Shared publicly  - 
 
Continues to depress me how thoroughly America abandoned some traditional values in the past decade. Guantanamo continues to be a national disgrace.
20
3
Omede Firouz's profile photomathew murphy's profile photoSkip Regan's profile photoBrian Ferguson's profile photo
25 comments
 
We have to keep prisoners of war and terrorists somewhere, until we execute them.  Club Gitmo seems to fit the bill.  I just wish we try a little harder to extract the info from them before we shoot the terrorists.
 
I can't be the only person who believes in due process anymore.
 
TRIALS ARE due process! Trials do not have to be in US Courts under any law.  if they do, kindly cite which specific law, federal or international.
 
+neil fromer Does that include jury rigging to make a buck by putting people in prison? Happens a lot in Pennsylvania but anyway that situation is both deplorable and inhumane.  As I've said before either party is from the same camp when it comes to that logic.
 
I thought Obama closed Gitmo three and a half years ago??
 
+Russell Nelson So you thought.  I'd imagine they'll keep it open indefinitely.  In that situation you have to use a little logic there.
 
In war, there will always be some collateral damage.  Every drone, every bomb over Tokyo in March/April 1945, every bomb over Dresden and the rest of Germany 1943-45, had in the aggregate over 1 million collateral damages.  If there are 100 people or whatever, who were of dubious terrorist standard at Club Gitmo, that's a relative peanut number.  Even every local police department shoots some innocent person from time time.  Shit happens.  We don't shut down out local police office just because sometimes an innocent person got hit by mistake.
 
Brian, asked before which SPECIFIC international law or federal law does not allow these prisoners of war to be held.

Also asked which  SPECIFIC international law or federal law requires they be given trials in US Court?

Which one? 

You are trying to imply a military trial is not fair.  It has different rules and standards, that does not make an unfair system either.
 
If the standard is to fight a war without collateral damages, we will be unable to fight ANY war, ever.  And we also could never have a police department.  The power of force will always yield some collateral damage.  Furthermore: We should also prohibit all cars, motorcycles, all airplanes, bungee jumping and every other activity that entail risk of innocent lives being hurt.  After all, despite the greater good being created, some totally innocent people do get hit from time to time.
 
+Anton Wahlman That's the type of bunker mentality that's gotten so many in world in an uproar lately.  There is no greater excuse for stupidity.  In this situation and with all of the intel that was had from proper interrogations someone somewhere along the line should have made some determination of who was there by error.  Do we allow police to open fire at a bank robbery even though 20 citizens may be shot? No you have trained people there and a little logic should have been used.
Make no mistake that some detainees were engaged in criminal acts and some weren't.
 
You can't say President Obama didn't try hard to close Guantanamo Bay.  He signed an executive order on his first day in office to that effect, tried to relocate the Uighurs, tried to give the prisoners civilian trials.  At every turn his attempts met opposition, even by his own party at times, and eventually he simply ran out of political capital.  I don't blame the President for giving up; despite what I believe was sincere conviction on his part, the American people largely were not on board.  In a sense, you could say that democracy has prevailed after all.
 
+Craig Lennox   That was just an excuse, he could hae simply ordered them released and dropped them all off somewhere (whether the host country liked it or not).  And you know this, it's not likely Obama isn't quick to ignore Congress, his own party, or the law with things he likes doing (killing Americans with drones by writ, etc)
 
+Russell Nelson And there are no more US soldier in Iraq also.  I got some prime realestate in Florida to sell you also.
 
If you hold someone without trial, no matter how sure you are that you're guilty ... **what if you're wrong**.
 
+Craig Lennox  The American people largely were not on board, or the power elite in D.C. largely were not on board?  Did democracy prevail, or did aristocracy?
 
Hold trials. What do you have to lose?
 
+Peter Thoenen Even so, the President is not immune to politics.  Targeting Americans with drones has proved far less politically fraught than his abortive plan to try Guantanamo prisoners in civilian court.  You can take from that what you will.
 
+Anton Wahlman Why would you want war in the first place? The USA could as easily not go to war, i mean, all wars in which the USA was involved since my time on earth were offensive wars that had strategical, political or geological motives.
It's not like any country, religion or person could actually threaten, 311,591,917 ultimately free, happy, patriotic persons who have the right to own arms.
 
+Carl Miller: Every survey of American opinion from 2002 to the present year has found broad support for keeping Guantanamo open.  One could in fact argue that Barack Obama was elected despite his pledge to close the detention center, rather than in any way because of it.
 
One could. One could also, equally, argue they didn't. Arguing it doesn't make it so; facts do that.
 
Did someone really just defend the bombing of Dresden? That's it, we're doomed.
Add a comment...