Why *not *criminal defendants?
APPEASER!! :eek:
This has nothing to do with Guantanamo, other than some of the participants were there. It is a physical location, nothing more. The significance of that location is that it is controlled by the US, but on the soil of another country, one that we occupy but do not recognize the government of.
There is nothing wrong with the prisons on US soil. US prisons can hold prisoners of war and terrorists.
I might suggest declaring war on Al Queda or making a protocol and discussing it at the UN or in Geneva for dealing with international terrorists.
No, it’s not just a physical location. If it was just about the location, no one would care about this.
It is a lot harder to pass the red face test in front of a judge when you’re arguing that prisoners held in a domestic US location are not subject to normal legal procedural rules.
Me neither, but when it ended it was clear: documents were signed and girls got kissed.
Who will sign the surrender?
I dunno, maybe because U.S. Public Laws No: 107-243 (which comes from H.J.RES.114) and 107-40 (from S.J. Res. 23) authorize the use of military forces in another country? It seems pretty war-y to me.
The spirit is gang-raped by a pack of leperous wolves while being teabagged by chanchreous elephants. Geneva does not contemplate (because it can’t and shouldn’t) how to handle POWs of an open-ended war. Unless the U.S. government says it’s over, the war can continue forever and thus they be held indefinitely. I don’t see how detention in Gitmo BY ITSELF is contrary to the U.S. constitution. The methods used in capturing and holding the prisoners may be wrong.
If, however, it is a police operation, then they are not POWs but suspects and should be held in regular prison with regular laws applying and Geneva does not apply.
I think that the war in Iraq has been discussed to several painful deaths here so let’s not de-rail this specific discussion.
That resoution was for Iraq, not the completely rhetorical “War On Terror.”
I don’t blame them. If I’d been a Gitmo detainee, I’d want to blow shit up too. It just shows how stupid it was to lock them up that way in the first place. Follow the Geneva Convention and basic decency – show them that we aren’t the monsters they’ve been told we are – and maybe they won’t go home and plot lame-o, amateurish “terror” attacks.
The second law ( 170-40) is for the use of force against the 9/11 guys and includes the words terror and terrorism.
Meaningless, undefinable words, and what did these guys have to do with 9/11?
So first it was “it doesn’t say it” and now “well, it says it but it doesn’t matter?”, nice jet-powered goalposts you got there.
For you maybe they are undefinable, for the rest of u they are not. We may disagree on the meaning, but no on the fact that the have a meaning.
In each specific case? No idea. I imagine some belonged to AlQaeda in some fashion.
Authorizing actions against people for a specifically defined crime is not the same as authorizing an opened ended “War On Terror.” That latter phrase is utterly rhetorical. It’s not really a war.
Also, "“terrorism” has no clear legal meaning, but just for shits and giggles, what is the evidence that these detainees were terrorists? Saying you “imagine that they belonged to al Qaeda” is just begging the question. What is the evidence for such a supposition? When was anything ever proven against them? When were they ever even formally charged with anything?
Why is this an issue? What if the headline was, “Man acquitted of murder kills child”? Should he have been kept in prison despite the inability of the state to make its case? No doubt the parents of the child think so, but that does not mean it is good public policy.
If I had been held in Gitmo for eight years without trial, I would want to kill Americans also. That is not a good enough reason to continue holding them with out charge. We fucked up. We must try to make amends, and we must bear the consequences for our actions. Otherwise, why should terrorist states aspire to the democratic community of nations? If we do only what is in our best interest, even when it violates our professed principles, why should they not do the same?
Here’s the thing, Aji. The “War on Terror” is stupid, its a stupid concept, its execution, by whatever means, will still be stupid. The essence of the “War on Terror” is stupid, it precedes even the existence of the “War on Terror”. An Act of Congress, even one as splendid and forthright as this one, is powerless to alter that fact. Congress can declare that a pig is a rose, you will still not be sending your sweety a dozen long-stemmed pigs. At any rate, it won’t get her to forget you tried to nail her sister. Which was also stupid, but different.
The Phrase “war on Terror” of course has no specific meaning and of course it is a rhetorical device and of course it shouldn’t be used (by itself) for an open-ended war. However, since the authorization for the use of war was so blurry, even if you specifically set out to NOT have an open ended war, it appears that the U.S. could only end it (i.e. The war on terror") by accepting defeat. Nobody know the “win” scenario or the “lose” one for that matter. Even if Bin-Laden signed an unconditional surrender.
It does.
*U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.*
plus
18 U.S.C. § 2331
As used in this chapter -
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of
holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course
of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
You may wish to discuss whether Iraq/Afghanistan meet the criteria, but it is silly for you to keep teleporting the goalposts to parallel universes.
Now, it is no longer "it has no meaning " now it is “what’s your evidence?”. I, personally don’t have any, sorry, you win.
Yeah, but if the guy had just been acquitted of murdering his daughter who’d died in unclear circumstances and two days later he kill his son, wouldn’t you think “dude, I think we fucked up”?. Also, gitmo is more than one case and has lots of political ramifications. There is clearly no specific reason why Obama shoudl re-think whatever plans hehad for Gitmo based on this specific action. It is also silly to think he will not weigh in the political/electoral aspects of this bomb.
Is it your contention that unlawul/illegal detention converts otherwise regular people into murderers? You make it sound so simple and if it were, being detained did not start the problem.
Sure, but my point is not to defend the war in Iraq simply to point out the legal (legalisitc) part of the equation, particularly the difference between POWs and criminal suspect. Generic “war on X” is bound to fail.
As an aside, I’ll keep in mind your opinion regarding the U.S. congress’s inability to change the clear meaning of a word.
Yes, it some cases it has. Many of the detainees were not terrorists at all, but personal enemies of Afghan warlords who were turned into American forces as terrorists to collect the bounty. Very few were actually captured in the act of making war against Americans. No more than perhaps two dozen were bona fide terrorists.
Article by Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell:
To get back to the question in the OP:
The inherent difficulty that this whole situation has struggled with is that it is attempting to fit a pentagonal peg into a set of holes which accept only square or round pegs. We have one set of rules established for dealing with criminals. But for many of the people who were detained, there is insufficient evidence to convict them of crimes, even if we were to accept a reduced standard for convictions from “beyond a reaonsable doubt.” We have another set of rules applicable to prisoners of war. But many of the people who were detained cannot be reasonably considered prisoners of anything that can reasonably construed as a “war” in the sense that word has had in the past. You can’t fight a “war” against a tactic, nor in the past can you fight one against a criminal organization.
But the times, they be a’changing. Nor are we the only country grappling with these issues. Our southern neighbor is in the midst of fighting what for all intents and purposes could be considered a civil war against some very well-funded, highly antagonistic criminal syndicates whose tactics are not substantially different from those of an opposing army. The last administration understood that the people they were picking up and holding onto often didn’t fit into the definition of criminal caught in the act or soldier made prisoner. Yet they understood that at least some portion of these people were likely to be opponents in the conflict which sparked our military efforts, namely, the continuing efforts of the non-state organization Al-Qaida to inflict terrorist deaths and/or destruction on American targets. So of course they did not want to simply turn them loose.
So they attempted to craft a plan that navigated the murky waters of this situation; by putting the people into detention they could hold onto them; by making sure that detention was outside of the territory of the United States, they could argue that the normal processes applicable to detainees on American soil did not apply. We can give them high marks for ingenuity, but we have to admit that the result stinks even for those who are less willing to consider the rights of individuals as important. After all, America is supposed to be founded upon certain principles, and some of those principals are being stretched pretty thin at Guantanamo.
So this bombing attempt, even if it doesn’t turn out to have been planned by anyone we had truly detained and released, focuses us on the fact that we still haven’t really solved the main dilemma: what do you do with people who you capture who ideologically are opposed to you, who are members of, or supporters of an organization engaged in terrorist/military tactics against you, but who you cannot convict of a crime nor can you reasonably treat as a prisoner? You know that if you follow the principled option (it’s not either square or round, so it doesn’t fit, thus, let the person go), you face a potential that several someone’s down the road could end up losing their lives. Alternatively, if you hold onto the persons, you play hob with the very principles that make you who/what you are. What do you do?
We are watching the evolution of a way to handle a new type of problem, part of an overall effort that will eventually encompass not just how to deal with these types of detainees, but how to deal effectively with organizations like Al Qaida. And I think it is a measure of just how thorny this situation is that the man who stumped on the campaign trail asserting that we had to put an end to these detentions is now, in office, faced with the reality of the situation, not so insistent upon ending them after all.
Then they need to be released, with apologies and compensation in many cases.
There is no right under any system of law, or morality, to hold them anyway. Those aren’t “murky waters” as you call them, they’re crystal clear. That isn’t “a’changing” at all - if anything’s changed, it’s the increased willingness of many to rationalize away all the things that centuries of development of democracy have created, that so many have fought and died for. Our respect for law and the principles behind them is not a weakness, it’s our greatest strength. The only thing that’s caused that loss of respect for them is a massive national panic attack, nothing more. We’ve had many of those in the past without managing to destroy the Constitution, including many confrontations with non-state organizations; what’s actually different about this one?
It isn’t *tactics *that make a war, or an organized crime syndicate an army, or define what rights apply or not.
Yes, “innocent” does not fit into either definition, true enough.
Yes, once you torture somebody enough, they do tend to get angry enough to want to get back at you. True enough.
We still do not indefinitely extend prisoners’ sentences, even those properly tried and convicted, on the basis that they might reoffend someday. Is that seriously what you’re suggesting? Seriously?
Thin? That word means you think they still exist (it’s “principles”, btw). On what basis? Those principles were ignored, dismissed as “quaint and obsolete” by the top justice officials in our government, and those who demurred were denounced as traitors. That isn’t “stretching”.
Why have you given into your fears? Why are you so willing to throw it all away?
Bollocks. It’s no dilemma at all if you remind yourself of the principles we claim to stand for.
For shame.
Of course. You kidnap people, humiliate them, torture them; of course the survivors are going to be enraged.
Nonsense. There’s no rational reason to think that many or most of the people involved were guilty of anything at all. They were accused for profit, or because on of our torture victims handed over a name to stop the torture. It has nothing to do with any special difficulty in dealing with terrorists; we aren’t even trying. We don’t care if the people that are imprisoned or worse are guilty of anything. We are simply indulging our malice.
It has no meaning. These attempts you’re citing are too broad to have any practical application. It can be argued that any “clandestine” US operative is a “terrorist.”
In practical terms, the “definition” is far too open-ended and broad to be meaningful in anything but in whatever subjective, capricious, self-serving way the US wants to apply it.
The word has no meaning.
No. If you can’t prove guilt, you can’t can’t prove guilt. You don’t have a choice. You either have a syetm of due process or you don’t.
Of course, but they don’t see themselves as "murderers, they see it as taking revenge on a state that has wronged them. If you were held for years on end without charges, tortured and kept from having any contact with your family, would you have any kindly feellings towards that state after you got out?
You might say you wouldn’t attack civilians, but, in fact, the “War On Terror” targets civilians all the time, not only under the rationalization of “collateral damages,” but also capturing, imprisoning and torturing them.
There is plenty. It stems from the well settled principle of military necessity. Recently the Supreme Court stated the principle applied here and you could detain, these detainees, without charge. There is a problem and understanding with the open-endedness of the detention though, that must be addressed.
Whether we are detaining an innocent person or letting go someone who will later cause us harm is troubling. But that’s always troubling and you can never be 100% certain of anything. All you can do is give these detainees an appropriate amount of due process. This is happening now. Over 500 detainees have been released, the ones remaining are reviewed annually (or is it 6months) to determine if they should still be held, and the detainees can appeal their combatant status to federal courts. The process they are due is different than a criminal, but it is still constitutionally adequate. Yet, none of this will erase how it started out.
re: “War on Terror” = war on a tactic, therefore it can’t be a war. It’s a grammatically dumb phrase, for sure. But the French calling it a War on Blitzkrieg wouldn’t mean they couldn’t be at war. Hijacking a plane and crashing it into the pentagon is a war. Arming a boat with explosives and crashing it into the USS Cole is a war. Shooting a missle into a terrorist camp as a measure of first resort is a war. I truly don’t understand how calling something a War on Terror means it can’t be a war. Could they be criminals and/or could it be treated as a police action? Yes, but so can anyone. You can be a combatant and a criminal at the same time; it doesn’t have to be either or.
Do you think there’s no philosophical difference between a Japanese soldier in ww2 and a modern terrorist?