Bye bye gitmo

[The Preacher]

The Constitution and Geneva Conventions lack substance to you guys? To each their own, I guess.

How is housing them in a maximum security US prison any different? That seems to be a bigger violation of the Geneva convention than appropriate facilites in Guantanamo Bay.

It's also a huge violation of the Constitution.

It's not actually. We can keep them "for the duration of the conflict"(i.e. forever) and fulfill our treaty obligations as long as we give them some modicum of due process. Is it really too much to ask that we have some evidence that a guy is a terrorist before we lock them up and throw away the key?

I thought we were using military tribunals for this.

I'm no expert, but I think there was some writ that involved Habeas's copses... according to the Supremes, those tribunals look a lot like kangaroo courts.

I'm not sure if they are kangaroo courts or not, but the Supreme Court's allowance of military tribunals for "enemy combatants" dates back to (wanna guess the President?)...

Spoiler:

FDR's very own Supreme Court welcomes you to Ex Parte Quirin

[noxiousdog]

never mind.

[Mr. Sparkle]

I don't think a maximum security prison is "conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."

I'm no expert on international laws and treaties, but I think all you really have to do is bring in the Red Cross... which, according to yesterday's WaPo is what they did at first:

The ICRC arrived at Guantanamo on Jan. 17, 2002 -- six days after the detainees did. Thus began what amounted to a period of subtle defiance of Washington's lack of direction. The ICRC worked with Joint Task Force 160 to create a rational, legal detention operation. ICRC representatives immediately began to help Lehnert's troops improve the grim physical situation of the hastily constructed camp: the open-air cages in which prisoners were held, the cells without toilets, the constant exposure to heat and rain.

To intensify his efforts, Lehnert told me, he requested a Muslim chaplain, Navy Lt. Abuhena M. Saifulislam. "Saif," as the Bangladeshi American imam was known throughout the camp, became a fixture inside the blocs of cages at Camp X-Ray. Task force members recall him strolling daily through the camp, sometimes accompanied by Lehnert, and conversing with the detainees -- some of whom were in no mood to chat, some of whom had stories to tell. Lehnert tried to assure them that some form of legal remedy or transfer home was in the works, as one former detainee, British citizen Shafiq Rasul, told me.

Brig. Gen. Lehnert had built his own Guantanamo, one with ICRC oversight, a Muslim chaplain and an overriding ethos that stressed codified law and the unwritten rules of human decency. Lehnert's team let the detainees talk among themselves; it provided halal food, an additional washing bucket inside cells that lacked toilet facilities, a Koran for each detainee, skullcaps and prayer beads for those who wanted them, and undergarments for the prisoners to wear at shower time, in accordance with Islamic laws that proscribe public nakedness.

Not so hard is it?

But then Rumsfield and Cheney decided to "take the gloves off", and here we are... shamed before the world.

[noxiousdog]

You're killing me.

I have no problem changing the process. I just don't see the need to change the location.

[Mr. Sparkle]

I just don't see the need to change the location.

Symbolism is important? The reason it was chosen in the first place was because some Bush lawyer had the bright idea that it was neither U.S. nor Cuban soil so no laws applied or whatever. So you move it to the U.S. so there is no confusion... in addition, the people in charge down there now have proven themselves to be completely incompetent and the place was never intended to be a prison... so why not just move the prisoners to places where they detain people for a living? Having a separate system where everybody was making up rules as they go along was a big part of the problem.

Why is it important to you that they keep it open? Are you like that guy from the Weekly Standard who thinks they're going to stage some elaborate prison break and blow up a nuclear plant or something?

[noxiousdog]

I just don't see the need to change the location.

Symbolism is important? The reason it was chosen in the first place was because some Bush lawyer had the bright idea that it was neither U.S. nor Cuban soil so no laws applied or whatever. So you move it to the U.S. so there is no confusion... in addition, the people in charge down there now have proven themselves to be completely incompetent and the place was never intended to be a prison... so why not just move the prisoners to places where they detain people for a living? Having a separate system where everybody was making up rules as they go along was a big part of the problem.

Why is it important to you that they keep it open? Are you like that guy from the Weekly Standard who thinks they're going to stage some elaborate prison break and blow up a nuclear plant or something?

I don't really care. I just prefer substance over style. Especially when style er sorry symbolism is going to cost a lot more money to convert a prison into something appropriate.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Especially when style er sorry symbolism is going to cost a lot more money to convert a prison into something appropriate.

Why would it cost anything extra? You don't think a super max is up to the task?

It's more than just style, as these people know how to house prisoners with some measure of dignity... the crew at Gitmo clearly doesn't. It would seem to me that fixing the problems there to make it a real detention facility with properly trained personnel would be just as costly if not more.

[noxiousdog]

Especially when style er sorry symbolism is going to cost a lot more money to convert a prison into something appropriate.

Why would it cost anything extra? You don't think a super max is up to the task?

No, because it violates the Geneva Conventions. Since you didn't read it the first time:

Chapter II

QUARTERS, FOOD AND CLOTHING OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 25

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

It's more than just style, as these people know how to house prisoners with some measure of dignity... the crew at Gitmo clearly doesn't. It would seem to me that fixing the problems there to make it a real detention facility with properly trained personnel would be just as costly if not more.

Unlikely, as any conversion of of a prison to barracks-like conditions necessitates moving the existing population somewhere else. This would also include changing a civilian prison guard population to a military one.

[Defiant]

I'm all for making sure there's due process to make sure that we have the right people, but I'm not sure why the Geneva conventions apply to Al Qaeda, since they don't wear uniforms or follow the rules of war.

[noxiousdog]

I'm all for making sure there's due process to make sure that we have the right people, but I'm not sure why the Geneva conventions apply to Al Qaeda, since they don't wear uniforms or follow the rules of war.

I'm not sure either, and the Supreme Court said it only partially applied. BUT, since the changes being made are under the premise that they do apply, and the critiicism of Bush's policies (excepting the torture angle), are that they should apply, I would expect that any solution should fit under the Geneva Convention guidelines. Especially if this is symbolic and all.

[Mr. Sparkle]

No, because it violates the Geneva Conventions.

There are other options.

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on them being at a military base, since I don't imagine the Red Cross is going to complain, but it's not like nobody ever thought about what to do with high risk military prisoners.

[noxiousdog]

No, because it violates the Geneva Conventions.

There are other options.

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on them being at a military base, since I don't imagine the Red Cross is going to complain, but it's not like nobody ever thought about what to do with high risk military prisoners.

That's a prison. A prison is against the Geneva Conventions.

Let me reiterate:

Chapter II

QUARTERS, FOOD AND CLOTHING OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 25

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

[Defiant]

That's a prison. A prison is against the Geneva Conventions.

Couldn't any place where prisoners of war are kept technically be called a prison?

[noxiousdog]

That's a prison. A prison is against the Geneva Conventions.

Couldn't any place where prisoners of war are kept technically be called a prison?

But it needs to be more like a place where they keep the white collar criminals.

Actually, this is where the whole thing gets murky. The Geneva Conventions work because captured enemy soldiers can keep rank and discipline and order. The enemy combatants have no such structure. That's what aggravates me about this whole situation. People are so excited that Obama is going to abide by the Geneva conventions, when it's clear he can do no such thing because they don't qualify.

Instead, we're going to do what Mr. Sparkle wants, which is throw them in a prison, whether it be Leavenworth or a federal penitentiery (which I can't spell), which is against due process, and against the Geneva conventions and he's hailed as a hero because he's Not Bush even though he's continuing the same policies only more expensively.

edit: I do have to caveat that if the Bush administration hadn't tortured these detainees, it's likely it wouldn't have been as big of a deal.
edit2: bah. I didn't know Ken Lay was dead.

[The Preacher]

That's a prison. A prison is against the Geneva Conventions.

Couldn't any place where prisoners of war are kept technically be called a prison?

But it needs to be more like a place where they keep Ken Lay.

Don't think that's in the GC!

[Mr. Sparkle]

Let me reiterate:

I just don't believe your interpretation is correct, no matter how many times you copy and paste it. As I quoted before, the Red Cross was at Gitmo in the early stages and oversaw getting them appropriately housed and seemed satisfied before the process got Cheney-fied.

From what I can tell what you are citing is just about minimum cell size and access to bathrooms and stuff like that... and unless you can find some expert up in arms about the fact that the Geneva Conventions are being violated if they're put in cells, I'm going to assume you are wrong.

[noxiousdog]

Experts

PARAGRAPH 1. -- PLACES OF INTERNMENT

The term "premises" refers to the accommodation for housing prisoners of war.
The place of internment of prisoners of war may be either in an urban area or in the country, but it must be located on land. The use of boats, rafts or "pontoons" is therefore absolutely forbidden.
As for the nature of the dwellings the very general word "premises" permits the use of tents (1), provided they fulfil the conditions relating to quarters (Article 25 ). Internment of prisoners of war in [p.183] penitentiaries is in principle prohibited because of the painful psychological impressions which such places might create for prisoners of war.

[LawBeefaroni]

Experts

PARAGRAPH 1. -- PLACES OF INTERNMENT

The term "premises" refers to the accommodation for housing prisoners of war.
The place of internment of prisoners of war may be either in an urban area or in the country, but it must be located on land. The use of boats, rafts or "pontoons" is therefore absolutely forbidden.
As for the nature of the dwellings the very general word "premises" permits the use of tents (1), provided they fulfil the conditions relating to quarters (Article 25 ). Internment of prisoners of war in [p.183] penitentiaries is in principle prohibited because of the painful psychological impressions which such places might create for prisoners of war.

I thought the Supreme Court said that only Common Article 3 protections applied.

These prisoners are not POWs.

[noxiousdog]

*facepalm*

[pr0ner]

From Reuters

President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Monday he worried that detainees freed from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, might resume attacks on the United States.

So keeping Gitmo open will make America less safe, while closing Gitmo opens up the possibility that former detainees will resume terrorist operations.

[Smoove_B]

I still think Jon Stewart had the best rebuttal regarding bringing the Gitmo prisoners here to our prison system.

Guantanamo Bay Watch - Final Season

[Pyperkub]

So, apparently we knew that 100's of the detainees are innocent (according to the Times of London, at least):

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.

[AWS260]

Four years after this thread was started, and Gitmo is no closer to closing.

Life as a hunger striker in Guantanamo Bay, 2013:

When they come to force me into the chair, if I refuse to be tied up, they call the E.R.F. team. So I have a choice. Either I can exercise my right to protest my detention, and be beaten up, or I can submit to painful force-feeding.

The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one.

I do not want to die here, but until President Obama and Yemen’s president do something, that is what I risk every day.

Where is my government? I will submit to any “security measures” they want in order to go home, even though they are totally unnecessary.

I will agree to whatever it takes in order to be free. I am now 35. All I want is to see my family again and to start a family of my own.

The situation is desperate now. All of the detainees here are suffering deeply. At least 40 people here are on a hunger strike. People are fainting with exhaustion every day. I have vomited blood.

And there is no end in sight to our imprisonment. Denying ourselves food and risking death every day is the choice we have made.

[LawBeefaroni]

/ignore

[LawBeefaroni]

Here's some more to stuff under the rug:

Task Force on Detainee Treatment Report.

It is the product of more than two years of research, analysis and deliberation by the Task Force members and staff. It is based on a thorough examination of available public records and interviews with more than one hundred people, including former detainees, military and intelligence officers, interrogators and policymakers. Task Force staff and members conducted on-the-ground fact-finding in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lithuania, Poland and the United Kingdom, and also at Guantanamo Bay.

[Daehawk]

.

[Holman]

A shift towards action? Obama to Seek Closing Amid Hunger Strike at Guantánamo

Citing the high expense and the foreign policy costs of continuing to operate the prison, Mr. Obama said he would try again to persuade Congress to lift restrictions on transferring inmates to the federal court system. Mr. Obama was ambiguous, however, about the most difficult issue raised by the prospect of closing the prison: what to do with detainees who are deemed dangerous but could not be feasibly prosecuted.

Mr. Obama’s existing policy on that subject, which Congress has blocked, is to move detainees to maximum-security facilities inside the United States and continue holding them without trial as wartime prisoners; it is not clear whether such a change would ease the frustrations fueling the detainees’ hunger strike.

Yet at another point in the news conference, Mr. Obama appeared to question the policy of indefinite wartime detention at a time when the war in Iraq has ended, the one in Afghanistan is winding down and the original makeup of Al Qaeda has been decimated. “The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried,” he said, “that is contrary to who we are, contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.”

[gbasden]

“The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried,” he said, “that is contrary to who we are, contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.”

The words are right, but I'm certainly not sure I believe he means them anymore.

[Fireball]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

[Arcanis]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

As president he really can't take any actions without some serious help from congress. However I think his best bet is to try and figure a long term solution to the problem. They are enemy combatants so we don't want them on US soil, but we don't have a clearly defined war to help define how to handle the POWs (which is what they are).
edit to add: I don't think any solution he or anyone else comes up with, even if all parties involved agree as to what should be done I don't think it will get done before he is out of office.

[PLW]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

I don't know... I think he could play chicken by threatening to release them.

[Holman]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

I don't know... I think he could play chicken by threatening to release them.

If I'm the GOP, I definitely want to see Obama threatening to release suspected terrorists without trial.

[PLW]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

I don't know... I think he could play chicken by threatening to release them.

If I'm the GOP, I definitely want to see Obama threatening to release suspected terrorists without trial.

Obama doesn't have to get reelected. He could do what's right... give people trials or release them.

[LordMortis]

Obama doesn't have to get reelected. He could do what's right.

Sounds good to me. Where do we sign him up?

[Rip]

Drone strike.

[stessier]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

I don't know... I think he could play chicken by threatening to release them.

If I'm the GOP, I definitely want to see Obama threatening to release suspected terrorists without trial.

Obama doesn't have to get reelected. He could do what's right... give people trials or release them.

I was going to write something similar but with the caveat he'd probably do it closer to the end of his term. The question is does he want to hurt the Dems for the next congress election or next presidential? As the great Leo McGarry once said - "Do the right thing and let the rest be the next guy's problem."

[El Guapo]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

I don't know... I think he could play chicken by threatening to release them.

If I'm the GOP, I definitely want to see Obama threatening to release suspected terrorists without trial.

Obama doesn't have to get reelected. He could do what's right... give people trials or release them.

I was going to write something similar but with the caveat he'd probably do it closer to the end of his term. The question is does he want to hurt the Dems for the next congress election or next presidential? As the great Leo McGarry once said - "Do the right thing and let the rest be the next guy's problem."

It's not necessarily super clear cut what's "right" and "wrong" here. I don't find it difficult to believe that there are at least a handful of people who were important leaders of jihadist militant groups targeting the U.S. and U.S. troops. A civilian trial is probably not realistic because: (1) the troops and/or foreign governments who apprehended them weren't exactly treating the area like a crime scene; and (2) domestic law might not apply super well to them - if they're involved in some nebulous plots and otherwise setting off IEDs in Afghanistan, what do you charge them with? But at the same time it seems reasonably probable that if you release them they'll rejoin jihadist comrades and do various bad things.

What they would like to do, I think, is release them into the custody of their foreign governments to be jailed there - even if there is a high risk of them escaping / being released one day - but there's not much in that for the foreign governments (high risk to them that the guy turns on them).

My guess as to what Obama will ultimately do is this: after the Afghan war winds down in 2014 or 2015, declare that the conflict authorized by the AUMF has essentially ended, and since the 'war' is substantially over he can't continue to hold the prisoners under the law of war, and ship all of them (that he can't put on trial) back to their home countries under some terms.

[PLW]

It's not necessarily super clear cut what's "right" and "wrong" here. I don't find it difficult to believe that there are at least a handful of people who were important leaders of jihadist militant groups targeting the U.S. and U.S. troops. A civilian trial is probably not realistic because: (1) the troops and/or foreign governments who apprehended them weren't exactly treating the area like a crime scene; and (2) domestic law might not apply super well to them - if they're involved in some nebulous plots and otherwise setting off IEDs in Afghanistan, what do you charge them with? But at the same time it seems reasonably probable that if you release them they'll rejoin jihadist comrades and do various bad things.

Let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. Maybe a normal civilian trial is infeasible or the standards of evidence don't seem right for the circumstances under which they were taken. That doesn't mean that we can't do something. We tried once with the military tribunals, but they had problems. But my goodness, even a problematic process is better than keeping people locked up indefinitely without giving them the opportunity to face their accusers and provide evidence in their defense.

[Kraken]

I'm not sure what he can do. He politically can't just release people, and Congress has refused to appropriate any funds to facilitate the transfer of detainees to stateside facilities. I'm not sure if he has the flexibility in the military budget to achieve his goal here.

I don't know... I think he could play chicken by threatening to release them.

If I'm the GOP, I definitely want to see Obama threatening to release suspected terrorists without trial.

Obama doesn't have to get reelected. He could do what's right... give people trials or release them.

One story that I read says that he can repatriate some of them to their home countries without needing Congress's OK. There are some low-risk prisoners who are candidates for that.

The main problem is a core group of 2-3 dozen high-risk prisoners. There is not enough evidence to convict them of anything, but we jolly well know that they would go back to insurgency in a heartbeat if released. There is no framework for dealing with them except as POWs, I guess. And with the Iraq war over, Pakistan ending, and al Qaeda largely decimated, it's getting harder and harder to justify calling them POWs.

Of course, I don't understand all the legal niceties. It seems to me that Obama should be able to reduce the number of unfortunates stuck in Gitmo, but that he can't empty that place and shut it down without congressional cooperation. Good luck with that.

[PLW]

The main problem is a core group of 2-3 dozen high-risk prisoners. There is not enough evidence to convict them of anything, but we jolly well know that they would go back to insurgency in a heartbeat if released. There is no framework for dealing with them except as POWs, I guess. And with the Iraq war over, Pakistan ending, and al Qaeda largely decimated, it's getting harder and harder to justify calling them POWs.

Of course, I don't understand all the legal niceties. It seems to me that Obama should be able to reduce the number of unfortunates stuck in Gitmo, but that he can't empty that place and shut it down without congressional cooperation. Good luck with that.

This is what I don't understand. How can we KNOW but not have enough evidence to convict them, even under looser standards of evidence/admissibility.

And to be honest, if the posited state of affairs was really true, I would still let them go and just keep a very close eye on them. It may increase the risks to the US, but that's a risk I'm willing to take to try to restore our status as a country that doesn't throw people in prison indefinitely without trial. Thousands of good Americans have died over the centuries, in part, to try to keep America from being that sort of country. I don't think we should throw away those principles because of some hypothetical possibility that more might.