http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAOVFloe9OBom5n5s2Q71upc2EoQD8UOBGFG1

The Pentagon announced today that they have indicted six Guantanamo detainees for the 9/11 attacks and will seek the death penalty.

Why now? Why not in 2007, 2006, 2006, 2004, or 2003? Why the delay? Has new evidence come to light? The timing - in an election year, when this public trial (it's not a secret trial) will keep reminding America of that terrible day, perhaps playing into John McCain's coming campaign as he no doubt will push the "tough on terror" issue.

Why not wait until 2009? This stinks.

And has anyone noticed that this is an about-face from the Bush Administration's long opposition to "fighting terror with indictments?" They used to say that Clinton screwed up because he challenged terrorists in the courts while they would go on the offensive with the military. And yet here they are...with trials, just like Clinton.

Andrew

See? Yet another time in which Republicans fought against what was right, only to eventually cave; Trials.

But don't worry, they'll find a way to fuck it up. Mark my words. Something rediculous will be required or given or Bush will say something to piss someone off just because he's kinda, you know, that way.

Because the courts have ruled, they must be charged or released, thanks to the liberal lawyers. In past wars POW's were kept until the end of the war, or longer. Russia kept German POWSs for from 5 to 10 years, France and Britan for 2 years after the surrender of Germany in WWII.

So Gitmo detainees are POWs?

And Nwokie, don't you want to get to the truth? If the best means of that is by a trial, what's the problem?

Since they wern't wearing uniforms, or other indicator of a legal army, they are illegal conbatents, which can also be held until the end of hostilities, but can also be charged with being criminals, like the SS or gestapo were.

Nwokie, Bush declared the war was over a year after it started, so I guess those guys can go free, since they are not POWs.

Nwokie, don't you want to get to the truth? Or are you convinced that everyone in Gitmo is guilty?

No, He declared the Iraqi war was over, which ir was when the Iraqi govt surrendered.

The detainees are part of the war on terror, mainly led by Al Queda, when Germany surrendered, there was still a war with Japan.

Yeah, hey, Chuck, we are talking about today and NOW. Stay focused.

Do you want to get to the truth or not? Or do you believe that everyone in Gitmo is guilty?

I want the truth.

See, that was easy.

"Since they wern't wearing uniforms, or other indicator of a legal army, they are illegal conbatents"

Just like Blackwater.

They are whatever we will call them, and we will do anything we want to them.

This is what fuels hatred towards the US. Just imagine if China had a group of US Citizens held hostage and never charged? Oh wait, I forgot, that was what happened in Iran. I seem to remember the US not liking it very much.

I would think this would be a classic do as I say and not as I do kind of thing.

We have principles and a process that says how we are gonna do stuff. We entered into agreements with others, who expect us to abide by that.

Now, it's all completely and totally arbitrary, and that's just not a place of good standing for us. If it's back to tit-for-tat handling of these matters, then we've lost a whole lot more than we think we have.

Hypothetically:

In whispered grunting behind the lead lined doors of his bathroom, Dick Cheney sets down his Farmer's Almanac and says to himself,

"The only way to ensure that folks stay scared is to put the bait out there for another attack. We just hold those guys until we need them, no matter how long, and then roll out the trials when the timing is just perfect. Goddamn Dick, that is just genius. You know, sometimes you really surprise me."

With a chuckle, he slaps his thigh, wipes his butt and wanders to his bedroom. It is 2003.

Vitalogy writes:
They are whatever we will call them, and we will do anything we want to them.

This is what fuels hatred towards the US. Just imagine if China had a group of US Citizens held hostage and never charged? Oh wait, I forgot, that was what happened in Iran. I seem to remember the US not liking it very much.

Uh, I wouldn't go as far as comparing the innocent American hostages in Iran in 1979 to terrorists who most assuredly were integral to the 9/11 plots. At least, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we are fairly sure was no boy scout. I don't doubt these are very bad guys. I am not cynical enough that I think the Pentagon would manufacturer evidence against innocent people.

What I want to see are fair trials - not timed suspiciously to a presidential election.

Andrew

Exactly.

The timing stinks to high hell and it puts our nation at risk.

"No, He declared the Iraqi war was over, which ir was when the Iraqi govt surrendered.

The detainees are part of the war on terror, mainly led by Al Queda, when Germany surrendered, there was still a war with Japan."

Here's the legal sticking point though, Nwokie.

We are not, nor have we ever been, officially at war with Iraq. Congress never formally declared war. President Bush never formally signed a declaration of war.

This is were it gets sticky as far as the Geneva Convention. This brings it under OUR jurisdiction, and isn't it illegal for the United States to detain and incarcerate a person without being formally charged? What about the Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial?

Once again, the Bush administration is using the Constitution as toilet paper, when they aren't too busy trying to write bigotry into it.

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!

I REPEAT!!!!! IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!

Andrew, I'm not comparing the hostages in Iran with the prisoners of Gitmo in relationship to what they are classified as. My point is that Iran could have made up any excuse to do what they did and justify it, just like the US has. Now, I agree with you that those in Gitmo are certainly not boy scouts, but in the eyes of the country where these guys are from, we are holding them hostage without a trial.

Constitution only applies if their held on US soil, GITMO, is Cuban soil, so complain to Castro.

This war is different from any other war, we're facing an enemy that is not clearly defined. also the enemy makes no attempt to follow either accepted standards of war, or the written rules contained in various treaties.

Anywhere the U.S. has a base is considered U.S. soil for legal purposes, otherwise a soldier could be tried by the Germans for a crime committed at a U.S. base in Germany.

Nope, we have a SOF, "Status of Forces" treaty with Germany, which gives the US the right to try any soldier acused of a civilian crime.

OK, if Gitmo is Cuban property, why can't Castro visit when he feels like?

The bases in Panama were U.S. property until turned over to the Panamanian government.