Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The primary reason they're stuck in Guantanamo is lack of evidence, not lack of jurisdiction. I don't favor military tribunals just to get over that pesky "we don't actually have any evidence" speed bump.
To hell with evidence? We offered 25k when we invaded Iraq for the snitching on "terrorists". That was a ton of money. Those collecting did not care whether those they turned over were guilty of anything either. It was basically a bribe to the connected.
So they went and rounded up anyone that they could even create the flimsiest story. "He's studying the Koran in college". Obviously guilty, turn him in for the 25k.
If military tribunals worked so well we would have a few hundred convictions instead of single digits.
There were 500 terrorists prosecuted in Federal courts, 8 convictions out of 800 detainees, Guantanamo has been a complete failure as a court, it has been a financial failure.
So the answer to not having any evidence to charge someone is to simply not bother and just keep them locked up, guilty or not? You have some belief that a result in other courts would get be higher conviction rate?
To hell with evidence? We offered 25k when we invaded Iraq for the snitching on "terrorists". That was a ton of money. Those collecting did not care whether those they turned over were guilty of anything either. It was basically a bribe to the connected.
So they went and rounded up anyone that they could even create the flimsiest story. "He's studying the Koran in college". Obviously guilty, turn him in for the 25k.
Screw evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
So the answer to not having any evidence to charge someone is to simply not bother and just keep them locked up, guilty or not? You have some belief that a result in other courts would get be higher conviction rate?
So the answer to not having any evidence to charge someone is to simply not bother and just keep them locked up, guilty or not? You have some belief that a result in other courts would get be higher conviction rate?
No, I don't think Federal Courts would have any higher rate of convictions, just pointing out to those that feel Military Tribunals are a solution. We already have a fairly good record in stateside courts so why do we need GITMO.
I understand they didn't know what to do with these people at the time but 15 years later they are afraid to admit their mistake.
Is it too late for Trump to take Mr. Kanh's offer to loan him his copy of the constitution? Its pretty obvious Trump is clueless about whats in it, let alone the history of court decisions that comprise the rule of law in this country.
he is making his own rules as he goes,... have you NOT noticed that? wanting other countries to pay for our soldiers to provide security?? we are freakn there for our dominance and secure our interests .. he simply does not know what he is saying at all- question is---is there an ulterior motive
No, I don't think Federal Courts would have any higher rate of convictions, just pointing out to those that feel Military Tribunals are a solution. We already have a fairly good record in stateside courts so why do we need GITMO.
There have been arguments by the government that they have withheld trials because of sensitive information. I happen to believe this is all poppycock so I am not trying to justify their position, just noting that military trials could avoid a lot of the release of the information if this was actually a concern.
Quote:
I understand they didn't know what to do with these people at the time but 15 years later they are afraid to admit their mistake.
Obama has released a good number. It's one of the few things I agree with him on.
he is making his own rules as he goes,... have you NOT noticed that? wanting other countries to pay for our soldiers to provide security??
I see nothing wrong with that. It might make for less wars if those starting them actually had to pay for them.
Quote:
we are freakn there for our dominance and secure our interests .. he simply does not know what he is saying at all- question is---is there an ulterior motive
He has also said he would stop the "nation building". Of course if you want to point out that Obama said the same thing, sure, who knows whether to believe him or not.
There have been arguments by the government that they have withheld trials because of sensitive information. I happen to believe this is all poppycock so I am not trying to justify their position, just noting that military trials could avoid a lot of the release of the information if this was actually a concern.
Obama has released a good number. It's one of the few things I agree with him on.
You could have said this in post #45.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wanting other countries to pay for our soldiers to provide security?? 
we are freakn there for our dominance and secure our interests .. he simply does not know what he is saying at all- question is---is there an ulterior motive 
