GITMO detainees and Obama's promise

[SW VandeCarr]

As a candidate in 2008, Obama promised to close the GITMO facility in Cuba in his first year in office. As of Aug 11, 2010 GITMO is still in business with 176 detainees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12gitmo.html

For sure, no one wants these people. Efforts to to find facilities in the US have failed or have not been pursued vigorously by the US government; and no foreign country seems to want them. Besides, I'm sure many of these people would be a major security risk to the US and others if they were released to another country.

If you were in Obama's shoes, what would you do? This isn't a poll. I would like to hear some discussion. I frankly don't know what I would do. Bringing them to the US and trying them in open court presents major security issues and could compromise US anti-terrorist efforts if certain information were to come out.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd just push DOD and DOJ to get these guys through whatever trial process they're subject to and probably keep them there if they're not exonerated. Existing federal prisons are overcrowded as is and they're about to become far more overcrowded if more states take Arizona's path of arresting violators of federal immigration laws.

 

[Gokul43201]

With a couple hundred detainees, I think Nimbyism is a much bigger issue than overcrowding.

 

[loseyourname]

It is, but then again, isn't that why we put the most secure prisons in the middle of deserts and on islands? I'd say a military base in Cuba is a perfect place. The only reason Obama initially wanted to shut it down was for the symbolic value due to the bad press it had gotten. There is no feature of Gitmo that makes it necessary that more abuses will occur there than at any other federal or military prison.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'd just push DOD and DOJ to get these guys through whatever trial process they're subject to and probably keep them there if they're not exonerated.

Does anyone know exactly what kind of trial process these people are subject to? They are "detainees". With a few exceptions, most have not been charged with a crime. They are not POWs because we are not officially at war and they belong to no recognized national army. They are not rebels or insurrectionists subject to military action because they have not challenged, by use of force, US sovereignty on its own territory as the Confederates did in the US Civil War.

Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He knows that our laws only allow us to classify these people as criminals, and therefore they are subject to the rights and protections that criminal defendants have in the US. I think they are more than common criminals, but US laws don't distinguish between common criminals and international terrorists. In France, you are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent. In the US it's other way around. I'm not advocating the French model, but if we bring these detainees into the US, we must charge them or release them. We can't hold them indefinitely without charges.

 

[nismaratwork]

With a couple hundred detainees, I think Nimbyism is a much bigger issue than overcrowding.

Given the space in several SuperMax prisons, it is PURE NIMBY and politicians seeing opportunities to scare idiots.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Given the space in several SuperMax prisons, it is PURE NIMBY and politicians seeing opportunities to scare idiots.

I agree NIMBY is a factor but not the critical one. The government could find secure facilities if was highly motivated. It doesn't seem to be. Right now, the detainees are in a legal limbo. If they are brought to the US, the government must charge them with a crime or I'm sure the courts will rule they must be released. Then the question is, where do they go? Nobody wants them.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree NIMBY is a factor but not the critical one. The government could find secure facilities if was highly motivated. It doesn't seem to be. Right now, the detainees are in a legal limbo. If they are brought to the US, the government must charge them with a crime or I'm sure the courts will rule they must be released. Then the question is, where do they go? Nobody wants them.

...Isn't that the definition of "not in my backyard"? The fact that there are few elected officials even willing to engage in the debate is still a result of the consequences of it beginning in the first place.

 

[yungman]

Obama promise the moon to get elected. What promise he kept so far. He is even entertaining extending Bush's tax cut. He lies whenever he open his mouth.

We should just keep them there. We are at war. Record showed big percentage of released detainee gone back to commit terror act after released.

 

[nismaratwork]

Obama promise the moon to get elected. What promise he kept so far. He is even entertaining extending Bush's tax cut. He lies whenever he open his mouth.

We should just keep them there. We are at war. Record showed big percentage of released detainee gone back to commit terror act after released.

Healthcare leaps to mind...

 

[yungman]

Healthcare leaps to mind...

Against most people's wish.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

OK, but I asked: "What would you do?" You're in charge. If you bring them to the US, you can expect the courts to force you to release the ones you can't charge with a crime (probably most of them). Bush was trying to find countries to take them with little success.

On the other hand many members of your party are screaming at you to keep your promise. International pressure is also growing. Do we keep them in Cuba until they all die of old age? Do you really think we can get away with that?

 

[yungman]

OK, but I asked: "What would you do?" You're in charge. If you bring them to the US, you can expect the courts to force you to release the ones you can't charge with a crime (probably most of them). Bush was trying to find countries to take them with little success.

On the other hand many members of your party are screaming at you to keep your promise. International pressure is also growing. Do we keep them in Cuba until they all die of old age? Do you really think we can get away with that?

We have no choice but to keep them there. We don't want them to be here.

Problem is we worry too much what other country think. Most of the world hate us because we are strong and our hesitation in various wars since WWII. Every war since WWII, we fight with our hands tided, hesitate to commit. We were so eager to get into a war, but after getting into the war, then we got cold feet, engaging in all the nation building. As a result, a lot of people there got killed……together with our soldiers.

Why are we so worry about how other country think of us, we just have to do whatever it works for us. The important thing is our interest.

 

[Evo]

We have no choice but to keep them there. We don't want them to be here.

Problem is we worry too much what other country think. Most of the world hate us because we are strong and our hesitation in various wars since WWII. Every war since WWII, we fight with our hands tided, hesitate to commit. We were so eager to get into a war, but after getting into the war, then we got cold feet, engaging in all the nation building. As a result, a lot of people there got killed……together with our soldiers.

Why are we so worry about how other country think of us, we just have to do whatever it works for us. The important thing is our interest.

yungman, I'm curious, it's obvious that English is not your first language, but you seem to consider yourself a loyal American, more loyal than many American citizens. Is this due to your choice to immigrate to America? My mother immigrated here by choice as an adult and was also a very loyal "American".

 

[nismaratwork]

We have no choice but to keep them there. We don't want them to be here.

Problem is we worry too much what other country think. Most of the world hate us because we are strong and our hesitation in various wars since WWII. Every war since WWII, we fight with our hands tided, hesitate to commit. We were so eager to get into a war, but after getting into the war, then we got cold feet, engaging in all the nation building. As a result, a lot of people there got killed……together with our soldiers.

Why are we so worry about how other country think of us, we just have to do whatever it works for us. The important thing is our interest.

We have choices that range from "dissapearing" them, killing them publicly, through incarcerating them in a brand-spanking new supermax in Colorado, to releasing them in the middle of NYC. We ALWAYS have choices, it is just a matter of evaluating which is the best choice; a mixture of obedience to our own laws, and practicality. These people are NOT more secure in camp delta than they would be in a supermax overseen by professional corrections officers.

Your last question is a valid one, but remember, we demand behavior in a certain vein of other countries, and by OPENLY violating those standards we undermine that attempt at authority. This is a matter that should have been covert, or not done at all; it was the blatant nature of Guantanamo that was such a cock-up, and the discovery of CIA "Black-Sites" that was such a disaster. I for one, and thrilled with the practice of Extraordinary Rendition, but NOT with that practice being discovered. The former is useful, the latter undermines us as a country. Do you see my point here? Appearances can matter, even at the national level.

 

[yungman]

yungman, I'm curious, it's obvious that English is not your first language, but you seem to consider yourself a loyal American, more loyal than many American citizens. Is this due to your choice to immigrate to America? My mother immigrated here by choice as an adult and was also a very loyal "American".

Yes I am an immigrant from Hong Kong and I love this country. I think people have to live in the other part of the world to really appreciate this country and want to do everything to protect her.

It is heart breaking to see people born in this country take this great country for granted, always think of what this country did wrong. I wish people that think this way would go live in a foreign country for two years without the option of coming back earier, then they'll see how great this country is.

 

[yungman]

We have choices that range from "dissapearing" them, killing them publicly, through incarcerating them in a brand-spanking new supermax in Colorado, to releasing them in the middle of NYC. We ALWAYS have choices, it is just a matter of evaluating which is the best choice; a mixture of obedience to our own laws, and practicality. These people are NOT more secure in camp delta than they would be in a supermax overseen by professional corrections officers.

Your last question is a valid one, but remember, we demand behavior in a certain vein of other countries, and by OPENLY violating those standards we undermine that attempt at authority. This is a matter that should have been covert, or not done at all; it was the blatant nature of Guantanamo that was such a cock-up, and the discovery of CIA "Black-Sites" that was such a disaster. I for one, and thrilled with the practice of Extraordinary Rendition, but NOT with that practice being discovered. The former is useful, the latter undermines us as a country. Do you see my point here? Appearances can matter, even at the national level.

I do think we live by a much higher standard than other countries. But my point is why we want to set an example. We should just concentrate on our own welfare.
I for one think we should not try to change other countries or insist other countries to live up to a certain standard. Like the arab countries, they have been killing each other for hundreds of years, why do we even want to spread democracy there? Don't mistaken I am for isolationism. But it would be naive to think we can change other cultures.

Bottom, we need to do what is best for us and don't worry about other countries, and at the same time, don't try to make other countries to follow us. Going to war in Af is justifiable because they attacked us first. But going into Iraq is something else. Then the nation building in Iraq is just plain stupid. Now we got rid of Sadam and Iran is running wild.

 

[mheslep]

OK, but I asked: "What would you do?" You're in charge. If you bring them to the US, you can expect the courts to force you to release the ones you can't charge with a crime (probably most of them).

Doesn't that depend on their status? The US has has perfectly legal POW camps inside its borders before.

Bush was trying to find countries to take them with little success. ...

Well yes towards the end with the roughest lot, but Bush shrank GITMO substantially from its 2003ish peak population and 2008, returning many of the less threatening lot.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Doesn't that depend on their status? The US has has perfectly legal POW camps inside its borders before.

As I said, we are not in a declared war and they are not part of a uniformed military. Having said that, I suppose the US could have declared them to be POWs, but chose not to; probably because we wanted to interrogate them. We have always referred to them as "detainees".

 

[CRGreathouse]

The US *cannot* declare them POWs! If they were POWs, then the Geneva Convention would require that, at the termination of hostilities, they be repatriated.

 

[russ_watters]

The US *cannot* declare them POWs! If they were POWs, then the Geneva Convention would require that, at the termination of hostilities, they be repatriated.

To me, it would seem like a good option for ones who they can't charge with a crime. Otherwise, they are just being held for no discernable reason.

 

[russ_watters]

As I said, we are not in a declared war and they are not part of a uniformed military. Having said that, I suppose the US could have declared them to be POWs, but chose not to; probably because we wanted to interrogate them. We have always referred to them as "detainees".

Because they are illegal combatants, the US doesn't have to grant them POW status, but that doesn't mean we can't if we want to.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Because they are illegal combatants, the US doesn't have to grant them POW status, but that doesn't mean we can't if we want to.

Possibly we could still assign POW status to those detainees who we can't charge. That might be one way out. I'd don't know how that would work under international law (or even US law) since most, if not all detainees have been interrogated in violation of the Geneva Conventions for POWs,

As far as I know, there has not been a declared war by one country against another since WWII. The closest has been the "state of war" by Arab states against what they called the "Zionist Entity". Since they didn't recognize Israel's statehood, they couldn't actually declare war against the State of Israel. The Camp David peace accords (1978) led to recognition of Israel by Egypt and Jordan. I believe these "accords" have the status of a peace treaty and had led to an exchange of POWs.

The US has waged three undeclared wars between 1945 and 2001: Korea (1950-3), Vietnam (1964-73), and the Persian Gulf (1990-1). As far as I know, all POWs from these wars were held overseas by US allies (S Korea, S Vietnam and Kuwait). So if the US were to declare the detainees it can't charge with a crime to be POWs, it might be able bring them into the US or even keep them in Cuba until they could be "repatriated". I'm dubious but I don't know of a better idea.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I cede the point on your post #22: certainly it is possible for the US to declare them POWs. I was speaking to what was wise rather than possible; apologies for my imprecision.

To me, it would seem like a good option for ones who they can't charge with a crime. Otherwise, they are just being held for no discernable reason.

Let me explain the scenario I'm speaking to.

1. A person sets an IED in Afghanistan which kills some people.
2. The person is captured.
2a. The person is declared a POW.
3. Hostilities end in Afghanistan; the US leaves.

In the absence of #2a, the person can be imprisoned for his actions in #1. With #2a he cannot be held past #3 except in special circumstances: his participation in #1 is as an enemy soldier, not as a criminal.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me explain the scenario I'm speaking to.

1. A person sets an IED in Afghanistan which kills some people.
2. The person is captured.
2a. The person is declared a POW.
3. Hostilities end in Afghanistan; the US leaves.

In the absence of #2a, the person can be imprisoned for his actions in #1. With #2a he cannot be held past #3 except in special circumstances: his participation in #1 is as an enemy soldier, not as a criminal.

Yes, that's exactly the issue as I see it. But if we are certain of #1 and believe the person isn't someone who can be repatriated, then I see no reason why we can't try him for war crimes in a military tribunal.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes, that's exactly the issue as I see it. But if we are certain of #1 and believe the person isn't someone who can be repatriated, then I see no reason why we can't try him for war crimes in a military tribunal.

There are many things which are permissible for a soldier in a war (i.e., not war crimes) that are impermissible for others. It's that category which concerns me.

 

[mheslep]

The US *cannot* declare them POWs! If they were POWs, then the Geneva Convention would require that, at the termination of hostilities, they be repatriated.

I'm fine with releasing actual POWs, as I would call them, at the termination of hostilities - some low level Taliban joker carrying an AK47 and picked up in Afghanistan in ~2002. Character's like 911's KSM are at least war criminals; that type needs to go to trial.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I don't quite understand, since these people were captured by military forces sent for combat on foreign land, why anyone is seriously deferring to the USA government on whether or not to describe these people as prisoners from a war.

What good are treaties if parties can excuse their obligations just by saying word games?

Same goes for calling Guantanamo bay facility other than US territory.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't quite understand, since these people were captured by military forces sent for combat on foreign land, why anyone is seriously deferring to the USA government on whether or not to describe these people as prisoners from a war.

I think my objection is a valid concern as regards the classification of those captured. I would be very interested in hearing any contrary thoughts you had on that particular matter.

 

[mheslep]

I don't quite understand, since these people were captured by military forces sent for combat on foreign land, why anyone is seriously deferring to the USA government on whether or not to describe these people as prisoners from a war.

Why do you believe those are sufficient conditions to make one an automatically releasable POW when there endless counter examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes" , on and on?

 

[cesiumfrog]

Which objection, GRG? That the US violated the convention by torturing them and will violate it further by holding them arbitrarily long? That that doesn't change the meaning of the words.

 

[russ_watters]

cesiumfrog, the issue of whether or not they were tortured (and you seem to be assuming all have been) is completely separate from their legal status. But to answer the second question, no, it does not violate any international law to hold the detainees as long as they have been held ("indefinite" is not an appropriate word).

 

[cesiumfrog]

mheslep,

I didn't say the US should release them. (I do think that, but that's not the point I'm making.) I said that you're just pretending to yourself when you say prisoners from a war aren't "prisoners from a war". The question of whether the US should start obeying treaties is unrelated.

But, are you accusing the Guantanamo bay inmates of war crimes? Then how 'bout prosecuting them at the Hague?

 

[cesiumfrog]

Russ, I didn't mean to imply they had all been tortured. See, I acknowledge that until the war ends, there's no violation in POWs not being returned yet. So I gave an example of a different violation that has already occurred. Namely, the torture of some of the inmates. This is an exactly analogous example, because the US government also claimed that "torture" now means something different from torturing, in order to pretend no violation of the treaty. The purpose of giving this example was to counter the line of thought I saw implicit in GRG's post: that the treaties constrain the US. Clearly they do not, because so far they have not. Pretending words mean something different doesn't change the facts (I think it's just a superficial attempt at preserving a simplistic faith in moral superiority). So if GRG wants them kept in detention forever, they can be. Nothing will prevent that, just as nothing prevented the torture. It isn't necessary to redefine any words. In particular, the authority of the US (in preaching policy to other countries that may also have interests served by their own breaches of treaties) is really not affected further by transparent word games a posteriori.

So let's stop arbitrarily redefining words. It's so much harder to have meaningful discourse unless we share in a common language.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep,

I didn't say the US should release them.

I didn't say you did

(I do think that, but that's not the point I'm making.)

Including 911 mastermind kSM?

I said that you're just pretending to yourself when you say prisoners from a war aren't "prisoners from a war".

You missed my point, which was your suggestion of a single criterion for making one a POW - captured by military combat forces - is mistaken. We've had many threads diving into the Geneva convention showing clearly that the requirements are more complicated. Also I provided you some examples of those captured by or surrendered to military forces in WWII who were clearly not merely 'POWs'.

But, are you accusing the Guantanamo bay inmates of war crimes?

I don't know if 911 constitutes a war crime or just a horrendous crime, but ...

Then how 'bout prosecuting them at the Hague?

Why? The US has no obligation, written or otherwise, to produce KSM at the Hague even if 911 was indeed a war crime.