Did the US release captured Nazis during WW 2?

[NJmaverick]

These men were captured and held indefinately with out trial. Is this any different from holding captured, and admited, members of terrorist organizations that are at war with the US?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. Did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor?

[Rebubula]

17. Shhh..

...he's on a roll..

[theblasmo]

61. Rock on, Bluto

"And it ain't over now."

[Deja Q]

195. Well, they were in league with the Germans. When you're on the same side, then it becomes relevant.

We can always get a time machine and put such people into it and send them to their country of their choice, circa 1940.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090501064315AAoiTnk

:popcorn:

[ima_sinnic]

55. no they did not

--are people really that clueless about WWII?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

56. What the fuck are you talking about?

Of course, they bombed Pearl Harbor.

[ima_sinnic]

59. the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

62. Fine, believe those lies, but I know the truth

[ima_sinnic]

66. excuse me?

whatever. you have your work cut out for you, rewriting 67 years of history--all those textbooks that have brainwashed students, all those old WWII movies.

how many loonytunes are there like you?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

68. Leave me alone, I'm on a roll

[jobycom]

74. Is it a Kaiser roll?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

75. We call those "hard rolls" here

Commie.

[jobycom]

76. Blutocrat.

[LanternWaste]

78. I'm gonna play a weepy guitar tune on the stairs...

I'm gonna play a weepy guitar tune on the stairs...

Do you thinks that's sensuous? (Or is it sensual?)

[DailyGrind51]

184. Not that "I gave my love a cherry" shit?

[LostinVA]

120. Errr... of course they did -- who the heck says they didn't?!

I was a History major in college, and I'm a HUGE WWII buff. The Nazis did indeed bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942, which action resulted in the entrance of the US into war against Germany.

WWII 101.

[ima_sinnic]

142. oops, sorry, meant to reply to a different post (delete)

[martymar64]

160. And then came the UN

And they Un-nazied the world.

[ima_sinnic]

164. the "Nazis"? don't you mean the Japanese navy? (nt)

[csziggy]

170. Watch Animal House, please, for all our sakes! It will hurt less than this thread

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

:popcorn:

[ima_sinnic]

172. oh, excuse me, I didn't realize I was supposed to recall a movie I saw 30 yrs ago

is this some kind of "camp" thing? Animal House is in revival and I didn't get the in crowd memo?

unfortunately, I'd be willing to bet that vast numbers of Americans believe that Germany bombed Pearl Harbor.

[csziggy]

175. Animal House has become an iconic part of American culture

Just as The Maltese Falcon, Gone With the Wind, and numerous other movies of the last hundred years. If someone in a discussion quotes, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." most Americans would recognize the phrase and the meaning behind it, just as most people still recognize "To be or not to be, that is the question." as a significant from Shakespeare. It is part of the larger culture. I am sorry your cultural education excludes such widely recognized contributions to the culture.

And no, "vast numbers of Americans" do not believe that Germany bombed Pearl Harbor - that is why that quote from Animal House is successful comedy.

[ima_sinnic]

179. you put Animal House in the same league as The Maltese Falcon, Gone With the Wind, & Shakespeare?

you can take your "cultural education" and shove it. Animal House was okay, but low-brow and dumb and certainly not in the same league as Shakespeare and real classics. But be all "in the know" about the really important things, okay? Fill us in on the really great movies like Bachelor Party and Police Academy I-VI. I don't have time and need my "cultural education" improved by a real "expert" and connoisseur of greatness like you.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

189. Actually, Shakespeare's comedy is quite low brow

At least if you understand it.

[SOS]

180. 1942?

[11 Bravo]

127. Ummmmm ... ah, fuck it ... it would take too long.

[AlCzervik]

58. no way, was that the post before the edit?

[ima_sinnic]

69. I guess that "edit" is not going to be made. some people prefer distortion

over facts.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

72. You just can't face the facts...

[11 Bravo]

129. You're killing me here!

[NJmaverick]

125. Yes they do indeed

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

139. Are you saying the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor?

[Eric J in MN]

2. WWII ended. The War on Terror will never end.

There is also the question of whether someone surrendered on a battlefield, wearing a uniform and carrying a rifle, or was captured at home.

[NJmaverick]

5. That would be the terrorist's choice if the war ends or not

They could surrender or simply call a truce

[Eric J in MN]

12. There is no spokesman for all the world's terrorists. NT

NT

[NJmaverick]

29. There are spokes persons for Al Qaeda

If they declare an end to hostilities, there would be a reason to release many.

[Eric J in MN]

47. So if the US government captures a man in his apartment,

...and the executive branch claims he's a member of Al Qaeda, they should be be able to hold him without trial until the day that a spokesperson for Al Qaeda declares a surrender?

[NJmaverick]

53. You didn't read or listen to Obma's speech, did you?

if you did, you would know President Obama proposed nothing of the sort.

Here go read the speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html

[Eric J in MN]

71. Here are the relevant paragraphs.

=======================================================
Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people...

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.
==================================================
He refers to "judicial...oversight" but doesn't mean a trial ("cannot be prosecuted"). He probably means a quick review by a judge.

[NJmaverick]

77. I don't think it's a good idea to edit out the other two paragraphs

The complete passage:


Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

[Eric J in MN]

86. If someone "received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps"

...then put him on trial for supporting terrorists.

Don't hold him without trial.

[NJmaverick]

89. What law would you be prosecuting them under???

They are not Americans and they deeds were committed on foreign soil. So what law did they break exactly?

[Eric J in MN]

103. Laws against "material support" of terrorism were passed in 1994 and 1996

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/02/department-pre-crime

[NJmaverick]

111. That involved Americans and people on US soil

again what laws will you use for these detainees that don't fall into that catagory?????

[Eric J in MN]

119. Salim Ahmed Hamdan was convicted of material support of terrorism for driving UBL in Afghanistan.

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

[NJmaverick]

123. You want to use a law that is not considered legit?

http://opiniojuris.org/2008/08/07/why-hamdans-material-support-convictions-violate-the-ex-post-facto-clause/

[Eric J in MN]

140. Among the choices of what to do with a prisoner who got explosives training from Al Qaeda,

...and who seems to be dangerous:

a) just set him free,
b) hold him without trial,
c) try him by a military commission,
d) try him in civilian court under the material-support law,

I'd pick pick d.

[vaberella]

171. Uh, but he wouldn't be tried by his peers. How is that lawful?

That's the whole point of the Jury. At least in the military commission there would be other military personal and even if some of them were not trained military they were acting on behalf of a military group.

Secondly, we have no constitutional law in order to try these people. Give me one when you find it. I don't believe the constitution actually talks about foreign enemies caught on foreign land. Hence the reason some were tried in the US versus those stuck at Gitmo in many cases.

All in all, I'd rather go with the military commission because I see nothing that supports a D choice.

However, the president is trying a few of them in the courts if it fits their situation---he's already said as much on national television.

[Eric J in MN]

182. Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian seized in Pakistan, is going to tried in civilian court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2117116220090521


And a foreign army isn't one's peers. If you were in Mexico and the Mexican Army decided to grab you and try you itself, you wouldn't have been given a jury of your peers.

[Raineyb]

94. Unreleaseable and unprocecutable is bullshit

Try them convict them and incarcerate them or you have to let them go. We cannot hold people indefinitely because we've decided that they are now a danger to us after we done tortured them. You can put whatever fig leaf on that you'd like it's still a steaming pile of indefinite detention bullshit.

[NJmaverick]

96. So the US should have let all their Nazi prisoners go, during the war

so they could rejoin their units and go back to killing Americans. That isn't exactly a brilliant way to wage war.

[Raineyb]

108. This is not a war. There's been no delcaration of war.

There are no fucking units. And we don't know that all of those detainees were fighting us at all. Especially when our idiot government put out bounties of $5000 a head for people. What we have are literally people being kidnapped and sold into our custody. And as in this apparent scheme, as it's been outlined, it's been decided that they are not prosecutable I don't see how we can have a legal determination of criminal status to begin with. So what we have are people scooped up and brought over to us but we can't try them for anything because if they had been guilty (which is not a given what with the bounty and all) we couldn't use the evidence because we tortured them to get it. And apparently what you're saying is even if we were to determine that they weren't terrorists at the time they came into our custody that they can't be released because the probably are inclined to go after us now after being tortured by us. If you can't convict them of a crime and you can't prove they were combatants then they need to be let go. Punishing them by holding them because we tortured them is Orwellian to say the very, very least.

[NJmaverick]

114. Please! Please read Obama's speech so you understand

what his position is. You are mixing up the five distinct catagories of detainees. Obama explains exactly how each one will be treated and they are all different.

As for declaration of war, I am pretty sure most people would say the war between the US and Japan started when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, not when formal declarations were made.

[Diclotican]

126. NJmaverick

NJmaverick

Most of the prisoners who was been taken by US in ww2 was under the Geneva when it came to what is known as POW status.. If they was a nazi or not, was far less important, than the fact that they was soldiers captured under war... And for the most part the germans captured in the war also was in uniform, and was defintely targeded as ordinary Prisoner of War...

After the War, when the regime of mr Hitler was been tearing down, and many of the most importants leaders was arrested, and put into prison camps, then the long road between the "ordinary" and the others - nazis first and allmoust was been worked out..

In fact, most germans arrested under the war, was never member of the NSDAP party, becouse it was the vill of the party, that most germans should not be allowed into the party at all.. Yes they had SA and SS and the other thousands of party groups but still most germans was not member of the nazi party as sutch...

For the most part, the germans captured in the war, was arrested, and if proven guilty, convicted of their crimes and put into the prison system.. Many thousand was never convicted of crimes, and was after the war free as most germans was after the war.. They may even was "de-nazificed" and then taken back into the Army, Airforce and Navy, after 1955 when West-Germany was allowed into the NATO alliance...

Diclotican

[NJmaverick]

131. The point was the US didn't release prisoners who would return to their units

and continue to kill Americans. They were not released until the war was over and it was safe to release them. Obama is proposing to treat those that can't be brought to trial, but pose a similar danger, to be treated as prisoners of war under similar wars and safe guards. That's my hole point, that there are going to be people (just like the Nazis in WW 2) that can't be tried but are held until it's safe to release them.

[Diclotican]

143. NJmaverick

NJmaverick

I agree with you in principe, that it is not vice to put people who have sworn to kill as many americans as they can if they ever was to be freed again. But instead of just holding them there, it can be decades, maybe longer before this "war" is over, and if US are seriously about holding people accused of extremist actions for the next couple of decades, they as well put a bullet in their head and be finnished with it.. Or at least document, and put they who deserve to be put into prison where they deserve to be. That was something the US was doing also, where the documents about war crimes was overwhelming.. Even as the war was raging some of the most notorious german war criminals was been send to their gallows... Or to life at Leavenworth.. But for the most part, the soldiers captured was been hold in prison camps, treated well, and interuved by what they know about german weapons... And most important about it all. For the most part the US managed to NOT using torture to get the information, even when the crunch time was there and information who was important to know, was treated according to the then Geneva konvencion.. And if US managed to keep the Geneva then, under a world war, why can't the US keep the Geneva conventions accruing to what US itself have signed?.. Instead of claim them who are at Guantanamo Bay "enemy combandants"?...

And every american must remember one thing about the whole concept. If US can treat their prisoners badly, then guess what your opponents can to, if US was to fight a war according to "regular" wars?. Against a nation who can fight back and have the back to fight US on sea, on land and in the air?.. Can any US citizen be honest and tell that they would not be afraid about US service men be treated according to what US service men have treated the civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq the past 6 year?... If I was in US armed forces, specially in the Army or US Marines I would be REALLY afraid of what may becoe of me, if I was captured by an enemy, and they wanted information that I had....

Diclotican

[Joe Chi Minh]

157. I believe they lead a very free and easy life in the UK, as farm workers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

Actually, he says:

"prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man"

That WOULD indicate a trial of some sort.

[Eric J in MN]

83. No, he starts by saying "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted"

So the judicial oversight he means is probably a quick review by a judge, not a trial.

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man

Just in case you have problems reading it

PROLONGED DETENTION SHOULD NOT BE THE DECISION OF ANY ONE MAN.

That is NOT a 'quick review by a judge', which IS, in truth, a trial in all 50 states and territories of the US - there is NOTHING illegal about a bench trial - but even though it COULD be done that way his own words expressly say that is what he DOESN'T want.

You are not going to make your case by ignoring what Obama said.

[Eric J in MN]

118. A habeas corpus hearing isn't a trial.

It wouldn't be the decision of one man if a judge conducts a habeas corpus hearing to review the decision of the president.

But it wouldn't be a trial, either.

[NJmaverick]

90. Yes it would, wouldn't it

[bullwinkle428]

138. Of course there is! Don't you keep up with the news?

[Fovea]

22. Which terrorists?

The English privateers, the American filibusters, the Zionists in Palestine in 49, the Picts, the Pinkertons, the Ford Motor Company, the Bader-Meinhof gang, ETA,
the Ku Klux Klan?

The war on terror, had it been started by Julius Caesar, would still be being faught.

Terrorist are simply those who terrorize as a political technique. The number of actual
sociopaths who commit terror for pleasure is rather small, and most of them restrict themselves to rape and serial murder.
The hard core become vice-president.

[NJmaverick]

36. I think we can start with the ones that the detainees belong to

Their choice is to renounce membership or wait until their group surrenders or agrees to a truce.

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Bzzzt. There IS NO WAR ON TERROR.

That is a Bushco construct.

We have an ongoing hunt for international terrorists, who can be tried in either US or international courts. We also have occupying forces in two countries inviting insurgents to attack them.

The terrorists will not be held indefinitely - they will be tried in court and, in convicted, sent to prison, e.g. shoebomber Reid, Blind Cleric & gang, etc.

The insurgents belong in POW camps, where they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Though 'indefinite', their imprisonment will end when the insurgency/occupation ends, or they are repatriated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

[NJmaverick]

93. Bzzzt, it takes two not to wage war

there are organized groups waging an organized campaign against the US and it's citizens. That pretty much meets the standard definition of war. Especially as it pertains to POWs. Just as the US would not release Nazis during the war so they can go back to waging a war against us, the US is not about to release terrorists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

113. I never claimed we would.

In the post you are replying to I said that we will try criminals as criminals, and hold insurgents as POWs until the end of the conflict - and believe me, the conflict is NOT the so-called 'war on terror', it is the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. We WILL leave both countries, and any insurgents we are holding will be released when there are no troops in their countries for them to shoot at. As for the terrorists, they will eventually be hunted down and broken, just as all terrorist organizations eventually are. They are criminal organizations, and should be treated as such.

You seem to be allowing the republican meme of 'war on terror' to drive your thoughts on the matter. There is no war on terror. There are three distinct conflicts - the conflict with the international terrorist organization of al Queda and its affiliates, the occupation of Iraq, and the occupation of Afghanistan. We have a conflict with terrorists in the first case - not a 'war on terror' - and conflicts with insurgencies in the second and third cases. The insurgencies are NOT at war with the US and its citizens - they are at war with an occupying army, and the insurgents are NOT terrorists. When the army leaves, the conflict ends.

[ClarkUSA]

186. FYI, the Obama administration has officially dropped the BushCo era phrase "war on terror"

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-aslan8-2009apr08,0,7881551.story

[RetroLounge]

3. Yes, they went to work for the CIA and the Atomic Program

:eyes:

RL

[NJmaverick]

All Germans were not Nazis and most Nazis worked on

programs AFTER the war. That is if you are interested in being factual.

[RetroLounge]

147. GOBAMA!

:rofl:

RL

[mmonk]

4. Well, the Nazis were in armed conflict of an established war.

And they were treated better than the persons at Guantanamo, where 55% belonged to NO terrorist organization and did NOT take up arms against the United States. This is probably the worst comparison I've seen so far.

[NJmaverick]

11. Actual Obama would hold them as enemy prisoners

and not non-persons as the Bush administration did. As for the rest, they will be released or processed. Facts are important you know.

[mmonk]

40. If facts are important, the executive has no rights as to making law

on the fly that contradicts the constitution and habeas corpus such as preventive detention or any other machination.

[NJmaverick]

46. Did you actually read or listen to what the President said yesterday

If you had you would know how silly that statement really is.

[mmonk]

64. How so?

[NJmaverick]

80. In that what you claim Obama is going to do

is nothing like what he said he is going to do

[mmonk]

105. Here is how I see things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkQw8EJ8O7c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5700203&mesg_id=5700203

I'm also against his justice department's use of the state secrets privilege (so far the same as bush) in court cases to deny people their day in court and his interjection into the Plame case on behalf of Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Armitage.

[NJmaverick]

132. Yet if you go back to my original assertion

why were Nazi POWs not given trials?

[Thothmes]

161. Because they were being held as prisoners of war

iaw the Geneva convention. In fact there were trials of German prisoners but the were limited to prisoners that had committed crimes while in our custody.

[mmonk]

166. The soldiers were treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

The people at Guantanamo are not treated like that.

[mmonk]

167. Should we have done a sweep of German neighborhoods

and collected people that were not connected to the German army like say around 55%, then accused them of terrorism and tortured them and held them without charge indefinitely, would that be ok?

[Jane Austin]

6. There were German POW's in a camp in my hometown in East Texas.

They were allowed out and about in our town and made friends with the locals.

I only know this by hearsay, as I wasn't quite born by then.

[CatWoman]

21. I've read somewhere that upon Jesse Owen's return from his Olympic

triumphs in Germany, he had to suffer the degradation of having to sit in the back of the bus while German POWs were able to freely ride in front.

[LostinVA]

122. I actually think that that story was apocryphal -- I need to check

However, it's unfortunately very plausible.

[Blue_Tires]

191. i also heard or read somewhere that a bunch of them settled

as farmers in Kansas and lived happily...don't know how much truth there was to it, though...

[Fovea]

7. Was there a declaration of war?

Because without a declaration of hostilities, how will we know when the war is over?

Would the German prisoners been as well behaved had they had known they might stay in camps forever?

[NJmaverick]

14. So what you are saying was Japan was not at war with us after

Pearl Habor. Rather the war ONLY started after they made a formal declaration. That's an interesting idea, but I don't really buy into it.

[Fovea]

81. What are you saying?

It was not about *them* declaring war on us.

The *United States* declared war on Japan on Dec 8th 1941.
The war with Japan was concluded by the Treaty of San Francisco on Sept 8th 1951

We declared war on Germany on Dec 11, 1941 and the war was concluded by the Treaty of Vienna in 1955(?).

al Qaida, like the Barbary Pirates *has* committed acts of war against the US.
It was a mistake in the 1800s when we allowed an executive branch war against the chaos of Tripoli.
Congress needs to actually declare war on al qaida, but that would be a de facto war on Saudi Arabia.

The fact that we feel that we cannot, is an advantage that the Saudis used against us.
The Saudis caused 911. That is just fact.
They are as complicit as Afghanistan and Pakistan, more, in fact.

Yet look at our foreign policy stance on those three states.
Then, ask again why Iraq had to go instead.
Which was sitting on more oil than Saudi Arabia has left?
Saudi Arabia could not boost its production when oil was over 100/bbl.
That means something, eh?

Can we haz solar and wind now?
Can we haz public transit now?
Can we stop fellating fucking Bedouins for oil?

We either need to declare war on our real enemies, brown people with our oil under their sand, or stop what we are doing for oil.
But that would take a big effort for little profit, as measured by MBA's.

If we cannot declare war on al qaida, it means they are criminals, not prisoners of war.
It may also be evidence of the Bush administration's possible criminality.
I think no one wants to hear a mullah testify which back room deals were cut for western access/ resource capitalism.
That is, before everyone stabbed everyone else in the back.

[Raineyb]

97. You do realize that after Pearl Harbor there was a declaration of war.

Where's the current declaration of war?

[wileedog]

153. So all the handwringing is over a procedural technicality in other words.

If we had an entity to "declare war" on, we could keep people indefinitely. But we don't, so we have to let potential enemy combatants go.

And yes, I'm oversimplifying some, but I think some are losing sight of the fact that some of these guys did indeed kill lots of innocent people, others shot and killed our soldiers, and some will certainly do so again if they are simply let go.

Stop over-reacting to a speech and lets see what process can be put in place that makes the most sense for everyone, without putting innocent people or our soldiers in further danger.

[Raineyb]

173. No, There is no war there's not going to be a delcaration of war

and all this POW analogy is bullshit. Furthermore, this whole notion that we have people who are too dangerous to let go but we can't try them is a recipe to hold people indefinitely without a conviction. This "War" talk is a false construct made up by Bush and I'm not going to use their memes to discuss it. What it comes down to is this: we have people that we've managed to get a hold of, how we're not all entirely sure as so many of them were grabbed in order to collect a bounty, and we tortured them. But we know we can't actually put them on trial because we have no evidence thanks to the aforementioned torture. But now they're pissed at us and probably will want to get back at us for how we treated them so our solution is to hold them indefinitely because why?

Murderers, rapists, drug dealers, of all sorts manage to be acquitted all the time. We don't go and lock them up because they're likely to commit another crime. We wait until a new crime is committed and try them for that. It is unfortunate considering the circumstances with the detainees but anything else is us declaring that the rule of law is for other people. Our country has enough of a reputation of doing that kind of shit, it's part of the reason we're hated in some parts of the world in the first place.

[neverforget]

8. Members of the Luftwaffe, Wehrmacht, German Navy and Waffen SS

were treated as prisoners of war unless there was evidence they had committed war crimes. Some the Nazi leaders were put on trial for war crimes.

The difference here is that it is our word against the prisoners that they are members of Al Qaida. This is where a trial comes in to find out who is telling the truth.

[NJmaverick]

19. Obama proposes the same thing for those prisoners

that don't go to trial do to their ongoing threat to the United States, just as the was done with the Nazis. You are aware there are those at Gitmo that don't deny their affiliation or desire to destroy the US. However these individuals did not break any laws.

[neverforget]

25. Okay, so they hate us. Is that a crime?

[NJmaverick]

31. No but their terrorist acts on the US

certainly are:eyes:

[neverforget]

34. and if they have done that, then they deserve a trial. How unAmerican

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

38. You should spend less time clicking on eye rolling emoticons

and use that time to put more thought into your posts. Al Qaeda is at war with the US. They have committed acts of war against our nation, including 9/11. Now there are detainees at Gitmo who have not yet committed a crime, but have declared their membership and allegiance with Al Qaeda. As such Obama will treat them as prisoners of war.

Did you even bother to listen to or read what the President said yesterday?

[neverforget]

52. Look in the mirror NJMaverick concerning the eye rolling.

[NJmaverick]

57. I am dealing with a huge number of people

who are criticizing President Obama's position with out having read the listened to what his position is. I think that deserves the a little release in the form of eye rolling.


Here go read his speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html

[neverforget]

63. so it's okay for you to do it and not me?

I read his speech yesterday.

[NJmaverick]

73. If you did you would understand the 5 part system that all the detainees fall under

and how he would work with Congress and follow the Constitution.

[neverforget]

85. I understand fully what Obama is doing and I am concerned about parts

of it. Is it okay with you that I am concerned?

[NJmaverick]

115. Concerns are fine, misleading assertions about no trials

not so much

[neverforget]

117. Misleading assertions about no trials? From Obama's speech:

We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

So we are going to hold people for who knows how long because we can't prosecute them for some reason. Why is that? Why can't they have their trial? In order to be a "terrorist" one has to commit "terrorist acts". Giving them POW status may be a step in the right direction. This is what concerns me.

[NJmaverick]

121. ahh the selective editing. I have seen that quite a bit here at DU

which explains why so few fully understand the issue. One or two sentences are a poor substitute for the entire 5 paragraphs.

[neverforget]

128. And it is quite obvious you have a reading comprehension problem

as you don't even respond to my other points.

[jberryhill]

148. You are extrapolating too much from a limited segment there

First, a speech is a speech. This one laid out that we are committed to our principles. I didn't expect a recitation of process rules. The point there was simply that the types of detainees are distinguishable, and we must address these situations in a manner consistent with who we are as a nation.

None of your conclusory comments about "So we are going to hold people for who knows how long" are warranted by the context of that part you have excerpted.

The detention and treatment of these persons by the Bush administration has caused a difficult situation. I do not expect a reasonable solution to be something that can be expressed in a few sentences, but I have confidence that this administration will do us proud.

[Caliman73]

99. No they did not commit acts of war. They committed CRIMES.

War is a state that exists between two political entities. Do we imprison drug dealers and addicts indefinitely? You know because of the WAR ON DRUGS. Saying you are at WAR with something does not create the legal conditions that allow for what we are doing. No matter how insecure you may be feeling, you cannot justify holding people indefinitely without access to the legal system. We are not at war with Iraq, nor Afghanistan. We are using our military to police for terrorists when we should be allowing our law enforcement agencies to track down and capture them.

What the president said was disturbingly political and as a constitutional law professor he should know better.

[NJmaverick]

116. Al Qaeda pretty much meets the defintion of a political entity

as for the war on drugs, when was the last time a drug attacked the US?

[Caliman73]

141. I miscommunicated when I said "political entity"

I mean sovereign nation. Al Qaeda is a criminal organization that commits crimes of terrorism to push a religious and political agenda. Besides we have not declared war on Al Qaeda. President Bush declared war in the idea of terrorism with a focus on radical Muslim terrorism. Still not a War. Can we declare war on Greenpeace? the NRA?, PETA?, Aryan Nation? No, but we can prosecute them for crimes both nationally and internationally.

[wileedog]

156. But they weren't arrested by police

they were taken by soldiers.

Police are extensively trained in collecting and cataloging evidence to be used in a civic court trial.

Soldiers are extensively trained to shoot people and not get shot.

See a problem here?

And the declaration of war is a procedural technicality. We are still actively engaged militarily on several front, no matter how stupidly or illegally we got there. Why should we change how we treat enemy combatants based on how we went to 'war'?

[Caliman73]

169. Because if you continue trying to fit the square peg in the round hole, you fail.

Our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing but create more enemies for the US. Instead of doubling down on failed policies we need to admit our mistakes and change course. That is what intelligent people do.

[Raineyb]

174. Many were merely sold into our custody for bounty.

As per usual I see no mention of that.

[Raineyb]

112. We've not made any such determination as there's been no trial. n/t

[Diclotican]

133. neverforget

neverforget

The armed forces of Nazi Germany, Whermact, Krieg marine and Luftwaffe was for the most accepted as ordinary Prisoner of war.. The Wafen SS, the Alleheime SS, Gestapo and sutch was another animal.. Specially in the first few year, when soldiers who have seen the konsentration camps, and what specially the SS and Gestapo had doing in the former occupied areas in West was hitting far harder to the members of the Waffen SS, Gestapo and sutch than the later contigents of soldiers who was more "friendly" to they who fight harderst against the soviets.. As the cold war intentisived, the whole consept of puting war criminals to trial often was a show, who even hard evidence against persons was not taken into account... But many of the "ordinary" members of Waffen SS and Gestapo was often put to trial, and convicted.. But given a far lesser prison time who they might have given their victims when they was in power..

Diclotican

[mzmolly]

9. Good point. Perhaps Obama needs to better address

this?

[NJmaverick]

23. He actually did, to some degree in his speech

He didn't make the direct comparison I made, but it was the understanding I came away from after reading his speech.

[mzmolly]

177. Admittedly, I tivo'd the speech

and have yet to watch. Thanks NJmaverick. :hi:

[Xipe Totec]

10. Link to your sources?

Not that I doubt your authoritative assertions or anything...

But were Nazis captured and held indefinitely without trial?

[NJmaverick]

24. Are you serious? Do you understand how wars are waged?

In war the enemy is frequently captured. They are held indefinately with out trial until the end of said war. Granted if you go far enough back you can see examples of prisoner exchanges or even further back prisoners released if they promised to no longer partipate in the war, but that sort of thing hasn't happened in the past 100 years (at least on any significant level).

[Xipe Totec]

145. So, no data then?

No books? historical records? web pages?

Or are these your personal recollections?

[Cleita]

13. Yes, their scientists. We brought them to Los Alamos to work on

the nuclear bomb.

[NJmaverick]

26. Not every German was a Nazi

Anymore than every American is a Republican.

[Cleita]

32. They were all Nazis even if only in name to keep their jobs, otherwise they

ended up shut out of the system at best or in a camp or executed at worst, much like all our media were all right wingers during the Bush administration to keep their jobs.

[NJmaverick]

33. Albert Einstein was not a Nazi

nor were many of the other German scientists working on the Manhatten Project. It would have been dangerously foolish to put Nazis to work on such a top secret project.

[Cleita]

51. Albert Einstein left Germany before the Nazis took over.

The Manhattan Project was during the war. No Nazis then. They were still in Germany. After WWII, we and Russia divided the scientists between us. They worked mostly on the rocket program, which led to space exploration. Some were hard core Nazis that both countries overlooked because they needed their knowledge and expertise. Read "Space" by James Michner. He lays it all out in a semi-fictionalized account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(novel) Michner concentrates on the space program but those scientists also contributed to the development of our nuclear weapons program after the Manhattan Project.

[NJmaverick]

60. After a war, things are distinctly different than while at war

we are at war so we should be talking about war time.

[Cleita]

70. Well, I guess you have your own definition and parameters. n/t

[NJmaverick]

87. We are at war

Having an organized enemy that is trying to do your nation harm, would meet most people's definition of war.

[Cleita]

107. No, we are conducting two invasions of countries who have done nothing to

us. Our war evidently is on "terror". Ask the British how well that went for them in sending troops to Northern Ireland to fight the Irish who wanted a colonizing nation to leave their country. Also, the Al Queda gang who attacked us were mostly Saudis. It seems we should have invaded them.

[wileedog]

150. Invading a country is not the same same as being at war with them?

Seriously?

[Cleita]

152. Probably semantic but since war can only be declared by Congress, we are

really only committing troops for police actions according to the legalities and therefore are not at war. I don't remember Congress declaring war on either Afghanistan or Iraq, they only agreed to let Bush send in troops to find Bin Laden and to get Saddam. Once we got Saddam we were supposed to get the hell out of Iraq. Somewhere along the line Bush lost interest in finding Bin Laden even declaring that he didn't spend much time thinking about him anymore. Seems we are not at war but just bullying some third world nations for God knows what reason.

[wileedog]

154. I don't disagree with you completely but

Any situation where our guys are getting shot at and bombed I would prefer to treat exactly the same as a "legal" war.

At the end of the day there is an organized group of people out there who would happily shoot Americans and cheer about it. Whatever the legal proceedings and criminal misconduct that led up to it, its still the reality of the situation now that there potential enemy combatants at Gitmo. Simply opening the doors because they were taken in by soldiers and not cops so other than tainted evidence not much was collected to truly have a trial for them seems foolish.

Obama is trying to put something in place that covers that as best he can. Simply writing that off as 'more of the same' is horribly short-sighted IMO.

[Cleita]

162. There are also people as personified by Cindy Sheehan who want to

bring those guys being shot at home so they are out of harm's way. Anyway this talk of all these retaliatory situations from men who have been tortured doesn't ring true to me. How many Americans, like John McCain went back to Viet Nam to get revenge after they were repatriated? How many Americans or Russians who were tortured by Germans went back to Germany to get revenge. I mean I think those people could be repatriated to their countries and maybe even given something for their suffering. A big step in the direction of making our mea culpas would be to bring the Bush administration to trial for war crimes. However, continuing to punish these guys for something our guys did seems counterproductive and more dangerous to me. After all the guys who perpetrated 9-11 were neither tortured nor treated badly by us. They were just nut jobs being led by other nut jobs. Some one suggested that they be put in maximum security mental health facilities. It doesn't have to be in this country. I think diplomatic arrangements could be made with other countries without a dog in this fight like Switzerland to keep them until this mess can be sorted out.

[SOS]

181. "They were all Nazis" - absolutely false

Germany's population in 1939 was 80,000,000
At it's peak, the Nazi party had 8.5 million members, of which one million were active and 7.5 million were careerists.

At maximum membership level, 10.6% of the German public joined the party.

[atreides1]

39. Von Braun was.

He was an officer in the SS from May 1940 until the end of the war.

[NJmaverick]

42. and he didn't work for the US until AFTER the war

which is a critical distinction.

[MNDemNY]

15. OK that accounts for about 1% of the detainees, what of the rest?

[NJmaverick]

27. Did anyone on DU take the time to listen or read

what Obama had to say? He explained how the rest will be dealt with. This one percent are the ones to be held indefinately.

[atreides1]

50. Okay

Suppose the next president decides that this particular "law" should be applied to American citizens? Maybe even as we speak some law enforcement organizations are looking to apply this concept locally.

Just think, if you could put known ganger's into jail without them actually committing a crime, maybe even members of racist groups
based on nothing more then their history and suspicion?

After all it would only be a small percentage of the population!

[NJmaverick]

54. Here read his speech

he laid out all the safe guards and how his program would be legal and follow the Constitution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. That's what RICO statutes are for -

being an acknowledged member of a criminal organization is engaging in criminal conspiracy. I would expect that eventually they will be able to charge the 1%ers with criminal conspiracy.

[jberryhill]

149. That's not what he said - are you being sarcastic?

"As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded."

[sarge43]

16. No, the US put a lot of them to work on our ICBM program.

Allow me to introduce Warner Von Braun.

"With out trial"?

Nuremberg Trials. The Nazis received more justice than they gave most of their victims. At least they were allowed to defend themselves.

[NJmaverick]

28. There was no ICBM program during WW 2

You are decades too early

[sarge43]

41. No kidding.

You're the one who said 'held indefinitely' and they were not held indefinitely. By the way, prisoners of war aren't tried or shouldn't be. War criminals may be after the war.

Either these people being held at Gitmo are prisoners of war and should be treated as such or they are criminals and should be tried.

Your analogy doesn't work.

[NJmaverick]

44. They were held indefinately as there was no scheduled end of the war

just as in this instance

[Captain Hilts]

18. A bounty program for turning in 'terrorists' had folks turning their neighbors in just for the cash.

We knew Nazi soldiers were guilty of being Nazi soldiers.

Nice try, the comparison won't work.

[NJmaverick]

30. Did you take the time to listen to Obama's full speech?

or read it? If you had you would know that what you are talking about doesn't pertain to this conversation.

[Captain Hilts]

137. Actually, I read it. In fact, my mother worked for the fellow who was the Army attorney for

the Nazi's captured on the East Coast, Kenneth C. Royale.

You have all the tact of Dr. House.

[Starry Messenger]

168. But without any of the fun. n/t

[stopbush]

20. The Nazis were white and Christian.

That's the difference.

[villager]

35. well, there were the Nazis we used to build our rockets and design our intelligence agencies...

Is there an "Operation Paperclip" for terrorists? Well, yes, given what Cheney is like, there undoubtedly is...

[NJmaverick]

37. That was after the war

Important distinction

[villager]

91. and it affected who they chose to prosecute, keep in custody, "let go," etc...

other important distinctions...

[Aloha Spirit]

43. I'm glad someone is looking to US history for insight

Not being an expert, first things to come to my mind are,
Are you referring to the detainees? How do we know they're actual members of terrorist organizations?
As far as the Nazis, which ones are you referring to? Some we killed illegally, some we detained indefinitely, some we tortured, but releasing Nazis back to Germany during the war was unthinkable.
the terrorist organizations have less defined edges than states which makes it harder to know what to do with them when an alleged member is captured.
Imagine if there was a terrorist cell run by people who played Dungeons and Dragons and you tried to arrest anybody who played dungeons and dragons (first thing that popped in my head). Anyone interrogated about if they play D+D could say no or yes, but to know the truth, you'd want evidence to prove it. With soldiers, identity is not much of an issue.
I don't know who the detainees are, but if your country were being bombed by another country who was trying to root out D&D players, even if you weren't one, wouldn't you have a legitimate reason to fight back against the bombs without being considered a terrorist? Not saying that's what happened with the detainees, only that we deserve to know more about these people who are being indefinitely detained.
Oh my, ... point is, war today is harder to understand for humans, along with just about everything else I suppose. But releasing captured soldiers back to their camps before the war is over--how can that ever be a good idea? If someone can prove that a detainee is an active solider in an actual war against us, then they should be detained until the situation changes.
I do know that if we weren't bombing civilians in other countries as much, it would be easier to find actual terrorists, and there would be fewer moral dilemmas to work out.

[AngryAmish]

45. Soldiers are jailed, spies are hung

That was the general rule for a few hundred years. The sabatuers captured in America were tried before a military trubunal and put to death (mostly - I think there were some exceptions.

Japanese POWs had a rougher time of it in US hands, since the US soldiers had a rougher time of it in Japanese hands (Bataan death march and whatnot). Plus there were many fewer japanese surrenders for cultural reasons. Many German POWs liked to so much they wanted to stay. Then again they had more kin in the US and the like.

[Joe Chi Minh]

158. Hitler gave an order that all "special services" people were to be executed

immediately, and quite a few were.

[LanternWaste]

48. The vast majority of Axis POW's

The vast majority of Axis POW's were held in POW camps in the continental U.S.-- most located in the southern ans western states. The POWs were afforded both rights and due process in accordance with the Geneva Convention, including the ability to issue grievances before an American military board-- grievances that were considered, and in many cases, followed through with. Additionally, the U.S. had a specific case scenario which would define final "victory" over both Germany and her allies, and Japan and her allies, and thus the return of the POW's to their homeland.

So far, I see nothing but differences...

[NJmaverick]

49. That is what Obama proposed in his speech yesterday

here read the speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. Shorter Obama: "I don't know what to do."

He (...) stopped short of offering a clear answer on the key question of what to do with detainees who won't be tried for war crimes but are likely to be held indefinitely.

He described this group as those "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."

"I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face," Obama said.

He said that the his administration would "exhaust every avenue that we have" to prosecute detainees but there would still be some left "who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes" yet remain a threat.

Among these, he said, are prisoners who have expressed allegiance to Osama bin Laden "or otherwise made it clear they want to kill Americans."

"So going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime" to handle such detainees "so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

From there to "it's okay to detain people indefinitely without trial" is a HELL of a stretch.

My suggestion for an "appropriate legal regime" is: for those who aren't US citizens, deport them to each one's country of origin and keep an eye on them with intelligence. If there are US citizens there, and they haven't violated any law, I'm sorry, but you have top set them free. And, of course, keep an eye on them too.

[NJmaverick]

134. This is the sort of deceptive retelling that has so many people

confused and misinformed. That I why I am urging everyone to read or listen to ALL of what Obama said. Otherwise you are victim to agenda driven misinterpretations such as this one. Obama is a complex and intelligent man who's ideas can not be properly fitted into neat little sound bites.

[LanternWaste]

82. I'm responding to what you specifically posted

I'm responding to what you specifically posted-- not to a speech that you didn't even allude to.

If you're looking for clever bait & switch discussions, I'm outta here. :P

[NJmaverick]

136. Anyone responding to Obama and his position

should be fully informed of that position by having read or listened to his entire speech. Far too many DUers are weighing in on this issue, with out a solid foundation of or understanding of the facts and the issues.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. You flunk Godwin's Law in the worst way possible.

i.e., with a flawed argument. And here's why it's flawed:

This isn't a country with a government and territory we're talking about. The US government can keep saying the "enemy" exists and is "waging war against us," essentially, forever -- no matter what. The situation is more akin to detaining all criminals indefinitely regardless of crime until the abstract entity "Crime" surrenders worldwide.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. Exactly, How do you defeat and end a "war" on an idealogy?

That is essentially what A. Q. is -- an idealogy that anyone can claim as their own and act on -- no centralized leader, no official structure, no official membership. Even if Osama Bin Laden were to "surrender" tomorrow, "A.Q." would continue to exist and continue to work against us. :shrug:

So we are supposed to hold those prisoners how long???

[NJmaverick]

101. People kill, not idealogy

you should have a better focus on our enemy.

[Fovea]

88. I wish i could recommend a response.

Like a hit of pure 02.

[NJmaverick]

98. You clearly understand Godwin's law as well as you understand

Obama's position. A double score on your part.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

102. See #79.

And just saying "You fail to understand X" doesn't make it so.

Why don't you just go and admit you posted solely to stir shit up?

[jberryhill]

92. There is a "war on drugs" too, you know....

There are specific rules for dealing with uniformed regular soldiers captured in a war between sovereign countries.

The situation we have here are alleged combatants and civilian terrorists rounded *in* a war zone, but not in the armed forces of any particular sovereign entity.

What they are is difficult to classify into a legal pigeonhole. The problem is that the Bush administration made no serious effort to develop a rational legal framework for the disposition of persons detained under these circumstances.

They are not prisoners of war. They are not arrested criminals. What the Obama administration is doing, is what the Bush administration should have done at the outset instead of just throwing up their hands and saying, "We got 'em, and we can do whatever."

As noted in the speech yesterday, this type of more nebulous conflict is going to be more prevalent than armed conflict between sovereigns in the future, so a sound way of dealing with persons detained in the course of combating terrorism, consistent with our principles, is needed. It was needed several years ago.

[NJmaverick]

100. Drugs don't attack this Country or its citizens

big difference

[Caliman73]

104. No don't but dealers, gangs, and addicts cause a great deal of destruction.

and we don't imprison them indefinitely without trial. We don't even keep the top cartel bosses in prison without a trial. Sorry, your war on terror is the same as the war on drugs. It is war with a concept and you can never defeat a concept with military force.

[iamthebandfanman]

109. so do non-dealers, non-gang member, and non-addicts. n/t

[jberryhill]

146. The point being - nobody has ever won a war against a noun /nt

[ClarkUSA]

187. Actually, there's no more "war on drugs" or "war on terror" thanks to the Obama administration.

Link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009219734_webkerlikowske14m.html
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-aslan8-2009apr08,0,7881551.story

[iamthebandfanman]

110. youre right! two wrongs DO make a right! n/t

[Fearless]

124. The US did release captured nazi's during WWII... your point?

[NJmaverick]

130. ahh, no they didn't

[Fearless]

165. Actually they did.

[bullwinkle428]

135. Ugh. I thought DUers hated it when the Bush Crime Family constantly

tried to compare their pathetic "War on Terror" with anything involving World War II, and rightfully so.

[RetroLounge]

159. It's an upside down world on DU

Our term for them = Freepers

THeir term for these cheerleaders = DUMMIES

two sides of the same coin

RL

[Forkboy]

144. Does a yes or no answer change whether it was/is the correct thing to do?

For your post to make any real point the parameter has to be set as to whether it was correct then, which would make it correct now , or was it wrong then, making it wrong now. And comparisons of this kind tend to make for a weak foundation for an argument to start with.

Let's say it was wrong before. Would that automatically make it wrong 65 years later in vastly different cultural and geopolitical settings? Same question for you if we take the other side and say it was right then. Does that automatically make it right now?

Until that aspect is settled (and it won't ever be) the thrust of this OP is a fairly soft argument. History is replete with examples of things humans have done that they felt were the right thing at a time of uncertainty. The U.S. internment of Japanese Americans during the war, for example. At the time it seemed the right thing to do (at least to enough people that it was actually done), but looking back now how many feel that it was right?

Lastly, just from a personal standpoint, playing into this type of framing is a dangerous road for us to take as a nation, in my opinion anyways. We just got done watching 8 years of the right wing using this kind of argument to justify what they wanted, let's not fall for the same lazy tactics. If you feel this is the right thing to do there's better ways you can solidify your argument.

But because I'm admittedly knee jerk in my inherent distrust of tribunals in the first place, I won't tell you what those ways are. :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

151. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

155. I must have missed the declaration of war with each of the governments

of each of the countries of origin of each of the detainees.

[Cleita]

163. Me too. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

176. Not only the US released captured Nazi war criminals, we helped them settle on US soil

US needed those Nazis at the start of the Cold War.

[ejpoeta]

178. i believe the german soldiers were POWs. these 'detainees'

were specifically NOT called POWs because of the rules regarding treatment of POWs. i would assume so. apparently if you just rename something or reclassify it then that changes everything.

[MyNameGoesHere]

183. yes they did.

They were held in POW camps under a POW system. Not hidden away on some "US possession" under some kind of cobbled together detainee system. I have a letter from a German POW that was held in a Minnesota POW camp. He seemed to like it very much believe it or not and after the war came to the US and became a citizen.

So look at this and compare it to the detainees life.

http://www.traces.org/germanpows.html

[paulk]

185. are they "admitted" members of terrorist organizations?

and, if so, how was that "admission" gained?

[LittleBlue]

188. War on Terror =/= WW2. It's more like War on Drugs

It's a shame name for a sham war. It doesn't exist.

Therefore, these prisoners, like the Nazis, must be tried and convicted or released.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

190. this country isn't fighting a real war

it is like war on drugs.

[ClarkUSA]

192. Be sure to tell that to the soldiers being maimed and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Happy Memorial Day.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

196. well exactly - it is the politicians who play games

the soldiers unfortunately had to die because of Bush and cheney's little games.

[MasonJar]

193. They were POWs in a declared war! The war on terror is not a war

against a nation state; it is against a technique. That is totally different. There is the possibility this war is interminable. There is no country to defeat; there is no country to sign a peace treaty with.

[backscatter712]

194. That's why I suggested Obama declare those under "prolonged detention" be declared as POWs.

There is legal precedent for detaining people during conflicts who haven't been charged with crimes - they're Prisoners of War.

By declaring the people at Gitmo deemed to be a national security or terrorism risk if released, but unchargable with crimes, to be prisoners of war, we at least put them under the purview of the Geneva Conventions.

No, it's not an ideal solution, but there are strict rules that govern how POWs are to be treated, and I'd rather see ground rules than no ground rules.