# Why deprive Gitmo detainees legal protection (renamed) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879 "2005-06-04T14:20:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/41 "2005-06-06T17:22:48Z")
It still boils down to wether or not they are actually ‘enemy’ or ‘combatants’ or even ‘illegal’ and none of them yet have access to the means to show otherwise. Not only is the fight over for them, for many it never even started. They are completely out of the scope of war regulations. As for protecting them whilst detained, there is no independant oversight of this process of detention, which there would be if they truly were POWs or criminals. There is actaully no person assigned to look after their human rights, and this is deliberate, the term ‘illegal combatant’ was designed specifically so that independant observers do not have free access. It allows the US agencies involved the ability to act completely unfettered by recognised standards, we are not even sure of the names and identities of those detained, some of them may well have been simple ‘dissappeared’ from Afghanistan into Gitmo, or any other detention, we simply do not know and the US government is now not a believable source regarding them. All this could have been dismissed at a stroke by putting Gitmo under the auspices of the UN, the action in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN and the whole thing cold have been so much better dealt with. They could have had UN inspectors in, did they ? nope. Everything about Gitmo is about isolation and denial, in such conditions abuses are much more likely to take place, and given the events in Abu Ghraif, it would be a matter of some surprise if abuses were not taking place. This is why these individuals need to have their status clarified, because if the US can do whatever it wants to these folk, it can certainly find its way to doing something similar to dissenters in the US and in that the US citizens rights are also being diminished. Accusations of what is going on behind the razor wire are all the more credible because of this ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/42 "2005-06-06T17:30:13Z")
You speak the proof. People do tend to believe the worst. (For all I know the worst is indeed happening.) Part of this is deliberate, some smaller part is due to the requirement to protect the detainees from public curiosity. However the US has met the requirement to allow access to the Protecting Power (In this case the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent.) The United Nations has no standing in this matter. The Americans are not doing things exactly as I would like, but then they did not ask me. As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is a new sort of war and they are a new sort of warrior. We (as a world community) have not yet decided on how to deal with them. Until we do, the old rules ought to apply. Excuse me, it is a school night here and I have to go to bed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/43 "2005-06-06T21:37:30Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Why are we denying them the ability to see their family or get a lawyer? Why deny them protection under international law or US domestic law? Who says they don’t have a right to a lawyer? AFAIK, everyone brought to a hearing has had a lawyer. They also have the right to send messages through the Red Cross to their families. AND the International Red Cross (who is charged with Inspections under the Geneva Convention **s** ) has been allowed full access (as \*\*Paul in Saudi \*\*mentioned) to do their inspections and they have made suggested changes to the US- many of which have been carried out. The “UN” has no right to carry out Inspections under the Geneva accords, it’s the IRC. It’s true that the USA isn’t _calling_ them “POWs”, nor War Criminals (yet). But for now, they are getting the rights of POW’s under the Geneva Conventions- well at least according to the the Red Cross- who is the _only_ group with authority to say otherwise. Now, yes- what the USA _should do (as under the Geneva conventions) is give them a HEARING (not a Trial, read the rules) to decide whether or not they are to be held as potential_ War Criminals or just POWs. The Red Cross has been pressuring the USA to do this- so far with no results. Once the hearing is held, and they are determined to be POTENTIAL war criminals, they need not be tried under US Civil law- they would be tried like those at Nuremburg were tried. Which does include Counsel of course- but it’s much like a Military Court. However, having read the relevant portion- I must admit that technically the USA is within it’s legal rights- as although such a hearing IS certainly called for- AFAIK the Geneva Conventions give no specific time requirement. So- the USA is taking advantage of a loophole. IANAL. **Princhester** - they’d have to be have a bit more distinctive uniform than that, and they also need to be “openly carrying arms”. This is why the USA could & did hang the Nazi U-boat sabotuers witout a full Civil trial in WWII- and it was judged by SCOTUS to be legal. That case is a precedent here. But yes- during WWII, we did have our dudes over in German Territory doing such acts too- WITH the full knowledge that if they were caught they could be executed and not accorded the rights of POW’s. Read about the OSS sometime. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/44 "2005-06-07T02:10:21Z")
Casdave, you speak the TRUTH, the truth darn it, not the proof. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/45 "2005-06-07T04:10:33Z")
You can’t try them in court as individuals for many reasons. First, the military is not the police. There are no arrest procedures. No chains of evidence. No documentation. You don’t have time for that on a battlefield. No witnesses that are impartial. No individual ‘crimes’ that you can pin on any but a few. This is not necessarily because they are innocent. You could take any prisoners in any war and attempt to try them in civil court, and the would be acquitted. All any of them have to say is, “I’m not a terrorist! I was walking home and they arrested me!”. How are you going to prove otherwise? What if they ALL say it? Can you dredge up a soldier who can absolutely testify that THIS guy, who was rounded up along with 20 other people in the heat of battle, is definitely the guy who took a shot at them? Not a chance. Trying to apply the criminal code to soldiers rounded up on a battlefield simply doesn’t make any sense. Another reason is that there are no crimes you can apply. Fighting in a battle is not a crime. Unless you can pin war crimes on them, what are you going to charge them with? Finally, a public trial would be a propaganda circus, and private trials will just open the U.S. up to charges of ‘secret trials’. There’s no doubt that there’s a real dilemma here. If you just release them, a good percentage are going to keep trying to kill Americans. You can’t tell which ones will, and which ones won’t. On the other hand, you can’t just round up people en masse and hold them forever without trial. In a war you have POWs, but the whole concept of POW works because wars end, and once the war is over the POWs are no longer a danger and can be released. When the ‘war’ is a lifetime insurgent struggle, what do you do? i wish some of you on the other side would at least acknowledge that this is not an easy situation, and there are no good answers. The glib, “release them or try them!” rhetoric is just too simplistic, as is the charges that the Bush administration is a bunch of evil SOBs for doing this. And of course, the Amnesty International ‘gulag’ comment is assinine. Sometimes there are just no good solutions. I have no idea what to do, but I do know that anyone who thinks the answer is obvious is either a partisan or hasn’t thought it through. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/46 "2005-06-07T04:50:14Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Why deprive Gitmo detainees legal protection? Access to legal system doesn’t give protection to anyone. Legal system only guarantees due process. Due process may end in acquittal, or it may end in capital punishment. Goddess of Justice is famously depicted blindfolded with double-edged sword (which cuts both ways). While many may receive proper sentences, some will “get off easy” and some will get “tough breaks”. Concerning the notion that giving those people proper trial might improve US image, what conviction rates we might expect? Let’s say 50%. How long will it take to hear about “US troglodyte Lynch justice”? What will happen in the event of Death sentence? Those who already dislike our gov’t and our military, will also dislike our justice system. We are not going to win ant favors with those people, whatever we do. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/47 "2005-06-07T05:07:40Z")
**Sam** : > [@](#): > > - i wish some of you on the other side would at least acknowledge that this is not an easy situation, and there are no good answers.\* originally posted by **Mr. Svinlesha** (06-04-2005]: > [@](#): > > - Having done some reading on the subject, however, I now suspect that the Bush administration is hoping to sneak past a couple of other entanglements it would otherwise face in dealing with “POWs” from Afghanistan. First off, under the GC, all POWs must be repatriated immediately after the cessation of hostilities. But the Bush administration doesn’t want to have to immediately return all of these “POWs,” at least a few of whom might be high-ranking members of international terrorist organizations, and very many of whom aren’t even from Afghanistan. This conundrum is, in turn – at least to my mind – a reasonable security concern. > > In addition, I have been given to understand that POWs may not be tried by military tribunal. Were the detainees at Guantanamo classified as POWs, this would leave the administration with the option of either freeing them, or transporting them to the US for criminal trials. But what US laws have they broken? > > On top of all this, there are other international laws and protocols that guarantee the Guantanamo detainees certain human rights, and which they unambiguously fall under. It is possible that they are even protected by the Fourth Geneva Protocol, which was originally designed as guideline for the treatment of civilians during war.\* There. Happy? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/48 "2005-06-07T05:11:57Z")
> [@](#): > > **furt** : > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Zoe** > > Since they are not POWs and protected by the Geneva Conventions, they have a right to have charges brought against them and to stand trial. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. > > **furt** : Cite for this either-or? It would make it a little easier to know which part you concede. You are aware that they are not afforded the status of POWs (Legal Combatants) and granted the protections afforded POWs under the Geneva Conventions, right? Actually, I don’t know that POWs don’t also have the right to trial. But here are three of the protections offered POWs that might not pass muster at Guantanamo for the “illegal combatants” there: > [@](#): > > Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment without daylight, and all forms of torture and cruelty are forbidden. (Convention III, Art. 87) > > Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. In particular, prisoners must not be subject to physical mutilation\>, biological experiments, violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. (Convention III, Art. 13) > > No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted. Prisoners who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. (Convention III, Art. 17) [Geneva Conventions](http://www.genevaconventions.org/) I was amazed to find out that even guerrilla fighters can have combat status! As for the prisoners at Guantanamo having rights to have access to the judicial process, here is a post-decision discussion from the _Washington Post_. The decision seemed clear. The discussion is a good indication of why there has been little or no progress in the last year. > [@](#): > > The court decided that suspected terrorists must be allowed access to the American justice system to contest their detention… [_The Washington Post_](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12017-2004Jun28.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/49 "2005-06-07T05:13:27Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Those who already dislike our gov’t and our military, will also dislike our justice system. We are not going to win ant favors with those people, whatever we do. Do you really think those of us who want these detainees to be given the basic rights of any suspected criminal or POW just want to win the detainees’ favor? You were joking, right? I’m more concerned about acting like a civilized country and living up to the ideals we like to parade in front of the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/50 "2005-06-07T06:27:05Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > You are aware that they are not afforded the status of POWs (Legal Combatants) and granted the protections afforded POWs under the Geneva Conventions, right? > But here are three of the protections offered POWs that might not pass muster at Guantanamo for the “illegal combatants” there: Although NOT afforded the status of POW’s, the USA has conceded the IRC full access to the prisoners\* as if\* they were POW’s. The Red Cross Inspectors are inspecting the site and treating the prisoners _as if_ they were POWs, even though their current legal status is in limbo. Don’t you read other peoples posts? Indeed, the IRC has full, sole and legal juristiction over any and all such Inspections of the Geneva Conventions. And- they take their jobs very seriously, and have complained to the USA about several practices which have been changed. Now, if somehow you think that the on-site Professional Inspectors- who have FULL acess to the Gitmo prisoners- are missing several violations- well, they have a phone number and address on their website. Please let them know that you know more about the situation and the Geneva Conventions than they do, i am sure they’d appreciate that. :rolleyes: > **[International Committee of the Red Cross](https://www.icrc.org/en?OpenDocument)** > > The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and other situations of violence. Here is a quote: "The ICRC has had regular access to the persons detained at Bagram, but not immediately after their arrest. Initially detainees were only held for limited periods of time before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay or released. However, since mid-2003 many persons have been detained for longer periods at Bagram, in some cases for more than a year. Therefore, the ICRC is increasingly concerned by the fact that the US authorities have not resolved the questions of their legal status and of the applicable legal framework. The ICRC’s observations regarding certain aspects of the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees in Bagram and Guantanamo have not yet been adequately addressed." Now, the ICRC doesn’t sound entirely happy with every aspect of the cooperation they have been getting from the USA, but they have been allowed access, and full Inspections, and they do make complaints.- which it seems like we mostly make good on. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/51 "2005-06-07T06:29:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Now, the ICRC doesn’t sound entirely happy with every aspect of the cooperation they have been getting from the USA, but they have been allowed access, and full Inspections, and they do make complaints.- which it seems like we mostly make good on. OTOH, the last time inspectors faced a situation like that, we invaded Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/52 "2005-06-07T06:38:39Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Sam** : > > originally posted by **Mr. Svinlesha** (06-04-2005]:There. > > Happy? You betcha. We agree. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/53 "2005-06-07T10:37:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Now, if somehow you think that the on-site Professional Inspectors- who have FULL acess to the Gitmo prisoners- are missing several violations- well, they have a phone number and address on their website. Please let them know that you know more about the situation and the Geneva Conventions than they do, i am sure they’d appreciate that. :rolleyes: > [http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/6CPK3V?OpenDocument](http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/6CPK3V?OpenDocument) From your very own cite. > [@](#): > > Dialogue with the US authorities > > The ICRC regularly discusses its findings concerning Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo Bay with the military authorities in the camps as well as with the appropriate US representatives in Kabul and Washington. While the ICRC has felt compelled to make some of its concerns public, notably regarding the legal status of the detainees, the primary channel for addressing issues related to detention remains its direct and confidential dialogue with the US authorities. > > Confidentiality. Why? > > Wherever the ICRC visits places of detention, its findings and observations about the conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees are discussed directly and confidentially with the authorities in charge. Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo Bay are no exceptions. The ICRC’s lack of public comment on the conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees must therefore not be interpreted to mean that it has no concerns. The IRC explicitly DOES NOT publish criticisms, it deals with the relevant authorities on a confidential basis. We have no idea from them what concerns they have or whether they consider the Govt response appropriate. however DoD memoes give us a clue. From the Washington Post via [Veterans for Peace](http://www.veteransforpeace.org/In_GUntanamo_detainee_061304.htm) > [@](#): > > The previously undisclosed memos provide one of the most complete pictures to date of life behind the “wire” at Guantanamo. The detainees wanted an extra pair of shorts to wear in the shower, for privacy. They asked that the call to prayer be broadcast in camp, but a CD player could not be found. They asked for tea with “lots of sugar.” The response: “Not now. However, we will reconsider in the future.” Of the 600 detainees, 200 cooperated with their keepers. > > The memos also document for the first time the precise nature of a number of long-standing concerns issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross over the treatment of suspected al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters held at the base. > > Among them: U.S. interrogators were placing detainees in isolation holds for as long as a month at a time for refusing to furnish information. Extraordinarily long interrogation sessions were having a “cumulative effect” on the mental health of the captives. And the reliance upon open-air cages instead of enclosed cells constituted inhumane treatment under the international laws of war. > Nearly two years after the camp opened, Red Cross officials sharply criticized the U.S. government for continuing to use the cages and keeping detainees in “excessive isolation,” and for failing to establish due process or a stepped-up release schedule, according to the memos. > > “There was no improvement in any of the four major areas of concern,” an Oct. 9, 2003, memo states. > > The memos also contain tantalizing clues about several high-value detainees who were off-limits to Red Cross inspectors during their periodic visits to Guantanamo, which typically lasted four to six weeks. A source familiar with captives at the base said one of the detainees, No. 760, is a close associate of Osama bin Laden, Abdallah Tabarak. The Moroccan citizen was bin Laden’s personal bodyguard, took part in the Tora Bora battles in Afghanistan at the end of 2001 and sacrificed himself to secure bin Laden’s escape by making calls on the al Qaeda leader’s personal satellite telephone. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/54 "2005-06-07T15:28:20Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Do you really think those of us who want these detainees to be given the basic rights of any suspected criminal or POW just want to win the detainees’ favor? You were joking, right? Actually, I was asking whether holding mass criminal trials of detainees will improve our standing in the international community. Trying to count how many “hearts and minds” we’ll win that way. My answer: net zero. But let’s consider detainee reaction, by all means. Imagine you are some poor guy from Mid-East. You are not completely innocent, you likely did something that could be held against you. Not because you’re Bad Guy or “the Enemy of US”, simply because the price was right. May be you drove a car from point A to point B; may be you carried a parcel; may be you let some strangers spend a night in your backroom, no questions asked. Everybody was doing it, except your neighbor sold you out to the Americans first. Your interrogators promised that if you answer questions and not cause trouble, you’ll have quiet life and get out in few months. Now, you march on this guy and tell him the deal is off and he has to stand criminal trial. He is in a foreign country, he has no knowledge of language and what to expect in Court. His previous experiences with any justice systems were brief and extremely negative. What do you think his reaction would be? > [@Mr2001](#): > > I’m more concerned about acting like a civilized country and living up to the ideals we like to parade in front of the rest of the world. Perhaps you really need to think through the notion of mass criminal trials and cookie-cutter sentences. I come from the country where such trials were held decades ago, and people there are still scared of the concept. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/55 "2005-06-07T15:52:27Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > The IRC explicitly DOES NOT publish criticisms, it deals with the relevant authorities on a confidential basis. We have no idea from them what concerns they have or whether they consider the Govt response appropriate. however DoD memoes give us a clue. > ] That’s true, although if you read into the cite, they are forthcomong with criticisms they think are critical, and they have such a one on the web site right there. But still- the ICRC are the only dudes who can make findings whether or not the USA is in violation of the Geneva Accords. Your cite is very outdated ““There was no improvement in any of the four major areas of concern,” an Oct. 9, 2003, memo states.” If you know anything about Gitmo, you know the inmates are no longer in such cages. It’s 2005 now. And of course, those “Memos” aren’t from the ICRC itself. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/56 "2005-06-07T16:07:10Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Your interrogators promised that if you answer questions and not cause trouble, you’ll have quiet life and get out in few months. > > Now, you march on this guy and tell him the deal is off and he has to stand criminal trial. Why would I do that? If he’s been promised something, he should get it. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you really need to think through the notion of mass criminal trials and cookie-cutter sentences. I come from the country where such trials were held decades ago, and people there are still scared of the concept. Apparently it’s not just the people there - you seem to have brought it up as a Freudian slip, since I’ve never suggested any mass trials or “cookie-cutter sentences”. Do you have such little faith in our criminal justice system that you think that’s what the detainees would get? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/57 "2005-06-07T18:06:48Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > …I’ve never suggested any mass trials or “cookie-cutter sentences”. Do you have such little faith in our criminal justice system that you think that’s what the detainees would get? I’d like to believe we’ll do much better. I also believed Abu Ghraib was never gonna happen. Once you bring 12,000 cases into federal courts at once, some resemblance to mass trial and standardized sentencing might be inevitable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/58 "2005-06-07T18:11:14Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Once you bring 12,000 cases into federal courts at once, some resemblance to mass trial and standardized sentencing might be inevitable. The ICRC shows under 1,200. Misplaced a decimal? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/59 "2005-06-07T21:11:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The ICRC shows under 1,200. Misplaced a decimal? Per this [Amnesty International report](http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005), US presently detains 12,436, directly and by proxy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879/60 "2005-06-07T23:28:36Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Per this [Amnesty International report](http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005), US presently detains 12,436, directly and by proxy. Who to believe, who to believe… :rolleyes: :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-deprive-gitmo-detainees-legal-protection-renamed/306879.md?page=4)