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

Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
Sun Jun 15 10:54:56 PDT 2008


Donovan --

Even assuming that we can grade justice on a curve, you seriously
believe that seven years isn't enough time to gather evidence against
the 160 GTMO detainees that haven't even been charged with a crime?
Seriously?

-- ACS

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
>
>
> "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?"
>
>
>
> What do you mean, Paul? What else can they DO!!!!!!?????
>
>
>
> Do you really want to find out? You sound like 9/11 is was no big deal? A
> reminder, it killed 3,000 US Citizens, men, women, and children. Burned them
> alive, forced them to jump out windows, it destroyed families, and scared
> this nation for rest of eternity, it wasn't just a stunt, and heaven help us
> if you think against 9/11 is an acceptable lose.
>
>
>
> They don't want to take over the US, they want to kill us, and our troops,
> and that is what they will do if you release them.
>
>
>
> I don't disagree with you on the position that we should not have entered
> Iraq, and I agree with you that we should go after Bin Laudin.
>
>
>
> However, this court decisions goes way beyond Gitmo, or Iraq, or Iran. This
> is about the US Military not being able to hold onto people that
> they believe are enemy combatants.
>
>
>
> The US Military needs to be able to detain foreign combatants if it believes
> they are a danger to national security. That is essential, otherwise, our
> troops cannot take captives.
>
>
>
>  I don't believe in your false dilemma that it is either Mad Max, or an
> open civil trial of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, at taxpayer expense,
> that every combatant is in fact a danger to the US. There are rules in
> place, and detainees are released when we discover they are not a danger to
> the US.
>
>
>
> The purpose of the detention is to determine if someone is a danger and to
> prevent them from acting out against our troops. Our troops should have the
> right to remove known and believed dangers from the battle field to protect
> themselves and civilians they are trying to protect.
>
>
>
> Surrendering our troops ability to arrest and detain enemies of the United
> States without a civil trial is serious handicapping of our military in
> its ability to take action to protect the citizens of this country from
> people that are willing and attempting to hurt us. So much so, it is insane.
> This ruling WILL result in the death of innocent US citizens, there is NO
> question.
>
>
>
> By the time you have enough evidence to convict a terrorist, he has already
> blow himself up along with 50 innocent men, women, and children.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Donovan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 6/14/08, 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: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Saturday, June 14, 2008, 10:07 PM
>
> 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
>>     =======================================================
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list