CIA Detainees Will Get More Sunshine While Visiting Club Gitmo
Posted on September 6, 2006
Today, President Bush placed his largest public wager in the war on terror. The uniformed military, except the JAG types (many are ACLU members), applaud the Administration today. They heard our voices and we are appreciative.
The dead tree media is incorrectly leading with the faux headline “CIA Detainees Will Get Prisoner-of-War Status.” Well, “duh” of course they are going to get whatever status the misguided US Supreme Court dictates. An equally valid headline would be “CIA Detainees Will Get More Sunshine While Visiting Club Gitmo.”
Does anyone want these dregs of humanity to remain in secret CIA custody forever? Of course not!!! I want them shot or hung, after a jury of my peers finds them guilty!!
This is simply Step One In The Path To A Hanging. Step two is buying the rope. The President understands this and the media does not get it.
In this high stakes game where the President, now aligned with the House of Representatives, goes against the US Senate and the likes of McCain, Warner and Grahem, we now have a poster face in demanding that the Senate adopt the position of the Administration and the House.
Speech Transcript is HERE. Key excerpts, in my opinion:
“The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation, they defend no territory, and they wear no uniform.”
“The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorist at any given time. And once we have determined that the terrorists held by the CIA have little or no additional intelligence value, many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments. Others have been accused of terrible crimes against the American people, and we have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice. So we intend to prosecute these men, as appropriate, for their crimes.”
“Military commissions have been used by presidents from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt to prosecute war criminals because the rules for trying enemy combatants in a time of conflict must be different from those for trying common criminals or members of our own military.”
“The procedures in the bill I am sending to Congress today reflect the reality that we are a nation at war and that it is essential for us to use all reliable evidence to bring these people to justice.”
Why are those particular excerpts important? The first one is “code” that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these individuals. It is pulled directly from military training guides. The second quote is important is that the CIA program remains alive and well. Only after the CIA has used up an unlawful combatant, will they be transferred to the DOD. The last two quotes are the Administration telling Warner, Grahem and McCain to pound sand.
How many days left in this legislative session? I thought I heard 19 before the election. Remember, every day that the Senate dithers is a day where Justice for the American People has been denied.
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “CIA Detainees Will Get More Sunshine While Visiting Club Gitmo”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
No, I dont want them to have a trial by a jury of peers. Remember what happened with O J?
“This is simply Step One In The Path To A Hanging. Step two is buying the rope.”
Glad to see you support the concepts of justice and due process.
Since they get the Geneva Convention protections, it also means that they can be tried for not abiding by those same conventions. Its a two-edged sword that the detainees can apparently only see one edge of.
They were not given Geneva Convention protections. This was just Bush’s way of getting Congress to pass legislation for military tribunals.
I am wondering, Oak Leaf, why you feel any trials are necessary at all. It is quite clear that you are not the least bit interested in justice, and want only revenge.
Why not advocate the immediate execution of all the prisoners? It would seem that only that would truly slake your bloodlust.
Meatbrain:
Technically, the rules the Geneva Conventions ascribe for the treatment of combatants with no uniform, no recognized rank structure, and not fighting in the military of a recognized nation is very specific: they are supposed to be subjected to military tribunals in the field- the equivalent of a field court martial. The rules were originally written for dealing with spies, but they describe the jihadi prisoners at Gitmo as well. The usual penalty, as was applied by both the Axis and Allies during World War II, was execution.
The jihad prisoners should meet the exact justice they made a personal choice to sign-up-for.
Unfortunately for most the recognized justice is execution…I only hope that the ACLU lawyers can abstain from molesting children with their NAMBLA friends long enough to represent these cowards too.
Draven32,
Protocol I, Part III, Section II, Article 45 states:
“Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol.”
Article 75 of this Protocol then states:
“No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure.”
Bush’s Military Tribunals don’t qualify as a “regularly constituted court”.
A ‘regularly constituted court’, to the military, is a court martial, not a civilian court.
Also, Protocol I, Article Four reads:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The Taliban and Al-Queda prisoners do NOT fullfill these conditions.
And if they ARE prisoners of war, then they do not have to be released until hostilities are over. Considering that Al-Queda and the Taliban both continue to attack our soldiers, the hostilities are not over and they can be detained until hostilities are over (That is stated in the last section of the Conventions)
Draven32:
1. While Military Courts are a ‘regularly constituted court’, they are not the same as Bush’s Military Tribunals.
2. I never claimed that the Taliban and Al-Queda are prisoners of war, that is why I quoted Article 45 instead of Article 4.
Oak Leaf,
“except the JAG types (many are ACLU members), ”
I have two questions. First Can you prove this accusation? Second is, are those that are members guilty of treason because the ACLU is in partnership with a foreign government (The United Nations)?
If they are not guilty then their loyalty is certainly compromised.