Infinite Detention Without Trial - what does it mean?

WildCat said:
But what's funny is that Padilla appealed his 17 year sentence, and the appeals judge ruled that indeed the sentence was flawed, he didn't get enough prison time. Have fun in Supermax Jose! :p
Click to expand...

Ooops!
 
WildCat said:
Al Qaida is so diminished it has resorted to kidnapping, which means it's mostly the Taliban now.

And we can still release those who have been determined to no longer be a threat, in fact most of the Gitmo detainees have been released. And some of those went right back to joined the fight...
Click to expand...
.
Not all of the detainees were actually enemies of anyone, except the guy across the street where they lived, who turned them in for the bounty.
After 8 years of illegal detention, one might harbor ill feeling about the detainer.
 
Upchurch said:
After being held for three years or so with no charges filed. He was finally charged with something after legal action forced the Bush administration's hand.

That's disingenuous, to say the least.
Click to expand...
.
Read about a guy we're holding in Pakistan for the past 8 years, with no charges filed.
Goddamnit, we have a *********** Constitution which spells out human rights.
These are HUMAN rights, not just 'murricans!
Obey the goddamn law!
 
WildCat said:
Legal disputes take time to resolve, especially when the SCOTUS rewrites the rules midstream. And of course Bush et al made a lot of stupid decisions.
Click to expand...

This was not a case of legal intricaties taking time to play out. Bush was attempting to hold a US citizen indefinitely and without charges. And he would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling civil liberties groups and their Constitution!

Of course, your latter sentence was my entire point, so long as if by "stupid" you mean "in violation of our laws and treaties".
 
I Ratant said:
.
Not all of the detainees were actually enemies of anyone, except the guy across the street where they lived, who turned them in for the bounty.
After 8 years of illegal detention, one might harbor ill feeling about the detainer.
Click to expand...
Evidence that any of the ones known to fight after time in Gitmo had nothing to do with the Taliban or al Qaida prior to their detention?
 
As there is nothing to prosecute them for after 8 years, there was nothing at the gitgo to detain them, other than the usual tribal hatreds which last for centuries in those benighted areas of the world, for the most part.
"His ancestor alienated the affections of our family's favorite sheep 517 years ago, and we've hated them ever since, so with the bounty to turn him in, we do a little to get back at that long-dead bastard."
 
Upchurch said:
This was not a case of legal intricaties taking time to play out. Bush was attempting to hold a US citizen indefinitely and without charges. And he would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling civil liberties groups and their Constitution!

Of course, your latter sentence was my entire point, so long as if by "stupid" you mean "in violation of our laws and treaties".
Click to expand...
But holding him as an enemy combatant did not violate laws or treaties. A federal appeals court ruled he could be held as an enemy combatant, and the SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal.
 
I Ratant said:
As there is nothing to prosecute them for after 8 years, there was nothing at the gitgo to detain them
Click to expand...
You don't think you can detain enemies captured in an armed conflict so long as that conflict is ongoing?
 
A speedy trial, confronting his accusers.
Don't give a **** what those idiots on SCotUS say, what we have done is unAmerican!
 
WildCat said:
You don't think you can detain enemies captured in an armed conflict so long as that conflict is ongoing?
Click to expand...

Picking up someone on a battlefield, or doing an attack is one thing. The problem here is that some people captured in non-combat situations, such as inside their own homes, and declared to be combatants even though they were not engaged in combat during their capture.
 
There is also the lack of a declaration of war.
The Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US when the US presented proofs of his involvement.
The US didn't, and began the invasion.
 
gnome said:
I believe you're mistaken. There was a last minute change related to the status of US Citizens with respect to this law, but it affected whether they were REQUIRED to be brought before a military tribunal rather than the government having the choice. This was the basis upon which Obama was threatening to veto the bill--because he wanted that choice.

That change does not limit the government's ability to detain US citizens.

If you think I'm the one that's mistaken about this I will go hunt it down for evidences...
Click to expand...
I believe WildCat is correct. As far as I know, the final version included these passages:


SEC. 1031 AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES
OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT
TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

e) Authorities.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United
States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any
other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
Aliens.--
(1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) Lawful resident aliens.--The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of
conduct taking place within the United States, except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

I guess one way to interpret that is that the government may choose to detain US citizens but is not required to do so -- but if they are in the United States at the time, due process fully applies.

It's confusing.
 
I Ratant said:
There is also the lack of a declaration of war.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant to the issue of prisoners of war. The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII, I believe, yet we were certainly bound by various laws regarding conduct during wartime in Korea, Vietnam, etc.
 
WildCat said:
You don't think you can detain enemies captured in an armed conflict so long as that conflict is ongoing?
Click to expand...

If you do so in accordance with the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. One of the things this means is that the end of hostilities has to be defined. Saying there is a "War on Terror" that is an ongoing conflict as long as there are terrorists on the face of the planet is not.

Again, terrorism is a crime, not an enemy.

People detained as terrorists are accused of criminal activity (being illegal enemy combatants) and get the rights of the accused.

Even though these two categories sometimes overlap, and deciding which category (or both) someone belongs in might be an iffy thing, there is (or should be) no category outside both of them. You're either a prisoner of war, and the conditions for release must be defined; or you're accused of a crime, and entitled to the rights of the accused.

BTW, a person held only as an enemy combatant is to be held in conditions similar to military life (living in a barracks, for example) and not held in close confinement (prisons, cages, etc.). This was, in part, why the Bush administration at first wanted to claim that detainees held at Guantanamo were neither fish nor fowl--not people accused of crimes entitled to the rights of the accused AND not prisoners of war whose treatment is defined under the Geneva Conventions.
 
I Ratant said:
There is also the lack of a declaration of war.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The specific words "declaration of war" are not actually necessary.

The Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US when the US presented proofs of his involvement.
The US didn't, and began the invasion.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. You have your history completely wrong.

We had presented the Taliban with proof of his involvement with prior terrorist attacks even before 9/11, and they did nothing then. After 9/11, they did NOT offer to hand him over if we gave them proof. What they offered was to enter into negotiations for bin Laden to go on trial in Afghanistan (ie, by the Taliban itself), under Sharia law, AFTER we started the invasion, if we stopped our invasion. They didn't even offer to actually put him on trial, let alone hand him over. That was quite obviously merely a ploy for time. And gullible fools not only think their offer was genuine (they have never dealt honestly before), but have apparently gone much further in their useful idiocy and turned that offer into something far and above what it actually was.
 
A good discussion. Thanks to all. I'm not a legal expert but the issues are troubling.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
If you do so in accordance with the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. One of the things this means is that the end of hostilities has to be defined. Saying there is a "War on Terror" that is an ongoing conflict as long as there are terrorists on the face of the planet is not.

Again, terrorism is a crime, not an enemy.

People detained as terrorists are accused of criminal activity (being illegal enemy combatants) and get the rights of the accused.

Even though these two categories sometimes overlap, and deciding which category (or both) someone belongs in might be an iffy thing, there is (or should be) no category outside both of them. You're either a prisoner of war, and the conditions for release must be defined; or you're accused of a crime, and entitled to the rights of the accused.

BTW, a person held only as an enemy combatant is to be held in conditions similar to military life (living in a barracks, for example) and not held in close confinement (prisons, cages, etc.). This was, in part, why the Bush administration at first wanted to claim that detainees held at Guantanamo were neither fish nor fowl--not people accused of crimes entitled to the rights of the accused AND not prisoners of war whose treatment is defined under the Geneva Conventions.
Click to expand...
Before my shift in politics I defended extraordinary rendition, water boarding and this limbo designation of enemy combatant that wasn't quite POW and not quite criminal. I always had some unease about it. It does seem to me that it is blurring the lines to avoid the cold hard fact that such acts are counter to centuries of moral progress. People in power are forever trying to circumvent laws and treaties in order to be inhumane.

"Our adrenalin glads are too big and our frontal lobes to small" --Hitchens
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
If you do so in accordance with the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. One of the things this means is that the end of hostilities has to be defined. Saying there is a "War on Terror" that is an ongoing conflict as long as there are terrorists on the face of the planet is not.
Click to expand...

Not quite. An end of hostilities is presumed possible, but it doesn't have to be defined, and in fact it generally isn't defined beforehand (even though it's often obvious what it would be).

But perhaps more importantly, the "War on Terror" is just a label. The AUMF didn't declare war on terrorism in toto. It declared war on al Qaeda and groups which support them. If we destroy these groups, or they surrender or make peace with us, then the conflict will be over, even though "terrorism" will not be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom