Crawford, Texas or Jackson Hole would be my choices.

put them to work guarding bush and cheney's cells
after the trails in the hague.

Bush had a perfect system, the one in place which expected trials based on standard military justice, supported by international treaty and the courts. The Geneva conventions.

So, in a fit of Stalinist stupidity, they repudiate that system, and revert to an internal system, thus triggering, eventually, imore extensive rules of evidence and rights.

Who else did such a stupid thing?

Environmentalists, when they went to court and forced the justices to grant the federal legislature the right to regulate out co2 forcing. Now we are stuck with the most inefficient 1/3 of the economy managing energy for the remaining efficient 2/3.

In both cases, each time, progressives and conservatives, shoot themselves in the foot by their pathetic attempts at various forms of socialism when personal and proeprty rights or international conventions were working just fine.

Well, "right to challenge their detention" doesn't mean that they're getting out. We may not have to deal with this problem.

But if they're proven innocent, then what is the worry? We screwed up their lives, so why not let them live in America? When the laws have been redesigned for these cases to let in so much evidence there would have been more barriers to in the past, is the worry that a factually guilty defendant might be found innocent on a technicality (and then released) really realistic?

The real crime we should be worrying about is our troops being kept slaves to this idiotic war that is only putting them in danger and ruining their lives. It's accomplishing nothing for us to have them in Iraq.

A 5-4 vote, huh? I'm looking forward to Cal coming on this thread and remining us why it's safe to vote Republican this year.

What's the end-game for the Iraq war? Keep over-using every troop we have until they're all maimed, dead, or nuts, and then do the same thing to a bunch more new, young recruits?

What's being done to keep all those individuals who tortured people in Abu Ghraib off the streets, by the way? I don't want those sadistic creeps hanging out in a regular community around kids and normal people.

I'm hardly worried about some innocent Iraqi who got nabbed by our forces by mistake.

Before I leave the subject of progressive and conservative stupidity, I do not have to go very far except to note that both groups put local schools under the coordination of the federal legislature, a decision that haunted the teachers union here in California, as they all immediately abandoned the kids and went to federal training school to understand the new rule.

Same problem in all cases, rather than deal with the problem, we hand it off to the federal legislature who fakes it at enormous efficiency costs.

...there's not a single country in the world willing to take these prisoners even if they get a trial and are judged innocent.

We could send them to the Phantom Zone.

Or, failing that, Boise.

*Sigh*...why does the SCOTUS hate America?

KD: I wonder what the end game is here?

Declaring the GTMO prisoners POWs seems likely. This would make the Geneva conventions obviously enforceable, if it was unclear before.

This would remove any incentive for combatants to wear uniforms, but I'm not sure there has been any such incentive recently, anyway.

1. the military commissions can move forward. (all that the decision changes is that all relevant Constitutional defenses are available at these trials). so to the extent they can, they'll bring Gitmo (the decision does not address detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq or elsewhere) detainees to trial under the MCA...

2. the remaining detainees will be entitled to hearings in a federal court. the results of those hearings are not predetermined. the courts could order them freed, they could order them held indefinitely.

this was pretty predictable to anyone who read Raul closely.

Swan: I'm hardly worried about some innocent Iraqi who got nabbed by our forces by mistake.

Yeah, they won't be pissed off or anything.

Grumpy: Or, failing that, Boise.

Or, Joisey.

There's no question that the court did the right thing today, but I wonder what the end game is here?

For Team Bush, the endgame is running out the clock. If they can stall until after the last of their files have been shredded, it will be the next guy's problem.

Other than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shihb, Guantanamo holds nothing but the slowest runners in Afghanistan who were ratted out by their neighbors to get enough money to buy a couple of new goats.

It is as worthless as a bubble gum machine in a lockjaw ward.

So, in a fit of Stalinist stupidity,

Matt, Matt, it was Stalin who ran the gulags. It wasn't Stalin who said we have to live by the rule of law.

All the Supreme Court is saying is that since there's no rebellion and no invasion, then the Congress and/or President can't suspend Habeus Corpus.

According to Lawrence Wright, if we keep these people in stir another fifteen years or so and continue to torture them, they will renounce violent struggle by the time they reach middle age.

There have already been terrorist murders committed by men released from Gitmo. I think the end game of this SCOTUS decision will be that the rest of the prisoners at Gitmo will be released, leading to more killing and maiming of innocent people.

Note that there's no reasonable way to provide a trial using the rules of evidence that apply toi criminals here in the US. Our soldiers are busy trying to win a war. They can hardly be expected to gather evidence like a police force. Also, one cannot subpeona people in other countries to come and testify. Furthermore, these men are not locked up as punishment for crimes theyve committed. They're locked up because they're believed to be fighters opposiong us in a war, or the equivalent of a war.

Declaring the GTMO prisoners POWs seems likely. This would make the Geneva conventions obviously enforceable, if it was unclear before.

The Geneva Conventions are enforceable even if they are not POWs, under Common Article 3 which applies to all prisoners held in an armed conflict whether POW, civilian, guerilla, spy, saboteur or terrorist.

Today the people who war against the US

Most of the people held at Guantanmo and other places made no war against the US. Most of the people the US has incarcerated since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were defending their countries from the US. Only a few of the people held and tortured by the US acted with violence against Americans in America.

There have already been terrorist murders committed by men released from Gitmo. I think the end game of this SCOTUS decision will be that the rest of the prisoners at Gitmo will be released, leading to more killing and maiming of innocent people.

There have always been crimes committed by men released from prison after the end of their sentence. Does that mean you shouldn't ever release prisoners but should everyone in prison for life?

Note [sic] that there's no reasonable way to provide a trial using the rules of evidence that apply toi [sic] criminals here in the US.

Then, simply, you can't have a trial and you have to release them. If there's no reasonable way to provide a fair trial, then justice demands that you can't hold a trial and must release the accused.

Our soldiers are busy trying to win a war. They can hardly be expected to gather evidence like a police force.

95% of the prisoners at Guantanamo were not captured by our soldiers, but were handed over to us by foreign intelligence services, Afghan warlords, etc. The truly high-value prisoners, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were captured by the joint efforts of our intelligence services, including the CIA, NSA and FBI, and the FBI can certainly be expected to gather evidence like a police force. You are aware that we have wiretaps, surveillance photos, emails, the testimony of their comrades, etc. that implicate these men?

Furthermore, these men are not locked up as punishment for crimes theyve committed. They're locked up because they're believed to be fighters opposiong us in a war, or the equivalent of a war.

If that's the case, then why are they being charged with crimes and subjected to criminal trials? If they were just being held as captured combatants, there'd be no need for these trials, would there? And yet we are charging many of them with crimes, therefore they are not being held merely as fighters in a war.

You are obviously deeply confused and/or extremely ignorant of the facts. Please stop posting until you read and educate yourself.

During World War Two 400,000 German prisoners of war were detained, not at Guantanamo, but within the borders of the United States. 50,000 Italians were held here as well. The prisoners were held in camps until the war ended. None was ever granted a writ of habeas corpus.

mhr, you legally illiterate knucklehead, those were prisoners of war granted basic human rights by those "quaint" Geneva Conventions. You didn't need a writ of habeas corpus because they knew precisely what the circumstances and terms of their detainment were: they were captured on a battlefield in war. The Bush administration, by contrast, has tossed the Geneva Conventions aside and argued instead that it can just pick up anyone, anywhere, at any time, throw them in a cell, torture them, throw away the key, and they don't have to tell the prisoner, a court, or anyone else why, on what evidence, or under what circumstances the person is being detained. That's why WWII POW's are nothing like the prisoners at Guantanamo. And I might add, our gracious treatment of those POW's did a lot to heal the wounds of war when they were repatriated and told their communities of how honorably Americans had behaved towards them.

Stefan wrote, Then, simply, you can't have a trial and you have to release them. If there's no reasonable way to provide a fair trial, then justice demands that you can't hold a trial and must release the accused.

I agree that this is where the courts are headed. Unfortunately many innocent people will die as a result.

Stefan asks why the Gitmo prisoners are being charged with crimes and given criminal trials. The answer is because other SCOTUS decisions (which I consider incorrect) required those things.

the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and . . .

Keep this in mind the next time some aggrieved Clinton supporter threatens to vote for McCain.

There have already been terrorist murders committed by men released from Gitmo.

US military veterans of the Iraq Occupation have committed more murders, and those crimes happened in the US.

Hmmmm. I've gotta get a new name for these blogs if there is some other Cal who defends BushCo.

Stefan has debunked "David"'s fear-mongering bullshit already, but I recognized a familiar stench, and sure enough, it's our old friend "ex-liberal."

I am greatly amused by "ex-liberal"'s tacit admission that his former handle had become utterly bereft of credibility. Sadly, this lack of credibility is from his constant mendacity, such as pretending to be concerned about innocent life while supporting the warmongering neocon agenda.

The answer is because other SCOTUS decisions (which I consider incorrect) required those things.

And that is because the Bush administration, which "ex-liberal" supports, incompetently tried to invent a new classification

Make no mistake, "ex-liberal": If there is blowback from the release of Guantanamo prisoners, it is due to the criminal, tyrannical and incompetent policies of the Bush Administrations, and fether evidence why neocons like you won't be trusted near the levers of power in a generation.

Shame on you, "ex-liberal."

No country would take them? The appellant in the case at hand, Boumediene v. Bush, had already been tried and released in Bosnia when the Bosnian police snatched him up and handed him over to the US. It seems that the Bosnians (other than the police, I guess) were willing to let this guy live in their country.

Now, there may in fact be people in Guantanamo that truly no one would take, but I'm guessing most would just go back to their own countries without too much fuss.

I don't really see what the alternative is. You can't just hold people forever and not charge them with anything. These aren't POW's in the way that term has traditionally been applied.

Just to point out that the wide-ranging, unapologetic arrest and often brutal and lengthy detention of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq already made more enemies for the USA than all those presently held.

Questions for the legal minds: If the writ of habeas corfpus applies to the Guantanamo prisoners, doesn't it also apply to all those held by the US in the "black" prisons? Does it become illegal to hold people without acknowledging that you are?

Wondering.

During World War Two 400,000 German prisoners of war were detained, not at Guantanamo, but within the borders of the United States. 50,000 Italians were held here as well. The prisoners were held in camps until the war ended. None was ever granted a writ of habeas corpus.

But of course, every one of those prisoners had the right to seek habeas corpus. None of them bothered to, because none of them had a plausible claim that they weren't really German or Italian soldiers being held as POWS (not to mention, they were generally being treated in exemplary fashion).

Contrast this to the situation at Guantanamo, where (1) the Bush adminstration denies that the prisoners are POWs, refusing to extend to them the rights of POWs under international law, and (2) the bulk of the prisoners are not soldiers captured on the field of battle. Note that the Supreme Court decision doesn't grant anyone habeas corpus, it just allows the people we are holding to litigate the issue.

Someone should do an investigation on how many of those arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan found themselves in their predicament only because someone wanted to make a buck for turning terrorists in to our forces.

doesn't it also apply to all those held by the US in the "black" prisons?

Yes.

Does it become illegal to hold people without acknowledging that you are?

It always has been--it's a war crime, and a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Rightwingnuts have long claimed, without any serious evidence, that N. Korea and later N. Vietnam "disappeared" US prisoners; that, for example, N. Vietnam still has our MIAs secreted away somewhere. Do they think that was okay, now?

Any ruling that pisses off Nino this badly has to be good.

Thanks to rea for two great posts.

Someone should do an investigation on how many of those arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan found themselves in their predicament only because someone wanted to make a buck for turning terrorists in to our forces.

Someone already has:

....a stunning, heavily documented investigation by the Seton Hall (New Jersey) School of Law. Titled "Report on Guantánamo Detainees," it profiles 517 of the prisoners at Gitmo entirely based on "analysis of Department of Defense data." The lead authors are Mark Denbeaux, a professor at the law school and counsel to two of the prisoners, and his son Joshua Denbeaux.

The data "are based on written determination the Government has produced for detainees it has designated as enemy combatants," and contain "the evidence upon which the Government relied on in making its decision that these detainees were (indeed) enemy combatants."

Now dig this about "the worst of the worst" of the "bad guys" intent on killing Americans: There are now about 490 prisoners at Gitmo, and "55 percent of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or coalition allies.

"Only 8 percent of the detainees were characterized as Al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda at all and 18 percent have no definitive affiliation with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

"Only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by United States forces. [A total of] 86 percent of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were turned over to the United States at a time at which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0610,hentoff,72399,6.html

rea, thanks for the reply. I should have phrased my question more carefully.

Will this ruling require the CIA and all other bodies of the federal government to conform to the law and acknowledge any and all detainees they are holding in any place, or held by third parties on their behalf, including ships (as alleged lately)?

If international law was properly applied we wouldn't have to worry about impeachment.

notthere:

rea is incorrect. today's decision specifically only applies to Gitmo. the Court's rational was specifically predicated upon the U.S. having full operational control over GB. this is not, as a technical matter, true for detention sites in friendly countries (i.e. if there is a detention site at Diego Garcia...since the UK has sovereignty there...the UK is where such detainees would attempt to find recourse).

the ruling MAY apply to any such alleged holding on ships. MAY.

Alito thinks that the U.S. is definitely going to go down in flames now, and that the ruling was the biggest mistake in the history of the world.

I think he probably took a dump and noticed a brick in the bowl...

Gregory, when I changed my posting name, it was no secret. I noted the change on several posts. Possibly you were away at the time.

when I changed my posting name, it was no secret

...which makes me no less amused at the tacit admission that your "ex-liberal" handle was utterly bereft of credibility, just as you remain.

It's too bad you didn't change your bad faith argumentation while you were at it. But then, when you advocate tyranny motivated by cowardice -- as you do in insisting Bush enjoy the tyrant's right to deprive individuals of freedom on his say-so alone -- bad faith is all you have, isn't it?

Interesting the number of returning trolls on this topic. Why would that be? It is almost like they are concerned about possible war crimes tribunals.
There was this great myth post 9-11 about the number of terrorists stalking the battlefields of Afghanistan. The sorriest part of Bush's failure to protect the country prior to that time was the limited number of actual enemies he ignored. Implicit in all of these trumped up charges and illegal abductions is a willful strategy on the part of the administration to inflate the importance and numbers of the enemy which had so profoundly smacked their competence. Though most of the detainees were clearly innocent or definitely POWs captured in war, the President chose to pretend otherwise to fund a limitless war and to protect his reputation. Now that dissembling strategy has unraveled. The true end game, Kevin, is that the United States should compensate those held who were clearly innocent. Their sick attempt to hold these men (and children) without charges for YEARS also means that any forthcoming trial would no longer meet minimum international and constitutional standards. Bush has really screwed us this time. I hope no other president will ever contemplate such extra-legal stupidity ever again.

One final note: they also hid these prisoners away from public and open trial because they tortured them. What kind of judge would not throw out such testimony and arrest the torturer?

jonas @ 1:35 PM - "mhr, you legally, illiterate knucklehead..."
Thank you.

The USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) will be retired this year - the last conventionally powered aircraft carrier.

I'd imagine that since 'proof of concept' has already been shown regarding our floating black prison system, any number of 'detainees' could be kept on board a ship like that: out of sight and out of mind...

rea is incorrect. today's decision specifically only applies to Gitmo. the Court's rational was specifically predicated upon the U.S. having full operational control over GB. this is not, as a technical matter, true for detention sites in friendly countries (i.e. if there is a detention site at Diego Garcia...since the UK has sovereignty there...the UK is where such detainees would attempt to find recourse).
the ruling MAY apply to any such alleged holding on ships. MAY.

Whether or not the specific Supreme Court ruling applies in those instances, there is no question that international law does, and since war crimes are crimes of general jurisdiction, any country in the world has the right to arrest, try and punish the criminals engaging in these foul behaviors.

As near as I can tell, there's not a single country in the world willing to take these prisoners even if they get a trial and are judged innocent.

WTF? A condition of repatriation is constant monitoring or ongoing detention (in other words, they'll only "release" you to transfer you to someone else's oubliette). For obvious reasons (chief among them, the right to a fair trial), many countries simply canot accept that.

The US does have a problem with inmates who have been found not to be "enemy combatants", but who cannot be repatriated due to a well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries. By definition, these people have a solid claim to refugee status, and the US should accept its responsibilities to them. But no, they'd rather try and dump their problems on someone else, while whining about how difficult it is to be the world's torturer...

At the end of the day, the US kidnapped and tortured these people. Don't you think this creates just a tiny smidgen of obligation towards them?

Oh, I forgot: they're brown.

The commentary in this thread is such a refreshing thing to read after the 160 some-odd comments on this same topic over at Volokh by the usual neo-con fanatics convinced that SCOTUS now hates America and we are all destined to be killed in our beds by rampaging brown people with beards.

>"The laws and Constitution are designed to >survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary >times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

No! Reeeeeally!

Yo...Kennedy...Dimwit. That's common sense stuff;
Who in the world told you otherwise?

If George Washington were alive today he'd take an army and kill off most of the Republicans.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

The words "survive and remain in force" suggest that this court decision was for an existing doctrine to remain in force -- that throughout our history there has been a right of habeus corpus for prisoners who had been captured in various battles and who were being held abroad. However, it's actually a new doctrine with this court.

Ex-Liberal Dave: No.
The laws and Constitution form the subject of the sentence. Not some unspoken doctrine. If you ever read the Constitution, the habeas corpus doctrine makes an appearance, along with the impeachment of tyrants.

I'm curious. If an American citizen is in a foreign country and is killed, then what law applies to the person who did the killing?

Does American law apply?

What is to become of the killer's friends? Are they guilty of associating with a known killer?

Does American law apply to them as well?

What of the person pointed out and kidnapped & 'sold' to the Americans as the killer, but who in fact is not the killer, but might be, only there's no proof except the word of somebody being paid?

What American law applies to them?

So, we hold them as 'enemy combatants'. What is that in the law? Is it military? They weren't part of an army? Is it civilian? They were captured and held by our military.

Okay, so they're held on soil Americans control.

But, do we control it as a sovereign or under treaty or by some other means? Does this mean U.S. Constitutional law applies? If not, then what law?

Does not American law apply to people held by American government agents/soldiers/etc.?

What if those prisoners were captured by us and turned over to other governments on our behalf? Are they due American due process?

Do these people have 'rights' under U.S. Constitutional law or only under U.N. resolution?

Where in the process, if there is any process, can they seek to be released?

The court ruling seemed to decide they had no effective way to seek release, but ignored any Geneva Convention 'rights' and the question of whether they should be processed under military procedures or other special procedures of the Executive or if they should be handed over to a Judicial branch process since they are not in fact soldiers who acted against Americans in a war.

As with U.S. political campaigns it appears that defining who they are or what they did and labeling them is crucial to reaching 'the right' outcome.

"ex-liberal" David wrote: The words "survive and remain in force" suggest that this court decision was for an existing doctrine to remain in force -- that throughout our history there has been a right of habeus corpus for prisoners who had been captured in various battles and who were being held abroad. However, it's actually a new doctrine with this court.

As Sparko pointed out, habeus corpus is far from a new doctrine. What's unprecedented is the Bush Administration's attempt to carve out an extra-legal, extra-territorial zone where prisoners are held on only the Executive's say-so -- the very definition of tyranny. That's the "doctrine" the Supreme Court struck down and David is defending.

David's complaint is that the SCOTUS once again called bullshit on the Bush Administration's unprecedented and illegal power grab. Which is far from unexpected from this neocon toad, but despite David's cowardly fearmongering, one wonders why he's so upset -- he doesn't seem to mind having bullshit called on his neocon drivel in these forums. But then, David doesn't argue in good faith, so why should he mind?

"But if they're proven innocent, then what is the worry? We screwed up their lives, so why not let them live in America?"
______________________

Just because they might be found innocent before the court does not make them less dangerous. Dozens have been released and reencountered on the battlefield. Detainment by the military usually doesn't involve collection of evidence, so many of these people will be released, once we find some country to take them. Such is the nature of capture in the field.

The probable unintended consequence is that we'll henceforth turn all prisoners over to an ally or some other third party.

Stefan asks why the Gitmo prisoners are being charged with crimes and given criminal trials. The answer is because other SCOTUS decisions (which I consider incorrect) required those things.

Once again, comically wrong. The Supreme Court decision does not require anyone to be charged with a crime -- after all, the Bush regime always has the option of simply releasing any prisoner for lack of evidence against them. What it does require, however, is that if someone is held captive, they must be provided with a forum allowing them to assert their innocence of the charges against them. So if we don't want to give them criminal trials, we can simply release them. What we can't do is hold them forever without charge or recourse in some legal netherworld -- not, that is, unless we want to abandon our ideals as a legitimate democracy.

Such is the nature of capture in the field.

Trashy is, of course, aware that many of the detainees were not captured in the field by the US military, and so is once again lying in defense of a tyrannical policy. Stay classy, Trashy.

Dozens have been released and reencountered on the battlefield.

Dozens? I'd like to see some sourcing on that one. I'd heard of a single suicide bomber who had been released from Gitmo.

Of course, at this point even an innocent man might be motivated by revenge after his experiences there. But Trashy's unsupported assertion that the detainees at Gitmo are "dangerous," even if true, is the result once again of the Bush Administration's incompetence, and does not justify holding them, without evidence, on the whim of the Executive, even with a blatantly unconstitutional fig-leaf of a law passed by a Republican-controlled Congress (and yes, with the cowardly acquiesence of several Democrats).

It's telling how Trashy and "ex-liberal" both hit the fear button really hard to justify their Leader's authoritarianism. Behold modern movement conservatism, ladies and gentlemen. Shame on them.

"It's telling how Trashy and "ex-liberal" both hit the fear button really hard to justify their Leader's authoritarianism."
________________

You might notice, gregory, that my post does not include any statement either condemning or approving of using Guantanamo. I've long held that most of these prisoners would go free for lack of evidence if civilian legal standards were used. That doesn't mean they won't be a problem if released.

I don't much care if anyone is afraid or not. You won't have to deal with these people in any case, so your taking a high moral stance comes at no cost or effort.

Once again, if you didn't have a chance to insult someone, you'd have no reason to post anything.

Always amazes me what a bed wetting bunch of cowards republicans are. 'brown people scared me so now we have to give up the constitution, /crying sound'

We're the US of A. We faced down the Soviet Union, and they were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. And now, faced with men with box cutters, Republicans can't throw the constitution overboard fast enough.

If the detainees can't be repatriated, then guess what? We own them- as in we have to give them asylum. Don't like it? Neither do I. But I'm a Democrat and I have something republicans don't: integrity. And it's easy to have integrity on easy decisions. It's not easy to have integrity when the decisions are tough as they are here. Also, if your looking for someone to blame here, blame bushco. This is the logical consequences of their fuckup.

Sparko and Gregory - Yes, of course habeas corpus is in the Constitution, but the application of it to non-Americans detained outside the US is a new doctrine.

Yes, of course habeas corpus is in the Constitution, but the application of it to non-Americans detained outside the US is a new doctrine.

Not really since in the operative fact is not where they are held, but whom they are held by, which in this case is the United States government, and the United States government must abide by the habeas protections in the Constitution. What is a "new doctrine" is the Bush regime's deliberately holding prisoners outside of the U.S. in a transparent and pathetic attempt to evade U.S. law.

"And it's easy to have integrity on easy decisions."
________________

No, it's easy to have integrity on decisions in which you'll bear no responsibility nor pay any price.

David: ...the application of it to non-Americans detained outside the US is a new doctrine.

To simplify and paraphrase the court's ruling: the US has defacto total military and civil control over gitmo; thus it is not "outside the US"; ...

Thus there is no "new doctrine". The court also explains nicely why the government effectively shot itself in the foot with its extraterritorial arguments.

You can read the ruling here.

trashhauler: No, it's easy to have integrity on decisions in which you'll bear no responsibility nor pay any price.

As a representative democracy, we are all suppose to be responsible, accountable, and pay the price. Historically we have had a pretty good framework for ensuring those are aligned and balanced. That we have a problem with "integrity" should be a clue that balance and alignment is not what it should be, and why the court ruled as it did.

"we are all suppose to be responsible, accountable, and pay the price."
________________

True in the abstact, less so in reality. While every habeas corpus devotee might claim "responsibility" for this expansion of principle, the odds are very long that most will never be faced with the practical implications of it.

You can speak all you want about habeas corpus, but it won't aid the soldier trying to kill or neutralize a dangerous enemy, when the enemy doesn't wear a uniform and there is no rule of law, except the forebearance of the combatants.

Most times it isn't against the law to kill an American soldier in combat and if we capture someone with weapons, we can't charge him with violating the Sullivan Act. This tendency to turn warfare into some kind of police enforcement debate is simply going to get people killed, both theirs and ours.

What upholding this principle does is tell the military that we'll likely release the clowns that were just trying to kill us, regardless of how dangerous they've proven themselves to be.

No, has407, there will be a distinct difference in the the price paid. And the larger price won't be paid by most on this board.

Yet some of us Habeas devotees do have a dog in the fight and still find that pesky Constitution we swore to die for a worthwhile document.

Your argument is fine as far as it goes, but I would contend that it is the perfect argument for not using the military for what is essentially a law enforcement matter.

I have lived with the specter of terrorism in a way few have - I flew in and out of Rome routinely in the 80's. I've passed through Algiers, and we were billeted in Germany when Bader-Meinhoff was active. The kids and I would take a different flight when we traveled because as you well know, active duty flew in uniform.

The Germans and the Italians - and the Brits - have had more success treating terrorists like the criminal thugs they are than as warriors who make handy martyrs.

What upholding this principle does is tell the military that we'll likely release the clowns that were just trying to kill us, regardless of how dangerous they've proven themselves to be.

Horse hockey.

It means that the evidence they have against the detainee must be presented.

Nice try, trashhauler, but you get thrown out at second base trying to stretch a single (probably into a triple).

There is solid - SOLID - evidence that many of those incarcerated at Guantanamo were not - NOT - actively engaged in attacking US invading forces. Please take the time and trouble to read the excerpts from the Seton Hall report posted above, by Stefan.

Please take special note of this paragraph: "Only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by United States forces. [A total of] 86 percent of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were turned over to the United States at a time at which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies."

Want me to spell out what this means? The US was paying big money for warm bodies with the label "terrorist" attached. The US was basically - whether it intended to or not - creating and funding a kidnapping racket. And the racketeers were only too happy to oblige, and even happier to take the money and run. Who cared whether the warm body delivered was a real terrorist, or a neighbor somebody didn't like, or someone who had spoken out publicly once too often, or just somebody in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I think the only thing we can responsibly do is to transfer then all, every last one, to "Prisoner of War" status, and make absolutely damned sure that hereafter the Geneva Convention standards are followed as an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM level of fair treatment. That's bad and damning enough (considering that many, perhaps most, of them are not "prisoners of war" but kidnap victims). To do any worse would put us - as if we aren't already - in the same class as Pinochet's Chile.

Eventually we shall have to try to make reparations - and that's another whole kettle of worms....

I have thought for some time that the US really needs to have some regulations with large sharp teeth installed regarding false arrest, false imprisonment, and, especially, false conviction. Maybe if there were real and severe penalties for such transgressions against the rule of law, said transgressions would become rare and unusual (instead of - as they ARE - almost commonplace). If the US government, for instance, was OBLIGATED to provide "detainees" acquired under false pretenses (e.g. as a result of a kidnapping racket) with US citizenship and enough money to live on for twice as many years as they had been improperly held, maybe the US government wouldn't be funding kidnapping rackets.

Maybe, too, US citizens would not have to pauperize themselves and their families fighting false and unjust convictions in US courts of law....

Maybe.

trashhauler: What upholding this principle does is tell the military that we'll likely release the clowns that were just trying to kill us, regardless of how dangerous they've proven themselves to be.

Given the status-quo, yes. However, the court gave an indication as to what needs to be done to resolve the issue, without having to simply "likely release the clowns that were just trying to kill us". This is not an insurmountable problem, but one caused by hasty and ill-thought legislation.

No, has407, there will be a distinct difference in the the price paid. And the larger price won't be paid by most on this board.

The court made the point that constitutional guarantees cannot be simply "contracted away". The "larger price", and the larger threat, is to the rule of law, government of the people and by the people, and the balance of power as defined by our constitution.

While those on the sharp end of the stick may pay the ultimate price, and deserve greater consideration and thanks from the country, they deserve no greater right to claim or usurp the constitution than any other citizen of this country.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should renounce their citizenship, and remove themselves from military service.

"It means that the evidence they have against the detainee must be presented."
___________________

Name the crime, Blue Girl. It isn't a crime to be at war with the United States.

"Your argument is fine as far as it goes, but I would contend that it is the perfect argument for not using the military for what is essentially a law enforcement matter."
_____________________

That won't work in Afghanistan, Blue Girl. We can't send out SWAT teams and FBI agents for a very good reason - they'd get killed.

trashhauler: We can't send out SWAT teams and FBI agents for a very good reason - they'd get killed.

Not sure about the SWAT teams, but obviously FBI agents have been in Afghanistan. If you recall, they testified about interrogations there, among other places.

trashhauler: It isn't a crime to be at war with the United States.

What do you mean by "crime"? Something you can be incarcerated for? Definitely yes. Something you can be prosecuted for under US law? Maybe. Something you can be prosecuted for under international law? Maybe.

Name the crime, Blue Girl. It isn't a crime to be at war with the United States.

If they were indeed fighting against U.S. forces, then reclassify them as prisoners of war, and grant them the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

That won't work in Afghanistan, Blue Girl. We can't send out SWAT teams and FBI agents for a very good reason - they'd get killed.

I am not one to view the whole world as a nail, cause I have this nifty 20-oz. Stanley with an ergonomic handle...but you know that about me.

Afghanistan is a unique case, and there is a military role there - and I challenge you to find a single comment or post where I have ever claimed otherwise. But back to my larger point...we are not exactly using the right tools there, either.

"Anyone who thinks otherwise should renounce their citizenship, and remove themselves from military service."
__________________

Agreed. That's why, if this decision holds without modification, we won't try to hold similar detainees in similar circumstances. Instead, those that survive an encounter with our troops will be held where the Constitution does not apply and/or by people not governed by the same Constitional restrictions.

Nice. You seem to be saying that if we cant just throw people away then we'll either kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out, or give 'em over to known torturers.

Jesus. I need a shower just having this conversation.

Guantanamo and indefinite detention is antithetical to the American ideals I grew up with, and if this shit had been going on all those years ago when I was making my life decisions, they would have been a hell of a lot different than the ones I made. This is not the America I agreed to serve. I don't even recognize it.

trashhauler: Instead, those that survive an encounter with our troops will be held where the Constitution does not apply and/or by people not governed by the same Constitional restrictions.

I'd hope we can do better than that, and show the world that we can be just and fair without gutting our principles, or simply outsourcing the problem to countries less principled.

It isn't a crime to be at war with the United States.

Precisely. It isn't a crime to be a war with the United States, which is why it is illegal and immoral to detain people without trial indefinitely just because they feel enmity toward the U.S. and you're defining that enmity as "war."

However, it is a crime to plot terrorist acts against the United States -- you drooling fucking idiot -- and why we utilize the worldwide intelligence apparatus to find and apprehend terrorists and bring them to trial.

You know -- as opposed to invading countries at will, creating "terrorists" of the people who resist the invasion because of the carnage and chaos it has caused, and then locking up a couple thousand or so indefinitely to pretend you've made some kind of security gains...all the while blithely ignoring the fact that the blowback from such an action is likely to be enormous.

If someone has taken up arms against the U.S. on the battlefield then they can be classified as a POW or given a military tribunal. Funny thing though: the majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo hadn't taken up arms against the U.S., as investigations have shown. They were simply rounded up by dubious authorities like warlords looking to eliminate enemies or farmers wanting a bounty and simply handed over to U.S. forces without evidence.

And the majority of them have been released after years of being wrongly detained in some of the most horrible conditions imaginable. And that's just Gitmo: at Abu Ghraib people were rounded up from the streets daily and left to rot.

Your zeal to incarcerate and torture brown people who don't like the U.S. without any evidence or access to appeal is grotesque and repellent. It reveals just what a stunted and deformed conscience you possess. Your casual willingness to flout or skirt the law because "you know what's best for the country;" to ignore, obfuscate and defend torture: along with what are, in context, obscene appeals to the Creator reveal you to be a garden variety fascist religious zealot.

In fact, you are nothing but a mirror image of the very people you'd like to detain and torture. Projection much?
Posted by trex at June 13, 2008 8:58 PM

"Afghanistan is a unique case, and there is a military role there."
__________________

Of course, it is, Blue Girl. It's also where we picked up most of the people eventually sent to Guantanamo.

Let's be honest in that assessment - only about 5% were captured by American forces, the vast majority were captured by Pakistanis and Northern Alliance fighters and turned over for a bounty. Over 60 individuals have been freed from the gulag at Gitmo because they were guilty of nothing, save being kidnapped.

Don't try the same intellectually dishonest shit with me you do with ordinary civilians. I'll call you on it.

Every. Single. Time.

"Jesus. I need a shower just having this conversation."
___________________

Come on, Blue Girl, you know better. War isn't a game of patty fingers. If we can't detain the enemy without giving them habeas corpus, what do you think we'll do with them? Most will be captured with no evidence of a crime, aside from being armed, or being suspected of shooting at us. Insist that they be given the rights of any American criminal and most must be released.

Where do you think all the detainees captured since we stopped sending people to Guantanamo are kept? Do you think we lectured them sternly and sent them on their way, so they can have another go at us?

If you want us to waive the Geneva Convention requirement to wear a uniform and treat them as POWs, that's fine with me. Then we'll hold them for the duration, or give them to an ally to hold. But apparently there are legal objections to that, as well.

But apparently there are legal objections to that, as well.

Not that I am making. I have always maintained that you either have to grant Geneva, or Habeas. One or the other. You can't deny both. Not and retain any right to call yourself civilized.

"Funny thing though: the majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo hadn't taken up arms against the U.S., as investigations have shown."
_________________________

Yep, that's the narrative. Out of the thousands of dangerous prisoners we've held in Afghanistan, we picked only the unlucky shepherds and lost tourists to go to Guantanamo. Pull the other one, nitwit, it's got bells on.

And you obviously know nothing about the conditions at Guatanamo, which has been the most thoroughly inspected prison in history.

By the way, nothing I've written has indicated anything about my personal feelings in the matter of detaining these people. I've only pointed out the natural consequences of this ruling. That you wish to ignore those consequences simply shows the shallowness of your thinking on the subject. You think this is the last war we're ever going to have?

"Over 60 individuals have been freed from the gulag at Gitmo because they were guilty of nothing, save being kidnapped."
___________________

Quite a lot more than 60 have been released. We've only got about 270 left there out of a peak population of near 600. And, yes, the stories from defense counsel, the press, and every human rights group worthy of the name have hammered home each detainees story of personal bad luck and innocence. It is, by now, a required article of faith that anyone turned over to us by our allies is a simple victim of circumstance. The US government side of each story almost always goes unmentioned.

And that's exactly my point. The conditions under which these people were captured almost guaranteed that we'd be unable to prove guilt or innocence in a court of law. The chain of evidence simply doesn't exist and won't, because that's not how the military works in a war zone.

Well I'm convinced! Let's just embrace barbarism in the name of American exceptionalism, cuz 9-11 changed everything!

Gimme a fucking break.

trashhauler: I've only pointed out the natural consequences of this ruling.

You've pointed out one only potential consequence; there are numerous others. I remain optimistic.

Trashhauler,

What exactly is the downside of reclassifying GTMO prisoners as POWs? It would seem that this is is only course left. Thanks.

"What exactly is the downside of reclassifying GTMO prisoners as POWs? It would seem that this is is only course left. Thanks."
____________________

Well, the Geneva Conventions are very detailed concerning the treatment of POWs. The treatment can be very lenient, the idea being that your own people taken prisoner will be similarly treated. Of course, that has never been the case for Americans taken prisoner, but we keep hoping it might.

I suspect the real legal hangup is that treating these prisoners as POWs put them on a legal par with uniformed forces. Granting POW status essentially admits that they are legal combatants to begin with.

On the other hand, if they are POWs we can keep them essentially forever.

Apparently, the big difference between POWs and illegal combatants is that you can’t interrogate POWs.

An interesting point is that there are some GTMO prisoners so bad that even the New York Times editorial page doesn’t want them to be reclassified as POWs.

Prisoner of war status should not be granted to Al Qaeda's leaders or those training for terrorism at its Afghan camps.

Is the NYT Bush's tool?

just wanted to add "the government has said roughly one-third of the detainees are not dangerous and have been approved for release to their home countries, but those countries don't want them, nor does any other country seem to want these people whom the U.S. once characterized as the worst of the worst."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91461526

Of course, it [Afghanistan] is, Blue Girl. It's also where we picked up most of the people eventually sent to Guantanamo.

Completely false, as he already knows because I demonstrated it above.

....a stunning, heavily documented investigation by the Seton Hall (New Jersey) School of Law. Titled "Report on Guantánamo Detainees," it profiles 517 of the prisoners at Gitmo entirely based on "analysis of Department of Defense data." The lead authors are Mark Denbeaux, a professor at the law school and counsel to two of the prisoners, and his son Joshua Denbeaux.

The data "are based on written determination the Government has produced for detainees it has designated as enemy combatants," and contain "the evidence upon which the Government relied on in making its decision that these detainees were (indeed) enemy combatants."

...."Only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by United States forces. [A total of] 86 percent of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were turned over to the United States at a time at which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0610,hentoff,72399,6.html

013895.. Neat :)