich Gumarov and Timur Ravilich Ishmurat. These two Russian were returned to their home country in 2004 and were arrested the next year by Russian authorities for involvement in a gas line bombing. They were both convicted in 2006.

Said Mohammed Alim Shah. He was repatriated to his home country of Afghanistan in 2004 and was said to have directed a suicide attack in 2007 that killed 31. He also kidnapped two Chinese engineers in 2004 and claimed responsibility for a hotel bombing in Islamabad. He blew himself up in 2007 to avoid capture.

Mohammed Ismail. He was returned to his home country of Afghanistan in 2004 and was recaptured months later for involvement in an attack on U.S. forces near Kandahar.

Yousef Muhammed Yaaqoub. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2003 and quickly joined back with the Taliban as a commander. He reportedly aided a jailbreak in Kandahar and was killed in 2004.

Abdullah Majid al-Naimi. He was repatriated to his home country of Bahrain in 2005 and arrested in 2008. He is known to have associated with Al Qaeda.

Majid Abdullah Lahiq al Joudi. He was returned to his home country of Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is said to have since aided terrorists.

Zahir Shah. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2007 and has participated in terrorist training since.

Shah Mohammed. He was returned to Pakistan in 2003 and was later killed fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan.



Suspected Cases

Ruslan Anatolivich Odijev. He was repatriated to Russia in 2004. Russian authorities said he was involved in several terrorist attacks including one in 2005 that killed police officers in the Caucasus region. He was killed in battle in 2007.

Sabi Jahn Abdul Ghafour. He was returned to his home country of Afghanistan in 2003 and reportedly became a regional commander for the Taliban. He was killed during fighting with Afghan forces in 2004.

Mohammed Nayim Farouq. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2003, and renewed contact with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Abdullah Kafkas. He was returned to Russia in 2004. He is suspected of being involved in an attack on a police checkpoint in 2005.

Almasm Rabilavich Sharipov. He was returned to Russia in 2004 and has since associated with the terrorist group Hezb-e-Tahrir.

Abdullah Ghofoor. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2004 and became a suspected Taliban commander. After planning attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces, he was killed in a raid.

Saad Madhi Saad Hawash al Azmi. He was returned to Kuwait in 2005 and is suspected of associating with Al Qaeda.

Isa Khan. He was returned to Pakistan in 2004 and later associated with a group called Tehrik-i-Taliban.

Muhibullah. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2005 and later associated with the Taliban.

Humud Dakhil Humud Said al-Jadan. He was returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is thought to have associated with known terrorists.

Abd al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim al-Sharikh. He was returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and was arrested a year later for supporting terrorism.

Abdullah Gulam Rasoul. He was repatriated to Afghanistan in 2007 and is thought to have become a Taliban commander who organized an attack on U.S. aircraft.

Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil. He was returned to Afghanistan in 2008 and has since associated with terrorist groups.

Top
#50204 - 12/30/09 09:59 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
I already have and your cases arent as good as mine.
At least my references were referenced!

Either of us can make up names - all 253 of those eye witnesses if we wish!

Anyway it seems to me you are proving that there should have been trials to prevent prisoners from being released too, as well as to release those who were innocent!!!

Top
#50206 - 12/31/09 05:09 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Well, execution was good enough for Tim McVeigh, it should be good enough for this dolt too.


McVeigh got a trial. I don't like capital punishment, but I can't argue that he didn't receive full legal process. Fair process and verdict before sentencing, unless one would like sentencing-first to apply to ourselves.

Originally Posted By: alicex4
Not everyone gets a trial, ask Randy Weaver, David Koresh, and the MOVE members killed by the Philadelphia Police incendiary device how that worked out.


And those incidents were investigated and the government was tried. The Waco Davidians sued and lost. Randy Weaver got a trial and was acquitted on all major counts, sued the government, and won a settlement. Members and relatives of MOVE also won cases against the government. So it's hard to point to these cases where a government may have acted wrongly and then say it's OK to act wrongly again because they did so before.

Even if the government acted wrongly, it's also the case that none of those people were in custody; the government argued, rightly or wrongly, that they were dealing with dangerous and armed suspects. There's not even that excuse in the Christmas bombing case, since the suspect is obviously well within government control. And if one wants to cite more relevant precedent, the shoe bomber was given a trial, as was the "20th hijacker."

Again, what is the danger or harm in having a trial in this case? What is the problem in living up to what we hold out as the best way of achieving justice?

I have to say that I'm tired of the "they did it too" defense, or "they said/did just the opposite so they're hypocrites" argument, whether it comes from the left or the right (and I'm hearing it a lot from the left too these days). Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't help determine which of the two hypocritical positions is the correct one. Hypocrisy may damage credibility, but pointing it out does nothing to address the merits of the issue.

Top
#50207 - 12/31/09 05:42 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: alicex4
According to the Pentagon's own report, 1 in 7 released detainees returned to terror....


What the report failed to consider is whether these people "returned" to terrorism. Many of them may not have been terrorists, but being held for years without legal recourse may have turned them into terrorists. The New York Times even issued a correction stating that according to the Pentagon report, the number should have been 1 in 20, not the 1 in 7 it originally reported (which apparently came from a Cheney speech). For more on the topic, see here and here.

So even if some people did "return" to terrorism, some people who were innocent may have been turned to terrorism by their indefinite detention at Guantanamo. That's the argument that Guantanamo and its absence of process has hurt more than it has helped by creating more net terrorists--and that's not counting the family, friends, and associates of the wrongly imprisoned. That's the danger of incarcerating people without giving them any real chance to challenge the justification of their confinement.

Finally, if one still supports incarcerating people without process, what's the implication? That we can hold hundreds of people without any legal process as long as there are a couple of dangerous ones in the mix? Thousands? How many people are we allowed to wrongly detain if one of them may be dangerous? And remember that the Bush administration said it could hold anyone declared an "enemy combatant," including US citizens, under the president's commander-in-chief authority; indeed, it's hard to see why such power would be restricted to foreigners.

I'm not going to ignore the risk that any system might allow dangerous people to go free. But I'm not going to ignore the fact that a lack of a system results in innocent people being deprived of their liberty. As I recall, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison, and the others could have lived very securely under the British, but they thought liberty was more important than their own security. And without rule of law, there is no liberty. Sometimes we have to put a little something on the line for principles we believe in. Otherwise, they're not principles, they're hobbies.

But aside from principles, there's always the self-intrest argument. Reprised from one of my earlier posts, from "A Man For All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!


Edited by Daniel (12/31/09 03:13 PM)
Edit Reason: fixed link

Top
#50208 - 12/31/09 07:28 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
At first I found it ironic that (in general) the people here on the right, those who think they want smaller government because government doesnt do anything well are the one who want to trust government to make specific decisions about others lives, while those on the left who don't mind bigger government so much are the ones who don't want to trust the government in this case.

More thought leads me to consider that in this case larger government correlates with a larger "judicial" decision making group while smaller government correlates with smaller "judicial" decision making group.


Edited by mworking (12/31/09 04:38 PM)

Top
#50209 - 12/31/09 11:30 AM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Although the latest incarnation of this thread firmly pushes a button of mine as it were, Daniel argues my case better than I can and I don't have to pay him a cent.
_________________________

Top
#50210 - 12/31/09 01:54 PM Re: Guantanamo transfer [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Daniel always has his ducks in a row so to speak and makes salient points in his dialogue. I like reading his responses too.

Top
Page 18 of 19 < 1 2 ... 16 17 18 19 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored