|
This is very painful for many families who lost loved ones on 9/11.
Plans to close Guantanamo are not sitting well with the Sept. 11 victims’ relatives who sat stunned while two alleged terrorists declared they were proud of their role in the plot.
It is a potentially momentous time for the military detention center. President-elect Barack Obama whose inauguration is Tuesday has said he will close it, and many observers and some officials here expect him to suspend the war crimes tribunals for accused terrorists and move the trials to the U.S.
The victims’ relatives were in the courtroom audience as two Sept. 11 defendants, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, proclaimed their role in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
“We did what we did; we’re proud of Sept. 11,” said Binalshibh, who has said he wants to plead guilty to charges.
“If they’re guilty … then let’s give them the death penalty that they deserve,” said Jim Riches of Brooklyn, N.Y., whose 29-year-old firefighter son, Jimmy, was killed at the World Trade Center.
What do you think? Close Gitmo, at least finish the trials of those involved in 9/11, or leave Gitmo open?
ps, When I appear anti american i’m actually referring to the image of America that we see (fox news), I do realise there are alot of intelligent Americans, many of them on this site:)
RBG,
You have an incredibly myopic view of the world. Your idiotic comment about letting innocents suffer for bad jurisprudence would mean (at the 10% error rate you allow) a couple hundred thousand people in jail. That’s a lot of innocents, even for a fascist like you, to want to sit in jail for no reason.
81 Smartalix. The point that I am leading you to is that people are so black & white in their precious ideals that it can be impossible for reason and tangible security to predominate.
My RBG 77 is an extreme but correct and actual example that is upon us. It *should* be nearly impossible to argue against it except for the philosophical extremists like yourself who put their theoretical and artificial “principles” above pragmatism and reality.
RBG 77 is no different in my view than the British redcoats who lined up and advanced in a bright red line on a battlefield and believed hiding and camouflage was unprincipled, uncivilized. Eventually leading to jackbooted anarchy and the end of civilization, as you would also like to believe.
Letting obvious killers go for the sake of similarly artificial and flawed principles & laws will someday seem equally quaint, and equally stupidly dangerous.
I’m not advocating jailing thousands of innocents – though a pragmatist would weigh that against the killing of thousands. I’m saying – brace yourself – that people have to use commonsense judgement sometimes. You know, like the same kind of life & death judgements thousands of individual people make every day. You and your principles assume all people must be vacuous-headed morons, incapable of analysis and decision-making.
If it makes you feel better, codify the use of commonsense. The law is already an ass anyway when more expensive lawyers means a better brand of justice. Your principles are already compromised right from the get-go. What you are left with is justice that is far, far better than nothing and not the absolutes you would presume to be upholding.
And you know, common-sense already ignores your ideals anyway as evidenced by the constant stream of judges’ rulings that so easily provide paradigm flip-flops (ie: abortion) depending upon the currently preceived will of the people.
So I’m telling you not to blindly walk in a line to slaughter because someone’s current definition of “civilization” seems to demand such things. Toss off your crappy redcoat and “civilized” ideals and start wearing some camo.
RBG
82,
How nice to hide behind rationalization. Our smudging of the law is one of the problems with this society.
RATIONALIZE 1 to explain according to reason.
Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary.
RBG
85,
Run and hide behind obfuscation all you like. Any attempt to rationalize idiocy may appear on the surface to be based in reason, but is not.
Well, I just never thought of that. “You’re wrong, I’m right.” It’s brilliant. I must yield to your usual fact-based and compelling arguments.
RBG
#83, RBG,
Letting obvious killers go for the sake of similarly artificial and flawed principles & laws will someday seem equally quaint, and equally stupidly dangerous.
Then we can use your “rationalization” to charge Bush and his minions with Crimes Against Humanity. Damn, they are guilty, so why even bother with a trial. Throw them in Gitmo and we can then have some cultural diversity.
We wouldn’t have to worry about those expensive lawyers finding loopholes to get them off. We wouldn’t have to worry about some Judge flip flopping. Yup, great rationalization.
Sorry, I must have missed that. Bush bragged formally in court that he was guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and planning to carry on with more of the same? Or are you referring to 9/11 or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? You see, Mr. Fusion, that’s where that thing they call common-sense comes into play.
RBG
#89, RBG,
Bush bragged formally in court that he was guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and planning to carry on with more of the same?
??? I missed that. Maybe you could post a link.
In fact, your entire post is confusing. What does 9/11 and Kuwait have to do with torture?
See the question mark at the end and read other posts, especially 77 RBG to get the context. Because that is what Terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did in court and that is my test here for just a wee bit of common sense.
Defending against a direct 9/11 attack and Kuwait invasion is quite something else.
RBG
#91,
So now Kuwait is going to invade us?
Holy good shit !!! I thought I was up on what was happening in the world by to find out I missed Bush confessing in court and the Kuwaitis are about to invade. WOW!!!
So what the eff does that have to do with torture or denying justice to even the worst? I didn’t hear anyone claim to have committed crimes in Guantanamo. BECAUSE IT IS A CLOSED COURT.
Don’t give me someone that has been tortured and use their confession. I don’t believe it. Give me evidence.
# 92 Mr. Fusion said, “Don’t give me someone that has been tortured and use their confession. I don’t believe it. Give me evidence.”
Right. That should NEVER be used against a person in court.
86 smartalix. Any attempt to rationalize idiocy may appear on the surface to be based in reason, but is not.
I take it you don’t have anyone you care about covering your ass in Afghanistan to think this issue not more than “idiocy.”
Detainee went from Gitmo to al Qaeda, official says
Officials estimate more than 60 freed terrorists may have returned to battlefield
CNN: http://tinyurl.com/d8duqu
RBG
No one should be held without trial forever. It clearly violates the US Constitution. Period. We must obey our own laws. If we forsake the Constitution, the terrorists automatically win because we’re too afraid to hold true to our national principles. I feel horrible for those who lost someone on 9/11, but we must obey & defend our Constitution as we seek to punish anyone still alive who helped commit the terrible acts that day. If we can’t do both, what will future generations think of us & our country?
Somehow I thought the US constitution upheld American citizen’s rights. It also applies to lawful and unlawful enemy combatants?
“Critics of the Nuremberg trials (’45-’49) argued that the “crimes” with which the defendants were charged were only defined as crimes after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid.”
I doubt any of the Nazis thought they had automatically won the war.
RBG
#96, RBG,
Somehow I thought the US constitution upheld American citizen’s rights. It also applies to lawful and unlawful enemy combatants?
Since most Canadians aren’t overly familiar with American Supreme Court decisions I can see your not knowing. Yes they are. The same as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also applies to all people on Canadian soil.
“Critics of the Nuremberg trials (’45-’49) argued that the “crimes” with which the defendants were charged were only defined as crimes after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid.”
I don’t know why you put quotation marks on this unless it is a quote. Quotes should always be referenced.
While there are critics of the Nuremberg trials, the trials prevailed. As an outgrowth, today we have the World Court where numerous war criminals have been tried.
# 96 RBG said, “It also applies to lawful and unlawful enemy combatants?”
The only precedent regarding this was WW2. In that war the allies executed “unlawful combatants” & enemy soldiers wearing allied uniforms without resort to US Constitutional rights.
That’s the irritating thing about precedents, isn’t it?
97 M.F. It’s a quote from Nuremberg Trials wikipedia. I wanted to show it wasn’t my creative thought but at the same time believed the sentence too benign to make even a small effort to tinyURL.
While there are critics of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp, the camp prevailed. As an outgrowth, today we have countless patriotic American and innocent foreigners alive with thriving democracies in two formerly despotic outlaw countries… Oh, wait.
I’d tell you I’m a Yankee Imperialist Running Dog, but I’d rather wait for a good moment.
RBG