Three simple questions for supporters of preventive detention

[camera obscura]

a) what would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely and with no charges?;

(b) when Bush and Cheney did preventively imprison large numbers of people, was I in favor of that or did I oppose it, and when right-wing groups such as http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/lm13.cfm">Heritage Foundation were alone in urging a preventive detention law in 2004, did I support them?; and

(c) even if I'm comfortable with Obama having this new power because I trust him not to abuse it, am I comfortable with future Presidents -- including Republicans -- having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?

You may like or dislike Glenn Greenwald (and I don't blame you if you don't), but these three questions really get to the heart of the argument.

It's not about Obama = Bush. It's not even about Obama = Republican. It's about grey areas, and more chillingly, it's about the legal precedents they set for any administration that finds its way into office in the coming decades.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/index.html

[jgraz]

1. I have one simple question for supporters of preventative detention

WHAT THE FUCK?

[LynnTheDem]

2. Yeppers, that would be my one question.

WHAT.

THE.

FUCK.

[rug]

28. Lol.

:thumbsup:

[vaberella]

3. Has the preventive detention or prolonged detentioned (which ever it is) been discussed by O?

I just want to know and if someone can provide a link. From my understanding O has not explained it in full yet to the American people, but I could be wrong. However, several writers and Feingold have made comments on it.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Not that I know of. Feingold coins the term, "indefinite detention"... "Preventive" is made up BS.

"Indefinite" is a little closer to what the president said (prolonged) than "preventive".

Feingold:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5716284

Amnesty International invents the term, "Indefinite Preventive Detention".
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/president-obama-defends-guant%C3%A1namo-closure-endorses-indefinite-preventive-detent

The ACLU uses the term that Obama did NOT use, "Preventive Detention":
http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/05/preventive-detention-must-be-repudiated-and-overturned/

And there are more...

...The greater issue seems to be around the concept of "preventive detention", detention "just in case" a detainee may do something.

Now, I'd set apart Bush's detainees from the argument people are trying to have.

Obama hasn't detained any new people, has he?

No, we have people however who were detained by Bush under illicit means and who are going to take some time to process.

Thus, I think, the term "prolonged detention" is accurate as this gets untangled.

:patriot:

[vaberella]

11. Ahhh..understood. n/t

[jgraz]

25. Yes.

From his speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

So, simply by expressing your allegiance to Osama bin Laden, you can be locked up by the United States for a prolonged, unspecified period of time in order to prevent possible crimes in the future.

[vaberella]

26. Exactly...so there is no details expressed.

He made rather general terms to give us an idea, but I have not seen details. I need plans and conditions.

[jgraz]

27. What plans and conditions will make this constitutional?

Aside from Obama coming out and saying "just kidding", that is.

[grantcart]

36. you did not highlight "like other prisoners of war" which is the more operative statement

[jgraz]

49. Operative, but not true.

How many of these people qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention? Unless we grant them habeas corpus rights, we'll never know.

[grantcart]

56. None of them qualify as POWs hence the word "like"

They do not qualify because they do not conform to the rules of war, like declare a war before blowing up buildings with people in them or wear uniforms that identify them as members of an organized army in a state of hostilities.

Combatants who did that during WWII were summarily executed, like the German soldiers who wore American uniforms 65 years ago.


The fact that they don't qualify for POW status because their strategic and tactical attacks seek to undermine the rules of war should not then be used to give them MORE rights than they would have as POWs.


During WWII we detained 425,000 POWs in the US to PREVENT them from continuing their war against the US.


If there are people who intend to maintain a state of war against us and conform to every other charachteristic of POWs except that they don't wear uniforms or follow 'civilized' rules of war we then we should not have fewer options because they fail to conduct war in the way anticipated by the conveners of the Geneva Convention (who, I believe, would not have had any problem with summary executions in this case, but sensibilities change.).

[jgraz]

58. and hence the word "other", e.g. other POWs

Obama was clearly implying that these people are legitimate POWs. They are not. You can make up as many Just So stories about their status as you like, but until we see evidence, they're just that: stories.

[LooseWilly]

66. It was part of his speech on Thursday.

The part when he talked about current (and presumably future) detainees who aren't chargeable, and yet are still openly and admittedly loyal to al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other "organizations" that we are at war with... and his talk about creating a legal framework by which to continue detaining them, despite the fact that they could not be tried...

[NYC_SKP]

4. Obama used the term, "Prolonged Detention". "Preventative Detention" is an invention...

I'm just trying to nip this in the bud.

There is a distinction, a big distinction, and I'm not please with either prolonged or preventative.

But I'm also not pleased with the propagation of this new meme... Created, in part, by Vince Warren.

"What was very surprising was to hear President Obama talk about what he called prolonged detention, but what I think we can all safely say is preventive detention, moving forward, the idea of detaining people not because they’ve committed a crime, but because of their general dangerousness or that they may commit a crime in the future. That’s something that the documents that President Obama was standing in front of, particularly the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, simply doesn’t permit. And when I heard that in his speech, I was deeply, deeply shocked that he would go in that direction."

Clearly an independent "interpretation"...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/22/vince_warren

The topic of discussion in this other thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8430917&mesg_id=8430990

And nicely addressed by grantcart in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8425161

:patriot:

[vaberella]

6. How was preventive interpreted out of prolonged?

To be honest, I don't understand how that came about. I mean did O mention something that I didn't understand before. I'm a bit confused on the whole thing.

[NYC_SKP]

9. It's magic! It's amazing! And people are gobbling it right up!!!

It's magic bullshit, magic spin.

It's unbelievable (in more ways than one).

"Prolonged" means, "we've got people in different categories, categories of risk and lack of procedure that never existed before now, at it will be difficult to process them quickly, and some may not ever be able to be handled in any traditional way."

"Preventive" suggests, "we will keep people detained to prevent them from doing dangerous things", which is a conclusion being drawn based on things that could happen as a result of the processing, but haven't yet.

Either way, Obama has clearly stated that he expects cooperation from the Congress and the AG in figuring out the best solutions.

In the meantime, the detention of some of these people will, naturally, be prolonged.

:patriot:

[vaberella]

12. Yup..this is why I was confused.

When I think preventive...it gives me the impression of pre-emptive acts in order to curtail the possibility of something unsavory happening. ie. preventive care (in the case of health care). Which would mean new cases of it and people taken in without enough evidence just suspicion---which would include the use of wiretaps and the such.

Thank you NYC_SKP that's why you're in my buddy list---you cleared that up for me big time.

[NYC_SKP]

14. I agree, "preventive" connotes future actions.

When all the poor guy is trying to do is drag our asses out of this Bush/Cheney mess.

:toast:

[vaberella]

17. Ain't that the truth.

He's even been upset about it. We're in a major mess because of Bush and he's trying his best to manage it. Sometimes I wonder about the left. They think it's a snap of the fingers and everything is alright. I has been documented many released prisoners went back to the very same acts to destroy the US. I'm actually glad some of the extreme left, on this site anyway, are not President. We'd have some serious issues on our hands.

:yourock:

[jgraz]

24. There were other words around the phrase "prolonged detention".

A whole speech, in fact. Some of us even read it.

Check this part out, for example:

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again.

Gee, where could we possibly have gotten the term "preventative" from? :crazy:

[dorkulon]

15. What's the difference?

Isn't the detention of these detainees without charge or trial being "prolonged" for the reason that we're afraid they will commit future acts of war against us? And wouldn't describing that as "preventative" detention be fairly accurate?

[vaberella]

18. From my undertanding President O never said there wasn't going to be a trial...

If so, can someone please post the link as to where.

[dorkulon]

22. Here.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

He clearly states here that we will be holding prisoners against whom we have no viable legal case, without prosecuting them. This is from the speech that started the controversy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html

You may agree with his rationale, but let's not pretend it isn't hapenning.

[vaberella]

23. The issue is controversial overall.

Understood. Thanks.

[phleshdef]

5. 3 simple answers.

a) Obama isn't vesting himself with all the "power". He said that the entire process would be subject to congressional and judicial review. Bush and Cheney did everything they could to prevent the other powers of government from interfering with the way they were handling detainees. That is just the opposite of how the plan (as much as we know about it thus far) is going to work. Considering that practices that tainted evidence in the first place are banned by this administration, We have no reason to believe that any future detainees or POWs will have cases tainted in the same way.

b) Obama isn't going to imprison large numbers of people. From all accounts, this is going to pertain to a handful of existing detainees. The President himself pointed out that one the biggest problems in trying certain detainees is that although its pretty obvious that some of them engaged in acts of aggression against the United States, the evidence was still tainted because of things that were done to them by the past administration, things that are now BANNED.

c) See answer (A) as to why I am "comfortable" with this approach. Also, as some have pointed out, this isn't exactly setting a legal precedent. As we have used this approach in other situations within our law. Look at how we deal with people who are severely mentally ill and aren't safe to be living among the American public. The question itself is rather invalid.

[vaberella]

7. This I have read before.

Thank you for the information phleshdef, you are now on my buddy list. However, I'm still trying to figure out how preventive came out of prolonged. I find it sounds as though the writers or interpreters of President O's words are taking liberties or trying to indict Pres O as similar to Bush.

[jgraz]

19. 3 simple replies

a) Obama isn't vesting himself with all the "power". He said that the entire process would be subject to congressional and judicial review. Bush and Cheney did everything they could to prevent the other powers of government from interfering with the way they were handling detainees. That is just the opposite of how the plan (as much as we know about it thus far) is going to work. Considering that practices that tainted evidence in the first place are banned by this administration, We have no reason to believe that any future detainees or POWs will have cases tainted in the same way.

So, Obama will involve the Congress and the courts in his violation of the Constitution. In what way does that make it more constitutional? George Bush got congressional approval for torture, domestic spying and preemptive war. How'd that work out?

b) Obama isn't going to imprison large numbers of people. From all accounts, this is going to pertain to a handful of existing detainees. The President himself pointed out that one the biggest problems in trying certain detainees is that although its pretty obvious that some of them engaged in acts of aggression against the United States, the evidence was still tainted because of things that were done to them by the past administration, things that are now BANNED.

Ah, so he's only going to violate the Constitution a little bit. That makes me feel much better. Maybe criminals can start adding this to their "don't look back, look forward" defense. "Gee, Your Honor. It's not like I robbed large numbers of banks."

Oh, and those things that are now BANNED? They were always BANNED. They didn't just suddenly become BANNED because Obama said so.

c) See answer (A) as to why I am "comfortable" with this approach. Also, as some have pointed out, this isn't exactly setting a legal precedent. As we have used this approach in other situations within our law. Look at how we deal with people who are severely mentally ill and aren't safe to be living among the American public. The question itself is rather invalid.

Um... when, exactly, have we detained people indefinitely for fear of "future crime"? This is NOT how we deal with people who are severely mentally ill. You have to prove that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others (in other words, they must have directly engaged in dangerous behavior), and the period of commitment has to be strictly time-limited. The accused has a right to counsel, and anyone committed to a mental institution can issue a habeas corpus challenge. Even with all those safeguards, involuntary commitment has been subject to all kinds of abuse, from warehousing troubled teens to suppressing political dissent.

Now, how many of the above safeguards will be in place for Obama's new "preventative detention"? Now ask yourself how many of the above safeguards will be in place if we all just go along quietly?

[LooseWilly]

70. Granting that you are right, how do you feel about redefining "declaration of war"?

I mean... when I heard Obama's speech about how he was planning on getting around the evidentiary rules of a trial for a score or so of detainees... I presumed that what he was saying was that he was going to try to work with Congress and the AG to establish a framework by which they could then re-define the "declaration of war" powers of the Congress to allow the Congress to declare war on non-state entities, such as al Qaeda, so that stateless fighters of such groups could be held as "POW"s until such time as those organizations could be "defeated".

I presumed, further, that part of the legal framework would require that Congress have the power, in the case of less-well-defined wars with stateless organizations, have a framework for declaring "cessation of hostilities", or something like that, which would then trigger the release of the "POW"s.

Do you think that that would be a legal extension of Congress' power to Declare War? Do you think that would be a practical solution to allow for the reassurance of an essentially still terrified public? Or do you think it's just a political dodge to assuage and curry favor with an essentially still terrified, and easily whipped-up-into-a fear-mongered-furor public?

What's your take?

[Political Tiger]

10. I don't think it's a matter of being a "supporter" of "preventive" detention

Just like being in favor of abortion rights doesn't make one a supporter of abortion.

As the President said, "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. . . .Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again."

So what to do? Do nothing? Just let them go free so they can engage in more terror against us? Should we be proactive or reactive?

There are no easy answers.

The President has come up with a plan he thinks is in the the best interest of the American people and protects our values in this unique situation we find ourselves in:

"I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

So, do I support prolonged detention (or what Glenn Greenwald calls "preventive detention")? Well, let's put it this way, I do support the president and I support his efforts to keep us safe within a framework that he believes is "consistent with our values and our Constitution."

If Glenn Greenwald or anybody else has a better solution, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[vaberella]

13. +1.

I haven't heard of a new or better solution yet. Not from Greenwald, Feingold, Turley, or DUers.

[masuki bance]

16. ...

"there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. . . .Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again."

[vaberella]

20. Uh yes...but this is in regards to prisoners we already have.

This is not the case for previous prisoners. Further more, if the evidence was tainted but there was still a lot of information to suspect such prisoners, what would you like to do with them? This is mainly my point for agreeing with the previous poster. There is no other plan. Yet, it has already been stated that many who were released because of their past experience at Gitmo have joined or rejoined (as some cases may be) these, "I hate US groups." So far, I haven't seen O said anything about taking these people in without a trial and keep them in detentions.

However, to forestall their reentry into that system that hurts our own security President O seems to take the step in curbing any more entrants. However, I haven't read, even those who have evidence tainted would not be tried.

So I'm trying to see your full point. Are you just trying to connect preventive detention with prolong detention because of word association or are you trying to express a valid point in the decision President O has made? Because if it is the latter, you haven't made it.

[LooseWilly]

71. That's just it... this is the question of those who *can't* be tried.

You said: "However, I haven't read, even those who have evidence tainted would not be tried."

Obama out and out said that he was going to consult with Congress to create a legal framework for holding those who can't be tried because the evidence against them is too tainted to use in court... but who have nevertheless been judged to be a danger.

(From post #25's quote of Obama's speech:)
"But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."

This is the question of those who will not be tried, but who will nonetheless also not be released.

This is the question of whether or not to accept extra-judicial treatment of these detainees.

POW status for stateless soldiers? Or are they criminals? Are they to be accorded rights under the Geneva Convention? Or tried in a court of law? Decisions decisions...

[jgraz]

21. Really bad analogy.

Just like being in favor of abortion rights doesn't make one a supporter of abortion.

You mean you can be in favor of a president's right to violate the Constitution without being in favor of him actually violating the Constitution? How exactly does that work?

[geek tragedy]

31. Detention of al-Qaeda members does not violate the constitution

so long as they are not citizens or US residents.

[jgraz]

32. Are you saying we can do whatever we want to non-citizens?

How about "preventative murder"? Can we kill someone whom we think might commit a crime against us?

[geek tragedy]

81. No. But we do have the right to detain

Those who are at war with us.

[wileedog]

33. Because the Constitution is not a suicide document

It does not require us to release people who could go right back to shooting at our soldiers or bombing innocent people.

Look, the first breach of the Constitution was invading two countries without a Declaration of War in the first place. This is just trying to clean up the mess without putting potential enemies back in the field. Guess what? Its not going to be a black and white, just let them all go hurray for our morals solution.

And no, I don't believe everyone in Gitmo is some average Joe who was standing on a street corner in Kabul one day who got grabbed. thrown in a car and sold to Bush for a bounty.

[jgraz]

35. However, abandoning the Constitution IS a suicide document

Are you telling me that, after all the people who have died to uphold the ideals of our constitution, that you're willing to throw it over just so you can sleep better at night?

We have a justice system. We failed to follow it for 8 years. Sucks for us.

If you can't convict people of a crime, you let them go. Or you let your fundamental ideals go. I know which path I'd choose.

[wileedog]

39. Its not that simple

Normally a criminal is arrested by a police officer - a person highly trained to accumulate and document evidence so that a prosecutor can adequately present a case for their imprisonment.

These guys in Gitmo were taken in by soldiers. The Bush Admin by default didn't bother documenting evidence against them. Why would they? Bush had no intention of trying them.

The reality is, if you take these guys into a civilian court than every single one of them will be freed on a technicality. Why?

Do you think the US Army read them their Miranda rights?

And even if we get around that technicality, what exactly does a prosecutor have to work with? A confession gained by torture? Some soldier who was actually killed 3 months ago as the only witness to this guy shooting at people? Did anyone even bother to write that guys name down somewhere?

Again, waving the Constitution around is all well and good, but I'm absolutely positive the founding fathers did not advocate utter stupidity, or releasing people who have a direct intent to murder other people because some jackass president railroaded the Congress into going to war without declaring it.

[jgraz]

41. "freed on a technicality" == freed according to our system of justice

We can't convict them? We lose. Yet another fuck up by Bush.

How can violating more of our ideals make the situation better?

[wileedog]

43. Again these men were detained under military jurisdiction, not civilian.

Why is the immediate release of a know enemy combatant more important than taking the time to use our Congressional and Judicial system to find a lawful solution of a fucked up situation without letting known murderers back to the field?

[jgraz]

46. If they're known murderers, we shouldn't have a problem.

If we can't convict them under our system of justice, then they aren't murderers under the law (think "OJ").

Remember, Obama's not talking about finding a "lawful" solution. We already have plenty of lawful solutions to this situation. He's talking about using (perverting) the law to ensure an outcome. He wants these people held, so he's going to find a way to make it legal.

Who does that sound like?

[wileedog]

50. What are our "plenty" of lawful solutions?

When someone is arrested as a military prisoner, where is our seamless transition plan to our civilian court system?

And yes, he is talking about holding people who have trained in an overtly hostile organization to make bombs that kill innocent people.

Is there a law in our books against training to make bombs in a foreign country? Is there a law in our civilian code against getting lots of exercise and learning to shoot automatic weapons with a bunch of your friends in North Africa?

OJ is a terrible analogy. He hadn't sworn to kill blondes and trained for years to wipe them out.

Again, neither myself nor Obama are advocating an indefinite detention. He's saying let's not let the horse out of the barn before we come up with a viable solution.

I have yet to see one from the "release them now!" crowd. And IMO simply ramming them all through the civilian court system makes ZERO sense.

[jgraz]

52. We have international treaties and a justice system. Why should we abandon them in this case?

We captured these people, we held them without trial and we tortured them. They are now our responsibility. We need to either show how they qualify as POWs, or charge them with a crime.

I've given you the solution several times. You just don't like it because it involves some small amount of personal risk.

[NYC_SKP]

29. One Simple Question for The Wise Critics of Obama on this Matter:

"What's your alternative solution?"

I've read most of the critical articles, not a single solution.

And, BTW, Obama never, never, ever used the term "preventive detention".

I think that's a fundamental problem here.

[jgraz]

38. Here's my alternative: uphold the fucking constitution

We can't try these guys? Sad day for us. They get to go free.

And we, like many people before us, put our lives (slightly) at risk for the ideals we believe in.

I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand.

[NYC_SKP]

42. OK, thank you. Though, the "fucking" part was kind of gratuitous.

I just wanted an answer.

Now I understand that some of the countries of origin will not accept them back.

What then? Release them here?

[jgraz]

45. Really? "Fucking" is never gratuitous on this board.

As far as the return issue, the problems are mostly separate. Many of the people who cannot return to their own country are people who have been found *not guilty* of any terrorist activity (e.g., the Chinese Uigars). These people should be offered asylum here or with any ally who will take them.

For any real terrorism suspects, they should be granted a fair trial and, if found not guilty, be given a choice of locations to settle in. And what if they choose the US? Again, sad day for us. We caused this problem, not them.

[wileedog]

53. LOL - Why don't we get them flight lessons too? Too bad on us!

Welcome to President Cheney in 2012.

You're delusional.

[jgraz]

55. President Cheney? I'm sure he'd have your vote.

After all, you and he seem to agree on quite a few key issues.

[wileedog]

57. Stop, you're killing me...

You're out of your mind. We can't get people to agree to put these guys in our supermax prisons, and you want to give them a house in the suberbs. What political reality are you living in? What do I need to smoke to get there?

I said this to someone else, but its way more appropriate here.

Somewhere Thomas Jefferson is laughing his ass off at you.

[jgraz]

59. So now it's politics that drives you. Before it was your fear for the Empire State Building

But hey, what's the point of having deeply-held beliefs if you can't abandon them when the first problem arises?

:eyes:

[wileedog]

62. I don't have deeply held beliefs that

enemy combatants should be put back in the field to kill more soldiers or innocent civilians on a technicality. Sorry. Don't know if that means my DU membership gets revoked or something, but I don't back stupidity.

This is not as clear cut a case as you make it out to be, and your argument against taking more time to find a solution that is both lawful and potentially saves lives is wrapped in ideology, not the real world.

Ideology is what has gotten the Repubs where they are. With good reason, it often isn't able to compromise with reality.

[jgraz]

63. You have no idea how many "enemy combatants" we are holding

You have no clue what they will or won't do when we let them go (which, btw, does not involve "returning them" to some non-existent "battlefield"). No one does -- because no evidence has been presented. Are you starting to see the problem here?

[wileedog]

65. I'm eager to hear the specifics

Do tell.

[jgraz]

75. I doubt that. If you were, you'd have actually read what I posted

Go ahead, take a peek. It's right up there ^^^

[wileedog]

44. Yeah, get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed out of there!!!!

Maybe he can bring down the Empire State Building next time.

[jgraz]

47. Maybe we should have thought of that before we tortured him

Again, we fucked up, we pay the price. I don't recall any disclaimers on the Constitution. (e.g. "This amendment will be void in cases where a national landmark is at risk.")

[wileedog]

51. You are 100% absolutely correct.

We should have thought of that before we tortured him. Too late.

But I also don't see any disclaimers in the Constitution that "you should let people who kill Americans walk on the slightest technicality, even if they were captured in ways that have nothing to do with our civilian court system."

Following the letter of the document, no matter how stupid, sounds more to me like religion than wise government.

[jgraz]

54. Accepting responsibility for our fuck-ups is not "religion" to me.

Your reasoning is the perfect example of why it's so important that we *do* follow the letter of the law in these cases. What you're advocating for is *an outcome*, in absence of any evidence that you know of. That's not the justice system we have in this country.

[wileedog]

60. No, I am advocating more time to create a real solution

to a bad situation.

You've clearly chosen self-righteous rage over pragmatism or even reality.

[jgraz]

61. Don't talk about reality when you have no clue what the reality is. None of us do.

Exactly which detainees were captured in battle and which of them were turned in for a reward? How many were simply kidnapped on the word of someone else?

You don't know, yet you're fully prepared to take the word of the defense department at face value. Anything you say about what any of the detainees have done or not done is simple speculation.

[wileedog]

64. I'm taking Obama's word actually.

He has classified a certain number of prisoners who we know are a danger, but don't have enough evidence to convict in a civilian court of law, mostly because it was not documented or it was obtained by torture. The rest will be tried and imprisoned or released as to the outcome.

And yes, I'm speculating on some of the rest, but so are you. And if we truly don't know, I'm saying err on the side of caution and take the time to review each case as thoroughly and fairly as possible. So is Obama.

Simply ramming everyone through a civilian court is plain stupid given the circumstances. Again, they aren't shoplifters arrested by Sheriff Bob at the mall.

[jgraz]

68. I'm not.

He has classified that there a certain number of prisoners who we know are a danger, but don't have enough evidence to convict in a civilian court of law, mostly because it was not documented or obtained by torture. The rest will be tried and imprisoned or released as to the outcome.

"He has classified"? Hmm... isn't there a term for justice based on the word of one man? It's right on the tip of my tongue.

And yes, I'm speculating on some of the rest, but so are you. And if we truly don't know, I'm saying err on the side of caution and take the time to review each case as thoroughly and fairly as possible. So is Obama.

Yes, we truly don't know. And, help me out here... what is it we presume about someone when we don't have evidence against them? I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere.

Simply ramming everyone through a civilian court is plain stupid given the circumstances. Again, they aren't shoplifters arrested by Sheriff Bob at the mall.

Yes, we'll "ram" them through our civilian courts. Just like we did with Charles Manson and Timothy McVeigh. And just like Clinton -- that starry-eyed idealist -- did with the Blind Sheik and the rest of the 93 WTC bombers.

We needed none of the Cheneyesque bullshit about "enemy combatants". These people were arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned. You have yet to say what's different about these people (other than what Bush and Cheney -- and now Obama -- tell you).

[wileedog]

69. "Just like we did with Charles Manson and Timothy McVeigh etc."

Who were arrested by civilian authorities. Who were properly put through the civilian legal system from the start, not years after the fact. Who were not tortured for evidence.

Forget it, I'm done. If you are convinced Obama has some motive that I can't possibly fathom to detain completely innocent people, or that there is not a single soul who comprises a threat to anyone in Gitmo you run with that.

And if you further think enemy combatants should just be let go because of a technicality, then I hope I never see you complaining about further combat deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Heck I'm still chuckling over the idea that we should just let these folks go wherever they want. You got a spare room? You can help us "take responsibility for our mistakes."

G'nite

[jgraz]

74. It's much easier to win an argument when you make up both sides, isn't it?

Get a good night's sleep. There's plenty more straw men to create tomorrow.

[BzaDem]

76. You keep chanting "THE CONSTITUTION! THE CONSTITUTION!" without having the slightest clue

of how the Constitution applies to any of the arguments you are making.

You just assume that people captured abroad by the U.S. military have the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens captured in the U.S.

Even professor Jonathan Turley knows that. The question is, to what extent do our constitutional rights apply to those captured abroad (few of those even with the most defendant-friendly views would argue that the answer is ALL). Some argue that those captured abroad have a large number of rights that U.S. citizens have, and others argue that the set of rights of non-U.S. citizens captured abroad are limited.

In this reality, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. The U.S. Supreme court has said that the President cannot detain anyone in Guantanamo without judicial review. The judicial review those detained in Guantanamo are entitled to is NOT a full trial, with nothing close to "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" standard of guilt or innocence. They are entitled to a hearing where the government's evidence is given some (but not complete) deference. The actual format/standards of such a hearing are still being litigated in the lower courts, but in many cases even the lawyers for the defendants are not arguing for a "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" standard because they know it is not the law or the Constitution.

And miranda rights? They do not apply. Exclusionary rule for warantless searches? Not even close. These questions are not even being debated.

When you say "LET'S UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION RAH RAH RAH," what you really mean is "Let's uphold my specific interpretation of the Constitution in my fantasy world, one which contradicts 200 years of precedent and with which not a single current justice on the Supreme Court shares."

You are of course welcome to have that view. But there is a reason why people with views similar to yours do not have any position of power or influence in actually deciding what happens.

[jgraz]

78. God forbid someone should stand up for that "quaint" little document

I was going to respond seriously to your post until I read your last sentence:

But there is a reason why people with views similar to yours do not have any position of power or influence in actually deciding what happens.

My my my... it's not about who actually has the best ideas, it's about who can get and hold on to power. How very Cheney of you.


Please tell us what high office you hold so we can decide if you're full of shit or not.

[BzaDem]

79. I never claimed anywhere that I held any office.

Nor did I claim that you did or should.

I simply stated that your views are sufficiently out of the mainstream that most (if not all) people who are in a position to decide what the law actually is do not hold such views. Whereas, on the issue of having suspected terrorists captured abroad be granted some but not all rights afforded to U.S. citizens, many people who's views actually matter in the interpretation and execution of our laws agree.

It is perfectly acceptable to compare your views with those of which whose views decide what the law is. Cheney would say that something is legal because he says it is (despite a contrary opinion by the judiciary or Congress); this is completely different than saying something is legal because everyone involved agrees (at least with respect to the views of Congress, the President, all 9 justices of the Supreme Court, and judicial opinions on the subject going back centuries).

I have no problem debating with people what rights are be granted to whom under the Constitution. But you don't even pretend to want to discuss that. You just declare that suspected terrorists captured abroad are legally identical to a criminal arrested in the U.S., and that it is not even an open question. You pretend that your view is the only view of the Constitution, despite that virtually no high level judges or executive officials share that view. To you, anyone who wants to actually examine what legal rights these detainees do not have is simply trashing the Constitution, or thinks it is a 'quaint' little document. You completely ignore the huge legal (not to mention practical) issues involved, and just pretend that anyone who disagrees is somehow morally deficient. That is not an intellectually honest argument.

[thread-bear]

82. everyone involved?

I sort of thought as an American citizen, I was involved. But then then you went on to qualify it,what a relief! Important people in government,only. Don't think,don't question,just obey.I'm new here,but this has been very enlightening on whom I can trust and which posters I will never trust.

[BzaDem]

83. "at least with respect to the views of Congress, the President, all 9 justices ...

of the Supreme Court, and judicial opinions on the subject going back centuries."

That is what I said. Nice try quoting out of context.

You are of course entitled to your own interpretation of the Constitution. But it is misleading and disingenuous to state that a specific Constitutional interpretation is the only correct one when those involved in Government (see above) all disagree. If you wanted to admit that your interpretation was at least open to debate, that would be less misleading.

I don't really care whether you "trust me" or not. I'm posting so that others aren't misled by an incorrect account of the state of the law, not to try to change the mind of those doing the misleading.

[geek tragedy]

30. Answers::

1) Depends on whom they were trying to detain. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--let him rot. American citizens--outrageous and a threat to our democracy.

2) I opposed attempts to lock up American citizens and to deny those detained the right to contest their designation as enemy combatants.

3) I am comfortable with the President detaining enemies as defined by statute and subject to judicial review.

[boppers]

34. My 3 answers.

a) Strawman.
b) Strawman.
c) Strawman.

Greewald might as well be arguing that Obama hasn't given us all free ponies, thus, Obama is using the Buch-Cheney "no free pony" doctrine.

[grantcart]

37. Three simple answers

a) Bush and Cheney advocated investing them with new powers and authority, which the Supreme Court has consistently knocked down. Obama has outlined 5 categories of the people left over. Four of these categories entail taking all but a few of the 220+ and either releasing them or prosecuting them. Obama has never advocated "prevententive detention" but "prolonging the detention" of people who fit traditional prisoner of war status because they remain in a position of war against the US, "like other prisoners of war". If Bush had detained 10-15 hardcore AQ senior officers and said that he was going to hold them as Prisoners of War, and there was some review by Congress and the Courts, as Obama proposes. I would not have had a problem with that.

b) I am unable to answer what you were or were not in favor of.

c) already answered in a) above. The status of POW is not new. During WWII we held 425,000 POWs in prolonged detention, or "preventative detention" to prevent them from continuing their war against us. Obama is advocating a less imperial Presidency with more checks by Congress and the Courts.


As far as I can see no one has advocated 'preventative detention'.

Charachterizing maintaining POW type prisoners in detention while hostilities continue to prevent them from continuing their attack is not 'preventative detention'. We could always do what we did with Al Capone and instead of prosecuting him for murder prosecute AQ Senior members for conspiracy charges.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. In a war you can detain people without charges

But it's a complicated question as to whether we're in a war or not. I think these clips from The West Wing are very pertinent to this, even though in that fictional world there was no September 11th and no "war on terror".

Admiral Fitzwallace says that international law was written in a time of gentlemanly warfare and that our enemies certainly do not respect them. In his view, there is no difference between peacetime and wartime anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAauLBOv8ts

President Bartlet says that you can justify anything by simply saying it's a war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JUeSPlaHYs&feature=related

Ultimately Fitzwallace wins the argument and President Bartlet orders the assassination, violating international law in the process. President Obama has a similar dilemma. You can't hold civilians in peacetime without trial. In wartime you can hold soldiers without trial. Whether we are at peace or at war anymore is indeed difficult to tell sometimes.

[jgraz]

48. You can't do it indefinitely. And they have to qualify as POWs

Some dude turned in for a ransom and kidnapped from his home does not fit the definition under Part I, Article IV of the third Geneva Convention.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. They may qualify as members of an armed resistance movement in sections 2 or 5

The Geneva Conventions make no mention of how they must be captured.

[jgraz]

73. Method of capture is not the point. The point is whether they were ever combatants at all

We'll never know unless they're given a hearing to determine their status.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. I can't imagine that they would not be given hearings to determine their status

Obama didn't just say he would detain them indefinitely with the stroke of a pen. He said that there would be a process.

[BzaDem]

80. There will definately be hearings.

The Supreme Court mandated hearings, so Obama doesn't even have a choice in the matter. The hearings will not be full blown trials, where evidence is supressed due to the 4th amendment and guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But there will be hearings in front of a neutral decisionmaker where the accused will be allowed to present evidence and rebut evidence presented by the government.

[moondust]

72. "Preventive Detention" is quite common.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/wic/5150-5157.html

5150. When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger
to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace
officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of
an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members
of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other
professional person designated by the county may, upon probable
cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place
him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the
State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour
treatment and evaluation.

~snip~

During these 72 hours you will be evaluated by the hospital
staff, and you may be given treatment, including medications.
It is possible for you to be released before the end of the 72
hours. But if the staff decides that you need continued treat-
ment you can be held for a longer period of time. If you are
held longer than 72 hours you have the right to a lawyer and a
qualified interpreter and a hearing before a judge. If you are
unable to pay for the lawyer, then one will be provided free.


~more~