Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

How long will Gitmo trials continue?

Published/Last Modified on Sunday, Jun 22, 2008 - 05:56:55 pm MST

Font Size

To the Editor:

Now that the Club Gitmo detainees are to be tried in the federal court system, I have a couple of questions:

1. What happens when they demand to be released on bail?

2. What happens if they demand to be tried in a sharia court since they don’t accept Western courts as legitimate?

3. It has taken 10 years to bring Mansa Musa Muhummed to trial on charges of imprisoning three wives and 19 children — he was arrested in 1999 — because of motions he filed has filed in his own defense. For details, see signonsandiego.com for May 5.

How long will Club Gitmo trials continue? A similar 10 years?

David Spahr

Sierra Vista

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Dr Brydon wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Halfstep....Wow "If it ain't white it ain't right"
excuse me if I don't sign up to go fight for you. You already have more Liebenstraum than you are entitled to "

Half Step wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:07 AM:

" Ok This is a Comedy sketch right. Arhcy Bunker plays Concerned Citizen. I think Gulligan should play Skeptical. LOL the guy is in the military stationed in a combat zone and you called him a hippy. hehehe Dr Brydon, maybe he blow up ship in retaliation for 1948 and the occupation of the region for the exploitation of his country and people? Maybe? Judge Judy plays the Good Dr. No arguement. Places... repeat after me...."We have to be there and if it ain't white it ain't right. Salute.... end scene smiles from audience "

Stability HA wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:23 PM:

" Skeptical, now you have it. Just take a few deep breaths, assume a resting position, clear your mind of all the political hatred and agony that is causing your inner soul to revolt, think of happy things and go to a nice place. Ommm, once again breath in... out..Feels better already doesn't it. "

Stability HA wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:48 PM:

" Well to be honest, consorting with Bisbeeites would be more pleasant than consorting with my current companions, Baghdadians. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:06 PM:

" THE only way America will be safe is when we ban the cult of Islam from being practiced here. We also must not let ANY muslim come into our country. It really is an easy fix if we would stop being politically correct! "

Dr Brydon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:08 AM:

" So the guy who planned the attack on the USS Cole says he did it in revenge for being waterboarded. "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:42 AM:

" TO Stability Ha. God forbid that I would so waste my life in some nebulous New Generation philosophy in an effort to become [QUOTE YOU] "solidly ensconced in the social mainstream with peace and tranquility along with a great tolerance and love for all." [END QUOTE] What with your convoluted and irrational hippie Weltanschauung, you surely consort with the Bisbee types who, like you, grace that otherwise beautiful landscape. But thanks anyway for your hate-less blessing. Oo-ummmmm. "

Stability Ha wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Oh yea, the mighty S is solidly ensconsed in the social mainstream with peace and tranquility along with a great tolerance and love for all. Hate must be a terrible thing to have and be consumed by. All consuming and creating a cancerous atmosphere internally and externally. Peace out! "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:59 PM:

" TO "To Skeptical wrote": Sorry, I don't carry a GPS because I'm politically and socially stable. FYI, GPSs are geolocating devices using satellite triangulation--it doesn't register or assign political orientation. However, I accept the point you attempted with relish: On this forum alone, over time I've been called a commie, a hard-core rightist, a water-carrier for both GWB and Clinton--in other words, despite the deep urge to do so, the Leftists frequently throw hissy-fits, because they can't fix me with an unchanging label that would allow them to shoot me with their DNC and Daily Kos talking-points. "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:47 AM:

" TO DR Byron: Thanks for the clarification. I didn't put words in your mouth--I asked you to clarify what you evidently miswrote. However, I'd still like to know your position, clearly stated, on the question of whether Gitmo should be closed, and if yes, what is your prescription for the detainees' disposition. Should the US confer the right of habeas corpus (and all that flows from that) enjoyed by American citizens on the ghouls and other questionable "unlawful battlefield combatants?" The torture allegation is another subject apart--an allegation that only the Left uses to smear the USA and the administration. "

To Skeptical wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Your GPS must be way out of calibration. Your compass is certainly not operating correctly, except that it keeps spinning in a far right downward circular spin. "

Dr Brydon wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:57 AM:

" NO, I was saying that POWs do not get hearings until after the cessation of hostilities. At which time thier status is part of the settlement. Don't try to put words in my mouth. Problem now is that they would be able to write home and be visited by the red cross. Whith the horror stories coming out now that won't be good for us. Apparently believing there was no torture is like believing in WMDs "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:54 AM:

" TO: To Skeptical wrote. Thank you for your insightful comment. Unfortunately, it has contributed nothing to this debate. I put little stock in your counsel, because I don't test the wind of opinion and count my followers before deciding what I think. That's a notorious habit that the Left (and Schwarzenegger's girly-men) employ to decide everything from their next thought to national public policy. BTW, did you know that that characteristic is the main reason the sale of hand-held GPS devices has exploded--keeps purposeless people from straying too far off the beaten track! "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:41 AM:

" DR Brydon, two points of clarification requested from you: (1) Are you trying to say that the POW (Prisoner of War) status would or would not have the right to a hearing, or not? (2) If you meant to say, "they would have a right to a hearing" [as a POW], that would not be correct--POWs have never had such a "right" under any international laws of war convention I'm aware of. (3) Isn't the present designation as "unlawful battlefield combatant" simply (and correctly in my mind) an updated defintion, given their non-national status? What's wrong with that? "

To Skeptical wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:22 PM:

" Rave On, your followers are few. "

DR Brydon wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:06 PM:

" Most of these "detainees" have been in US custody for years, so any information they have is that old. If they were classified as POWs we can hold them until the "Cessation of Hostilities", but they have to be accorded the rights a POW has. So they would have no right to a hearing "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 26, 2008 3:43 PM:

" TO: Vet/Lawyer. Sorry to see you've run out of gas. That you've retreated, pouting and whimpering about ignoring the law, etc. signals either that you've exhausted your ability to bolster your high-minded (but unrealistic) idea about American constitutional law, or you don't really believe in your own legal theories. Or did today's historic SCOTUS ruling on the Second Amendment so deflate your spirit that you're thoroughly demoralized? If that's the case, when you recuperate from today's killing of the beloved liberal dream of eradicating citizen's right to have access to arms, we'll resume (and no one's shouting at you). "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:03 PM:

" TO: Way to go Vet lawyer. Sorry you don't agree with me in a perfectly civil debate. Evidently you don't like my positions on other issues as well (however, you're confusing me with someone else): I've never painted anyone as "commies" (unless they admit to it) nor have I shown my political allegiance toward any persona except to the USA and the officeholder of the executive branch--including the detestable Jimmy Carter; my "savior" has never appeared in my commentaries, because I have none, and that's a naughty thing to admit amongst you smug theologists. Next time, smear more carefully! "

A veteran and a lawyer wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Thanks, "Way to go." I figure, the louder somebody shouts "ignore the law during times of trouble!", the less chance the shouter has ever seen what the absence of law is really like. Civilization is hard, barbaric shouting is easy. "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 26, 2008 5:58 AM:

" Since "torture" was alleged at Abu Ghraib, America's enemies and political foes--especially the American anti-Bush crowd--have been hysterical. They've successfully painted Americans as "torturers", an outrageous allegation that yet has to be proved. Only one "officially sanctioned" case the administration has acknowledged was the water-boarding of the mastermind-engineer of the 9/11 bombing captured in Pakistan--his treatment revealed (still highly classified) useful information about high-level Al Qaeda functions and leadership. In summary, if we permit the Left to hamstring us on the battlefield, we may as well run up the white flag of surrender to cut-throat, third-world fanatics. "

Way to go Vet lawyer wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:29 PM:

" You are clear in your arguments and they are pursuing the points of the matter. Your vocal opponent takes every argument on this forum as a personal affront to his savior, GWB, and attacks everyone as a left leaning commie. The powers that have been given for indefinite detention served his purpose, but if those powers remain in place, the vocal opponents of the next or future administration could very well use those tools against the skeptical people who whole heartedly support the use today. Laws and rights of the Constitution should rule. "

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:28 PM:

" If we classify them as POWs there is no need for hearings we can hold them until the cessation of hostilities. But then we can't torture them. That seems to be the thing the Administration won't give up "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:24 PM:

" Vet/Lawyer: Your argument attempts to forge a left-leaning, anti-Bush political attitude into an iconic philosophy you offer up as 100% sterling, pro-American constitutionality in its genesis and logic. It's typical of the logic you've acquired by virtue of your liberal legal education in America. You've created and offered a straw-man to returning troops: They're not returning to a land of extra-legal thuggery if constitutional rights are not offered to international jihadist terrorists. Bush has rightfully updated the laws attendant to war in order to conform with a brand new phenomenon of border-less warfare and ideological fanaticism. Lynch law? Nonsense! "

A veteran and a lawyer wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Skeptical, you are perseverating about the point, which is not how American's enemies should be punished, but whether the president alone gets to decide someone, possibly including you under a different president, shall be punished. Do you think American troops want to come home to the rule of thugs? Or do you think they'd rather come home to a land of liberty and laws? Argue on as you wish, if you're too obtuse to see the difference between law and lynch law, you'll argue alone. "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:34 PM:

" Fortunately (or maybe not), the California congress-lady was suffering an extended senior moment while posturing before C-SPAN that was recording her sub-committee's hostile grilling of oil executives. She strained to recall the word "nationalization" but couldn't, so finally blurted in plain language, "so the government will run your oil fields." It is possible she slipped and let the Democrats' cat out of the bag, but I think everyone understood her to use high-minded language to express a thought that was beyond her. Thus, we're concluding that she wasn't speaking for the Nancy Pelosi (but who knows--socialism is their bag). "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:53 PM:

" TO: veteran/lawyer. Your obtuse attempt to demonize a man you politically detest undercuts your president's primary constitutional duty: To secure America and its freedoms. Your method is irrational by invoking imaginary scenarios to frighten the citizenry (i.e. a rogue president gone bad, oppressing Americans at will, etc.). The president's post-9/11 wartime powers differ only in small degree from those of every other commanders-in-chief since George Washington. The definition of "battlefield combatant" to cover jihadists who kill and act beyond national restraints. Reminder: You still haven't answered an important question: "Since when do America's enemies deserve the protection of citizens' constitutional "

A veteran a lawyer wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:42 AM:

" Or, to steal somebody else's comedy bit,
"House Democrats called for ationalization of oil refineries Wednesday. We have a government that wiretaps citizens, jails without Due process and wants to own the oil industry. Saddam Hussein just Used the clouds to skywrite Mission Accomplished. (Argus Hamilton)" "

A veteran a lawyer wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:03 AM:

" To Skeptical: Problem is, the president can now name somebody as an enemy, and that's the end of the matter. Be "renditioned" for torture, be imprisoned for life, have no right to a lawyer -- all because Bush signs a document saying he's above the law. That's too much power to give any one person. Law isn't just to protect us from bad guys, law is also to protect us from good guys who make bad arguments. "

Skeptical wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:58 AM:

" TO: Attorney/Veteran. You ask: "Would you be willing to live under those conditions, with the president saying he could keep you there for life without letting you see an attorney?" I'm not a terrorist. Their status as "battle combatants" is accurate, given that they do not claim any national status, except, perhaps "anti-USA, international terrorist." Frankly, I don't give a tinker's dam whether they rot in Gitmo--at least there they are unable to continue to kill Americans as they are sworn to do. "See a lawyer?" Since when do America's enemies deserve the protection of citizens' constitutional rights? "

A veteran and a lawyer wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:24 PM:

" To Concerned Citizen: America has plenty of nerve, or we wouldn't be fighting 2 wars at once. On the battlefield our troops do their duty and fight fire with fire. But off the battlefield Americans don't act like terrorists. We preserve, protect and defend our constitution. We are not street thugs. If you think America should be run like a street gang then you have missed the point of being an American. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:23 PM:

" If America had any nerve at all they would excute ever one of these muslim terrorist. Its a shame we have become so politically correct! "

A veteran and a lawyer wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:42 AM:

" 1, bail will be denied. 2, their rejection of our court system will be found irrelevant. 3, what does a cruel husband arrested in 1999 have to do with 9/11? As to "Club Gitmo" -- would you be willing to live under those conditions, with the president saying he could keep you there for life without letting you see an attorney? You seem to be fond of America, so why do you want to see it replaced with a dictatorship that laughs at torture? "