home

A Simple Plan

By TChris, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:46:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The president has a bunch of people -- "enemy combatants," he likes to call them -- at Guantanamo, and he doesn't know what to do about them (other than keeping the press away so prisoners can't benefit from "publicity stunts" like, um, suicide). He told us today that he'd "like to close Guantanamo" because reports of torture and suicide just give people an "excuse" to criticize the U.S.

We don't need an excuse to criticize your administration, Mr. President. You and your helpers provide fresh cause for alarm every week. Banning the press won't shield you or your administration from warranted criticism. Guantanamo has severely damaged the credibility of the United States, and our elected representatives need to hear us object to misdeeds that tarnish our country's reputation.

As much as he'd like to, the president can't close Guantanamo, he says, because he "needs a plan for trying terror suspects if the U.S. Supreme Court rejects his military tribunals." Is the president worried that judicial activists on the Supreme Court might disagree with his assertion that "enemy combatants" have no right to judicial review of their indefinite detentions? He should worry.

You want a plan, Mr. President? You insist the detainees aren't prisoners of war, so the plan is simple: charge them with crimes and give them a criminal trial, or let them go.

< High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health Problem | Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Simple Plan | 37 comments (37 topical)
    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:16:08 PM EST
    It's as if these fascists aren't even very good at fascism. Geez, George, do what your grandpa's buddies did back in Germany. Disappear them!

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:34:28 PM EST
    Tchris, You insist the detainees aren't prisoners of war, so the plan is simple: charge them with crimes and give them a criminal trial, or let them go. Could you cite those historical examples - of other foot-soldier-level POWs being tried and charged as you suggest, aot being held for the duration - that you most wish to see emulated? Thx.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:11:32 PM EST
    "...and our elected representatives need to hear us object to misdeeds that tarnish our country's reputation." Give me a break! All terrorists should commit suicide, they target civilians. U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-R.I. Patrick Kennedy to name a couple, are the elected representatives, crooks and drug addicts tarnishing your country's reputation.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#4)
    by Aaron on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:12:03 PM EST
    I look forward to the day when George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld all are being held in a detention facility. Perhaps then we'll have this detainee rights debate again. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I will grudgingly support their right to judicial review, even though I consider them the most dangerous terrorists on the planet, whose words will continue to inspire millions of their tragically deluded deeply ignorant faithful to martyr themselves for the cause. Regardless, I want them to receive the full protection that the Constitution provides, including an endless string of appeals filed in the hopes of overturning their death sentences for treason and crimes humanity. I think perhaps George at least may be able to avoid his execution by pleading mental deficiency. God knows there's enough evidence. But having faith in America, I have little doubt that in the end justice will be done. And on that day I'll be right there, on the front row, with a beer and a hot dog in my hands, a box of popcorn some juju fruit and Junior mints (I like to be prepared). I'll be wearing a T-shirt that says "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" in big red letters on the front... ... and "SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS" on the back.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    being held for the duration
    The duration of this conflict is forever, according to those who are running it. That's a lot longer than previous conflicts.
    their tragically deluded deeply ignorant faithful to martyr themselves for the cause.
    Only in cyberspace, though.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:00:54 AM EST
    Could you cite those historical examples - of other foot-soldier-level POWs being tried and charged as you suggest, aot being held for the duration - that you most wish to see emulated? Thx.
    ras, keep up! where the hell have you been for the past almost 5 years? these people, according to bush, are not POW's. therein lies the problem. he claims they're not subject to the POW provisions of the GC's, because they aren't soldiers. hence, his concern about the USC's opinion of his proposed "military tribunals", the purpose of which would be to ascertain the prisoner's correct status. you see, the GC just calls for a tribunal, not a military tribunal, conducted under military rules. this could kind of be a problem for mr. bush, if the USC doesn't see things his way, because then a different set of rules would apply, a tad more favorable to the unclassified. that would be mr. bush's great fear. geez, i can't believe you even made a comment as totally 2001 as that!

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:13:09 AM EST
    Within the US, acts of terrorism, such as blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, are treated for what they are, crimes. Bush claims that these "enemy combatants" are not POWs but terrorists. Lets assume that they are. Shouldn't they be treated as criminals? If they committed acts of terrorism such as murder or the conspiracy to commit murder, then justice demands that they be put on trial and face the penalty.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#8)
    by cmpnwtr on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:07:42 AM EST
    This post, though well intended, suggests there is an actual rule of law in this country. The courts have taken a big pass, or just been ignored in enforcing the constitution or the laws, or in holding the administration accountable. The definition of fascism according to my political science professor nearly 40 years ago, is a conscious return to barbarism. I think that names our present course.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:06:56 AM EST
    Aaron writes:
    And on that day I'll be right there, on the front row, with a beer and a hot dog in my hands, a box of popcorn some juju fruit and Junior mints (I like to be prepared). I'll be wearing a T-shirt that says "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" in big red letters on the front... ... and "SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS" on the back.
    Aw, the voice of calm and wisdom speaks again. Practicing your thumbs up or down move, are you?? cpinva - Since the GC doesn't apply, who cares what it calls for? Certainly not 99%, or less, of the country. As for the SC, I am hopeful that they, as the SC did during WWII, as pointed out by TL, avoid a conflict between them and the executive. That could be truly hurtfu. John Horse - Then you are proposing that all acts of terrorism, any place in the world, should be treated as if they were in Peoria? Fantastic....

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:23:43 AM EST
    The failure of the SC during WWII to stand up to the overreach of the executive branch led to the despicable wholesale internment of japanese. But I'm sure people like PPJ and Malkin were for that and would like to see it implemented again for all those of Muslim origin as well as the memebers of the "left".

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:47:43 AM EST
    As far as we can tell these folks are not criminals, they are enemies. The criminal justice system is appropriate for criminals, but not enemies. The military, not the court, is the appropriate institution to deal with enemies. They seem to be doing fine job.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    And I'll say it again, we're running this disgraceful place IN CUBA!! The irony never ceases to floor me.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:11:39 AM EST
    Writing Castro's propaganda for him since 1960.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#14)
    by narius on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    As far as we can tell these folks are not criminals, they are enemies. The criminal justice system is appropriate for criminals, but not enemies. The military, not the court, is the appropriate institution to deal with enemies. They seem to be doing fine job. Moreover, let our enemies have something to fear about. They certainly don't fear death and love and discussion about touchie feeling certainly does not work on them.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    SD - Nope, not me. And not even the Right. If you didn't exist, they'd have to invent you. As far as the Japanese, we are still paying for that. The parents of our Sec Transportation head were interred, and that is undoubtedly one of the main reasons that he will not allow profiling as part of airport security. The fact that profiling could have prevented 9/11, especially after the FAA had been put on high alert on 7/5, seems to escape him. The other thing that you, and most of the far Left seem to forget, us that you are judging 1942 actions based on 2006 standards. You are also forgetting that the outcome of WWII was in real doubt when this happened. But reality and time frame has never bothered you in the past, so why should it now?? But what does that have to do with just how wrong headed it is to think that terrorist captured outside the US should be tried in the CJ system?

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    regardless of the fantasies indulged in by several commenters, the basic fact is we used to live in a democracy where they would have been charged, tried and found guilty or not guilty. It worked with McVeigh, it worked with WTC1, it is our system. Holding people w/o charges, indefinitely, incommunicado, w/o effective council should be anathema to all Americans. We fought a revolution and several wars to assure these rights. We even had the Nuremburg trials. If it is a global menace, take it to a global court.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    The other thing that you, and most of the far Left seem to forget, us that you are judging 1942 actions based on 2006 standards. You are also forgetting that the outcome of WWII was in real doubt when this happened.
    You trying to defend the intermmemt? You know you do, so read from malkin and her distorted view of history.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    the outcome of WWII was in real doubt when this happened. Consider that Yamamoto himself said: "If you insist on my going ahead," he told the Prime Minister, "I can promise to give them hell for a year or a year and a half, but can guarantee nothing as to what will happen after that." Link The Japanese didn't have the industrial capacity that America had at the time, so the outcome wasn't in doubt, let alone with the radar and code breaking that gave the Allies strategic advantages over the Japanese efforts.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#19)
    by john horse on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:30:02 PM EST
    PPJ, re: "Then you are proposing that all acts of terrorism, any place in the world, should be treated as if they were in Peoria?" Well yeah, if the alleged terrorists are in our custody. Don't you believe in the American system of justice? I'll take it over the Stalinist or Saddam Hussein's system of justic anyday, which Guatanamo is starting to resemble more and more by the way. What do you have against our Constitution and Bill of Rights PPJ? Why do you hate America? Speaking about Peoria, suppose that some people were accused of being involved in a terrorist plot in Peoria. Would we allow them to be detained indefinitely without charges ever being filed? This would be outrageous if they were innocent. It would also be outrageous if the charges were true because if the charges were true the perps should be tried in order that they face justice. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, they were trying to found a nation based on UNIVERSAL principles. What this meant was that they believed that the rights in the Constitution were not just the rights of Americans but of all men (and women). Included in these universal principles was the belief in the right to a speedy trial. The 6th Amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Our treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is making a mockery of what our Founding Fathers stood for.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#20)
    by narius on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    When our Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, they were trying to found a nation based on UNIVERSAL principles. What this meant was that they believed that the rights in the Constitution were not just the rights of Americans but of all men (and women). Our treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is making a mockery of what our Founding Fathers stood for. It is quite impractical to extend our rights to people outside of US, particularly people that hate us. We never treated all men equally and let's not start now. Otherwise, we have to give welfare to all poor people to Africa. We never treat enemy soldiers the same as US citizens in WW1 or WW2. I don't know the founding fathers' true intention because they are pretty much dead now and can't speak for themselves. But I doubt they have problem killing enemies & criminals. They did hang people in those days, you know. All the problems are rooted from the fact that we are not winning in Iraq. If we win, American people will be more than happy to let the terrorists rot in Gitmo. In fact, when we were winning in Afgan, no one was unhappy (except may be a few lefties) how captured Taliban were treated. I doubt they were treated nicer than people at Gitmo.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:12:54 PM EST
    I refer to what the US population thought. As did I in my last comment, if you wouldn't mind re-reading it and mulling over it for a while. I merely am of the opinion that the perception of an uncertain outcome didn't justify the internment. Unlike you or others here, I know a bit about the subject of internment from Mother Avenger being interned by the Japanese in China for the crime of being an American citizen. Though what happened to the Japanese here was quite mild compared to what my family went through during the War, it was a shameful event in our history, and that you feel compelled to make excuses for it is fascinating, to say the least. 30

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:43:16 PM EST
    I don't know the founding fathers' true intention because they are pretty much dead now and can't speak for themselves. But I doubt they have problem killing enemies & criminals. They did hang people in those days, you know.
    So you never heard of due process? Think about it...they had dealt with an oppressive occupying force. This inspired them to create a government radically different than the system they had recently broken free of. One that recognized inherent rights, that could not be taken away by a monarch acting by divine right, but only by an established process of review by judges and juries. It was a noble idea, one that lasted almost 230 years...
    All the problems are rooted from the fact that we are not winning in Iraq. If we win, American people will be more than happy to let the terrorists rot in Gitmo. In fact, when we were winning in Afgan, no one was unhappy (except may be a few lefties) how captured Taliban were treated. I doubt they were treated nicer than people at Gitmo.
    Hmmmm...well OK..at least we can both agree that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#23)
    by john horse on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:08:55 AM EST
    Speaking of due process, here is an explanation of the right to a speedy trial. Please note that this right is a benefit to society as well as the defendant. As is noted, delay "often retards the deterrent and rehabilitative effects of the criminal law." In addition, the longer that we delay charges, the more likely that we will be unsuccessful in prosecuting any criminal acts (if there are any).

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:24:35 AM EST
    BTW - As one of your peers recently commented: It is possible to understand why someone did something and still think it wrong.
    another non-answer

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 05:37:38 AM EST
    SD - To know you is to be convinced that you have no understanding of the world.
    I understand the world and how it works quite well which explains my complete pessimism for the future.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 06:18:15 AM EST
    Dark Avenger writes:
    and that you feel compelled to make excuses for it is fascinating, to say the least.
    Nope, I'm not letting that slide. I direct you to my comment to SD:
    It is possible to understand why someone did something and still think it wrong.
    Shall I 'splain that to you? There were all kinds of fears, prejudices, etc., floating around in '42 that aren't floating around in '06. Understanding that doesn't mean that you don't think something was wrong. But you knew that. You just wanted to make a snarky remark that you knew was untrue. SD - I see that you claim my answer was to subtle for you. Hmmm, be a good dittohead for Dark Avenger and read the above. John Horse - The issue is the reach of our CJ system. I don't think it extends past US borders. You do. My belief makes your points moot. Neither of us will change. Narius is right. If equal treatment for all non-US citizens outside the US is required, then we need welfare sign up stations all over the world. (Note the "outside.") And no, that doesn't mean illegal aliens must have a full up court hearing. Once they been identified as an illegal alien they have also been identified as breaking the law. Penalty: Instant deportation.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 06:41:24 AM EST
    PPJ I understand completely that you being "subtle" was a non-answer. For absolute clarity please answer the following statements, yes or no. The internment of japaneese during WWII was wrong. The mass internment or expulsion of Muslim US citizens today would be wrong.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#28)
    by narius on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:20:53 AM EST
    Speaking of due process, here is an explanation of the right to a speedy trial. Please note that this right is a benefit to society as well as the defendant. As is noted, delay "often retards the deterrent and rehabilitative effects of the criminal law." In addition, the longer that we delay charges, the more likely that we will be unsuccessful in prosecuting any criminal acts (if there are any). Never applies to enemy soldiers. It did not apply in WW1, WW2 and there is no reason why it should apply now. If we can classify a non-US-citizen group (enemy soldiers in this case) that due process did not apply in the past, we certainly can classify a new group (muslim terrorists in this case) now.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    Never applies to enemy soldiers. It did not apply in WW1, WW2 and there is no reason why it should apply now.
    Except that the next stop on the Bush/Gonzalez slippery slope is for U.S. citizens to be declared "enemy combatants".

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#30)
    by narius on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    Never applies to enemy soldiers. It did not apply in WW1, WW2 and there is no reason why it should apply now.
    Except that the next stop on the Bush/Gonzalez slippery slope is for U.S. citizens to be declared "enemy combatants". LOL .. it is not like the soldiers were treated by GC rules by the insurgents or terrorists right now. They got blown up, executed, and their heads cut off when captured. They are ALREADY being treated WORSE than "enemy combatants". So since we are already there, there is no reason to exercise restraint when the other side is not anyway.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    SD - If you can't figure it out I certainly won't do it for you. Why? Because it is a useless exercise. No matter what I say you will disagree with. But if that is truly too subtle, I will try and 'splain it at the Jr. High Level. I am capable of understanding the fears and prejudices that drove the decision in 1942. I am also capable of understanding that the decision was wrong because I have the benefit of 64 years of progress. Expel Moslems? Do you still beat your wife?

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    so you are not going to answer are you? simple questions need only simple answers Your refusal to answer makes your stand very clear.
    capable of understanding
    - well do you understand or not?

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    And I'll say it again, we're running this disgraceful place IN CUBA!!
    If was nothing to be ashamed of...why not put the camp in the good ol USA? Oh yeah...Americans with a conscience would never stand for it...so the feds hide the shame in Cuba....or Eastern Europe.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:09:36 PM EST
    So since we are already there, there is no reason to exercise restraint when the other side is not anyway.
    We are supposed to be better than them, I thought. But you dodged the main issue, i.e., what do you do when your government starts disappearing its own citizens to gulags?

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    SD - I answered your first. Your second was so stupid I answered it with a stupid one. So. Do you still beat your wife? Ernesto - And what would you do with unlawful combatants? Got any suggestions you can share?

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 03:16:41 PM EST
    still not answering Knowing your ability to parse a sentence to mean anything you want a simple yes or no is all that is required. Your refusal to answer tells us all we need to know

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#37)
    by narius on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 03:53:30 PM EST
    We are supposed to be better than them, I thought. Says who? I think we are supposed to win. Oh, we are better and richer and have tanks and bombs. But we want to kill them as much (ok, may be a little less) than how much they want to kill us. Let's not pretend we want to be friends here, ok. But you dodged the main issue, i.e., what do you do when your government starts disappearing its own citizens to gulags? Then I sue, I protest, i go talk to the press and use any means to end the SOB that will do that to me or my friends. But if you are talking about disappearing someone thousands of miles away who are not US residents, who cares?

    A Simple Plan | 37 comments (37 topical)