Posted on Feb 21, 2018
Trump Administration: Gitmo Captives Face 'Indeterminate,' Not 'Indefinite' Detention
6.19K
13
13
5
5
0
You ignore the recidivism rate among those released from the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At least 30 percent have returned or suspected to have returned to the battlefield, some as enemy leaders. That's about 219 of the 730 RELEASED detainees. One would be too many. And what about the 70 percent we DON'T know about, where are they? The Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions state that even lawful combatant POW's may be held without charge or trial, "Until the end of hostilities." What's different about unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us that they should be released before the end of hostilities? By law they are not entitled to extra legal privileges. PC and Alt-Left entities are struggling for relevance in the discussion about what to do about Gitmo. They need simply read the law and understand that the detainees are lucky to be alive. Six of eight German saboteurs who were caught dry-foot on US soil in 1942 during WWII, were executed by electric chair less than eight weeks after their capture because they were deemed to be in violation of the Law of War and Geneva (unlawful combatants). They hadn't hurt a fly nor destroyed any property, but had the means and intent to do so. They were denied habeas corpus and found guilty by military commission. Why are unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us treated differently?
Trump Administration: Gitmo Captives Face 'Indeterminate,' Not 'Indefinite' Detention
Posted from shadowproof.com
Guantanamo Bay
War on Terror
Terrorism
Law
Afghanistan
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
Who on the terrorist side does the US recognize as having the authority to surrender and declare an end to hostilities for the GWOT? How do you actually see an end of hostilities ever officially being declared? Is there even such a thing as an end of hostilities when the GWOT is a catch all term? Do you think there will ever be a day when terrorism ceases to be a threat?
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SFC Bernard Walko - Which one? Countless religious leaders have called an end to hostilities. Each group has its own leader that they "listen" to. And I use that term loosely. They don't care about quarters or reprieves or death - they never expect to survive the terrorism in this life. That methodology won't work. What will work is providing alternatives to becoming radicalized out of desperation.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
When all Islamists are dead or no longer have the means or will to kill us, an end to hostilities may be declared. As far as I'm concerned this is the SAME enemy fought during the Crusades and Barbary Wars. Their form of government is theocracy, which is the opposite of democracy. We are incompatible people's. It really is up to them. They can declare an end to jihad anytime they want, throw down their arms, give up their explosives, and promise never to fight or kill again. If they do not, that is their choice, and as long as they have that choice the fighting cannot be indefinite, it is "indeterminate."
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
0
0
0
Here's the thing - if we had evidence they were bad guys, why not prosecute them? That would have solved a whole lot of problems. Instead, we took shortcuts and screwed ourselves.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
The evidence was they were unlawful combatants. But instead of prosecuting on Law of War grounds the decision was made to RELEASE them. Those accused of war crimes remain, but liberal military commissions acts passed by Congress have given those accused of war crimes extra legal privileges to point where they have virtually the SAME rights you or I would enjoy in a federal court of law. About ten are awaiting trail, and others are deemed too dangerous to release or unable to return to their country of origin. The law states that even lawful combatant POW's may be held without charge or trial "Until the end of hostilities."
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ Montgomery Granger - IF there was evidence, then they should have been prosecuted. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not proof of anything.
I'm of the belief that all people, regardless of whether they are American or not, deserve the right to due process and a fair hearing as to their guilt. I believe they are entitled to proper representation and to not be tortured. So, are those the same rights I have? Sure. And I'm ok with that. Recognizing that other people, who aren't Americans also have basic human rights doesn't take anything away from my rights - or yours.
I'm of the belief that all people, regardless of whether they are American or not, deserve the right to due process and a fair hearing as to their guilt. I believe they are entitled to proper representation and to not be tortured. So, are those the same rights I have? Sure. And I'm ok with that. Recognizing that other people, who aren't Americans also have basic human rights doesn't take anything away from my rights - or yours.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google