I honestly think some of you want all the Gitmo detainees immediately released

[Perky]

Either because: "they have been tortured enough" or "they have been outrageuously denied Habeus" or "Military tribunals are uncontitutional" or "this is a matter for the civilian courts not the military"


All partially valid arguments, but ultimately devoid of answering the question of what do we do with them. They are not civilains, they are not us Citizens, only a few have anything to do with crimes on US soil. But they took up arms against us and many wnat to do us harm.

To demand their release because of prior bad acts (waterboarding, extraordinary rendition) or on Contitutional grounds begs the question. What the Hell are we suppoed to do with them? What are we suppoed to do about any senior Al Quada operative we capture on the battlefield who had nothing to do with 9/11 but want to kill us now?

Are we not allowed to capture them? Is it easier to simply line them up and shoot them dead?

Do you really think KSM should be released? If you answer yes to that question, then it begs these questions.....Do you think his cause is just? Do you support Al Quaeda's position and agenda?


:shrug:

Seems to me that for all the handringing and handwashing that goes on here no one is really dealing with the alternative.


Is it unjust to keep people locked up indefinitely? Perhaps. But hhey have rights as military detainees and those rights should be both guaranteed and monitored. Those rights do not include the right of release when hostilities are ongoing. Do they?

[rateyes]

1. Put them on fucking trial, and make damned sure it's a FAIR one.

[Occam Bandage]

2. That's what O's doing. nt

[rateyes]

6. By reinstating the military commissions he railed against in the campaign?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

10. By reforming the military commissions he called "flawed" to bring them in line with Geneva III. nt

[joeybee12]

64. Can't be done...and by going for this compromised solution, he will

dig an even deeper hole as anyone with a conscience will sue in court to stop this...dump the tribunal, start fresh.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Why not? Military tribunals are the most common way of trying POWs.

Obama's reforms will make them more or less equal to criminal courts, only without reporters, with military officers instead of civilians as jurors, and with slightly different standards of evidence. The proposed reforms would fulfill every Geneva requirement.

[LittleBlue]

96. Many of these men aren't even fighters, let alone POW's.

Some have been seized within cars or their own homes. Hamdan was seized in a car. Boumediene was seized in Bosnia. Al Odah was seized crossing a border, and there's no evidence he's ever done anything.

Those are not POW's. You can't simply seize someone and call them a POW irrespective of whether they are even fighting.

[Occam Bandage]

97. That's true. Some are. Some are unlawful combatants. Some are civilians plain and simple.

The distinction does not matter in this particular regard, especially between "unlawful combatant" and "civilian," as the two categories have equal Geneva protections: both are considered civilians. While civilians are generally afforded fewer Geneva protections than POWs are, all are afforded the same right to a fair trial in a regularly-constituted court with all the protections seen as indispensable by civilized nations. That is to say, when it comes to their Geneva-mandated trials, none are afforded any more than the right to a trial in a military tribunal.

[LittleBlue]

99. The Geneva convention does not apply to people whose home

was raided in Bosnia, the person seized, and then deported to a US facility on spurious claims (later debunked) that they made phone calls. That's not a POW, and yes it does make a difference.

I challenge you to find a statement in the Geneva Convention equating people seized off the battlefield, who had no role in combat, to actual combatants.

[Occam Bandage]

100. GCIII does not, as those people are not POWs. GCIV does, as they are civilians.

There is no middle ground; a detainee either has the minimal but substantial rights of a civilian or the greater rights of a POW. Bush made the spurious argument that they were neither civilian nor POW, and so neither GCIII nor GCIV applied.

Be very careful with your arguments. If neither GC applies, then they have absolutely no protections whatsoever. The Constitution does not and has never been applied to foreign nationals captured as part of an ongoing war effort. GCIII and GCIV are the only international treaties to which the US is a ratified signatory that offer protections. If you're going to make the claim that they are not afforded Geneva protections, than you're making the claim that absolutely any treatment whatsoever is legal, whether that is your intent or not.

[LittleBlue]

101. I'll quote it for you

Art. 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without distinction:

(a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants; (b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Notice it continually says "in the hostile zone" or "conflict zone". Many of these people were seized outside of the hostile zone.

The GC was not meant as a carte blanche to seize anyone anywhere in the world and try them under military tribunals.

And no, just because someone claims the Geneva Convention does not apply to a certain case, that is also not carte blanche to do whatsoever you wish to them. They still have protections, just as any foreign citizen does.

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

As you can see, people seized in foreign countries who are not party to the conflict do not apply.

[Occam Bandage]

102. What you quoted has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

I don't see why it matters whether belligerents can create neutral zones to protect civilians and wounded combatants. I assume you meant to quote something else. I would direct you to the language of GCIV that applies:

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

What you're complaining about isn't the trial system; you're saying that you believe many were not seized legally. Never mind that "the hostile zone" is subject to interpretation given the ever-evolving nature of war. That is the type of thing which can and ought be brought up in trial as a defense, much as one can bring up the fact that one was arrested illegally as part of a defense in a criminal courtroom. Such a claim does not invalidate the system of courts; it is to be brought up in a trial as a means of invalidating the case against the defendant.

If you do not believe they have Geneva protections, and if you recognize that their nations of origin are not concerned with our treatment, and if you recognize that the Constitution does not apply, what protections do you believe they have?

[LittleBlue]

103. Here it is again

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

As you can see, people seized in foreign countries who are not party to the conflict are not considered a "protected party". Bosnia still has normal relations with us, so far as I know. So does Egypt, and most Arab states.

[Occam Bandage]

105. Yes, you added that after I began my response.

I address it below. The nation in which they are seized has nothing to do with that excerpt. Their nationality does, and as I point out, that actually harms and does not help the your claim that military tribunals are not valid.

[Occam Bandage]

104. As regards the quoted text added in the edit:

If you're narrowing your focus to individuals whose capture was neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan, that's fine, I'll take that as an admission that military tribunals are the legal means of trying anyone detained in those countries. Now, moving on to your quote.

Let's break it down. The first paragraph claims that anyone in the hands of a party to a conflict or an occupying power is protected. That would be literally everyone we have captured, by definition. The second paragraph claims that persons who are from a neutral country who find themselves in the country in which the war is occurring are not protected, and that persons who belong to a state having normal relations with the US are not protected.

This would be because those persons have national governments that possess normal relations with the capturing party, who may advocate for their citizens' interests. In those cases, the only protections they have are the protections of domestic law of the nation capturing them; it is assumed diplomacy will account for the rest. That doesn't at all help your claim that military tribunals are illegal; United States domestic law does not in any way forbid military tribunals.

I'm confused as to why you seem to think that arguing for detainees having fewer rights is the same as arguing that military tribunals are not valid. It is not the case that America can only do what the GC says we can do; it is the case that we can do anything it does not say we cannot do.

[LittleBlue]

107. lol sure, I'm narrowing, let's re-examine what I said

Some have been seized within cars or their own homes. Hamdan was seized in a car. Boumediene was seized in Bosnia. Al Odah was seized crossing a border, and there's no evidence he's ever done anything.

Those are not POW's. You can't simply seize someone and call them a POW irrespective of whether they are even fighting.

Yes, and you then said

Some are unlawful combatants. Some are civilians plain and simple. The distinction does not matter in this particular regard

lol I'm correcting you; don't claim I'm narrowing the focus when what you've said is simply wrong. Their country of origin and where they are seized does indeed matter (my original point).

When did I say military tribunals are illegal? You've projected some kind of argument on to me that someone else has made. If you'll recall, I've said they are immoral, unethical, and unjust, but I've never said they aren't legal.

[Occam Bandage]

98. Dupe.

[merh]

130. why can't it be done?

please explain your concerns

[Phx_Dem]

17. I think that's what the President is trying to do by re-establishing

a fair legal framework for military tribunals.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. what do we usually do with real criminals?

put them in jail or execute them.

They should be tried as an ordinary criminal in ordinary courts and go to ordinary prisons. Do they have proof that these guys actually committed the crimes?

[Perky]

8. No country in the world has ever put POWs into their crimnal justice system

It is not appropriate.

Why? Because they would all be found gui;ty of either murder, attempted murder or consipracy to murder US citizens. Namely US soldiers, That is why it it inappropriate. If a GI was captured at the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, should they have been tried under German law?

Again no State has ever put POWs on trial.

In this case, it is more difficult because ther is no state we are fighting and quite honestly, the US military does not have the right to arrest anyone and neither does the CIA,

SHould they be tried where their actions took place? SHould a geman solider captured by US soldiers on German soil be tried for murder under German law?

[peace13]

11. That was then, this is now.

We are a military complex not a nation and intend to be at war from this time forward. We need to incorporate a system for those that we have 'captured'. Don't forget, you too could be captured when the time is right. Don't think your regular rights and laws will apply to you at that point.

[Occam Bandage]

12. "We need to incorporate a system for those that we have 'captured.'"

That would be the military tribunal system, in which you are tried in front of a jury of military officers, and in which you are afforded rights not by the Constitution but rather by the Third Geneva Convention. That is how all POWs are tried in any country. The problem with the tribunal under Bush was that detainees were not afforded those rights.

[grantcart]

111. Yes but we must have a new NAME. Since the name was used by Bush

it is magically filled with injustice.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. what does the constitution say and the conventions?

[Better Believe It]

16. The Bush government and Obama Administration says they aren't POW's

So give them a fair trial required under the Constitution of the United States.

[Perky]

23. THere is no requrement under the US Consiturion or Geneva to put them on civilain trial.

mere because they are not POWs. THey should be afforded the rights of POWs and those rights should be protected, but those rights do not include a civilain trial.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

65. yes

[MadHound]

32. These aren't POW's, they are that special status that Bush set up, enemy combatants

That status was set up so that he could get around the Geneva Convention and the Constitution. Therefore, military tribunals are not only inappropriate, but also could be illegal and unconstitutional.

That is why the best way for justice to be served is for every single one of them to be brought to trial in open court.

[Perky]

41. No the proper course is to declare them to be POWs and give them Geneva Rights.

[MadHound]

55. Except the vast majority of these people weren't captured on the battlefield

They were captured in raids, dragged out of their homes, dragged off the street. Therefore they're not POW's. They're this bullshit category called enemy combatants, which combines the worst of all legal status', they aren't given habeas corpus, they don't have any rights, and they can be held indefinitely. Giving them POW status would simply turn them into something they aren't, soldiers.

This is why these people need to either be let go or tried in normal courts. Anything else is a travesty of the US justice system.

[Occam Bandage]

70. Not at all. They are "unlawful combatants," which are an accepted and common term,

denoting any civilian who is engaged in hostile action. They are afforded the Geneva rights afforded any civilians; Bush's "enemy combatant" bullshit was a way of trying to put them in a nether-world between lawful and unlawful combatants, where they could have the rights of neither.

They do have rights--they must have all the legal protections civilized nations see as indispensible. That includes habeas corpus and trial by a regularly constituted court. It does not mean they must be tried in criminal courts; Geneva makes absolutely no such claims.

[MadHound]

77. Sorry, but their legal status is and continues to be that Bushian monster known as enemy combatant

Therefore they are still in legal limbo. They aren't POW's, they aren't unlawful combatants, and an overwhelming number of them were not captured on the battlefield. Bush has made such a hash out of this that the only fair and even handed method of dispensing justice is via federal court.

[Occam Bandage]

80. Again, it does not legally, logically, or ethically follow that

because Bush has declared that they do not have the rights of unlawful combatants, that we must treat them as United States nationals and not as unlawful combatants.

They don't have to be captured on the battlefield to be unlawful combatants. "Unlawful combatant" and "civilian" have the exact same protections, after all; the distinction is simply to avoid confusion between bystanders and participants. Many undoubtedly committed no criminal actions, and their trials will determine that.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why they should have to be tried in a Federal court. The best argument you've given is "Bush said they don't have Geneva protections, so we can't give them Geneva protections now." He said they have no Constitutional protections, either, and unlike the situation with Geneva protections, there is no legal rationale for extending them Constitutional protections. They're foreign nationals captured in foreign nations. The Constitution does not apply.

[Perky]

72. VAST Majority?

I generally agree that they should not be incarcerated... but I doubt that number is the "vast majority"


But here is the thing. If they are AQ then they may be by definition guilty of aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit first degree murder which under federal and most state stutute carries a life penalty or perhaps the death penalty.


Not saying they are all AQ, not saying the end justifies the means and not saying that they do not deserve a trial.

I am saying that those captured off the battlefield, are not necessarily innocent.

I am saying that those captured on the battlefield are POWs definitionally and that they are not "entitled" to a trial under the Constiution or under Geneva. And they certainly are not entititles to a civilian trial, because there is no precedent for trying combatants under civilian authority. THey shoould be accorded every right under Geneva and thos rights should be both protected and monitored for compliance. ANd that those who commit tortue should be charged.

[MadHound]

75. Approximately eleven percent of the Gitmo detainees were captured on the battlefield

I stand by my statement of "vast majority".

You aren't saying that all are AQ, but you are prejudging and implying that some are indeed AQ. It is this sort of presupposition that demands a fair and open trial in federal court, not some kangaroo court.

[Occam Bandage]

82. It does require a fair and open trial in a regularly constituted court, per GCIII and GCIV.

Military tribunals are considered regularly constituted, so long as they follow procedures that are predefined (and not arbitrary whims), and so long as they offer the legal protections "considered indispensable by civilized nations."

[Perky]

83. Obviously you have to prove they are AQ

ANd what percent are AQ? ANd what is your source?

[NorthCarolina]

71. That seems the correct approach to me as well nt

[Occam Bandage]

42. That argument is nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Bush's classification as "enemy combatants" is meaningless and has no bearing on their legal status. The mere fact that Bush tried to deny them Geneva rights in absolutely no way implies that they do not possess Geneva rights, certainly does not imply that the military tribunals prescribed by the Geneva Conventions are inappropriate, and absolutely does not imply that they must be tried in criminal courts.

Bush's classification is garbage pseudolegalese and can be discarded, end of story.

[MadHound]

58. I agree that classifying them as enemy combatants is garbage

But so is classifying them as POW's, since the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of these people weren't picked up on the battlefield, were not engaged in a war with the US, but rather were picked up in raids on their homes, off the streets, out of the arms of their family. Thus, giving them the status of POW is just as bogus as the status of enemy combatant.

Therefore there are only two options left, let them go or try them in federal court.

[Occam Bandage]

68. Geneva does not forbid trying unlawful combatants detained as part of a war effort.

Geneva Convention IV simply forbids the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Unlawful combatants (which is not a Bush-era term, but rather an international-law one) may be tried so long as the trial does not violate either domestic or international law. Military tribunals are not at odds with either.

[MadHound]

78. So in other words,

Even if they were "unlawful combatants"(which they're not, they're still classified as "enemy combatants") then we would still have to try them in open court. So, let's do it already and clean up this mess.

[Occam Bandage]

81. There's nothing in domestic or international law demanding the trial of unlawful combatants be open.

Bush's claim of "enemy combatant" is still used pending review, but is a legal fiction that bears no weight.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. This was not a real war

[Clear Blue Sky]

46. Can't try them as criminals.

No one on the battlefield is read Miranda rights. Not practical.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

61. what battlefield?

for all we know they may be cheney's patsies?

[Clear Blue Sky]

87. They were picked up in Iraq or vicinity, not Des Moines....

[Warren Stupidity]

91. Uh wrong. Afghanistan not Iraq.

Most of the gitmo victims are from Afghanistan.

[Raineyb]

115. What battlefield?

When people are rounded up because there's a bounty out for "evildoers" you get a lot of people swept up because of grudges and personal animosity. We have very little proof that most of these people are criminals much less "terrorists." There are some who were taking as children And now having kept them in cages for nearly 8 years we're supposed to believe any trial will be fair at this point? This is a sham. No one wants to admit that we've been a party to kidnapping and torture and to pretend that we've been holding a hell of a lot of people for no damn reason apparently is an anathema.

[iamthebandfanman]

4. um, why is it asking to much to provide facts

and proof of someone being associated with a terrorist group ?

why shouldnt they get the right to defend themselves against the charge?

my understanding is that they arent allowed to present evidence for defense, atleast thats what i recall a military lawyer saying back in 2005.


i dont think anybody is saying 'let them all go free', but rather... let them have trials that arent one sided so we can fairly judge these people... not just make assumptions and not allow them to prove it otherwise.

if we believe in our justice system, everything should work out fine and those guilty will be found guilty...

[atreides1]

5. I think you're wrong.

"But they took up arms against us and many wnat to do us harm."

You know this as a fact regarding all of them?

The members of the Taliban were defending their country against an invader(US), and had all the rights to take up arms. The Taliban, along with the different tribes could for all intents and purposes be considered militia, sort of like those men who came to called Minute Men during the American Revolution.

Here are Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Geneva Conventions. The last part of article 5 is very clear:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Note the word "competent", one man sitting in the Oval Office does not a tribunal make!!!! And we all know how competent Bush was.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:<[br />(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

As for the AQ members who were not involved with 9/11, they can either be sent to the ICC or returned to their home countries for trial.

[Grey]

9. Good reply,

Everyone needs to read this.

[Perky]

14. I honestly think that most should be sent home unless their is evidence of a crime.

THey have the right to take up arms against us when we invade. No one is arguing otherwise. But if they were captured on the battlefield and if we were taking fire from them,. they have no right to a trial and we have no obligation to release them under Geneva.

In part because they are not signatories but also because there is no legal precedent for repatriation of combatants when hostilities persists. Now there are POW exchanges, but that type of deal is done by state actors who have a diplomatic relationship. So nntil AQ and the Taliban offers something we want in return we get to keep their guys confined.

[ThirdWorldJohn]

7. I think Bush is guilty of as bad and should be imprisoned at Gitmo. And a few others also.

[GodlessBiker]

13. How do you know they took up arms against us?

Let the administration prove that at trials that are fair, open to the public, and affords the accused due process and to see the evidence against him.

[Perky]

15. POWs captured on the battlefield do not get trials in civiilian courts

SHow me precedent anywhere in history.

[Better Believe It]

18. Bush and now Obama insist they are not POW's. So what's your point?

[Perky]

20. SO you would classify enemy combatants as civilian crininals?

[GodlessBiker]

34. They are either POWs or they should be tried in civilian courts. Choose.

[Perky]

36. POWs

[GodlessBiker]

40. Fine. Then follow the Geneva Conventions. People should be going to jail for not doing so.

[Occam Bandage]

44. We are. The Third Geneva Convention claims POWs should be tried

in an established court offering the legal protections common to all ethical societies. It does not require they be tried in criminal courts. Obama's reforms bring the military tribunal system in line with both domestic law and the Geneva Conventions.

[GodlessBiker]

47. .

[stillcool]

33. I think I've read that 2/3 have already..

been released. I wonder what the torture ratio is for those who were released, and those left behind. There are relatively few prisoner that will face charges, because most of the evidence has been tainted by torture. I think the legal issue is more about protecting the United States from massive law suits, than anything else. There is a reason why so many want the Cheney Hotel left open and occupied..apparently until all the guests are dead. I find it astounding that no one in the world will allow these prisoners into their country.

[Perky]

39. why do you suppose no one wants them?

[redqueen]

43. I'd be interested in hearing people's theories.

Anyone?

[stillcool]

84. I have a hard time believing that..

I think the reason that countries are refusing to take them, is because they are being pressured not to..for some reason. I read that the government was thinking, or actually offering money to those who would take them. It is not logical that taking in a few human beings would be any kind of hardship. I don't understand why these people would be targeted for torture when they return home either. What's that about?

[Warren Stupidity]

90. POWs captured on battlefields are not guilty of anything.

[Raineyb]

116. 1. What battlefield? 2. They've been classified as "enemy combatants"

and 3. There's no such classification as enemy combatants.

[Occam Bandage]

19. I agree about all but "open to the public."

POWs are rarely if ever tried in courts that are open to the public; I can't think of a country that has tried POWs in criminal courts during the conflict in which they were captured. The reason? With our detainees, just as with most POWs, much of the evidence against them is related to ongoing military and intelligence operations. We have three options in those cases: try them in a military tribunal according to the Third Geneva Convention, release them without trying them at all (and since their home nations will not have them, that would mean releasing them into America, most likely as refugees), or hold them indefinitely.

[Perky]

22. the other challenge with POW-like detainess and civilian law

is that it is rther difficult to prove what happens on the battlefield. So the civilian charge is what? and WHat is the penelty. I honestly am not sure what the hesitation is ultimately to declare them to be formal POWs when they were captured in battle.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. How is being captured in battle a crime of any sort?

[Better Believe It]

21. How about a fair trial in a real courtroom with a real judge and a real jury?

Ever hear of such a thing?

It's in the Constitution.

Let's not try to find ways to bypass and violate the Constitution hoping a right-wing run Supreme Court will approve.

[Perky]

25. OY. because there is no precedent in history and no requirement under Geneva or the Consitution

to provide a criminal trial for battlefield captures.

NONE.

NONE

WHere in the Consitution does it say that we must provide a trial for foreign nationals who are shooting at us?

[Better Believe It]

30. If they are in fact simply war battlefield captives, as you insist, they are clearly POW's.

So what do you want to do?

You only have three options that I can detect.

Continue to hold them or release them as POW's.

Try them in federal court charging them with terrorist activities and if you have no credible evidence of terrorist activity release them.

The third option is the Bush option. Evade, undermine and subvert the Constitution by designating them "enemy combatants", whatever that fuc* that's suppose to mean, and give them a military trial without the rights and due process provided for in federal courts.

So which option do you favor?

[Perky]

37. THey are POWs and when Al Quade lays down its arms, they get to go home

If they are not enemy combatants, they get to go home Now.


If they were involved in terrorist act as opposed to battlefield action, they should get civillian trials. ANd if they have accusatsions of torture, they whould get to call any witness they want up to and including Cheney and Bush.

But just so we are clear... Torture does not mean necessarily that they get to walk. If we can prove they are guilty without coerced evidence. THey get the same penalties afforded anyone in federal custody found guilty of terrorist acts. (see McVeigh, Timothy, deceased)

[Better Believe It]

53. And if they are not terrorists what should be done with them? Ahhh .... kangaroo courts !

"THey get the same penalties afforded anyone in federal custody found guilty of terrorist acts. (see McVeigh, Timothy, deceased)"

So they can cross examination witnesses, so-called "secret evidence" won't be allowed and they will be afforded full rights before legitimate court with a real judge and independent jury?

Not according to you.

As you understand, most of those rounded up had nothing to do with terrorism.

But, the only way you can convict them and justify their years long imprisonment is with a kangaroo military tribunal .... ala Bush!

[Perky]

73. Yopu have lost me... Yes the Terrorist should have all rights afforeded under the Constitution r

but terrorist are definitionally different than those captured on the battlefield.

You really need to read the posts better.

Terror suspeects get trials

Enemy combatants=POW and thay do not get civilian trial. THey get Geneva RIghts and they get to go home when AQ surrenders,

[Soylent Brice]

24. here's my only thought on this:

if a murderer confesses to said murder, and he is guilty by means of a ton of other forensic evidence as well, but the confession turned out to be coerced, that person has the means - by law - to appeal their conviction. in a lot of cases convictions have even been thrown out.

if the police do not do their job correctly, then the perp in some case can walk, no matter how guilty. that's the difficult fact about law.

in my head i see no difference with the detainees. maybe i'm nuts. ??

[Perky]

26. I don't disagree

even though these are not civiliam activities. Evidence has to be obtained in a legal manner.

But simply becsuse someone is abused while in custody, does not guarnatee them a get of of jail free card. We simply cannot use any of the coerced or tortured testimony at trial.

[Soylent Brice]

27. exactly.

there are no gurantess in life, and no one gets a get out of jail free card, but tainted evidence is tainted evidence.

my hope is that each case is given proper and thorough analysis. if we fucked up, we can't cry about it later.

[Occam Bandage]

28. The difference, I believe, is that they have not been convicted yet.

If a prisoner confesses to said murder, if the confession is coerced, and if the confession is therefore never entered as evidence in the trial, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Obama has declared that information gained through torture or coercion cannot be used in these trials. I don't see a problem on that front.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. I don't want them released, but I DO want Gitmo closed in 249 days as per Obama's deadline....

which I understand to be Jan. 22, 2010.

I expect him to stick to what he says he'll do in this case. No if's, and's, or but's.

[Perky]

38. fine by me

[RetroLounge]

67. Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath

RL

[noamnety]

31. Incorrect info in the OP: "But they took up arms against us"

"90% of Gitmo prisoners innocent: - Lawrence B. Wilkerson deputy to Colin Powell"

"Lifelong Republican, and chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, stepped forward in ablog post on Tuesday to say not only that there are still innocent people being held at the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, not only that we’ve been holding innocent people there for more than six years, but that the U.S. government has known all along that they pose no risk to national security.

... Moreover, Powell’s former chief of staff insists that the process by which these “enemy combatants” were so designated itself was shabby and incompetent, and that those sent to Gitmo weren’t properly “vetted” before they were hauled off to Cuba. Pakistanis, Wilkerson added, often acted as bounty hunters, securing as much as $5,000 a head."

http://rupeenews.com/2009/03/24/90-of-gitmo-priosners-innocent-lawrence-b-wilkerson-deputy-to-colin-powell/

If you were illegally kidnapped and deported to some country you had nothing to do with for a bounty, then spent 6 years there being tortured, what do you think that country should do with you at the end of those 6 years?

[Perky]

35. I don't have alny qualms with letting people we have no evidence on go

with a $1 Million apology,

but there are some who need to be detained. WOuld you agree?

[noamnety]

45. It depends how they came to be in our custody.

Do you believe another country has the right to pay Americans a bounty to turn in people on our own soil to be extradited to their country without any charges or due process?

Your OP is written from the perspective that most (actually all) are guilty of something - AND that we have evidence of that - AND that they came to be in Guantanamo through legal means. There are more false assumptions in there as well - that's the short list.

Personally, I think you should ask the mods to lock this thread because of the inflammatory and false nature of the OP, and I think you should try a new thread that acknowledges that the VAST majority of people held there were innocent, illegally kidnapped, and illegally held and tortured with no evidence against them whatsoever.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Worse - the assumption is that simply being in the Taliban militia

constitutes a war crime subject to a military tribunal. It is if, after WWII, we subjected every German soldier or every Japanese soldier to a military tribunal, simply for being a soldier. The few who were actually captured on anything vaguely resembling a battlefield, as per the GC are POWs who ought to be repatriated to their home countries now that the conflict is over. We aren't holding any Taliban leaders as far as I know. Instead we have been torturing foot soldiers for seven years. What a fucking travesty. How dare anyone here defend this crap.

As for the rest - their detention is completely outside the GC other than our misbehavior as an occupying power for those seized in Afghanistan. None of the rest were captured in any situation that could remotely qualify as a battlefield. They were unfortunates bought from friendly militias, or 'persons of interest' captured in police actions outside of any conflict zone or battlefield situation, some not even in fghanistan. None of them were, for example, caught in our territory out of uniform engaged in sabotage, as were the Germans often sited here as the legal precedent for what we are doing.

And then there is the small matter of seven years of torture and detention without charges, without legal representation, without proper access to international agencies, without any compliance with the GC conventions sited as governing their future kangaroo court destiny. We fucked up. All of them from all of our secret and not so secret torture centers need to be set free.

[Perky]

119. No but you did make the valid point in another sub thread that particiaption on the battlefield is

not criminal....It is not...but it does mean theay are POWs and they can be held in that stauts as long as hostilities exist.

[struggle4progress]

48. Those owed an apology seem to be the majority:

Guest Post by Lawrence Wilkerson: Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, Mar 17 2009, 7:27PM
Lawrence B. Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and is chairman of the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.

... no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation ... It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well ...

... several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released ...

... the ad hoc intelligence .. mosaic philosophy ... held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent ...

Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand ...

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/

The problems need to be separated and handled distinctly. As quickly as possible, we need to resolve the issue of those held at Guantanamo, against whom we have no real evidence: that's almost everybody there. Then we can turn to the problem of the people who actually might be guilty, but who present a prosecution problem because the Bushistas tortured them

[newinnm]

49. This whole process has been so corrupted

That I am afraid that there is no way to give them a fair trial. For the sake of justice, we may have to release them. Will they offend again? Maybe maybe not but trying them in a military tribunal based on the mess that was made by the bushies is a recipe for disaster. I say we send them back to their home countries to be dealt with.



-nnnm

[Deep13]

50. Three possibilities: POWs, criminals, kidnapping victims.

Enemy combatant is another name for "soldier" even if they are an irregular unit. When a soldier is captured, he falls under POW rules. Once the war ends, which according to the Federal govt. happened in 2003, they should be exchanged for coalition prisoners or just released to their home countries.

If the guy was not part of a legitimate military, even a local militia, then he is essentially a criminal. In that case, he must be charged and tried according to law. That means a civil court if one is available or else according to the uniform code of military justice in occupied enemy country.

If the guy was neither in an army nor part of some criminal activity but was just drag-netted on an iffy suspicion, then he's a kidnapping victim and should be released at once with compensation and an official apology.


The reason we have laws is so we don't need to make these soul-searching decisions every time there is a national emergency.

[sniffa]

51. Set them up in rent controlled apartments in NYC

Problem solved.

[Old Hank]

52. Question to OP: Did any of us demand the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed as you claim?

I seriously doubt it. And if someone said that's what should be done, that person is in the extreme minority. I think you should refrain from reading our minds.

[Perky]

74. I never claimed any such thing

I saked what should be done with him?

ANd you are the only one who has deared to even deal with his standing.

THe original poing is that Gitmo is so repuslive instutionally that the revulsion of what has happened there trumps every other consideration.

[Old Hank]

95. Yeah. You did

You asked "Do you really think KSM should be released?"

Note the "really" which implies that we want him to be released.

If I asked you, "Do you really want Obama to fail," for example, what I am claiming is that you previously said that you wanted Obama to fail.

[Perky]

121. There are people chiming in on this thread who want all the Gitmo prisoner's released,

Yo are the one who interjected the word "demand. In both by OP subject and in specific reference to KSM I used the word "want"

SO I never sais people were demandinging KSM be released.

[Orsino]

54. Charge them or release them.

I wouldn't object to military tribunals in principle, but for the fact of the illegal war which entailed the capture of these hostages/guests/prisoners/whatever.

Let the torture, where it occurred, poison their prosecution. Let's admit that we are not able or entitled to give most of these people anything like a fair trial. The abuses that so many suffered may have rendered them unable to stand trial anywhere.

And stop wondering about what to "do with" most of them. We've done far more than we should have.

[redqueen]

57. I think the "what to do with" might be asking where they should go. (nt)

[Orsino]

60. Where they please, anywhere a nation will accept them.

That would be a start--letting them go where they want without our hand-wringing drive to manage it.

[Occam Bandage]

69. What if no nations volunteer to accept them? nt

[Orsino]

108. Dunno. Are there such people?

I'd imagine that there are a few nations who would be eager to accept any or all of them, just because we are all weirded out and guilty. Victims of American torture and illegal imprisonment would have tremendous PR value. "For years, the US was afraid to let them go, and now they are afraid to keep them."

[grantcart]

112. Yes, a large group of Chinese Seperatist Muslims

They have been found innocent of having any ill will against the US or Europe but hate China.


Other countries are afraid of offending China, the US is paranoid about anybody that has been in Gitmo.

[Orsino]

113. Who are these prisoners?

Have we offered to release them?

[grantcart]

114. I am surprised you haven't heard about them

The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed the government to release them into the US immediately.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27068671

From last October


WASHINGTON - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration Tuesday to immediately free 17 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo Bay into the United States, rebuking the government in a landmark decision that could set the stage for the release of dozens other prisoners in Cuba.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina in Washington said it would be wrong for the government to continue holding the detainees, known as Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), who have been jailed for nearly seven years, since they are no longer considered enemy combatants. Over the objections of government lawyers who called them a security risk, Urbina ordered their release by Friday.

"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful," Urbina said in a ruling that brought cheers and applause from a standing-room only courtroom filled with dozens of Uighurs and human rights activist





They have been well mentioned in the media, including a lengthy 60 Minute episode.

This background on their history, their innocence has been absolutely established.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uighurs

[Orsino]

117. Ah. The ones we're "supposed" to release, but won't.

I'm not convinced that no country would accept these people--not on the Bush Administration's say-so, at least.

I would certainly agree that they shouldn't be sent to China against their will. Perhaps we should accept them into the US. That would be one way to begin facing the consequences of our abandonment habeas corpus.

I would say, though, that these prisoners have an excellent case for refugee status in any enlightened nation. They could rightly look on both China and America as oppressors.

[grantcart]

123. Well its not so easy as it seems

Its not just offending the Chinese.


They have their own dialect and any host government needs to have translators, etc.


Also they are a very clanish society with their own religious, linguistic and diet so they need to find a place where there is an exisiting community that can integrate them, which eliminates many smaller countries like Norway, Sweden, etc.


The best country to take them would be the US. We have a fairly significant Uyghur community that is anxious to receive them and we have an infrastructure of language training, etc for refugees.


It is even more disturbing than the normal propoganda war that the Republicans normaly engage in that they are trying to demonize anyone who has been in Gitmo (and in this case most ironically because the Uyghur are the most effective counterforce to Communism in that part of China). They are literally going to destroy these innocent people.

[Orsino]

124. Then there's the tiny matter of our responsibility to help them heal...

...from whatever abuses they suffered at our hands.

[Politicalboi]

56. We need to find the truth behind 9/11

If we are going to hold them responsible for 9/11 we need the evidence. And if the evidence isn't there, like it's not, then let them go.

[rucky]

59. If a citizen were held for that long without trial, what do you think would happen?

[Perky]

76. but they ar not citizens.

so what is your point?

[Warren Stupidity]

93. The constitution limits very few rights by citizenship.

Almost all of our rights are universal - they apply to people not to citizens. The wording is quite specific in the constitution when the limit is 'citizens only'. It is rightwing bullshit, largely unchallenged by our stupid corrupt media, that somehow only citizens have rights.

So what is your point?

[Perky]

122. Tou're the one who positied the question.

those held a gitmo or neither citizens or residents. If they are criminals (specifically for acts of terrorism) they should stand trial. If they are captured on the battlefield or in a war zone by the military they are POWs by any reasonable definition, they get Geneva rights but there is no reuirement for a civilian trial NONE.

If they were capture outside the war zone, by the CIA (renditioned) or by a friendly government tnd then turned over to us, then I think we are in unchrted teritory. Spies were sent to POW camps in WWII SO that is proper,but the problem may come down to the nature of AQ. Is it a military force? If so they get military processes not civilian. If they are a criminal enterprise then they get the court system and the FBI takes the lead although it is tougher overseas from a legal view,

[rucky]

110. It's a human rights issue.

can't you see that?

[Perky]

118. Of course I can, but that is not what the poster posited.

[IndianaGreen]

79. I think the US should return Guantanamo to Cuba

America stole it!

[centristgrandpa]

85. not really...

The US Constitution is double edged, you either live by it or dump it. You cannot create gray areas to suit your agenda... :shrug:

[sam kane]

86. False. Most did not "take up arms against us."

Propaganda.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. We invaded Afghanistan.

Even if some of those captured and tortured in gitmo and elsewhere were actual taliban militia - how exactly was that a war crime in and of itself? We attacked their country and some of them tried to fight us. This is yet another stunning calumny from our 24/7 propaganda machine that we just accept as if it actually made sense.

[bigwillq]

88. Give them a trial

convict them (if so guilty) and they can rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

That's all I want.

[Warren Stupidity]

89. Any reasonable court in this nation would agree.

The well is poisoned by denial of habeas corpus and even more so by torture. Too bad for us, we fucked it up. If there are any people we are still holding in our torture centers who happen to be guilty of anything, that is just too damned bad.

Yes of course, every last one of them needs to be let go.

[bottomtheweaver]

106. Yes and the sooner the better.

There's no "solution" and keeping these men in a concentration camp for another year won't accomplish a damn thing.

[Perky]

120. Including KSM?

[Warren Stupidity]

127. 183 torture sessions in one month KSM?

Yes of course he must be released. We fucked up. We pay the price, not the people we fucked over. By the way we also threatened to kill his children. Defend that.

[Perky]

129. There is no justification for torture ever. but that does not give him a GOJFF card

it means people should go to join for torture and it means we can't use evidence obtained via torture to convict him ore anyone else. But He still gets to stand trial for 9/11 related offenses.

[Warren Stupidity]

131. Yeah sure it does.

It is called gross misconduct. Case closed. You don't get to torture your prisoners for eight years and then pretend they can have a fair trial. We fucked up. We pay the price, not the people we fucked over.

[Perky]

132. Never gonna happen. Obama can't and certainly would not do it on his own

ANd I am not sure a juddge reaches that conclusion without their being a a trial.

[leftofthedial]

125. straw man.

[mmonk]

126. Ok, further detain the 5 or 7% and give them a trial.

Let the 93 to 95% go to other countries.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. It is way past the point where any decision other than 'release them'

is possible. You cannot hold people in torture chambers for years on end and then decide that now they should be charged and given a fair trial. It's over. Justice can only be served by releasing every last one of them.

Those fair trials under the rule of law need to be performed for those who engaged in this war crime, not for its victims.