So how do we handle enemy combatants??

[socialize_me]

Gitmo has been criticized for years, and Obama is seeking to close it; however, according to this article on time.com (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869519,00.html?iid=digg_share) a second Gitmo is underway in Afghanistan. Basically it's like Obama's foreign policy where he'll just shift forces from Iraq into Afghanistan. Here, he'll just move prisoners from Gitmo to Bagram.

My question is, though, how do we deal with enemy combatants?? I know torture is out of the question, but why exactly would something like a Gitmo be bad??? Enemy combatants don't and shouldn't have Constitutional protections. The US Constitution clearly states the word "Citizen" throughout the document when asserting our constitutional rights. Enemy combatants are not citizens, so where should we put them?? If we can't put them in prisons overseas, then where do we put them here in America?? Should they have the same rights Americans have??? Where does the Government have to Constitutionally guarantee those rights to enemy combatants that aren't US Citizens??

[Liberty Rebellion]

Gitmo has been criticized for years, and Obama is seeking to close it; however, according to this article on time.com (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869519,00.html?iid=digg_share) a second Gitmo is underway in Afghanistan. Basically it's like Obama's foreign policy where he'll just shift forces from Iraq into Afghanistan. Here, he'll just move prisoners from Gitmo to Bagram.

My question is, though, how do we deal with enemy combatants?? I know torture is out of the question, but why exactly would something like a Gitmo be bad??? Enemy combatants don't and shouldn't have Constitutional protections. The US Constitution clearly states the word "Citizen" throughout the document when asserting our constitutional rights. Enemy combatants are not citizens, so where should we put them?? If we can't put them in prisons overseas, then where do we put them here in America?? Should they have the same rights Americans have??? Where does the Government have to Constitutionally guarantee those rights to enemy combatants that aren't US Citizens??

You give them due process. If they're guilty of something they will be found as such. Who cares if they're US citizens or not? They're still people.

[Liberty Rebellion]

We wouldn't even have this problem if we weren't in almost every country on Earth

[Maverick]

Citizen or not, shouldn't they still at least get a trial? On some basic human level, isn't everyone entitled to due process? Allowing these people to rot in jail for 7 years because they aren't "citizens of this jurisdiction so we're going to hold them in quasi-legal stasis forever" is deplorable.

Extradition could be one other option, for those of you who feel the American taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for their court proceedings (however, we've been paying for their confinement and who knows what else all these years), provided that whatever jurisdiction we send them to plans to give them a trial and it's not just another GitmoII like you described.

Lastly, I have serious doubts that everyone in Gitmo did something wrong. Some did, I'm sure, but I'm willing to wager that a large number of them are people we just randomly picked up off the street and threw into a black bag when we swept into Afghanistan and then later in Iraq.

[Liberty Rebellion]

]
Lastly, I have serious doubts that everyone in Gitmo did something wrong. Some did, I'm sure, but I'm willing to wager that a large number of them are people we just randomly picked up off the street and threw into a black bag when we swept into Afghanistan and then later in Iraq.

That and some are people the Taliban kidnapped and handed over to US military personnel as "Al-Qaeda" to collect their monetary reward.

[socialize_me]

So why, then, should we not have foreign prisons?? Why do we have to accommodate non-US Citizens to make sure the ACLU is happy when there's no law, not even in the Constitution, that says we have to give these guys the time of day ?

[Liberty Rebellion]

So why, then, should we not have foreign prisons?? Why do we have to accommodate non-US Citizens to make sure the ACLU is happy when there's no law, not even in the Constitution, that says we have to give these guys the time of day ?

Why should we have foreign prisons is the better question. Why should we be occupying almost every country on Earth. I don't remember that being in the Constitution.

[dannno]

I don't know if your argument is valid about rights, but I know that either way we can't support the actions of a brutal and tyrannical empire such as ourselves. We create the terror, we need to stop doing that before we actually instigate things.

The real question is, regarding your question, why can't we put them through the constitutional, non-secretive system? Is it so flawed?

[socialize_me]

Why should we have foreign prisons is the better question. Why should we be occupying almost every country on Earth. I don't remember that being in the Constitution.

Fair enough. Makes sense to me.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

What is so wrong with the concept of "prisoner of war"? Where did this "illegal combatant" thing come from? If the war is legal, the prisoners taken should be treated as prisoners of war. If "illegal combatants" exist, then they exist on both sides because the war is illegal. If something else is going on, why do they call it a "war on terror"?

[Kludge]

Too much pragmatism in this thread...


I don't recognize the government's alleged right to wage war on collective entities.

[paulitics]

There are no such thing as enemy combatants. If picked off the battlefield, you are either a prisoner of war, and treated in humane conditions under general international law. Or, if you are accused of plotting terrorism against this country, you must be tried and convicted in the court system.

The government does not have the right to arbitrarely kidnap someone in this country or elsewhere and be thrown in a torture prison or black site. This is so illegal, immoral, it is incomprehensible to me. Enemy combatant is a new vague CYA term created by the Bush administration to NOT play by the rules we hold other countries accountable for.

During war, like Afghan or Iraq, you treat them as a prisoner of war. Any one of our troops who are engaged in battle, can't expect our adversaries to be any different. The problem is we are not actually in war, but in OCCUPATION of other's countries. Therefore, we had to invent a new term.

[demolama]

Declaration of War is an announcement to the world and the nation you about to attack that can only be ended by a treaty. You can not declare war on individuals. That being said... with no treaty to turn a country from being at war to being at peace... the "war on terror" could last forever thus leaving these "enemy combatants" with no way to ever get out of prison or have trial. We in essence illegally abducted these people from a foreign nation.

Also the Declaration of Independence is clear the philosophy of the founders was that all men were created equal with certain inalienable rights. The 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights is also very clear it uses the word person and not citizen when talking about the procedural rights or what we call due process. To deny any person due process is a violation of his liberty and thus a violation of his inalienable rights

[heavenlyboy34]

Declaration of War is an announcement to the world and the nation you about to attack that can only be ended by a treaty. You can not declare war on individuals. That being said... with no treaty to turn a country from being at war to being at peace... the "war on terror" could last forever thus leaving these "enemy combatants" with no way to ever get out of prison or have trial. We in essence illegally abducted these people from a foreign nation.

Perhaps it's time to return to Jefferson's model on dealing with terrorists? :confused:;)

[demolama]

That's what Ron Paul wanted... issuing letters of Marque

[Andrew-Austin]

What is so wrong with the concept of "prisoner of war"? Where did this "illegal combatant" thing come from? If the war is legal, the prisoners taken should be treated as prisoners of war. If "illegal combatants" exist, then they exist on both sides because the war is illegal. If something else is going on, why do they call it a "war on terror"?

There is a lot of pointless terminology the government uses huh.

Mass murder = war

A war that has no planned concise goal in which to reach, or the leaders secretly plan to occupy a country indefinitely = long war

Foreign innocents you accidentally bombed = collateral damage

Pawn = soldier

Slavery = conscription, stop-loss order

When one of the prisoners at Guantanamo tries to kill himself its called a "self-injurious behavior incident”.

[fr33domfightr]

If the prisoners are to be charged with something, then they can be tried here, or returned to their country of origin for a trial. Prisoners of war are generally not tried in a court, but are repatriated to their country of origin. Let the prisoner's own country decide what to do with them if we don't have any hard evidence against them.



FF

[M House]

I'm more like we just let them go. If I was president I'd meet with everyone myself before release, discuss issues explain that I cannot illegally detain people.....they technically are free to go I can't seriously expect to use evidence against them gathered under torture. Detaining "hostiles" this way has created more "combatants" than it could ever prevent. I'd also explain there might be few options available for them, now they might just have to suck it up and stay in the USA. If this is the case they will provided limited resources and some personal freedoms. Money comes from shutting down the prisons, simple. It's a mess what can you do. If there are actual terrorist leaders they have two options involve themselves in developing counter terrorist strategies (we need an actual developed understanding of complex issues not the retards we have had) or a federal prison.

[nate895]

Gitmo has been criticized for years, and Obama is seeking to close it; however, according to this article on time.com (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869519,00.html?iid=digg_share) a second Gitmo is underway in Afghanistan. Basically it's like Obama's foreign policy where he'll just shift forces from Iraq into Afghanistan. Here, he'll just move prisoners from Gitmo to Bagram.

My question is, though, how do we deal with enemy combatants?? I know torture is out of the question, but why exactly would something like a Gitmo be bad??? Enemy combatants don't and shouldn't have Constitutional protections. The US Constitution clearly states the word "Citizen" throughout the document when asserting our constitutional rights. Enemy combatants are not citizens, so where should we put them?? If we can't put them in prisons overseas, then where do we put them here in America?? Should they have the same rights Americans have??? Where does the Government have to Constitutionally guarantee those rights to enemy combatants that aren't US Citizens??

If we were in a legally declared war, I would say to lock them up for the duration of the period while we are at war. They have committed no crime since they are at war with us, but they would still make war if we were to release them while our two factions continued to wage war. It is perfectly constitutional, moral, and legal to imprison "enemy combatants" as prisoners of war indefinitely if we are truly at war.

[M House]

That's a good principle, I think you're agreeing that we can't lock them up? Anyway we can't arbitrarily define length of time we can hold them, and since the war is undeclared they are pretty much free. You can't ex post facto them either with a declaration later, that's one of our principles and it should stand here too.

[nate895]

That's a good principle, I think you're agreeing that we can't lock them up? Anyway we can't arbitrarily define length of time we can hold them, and since the war is undeclared they are pretty much free. You can't ex post facto them either with a declaration later, that's one of our principles and it should stand here too.

Ex Post Facto is a difficult question, according to international law, since they are members of an opposing military force, they can be, ex post facto, imprisoned. However, all civilians, whether official or unofficial, can't be locked up, but aren't given the same rights as full citizens because they could use those rights to spy on military positions, and we have the right to prevent them from doing that.

Edit: Also, the international legal recognition of a "war" is different than the constitutional one. If there are two armies fighting each other, is considered a war under international law, whether or not either parties government (if both sides even have a government, as al Qaeda does not) declare it and both sides are obliged to follow the rules of war.

[nodope0695]

Uhhh....we kill them. Hence the term, "enemy combatant." We're enemy combatants to our enemies too, and what do you think they'll do to us???

Isn't the objective if we're in "combat" and face and "enemy", to kill them?

[M House]

Dude we got in deep shit for illegally detaining a Canadian citizen and others we thought were um "enemy". It's in the supreme court. Imagine if we just kinda killed him. I highly suggest you don't take that attitude we torture and kill them as we please.

[nodope0695]

Dude we got in deep shit for illegally detaining a Canadian citizen and others we thought were um "enemy". It's in the supreme court. Imagine if we just kinda killed him. I highly suggest you don't take that attitude we torture and kill them as we please.

was only being phaesecious.

[M House]

My bad, but yeah I'm still saying there's no legal grounds or principle to even hold them on until there is an actual declaration of war. They shouldn't be seen exactly as a opposing force either. I mean we can't just invade a country and start declaring enemies as we see fit. The majority can't be held at all as far as I can see they were held illegally and treated illegally under our laws. Once again no ex post facto either. We just have to suffer the messy consequences of this and ultimately release them. I would prefer some good to come outta this and them to not just go back to their countries to stir shit up but I figure dealing with them immediately and giving them process and rights is a priority.

[nobody's_hero]

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Pericles]

There are no such thing as enemy combatants. If picked off the battlefield, you are either a prisoner of war, and treated in humane conditions under general international law. Or, if you are accused of plotting terrorism against this country, you must be tried and convicted in the court system.

The government does not have the right to arbitrarely kidnap someone in this country or elsewhere and be thrown in a torture prison or black site. This is so illegal, immoral, it is incomprehensible to me. Enemy combatant is a new vague CYA term created by the Bush administration to NOT play by the rules we hold other countries accountable for.

During war, like Afghan or Iraq, you treat them as a prisoner of war. Any one of our troops who are engaged in battle, can't expect our adversaries to be any different. The problem is we are not actually in war, but in OCCUPATION of other's countries. Therefore, we had to invent a new term.

This is real close. The Geneva Conventions on Warfare have 3 categories of people.

1. Combatants
2. Non-combatants
3. Spies and partisans

Combatants are (1) openly carrying arms wearing a recognizable symbol of their status as combatants, except as amended in 1977 which allows for armed resistance of the local population to an occupier without wearing a recognizable symbol of combatant status (2) adhere to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions (3) are under military discipline answering to a military or civilian authority which has the power to negotiate on behalf of the combatants

Non-combatants are those persons not engaged in armed conflict and have the obligation to follow those directives of the occupying power that do not conflict with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Spies and Partisans are those persons engaged in military activity who are not in the category of combatants, typically using a pose as a non-combatant to gain military advantage. A person accused of being in this category must be tried by a body able to hear evidence and examine witnesses, the accused having the ability to present a defense. Upon conviction, the death penalty may be imposed.

Captured combatants are kept as prisoners of war, until the end of hostilities. They are then required to be returned to their country of service within a reasonable period of time, usually considered to be one year from the end of hostilities.

[RCA]

All men are created equal...NOT all citizens of the United States are created equal.

[nate895]

I am in the camp of what the hell is an enemy combatant. If you are at war there are prisoners of war.

We're not at war, we are involved in some type of police action at best. We have no jurisdiction of foreign nationals to imprison them in our own prisons.

On the same note what the hell is terrorism. The world trade center was a criminal act. Terrorism?

Are the Greeks terrorists now too?

In the international legal sense, we are at war. There are two opposing factions fighting each other militarily, therefore we are in a war. Whether it is Constitutional or not is another question entirely, and I'd go on the unconstitutional side, but according to international treaty the government still has the legal right to detain, indefinitely, combatants, who aren't spies or partisans, and they have the right to try and shoot spies or partisans.

[paulitics]

In the international legal sense, we are at war. There are two opposing factions fighting each other militarily, therefore we are in a war. Whether it is Constitutional or not is another question entirely, and I'd go on the unconstitutional side, but according to international treaty the government still has the legal right to detain, indefinitely, combatants, who aren't spies or partisans, and they have the right to try and shoot spies or partisans.


What military are we fighting? There is no war. No 2 sides with a military battling it out. Do you want to redefine the battlefield to include the entire world, including people's homes? Because, that's a large battlefield. Do you want to arbitrarely kidnap and detain indefinately any person, man, woman, child we declare an enemy, without proof of any wrongdoing?
We are occupiers. Most enemy combatitants were not taken of the battlefeild, or proven guilty of conducting terrorism. If they were taken off the battlefield because they were a threat, than they are prisoners of war, and treated as such. It really is just that simple. We can't just hang around and loot the resources of a country for 10 years, and call it a war. Sorry.

[nate895]

What military are we fighting? There is no war. No 2 sides with a military battling it out. Do you want to redefine the battlefield to include the entire world, including people's homes? Because, that's a large battlefield. Do you want to arbitrarely kidnap and detain indefinately any person, man, woman, child we declare an enemy, without proof of any wrongdoing?
We are occupiers. Most enemy combatitants were not taken of the battlefeild, or proven guilty of conducting terrorism. If they were taken off the battlefield because they were a threat, than they are prisoners of war, and treated as such. It really is just that simple. We can't just hang around and loot the resources of a country for 10 years, and call it a war. Sorry.

I never said it was a good idea, or constitutional. But, according to international law, we can lock up any person who belongs to al Qaeda since they are an opposing military force.