Indefinite detention without trial to be official policy?

[Puppycow]

White House Drafts Executive Order for Indefinite Detention

The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama's pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.

(Insert sarcastic comments about Change We Can Believe In here)

In fairness to the president, congress including his own party did block his efforts to close GITMO and to bring GITMO detainees to the US to stand trial. And congress in turn was responding to large majorities of the public who said they didn't want them tried in civilian court.

Still, a military trial seems preferable to no trial at all. But then, what happens if they can't get a conviction? Do they just keep holding them anyway? Don't we have to bite the bullet and let them go then if we are to be a nation of laws?

 

[theprestige]

As long as the law says the President can hold them indefinitely without trial, I don't see the conflict.

 

[bikerdruid]

so much for due process.
what ever happened to the right to a speedy trial?

 

[casebro]

Guys, we are talking about "enemy combatants" who are traditionally held until hostilities cease.

They shouldn't be confused with criminals, they are captured soldiers. No trials needed, just places like Gitmo. Or Stalag 17, didn't you ever watch "Hogans Heroes"?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Guys, we are talking about "enemy combatants" who are traditionally held until hostilities cease.

And until the day where no person anywhere on the world can gather enough explosive materials to blow himself up, The War Against Terror will continue.

 

[theprestige]

And until the day where no person anywhere on the world can gather enough explosive materials to blow himself up, The War Against Terror will continue.

You're thinking of the War Against Suicide, which nobody is actually fighting.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You're thinking of the War Against Suicide, which nobody is actually fighting.

So very similar to the war on terror then.

 

[theprestige]

so much for due process.
what ever happened to the right to a speedy trial?

"Due process" is a concept defined in law. If the law says the process due you is a determination made by the Executive Branch, then due process you get, and the law is satisfied.

As for the right to a speedy trial? I don't know how that's even possible, let alone a constitutional right. I suppose that for a sufficiently broad definition of "speedy"...

 

[bikerdruid]

"Due process" is a concept defined in law. If the law says the process due you is a determination made by the Executive Branch, then due process you get, and the law is satisfied.

As for the right to a speedy trial? I don't know how that's even possible, let alone a constitutional right. I suppose that for a sufficiently broad definition of "speedy"...

so if the prez sez, "let 'em rot in jail," it's alright then?
so much for democracy.
sounds pretty autocratic to me.

 

[fishbob]

Guys, we are talking about "enemy combatants" who are traditionally held until hostilities cease.

They shouldn't be confused with criminals, they are captured soldiers. No trials needed, just places like Gitmo. Or Stalag 17, didn't you ever watch "Hogans Heroes"?

Hogan was in Stalag 13 - much more pleasant than 17. Hardly anybody was ever p1ssed on or beaten or cornered by dogs. Where nobody was stupid enough to convert an unwinnable and never-ending ideology dispute into a war that forces us to maintain prisoners in perpetuity.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Due process" is a concept defined in law. If the law says the process due you is a determination made by the Executive Branch, then due process you get, and the law is satisfied.

Where does it say the latter?

 

[Wildy]

Guys, we are talking about "enemy combatants" who are traditionally held until hostilities cease.

So how do we know when hostilities against an abstract concept have ceased?

They shouldn't be confused with criminals, they are captured soldiers.

Except that they aren't subject to any POW protections.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

So how is the White house going to respond to habeas corpus demands?

 

[theprestige]

Where does it say the latter?

Beats me. That wasn't my point. My point was that it's possible to have due process that includes indefinite detention without trial. All it takes is a law specifying such. Does such a law exist? I don't know.

But I do know that since the White House is apparently preparing such a due process, they're at least reasonably certain that it's legally something they can do under the authority granted to the Executive branch by the Constitution. Maybe you should ask the Justice Department about it.

 

[casebro]

Except that they aren't subject to any POW protections.

You are correct. As spies (un-uniformed combatants) they could have been executed at the time of capture. They had no rights then, they have no rights now.

Sorry to rain on your bleeding heart parade, but this at least one class of people that have no rights. Just as the police catch a murderer in the act and can shoot him dead- the murderer has no rights, at that time. After stopping his criminal action, things change.

So, the 'spies' at Gitmo were not executed, and now have been given all the rights of--- a POW. Including tribunals by US military officers as to whether they were apprehended as irregular combatants. Their only rights are to a firing squad. No, they don't get infinite rights to appeal as criminals.

 

[Dumb All Over]

so much for due process.
what ever happened to the right to a speedy trial?

I think the right to a speedy trial is afforded to citizens of the U.S., not to enemy combatants.

 

[bikerdruid]

I think the right to a speedy trial is afforded to citizens of the U.S., not to enemy combatants.

what if those combatants were american citizens?
how does this legistation deal with that

 

[Cleon]

I think the right to a speedy trial is afforded to citizens of the U.S., not to enemy combatants.

I don't think you'll find any such limitation to "citizens of the U.S." in the Constitution.

 

[Dancing David]

As long as the law says the President can hold them indefinitely without trial, I don't see the conflict.

The COTUS does not say that habeus corpus does not apply.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the right to a speedy trial is afforded to citizens of the U.S., not to enemy combatants.

Hi,
I have read the COTUS, usually the language is 'no person', could you point to me where it says citizen?