Guantanamo - don't let the door hit ya where the Lord split ya

[Ravenman]

@davida03801

Why not just release them and let them back into the fight? I am surprised, actually, that has not happened already.

Why would a President – any President – release people he believed to be dangerous so they could go back to the battlefield? That makes no sense.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

If they were under his jurisdiction he would have brought them in already.

The problem is not that the prisoners are not under his jurisdiction, but the holding facilities in the US are not.

[Diceman]

@davida03801

Why not just release them and let them back into the fight? I am surprised, actually, that has not happened already.

It has happened. Several times already, people who were released from Gitmo have turned up as terrorists in places like Syria or Afghanistan.

ETA: It baffles me that liberals seems to entertain a fantasy that the people in Gitmo were just innocent mopes that got rounded up by mistake. Um, nope, like any prison, the overwhelming majority of the people locked up there really do need to be locked up.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

davida is certainly not a liberal. And I don’t think anyone thinks the guys left at Gitmo are “innocent mopes.” We object to locking people up without a trial. As should you.

[John_Mace]

@davida03801

Why not just release them and let them back into the fight? I am surprised, actually, that has not happened already.

As noted, in many cases NO COUNTRY WILL AGREE TO ACCEPT THEM. Are we supposed to parachute them into Afghanistan in the dark of the night?

[TruCelt]

@Ravenman

. . .

There are about 107 detainees remaining at Guantanamo. (This detention centers there cost approximately $450 million a year to operate, by the way.)

. . .

But there’s a couple sticking points. The law clearly says that detainees cannot be moved to the United States. One Republican congressman, who is probably most known for asking stupid questions of Hillary Clinton about Benghazi, has suggested that military officers consult their lawyers before carrying out an order from the President to move the detainees.

A few lawyers have taken the exact opposite opinion: that the Constitution gives the President the exclusive power to determine where prisoners should be held. Link.

Here’s my take: the law preventing the closure of Guantanamo is unquestioningly valid. Obama should give it one last run to negotiate with a Republican Congress for some way to put an end to this horrible stain on the escutcheon of the United States.

But if that doesn’t work: just do it, Mr. President. You’ll be taken to court, and you may even be impeached. But you will win. And history will vindicate you for ending a 21st century gulag.

@Ravenman

The idea of releasing literally everyone who remains there is a left-wing pipe dream fantasy. It isn’t going to happen.

In any case, the law also requires that detainees who are slated for release must be assessed as not being a significant threat. There are at least a dozen, and more likely a few dozen, who you’d have to simply lie about in order to come to that judgment. What American official is going to risk prison on behalf of someone who is quite likely going to leave Guantanamo to continue terrorist attacks against civilians?

No one is talking about releasing all of them. But many have either not been proven guilty, or have more than served their time.

I do think that at this point - even if they weren’t before - we likely have made monsters out of them. Another proud accomplishment for “W” and for the GOP.

@Claverhouse

Indeed, this has been a priority for Obama for seven years and more, obsessing his every waking moment to fulfil his oath:
. . .

Fun Fact 02: Obama released one quarter of the number released under Bush.

His every waking moment? What on Earth are you on about? Cite?

@BrainGlutton

I’d go with “criminal” if he’s not a soldier serving a recognized state – but, the important thing is, let him be one or the other, and not wedged into some third “enemy combatant” classification where he has neither the legal protections of a POW nor the legal protections of a criminal suspect.

We can’t just re-define them as criminals. First of all, they didn’t commit any crime on our soil. So even if they were criminals, we wouldn’t have any jurisdiction. Enemy combatants can be dealt with by the military.

I do think it’s unfair though, to say these fighters had no State backing them up. Theirs is really more like the feudal model of army raising - whoever is the richest in their area brings as many men as possible to the fight. The poorest go, in the hopes that they will be fed and be able to send wages to their families. They are generally paid by rich guy; very few are paid by the government (if at all.)

@Ravenman

So when U.S. forces in, say, Iraq captured an IED maker, there should have been FBI special agents (or someone representing another law enforcement agency) to investigate, collect evidence, prepare him for extradition, and then prepare a case for the U.S. Attorney for Tikrit to bring to the Federal court in Alexandria, Virginia?

Totally unworkable, in my view.

I agree. it should have been dealt with by local authorities. But then, look at the state that was in at the time - remember Abu Ghraib?

Honestly though, I wonder how much of this has been an excuse to put more soldiers on GTMO. It seems to me that the $450M price tag is a bit high - the powers that be must have wanted to maintain a force there. The major push to actually clean it out followed conveniently upon the heels of the normalization of relations with Cuba. I’m just sayin’. :dubious:
As to where to keep the dangerous remainder: what about a Supermax in a Territory? I bet it wouldn’t take much to create and keep a small one on Guam, for instance.

[FlikTheBlue]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

davida is certainly not a liberal. And I don’t think anyone thinks the guys left at Gitmo are “innocent mopes.” We object to locking people up without a trial. As should you.

Can someone help fight my ignorance on why these folks can’t be classified as POWs? If they are POWs, they wouldn’t need to be put on trial, any more than we would have put a German soldier captured on the battlefield in WWII on trial. The average German soldiers we captured in WWII were not put on trial, simply being a member of the Wermacht was enough to hold them. These guys, assuming they were caught on the battlefield, shouldn’t be treated any different despite the fact that they were fighting for the Taliban or Al Qaeda rather than a formal government.

[XT]

@FlikTheBlue

Can someone help fight my ignorance on why these folks can’t be classified as POWs? If they are POWs, they wouldn’t need to be put on trial, any more than we would have put a German soldier captured on the battlefield in WWII on trial. The average German soldiers we captured in WWII were not put on trial, simply being a member of the Wermacht was enough to hold them. These guys, assuming they were caught on the battlefield, shouldn’t be treated any different despite the fact that they were fighting for the Taliban or Al Qaeda rather than a formal government.

Because they aren’t POWs as defined by the GC basically. Most were captured as irregulars, not part of any nations formal military. They fall into a gray area that is not really defined well in the GC. Of course, if you DID define them as military prisoners then they would still be fucked, since the ‘war’ they were caught participating in is still ongoing, no formal peace having been agreed upon…so, no exchange of prisoners.

The thing is, the few that are left are pretty much the hard core types. All of the guys who were just mopes have been weeded out previously and set free or transferred back to their countries of origin (which hasn’t always gone well for them, he says with intense irony). That’s why more were released during the Bush administration than under Obama…those left now are pretty much the guys we don’t want to see out and about, and I seriously doubt will EVER be let loose. Nor should they be, by and large.

[CarnalK]

@FlikTheBlue

Can someone help fight my ignorance on why these folks can’t be classified as POWs? If they are POWs, they wouldn’t need to be put on trial, any more than we would have put a German soldier captured on the battlefield in WWII on trial.

They wanted to do an end run around the Geneva Convention. Simple as that.

[Chronos]

Because they aren’t POWs as defined by the GC basically. Most were captured as irregulars, not part of any nations formal military. They fall into a gray area that is not really defined well in the GC.

The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that no such gray area exists. In some cases, you might have your choice whether to treat any given combatant as a criminal or as a POW, but if you’re treating them as neither, then yes, you really do have to let them go free.

[XT]

@Chronos

The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that no such gray area exists. In some cases, you might have your choice whether to treat any given combatant as a criminal or as a POW, but if you’re treating them as neither, then yes, you really do have to let them go free.

Ok…seems I was wrong. Hardly the first time. From the link:

After Bush political appointees at the U.S. Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice advised the Bush administration that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, military guards took the first twenty detainees to Guantanamo on 11 January 2002. The Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Ensuing U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 2004 have determined otherwise and that the courts have jurisdiction: it ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29 June 2006, that detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[6] Following this, on 7 July 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that detainees would, in the future, be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.[7][8][9]

This is Article 3 from here:

Common Article 3 relating to Non-International Armed Conflict
It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles. (Discuss.) (February 2015)

This article states that the certain minimum rules of war apply to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. The applicability of this article rests on the interpretation of the term armed conflict.[12] For example, it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that are carried out within the confines of a single country. A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question.[12]

The other Geneva Conventions are not applicable in this situation but only the provisions contained within Article 3,[12] and additionally within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is to avoid conflict with the rights of Sovereign States that were not part of the treaties. When the provisions of this article apply, it states that:[25]

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:
    violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
    taking of hostages;
    outrages upon dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; and
    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.
The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.