Sulaiman Abu GHaith - Bin Laden's Son-In-Law Captured


#1

Ghaith was captured last week - it only took the Obama team, the most transparent administration in history, a full week to to share the news with us - but, I digress.

Sadly, instead of taking this clown to GITMO for “enhanced” interrogation - you know, actually making an effort to learn something of value from him; something that could well save American lives abroad and at home, and the lives of innocents around the world - Team Obama takes him to New York and charges him criminally in civilian court - thus allowing Ghaith to do two things - 1) Lawyer Up and, 2) Clam Up. So, we will learn nothing from this guy. He might just as well have been picked up for shoplifting instead of assisting his father-in-law as an enemy combatant.

Why would Obama do this? Why wouldn’t he want this guy interrogated? It isn’t rational, you say. I think it might be very rational. If he talked, Ghaith would likely further soil the Obama administration’s narrative/mythology regarding how we have al Queda on the run, blah, blah, blah. You recall - the narrative that was about to be soiled as a result of the Benghazi Boondoggle, forcing the administration to play “cover-up” - a game still being played.

But, perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps Obama has no alterior motive for not taking Abu Ghaith to GITMO. It could be that Obama is simply stupid!!


#2

Sadly, instead of taking this clown to GITMO for “enhanced” interrogation - you know, actually making an effort to learn something of value from him; something that could well save American lives abroad and at home, and the lives of innocents around the world - Team Obama takes him to New York and charges him criminally in civilian court - thus allowing Ghaith to do two things - 1) Lawyer Up and, 2) Clam Up. So, we will learn nothing from this guy. He might just as well have been picked up for shoplifting instead of assisting his father-in-law as an enemy combatant.

Bingo. The big #3 will be that WE will be forced to reveal confidential/top secret info in court by the defense…exposing sources and methods and arrangements.
Altogether a brilliant move by the Constitutional Professor. [/sarc]


#3

Wait a minute . . . wait a minute.

Now I’m not a Constitutional Law Professor (obvious ~sarcasm~), but how is it that an enemy combatant is entitled to the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution? And the “right” to a speedy trial, Habeus Corpus, etc.? It’s my understanding, and seems like it would also be common sense, that these people gave up any rights (except maybe for Geneva Convention rights, and I’m not even sure about THAT), when they waged war against the U.S.

Now I’m sure some hot shot lawyer with a defense perspective could explain just exactly why these clowns deserve ANY rights. Perhaps the excuse that they’re “humans” entitles them to “human rights”.

Excuse me, but these monsters are not even HUMAN. I mean, it’s not as if it’s just a simple difference of opinion that can be settled by a U.S. court.

The MSM will no doubt portray BHO as a noble soul upholding the principle of “fair play” and American honor.

I can’t remember the exact quote right now, but it goes something like, “If you think you should fight fair, you’re going to lose.”

And “American honor”? What the heck does honor have to do with extinguishing an enemy?


#4

Why do you seek to extinguish him? He’s been captured. He’s not going to disappear suddenly. We have all the time in the world to learn things from him and punish him. We don’t have to jump up and down and demand revenge. That’s not what justice is. And as Americans, we should seek to extend the same protections we are lucky to have to everyone we can, the Declaration of Independence calling them “endowed by our Creator.” If that is true, then anyone we have in custody should be granted a defense. Not locked up without trial behind the excuse that they are combatants, and therefore we have found a loophole to deny rights to those we consider an enemy.

The United States used to be above the Geneva Conventions, and sought to live to a standard much higher than the bare minimum. I don’t know what happened to that America, but it wasn’t an America that locked up any foreign person in a jail without counsel, trial, charges, defense, or justice.


#5

did this America exist before or after the japanese interment camps?


#6

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say “extinguish HIM”, I said “extinguish AN ENEMY”.

And don’t try the simplistic syllogism, "well, HE = an enemy, therefore you said, “extinguish him”.

If you had ever been in a war, you would know that the phrase “extinguish an enemy” refers to an enemy ON THE BATTLEFIELD, not one captured.

Your stereotypical leftist portrayal (“portrayal”, not exact words . . . not putting words in your mouth) of U.S. troops as bloodthirsty felons shooting captured prisoners tied to a stake:

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:4, topic:38577”]
We don’t have to jump up and down and demand revenge
[/quote]is not only a huge exaggeration (falsehood actually), but a slur on American troops, and my own service years ago.

Plus, in context I was referring to “honor” when I said “extinguish an enemy.” If you think that there is any honor involved in slaying an enemy ON THE BATTLEFIELD, again you have not been in a war. To grapple with an enemy on the battlefield, you don’t think “Geeezz, what’s an honorable way of stopping him from killing me?” as you struggle. You eliminate the threat any way you can, and if you stop to consider “honor”, you’re dead.

And again, I never said a captured enemy combatant is to be treated the same as one on the battlefield.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:4, topic:38577”]
That’s not what justice is
[/quote]You presume to lecture me on justice? And you presume to impose YOUR version of “justice” on the military and society in general? Seems pretty arrogant to me. And BHO is doing the same thing via Executive Order. That should make you happy.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:4, topic:38577”]
And as Americans, we should seek to extend the same protections we are lucky to have to everyone we can
[/quote]“Nation build” much? And what makes you think that other societies even want to be ruled by the U.S. Constitution or use U.S. guidelines? There’s that arrogance again.

Granted, we have a good system, but I’m sure other societies and cultures view their systems as superior to the U.S. Constitution.

And I’m sure a captured enemy going on trial in New York thinks, “I’m glad these fools think a captured enemy should receive the “same protections” as their native born civilians. Now I’ll have a platform to rant about my “poor treatment” and their media and ACLU will emphasize it.”

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:4, topic:38577”]
Not locked up without trial behind the excuse that they are combatants, and therefore we have found a loophole to deny rights to those we consider an enemy.
[/quote]“Excuse”? “Loophole”? Pardon me, but it’s not an “excuse” that they are enemy combatants. They ARE enemy combatants. And the only “loophole” is created by individuals that think these people warrant the “same protections” as our native born civilians (and again, I’m sure they are grateful to their “Creator” that he/she made such fools.)

And we don’t just “consider” them enemy combatants, again they ARE enemy combatants.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:4, topic:38577”]
live to a standard much higher
[/quote]And your reasoning for that? And reasoning founded in a post 911 world, a realistic world, not a Utopian dream, please.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:4, topic:38577”]
it wasn’t an America that locked up any foreign person in a jail without counsel, trial, charges, defense, or justice.
[/quote]See UNT’s comment above on that.


#7

Right, BobJam, I didn’t say any of that. I didn’t “portray” American troops in a bad light at all, and I didn’t talk about empire or “nation building”. It’s not even worthy of a response.

The fact that they are unlawful combatants has no bearing on what we’re doing to them. Before 9/11, we didn’t do that, and to address UNT’s point, I’ll remind him that the Japanese Internment camps were declared unlawful, and reparations were paid to survivors and families.

From 1942, ex parte Quirin:

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. **Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. **The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.


#8

In the 1980’s, so does that mean your “America” only existed from 1988 until 2001?


#9

It was declared unlawful in 1944, and they were released in 1945, so I’d say my America existed at any time before 2001, aside from a minor mishap from 1942–1945.

Enemy combatants held in Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and the Gulf War were not held indefinitely without trial. They were held, yes, but once the war was over, they’re released. The problem with a “War on Terror” is that it will never end. Terrorism will always exist due to its very nature of not being exclusive to any nation or creed or ideology. The combatants held in Guantanamo, if policy remains how it is, will remain there likely until they die. That is unprecedented in our history.


#10

It was not, it was actually upheld by the SCOTUS in Dec of 1944 and the order that started the internment camps was simply just rescinded in Jan of 1945. So we chose to end them, big difference from being declared unlawful.


#11

So, we don’t lock anyone up until they have had a trial and been found guilty? I didn’t know that!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/SusannaHarriff/Smilies/sarcasm.gif


#12

The court’s decision in ex parte Endo:

  1. The War Relocation Authority, whose power over persons evacuated from military areas derives from Executive Order No. 9066, which was ratified and confirmed by the Act of March 21, 1942, was without authority, express or implied, to subject to its leave procedure a concededly loyal and law-abiding citizen of the United States. P. 323 U. S. 297.
  2. Wartime measures are to be interpreted as intending the greatest possible accommodation between the Constitutional liberties of the citizen and the exigencies of war. P. 323 U. S. 300.
  3. The sole purpose of the Act of March 21, 1942, and Executive Orders Nos. 9066 and 9102 was the protection of the war effort against espionage and sabotage. P. 323 U. S. 300.
  4. Power to detain a concededly loyal citizen may not be implied from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage. P. 323 U. S. 302.
  5. The power to detain a concededly loyal citizen or to grant him a conditional release cannot be implied as a useful or convenient step in the evacuation program. P. 323 U. S. 302.
  6. The Act of March 21, 1942 and Executive Orders Nos. 9066 and 9102 afford no basis for keeping loyal evacuees of Japanese ancestry in custody on the ground of community hostility. P. 323 U. S. 302.
  7. The District Court having acquired jurisdiction upon an application for habeas corpus, and there being within the district one responsible for the detention and who would be an appropriate

In any case, the prisoners were eventually released at the end of the war. When will “War on Terror” prisoners be released? The War on Terror is not a valid war against any nation. It is a perpetual conflict.


#13

That decision only said that loyal citizens couldn’t be held no matter their ethnicity. Japanese could still be detained until loyalty was determined, which was upheld in Korematsu v. United States which was decided in conjunction with ex parte Endo. Korematsu’s conviction wasn’t overturned until 1983 and the decision itself HAS NOT been overturned.

In any case, the prisoners were eventually released at the end of the war. When will “War on Terror” prisoners be released? The War on Terror is not a valid war against any nation. It is a perpetual conflict.

The war on terror will end when one side either dies or give up just like any other war. Note that while terrorism can be things other than Islamic extremest our declaration of war is only on the type of terror pertaining to 9/11.


#14

Trekky: Did you watch any of the videos I provided on the Holocaust thread? If you didn’t, I would recommend that you do. You might come away with a whole different perspective about who’s human and who’s not.


#15

And as Americans, we should seek to extend the same protections we are lucky to have to everyone we can

Hmmmm…that’s what we tried to do in Vietnam…but I seem to recall a whole generation (including me) protesting that we had no right to force another country to live as we do…isn’t that a little hypocritical???


#16

oops…


#17

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:5, topic:38577”]
did this America exist before or after the japanese interment camps?
[/quote]Which were wrong and racist I may note. Only a couple thousand select Germans and Italians were interned.


#18

oops 2…


#19

The vast majority of these Japanese Americans were patriotic for the United States. They did not serve an emperor, otherwise they would have done whatever possible to be in Japan. These people came for opportunity because their emperor would not grant it.

It was targeted towards the Japanese just as the WW1 racism was targeted towards the Germans. Like I said, by this time it wasn’t really possible to target Germans and Italians as much because they were white and assimilated into the American culture and bloodline more fully. It was a much more humane scapegoat than Hitler’s concentration camps for Jews.

Even opposites in Carter and Reagan found this to be completely wrong and useless for military purposes.


#20

Terrorism will always exist, radical Islam probably will too.

For the record this guy probably should be in Gitmo as a foreign member of Al Qeada.