BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims

Subject: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:36 PM

Just when you think the stupidity level is at an all time high, America does it again! Now the fear is that Muslims in super-max prisons will somehow destroy America. How are they supposed to do this? Through secret death rays emanating from their foreheads through concrete? Turning their guards into obedient zombies? Lifting the prison off the ground with their bare hands and depositing it on Little Sally's school?

You really have to shake your head. These are the same people who won World War II? These cowardly children?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:46 PM

Peter T.
With due respect, speaking of "America" in such an objective and blanket 'them idiots' fashion rather ignores the fact that are no doubt many American posters here who may find the actions of the American government, not to their liking. Including friends of mine. I'd politely suggest you re-phrase your post...

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:48 PM

Yeah, Peter, you certainly cant be talking to me. I had absolutely nothing to do with winning World War II.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:51 PM

Is there a news story we can see about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:52 PM

Ach. puir Peter, doomed forever to suffer from Canadian citizenship, where people are reasonable and discuss things with a modicum of intelligence. In his secret thoughts, he years to come to America, become a rip-roaring Yank, start a blog and file a dozen hotly-phrased posts a day lambasting the Others with which our country is so richly supplied. It's one thing the US is never short of. Even before we used up the Amerindians, our far-sighted hero leaders had taken steps to attract many more Others using large-scale programs of importation from all over the world. Today, even our Otherses have otherses!!!.

We are swimming in them, and our delight is to show the world what a real shootin' gallery is like. Bring on the Others!! We'll larn 'em up a thang er two.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:27 PM

Peter,
Surely you can see that this was a political decision and, as usual, politics is not logical.
Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:47 PM

Is this about the Guantanamo detainees, or about Muslims generally?

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: heric
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:57 PM

Yes. Congress wants assurances uber-baddies will not end up on American soil, "even in maximum security prisons."

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: heric
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:06 PM

Yes Guantanamo

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:16 PM

To be fair, Peter T did not technically make a generalization about all Yanks. I am sure he will will clarify that he meant no disrespect to the general populace of your USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:18 PM

The problem for members of Congress is that the average US voter has been scared near to death with propaganda about how (almost supernaturally) dangerous these people are, and if they allow them to be moved into the Congresspeople's home districts, they face big problems with the voters in their districts. And also, and this is a big one, their opponents in upcoming elections are guaranteed to use it against them.

It would be good if there was some way to move them here that didn't involve asking Congress for any more money.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:20 PM

OK, I'll get serious about this for a second.
I don't think the argument is illogical, but I am not necessarily defending it either. This is what I believe underlies the fear.

In Guantanamo, these individuals were isolated. They were isolated from any general prison population, such as exist in the US mainland. No prisoners convicted of armed robbery, murder, embezzlement or drug dealing were being held with them, such as would be the case at, say, a Leavenworth. They were isolated from outside contact with civilian population, which would be much more difficult in a place like Leavenworth with its teeming population of inmates and the steady chain of visitations, letters, phone calls, etc.
And this gets to the heart of it. I think many consider Islamic Fundamentalism to be a form of contagious insanity, and that these people are considered infected carriers. The idea of introducing them into a population of individuals already predisposed to violent anti-social activities and having them become infected is one that gives many pause.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:21 PM

Also, the fear is not of their being Muslim (we have plenty of Muslims in our prisons), but because they are considered "terrorists" by the decision makers and the general public.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:22 PM

Heh. Crossposted with the poster immediately following my last post. I withdraw my comment of 20 May 09 - 05:21 PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:53 PM

Of course I am not castigating all Americans. Merely their elected representatives, their journalists, their media, and the general fearmongering. That still covers a wide terrain: has anyone of note stood up and said this is quite insane?

"Contagious insanity" -- I like that. But of course it is aimed at the wrong people! People infecting other people with their ideas -- has to be stopped of course.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:55 PM

"Now the fear is that...."

Whose fear? Not mine...

I see the reasoning that Leej describes, but I don't agree with those who espouse it. *IF* one worries about some factors in holding 'convicted' Muslim terrorists in general prison population , there are alternatives...even building a small, special facility ought to work.

In the meantime, Peter, let's avoid a lot of over-generalization about **American** attitudes and stick to critiques of the policies. You'll find it easier to get a serious discussion if we aren't all being painted with a broad brush.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:58 PM

Somebody making some sense:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican (!), S.C. "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational," he said. (Reuters)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 09 - 06:23 PM

"...a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States..."

Note: this concern may be partially about THEIR security, as well as ours. Prison inmates are known to exact their own 'justice' regarding some fellow inmates...such as child molesters.
I agree the problem HAS solutions, but maybe not for the same reasons Sen. Graham is concerned with.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: DougR
Date: 20 May 09 - 06:26 PM

I believe the concern about placing the Jihadist internees in with prisoners in American prisons centers around the possibility that our prisons could become "hatcheries" for future terrorists. I think that is a legitimate concern. Also, I think a good case can be made for leaving the internees where they are at Guantanamo. The U.S. has made a considerable investment in that place and I see no need to spend additional millions of dollars to build another someplace else. In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that the decision has been made to keep that facility open.

Obama's desire to placate his left-wing supporters by ordering Guantanamo closed without a workable plan of how to do it was unwise. I think he typically tends to make snap judgments without considering consequences of his actions. His revival of the military tribunals is another such example. I think he is "learning on the job" that running for the office of president differs considerably from occupying the office.

Of course if folks insist that Guantanamo be closed, I guess the terrorists could be sent somewhere near Peter T. :>) Think Canada would like to have them Peter?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: GUEST,Dan Schatz sans cookie
Date: 20 May 09 - 06:30 PM

I am furious at the vote, and this afternoon I called both my Senators' offices and let them know just how angry I am. I told them that this was the most craven and cowardly, nonsensical political decision I'd seen in a long time and that it is time we became a nation of laws again. I'm ashamed to have them represent me.

Usually I'm gentle and diplomatic. Today I was not.

I hope others who are angry will do the same. Maybe if we let our elected officials know that not all Americans are know-nothings, we will begin to see some justice.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 09 - 06:58 PM

"...."hatcheries" for future terrorists. I think that is a legitimate concern."

You mean like making Iraq a breeding ground for terrorists by invading it? I think that is pretty far-fetched.


"Obama's desire to placate his left-wing supporters..." Why would you dream up THAT as his reason? Closing that place makes sense even without these detainees as pawns. Why not just give Obama some credit for trying to make sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:02 PM

"I think he typically tends to make snap judgments without considering consequences of his actions. His revival of the military tribunals is another such example."

Good gracious, Doug. Are you holding your face straight? In recent years you have seemed to think that "not considering conseqences of actions" in a president is a laudable thing.

"I think he is "learning on the job" that running for the office of president differs considerably from occupying the office."

At least, he is learning, unlike another we might mention.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:16 PM

Do you really think Obama still has any "left-wing supporters"...if he ever did? The man is so centrist he could almost be a moderate Republican!

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:48 PM

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Guantanamo became a bastion of arbitrary, supralegal executive power, and as such became a symbol of Bush's leanings toward dictatorial powers such as naming anyone in any country an illegal combatant and placing him there for indefinite detention, based purely on his provenly imbalanced opinions.

As such it is something akin to an American Bastille.

Let's also remember that the use of it as such was BECaAUSE the Bsuh administration would not confront how, under law, to deal with those they chose to imprison for good reason or for bad. If they had faced the issue squarely and justly in the first place, we would not have to be solving it now; but the Bush doctrine of "force and overwhelm first--law second" has left us with an embarrassment to live through, much like the Reich left the Germans with a national embarrassment to live through after the war. The right thing to do is face the problem squarely and determine the bounds of justice AND the logistics. Guantanamo is not needed for this purpose. For one thing, California will be freeing a much larger number of minor offenders from its prison system because the State is so bankrupt it can't afford to keep them. I am sure Arnold would be glad to lease 250 prison beds to President Obama. And we have a pretty good record of safekeeping our prisoners.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: michaelr
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:08 PM

Guantanamo prisoners run the gamut from innocent bystander to Al-Qaida mastermind. Give `em a real trial first, then decide what to do with them. I see no reason not to put those found guilty of actual violent crimes with our other violent criminals in places like Pelican Bay.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:49 PM

The US prison population could do well with some religious extremism, just joking.

"Of course I am not castigating all Americans. Merely their elected representatives, their journalists, their media, and the general fearmongering. That still covers a wide terrain: has anyone of note stood up and said this is quite insane?"

No Peter they have not (but I agree it is) & that's what the conservative republicans are llooking for, a fight & a target & no Democratic will speak to that or this issue. The gopher won't peek it's head out from it's hole for fear of having it's head bitten off. Though I don't understand their or that fear.

Right now there is a very conservitive extreme republican movement growing to attack Obama & his policies & anything thing that will fire the flame is game, no matter the risks or ruining what works or collateral damage they cause in their quests for top dog in the 2010 & 2012 elections. Newt, Rush, Cheney, Steele & their ilk are gunning for their rerise of their beloved order & in order to achive that they are steping on the heads of those that replaced them in the last elections. So anything is game & everybody is a target.

Get used to this new Republican strategy, it will be used over & over again, hopefully they'll realize that they were voted out because they're scum & they caused the "American" people & the world a whole lot of pain & hurt. They do not care but I hope they won't have much of a platform to speak from this time. Steele claims the Republican party has admited to their mistakes, taken their blame & now the time for apologies is over & it's time to take back their turf. They haven't taken responsiblity, they haven't admited too their mistakes & they haven't apologized & hopefully in time they will hang a little longer, a little lower & their death (the extreme conservative right) will be seen as a just farewell to the growth of a 'terrorist' wing of the Republican party.
I did not call them a terrorist wing lightly but I did mean exactly that.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:00 AM

Jails are fancy crime schools. I worked in a Maximum Security facility, and 'established' cons shared what they knew about everything from how to defeat locks to how to do armed robberies. The only saving grace is that they were being taught the various crafts by people who had also been caught. Darwinian process in reverse.

I agree with michaelr. I see no reason people not found guilty should be doing time with people who have been found guilty. But then I no longer understand the post-Bush laws in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:16 AM

I have no love, like or even esteem for terrorists. IMO, if they are for-real terrorists, shoot the fuckers and stop wasting tax payers' money on bullshit imprisonment and fake trials. They have declared that any person is fair game for terror attacks--in fact, it's only by doing it that way that terror can be instilled in a population. A fact well known by terrorist organizations. Shoot five innocent people and the other 200 will shut up and do as they're told.

Has anyone suggested to the US government that it would be a good thing to investigate the Saudi/terror link? The oil/terror link? If so, what was the result of your request?

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:02 AM

A request for a link appeared above without an answer.

There are numerous ones that could be selected, but one of those spouting the most inanity possibly is at MSNBC:

FBI chief worried about Gitmo detainees in U.S.

Although the headline cites the potential for the detainees to "radicalize the prison population," it hardly seems rational that we should care how radical they are, as long as they're securely locked up.

The proposition most nearly approaching "sanity" is that assembling a significant group of these "heroes" all in one place could make that place the target for attacks by the unencarcerated (outside the prisons) terrorists who worship them. The purpose of this proposal is to assert that the terrorists beat us with 911, and they still remain dangerous enough to wipe out our prisons - and blot the nearby cities off the map - thereby justifying all of the fearmongering that was the basis for the mistakes (and perhaps the one or two things they managed to do sort of right, if one can find one or two) of the previous administration.

The brainwashing so carefully done to establish that these terrorists are "supermen of incredible evil and unfathomable power" must be sustained at least until the next election, in order for there to be the slightest chance that the "brainwashed masses" who believed it the first time around will continue to believe until they can vote again and re-establish the führer and his henchmen.

Rather pathetic, really - but with a good lie likelihood of having some political effect.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Teribus
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:06 AM

Let's see now, how long would they remain prisoners?? According to what your current President has said I would not think that it would be for very long.

- They can all claim that they have all been "tortured", thereby making inadmissable anything that has been established with regard to these prisoners.

- They have all been granted the full protection of the legal system of the United States of America, so if held they must be charged and tried.

- Then there comes the question as to where in the US they could expect a "fair" trial.

Guantanamo does house some fairly senior terrorist prisoners, who are undoubtedly guilty, and it could well be the case that they will all walk. The trouble is that few if any are welcomed back in their home lands and no other country is stupid enough to take them in, which leaves them free to toddle about the USA at liberty while whole battalions of lawyers will be fighting over one another to represent them when they sue the US Government for wrongful imprisonment. I am just waiting to see what happens to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to see if he has the gall to sue, if he has he will win and the pay out to the man who planned 9/11 will be massive.

Basically I'm with Peace on this one in his regard to terrorists:

"if they are for-real terrorists, shoot the fuckers and stop wasting tax payers' money on bullshit imprisonment and fake trials."

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 May 09 - 11:15 AM

Unbelievable as it may seem, I actually agree with part of Teribus' statement. It is entirely true that US courts have a record of releasing criminals, when the objective evidence clears shows they are guilty as hell, if their legal rights have been violated. It is also entirely true that, by both US legal standards and according to the way the vast majority of Americans think, the treatment that many of these people received was a clear violation. The worst/most dangerous, who were thought to have the most to reveal, got treated worse of all. If they are released, the finger of blame must be pointed directly at a pencil-necked jerk in Texas.

However, there is one part...which leaves them free to toddle about the USA at liberty ...well, not exactly. We do keep people locked up if there is no place for them to go and they are considered to be dangerous. For example, certain sex criminals who have completed their sentences, or (more to the point) criminal aliens who have also completed their sentences but their home countries won't take them back. For that matter, I think that some of the criminals that Castro seeded the Muriel boatlift with might still be in US jails.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Teribus
Date: 21 May 09 - 12:37 PM

Ah so people (aliens) who have completed their sentences and certain types of criminals can be kept locked up in US jails, deprived of their freedom and that is OK.

While for the Jihadis who declared in 1992 that they wanted the lot of you muslim or dead, "a pencil-necked jerk in Texas" obviously had it dead right, because what you said above does not differ all that much from what Gitmo was - a bunch of dangerous people held harmless.

This issue, particularly wrt KSM, should he go free, will end all hope of Barack Obama ever seeing a second term in the White House - because of a can of worms that he deliberately kicked over. Imagine having to free the man who master-minded 9/11 then have to pay him compensation, by Christ will that go down well.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 May 09 - 12:57 PM

I take back what I said about ever agreeing with Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:35 PM

Teribus:

In this country, we do not incarcerate people for having ill wishes or "wanting someone dead". We do so for acts committed.

IF you think judging a whole category of people as criminal because some of them voiced destructive thoughts, highly irrational thoughts at that, your predilection for violent opposition is pitiable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:17 PM

A quick & a very smart move Art.

The "Jerk from Texas" has left the burning building,,,,after he started the fire & now it's up to Obama to put out the fire & salvage whatever's possibly & worth saving.

But all the Jerks that left can't give it up!

The nec-cons in their mad Rush to topple the new administration are doing all they can to impede & this prisoner issue & Guantanamo is just the first of many roadblocks they will put up as a smokescreen in their land-grab for placement in the 2010 & 2012 elections.
It's not that big of an issue, except that Cheney, Newt, Rush, Steele & the rest want to make it into a big issue & they're succeeding. The closing of Guantanamo is not the minefield that it's now portrayed to be. We've plenty of max prisons here & to mingle with the general population (or not) is nothing. Prisoners don't give a shit about authority, rules/laws, government otherwise they'd not be where they are.
Because they might be freed after illegally being detained without trial for (how many) yrs folks are afraid of them being upset. Imprison me with justifiable cause for 7 or so yrs & you damn well better be afraid. Send them back to where they came from or to what ever nation they feel as if they were defending or drop them off on the soil they were first taken from, from there on in it's their fight for freedom.
We will be having these smokescreen battles for the next 4 yrs & we will get nowhere with the important issues at hand if we keep having to get bogged down with the trifles that these neo-cons keep pushing in the way.

We do not jail people out of fear (opps, I guess we do now)
We do not imprison people indeffintly (opps, again)
We do not imprison people without evidence & just cause (opps, once more)
We do not keep people in jail without the right to a speedy trial (opps, this is getting crazy)
We do not keep people in jail just because they have no where to go (opps, this is now getting stupid)
We all have the right not to give evidence against ourselves (5th amendment). (Opps, what is torture??)
We invaded a nation illegally, we kidnapped those who fought against us in this illegal war & detained them. We are pulling out of Irag, they are POW's, send them back.

How frigging hard is it, do it be done with them & let's move on, our nation is sinking & we're busying fixing the kitchen stove.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: heric
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:25 PM

Point of clarificaton: We do incarcerate people for criminal conspiracy, without the murder /other act having taken place.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:44 PM

Of course we do but with just cause & evidence, not on hearsay

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: heric
Date: 21 May 09 - 05:05 PM

I cross-posted with yours Mr. F. I agree with everything you said except the first sentence.)

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Teribus
Date: 21 May 09 - 05:47 PM

Now hang on Art it was you that said:

"However, there is one part...which leaves them free to toddle about the USA at liberty ...well, not exactly. We do keep people locked up if there is no place for them to go and they are considered to be dangerous. For example, certain sex criminals who have completed their sentences, or (more to the point) criminal aliens who have also completed their sentences but their home countries won't take them back. For that matter, I think that some of the criminals that Castro seeded the Muriel boatlift with might still be in US jails."

Now what was it BF, our Baz, came out with:

We do not jail people out of fear (opps, I guess we do now, and have done for some considerable time according to Artbrooks)

We do not imprison people indefinately (opps, again and have done for some considerable time according to Artbrooks)

We do not imprison people without evidence & just cause (opps, once more and have done for some considerable time according to Artbrooks)

We do not keep people in jail without the right to a speedy trial (opps, this is getting crazy. It definitely is not only do you do this but you actually keep them in prison after they have completed their sentences, i.e. after they have completed paying their debt to society as judged determined by your courts, and it seems that you have done this for some considerable time according to Artbrooks)

We do not keep people in jail just because they have no where to go (opps, this is now getting stupid. But you certainly do and have done for some considerable time according to Artbrooks)

We all have the right not to give evidence against ourselves (5th amendment). (Opps, what is torture?? - And that is why under US law, if applied to the letter, every single one of those prisoners WILL WALK - You, or more correctly, your President intends bringing them to the United States of America to face trial, they are not arriving there by their own free will, they can bloody well demand to say so that they can sue you for wrongful imprisonment; cruelty; mental trauma, gross violation of human rights, etc, etc. How they will do it while keeping a straight face I haven't a clue)

We invaded a nation illegally (YOUR OPINION - Not shared by the US Congress), we kidnapped those who fought against us in this illegal war & detained them. We are pulling out of Irag, they are POW's, send them back." - (Precisely my point, and that includes Khalid Sheikh Mohamed et al. He by the bye was actually kidnapped, most of the others were captured under arms. My point is that if he should do this, Barack Obama can say goodbye to any second term, he will be lucky if he is not impeached. He has in effect painted himself into a corner, and I watch with interest to see how he is going to get out of it)

"How frigging hard is it," asks Baz quite rightly, well said. Art you tick the boxes in comparing what you said to how many hits you get on Bazzers list - I make it quite a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 May 09 - 07:33 PM

Is there someone named Bazzer here?

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: robomatic
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:37 PM

Put at its most simple:

The Republicans are Evil
The Democrats are Cowards

The American People, when faced with the choice of Evil v. Cowardice will, in their wisdom, take Evil every time.

We've just seen an example of Democrats in their normal state.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:52 PM

This prison wants them (video)...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30855701

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Nick E
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:56 PM

Actual Threat?, Some released Muslims whom my governmet has pissed off by holding prisoner.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 May 09 - 09:09 PM

We have the Bush Administration to thank for collecting evidence from these prisoners that is not admissible in a court of law.

I don't expect this situation to be solved in the near future; the "enemy combatants" and al Qaida members will probably be imprisoned for several more years without a trial. But eventually their case will be heard and they will probably have to be released to whatever country will accept them.

I expect that Obama will try to deal with this as fairly as possible, while weighing the potential threat to the American public.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 09:39 PM

Where's the potential threat, that's greater than the threat we've already been subjected to by the Village Idiot from Texas, and Cheney, I might add. Who's now got the balls to tell us his way was the right way, right my ass!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 09 - 01:37 AM

A few posters here want to start taking some "honesty" pills.

- Those currently held in Gitmo represent a danger to the US and the world in general if they are released - YES or NO

- Those currently held in Gitmo are either POWs or "enemy combatants" as defined by the previous admnistration - State which you believe to be correct and then stick to that categorisation, don't jump betwen the two.

- If those currently held in Gitmo are considered to be POWs then they should be released now. To put them on trial is illegal and against the Geneva Convention - You CANNOT lock them up in the USA or anywhere else - Should President Barack Obama do that then he may well be impeached, he most certainly will not be re-elected.

- If those currently held in Gitmo are classified as being "enemy combatants" then keep them where they are, that would be the best course of action, but St.Obama has decreed that Guantanamo must be closed and that these "enemy combatants" must be tried in US courts/US Military tribunals (I am not for certain which, may well be both, as with most things, Obama says whatever he thinks people want to hear and adopts multiple positions on any given issue). Rules of evidence will not allow those people to be found guilty and there is no way that these people will ever have a "fair trial". So they have to be released, live with it, that includes the man who master-minded 9/11.

With all of the above which prison in the US is prepared to take them is irrelevant. Barack Obama has stated that these men must be tried (So they are not POWs) if tried and found "Not Guilty", these men can sue the US for wrongful imprisonment, violation of human rights, etc, etc. An arguement can then be made on behalf of these prisoners, "You took me away from (fill in the name of wherever) and I can no longer safely return, you must therefore let me stay where I will be safe". You now have a number of very rich, radical muslims who are anti-US parked within your borders, and you will have to bear the costs of keeping them safe - If Salman Rushdi thought he had problems, think what KSM would be faced with if released and at large in the US (Wouldn't happen because if that man was released he'd go where he could do the US the maximum amount of harm possible).

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 May 09 - 02:52 AM

- Those currently held in Gitmo represent a danger to the US and the world in general if they are released - YES or NO

Yes

- Those currently held in Gitmo represent a danger to the US and the world in general if they are released - YES or NO

POW's

- If those currently held in Gitmo are considered to be POWs then they should be released now. To put them on trial is illegal and against the Geneva Convention -

Correct

There is a new state of the art max prison in Montana that's 2 yrs old & has been empty. The town in which the prison is located took a vote. The city council voted , they all agreed to except 100 Gitmo detainees. This town believes it's safe, it'll help the town's economy & there's the asnwer to your last question.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 03:34 AM

According to the ICRC commentary on the Geneva Conventions...

"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument


This means that either they are a prisoner of war, or they are subject to the domestic law of the detaining state. They cannot be prisoners of war, because no war has been legally declared. The domestic law of the US (the detaining state) is subject to the US Constitution. Holding people indefinitely in an extra-judicial limbo is in violation of the US Constitution, which is the highest law of the land along side of our international treaty obligations (like the Geneva Conventions). Therefore, holding them in this manner is illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 May 09 - 08:53 AM

I really don't think that one can say that none of these people are POWs simply because there has been no declaration of war - there hasn't been a declaration of war on this planet since 1941, but I doubt that anyone would assert that there have been no POWs since then.

However, those currently held in Gitmo is a very all-encompassing phrase. It is impossible to answer YES or NO to any question asked about such a diverse group. Some, perhaps most, are complete innocents who were picked up in sweeps or finked out by neighbors. While it is unfortunately true that their treatment has likely resulted in many having been radicalized, there is no excuse for not releasing them immediately.

Many others are POWs, as defined by the Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, and should be released and repatriated under the provisions of Article 118 of the Convention. Note that this does not mean that they should be released immediately. Granted, there are problems with their basic definition as POWs, since Article 4A2(d) requires that they must have conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, since these "laws and customs" aren't defined. But these are clearly "fighters" - chucking a hand grenade at somebody or setting a roadside bomb to destroy a vehicle in a convoy are the actions of a soldier. One cannot remove them from Geneva Convention by calling them "enemy combatants"; this is a phrase invented by the same people who claimed that waterboarding was legal because the pain it caused wasn't equivalent to that of death, and the expression has no basis in law.

Some - a small minority - are criminals who should be brought to trial for mass murder and conspiracy to commit mass murder. Whether or not they can now because the evidence against them has been so compromised by the manner in which some of it was gathered is an issue that must be dealt with.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:50 AM

Oh but Art there have been very clear declarations of intent on the part of the organisation(s) that these "fighters" belong to with regard to the United States of America, its citizens (all of them irrespective of status, i.e. combatant or civilian, man, women or child) and its interests and its allies. That is about as clear a declaration of war as you are likely to get these days.

Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have issued fatwas and have additionally given clear warnings three times. This they are required to do under Islamic Law to "legalise" their actions. Basically for all American citizens it requires that they adopt Islam as the one true religion and submit themselves to rule by Sharia Law thereby becoming part of a world-wide Caliphate. Do that and all previous sins will be forgiven and you can live in peace - All those interested line up to my left, the rest line up to my right.

Hey how come there's no f**ker standing to my left???

Ehmm Art there is no difference in setting a roadside bomb to kill people indiscriminately and flying an aircraft into a building to kill people indiscriminately. They are not "fighters" Art they are terrorists and as Peace says "for-real terrorists, shoot the fuckers and stop wasting tax payers' money on bullshit imprisonment and fake trials". Remember Daniel Pearl Art?? Remember what your "fighters" did to him??

Saint Obama has declared that there is no longer any such thing as "The War On Terror" so as you and Baz there define those currently resident in Gitmo as being POWs then you have to let them go. Having taken them off to Gitmo in the first place and altered the political nature of the countries where they were "fighters" in such a manner as it is now unsafe for them to return, you are morally compelled if not legally required to grant them asylum - The one thing you cannot do however is keep them locked up. So all this crap about some 430 place maximum security prison in Montana is totally irrelevant.

You cannot put POWs on trial Art it is not allowed. So if St.Obama is going to do that and US Courts are going to hear those cases they cannot be Prisoners Of War - Period, so make up your minds and live with it.

"chucking a hand grenade at somebody or setting a roadside bomb to destroy a vehicle in a convoy are the actions of a soldier" - Artbrooks.

Not quite Art chucking a hand grenade at an enemy combatant and setting a roadside bomb to specifically target a military vehicle are the actions of a soldier. To date the vast majority of muslims killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan have died at the hands of these terrorists and the vast majority of those killed by terrorists in both countries were civilians, your "fighters" found to their utter dismay that MNF and ISAF troops fight back (Figures for Afghanistan Art are over 50,000 of them killed or captured to date - In Iraq, where Ayman al-Zawahiri declared Al-Qaeda's defeat, the number is alot higher) - soldiers my arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 May 09 - 03:14 PM

Was there some place that I said POWs should be put on trial? Sorry, no. Is such a thing allowed under the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Certainly - Chapter III of the Convention provides for trial by military tribunal, and under some circumstances by civilian courts, for crimes committed both before capture and while in detention. A person under military custody who has committed a crime under either civilian or military law is liable for the consequences of that crime. This would include anyone who purposely targets civilians with a bomb, grenade, bullet or kitchen knife.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: DougR
Date: 22 May 09 - 03:15 PM

Teribus: I don't think it is acceptable to refer to the inconvenient over seas disturbances as the war on terror anymore. So ordained by the messiah (note no capital "m")Obama.


DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:07 PM

There may have been people who were being held as POWs during times when there was no declared war, but I don't think we can necessarily say that it was legal for them to be held as POWs at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:11 PM

I think Obama realized something that the Bush people did not, when they were using the term "War on Terror", which is that they were making themselves look like fools in the eyes of a majority of people when they used that term. You can't wage a war against a tactic. I don't blame Obama for not wanting to make himself into a silly cartoon as the Bush administration did with the use of that term.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:22 PM

Can somebody show an example of these people being called POWs?

I have heard the people held in the Guantanamo detention center called "detainees". Sounds resonable.

Part of the group called "detainees" has been referred to as "enemy combatants". They are ones who lobbed gernades at NATO forces in Afghanistan, bombed military vehicles in Iraq, etc.

Other "detainees" include Padilla, Lyndh, Iraq's "Chemical Ali" and Taliban grunts who were conscripted.

Surley the folks who was to blame Bush for all the world's problems cannot be suggesting that all these different people who committed different offences and come from different countries should all be treated under the same rules, be those "Geneva Conventions" or U.S. crimnal code?

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:34 PM

There is no legal category called "illegal combatants". At least not in terms of being outside the protection of the law that applies to all people in the US, or under US control.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:38 PM

Actually, yes, by law they are required to fall into one of three categories under the Geneva Conventions. Either they are considered medical personnel, POWs, or civilians. That's it. There are no other legal categories, and no one is outside of one of those three categories. If they are considered civilians, they are subject to the laws of the country that is detaining them.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Jeri
Date: 22 May 09 - 05:05 PM

Actually, it's combatants and non-combatants. The former does not include people engaged in self-defense. In the US military, medical personnel and chaplains are considered non-combatants, right up until the time they pick up a weapon and use it for reasons other than self defense. Civilians can fall into either category, depending on their actions.

See Article 3
I was military medical, and we got a lot of training. For instance, a commander could order medical personnel to go out and shoot people. We had to choose whether we'd rather face a court martial for failing to obey a direct order or give up our non-combatant status.

So if a guy was a civilian who got conscripted and forced to go out and shoot at people, he's a combatant. If he was a guy in his home with a gun to defend his family, I wouldn't call him a combatant, although I'm sure there have been at least a few of those in Gitmo.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 22 May 09 - 06:53 PM

Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba. Cuba considers the USA military illegal aliens. The US military seems to agree that US constititutional law does not apply there because it is foreign soil. That by logical deduction makes the US military on foreign soil in Cuba without permission. The solution is rather simple: Get out of Cuba and give Guantanamo back. If prisoners have committed a crime against the USA charge them and take them with you for trial. If not release them.
Like Peace I do not cotton to terrorists and wish them a speedy journey to Hell, but this whole mess stinks!

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 09 - 07:01 PM

"Cuba considers the USA military illegal aliens."

No, Cuba does not. Castro and his band of un-elected thugs do not like the U.S. base on Cuban soil, but we have a lease that was signed by both countries. It is legal and binding, even it the leader of either government changes periodically.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 07:10 PM

For the purposes of the Geneva Conventions, prisoners are either medical personnel (and I guess chaplains, too), POWs, or civilians. The civilians may be combatants or non-combatants. The reason it is broken down this way is because each of these categories is covered by a different article in the Geneva Conventions. Civilian combatants and non-combatants are both covered by the same article, and it is not the same one as POWs, or medical personnel and chaplains.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 09 - 07:20 PM

The check for leasing Guantanamo has not been cashed by Cuba for many years. They want the place back, and seem to consider the treaty no longer operative. I am not a lawyer who knows about the details of such things, but I'd suspect that it is better to GIVE it back to them, much as we did in the Philippines a few years ago.
Normalizing of relations with Cuba will never get far otherwise...
(what? you say you don't WANT us to 'get along' with those godless Commies? I might have guessed)

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 22 May 09 - 07:33 PM

pdq,
A lease is but a legal document that must be recognized by the law of the country in which it is applied. This is Cuban soil and the government does not recognize that lease as being legal. Therefore it has no status in the country which owns the land. Castro is not a thug. Cuba is a soverign state.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 09 - 08:08 PM

"A perpetual lease for the area around Guantánamo Bay was offered February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, an American citizen, who became the first President of Cuba. The Cuban-American Treaty gave, among other things, the Republic of Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay while granting the United States "complete jurisdiction and control" of the area for coaling and naval stations.

A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or the U.S. abandoned the base property."

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:20 PM

Until the revolution Cuba was a cesspool of corruption. There were also agreements made with the Mafia by Baptista. Do you feel that they should be honoured as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:37 PM

Only if you can prove that Moses Dalitz, Meyer Lansky, "Lucky" Luciano and the others were the properly-constituted leaders of a sovereign country. {hint: you will be a long time proving that they were}

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:37 PM

pdq, we have drifted this thread enough. I just wanted to point out the paradox of the US position.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:21 AM

I find it odd that our legal system, which can successfully deal with benign types such as Charles Manson, cn't handle a bunch of alleged terrorists.

If the only evidence you have is based on torture, and you can't prove things like conspiracy, deport the SOBs back to their country of origin. Sure, some of them may join terrorist organizations, but I suspect that they would only represent a drop in the bucket of America-haters we have to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: heric
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:24 AM

That's what I say. Fuck'm. Send'm home. Airdrop them if the country resists.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Peter T.
Date: 23 May 09 - 11:56 AM

The really dangerous thing is this notion of it being a "war on terrorism". This is what has screwed everything up -- the British have abandoned it, and for some reason Obama abandoned it, and now has taken it up again. "War" (for better or worse) has come under a whole raft of codified agreements, but the "Cold War" screwed them up (endless war that isn't quite a war).   Treating the people involved as warrish enemies gives them a status they don't deserve, and yet they are a threat. But terror is always a threat: there were anarchists in the 19th century who did all kinds of dastardly deeds (including blowing up lots of people, assassinating presidents, etc.). The Obama dilemma is (typically) that he wants to keep doing the Commander-in-Chief, war is always and forever, in order to keep bolstering up executive power. They all do, it is part of the genetic code. But it makes for a horrible mess if you are also trying to put them under a justice code.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Stupidest Threat Ever? ImprisonedMuslims
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:57 PM

That the trick. Bush's biggest and most destructive stupidity was raising the crimes of 9-11 to act-of-war status. The arbitrary abuse of definitions caused a whole cascade of idiocies.


A