Captain's Quarters -

Better yet, your troops in Gitmo should make folks like this their chums.

Heeeere, sharkie, sharkie, sharkie...

We should follow the punihment outlined in the Geneva Convention and shoot the unlawful combatants after questioning,

Screw "detaining" unlawful combatants. Just sound the Deguello: No prisoners! They're terrorist scum, so killing them all is the best solution. Dead terrorists don't come back to bite you in the butt down the road.

"How many more of these repeats do we need to see before people finally learn that lesson?"
Pearl Harbor, 9/11, some people still believe in the civil rights for the terrorists and none for terror victims. How many 9/11 victims are remembered by the MSM/ACLU? But the MSM/ACLU will always help the "poor misunderstood" terrorist.

Ed,

The objections to the Guantanamo detentions focuses on the lack of evidence for most (~70~80%) of the detainees. Many of these prisoners were arrested on the word of a single "witness". Or they were rounded up in sweeps by local security trying to look like they were doing something. Then they languished in jail for years without a hearing.

I would guess that Mehsud actually has some evidence of past terrorist activities, which is why you are using him as a poster boy to support Guantanamo, but what is it? Where is the evidence against all the other detainees? Are you actually advocating that anyone we suspect of crimes against the U.S. can be arrested and thrown in jail for years without a hearing or a chance to answer the charges against them? Isn't that the way Saddam and other dictators work?

If there is evidence to convict someone of terrorist (or any other) crimes, then I say hang them. But I will never condone the wholesale rounding up of "suspects" without the right to a hearing. That goes against the freedoms upon which this country was founded.

"Wholesale rounding up of suspects"? On a battlefield of insurgents blending in with civilians? Right!

A pathetic irony missed in this story about the abducted Chinese hydroelectric engineers at the dam project is that human rights organizations fail to recognize that the building or repair of infrastructure in aid of Afghanistan was jeopardized in this act of terrorism.

"The objections to the Guantanamo detentions focuses on the lack of evidence for most (~70~80%) of the detainees. Many of these prisoners were arrested on the word of a single "witness". Or they were rounded up in sweeps by local security trying to look like they were doing something. Then they languished in jail for years without a hearing."

Gee, I'd like to know where you got THAT information from. Sounds like wishful thinking used to further hamper our ability to fight this war that we didn't start. Typical leftists claptrap.

Geeez ....you'd think some brave Republican might use this in the Senate ..........to support the "War On Terror" and to turn back the progressives drivel on the rights of terrorists .......??

Or maybe even the executive branch .........??

Intrepid asked where I got my information. I had many sources, but try law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf for a start. Some of the highlights:

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive
affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

... 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the
United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
enemies.

I often hear the line "terrorists shouldn't get rights". And I would agree with that - after you prove they are a terrorist. Do you believe in the principles of Amendments V and VI in the Bill of Rights? Or doesn't it bother you that in this overzealous rush to justice the innocent are punished?

"Do you believe in the principles of Amendments V and VI in the Bill of Rights?"

The amendments you quote above do not extend to foreigners who are captured in another country. American law and the Constitutional protections therein do not extend outside our territory, which is also true of the laws and rights of all other countries. This is called sovereignty and it is widely accepted by most, if not all, governments. That is why international treaties and conventions like the Geneva Conventions are created and implemented.

As Ed has pointed out, the detainees are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. They are also not covered by the American Constitution.

Since no country has, to my knowledge, claimed sovereignty rights of citizenship for these detainees it is apparent that these detainees are expatriates and have no sovereignty rights in any country. They are literally men without a country and thus without the internationally recognized sovereignty rights and protections that country would normally provide.

Perhaps a new international convention should be created to set forth new guidelines and protections for those who are captured or detained on foreign territory and who do not have the support of their country of residence as that government could easily petition America for the release of those detainees as a violation of their sovereignty rights of citizenship.

We should follow the punihment outlined in the Geneva Convention and shoot the unlawful combatants after questioning,

+1

It should be pointed out that by treating captured terrorists better then we would POWs (who would be held until the end of the conflict) we are indeed encouraging our enemies to follow the former route.

Well I doubt AQ and Iran will start abiding by the rules of war, giving a certain and real punishment for their studied disregard of them might persuade future foes murdering civilians and hiding behind women and children is not worth the price to be paid...

Why on earth are we still taking prisoners? How many times do these people have to prove to us that they have all the compassion and humanity of a praying mantis, before we finally get it?

This is a war, not a criminal pursuit. These people were captured on a battlefield, not in a drug bust or a raid on a crack house. Every time we take an "unlawful combatant" prisoner, every ambulance chaser in the country thinks he's just inherited a new high profile client. We either have to start shooting lawyers or prisoners very soon now. My personal choice has always been lawyers because the prisoners usually have more potential for eventual rehabilitation and recovery.

You know, back in WWII, the US treated their prisoners much better than the soviets. In fact Germans would go out of their way to surrender to US Soldiers. And they would fight to the death against the Soviets. (and we won't even discuss the evils of the Japanese).

One might think this attitude towards prisoners made it easier for the US to march through Germany and at least keep 1/2 the country out of the hands of the Soviets.

Ray sayeth:

"Do you believe in the principles of Amendments V and VI in the Bill of Rights?"

The amendments you quote above do not extend to foreigners who are captured in another country."

- well.

1. captured by whom?
2. held where?

both are relivant to your blanket assurtion.

"American law and the Constitutional protections therein do not extend outside our territory, which is also true of the laws and rights of all other countries."

Correct - and utterly irelivant since the detainees we are talking about are being held in the United States and/or her territories. TheCourts have ruled that Guantanimo is US land - not Cuban, as long as we pay the rent - which we are.

"This is called sovereignty and it is widely accepted by most, if not all, governments."

Except our own WRT to the illegal invasion of Iraqnam in 2003.

"That is why international treaties and conventions like the Geneva Conventions are created and implemented."

indeed.

Now tell us why it is legal for the United States' government deny the Inalienable Rights of the detainees in question.

- You are now asserting that such Rights are granted, not AFFIRMED by our Government and not derived from Nature's God itself to all men regardless of National origin?

Our Founding Fathers would label you not one of them if this is indeed what you are proclaiming to the world.

you need to read our Constitution and start respecting it bubba. - start with the 9th in the Bill of Rights.

When I used to work at a University, one of my favorite words of wisdom to lay on students was, "If you keep getting caught, you're not very good at it. Which means you seriously need to look at a change in your life's goals and preparation to get there."

This terrorist kept getting caught so obviously he wsn't very good at it. Why do we give him the honor of thinking he deliberately committed suicide when it seems to me that as an inept wannabe, he could just as equally have screwed up pulling the pin out of the grenade, or dropped it on the floor, or done some stupid thing known only to idjuts like Richard Reid and their ilk.

"Now tell us why it is legal for the United States' government deny the Inalienable Rights of the detainees in question."

The detainees in question are suspected of, or have been determined as, enemy combatants and do not have any "Inalienable Rights" as they are NOT citizens of this country, they were NOT within our territory, and they were actively supporting and/or performing attacks upon this country. No enemy combatant has EVER been afforded the rights and legal protections that extends to the citizens of the country under attack.

Our Founding Fathers understood the concept of enemy combatants. During the Revolutionary war British combatants were captured and held in conditions far worse than those found at Gitmo. None of those prisoners were afforded legal representation.

After the founding of America, the federal government detained British solders during the war of 1812, once again without legal representation and in conditions far worse than those at Gitmo.

The federal government detained enemy combatants during the Civil War who were once citizens of the United Sates (before they succeeded and formed their own government), again without legal representation and in conditions far worse that those at Gitmo.

These are just a few examples of the detention of enemy combatants and the treatment afforded to them in the past.

The practice of detaining enemy combatants without legal representation is well founded in American history and law. You may call to the ghosts of the Founding Fathers all you wish, but that isn't going to change anything as even the Founding Fathers would agree that enemy combatants have no right to legal representation.

"Except our own WRT to the illegal invasion of Iraqnam in 2003.

Don't forget our illegal invasions of Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.etc. etc. Since we still have troops stationed in these countries, I guess we are also guilty of an illegal occupation, isn't that right?

Well, if Saddam and his government wishes to contest our invasion and occupation, he and the members of his government are welcome to file a complaint with the United Nations. Oh, that's right, Saddam is dead, his government is history, and the new Iraq government is now our ally. Never mind.

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-former-gitmo-prisoner-in-suicide.html

Bill, I doubt that the people who were flown 10,000 miles from Afghanistan to Gitmo didn't go through some winnowing process in Afghanistan before being shipped off. The exhorbinant flight and incarceration costs involved would be pointed out by the military beancounters and no commander could justify the massive budget overruns.

As for releasing any Gitmo prisoners, can anyone recall of a single soldier (who were legitimate POWs) being released in WWII before the end of hostilities? All that were repatriated were released due to the capture of the prison camps by our side.

Thus, if the left wants the Gitmo detainees released, shouldn't they call for an invasion of Guantanamo by Al-Queda?

Hells ya!

Lock them all up! Any darkie should be thrown behind bars for being one of them.

In case you didn't get it, the above post was sarcasm but I do wonder how many out there secretly agreed with it.