Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (8541)	5/27/2009 10:35:03 AM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

One of the reasons they decided to use gitmo was because the prisoners would have more rights if imprisoned in the US. I think there is a legitimate fear that some crazy judge (about 50% of them in my view) would order them released into US. Do you think a president would disobey such a court order? lj

To: RetiredNow who wrote (8541)	5/27/2009 11:27:03 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

These guys should have been shot on sight I'm glad to know that you also believe they shouldn't enjoy the same rights that you or I possess as citizens of the US. Bring them into the US and you'll automatically give them such rights and as another poster stated, you'll set them up to be released by some liberal judge. That was the ENTIRE PURPOSE of putting them in Gitmo in the first place. They aren't on official US soil there. They can be treated as illegal combatants and held indefinitely. Furthermore, they can be tried by military commissions as war criminals. You bring them into the US and they are entitled to a trial by jury (by their peers) and evidence collected by classified means (confidential informants, technical means) would not be available. criminaljustice.org ccrjustice.org I will admit that all of this is in legal "virgin territory" because the Geneva Convention never envisioned that non-state actors would wage war behind the protections of a sovereign state as Al Qaida did in Afghanistan. In fact, I believe there were some private arguments to classify Al Qai'da as Afghan mercenary forces, but with the defeat of the Taliban government, it would have necessitated the release of the Al Qai'da forces. However we look at it, it's not worth the risk to humanity for us to release them without specific assurance they will not return to committing terrorist acts. I'd rather we just make them take a long walk off a short plank. Hawk