George Harris KC Star Reader Advisory Panel 2008
If Guantanamo detainees have no rights, why not just kill them?
President Obama today fulfilled a campaign promise to begin closing Guantanamo, and Senator Kit Bond called the decision irresponsible without a plan to relocate them.
In an interview with Chris Matthews he stated that the prisoners were not welcome in Missouri or Kansas prisons and implied that they could not be safely secured in the federal or military prisons in the U.S. He said that the detainees should not be accorded rights under the Constitution and implied that other international agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions, did not apply. He said that in war time nations hold prisoners in detention until the war is over and said this is what should be done with Guantanamo prisoners.
Senator Bond’s statements seemed uninformed, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees do have the right of habeus corpus. It is possible I misunderstood him, and I have not examined a transcript of the interview.
But Senator Bond joins many others who state or imply that detainees, enemy combatants or captured terrorists (you choose the label) do not have any rights because they are not prisoners of war as defined under the Geneva Conventions and because they are not American citizens.
Without protection under treaties, the Constitution, United Nations agreements or U.S. or international law, detainees at Guantanamo and other prisoners from the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan would have no right to habeus corpus, no protection from torture by the U.S. military and no protection from extraordinary rendition to countries that might torture.
In other words, they would have no rights at all. And to those who agree with this, here is my question: why wouldn’t you advocate just killing the detainees rather than continue expensive, never-ending imprisonment? What law, treaty or agreement in your opinion would prevent simply killing them?
By what reason or logic would you draw the line such that torture is acceptable but summary execution is not?
Delicious
Digg
ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
The President has now
The President has now announced the closure of Guantanamo. I think a lot of atrocities when handed out to the detainees without giving them any sort of legal right. Many of them are missing and they even did not have a chance to fight for themselves while in prison.
Some of them could not even try making a will for their loved ones because they were not American citizens.
James.
military tribunals
Rogue, you misstate my argument. I am not at all opposed to military tribunals if that is what is legal. By arguing for the tribunal system yourself, you appear to agree with my point: detainees do have rights of habeus corpus, and torturing them without appropriate proceedings is as wrong as murdering them. If, as KenM states, they can be tried and executed under military law and consistent with international agreements, then that's what should happen.
Torture is illegal and immoral. If you permit it, you're also admitting you're ready to murder people simply because you "believe" they're terrorists without benefit of a legal determination of such.
One you admit, as you have, that the detainees have legal rights, then we are in agreement and all that is left is to determine exactly what legal standards apply. Unfortunately, by failing to follow the law, the Bush administration has made it impossible to prosecute many of the detained because the evidence, their "confessions", have been tainted by the fact of their illegal treatment.
It is irresponsible
to announce the closure without a plan. Period. The fussing and feuding of the day's posts do not address Obama's failure out of the gate to make a decision that was not fashioned by a committee of gutless liberals.
Another one
Go get 'em, warrior. You seem to prefer the stupid certainties of a leader who never admitted to a mistake. Find something else to whine about.
The only crime that any of
The only crime that any of the detainees could have committed over which the U.S has jurisdiction was committed by those detainees who can be proven to have conspired with the 9/11 suicide teams. Every other "crime" committed by the detainees was an act of war and they should be treated to the letter of the Geneva Convention. Period!
that's assuming
that they indeed committed any acts. It's been shown that a good number of these folks were turned in by fellow Afghans for bounty, and we simply don't know what the evidence is that they did anything.
The Geneva Convention requires humane treatment and a host of other steps that we have not been supplying.
Terrorists
The entire question of how to treat terrorist captives rests on a fallacy. People who have never read the Geneva Conventions somehow believe that “enemy combatants” are the equivalent of soldiers. They are not. They are subject to drum-head trial and immediate execution. Unless you are in uniform, or bearing a distinguishing mark such as an armband or other device, you are what was referred to in the conventions as a “Francs-tireurs.”
The U.S. and allied military forces have the legal right to try and execute individuals who are caught in arms without the protection of uniform. Similarly, pirates are “against all flags” and are, by international convention subject to similar penalties when caught; ditto slavers.
The terrorist at GITMO are there for a reason. They are not innocent, they have been vetted and determined to be threats to this country and others. There is a reason only 245 of the thousands we have captured are inprisoned at GITMO. Dont bring them to the US, dont give them the same rights as a real soldier, and damn sure dont give them the same rights as a US citizen.
Complete nonsense
The terrorist at GITMO are there for a reason. They are not innocent, they have been vetted and determined to be threats to this country and others. There is a reason only 245 of the thousands we have captured are inprisoned at GITMO. Dont bring them to the US, dont give them the same rights as a real soldier, and damn sure dont give them the same rights as a US citizen.
They are middle eastern citizens who were BOUGHT after being fingered by their neighbors. They most certainly have NOT been vetted. In fact, the reason they are held on Cuban soil is so they don't have to be vetted. Out of sight out of mind applies here.
And since they are HUMAN BEINGS, treating them with a certain amount of respect is a no-brainer to those of us who have a brain and a heart.
horse crap
Wrong mammal
Horse crap can be spread on the ground and put to good use. More like dog crap.
As I said, here comes KJM
The noncombatants come flocking in. Perhaps Kenny up on Red Rock will enlighten us as to why he persists in calling it GITMO. And if he agrees that if they have no rights, we're stupid not to just kill them, including the children and civilians we rounded up.
Disgusting Behavior Edith
I congratulate you b i itch, you have the talent to take a reasoned passionate discussion straight into the tank. I have no idea, why the those who run this board allow you to continue to post. You are insutlting, demeaning, and you cannot disagree without calling names.
This is fun
I throw my support behind sonofrogue. Edith's forefathers may have been brave patriots, but based on what Edith is saying, they are probably rolling right now.
Well, that was obvious
We know that you also have no respect for the laws and values our troops are dying for.
Rouge
"you have the talent to take a reasoned passionate discussion straight into the tank"
If she does, she picked it up from you...
"I have no idea, why the those who run this board allow you to continue to post"
I'm sure many can say the same about you....
"You are insutlting, demeaning, and you cannot disagree without calling names."
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Which means that you've run out of argument
You want to claim that in every war our country has fought we immediately go the worst thing the enemy does and set that as our standard you go right ahead. The cavalry had every right to bury Indians in the dirt and let the ants have them. We really should have sent our soldiers against the North Koreans in human waves, regardless of casualties. And we should have hauled off Japanese prisoners to use as slave labor.
As soon as you let the enemy set the standard of conduct in a conflict, you admit that you can't win acting as the good guy, and that the enemy is stronger than you are. And there really IS no reason not to just take anybody you think either fought against you or aided those who fought against you and kill them on the spot, exactly as Harris has suggested.
Find me the insults and namecalling in that, Rogue. I have no doubt the draft-dodgers and artificial heroes will line up behind you and talk about all the nasty things THEY'D do to the enemy if they'd have had the nads to sign up and wear the uniform.
Edith
With all due respect you can KMA, I will put my dad's dd214 and mine up against you and yours any time, any day, any place and any wher. You are an American bashing, hating, b i itch. Kindly do me a favor my shutting up.
You act like, talk like, and sound like another REMF.
Harris, listen for just a second
We were giving these people their day in court with tribunals, that have been used before. Now you advocate the Clinton model of giving them the benefit of the US coutrs where all out intel, by the rules of law, must be dislosed. That model resulted in the USS Cole the Kovarth Towers, and 9/11. These terrorist have not earned and do not deserve the advantages of our court system. The triunals may not be perfect, but thew will do till something better comes along.
Rules of War?
One more comment Edith, our enemy wears no uniform, does not represent any country, takes heads, maims torture, and in general flouts the civilized world.
We converesley put them up, give them "lemon chicken" and excercise yards, and you claim we are the ones not following the rules of war.
I suggest you do a little research and check out the term enemy.
And I repeat
If we're not better than the enemy, why not just lay down our arms and join them? We didn't gas non-combatants by the million, either, but that didn't stop us from shipping German prisoners to Kansas instead of just dumping them in the Atlantic.
Yep
Either America stands for something (which I believe it does), or it doesn't, which the likes of Rogue and Osama Bin Laden are arguing.
I'm standing on the side of the America of values and law.
You're avoiding the question
You're avoiding the question, which is simple: If there are no protections for detainees/enemy combatants, why do we need to go through the trouble of detaining them at all. Just kill them and get it over with.
And if you draw the line at murder, which I infer we all do because no one wants to go along with killing the detainees, then what rules are you using to conclude that torture is ok and murder is not.
Just answer the question. You haven't done it because you can't do it. Someplace deep inside you there is a recognition that these are human beings, no matter how horribly they have acted.
As difficult as it is, in a civilized world that we want to lead, there must be rules. Follow the Geneva Conventions that civilized nations have developed and follow U.S. law.
There are numerous federal facilities where these people can be detained safely while military trials proceed. If determined by a court that they are legitimate prisoners of war, they can be detained per the law.
Yes, I saw the Bond/Matthews interview. Bond was incoherent.
Edith
Edity, you never knew my father, and I assure you he would have had little use for you.
I would also point out FDR conducted military tribunals, and that the Congress after 17 months of fiddle faddle authorized this warm, as much as the left would like to forget that.
No matter how much you and your ilk try and twist these terrorsist into having the same rights that you have (that good men have fought and died for, I might add) it just won't fly.
Inter Face did not respond, and that is OK. My friends and I are proud that we have guaranteed the right by our actions to allow any American citizen to express his/her opinions and make absolute asses of themselves. The floor belongs to you and Interface now Edith, please carry on.
If your father was an honorably discharged veteran
He would have shaken my hand and thanked me for my service to the country. He would also most likely gotten red in the face at the non-combatant pigs who have defiled two hundred thirty-two years of military tradition by p!ss!ng on the honor of our fighting men. My father, his father, and the one thousand years of the men of my family who served their countries here and in Germany believed that whatever else happened, we were better than the enemy. How about yours?
It is irresponsible
to issue a directive without a plan. No other word to describe Obama's premature purely politically motivated action.
Except that Harris is right
The Bush Administration did everything it could to place the people held at Guantanamo outside the jurisdiction of the courts. This is why Guantanamo needs to be closed, because the Bush Administration tried to claim that because Guantanamo is actually under the ultimate sovereignty of Cuba the prisoners were outside U.S. law, since U.S. law only applies in the sovereign territory of the United States.
Rogue, knock it off. There was a DECLARED war 1941-1945, and your father would have knocked you on your hinder if you suggested that there were no rules for the conduct of war. POWs were POWs and were treated appropriately.
I have one question for you Interface
In what branch did you serve and where? Please enlighten us all with your military experience based upon which you believe I am the one who is naive?
I am always ready to learn from experience.
Gosh
I don't think my old man when he was in the Third Army stormin' across France with Patton gave "Miranda Rights" to every German POW they captured.
I know for darn sure we didn't arrange for "attorneys" for every prisoner we took in the RSVN in 1968.
How did these combatants suddenly gain the rights of American citizens? Perhaps an overactive Supreme Court, or one that is misinformed; or perhaps since this is a "war without end" it is "cruel" to keep these terrorist imprisoned until it does end?
The military tribunals should be allowed to continue. One of the masterminds of the USS Cole bombing just got his tribunal deferred. That is not justice to families of the Cole victims, nor is it justice to all Americans.
Harris jokes about shooting these guys, I do not find it funny, but rather a little sad that there are people that naieve about the situation we find ourselves in with this enemy.
interesting
I actually agree with Rogue's sentiment here, though I still think he and his ilk undermine the American values our troops fight and die for, and consider him to be a prime example of such naivity.
George
You are criticizing a viewpoint, yet don't offer a solution of your own. Do you know of any person (other than some rogue commenter) that advocates "just kill them". Or is that a silly strawman argument.
If you want it closed down, tell us what you intend to do with those prisoners. Seems funny now that during the campaign, all we heard was "close Gitmo"--now no one wants them sent to their state if it does close. Wouldn't it have been cool if someone had asked who, what, where, why and how?
What to Do...
I do not advocate "just killing them". I do not advocate giving them the rights of America's court system. I think, as your article mentions, they are prisoners until the war in the country in which they were apprehended ends. I would much rather pay for their incarceration then run the risk of having a person murdered.
I do not want them released into America. If thier home countries refuse to take them, isn't that saying something????
And some current news on a returnee who was just in the wrong place... NOT...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481849,00.html
?
Even without knowing whether or not they're guilty of any crime?
Is that what we stand for, as Americans?
I hope not.
Interface
I suggest that you spend some time with them personally in Gitmo before it closes. Why is it that you have more compassion for them than the unborn babies that are killed for their mothers convenience?
What is Your Defintion Then
These are PRISONERS OF WAR. As in any WAR, they are typically held until the war is over, or like in the Middle East, released, recaptured or they blow themselves up....
What is your definition of PRISONERS OF WAR?
Ah
Well, then, if they're prisoners of war, we'll agree that these rules must apply:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Did you watch that interview with Chris Matthews?
Kit had been dipping or something. He was incoherent and stumbled over his words. I was almost embarrassed for him.