[talaniman]

Bush and Cheney have nothing to do with this issue so why bring them in it?

[smoothy]

So... A deserter who left a WRITTEN confession to his crime (which he did do) can't be accused according to Democrats... But ANY repobulican can be... its all part and parcel of the same left wing smear campaign.

[talaniman]

I'll wait until that's confirmed if you don't mind. Hey if he deserves military justice, he will get it.

[smoothy]

He deserves a bullet to the head... and he doesn't deserve a pardon from the criminal in chief either.

[talaniman]

He has a right to due process. Bet that's in the constitution.

[speechlesstx]

Even the Afghans are wondering why they got thrown under the bus.

[smoothy]

Not deserters on the battlefield, they don't have a right to due process. Particuilarly AFTER they leave a signed confession like that piece of white trash did.

[tomder55]

Even the Afghans are wondering [COLOR=#0000ff]why they got thrown under the bus[/COLOR].

Because the emperor only cares about emptying GITMO ...and he don't care how ;or who is released . Lurch said there is no concern about the Taliban 5 going back to the battlefield because if they did ,they MAY get killed . What a dope !

[talaniman]

Nothing was happening in Gitmo either so make 'em targets. We need practice. Maybe we get a few of their buddies too.

[tomder55]

that's because the emperor refused to convene tribunals .

[smoothy]

Lurch never said who he had to blow to get out of Vietnam after only 4 months into a ONE YEAR tour of duty...

[talaniman]

That's the job of the military, and congress didn't want them tried in civilian courts if you remember, nor transferred to high security prisons, like so many before there remaining detainees. They can't even charge most of them turned over from outside US jurisdiction for a reward.

Military Tribunals and Presidential Power

In wartime, presidents are always tempted to expand their authority. But in doing so, they often reach beyond their constitutional mandate.
Although the use of military tribunals can be necessary and even effective in times of war, Louis Fisher contends that these courts present a grave danger to open government and the separation of powers. Citing the constitutional provision vesting Congress with the authority to create tribunals, Fisher addresses the threats posed by the dramatic expansion of presidential power in time of war—and the meek efforts of Congress and the judiciary to curb it.

Then we have the rules themselves

Presidential Military Order to Try Terrorists in Military Tribunals

Supreme Court deals blow to Guantánamo prisoners challenging their detention - CSMonitor.com

Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal May Force Obama to Close Guantanamo | New Republic

For example, Khairullah Khairkhwa, one of the five men released last week's prisoner exchange, held several positions in the Taliban government between 1995 and 2001. He fled to Pakistan after the fall of the Taliban, was picked up near the border by the Pakistani police, and ultimately transferred into Americans custody. During his twelve-year stay at Guantánamo, Khairkhwa admitted Taliban involvement, but vehemently denied participating in terrorist activity; the U.S. has been unable to provide evidence showing otherwise............. "The government has said it must continue to hold some detainees because they are simply too dangerous to let go, but cannot be tried because the evidence against them is tainted. I have seen the evidence against some of these men, and it is not that it is 'tainted' but that it is so skimpy and unreliable, it would never hold up in court," said Wilner..............Regardless of the numbers, the legal argument remains the same. While at war, it is legal to imprison individuals that pose a potential threat on the battlefield. When the war ends, so ends the legality of their detention unless they are charged with a crime. There is no law that allows detention as a preventative manner.

Saying someone is dangerous, and proving it are two very different things.

[tomder55]

completely disagree with Louis Fisher . This was not an expansion of Presidential power because as CIC in a declared war ,the President has always had such powers .
The New Republic has a point to a degree. We are not required to release prisoners while there is still hostilities ,so as long as we have troops in harms way there then the emperor is not required to close GITMO . 2nd ;almost all the detainees that can't be charged has been released already . The ones remaining are the ones that can and should face tribunal . As I already posted ;2 of them are wanted for war crimes by the UN.
The fact is that tribunals would've already been done if it wasn't for the fautly Hamden ,and Boumediene v. Bush decisions by SCOTUS .

[smoothy]

It went WAY beyond just those 5, he relased another 12 secretly as reported by Reuters which can never be considered a conservative news organisation.

US Quietly Moves Detainees Out Of Secretive Afghanistan Prison

US Quietly Moves Detainees Out Of Secretive Afghanistan Prison

By Reuters
On June 13 2014 7:48 AM

(Reuters) - The Obama administration has quietly repatriated a dozen detainees from a small U.S. military prison in Afghanistan, moving a modest step closer toward winding down the United States' controversial post-9/11 detainee system.
President Barack Obama, in a letter to Congress released on Thursday, informed U.S. lawmakers that about 38 non-Afghan prisoners remained at the Parwan detention center outside of Kabul, down from around 50 a few months ago.
A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that a Frenchman, a Kuwaiti and 10 Pakistani prisoners were sent back to their respective home countries at the end of May.
The remaining detainees include Yemeni, Tunisian and more Pakistani nationals, and a Russian who the United States is also considering trying in a military or civilian court.
The transfers, which are not publicly disclosed, underscore the challenges the Obama administration faces in shutting down Parwan and the larger U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has been widely criticized by human rights groups since being populated in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Many of the detainees have not been charged with a crime, but the release of any military detainees has the potential to intensify the political backlash the Obama administration is facing over its handling of suspected militants captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere since 2001.
White House officials have sought to rebuff criticism of the decision last month to send five senior Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to Qatar in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier held by Taliban-linked militants in Pakistan.
The Obama administration is slowly moving to transfer some inmates out of Guantanamo Bay, where about 150 inmates remain. Obama has renewed promises to close the prison despite long-standing congressional opposition.
The non-Afghan prisoners at Parwan are the only detainees remaining in U.S. custody in Afghanistan after U.S. officials shifted hundreds of Afghan prisoners to Afghan government custody last year.
In February, U.S. officials were outraged when the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai released 65 of those prisoners, who Washington insisted were dangerous militants requiring at least further investigation.
The U.S. government considers some remaining non-Afghan prisoners at Parwan, like some at Guantanamo, too dangerous to be freed. Some of them have unclear links to the Afghan conflict, including a Yemeni arrested in Bangkok and secretly moved to Afghanistan.
The Parwan detainees' identities, and the transfer of some of them to other countries in the past, have remained largely a mystery to the public in the United States and Afghanistan.
Last month, the Defense Department provided U.S. lawmakers with a classified report on the identities of the detainees and their alleged militant ties.
Their fate takes on new importance as the end of the U.S. and NATO military mission in Afghanistan approaches. If the two countries can finalize a troop deal, Obama plans to leave just under 10,000 soldiers in Afghanistan after 2014 and withdraw almost all by the end of 2016.
It is unclear under what circumstances the prisoners transferred last month were repatriated.
Pakistani officials have said that returned detainees would be kept under surveillance to make sure they had no militant links. Prisoner advocates say at least some returned detainees were held in secret prisons in Pakistan before being set free.

[paraclete]

ah the responsibilities of Empire, it was ever so, what to do with political prisoners, what a great shame you no longer have the arena where they could fight it out, or the salt mines or the crucifix, or even the galleys. Such is the price of progress

[tomder55]

political prisoners ? Nah these are prisoners captured in a war . They have no right to release until such time as the war comes to a conclusion.

[NeedKarma]

Will the "war" in Afghanistan ever come to a conclusion?

[tomder55]

Yes ,the emperor set a deadline to clock out . Then the Taliban prisoners could be released as long as we haven't determined that they should be charged and sent to trial/tribunal . The AQ prisoners ? That's a different story . They should all be subject to tribunal as pirates have always been handled .

[paraclete]

It's already over Tom, you lost, simple as that, you stayed too long and you lost, at least you learned the lesson of Iraq and won't repeat it

[tomder55]

What lesson was that ? If you leave before your work is done bad things are likely to follow ?