Gitmo Solution

[NM_Shooter]

New York Post
May 26, 2009

Instant Justice

Gitmo? No, Kill Thugs On Spot

By Ralph Peters

WE made one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it
that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should
have been killed on the battlefield.

The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated
secretly, then executed.

Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting
acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's
borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.

And, as a side benefit, dead terrorists don't pose legal quandaries.

Captured terrorists, on the other hand, are always a liability. Last week,
President Obama revealed his utter failure to comprehend these butchers when he
characterized Guantanamo as a terrorist recruiting tool.

Gitmo wasn't any such thing. Not the real Gitmo. The Guantanamo Obama believes
in is a fiction of the global media. With rare, brief exceptions, Gitmo inmates
have been treated far better than US citizens in our federal prisons.

But the reality of Gitmo was irrelevant -- the left needed us to be evil, to
"reveal" ourselves as the moral equivalent of the terrorists. So they made up
their Gitmo myths.

Now we're stuck with sub-human creatures who should be decomposing in unmarked
graves in a distant desert. Before reality smacked him between the eyes, Obama
made blithe campaign promises and quick-draw presidential pronouncements he's
now unable to fulfill.

Everything's easier when you're campaigning and criticizing, but the Oval Office
view is a different matter. And suddenly your old allies, who rhapsodized about
the evils of Gitmo, no longer have your back.

Odious senators, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, damned Gitmo to hell. But
they don't want to damn the prisoners to Massachusetts (given that few al Qaeda
members can swim, Cape Cod seems a splendid place for a prison). Don't the icons
of ethics want to solve the problem?

Or should we send the Gitmo Gang to California's Eighth Congressional District,
where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's constituents could guarantee an end to
waterboarding? The good voters of San Francisco could put up their new guests in
a grand Nob Hill hotel and stage teach-ins to explain why America's so nasty.

Another option -- which would save taxpayers millions -- would be to encourage a
coalition of MoveOn.org, Code Pink and ACORN to sponsor an "Adopt a Terrorist"
program.

The only requirement would be that the terrorist has to live full-time with the
sponsor's family so he'd always get plenty of hugs.

On a serious note, it's not just voter NIMBY-ism that makes this problem so
difficult. The practical catches came home to me when last I visited Ft.
Leavenworth, Kan.

The grounds of a massive federal penitentiary adjoin that venerable Army post.
One Washington-isn't-thinking proposal would park the terrorists right there in
the Big House. But here's the catch: Ft. Leavenworth's home to the Army's
Command and General Staff College, attended each year by hundreds of elite
foreign officers.

At CGSC, our officers build international relationships that benefit our country
for decades to come, while allies and partners learn how to work together. But
with Islamist terrorists confined next door -- hardly a mile as the crow flies
from the Staff College -- Muslim countries would withdraw their students from
the program under pressure from Islamist factions at home -- who'd claim that
Ft. Leavenworth was the new Gitmo.

Do we really want to sacrifice our chance to educate officers from the troubled
Muslim world? Do we want to destroy an educational program that's been of
tremendous benefit? One that's advanced the rule of law and human rights?

Other proposed prison locations have their own challenges (although Cape Cod
still looks pretty good to me). Meanwhile, our foreign "friends" who shuddered
at the imaginary horrors of Gitmo are unwilling to share the burden.

Which brings us back to this column's opening credo: Terrorists are anathema to
civilization and the human race. By their own choice, they've set themselves
beyond the human collective. Better to eliminate them where you find them than
to let them live to become a lunatic cause.

Telling them that we'll just lock them up and treat them really nice is a better
terrorist recruiting tool than Gitmo ever was. Why not become a terrorist, if
the punishment's three hots and a cot, along with better medical care than
you've ever had in your life?

Plus, you get your own fan club.

Those who worry about the rights of terrorists ensure that these beasts will
continue to slaughter the innocent. In your back yard.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble."

[ScottA]

So lets see if I understand this correctly. If the U.S. government decides You are a terrorist with no evidence what so ever. You should be shot on the spot without a trial. Am I reading that right?

[muldoon]

Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting
acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's
borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.

seems to me if they are such terrible people that putting them through a trial should be damn easy.  if they are such evil people who without a doubt should be executed, then by all means - put them in front of a court, show evidence - and kill them once a jury says so.  We still remember the scars on this nation and will seek justice provided evidence is shown. 

Whats the problem?

The problem is simple, a percentage of the detainees have no evidence against them.  A percentage of them have done nothing wrong that can be proven.   

These "preventative" incarcertaions - that is the problem.  The you may be a threat in the future even though you have not done anything wrong yet is the problem.  Like most things, the constituion makes it perfectly clear how to deal with them.  Try them, a jury will sort it out. 

[peternap]

Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting
acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's
borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals.

seems to me if they are such terrible people that putting them through a trial should be damn easy.  if they are such evil people who without a doubt should be executed, then by all means - put them in front of a court, show evidence - and kill them once a jury says so.  We still remember the scars on this nation and will seek justice provided evidence is shown. 

Whats the problem?

The problem is simple, a percentage of the detainees have no evidence against them.  A percentage of them have done nothing wrong that can be proven.   

These "preventative" incarcertaions - that is the problem.  The you may be a threat in the future even though you have not done anything wrong yet is the problem.  Like most things, the constituion makes it perfectly clear how to deal with them.  Try them, a jury will sort it out. 

Guys, I'm having a lot of trouble with the whole damn mess.

The problem with war and we might as well call it what it is...is that the job of a soldier is to kill the enemy..Period.
Despite all the professionalism talk, that's the way it is or your dead.

To offset that, we have rules like the Geneva Convention. That takes the enemy out of play and out of the line of fire. He sits in a POW camp until the war is over.

Here's the problem. Just like Vietnam, we aren't sure who the enemy is. Do we kill everyone and let God sort them out. Unfortunately, that's the answer, but it is a lot of baggage to carry around when you come home and are expected to be "Civilized" again.

OR...do we lock up everyone we think may be a problem for an undermined length of time because we won't admit we are in a war and these are POW's, Does that include Americans as well?

We imprison more people than any other country on earth. When do we run out of space?

This country's government reminds me of a wounded shark swimming about eating his own guts.

I have to ask myself who is the more dangerous enemy.

[NM_Shooter]

We do have a tendency to err on the side of caution though, and our reward is additional lost lives:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gitmo.detainees/index.html

I think we've been locking up anyone who is not only a problem but who might also be aiding and abetting... and that is a difficult thing to prove.  We've also been detaining anyone who we think might have info. 

I betcha that there are a few that are innocent.  Wrong place at the wrong time sort of thing.  But I also betcha that most are detained because they should be. 

No data exists one way or the other for a lot of them.  I trust and support our soldier's decisions, as their gut feel is worth more in weight than an entire box of law books.

[Pox Eclipse]

What about those detainees who were not "caught in the act", but rather were turned over to US forces by Afghan warlords to collect the bounty for "terrorists"?  Are we supposed to just take the word of warlords and execute people we have no other evidence against?

There are no more than two or three dozen actual terrorists at Gitmo.  The rest should be released.  If they go on to commit acts of terrorism against America, I would not be surprised.  If I had been tortured and imprisoned without cause for eight years, I would kill Americans also.  Gitmo creates terrorists.

[peternap]

What about those detainees who were not "caught in the act", but rather were turned over to US forces by Afghan warlords to collect the bounty for "terrorists"?  Are we supposed to just take the word of warlords and execute people we have no other evidence against?

There are no more than two or three dozen actual terrorists at Gitmo.  The rest should be released.  If they go on to commit acts of terrorism against America, I would not be surprised.  If I had been tortured and imprisoned without cause for eight years, I would kill Americans also.  Gitmo creates terrorists.

Good point Pox!

[NM_Shooter]

There are no more than two or three dozen actual terrorists at Gitmo.  

Please state your source.  Enquirer-like websites don't qualify.

[Pox Eclipse]

I am quoting Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, from an Associated Press article in March of 2009:

Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head."

Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006.

[glenn kangiser]

We are not the America our forefathers died for if we kill anyone we chose without due process.  That could include you and I or our children just for looking at a cop or now soldier on US soil the wrong way.

Would you like your son or daughter to be killed without trial or access to a lawyer because they protested an action of the government?  Must they approve all actions of our leaders because they dictated that action.  

Our country is sick.  Patriotism is loving our country enough to die for it.  Not giving our lives for a Marxist illegal thieving Federal government that is being stolen from all Americans.  

Don't forget that if you are a United States War Veteran, you have been declared a possible terrorist by the current administration.  If you have ever had PTSD of any kind-even minor- your guns can be confiscated.  You are a terrorist with no guns - your reward for offering your life to our country. 

I'm sure all agree that that is a reason to be put to death without trial - if a soldier for the current administration - or a brown shirt has a gut feeling you may not like what they are doing in the name of saving the country.