Rule 13 The end of the Guantanamo Bay Debate

Wonder if any one of these protestors give thought to Americans in that get up are shortly beheaded on film.
Spread the love

Wonder if any one of these protestors give thought to Americans in that get up are shortly beheaded on film.

Guantanamo Bay Detention was started by President George W. Bush in response to a need deal with terrorist picked up around the world. It has also been a thriving T-shirt business for Radio personality Rush Limbaugh. A lot of the pre-problems that lead to this solution is glossed over by the mainstream media. The solution to the problem doesn’t sit well with a conservative on the basis that the president does appear to taking power to strip rights away from citizens, as made evident by President Obama ordering the death of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. It doesn’t sit well with Liberals because they have been told its a violation of the Geneva Convention.

How I see the problem is a lack of clarity from todays world to the old world in which our constitution was created. Modern arguments of artificially created rights to citizens of the world to be treated to the kindness of the greatest system on earth, well it does leave us in a position of hypocrisy. Hindsight gives us a wonderful opportunity to create a constitutional Amendment that would address this problem in a manner that LEADS the world by stating how we treat ALL people including our citizens. We can create an Amendment and use the recent years from Timothy McVeigh to Osama Bin Laden as a rule of thumb to which can be dealt with under the exact same system without endangering the rights of the average citizen not bent on murdering the masses.

The problem is conflict between desires to follow treaty law (Geneva Convention) which is where liberals try to argue from but they do in a way KNOWING those who listen never read the treaty. Because if they did picking up enemy combatants in civilian clothes are to be treated as SPIES and shot. That is not a 100 year old rule its more than 2000 years of the rules of war. You must take an understanding that Geneva was writing down the rules of war that nations used to follow without them being writing but it was failed to do so with the use of gas. That conflicts with people who were caught on our shores i.e. The fruit of the Kaboom bomber (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) who was caught on US soil. Then you have Hasan Akbar (Mark Fidel Kools) who threw a grenade in his fellow soldiers tent in 2003 and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 12 and maimed 31 others in Fort Hood Texas. All of these cases which now fall under as many as 20 jurisdictions of the court system would be under one rule of law for all citizens of world and end the hypocrisy argument on how we issue justice. It also ends the pursuit to use the justice of terrorists as a political pawn for election leverage. Americans want justice and equality not someone’s desire to see their face on TV and be called a hero cause they went to law school be the goal of the day.

The proposed amendment

If you display intent to murder, maim, or otherwise deny the rights of more than 12 citizens, you are deemed to be at war with the constitution of the united states and its people, your rights as a citizen are removed and you will be prosecuted and sentenced by military tribunal, with right to a mandatory congressional up/down vote on outcome if found guilty within 60 days. The congress will only vote on their revue of guilt or innocence they will have no power to reduce or modify sentence.

Convert or Die. This not a mindset that has common ground with our reasoning.
Convert or Die. This not a mindset that has common ground with our reasoning.

So when you test this Amendment against past events let start with Timothy McVeigh. He would have been sent immediately to military tribunal and with the evidence presented the same outcome would have been death sentence. The congress would have had to vote on the result of guilty NOT vote on the sentence given. This would have been a clear vote yes of guilt by the majority. There would have been protest votes of no on the sentence of death and that congressmen/woman would have been failing in their job. 30 days later NOT years later sentence would be carried out.

Now Anwar al-Awlaki this is a case where the “citizen” left the country and took up arms against troops. The attorney general would issue charges that there was intent to murder more than 13 citizens (troops) and he would then fall under military law and action. The President is then within his authority to order Drone planes to shoot him. Under current law Obama was in violation of his office when he did this but he shouldn’t have been. Not that I defend Obama but I do fear the clear intent to disregard the constitution at every turn.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been dealt with for interrogation in whatever way we deemed legal (not arguing those points with this argument) and when his information ran out been turned over to tribunal and sentenced.

The kicker here is there is no limitation to terrorism in this argument. Serial killers who are found with 30 bodies in the backyard would be tried under this same system. Clean simple less loopholes, no hiding evidence from a jury because a police dog peed on the flower bed before he decided there were bodies buried under it. Its they deny the rights of more than 12 that lets us get the truly sick into a cleaner quicker system. Child Molesters would qualify and death would be an option for the crime and it allows serial criminals to be dealt with on a federal level with what can be called a professional jury which many on the left argue for.

Basically if you’re worthless scumbag of a human being we are not going to treat you with the kid gloves of the American Justice system. It’s not to say that you have no rights it’s just you don’t have MORE rights than your victims.

Be the first to comment on "Rule 13 The end of the Guantanamo Bay Debate"

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.