Yemen Justice System - For Terrorists

Hey! It is the liberal dream. We no longer have to pose hypotheticals about "what if". we have solid proof of their plans and how they turn out.

They would escape from jail in Yemen if they go to court in the US?

It isn't a reflection of what would happen in our legal system...the ones we've convicted are still in SuperMax and will remain their until they attain room temperature. It is a reflection of the type of entities we are dealing with abroad...our "allies". But I get your point...a good one, too. I still feel that legal approach to terrorism is a waste of time and money, the Bush approach is better.

If I start talking about a government where people are taken at gunpoint held away from their families without rights and never charged, am I talking about Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Gitmo?

Depends on who the people are...in Iraq it was young women who attracted the two boys, taken at gunpoint to be used and abused and "disappeared"...or political figures who spoke alound about their misgivings about their government...or just about anyone who pissed the Baathists off.

The majority (not all, but the vast majority) at Gitmo were taken off of battlefields where they were engaged in various activities in support of the enemies of us. Some were taken from their homes, some from their cars, many at gunpoint. Some very small percentage may prove out to be less than suspected, but even so...that has nothing to do with my comment.

The article is about the lack of enthusiasm for legal method in the middle eastern nations that are supposed to be our allies. Yemen in particular. Island Dog is telling us that this is the type of thing to expect if terrorists are handled like criminals instead of enemy combatants. I pointed out that the few terrorists that have been tried as criminals in our system are very well incarcertate and will be for some time to come. I then opined that Bush's method of dealing with terrorism is better than the criminal pursuit method...if the goal is to get terrorists "off the street"...Bush has a better track record than the US Justice department.

Finally, if you are laboring under the assumption that there is a large number of totally innocent men in custody at Gitmo...I have no back up for this opinion but am confident enough to state it anyway...there is a larger percentage of innocent men imprisoned by our legal system than are imprisoned at Gitmo.

If you are talking Gitmo, you are talking out your ass. POWs and Enemy Combatants are not subject to the bill of rights according to the Geneva Convention. Or do you just honor treaties that are convenient to you?

Prove it. cite specific examples and cite direct evidence proving those individuals were guilty of any such thing.

Except Bush's Method is playing judge jury and executioner with no responsibility to allow defense against the accusations. in either case you are dealing with governments who claim the right to unilaterally take someone off the street, deny them any due process and imprison them without any recourse.

That is the inherent flaw in Gitmo, Bush dicked around for years claiming they have no obligation to actually prove their claims, instead expecting the nations of the world to go with the argument of "imprisonment without trial is only wrong when everyone else does it".

When Bush was forced to realize that the constitution still applies despite Bush's efforts to destroy it all of the sudden people were released, which tells you the quality of the "evidence.".

Some of whom strapped on a bomb and took out a crowd...some of whom returned to the struggle they had been involved with all along...killing Americans. I conceded that ther may be innocents caught up in a bad situation...but they ain't all innocent. The point remains...dealing with terrorists with the law enforcement mentatlity is not the way to stop the killing.

You just spent four years in an armed prison camp where the people holding you refused to let you contact your family told you that you had no rights and they were allowed to hold you indefinitely.

When forced to actually prove something your captors admitted that they had absolutely no justification to kidnap you to begin with and then let you go.

Now are you claiming you are just going to shrug your shoulders and say "oh well"? or are you going to go find a terrorist recruiter and do what they had already accused you of and punished you for to begin with.



Do you actually think the Bush junta released people that they had actual evidence to support holding? They knew they had NOTHING on these people other than the color of their skin.



So you have no problem with you being kidnapped and held without rights for the rest of your life?

Strapping on a vest bomb and blowing myself up in a crowd of innocent Iraqis proves I am not a terrorist worthy of detention in Gitmo HOW? The arguement that we are creating terrorist through our efforts to protect ourselves does not hold water.

I have conceded that, like any system, the one we have in place now is not perfect, but it is not as flawed as you would like it to be. You sound really angry about the rights violations and the abuses the detainees suffer. Do you feel the same anger for the treatment of civilian contractors who were killed, set on fire and dangled off a bridge? The soldiers who were slaughtered, gutted, then booby-trapped so they could kill more of their comrades? The journalists and other non-combatants who have been kidnapped, tortured, beheaded, and humiliated? It isn't apples and oranges. It is a valid comparison of how one side treats its captives as opposed to how the other side does. The goal is to create a situation where it becomes untenable for one side or the other to continue. Every time I see the films of a bombsite, the bloody sidewalks, the bodies being carried out, the dust in the air, the screaming and the moans...I become more and more determined that it not happen here in the Swirling Epicenter. So far, so good.

And you can prove this? Please show us where none had any contact.

And while you are at it, why dont you take one into your home, since they are so innocent and harmless.

Bullshit. FACT: THE US GOVERNMENT KIDNAPPED THESE INDIVIDUALS

FACT: THE US GOVERNMENT ADMITTED THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL

FACT: THEY COMMITTED AN ACT OF TERRORISM AFTER YEARS OF BEING KIDNAPPED AND HELD WITHOUT RIGHTS BY THE US GOVERNMENT.

Well those of us who actually graduated past grade school science know its impossible to prove a negative.



I've got a better idea, why don't we imprison the entire Bush junta and lock them up for the next four years and deny them rights if there is nothing wrong with it.

SO you are admitting you lied. And you cannot prove your lies? First honest post of yours since you started crapping on this site.

Like fish in a barrell...  

What form of mental retardation do you have that you would think that was me admitting I lied?

I have not lied so I cannot prove lies that never occurred. The facts are as I posted. Your response was to argue that since you cannot prove a negative then its impossible for a negative to occur.

Fact: You have no proof of this. According to international law if you are not in uniform and you are caught shooting at any military person on the field of battle you have no rights. You can be shot on sight, detained forever, whatever the country catching you wants to do with you. That is the LAW. It has been part of the Geneva Conventions since its inception prior to WWII. The only time you need to go to trial is if you are caught within the borders of the United States.



Fact: The government was forced to release people because it was less damaging than putting them on trial. To do so would mean giving the defense access to our intelligence, our spies, our agents, and our methods of operation. This would get people killed. Liberals screamed when Valarie Plame was outted and cried that her life was in jeopardy because of it. She was not under cover and had not been undercover for over five years which meant she it was okay to reveal her name. To prosecute those illegal combatants the defense gets full disclosure of the evidence against the person. One lawyer has already been disbarred because she shared information with the terrorist organization of the guy she was defending. It was not as you say no evidence it was a case of the lesser of two really bad choices. Letting the guy go free or kill off your agents and spies in country.



Fact: they committed acts of terrorism that they were caught planning and when released after swearing not to be involved with any terrorist activity as a condition of their release they did it any way.

I don’t see you crying over the fifty people that have been released from Gitmo that were recaptured on the field of battle again doing what they said they did not do the first time they were captured. And the ones released were the low risk ones.



You stated as if it was a proven fact that these people have no contact with their families. Now you say you can’t prove a negative. In reality you are saying that you lied in the first place and you can’t find another way of dodging the fact that you lied so you rely on sarcasm to try to browbeat us into accepting your lies.



So you are suggesting that at no time any of those “innocent” people made a statement that they were not allowed to have contact with their families in some way or any way. Sounds like you made it up or took it off of some far left blog and can’t back it up.

Your written word. You lied. You made a statement and now are trying to weasel out of it. Projecting your own impotence on others is not proving your point. You made this statement:



(The written word is a killer for liars)

So Prove it. Yet instead you again projected your own inadequacies in trying to weasel out of providing any substantiation to what is clearly a lie.



I posted your lie again for you (as I know you are reading impaired). You made a statement. Statements are easy to prove (or disprove) since they are facts, not opinions (learn the difference - if you can). Either prove it or retract it. But the truth is you lied.

By the way, it is not a negative. You made an affirmative statement. Something that any one who graduated grade school could easily understand. An Affirmative statement is not a negative. It is a statement of fact. You lied, and now are trying to justify your lying with obfuscation. And doing a very poor job of it since you apparently do not understand what you have written.

So you are saying proving something DIDNT happen is not a negative.

YOU ARE ASKING SOMEONE TO PROVE THE NON EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING. THAT IS TO THOSE OF US WHO ACTUALLY COMPREHEND ENGLISH A NEGATIVE.

Prove that is the circumstances of every single person who has ever been imprisoned in gitmo.

See unlike you I am not asking you to prove that they were NOT innocent, I am challenging you to prove that they were caught in this fashion.

No, you are claiming the non-existance of something. Since it does not exist, you cannot prove it. That is not proving a negative. So you are lying, and are not too bright either.

facts can be proven. That is why they are facts, not opinions. YOu stated a fact, and then chickened out of it when asked to prove it. You lied. Pure and simple.

No, you are just being obtuse and childish. Your statement above, the one you were challenged to prove, is not a negative. It is a declarative, and should be easy to prove since you did not use an absolute. But you childishly refuse to, instead trying to misdirect about negatives. But unfortunately, this is not your kindergarten play ground where the person who shouts loudest wins. You have to actually back up your statements with facts. Something you have yet to do in any of these forums. Because you think shouting the loudest will win you the points.

All it does is prove to everyone you are just a childish liar.