Should we interrogate American citizens?

[LnGrrrR]

For all who support 'enhanced interrogation'...

Given a theoretical US citizen that was attempting a terrorist attack, should the CIA be allowed to 'interrogate' him to find out information?

Or should we not do such since he's a US citizen, even if the CIA believed he possessed information about a ticking time bomb?

[Blake]

what exactly is 'enhanced interrogation'?

[boutons_deux]

enhanced interrogation is a euphemism for torture.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

For all who support 'enhanced interrogation'...

Given a theoretical US citizen that was attempting a terrorist attack, should the CIA be allowed to 'interrogate' him to find out information?

yes

[angrydude]

no, but.....

if they did it illegally and it worked I wouldn't care that much.

[Barry O'Bama]

I don't know if the CIA has jurisdiction within US boundries but I have no problems with the FBI interrogating possible terrorists(or the CIA if it is within their jurisdiction).

I'm sure all of our local police departments have to get tough with criminals.

I don't know if you've ever been outside but it's a dog eat dog world out there and some people just need some slapping around.

[LnGrrrR]

what exactly is 'enhanced interrogation'?

Torture, for those who don't support enhanced interrogation :D

Let's just say waterboarding, sensory deprivation/overload, sleep deprivation, and drastic temperatures.

[DarrinS]

hand jobs work better


sincerely,


libs

[Blake]

enhanced interrogation is a euphemism for torture.

you don't say....

what kind of 'torture' are we talking about?

'cut the pickle, tickle tickle'? waterboarding? forcing them to whiz on an electric fence?

[Winehole23]

For all who support 'enhanced interrogation'...

Given a theoretical US citizen that was attempting a terrorist attack, should the CIA be allowed to 'interrogate' him to find out information?

Or should we not do such since he's a US citizen, even if the CIA believed he possessed information about a ticking time bomb?Academic, since outsourcing remains legal and the precedents for indefinite detention still stand, as do an array of *investigational tools* not called *waterboarding*.

They would interrogate them bleep out of them under standing law IMO.

[Blake]

Torture, for those who don't support enhanced interrogation :D

Let's just say waterboarding, sensory deprivation/overload, sleep deprivation, and drastic temperatures.

I don't know about waterboarding....

it's so easy a miamiheat can do it.

[LnGrrrR]

At least the board repubs are logically consistent! :toast

Next question!

Would those who support enhanced interrogation of US citizens also support revocation of habeas corpus rights? Or would the right to habeas corpus enshrined in the Constitution have precedence?

If you believe that the right to habeas corpus would hold precedence, how long do you think it would be acceptable for the FBI/CIA to hold a prisoner in custody?

[LnGrrrR]

Academic, since outsourcing remains legal and the precedents for indefinite detention still stand, as do an array of *investigational tools* not called *waterboarding*.

They would interrogate them bleep out of them under standing law IMO.

Yes, but I was wondering what the board Republicans would say, just to make it clear. Not asking so much about the optics/realpolitiks of today's situation.

[Winehole23]

At least the board repubs are logically consistent! :toast

Next question!

Would those who support enhanced interrogation of US citizens also support revocation of habeas corpus rights?First of all, I don't approve of the EITs. No effing way.

Secondly, no and HELL NO. Habeas is the only check against arbitrary detention. If we ever have to suspend it again, maybe the president will be courteous enough to ask Congress to endorse the suspension, like Lincoln did.

[DarrinS]

I'm sure the police never use any enhanced interrogation techniques.

[Jacob1983]

I'd only support it if Jack Bauer was giving the interrogations.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

At least the board repubs are logically consistent! :toast

Next question!

Would those who support enhanced interrogation of US citizens also support revocation of habeas corpus rights? Or would the right to habeas corpus enshrined in the Constitution have precedence?

If you believe that the right to habeas corpus would hold precedence, how long do you think it would be acceptable for the FBI/CIA to hold a prisoner in custody?
if anyone, citizen or not, wants to bring terrorism here to the mainland then i feel they lose all rights whatsoever. rights that we as americans have and supposedly live by, but there has to be a substantial amount of evidence against them. i'm just waiting for the gotcha moment :wakeup

[Winehole23]

I'm sure the police never use any enhanced interrogation techniques.Judges and Juries give them latitude to use *necessary force*. What's your point?

[Winehole23]

there has to be a substantial amount of evidence against them. i'm just waiting for the gotcha moment :wakeupThe paucity of prosecutions (20 or so) among the 200 or so remaining at Gitmo does not inspire confidence that this is the case.

[LnGrrrR]

if anyone, citizen or not, wants to bring terrorism here to the mainland then i feel they lose all rights whatsoever. rights that we as americans have and supposedly live by, but there has to be a substantial amount of evidence against them. i'm just waiting for the gotcha moment :wakeup

Do you feel the use of terrorism automatically renders a citizen's rights null and void?

If so, do you feel that should only apply to terrorism?

(Regarding evidence, who's going to check on it besides the FBI/CIA? Congress? The judiciary?)

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The paucity of prosecutions (20 or so) among the 200 or so remaining at Gitmo does not inspire confidence that this is the case.possibly, but i think you can't be too safe in this situation especially the way things are now. war is hell.

[SnakeBoy]

For all who support 'enhanced interrogation'...

Given a theoretical US citizen that was attempting a terrorist attack, should the CIA be allowed to 'interrogate' him to find out information?

Or should we not do such since he's a US citizen, even if the CIA believed he possessed information about a ticking time bomb?


If that individual were high up in an organization that had just murdered 3500 americans and the government did not have a handle on that organizations plans/capabilities then yes interrogate the fucker. Otherwise no.

[LnGrrrR]

possibly, but i think you can't be too safe in this situation especially the way things are now. war is hell.

Do you think that enhanced interrogation should be used in any possible ticking time bomb situation, no matter the time/place/person? Or are you saying you're ok with it because we're at war, and if we were at peace, we could afford the luxury of a trial?

[Winehole23]

The idea that Gitmo capital cases could plead guilty without any trial has been floated.

Then we could execute a few of em.

How would you feel about that, VLE?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Do you feel the use of terrorism automatically renders a citizen's rights null and void?

without a doubt. citizen here or anywhere. there should be no tolerance for that.


If so, do you feel that should only apply to terrorism?
if you're intent is meeting allah, or whatever you're fighting for, and you want to take other people with you, then yes.



(Regarding evidence, who's going to check on it besides the FBI/CIA? Congress? The judiciary?)i'm sure there's highly classified covert ops checking this out. at least i hope there is, but to be honest i don't have an answer to that.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The idea that Gitmo capital cases could plead guilty without any trial has been floated.

is this the individual pleading guilty without coercion? or is it forced or whatever you want to call it?



Then we could execute a few of em.

How would you feel about that, VLE?

if it's done by the accused without any coercion then i'm all for it. nobody wants them. send them to their maker.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i'm still anticipating the gotcha

[LnGrrrR]

i'm sure there's highly classified covert ops checking this out. at least i hope there is, but to be honest i don't have an answer to that.

I see this as a much bigger concern than you. Do you not think that the power to abduct someone, accuse them of terrorism, and then not have an independent branch review the evidence might lead to an abuse of power?

Heck, I'm concerned by that power being available even with Congressional oversight, as it's been shown they won't do much about that.

[LnGrrrR]

i'm still anticipating the gotcha

No gotcha here. Just trying to have an open dialogue with people who feel differently than I do, in order to better understand where they/their arguments are coming from.

[Winehole23]

is this the individual pleading guilty without coercion? or is it forced or whatever you want to call it? The pleas themselves would be willing. The evidence was *likely* coerced in a large number of cases, but the elegant thing about any plea bargain is that the *evidence* and the circumstances of detention will not be liable to discovery.

Does death extinguish the legal standing of the defendant, or can his heirs sue?

I might choose intentional martyrdom at the hands of US officials over indefinite detention by the same if the choice was mine.


if it's done by the accused without any coercion then i'm all for it. nobody wants them. send them to their maker.If it comes to pass, this is what people will say.

I couldn't disagree more etc.,

[Viva Las Espuelas]

we have people in the past few years that have been released from prison because they've been cleared of a crime for whatever reason(dna, new evidence, what have you) that have been locked up for years. i think 25 is the longest that i've remembered. is justice really blind? who knows but terrorism is a whole other beast to tend to. i don't think we can be too safe.

[Winehole23]

i don't think we can be too safe.Even with US citizens? That's pretty hardcore.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The pleas themselves would be willing. The evidence was *likely* coerced in a large number of cases, but the elegant thing about any plea bargain is that the *evidence* and the circumstances of detention will not be liable to discovery.

Does death extinguish the legal standing of the defendant, or can his heirs sue?

I might choose intentional martyrdom at the hands of US officials over indefinite detention by the same if the choice was mine.

If it comes to pass, this is what people will say.

I couldn't disagree more etc.,i guess a "world" court would have to be assembled. spread out the blood on everyone's hands if that's what it takes.

[Homeland Security]

if anyone, citizen or not, wants to bring terrorism here to the mainland then i feel they lose all rights whatsoever. rights that we as americans have and supposedly live by, but there has to be a substantial amount of evidence against them. i'm just waiting for the gotcha moment :wakeup
The way I see it, since liberals want to coddle terrorists, we should be able to use "enhanced interrogation" against anybody who votes for a Democrat.


I see this as a much bigger concern than you. Do you not think that the power to abduct someone, accuse them of terrorism, and then not have an independent branch review the evidence might lead to an abuse of power?This would be a very powerful and useful tool for rectifying some of the ideological "problem children" in the country.


we have people in the past few years that have been released from prison because they've been cleared of a crime for whatever reason(dna, new evidence, what have you) that have been locked up for years. i think 25 is the longest that i've remembered. is justice really blind? who knows but terrorism is a whole other beast to tend to. i don't think we can be too safe.Liberals are more dangerous than terrorists. It's well past time to take the gloves off.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Even with US citizens? That's pretty hardcore.that's one of my nicknames, coincidentally. and yes.

[Winehole23]

The detainee should enter the criminal justice system as soon as practicable IMO. I still don't see the necessity or justification of having a separate law track for terrorists, or separate housing.

LE plus criminal justice worked before 9/11; it has worked since and will work again in the future. The relevant federal laws are already on the books and they are still being enforced. Why does everybody still lose their mind about this? LE will still cooperate with federal officials to git r done. Normal LE plus signals and prisons works fine.

Prevention is not a reasonable expectation IMO, if it is also a reasonable goal to have. Zeal for security can be overdone.


http://www.calico.ie/uploaded_images/MinorityReport-713835.jpg

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The detainee should enter the criminal justice system as soon as practicable IMO. I still don't see the necessity or justification of having a separate track for terrorists


http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/World_Trade_Center_9_11_2001__gallery_msg_11579208 933.jpg


http://ceoworld.biz/ceo/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ruth-madoff-bernard-ponzi-scheme.jpg

any questions?

[DarrinS]

Based on the current definition of torture, all contestants on "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here" are currently being tortured.


As are people watching it.

[ChumpDumper]

Based on the current definition of torture, all contestants on "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here" are currently being tortured.Please give us that current definition in full.

[Winehole23]

any questions?Yes. Do you know how lame that sounds in 2009?

[Wild Cobra]

For all who support 'enhanced interrogation'...

Given a theoretical US citizen that was attempting a terrorist attack, should the CIA be allowed to 'interrogate' him to find out information?

Or should we not do such since he's a US citizen, even if the CIA believed he possessed information about a ticking time bomb?
That is not a simple yes or no answer. The three detainees that were subject to enhanced techniques, were rather high up on the food chain, and it was certain they had important intelligence. Without knowing is the guy (gal) had important intelligence, I say no. However, if this was someone who was in charge of attacks, then yes. Like others have said though, the CIA operates outside the USA.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yes. Do you know how lame that sounds in 2009?
lame?

[PixelPusher]

Please give us that current definition in full.

Quit calling out my strawmen!

[DarrinS]

From "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here"

All this while snakes, spiders, roaches, rats ran around by their heads.


http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495xS/scet/photos/292/3057/060109_Cockroach_on_Torrie_IAC.jpg

http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495xS/scet/photos/292/3057/060109_Final_Three_IAC.jpg

http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495xS/scet/photos/292/3057/060109_Patti_Is_Out_IAC_001.jpg

[Winehole23]

Yeah lame. On you VLE, not 9/11.

9/11 is not a CYA or get out of jail free card. It certainly doesn't give us the *right* to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges as formerly believed, much less to torture and execute them whimsically, as you seem to have suggested.

What did you mean by*you can't be too careful...*?

[jack sommerset]

Of course we should question Americans citizens. Why stop doing this? That's how we get information from a suspect, witness or victim after a crime has been committed. If anything we need to add some special interrogation methods. Casey Anthony would be a good choice to start off with. Of course video tape it. She has been on TV every day for like a year. No telling how much money she is costing that state already and the trial has not even started. We all know she killed her kid. We want to know why and we want to save some money. Enhanced interrogate her ass. Let the American people see what these methods are all about and the results. Then we need to kill her so we can save even more money. It's the smart way to go especially durning these economic times.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't see why not.

[PixelPusher]

From "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here"

All this while snakes, spiders, roaches, rats ran around by their heads.


http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495xS/scet/photos/292/3057/060109_Cockroach_on_Torrie_IAC.jpg

http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495xS/scet/photos/292/3057/060109_Final_Three_IAC.jpg

http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495xS/scet/photos/292/3057/060109_Patti_Is_Out_IAC_001.jpg

Are you really that retarded? Do we have to spell out the distinctions regarding consent for you?

[Winehole23]

Have a reality show, like Cops, so that people will know what to expect when it happens to them.

Clever.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yeah lame. On you VLE, not 9/11.

9/11 is not a CYA or get out of jail free card. It certainly doesn't give us the *right* to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges as formerly believed, much less to execute them whimsically, as you seem to have suggested.

What did you mean by*you can't be too careful...*?

i believe i said if they plead guilty without coercion. i think i stated that twice and very clearly. i'm not saying imprison anyone that smells like a camel and has a beard. come on now.

[Winehole23]

i believe i said if they plead guilty without coercion. i think i stated that twice and very clearly. i'm not saying imprison anyone that smells like a camel and has a beard. come on now.Can you see how that might be construed as fulfilling their explicit wish to become martyrs?

[DarrinS]

Are you really that retarded? Do we have to spell out the distinctions regarding consent for you?


And there were women with uncovered faces there too! :wow
And women who could read! :wow

A hardcore Islamists would lose his freakin mind on that show.

[jack sommerset]

Have a reality show, like Cops, so that people will know what to expect when it happens to them.

Clever.

I'm liking how you are thinking young man. I am thinking a few speicals. We don't want to give away all the secrets to our American killers,rapist,child molestors.... Baby steps. Only for people we know did the crime...Like a Casey Anthony.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Can you see how that might be construed as fulfilling their explicit wish to become martyrs?
dude, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. make up your mind.

[PixelPusher]

And there were women with uncovered faces there too! :wow
And women who could read! :wow

A hardcore Islamists would lose his freakin mind on that show.

Is this part of your schtick too? Pretenting to have ADD so you can duck out of a corner you've painted yourself into?

[Winehole23]

dude, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. make up your mind.Already made up. The government should have to show how good its hand is. They shouldn't be allowed to bluff it.

[DarrinS]

Is this part of your schtick too? Pretenting to have ADD so you can duck out of a corner you've painted yourself into?



It must suck to be completely humorless.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Already made up. The government should have to show how good its hand is. They shouldn't be allowed to bluff it.

i'm trying to understand you. are you saying even if we try and find a terrorist guilty that we shouldn't terminate them? just imprison them for life? and remember, no coercion in finding them guilty

[Winehole23]

... after gettin caught throwing away cards (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316552,00.html) on the sly.

[Winehole23]

i'm trying to understand you. are you saying even if we try and find a terrorist guilty that we shouldn't terminate them? just imprison them for life? and remember, no coercion in finding them guiltyThe universe of possible penalty outcomes should receive due consideration IMO before being dismissed as possibilities. The cases we are talking about are capital cases, and these can have foreseeable political ramifications.

Alternatives to execution deserve to exist (at least) in the conversation about the decision to execute or not IMO. It's all speculative at this point, but it can't hurt to be careful. Men's lives are staked to the outcome of the proceedings.

[ChumpDumper]

i'm trying to understand you. are you saying even if we try and find a terrorist guilty that we shouldn't terminate them? just imprison them for life? and remember, no coercion in finding them guiltyMartyrdom denied = no martyrdom.

I think the rumors that Ramzi Yousef converted to Christianity is worth the cost of keeping him alive.

[FaithInOne]

Do it. Cases get dropped and PD's sued because they breathe too hard on a suspect.

I would love for Uncle Sam to waterboard me. (jk fbi) I'd claim 8th amendment on those suckas. THUG LIFE

[Winehole23]

Do it. Cases get dropped and PD's sued because they breathe too hard on a suspect.Not at Bagram and Gitmo. They're lucky to get any charges at all there.

[PixelPusher]

It must suck to be completely humorless.

You're only funny when you're not trying to be.

[FaithInOne]

Not at Bagram and Gitmo. They're lucky to get any charges at all there.

That is wrong. However, they are not U.S. citizens.

[Winehole23]

Gitmo sucks at proving terrorist crimes. If somebody claims otherwise, put the cards on the table.

The fruits of investigation were -- to a significant degree -- tainted by the method. Coercion and physical duress queer the evidence.

[Winehole23]

That is wrong. However, they are not U.S. citizens.However, habeas and Common article 3 still apply per Boumediene.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

MW1N1X88KH0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW1N1X88KH0

winehole, i bring this jackass to the table. what would you do with him? i'd say ship his ass to gitmo and forget about him.

[Winehole23]

(double post)

[Winehole23]

winehole, i bring this jackass to the table. what would you do with him? i'd say ship his ass to gitmo and forget about him.You're wrong. That's an easy one. Our criminal justice system is perfectly suited for the likes of him.

Prosecute him. When he's found guilty, sentence him.

[Wild Cobra]

You're wrong. That's an easy one. Our criminal justice system is perfectly suited for the likes of him.

Prosecute him. When he's found guilty, sentence him.

I agree. Gitmo is for battlefield detainees and organized Jihad fighters. Not an animal who used religion as a reason to quench his blood thirst.

Still, I say someone who acts like an animal, put him down like one. At least cage him like one. I am in favor of the death penalty.

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/World_Trade_Center_9_11_2001__gallery_msg_11579208 933.jpg


any questions?

What about people like Timothy McVeigh? Didn't we process him through our court system? I think that seemed to be quite effective. We were able to try him fairly, he was found guilty, and went to jail.

[sabar]

Sounds like a great idea. Maybe we can raise King George from the dead while we're at it.

No you fools, we don't need the government torturing its own citizens. Who in their right mind would willfully give that kind of power to the state?

Believe it or not, the world did indeed function before 9/11 happened. Yes, horrible serial killers and domestic terrorists were, in fact, prosecuted under our legal system. It's true!

[Viva Las Espuelas]

What about people like Timothy McVeigh? Didn't we process him through our court system? I think that seemed to be quite effective. We were able to try him fairly, he was found guilty, and went to jail.
and............................................... .................

[DarrinS]

What about people like Timothy McVeigh? Didn't we process him through our court system? I think that seemed to be quite effective. We were able to try him fairly, he was found guilty, and went to jail.


We killed him, but at least we didn't water board him.

Whew, what a relief.

[LnGrrrR]

and............................................... .................

and.... why should we change the method we used to try and convict him? The fact that the US system of justice assumes innocence before guilt is one of the things that makes this country great, in my opinion. Do you feel differently?

[LnGrrrR]

We killed him, but at least we didn't water board him.

Whew, what a relief.

I would feel much better about our country if it killed combatants on the battlefield, then lock them up without access to courts for an indeterminate amount of time.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

and.... why should we change the method we used to try and convict him? The fact that the US system of justice assumes innocence before guilt is one of the things that makes this country great, in my opinion. Do you feel differently?
the "and......." was in hoping you would finish your sentence. he was tried. convicted, and.......................


let's finish that sentence and we can continue. people love putting words in other people's mouths on here. :wakeup

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I would feel much better about our country if it killed combatants on the battlefield, then lock them up without access to courts for an indeterminate amount of time.
you would bitch either way, no?

[Winehole23]

you would bitch either way, no?Just guessing, probably not. LnnGrrrR is active military. I doubt he's much bothered by the other guys dying on battlefields.

[LnGrrrR]

Just guessing, probably not. LnnGrrrR is active military. I doubt he's much bothered by the other guys dying on battlefields.

Said it better than I could have.

When people die on the battlefield, well, shit happens. That type of action occurs in war. Lots of innocent people die, and that's something civilian leaders must take into account when they start a war.

However, when you remove someone from the battlefield, I have the belief that we should give them certain basic rights. Not saying they have to necessarily have the same rights as a POW, but until they're proven to be guilty, I don't see why we shouldn't let them have those rights.

Other people disagree. *shrug*

[LnGrrrR]

the "and......." was in hoping you would finish your sentence. he was tried. convicted, and.......................


let's finish that sentence and we can continue. people love putting words in other people's mouths on here. :wakeup

And went to jail and was killed.

I'm fine if we take that course of action for the remaining prisoners in GTMO. Try them, and if they are guilty, lock them up, or send them to Death Row, or give them whatever sentence the judges deem fair. If they are innocent, then expatriate them to their country of origin. If that country won't take them, see who will.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

he was executed, not killed.

[LnGrrrR]

he was executed, not killed.

Splitting hairs, aren't we? I'm pretty if you execute someone, you're also killing them.

Cmon now, Viva. I've seen you complain about liberals doing everything they can to complain, bitch, etc etc, but your post before this was leading, and this post is semantics.

Do you have a rebuttal based on rational analysis? Or is this the part where you just agree to disagree, and think that even though we were able to prosecute Timothy McVeigh successfully, that we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to do that in the future?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Splitting hairs, aren't we? I'm pretty if you execute someone, you're also killing them.

sorry about that. i was confusing you with the guy having issue with executing this convicted terrorist.




Cmon now, Viva. I've seen you complain about liberals doing everything they can to complain, bitch, etc etc, but your post before this was leading, and this post is semantics.
well i was just leading you to finish your thought. i didn't really see it as a gotcha tactic, but again, i was confusing you with someone else.



Do you have a rebuttal based on rational analysis? shoot


Or is this the part where you just agree to disagree, and think that even though we were able to prosecute Timothy McVeigh successfully, that we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to do that in the future?if someone's death count gets in the hundreds then i see you being on a different level. if the evidence is stacked against you then you should lose your rights. i may not be following your train of thought in your last statement. are you saying i'm wrong in thinking "we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to" kill hundreds of innocent people in broad daylight "in the future"?

[LnGrrrR]

if someone's death count gets in the hundreds then i see you being on a different level. if the evidence is stacked against you then you should lose your rights. i may not be following your train of thought in your last statement. are you saying i'm wrong in thinking "we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to" kill hundreds of innocent people in broad daylight "in the future"?

I can understand your thought process, but if the evidence of the crime is so obvious, what's wrong with putting them on trial ASAP? That way they can get convicted and then executed/jailed/etc.

No matter what the crime is, I think that we should hold up to the basic values of our justice system (ie. innocence before guilt, habeas corpus, etc). We have, IMHO, the best justice system in the world. What better way to show Western values than to use that justice system to process even the most heinous villains?

I don't think we have to sacrifice some of our values to maintain our security.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I can understand your thought process, but if the evidence of the crime is so obvious, what's wrong with putting them on trial ASAP? That way they can get convicted and then executed/jailed/etc.

No matter what the crime is, I think that we should hold up to the basic values of our justice system (ie. innocence before guilt, habeas corpus, etc). We have, IMHO, the best justice system in the world. What better way to show Western values than to use that justice system to process even the most heinous villains?

I don't think we have to sacrifice some of our values to maintain our security.
ah. now i see where you're coming from. i guess i wasn't clear, but yes, they should be tried, convicted and all that good stuff. i didn't mean to imply that if we think you did a heinous crime like mcveigh did then you go straight to the chair or what have you.

[Wild Cobra]

he was executed, not killed.

Execution is a form of killing. So what. The important distinction is he was kill/executed and not murdered.

[Winehole23]

I don't think we have to sacrifice some of our values to maintain our security.Declinism. Things are getting worse. Values aren't so important to people as previously. Certainly not worth living and dying for, and probably worth trading for some bogus peace of mind.

[LnGrrrR]

ah. now i see where you're coming from. i guess i wasn't clear, but yes, they should be tried, convicted and all that good stuff. i didn't mean to imply that if we think you did a heinous crime like mcveigh did then you go straight to the chair or what have you.

See, that's what I want to see with the terrorists at GTMO. Try them, convict them, then do whatever the judge thinks is reasonable.

Do they necessarily deserve innocence before guilt? According to our laws, it's questionable whether it's necessary. However, I feel that it's desirable to prove that we did everything we could to prove the guilt of the men captured.

Is there a chance that some will be let free that might do something bad? Yes, but we take that chance today, when we let out pedophiles, rapists, and murderers out of jail.

Again, reasonable people on the opposite side of the fence state that, by not going by international standards of war, they deserve no rights at all, or severely restricted rights. But I can't say for certainty whether or not everyone that was captured was actually guilty, and if the release of some prisoners is any evidence, it's near 100% certain that some of them are innocent.

So put them on trial, a trial where they are allowed a basic defense, and the right for the defendant, or at least their attorney, to see what evidence the prosecution is using against them. If they're found guilty, then my conscience (and, I feel, the nation's) is free.