[excon]

Hello:

Obama is going to close Gitmo. Good. Here's what he should do...

But, first, let's talk about the "worst of the worst"... That's something Cheney said. I don't believe him. You shouldn't either. After he said it the FIRST time, 20 or 30 were released because they didn't do anything. How come Cheney classified THEM as the worst of the worst??

Because he has to justify keeping these BAD people locked up...

Now, I don't deny that there's probably a few people in Gitmo who actually ARE the worst of the worst... But, SAYING, they're the worst of the worst doesn't cut it... Not in our legal system - not in ANYBODY'S legal system. Ok, maybe in Saddam's legal system...

We should bring 'em here and try 'em in our courts. If we HAVE evidence that's admissible, we present it. If not, we don't, and we let 'em go... That's the way we DO things. That's who WE are.

But, don't think for a minute that we're lightweights here in our courts. Or that they'll be coddled in our prisons... Oh, no! We ARE the worlds largest jailer, so we KNOW how to put 'em away.

And, what's the worst that could happen?? 10 or 20 of 'em MIGHT be set free. There's only a couple hundred of 'em to begin with...

Are you going to tell me that having 10 or 20 more really bad terrorists, who are intent on killing us, is going to make a DENT in ALL those people out there who are really bad people intent on killing us??

Well, it ISN'T. It's not even close... I can take you downtown HERE, in MY city, and I can find 20 really BAD people, who have NO regard for human life...

Yeah... I don't want 'em out there... But, if I were to weigh the damage they COULD cause, against the damage Gitmo DID cause, I think the numbers come down on MY side of the argument...

Of course, there are people who don't think Gitmo caused us ANY damage at all. Those people would be wrong...

excon

[tomder55]

It's a curious thing . Countries of origin don't want them back . They must think the detainees are the worse of the worse. Other countries won't touch them even as they are critical of us holding them .

The Kansas Gov already said NO WAY will Leavenworth be considered.But
Abscam Jack Murtha said he's willing to house them in his district .I doubt the people he represents agree... Whatever..

He also commented :

Murtha: "There's no reason not to put them in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."



But unconvicted criminals in the United States are eligible to be released on bail or have a bail hearing . To not do this is to deny them their "constitutional rights" . Right ?

When we bring them here,are we are going to have to let them go until they are convicted ? Or are these terrorists only entitled to "some" constitutional protections?

Of course the answer is that they are entitled to none.

As we speak the new Army manual is being printed to include the reading of Miranda to captured jihadists in battle .

[speechlesstx]

Call me crazy, but I think keeping 10 or 20 of the worst of the worst Jihadists bent on our destruction with an alleged mandate from God and backed by millions of AQ dollars off our soil is a good thing. 10 or 20 can do a lot of damage.

[excon]

Hello crazy:

Let's say you're a plumber, and you happened upon a house that had locked room right next to the hot water heater... In that room, was a person who was being held captive. As you work on the hot water heater, the person yells through the door that he wants to be set free... But, he's a little pissed off, and if he gets out he's going to kill a lot of people. He was really, really pissed. He even tells you he's going to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY. You BELIEVE him.

Are you going to set him free? Why?

excon

[speechlesstx]

First of all, let's please don't say I'm a plumber. I'm not sure which I hate more, working on a car or plumbing. Let's say I was installing trim, and I hear a pissed off person yelling at me from the closet that he's going to kill a lot of people including me and my family. Am I going to set him free?

Um, let me think about it... NO!

Why? I maybe crazy but I ain't dumb.

[TexasParent]

Um... silly question... but these people who are being held captive without charge... was there ever any exit strategy, or was it like Iraq?

Were these people meant to be captive until they die, or the war on terror is declared over?

Just send them to trial and punish these people already if they are found guilty. If they aren't guilty of anything, then let them go.

[speechlesstx]

Dispelling Misconceptions: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Procedures Exceed the Requirements of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Law, and Customary International Law

Human rights activists, liberal media outlets, and Bush Administration critics have derisively characterized the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as the "gulag of our times,"[1] a "legal black hole,"[2] and a "stain on our nation's character."[3] One need not dig too deeply into the facts, however, to discover that the detainees held at Guantanamo receive the most systematic and extensive procedural protections afforded to foreign enemy combatants in the history of armed conflict, including unprecedented access to legal representation and U.S. courts. In order to unearth the reality from the layers of hyperbole, half-truths, and outright lies that have been heaped upon Guantanamo Bay, this paper corrects a few of the more persistent misconceptions relating to the situation.

Misconception #1: The U.S. must either put Guantanamo Bay detainees on trial or release them.

Certain Members of Congress and parts of the self-described "international legal and human rights community"[4] labor to spread the mistaken notion that the United States has only two viable and legitimate options for dealing with the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay: (1) charge the detainees with crimes and then try them or (2) simply release them from U.S. custody.[5] There is, however, at least one other option, which just happens to have the most venerable pedigree in U.S. history, that the Guantanamo critics ignore: hold the detainees until the end of active hostilities.


As of May, approximately 380 detainees were being held at Guantanamo Bay.[6] Only about 60 to 80 of them are expected to stand trial before military commissions for their individual criminal acts.[7] This list includes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and Ramzi Bin al-Shib, the so-called 20th hijacker. The remaining detainees are being held not because of any alleged criminal conduct but because (1) they fought against U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan and (2) U.S. special military tribunals have determined that they are too dangerous to be released back into the world and would likely rejoin the fighting against U.S. and Coalition forces.[8]


The United States is engaged in an ongoing armed conflict in Afghanistan and therefore has no obligation—legal, moral, or otherwise—to release captured enemy soldiers so that they may return to the battlefield. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions require that combatants be released from custody only "after the cessation of active hostilities."[9] The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed the principle that the detention of enemy combatants is a "fundamental and accepted…incident of war" and concluded that the President is therefore authorized to hold detainees for the duration of the conflict in Afghanistan.[10]

The obvious rationale for the detention of enemy combatants is to prevent captured belligerents from returning to the battlefield to take up arms again against Americans and American allies. The premature release of enemy combatants from Guantanamo Bay would likely prove deadly to U.S. forces still fighting in Afghanistan: At least 30 of the approximately 395 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay returned to Afghanistan to engage in further hostilities against Coalition forces.[11]

Other than calling for the immediate release of all detainees and closing Guantanamo, critics provide no solution for how to prevent these former belligerents from returning to the battlefield and killing U.S. and Coalition soldiers. The only sensible solution is the one that the United States and other nations have long employed: hold detainees until the cessation of conflict.

Misconception #2: The Guantanamo Bay detainees received inadequate due process when they were designated enemy combatants.

In violation of the Geneva Conventions and the customary laws of war, Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan wear no uniforms or insignia. Unlike the soldiers of every nation that seeks the protections of the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war, Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters refuse to carry their arms openly. Such choices drastically increase the dangers of war to the civilians among whom Taliban and al-Qaeda forces hide.

These choices also make it more difficult for U.S. military personnel to determine whether, upon a combatant's capture, the combatant is in fact a member of the enemy force. To address the problem, the U.S. military established a system to screen each detainee to determine whether he is an enemy combatant. The result is that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have received more procedural protections ensuring the fairness of their detention than any foreign enemy combatant in any armed conflict in the history of warfare.

Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants who have committed a belligerent act but whose detainee status is in question are entitled to have their status determined by a "competent tribunal."[12] In accordance with that provision of the Geneva Conventions, prior to the September 11 attacks the U.S. military established Army Regulation 190-8, Section 1-6, setting forth procedures for the operation of tribunals to make such determinations—that is, whether a combatant may be held as a prisoner of war.[13] The U.S. Supreme Court recently cited Army Regulation 190-8 as an example of a procedure which would satisfy the due process requirements for determining the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.[14] In response, the Department of Defense established special tribunals modeled on Army Regulation 190-8—Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs)—to determine the status of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Consistent with Army Regulation 190-8, the CSRT hearing provides each detainee with a hearing before a neutral panel composed of three commissioned military officers. The tribunals make their decisions on the detainee's status by majority vote, based on the preponderance of the evidence. The detainee has the right to attend all open portions of the CSRT proceedings, the opportunity to call witnesses on his behalf, the right to cross-examine witnesses called by the tribunal, and the right to testify on his own behalf.[15] These procedures go far beyond what most nations provide and what the Geneva Conventions require.

Because unlawful enemy combatants violate the laws of war by employing deception to hide or confuse their identities and affiliations, the CSRT hearings were designed not just to meet but to exceed the due process protections provided by hearings conducted pursuant to Army Regulation 190-8. Specifically, Guantanamo Bay detainees are given the following rights as part of their CSRT hearings:

* A military officer is appointed to serve as the detainee's personal representative and explains the CSRT process to the detainee, assists in the collection of relevant information, and helps prepare for the hearing.

* In advance of the hearing, the detainee is given a summary of the evidence supporting his designation as an enemy combatant.

* A member of the tribunal is required to search government files for any evidence suggesting the detainee is not an enemy combatant.

* The decision of every CSRT hearing is automatically reviewed by a higher authority in the Department of Defense who is empowered to order further proceedings.[16]

There would be little or no doubt whether detainees are members of the Taliban or al-Qaeda if such forces simply followed the Geneva Conventions and wore uniforms, displayed insignias, and carried their arms openly. The resulting irony is that unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay have been given heightened due process despite, and as a direct result of, their repudiation of the laws of war.

Misconception #3: The Guantanamo Bay detainees are entitled to habeas corpus relief.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled over 50 years ago that non-citizen enemy combatants imprisoned outside of the United States during wartime do not have a right to the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus—a legal cause of action brought by a person who alleges he is unlawfully imprisoned. That case, Johnson v. Eisentrager, involved 21 German nationals who had been convicted of espionage by U.S. military commissions convened in China and then transferred to U.S. detention facilities in Allied-occupied Germany. Once in Germany, they petitioned a U.S. federal court to release them under a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that they had been wrongfully imprisoned. The Supreme Court ruled that the German prisoners did not have a right to be released under habeas corpus because they "at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States."[17]

The large majority of Guantanamo Bay detainees today are in the same shoes as the German prisoners were 50 years ago. They are being held outside of the United States[18] for acts committed in Afghanistan, the location of most combatants' capture. As such, the detainees have no right to the extraordinary writ.

In 2004's Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court chose largely to ignore its own precedent[19] when it extended statutory (not constitutional) access to habeas corpus review to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Thereafter, Congress rightly "overruled" the Supreme Court by changing the statutory law to revoke federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus actions filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees.[20] It is that legislation that Guantanamo Bay critics now seek to undo with yet another round of legislation.

Finally, to assert that the Guantanamo detainees deserve habeas hearings is to assert that the CSRT hearings that have been provided to every detainee have been fundamentally inadequate.[21] They have not. The CSRT hearings exceed the requirements for determination of combatant status under the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military regulations.


Recommendations for Congress

Congress should not interfere with the U.S. military's policy of detaining alien enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay for the duration of the war on terrorism. These detainees should not be released until the cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere or until such time that the detainees are no longer a threat to U.S. and Coalition forces. Calls by Members of Congress and the "international legal and human rights community" to release the approximately 380 detainees remaining in Guantanamo are reckless in the extreme and not supported by the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, the Geneva Conventions, or customary international law.

Congress should decline to take the extraordinary step of providing the writ of habeas corpus to the unlawful enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, none of whom are U.S. citizens or legal residents. Even if granting non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants the right to habeas corpus were the right decision for this war—and it decidedly is not—it would set a dangerous precedent for America's ability to fight future wars, including conventional wars in which enemy combatants are affiliated with nation-states. In any future conflict, the international community, including the United Nations, would surely demand that prisoners of war held by U.S. forces have access to U.S. courts to try their claims that they are being held unjustly. Further, granting the writ of habeas corpus to non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants is almost certain to embolden liberal and progressive jurists to "discover" new constitutional rights for U.S. enemies to access U.S. courts to try their claims. Finally, extending habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay will impede the effectiveness of military operations and place an unnecessary burden on U.S. military forces in the field.[22]

Conclusion

While U.S. troops are deployed in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress should focus its efforts on strengthening their ability to succeed. Congress should not hamper our troops' efforts with shortsighted legislation extending unprecedented rights to foreign terrorists and other enemy combatants. Rewarding or releasing captured Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters is not any way for legislators on the home front to support U.S. troops fighting abroad.

[Emland]

The strange thing is lots of folks want to let them go. They just don't want them in their part of the world.

[tomder55]

was there ever any exit strategy, or was it like Iraq?

Seriously ? Of course. There always was a plan to hold military commissions . The civil libertarians threw monkey wrenches into that at the same time they were being held uncharged. They won.

Now the guy who planned 9-11 is having his trial delayed AGAIN for at least 4 months (while he will be held in solitary confinement... talk about cruel punishment ! ) as President Obama sets up a (what did he call it ? ) study group to determine what to do with the mass murderer!!

Obama had all this time to decide what to do with the detainess. But instead called for the closuer of the detention center in a year WITHOUT HAVING THE FOGGIEST IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH THE DETAINEES!! GOOD PLAN!!

[TexasParent]

seriously ? of course. There always was a plan to hold military commissions . The civil libertarians threw monkey wrenches into that at the same time they were being held uncharged. They won.

Now the guy who planned 9-11 is having his trial delayed AGAIN for at least 4 months (while he will be held in solitary confinement .....talk about cruel punishment ! ) as President Obama sets up a (what did he call it ? ) study group to determine what to do with the mass murderer !!!

Obama had all this time to decide what to do with the detainess. But instead called for the closuer of the detention center in a year WITHOUT HAVING THE FOGGIEST IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH THE DETAINEES !!!!!! GOOD PLAN !!!!!!

He didn't create the mess, and the Bush administration was having just as difficult a time figuring out what to do with them. At least Obama is trying to close what was a bad idea from the start since there was no exit strategy; at least he's determined not to make the situation worse by adding more detainees, and he's not rushing to close it tomorrow, but want's to make the smartest decision on how to move forward. I would be applauding his cautiousness.

[TexasParent]

Dispelling Misconceptions: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Procedures Exceed the Requirements of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Law, and Customary International Law

Human rights activists, liberal media outlets, and Bush Administration critics have derisively characterized the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as the "gulag of our times,"[1] a "legal black hole,"[2] and a "stain on our nation's character."[3] One need not dig too deeply into the facts, however, to discover that the detainees held at Guantanamo receive the most systematic and extensive procedural protections afforded to foreign enemy combatants in the history of armed conflict, including unprecedented access to legal representation and U.S. courts. In order to unearth the reality from the layers of hyperbole, half-truths, and outright lies that have been heaped upon Guantanamo Bay, this paper corrects a few of the more persistent misconceptions relating to the situation.

Misconception #1: The U.S. must either put Guantanamo Bay detainees on trial or release them.

Certain Members of Congress and parts of the self-described "international legal and human rights community"[4] labor to spread the mistaken notion that the United States has only two viable and legitimate options for dealing with the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay: (1) charge the detainees with crimes and then try them or (2) simply release them from U.S. custody.[5] There is, however, at least one other option, which just happens to have the most venerable pedigree in U.S. history, that the Guantanamo critics ignore: hold the detainees until the end of active hostilities.


As of May, approximately 380 detainees were being held at Guantanamo Bay.[6] Only about 60 to 80 of them are expected to stand trial before military commissions for their individual criminal acts.[7] This list includes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and Ramzi Bin al-Shib, the so-called 20th hijacker. The remaining detainees are being held not because of any alleged criminal conduct but because (1) they fought against U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan and (2) U.S. special military tribunals have determined that they are too dangerous to be released back into the world and would likely rejoin the fighting against U.S. and Coalition forces.[8]


The United States is engaged in an ongoing armed conflict in Afghanistan and therefore has no obligation—legal, moral, or otherwise—to release captured enemy soldiers so that they may return to the battlefield. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions require that combatants be released from custody only "after the cessation of active hostilities."[9] The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed the principle that the detention of enemy combatants is a "fundamental and accepted…incident of war" and concluded that the President is therefore authorized to hold detainees for the duration of the conflict in Afghanistan.[10]

The obvious rationale for the detention of enemy combatants is to prevent captured belligerents from returning to the battlefield to take up arms again against Americans and American allies. The premature release of enemy combatants from Guantanamo Bay would likely prove deadly to U.S. forces still fighting in Afghanistan: At least 30 of the approximately 395 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay returned to Afghanistan to engage in further hostilities against Coalition forces.[11]

Other than calling for the immediate release of all detainees and closing Guantanamo, critics provide no solution for how to prevent these former belligerents from returning to the battlefield and killing U.S. and Coalition soldiers. The only sensible solution is the one that the United States and other nations have long employed: hold detainees until the cessation of conflict.

Misconception #2: The Guantanamo Bay detainees received inadequate due process when they were designated enemy combatants.

In violation of the Geneva Conventions and the customary laws of war, Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan wear no uniforms or insignia. Unlike the soldiers of every nation that seeks the protections of the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war, Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters refuse to carry their arms openly. Such choices drastically increase the dangers of war to the civilians among whom Taliban and al-Qaeda forces hide.

These choices also make it more difficult for U.S. military personnel to determine whether, upon a combatant's capture, the combatant is in fact a member of the enemy force. To address the problem, the U.S. military established a system to screen each detainee to determine whether he is an enemy combatant. The result is that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have received more procedural protections ensuring the fairness of their detention than any foreign enemy combatant in any armed conflict in the history of warfare.

Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants who have committed a belligerent act but whose detainee status is in question are entitled to have their status determined by a "competent tribunal."[12] In accordance with that provision of the Geneva Conventions, prior to the September 11 attacks the U.S. military established Army Regulation 190-8, Section 1-6, setting forth procedures for the operation of tribunals to make such determinations—that is, whether a combatant may be held as a prisoner of war.[13] The U.S. Supreme Court recently cited Army Regulation 190-8 as an example of a procedure which would satisfy the due process requirements for determining the status of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.[14] In response, the Department of Defense established special tribunals modeled on Army Regulation 190-8—Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs)—to determine the status of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Consistent with Army Regulation 190-8, the CSRT hearing provides each detainee with a hearing before a neutral panel composed of three commissioned military officers. The tribunals make their decisions on the detainee's status by majority vote, based on the preponderance of the evidence. The detainee has the right to attend all open portions of the CSRT proceedings, the opportunity to call witnesses on his behalf, the right to cross-examine witnesses called by the tribunal, and the right to testify on his own behalf.[15] These procedures go far beyond what most nations provide and what the Geneva Conventions require.

Because unlawful enemy combatants violate the laws of war by employing deception to hide or confuse their identities and affiliations, the CSRT hearings were designed not just to meet but to exceed the due process protections provided by hearings conducted pursuant to Army Regulation 190-8. Specifically, Guantanamo Bay detainees are given the following rights as part of their CSRT hearings:

* A military officer is appointed to serve as the detainee's personal representative and explains the CSRT process to the detainee, assists in the collection of relevant information, and helps prepare for the hearing.

* In advance of the hearing, the detainee is given a summary of the evidence supporting his designation as an enemy combatant.

* A member of the tribunal is required to search government files for any evidence suggesting the detainee is not an enemy combatant.

* The decision of every CSRT hearing is automatically reviewed by a higher authority in the Department of Defense who is empowered to order further proceedings.[16]

There would be little or no doubt whether detainees are members of the Taliban or al-Qaeda if such forces simply followed the Geneva Conventions and wore uniforms, displayed insignias, and carried their arms openly. The resulting irony is that unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay have been given heightened due process despite, and as a direct result of, their repudiation of the laws of war.

Misconception #3: The Guantanamo Bay detainees are entitled to habeas corpus relief.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled over 50 years ago that non-citizen enemy combatants imprisoned outside of the United States during wartime do not have a right to the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus—a legal cause of action brought by a person who alleges he is unlawfully imprisoned. That case, Johnson v. Eisentrager, involved 21 German nationals who had been convicted of espionage by U.S. military commissions convened in China and then transferred to U.S. detention facilities in Allied-occupied Germany. Once in Germany, they petitioned a U.S. federal court to release them under a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that they had been wrongfully imprisoned. The Supreme Court ruled that the German prisoners did not have a right to be released under habeas corpus because they "at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States."[17]

The large majority of Guantanamo Bay detainees today are in the same shoes as the German prisoners were 50 years ago. They are being held outside of the United States[18] for acts committed in Afghanistan, the location of most combatants' capture. As such, the detainees have no right to the extraordinary writ.

In 2004's Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court chose largely to ignore its own precedent[19] when it extended statutory (not constitutional) access to habeas corpus review to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Thereafter, Congress rightly "overruled" the Supreme Court by changing the statutory law to revoke federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus actions filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees.[20] It is that legislation that Guantanamo Bay critics now seek to undo with yet another round of legislation.

Finally, to assert that the Guantanamo detainees deserve habeas hearings is to assert that the CSRT hearings that have been provided to each and every detainee have been fundamentally inadequate.[21] They have not. The CSRT hearings exceed the requirements for determination of combatant status under the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military regulations.


Recommendations for Congress

Congress should not interfere with the U.S. military's policy of detaining alien enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay for the duration of the war on terrorism. These detainees should not be released until the cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere or until such time that the detainees are no longer a threat to U.S. and Coalition forces. Calls by Members of Congress and the "international legal and human rights community" to release the approximately 380 detainees remaining in Guantanamo are reckless in the extreme and not supported by the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, the Geneva Conventions, or customary international law.

Congress should decline to take the extraordinary step of providing the writ of habeas corpus to the unlawful enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, none of whom are U.S. citizens or legal residents. Even if granting non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants the right to habeas corpus were the right decision for this war—and it decidedly is not—it would set a dangerous precedent for America's ability to fight future wars, including conventional wars in which enemy combatants are affiliated with nation-states. In any future conflict, the international community, including the United Nations, would surely demand that prisoners of war held by U.S. forces have access to U.S. courts to try their claims that they are being held unjustly. Further, granting the writ of habeas corpus to non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants is almost certain to embolden liberal and progressive jurists to "discover" new constitutional rights for U.S. enemies to access U.S. courts to try their claims. Finally, extending habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay will impede the effectiveness of military operations and place an unnecessary burden on U.S. military forces in the field.[22]

Conclusion

While U.S. troops are deployed in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress should focus its efforts on strengthening their ability to succeed. Congress should not hamper our troops' efforts with shortsighted legislation extending unprecedented rights to foreign terrorists and other enemy combatants. Rewarding or releasing captured Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters is not any way for legislators on the home front to support U.S. troops fighting abroad.

Um... just how long until the war on terror is over? It seemed to last 20 or more years between the Irish Republican Army and Britain. Do you think it will be sooner? How many terrorist attacks in a year or people who lose there lives to a terrorist attack determine whether it's a war or simply isolated incidents? 10 people, 100 people? I'm all for keeping prisoners until the end of hostilities that way they can't aid the enemy again if we aren't engaged in hostilities with the enemy anymore, but can someone please tell us what the parameters for the end of hostilities are?

[galveston]

Um...just how long until the war on terror is over? It seemed to last 20 or more years between the Irish Republican Army and Britain. Do you think it will be sooner? How many terrorist attacks in a year or people who lose there lives to a terrorist attack determine whether it's a war or simply isolated incidents? 10 people, 100 people? I'm all for keeping prisoners until the end of hostilities that way they can't aid the enemy again if we aren't engaged in hostilities with the enemy anymore, but can someone please tell us what the parameters for the end of hostilities are?

That question can only be answered by the terrorist organizations.

[speechlesstx]

Um...just how long until the war on terror is over? It seemed to last 20 or more years between the Irish Republican Army and Britain. Do you think it will be sooner? How many terrorist attacks in a year or people who lose there lives to a terrorist attack determine whether it's a war or simply isolated incidents? 10 people, 100 people? I'm all for keeping prisoners until the end of hostilities that way they can't aid the enemy again if we aren't engaged in hostilities with the enemy anymore, but can someone please tell us what the parameters for the end of hostilities are?

"While U.S. troops are deployed in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq" would be a good place to start. As long as we are fighting these wars it seems prudent to continue the long established policy of detaining enemy combatants.

[tomder55]

OK

From his pronouncement during his signing of the executive order,and it's vague text , it is clear that President Obama has absolutely no clue what to do with the detainees. Instead it orders an "immediate review" of the detentions, by a taskforce of cabinet-level officials led by the attorney general.

He also ordered a close of all American detention centers in foreign nations... a redundant order since President Bush signed that order in 2006 .

So in the meantime what happens when a US soldier captures a jihadist in battle ?

Good question you might say.

Why even bother capturing them ? It puts our soldiers at an even higher risk . The only useful reason to even attempt it is to get actionable intel. Other than that it is much easier and safer to put one between his eyes or drop a JDAM on them from a drone.

Perhaps we can go back to the good ole days of the Clintonoids . Bush critic and Clintoon era spook Michael Scheuer was instrumental in developing the rendition procedure .
Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff: an Interview with Michael Scheuer on CIA Renditions

Die Zeit: Who invented the “extraordinary renditions” system?
Michael Scheuer: President Clinton, his security counsellor Sandy Berger and his terrorism counsellor Richard Clarke instructed the CIA in autumn 1995 to destroy Al-Qaida. We asked the president what we should do with the arrested persons? Clinton replied that this was our problem. The CIA indicated that they are not jailors. It was then suggested we find any solution whatsoever to this problem. And this is what we did, we established a procedure and I myself was part of this working group. We concentrated on those members of Al-Qaida who were wanted by the police in their respective countries of origin or those who had already been convicted during their absence.
Die Zeit: How did you take the decision as to who should be arrested?
Michael Scheuer: We had to present quite a lot of accusatory material to a group of lawyers.
Die Zeit: Lawyers? Within the secret services?
Michael Scheuer: Yes, there are lawyers everywhere, within the CIA, the Ministry of Justice, the National Security Councill. We have established a list of targets under their surveillance. We then had to find the person and this in a country ready to cooperate with us. Additionally, the person's country of origin had to be willing to take the person back. It is a very complicated procedure aimed at a very restricted target group. …
Die Zeit: Did the interrogations take place in the target country?
Michael Scheuer: We always submitted our questions in writing.
Die Zeit: The CIA never really took part in the interrogations?
Michael Scheuer: I have never heard of anything like that. The lawyers enjoined us from doing so.
Die Zeit: Did you not have doubts concerning the use of torture in these countries?
Michael Scheuer: No, my job was to protect American citizens by arresting members of Al-Qaida. The executive power of our government has to decide whether it considers this hypocritical or not. 90% of this operation was successful and only 10% could be considered as disastrous.
Die Zeit: Which part was the disaster?
Michael Scheuer: The fact that everything was made public. From now on the Europeans will diminish their assistance because they fear reading about it in the Washington Post. And then there is this troublemaker in the Senate, Senator John McCain, who virtually confessed, wrongly of course, that the CIA uses torture. And that is how the program will be destroyed.
Die Zeit: Why did you transfer the persons to their countries of origin instead of transferring them to the USA? Could you not have imprisoned them there much more safely?
Michael Scheuer: The crimes they had committed were always acts of violence. We did not have the slightest doubts that those people would be released by their countries. And president Clinton did not want them to be transferred to the USA.
Die Zeit: Why not?
Michael Scheuer: Our leaders did not wish us to treat them like prisoners of war but rather like common criminals. Additionally, they feared that they would never be able to assemble sufficient proof in order to defend the case before our law courts.

So to get actionable intel from AQ the jihadists were rounded up and transfered to countries we knew would REALLY torture them . Why hasn't Obama used executive order to end the practice of renditions ? Is he planning to ? Surely he doesn't want jihadists we capture being questioned in the dungeons of the Mukhabarat.

One more thing . The NY Slimes details what happened when one jihadist was released (evidently not one if the worst of the worst ) .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/wo...pagewanted=all

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

They can't be repatriated ;our allies in Europe don't want them due to legal and procedural difficulties. They also object to repatriation to countries which do not meet European human rights standards.

Not to worry .Att. General Eric Holder ;terrorist sympathiser and advocate will know how to handle them . Can't wait to hear what his task force recommends.

[inthebox]

Speech:

Thanks for link on post #7

I was just wondering who would pay for the legal costs for these people to stand trial?. Hmm US... the taxpayor.

At least if we are paying for their detention, as Tom linked, this won't happen

Pentagon: Ex-detainees returning to fight - CNN.com

Records show that an attack in Mosul that day targeted an Iraqi police patrol and left six people dead, including two police officers.

G&P

[excon]

One more thing . The NY Slimes details what happened when one jihadist was released (evidently not one if the worse of the worse)

Hello tom:

I wondered when you were going to mention that.

I'm not an advocate for letting them go. I'm an advocate for trying them and putting them away... I am an advocate for military tribunals. I am NOT an advocate for kangaroo courts. I am an advocate for humane treatment. I am NOT an advocate for torture.

Once, however, Bush entered into the era of KANGAROONESS, he lost FOREVER his opportunity to try them anywhere.

That's not a good result. Some want a do-over, some still want KANGAROONESS to prevail, some just want to keep 'em even IF we can't try them.

Then there are some, like me, who want to obey the rule of law.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Before you rail on, let me augment my previous post...

Of course, the fear mongering campaign from the rightwingers AND the media is in full swing.

Americans will be slaughtered in their beds if Guantanamo is closed and terrorism suspects are brought into the U.S. for real trials. The New York Times article you mentioned is based entirely on an anonymous source, claiming that a detainee released from Guantanamo last year has now become "the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch". It's always amazing how bureaucratically structured Al Qaeda is alleged to be and how well we can discern their structure: "Deputy Leader, Yemen Branch"; do they have business cards and organizational charts?

But the real fear-mongering is focused on all of the attacks that American communities will suffer if we imprison dangerous terrorists inside the U.S. rather than in Guantanamo. House Majority Leader John Boehner wants you to be frightened: "I think the first thing we have to remember is that we're talking about terrorists here. Do we bring them into our borders?" GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor warned: "Actively moving terrorists inside our borders weakens our security. Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities." The always frightened Wall St. Journal Editorial Page shrieks that any place that houses Al Qaeda terrorists will become a "target" for attack:

All of this is pure hogwash. It's the 2009 version of Bush's mushroom cloud. However, the U.S. has repeatedly and successfully tried alleged high-level Al Qaeda operatives and other accused Islamic Terrorists in our normal federal courts. In fact, the record is far more successful than the series of debacles that has taken place in the military commissions system at Guantanamo. Moreover, those convicted Terrorists have been housed in U.S. prisons, inside the U.S. for years without a hint of a problem. Here is but a partial list of the accused Muslim Terrorists who have been successfully tried and convicted in U.S. civilians courts and who remain imprisoned inside the U.S.:

Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted, 1996, U.S. District Court (before then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey) -- plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S. (currently: U.S. prison, Butler, North Carolina);

Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted, 2006, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);

Richard Reid, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- attempting to blow up U.S.-bound jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);

Jose Padilla, convicted, 2007, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);

Iyman Faris a/k/a/ Mohammad Rauf, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support and resources to Al-Qaeda, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts on behalf of Al Qaeda (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);

Ali Saleh al-Marri, accused Al Qaeda operative -- not yet tried, held as "unlawful enemy combatant" (currently: U.S. Naval Brig, Hanahan, South Carolina);

Masoud Khan, convicted, 2004, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism as part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Islamic jihad (currently: U.S. prison, Terre Haute, Indiana);

John Walker Lindh, convicted, 2002, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support to the Taliban (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado).

That's just a partial list. There are numerous other individuals who have been convicted in U.S. civilian courts of various acts relating to terrorism inspired by Islamic radicalism, including many alleged to be high-level terrorists, who are now serving sentences inside the U.S. in U.S. prisons.

If it were really the goal of Terrorists to attack American prisons where their members are incarcerated and if they were actually capable of doing that, they already have a long list of "targets" and have had such a list for two decades. If U.S. civilian courts were inadequate forums for obtaining convictions of terrorism suspects, then the above-listed individuals would not be imprisoned, most of them for life, while the Guantanamo military commission system still has nothing to show for it other than a series of humiliating setbacks for the Government.

As is true for virtually every fear-mongering claim made over the last eight years to frighten Americans into believing that they must vest the Government with vast and un-American powers lest they be slaughtered in their homes, NONE of these claims is remotely rational and all of them are empirically disproven.

excon

PS> Credit to Glen Greenwald - salon.com

[speechlesstx]

Ah tom, that always brings to mind one of my favorite Goracle moments. From Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies."

Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ."

Perhaps the president will follow in Gore's footsteps.

The new press secretary had somewhat of a brutal first briefing, I've been trying to find the transcript but the uber-tech savvy administration hasn't posted it yet. His answer to the Gitmo problem seems to be "we haven't got a plan, but we plan on planning to convene a commission to come up with ideas on planning a plan."

[tomder55]

I'm an advocate for trying them and putting them away... I am an advocate for military tribunals. I am NOT an advocate for kangaroo courts.. .
Once, however, Bush entered into the era of KANGAROONESS, he lost FOREVER his opportunity to try them anywhere.

That's just not true . The tribunal system that was set up is perfectly adequate and constitutional (as confirmed by DC District Judge Judge James Robertson 1994 Clinton appointee).Further; they were confirmed by Congressional vote in 2006(Military Commissions Act of 2006 )

Once Obama holds the detainees currently on trial in solitary confinement for another 4-6 months "suspension " he will come to the same conclusion.

[tomder55]

Ex... check out your list of terrorists that went or are going through the court system now. Every one of them are either American citizens or were arrested on US soil.

This is not the same thing as jihadists from other nations captured overseas. If we can't try them for their obvious vilolations of the so called rules of war by a military tribunal then the only other legal way to deal with them (until SCOTUS intervened and said that illegal enemy combatants are eligible for constitutional guarantees ) would've been as POW s .