What do you base that on? You do know that the detention center is just one small part of the base right?
In most of their countries of origin, this would be known as “rendition.” Are you okay with sending someone back to Saudi Arabia or Yemen to be tortured? When the CIA did this before, it was an intolerable violation of human rights. Now, it is preferable to the status quo?
Others have already covered it but I’ll just repeat, it’s illegal for the President to just release them. There has been legislation passed prohibiting this very thing. The only legal way to get the Gitmo prisoners off the base is for a country to agree to take them, and to pay 100% of the costs of retrieving them from Gitmo and transporting them to their territory. The DoD is legally prohibited from spending one cent on this process.
This is how most of the detainees released in the Obama Administration have been released. A lot of the ones who are left there’s been trouble lining up countries willing to do this, and then some of the detainees the military doesn’t want released because the detainees are known to be dangerous.
I base it on improving US-Cuba relations. Yes, the prison is a small part of the base, but why have a base in a country that doesn’t want it there? Put some people to work in Puerto Rico and move it there. Or Florida, Mobile, whatever. The base has been a sore point for the Cubans for generations, what can we do there that we can’t do as well elsewhere?
If they would be endangered in returning, then they should ask for and receive protective custody. If found guilty, they should be in a US prison, and if not guilty, allowed to live in the US as sanctuary. If not guilty and welcome in their origin, then send them back.
While I agree with you in principle, Bob, there is simply no fucking way Congress is going to allow that. It’s a no-win situation for the president.
I’m not following. Let’s say some guy is from Saudi Arabia. If he goes back, as a general principle, he may face I humane treatment. So let’s say Saudi Arabia says they won’t give him any special security guarantees - he will be treated like any other prisoner, that is to say, poorly.
What does the US do then?
(I’m just not following your post, not being argumentative.)
Are any of these people worth fighting for? I’d like to believe that, by now, anyone who might have been caught up by accident has been released, and the inmates who are still there are the hard-core baddies who need to be locked up for the rest of their lives. Is there any reason to think this is not the case?
Why do you believe this to be true?
The DoD admitted this month that the Mustafa Abd-al-Qawi Abd-al-Aziz al-Shamiri they have held in Guantanamo for more than thirteen years without charge or legal process is not the same person as the similarly-named guy once identified as a hard-core baddie.
I’d like to believe this too. But we have no reason to believe it.
If there is evidence that the people who are being held are a legitimate threat, then they should have trials, be convicted, and receive a sentence and the normal rights they would have as prisoners. If the evidence isn’t there or if they are not convicted at a trial, then they should be released. In fact they should have been released long ago.
Locking people up for a decade without a trial is wrong.
Well, if they’re criminals then let’s have a trial and sentence them to prison, and keep them a long time. If they are POWs then we can keep them as long as the war continues.
I don’t think the government should have the power to indefinitely imprison people just because somebody thinks they are dangerous. If that was the case why can’t we arrest Donald Trump? He doesn’t need to have committed any crime, we just decide he’s a hard-core baddy who needs to be locked up for the rest of his life.
It’s not that the people being held at Gitmo are particularly admirable people, or are even innocent victims caught be accident. It’s that the Government can’t be allowed the power to arbitrarily detain people. We must have due process, otherwise it’s tyranny. That’s the American way. Or do you hate our freedoms?
“I’d like to believe” is not an accepted legal basis for the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists or other criminals. Unfortunately, the United States has placed itself in an intractable position with regard to the detainees because:
[ul]
[li]It is problematic to try these individuals in a military tribunal under the Geneva Conventions because although they considered “enemy combatants” but not “prisoners of war” or otherwise participants in a chain of command, they are not accorded access to legal counsel, arbitration by an objective third part, or in many cases, access to the very information being used to convict them. [/li][li]It is problematic to try them under United States Code because in many cases their “rendition” and detention has not been in accordance with Constitutional protections and rights.[/li][li]It is problematic to present evidence in court (even a closed court) that would provide insight into the intelligence gathering methods and contacts by US intelligence community and its associates.[/li][li]It is likely the situation that in many cases the information which might be used to try detainees, even if it did not compromise intelligence gathering methods, is not to a legal standard which would be acceptable to any court.[/li][li]It would be revealed that much of the intelligence which has been obtained from detainees through “enhanced interrogation techniques” which has been used for planning strategies is misleading or wrong, thus undermining the validity of the “ticking bomb” scenario which has been used to justify torture of detained combatants.[/li][li]Trial of detainees in which details were publicized would reveal the degree of physical abuse, emotional distress, lack of adequate nutrition and medical treatment, et cetera, which would create a sympathetic backlash and/or compromise the ability of the US to keep information about intelligence gathering secret[/li][li]It is almost certain the case that some–perhaps many–of the detainees are not guilty of being high level organizers of Al Queda, the Taliban, or any other Islamic jihadist organization; revealing this would be a significant embarrassment to all parties involved and nations who assisted the United States.[/li][/ul]
It is probable that many of the people still being detained at the Guantanamo Bay are legitimate terrorists. It is certain that many, if not most, harbor ill will toward the United States, for even if they didn’t before they were detained, years of abuse and bad treatment are pretty much guaranteed to cultivate a violent response. No one involved in the original establishment of the detainee program seems to have considered what would be done with detainees once their intelligence value was depleted or if their alleged actions could not be substantiated. The current presidential administration, despite promises to the contrary, has not taken the required action to deal with this situation (e.g. by blocking legislation continuing the authorization of the detainee system under the current structure) which has served to exacerbate the problem to a point that there is really no politically workable solution other than indefinite detention. Any other action will result in revealing embarrassing information, critical intelligence collecting methods (and the flaws in interpreting that intelligence), and inevitable blowback.
And therein lies the problem; the US wanted to be seen as “doing something” in the wake of the utter failure of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and thus did the reflexive thing of attacking the obvious targets, which also happened to further the neocon agenda of unseating Saddam Hussein (although he had nothing to do with the attacks) and protecting our Saudi allies (who arguably did have a hand in fostering militant Islam). Unfortunately, when you elect to take action that would be best suited to a villain in a comic book film or a despotic tyrant, it becomes increasingly difficult to explain or excuse your actions, or take any effective steps to reverse the effects.
Stranger
He could be impeached for any number of things. At least in this case he would have an indisputable defense: that no US law permits him to detain people indefinitely without trial, even under the legal fiction that they are not subject to US jurisdiction since they are “in Cuba,” and he is breaking the law by detaining them.
Like Stranger, I am sure that most of these people probably deserve to be in prison and those that didn’t will surely do something to warrant it once they’re released. But that doesn’t mean we can just lock them up arbitrarily.
Actually, there is law which permits specifically this: the US Patriot Act permits detention of “immigrants” (which the detainees were originally considered to be despite the fact that none applied for immigration visas), and there are current provisions in the Defense Authorization acts from 2011 through the present which prevent return of detainees to their home states without meeting a long set of conditions, which essentially codifies the indefinite detention as an administrative rule. The president ostensibly has his hands tied, although he agreed to the shackles when he signed bills into law specifically permitting this.
That the camp is in Guantanamo Bay is irrelevant; it is on US soil, and any solider or Marine who committed a crime there would be subject to the UCMJ and protections it provides. The detainees are from a legal standpoint very nearly “unpersons”; they have no recognized right to counsel, to review the evidence against them, access to aid or post, et cetera. What “rights” have been given to them have been provided and rescinded arbitrarily and without consideration for any of the legal protections even an illegal immigrant would enjoy. This is the kind of “legalizing the immoral” that the Soviet Union took to what seemed like an extreme in its worst years, and we’ve now taken to it as business as usual with scarcely a blink of the public eye. Even government documentation that known abuses were committed–not as an exception but as policy–and many of the detainees were clearly not members of a terrorist organization or had any role in planned attacks against the United States is barely given more than a cursory nod.
Stranger
This could be the result of the rigorous vetting process we’ve been hearing so much about.
Sure, lets release them to your state, your town, and a nice place on your street. Problem solved and since they are all nice guys, you and your family should have no reason to worry.
(emphasis mine)
Can you name ONE person in this thread that has made that claim?
I don’t have to believe that you’re a nice guy to not want you arbitrarily and indefinitely imprisoned. If you’ve done something bad that warrants imprisoning you, then we need to have some sort of process to determine what, if anything, we should do with you. Giving Hillary Clinton the right to just declare you an enemy of the people and having you disappeared isn’t a good plan for the country, even if I agree with Hillary that you’re not a nice guy.
You miss my meaning. He really could be impeached for doing this. He probably would be impeached.
Yeah, good luck with that in the House. There is no law that compels him to release them, either. Besides, the 2001 AUMF gives the president extremely broad powers. It could easily be argued that he does, in fact, have the authority to hold non-US citizens indefinitely.