home

Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo to Europeans

President Bush spoke in Europe today, and he defended both secret renditions and Guantanamo:

"We've got some in custody - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a classic example. The mastermind of the September the 11th attack that killed over 3,000 of our citizens," Mr Bush said at a press conference after meeting with European Union leaders. "And he is being detained because we think he could possibly give us information that might not only protect us, but protect citizens in Europe," Mr Bush said.

"And at some point in time he will be dealt with, but right now we think it's best that he be kept in custody. We want to learn as much as we can in this new kind of war about the intention, and about the methods, about how these people operate," he said. "And they're dangerous, and they're still around, and they'll kill on a moment's notice."

When exactly is that point? When he, and not a court, decides? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been held since March 1, 2003. The U.S. even took his 7 and 9 year old sons into custody. Ramzi bin al Shibh has been held in secret overseas detention since September, 2002. How much more information will they give after two or three years? How do we know Mohammed masterminded the 9/11 attacks? Shouldn't a judge or a jury decide that?

< TSA Stores Airline Passenger Data | Miss. Jury Deliberates 3 Hours, Deadlocked >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    If they were POWs (which they aren't, since they weren't fighting in accord with the rules of war), they wouldn't get a judge or jury - what bizarre universe do you live in? Why should illegal combatants have rights that POWs don't have? According to the rules of war, we would be within our rights to summarily execute these people (as happened with illegal combatants during WWII). In fact, regardless of the shouting from the left, these detainees are getting far better treatment than they deserve. Are you aware that prisoners at Guantanamo have - on average - gained 13 pounds since their capture? What's your brilliant plan for dealing with these people? And if it's a trial with all the rules of evidence that accrues to normal criminals, you know as well as anyone that most of these people would be let go. You want to take personal responsibility for the damage they'll do after that?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#2)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    James, we don't need a brilliant plan for dealing with those people. George W Bush and his neo-con possť are in charge and they need to come up with a plan. Are you aware that souls in the United States have--one average--lost 13-percent value since we've held "unlawful combatants" in self-admittedly outside-the-law detention facilities?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#3)
    by mpower1952 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Am I in an alternate universe? I thought Osama bin Laden was the 'mastermind' of the 911 tragedy. Someone please enlighten me?

    If there is a valid, objective basis for Bush's certainty that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is responsible for 9/11, a U.S. Attorney should have no trouble conveying that certainty to a jury. Silly to think an American jury wouldn't convict Mohammed, unless the gov't flat doesn't have anything on him and couldn't even get an indictment.

    He's not being held in Guantanamo. He's being held in secret overseas, possibly at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. No one is suggesting he go free. I'm suggesting that if he committed a crime, he should be charged and tried, and not by the President or Rumsfeld, but by a court.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    There are rules in war!? Golly, someone tell the bush admin. As others have commented, we are in a (never ending, PR ploy, deus ex machina for bushco's pnac policy (see world domination)), war on terror. If we can delare war w/o congress declaring war, then they must be prisoners in that non-declared WOT, hence the GenCons apply. WOT, is a pr move just like the War On Drugs. 'Enemy Combatant' is another pr move, it has no basis in law or even existence before bushco said so.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Even AFTER the war, only some are tried, not all of them.
    You are correct, those that aren't tried are just let go.
    They probably are getting better food & sanitation than what they had before anyway.
    Ahh yes, McGitmo & buckets in a cage equate with freedom. I'm just going to assume this commenter had a bad day, I'll let others point out how racist the remarks were.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#11)
    by bad Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Why is it that the same people who defend the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram, saying that it's no worse than that endured by prisoners in American prisons, are the same ones who insist that trials are unnecessary? Perhaps that's a rhetorical question; the defense is reflexive, not reasoned: us good, them bad. Let's hope that they're not going to argue that in the future the police can dispense with trials, too. Of course, at least one U.S. citizen is being detained indefinitely without trial by the U.S. military. We do have a toe on the threshold of dictatorship.

    The US AG likely has nothing on KSM that he can use in court. How can he win a case based solely on torture-induced confessions?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#13)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Robertson:
    According to the rules of war, we would be within our rights to summarily execute these people (as happened with illegal combatants during WWII).
    I'm sorry, but the scientist in me needs a reference: Can you give an example of someone who was summarily executed as a result of being found to be an "illegal combatant" in World War II? And what specific rules of war are you referring to that call for summary executions? Summary executions means that someone is executed without any form of legal process. They are routinely performed by despotic regimes, but I doubt very much there is any "rule of war" that condones any such thing. But maybe you know a precedent. Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva Convention says:
    Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
    The President is not a competent tribunal. He must treat the captives in Guantanamo as prisoners of war until such a tribunal has determined their status. The Guantanamo military tribunals are meant to appear to fullfill that role, but some judges aren't buying it.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#14)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    mpower writes:
    Someone please enlighten me?
    Well, that will be a task equal to Flushing, NY or Wheeling, WV, but I will try. These are terrorists. They do not fight for any particular country. There is no country that we can trust that we can return them to who will take responsibility for them. Hope the above doesn't get flushed out of your mind. Al writes:
    Should any doubt arise..
    Read Article 5 completely. If there is no doubt, then they don't get a tribunal. (If there is, they do.) Al, are you so obtuse to think that the GC means that every person taken prisoner gets a tribunal to determine their status? Repeat again.... the first three words from Article 5...."Should any doubt arise....."
    Can you give an example of someone who was summarily executed as a result of being found to be an "illegal combatant" in World War II?
    There were, and I am uncertain on the number, 5 or 6 Germans who came ashore in WWII, I believe on the coast of New Jersey. They were deemed unlawful combatants, brought before a tribunal and two, maybe more, were hanged. Here's the SC ruling. Sorry I can't give you the exact number of hanged vs imprisoned. Please feel free to Google. BTW - I know you are hanging on the word summarily, but I did want to point out that tribunals and hangings have been done before in the US. I think it was also done in the Phillipines by the US against moslem guerillas back in the early 1900's. As to your link to, thanks for making the Repubs point that we need some different people in the judicary. I would guess that if the good judge rules that these terrorists must be released we have the makings for a constitutional crisis. Hopefully, the judicary will not create one. badjim writes:
    Perhaps that's a rhetorical question; the defense is reflexive, not reasoned: us good, them bad.
    Uh, yes, I would say I have a reflex that causes me to think that terrorists are bad. Sorry about that. PIL writes:
    Those innocent people are just as innocent as you, James.
    PIL, your lack of logic is showing again. Why? Because the guilt of some is known without doubt. As to the "innocent?" Can you name me a few that we have doubt about?? I mean surely, since you have such convictions, you can name a few.

    Still don't realize that war/battle is different from a purse snatching? There aren't Miranda rights on the battlefield? We might not want to have our intelligence operations in newspaper articles? Terrorists should be treated better than those who actually follow rules? Does the left employ any logic or common sense with their policy preferences?

    Ed- Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Any more questions?

    Answered questions correctly but want policies pursued that are just the opposite. I guess you got the last answer wrong.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#18)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Jim, I would still like to get an answer from Robertson, who actually made that statement about summarily executing people. But I also have something to say about your comments. You belong to a community of people who cannot distinguish between fact and mental image. In your mind you are quite convinced that the prisoners in Guantanamo are terrorists who committed acts of terror against US citizens. In your mind, this image is indistiguishable from fact. But you don't know for a fact that they are. Not a single one of them has had his day in court. And that is the crux of the matter. A vague mention of "tribunals and hangings" and "I think it was done in the Philippines", together with an invitation to feel free to Google, is rubbish. Give me a specific case to illustrate your point. You invite me to Google, and yet write this to someone else: "As to the 'innocent?' Can you name me a few that we have doubt about?? I mean surely, since you have such convictions, you can name a few." Don't trivialize the issue of summary executions. It means lynching. Do you really stand for a civilized society, spreading the ideals of freedom and justice throughout the world? Fine, then act like it.

    fact and mental image-they don't get a day in court. in no war have those captured received jury trials, which appears to be what you want to happen. you belong to a group of people who feel we just randomly snatched up a few hundred Afghanis for kicks. then, when those randomly snatched up are detained without being killed, you still compare us to the death camps. you don't let facts get mixed up there.

    Don't keep calling these people, held in Guantanamo and the numerous other such places, terrorists, unless you can show evidence of that. Some of these prisoners might well be terrorists, but where is the proof? And loose stories of summary executions don't meet a burden of proof to anything, either. Give us some links.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    Hey George, if a guy hasn't said what you wanna hear in 3 years, he ain't gonna say it ever. Try them for mass murder and sentence them to life in prison if convicted. It's that simple, and the criticism goes away. Why does Bush hate due process and the US justice system? The above applies to those accused of commiting or abetting acts of terror in the US. If detained for fighting US forces overseas, return them to their country of origin, unless they are accused of war crimes, then try them. In case some haven't noticed, the Taliban and Saddam are no longer in power. Mission accomplished, the war is over. Iraq and Afghanistan are now occupations. Clean it up ASAP and get the hell out of Dodge.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    Al writes:
    You belong to a community of people who cannot distinguish between fact and mental image
    The last refuge of someone who doesn't have a defense and who doesn't know what they are talking about. Psycho babble. Al you belong to a group of people who can't even keep up with what has been said by someone, yet likes to act as if you were actually intelligent enough to follow the conversation. I have commented numerous times the following:
    Those that we are unsure of should have a tribunal, and if found not guilty, they should be compensated and released.
    The Germans I referenced were tried and convicted, and then punished. I suspect the difference is that you think they deserve a "US" full up trial as if they were someone accused of robbing a bank. They don't. That's not what happens in wars. Al, you commemnt:
    Do you really stand for a civilized society, spreading the ideals of freedom and justice throughout the world? Fine, then act like it.
    Al, I'm an old farmboy. And I'll let you in on a secret. Before you can plant the new crop, you must first til the soil to destroy the weeds and prepare the soil for the new seeds. If you ever get brave enough to actually help out, let us know.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#23)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    cheetah writes
    And loose stories of summary executions don't meet a burden of proof to anything, either. Give us some links.
    Another leftie who doesn't know WWII history. You might also check out the SC link. It was regarding that. Nor can you read. "
    BTW - I know you are hanging on the word summarily,"
    That means .... The Germans weren't, but Ed's comment, which wasn't about the German's, used it. Now. Your next question is?? kdog writes:
    Why does Bush hate due process and the US justice system?
    And why do you think people involved in a war get a full trial? Has never happened before. What do you want? 2 Lawyers per squad to tell the terrorists their rights? (I say 2 just in case 1 gets wounded. I wouldn't want to discomfort a terrorist.) BTW - Which country do you think wants to accept responsibiliy for al-Qaida? And if a country agreed to accept one of these terrorists, how quick do you think he would be either a), back in action, or b) killed before he could cause further problems for his "birth" country. Gesh, kdog. I worry about you.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#24)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Prior to and during the Battle of The Bulge, the Germans sent some commandos dressed in US uniforms into the area to ambush single vehicles, misdirect traffic, mine roads and so forth. Those were shot pdq, but I don't recall what, if any, procedure was involved. The execution was by firing squad of MPs against a wall, which means not on the spot by the line guys. This is perfectly in line with the GC. Irregulars were also killed after drumhead courts in the Civil War. A drumhead court is the slang term for a drum being used (drums being common) as a desk for the trial, which was, is this guy an irregular. If he was caught in the act, he was. He was then shot.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    I worry about the fate of innocent men detained by powerful govts., Jim. Isn't AQ a criminal enterprise of sorts? They commit murders, one rather large one on US soil. Try them and convict them for mass murder. Or aiding and abetting same. What's so hard? Or if the detainee had nothing to do with 9/11, why is he a prisoner?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#26)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    kdog. Why restrict it to 9-11? After all, few lefties had any complaints about trying Milosevic, and in fact would probably hope that Saddaam's trial goes as Milosevic's has so far. And there are plenty of crimes against humanity. Anyway, a couple of hundred guys have been let go from Gitmo, after investigation or tribunal. This means the remainder have a high probability of being guilty. If anybody who fights against the US can ever be guilty of anything in lefty eyes.

    Ed, "I guess you got the last answer wrong." Opinions do not equal fact. My opinion is that you got the last answer wrong. Again, opinions are not facts. If you wish to state without equivocation that my answer is wrong, prove it.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#28)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Aubrey, do you mean these German soldiers? It does sound like what you were describing:
    In the first few days of the battle, there was mass confusion caused by a team of 28 Germans dressed in American uniforms, led by the famous commando Otto Skorzeny. Riding in stolen American jeeps, they created havoc by directing American troops down the wrong road, changing signposts and cutting telephone wires to General Bradley's field headquarters. Four of the team were captured and when they confessed their mission, the American army immediately broadcast the news that there were thousands of Germans operating behind enemy lines. Skorzeny and his men were later brought before the American military tribunal at Dachau in another proceeding.
    According to www.historylearningsite.co.uk, these men were court-martialled. They were not summarily executed without any legal process, which is precisely my point. Incidentally, the Malmedy Massacre that the article alludes to was the summary execution of American prisoners by the Germans. The perpetrators were subsequently tried. I can only think of one reason why the government does not wish to put the Guantanamo prisoners in front of a "competent tribunal" as the Geneva Conventions require: They don't have enough evidence to convict. In fact, just knowing who the prisoners are might be embarrassing to the government. For example, some of them may be minors. There were certainly minors captured, one as young as 15, according to the Pentagon's own admission. I'm sure nobody here would seriously suggest that 15-year-olds be summarily executed without bothering to find out more about them. It is also not clear whether the Guantanamo prisoners are being held because the military think they committed acts of terror, or merely because they are considered to have information of value to the military. In the latter case, of course, no serious tribunal would allow them to be held indefinitely. James Robertson was the one who started all this ;-) I'm still waiting for him to come up with a precedent for summary executions. Or a recognition that he may have been mistaken! As for farmboy Jim, his comments of late are just one long insult, so I'm not going to bother.

    Paul in La La... The idea that Bush and his clan have the right to steal election, Hey dude where ya been? I haven't seen you post this tired old crap for a couple of weeks now. thought maybe you got over it....?? LOL pay to have political enemies and (probably quite a few) patriots (not terrorists) delivered into torture So..these guys cutting off American heads are patriots to you? You are one sick puppy. I got an idea... get out of La La land and join the human race...ok?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#30)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Al. Skorzeny's guys are the folks I mentioned. Thanks for the research. Point is, what they did was illegal under the laws of war. They got their due process. The guys at Gitmo are not there because they are known to have committed crimes, but because they were fighting against us, like the prisoners held in this country without due process until some time after the war was over. There are efforts to find out if they did commit crimes, but that's a separate issue. Frosting, if you will. No due process is necessary to hold combatants. No due process helped the conscripted Slavs in labor battalions, if they were wearing some version of Wehrmacht uniforms. They got to do "The Summer of My German Soldier", or so we're told, while the American soldiers were fighting. Nope. Sweep'em up and keep'em until the war's over. The noise about a trial to see if they're guilty misrepresents (now THAT'S a surprise) the issue. First, we detain enemy combatants. During that time, we look for crimes. If they didn't commit crimes, they're still enemy combatants and the war's still on.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    they're still enemy combatants and the war's still on.
    Rich, got a prediction as to when this "war" will end? When will "terror" surrender? My best guess is 500 years or so. So, the detainees who have not committed crimes stay in a cage in legal limbo for life. You are apparently ok with that. People who believe in basic human rights are not. Or you think "terror" is on the verge of surrender, in which case you need help.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#32)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    Kdog. The alternative is to let them go back to the battlefield. You have a third option? Yeah, it might last five hundred years. Probably less. However, this is something the boys knew when they signed up--actually they probably had been told they'd have us all killed by now in which case eff'em--but your point is correct. The guys are a danger as long as they are combat-capable and there's an organization which will put them to work against us. Now, you may say that human rights folks don't like this. I'm sure those who claim to be human rights advocates in order to cover an agenda far less benign are upset. Nuts, in a word, to them, too. They aren't fooling anybody. However, there is a proposal for letting these guys out. You get one. You're responsible to see his Koran is never handled by an infidel, that his food is always kosher--or whatever--and you are not to use violence when he tries to kill you or rape your daughter. Also, you're responsible for seeing he doesn't hurt anybody. Step right up.

    that proposal will never be accepted. Neither Tom Friedman nor the NYTimes will take any in either. The killing will occur in other countries and we will tut tut man's inhumanity to man from here.

    "PIL, your lack of logic is showing again. Why? Because the guilt of some is known without doubt." Some, like KM, so what? Quite a few of the people who were held AND TORTURED have been released. Why is that? It's a CONFESSION that they were falsely held. How many more are being falsely held? Furthermore, you totally ignore the point I was making about how the CORRUPT CONSPIRACY to make MONEY off the WOT is blatantly obvious. You winger boy scouts want to focus on the oath, while the rest of us kids are watching the scoutmaster put his pickle in the denmother. Quite a show!

    BB: "So..these guys cutting off American heads are patriots to you? You are one sick puppy.

    You have a very limited intellect, BB. It's too bad. As for decapitation, Bushco and CENTCOM have decapitated TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent civilians. Those four decapitated MERCs were doing exactly WHAT, with their utterly-illegal waiver of responsibility, before they were hung off that bridge? No one knows, except the people who lynched them. No inquest, as required by international law. But then again, the entire invasion is utterly illegal, so bringing in mercs and giving them carte blanche is just par for Bush's treason. As for vote-fraud, we have proven it, and now we are working through the states to have Diebold, ES&S, and the other Bush-backer vote-fraud companies driven from business. You can hear the barking, can't you? That's the law coming for your boy. Maybe you should take your fingers out of your ears.

    BB- "So...these guys cutting off Americans heads are patriotic to you?" Said to PIL. Well, are you saying that each and every one of the people we're holding have committed this act? Funny, I have not heard that news tidbit. And to call PIL "one sick puppy" over facts you've pulled out of thin air is beyond silly. At least try use real facts when attacking someone's character. Kdog is right. We can't keep people locked up forever because we have redefined the rules of war in order to "fit" this "war on terror".

    Probably not all head cutters. Some are probably shooters/bomber/knifers/stoners. Some maybe just ordered such acts. They knew the game when they signed up for the cause. If the converse of keeping them forever is to release them at your convenience to kill again, I'll take the first option. That is unless you opt to take them in-I doubt you are that confident in how safe they are though. Expect some lifestyle changes in your lair.

    Paul in La La.... You have a very limited intellect, BB. It's too bad. I love how you guys quickly get into personal attacks.....LOL Well I can hang with you Pauly...limited & all! I'm not the one calling these murderers patriots....am I? When I said you should move out of La before... I forgot to mention I think you should go join the fight. You obviously HATE the US & most of the bad people in it.... so you go boy! Strap some TNT to your waist (just like your heros) and go take out 30 or 40 people with you. Sound like a plan? Just think...you'll be a martyr and will get 72 virgins... (I'm sure by the way you talk...you need to get laid!)

    cheetah... Well, are you saying that each and every one of the people we're holding have committed this act? No...they are all innocent...let's let them all go ...wait till they kill more people & then capture them again? OK?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#41)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    BB. If terrorists kill people, Americans or otherwise, what are they guilty of? Revolutionary virility, nothing more. After they kill more people, what right would the lefties think we have to even object, much less capture them again?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    It's unconstitutional, it's against Int'l law, and it is ethically and morally wrong. gw isn't a king who can just suspend the US Constitution because wesayso. He is a proven liar, so we can't take his word, or any other politician's word, ab out why those guys are in gitmo. It is so simple: charge them, try them, or let them go. It's the american way.

    It's unconstitutional, it's against Int'l law, and it is ethically and morally wrong.
    And the RWNJ's could care less. So much for the conservative claim to support the "rule of law".

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Rich...I couldn't care less about Korans. Those allegations never bothered me, in fact they were a joke. I'm talking about human beings, flesh and blood. I believe it is quite possible some may be innocent of wrongdoing. Leaving them locked up for 500 years is not an option. Not if we are the country we say we are. As to the hardcore militants who will kill at the first opportunity, give them a hearing to determine if that is the case, and keep them detained. Just give them some kind of due process, to seperate the killers from the innocents.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#45)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    kDog. You still don't get it. These guys are in Gitmo because, 1, they were taken in combat, and, 2, they may have intel value. One is not "guilty" or "innocent" of a crime when taken in combat. One is simply taken in combat. This includes the infantry guys and the finance clerks and the conscripted slave laborers--until they can be differentiated--and anybody else found on the battlefield. Each of these guys has had a tribunal to determine if they were taken in combat. About three dozen have been set free--although one officer said he spent nine hours trying to convince a releasee to get on the damn' plane. Gitmo was nicer than whatever prospects he had at home. Several have been found to be in combat again, from which we may deduce the qualifications for retention are pretty rigorous. Keeping these guys as long as there is, 1, a war, and, 2, they are combat capable is standard military practice. Can you find a reference to the release of German POWs after three years in, say, 1944, on the grounds that they'd been kept long enough? The question of a "crime" is a straw man on your part. Jeez.

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Are you saying no one at Gitmo has been sold into US custody?

    Re: Bush Defends Secret Detentions and Guantanamo (none / 0) (#47)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    kDog. Wouldn't know. Since they all had tribunals, we would presume that the more egregious cases went home. I couldn't guarantee that every German POW held in WW II was actually a soldier, either. How a trial is going to find out if a guy's been sold when a tribunal didn't is beyond me. What we'd have is the usual lefty types getting a venue for even more false allegations, and no additional information. But, anyway, your concern for the actual rights of actual people has been discredited. Their use for your political ends is the only thing that interests you, so you can quit pretending to be worried about them.

    The undoubtable fact is that Bush USPNAC is using this illicit and illegal process, as well as the illicit and illegal invasion, to commit political assassinations, and to torture the innocent, for the purposes of TERRORISM. Supporters of racist COLLECTIVE GUILT THEORY think they have the right and even duty to commit racist acts of terror. Turning the US military into the KKK is NOT an accomplishment. "Those who were innocent today could easily be guilty tomorrow." -- Collective Guilt Racist Talat, Armenian genocidist.

    Didn't mean to be ambiguous. Talat was not Armenian, he was a Turk mass-murderer of Armenians.