home

White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In Perpetuity'

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 06:25:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Deputy Associate Attorney General J. Michael Wiggins told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing today that the White House believes detainees at Guantanamo can be held "in perpetuity."

< House Votes to Restrict Patriot Act Use | O'Reilly vs. Franken...Again >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In Perpetuity' | 43 comments (43 topical)
    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#1)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    ...that's egregious!

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#2)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    The United States is now emulating the the Third Reich during World War II, who designated Greek civilians on the island of Crete as nonuniformed combatants after German paratroopers were slaughtered by Greek civilians when they invaded the island. If you're at war with people who can't afford uniforms or insignias, it's convenient to designate them as nonmilitary enemies of the state who are not covered by the Geneva Convention. Though everyone knows there was a war in Afghanistan. Instead of referring to them as gulags (the camps around the globe where detainees are being held), I think these facilities can more rightly be called concentration camps. Because the people who are placed in them have no representation, no recourse and no expectation of ever being released. If the United States is so sure that these people are terrorists, and a continuing threat to the safety of our country, why not just execute them. Perhaps that will be the next step, especially if the war on terrorism widens to other countries, and terrorist attacks start taking thousands of lives within the United States again. We can capture people, keep their identities secret, and execute them after a quick military tribunal where they have no lawyer or interpreter and are not allowed to speak. And we can do it all under the cloak of protecting freedom... yeah that's freedom all right.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#3)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Start the impeachment now. Start. the. impeachment. now. How much more clear can it be?

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Since I have my scientist hat on today, I feel compelled to point out that they can't hold them in perpetuity. Eventually the flesh will rot off their bones, the bones will dissolve and the chemicals will return to earth. I hope this is a comfort to them and their families that may never have known what happened to them.[/sarcasm]

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#5)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    ...well, for what it's worth, I wrote my congress-critter and let him know that I'm upset and alarmed. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn--who survived the Soviet gulag--wrote, "It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes... we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions - especially selfish ones." And this: "A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny."

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    How is the current administration even able to keep detainees "in perpetuity"? Do they intend to occupy the White House in perpetuity?

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    The same way narrow fundamentalist minds interpret/twist the Bible to mean what they believe is right and what everyone else believes is the path to hell, that is the same way these neocon-artists/narrow fundamentalist minds twist the "law" to claim such tyrannical privelege. As if somehow we're holding people whose captivity isn't known to their peeps and, if it were, would elicit replies of "holy sh*t, Mike's in Gitmo, we're supposed to nuke Denver if he gets captured!! Let's roll!!" Which is about the level of logic behind this wretchedness masquerading as America's continuing reactionary response to 9/11. Our national brains seem to have skipped out on the check.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    The military tribunals of suspected terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay were a "tremendous failure", a US military lawyer told Congress yesterday. Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift was testifying before the first full Senate hearing on the Bush administration's treatment of detainees since the "war on terror" began. His comments come amid calls from Democrats and some Republicans that the Guantánamo Bay prison camp be closed down. Lt Cdr Swift was assigned to represent Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, whom he said had been left mentally disturbed after being held in solitary confinement for seven months. Lt Cdr Swift said that Mr Hamdan was offered the opportunity to see a defence lawyer only if he pleaded guilty to the charges made against him."

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Ed, Here's your answer. The Bush administration can document why the people must be held. Would you agree that if the administration were to provide documented justification for these detentions and open it's actions to the least bit of oversight, that this would go a long way in quelling it's critics?

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    First of all, as I've said since they opened this GULAG, they have no intention of ever closing this CONCENTRATION CAMP down for several reasons, not the least of which is it's location. They now have an extra toe-hold on an island they would love to give to Jeb as a little "resort". But, that aside, I watched this hearing and became more outraged by the minute as these so-called "legal minds" puffed up like adders over the audacity of being questioned on their understanding of the rule of international, and military, law. Maybe someone should suggest they buy a couple of good books on the subject. Oh, that's right, they just make this s**t up as they go along. How foolish of me.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    too bad habeas corpus sounds so much like latin. Yeah, we'll hold them in perpetuity, but we'll treat them so much better than virtually any other country. Virtual treatment, virtual democracy, virtual freedom. Mid term elections. Papertrails, open, honest elections. Important stuff. Probably the only way to get rid of these criminals who have seized the government buildings.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    What would you do with enemy combatants still intent on killing us? Shall we render them to a foreign country that will kill them? No-can't do that. Shall we simply release them? Could but definitely immoral to let them kill in other countries. I prefer the option of having the complainers take them in to their own homes. It might make you rethink your historically ignorant analogies if you had to worry about your head being cut off as opposed to your soul being stained.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#12)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    What would you do with enemy combatants still intent on killing us? Gosh, maybe we should have killed them on the battlefied then. Or we can stay on guard and be wary when out in public and around the world. I remember reading Alexandré Dumas' The Count of Monte Christo, where Edmond Dantes meets Abbe Faria, one for supporting Napoleon, the other for being against Napoleon. Ghandi and Khomeini. Martin Luther King Jr and Adolf Hitler. How many leaders both famous and infamous honed their ideologies while held in prison?

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    thanks for non-answer answer. in other words, you have no solution as I am sure you would oppose summary execution on the battlefield.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#15)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    thanks for non-answer answer You expect the world's problems to be solved on an internet chat board? It's not the interrogating and holding I object to; it's the sanctimony and secrecy from this administration, it's the convoluted, hypocritical rationalizations of "fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here" when the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were self-evidently HERE, it's conflating Iraqi's with Al-Qaeda, it's propping up Musharref and knocking down Taliban, it's shirking North Korea and invading and occupying Iraq, it's spending blood and treasure on a fool's forlorn search for exaggerated dangers and imaginary "united underworld" conspiracies. It's the failure of this president to be a uniter, and not a divider. It's the abuse metted out by the far-too-right republicans. ...sorry, was that over the top?

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    placate critics who have more sympathy and trust for Jihadist psychopaths than the Administration? that will happen in a world where it is considered cruel to publish the menus of the poor goatherds wrongfully imprisoned. if the critics are on the other side, what will placate them. to satisfy the critics, all Islamists would have to be released. If we are Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot, any violence against us is justified. Welcome to the world of the left.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    When islamic crazies are elected to represent me, I will hold them to them same standard as I currently hold the US govt. Islamic crazies do not answer to the American people, the US govt. does. The America I live in does not believe in holding people "in perpetuity" without due process, no matter how the republican crazies spin it.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    that's a meaningless diatribe. these folks aren't and won't be charged with crimes but apparently that doesn't sink in. when is it safe to release them? to where-they won't be killing in your neighborhood, so that a real courageous option.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    Cowardice is not giving them a fair trial with an independent commission.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    An independent commission made up of whom? you? the U.N. Commission on Human Rights? I don't know about cowardice-I simply think you are on the other side and would prefer the head carvers to win if it shows up Bush.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    Jlvngstn.... Cowardice is not giving them a fair trial with an independent commission. What is it with the left and this "fair trial" thing? These people hate (& will kill) Americans if given the chance... They want to see America fall! What makes (any of) you think they deserve to be granted the "gifts" of the American justice system. The very system that they want to see end? This would be the first time in history that enemy combatants would be given American lawyers to defend them during a time of war.... You guys have lost all sanity. Your hatred for this government (and the people currently running it) has clouded any sense of rational thinking you may have possessed at one time.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    BB wrote, What is it with the left and this "fair trial" thing? I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. Literally. Forgive us on the left for actually believing in certain inalienable rights. And forgive us, or don't (I don't give a rat's a**) for vehemently disagreeing with your "logic" on this issue. And, um, I thought your side's whole argument was this WAS a different war, and old rules DON'T apply, and we have no idea WHAT the enemy looks like. So why would the newness of AMERICAN lawyers for these NEW kind of "detainees" not be logical. And why would you trust a secret process for determining their staus, a process more akin to totalinarianism and dictatorship, that you would trush the transparent processes of democratic institutions? What is your logic here? That once some guy is found out to be in Gitmo, that his buddies back home will say "Holy Sh*t!! Jim's in Gitmo!! We're supposed to nuke Denver if he got captured, let's roll!!" Which is about the level of logic behind this reactionary garbage masquerading as America's response to 9/11. A dismal failure of intellect AND imagination. And all on Bush's watch. The response, that is. The real f*ck up.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    man i shoulda previewed that last comment, the spelling is abysmal.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    they won't be killing in your neighborhood
    I'm from NY ED, so in fact terrorists did kill in my neighborhood. In the aftermath, I never considered giving up on the ideals of this nation. BB, I disagree on a couple points. 1) We are not at war. I dodged no bullets on the way to work today. The "war on terror" is not a war. Iraq is now an occupation, no longer a war. Same with Afghanistan. Frankly, I don't understand this "time of war" business. 2) I'm fine w/ the detainees getting military lawyers, not civilian attorneys. The military lawyers themselves have complained that the show hearings the detainees have been granted can't be called fair even by the loosest definition. Even if found innocent of fighting US soldiers, they go right back to the cage. What a joke, eh? I guess our basic disagreement is that you think the "war on terror" qualifies as a "time of war". I think the "war on terror" is the same as the "war on drugs", a snappy title the govt. gave to a problem. Terrorism is a real problem, it's just not worth destroying the ideals and the good name of this nation over. We can combat terrorists and keep our ideals. It will be more difficult, but well worth it in my opinion.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    "What is it with the left and this "fair trial" thing? These people hate (& will kill) Americans if given the chance..." BB, How do you know this to be true? It would be nice to think that it is and trust that my Govt is keeping me safe. But, why such resistance to document publicly their case against the detainees? Were they armed, actively engaged in combat at the time the were "detained"? In the case of some, were they sold/turned over to the US by concerned Afgan/Iraqi citizens? Has their interogation provided any actionable intel? Is this intel more valuable than the tarnish it's placing on the US's image at home and abroad? Ed, Let's make the assumption that a least 1 of the many Detainees that our Govt is holding is innocent of any act of terrorism/conspiracy/disre to kill Americans. Let's further assume his personal story my go something like this; "I swear to you sir, I was a goatherd, living for months on my own in the remotest regions of Afganistan. One day a local warlord and his entourage rolled into my pasture klonk'd me on the head, and the next thing I know I'm dumped in Kabul, klonk'd again, flown to this place. I swear America was only a forign word to me before all of this. Please, may I have a wet-nap, some asprin, and could you do something about this music? I sure hope my goats are OK." Far fecthed I know, but for the sake of this exercise, what recourse does this person have?

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#26)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    "Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs." . . ...b-bu-but, I ordered pancakes!

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    The right to a fair trial is as american as the right to own a gun. Scared that maybe we do not have enough evidence? Courage is standing on the principles that have made one great, not creating new designations and circumventing the law.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    Ed, the ICJ would be a nice place to start. If they are indeed terrorists and proven by a court of law, I would have no problem with a life sentence without parole. I have a significant problem with no legal representation and no trials. It sounds to me as if you are afraid that there is no evidence and these people will be released to kill more americans. If there is no evidence to support that they were part of a terrorist organization and were active conspirators against US Civilians, why should we hold them? Give em a trial, win or lose we have to accept it.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    How does one jump to a conclusion that someone hates their country or gov't because they express dismay and frustration with a policy? Do you hate your government because they have not outlawed flag burning, or because they do not allow prayer in schools? Questioning one's patriotism because they voice dissent over policy is tantamount to a 3rd graders grasp on reality. It is a shame that we have to waste even a fraction of bandwidth on such trivial allegations. I served my country, I employ people, I pay my 34% federal taxes without trying to discover loopholes, I volunteer to help the homeless and donate 15% of my income to causes that I support. I don't hate my government, I think it is in serious need of new blood and direction and in serious need of true patriots that question its motives and actions. Were it not for true patriots, Senator McCarthy would have been very successful in shaping a very different america.....

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    People who live in this country--especially blacks and poor whites--typically don't get a fair trial. So why should we believe that anyone being held at Gitmo will? Why are we paying good tax money to hold these people anyway? If they've committed a crime, charge them, try them, sentence them, and be done. If things keep going the way they are, the next group of folks who wind up at Gitmo, or Leavenworth, or Terre Haute, will be us on the left (and the righties who argue with us).

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    so many excuses. we have released many from Gitmo-some of the innocent goatherds konked have returned to terror-that would imply too lax, not too strict, standards, not that you would care about their victims. no matter how many times said, it still does not sink in here: these are not people being held for crimes-to give them trials in US as suggested by some would elevate them above those who follow rules of war. that should encourage good behavior

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#32)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    kdog You say we're not a war. My question to you is, was 9/11 an act of war? Most people thought I was. Do you pay attention to the news on television or the Internet? Have you noticed that hundreds of people are dying every week in Iraq, soldiers and civilians alike. If that were happening in your neighborhood, would you say there was a war going on? Perhaps only when you are dodging bullets on the way to work will you believe it's a war, or if somebody flies a plane into your house, maybe that's what it'll take to make you think it's a war. And as you've already learned, that possibility is not so unlikely.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    An act of war by 19 people doesn't pass the sniff test. Criminal act. International conspiracy. But act of "war"??? Be serious. Why? Just because they SAID it was? East Germany was called the Democratic Republic of Germany, did we think them democratic because they said they were? Be. Serious.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    I consider the 9/11 attacks an act of war, but strangely enough, we haven't declared it on the country which should be under US control right now--Saudi Arabia. Why? Simple. They control the oil in the Middle East. And they can drive us to our knees, again, if they shut off the pumps. Time and again we've turned a blind eye to the Saudis, despite the fact that we know they support these terror regimes, much more so than Iraq. Instead of trying to take Riyadh, we went after the softer target, comparatively speaking, of Baghdad. Don't be surprised if some Saudi-backed terrorists are planning another attack on our soil, and don't be surprised if we attack someone other than the Saudis for it.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#35)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    Didn't we used to announce when we were suspending habeas corpus?

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    An 'Act of War' can only be from a nation state. Please tell us what nation committed this act. To respond to an act of war, congress declares war. Please tell us when congress, (and only congress can declare war), declared war. We also have a Constitution, GenCon and International treaties that we've signed (by that I mean a Prez signed and were affirmed by congress) that prohibit torture on ANYONE. Due process is the american way. That is why we used to be the "shining beacon". Charge them, try them, or let them go.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    I can see how my comment could be misconstrued, it is not worded well. In my opinion, 9/11 was not an act of war. It is best described as a mass murder committed by 8 individuals, with numerous co-conspirators. It was a crime. The point I was trying to make is many on the right rant and rave "we are at war, we are at war" when they themselves were no where near NY or DC on 9/11, and have been no where near Iraq or Afghanistan. They obviously have no clue what war is. They rant "we are at war" when confronted with the crimes of the Bush admin., as if that excuses any and all criminal behavior. Our soldiers are at war, but not defending the homeland. Their war is a war of occupation, not a war to defend freedom or defend the country. A war of agression painted and spun as something necessary. The "war on terror" is the same as the "war on drugs", a snappy title the govt. gave to a problem while doing little to solve it. It's not a real war.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#38)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    “these are not people being held for crimes-to give them trials in US as suggested by some would elevate them above those who follow rules of war.” There are some very basic, innate rights all folks have. One is due process. “Charge them, try them, or let them go.” It is this simple.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    “Charge them, try them, or let them go.” It is this simple.
    It really, really is. Anyone who feels differently has no concept or belief in basic, bare bones human rights.

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Kdog, And the best part is, the right claims that this IS a new kind of war. That we DON'T know what the enemy will look like since it won't wear the uniform of a nation/state. That we CAN'T use the old rules. But the right DOESN'T realize this means we MUST give these detainees fair hearing with transparent processes. Since they AREN'T in the uniform of a nation/state, the ONLY way their status can be determine is in a free and fair and open hearing. Which is what the left has been saying from the start!! The right is so dim they don't even understand, or they aren't willing to face up to, the logic extension of their own argument supporting this "war".

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Right dadler , a "new" war. Basically, a new type of war where it is dangerous and treasonous to demand our govt. act in a responsible and legal way, with respect to basic human rights. And as long as we aren't as bad as the muslim fanatics, any and all behavior is excusable. And the people buy it!

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#42)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" Gore Vidal

    Re: White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In P (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    If 911 was an act of war, we should have already toppled the terrorist SAUDI REGIME that Bush coddles, Ed. Islam Karimov, Musharaf, Kadafi, and 'Bandar Bush' are The Allies now -- in Bush's War on Terror (aka Privatization of Oil Reserves in the Middle East). How did Kadafi become our ally? Why is Musharaf, whose scientist gave N. Korea and Libya nuclear materials and technology, be our ally in a War on Terror? Bush thinks he's a prince, but our foreign policy is made in the Senate, not on the White House toilet while smoking Cohiba's and laughing about how stupid Americans are.

    White House Admits Detainees Can Be Held 'In Perpetuity' | 43 comments (43 topical)