[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention

[Paul Rumelhart]

I realize the government is not trying to convict.  That is the problem 
the Supreme Court corrected. 

Many of these detainees were caught as part of a bounty program set up 
by the US government.  Not the most trustworthy of operations, giving 
money to people to finger terrorists.  How many of them are people that 
screwed over the guy getting the bounty?  How many are just convenient?

Besides, we either follow the rule of law or we're living in a Mad Max 
movie.  It's long been a cornerstone of our court system that it's 
better to let a guilty person go free when you don't have enough 
evidence to convict them than it is to wrongly convict an innocent person.

The really ironic thing here is that terrorists don't have the ability 
to take over the US.  They can maybe swing another stunt like 9/11, but 
what else can they do?  Well, apparently they can frighten us into 
giving up our inalienable rights in order to fend off another tragedy.  
We've done more harm in this conflict to ourselves than we have to the 
enemy.  We've lost most of our international respect, we've chipped away 
at the laws that ensure our freedom, and we've strengthened the 
Executive Branch beyond reason.  We'll be living with that long after 
the last detainee dies of old age.

If we really cared about taking out the terrorists, we would never have 
gone into Iraq.  We'd have tracked down Osama, and anyone else that 
turned up in the ensuing investigation.  We breed more terrorists every 
day we're in Iraq.  With 600 detainees, some percentage of whom are 
undoubtedly innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, to 
show for it.

So let's gather the evidence, take them to trial, give them a chance to 
refute the charges, and hang anyone we find guilty of committing acts of 
terror against the US while letting the innocent go free.  It's the 
right thing to do.  The question I'm interested in is this: do we count 
fighting back at our invasion of Iraq as a "terrorist act"?

Paul

Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>  
>
> You ask," if our administration is so sure they have the biggest and
> baddest terrorists at Gitmo, then it should be not be unusually onerous
> for them to prove that in a court of law.
>
> If they don't have enough proof to convict, then why are they so sure
> they have the right people? "
>
>  
>
> Paul, the government is not looking to convict. They are looking to 
> detain people they believe are trying to hurt our troops or US 
> Citizens. If they suspect someone is plotting against the US, they 
> capture them, check to make sure they are not a threat, then either 
> release them or attempt to get information from them that is useful in 
> saving lives.
>
>  
>
> You seem to ignore the fact that American Courts often release people 
> that are guilty. You also seem to ignore the fact that the US military 
> would have to release classified information to the public if they 
> were to prove that the terrorist is in fact a terrorist. The terrorist 
> could also communicate security information to try and prove their 
> innocents.
>
>  
>
> Best Regards,
>
>  
>
> Donovan
>
>  
>
>  
>
> --- On *Thu, 6/12/08, Paul Rumelhart /<godshatter at yahoo.com>/* wrote:
>
>     From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge
>     Detention
>     To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>     Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>     Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 10:39 PM
>
>     Why does the Supreme Court hate America?
>
>     Anywho, if our administration is so sure they have the biggest and 
>     baddest terrorists at Gitmo, then it should be not be unusually onerous 
>     for them to prove that in a court of law.
>
>     If they don't have enough proof to convict, then why are they so sure 
>     they have the right people?  Because they've waterboarded them?
>
>     Paul
>
>
>     Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
>     > They have never received anything like a trial as we know it.  They 
>     > have had 'hearings' in which they are unrepresented and are not 
>     > allowed to see the evidence against them.  That might be a trial 
>     > elsewhere.  In our tradition we never considered anything that 
>     > farcical to be a trial before.
>     >
>     > Sunil
>     >
>     >    
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:02:36 -0700
>     >     From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
>     >     To: chasuk at gmail.com
>     >     CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>     >     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention
>     >
>     >     Chas,
>     >      
>     >     They were not deprived of due process of law. They were tried, and
>     >     found guilty before they are sent and locked up in Gitmo. The
>     >     reason they are not tried in American Civilian Courts is because
>     >     they are not US Citizens and because if they were it would expose
>     >     US classified information which would put US soldiers and possibly
>     >     civilians at risk.
>     >      
>     >     Best Regards,
>     >      
>     >     Donovan
>     >
>     >     */Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>     >
>     >         On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 18:59, Donovan Arnold
>     >         wrote:
>     >
>     >         > Maybe we should create an "Adopt a Detainee"
>     program. Those
>     >         that think they
>     >         > are innocent detainees can line up and open their homes to
>     >         people considered
>     >         > to be unfairly detained at Gitmo. If they really believe
>     >         that these people
>     >         > are innocent, and they are released, it would be unfair to
>     >         send them back to
>     >         > their home country to be killed, right?
>     >
>     >         I don't have any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the
>     Gitmo
>     >         detainees, so I won't be inviting them into my house, thank
>     you.
>     >         However, that doesn't mean that I believe they should have
>     been
>     >         deprived of the due process of law, which is the real subject
>     >         here.
>     >
>     >         Chas
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > =======================================================
>     >  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>     >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>     >                http://www.fsr.net                       
>     >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>     > =======================================================
>
>
>     =======================================================
>      List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>      serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                    http://www.fsr.net                       
>               mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>     =======================================================
>
>