Just what should we do with the enemy combatants at Gitmo?

from JoeUser Forums
Open question to all - with all of the fuss lately over comments from people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Dick Durbin, Amnesty International and others over conditions and the situation at Gitmo, I have to ask a serious question:

Just what should we do with the enemy combatants / prisoners / whatever you wish to call them that we are housing at Gitmo?

Seriously, what do we do with these people? Return them to the country of their choice so they can eventually find their way back into the hostilities, or make their way to the closest busy Bagdhad restaurant so they can be homicide bombers / martyrs?

How about release them to a neutral country? Maybe send them to France where they can become citizens there? How about to Belgium? Germany? Send them to Syria perhaps? To Iran?

How about bring them to the U.S.? If we bring them here, we can let them all have lawyers that get them in front of a jury and have them found not guilty because there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not they are terrorists and whether or not they really were aiming at U.S. military personnel when they were caught with weapons in hand? If you promise a party after the trial (ala Michael Jackson), I'm sure the Jackson jury members would be happy to go back to work again for a little longer, right?

I'm left wondering if perhaps the reason that some are griping about Gitmo is because they believe we are wasting money keeping these prisoners there ad infinitum. Remember, we're feeding these people, clothing them, keeping them relatively comfortable, allowing for them to exercise their religious beliefs, and generally treating them as humanely as possible, without having to worry that they'll rush off to pick up arms against us again. But even with this humane treatment, we are not converting them to lovers of the U.S. Remember, a great percentage of these individuals would be right at the head of the line to start attacking us again if given the opportunity (prior news articles mention the high rates of former combatants that returned to the fight once released).

So again, what in the name of all that is holy do we do with these people? Let them slowly rot in the most humane prison conditions we can create, or what!?!??!!?!?

I know - how about we just let them walk right out the gates at Gitmo to go become citizens of Castro's Cuba? If a few are shot at as they leave the relative safety of Gitmo would that be ok?

Oh, better yet, how about a new reality show -- a real life "Lost" and "Survivor" hybrid reality show for these people -- take them to a remote Atoll and abandon them there with a months worth of food and some very basic tools (flint and tinder). Have Mark Burnett and Jerry Bruckheimer film everything and even perhaps offer the "winners" a free trip to the next Island where they can be immune from voting and instead perhaps they can be behind the scenes cast members that help determine the show's outcome without ever really interfering.

Comments anyone?
politics
7,147 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Release them in a gesture of love & tolerance....

That would end terrorism this moments...
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we should do with them exactly what we are doing now. If there are any cases of outright torture, or other actions that violate military regulations, of course the violators should be dealt with under the UCMJ. Other than that, let it be business as usual. The politicians need to remember that no war can be successfully fought from Washington DC, and the press needs to wake up to the fact that they are as much a part of any war as the combatants.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll see Ted's solution, and raise him a deadline: We should do with them exactly what we are doing now, until we the people can reach some sort of consensus that the war is over (or that at the very least the detainees are no longer a significant threat to the war effort). This consensus will probably take the form of elected representatives who make it a part of their policy to release the detainees (and probably declare the war over or else changed in nature).
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
They should be charged and tried. If found guilty they should be punished. If found not guilty they should be released!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
They should be charged and tried. If found guilty they should be punished. If found not guilty they should be released!


Okay genius....charged with " what"?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
They should be charged and tried. If found guilty they should be punished. If found not guilty they should be released!


Then all the enemy has to do, idiot, is fill Guantamimo Bay with so many "detainees" our court system will implode on itself trying to handle it.

For a retired officer you have a pathetic mind for tactics. The goal in war is to deny the enemy the means to continue the fight. Why is it that almost every one of the ideas you back work towards the terrorists reaching their goals?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler If we can not find somethiing they did that is a crime, then why are they beng held in prison? The military can set up courts to try these people without impacting our civilian courts. Just holding people without charging then violates our most basic principals! I am not saying just let criminals go. I am saying try them and punish them if they are guilty! That is not allowing the guilty to continue to fight ParaTed2k.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Colon Gene, yes it does work towards the terrorists efforts to deny the U.S. the ability to continue the fight. First of all, the expense of setting up courts for every detainee would be huge. It would require officers and NCOs to be on judging panels and representation. Next (and most important), they would be little more than platforms for terrorists to spew hatred towards the U.S.
The press would have a field day, and the anti war citizens (such as yourself) would take their cues from these terrorists and reporters to demand an end to the war.

As long as there are Americans working towards the goals of terrorists, their job is half done.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed2K

We create more enemies by what we are doing in Iraq then by dealing with the detinee's. It is not an issue of cost. It is one of our most BASIC principals. We are paying the military anyway so the cost is not a big issue. There is a cost to charge and try any person. Are you saying because of the cost we should just end all trials? Bush is wrong not to bring these people to trial. We can not go on telling everyone the importance of Democracy and then turn our back on one of the MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPALS OF A DEMOCRACY!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I knew you would take my statement to a stupid conclusion!

The point is, we are under NO obligation to give them trials. If we did, we are breaking Geneva Convention terms. They aren't criminals to be tried, they are enemy mercenaries who even the Geneva Convention refuses to recognize or even offer protection.

Tell me, under what part of the UCMJ would we justify Military Trials of mercenaries or terrorists? Last I checked civilians do not fall under the UCMJ and as far as I know there are no regulations or procedures under the UCMJ to direct such trials.

Apparently that was yet another block of instruction you slept through.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"COL" Gene; If you were in the military, which I am beginning to seriously doubt, you would know that a country does not put enemy combatants on trial. Period. Even though these people were not wearing uniforms and were technically illegal combatants and as such are not protected by the Geneva Convention rules, we are still affording them most of the treatment they would have received from those rules anyway.

That's more than they legally deserve. Any true military person, especially an officer, would know these things.

Personally I believe they are being handled correctly. They have been neutralized as a threat without having to kill them, and once we have determined that the threat itself has reasonably passed they will be released. Until then they should stay right where they are.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm also beginning to seriously doubt wether "Klink" *ever* was an officer in the US military. Some people have raised valid points. Points that any "real" officer would/should know. Points that I as an "enlisted" man knew the answer to.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Creat a program for democrats "adopt a terrorist" that will solve 2 problems, give the terrorist a nice clean home and eliminating the left. what do you think?

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, June 22, 2005I'm also beginning to seriously doubt wether "Klink" *ever* was an officer in the US military. Some people have raised valid points. Points that any "real" officer would/should know. Points that I as an "enlisted" man knew the answer to


this is something I have wondered about too,
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was Bush that proposed setting up military tribunals to deal with the people being held in Cuba. If they have committed terrorist acts out of uniform they have committed a crime. Why would we let such people go in the future without punishing them for any acts of terrorisn they had committed? I want them tried and if guilty punished not just released in the future.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, June 22, 2005I'm also beginning to seriously doubt wether "Klink" *ever* was an officer in the US military. Some people have raised valid points. Points that any "real" officer would/should know. Points that I as an "enlisted" man knew the answer to


this is something I have wondered about too,


Hey MM... Did you notice that "Klink" did not address these comments in his last post?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, Colon Gene, it was Prs. Bush that first brought it up, and guess what, under the UCMJ, he was wrong (there, I said it). Mercenaries are not afforded ANY recognition in international law. They are basically non entities. They're not soldiers or criminals, they are merely people who hired themselves out for someone's war effort, accepting the non entity status of their position.

That being true, the fact we are affording them the time and means to observe their religious and cultural practices means that we are already doing more for them than international law requires.

So again, since you chose to not answer the question,:

Tell me, under what part of the UCMJ would we justify Military Trials of mercenaries or terrorists? Last I checked civilians do not fall under the UCMJ and as far as I know there are no regulations or procedures under the UCMJ to direct such trials.


For the record, I have no doubt that you were once an Army Commissioned Officer. I have searched and found your name on websites that you couldn't have manipulated. So, either you went through great pains to assume the identity of Gene Abel, or you are him. Either way, your knowledge of tactics, military regs, the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ is very underwhelming for someone who made O-6 and was considered for General Officer. In fact your knowledge (or should I say, lack of) of what it takes (and doesn't take) to make those ranks was what led me to do a search in the first place.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe in time of war, fighters who are cought out of uniform are charged as traders and the punishment, if guilty, is death. I am not a JAG but I do know that to just put a person in prison without a trial violates the most basic legal protections in our system of government. How can Bush preach democracy and then just keep people locked up without their day in court?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
believe in time of war, fighters who are cought out of uniform are charged as traders and the punishment, if guilty, is death. I am not a JAG but I do know that to just put a person in prison without a trial violates the most basic legal protections in our system of government. How can Bush preach democracy and then just keep people locked up without their day in court?


And how long did we keep catured Germans in prison until we ran through the Nuremberg trials? First shown was 1944 and the trials didn't start until 1945 and ran until 1949. Doing the math that's about 5 years isn't it?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
#18 by COL Gene
Wednesday, June 22, 2005




I believe in time of war, fighters who are cought out of uniform are charged as traders and the punishment, if guilty, is death.

Actually no, they aren't charged as traders. A trader is someone who does business trading commodities and or stocks and bonds. Neither are they charged with being traitors as those charges would have to come from their OWN military.
Non-uniformed military personnel in a combat zone are often charged as being spies (espionage), but even those charges only apply to persons who can be reasonably proven to be members of the military or in the direct employ of a government. Neither of those conditions apply to terrorist/mercenary persons working for a terrorist group or operating on their own as "insurgents".
A military tribunal is neither appropriate nor even feasible for these people as THEY ARE NOT MILITARY but are technically civilian combatants.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Never mind that all of these terrorist have either been through or are going through a review process, tribunal, or whatever you want to call it. It's the reason some 250 have already been released and another 30-40 are due to be released shortly.

Never mind some 10% or so of those already released have been killed or re-captured on the battlefield. How many more of these haven't we encountered yet?

Never mind these same people refuse to acknowledge the Geneva conventions and refuse to abide by them in their treatment of prisoners.

Nope. Treat them right, but keep them incarcerated until this is over.

JollyFE