The old citerino, the old citeroo. Yes, indeedy, the situation calls for one.
Not sure I’m following you here. This appears to be a list. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of stipulations about procedures. Advise.
…I have cited up thread the transcripts of most the Combantant Status Tribunals, so I am wondering just exactly what the point of posting a list of those detainees who have had a CST is supposed to prove. Have you read any of the transcripts? What do you think of the standard of evidence used to determine whether or not a stay at Guantanemo is welcome? How many fit your “hypothetical” case of being caught with a gun in hand?
Here’s the wiki article on Hamdi v Rumsfeld (not be confused with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). Based on that ruling, and the ruling in Rasul v. Bush, the tirbunals were set up and dispositioning took place. Subsequently, the SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan v. Runsfeld that Congress had to authorize those prodedures, and that Bush coudn’t just make them up.
At this rate, it will be left to future presidents to actually do anything…
The point of the excercise, of course. Can’t try them in any fair court, they would lose most, if not all. Can’t release them without tacitly admiting that they probably weren’t guilty of anything in the first place. Can’t just drag them out and shoot them, liberal weenies would get all upset.
Which is why the proposals from the Bushiviks are so absurd, so entirely repugnant to any known standard of fair trial. They intend to negotiate from this position, and gradually, as necessary, give way. Grudgingly, fighting rear guard defense every step of the way.
And if, finally, a more human administration goes through the effort of making some form of reasonable judgement, with the probable result of releasing a large portion of the “detainees”…
They just lean back in their chairs and say “Yep, that them for you. Soft on terrorism.”
I have no doubt that there will be several more trips to the Supreme’s place before this gets sorted out. I wonder what happens if Congress passes a pretty strict bill, Bush doesn’t like it, and then decides to veto it.
Why bother? The new! improved! signing statement permits him to alter the interpretation as he sees fit.
Posting a list is supposed to prove that we are providing the detainees with the requisite hearing to determine their status.
I can see my off-handed comment about the gun is causing some problems. I was not suggesting there was a specific case of a guy being caught with a gun. I was responding to the comment that each one should be treated as a non-combatant, asking, “Really? Even if they were caught with a gun?” That was intended to highlight the fact that whether each detainee should, or should not, be considered a non-combatant is surely dependent on his individual factual circumstances.
So forget the gun.
Still not quite getting it. As best I can tell, all this list shows is that we have written down their names. Advise.
As best you can tell?
What was the title of the list? Did that tell you anything?
The title is: “List of detainees who went through complete CSRT process.”
I said: “In fact, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the detainees are receiving formal hearings before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which is required by the convention and which determines their correct classification.”
You asked for a cite.
I gave you a list of detainees that have had the CSRT.
What aspect of this still puzzles you?
Poke around on this DoD site and you’ll find some information. I haven’t been able to find a site that has everything summarized.
Doesn’t seem to be dated. This process was conducted after the decision? This CSRT process - was it conducted with all due process, which is to say, did the defendent have the sort of rights to confront accusers/evidence that would satisfy? Or is it merely a kangaroo arraignment preceding a kangaroo court?
The tribunals were formed after the Court’s decision in Hamdi. Each individual tribunal is composed of three neutral officers, none of whom were involved with the detainee. One of the tribunal members will be a judge advocate and the senior officer of the three is the president of the tribunal.
Each detainee has a military officer as a defense representative. They have the right to testify before the tribunal, call witnesses and introduce any other evidence.
These procedures are consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Convention, which merely requires a “determination” and does not set forth specific procedures for how it is done.
With all due awe, Bricker, I remain somewhat confused.
For instance: what procedure was used on those detainees who have been released? Those detainees, we must assume, were entirely innocent.
Moving along at a remarkably brisk pace, don’t you think? Given the thoroughness of the process?
Good so far as that goes. Have they the right to confront accusers? “Call witnesses”? From Afghanistan? By what process? “introduce…evidence”? How might one introduce evidence to prove a negative? How do you prove you don’t hate/fight the US? A tatoo of Bush on your butt?
Since this apparently doesn’t require any specific procedures, from whence your confidence in its justice?
The CSRT found Murat Kurnaz had sufficient ties to terrorism to be detained as an “unlawful combatant” even though his (mistakenly declassified) file shows American and German investigators failed to find any evidence of that.
Who said I was confident in its justice?
OK, then, what, precisely, are you trying to say by presenting these facts to us?
Did you read what I said above?
I don’t think these procedures are wise or just. But they are not violative of the Constitution or the GC. As long as people stop claiming that they are, I’ll stop disputing those claims.
Nope. We must only assume that they have been determined to no longer be a threat to the US. And not all the detainees who were released were just set free-- some were “realeased” to the authorities of other countries.
I don’t know why you’re making this more conmplicate to understand that necessary. After ther rulings in *Hamdi *and Rasul, the DoD instituted tribunals and dispositioned the detainees. This wiki article does a pretty good job of describing the process. Subsequently, the SCOTUS ruled (in Hamdan) that the tribunals were not up to snuff (to use a technical term). Presumably, the tribunals will all have to be redone once Congress passes new legislation outlining the approved procedures. I say “presumably” because technically, the only detainees affected by *Hamdan *were those whose cases were pending at the time of the decision. I supsect, though, that Congress will insist that all the detainees be given the opportunity to have their status reviewed by the new and improved tribunal procedures.
The DoD site I linked to earlier has lots of this information, too. For instance, this report notes:
I don’t think anyone in this thread is singing praises about these tribunal procedures, but the GC gives no specifics about how such tribunals should be constructed.