home

A Simple Plan

by TChris

The president has a bunch of people -- "enemy combatants," he likes to call them -- at Guantanamo, and he doesn't know what to do about them (other than keeping the press away so prisoners can't benefit from "publicity stunts" like, um, suicide). He told us today that he'd "like to close Guantanamo" because reports of torture and suicide just give people an "excuse" to criticize the U.S.

We don't need an excuse to criticize your administration, Mr. President. You and your helpers provide fresh cause for alarm every week. Banning the press won't shield you or your administration from warranted criticism. Guantanamo has severely damaged the credibility of the United States, and our elected representatives need to hear us object to misdeeds that tarnish our country's reputation.

As much as he'd like to, the president can't close Guantanamo, he says, because he "needs a plan for trying terror suspects if the U.S. Supreme Court rejects his military tribunals." Is the president worried that judicial activists on the Supreme Court might disagree with his assertion that "enemy combatants" have no right to judicial review of their indefinite detentions? He should worry.

You want a plan, Mr. President? You insist the detainees aren't prisoners of war, so the plan is simple: charge them with crimes and give them a criminal trial, or let them go.

< High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health Problem | Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:16:08 PM EST
    It's as if these fascists aren't even very good at fascism. Geez, George, do what your grandpa's buddies did back in Germany. Disappear them!

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:34:28 PM EST
    Tchris, You insist the detainees aren't prisoners of war, so the plan is simple: charge them with crimes and give them a criminal trial, or let them go. Could you cite those historical examples - of other foot-soldier-level POWs being tried and charged as you suggest, aot being held for the duration - that you most wish to see emulated? Thx.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:11:32 PM EST
    "...and our elected representatives need to hear us object to misdeeds that tarnish our country's reputation." Give me a break! All terrorists should commit suicide, they target civilians. U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-R.I. Patrick Kennedy to name a couple, are the elected representatives, crooks and drug addicts tarnishing your country's reputation.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#4)
    by Aaron on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:12:03 PM EST
    I look forward to the day when George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld all are being held in a detention facility. Perhaps then we'll have this detainee rights debate again. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I will grudgingly support their right to judicial review, even though I consider them the most dangerous terrorists on the planet, whose words will continue to inspire millions of their tragically deluded deeply ignorant faithful to martyr themselves for the cause. Regardless, I want them to receive the full protection that the Constitution provides, including an endless string of appeals filed in the hopes of overturning their death sentences for treason and crimes humanity. I think perhaps George at least may be able to avoid his execution by pleading mental deficiency. God knows there's enough evidence. But having faith in America, I have little doubt that in the end justice will be done. And on that day I'll be right there, on the front row, with a beer and a hot dog in my hands, a box of popcorn some juju fruit and Junior mints (I like to be prepared). I'll be wearing a T-shirt that says "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" in big red letters on the front... ... and "SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS" on the back.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    being held for the duration
    The duration of this conflict is forever, according to those who are running it. That's a lot longer than previous conflicts.
    their tragically deluded deeply ignorant faithful to martyr themselves for the cause.
    Only in cyberspace, though.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:00:54 AM EST
    Could you cite those historical examples - of other foot-soldier-level POWs being tried and charged as you suggest, aot being held for the duration - that you most wish to see emulated? Thx.
    ras, keep up! where the hell have you been for the past almost 5 years? these people, according to bush, are not POW's. therein lies the problem. he claims they're not subject to the POW provisions of the GC's, because they aren't soldiers. hence, his concern about the USC's opinion of his proposed "military tribunals", the purpose of which would be to ascertain the prisoner's correct status. you see, the GC just calls for a tribunal, not a military tribunal, conducted under military rules. this could kind of be a problem for mr. bush, if the USC doesn't see things his way, because then a different set of rules would apply, a tad more favorable to the unclassified. that would be mr. bush's great fear. geez, i can't believe you even made a comment as totally 2001 as that!

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:13:09 AM EST
    Within the US, acts of terrorism, such as blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, are treated for what they are, crimes. Bush claims that these "enemy combatants" are not POWs but terrorists. Lets assume that they are. Shouldn't they be treated as criminals? If they committed acts of terrorism such as murder or the conspiracy to commit murder, then justice demands that they be put on trial and face the penalty.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#8)
    by cmpnwtr on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:07:42 AM EST
    This post, though well intended, suggests there is an actual rule of law in this country. The courts have taken a big pass, or just been ignored in enforcing the constitution or the laws, or in holding the administration accountable. The definition of fascism according to my political science professor nearly 40 years ago, is a conscious return to barbarism. I think that names our present course.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:06:56 AM EST
    Aaron writes:
    And on that day I'll be right there, on the front row, with a beer and a hot dog in my hands, a box of popcorn some juju fruit and Junior mints (I like to be prepared). I'll be wearing a T-shirt that says "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" in big red letters on the front... ... and "SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS" on the back.
    Aw, the voice of calm and wisdom speaks again. Practicing your thumbs up or down move, are you?? cpinva - Since the GC doesn't apply, who cares what it calls for? Certainly not 99%, or less, of the country. As for the SC, I am hopeful that they, as the SC did during WWII, as pointed out by TL, avoid a conflict between them and the executive. That could be truly hurtfu. John Horse - Then you are proposing that all acts of terrorism, any place in the world, should be treated as if they were in Peoria? Fantastic....

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:23:43 AM EST
    The failure of the SC during WWII to stand up to the overreach of the executive branch led to the despicable wholesale internment of japanese. But I'm sure people like PPJ and Malkin were for that and would like to see it implemented again for all those of Muslim origin as well as the memebers of the "left".

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:47:43 AM EST
    As far as we can tell these folks are not criminals, they are enemies. The criminal justice system is appropriate for criminals, but not enemies. The military, not the court, is the appropriate institution to deal with enemies. They seem to be doing fine job.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    And I'll say it again, we're running this disgraceful place IN CUBA!! The irony never ceases to floor me.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:11:39 AM EST
    Writing Castro's propaganda for him since 1960.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    SD - Nope, not me. And not even the Right. If you didn't exist, they'd have to invent you. As far as the Japanese, we are still paying for that. The parents of our Sec Transportation head were interred, and that is undoubtedly one of the main reasons that he will not allow profiling as part of airport security. The fact that profiling could have prevented 9/11, especially after the FAA had been put on high alert on 7/5, seems to escape him. The other thing that you, and most of the far Left seem to forget, us that you are judging 1942 actions based on 2006 standards. You are also forgetting that the outcome of WWII was in real doubt when this happened. But reality and time frame has never bothered you in the past, so why should it now?? But what does that have to do with just how wrong headed it is to think that terrorist captured outside the US should be tried in the CJ system?

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    regardless of the fantasies indulged in by several commenters, the basic fact is we used to live in a democracy where they would have been charged, tried and found guilty or not guilty. It worked with McVeigh, it worked with WTC1, it is our system. Holding people w/o charges, indefinitely, incommunicado, w/o effective council should be anathema to all Americans. We fought a revolution and several wars to assure these rights. We even had the Nuremburg trials. If it is a global menace, take it to a global court.

    Re: A Simple Plan (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    The other thing that you, and most of the far Left seem to forget, us that you are judging 1942 actions based on 2006 standards. You are also forgetting that the outcome of WWII was in real doubt when this happened.
    You trying to defend the intermmemt? You know you do, so read from malkin and her distorted view of history.