If am elected US President in 2012, one of my first acts will be to free all "enemy combatants" held in Guantanamo Prison Camp. However ... there will be two conditions. Before describing those, I offer the following definition from the Wikipedia article entitled "Enemy Combatant."
From Wikipedia:
"Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as `an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.'"
As President, I can free every single "enemy combatant" held in Guantanamo
First, I would ask that each prisoner swear an oath of non-violence. However, since I don't believe in coercing an oath out of anybody, I would still free those who refused to swear such an oath. However, my other condition is non-negotiable: If a prisoner would not comply, I would not free him: I would insist on meeting each candidate for freedom and ask that he grasp my hand for at least 30 seconds.
That's all I ask: physical contact for 30 seconds. Then they would be freed. Don't bother asking me "why," for I will not share the reason. But...that's all I ask.
I know, I know...I can hear the hue and cry now: "You're going to free those murderers? Have you no shame? Where's your sense of justice?" To which I reply: "Maybe it's not my sense of justice you're concerned about, but my lack of vengeance-seeking?"
It's fairly certain that manyGuantanamo
So why would I take a chance by freeing those who might harm us in the future? I admit this is possible: At least one of these former prisoners might attack us someday in the future. But suppose that would happen. My detractors would point their fingers and say, “Ah ha!” To which I would simply respond: “Think about all of those others out there who might have been radicalized into warring against us, but decided not to because they were moved by my action to empty Gitmo. Then think about those lives those others might have taken, but chose not to.”
First, I would ask that each prisoner swear an oath of non-violence. However, since I don't believe in coercing an oath out of anybody, I would still free those who refused to swear such an oath. However, my other condition is non-negotiable: If a prisoner would not comply, I would not free him: I would insist on meeting each candidate for freedom and ask that he grasp my hand for at least 30 seconds.
That's all I ask: physical contact for 30 seconds. Then they would be freed. Don't bother asking me "why," for I will not share the reason. But...that's all I ask.
I know, I know...I can hear the hue and cry now: "You're going to free those murderers? Have you no shame? Where's your sense of justice?" To which I reply: "Maybe it's not my sense of justice you're concerned about, but my lack of vengeance-seeking?"
It's fairly certain that many
So why would I take a chance by freeing those who might harm us in the future? I admit this is possible: At least one of these former prisoners might attack us someday in the future. But suppose that would happen. My detractors would point their fingers and say, “Ah ha!” To which I would simply respond: “Think about all of those others out there who might have been radicalized into warring against us, but decided not to because they were moved by my action to empty Gitmo. Then think about those lives those others might have taken, but chose not to.”
Unfortunately, I can’t point fingers to identify who these converts might be.
My motives lie partly in "turning the other cheek," and partly in attempting to inspire a sympathetic ripple effect. I am attempting a magnanimous gesture of good will, hoping it will be appreciated (at least) and reciprocated (at most) by our enemies. Coupled with other policies I have in mind, as detailed on this blog, some of our sworn enemies might actually come to embrace us as friends.
Also, I am contrasting my style of leadership with Bush's and Obama’s: They say they’re Christians; from what I can see, though, they surely doesn't behave that way; I say I'm not a Christian but I behave as if one. What's that sound? A wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Religious Right? If they were so "religious," they wouldn't be so "Right."
NOTE: Back on Oct. 26, 2006, I included the following paragraph while writing on this very same subject. I still stand by my remark concerning “presidential pardon”:
Also, I am contrasting my style of leadership with Bush's and Obama’s: They say they’re Christians; from what I can see, though, they surely doesn't behave that way; I say I'm not a Christian but I behave as if one. What's that sound? A wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Religious Right? If they were so "religious," they wouldn't be so "Right."
NOTE: Back on Oct. 26, 2006, I included the following paragraph while writing on this very same subject. I still stand by my remark concerning “presidential pardon”:
By the time I'm in a position to free these prisoners, that will be in 2009, meaning: Some of these prisoners would have been held in Gitmo for seven years. My words to Dubya: "You have had time to try those you have labelled `enemy combatants,' rather than hold them indefinitely. If you do try and convict any of them, though, rest assured that I will proceed to issue them a presidential pardon, anyway."
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“We have found too many ways to put the hurt on our real and perceived enemies; now it’s time to find ways to be kind.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment