Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown

[Kulaf]

http://www.propublica.org/article/white ... -detention

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

[Partha]

Easily the most disappointing thing about the Obama administration.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Easily the most disappointing thing about the Obama administration.

This. Quite the slap in the face of the ideals of liberty, justice, and due process.

[Kulaf]

Easily the most disappointing thing about the Obama administration.

This. Quite the slap in the face of the ideals of liberty, justice, and due process.

What would you do with them?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Trial via military tribunal, with transparency via attendance by members of the press.

[Kulaf]

I think the problem is one of proving something which doesn't really need to be proven. Most of these guys are unrepentant fighters. This calls into question what can be accomplished via trial. If the goal of normal incarceration is rehabilitation, then these are your hard core recitivists. You give them a trial and you cannot prove a particular crime you have to find them not guilty and release them. This is a self defeating stance. Holding them without trial guarantees they cannot attack us. They have declared an unending war on the US which means that even if you want to treat them as POW's, you don't release POW's while a war is being fought.

It is logically the only thing that can be done. Which is what President Obama realized when he took office and more fully understood the issue.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You are pre-supposing that because someone is detained, they are guilty. I have a problem with that view.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

You give them a trial and you cannot prove a particular crime you have to find them not guilty and release them.

I fail to see the problem with this.

[Ddrak]

Advocating indefinite detention without trial flies in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for - you know, truth and justice? When people can be locked up without being given the fair opportunity to face their accuser in an impartial court of law then you may as well just give up right now and embrace totalitarianism.

It's self defeating to do this anyway. It certainly encourages other nations to throw the rule of law aside, reinforces the belief that the US is the "great Satan" and encourages far more attackers than the one you think you're holding.

Dd

[Lurker]

Easily the most disappointing thing about the Obama administration.

This. Quite the slap in the face of the ideals of liberty, justice, and due process.

Agreed. I also agree with Ddrak and Embar. At the very least we need to provide these people with representation in a civilian court or a civilian court approved military tribunal process.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Its not like something like this hasn't been done before throughout history. FDR throwing Japanese-Americans in camps comes to mind.

[Kulaf]

Advocating indefinite detention without trial flies in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for - you know, truth and justice? When people can be locked up without being given the fair opportunity to face their accuser in an impartial court of law then you may as well just give up right now and embrace totalitarianism.

It's self defeating to do this anyway. It certainly encourages other nations to throw the rule of law aside, reinforces the belief that the US is the "great Satan" and encourages far more attackers than the one you think you're holding.

Dd

So would you say that about PoW's as well? Let us suppose that some small country declared war on the U.S. and began using uniformed men to engage in attacks on U.S. interests throughout the world. Under the Geneva Conventions they would be PoW's when captured. Let us further suppose that the small country in question would never end their war against the U.S. necesitating the indefinite detention of PoW's. Would you say they are being denied their rights? No of course you wouldn't because international law recognizes the necesity of holding PoW's for as long as a declared war is running.

I think it rather intellectually dishonest to not see the exact same thing here. For all intents and purposes Al Queda is a political entity. The Geneva Conventions need to be modified to address non-state actors. But until they are I think this is the only logical course of action.

[Kulaf]

You give them a trial and you cannot prove a particular crime you have to find them not guilty and release them.

I fail to see the problem with this.

You fail to see the problem with releasing someone who will attack U.S. interests again just because you couldn't prove they did it before in a court of law? Most of these people were captured in a war theater (Iraq or Afghanistan). Getting your evidence straight in a situation like that useful in a U.S. court is very dificult either due to national security issues or the very nature of fluid conflicts.

[Partha]

As has been told again and again in the years surrounding the opening of Gitmo as Stalag 13, many people were brought in under the bounty system with no way to prove whether they actually did anything to the US or not. Now they've had many of them for close to a decade in their custody. If after 10 years, you have no case to prove, it's likely there never was a case to begin with.

Of course, I don't expect to argue this much with you, because you were personally a-ok with starting an offensive war with Iraq simply because Saddam might have looked at us funny after we kicked his ass in 1991 and turned him into what Colin Powell called 'not a threat even to his own neighbors'. You were also ok with him being lynched by a 'mob' as long as he was gone. You obviously don't think much of human rights of people you've decided are criminals, so there's no point in trying to explain that they have some.

[Kulaf]

As has been told again and again in the years surrounding the opening of Gitmo as Stalag 13, many people were brought in under the bounty system with no way to prove whether they actually did anything to the US or not. Now they've had many of them for close to a decade in their custody. If after 10 years, you have no case to prove, it's likely there never was a case to begin with.

Of course, I don't expect to argue this much with you, because you were personally a-ok with starting an offensive war with Iraq simply because Saddam might have looked at us funny after we kicked his ass in 1991 and turned him into what Colin Powell called 'not a threat even to his own neighbors'. You were also ok with him being lynched by a 'mob' as long as he was gone. You obviously don't think much of human rights of people you've decided are criminals, so there's no point in trying to explain that they have some.

How do you know you are on the wrong side of an arguement? When you are defending Saddam. All of the detainees at Gitmo have had a Combatant Status Review and are being detained under the terms of a Presidential order.

But the Obama administrations legal team follows my line of thought. To whit:

In January and February 2009, President Barack Obama's nominees for Attorney General and Solicitor General, Eric Holder and Elena Kagan, both testified they agreed the U.S. government may detain combatants in accordance with the laws of war until the end of the war, (this sidesteps the issue of deciding whether the combatant is a lawful or unlawful combatant and the need to try them). When asked by Senator Lindsey Graham "If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield?" Both Holder and Kagan said that they would.

So this isn't just me.....or the former Bush administration. These are people who made their feelings on the matter quite clear while they were facing confirmation. Where was your outrage then?

[Partha]

How do you know you are on the wrong side of an arguement? When you are defending Saddam.

Law is for the worst of society as well as the best. The fact you don't get this on a day celebrating the life of a man who was crucified for no good reason says it all, really.

[Kulaf]

How do you know you are on the wrong side of an arguement? When you are defending Saddam.

Law is for the worst of society as well as the best. The fact you don't get this on a day celebrating the life of a man who was crucified for no good reason says it all, really.

Funny I seem to recall a rather lengthy trial.

[Partha]

So you're saying that Jesus of Nazareth was a bad guy? Like I said, you're really proving the point here.

[Ddrak]

So would you say that about PoW's as well? Let us suppose that some small country declared war on the U.S. and began using uniformed men to engage in attacks on U.S. interests throughout the world. Under the Geneva Conventions they would be PoW's when captured. Let us further suppose that the small country in question would never end their war against the U.S. necesitating the indefinite detention of PoW's. Would you say they are being denied their rights? No of course you wouldn't because international law recognizes the necesity of holding PoW's for as long as a declared war is running.

I think it rather intellectually dishonest to not see the exact same thing here. For all intents and purposes Al Queda is a political entity. The Geneva Conventions need to be modified to address non-state actors. But until they are I think this is the only logical course of action.

The difference is in the hypothetical situation described, the PoW's were in uniform - an open admission of hostility and allegiance. They also have very well defined rights, which are most definitely not being afforded to the prisoners at Gitmo and a guarantee of complete freedom and repatriation at the cessation of hostilities. Of course, any such "small country" would be eliminated in short order by the US and the PoWs would be free.

The Geneva Conventions do not need to be modified to address non-state actors. That's a pure fallacy being spun by those grasping at straws for the indefinite-detention-but-not-PoW crowd. The GCs very clearly state that these people are to be treated as straight out criminals by the capturing nations. I also believe that is entirely logical - after all how do you objectively define the difference between a "unlawful combatant" (or whatever made up term you want to use) and a crazed murderer who just happened to target your troops for no good reason?

Intellectually dishonest - absolutely not. All prisoners are treated as normal run of the mill criminals with the notable exception of soldiers of the opposing nation, who are assumed to be acting honorably under orders and are therefore held honorably until such a time as those orders are no longer a factor and therefore the soldiers can be set free. What is dishonest is to create a class of accused who are not afforded the absolute right to publicly confront their accusers and still claim that you're living in a free society.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Considering that the US has a long history of handling captured foreign terrorists in the US criminal courts, this "policy" by Obama is a departure from what the US has previously done, and is an erosion of what the US stands for. Its another sign that the terrorists won, and have forced the US to become something less than it once was. We should be ashamed of that.