# Gitmo coming to a mall near you...



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Jesus Christ... where is Patrick Henry when a country really needs him...

News from the other piece of sh*t in the Obama administration...



> *Some Guantanamo prisoners could be released in U.S.*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

Is it Jan 20, 2012 yet?


----------



## Redwolf (Nov 29, 2008)

No not yet.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Seems to me that if there was reason to hold them for 7 years, there should be plenty to convict them on. Defecate or get off the pot. You can't hold the 2nd amendment sacred and ignore the 6th without being a hypocrite.


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

I'm sure glad that Obama is striking that horrible phrase "Enemy Combatant" from our vocabulary.

I like "Conscience Objector" much better . Don't you?


----------



## literaltrance (Dec 24, 2008)

I'm with MLB, and I do what I can to avoid playing devil's advocate here, but I think this is being handled more appropriately than it has in the past. Detaining the Gitmo "guests" for the incredible periods we have is simultaneously inhumane and unconstitutional. Now sure, I doubt these suckers are harmless innocents, but if we had enough intel to grab them, then I think the ONLY course of action would be to adhere to the following:



> He said the administration was looking at the possibility of putting some of the Guantanamo prisoners on trial in U.S. courts. "My guess is that some of those people would be tried in" the U.S. court system, he said.


The self-evident, inalienable rights of men, you know....all that stuff on which our country was founded. Gitmo may have had good intentions but it's turned into a beacon of everything our great country has worked to abolish. Simply put, Gitmo needs to go.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

MLB said:


> You can't hold the 2nd amendment sacred and ignore the 6th without being a hypocrite.


I wasn't aware that the bastards being held at Gitmo were protected under "Our" constitution... and were citizens of the United States.

Personally, if they were captured on the battlefield trying to kill members of our military they all deserve bullets in the back of their heads... But hey, that's just me.


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

js said:


> I wasn't aware that the bastards being held at Gitmo were protected under "Our" constitution... and were citizens of the United States.
> 
> Personally, if they were captured on the battlefield trying to kill members of our military they all deserve bullets in the back of their heads... But hey, that's just me.


+1..I keep hearing how it's supposed to be this or that but those that are not citizens I didn't think were protected by the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

js said:


> I wasn't aware that the bastards being held at Gitmo were protected under "Our" constitution... and were citizens of the United States.
> 
> Personally, if they were captured on the battlefield trying to kill members of our military they all deserve bullets in the back of their heads... But hey, that's just me.


Well JS, if they were caught trying to kill us I'm with you. However, we should have the stones to at least charge them with something. If they're POW's, then there's an appropriate way to deal with them. This BS about "enemy combatants" is weasely lawyer-speak. Call a spade a spade.

As far as being protected by the US Constitution; they aren't I suppose. But the document was created as a result of the Declaration of Independence, and it doesn't discriminate. "All men are created equal", "We hold these truths to be self evident", not just to those that are US citizens. Either a man has unalienable rights or he doesn't.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

MLB said:


> As far as being protected by the US Constitution; they aren't I suppose. But the document was created as a result of the Declaration of Independence, and it doesn't discriminate. "All men are created equal", "We hold these truths to be self evident", not just to those that are US citizens. Either a man has unalienable rights or he doesn't.


It say's they are created equal. It doesn't say they will live equal or die equal.

They have the right to pursue happiness. It doesn't say they will find it and these guy's took a wrong turn which was their right.


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

MLB said:


> If they're POW's, then there's an appropriate way to deal with them.


They most certainly aren't POWs, since they do not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 of the the Third Geneva Convention, which requires the following:


> - that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> - that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are - limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
> - that of carrying arms openly;
> - that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Protocol I, referred to in the above quote, would allow the following:



> ...shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
> ( a ) During each military engagement, and
> ( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.


Protocol I has not been ratified by the United States, partly due to the above clause. Under Article 4 alone, most if not all of the guys in Gitmo don't qualify as POWs. What they do fall under is rather open, hence the popularity of the term "enemy combatants" to describe them.

KG


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

What's the right way to deal with POW's? Hell it's a lot better that taking videos of their heads cut off.


----------



## jc27310 (Dec 14, 2008)

*I was never in favor of holding any one...*

send them back to their country of origin and be done with it...

any possible persecution is their problem or the problem of the country lucky enough to have them.

Close gitmo NOW!


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

And then there's this...



> Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent Link


Oops... Sorry fellas. No hard feelings, right? Right? :watching:


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Do you suppose they could survive off the land in Orange County New York. They are a resourceful people and if provided their usual set of tools, AK47, sharp knife and a couple of blankets, perhaps they could establish a village and live on as if nothing ever happened.


----------



## Tuefelhunden (Nov 20, 2006)

Hang em, release them back into their home country, keep them detained I don't really care but released into the US is nutty. We seriously will be lucky to survive Obama and his ilk. Actually makes Billary look appealing and that's frightening.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Tuefelhunden said:


> Hang em, release them back into their home country, keep them detained I don't really care but released into the US is nutty. We seriously will be lucky to survive Obama and his ilk. Actually makes Billary look appealing and that's frightening.


Hell, that's one of the problems... Their own countries don't even want them. I say we treat them the same as they would treat their captured prisoners. Chop off their heads with a rusty knife blade.... dipped in pork juice of course....


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

TOF said:


> Do you suppose they could survive off the land in Orange County New York. They are a resourceful people and if provided their usual set of tools, AK47, sharp knife and a couple of blankets, perhaps they could establish a village and live on as if nothing ever happened.


I'm sure they'd make out very well. And they'd even help out the cadets over at West Point with some additional training. :mrgreen:

Although with the dry climate, cold winters and hot summers, those poor fellows might be more comfortable in a similar landscape..... maybe like northern Arizona? :smt023


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

They wouldn't like it out here Kev, we can carry loaded guns with or without a Permit and protect ourselves. It's called a hostile envoronment for their group. Hussein would never allow his fellow Muslims to be placed in such jeapordy.

If he would though it might reduce short term target cost for the Sportsmans Club.

:smt1099


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

TOF said:


> it might reduce short term target cost for the Sportsmans Club.
> 
> :smt1099


If they get split up between the military academy and the CMP, it would be a win-win for everybody! :mrgreen:


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Do the men of West Point get to shoot much? We had a young Officer, I understood to be out of West Point, shoot pistols with us a year or so back. He wanted to prepare for the Sand Box. We were amazed to find that he did not know how to handle a pistol properly. I am hopeful the little bit of training he got here helped.

:smt1099


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Thanks for the schooling on POW's KG333. I suppose I can see why the prisoners from this war aren't "prisoners of war", as goofy as that may seem.

Semantics aside, holding a prisoner without a charge for years is no better than the old soviet practice of sending people to the Gulag. Convict them or ship them.


----------

