Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why don't we just kill all the people at Gitmo?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:51 PM
Original message
Why don't we just kill all the people at Gitmo?
4:42 VIDEO at link

Fox talker Peters has a Gitmo solution: Just kill them all

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/fox-talker-peters-has-gitmo-solution

Col. Ralph Peters -- who doesn't exactly have a track record for probity to begin with -- went on Neil Cavuto and offered a solution to dealing with terrorists at Guantanamo Bay -- just kill them all:

Peters: Neil, I've gotta tell you where I'm coming from. I come from Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, the anthracite coal fields. We don't screw around with terrorists.



Peters: First of all, I am not concerned about the human and legal rights of terrorists. Because as far as I am concerned, when a human being chooses to commit an act of terror against innocent human beings, he puts himself outside of humanity. And this obsession with the legal -- supposed legal and human rights of terrorists -- a small number -- condemns billions of human beings, billions, to live in fear.

And again, Neil, once you commit an act of terror, in my book, you are outside, you are anathema, and you should be killed.

Now, I'm not talking about killing every living thing in the barnyard. But for example, when we attack an Al Qaeda compound, and the people defending the Al Qaeda compound can -- and they're shooting at us, that's probably a pretty good indicator that they are terrorists. So I see no reason to bring them to the United States, no reason to bring them to Guantanamo. There are a small number of senior terrorists who have intelligence value. Them we should take prisoner, but we should do the interrogations in foreign countries -- and why set ourselves up for legal problems?

Now Neil, I know it's not politically correct. I don't care. I care about the security and well-being of my fellow Americans. I care about the human rights of innocent people around the world. And as far as I'm concerned, terrorists should die.

And a good thing that's happening now -- as soon as you had this movement to close Guantanamo, et cetera et cetera, the word I'm getting from the field is our special operators and our soldiers and Marines on the front lines are taking fewer prisoners.

Cavuto: All right, so in other words, they're killing them.

Peters: Yep.

...

Peters: We're dealing with people who aren't human anymore. They're monsters. And just like in the movies, monsters deserve to die. And we agonize over this.

Cavuto: I see your point about what we agonize over. But what if all the 200 or so Gitmo detainees are not monsters -- some were just caught up in a roundup where they weren't doing anything wrong. Now, I don't have the details or the who's who on who might fill that equation here, but you know what I mean, that, that -- then you would be wiping them all out.

Peters: Well, there will be miscarriages of justice in a brutal war like this. But I don't think too many. We're pretty good at figuring out who's right and who's wrong.

Yeah, right. Sure we are:

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Does the Phrase War Crimes Ring a Bell? How about Nuremburg?
The Jewish Solution doesn't work any better on terrorists, real or imaginary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, what are the real numbers? We get it right, what, 5 out of 100 times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Looks like a RW Nazi, sounds like a RW Nazi.....well
I bet you can finish the rest.

No accountability for their actions. They caused this mess and this is what the jackass proposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. As usual they base their argument on a false premise
No wonder so many typical Americans don't understand the issue, it keeps getting framed the way these assholes frame it.

The assumption of these emptyheads is that everyone in custody is, by definition, guilty of terrorism. Otherwise, clearly, they wouldn't be in gitmo at all! Duh! They are guilty, but have never been charged or tried.

It hurts to have to keep hearing these assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Mee to.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Quite honestly, I'm wondering why they didn't.
it would be so easy to have had an "uprising" or "riot" and all but a few either were killed in the riot or managed to suicide in protest to indefinite detention.

Obviously Bushinc decided the propaganda power that kept the terrorism recruitment offices full was more important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I've concluded that the reason is because there are too many honest military personnel
I think that's the real reason, because there are too many who simply would not go along with it and would rat them out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. For much of the same reason they didn't simply plant WMD in Iraq
as surprising as it may be to you and me they didn't think that far out

What is that 3 steps out?

:eyes:

Seriously they had all the media and directly Judith Miller (with her own military task force) all they would have had to do was say "There it is" (point to a cardboard box)

I suspect they put Douglas Feith in charge of it or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. faux news is an abomination....borderline treasonous imho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. they do that in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania?
they execute terrorists outside the law there? Someone should look into that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. OMG. Neil Cavuto (or whaever his name is) is a TOTAL Asshole......
Thank goodness I don't have the "teevee". Who in their "right mind" would PAY good money to hear this sort of tripe/propaganda 24/7????

I think a LOT of DU'ers need to re-evaluate their teevee viewing habits.

M_Y_H
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC