I wonder if the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan next year will trigger another SCOTUS challenge? IIRC, the original finding of the Court was that the place was kosher because Congresses authorized the War in Afghanistan, and holding prisoners is a natural part of warfare.
But it gets kind of hard to use that justification when we’re more then a decade after the AUMF passed, and no US troops are actually fighting in the purported war zone.
Sure. The prisons are quite secure enough to hold them, and the terror suspects can easily be segregated from the general population if anyone really thinks contamination/instigation will be a problem.
Well, then, they can’t be kept under U.S. authority anywhere else, either, can they?
Read that statement again, and this time think about it.
Cite? I think most rational people agree it’s not usually the most moral or effective method, but implying it can never work seems unlikely.
With all the evidence collected on the battlefield? Using testimony from people whose identities may be classified, or who may be dead? I am sure they could try some of them (as they have), but it’s not as easy as you are making it seem even when there is evidence of guilt.
Sure they can. Prisoners of war can be lawfully kept under U.S. authority on U.S. soil, for instance…but not intermingled with criminals in the prison system.
Wouldn’t it be cool to have a President who asserts that he has broad Constitutional powers to do something good like closing Gitmo than doing something bad like torture, illegal wiretapping citizens, or conducting unauthorized military activities?
A guy can dream.
If they’re prisoners of war, they’re not extra-judicial. By definition.
But of course, Gitmo prisoners aren’t prisoners of war. You can thank the Bush administration for that, which to its credit worked tirelessly to pound them into the cracks they wouldn’t fall through.
That was my point, there’s no mechanism for extra-judicial detention within the U.S. They can’t be put in federal prisons as BG suggests because they aren’t convicted criminals.
They could possibly be re-classified as prisoners of war, but then they can’t be interrogated, and are subject to dozens and dozens of regulations and entitled to numerous rights. That would also re-raise the issue that they (or at least many of them) should have been POWs from the start, and that the Geneva Convention has been utterly flaunted, which isn’t good press.
So, the answer to “They can’t be kept under U.S. authority anywhere else, either, can they?”, is “Not as extrajudicial detainees, no.”
Guess what? I think you’re a terrorist, and I’m going to tell the FBI. When the government comes and disappears you to Guantanamo, I’m sure you won’t be so hypocritical as to demand a a trial, or anything.
I’m not retired, so I’m not sure what you are getting at.
The entire point of torture as an interrogation tool is to manipulate the results of your study until the results are to the interrogator’s satisfaction. The point at which the interrogator’s biases are strongest is the last time you’d want to use torture.
Then you let them go. If keeping them locked up isn’t worth revealing your sources, they aren’t worth keeping locked up indefinitely without trial. And if your source is already dead, it’s your own damn fault for dragging it out so long.
This is nonsense. In many cases, the guy doing the interrogation may not even know the specific known information they are being asked to question a suspect about.
In general that is fine, but not when we are talking about dozens of people belonging to a group of whom around 14% returned to terrorism once they were released. Sorry, but I don’t think risking another terrorist attack is worth it. There is near 100% chance that releasing these people, who are by most accounts factually guilty, will result in more innocent people dying. These are generally not people radicalized by their treatment in Git’mo, they are truly horrible people who make the world a worse place. They are people whose own governments, and other US-friendly governments, do not want. There is generally not a place to free them to. Even if we could free them as you say, I sincerely doubt you would rest easier if one of these scumbags ended up hurting one of your loved ones.
So what you’re saying is that 86% of them aren’t just innocent, they’re so innocent that they won’t even take up arms against the criminals who illegally tortured and imprisoned them for years without trial? These people are fucking saints.
The choom gang member already shut that mother down.
Most people agree the detention center serves little purpose at present. The reality is Congress (with huge margins, in the Senate it got like 90+ votes) has voted to disallow the President to move the detainees here. So they essentially can’t be moved to U.S. prisons and most of their home countries are unwilling to take them or at the least unwilling to shoulder any of the burden of repatriating them. I think at one point Yemen was willing to take all of its people, but wasn’t willing to pay for retrieving them. Remember the legislation that prohibits the President from moving the prisoners to the U.S.? That same legislation prohibits him from using a single cent or U.S. funds to transport them to another country. So legally he cannot just put them on a plane or ship and send them to Yemen, the only legal out is for other countries, at their own expense, to come and retrieve them.
The discussion about torture/interrogation isn’t that topical. A bit may have gone on at Guantanamo but the overwhelming amount of “enhanced interrogation” occurred at CIA “black sites” and other similar type locations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever small portion of Guantanamo detainees were ever subject to such interrogation that’s probably not happened in 7-8 years at this point. Almost everyone held or who has been held there were (if they were even terrorists at all) the lowest level people captured on battlefields. They knew some operational information that would have been valuable at the time they were captured, but there is nothing of value any of them have known that has been relevant since at least the middle years of the Bush Presidency; and the intelligence professionals know this.
I don’t know why people are obsessed with the foolish idea that torture can never provide good information. It obviously can, that does’t mean it’s ethical or should be used as an interrogation tool.
The simplest example is I’ve decided to rob a rich man’s house, I know from an inside source he keeps a collection of gold bars or something in a secret safe. I do not know the location of the safe or the combination. I break in and take him hostage, I show him a stopwatch and tell him he has 30 seconds to tell me where the safe is and its combination. If he doesn’t, and every 30 seconds after, I’m chopping off one of his fingers. If he runs out of fingers I’ll start chopping off whatever is convenient.
1] No - Congress opened GBay
2] Yes - Information received by offering a Green Card is more reliable than that which is beaten out.
However, storing these hard-core inhuman terrorists on the island of Cuba does give the Cuban Government pause when it’s own prisons fill up … like maybe dumping them in Miami Beach isn’t as good an idea as it once was.
Unfortunately, you have just in your own example of why torture does not provide good information. Over here, you know that the torturee has the information you want and you have a way of verifying its veracity forthwith.In real life with terrorists and even regular police work, this is not the case. Usually, the interrogators have no certainty of the knowledge the guy has and no immediate ways of verifying it.