Why send them to Brigs and Stockades? Several of these Democrat naysayers have large homes on large grounds. Divy them up between these Democrats on their compounds.

The 'suspects' can work on the grounds and do other chores for the Dems and the Dems can control the 'suspects' for us.

After all, they tell us they aren't really that dangerous, right?

Easy as pie.

Someone please explain something to me other then pure political posturing (always a factor when politicians are involved)

why does it matter if the terrorists are "detained" at Guantanomo or Alcatraz or elsewhere?

You guys have claimed Guantanamo Bay is like a holiday resort! The Democrats are relocating the alleged "terrists" to a more fitting accommodation.

You guys always miss the point, completely.

Nobody in there right mind thinks that terrorist are not dangerous. And I have never heard any liberal or democratic cry that they aren't. If you disagree - show me..

The reason people protest Guantanamo Bay is not that they believe terrorist aren't dangerous, that we should coddle them, or any other of the nonsense that you have invented to make yourself feel better. The reason is simple - we believe that our country needs to comply with basic human rights - like the Geneva Convention. Secret prisons, detainment for 5 years without being even INFORMED of the supposed crime, and torture all clearly violate these.

Did you guys forget the cases of the inmates that were held and tortured for SEVERAL YEARS and then released when the government realized they had made a mistake?

Of course we want to bring terrorists to justice. We just don't want to become terrorists in order to do it

You know what Kblack... Democrats want these terrorists on US Soil so the ACLU can sue saying that now they are on US Soil, they deserve Constitutional protection.

These people are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT United State Citizens (Does that need to be repeated?) and only people like you think that the United States Constitution should extend to anyone and everyone, particularly people who'd like nothing more than to put women in burkhas, kill gay people, and rip and shred that very same document you think they should get to be wrapped in.

They've actually been taken care of better than the 3000 INNOCENT people were treated by their buddies. Hell, many of them have gotten fat. That certainly sounds like they're being starved.

And the trials they are going to get have Congressional Approval and they'll happen soon enough. And the fact that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it, until now they'll try and win some points over at the DU right and try and say they weren't voting for that.

I think it's you who has missed the point. You'll agree to whatever Nancy tells you to believe (or is Markos, or HuffPo, or DU, or Keith Olbermann).

Bottomline, this isn't about US PR abroad. It's about trying to seem like they care about civil liberties for all, when in reality, they care only about civil liberties for these terrorists (who many on the left actually call freedom fighters).

They most definitely don't care about the rights of people who disagree with them.

oh wally..

i like how you just pretend that i said something and then argue against it..

I DID NOT SAY THAT THEY ARE US CITIZENS!

So no , it doesn't need to be repeated. The Geneva Convention of course applies to non-US citizens as well..

Of course the victims of 9/11 were innocent and its a horrible horrible tragedy. The point is this

1) the Geneva convention should apply - no torture, no holding indefinitely without charge (yeah 5 years thats real expedient justice)

2) Your right - its not about US PR abroad. Its about basic human rights.

3) you contend that all the left cares about are the civil liberties of terrorists. Demonstrate this - with evidence and not rhetoric. In fact, of course, the left does not agree with terrorists. Whose civil rights do we not care about?

why can't you guys understand that a desire to act in moral manor (no torture, no 5 year detainments without charge) does not mean that we support terrorism? Why not fight terrorism without resorting to the actions of a terrorist??

These terrorist were caught in the battlefield doing everything they could to kill American soliders and innocent men,women, and children!
They were not in uniform and the majority of them
were targeting civilans like the terrorist that are killing people around the world now.
The terrorist in Guantanamo receive three meals
a day of chicken and rice,lemon fish,etc.etc.
They have the Koran handed to them by a soldier who has to handle it with a glove while they rip them apart, flush them down toilets and then tell Newsweek "it's the Americans,stop the torture!"
Then it's outside to play soccor and pray!
Liberals yell that we can't send them home to be
tortured,they can't stay in Guantanamo to be tortured by our Nazi Soldiers or suffer
the unbearable torture of having to stay up late
or having a women rub her body up against them!
OOHHH the Horror!!
But the super intelligent liberals want enemy combatants to have lawyers and drag their butts through the justice system where every Moveon,ACLU
loving liberal can find any reason they can to blame their murderous actions on the real enemy,
eeeevil President Bush.
When are you dipshit liberals going to start protesting and fighting the real enemy,Muslim terrorist!!

Send the Gimo terrorists to Canada.

/sarcasm.

The Geneva Conventions covers uniformed services of a country, not terrorists. They represent no country and do not adhere to anything but their own misguided quest for world domination.

Dangerous or not, if the Democrat party wants them here on the US soil, they should have to house them at their spacious mansions.

Let them lead for once, instead of complaining about everything.

Black... why don't you just admit you want them here so the ACLU can sue on their behalf, something they can't do while they aren't on US SOIL...

And Lew is 100% right. These aren't organized soldiers of a sovereign nation, so Geneva doesn't apply to them.

Either you accept this reality or you actually do want them to have the rights of US Citizens... you know... the very same type of people they want to kill.

"the Geneva convention should apply"

Why ?? Because you think they should? Have you even read them?

Talking out your arse like most libs that want to ignore the FACT that the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed combatants. Christ I wish you people would get an education before you form your half assed, ill informed opinions.

The foreign terrorists are entitled to human rights, not U.S. Constitutional rights.

There has been no torture at Gitmo...and no one who is innocent has been held for five years.

You lefties just want to believe the worst...

Have you read them?

It is a LIE, a straight out LIE that the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed combatants!

HAVE YOU READ THEM!

This is a blatant misrepresentation of them - please go read them and don't just accept what your pundits tell you. The common tact is to quote the 3rd Geneva convention which refers to POW and specifically excludes unlawful combatants. So your right - that one doesn't apply
HOWEVER there is 4th Convention - which specifically states that unlawful or "non-privileged" combatants. Specifically, they cannot apply for the POW status - HOWEVER - it specifically states that regardless of status ALL PRISONERS should be given humane treatment - specifically stating that they should not be tortured and given due process...

to quote
: "No exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Which the US has ratified. PLEASE - DO YOUR GOD DAMN HOMEWORK

Kblack..
it's people like you, who will get us killed..it's also your type who will sob...but,but, but...we treated you so nice....as your head is getting sawed off with a dull,rusty blade..that's if you're one of the lucky ones. Better that, than feet first in the wood chipper or plastic shredder...fool!!!

KBlack, redefining "torture" to include college pranks doesn't grant animals like the terrorists Geneva Convention rights.

Personally, if it were left up to me, I would treat them as they treat our people, but it isn't up to me.

Strange you lefties worry so much about these animal terrorists much more than you do our own people.

How many would you like to house and care for? You can lead by example and show us how to win them over with choruses of Kumbaya.

kblack,

When did AQ and the other various terrorist organizations ratify the Geneva Convention? For the Geneva Convention to apply, aren't they also supposed to abide by it? Where does sawing someone's head off with a hunting knife and targetting civilians fit?

No - I reject your suggestions.

1) You don't have to have ratified the Geneva Conventions for them to apply to you. This is also made explicitly clear in the text of conventions.

2) I am not talking about "college pranks" - I am talking about real torture. I am not sure where this comes from

3) I am not saying that we should treat terrorists nicely and take them to club med. I am saying that you have to give basic human rights even to those that wouldn't give them to you. It is not how they would act to you that defines the morality of your action - but rather how you would have them act towards you. For all the ranting and raving the importance of Judeo Christian values - you can't seem to understand this basic point - a fundamental Christian value.

4)Further - its not just that. Its that there are documented cases of people who have been detained and tortured for multiple YEARS where it was a complete accident that they were arrested. What do you say to this - I notice that everyone has conveniently avoided this point.

Zootallure:

"the Geneva convention should apply"

Why ?? Because you think they should? Have you even read them?

Do you guys ever read the news? Or do you truly live in an Alternate Universe?
The U.S. administration had claimed that they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this interpretation on June 29, 2006. Following this, on July 7, 2006 the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners will in the future be entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
White House Does About-Face On Gitmo
US detainees to get Geneva rights

Zootallure:

"the Geneva convention should apply"

Why ?? Because you think they should? Have you even read them?

Do you guys ever read the news? Or do you truly live in an Alternate Universe?
The U.S. administration had claimed that they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this interpretation on June 29, 2006. Following this, on July 7, 2006 the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners will in the future be entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.

And when the WH Administration is so sure that these detainees are all "terrorists", then why has none of the socalled "terrorists" never been charged with that? As of November 2006 out of 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 340 have been released, leaving 435 detainees. Of those 435, 110 have been labeled as ready for release. Of the other 325, only "more than 70" will face trial, the Pentagon says. That leaves about 250 who may be held indefinitely without charges brought against them or without a trial.

no 5 year detainments without charge

This is something I'm confused about. Why do we even need to charge captured combatants with anything in the first place?

When have we ever, as a matter of standard policy, in any war or conflict in our history, charged and tried captured enemy combatants as a pre-condition for detaining them (or continuing their detention after pre-trial confinement), in a manner analogous to civilian criminal proceedure? Please bear in mind I'm not asking if any part of the Geneva Convention says we should convene such trials, but only whether we actually have.

In previous wars, we captured combatants on the battlefield, detained them in POW camps, and then released them after the war ended. Likewise, our enemies captured our troops, held them in everything from the British "prison ships" of the Revolutionary War (in which more Americans died than in all the battles combined), to the "Hanoi Hilton", and released them after the war ended. As far as I know, none of this included a system of trials in which captured combatants were charged with specific offenses, and detained only if convicted.

All of this, by the way, was to deal with combatants who at least to some extent obeyed the rules of war, by wearing recognizable uniforms, carrying weapons openly, organizing along a chain of command, etc. Terrorists such as AQ, as has already been pointed out, do not obey these rules. If combatants who obey the rules are/were not entitled to pre-detention trials, why should combatants who disobey the rules be entitled to them, and thus receiving something denied to their law-obeying counterparts?

I concede that our understanding of the rules of war and prisoner treatment has changed over time. For example, WW2 was fought before the 4th Geneva Convention was created. However, I do not know of any instance where the type of trial currently demanded for the Gitmo detainees was actually convened during any war in our history. On the other hand, I know about trials that took place after the end of a war (such as Nuremburg), in which the defendants were charged with and convicted of war crimes committed during the war, and then punished by further imprisonment or execution. Can any military historians shed some light on this?

*Shock* Shut down an inadequate holding hell for scapegoats? Why, the gall of those Democrats! We should burn them alive for having a logical suggestion!

We had more people imprisoned there before. There are less now. A few died, but many were released. So, Bush either had terrorists in a military prison and chose to release them, or it was determined they were not, in fact, terrorists. I've never heard anyone argue the first point, but the second is the conventional wisdom. So, if we had them there and lebelled them terrorists without any sort of trial, then decided we were wrong, why are we certain that the rest are in fact guilty?

I dont condone abuse to suspected terrorsists, I also dont think that the US would just grab anyone off of the street and throw them in Gitmo. I am little concerned that there are many people here who defend the suspected terrorists with such certainty that they are innocent. I also find it concerning that many people here care about the well-being of said supspected terrorists, but they are completley agaisnt the War in Iraq, something that would give Iraqis a free nation. It doesnt add up. You want humane rights to detainees, but you dont want a free Iraq? Would someone please clear this up?

Bigfoot

Why do we even need to charge captured combatants with anything in the first place?

Why do think anyone who is accused of murder is getting a trial? Why can't we just say that you are guilty of murder and lock you away the rest of your life or even give you the deathpenalty? Much easier and cheaper.

These people are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT United State Citizens (Does that need to be repeated?)

If I were you, I would never again in your life leave the country. The rest of the world just can accuse you of being an "enemy combatant" and that's it. Your family will never hear from you or about you again.
Foreign nations can even fly into your country, pick you up from the street, fly back to their country and that's it. No harm done, because you are an "enemy combatant".

Wow, Willem, someone struck a nerve, huh? Usually, you're good for snark, and nothing else. What gives? And how's the old Scrutator gang?

Freedom1, you're back! Just about the same time Willem returned, too. Wow, that's a bit odd...

Key House Democrats plan to insist the Pentagon shut down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are contemplating the relocation of many of the 385 or so remaining terrorist suspects to military brigs along the East Coast -- including Quantico, Va., and Charleston, S.C.

"It sets us back in the war on terrorism to be maintaining Guantanamo," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who's heading an investigation of the facility for the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

"It will enhance our reputation to close it down and to apply our system of justice to all of these detainees," he added.

What a nut. Does he think the terrorists are worrying about enhancing their reputations?

Please, terrorist don't care how many people they kill, how they kill them or how it affects their reputation. They don't even care about killing other Muslims anymore, which is supposedly taboo in their religion, yet they are doing it daily in Iraq.

hahaha... Willem is hilarious. I wonder how many ordinary random people in whatever city/town/podunk burb he lives in he's seen being whisked off the streets with a few good beat downs thrown in during the process.

I've been all over Europe and I travel rather freely. I don't frequent countries where radical islamic extremists and outnumber sane people.

Maybe that's the difference between you and me. I know there are people who want to kill Westerners, and as long as they aren't hanging out and supporting OTHER terrorists, I'm okay with them going about their business if words are their only actions.

The second they start actively participating in planning physical harm, they should be handled by the authorities in their country or by a military force that catches them in a country they don't belong in.

The whole point being. If a Canadian comes to the United States and commits murder, he/she'd be tried as an American citizen because Canada has similiar legal requirements and values.

There is nothing remotely endearing about propping up the legal rights of individuals who believe killing a woman simply for expressing herself or who cheer whe thousands of non-muslim innocents are killed. It's actually just pathetic.