Are people seriously clutching their pearls over U.S. prisons housing terror detainees? Um, aren’t these the same prisons that hold people like Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy? Come on.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Misty Stone Is Green
- Devin Hester Pantsed On Sunday Night Football
- Video: Adam Lambert Falls At 2009 AMA
- Taylor Swift Wins Favorite Artist @ 2009 American Music Awards
- Oprah Producing Sexy Series For HBO
- Mall Cops: Mall Of America Series Coming To TLC
- 2009 WWE Survivor Series Results
- Video: Jennifer Lopez Falls On Stage At 2009 American Music Awards
- Dashawn Vasconcellos: NYPD Shot Teen 11 Times
- Disney Adapting High School Musical For China
Live News
But THOSE people are … are…..
Brown!
Wait….
Oh never mind.
Why, their eeeevil will melt the foot-thick doors of the supermax, of course.
And there you have it: Oliver sees no difference between Kahlid Shiek Mohammed and Mumia.
Oliver sees no difference between Kahlid Shiek Mohammed and Mumia.
Should I? They’re both criminals who should be locked up. I don’t wet my bed over either of them.
SaveFarris: Oliver didn’t mention Mumia at all in the post, in part because Mumia is in a state prison, not a supermax, but also because Mumia is innocent. Free Mumia!
SaveFarris: And there you have it: Oliver sees no difference between Kahlid Shiek Mohammed and Mumia.
I don’t know about that, but based on the comments you tend to make I certainly see no difference between you and a pet rock.
But show me there is. Explain for me, in terms of being able to keep them in jail, what is the difference?
Funny, I don’t recall McVeigh, Gacy, and Bundy having hordes of fanatical followers willing to commit major atrocities to secure their release…
J.
So you’re scared.
Funny, I don’t recall McVeigh, Gacy, and Bundy having hordes of fanatical followers willing to commit major atrocities to secure their release…
Yeah. They’ve been having real trouble fighting off all the “fanatics” trying to bust Moussaoui out of Florence.
And Omar Abdel-Rahman is in North Carolina without the jihadists storming the state.
Further, I don’t recall the above-mentioned criminals having quite the extensive history of assaulting the guards that the inmates in Guantanamo have…
J.
Guantanamo was not chosen because it’s particularly secure or any easier to break out of than any other prison. It was chosen because its location was hoped to place it in an ambiguous legal place where Bush was hoping he could do whatever he wanted with the detainees. It did not then nor does it now owe its existence to being considered any more secure than any other available prison.
Further, I don’t recall the above-mentioned criminals having quite the extensive history of assaulting the guards that the inmates in Guantanamo have…
What? Prison guards aren’t assaulted here on the mainland now?
I heard you conservatives had become somewhat dispirited, but I didn’t think you’d give up trying altogether.
I’m not sure why anyone is worried. I keep hearing from everyone posting here that most of the people at Gitmo are just innocent peasants caught up in dragnets or turned in for cash rewards anyways. We should be able to put them anywhere, if we don’t just release the lot of them.
Hell, this poor guy was just trying to “purchase carpets for his store” when he was captured. He only wanted to go home to Riyadh and be reunited with his family. I guess the new job was just an unexpected gift from Allah.
I keep hearing from everyone posting here that most of the people at Gitmo are just innocent peasants caught up in dragnets or turned in for cash rewards anyways.
Really? Who wrote that?
BTW, Dave, the story you linked to is about a guy the Bush administration released.
Why’d they do that?
Jay Tea: I don’t recall the above-mentioned criminals having quite the extensive history of assaulting the guards that the inmates in Guantanamo have…
Well, according to the article you cite serious assaults are rare.
But if Gitmo is such a violent place clearly we should move the inmates out of there into domestic prisons where violence, of course, never happens.
Less sarcastically, keeping all of the Gitmo inmates in one place may well add to the outbursts. Spread the inmates around and you’re down to one or a handful of particularly unruly inmates in any one place.
A conservative friend of mine asked me, “How do you feel about Obama freeing all the terrorists in Guantanamo”?
Yup. They’ll be walking the streets in your neighborhood, so be more afraid!
If all of these inmates are so scary and guilty of crimes, then can we please at least fucking charge them with something?
Because, SpiderJ, they are not criminals. They are enemy combatants. Further, they are illegal enemy combatants — caught in violation of the Geneva Conventions. (Failure to wear uniforms and/or distinguishing marks, attacks on and endangering civilians, perfidy, etc. etc.)
If they were just common criminals, or even uncommon ones like the whackjobs Oliver cited, then no problem — treat them like criminals. But they aren’t, and the criminal justice system is not set up to handle them.
But just like in the Clinton administration, we have a bunch of lawyers at the top. (2 Democratic presidents where we have him-and-her Ivy League lawyers running things — NOT a good thing.) So they see courts as the solution to every problem.
Sometimes, I think Falstaff had the right idea…
J.
Dang… it was Dick The Butcher who said it, not Falstaff.
J.
Dave in SoCal: I’m not sure why anyone is worried. I keep hearing from everyone posting here that most of the people at Gitmo are just innocent peasants caught up in dragnets or turned in for cash rewards anyways. We should be able to put them anywhere, if we don’t just release the lot of them.
Dave, you’re displaying your willful ignorance again. Those who objected to people who were essentially swept up in dragnets being held without charge for years are also teh ones who’ve noted that people who may have had no argument with teh US have, as a result of their incarceration and treatment, now do. That Gitmo may well have created enemies when they may not have existed before.
So while, yes, they presented no danger when captured, they do now. Thanks due again to Georege Bush for helpnig to keep us so safe.
Jay Tea: Further, they are illegal enemy combatants — caught in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
So, naturally, we’re justified in violating the Geneva Conventions ourselves. Good to know we’re better than terrorists.
According to the Conventions, Sean, captured combatants can be held until the cessation of hostilities. Further, illegal combatants can be summarily executed.
The Conventions were written a long time ago, when no one even conceived that a rogue organization could pose a credible threat to the security of a nation state. We need a new Convention to deal with this sort of threat. My suggestion would be to treat terrorists as we did pirates in the past — summary trial and punishment on the spot.
My nominees for the location of such a conference would be Beslan — or, perhaps, Shanksville, PA or Sderot, Israel.
J.
Shorter Jay : Why do we have to have proof? It used to be so much easier to kill brown people.
Further, illegal combatants can be summarily executed. The Conventions were written a long time ago, when no one even conceived that a rogue organization could pose a credible threat to the security of a nation state.
I knew it. Every argument that was put forth by conservatives as Bush made a mess of everything, is now going to be rehashed as Obama tries to set everything right. They just never learn.
As a started, Jay Tea, please cite the exact sections of the Geneva Conventions that authorize executions of anybody without trial or hearing.
According to the Conventions, Sean, captured combatants can be held until the cessation of hostilities.
This would make some kind of sense if we had declared war on anyone. But we didn’t. If they’re illegal combatants surely that’s something we can determine in a court of law. Because the founders were smart enough to have us live in a system of laws and not just random-ass gut feelings.
The evil terrorist Eric Rudolph is locked up in Colorado. But the people who harbored him are at large in western North Carolina. For some reason the George Bush, Junior didn’t make good on his threat to treat anyone who harbors terrorists the same as terrorists. Weird, that.
“The Conventions were written a long time ago, when no one even conceived that a rogue organization could pose a credible threat to the security of a nation state. We need a new Convention to deal with this sort of threat.”
JT’s right. There never was anytime in history where any group was able to unseat a government, destabilize a government, declare war on a nation, etc. Clearly the old rules don’t apply.
Refresh my memory, high school was a long-time ago. What was the uniform of the <a href=”http://www.srcalifornia.com/flags/revuniforms1.htm” Continental Army ?
It doesn’t matter if we declared war on them: they’ve *clearly* declared war on us. And have for some time.
Save Farris: It doesn’t matter if we declared war on them: they’ve *clearly* declared war on us.
Ah, so we can mark Farris’ down as sharing in Jay’s belief that we should use the terrorists standards as our own. That things like laws, trials, evidence really shouldn’t matter when they are inconvenient.
Funny, I don’t recall McVeigh, Gacy, and Bundy having hordes of fanatical followers willing to commit major atrocities to secure their release…
Sure they do. They’re called libertarians.
It doesn’t matter if we declared war on them: they’ve *clearly* declared war on us. And have for some time.
Who’s “they”?
While were waiting for Jay Tea to dig up the specific passage of the Geneva Conventions that authorizes summary execution (good luck with that one) I have to add that I am constantly surprised by the ability of conservatives to contradict themselves — even within the same sentence or paragraph — without batting an eye.
At one point, Jay Tea is quite clear what the Geneva Conventions has to say about terrorists:
Then, Jay Tea, tells us exactly what the Geneva Conventions permits us to do to illegal enemy combatants:
Of all the places one might assault inside the United States, a prison, with walls and guns and stuff seems like a pretty hard target. You would have to show up with such overwhelming force that the element of surprise is out the window as your armored column approached.
Isn’t it funny how it was tinfoil hat territory to suggest that the NSA was strip-mining communications (true as it turned out), but it’s a serious suggestion that AQ is going to land an assault force at San Quentin.
Oh yeah. And then get away.
Gee, Repack, ever consider there are other ways to get people out of prison besides a direct assault? Such as, say, taking a school full of hostages? Wonder why that’s never been tried.
Oh, yeah, it has.
Fafaroo, don’t be any more shallow than absolutely necessary. The Geneva Conventions outlawed what we consider “terrorism” when it was considering that members of a recognized military might take off those uniforms in order to pass for civilians, or commit atrocities, or the like. The notion that a private organization, not associated with a recognized government, never occurred to them.
Further, the Geneva Conventions were not motivated by compassion or sense of good will, but as a form of extortion — “we won’t do this if you don’t.” It was an agreement between nations, treating each others’ soldiers and civilians as mutual hostages. The terrorists not only do not ascribe to the Geneva Conventions, are nor signatories, but sometimes it seems they use its restrictions as checklists for inspiration.
I guess I am out of touch. After all, Obama’s in, Bush is gone, so nobody hates America any more.
J.
You mean a private organization like the Viet Cong? Or the Pathet Lao? Their combatants, when captured by the US, weren’t treated in accordance with the Conventions?
“According to the Conventions, Sean, captured combatants can be held until the cessation of hostilities.”.
Yep. Worked out real well for Maher Arar.
Yes, we should throw out the Geneva conventions because terrorists don’t follow them because as we know emulating terrorists is in the interest of the USA.
Or something.
Gee, Repack, ever consider there are other ways to get people out of prison besides a direct assault? Such as, say, taking a school full of hostages? Wonder why that’s never been tried.
I see. So the only event that might make a terrorist consider taking hostages and making demands is another terrorist in prison. (Cue sound track for any number of cheesy movies.)
Because the idea of taking hostages and making demands FOR ANY OTHER CONCESSION except a prisoner is unthinkable to a terrorist?
This just in JT. If you have the capability of taking hostages and making demands, then you will probably do it no matter what the desired exchange, ransom, political concessions, whatever. Please go rent “Dog Day Afternoon” and tell me which character you most identify with.
(Rush Limbaugh voice) Folks, do you see the intellect we are up against here?
So is there some reason terrorists can only pull off this kidnapping caper involving busloads of children while their brethren are in conventional prisons. They couldn’t do the same thing in order to bargain for their release from Gitmo?
Spread the inmates around and you’re down to one or a handful of particularly unruly inmates in any one place.
And let the gangs sort it out.
Shorter thread:
Has Jay had his three strikes yet?
Personally I’m still looking for someone to put forth a reason to keep the detainees in Gitmo that can’t be immediately shown to simply not make sense.
Anyone? Anyone?
Please go rent “Dog Day Afternoon” and tell me which character you most identify with.
RFLMAO. No, no, repack. You’re thinking of Frank D.
The Geneva Conventions outlawed what we consider “terrorism” when it was considering that members of a recognized military might take off those uniforms in order to pass for civilians, or commit atrocities, or the like. The notion that a private organization, not associated with a recognized government, never occurred to them.
First, this doesn’t clear up the inconsistencies in your comments, Jay Tea, it’s just a repetition and compounding of them.
Second, anytime you want to cough up the exact quote from the Conventions that authorizes summary execution of anyone, go for it.
Third, no one should pay attention to any of your ramblings unless you can back it up with some kind of verifiable supporting proof. Remember, Jay Tea, you’re the guy who emphatically stated that the majority opinion in Roe v Wade made no mention whatsoever of “viability” when, in fact, the concept of “viability” was the crucial metric around which the decision’s compromise revolved.
Seriously, Jay Tea. What do you really know about the Geneva Conventions? Because you sound like a fourth grader who thinks he can give a book report on Macbeth after reading a TV guide capsule.
Where in the fucking world, for example, did you ever get the idea that this was true:
Further, the Geneva Conventions were not motivated by compassion or sense of good will, but as a form of extortion — “we won’t do this if you don’t.”
The first convention in 1864 was all about ensuring the humane treatment of the wounded and the protection of their care givers. Every Convention to follow emphasized the humane treatment of wounded, prisoners or war, neutral civilians, care givers etc. etc.
Indeed, the motivating force behind the adoption of the first Geneva convention was a social activist who was horrified by what he had witnessed of war’s inhumanity:
The enforcement mechanism for the Conventions are not violent reprisals or a negation of the rules entirely. It is not, in other words, “Don’t do this, or the other side gets to do it too.”
Violations of the Convention are treated like criminal acts subject to investigation, trial and punishment for individuals found guilty. All parties to the Conventions are required to seek out and detain for trial anyone of their nationals accused of the violations. There is a whole system in place for neutral fact-finding commissions, hearings and trials to adjudicate disputes. They are spelled out in each and every Convention.
Basically, your comments reveal that you don’t know shit about the Geneva Conventions and that you’re operating entirely from what you’ve gleaned from Tom Clancy novels and shitty right wing blogs.
But kudos, Mr. Tea, for catching your own screwup of the Shakespeare quote. Now if you’d just start checking your facts before you post…
Fafaroo, you are the man.
Silly Quaker, J doesn’t believe in facts. He substitutes truthiness for facts. Truthiness is fungible. Facts have a liberal bias.