I Can't Gitmo Satisfaction

[30ashopper]

:roll: Okay, folks, I'm done. Enough sarcastic comments on what is a serious subject. And here I thought conservatives were in favor of defending the Constitution. 30Ashopper, if you reread my posts you will see I think nothing of the kind. That's what the judicial system is for, as the representative of "we" the people.

It really wasn't meant as sarcastic. That's one of the issues here, the military knows why they were picked up. I might be in the minority but I doubt the Army went cruising around the streets of Kabul picking people up randomly. The current admin. decided to keep them indefinitely as comabtants. The incomign admin. has decided that is not acceptable. The question is, what type of trial system do you put them through, how much information do you make public, and if they win, what do you do with them.

 

[scooterbug44]

Both McCain and Obama, along with many others in both parties, wanted to close the disgraceful Gitmo prison down - the issue is not Repubs vs. Dems, but just how to run the trials. I doubt we will see these trials on Judge Judy - I believe that the trials would be closed or controlled - think more like military style tribunals, less like civilian courts.

 

[idlewind]

:roll: Okay, folks, I'm done. Enough sarcastic comments on what is a serious subject. And here I thought conservatives were in favor of defending the Constitution. 30Ashopper, if you reread my posts you will see I think nothing of the kind. That's what the judicial system is for, as the representative of "we" the people.

I am all in favor of defending the Constitution, but why would terrorists qualify for constitutional protections? These people are so bad their own countries do not want them back. Gitmo is as good a place as any to house them, I certainly do not want them on American soil.

 

[poppy]

I am all in favor of defending the Constitution, but why would terrorists qualify for constitutional protections? These people are so bad their own countries do not want them back. Gitmo is as good a place as any to house them, I certainly do not want them on American soil.

Does anybody know how many of those being held are truly terrorists and not someone who got caught up in the haste of post 911 round-ups?

Wouldn't having fair and speedy hearings be the right thing to do? Those who are guilty of crimes against our country could be delt with harshly and the innocent returned to the country where they were apprehended and set free.

 

[idlewind]

Does anybody know how many of those being held are truly terrorists and not someone who got caught up in the haste of post 911 round-ups?

Wouldn't having fair and speedy hearings be the right thing to do? Those who are guilty of crimes against our country could be delt with harshly and the innocent returned to the country where they were apprehended and set free.

We have already turned out dozens of the original number. Common sense would tell you that those who remain are those who are a threat. And in many cases their own native country refuses to take them back. So what do we do then? Put um on a boat and say "go east." We darn well better not bring them inside this country. We already have enough Cubans, Mexicans and such in custody that we cannot do anything with.

 

[poppy]

We have already turned out dozens of the original number. Common sense would tell you that those who remain are those who are a threat. And in many cases their own native country refuses to take them back. So what do we do then? Put um on a boat and say "go east." We darn well better not bring them inside this country. We already have enough Cubans, Mexicans and such in custody that we cannot do anything with.

I will go back to my original question- Wouldn't having fair and speedy hearings be the right thing to do? Those who are guilty of crimes against our country could be delt with harshly and the innocent returned to the country where they were apprehended and set free.

If they are found to be innocent why not let them in our country, they are innocent as in free of guilt.

 

[poppy]

How many more are there?

Bushco Held Detainees At Gitmo Illegally

November 21st, 2008, 12:42 PM EST
Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington has ordered the release of five Algerian men who have been held illegally at Guantanamo Bay for almost seven years.

It was the first hearing on the government?s evidence for holding detainees at Guant?namo. The judge?said the government?s secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as ?a classified document from an unnamed source? for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.

?To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court?s obligation,? Judge Leon said. He urged the government not to appeal and said the men should be released ?forthwith.?


The Supreme Court ruled in June that the men had a right to seek their release in federal court. Leon is a Bush appointee who ruled in 2005 that these men had no habeas corpus rights.


As he read his decision in a quiet courtroom, he seemed to bridle at the Supreme Court?s ruling, saying its effect was ?to superimpose the habeas corpus process into the world of intelligence gathering.?

Sounds like Leon didn?t like his own decision, but did the right thing by obeying the law, one with which he appears to disagree.


Lawyers for other detainees said the decision was a repudiation of the Bush administration?s effort to use the detention center at the American naval base at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, to avoid scrutiny by American judges. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to close the prison.



Posted in Liberaland by Alan
leave a comment ? trackback

 

[30ashopper]

How many more are there?

Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington has ordered the release of five Algerian men who have been held illegally at Guantanamo Bay for almost seven years.

It was the first hearing on the government’s evidence for holding detainees at Guant?namo. The judge…said the government’s secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as “a classified document from an unnamed source” for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.

“To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation,” Judge Leon said. He urged the government not to appeal and said the men should be released “forthwith.”

The Supreme Court ruled in June that the men had a right to seek their release in federal court. Leon is a Bush appointee who ruled in 2005 that these men had no habeas corpus rights.

As he read his decision in a quiet courtroom, he seemed to bridle at the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying its effect was “to superimpose the habeas corpus process into the world of intelligence gathering.”

Sounds like Leon didn’t like his own decision, but did the right thing by obeying the law, one with which he appears to disagree.


Lawyers for other detainees said the decision was a repudiation of the Bush administration’s effort to use the detention center at the American naval base at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, to avoid scrutiny by American judges. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to close the prison.

This is what's so scary about public trials. The evidence, and its source, could not be revealed. So a bunch of likely thugs hell bent on killing Americans walk free.

 

[Mango]

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents.1 This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called “the worst of the worst.”

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

 

[Chickpea]

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government?s own documents.1 This Report provides a window into the Government?s success detaining only those that the President has called ?the worst of the worst.?

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed ?fighters for;? 30% considered ?members of;? a large majority ? 60% -- are detained merely because they are ?associated with? a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants ? mostly Uighers ? are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

Can you ONLY imagine the uproar in this country IF american citizens were detained by another country because their government considered them enemy combatants (in any area of the world where we have a military presence) and then imagine the outrage if these American citizens were denied the BASIC human right (that the US has helped establish) that EVERYONE is entitled to know what the charges against them are, that they have a right to mount a defense, to legal counsel, etc...

We used to have a high standard and it is in our collective interest to fight that all entities (including the US military and specifically in times in war) upholds our rights if we wish to continue having confidence in our civil liberties.