Well, pretty much:
Recent hearings by the Judiciary Committee looking into the legal situation of detainees at Guantanamo revealed what Senator Arlen Specter has called a
by John Cole| 37 Comments
This post is in: War on Terror aka GSAVE®
Well, pretty much:
Recent hearings by the Judiciary Committee looking into the legal situation of detainees at Guantanamo revealed what Senator Arlen Specter has called a
Comments are closed.
More On Gitmmo
Guantanamo Bay and torture continue to make headlines and blog posts. Some more to read: Billmon Balloon Juice, which says some Republican bloggers are getting it now. More here. David Neiwert Obisidian Wings Kevin Drum Brad Plummer In MSM: New…
J. Michael Neal
The other problem that liberals like myself have is that we simply don’t believe Specter’s explanation. There is plenty of evidence that Guantanamo was chosen precisely *because* the administration wanted to leave the detainees in legal limbo. They have, claimed that there is no court that holds jurisdiction there (perhaps not as such, but each possibility that has been raised, they have rejected).
I find it impossible to believe that this is a case of jurisdictional infighting and bureaucratic confusion. It was a deliberate plan to find a borderline plausible way, if you don’t think about it very hard, to deny that the detainees had any rights at all.
Whether Specter believes what he has said, I have no idea, but he is wrong.
Darrell
Good post, but when you state I don’t think the left fails to recognize this- I think many of them simply disagree with the status quo, I believe you are giving far too much credit to the left. The left has been, as usual, way over the top in their criticism of imprisoning terrorists (comparisons with gulags, Nazis, etc), WITHOUT PROPOSING AN ALTERNATIVE. They simply want to smear and insult without proposing plausible alternatives
Yes, we are in uncharted territory here. But what, short of releasing all the terrorists, is the left seriously proposing? Not a damn thing, that’s what. Much easier to compare our troops with Pol Pot and the Nazis. It’s how the left really thinks
Rick Moran
Why does everything have to be a goddamn CONSPIRACY to you people? Don’t you know ANYTHING about government? This is a classic case of bureaucracies not able to deal with a new situation. It should be in a manual somewhere as instructive of what happens when people who think that white papers and committee hearings actually get things done.
You can blame Rummy…you can blame Ashcroft…you can blame both. But to posit some kind of deep, dark conspiracy is loony and typical of the idiocy of the left.
Stormy70
I thought Detainees were released at the end of the War. It’s not the end? Then keep them on ice. Deadwood, style.
James "Executive Loverboy" Guckert
Want to have fun with the thin-skinned and imperious Rick Moron? Post a comment to any one of the inane articles he leaves on his appropriately named Right Wing Nuthouse and watch it disappear in mere moments. This guy hovers over his site with a near-psychotic intensity. What could be worse than a blogger who can’t stand a little criticism? Except perhaps the lying puke of a president Rick dreams of sleeping with, of course.
Richard Bottoms
There’s conspiracy, as in shadowy figures conspired to assasinate Kennedy.
Then there’s conspiracy,a sin more than one person decides to skirt or break the law.
We have the latter.
How much imagination does it take to think of conservative legal types trying to craft a way to grab terrorists and keep them in custody forever.
Geex, this isn’t The Paralax View.
Mike S
Right now, though, the absence of a clear policy is doing the country almost as much damage as having these people locked up does good.
I would argue that is some instances it is doing more damage. Friends and family of some, who would be more unlikely to join the terrorists, may feel it is their duty to fight us now. It’s also harder for the moderate Muslims, yes they do exist, to raise their voices in our defence.
Some sort of articulated plan may help. I just don’t know. But as long as it’s in limbo, with no end in sight, it’s just proof that we don’t adhere to our rhetoric of a free and open society of laws.
Doug
” this is a conflict with no parallel in human history.”
Oh, bull. What? The U.S. is the first country to ever have enemies that used terrorist tactics against it?
demimondian
Moran’s argument is based on assuming that the current US administration is acting in good faith. That’s the right place to start out when dealing with any administration — but it isn’t a place which is always justified for any American administration.
The problem that he has to deal with is that it’s pretty clear that the Bush amdinistration is not dealing with the American people in good faith on Iraq. We know we were lied to about the war before it started. We now we’ve been lied to during its conduct . The Bush administration has squandered any right to be assumed to be acting in good faith.
Absent such a presumption, we need to treat any requests for powers which sound like “necessary evils which need to be entrusted to people of good faith for a short time” with extreme skepticism. We already know we can’t trust the Bush Administration on things very like this — we should tread very carefully in extending trust on this, without a clear set of regulations involving an external entity…like, you know, a real Court of Law?
Kimmitt
is that after more than three years, very little thought has been given to the legal status of the terrorists
This is one interpretation. The other is that the legal status of the terrorists has been deliberately obfuscated. It is my belief that the former interpretation is much harder to support than the latter.
SomeCallMeTim
I wouldn’t want to pretend to speak for all Democrats, or even the majority of Democrats, but I think this is slightly wrong: Granted…this is a conflict with no parallel in human history.
I think there are a substantial number of Democrats (but probably not anything approaching a majority) who believe that this is without precedent in American history only because we can’t recall so much furor over what is, ultimately , a fairly paltry threat. AFAIK, the Al Qaeda set’s signal achievement is that they were very close to the ruling govt. in Afghanistan. Wow. Absolutely a threat that is comparable to Nazi Germany or the Godless Soviets. Frankly (and I really mean this respectfully), the reaction of a large part of the Right to 9/11 strikes me as hysterical. I’ve just never been afraid that this country’s integrity was at threat from some Islamic ponces. In the end, the only country with the weight to take us is us. And that’s why things like the Padilla assertion,Guantanamo, and the 26% of Americans that want Muslims to register with the govt. bother me.
This is is largely a difference in risk assessment. And I trust our risk assesments substantially more than I trust the Republicans’ assesments. (FWIW: I constantly subliminally apologize to K. Layne. I thought his pieces on Jesusland after the election were hysterical assesments as well; increasingly, it looks like I was wrong.)
Probably a disfavored view here, but it’s one (and only one) Dem’s perspective.
Kimmitt
Oh, you’re completely right; the hysterical psychosis which still grips the Right regarding the capacity of Islamic terrorists to harm us is still incomprehensible.
Fledemaus
This whole idea that everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist shows and absurd faith in government never before seen amongst the GOP.
“Government can’t do anything right, except identify terrorsts with 100% accuracy (except for the 200 or so we have released)”
Geek, Esq.
At least we’re not like the Nazis.
Check out Chris Wallace’s idiocy:
http://monkeysponge.blogspot.com/2005/06/now-thats-classy.html
Foxnews and Hugh Hewitt–a guarantee for stupidity.
JG
‘It didn
BumperStickerist
You know, as the litany of atrocities was being read on the floor of the US Senate and somebody asked me to think of which group was responsible for these atrocities – I’d’ve guessed “USA”.
Thermostat set too low in the room – as opposed to tossed outside on the frozen dirt among a couple of hundred or thousand fellow sufferers? check.
Sounds like us, not the Nazis or Soviets (or Pol Pot)
Thermostat set too high in the room – as opposed to being chained up outside in the broiling sun along with several hundred, or thousand, or tens of thousands .. check.
Sounds like us.
Wet his pants/browned his drawers? Absent a case of explosive diarrhea brought about by poor living conditions, dehydration, and such … check,
sounds like us
Shawn
I read something the other day, I forget the source, but it summed up how I feel about this whole “Nazi” comparison.
The issue is not that we are like Nazi’s, it is that we are not different enough. We used to have the moral high ground. Not anymore. In law enforcement they have a saying, “If you roll around in the mud long enough, you get dirty.”
We’re not clean anymore. Do we want to keep rolling around in the mud?
Stormy70
No countries are pure and clean. For a “Reality-based” party to act like we are supposed to coddle terrorists, so the terrorist supporting countries will like us, is living in a fantasy land. Whaaaa! They hate us. Boo freaking hoo. I hate the anti-semitic, terrorist coddling bastards myself. I’m still pissed over 9/11, and I, personally, would have chucked the 20th hijacker over a 110 story building, after cutting his balls off. I’m not a fan of physical torture as a interrogation technique, but I can think of some appropriate punishments for these farging iceholes.
Sojourner
So you don’t care about the detainees who died in U.S. custody. That’s okay with you.
How about the rape of women and children? Is that okay, too?
Keeping in mind that these folks were not charged with, let alone conviced of, a crime. That may be your American way but it ain’t mine.
Stormy70
The Taliban raped and murdered women and children at will. That’s where these detainees come from, the battlefields in Afghanistan. Thay do not get my sympathy, nor do the child rapists of the UN. But, keep crying about terrorists’ rights, it will get your party far in the midterms. These guys are hardcore at Gitmo, and I feel sorry for them having to listen to rap, really, I am losing sleep over it. I see I will have to start the scotch drinking early tonight to cope with such injustice for the terrorists. Sheesh.
Joe Blackwell
You can’t read through some of the posts on this thread without wondering if the people who wrote them realize they’ve been reduced to being little more than apologists for torture.
No wonder Bush’s poll numbers are in a freefall.
Sojourner
“The Taliban raped and murdered women and children at will.”
So that makes it okay if we do the same?
“These guys are hardcore at Gitmo.”
How do you know? How many of them have been charged with a crime? At least 200 have been released with no criminal charges. So how can you claim they’re all hardcore? Or is it that you simply don’t care about these folks, whether they’re guilty or not?
You may sleep well at night but is it because you don’t know what’s really going on there or because you really and truly don’t care? I really and truly feel sorry for you if it’s the latter. Because you’re one step closer to losing your humanity.
Stormy70
Are you saying we are raping and murdering women and children at Gitmo?! These are not criminals, but enemy combatants. I think this is the wrong hill for the Dems to die on politically, because you will get hammered for it. I don’t beleive leftist propaganda by leftist “rights” groups. They are not credible. They are bitching about Gitmo, while the Islamic religous fanatics are committing genocide in Darfur, and anti-semitism is growing in Europe, again. Go ahead and question my humanity, I don’t need your brand of “humanity”, since it seems to be full of sympathy for dirtbags that want to kill us.
Sojourner
Sorry. I wasn’t clear. It’s in Iraq where Hussein’s rape rooms remain open. But I guess that doesn’t bother you since they’re Muslims. And I’m sure they had something to do with something bad… After all Bush says so and Bush never lies, right?
Are you saying that the 200 people who were released are enemy combatants? If so, why were they released? Come on, think about it.
Sorry but I don’t measure ethics in terms of winning and losing strategies. Torturing people not only isn’t effective in gaining intelligence but it also means giving up the moral high ground. I thought this country was the beacon of truth and ethics? This Administration has made us a joke in the eyes of the rest of the world. A lot of us are embarassed and dismayed by this. But not you. For you, it’s only a question of politics. What a shame.
jcricket
Stomy – Some of us are pissed off about all of the things you mentioned. I volunteer with the ADL, who regularly confronts the issue of growing anti-semitism in Europe. My temple does volunteer work spreading the word about the crisis in Darfur (even hosting free community events). _And_ I’m outraged that America is operating a network of prisons to indefinitely detain 1000s of people, most of whom are innocent (you can’t seriously believe they’re all guilty). I’m mad as hell that we’re killing innocent people who get caught up in a dragnet in Afghanistan. I’m disgusted that we’re taking pictures of ourselves smiling next to dead POWs or enemy combatants.
And yes, to be crystal f*ing clear, I f*ing hate the terrorists and wouldn’t mind seeing them all dead. My cousin narrowly escaped the WTC during 9/11 (he worked there).
It’s simply unacceptable to me that you’re turning a blind eye to all the innocent deaths we’re responsible for. And all the lying and obfuscation of the current administration. We _will_lose_ the war on terror if we keep it up. Our current policies are simply creating more terrorists than we can kill (see Chechnya or Afghanistan from the 80s). Not to mention that doing things that make our allies abandon us makes it more difficult for us to get international police cooperation for conducting non-military terrorist surveillance. Who’s going to believe us when we lie about or hide the status of everyone in our “terrorist” prison camps?
jcricket
To clarify – Chechnya and Afghanistan are, as I see it, examples of the _Russians_ making the problem worse – similar to how _our_ actions are _now_ doing the same
Stormy70
Germany and France are not allies anymore. Alliances change, and Japan and India are much more important to our long-term interests, along with Australia. I don’t care what Europeans think about America, they’ve hated us for 200 years. It is nothing new. Terrorists come to Iraq to die against the greatest military on Earth, instead of coming here to America. The federal government was primarily formed to provide for the common defense of America. The military is doing just that in Iraq, or would you rather have these jihadists coming here to fight. Rape rooms open in Iraq? Proof, please. What is your suggestion for holding terrorists? This is not meant as a snarky question, I would like to hear what you think we should do with enemies captured in battle.
Sojourner
At the rate they’re multiplying, there’ll be plenty of jihadists to go around. And at the rate that the military is being decimated, there won’t be enough American soldiers to protect our interests at home or abroad. Hell of a strategy.
And the beauty of it is, we’ve pissed off most of our allies so that way we get to assume the burden of the fight against terrorism rather than treating it as a global menace, as was possible immediately after 9/11 and before Bush pissed off most of the world and a significant proportion of his own citizens.
As to proof, read Seymour Hersh’s articles in the New Yorker. He’s one of the few reporters who’s still actually doing investigative reporting. And don’t discount him as a lefty with an agenda. He’s the one who broke the Abu Ghraib story which has obviously been confirmed.
Treat the terrorists in accordance with protocols established for interrogation that have been demonstrated to work for decades. Then charge them if there’s evidence. If not, turn them loose. Isn’t that the American way?
Doug
I think the whole “enemy combatants” thing is bunk to start with, so my mind is not likely to be changed in any event. But, I’m curious what the rationale is for holding Taliban soldiers as something other than prisoners of war. As far as I know, the Taliban was the sovereign government of Afghanistan and its soldiers would be, I presume, like any other nation’s soldiers.
I think we did the right thing by overthrowing the Afghan government, but don’t know why we should treat Afghan soldiers differently than we did German or Japanese soldiers. Perhaps I am missing something.
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, I understand the distinction being made even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.
Chris Owen
The catch is that the Taliban wasn’t recognised by the US Government (or most other governments, as I recall) as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance, which at the time only controlled 10% of the country, was recognised instead. The Taliban may have been the de facto sovereign government but as far as the US is concerned, they’re just “illegal combatants”.
Darrell
jcricket wrote: And_ I’m outraged that America is operating a network of prisons to indefinitely detain 1000s of people, most of whom are innocent (you can’t seriously believe they’re all guilty). I’m mad as hell that we’re killing innocent people who get caught up in a dragnet in Afghanistan
Most of whom are innocent? Where in the hell do you get evidence to support that claim? Oh that’s right, you have none. Just a ‘feeling’ right? I suppose the fact that numerous released terrorists have been recaptured on the battlefield reinforces the idea that “most” are innocent.
The fact that released prisoners have been recaptured (no doubt there are a number of other released prisoners not yet recaptured or killed in battle) makes it look to me that if anything, we are being too lax on who we decide to detain for significant periods of time.
As for all these people caught up in dragnets or turned in by warlords.. how do you know? Of course you have no idea. But don’t let your lack of knowledge stop you from blathering on about how “most” of those detained are innocent
I don’t want to defend the detention of innocents, but I really don’t see any basis for the left to go around screaming about how we’re holding detaining all these innocent sheep herders for long periods of time. If there’s evidence, I’m all ears
Kimmitt
Owen — I’m sorry, but that is incorrect in an important detail. As far as the US is concerned, the Taliban were/are combatants in a civil conflict. Such combatants also enjoy Geneva protections.
From Protocol II:
1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions or application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
Read Article 5 in its entirety; it is extremely clear on what rights Taliban fighters have as insurgents (however successful) against the recognized government of the Northern Alliance. Article 6 makes clear that those captured have an absolute right to at least a military hearing, with certain guarantees as to their abilities to defend themselves.
source.
Now, there is an important issue here, which is that The US is not a signatory to Protocol II. That is, while the Geneva Conventions are pretty clear on this issue, we are not signatories to this part of the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the US can argue convincingly that we are not bound by any international law in this arena.
Which is to say, it’s not that the Taliban fighters were illegal combatants; they were lawful insurgents, as defined by the Protocols. It’s that the US does not choose to be bound by international law with regard to insurgents. These are very different arguments.
Darrell
Yes, bad bad US for not submitting to the ICC, Kyoto, the Protocol additions to Geneva, or other ‘international law’.
To be clear, this Protocol which the US has refused to ratify, would have us in a POW treaty with headchopping terrorists who as a matter of policy target civilians and who themselves would never respect rules of war. One sided? You bet it is. which is why we refused to ratify it
Wouldn’t a strict application of Protocol II legitimize, say the Janjaweed in Sudan as well as Al Queda?
James Robertson
You say:
“Granted
Kimmitt
Take up the White Man’s Burden!
scs
You all keep saying let’s charge the prioners. What do we charge them with? The only charges I can think of for these prisoners right now is ‘membership in a terrorist group’ (not sure what the official law for that would be called, if we even have a law like that. Some lawyer on here should comment on that.)
Anyway, as most of these foreign fighters were more likely fighting for the Taliban, I suppose we would have to then link the Taliban to Al Quaeda. But that shouldn’t be so hard to do as the Taliban obviously protected Al Quaeda over there. Or just call the Taliban a terrorist group and get them on that. Then have military tribunals for them. Any stress treatment (or torture as many call it) should be be written up and get the permission of high-up officers, able to be made public if need be. That should limit these incidences as not many officers would want their names associated with a torture seal-of-approval.
There, I solved the problem. Still, I think we all need to inform ourselves legally before we bemoan the lack of court procedings. It seems like everyone is just running around in confusion.