Bernie supporters: He wins and the Democrats take back the Senate, then ...

[columbus]

The law does not allow them to be transferred to the US.

She is not Obama.
As Secretary of State she kept a private email server in the bathroom of her second (or third) home. What makes you think that as Commander in Chief she won't get things done? Like closing Gitmo?
Tom

 

[esmith]

She is not Obama.
As Secretary of State she kept a private email server in the bathroom of her second (or third) home. What makes you think that as Commander in Chief she won't get things done? Like closing Gitmo?
Tom

Still haven't answered the question on what she will do with the detainees. Or can you answer it?

 

[freethinker44]

Still haven't answered the question on what she will do with the detainees. Or can you answer it?

I know she supports closing it, but as far as I know she hasn't said what she would do with Guantanamo Bay or it's prisoners. What I would like to see done is to have prisoners released or formally charged with a crime if they haven't been convicted of anything, and convicted prisoners transferred to a proper prison facility, either in the US or where ever they've committed their crimes.

 

[Revoltingest]

She is not Obama.
As Secretary of State she kept a private email server in the bathroom of her second (or third) home. What makes you think that as Commander in Chief she won't get things done? Like closing Gitmo?
Tom

I think she'd be very effective at getting things done.....increasing secrecy,
increasing domestic surveillance, attacking Iran, increasing spending, etc.

 

[Apex]

I think she'd be very effective at getting things done.....increasing secrecy,
increasing domestic surveillance, attacking Iran, increasing spending, etc.

She is not, however, very effective at handling classified information.

 

[Revoltingest]

She is not, however, very effective at handling classified information.

I don't see that as much of a problem for a prez.
And especially with her history, her managers would carefully plan info security.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I think much will depend on whether a President Sanders can mobilize mass support for his policies.

So much, to my mind, would depend on how effectively he can mobilize mass support for his policies.

This is key. And that has been his focus from the start. When Sanders was interviewed on ABC a couple months before he officially decided to run, to the reporter who told Sanders that most people didn't believe he could become president, he famously responded, "Don't underestimate me." I predicted at that very moment that he would run and rise to front-runner status alongside Hillary, and today I stand here unsurprised at the success of his run. I'll make another prediction: if Sanders gets the Whitehouse, he will continue to engage Americans and make an attempt to rally support for the issues. What effect that will have, I do not know.

 

[metis]

Still haven't answered the question on what she will do with the detainees. Or can you answer it?

Don't know, but here's what I would recommend: tell Congress either to have the detainees come here to be put on trial or we'll just release them back to the countries they came from. Or, to put it another way, "put up or shut up". There's simply no reason to hold them for this long without trial, and we'd be upset if another country did it to our captured troops, and they have and we have.

 

[BSM1]

Don't know, but here's what I would recommend: tell Congress either to have the detainees come here to be put on trial or we'll just release them back to the countries they came from. Or, to put it another way, "put up or shut up". There's simply no reason to hold them for this long without trial, and we'd be upset if another country did it to our captured troops, and they have and we have.

"Troops" can be held for the duration of any conflict without trial. These people in Gitmo are not civil criminals with constitutional rights, they are combatants or suspected combatants that have, or probably will, kill more US troops (without trial) if released.

 

[metis]

"Troops" can be held for the duration of any conflict without trial. These people in Gitmo are not civil criminals with constitutional rights, they are combatants or suspected combatants that have, or probably will, kill more US troops (without trial) if released.

That is besides the point, the point being we wouldn't put up with it, so it's hypocritical for us to do what we condemn when our troops have been handled in a similar manner.

 

[esmith]

Don't know, but here's what I would recommend: tell Congress either to have the detainees come here to be put on trial or we'll just release them back to the countries they came from. Or, to put it another way, "put up or shut up". There's simply no reason to hold them for this long without trial, and we'd be upset if another country did it to our captured troops, and they have and we have.

First their countries don't want them back. Second, they have no constitutional rights. Third they are enemy combatants you can hold them as long as the "war" is in progress. Forth, the main reason you can not put them on trial, especially a civilian trial is inadmissibility of evidence or even lack of evidence under the US criminal court laws. You and others seem to be fixated on "trial". When were enemy combatants ever put on trial for just being enemy combatants?

 

[freethinker44]

First their countries don't want them back. Second, they have no constitutional rights. Third they are enemy combatants you can hold them as long as the "war" is in progress. Forth, the main reason you can not put them on trial, especially a civilian trial is inadmissibility of evidence or even lack of evidence under the US criminal court laws. You and others seem to be fixated on "trial". When were enemy combatants ever put on trial for just being enemy combatants?

Is the US at war with any countries right now?

 

[esmith]

Is the US at war with any countries right now?

No, but they can be classified as "enemy combatants"

 

[metis]

First their countries don't want them back. Second, they have no constitutional rights. Third they are enemy combatants you can hold them as long as the "war" is in progress. Forth, the main reason you can not put them on trial, especially a civilian trial is inadmissibility of evidence or even lack of evidence under the US criminal court laws. You and others seem to be fixated on "trial". When were enemy combatants ever put on trial for just being enemy combatants?

First of all, some of them simply weren't "enemy combatants" unless one wants to extend that definition to anyone that happened to associate with some who might have been. This is what a trial can determine.

Secondly, whether their countries want them back is irrelevant.

Thirdly, I never said they had constitutional rights.

Fourthly, if there's a lack of evidence, then I'd suggest that they should be released.

Fifth, I'm "fixated on trial" because we are "fixated" in this country on making sure we don't incarcerate the wrong people-- that's what trials are for.

And finally, if your son or daughter was being held in a foreign country without trial and who may or may not not have been directly involved in any military action, would you be taking the position you are taking? Hardly, and you know you wouldn't.

For those who support our retaining them without trial when we are technically not at war, think about this. Think about what if it were your son or daughter. Think about what if it was another American held without trial and being detained for over 10 years. And after thinking about it, and if one still disagrees, then at least don't whine when leaders in another country incarcerate Americans without legal process or with a trumped-up legal process.

 

[metis]

No, but they can be classified as "enemy combatants"

Then don't whine if another country just keeps one of our fellow Americans for years and years without trial or with trumped up charges. You have lost any moral position whatsoever to ever whine about how Americans may be detained and prosecuted unfairly.

 

[freethinker44]

No, but they can be classified as "enemy combatants"

If we're not actively engaged in a conflict, the Geneva convention says that we are supposed to free prisoners of war.

 

[columbus]

First of all, some of them simply weren't "enemy combatants" unless one wants to extend that definition to anyone that happened to associate with some who might have been. This is what a trial can determine.

That was true under the Bush administration. But that was years ago. The last remaining Gitmo prisoners would qualify as psychopathic serial killers.
I am basing my opinion on an E7 relative who is based there.
There are not that many left. The last ones really are dangerous people. No country wants them. They have Islam like a disease. They are too extremist for Pakistan.
Tom

 

[metis]

That was true under the Bush administration. But that was years ago. The last remaining Gitmo prisoners would qualify as psychopathic serial killers.
I am basing my opinion on an E7 relative who is based there.
There are not that many left. The last ones really are dangerous people. No country wants them. They have Islam like a disease. They are too extremist for Pakistan.
Tom

Fine, and if we know this with certainty, there should be no problem putting them on trial even if it's done through military courts, although I'm not very familiar with how the military courts operate.

 

[LuisDantas]

That was true under the Bush administration. But that was years ago. The last remaining Gitmo prisoners would qualify as psychopathic serial killers.
I am basing my opinion on an E7 relative who is based there.
There are not that many left. The last ones really are dangerous people. No country wants them. They have Islam like a disease. They are too extremist for Pakistan.
Tom

I don't particularly doubt that, but that by no means makes their continued imprisonment under very questionable justifications acceptable or advisable.

Considering them "enemy combatants" without an actual formally declared conflict is grounds for being paid in kind or even worse.

Call them dangerous psychopats, offer observers from Amnesty International, Congress, other countries and the UN the opportunity to monitor their behavior and requests, relocate them to proper civil, continental facilities instead of relying on questionable claims of military privilege to keep them in the cumbersome situation they currently are. Have mental health evaluations be made and released, have countries request their deportations or rather admit that they are not interested.

 

[esmith]

Fine, and if we know this with certainty, there should be no problem putting them on trial even if it's done through military courts, although I'm not very familiar with how the military courts operate.

What are you going to charge them with? Being Islamic psychopathic serial killers?