Obama’s New Catch And Release Program


Obama’s latest brain child? Don’t just close Guantánamo, but bring the terrorists home for dinner in America.

In his most recent statement in favor of the outright destruction of the US, Obama wants to bring the Guantánamo prisoners here to America for trial.

This article has moved to its new home, The Lie Politic. Please continue reading by clicking here and you will be directed to the new site. Thank you!

Related Posts with Thumbnails

13 thoughts on “Obama’s New Catch And Release Program”

  1. Prisoners of war have rights under international law, such as the right to be repatriated at cessation of hostilities, the right to correspondence, etc. Prisoners of war cannot be punished for simply having tried to kill the enemy. That is a soldier’s job. Ask John McCain about the proper treatment of prisoners of war. I will concede that prisoners of war may be tried for crimes committed while prisoners, war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity; however, the history of military commissions, particularly secret ones, is full of miscarriages of justice.

    In any case, President Bush denies that the detainees at Guantanamo are prisoners of war. President Bush has invented a category, “unlawful combatants” with no rights in a “war” that has no end.

    You assume the guilt of the detainees even though most have not been convicted or even charged with a crime. How many were arrested on the basis of grudges, paid secret testimony, or religious hatred? We don’t know, because they have had no opportunity to confront their accusers or to call witnesses in their defense.

    The right to a speedy, fair, and public trial is a universal human right; not just an American right. The fact that this right is not recognized by North Korea, Iran, or George Bush does not invalidate the right. The possibility that a released prisoner may have no place to go does not invalidate this right. Should the Jews in Auschwitz have been held prisoner after the war because no one wanted them?

    I have had enough experience with the system of classification in this country to know that it is frequently (usually?) used to hide official incompetence; not to protect sources, military secrets, etc. A judge in a constitutionally established court of law is perfectly able to distinguish between the two motives for secrecy.

    Some may say that American officials are not bound by the Constitution and laws of the United States when they are acting outside the country, but I think that this is an idiosyncratic and morally bankrupt view.

  2. Originally Posted By Raymond@evilrepublican – Basic human and legal rights recognized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT apply only to citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, when speaking of such rights use the term “Person”; NOT “Citizen.” Furthermore, the Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes rights given by God. My quote, by the way, comes from Justice David Davis, majority opinion in Ex Parte Milligan (1866), and refers to a crisis that makes the terrorist attacks of 9/11 look trivial.

    You are right to a degree. There are numerous court rulings on the rights of non-citizens both in and outside of the US, and for the most part, once within our borders, some parts of the Constitution do apply. Outside our borders, there are limitations, and each case is addressed differently. For example, the courts have stated the prisoners may have a right to sue for not being offered a hearing.

    They do state that prisoners of war are at odds with the rights stated under the Constitution and many rights do not apply outside of our borders. That is why we don’t want to let them in to the US. As long as they are in Guantanemo, they are POWs, once they come into the US, they may be deemed something else.

    Even a US Citizen does not have rights under the Constitution outside our borders, or at least no nation is required to recognize those rights. You get caught for crime in Greece, for example, you are tried under Greek law and prosecuted under Greek law and placed in a Greek jail.

    The entire point of keeping these criminals outside our borders is to keep the courts from having jurisdiction and to keep the Constitution from applying. However, even if we brought them in and tried them, what do we do with them if they are not convicted? We cannot release them, they are illegal immigrants. We cannot deport them, because their own countries will not accept them. They would end up detained as illegal immigrants the rest of their lives, although I suppose they could apply for a green card or try to marry a US Citizen.

    It appears that Hussein had it right. Mass graves are more appropriate. If you just killed them all where they stood, and just said they were trying to escape, they had no rights. So, in future, our military would be advised to take no prisoners. Just kill ’em. Bullets are cheap.

  3. @evilrepublican – Basic human and legal rights recognized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT apply only to citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, when speaking of such rights use the term “Person”; NOT “Citizen.” Furthermore, the Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes rights given by God. My quote, by the way, comes from Justice David Davis, majority opinion in Ex Parte Milligan (1866), and refers to a crisis that makes the terrorist attacks of 9/11 look trivial.

  4. Originally Posted By Raymond“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace”

    Dude, the Contitution of the United States applies to American Citizens, not war criminals from terrorist nations wanting to murder Americans. Try walking into Iraq or Iran, hanging out for a while, and after they capture you, cut your head off and leave it in the street, have someone write a letter telling them you are American and they violated your Constitutional rights.

  5. “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism…..”

  6. Originally Posted By madisonhackWell, what would you do with the ones that are suspected terrorists, the ones that were imprisoned on second hand information (commonly referred to as hearsay evidence, and not allowed in any U.S. court)? So, would you just let them stay there, incommunicado forever, without the rights of habeas corpus? Tell us all what you would do with CHILDREN that are imprisoned for SUSPECTED terrorist activities?

    You liberals have such simple minds. If you read the article this was based upon, which you obviously didn’t, 250 detainees are already scheduled for release, but they are criminals, we just don’t have enough evidence against them to try them in a US Court. The problem is, they are known to be criminals in their own countries, so those countries don’t want them back.

    The rest we have evidence against, but who knows if we would be able to imprison them after a trial. If any are found not guilty, and the courts have to release them, where do we send them? Your apartment?

    There are no children imprisoned at Guantanamo, which demonstrates your ignorance even further. If they were children, it is likely their own countries would take them back. I know, we can give them back to Al Queda and the Taliban to kill more American soldiers and cut off the heads of Americans. I am certain you liberals would love that.

  7. I am sure they will all be offered jobs by Blackwater – the private sector’s own terrorist enabler. Maybe these guys can show Blackwater how to find Osama, so that W can go over and kis Osama’s butt for having given him 9/11 and free reign for nearly 7 years.

  8. We could just let them rot in the middle of the ocean and that way tax payers will not have to pay for their food or their accommodations although our President had them caught and detained w/ no evidence, and held w. no human rights.
    But hey! Its okay because they were labeled terrorists, like the million people on the watch list made up by the CIA which includes reporters names, kids, American citizens who have rarely been out of the country…
    We can just let the government prosecute people All the time with no evidence and take their rights…

  9. What you guys going to do when November 2012 rolls around and Palin is defeated yet again?

    Just keep on chanting that magic-realist mantra ‘It’s a center-right country.’ Honestly, if you say it often enough it really comes true! And Uncle Ron Reagan will come down from the sky on a beam of light to save you all!

  10. How about in future we catch them properly so we won’t have to release them.

    Rather than paying the Pakistani police $5K a pop to settle old scores and say any old rival was a terrorist, resulting in a pile of prisoners with no case to answer that embarrass a so called free country, we try just jailing people that we could feasibly show in a court of law have done something.
    Then maybe people elsewhere in the world will see American ideals as a bit less hypocritical.

    The attempted flagship prosecution after all these years of Gitmo was a chauffeur, for goodness sake. Pur – lease. Was he the best they could show ?

  11. Well, what would you do with the ones that are suspected terrorists, the ones that were imprisoned on second hand information (commonly referred to as hearsay evidence, and not allowed in any U.S. court)? So, would you just let them stay there, incommunicado forever, without the rights of habeas corpus? Tell us all what you would do with CHILDREN that are imprisoned for SUSPECTED terrorist activities?

Leave a Reply