How SHOULD we handle 'detainees?'

B

Brisketexan

1,000+ Posts
The discussion of the recent SCOTUS decision (combined with the discussion of the Military Commissions Act, general handling of the Gitmo situation, etc.) made me want to ask this global question:

Without discussing only the legal principles -- in other words, if you were MAKING the law, from the ground up -- how should we handle detainees the likes of whom have ended up in Gitmo?

I can't get past the case of Mohammed Ahktiar (see The Link ) -- who was represented by a fellow member of the local bar, Dickey Grigg.

I see a fundamental disconnect in how we discuss these people -- many folks take the across-the-board attitude of "F these terrorist SOBs." But that assumes something first -- what if they AREN'T terrorist SOBs? What if they are like Ahktiar, and are actually not only not guilty, but rather are the kind of guys we want to see active and involved in Afghanistan? It's not hard for us to agree on what to do with the ones who are terrorist SOBs -- but what do we do about the other guys (keeping in mind that we have to figure out who those other guys are)?

When Dickey told me the story of his one meeting with his client (that's right -- ONE meeting), I was in tears, of humanity, shame, and pride. Humanity because I sympathized with a man who had been locked in a cage and had no contact with his family for years. Shame not because we detained him (sometimes, the net of justice is cast a bit wide), but because we didn't give him a reasonable and fair chance to set the record straight (it took over 3 years for him to be release). And pride because Dickey, and folks like him, stood up for principles that I find fundamental.

Life. Liberty. Our founding fathers did NOT say that "Only U.S. citizens are endowed by their creator" with these INALIENABLE rights. No, they said quite plainly that ALL MEN are endowed with those rights.

Either I believe that all men are endowed with those rights, or I believe that none are. There is no middle ground.

Guilty men should be punished, and kept from committing further harm.

Innocent men should be allowed their life, and their liberty.

I find it ironic that holding such a belief -- a belief that has me standing right next to men like Jefferson and Adams -- would cause some to question my patriotism. I look at the ghost of Jefferson on my left, and Adams on my right, as we repeat together "ALL MEN are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights . . . " -- well, I'm quite comfortable with my patriotism and those with whom I share such beliefs.

Justice doesn't come from my country -- justice comes from being a human being. The best protection and enforcement of such justice? -- well, that's the thing that has really set my country apart from most others. I'd like to keep it that way.
 
It is an international problem, and its solution should extend from international law. A purely US defined solution isn't an answer. The issue becomes formalizing an international criminal code and strictly limiting what falls under its jurisdiction... as well as coming up with a tribunal with authority to prosecute nations which harbor foreign combatants, or violate the treatment of the captives under the articles.

I believe that we have an inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If it is inalienable, then nation of citizenship is not the determining factor. You shouldn't be able to hold a citizen of a foreign nation indefinately without charge or redress. If they are truly bad people then scrutiny of their deeds should be sufficient to be subject to the rule of law.
 
Treat them either as a POW or a criminal. The system worked before the war on terror and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work now.
 
The problem with treating them as a POW is that we do not necessarily know if they are POWs. In WW2, you could capture a German in uniform, with a gun, it was pretty easy to figure out who the enemy was.

In this case, they are being captured sometimes in their homes and spirited away to Cuba, possibly without evidence. My guess is that we simply process some people as POWs whom we have overwhelming evidence against... and process others as criminals, where we need evidence against them.

I know this, if I were an innocent, captured and sent to GITMO with no word of my family and released after 3 years of hell, I sure as **** would be seeking revenge.
 
We should have three categories:
1. Criminal
2. POW
3. Enemy Combatant, not following the rules of war

Even in a regular war if someone is a spy or saboteur or such they could be in category 3. There should be a big incentive to abide by the rules of war. The Geneva Convention spells out this sort of thing. A group like al Qaeda or Hamas needs to decide whether they want to be a party to the Geneva Convention or not.

There should be a mechanism for challenging categorization. The burden of proof should work something like that for being indicted, not like that of being tried in a trial.
 
Like the Constitution demands, whatever that may be.

Look, the state of the law, the intricacies of what you can or cannot do is not the issue. The issue is one of moral standing...whether we are willing to show the world that we are willing and able to take and accept the moral high ground, regardless of the issue. Retribution does not give us permission to cede that moral high ground, nor does it make any conduct that fails to meet the moral standard acceptable.

"They do it too!" is about the sorriest excuse there is justify an act of moral cowardice. And make no mistake, anything that is designed to parce and limit the standard and example that we set for ourselves as a beacon to the world is cowardly par excellence. As is often said in the military "the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters."

What's troubling to me is not only the utter cowardice on display here and nation-wide, it's the cowards unwillingness to listen to the JAG corp about what they want. The JAG lawyers appt. to represent the detainees know what's at issue, know the stakes, and aren't at all shy about demanding our best behavior and moral standing on behalf of their clients. That's the exact right thing to do, yet they're ignored or, in numerous cases, removed from representing the detainee, or kicked out of the military.

Anyway, that's my take...
 
Basic human rights belong to ALL human beings--even terrorists--as set forth in our Declaration of Independence: "We deem these truths to be self-evident..." etc.

The Constitution sets forth a framework of legality which is traditionally assumed to apply to all persons under the jurisdiction of the United States. Detainees, no matter where captured or held, are clearly under the jurisdiction of the United States-- even those enduring "rendition"--by extension. The Bush administration has tried to parse words to deny this, but by doing so they violate the very spirit of well-understood American concepts of fairness, legality, and humanity.

The exact mechanisms for dealing with unusual categories of prisoners--euphemistically called "detainees"--are what the SCOTUS is calling into question. These people cannot simply be left in limbo. It is a flat contradiction of our most deeply held principles to do so. We are diminished as a nation by it.

It is imperative that our best legal minds get together to devise a process for dealing with these "detainees" in a way consistent with our espoused principles and in a reasonable time frame.

I believe I have a highly developed moral sense regarding what is Right, what is Wrong, and what is neither. Thus my words above. As to legal protocols and procedures, however, I leave it to the "best legal minds."

I reserve the right to tell them if they get it wrong, though.
smile.gif
 
IF i am shown to be guilty of killing innocent men, women and/or children, i need to be beaten or killed or severely disciplined.

Does this apply to our (the United States') use of atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
 
In deference to the OP, here's mine.

You cannot divorce the treatment from the political reality. There has been so much misinformation regarding Gitmo by those opposed to the war that the public has been rendered utterly confused.

So, given the current situation and the legal framework as set forth yesterday, here it goes:

There are a lot of bad guys at Gitmo. Really, really, really bad guys who want to kill Americans and who want to die for bin Laden.

There are some that have been cleared, but because of our laws preventing release to their home countries due to the likelihood they will be tortured, there needs to be a separate solution for where they go.

The last group is made up of those with confounding charges and somewhat plausible excuses for why they may not be the bad guys despite the evidence showing they are.

Congress needs to create a new military tribunal system. Clear lawyers (equivalent of public defenders) for top secret evidence the government holds against the detainees. The detention proceedings need to be public and showcase not only the close cases, but also show the madmen currently held at Guantanamo. The judges should be federal judges, but the system needs to be separate from our federal system. There should be a right to appeal to federal courts, but the review should be limited whether the process is fair.
 
I'll say it. If I were a foreigner, living in my own land and was summarily captured and sent to Cuba for 3 years for no valid reason. I would be desiring the blood of Americans.
 
The problem with these detainees is that they are neither fish, nor fowl. They are not criminals who have committed their violent acts on US soil and are therefore under our jurisdiction. They also are not uniformed military participants in a hostile army of a sovereign nation.

In traditional wars, we hold the POWs until the war is over, and then return them to their homes. This war may not be over in their, or our lifetimes. So, what to do?

Well, one possibility is to adopt our enemies' policy. You notice that they aren't struggling with internment camps. Our soldiers understand too well that there is no point in surrndering, because things will only get worse from there. I don't believe this is a good solution, because this approach (execution after torture) is abhorrent to Americans, and against everything we stand for.

Another alternative would be to return them to their home nations for disposition. The problem there is that some will be welcomed home and returned to arms against the US, and others will be summarily executed upon returning home.

We could give them to the Hague, which would be a huge mess, but at least not just our mess. I suspect that this would lead to thm all being returned to sites that would welcome them.
 
We are at war. I think you have to start with a recognition of that fact. There is a reason why there's a "suspension" clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9) -- a clause, by the way, which implies that habeas corpus was intended for US citizens only.

As Sherman said, "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." Worrying about whether a few of the detainees in Gitmo are innocent denies the reality that we are at war. Or, as an alternative, maybe it's just a reflection of how long we've lived in relative peace and happiness; maybe we just really don't understand what war means anymore. For us to think that we can somehow politely fight a war is silly. War makes a poor environment in which to gather solid evidence of guilt or complicity. To think otherwise is unrealistic.

If Gitmo detainees want their rights respected by the United States, then those closest to them -- their families and loved ones -- need to impress upon their communities the importance of stopping the war against the United States.

There is no "nice" solution for the detainees in Gitmo. The only solution is for us to compel radical Islamists to stop the war. That, to me, is the only clear way to think about the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top