Baywatch: Guantanamo’s Prisoner’s Dilemma
Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely
In the newest iteration of President Obama’s “Change for America: A rejection of Bushy Policies” the Federal Government has decided to continue the trend of indefinite detention in our secret prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The issue at hand centers on what rights (if any) people captured by American Military, Paramilitary and contracted personnel have.
The unique style of the “War on Terror” demands unique solutions to the problems facing our policymakers. No longer does contracts like the Geneva Convention dictate procedures, because the line between “enemy combatants” and “woman making rice for Resistance Fighters” is increasingly blurred. Additionally, provisions for repatriating foreign fighters at the end of conflict are nullified because the current conflicts have no definition of victory or means of ending the conflict, two traditional hallmarks of prisoner release.
Moving forward, the concepts of Git-Mo and secret prisons are unethical and should be abandoned. Although some may claim that European torture-houses are necessary for our safety, I refuse to be part of any government in which Rendition is the status quo; in which our view of “aggressive information gathering” is “out of sight, out of mind” and we stand by as fellow human beings get treated in such a manner.
It seems foolish to decry current policy without an adequate counter-plan, and I would suggest instead that the United States accept the responsibility of our foreign actions and allow for internment inside the United States, a tradition that dates back through both World Wars and even into the American Revolution.
I gotta disagree with you on this one, Mike. The definition of a POW is clearly defined in the Geneva Convention. The people in Gitmo do not follow many key parts of that definition.
Civilian trials in NYC, no less, for KSM and the other four 9/11 is ridiculous and an insane waste of money and resources. It could be 15 years before KSM is put to death, if he even gets the death penalty, due to the appeals process, which is guaranteed because of Obama’s decision to seek a Kangaroo court. Both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have said he will be found guilty and put to death. Isn’t that against the idea of innocent until proven guilty? And even if he gets acquitted, the Obama Administration has already said they’ll just lock him back up again for life.
KSM had already said, long before, that he would plead guilty in a military tribunal and that he wanted to die. That would cost very little to do and would only take a week, if that. It’ll cost $200 million a year to try KSM, estimates show. Is $200 million for 15 years for a result everyone knows will happen worth it?
And the chance that secret military procedures will become public knowledge is also not worth the risk.
And where in God’s name are they going to find an impartial jury in the United States for KSM, especially in NYC?
In regards to BigWillieStyles:
I’m not going to rehash your rather unlettered comment here- just point out the most egregious holes in your “logic”:
Just because a prisoner says he wants to die doesn’t mean we should grant that wish.
And where are they going to find an impartial jury in the U.S. for KSM? Probably the same place as Ramzi Yousef? Zacarias Moussaoui? And, to throw in a less foreign name, Timothy McVeigh?
Will:
What would you call a Gitmo-ee then, if not a prisoner of war? How would you define the rights extended to them? Until the Federal Government (or more precisely, the courts) defines their rights, a system needs to be in place ensuring fairness.
Despite the cost, The United States of America must attempt to uphold a standard of justice for the world to look up to, as we have in the past. Locking people up and killing them for crimes they may or may not have committed (and confession doesn’t equal committed)is unamerican, and due process and our standards of justice must be upheld.
Secret military procedures have a risk of becoming public knowledge regardless of the circumstances. It’s a fact of life in America that no secret will remain secret forever. I don’t understand how leaking procedures is going to happen from a trial, as both sides have the ability to partially censor / be censored in court proceedings.
Finally, creating a fair jury is difficult in a lot of cases; people commit crimes so shocking to the community’s frame of mind that everyone has a bias or prejudice in the matter. KSM, or Timothy McVeigh will have as fair a trial as can reasonably be expected.
Jafar, if a piece of trash like him wants to die, let’s grant it to him. And do you really think any of those trials had impartial juries? Impartial doesn’t exist in such cases.
Mike, the Geneva Convention defines what a prisoner of war is. To be a prisoner of war, one must swear allegiance to a country (usually through serving in their military) and wear a uniform. That’s just two parts of the definition, but that’s all that’s needed to prove my point.
Standard of justice? Obama is giving other Gitmo detainees military tribunals. Why does the worst of them get a civilian trial?
Cost freakin’ matters. As a libertarian, I thought you of anybody would be wary of the cost. Over a billion dollars to put a piece of scum to death is bull and you know it. You really want your tax dollars going to that?
Screw the world. I don’t give a damn about what the rest of the world thinks of us. The parts of the world that hate us are the same countries that we either defeated in war, saved their ass in a war, or both.
Due process only applies to AMERICANS! It’s the Constitution, so the rights are only afforded to legal US residents. They don’t read Miranda rights to a British car thief arrested in Britain. And he’s already been deprived of due process because he was not read his Miranda Rights upon “arrest.” He gets to argue due process problems and spout propaganda. I’m assuming he’s changed his plea to not guilty by now. Might argue not guilty by reason of insanity.
It took 40 years for the details of the Bay of Pigs invasion to be released to the public. 40 years is a lot better than 10 or less, considering we’re still actively fighting al-Qaeda.
Why have the trial if the result is expected? There’s no real justice if the man is going into a trial where the verdict and punishment have already been decided.
In closing: Knowing all this, why waste the time and money?
Will,
The Geneva Convention may define what a Prisoner of War is, but we have no definitions for “man caught in cave” or any of the other Guantanamo Detainees. Until someone seeks to give them explicit rights, it is unfathomable that we can hold them with no rights.
The Standard of Justice is exactly my point! Guantanamo prisoners need to be treated fairly and uniformly, regardless of circumstance, and that is not happening.
I would rather spend my tax dollars on putting someone to death in a fair manner than spend my tax dollars on a puppet regime’s death squads.
The parts of the world that hate us are generally parts of the world that we have meddled in far too often; interfering in the affairs of the Middle East has always been a folly, and as a Government we have made that mistake time and time again. However, the United States still has an obligation to make amends where possible, and treating our enemies with respect and compassion is a way to win over populations.
Again, Due Process may be a Western concept, but we should follow our laws when no others supercede them. If Guantanamo Prisoners had rights established, it would be different. However, Due Process exists in ” order for judges instead of legislators to define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. ” Miranda is an entirely different concept, a concept that cannot be easily implemented in theaters of war.
While Mr. Obama may think the result is a bygone conclusion, in reality the criminal justice system exists as a means to establish fact; an establishment necessary for true justice to occur.
It’s hardly a waste of time and money; it’s a service to all of the heroes who were killed on September 11th, and a means of providing closure to their families and friends.
Treated fairly? Treat absolute scum fairly? We’re not gonna give Osama bin Laden a civilian trial if we catch him. More than likely, we’ll shoot him on sight. I would.
He deserves to die. Why have a civilian trial that will cost over a $1 billion to reach the same result a military tribunal would have?
I was talking about Europe and Russia, but whatever.
Then, get the UN to pass something. The problem is that these detainees are a new kind of enemy. They are not POWs. That’s why we created a military tribunal system. Obama wants to implement Miranda Rights on the battlefield, at least his AG does.
Not a service at all. I don’t think they’d like it that they gave their lives just so the bastard who planned the attack that killed them could be brought within spitting distance of the damage the attack caused. I think they’d rather he were executed on live television after a military tribunal. Hey, make the government some money and put it on pay-per-view.
Closure can be had through a military tribunal. They want him dead. They don’t care how it happens. Everybody with sense wants him dead. Does it really matter how?
Military tribunals work. What’s your problem with them?
Here, read this:
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/02/01/obama_impresses_educated_class_but_not_terrorists
Absolute scum? Absolute scum??? Despite the fact that the men in question have generally attempted to harm America, deriding them as scum is an incredibly insensitive way of conducting business. They are still human beings are deserve to be treated fairly and humanely.
There is no such thing as “deserving of death.” Nobody “deserves” death, especially with the right to Life among the forefront of our unalienable rights. It is not our responsibility to determine who should live and die; we have criminal courts for just such a reason.
Maybe it is the UN’s job of creating multilateral agreements on classifying enemy combatants. But in our current system, they are most similar to prisoners of war; as such, they should be treated with respect and dignity appropriate to the situation. If an international treaty changed this classification, then I would approve of following it. However, in today’s world, we should maintain due process where possible.
Please cite Obama’s AG wanting to extend Miranda to captured personnel.
Is that what the victims want, or is that what you want? I take great offense to you likening the execution of an unconvicted person to a boxing match; a sport we indulge in on pay per view on Saturday nights.
Closure can be had through a public trial; the same means closure can be had for other people and other crimes. Just because of the differing nature of their crime does not mean that we need to erode our sense of common justice simply to expedite an execution.
Military Tribunals work insofar as to expedite executions; if justice is your goal, their effectiveness is far more dubious.
Fundamentally, you seek to erode the common decency and rule of law that has stood in these United States for over 220 years in the interest of saving money and time in executing a criminal. I find the mere notion of stripping rights away from anyone, regardless of circumstance to be a travesty.
In reading your link, it’s not always about trying to impress people. It’s about the degradation of society that would occur by fully utilizing military tribunals over civilian courts and the violation of our nation’s founding principles.
They may be human, but they’re complete scum. It’s like treating Stalin as anything more than scum.
Yes, anyone who willing take another’s life or several lives loses their right to life. That’s the way I look at it. Eye for an eye. That’s also the reasoning behind the death penalty.
Most similar to doesn’t cut it, Mike. They do not fit the definition. That’s like saying a plantain is the fruit most similar to bananas, so we should call them bananas.
Due process only applies to Americans or those arrested for crimes done in America in America.
Unconvicted isn’t true. He was pulled out the military tribunal system after he agreed to plead guilty. If he had pleaded guilty, the only thing left to do is sentencing. He admitted his guilt. No need for conviction. He admitted it already.
The military tribunal system was set up to expedite trials for people who commit terrorist acts and admit to them. And, because they are arrested on a foreign battlefield, they are not entitled to a civilian trial.
If they admit guilt, why give them a trial? Sentencing is all that matters.
Dude, you’re basing that on nothing. These are terrorists who admit to the acts in question. The only thing remaining is sentencing. But give them a civilian trial in the United States, they will obviously get the sleaziest lawyer possible and plead not guilty. They will then spout propaganda, threaten the jurors, etc.
There is no precedent here. Obama is giving other terrorists at Gitmo a military tribunal. Why are military tribunals good for some terrorists, but not the worst of the bunch? Explain this to me.