Andrew McCarthy tells Holder to stick it

[drgnbkr]

Lengthy but very good read. Please tell me where his logic is flawed?

Andrew McCarthy's Letter to Attorney General Holder
May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamodetainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from theUnited States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

[15Adragon]

I like what Newt is saying. He thinks it is a great idea to release and review ALL of the letters and information for the past 16 years and have a healthy and thorough review. It seems that Mr Holder wrote a good number of letters while in the Clinton administration. Those would be interesting reading.

[drgnbkr]

This whole obama administration fails the logic test on most major issues, IMO. This letter from McCarthy, who spent 25 years in the justice department exposes the idiocy of simply releasing the gitmo terrorists for political reasons.

[15Adragon]

This whole obama administration fails the logic test on most major issues, IMO. This letter from McCarthy, who spent 25 years in the justice department exposes the idiocy of simply releasing the gitmo terrorists for political reasons.

Yes, he does.

I bet we end up putting them in a red state. ;)

That will show us. :eek:

[drgnbkr]

Yes, he does.

I bet we end up putting them in a red state. ;)

That will show us. :eek:

We have met the enemy and it are us!

[drgnbkr]

So, no one has a rebuttal to what he is saying?

[Bobcat81]

So, no one has a rebuttal to what he is saying?

Just got done reading..

Thanks for posting this masterpiece of a response letter! I could almost hear McCarthy's glove smacking Holders clueless cranial compartment sqaure between the eyes. And deservedly so..

I have to agree. Releasing these jihadists after what they have done is IMO, a clear act of treason against the United States and it's people. If McCarthy is anywhere near as infuriated with this administration of "Change" as i am, he might be well on his way to buttering his legal frying pan. We could only hope. :notworthy

[drgnbkr]

Just got done reading..

Thanks for posting this masterpiece of a response letter! I could almost hear McCarthy's glove smacking Holders clueless cranial compartment sqaure between the eyes. And deservedly so..

I have to agree. Releasing these jihadists after what they have done is IMO, a clear act of treason against the United States and it's people. If McCarthy is anywhere near as infuriated with this administration of "Change" as i am, he might be well on his way to buttering his legal frying pan. We could only hope. :notworthy

I found this today and it best says what I feel...We are in a world of hurt with this bunch of goofballs running things and it took a lot of courage for him to write this. I wish the conservatives would man up and start speaking their mind against this runaway fupuck of an administration!

[Firebird]

I found this today and it best says what I feel...We are in a world of hurt with this bunch of goofballs running things and it took a lot of courage for him to write this. I wish the conservatives would man up and start speaking their mind against this runaway fupuck of an administration!

Why?

[drgnbkr]

Why?

Pretty obvious..telling the atty gen and the worthless president that their show of a panel is BS. These idiots want to just dump these terrorists out on the street in the US and they've already made up there minds to do so. The so called panel is just for show. Did you read it?

[Firebird]

Pretty obvious..telling the atty gen and the worthless president that their show of a panel is BS. These idiots want to just dump these terrorists out on the street in the US and they've already made up there minds to do so. The so called panel is just for show. Did you read it?

I read it. Regardless of what you think, I am not sure why it took so much courage. People all over the nation talk about the President in just such terms.

The letter (which obviously got out somehow) has now been read on Rush Limbaugh's show (heaps of praise), Hannity's show (heaps of praise), is already flying around the interwebs and is no doubt clogging up emails nationwide, and McCarthy will almost without a doubt be making guest appearances and possibly speaking engagements soon.

He also might get a bit of hate mail, which will be far outweighed by the stacks of grateful conservatives writing him.

Why did it take courage for him to basically do what millions of conservative critics of the president do every day?

[drgnbkr]

I read it. Regardless of what you think, I am not sure why it took so much courage. People all over the nation talk about the President in just such terms.

The letter (which obviously got out somehow) has now been read on Rush Limbaugh's show (heaps of praise), Hannity's show (heaps of praise), is already flying around the interwebs and is no doubt clogging up emails nationwide, and McCarthy will almost without a doubt be making guest appearances and possibly speaking engagements soon.

He also might get a bit of hate mail, which will be far outweighed by the stacks of grateful conservatives writing him.

Why did it take courage for him to basically do what millions of conservative critics of the president do every day?

Again, I'm simply asking if anyone has a rebuttal to the substance of the letter. This isn't some crusade by Rush or Hanity or anyone else. This is a position taken by someone who worked in the justice dept for 25 years. Is there anything flawed in the logic of his position? Brave because of the direct language used, which we hear too little of.

[DragonWatcher]

Pretty obvious..telling the atty gen and the worthless president that their show of a panel is BS. These idiots want to just dump these terrorists out on the street in the US and they've already made up there minds to do so. The so called panel is just for show. Did you read it?

If you can't prove someone is terrorist then you shouldn't be able to hold them indefinitely. Innocent until guilty or something like that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that administration is letting actual proven terrorists go. Calling a man a terrorist repeatedly doesn't necessarily make him one.

[drgnbkr]

If you can't prove someone is terrorist then you shouldn't be able to hold them indefinitely. Innocent until guilty or something like that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that administration is letting actual proven terrorists go. Calling a man a terrorist repeatedly doesn't necessarily make him one.

Capturing them on the battlefield pretty much validates it. Do you think they just guess as to whether they are terrorists? The fact is one of the released detainees is now the top Taliban leader in Afghanistan. The administration is proposing exactly what you say, turning them loose in the US.

[DragonWatcher]

Capturing them on the battlefield pretty much validates it. Do you think they just guess as to whether they are terrorists? The fact is one of the released detainees is now the top Taliban leader in Afghanistan. The administration is proposing exactly what you say, turning them loose in the US.

I agree if all of these men were captured on the battlefield but many were not and the ones who were probably aren't the ones going free using conventional logic. Many men have wound up abducted in raids from their homes based on "tips" by neighbors, all it takes is a grudge for a miss guided tip. Some men there are innocent as former BUSH administration officials have stated previously.

[drgnbkr]

I agree if all of these men were captured on the battlefield but many were not and the ones who were probably aren't the ones going free using conventional logic. Many men have wound up abducted in raids from their homes based on "tips" by neighbors, all it takes is a grudge for a miss guided tip. Some men there are innocent as former BUSH administration officials have stated previously.

Right..innocent terrorists held in gitmo! Poor things! You heard it here first..Maybe you have room at your place for them..I don't want them in my country.

[Bobcat81]

I agree if all of these men were captured on the battlefield but many were not and the ones who were probably aren't the ones going free using conventional logic. Many men have wound up abducted in raids from their homes based on "tips" by neighbors, all it takes is a grudge for a miss guided tip. Some men there are innocent as former BUSH administration officials have stated previously.

So i guess according to your "conventional logic", a dope dealer isn't really a dope dealer unless he's actually caught on the street dealing dope?? Oh, never mind he's in bed sleeping at the moment.. so i guess he's not a dope dealer at the moment..just a dreamer. :rolleyes: How bout a Drug Lord? Don't suppose you'll see him out on the street corner peddling his powder, but according to your logic, he's innocent because he's not in the direct act of selling it on th street??? :rolleyes:

Thank God we at least HAD an administration in place before the current, that didn't use this kind of "conventional logic" to understand that a terrorist doesn't necessarily have to be captured in the act of fighting on the front lines to know he's still a terrorist.

To know people actually have this kind of blind reasoning is really..and i mean REALLY scary! :rolleyes:

[Bobcat81]

Right..innocent terrorists held in gitmo! Poor things! You heard it here first..Maybe you have room at your place for them..I don't want them in my country.


Seems we have just as much to worry about from our own citizens born & raised right here in our own country as we do these terrorists.

Kinda makes you just shake your head in disgust doesn't it?

[DragonWatcher]

So i guess according to your "conventional logic", a dope dealer isn't really a dope dealer unless he's actually caught on the street dealing dope?? Oh, never mind he's in bed sleeping at the moment.. so i guess he's not a dope dealer at the moment..just a dreamer. :rolleyes: How bout a Drug Lord? Don't suppose you'll see him out on the street corner peddling his powder, but according to your logic, he's innocent because he's not in the direct act of selling it on th street??? :rolleyes:

Thank God we at least HAD an administration in place before the current, that didn't use this kind of "conventional logic" to understand that a terrorist doesn't necessarily have to be captured in the act of fighting on the front lines to know he's still a terrorist.

To know people actually have this kind of blind reasoning is really..and i mean REALLY scary! :rolleyes:

I've never once said anyone like that is innocent. Of course they're still guilty even when not committing the act, but in a nation of laws the police cannot simply barge in, abduct said dealer and obtain him indefinitely without this little thing called EVIDENCE. I'm not advocating letting terrorists go, but first you must prove that a man is actually a terrorist. It's not blind reasoning, its the reasoning of any modern republican/democratic state.

[DragonWatcher]

Seems we have just as much to worry about from our own citizens born & raised right here in our own country as we do these terrorists.

Kinda makes you just shake your head in disgust doesn't it?

Just like rampant approved use of torture makes other citizens shake their head in disgust

[drgnbkr]

I've never once said anyone like that is innocent. Of course they're still guilty even when not committing the act, but in a nation of laws the police cannot simply barge in, abduct said dealer and obtain him indefinitely without this little thing called EVIDENCE. I'm not advocating letting terrorists go, but first you must prove that a man is actually a terrorist. It's not blind reasoning, its the reasoning of any modern republican/democratic state.

There is no court of law for terrorists..when you pick them up on the battlefield with weapons aimed at our troops they are guilty of being an enemy combatant...they have no constitutional rights period, end of story...Sadly with drug dealers you have to bend over backwards these days to insure you are not offending the poor darling..not so with enemy combatants which the gitmo slime is.

[JOH]

There is no court of law for terrorists..when you pick them up on the battlefield with weapons aimed at our troops they are guilty of being an enemy combatant...they have no constitutional rights period, end of story...Sadly with drug dealers you have to bend over backwards these days to insure you are not offending the poor darling..not so with enemy combatants which the gitmo slime is.

However, they do have human rights, which (in a civilized society) would ensure them at least their safety (in terms of health and life) as long as they remained non-hostile after capture.

[drgnbkr]

However, they do have human rights, which (in a civilized society) would ensure them at least their safety (in terms of health and life) as long as they remained non-hostile after capture.

Thats true..that is why gitmo is known as a country club type prison..these guys have never lived in such clean conditions, or eaten as well...And one of the guys they released went straight to Afghanistan and is a leader there now trgeting our guys.

[JOH]

Thats true..that is why gitmo is known as a country club type prison..these guys have never lived in such clean conditions, or eaten as well...And one of the guys they released went straight to Afghanistan and is a leader there now trgeting our guys.

Hmm...You've must have never seen Harold and Kumar escape from GB...

Ever seen the movie, Rendition? It had that one guy...uh...from Brokeback Mountain. See it.

I remember their being a prison overseas that took their prisoners and made them line up naked, and get in homosexual positions while the guards took pictures.

Ever heard of Abu Ghraib?

Here, enlighten yourself. WARNING: NASTY :Censor:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abu_Ghraib_53.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg

[DragonWatcher]

There is no court of law for terrorists..when you pick them up on the battlefield with weapons aimed at our troops they are guilty of being an enemy combatant...they have no constitutional rights period, end of story...Sadly with drug dealers you have to bend over backwards these days to insure you are not offending the poor darling..not so with enemy combatants which the gitmo slime is.

And if they were picked up in that manner I agree they should not be released. Many in Guantanimo were not picked up on the battlefield with weapons aimed at our troops. While they don't have constitutional rights they still have basic human rights, one that indefinite detention violates.

[Mong Hu]

Lengthy but very good read. Please tell me where his logic is flawed?


Good letter, well worth the read.

[Bobcat81]

I've never once said anyone like that is innocent. Of course they're still guilty even when not committing the act, but in a nation of laws the police cannot simply barge in, abduct said dealer and obtain him indefinitely without this little thing called EVIDENCE. I'm not advocating letting terrorists go, but first you must prove that a man is actually a terrorist. It's not blind reasoning, its the reasoning of any modern republican/democratic state.

Do you know what evidence the U.S. had to rightfully go in and arrest these suspected terrorists? No, i don't think you do. Nor do I. I would suspect that we used a heck of a lot of intelligence (just like we would in a case against a Drug Lord) to go after a certain person or persons. Believe me, some Colonel, and even the General in charge of such an operation isn't going to risk his career to go run a raid based soley on hearsay. It takes weeks and sometimes months..even years in some cases, to review what intel has gathered to determine whether a subject is worthy of someplace like GITMO.

If you're after someone high up the chain in a terrorist organization, he's going to have "safe houses" and other places he trusts are no threat to him of being captured or killed. Those places have to be maintained by people worthy of his trust and therefor have a strong affiliation with what his objectives are and his affliliations. He is NOT going to have some sheepherder from some far off field (who he doesn't know & trust) to guard this safe house.

So we find out this is a safe house after weeks & months of gathering intel, through satelite photos, spy drones, listening in on phone convos, emails, texts (yes we can do that because it all travels through airspace), hand written notes captured on messengers, and "other" information considered worthy that correspond to what you know.

We go raid this safe house and find all these guys with all these weapons and within a few hours, we find out which one is the leader that maintains that safe house.. The "boss".. the one person in charge who's closest to the next guy up the chain of command. We separate that guy from the rest and find out if he is actually the guy running the show. If we can crack him, we have a very good chance of finding someone that knows even more.. and possibly the one we're ultimately after.

Now, based on that little scenario, don't you think we should be taking extra steps to detain that "boss" in a secure environment, safe from possible escape, and without fear of outsde influences? I say, You betcha!

[mojotrain]

We have met the enemy and it are us!

"and they is us!" From POGO.

[mojotrain]

Why?

I thought you might at least address some point in the letter that roughed up one of your red heros, not the opinion of a poster that it took courage to write the letter.

[DragonWatcher]

Do you know what evidence the U.S. had to rightfully go in and arrest these suspected terrorists? No, i don't think you do. Nor do I. I would suspect that we used a heck of a lot of intelligence (just like we would in a case against a Drug Lord) to go after a certain person or persons. Believe me, some Colonel, and even the General in charge of such an operation isn't going to risk his career to go run a raid based soley on hearsay. It takes weeks and sometimes months..even years in some cases, to review what intel has gathered to determine whether a subject is worthy of someplace like GITMO.

If you're after someone high up the chain in a terrorist organization, he's going to have "safe houses" and other places he trusts are no threat to him of being captured or killed. Those places have to be maintained by people worthy of his trust and therefor have a strong affiliation with what his objectives are and his affliliations. He is NOT going to have some sheepherder from some far off field (who he doesn't know & trust) to guard this safe house.

So we find out this is a safe house after weeks & months of gathering intel, through satelite photos, spy drones, listening in on phone convos, emails, texts (yes we can do that because it all travels through airspace), hand written notes captured on messengers, and "other" information considered worthy that correspond to what you know.

We go raid this safe house and find all these guys with all these weapons and within a few hours, we find out which one is the leader that maintains that safe house.. The "boss".. the one person in charge who's closest to the next guy up the chain of command. We separate that guy from the rest and find out if he is actually the guy running the show. If we can crack him, we have a very good chance of finding someone that knows even more.. and possibly the one we're ultimately after.

Now, based on that little scenario, don't you think we should be taking extra steps to detain that "boss" in a secure environment, safe from possible escape, and without fear of outsde influences? I say, You betcha!

I know how safe houses and terrorist organizations work. Even in that situation it still doesn't justify torture. The problem is there has to be some judicial process or or at least military tribunal to determine that the prisoners are in fact guilty. I don't trust the government to do things the right way after abu gharib and the fact that the cia has killed terror suspects while interrogating them. You have to have some form of accountability in the process otherwise big brother just gets to run rampant with this power.

[Firebird]

I agree if all of these men were captured on the battlefield but many were not and the ones who were probably aren't the ones going free using conventional logic. Many men have wound up abducted in raids from their homes based on "tips" by neighbors, all it takes is a grudge for a miss guided tip. Some men there are innocent as former BUSH administration officials have stated previously.

Only about 5% of the people who ended up at GITMO were arrested by U.S. forces. The vast majority of them were handed over to us by either Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan or by the Pakistanis. Most of them were handed over for ransoms and we accepted them as terrorists/Taliban based solely on the testimony of the Pakistanis or Afghanis.

Something that is 100 percent true, but that you won't hear on Rush or Hannity. To hear them tell it, every single guy there was picked up by U.S. Marines after a firefight.

[Firebird]

There is no court of law for terrorists..when you pick them up on the battlefield with weapons aimed at our troops they are guilty of being an enemy combatant...they have no constitutional rights period, end of story...Sadly with drug dealers you have to bend over backwards these days to insure you are not offending the poor darling..not so with enemy combatants which the gitmo slime is.

I think I will trust the opinion of SCOTUS (dominated by R-appointed justices) over internet posters and Rush.

[Firebird]

Do you know what evidence the U.S. had to rightfully go in and arrest these suspected terrorists? No, i don't think you do. Nor do I. I would suspect that we used a heck of a lot of intelligence (just like we would in a case against a Drug Lord) to go after a certain person or persons. Believe me, some Colonel, and even the General in charge of such an operation isn't going to risk his career to go run a raid based soley on hearsay. It takes weeks and sometimes months..even years in some cases, to review what intel has gathered to determine whether a subject is worthy of someplace like GITMO.

If you're after someone high up the chain in a terrorist organization, he's going to have "safe houses" and other places he trusts are no threat to him of being captured or killed. Those places have to be maintained by people worthy of his trust and therefor have a strong affiliation with what his objectives are and his affliliations. He is NOT going to have some sheepherder from some far off field (who he doesn't know & trust) to guard this safe house.

So we find out this is a safe house after weeks & months of gathering intel, through satelite photos, spy drones, listening in on phone convos, emails, texts (yes we can do that because it all travels through airspace), hand written notes captured on messengers, and "other" information considered worthy that correspond to what you know.

We go raid this safe house and find all these guys with all these weapons and within a few hours, we find out which one is the leader that maintains that safe house.. The "boss".. the one person in charge who's closest to the next guy up the chain of command. We separate that guy from the rest and find out if he is actually the guy running the show. If we can crack him, we have a very good chance of finding someone that knows even more.. and possibly the one we're ultimately after.

Now, based on that little scenario, don't you think we should be taking extra steps to detain that "boss" in a secure environment, safe from possible escape, and without fear of outsde influences? I say, You betcha!

In most cases the U.S. had no evidence and the U.S. did not even arrest the people.

[Firebird]

So i guess according to your "conventional logic", a dope dealer isn't really a dope dealer unless he's actually caught on the street dealing dope?? Oh, never mind he's in bed sleeping at the moment.. so i guess he's not a dope dealer at the moment..just a dreamer. :rolleyes: How bout a Drug Lord? Don't suppose you'll see him out on the street corner peddling his powder, but according to your logic, he's innocent because he's not in the direct act of selling it on th street??? :rolleyes:

Thank God we at least HAD an administration in place before the current, that didn't use this kind of "conventional logic" to understand that a terrorist doesn't necessarily have to be captured in the act of fighting on the front lines to know he's still a terrorist.

To know people actually have this kind of blind reasoning is really..and i mean REALLY scary! :rolleyes:

To me, what is scary is that we have lots of Americans that blindly trust the Pakistani special forces and the United Islamic Front of Afghanistan to give us the right guys...:)

[drgnbkr]

To me, what is scary is that we have lots of Americans that blindly trust the Pakistani special forces and the United Islamic Front of Afghanistan to give us the right guys...:)

What is scary is that you post that on here expecting anyone to believe it. And remind us what Rush has to with the terrorists being held in Gitmo?

[Firebird]

What is scary is that you post that on here expecting anyone to believe it. And remind us what Rush has to with the terrorists being held in Gitmo?

The great thing about my posting...is that you don't have to believe me. I offer evidence, like this report based on the U.S. government's (DoD) own documents about the people held at GITMO:

http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

[DragonWatcher]

The great thing about my posting...is that you don't have to believe me. I offer evidence, like this report based on the U.S. government's (DoD) own documents about the people held at GITMO:

http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

Careful facts can be quite the b!&W@. Wonder what wonderful responses this will invoke. Maybe if someone can see this my thoughts for judicial oversight will seem more applicable now.

[Firebird]

Lengthy but very good read. Please tell me where his logic is flawed?



For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.


Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

Since you claim you are interested in knowing where his logic is wrong, I have pointed out exactly where it went wrong. Mr. McCarthy (would be interesting to know if he is any relation...) states flatly he assumes that all of the people we are talking about are indeed alien terrorists.

He believes that the purpose of the "hybrid" system should not be to determine whether or not the people are actually guilty of what we claim they are guilty of, but only to "assure" us that they are. It reminds me of nothing so much as the old Soviet show trials.

This is appalling logic for someone who is a lawyer. It is obviously the case that plenty of the people held at GITMO were not detained by U.S. forces at the point of a gun, but rather were handed over by Pakistani special forces, the Northern Alliance, or simply disgruntled neighbors who were assured rewards of thousands of dollars for presenting a terrorist or Taliban. Thus, at the very least, any trial or process' main goal should not be to "assure" me that we have the right person, but to actually determine each person's guilt or innocence.

[Firebird]

Careful facts can be quite the b!&W@. Wonder what wonderful responses this will invoke. Maybe if someone can see this my thoughts for judicial oversight will seem more applicable now.

I can assure you that drgnbkr will summarily dismiss this and refuse to admit that anything inside the report is true, despite its being gleaned from DoD sources, and despite the fact that a former US DoJ attorney (who is still in favor of military tribunals and the GITMO prison, and who believes that the SCOTUS decisions were wrongheaded) has confirmed to me that it is indeed correct.

[elkfbfan]

Is this the same Andrew McCarthy that starred in "Pretty in Pink"?

[slcdragonfan]

Thats true..that is why gitmo is known as a country club type prison..these guys have never lived in such clean conditions, or eaten as well...And one of the guys they released went straight to Afghanistan and is a leader there now trgeting our guys.

When was he released and by what administration?

[drgnbkr]

When was he released and by what administration?

I'm sorry, i don't understand the relevance of your question. McCarthy's point is that we don't need to be turning these guys loose in the US, or anywhere else for that matter..I don't care who releases them.

[drgnbkr]

I can assure you that drgnbkr will summarily dismiss this and refuse to admit that anything inside the report is true, despite its being gleaned from DoD sources, and despite the fact that a former US DoJ attorney (who is still in favor of military tribunals and the GITMO prison, and who believes that the SCOTUS decisions were wrongheaded) has confirmed to me that it is indeed correct.

Sorry, I'm out of town and have been unable to respond as quickly as I would like. Since you seem to want to get personal with it bird, I base my opinions on a lot of sources which include guy's who have been on the battlefield, and some who have worked the duty down at gitmo. According to the folks who have been in both places, the detainees are the worst of the worst..the type that throw their own crap in your face if you aren't looking, the type that will bite you if you aren't careful and hang on until a teammate is able to pry them off and get them back in the cell, those type of stellar human beings...And as to how they got there, you can parse words all you'd like but the US troops who work with the afghan and Iraqi guys, take these guys in and process them through the system and the worst arrive in gitmo, where they have been detained outside the US system as they should be...IMO. I could cut and paste also, but again, I am posting an opinion based on being a vet, talking with guys who have been there and it is only an opinion..we do get to have those with the new regime...right? Are there absolutes in the things we are discussing? IMO there are not always. You seem to think so, which I do not fault you for...do not fault me for having an opinion..deal?