|
What to do with Gitmo; Lindsey Graham, John McCain op ed
|
|
Topic Started: May 6 2009, 05:25 AM (135 Views)
|
|
George K
|
May 6 2009, 05:25 AM
Post #1
|
- Posts:
- 88,976
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #249
- Joined:
- August 4, 2005
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124157680630090517.html#mod=rss_opinion_main
- Quote:
-
How to Handle the Guantanamo Detainees Preventive detention will continue to have a place in the war on terror. By LINDSEY GRAHAM and JOHN MCCAIN
When President Barack Obama declassified and released legal memoranda from the Department of Justice, he opened the door to a drawn-out battle over the Bush administration's use of coercive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists. We believe that any subsequent attempts to subject those who provided such legal advice to prosecutions are a mistake. They will have a chilling effect on the candor with which future government officials provide their best counsel.
The country must move on from debates about the past, because pressing questions about U.S. detention policy in the war on terror requires us to make difficult choices -- and to make them soon.
In January, the president announced via executive order that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will close within a year. The announcement was easy -- but it left unanswered the hardest questions about detainee policy for the future.
How do we prosecute detainees suspected of committing war crimes now that military commissions have been suspended? How should we handle those detainees who cannot be tried, but who are too dangerous to release? Where will we house them? How should we deal with detainees who, if released, would return to the fight against us? How do we deal with the prisoners held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan where some detainees captured outside Afghanistan are being held?
There are no easy answers. As senators who have struggled with these issues for years, we believe some basic principles can help us find a common path forward.
- First, do not confuse war with common criminality. The majority of detainees held at Guantanamo are not common criminals, but warriors fundamentally committed to the destruction of our way of life. The appropriate legal foundation upon which detainee policy should be built is the law of war, along with procedures adapted from our military justice system.
- Second, military commissions remain the appropriate trial venue for these individuals. We would strenuously oppose any effort to try enemy combatants in our civilian courts. By an overwhelming bipartisan vote in 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which set forth procedures for trying enemy combatants for war crimes.
Our domestic criminal laws -- including their treatment of classified information -- are ill-suited for the complex national security issues inherent in the trial of enemy combatants. We have great faith in our military justice system -- appropriately modified for war crimes trials -- and we believe that military judges and lawyers render fair and impartial justice not only for our troops, but for enemy combatants as well.
- Third, preventive detention will continue to have a place in the war on terror . Under the law of war, the idea that an enemy combatant has to be tried or released is a false choice. Rather, it is well-established that combatants can be held off the battlefield as long as they present a military threat.
While there is little doubt that we initially cast the net too broadly in determining who merited enemy combatant status, the Department of Defense estimates nearly one in 10 detainees released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield, including Said Ali al-Shihri (al Qaeda in Yemen's second-in-command), and Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, who reportedly now serves as the Taliban's operational commander in southern Afghanistan. We cannot let this continue.
A significant group of detainees still in custody at Guantanamo may be too dangerous to release, but they are not suitable for war crimes trials. In these cases, a system needs to be devised in which a designated national security court, with a uniform set of standards and procedures administered by a civilian judge, hears the petitions for habeas corpus authorized by the Supreme Court, and an annual interagency review is conducted to determine whether the detainee remains a security threat to the United States.
- Fourth, we must address the detainee situation at Bagram in Afghanistan. An improved system for reviewing the need for further detention of detainees is required at Bagram -- but we must not lose sight that Afghanistan is still an active theater of war and we cannot impede the ability of our Armed Forces to fight the enemy. We are encouraged that the Department of Justice has appealed a ruling by the D.C. district court that extended habeas corpus rights to detainees held on the battlefield in Afghanistan. In its motion, the Department of Justice argued that allowing the ruling to stand would harm our military's ability to win the war.
Finally, Congress must be involved in crafting detainee policy. It is critical for all branches of government to work together to develop solutions to the complex legal problems presented by this war.
We believe that the time has come to focus on these urgent issues, rather than spend the nation's energy on the debates of the past. We stand ready to work with President Obama to develop an enemy-combatant detention process that is transparent, provides robust due process consistent with the law of war, involves an independent judiciary, and protects us against a dangerous enemy. The American people and the international community will see such a system not as an arbitrary exercise of power, but as an intelligent balance of due process and national security.
|
A guide to GKSR: Click
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.
I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18
|
| |
|
QuirtEvans
|
May 6 2009, 05:35 AM
Post #2
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
- Posts:
- 31,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
I'm not sure I agree in every respect, but I respect both of these men, and I think they come at the problem giving the right considerations the appropriate weight.
|
|
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
|
| |
|
Frank_W
|
May 6 2009, 05:38 AM
Post #3
|
- Posts:
- 43,949
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #381
- Joined:
- September 6, 2006
|
Win the war in Afghanistan? Interesting fantasy.... I don't think there will ever be any such thing as "winning the war" in Afghanistan, or the "war on terror," for that matter.
The best we can hope for, I believe, is to limit the ability of terrorists to group and train with impunity, cut off their financing, and limit their access to advanced weaponry.
In short: The best we can hope for, is a policy of containment.
And no, Baghram should be left alone. It's not on US soil, and the detainees there, (as at Guantanamo), are not criminals that have broken the civil law of the United States. They are prisoners of war that have been captured on the field of battle.
What to do with them? Good question... Since the war on terror is not a conventional war, and since there will be no clearly proscribed end to it, this can't all be tied up neatly the way WWII was, at the end, with a treaty being signed and all sides releasing the captured enemy soldiers to return home.
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
|
| |
|
Kincaid
|
May 6 2009, 01:20 PM
Post #4
|
- Posts:
- 19,660
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #61
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
Just curious, does McCain still want to close Guantanamo? If so, why? Just for PR value?
Man, that's leadership!
|
|
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
|
| |
|
Wim
|
May 9 2009, 04:11 AM
Post #5
|
- Posts:
- 254
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #355
- Joined:
- June 13, 2006
|
Frank :
- Quote:
-
What to do with them? Good question... Since the war on terror is not a conventional war, and since there will be no clearly proscribed end to it, this can't all be tied up neatly the way WWII was, at the end, with a treaty being signed and all sides releasing the captured enemy soldiers to return home.
Neatly ?
I think 'nasty' would be more appropriate. My dad was a prisoner of war after WWII. The way he was treated didn't differ much from the way detainees are being treated now... There's no reason to believe that things have improved.
Wim
|
|
|
| |
|
George K
|
May 9 2009, 04:31 AM
Post #6
|
- Posts:
- 88,976
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #249
- Joined:
- August 4, 2005
|
Wim's right as far as "neat" goes. My parents were DP's at the end of WWII.
But, as a matter of scale, there's a huge difference between the 200-odd detainees (who, as a matter of law, do not have POW or DP status) and the millions of people displaced or captured during the war in Europe.
Oh, and another interesting statistic I read yesterday: during WWII, about 5% of Japanese and German POW's died during their captivity. About 40% of Americans died in Europe, and about 75% of American, Australians and Brits died in various Asian POW camps.
|
A guide to GKSR: Click
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.
I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18
|
| |
|
Mikhailoh
|
May 9 2009, 04:32 AM
Post #7
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
- Posts:
- 92,810
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- April 26, 2005
|
I agree, Wim. I knew a great old fellow - Wendell Stokes - we worked at an auto parts store when I was in college. He had been interred in Germany during WWII, and they were not well treated. Pretty much starved, actually.
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
|
| |
|
George K
|
May 14 2009, 07:22 AM
Post #8
|
- Posts:
- 88,976
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #249
- Joined:
- August 4, 2005
|
Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
- Quote:
-
By EVAN PEREZ
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.
WSJ's Justice Department reporter Evan Perez discusses the Obama administration's efforts to create a detainee policy in line with both national security concerns and the critiques Obama raised during his campaign.
On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies.
The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.
Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise.
"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.
The White House had no comment Wednesday about its detainee deliberations.
The idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles, including by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor and now Obama Justice Department official.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at a hearing last month, hinted at the administration's deliberations, saying that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."
|
A guide to GKSR: Click
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.
I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18
|
| |
|
Frank_W
|
May 14 2009, 07:53 AM
Post #9
|
- Posts:
- 43,949
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #381
- Joined:
- September 6, 2006
|
Jeez... I wasn't saying that being a POW was a neat experience, or that nobody was mistreated. All I'm saying is that at the end of a conventional war, POW's are released to their home nation, and there is a very clear delineation between two (or more) nations being at war, and the signing of a treaty that brings an end to that war. At that point, both sides trade POW's, and the work of rebuilding begins.
This is not a conventional war, and I don't think there will be any such treaty, nor will there be a clear and defining moment where an end to hostilities is clearly demarcated. So.... What to do with those that have been captured?
I know what the combat field-expedient method would be. Most civilians would find my solution unpalatable, though.
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
May 14 2009, 10:28 AM
Post #10
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Frank_W
- May 14 2009, 07:53 AM
Most civilians would find my solution unpalatable, though. Maybe more civilians would find your solution palatable if you served up with fava beans and nice chanti.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Frank_W
|
May 15 2009, 05:41 AM
Post #11
|
- Posts:
- 43,949
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #381
- Joined:
- September 6, 2006
|
Indeed... Indeed... Besides, I hope Gitmo stays open. I was thinking of somewhere to send my mother-in-law on an all-expenses paid trip. (One-way ticket) Selling her on eBay just didn't work out... Buncha' puritans!
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
|
| |