home

Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 11:32:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


Alberto Gonzales, speaking from Egypt today, says the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision "hampers our ability to deal with terrorists." Shorter version: We're not going to stop holding people indefinitely, without charges and without access to lawyers.

Gonzales emphasized that the court ruling didn't say "that we could not continue to hold enemy combatants indefinitely for the duration of hostilities, which was something the Supreme Court said we could do..." The prison was established in early 2002.

"That path is still available to us. The president of the United States can continue to hold enemy combatants at Guantanamo. But we are looking at ways to provide as many tools as possible to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists," he added.

Shorter version II: We will use all our political capital to get Congress to approve what the Supreme Court threw out.

Yale law professor Jack Balkin at Balkanization discusses this strategy.

The New York Times reports that Republican John Warner isn't certain legislation for military tribunals will be forthcoming.

Mr. Warner, who will preside over hearings on the issue in July, said he was concerned that new tribunals, even if authorized by Congress, might not withstand judicial scrutiny.

There's also this report on the lawsuits filed by detainees.

< "Mafia Cops" Convictions Thrown Out | John Edwards Courts the Tech Crowd in Seattle >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision | 38 comments (38 topical)
    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    deleted

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    Jack Balkin makes a good point when he says,
    What the Court has done is not so much countermajoritarian as democracy forcing. It has limited the President by forcing him to go back to Congress to ask for more authority than he already has, and if Congress gives it to him, then the Court will not stand in his way. It is possible, of course, that with a Congress controlled by the Republicans, the President might get everything he wants. However this might be quite unpopular given the negative publicity currently swirling around our detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay.
    ...considering that with the elections looming the repups in congress might be effectively beheading themselves by passing legislation that would be blatant snubbing of the SC and showing clearly how little respect for the constitution they and bushco really have. "The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments." --Wikipedia An ABC News/Washington Post Poll, June 22-25, 2006, asked:
    "Some people say these prisoners should be given prisoner-of-war rights or charged with a crime so they can defend themselves at a trial. Others say P.O.W. status or criminal law don't apply to suspected terrorists because of the risk if they were released. What's your opinion? Do you think the prisoners at Guantanamo should be given P.O.W. status or charged with a crime, or should be held without charges indefinitely?"
    The responses were: P.O.W. Status/Charged.... 71% Held Without Charges...... 25% Unsure........................... 04% Of course, republicans in congress have seemed to be on a politically suicidal course for some time... Balkin sums up nicely with: "What the Court has done, rather is use the democratic process as a lever to discipline and constrain the President's possible overreaching. Given this Administration's history, that's not necessarily a bad thing."

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:44:40 PM EST
    considering that with the elections looming the repups in congress might be effectively beheading themselves by passing legislation that would be blatant snubbing of the SC and showing clearly how little respect for the constitution they and bushco really have.
    I'm curious what you mean here. Let's say Congress passes legislation giving the POTUS the ability to convene military commissions with procedures and guidelines similar, but not the same as traditional courts-martial. How would doing this "show[] clearly how little respect for the constitution they and bushco really have"? Isn't this just what the SCOTUS suggested would be acceptable? Didn't the core of the opinion revolve around the legitimacy of executive power vis-a-vis Congressional authorization (or lack thereof)?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    So they get POW status and held. Not my choice re POW, but what the heck. How many Demos will vote to give'em bail and cut'em loose?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:49:38 PM EST
    What BushCo does to prisoners now is what SantorumCo or InhofeCo will be doing to citizens in a few years. And Roberts won't have to disqualify himself.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#6)
    by profmarcus on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    the joint LATimes/NYT editorial...
    Thirty-five years ago yesterday, in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people." [...] Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.
    spot on... three cheers... i must note, however, that i am unable to discern the "fighting" that has been done on my behalf... since the legal acknowledgment of the coup d'etat on 12 december 2000, i have watched the fundamental values of my country that i previously believed were etched in the hardest of stone, chipped away until i no longer recognize them... and the price...? incalculable... And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    71% of people polled (wit a MoE ± 3) have said they think the Guantanamo prisoners should have P.O.W. Status, and be charged, meaning that if bushco has evidence supporting charges them charge them, otherwise release them. Congress giving bushco the power to continue as they have been will be political suicide, and snubbing of the obvious intent of the SC, as well as an admission that they believe, as bush does, that the constitution is just a "goddamn piece of paper". But by all means go ahead. We can always find someone to come and scrape and peel the republican splattermarks off the wall they're about to hit in November.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    Edger Your initial post "Some people say these prisoners should be given prisoner-of-war rights or charged with a crime..." Your latest "71% of people polled (wit a MoE ± 3) have said they think the Guantanamo prisoners should have P.O.W. Status, and be charged..." Can you clarify POW and charged v. POW or charged. It would make a difference in the results of the Poll

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 01:48:35 PM EST
    resipsa - Typo on my part when I said "should have P.O.W. Status, and be charged" The poll asked "given P.O.W. status or charged with a crime" I agree with TL's interpretation of Gonzales intention as "Shorter version: We're not going to stop holding people indefinitely, without charges and without access to lawyers."

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    If they are considered POWs, they cannot be charged, nor interrogated. The most prudent course would be to determine the status of each individual based upon the evidence against them. Those terrorists whom we have solid evidence against should be charged and tried by a (legislatively authorized) commission with similar procedures and protections as courts-martial. Those who were captured on battlefields should be considered POWs and left imprisoned until the end of the conflict, whenever that is. I don't see any reason why every single person at Gitmo must be given equal status. After all, the conditions of their capture, not to mention the location, are very different.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    Edger That is probably a correct interpretation, but not necessarily inconsistent with the SC's decision. Apparently, as long as the GC is followed, the detainees can be held until cessation of hostilities. Tradidionally most POW's are not charged with any crimes

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    POW status assumes a combatant country to exchange them with. That's kind of a problem. Giving enemy combatants access to the US court system is simply absurd - these people are not US citizens.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    resipsa : That is probably a correct interpretation, but not necessarily inconsistent with the SC's decision. Well, yes, if his and bush's intention is now to classify and treat them as POW's as defined by the GC. I doubt that it is. I think that Gonzales statements should be construed as meaning that bushco wants the repub controlled congress to legitimize the tribunals, and neither give the prisoners POW status or charge them with crimes. It is also my opinion that doing so would fly in the face of what I see as the obvious intent of the SC, and ignores as well as shows no respect for the spirit if not the letter of the constitution, and the spirit and compassion of most Americans. Personally I would be counted among the 71% had I been asked by the above mentioned poll.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    JR, What about those captured in Afghanistan? Are you saying that there is no country to repatriate them to? Novel concept

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    jr: Giving enemy combatants access to the US court system is simply absurd - these people are not US citizens. The obvious extroplation of that is that you think Moussaoui's conviction should be dismissed, and that he should be released from supermax. After all he is a French citizen. Good idea, jr. First thing I've ever agreed with you on. Let's put him in a psychiatric hospital where he can be treated for his delusions.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#16)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    "...cut 'em loose" ?! How many has the current administration ALREADY cut loose? About 310, no?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    How many Demos will vote to give'em bail and cut'em loose? None, since there aren't any Demos who would insist on any treatment better than what POWs are entitled to under the GC. But you knew that, PPJ, you just wanted to say something snarky about the Demos and earn Rove points. TTFN

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#18)
    by Andreas on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    James Robertson wrote: "Giving enemy combatants access to the US court system is simply absurd - these people are not US citizens." It is a well-known fact that George Walker Bush and James Robertson are enemies of the majority of the world population. According to James Robertson both of them could be arrested in every country and they would not need to be given access to the court system of that country.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#19)
    by Al on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 04:34:44 PM EST
    POW status assumes a combatant country to exchange them with. That's kind of a problem. Giving enemy combatants access to the US court system is simply absurd - these people are not US citizens. (J. Robertson)
    They are American POW's, as they are in an American POW camp, namely Gitmo. As I understand it, they can remain at Gitmo "until the end of hostilities", whenever that happens. Nobody said anything about prisoner exchanges with another country. (And who would you exchange them for?) Of course, as POW's, they cannot be tortured. The Geneva Conventions spells out how POW's are to be treated, and their treatment presumably must be monitored by the Red Cross. POW's who are charged with a crime are a separate issue, and they must be tried in tribunals with the same procedures as military courts-martial. In other words, if a POW is charged with murder, he is tried in the same way as an American soldier would be, if he were charged with murder. I doubt very much bail is an option, as PPJ seems to think. To those who think that the Geneva Conventions are quaint, the distinction between a prisoner of war and a criminal is hard to understand. But then, a large part of the reason for this whole mess is the very limited understanding of the "deciders", including of course the Decider-In-Chief. My impression is that finally the military are being compelled to obey the rules of war, at least in this particular matter of the prisoners at Guantanamo.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    Al writes:
    I doubt very much bail is an option, as PPJ seems to think.
    Actually I wrote that as a scarastic cheap shot, but the longer I think about it I can see the attorneys of the terrorists demanding same... Dark Avenger writes:
    None, since there aren't any Demos who would insist on any treatment better than what POWs are entitled to under the GC.
    Well, when they do, since you are so dead certain, how about donating $20 to TL in my name? Darryl Pearce - Something like that.. And how many have been killed/recaptured attackin coalition forces? At least 12, although that info is what out of date.
    Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.
    edger writes:
    The obvious extroplation of that is that you think Moussaoui's conviction should be dismissed, and that he should be released from supermax. After all he is a French citizen.
    Works for me. Let's release him to the military, give him a tribunal and a very public hanging. Then send his body home freight collect. You are going to be so disappointed come the day after the election.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 07:18:49 PM EST
    ppj - "Give him a very public hanging." This seems to be a very recurring motiff with you. First it was American soldiers who disobey orders, now the obviously deranged Moussaoui. And (some) people wonder why it was so hard to get an anti-lynching law passed in the U.S. Those old fashioned, family values die hard. What would you ever do if there were nobody to persecute; think you might finally get up the nerve to take a look in the mirror?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 07:44:48 PM EST
    I love Mr. Walking Bumpersticker's Fox spew about "bringing democracy to Afghanistan"; they dont even want democracy here, yet they're gonna bring it to Afghanistan.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 07:55:17 PM EST
    Jondee? I don't think the mirror reflects from that side, does it? ;-)

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 07:59:01 PM EST
    Well, when they do, since you are so dead certain, how about donating $20 to TL in my name? Howbout 40$ if you can link to some Demos doing so, or a 20$ donation in my name if you can't find any after a reasonable amount of time, say 4 months? Double or nothing, PPJ, I'm confident in my position.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#25)
    by Al on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 11:35:52 PM EST
    I wrote that as a scarastic cheap shot (PPJ)
    Yes, well, I don't think you're capable of anything else. Or do you actually have anything serious to say about the topic at hand?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 07:33:31 AM EST
    Jondee - Actually I would prefer a military firing squad, but hanging, I am told, is more humane. Dark Avenger - Nope. You made the comment.
    None, since there aren't any Demos who would insist on any treatment better than what POWs are entitled to under the GC.
    So it's your deal. Defend it or admit that you're wrong. Al - Oh, I don't know. I thought the info re the re-capture/killing of released GIMO terrorists was pretty serious. But then I tend to take people shooting at each other seriously. Perhaps you don't. Oh well.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 07:49:46 AM EST
    The President today applied his keen legal mind to interpreting the shockingly impudent decision by a Judicial Branch he has worked hard to pack with enough Right Wing Yes Men to dutifully rubber stamp his unprecedented establishment of an unaccountable, quasi-monarchical rogue state. Watch him in action, sort of...
    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#29)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    I'm sorry, PPJ. FOXNEWS is not an unbiased source of information.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    PPJ, if you were so sure of your position, you would take my bet. That you are unwilling to do so shows that my position is correct, and I will agree to the original bet, so there! It's a suckers bet that you will lose just as you'd have lost my version if you had taken it up, so let's wait and see who turns out to be correct, shall we? TTFN

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:23:30 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - You are what as known as the "person who shot their mouth off." So it is up to you to demonstrate you have the guts to defend your position. Darryl - I'm sorry, KOS, CrooksandLiars and MoveOn didn't choose to run it. I wonder why?? bugunut12 - You remain historically challenged. Tokyo Rose was not executed.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    Anyone who implies that hanging is a "more humane" form of execution has no business accusing anyone else of being "historically challenged." Of course since Jim wants his excutions to be public, maybe he's thinking of the good ole red state entertainment value; a humane service to the public.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    Since you seem to have lost your reading for comprehension skills again, PPJ, I repeat that I accept your bet, as I always do when a sucker like you is involved. Comprende, senor, yet?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#34)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    PPJ... you'll be happy to know I do not get my news from those sources. Also, I'm not "privy" on those "covert operations, secret, even in success" (or failure) that Bush warned us about all those years ago. Typically, I try to balance Christian Science Monitor, BBC, McClatchy (used to be Knight Ridder), AP... y'know the "mainstream" stuff. Which means in absence of facts, all I have is my intuition and speculation with a heavy application of Occam's Razor.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 06:26:27 PM EST
    Deleted. Final warning to commenter before he is banned from the site.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    Jondee - First, on a serious note, I have said that I am against capital punishment unless the evidence is indisputable. And yes, I am for public executions. If we are going to hang someone the public should be shown it. Let everyone see the stark terror and the end. The only thing the murderer can possibly do for society is offer a (slim) chance that his end will save others. And yes, hanging done properly is considered to be more humane that shooting someone and then having to shoot them again to finish the job. Why? Because the spinal cord is snapped and all nerve signals are lost, including the ones carrying pain. Death is almost instantaneous. It fell from favor because it is very hard to do properly, leading to some very gruesome sights. To much weight, too long a drop and the criminal can be beheaded. That we leave to the terrorists. Dark Avenger - How about your own reading skill? I didn't say anything about a bet. Here's what you said:
    None, since there aren't any Demos who would insist on any treatment better than what POWs are entitled to under the GC.
    And I said:
    Well, when they do, since you are so dead certain, how about donating $20 to TL in my name?
    I mean if they don't, you don't have to comply with the request.. Alligator mouth...humming bird behind. Good gamblers always understand the bet, or the lack of same. Excuse me while I laugh at you. Darryl - Covert operations??? Dog gone if I know. Of course I watch only FNC.... and Larry King... ;-) You better watch old Occam... He'll have you understanding that since we had been fighting with Saddam for 10 plus years.... He had to be associated with 9/11.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#36)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    I'm trying real hard not to let my skepticism slide into cynicism (again). The 9-11 Commission Report stated "no operational relationship" between Hussein and Al Qaeda. That's Occam-enough for me... unless the gov't is lying, or incompetent, or both... --Cynicism increasing... hope fading...

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 09:14:17 PM EST
    I mean if they don't, you don't have to comply with the request.. Posted by The Dark Avenger July 2, 2006 04:55 PM
    Since you seem to have lost your reading for comprehension skills again, PPJ, I repeat that I accept your bet, as I always do when a sucker like you is involved. Comprende, senor, yet?
    Alligator mouth...humming bird behind. Can I take that for a no? Good gamblers always understand the bet, or the lack of same. Well, I guess that tells us all we need to know about you being a 'good gambler'. Excuse me while I laugh at you. PPJ, we know your mental condition causes irresistable laughter, and of course you get a pass on belittling people because JL feels sorry for you. In the mood to tell us some more about your 'giggle fits'? No? Frankly, since you've proven here your incapacity for mastering written English, I must thank you for showing us how 'intelligent' you really are, and thus how 'reasonable' the rest of the guff you post here on an almost daily basis is(n't). TTFN

    Re: Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 07:04:20 AM EST
    they shouldn't have public executions just for ppj's sexual gratification

    Alberto Gonzales on Guantanamo Decision | 38 comments (38 topical)