Skip to main content

In reviewing the right's opinions on what to do about Gitmo and its detainees I've encountered the following arguments:

That every single detainee is absolutely a terrorist, none are innocent or guilty of lesser charges,
That the detainees have no rights, national, international or otherwise,
That they cannot be relocated to American soil for some reason,
That they are potential sources of intelligence and should be treated as such,
That they are too dangerous to ever let go,
That the American people should remember we are still at war.

If you agree with this interpretation then there is a way to close Gitmo that the right should support, and that is to execute the detainees.

They are all terrorists, and they have no rights.  Even American citizens sentenced to death for their crimes, crimes like murder, have at least some rights.  Surely terrorism is at least as bad as murder and the detainees at Gitmo have even less rights than prisoners on death row.  No automatic appeals to wait for or anything.  We can't release them, we're told.  They're too dangerous.  Do we really plan to hold them the rest of their lives in this indefinite war, some 60, 70 years for the younger detainees?  What is the justification for spending the money and resources to do this instead of just executing these conclusively dangerous terrorists?

And this is wartime, after all.  We kill people on the battlefield.  Why not kill them in custody?  What's the difference?  They don't magically obtain any rights upon becoming prisoners, that has been made perfectly clear.  They are not convered under the Geneva conventions like the German prisoners kept in camps on American soil during WWII.  It's not good enough to simply say "it's just wrong" to kill them once in custody; you need a reason why.  What possible reason could be given that does not inevitably lead to affording these prisoners some basic, fundamental rights; rights we've already been told they don't have?

No, executing the prisoners should be the perfect solution to the right.  The neo-cons will love it cause it shows we mean business.  THe fiscal conservatives will love it cause it saves money.  The religious right will love it cause it's one more victory in their Holy War against Islam.  And the cultural coservatives will love it cause it keeps away the darkies and the other, lesser races.  It is the only logical conclusion to the right's interpretation of the situation.  My only question is, what are we waiting for?

[And just so we're clear:  yes, I'm being sarcastic.]

Originally posted to 3 Miles from Space on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 09:06 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't give them any ideas (0+ / 0-)

    Arguing with "libertarians"? check it out

    Me llamo SeƱor Plow!

    by MrPlow on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 09:14:33 PM PDT

  •  Even American citizens? Even slaves had rights! (0+ / 0-)

    Nat Turner would have been called a terrorist had the word been common in his day. He led a rebellion that killed dozens of men, women and children, not totally indiscriminately, but because they were white.

    The slaveholders of Southampton, Virginia were outnumbered by their slaves, and lived in constant fear of such slave insurrections. They had far more reason to fear such slave insurrections than we have to fear Islamist terror today.

    Yet the slave owners of Virginia not only gave Nat Turner a trial, they provided him with a free lawyer (because he couldn't afford one) and all other Miranda rights. You see when the Constitution says "No person" it means no "person" (i.e. human being). "Person" was the word used in the Constitution to refer to slaves, before the 13th Amendment.

    I think foreigners should have at least the rights of slaves.

  •  How dare you take conservatives' arguments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to their logical conclusions?!

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 10:19:32 PM PDT

  •  just bring them to US prisons and put them (0+ / 0-)

    in General Population.  Just like the pedophiles and child rapists, the rest of the inmates will attack, shank, and kill "9-11 terrorists" within a few days' of their arrival.  That's why those prisoners are kept in Ad-Seg/protective custody - because everyone there wants to kill them.  It's a badge of honor for the prisoners to shank and kill a pedophile.  A terrorist would be an even bigger target.

    That's a big reason why the terrorists we do have in US Prisons are kept in Ad-Seg, usually at the Supermax in Florence, CO.

    If you really hate every Gitmo detainee and want them killed, the best way to accomplish that is to bring them here and dump them in a standard, high-security prison... like Pelican Bay or San Quentin.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site