DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Bush and Obama administration transferred/released 160+ high-risk detainees

**Eagevawax** · 04-26-2011, 09:16 PM

Oh, it's not the only problem. I'm just trying to keep myself brief. I have a definite tendency towards verbosity that I work very hard to control here.

I don't know that we as a country do indeed have humane standards for imprisonment. Look at our liberal use of solitary confinement, even on the mentally ill.

I'm just saying that indefinite internment isn't a great solution.

Execution is not without its appeal, I suppose. But I don't think it's a good solution for the folks already housed at Guantanamo Bay, for example. We would get way too much flak for that though it would have the benefit of allowing Mr. Obama to keep his campaign promise.

And, of course, there's the question of military involvement. I mean, I'm taking OSB's words to mean that AQ membership would be illegal anywhere, even within the US, by US citizens. No military issue there. I must admit ... I've not been reading all of OSB's words. [He's an excellent poster, but sometimes the posts are just too long for me.

] I guess I'll offer these comments:

(a) I'm not sure I see how exactly that can be done. First, the U.S. has no jurisdiction to proscribe purely extra-territorial conduct such as membership in foreign organizations.

Second, I fail to see how the government can outlaw membership in a group domestically for the reason you've already mentioned, and I'm not aware of any attempt, for example, to make it a crime to be a member of AQ within the United States. Are you? I mean, we have violent organized street gangs here and known members of those gangs, and I've never heard of police arresting anyone and charging them with the commission of a crime simply for membership in a gang. Can it be that they just haven't thought of outlawing it when they have every right to do so?

Now, racketeering statutes have been enacted to get at organized crime, but it still requires (to my knowledge) the commission of actual offenses by the accused, not simply membership in an organization. And I have never heard of AQ members being prosecuted under a racketeering statute much less being prosecuted when there is no evidence of actions by the accused in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.

(b) There is still a military issue because a war is going on. So, just because some of these fellows may have committed a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction, it does not mean that they are not enemy combatants. If they're enemy combatants, they need to be taken out of the picture ... one way or the other. This means shooting them or taking them prisoner. If they can be tried and convicted of a crime after capture that may be thought of as a bonus I suppose.

04-26-2011, 09:16 PM	#37
Eagevawax Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 572 Senior Member	Oh, it's not the only problem. I'm just trying to keep myself brief. I have a definite tendency towards verbosity that I work very hard to control here. I don't know that we as a country do indeed have humane standards for imprisonment. Look at our liberal use of solitary confinement, even on the mentally ill. I'm just saying that indefinite internment isn't a great solution. Execution is not without its appeal, I suppose. But I don't think it's a good solution for the folks already housed at Guantanamo Bay, for example. We would get way too much flak for that though it would have the benefit of allowing Mr. Obama to keep his campaign promise. And, of course, there's the question of military involvement. I mean, I'm taking OSB's words to mean that AQ membership would be illegal anywhere, even within the US, by US citizens. No military issue there. I must admit ... I've not been reading all of OSB's words. [He's an excellent poster, but sometimes the posts are just too long for me. ] I guess I'll offer these comments: (a) I'm not sure I see how exactly that can be done. First, the U.S. has no jurisdiction to proscribe purely extra-territorial conduct such as membership in foreign organizations. Second, I fail to see how the government can outlaw membership in a group domestically for the reason you've already mentioned, and I'm not aware of any attempt, for example, to make it a crime to be a member of AQ within the United States. Are you? I mean, we have violent organized street gangs here and known members of those gangs, and I've never heard of police arresting anyone and charging them with the commission of a crime simply for membership in a gang. Can it be that they just haven't thought of outlawing it when they have every right to do so? Now, racketeering statutes have been enacted to get at organized crime, but it still requires (to my knowledge) the commission of actual offenses by the accused, not simply membership in an organization. And I have never heard of AQ members being prosecuted under a racketeering statute much less being prosecuted when there is no evidence of actions by the accused in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. (b) There is still a military issue because a war is going on. So, just because some of these fellows may have committed a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction, it does not mean that they are not enemy combatants. If they're enemy combatants, they need to be taken out of the picture ... one way or the other. This means shooting them or taking them prisoner. If they can be tried and convicted of a crime after capture that may be thought of as a bonus I suppose.
	Quote