US administration to abolish due process

[pocketfullofshells]

"Republicans got mad if they went to NYC"???

First of all, it was not just Republicans who got mad about that, and additionally, it was the Democratically controlled House which passed a bill banning detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to the U.S. for trials in criminal courts.

That said, this idea that "we can try them" has been flatly rejected by the Obama Administration as well, so that option is already off the table. Defense Secretary Gates stated in 2009 that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."

That is a pretty clear statement that trials are not an option for many who remain at GITMO.

I can agree with you that we might be able to try some of them in military commissions (especially given evidence rules and language used to define interrogation techniques etc), but it is simply not plausible to try them all, and therefore GITMO would remain open regardless of trials.

So lets just end it, shoot them and say sorry can't give you a trial and war will never end...and its over...guilty or not, just shoot them all...sure its against what we stand for, but if we are going to do this, lets make it big and bold and say yep, screw it..no trail, never going to free you. If we are not going to do that, then come up with a trail or let them go.

 

[Gipper]

So lets just end it, shoot them and say sorry can't give you a trial and war will never end...and its over...guilty or not, just shoot them all...sure its against what we stand for, but if we are going to do this, lets make it big and bold and say yep, screw it..no trail, never going to free you. If we are not going to do that, then come up with a trail or let them go.

You must be kidding...Just shoot them....WTH...

All we need do is keep them in prison for life and while there, we should prohibit access to anything Islamic including the Koran. We then rehabilitate them to...become Christians.

 

[BigRob]

So lets just end it, shoot them and say sorry can't give you a trial and war will never end...and its over...guilty or not, just shoot them all...sure its against what we stand for, but if we are going to do this, lets make it big and bold and say yep, screw it..no trail, never going to free you. If we are not going to do that, then come up with a trail or let them go.

It is not as white and black as you want to make it appear... evidence rules, jurisdictional issues, political issues etc all play a role in how these detainees are handled.

For example, assume we are going to try someone who might have been waterboarded in the past. Since the new administration call that "torture" (as well as other "enhanced interrogation" methods which are not torture) it becomes a felony to have done those, and the whole case is put in jeopardy because of it...

Not to mention the political complications/national security concerns for opening that can of worms.

It is a bad situation, I think both sides can agree with that, (and both sides have wanted to close GITMO) but at some point we have to accept that the alternative available right now is simply not practical and come up with a different solution.

 

[JohnDough]

Did you even read what was posted? This is what the GOP has been doing for the last 8yrs and Obama is just continuing it. You criticizing him for this is laughable.

Its quite appropriate to criticize obama for gitmo, hes the one that swore up and down he would close it, not repbublicans. Then when he became president he realized wow theres some really bad guys there. Along with that he cant find enough other countries to take them. Imagine that. Now hes caught in the position of having the wild and frenzied left wing all beside themselves railing on it and he doesnt have a clue what hes going to do.
Him and holder got a taste of american angst when they tried to bring Khalid to trial in NYC...how did that work out for them.

 

[Rick]

Its quite appropriate to criticize obama for gitmo, hes the one that swore up and down he would close it, not repbublicans. Then when he became president he realized wow theres some really bad guys there. Along with that he cant find enough other countries to take them. Imagine that. Now hes caught in the position of having the wild and frenzied left wing all beside themselves railing on it and he doesnt have a clue what hes going to do.
Him and holder got a taste of american angst when they tried to bring Khalid to trial in NYC...how did that work out for them.

ONCE AGAIN, the "detainees" are prisoners of war, and some of them may be war criminals. As is the thousands of year old custom, prisoners of war should be held till the end of the war. In a precedent set by the nuremburg trials at the end of WWII, the war criminals among them should be tried at the end of the war by a military commission like setting, not an ordinary court trial, which has nothing to do with the disposition of captives in wartime. All this whimpering and angst over wartime captives is about a non-existent problem, and it's subtext is the continuation of the leftwing fantasy that we aren't fighting a war, and al qaeda and the taliban should be handled as if they robbed the local 7-11.

 

[PLC1]

ONCE AGAIN, the "detainees" are prisoners of war, and some of them may be war criminals.

Some of them may be war criminals, but none of them is a prisoner of war. They are "enemy combatants", a newly minted phrase meaning that they don't have the protection of the Geneva Accords, so can be tor.. I mean subjected to "enhanced interrogation", another newly minted phrase. Some of them most likely are neither war criminals, terrorists, or combatants of any kind. Some of them were sold to US forces for money.

 

[BigRob]

Some of them may be war criminals, but none of them is a prisoner of war. They are "enemy combatants", a newly minted phrase meaning that they don't have the protection of the Geneva Accords, so can be tor.. I mean subjected to "enhanced interrogation", another newly minted phrase. Some of them most likely are neither war criminals, terrorists, or combatants of any kind. Some of them were sold to US forces for money.

Nor should they be entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, according to the Conventions own language.

As for "enhanced interrogation techniques", there are a lot of misconceptions about just what those are. I would be interested in hearing how you define them?

As for those who were sold to the US for money, that did occur, however the vast majority (if not all) who were simply caught up in that manner have been released or removed from GITMO... those are not the cases that are keeping the place open.

 

[Rick]

Some of them may be war criminals, but none of them is a prisoner of war. They are "enemy combatants", a newly minted phrase meaning that they don't have the protection of the Geneva Accords, so can be tor.. I mean subjected to "enhanced interrogation", another newly minted phrase. Some of them most likely are neither war criminals, terrorists, or combatants of any kind. Some of them were sold to US forces for money.

Novel invented statuses aside, what they are is the enemy, and pulling them into regular civil courts is unprecedented and absurd, as well as a threat to national security in wartime.

 

[dahermit]

Due process has >>NOTHING<< to do with detaining enemy combatants during wartime, and certainly not war criminals.

Suspects! SUSPECTS!!! Some turned in by Afghan Army and Police for monetary reward. Re: "Taxi to the Dark Side".

 

[BigRob]

Suspects! SUSPECTS!!! Some turned in by Afghan Army and Police for monetary reward. Re: "Taxi to the Dark Side".

Most, if not all, of those who were simply turned in mistakenly have been released as I understand it.

 

[Rick]

I don't think this mistaken identity thing is a very big issue, but in any case it's due to the way the US fights the war. During WWII, the US shot on the battlefield german soldiers caught not in uniform. The US should similarly announce such a policy for al qaeda and taliban.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't think this mistaken identity thing is a very big issue, but in any case it's due to the way the US fights the war. During WWII, the US shot on the battlefield german soldiers caught not in uniform. The US should similarly announce such a policy for al qaeda and taliban.

There is reason to capture them for intel. If they're thought to be that valuable them keep them. Else give them to the cuntry we found them and let their justice mentality deal with it.

 

[BigRob]

There is reason to capture them for intel. If they're thought to be that valuable them keep them. Else give them to the cuntry we found them and let their justice mentality deal with it.

Are you suggesting we turn over Yemeni detainees to the government in Yemen? All that means is that they will be immediately released.

 

[PLC1]

Novel invented statuses aside, what they are is the enemy, and pulling them into regular civil courts is unprecedented and absurd, as well as a threat to national security in wartime.

Circumventing established standards for the treatment of prisoners by inventing new terminology could also be a threat to national security, as well detrimental to the war effort.

 

[BigRob]

Circumventing established standards for the treatment of prisoners by inventing new terminology could also be a threat to national security, as well detrimental to the war effort.

Attempting to classify detainees under the established standards (when they have not met the established standards, as prescribed by the documents you want to hold them under, to entitle them to that treatment) is a farce.

I am also curious to hear your argument as to why "detainees" as opposed to "POW's" is a "threat to national security"?