Prisoners: Aquit and Then Detain Them

[NoZed Avenger]

The one area where I held out some hope for the Obama administration (despite the wiretap backsliding pre-election) was in the area of the detainess in Guantanamo, etc.

The annouced closure sounded good, but I was somewhat suspicious that the base would not actually get closed on the deadline. Then, when the Congress balked at having any of the prisoners moved, I became more cynical -- it looked to me like the Congress and President were going to simply leave the funding issue unresolved (despite everyone feeling the *urgent* need to do something) and allow the 1 year closure deadline to pass. Obama gets credit for making the announcement for closure with the press, and then everyone sits around lamenting the inability to actually do it (if anyone actually cared after a year).

That was followed up by the Administration's lawyers not only copying Bush's arguments on detainies and the Admin's authority on security issues (see a previous thread by me), but actually arguing for even more power in some cases.

Now, we have this exchange in testimony fro Jeb Johnson, General Counsel for the Defense Department (questioning by Florida (R) Rep Martinez):

Martinez: If we are doing Article III [civilian] trials...we then also are talking about closing Guantanamo by the end of the year. There's no way for 220-some-odd people to be prosecuted through some proceeding, whether Article III or military commissions, in that time frame. So where will they then be? I guess they'll be here. And what about those who are acquitted? Where do they go? What happens to them?

Johnson: You're correct. You can't prosecute some significant subset of 229 people before January. So those that we think are prosecutable and should be detained, we will continue to detain, whether it's at Guantanamo or someplace else. The question of what happens if there's an acquittal...I think that as a matter of legal authority, if you have the authority under the laws of war to detain someone...it is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.

Martinez: So therefore the prosecution becomes a moot point?

Johnson: Oh no, I'm not saying that at all. You raised the issue of what happens if there's an acquittal, and in my judgment, as a matter of legal authority...if a review panel has determined this person is a security threat...and should not be released, if for some reason he is not convicted for a lengthy prison sentence, then as a matter of legal authority I think it's our view that we would have the ability to detain him.

http://reason.com/blog/show/134686.html

(1) Note the statement that even after the Guantanamo deadline, he says the prisoners will have to be held -- "whether it's at Guantanamo or someplace else." This tacitly admits the thing may still be open past the deadline. I'll bet $100 right now it's still open after the deadline and still holding detainees.

(2) And what is with this? "f for some reason [a detainee] is not convicted for a lengthy prison sentence, then as a matter of legal authority I think it's our view that we would have the ability to detain him."

Ok. So we'll give them all kinds of due process. And then we'll hold him, no matter whether he is convicted of anything, or not.

Oh, I feel *so* much better now.

Seriously. Doesn't this bother anyone else?

 

[Phrost]

Yes, greatly so.

Does it surprise me? No, I wrote off the Obama hype as wishful thinking the minute he cast his vote on the FISA issue.

 

[The Fool]

Note the statement that even after the Guantanamo deadline, he says the prisoners will have to be held -- "whether it's at Guantanamo or someplace else." This tacitly admits the thing may still be open past the deadline.

I don't think this follows??......He says that some people may still be held. Which was always the position as far as I know.



but having said that....I also would not be surprised if it misses a deadline.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Another fine poison pill passed from one president to another. Accidentally, of course, but a classic in the genre.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I don't think this follows??......He says that some people may still be held. Which was always the position as far as I know.

I don't see how to avoid the inference.

After the date for Guantanamo's closing, prisoners will still be held -- "whether it's at Guantanamo or someplace else." Maybe it's just sloppy, but he's saying after the date of closure they may well still be held in Guantanamo.

but having said that....I also would not be surprised if it misses a deadline.

I now don't think that they ever had any interest in meeting the deadline, frankly.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Yes, greatly so.

Does it surprise me? No, I wrote off the Obama hype as wishful thinking the minute he cast his vote on the FISA issue.

I thought the base would be able to hold his feet to the fire on this issue. Probably wishful thinking.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Another fine poison pill passed from one president to another. Accidentally, of course, but a classic in the genre.

Also very foreseeable, though. No one doubted Bush's position or that the problem would still exist. That's why all the confusion and delay seems odd -- or more likely, seems to be a lot of smoke to cover the shifting position.

 

[Brainster]

When Obama was running, he had to be the anti-Bush in every way to get the Democrats to support him over Hillary. Now that he's the President, he doesn't have to kowtow to the base of the party, and he's making sure that one of these Gitmo detainees doesn't get freed and end up participating in a terrorist attack.

But don't complain or the evil Republicans will get back into power and suspend habeas corpus again!

 

[Praktik]

When Obama was running, he had to be the anti-Bush in every way to get the Democrats to support him over Hillary. Now that he's the President, he doesn't have to kowtow to the base of the party, and he's making sure that one of these Gitmo detainees doesn't get freed and end up participating in a terrorist attack.

But don't complain or the evil Republicans will get back into power and suspend habeas corpus again!

Ya, like Wakil? He was stated to have "returned to terrorism":

Pentagon officials didn't respond to a request for comment on why Wakil was included in a report that was leaked in May. The report itself says only that Wakil has "associations with terrorist groups."

The discovery that Wakil, far from being in hiding, operates openly among officials of Afghanistan's U.S.-allied government raises questions about the report's credibility, however. Despite his bravado, Wakil acknowledges that the report has him worried that he'll be detained again.

Never out of his reach are a stack of legal documents, letters signed by scores of high-ranking officials and frayed newspaper clippings that he believes prove that he isn't — and never has been — a terrorist. Documents in hand, he's always prepared to make the case he was never given the opportunity to make at Guantanamo.

"For six years, I was ready to go to court and defend myself. They should show the world their proof against me," Wakil said. "I am ready to answer any question."

Unknown officials leaked the Pentagon report naming Wakil to The New York Times just as debate was peaking over President Barack Obama's plans to shutter Guantanamo. On the same day that The Times published its story, former Vice President Dick Cheney cited the report in a speech blasting the idea of closing Guantanamo; that same day, Obama made his own presentation defending his plans.​

Looks like yet another detention based on the hearsay of a single source with a grudge:

According to Defense Department documents from Wakil's Combatant Status Review Board hearing at Guantanamo, the United States charged that Wakil helped members of al Qaida escape from Kunar into neighboring Pakistan. The U.S. also charged that he obtained weapons that were used in a rocket attack on the main military base in Kunar.

The charges, the documents say, were based on a source.

In response, Wakil told the review panel he thought that a political enemy, whom he didn't identify, had set him up. He denied working on behalf of al Qaida; instead, he said he suspected that an al Qaida operative had assassinated his uncle.

Mohammed Roze, who directs the Afghan government's peace and reconciliation commission in Kunar, said he thought that Malik Zarin, who was then the head of the rival Mushwani tribe, had turned Wakil in because the Mushwani tribe opposed a poppy-eradication program that Wakil had begun in Kunar around the time of his arrest. Zarin had built close ties with American forces in Kunar, Roze said. He said that Wakil was never a threat to American troops.

Wakil's reputation in his province eventually helped his case. Fellow residents compiled hundreds of letters on his behalf. Politicians, including some who'd eventually seek his support, also wrote on his behalf.​

But I bet every other individual on the list of those who have "returned to terrorism" is legitimate...

 

[kellyb]

I'm king of curious about what was nixed with all those "..."'s.
I don't have audio on my computer. Can someone else listen to it and see if what was omitted was really irrelevant?
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2009/July/07-07-09Webcast.htm

 

[leftysergeant]

If a detainee had actually been fighting as a soldier with the Taliban, he should be kept in detention but as a prisoner of war, even if he is not convicted of a war crime. The difference is that the Shrub didn't think there was a difference. Authorityto hold a POW runs out at the end of the conflict, unless there is a conviction for war crimes.

And remember, it was CONGRESS that stopped the closing of Gitmo. It will cost money to move them. Congress said "no" to the money to move them. You can't put this on Obama. The Shrub created this mess and jerks like Boehner and McConnel are preserving it.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

If a detainee had actually been fighting as a soldier with the Taliban, he should be kept in detention but as a prisoner of war, even if he is not convicted of a war crime. The difference is that the Shrub didn't think there was a difference. Authorityto hold a POW runs out at the end of the conflict, unless there is a conviction for war crimes.

And remember, it was CONGRESS that stopped the closing of Gitmo. It will cost money to move them. Congress said "no" to the money to move them. You can't put this on Obama. The Shrub created this mess and jerks like Boehner and McConnel are preserving it.

Disingenuous. If Obama wanted movement on Gitmo, we'd have movement on Gitmo. He brought plenty of pressure when legislation needed to be so urgently passed; this is not an issue he is making any waves over because it suits his purposes. Any the money? We just passed the largest spending bill since they invented spending, saying that even the wasteful stuff helped the economy -- but this? We just can't find the money in the budget to carry out a campaign promise? Right. Pull the other one. This is a standard two step where the President and Congress -- controlled by the same party -- get to point fingers at each other and deny responsibility. Suddenly the bright clear lines of due process and closing Gitmo get so complicated.

And, "the end of the conflict"? What end? Any distinction you are trying to make between that and the Bush position is one without a difference. The admin is saying that the prisoners will be held indefinitely and any promised trials, regardless of the outcome, won't get in the way.

But as long as the people who felt the !moral! !urgency! just a few months back to !close Gitmo NOW! are willing to shrug and blame Bush, I guess neither the President nor Congress has anything to worry about.

 

[Brainster]

Ya, like Wakil? He was stated to have "returned to terrorism":

Pentagon officials didn't respond to a request for comment on why Wakil was included in a report that was leaked in May. The report itself says only that Wakil has "associations with terrorist groups."

The discovery that Wakil, far from being in hiding, operates openly among officials of Afghanistan's U.S.-allied government raises questions about the report's credibility, however. Despite his bravado, Wakil acknowledges that the report has him worried that he'll be detained again.

Never out of his reach are a stack of legal documents, letters signed by scores of high-ranking officials and frayed newspaper clippings that he believes prove that he isn't — and never has been — a terrorist. Documents in hand, he's always prepared to make the case he was never given the opportunity to make at Guantanamo.

"For six years, I was ready to go to court and defend myself. They should show the world their proof against me," Wakil said. "I am ready to answer any question."

Unknown officials leaked the Pentagon report naming Wakil to The New York Times just as debate was peaking over President Barack Obama's plans to shutter Guantanamo. On the same day that The Times published its story, former Vice President Dick Cheney cited the report in a speech blasting the idea of closing Guantanamo; that same day, Obama made his own presentation defending his plans.​

Looks like yet another detention based on the hearsay of a single source with a grudge:

According to Defense Department documents from Wakil's Combatant Status Review Board hearing at Guantanamo, the United States charged that Wakil helped members of al Qaida escape from Kunar into neighboring Pakistan. The U.S. also charged that he obtained weapons that were used in a rocket attack on the main military base in Kunar.

The charges, the documents say, were based on a source.

In response, Wakil told the review panel he thought that a political enemy, whom he didn't identify, had set him up. He denied working on behalf of al Qaida; instead, he said he suspected that an al Qaida operative had assassinated his uncle.

Mohammed Roze, who directs the Afghan government's peace and reconciliation commission in Kunar, said he thought that Malik Zarin, who was then the head of the rival Mushwani tribe, had turned Wakil in because the Mushwani tribe opposed a poppy-eradication program that Wakil had begun in Kunar around the time of his arrest. Zarin had built close ties with American forces in Kunar, Roze said. He said that Wakil was never a threat to American troops.

Wakil's reputation in his province eventually helped his case. Fellow residents compiled hundreds of letters on his behalf. Politicians, including some who'd eventually seek his support, also wrote on his behalf.​

But I bet every other individual on the list of those who have "returned to terrorism" is legitimate...

I'm trying to understand your post in the context of the OP, but it's difficult. We are not talking about prisoners already released but those who have not been released. If your argument is that the truly innocent have been released and that Bush has left Obama with the hard cases, that may be legit, I dunno. Still, as I am not criticizing Obama's handling of those hard cases (in fact I am praising it), I don't see where we disagree.

As to the ones who have been released and returned to the battleground, I think it's valid to point out mistakes in the accounting like apparently Wakil, and even to say that the mistake there throws into question the entire accounting. But since the prisoners released in question were all under the Bush Administration, we are left with (say) three options:

1. The Bush Administration was too soft and let real terrorists return to the battlefield.
2. The Bush Administration picked up people who were innocent and turned them into terrorists who then went to the battlefield.
3. The military dramatically overstated the number of people who returned to the battlefield.

Your argument appears to be #3, which may not rule out but at least minimizes the other two. But does it really give us anything to go on as far as the important question, which is whether the percentage of released Gitmo prisoners who were released and committed terrorism afterwards, has any relationship to the percentage of Gitmo prisoners in the future who might be released in the future and commit terrorism after their release? Again, presumably the relatively easy cases have been released, and I don't blame Obama for having a tough time with the remaining ones. I am trusting him to make the right decision on those even though I did not support him in 2008 and almost certainly will not support his re-election in 2012. But I support him on this issue, because I think he knows more than I do about the remaining prisoners.

 

[Phrost]

I thought the base would be able to hold his feet to the fire on this issue. Probably wishful thinking.

The base is only really good for standing on.