Some prisoners have been released from Gitmo. Of all the "terrorists" we locked up in Gitmo, how many was tried and how many was convicted? Bush and Obama are both in this, so both share the blame.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
These are non citizen enemy combatants (aka terrorists). Exactly how many of the enemy did Bush release to be sent back to the battlefield? When you figure it out, compare that number to the number of terrorists BO has released and THEN tell me who is at fault.
Send them to Jordan.
What blame does Bush share? As hoober said, who locked up the terrorists (Bush) and who is releasing them to go back to attacking us (obama).
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Send them to Jordan.
=============
Or china, japan, or france.
How many got tried?
None got tried for the most part jt because they were military prisoners, much like if you caught a prisoner during a war. The laws are not the same, and it would have been a useless and expensive endeavor to hold trials for these scumbags while a bunch of lawyers made millions of the taxpayers defending them. Instead, our government turned them loose to go home and start all over again, with a new intel on how the system works. You don't think they spent their time at Gitmo making baskets or car tags did you? Now they are joining the ISIS movement and killing folks again. Bush tried to do it the right way and keep these bastids off the streets, but Obama and his ilk have sent them back with a renewed vigor to kill more innocents.
Do it like the Geneva conference allows. Bring them before a military commission and verify certain items -- caught serving under arms wearing no uniform or identifying insignia, If so, ask for extenuating circumstances -- US or other foreign intell agent penetrating terrorist organization, If not, then sentence to death and hang them. All legal and above board. Of course, it they wish to sing like a nice stool pigeon, that might be taken into account.
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Send them to Jordan.
_________________________________________________________
Yes, a little stretching of the neck will end the need for elevator shoes among those Islamic moral midgets.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Some prisoners have been released from Gitmo. Of all the "terrorists" we locked up in Gitmo, how many was tried and how many was convicted? Bush and Obama are both in this, so both share the blame.
One things for sure, they didn't kill after Bush put them there. obama says
go kill again.
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Send them to Jordan.
_________________________________________________________
Yes, a little stretching of the neck will end the need for elevator shoes among those Islamic moral midgets.
+++
You got it. 
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Do it like the Geneva conference allows. Bring them before a military commission and verify certain items -- caught serving under arms wearing no uniform or identifying insignia, If so, ask for extenuating circumstances -- US or other foreign intell agent penetrating terrorist organization, If not, then sentence to death and hang them. All legal and above board. Of course, it they wish to sing like a nice stool pigeon, that might be taken into account.
+++
Or if they burn one of your pilots alive, you reciprocate by hanging double the number.
Geneva protocol need not be followed with terrorist.
Budslaw
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Do it like the Geneva conference allows. Bring them before a military commission and verify certain items -- caught serving under arms wearing no uniform or identifying insignia, If so, ask for extenuating circumstances -- US or other foreign intell agent penetrating terrorist organization, If not, then sentence to death and hang them. All legal and above board. Of course, it they wish to sing like a nice stool pigeon, that might be taken into account.
+++
Or if they burn one of your pilots alive, you reciprocate by hanging double the number.
Geneva protocol need not be followed with terrorist.
Budslaw
_______________________________________________
The Geneva conference does govern the treatment of illegal combatants, as well. They just have less protection. Can't physically torture them or use enumerated psychological torture like fake executions and can't summarily execute them. The military commission method I referred meets the requirements of the convention as it is not summary execution,
Of all the responses, Dire made the most sense. Were the first "illegal combatants" locked up in 2002? 14 years is enough time to have a hearing or trial, find them guilty or innocent, and then deal with them in an appropriate manner.
The army gave classes on it -- active and reserves.
Since Obama seems determined to close Gitmo and release these prisoners, the least we could do is send them away with some pro American tattoos.
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Do it like the Geneva conference allows. Bring them before a military commission and verify certain items -- caught serving under arms wearing no uniform or identifying insignia, If so, ask for extenuating circumstances -- US or other foreign intell agent penetrating terrorist organization, If not, then sentence to death and hang them. All legal and above board. Of course, it they wish to sing like a nice stool pigeon, that might be taken into account.
+++
Or if they burn one of your pilots alive, you reciprocate by hanging double the number.
Geneva protocol need not be followed with terrorist.
Budslaw
_______________________________________________
The Geneva conference does govern the treatment of illegal combatants, as well. They just have less protection. Can't physically torture them or use enumerated psychological torture like fake executions and can't summarily execute them. The military commission method I referred meets the requirements of the convention as it is not summary execution,
+++
Still doesn't meet the standards of sarcasm as put forth by Budslaw.
Or are we calling terrorist "illegal combatants" now? No dam wonder we've got a problem.
Or are we calling terrorist "illegal combatants" now? No dam wonder we've got a problem.
Don't forget a terrorist attack on our military being called workplace violence! What did they label the boston bombers' attack? Government assistance rage?
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Of all the responses, Dire made the most sense. Were the first "illegal combatants" locked up in 2002? 14 years is enough time to have a hearing or trial, find them guilty or innocent, and then deal with them in an appropriate manner.
Why do you care if a foreign terrorist rots in prison or not?
Towards the end of WWII, the US rounded up armed civilians who were treated as Illegal combatants.A few wearing Swastika armbands were treated as legal combatants. Also, a few proved to be French Marquis, OSS, MI-6, G-2 or Rote Kapelle. Really not a good idea to execute your own and allied intelligence agents. That's a reason for the commissions,
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Or are we calling terrorist "illegal combatants" now? No dam wonder we've got a problem.
Don't forget a terrorist attack on our military being called workplace violence! What did they label the boston bombers' attack? Government assistance rage?
+++
Since my days of having been trained as a USAF AT/FP instructor, you can bet I haven't forgotten. No will I ever.
That's "Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection."
https://www.google.com/webhp?h...ism+force+protection
I can imagine the giggles and snorts from the class if our instructor told us the name of our curriculum was being changed Work Place Violence committed by Illegal Combatants.
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Towards the end of WWII, the US rounded up armed civilians who were treated as Illegal combatants.A few wearing Swastika armbands were treated as legal combatants. Also, a few proved to be French Marquis, OSS, MI-6, G-2 or Rote Kapelle. Really not a good idea to execute your own and allied intelligence agents. That's a reason for the commissions,
+++
Are any of those in Gitmo our "own" or friendly "intel?" But wasn't a detainee there responsible for some info that led to OBL?
And at what point does a commission run it's course?
Call 'em what you want. These "detainees" have outlived their intell usefulness.
Send them to Jordan or any other friendly Muslim country where other Muslims are trying to kill them where they can use them as bargaining chips. Or not.
But common sense tells you what will happen if you turn these mad dogs loose.
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Of all the responses, Dire made the most sense. Were the first "illegal combatants" locked up in 2002? 14 years is enough time to have a hearing or trial, find them guilty or innocent, and then deal with them in an appropriate manner.
Why do you care if a foreign terrorist rots in prison or not?
=================
Well, the left claims to be big on rights, theirs, not yours. While they are rotting in prison you are depriving them of their right to behead, torture kill in all sorts of ways, and burn to death their "enemies". Look what's in the news right now. Man kills three MUSLIMS. Yes, they keep stressing muslims killed. I haven't read it in a while, but first reports were that although there was no indication they were killed because they were muslim, they were neighbors and had some on going conflicts, they were still investigating
to see if there was cause to try the man for a hate crime. Was the ft hood shooter tried for a hate crime? How about the boston bombers? Hate crime?
Or are we calling terrorist "illegal combatants" now? No dam wonder we've got a problem.
Don't forget a terrorist attack on our military being called workplace violence! What did they label the boston bombers' attack? Government assistance rage?
--------------------
Except for "on our military", I think it should have said "in our military", I am in 100% agreement. The shooter should have been hung and buried with a pork chop the same day.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Or are we calling terrorist "illegal combatants" now? No dam wonder we've got a problem.
Don't forget a terrorist attack on our military being called workplace violence! What did they label the boston bombers' attack? Government assistance rage?
--------------------
Except for "on our military", I think it should have said "in our military", I am in 100% agreement. The shooter should have been hung and buried with a pork chop the same day.
+++
I "liked" it JT. except I would have said "on/in our Country." An terrorist attack on any American citizen is an attack on us all whether we are in uniform or not.
Don't forget a terrorist attack on our military being called workplace violence! What did they label the boston bombers' attack? Government assistance rage?
I will stick to "on our military" because that pos was not an actual member. He was there to kill, not to serve our country. Again, what were the boston bombers? Government assistance rage?
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Don't forget a terrorist attack on our military being called workplace violence! What did they label the boston bombers' attack? Government assistance rage?
I will stick to "on our military" because that pos was not an actual member. He was there to kill, not to serve our country. Again, what were the boston bombers? Government assistance rage?
+++
point well taken.
I will stick to "on our military" because that pos was not an actual member.
-----------------------
I thought he was a psycho army major in the Army and did a terrorist attack on the Army and should have been speedily slain in a manner to keep him from being classified a "martyr" (if I spelled that wrong, I don't care). If I am wrong about his service, I know better now.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
I will stick to "on our military" because that pos was not an actual member.
-----------------------
I thought he was a psycho army major in the Army and did a terrorist attack on the Army and should have been speedily slain in a manner to keep him from being classified a "martyr" (if I spelled that wrong, I don't care). If I am wrong about his service, I know better now.
+++
You're correct, JT. But the way I took it, Best was making a point along the lines of "False Flag."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Which it clearly was considering ISIS & etc calling for "lone wolf" attacks.
If not false flag, he was a traitor who dishonored the uniform he wore.
POS describes him best. Pardon the pun.