<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' background='none' style='font-family:arial;font-size:10pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;width:100%;'><tr><td valign='top' style='font: inherit;'><P>Paul,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>You write:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>"We just can't keep them forever without recourse to the <BR>legal system. To do so is an abuse of human rights."</P>
<P> </P>
<P>We are not intentionally keeping all of them. We are only keeping them because nobody else will take them. Which makes you think, what kind of an asshole do you have to be to be rejected by every country in the world? </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Again, I think you should start an "Adopt a Terrorist" program so that these terrorists have a place to go since nobody will take them and you believe that their continued stay in GTMO is a violation of their rights. You clearly are allowing them to be abused by not adopting one of them. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>There are only about 60-80 people we are preparing for trial. But I think we need to detain them until hostilities are over. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>And so you know, I am not for giving up any of my rights. I am just not for giving terrorists rights over that of our soldiers and their terrorist victims. Unlawful combatants are not entitled to civil trials, only military tribunals. If they wanted civilian rights, or the rights of a lawful soldier, they should not have violated the Laws of War. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Best Regards,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Donovan<BR><BR>--- On <B>Sun, 6/15/08, Paul Rumelhart <I><godshatter@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Paul <SPAN><SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Rumelhart</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> <godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: <SPAN>GITMO</SPAN> Detainees Can Challenge Detention<BR>To: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<BR>Cc: "<SPAN>Sunil</SPAN> Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>, vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Date: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 10:57 AM<BR><BR><PRE>Donovan Arnold 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.
>
Are we so afraid of the boogeyman that is the "Pissed-Off Muslim
Terrorist" that we would give up our basic freedoms to fight it? What
exactly are the odds that you or I or anyone else on this list will
actually die from a terrorist incident? How does it compare to being
struck with lightning, or having a heart attack? Yet we're ruining our
economy and flushing some of the very basics of our systems of protected
rights down the toilet, all to avoid something that can be avoided
anyway by tracking down the actual people behind 9/11.
And before I get accused of not caring about the victims and families of
9/11 and we have to cut this conversation short... 9/11 was a horrible
tragedy, and my heart goes out to anyone that lost a loved one in
particular, and to everyone else in the country as well.
But I'm not giving up what it means to be free to avoid another round.
When did we become a country of scared old women, anyway?
>
>
> 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.
>
You seem to have a lot of knowledge about our detainees that even our
government probably doesn't have. My guess would have been that most of
them just want to see the light of day again, and will scurry back to
their families and try to put six years of waterboarding behind them.
The few that are actual hardened terrorists will likely try something,
but they should be the ones that are easiest to prosecute.
>
>
> 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.
>
They can hold them, they just can't hold them indefinitely without trial.
>
>
> 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 laws that are being trampled on here are the same ones that allow
you to fight trumped up charges thrown at you by someone who doesn't
like you. If you like knowing that you have an avenue to fight such a
thing, make sure everyone has that right.
>
>
> 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.
>
We're not talking about letting them go free, and then return later for
a court date. Detain them if we have reason to believe they are a
danger (such as actually attacking us), gather evidence, try them in a
court of law. We just can't keep them forever without recourse to the
legal system. To do so is an abuse of human rights. If we want to
treat them as POWs, then we should declare an actual war and then follow
the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise, they are just criminals caught in a
policing action.
Paul
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Donovan
></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>