DOJ Task Force Recommends Indefinite Detention for 50 Guantanamo Detainees

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:26:21 AM EST
Tags: Guantanamo (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: The ACLU today launched a new website, Indefinite Detention." No Charges, no Trial, No Justice."

A Department of Justice -led task force is recommending 50 Guantanamo detainees, mostly Afghan and Yemeni, be held indefinitely without charges under the laws of war.

The task force's findings represent the first time that the administration has clarified how many detainees it considers too dangerous to release but unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion.

[More...]

ACLU Director Anthony Romero responds:

"There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people without charge or trial indefinitely."

The task force divided the detainees into three categories:

The task force has recommended that Guantanamo Bay detainees be divided into three main groups: about 35 who should be prosecuted in federal or military courts; at least 110 who can be released, either immediately or eventually; and the nearly 50 who must be detained without trial.

There's a big difference between federal courts and military commissions. How many total military commissions trials?

As to the task force's composition:

The task force comprised officials from the departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security and Justice, as well as agencies such as the CIA and the FBI.

Two detainees were sent home to Algeria this week, leaving 196. Spain has agreed to accept two more detainees. Slovakia has agreed to take three.

< "Hope for Haiti Now" Now Open for Donations | The Union Position On "Pass the Bill" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

DOJ Task Force Recommends Indefinite Detention for 50 Guantanamo Detainees | 76 comments (76 topical)

What is the administrations (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:15:36 PM EST

answer to Romero's argument? Seems pretty airtight to me - they have no authority to hold people this way. Any intelligence gathering that happened to lead to their detention is so old that it is very hard for me to believe that it would still be compromised now. And if they are really "the worst of the worst" there should be other evidence against them besides their own coerced testimony. Put them on trial - the military commissions are probably appropriate for this group, if they are appropriate at all for anyone.

They already did .. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by nyrias on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:43:28 PM EST

for many years.

Authority, in this country, is derived a lot from PR. If the American public does not object enough, they will just do watever they want.

In this case, i do agree military commissions are appropriate. I can't imagine there are cases where some form of due process is totally impossible.


That's what I always come back to (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:54:14 PM EST

There has to be some way to give due process. I don't believe it s impossible either.

So true about PR. I believe the so-called 'law and order' emphasis of the last 30 years has gotten this country to this point. If people will accept '3 strikes' laws, it should not be a surprise they will accept this.


Wait a minute (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:00:43 PM EST

That's a blanket statement.

If people will accept '3 strikes' laws, it should not be a surprise they will accept this

Unless of course, you believe people that commit armed robbery or the like 3 times should be allowed to keep getting out of jail. Personally, I believe you shouldn't even get 3 chances if you keep robbing people with a gun.

3 strikes doesn't just apply to drug possession....


At least in CA, 3rd strike need not (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:16:34 PM EST

be a violent crime, just a felony.


I am all for the 3-strikes law ... (none / 0) (#29)
by nyrias on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:00:56 PM EST

as long as one of the strike is a violent crime.


One violent crime plus two (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:12:07 PM EST

slices of pizza?


I thought that case involved one slice (none / 0) (#32)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:22:50 PM EST

It pier pizza theft case (a third strike) (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:33:59 PM EST

was one slice. But I replied to idea of one violent crime plus two other felonies. Would one violent crime and two separate felonies involving theft of a slice of pizza merit 25 years to life?


Didn't the prosecutors (none / 0) (#34)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:38:50 PM EST

and Judges find all kinds of ways around the California three strikes law?


California Supreme Court held judge has (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:58:22 PM EST

discretion to strike the "third strike."

Prosecutor has discretion not to charge under "third strike" law or agree to plea bargain striking the third strike.


Yes, but that does not change the fact (none / 0) (#45)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:07:38 PM EST

that the voters were willing to vote it into law.


: Fear based voting (none / 0) (#58)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 06:11:07 PM EST

It sweeps up Democrats too from time to time.....

Stealing a slice is a felony? (none / 0) (#35)
by nycstray on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:40:20 PM EST

It's larceny (none / 0) (#36)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:51:18 PM EST

I sat through a trial where it took longer to pick a jury than than the whole time it took for the jury to deliberate to get a guilty verdict. the charge: larceny from a building. What did the defendant steal? $40 worth of empty pop bottles from a CVS. It became a felony when he took them outside the store. [Also the fact that he had 6 prior larcenies on his record didn't help him, since he was also charged as a habitual offender].


Waste of time (none / 0) (#59)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 06:12:46 PM EST

The state should have made him pick up trash etc....

Instead some overzealous prosecutor just has to convict a sad sack for stealing empty pop bottles....


Yeah (none / 0) (#67)
by jbindc on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 09:12:33 AM EST

No jail time for someone with 6 prior offenses. Habitual thief.

(For the record - he didn't go away for life, but he did get an heavier sentence than a 1st timer because, oops! That bad habit of his - stealing things that didn't belong to him!)


It won't do any good or benefit society (none / 0) (#72)
by MKS on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:50:05 AM EST

The cost of incarceration will far exceed the cost of the empty pop bottles he stole.....or even the photocopying costs of opening a court file on him.

All convciting him and jailing him does is make you feel better--vindicated. We as a society can't afford to indulge the costs of your wants....

There are all kinds of ways of dealing with non-violent offenders other than resorting to the Medievel (I mean that literally) remedy of throwing them in the equivalent of the castle dungeon.

A few decades from now your remedies will be seen by the vaast majority as barbaric and ineffective. Technology will be helpful in speeding up the change....But it is the costs that will persuade many.

Attitudes like yours are what lead the cops to put the homeless in jail.


So (none / 0) (#75)
by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:03:08 AM EST

We should turn our heads to someone who gets caught being a thief 6 times? (Which statistically means, he stole way more than that).

Sure - let's do away with all punishment. Everyone can do whatever they want and there will never be any consequence for it. I guess that means I will never see anyone here or anyone else talk about Bush and Cheney and their alleged crimes (innocent until proven guilty, remember), because - hey! It would cost too much to arrest them, have a trial, etc. And now - they're out of power. They won't do it again, right?


: The problem is that you (none / 0) (#76)
by MKS on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:28:21 PM EST

equate jail with punishment. You can obviously punish someone without putting them in jail....
A little imagination to get beyond imprisoning people in the castle dungeon would save a lot of money and avoid the horror of incarceration....
And Cheney's crimes are violent, I would argue--torture being inherently violent. To equate some guy who steals empty pop bottles with Cheney is ridiculous. And I would not necessarily oppose punishments for Cheney that did not involve prison. I would put him in an orange vest and make him pick up garbage. And I would make him scrub the toilets in the offices of anti-torture NGOs.

So, Jean Valjean got his man? (none / 0) (#73)
by MKS on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:58:25 AM EST

Could be. Prosecutor in CA has discretion (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:56:18 PM EST

to issue seoond and all subsequent petty thefts as felony if there is one existing petty theft conviction.


In that case, it was deemed robbery (none / 0) (#54)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 05:55:58 PM EST

I believe that the defendant was on the boardwalk in Venice and grabbed a piece of pizza from a box held by the victim.....

Gained tremendous notoriety and was the basis of a judicial attack on the three strikes law....The law was upheld but prosecutors and judges quietly have been ignoring it at times (or that is my take, oculus may put it more correctly)


Same in WA State (none / 0) (#30)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:09:07 PM EST

just a felony.


Yes, in fact I do believe that (none / 0) (#41)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:01:23 PM EST

they should be able to get out of jail after an appropriate sentence. Make parole stricter, or sentences longer, but I do not support any automatic life sentence for a crime that, all by itself, would not have rated a life sentence.

My point is that we have been conditioned to accept jumping to the most draconian possible solution when we are frustrated or scared. The Patriot Act would not have been possible without the 20 years leading up to it. and the Gitmo policies would not have such support if we weren't already used to treating our own citizens this way.


Then we disagree (none / 0) (#43)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:03:31 PM EST

I feel at some point society gets to tell someone that, no, they've been given plenty of chances to find another line of work, but they do not get the chance to commit more crimes.


: I understand (none / 0) (#44)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:06:16 PM EST

We don't have to agree on everything.

: Plenty of options short of lifetime incarceration (none / 0) (#55)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 05:58:21 PM EST

I rest my case (none / 0) (#37)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:53:17 PM EST

So (none / 0) (#38)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:55:30 PM EST

Someone with 3 felonies should be allowed out of prison? At how many do you say this person can't or won't be rehabilitated and should be locked up for good? 6 robberies? 8 rapes? 10 murders?


Well, I believe one murder rates (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:03:24 PM EST

life without parole, and am fine with very long, parole free, sentences for any other violent crime.

Non-violent robberies? I don't know - I would take it on a case-by-case basis, which is my point.


you shouldn't have a blanket law (none / 0) (#47)
by CST on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:24:10 PM EST

that requires it no matter what the felony is. If someone has murdered 10 people, that's not the same as someone who stole pizza 3 times. It shouldn't be treated as such.


Maybe not (none / 0) (#48)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:36:50 PM EST

But if they steal 3 pieces, when do you say "enough"? 20 pieces? 50 pieces? Would you tolerate that kind of behavior from children? You tell them not to do something, they do it anyway - do you just keep saying "That's not nice" and not punish them and let them keep on doing it? If you do, they aren't obviously learning the lesson,nor respecting your authority to set boundaries.

You do realize, of course, that for all those who steal "one piece" there is a societal cost too, right? Part of the reason prices go up is because of the loss retailers suffer when people steal from them. Then of course, there's the very real possibility that stealing "one piece" will lead to stealing "two pieces" the next time and then stealing a pop to go with it and eventually stealing the register?


there is a much higher (none / 0) (#49)
by CST on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:47:52 PM EST

societal cost when you send someone to prison. We pay for that too. And it costs a whole lot more.

Requiring community service would provide a much more effective benefit to society than throwing them in jail, so long as they are not a danger to others.

I never saw life in prison as a way to make someone "respect authority".


But you still haven't answered my question (none / 0) (#50)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:50:41 PM EST

At what point does society's rights kick in and we get to say "NO MORE"? If someone has been in jail or prison 2 or 3 times and let out (because they are supposedly "rehabilitated") and they continue to commit crimes, why should we let them?

This seems very much like an abused spouse scenario - "He didn't mean it. He said he was sorry. He won't do it again." (Until, of course, he does it again).


If I had it my way? (5.00 / 0) (#52)
by CST on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 04:32:02 PM EST

Never, for non-violent crimes.

It's not at all like an abused spouse. No one is being physically abused.

Besides, nothing I've said takes away the discretion of the judge and jury to make those decisions on an individual basis. I just think it's stupid to force blanket sentancing without taking into consideration the details of each individual case.

Personally, I don't think "disrespect for authority" is reason enough to force life in prison.


: Yes, actually it is (none / 0) (#68)
by jbindc on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 09:15:09 AM EST

It's the exact same psychology.
As that famous quote mis-attributed to Einstein and Ben Franklin says:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It all depends on the severity of (none / 0) (#57)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 06:09:06 PM EST

the crime and the danger to society....

If no one is physically hurt, then life in prison is extreme.

There are all kinds of other things society can do--especially with technology allowing for all kinds of electornic monitoring, if needed.


"Prices go up" as a reason for life (none / 0) (#56)
by MKS on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 06:05:09 PM EST

in prison? The societal cost of incarcerating someone for life is significant. The absolute cost in dollars to the state is astonishing....Let alone the cost to the families of those incarcerated....

The ticky tacky stuff--where no one is really hurt--as a basis for a lifetime in a cage is just cruel and inhuman and should be held unconstitutional....

You are quite cavalier about putting people in jail. Do you know what that really means?....

Tightfisted Republicans are getting over their "lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" mentality because it costs to much.

Petty vengeance will not support such a policy with the costs so high....


Yes I do (none / 0) (#66)
by jbindc on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 09:10:36 AM EST

But again, why should people get 7, 8, 9, 10 chances to commit crimes? I think that proves that they are not going to change their ways.


If they are not physically huritng (2.00 / 1) (#71)
by MKS on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:42:02 AM EST

anyore, and they can be made to work off any economic loss, why should we put them in jail just because it makes you feel better and would otherwise offend you if they weren't.

Your attitude is the type of attitude that leads to "enhanced interrogation" and loss of due process....I agree with the main point here--you have proved it several times over.


Not for nothing.... (none / 0) (#69)
by kdog on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 09:51:08 AM EST

presidents and CEO's seem to get 100 chances with nary an arrest to be found.

At least street thieves have the decency to rob you eye to eye, or beat your home/office security...all the kingpins have to do is stroke a pen.


: Ah, K-Dog you diminish (none / 0) (#70)
by MKS on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:39:15 AM EST

the talent, work ethic and creativity of the kingpins. Stroke of a pen, my arse....

Damn you Mukasey... (none / 0) (#1)
by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 11:56:15 AM EST

Oh thats right, the D's are in charge now...pay no attention to the tyrants behind the curtain.

Sad thing is, if the 50 are the evil incarnate the state says they are, they'd be serving their legitimate and legal long prison sentences right now, if we only had remembered our supposed principles.

There are many many things (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:04:18 PM EST

that were once literally sinful in most liberal lefty circles that are now okay because Obama is President. For instance, what this family does for a living is now okay with some of the biggest antiwar voices prior to Obama taking office. Some people have turned their antiwar self OFF because if it was ON then they would find themselves being mean to the President in some strange political invisible mojo voodoo fashion :) Because I think that we need to address some of the terrorist problems militarily this works well for me all the way around. I cannot help noticing how quiet the antiwar left is though. Nobody puts any effort into it much outside of Greenwald. Blogger Edger is always collecting all the data, analysis, and news that he can find. Jeralyn's stance tends to be pretty antiwar and she does post things along that vein, but the vocal antiwar are pretty scarce and you will never find this posting and discussion up at Booman in the near future, and probably only if the current President was a Republican or a Clinton.


Convinces me that... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:24:35 PM EST

its just professional wrestling to most people...politics as sport. As long as your respective version of Hulk Hogan holds the title belt all is well.

For the record...it could never be my living but I got no problem with how the MT fam makes a living, I only got big problems with the tasks being assigned.


Understand very well (none / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:39:06 PM EST

And that is the only place to put pressure on to change the policy. I honestly feel sorry for Obama though in what he has to cover in this area and never allow to happen no matter what. I don't have this sympathy for him in economic areas though. A lot of people do, but I was single income single working mother for too long I guess. I expect those who govern us to have to be exactly that responsible with our economy and the futures of our children.


Did Pres. Obama's speech in Illyria, (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 07:33:16 PM EST

Ohio, today make you more optimistic?

P.S> Who knew Chalabi is behind disqualification of 500 plus candidates for Iraq's legislature? NYT


I didn't watch the speech (none / 0) (#61)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:41:34 PM EST

but now I will. Was down for most of the day with a migraine. Bleh, all better now though.


Must say though that the level (none / 0) (#62)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:48:02 PM EST

of frustration I sometimes hear in spouses voice probably has more to do with a personal lack of optimism at times even though I have no idea what he is frustrated about. He has access to skype though now and with this new computer it will be a cinch. The family being able to see each other should make the next few months better in ways. He can check out a webcam now and use it to skype with supervised in a fashion by people he is serving with in his specific area.


NPR had some excerpts from speech (none / 0) (#63)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:52:54 PM EST

this afternoon. Exchange re truck-driving school and big government was interesting.

I'm glad Skype will brighten your horizons.


: Wow, curveball strikes again and again (none / 0) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:02:18 PM EST

If Democrats do not follow GOP policies (none / 0) (#2)
by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:04:30 PM EST

and implement their own principles and beliefs, then Democrats will be seen as weak.

I think that is the logic.

No wonder progressives are sitting on their hands.

Lose-lose for Dems. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:37:39 PM EST

The initial order to close Guantanamo is ammunition being used daily in my area. I still support trials, not commissions, and treatment with civil rights and civil liberties. indefinite detention without trial... what kinds of countries do that? So... we show 'weakness' according to the Beck-listeners and their ilk, then renege on an executive order.

another point on this, if the US is so weak that 50-100 people are able to bring it down, what is the government doing to shore up the weakness? i firmly believe that if they can't be charged they should be released. Guilt or innocence aren't determined in secret, or shouldn't be.


Obama promise broken (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:40:00 PM EST

Righties having a field day already

Excutive Order signed to close Gitmo within one year, signed by Obama, dated January 22, 2009. I guess technically he still has until midnight to fulfill that promise....


: lose-lose indeed (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:46:27 PM EST

He breaks a promise they never wanted him to keep, and they are still after him. As Dr. Phil would say, hows that post-partisan unity working out for ya?

Oh the irony... (none / 0) (#4)
by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:35:29 PM EST

what is actually weak and cowardly is caging these guys until "a war with no end" ends.


: Seems so obvious to me too (none / 0) (#9)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:44:35 PM EST

and the fact that the administration can't make a persuasive argument based on 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is another case of political malpractice.

: This what happens when a country (none / 0) (#26)
by jondee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:35:19 PM EST

over-militarizes it's foreign policy: the draconian rules of war infect everything, including private thinking and public discourse at home. So, whether it's the war-on-terror or the war-on-crime, "strength and weakness" are defined in the context of the chronic-insecurity-based lowest common denominator that's little better than a high tech barnyard pecking order.
This where you end up when the you make your military an overseas goon squad for a "let the market regulate itself" investor class. And it's also why the prescient founding fathers said this country would "lose it's soul" if it allowed itself to get pulled down that path.
Endless war? Effing get used to it.

Department of Justice needs a new name. (none / 0) (#5)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:37:15 PM EST

How about Ministry of Love?

And don't let us catch you reading Goldstein's book...

My long lost twin! (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:51:45 PM EST

its been the Ministry of Love for years now, at least in my house...I just wish I had the balls, and lacked the fear of cages, to spraypaint it over the entrance to the building. Double plus good.


I'll hold the ladder for you and (none / 0) (#14)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:54:25 PM EST

keep a lookout...


Lemme think about it...:) (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:57:13 PM EST

the straw that breaks my back to get me in the game could come anyday now. The SC ruling in favor of oligarchy has got me teetering:)


: Well, don't dawdle...I'm not getting (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:02:17 PM EST

any younger and my ladderholding days will be over soon...perhaps even sooner than I thought. Watching the Democrats 'improve on incompetence' is likely to give me a stroke.

I am 2/3rds of the way through audio book (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:17:59 PM EST

of "1984," having never read it. Too controversial during the cold war in midwest in my high school years? Who knows.

Anyhow, much sounds quite familiar.


: One would think... (none / 0) (#65)
by kdog on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:26:49 AM EST

it would have been held up as an artistic beacon of the dangers of communism/socialism during the cold war...if you're willing to ignore that the dystopia could apply to an authoritarian crony capitalist state that is.
Maybe just too anti-state for any Board of Ed to get behind...it was never assigned reading when I was in school...it was something I read while skipping the assigned reading:)

Where in the world is Jim (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:50:00 PM EST

to remind everyone that we can hold Prisoners of War until the conflict has ended? I don't know what to do about any of this. You probably have to judge case by case. I find it hard to believe that our existing administration would hold someone in this fashion unless they were very certain they needed to. That being said, I can't count how many times I've been wrong in this lifetime.

Luckily we have many forums to use (none / 0) (#16)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:57:20 PM EST

in which to judge case by case - trials and military commissions. We ought to use them!


Ruffian my friend (none / 0) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:14:26 PM EST

They obviously don't have the solid evidence they need to convict. Sadly if they did let someone go who they suspected was dangerous and that person did some Jihad, then it is all Obama's fault. Because there is a different standard for Democrats than there is for Republicans when it comes to National Security.


I guess I have a lot of confidence (none / 0) (#46)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:12:45 PM EST

that someone in this class of detainee who got acquitted by a military commission and sent back to where they came from would be watched pretty closely and dealt with if he stepped out of line.

Obviously the administration does not agree with me, so I could very well be wrong. I guess it's a good thing I don't run the world!


: Who would watch them closely (none / 0) (#53)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 04:56:32 PM EST

in failed states? We are big brother there too and the job is very difficult. And sadly even when the CIA takes a big hit trying to "watch" those who need to be watched their sacrifice if not really grieved. Some even celebrate it in a way. And when it comes to capture or kill being used for those who are dangerous, kill seems to be the only thing remaining in order to make sure that the war can over at some time.

Did I miss BTD's post on why (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:19:26 PM EST

he supports Obama's Afghanistan policy? Surely it explained why U.S. may, under international law, Geneva Conventions, etc., do what it is doing.


I believe (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by CST on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:28:42 PM EST

the issue is P.O.W. status. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict, but they are still protected under the geneva conventions against things like torture.

The problem with using P.O.W.s in this case is - who are we really at war against, and will the war ever technically be "over".

Imagine P.O.W.s during the hundred years war. That could be what this is like.

Personally, I think if Tracy is right they don't have enough evidence for a conviction in a military trial, then we can't know for certain if these people are guilty or not. I would err on the side of civil liberties. But the question then becomes - where do you send them? Because if the gov't is that worried, I probably also wouldn't want to allow them back in the states (certainly not on a plane).

And asking some other country (that isn't a terrorist training ground ala Yemen) to take people we consider dangerous is probably gonna be a pretty hard sell as well.

We got ourselves into a lose-lose situation here.


: And if anyone they release (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:47:01 PM EST

does end up involved in terrorism again, we will hunt them and kill them without any kind of mercy too.

Fine (none / 0) (#51)
by DancingOpossum on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 04:12:55 PM EST

But in the meantime, if there is no evidence to hold them, they should be set free. Period. The "war on terror" is a convenient excuse, it's the war that has no end, the infinite war.

As for terrorism (EEEEK!), they have told us loud and clear why they hate us (and no, it's not because of our freedoms, which we don't have anymore anyway, thanks to our response to TERRA), if we refuse to listen to them, whose fault is htat?

This where you end up when the you make your military an overseas goon squad for a "let the market regulate itself" investor class.

Yeah, that too.

It's your platform (none / 0) (#74)
by diogenes on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 02:14:48 PM EST

If the Democrats want to release the most dangerous fifty out of the GITMO one thousand because the ACLU told them so, then they are welcome to. They can run as the party of liberty and make all kinds of TV commercials about it.

DOJ Task Force Recommends Indefinite Detention for 50 Guantanamo Detainees

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

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal