Lawyers Smuggle al Qaeda Magazine Into Gitmo

**djones520** · 01-20-2012, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Lanie

When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.

Lanie, lets try an experiment here.

Set aside your opinion of this matter. Don't even try to think about it. Now go back to what Ody said, and reread it. Don't let the word trial enter your thought a single time.

These people are not criminals in the sense you associate trials with. They are combatants, just like Ody and I are. Were he or I captured on the battlefield (by a force that adheres to the Geneva Convention), there would be no trial. We would be placed in holding, whether it be a prison facility, camp, or something else along those lines. We would be held there until either there was a cease of hostilities between the two battling powers, or our government negotiated our release.

The people at Gitmo are combatants, but they are illegal combatants. They do not wear identifying uniforms. They do not adhere to the "rules of war" as they are recognized. They often times attempt to disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents to inflict maximum damage. All in all, they fight in a manner which does not afford them protection under the Geneva Protection, as Ody or I would be afforded.

As I said, we would be (or should be if our government hadn't gotten all nanciefied on this) 100% perfectly entitled to just put a bullet between their eyes when we captured them. Instead we capture, then inter them as if they were legal combatants.

They are lucky they get that. Giving them a "trial" would be a gross miscarriage of justice. One, they have no right to it. Secondly, it's an insult to those of us who do follow the Geneva Convention. We would not be afforded the same right if we were captured. We would not even be allowed to ask for that right.

Is any of this sinking in for you?

**Lanie** · 01-20-2012, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by djones520

Lanie, lets try an experiment here.

Set aside your opinion of this matter. Don't even try to think about it. Now go back to what Ody said, and reread it. Don't let the word trial enter your thought a single time.

These people are not criminals in the sense you associate trials with. They are combatants, just like Ody and I are. Were he or I captured on the battlefield (by a force that adheres to the Geneva Convention), there would be no trial. We would be placed in holding, whether it be a prison facility, camp, or something else along those lines. We would be held there until either there was a cease of hostilities between the two battling powers, or our government negotiated our release.

The people at Gitmo are combatants, but they are illegal combatants. They do not wear identifying uniforms. They do not adhere to the "rules of war" as they are recognized. They often times attempt to disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents to inflict maximum damage. All in all, they fight in a manner which does not afford them protection under the Geneva Protection, as Ody or I would be afforded.

As I said, we would be (or should be if our government hadn't gotten all nanciefied on this) 100% perfectly entitled to just put a bullet between their eyes when we captured them. Instead we capture, then inter them as if they were legal combatants.

They are lucky they get that. Giving them a "trial" would be a gross miscarriage of justice. One, they have no right to it. Secondly, it's an insult to those of us who do follow the Geneva Convention. We would not be afforded the same right if we were captured. We would not even be allowed to ask for that right.

Is any of this sinking in for you?

You know, I told Ody he he was right, and that's not enough for you.

You can't give them trials during the war because they could enter the battlefield again and that's just how war is done. Fine.

I'm not going to be comfortable with it and I sure as well won't be okay with just killing them unless they're not captured. If you don't like it, then tough.

I swear I think your side wants everything. That's actually been the problem for years now. Tx says libtard. Well, maybe I should go back to saying conservakook. Seriously, you all need to stop needing your way all the time. It's a trait I've seen since the Bush years and it still gets on my nerves.

**Odysseus** · 01-21-2012, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Lanie

When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.

Okay, wait a minute. You can't just turn around and agree with me. That's going to confuse everything here. :D

Originally Posted by Bailey

OMG what is it with you people??? THEY dont deserve a day in court.

Uh, she agreed with me. We won. Chill.

Originally Posted by Lanie

You know, I told Ody he he was right, and that's not enough for you.

You can't give them trials during the war because they could enter the battlefield again and that's just how war is done. Fine.

I'm not going to be comfortable with it and I sure as well won't be okay with just killing them unless they're not captured. If you don't like it, then tough.

I swear I think your side wants everything. That's actually been the problem for years now. Tx says libtard. Well, maybe I should go back to saying conservakook. Seriously, you all need to stop needing your way all the time. It's a trait I've seen since the Bush years and it still gets on my nerves.

One last point. Nobody is talking about killing them in captivity. We are bound by rules of warfare that state that prisoners are non-combatants, having been disarmed and put where they cannot rejoin the fight. This, BTW, is why it is acceptable to kill a prisoner only if that prisoner is attempting to escape, i.e., to rejoin the war effort and become a combatant again. Other than that, we treat prisoners the way that we hope that ours will be treated. If, however, the other side routinely abuses and murders prisoners, the Geneva Conventions say that they have abrogated the protections of the laws of warfare, and we can respond in kind. The fact that we don't should speak volumes on its own.

Now, to everybody else, can I point out that the argument is over, at least with Lanie, and she has come around to our way of thinking? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to go and do the Internet Argument Victory Dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1npWhzBJAzA

**Lanie** · 01-21-2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Okay, wait a minute. You can't just turn around and agree with me. That's going to confuse everything here. :D

Uh, she agreed with me. We won. Chill.

One last point. Nobody is talking about killing them in captivity. We are bound by rules of warfare that state that prisoners are non-combatants, having been disarmed and put where they cannot rejoin the fight. This, BTW, is why it is acceptable to kill a prisoner only if that prisoner is attempting to escape, i.e., to rejoin the war effort and become a combatant again. Other than that, we treat prisoners the way that we hope that ours will be treated. If, however, the other side routinely abuses and murders prisoners, the Geneva Conventions say that they have abrogated the protections of the laws of warfare, and we can respond in kind. The fact that we don't should speak volumes on its own.

Now, to everybody else, can I point out that the argument is over, at least with Lanie, and she has come around to our way of thinking? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to go and do the Internet Argument Victory Dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1npWhzBJAzA

djones keeps talking about how they should have a bullet between the eyes. That's why I brought up killing them. I'm against the death penalty. I've only spoken in favor of it out of emotion. Whenever emotion is out of the picture, I usually speak against it.

Onto the rest, I was thinking about it yesterday. We can argue all the left points, right points, military points, etc. What it really comes down to is whether one trusts our military to be doing the right thing. I look a lot of at history and I do find where militaries have been abusive with their power. I think that's actually one of the roots of the problem with others regarding me. They can tell I have this side of me which would offend some people in the military. I question authority a lot, no matter what good they did to get that position. It's my nature, and it's offensive to some people. It comes off like I don't have any respect for military, people on the police force, etc. In reality I do, but my attitude comes off differently and I apologize for that. So what I was thinking about was what I thought of our military. While there are bad apples in every group of people, I realized that I do trust our military. I even trust them to get rid of bad apples when they find them. So there you go, argument over.

**Kay** · 01-21-2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by txradioguy

Lawyers for the terrorists...some from the firm that AG Holder used to work for...have been caught numerous times over the last 8 years smuggling in propaganda to the detainees.

We don't hear a lot about this, or at least I haven't. So what punishment did they get?
We're they charged with aiding the enemy and arrested? Or just politely told not to do it again

Originally Posted by djones520

These are all illegal combatants.
They are entitled to a bullet between the eyes.
Nothing more.

That's what I say.

**Odysseus** · 01-21-2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Kay

We don't hear a lot about this, or at least I haven't. So what punishment did they get?
We're they charged with aiding the enemy and arrested? Or just politely told not to do it again

One would hope. Lynn Stewart, the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, went to jail for the same thing. She got 28 months plus ten years for perjury during her trial, plus automatic disbarment.

Originally Posted by Kay

That's what I say.

According to the Geneva Conventions, combatants under powers that are not signatories and do not comply with the Conventions are not protected, so they are subject to summary execution in the field, but the UCMJ forbids that.

**djones520** · 01-21-2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Odysseus

According to the Geneva Conventions, combatants under powers that are not signatories and do not comply with the Conventions are not protected, so they are subject to summary execution in the field, but the UCMJ forbids that.

Are you referring to Article 96? I don't think shooting a "prisoner" is the same as allowing them to escape. Or am I missing it somewhere else?

**txradioguy** · 01-21-2012, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Kay

We don't hear a lot about this, or at least I haven't. So what punishment did they get?
We're they charged with aiding the enemy and arrested? Or just politely told not to do it again

That's what I say.

Kay I heard about it in 2010 on Mark Levins show. As far as I know nothing was ever done to them. One of the terrorist advocates down there is IRRC currently Holders Deputy. Several people now working at Justice were defending the Gitmo terrorists prior to Obama becoming president.

**Odysseus** · 01-21-2012, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by djones520

Are you referring to Article 96? I don't think shooting a "prisoner" is the same as allowing them to escape. Or am I missing it somewhere else?

No. In the heat of battle, if the combatants are not subject to the Geneva Conventions, then there is no guarantee of their right to quarter, i.e., you do not have to accept surrenders, however, once you have accepted the surrender, they are prisoners and defined as non-combatants. The Geneva Conventions permit shooting an escapee during the attempt, but not if he has been recaptured. The UCMJ bars killing of non-combatants, including prisoners, except when they are in the process of attempting to escape.