Barack Obama has admirable priorities for the first X number of days of his administration, for all the good they will do him. There will not be a honeymoon for president Obama. His first several months in office will be hell. The economy, the two losing wars, skyrocketing gas prices et alia will all contribute, but I predict that the consuming crisis will be the detention and torture program that we continue to operate at Guantanamo Bay and around the world. The following points are not opinions but simple widely-reported facts.
(1) America holds thousands, if not tens of thousands, of muslims or suspected muslims at various sites around the world. The list includes Bagram air base in Afghanistan, prisons in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and the ‘black site’ prisons that have almost certainly not all been dismantled.
(2) Most of our detainees are innocent; some minority is genuinely dangerous. This was true for Abu Ghraib, it remains true in Guantanamo.
(3) Torture produces lies – innocent people confess and many of those with with secrets to hide will spill the secret along with any other plausible lie that might please the torturers. In 2004, while John Kerry fruitlessly tried to unseat president Bush, homeland security kept Americans awake at night chasing equally fruitless threats around New York City and elsewhere. The threats seemed like a capricious gimmick to keep the president in office, and there was some of that, but the alerts had a basis in actual prisoner accounts. These revelations came from the same origin as the supposedly solid ‘confessions’ on which most of our military commissions are based – they are the desperate words of a person trying to make the abuse stop.
(4) Given (3), we have no way of knowing which of our prisoners were ever dangerous, other than a small number of detainees whose name were on a confirmed list when we arrested them.
(5) When you take someone out of the criminal justice system, it is spectacularly difficult bring them back in. Evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible and opens up the detaining body to obvious (and legally justified) countercharges. This utter dismissal of Geneva and the American legal process explains why unlike the Clinton administration, and despite holding far more genuinely dangerous terrorists, the Bush administration has not and will never bring a single terrorism trial to a satisfying conclusion.
(6) Or illegal detention system is a war crime, and it remains one (actually several) every day that it operates. To get a sense of just how shabby the torture justifications were, skim through Marty Lederman’s many analyses of the administration’s arguments and legal memos (OLC memos such as those written by John Yoo are the official opinion of the executive branch).
(7) Unlike George Bush, Barack Obama does not have a vacation estate in Paraguay or a family who teaches that laws are for little people. It is likely that he would rather avoid putting his administration in jeopardy of Geneva conventions that we signed and which therefore have the weight of US law.
This puts Barack Obama in a bind, doesn’t it. When George Bush hands him the keys to camp Delta at Guantanamo he might as well be passing a stolen car. Ending the torture will help but it will not be enough. The detention system itself is a war crime for which Obama can legitimately be accused. Given (3) through (5) Obama cannot legally process most of our detainees, even prisoners whose guilt is clear. There criminal justice system does not have a clause that lets contralegal treatment slide because the suspect obviously did it.
I hope we have some lawyers in the house, because an easy way out of this situation does not jump out at me. We have thousands of prisoners that we cannot keep and we cannot charge. That leaves…what? Think about it. The only answer that comes to me would make John’s peak wingnut theory look like the Dow 36,000 of 2008.
***Update***
Keep your eyes on this case.
The Supreme Court is now being asked to consider the legality of [Ali Saleh Kahlah al-] Marri’s detention, which is one of the broadest and most controversial assertions of executive authority since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Marri’s attorneys want the court to overturn an appellate ruling that backed the administration. The final brief is due Monday, and the justices are expected to decide soon whether to take the case.
Bush administration officials argue that the ability to detain Marri — who they say was planning a wave of post-Sept. 11 attacks — is vital to protecting the nation during wartime. “Like the al-Qaeda forces that struck America on the morning of September 11,” Marri “entered the United States to plan and carry out hostile or war-like acts,” they argued in their brief.
Marri’s attorneys say such detention power is unconstitutional and dangerous, raising the possibility that the government could one day snatch anyone off the street, even a political opponent, and lock him up without a trial. A prominent group of former judges and Justice Department lawyers, along with retired military officers, filed briefs backing Marri’s position. They include Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army’s first official investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
More disturbingly, my point (7) could be wrong. The easiest path for Barack Obama would be to let the American system be and take his chances with international courts.
While Obama has strongly opposed Bush on terrorism, his views on Marri and enemy combatants held inside the United States are unclear. Obama has promised to abolish military commissions underway at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and has said accused terrorists should be tried in civilian courts or military courts-martial.
He has also vowed to aggressively fight terrorism. Obama’s transition office did not return a telephone call Friday seeking insight into his thinking on the Marri case.
Experts said the new president could seek to charge Marri again in federal court but could also back Bush’s position — and conceivably use broad detention authority if the Supreme Court upholds it. Obama’s national security team may persuade Obama “that we have to worry about another attack, and in case of an attack we need this power,” said Stephen A. Saltzburg, a George Washington University law professor and former Justice Department official.
Do not want.
p.a.
One of the best posts I’ve read anywhere in a long time. I certainly have nothing to add as far as potential solutions, but I’ll take a shot. Damn. As far as the ‘administrators’ of our gulag, maybe an amnesty under US law for an honest accounting. Kind of a truth commission. But what about Geneva? For the architects? Full accounting under US and int’l law. That still leaves the ‘citizens’ of the place. I got nothing.
kommrade jakevich
Hands. Who didn’t know this?
I see no hands.
Cathy W
…for all the people warning about how Obama is not going to live up to the progressive ideals we’ve projected onto him, this is the first moment of actual buzzkill I’ve experienced since the election.
I can think of a good place to start: the Uighurs. They’ve been found to be Not A Threat, we can’t send them back to China, so we’re….still holding them prisoner at Gitmo? I don’t think so. Can President Obama, or a sane Secretary of State and/or Attorney General, fast-track these men for political asylum and a HONKING BIG APOLOGY? Or help them get asylum somewhere else?
Bill White
On this Sunday morning, I can cling to my faith that Barack Obama is smarter than I am and has been thinking long, hard and with depth on a strategy (not strategery but strategy) for how we as a nation can avoid the landmines and booby traps left by Dubya. Perhaps that is why he appeared very somber when he spoke on Grant Park in Tuesday night.
As for the prisoners themselves?
Transfer jurisdiction to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent under the supervision of the World Court and let someone else handle repatriation issues.
karen marie
although i agree that guantanamo and the other prisons, secret and otherwise, is an enormous stain on our country and must be corrected yesterday, i have faith that president obama will do the right thing.
no leader is perfect or a miracle worker but if anyone can do it, president obama can.
Tim Fuller
While I am sure we will see skyrocketing gas prices now that the Rethugs have no reason to try and keep it low (help Repubs on economy during election), I must note that I bought gas day before yesterday. Price: 1.93 gallon.
Enjoy.
Tim F.
Oy.
Bill White
Tim F
The "solution" will involve a mixture "Henry II / Thomas Beckett" (America accepts a ritual scourging that does not threaten our actual power) and that old U boat trick of shooting a dead (or live) body out of the torpedo tube to distract the circling destroyers.
Me? I’d offer up Dick Cheney as the sacrificial World Court defendant but if he flees to Paraguay first, that wouldn’t be so bad either and giving all the prisoners to the Red Cross / Red Crescent transfers the stolen car to someone else.
What will matter MORE THAN ANYTHING is the international political theater that accompanies whatever we do. And I kinda want to see Obama’s proposed script before I take too strong of a position on how we solve this genuine mess.
To propose "solutions" off the cuff and from the Bob Uecker section of the inter-tubes without access to all of the facts and then argue about those solutions with great intensity merely spreads material that can can be used to accelerate "concern trolling"
= = =
But anyways, here is my "plan"
Arrange for Dick Cheney’s aircraft to be diverted to a location where he can be arrested and taken to the World Court without the need for an extradition trial in the US (unless he first flees to Paraguay); and
Transfer jurisdiction of the prisoners to the International Red Cross / Red Crescent (but only after losing the worst of the lot).
Cathy W
Is the ICRC actually equipped to take ‘jurisdiction’? (Asking as a sincere question – I’m sure they’d be willing, if not eager, to help get this all sorted out, and they’d be the absolutely most perfect neutral third party to bring into the situation, but I honestly don’t know whether they have the capability or legal standing to take custody of the prisoners.)
lilly Von Schtupp
"Sunshine is the best disenfectant" – L. Brandies.
I hope Obama has the courage to do so.
lee
Tim aren’t you a little fucking ray of sunshine this morning ;)
low-tech cyclist
Most of the cases will be straightforward: if they were captured in Afghanistan, return them to Afghanistan, where they should fit in with one side or the other. Ditto Iraq. There may be a few glaring exceptions; we can hold them back. But we should be able to get most of the prisoners out of Gitmo pretty quickly.
In the case of our prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve simply got to figure out who we’ve got a really good case against. Those, we turn over to Maliki and Karzai – your country, your problem. And we release the rest.
We’ve also got to create some sort of mechanism for aiding the people we released. We’ve stolen seven years of some of these people’s lives; we owe them something for that. Just saying, "you’re free, we’re even-Steven now" doesn’t cut it.
We may not be able to turn the remaining hard cases over to an international body; they may not want the onus on them, either. But we’ve got to include the U.N., the International Red Cross/Crescent, etc., in the discussion.
The main thing is, Obama has to (1) admit that his predecessor fucked up, (2) make a good-faith effort to release those prisoners that should be released, as quickly as he reasonably can, and (3) let responsible international bodies play a role in the decision of how to bring this fiasco to an end. The wingnuts will probably scream "global test!" or some such, but if Obama ignores them, so will the vast majority of Americans.
Dave_No_Longer_Laughing
"The economy, "
Check.
"the two losing wars,"
They’re being won, not lost.
" skyrocketing gas prices"
They’ve been going down with the price of oil.
"consuming crisis will be the detention and torture program that we continue to operate at Guantanamo Bay and around the world."
No. Doesn’t mean a thing and the system – which includes how it’s being managed by the Government and those who are protesting it – is working. Gay marriage is more important than the good work at Guantanamo.
Idiot, what’s of number one importance is the economy, everything else is secondary.
dricey
Give them all trials in open, public, US courtrooms. The charges against them will be thrown out because of the torture that was used to extract their ‘confessions’ and the ‘evidence’ that they offered up, but the details of that torture will at long last be aired, where all of us will be forced to face it, and know, finally, what monsters George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their ‘administration’ really are. And the integrity of the American justice system will be affirmed, not only before the world, but before the American people. Maybe, just maybe, there will also be a loud enough outcry that Bush and Cheney will themselves be brought to justice for what they’ve done, not only to these people, but to us as a nation. At the very least, their names will be dropped off any invitation lists to future White House presidential functions, and association with them will be anathema to anyone but Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and the Guncrazed Goons of the so-called Republican Party.
Tymannosourus
I agree with most of your post, but I’m not sure that this is a "simple, widely reported fact." We are dealing with a lot of gray area in that region between innocent victim and enemy combatant. Enemies blending in with the population is exactly what makes this war so difficult, and is exactly the reason that we should have never gone to Iraq in the first place.
The Grand Panjandrum
It will take a while to unwind of these extraconstitutional activities and the actual war crimes involved. And while I am in favor of closing Gitmo it is a landmine if not handled properly. I don’t remember where I first found the link but Anonymous Liberal has a great post that dovetails with the very points you make above.
If we see appointments like Lederman’s to critical positions at DOJ we may very well be on our way out of the woods. We’ll just have to wait and see for now.
gwangung
You should be. The Bush administration agrees with that. Even more so, a couple of the former prosecutors.
Moreover, much of the "gray" area you speak of are existing BECAUSE of the secrecy the Bush administration took regarding their unlawful combatants.
D. Mason
That gray area being that many of them started out as innocent victims and will end up as enemy combatants because of the things that were done to them in Gitmo. Maybe we should release them to Paraguay.
kommrade jakevich
Tim, You’re reading too much into this. All we’ve got here is people with no connection to Obama running hypotheticals. It’s a great way to increase your word count and depending on the situation, not much else.
Mary
There’s no way to do justice to the kinds of questions you pose in a blog comment. Here are a few elaborations on your questions that show how pulling the threads unravels the fabric even more.
For your #2 you use the word innocent, but what does that mean, especially after the MCA? Innocent of being a member of al-Qaeda? Innocent of ever cooking a meal for someone who might have had an "affiliation" with PETA? We have a definitions structure now that makes things you might never have imagined into "crimes" and a fuzzy, constantly mutating definition of "terrorist" that can be equally all-embracing.
For your #4, you include "other than a small number of detainees whose name were on a confirmed list when we arrested them" as if that were a given. But what "confirmed list" and how was it "confirmed" (in the same way the Higazy confession was "confirmed"?) and how can you equate what has been done with arrest.
For #5, the sad truth is very much to the contrary. We have all the rulings in Padilla to show for that – you can arrest based on tortured statements from men who are having their penis repeatedly slit with a razor. You can disappear even an American citizen on American soil into years of isolated abuse (not days or weeks, but placing them into a human interrogation experimen t for years), you can have Pentagon reports detailing that the holding conditions violate Geneva Conventions that sits with no action for years, and yet you can still pop up and put them into the court system and have the courts and judges resolutely turn their back on the torture as having any impact on the trial. Go further and look at the procedural precedents the ND of IL crafted (even though doing very badly with the jury, ultimately, in their trial) in the Salah case there. Suddenly it’s ok to appear with hooded, identity disguised men from foreign nations (nations whose own Sup Courts have held that the organizations these men belong to engage in torture) testify about the statements they "solicited" and that can be used as evidence – even though the court here will never have any power over those men for perjury or obstruction and even though the defense has no credible way of examining them. We also have the courts here routinely refusing to offer up even a rat’s ass to the highest profile of the innocents who were tortured – Arar and el-Masri have had their cases tossed and tossed again and DOJ has affirmatively acted to further the initial torture and the subsequent cover up and the courts haven’t blinked over just shrugging shoulders and tossing the cases. If that is the response to high profile cases of of the clearly innocent citizens of Germany and Canada, then it puts a bit of a lie to the "oh, after we torture them we won’t be able to try them" meme. That’s probably the absolute blackest mark to put to the Bush DOJ – the fact that they have worked so merrily to make sure that we can and do and have been able to use our Federal courts to grant absolution to torture. And keep in mind that high profile Democrats on the Judiciary committee – like Chuch Schumer – were pretty strong advocates for the use of torture as well, and they certainly haven’t "suffered" politically for their embrace of torture.
For your #6, this is a part of the issue that makes it so much more complex from the standpoint of those who don’t want to have consequences for the torturers. The fact of the matter is, once you show anyone at GITMO was NOT an enemy combatant, then even without the ability to "prove" the torture suffered there, you have proven a war crime. Under the GCs, you can transport POWs out of country and probably "illegal enemy combatants" as well. But if someone wasn’t an enemy combatant, they are pretty much a protected person under the GCs. It is not only a breach of the GCs to ship a protected person out of country, it is internally referenced in the GCs as a severe and material breach. All the cover up of torture in the world still doesn’t get you away from this particular war crime. It’s why there so much concern over names getting out initially. And it’s why the Combatant Status Review Tribunals could always only give one answer to the "enemy combatant" question and why they were reheld if the answer wasn’t "correct" Bc any acknowledgement that anyone held was a mistake was the same as making a prima facie war crimes case with respect to their shipment to GITMO. That’s one more reason not to want the victims in the US with access to US courts – not just the torture victims act (which has been shown to be a laugher in Arar’s and el-Masri’s case), but a decent prosecutor someday actually usuing the War Crimes Act. It’s also why they needed the MCA so desperately. BC the MCA insulates the findings of the CSRTs with respect to enemy combatant status – that’s something that even the OLC opinions didn’t and couldn’t pull off (providing protection for actions taken against people who were not, in fact, enemy combatants) but Congress took a stab at going where Yoo wouldn’t and couldn’t – making the CSRT dispositive on status determinations. That’s why there is so much hand wringing over the Uighurs and the judge’s ruling there – he has ruled they were NEVER enemy combatants and opened the door to allowing them into the country. Lots of torture can be covered up, but the actual shipment of people to GITMO, once names began to be released and attorney access given, that can’t be hidden for those still there.
WIth respect to #7, I don’t know what Obama’s family teaches, but I have watched him during the FISA fights and I think he does buy into the concept that the laws are only for the little people, not Presidents and CEOs of ATT. He made sure to "reassure" people that he was not going to "give the terrorists" the "same rights as US citizens" and he has NEVER to my knowledge ever mentioned the fact that we have people who are not and never were terrorist that we have been using for human interrogation experiments, after purchasing them from criminals and warlords. We know that, with respect to GITMO, the WH was briefed by a TOP analyst who had been there that at least 1/3 of those being held were not only not terrorists/al-Qaeda/Taliban, but also were not even Mujahadeen. Arar’s story has been out forever now, as has el-Masri’s. But Obama never mentions them. He never mentions KSM’s disappeared children or other children of other "terrorists" who have also been disappeared. It’s not that fact that we have such a difficult problem that will be the biggest obstacle to resolutions. It’s that Obama doesn’t care that much about the law vs the political benefits of not alienating military and intelligence and DOJ branches who were Bush’s criminals. And he certainly has no interest in the kind of investigations that will highlight just how deeply enmeshed Pelosi, Rockefeller, etc. were in the admnistration’s criminal pursuits.
A case that may end up being more worthwhile to watch than the al-Marri case would be the investigation referrals made to the UK AG (B.Scotland) stemming from the Binyam Mohammed case. The UK AG isn’t much of a human rights crusader, but the referral seems to have been pretty much forced by the high court’s not too veiled threat to allow the medial to repetition for release of info from sealed hearings – so with the high court having a trump card, there might be something that comes of that.
smintheus
The first step is to explain to the public what happened: the mass arrests; the buying of prisoners; the settling of scores; the black sites; the slave ships; the brutality; the prolonged isolation and other tortures; the ‘exploitation’ processes; driving prisoners to insanity; suicides; the FBI’s objections; the foreign interrogators; the favors done to foreign powers like China; the coerced confessions; the kangaroo courts; the meager, absurd and ever changing allegations; the JAG revolts; the bizarre pattern of prisoner releases; the dishonesty and obfuscation of the Bush administration.
You lay all that out to the public in detail, and they’ll be sickened by it. After that, few would feel like objecting to the release of most of the rest of the victims.
The relatively few apparent criminals at Gitmo can be put on trial in federal court as long as the defendants are permitted the widest possible scope of discovery and the government does not try to exclude information about past lawlessness. That will expose the truth, which is what this country needs. I suspect that most or all the defendants will have the charges thrown out or be acquitted because of coercion. That will be a positive message about the rule of law, and may also lead to charges being filed against the perpetrators of SERE style ‘exploitation’.
What happens to the acquitted prisoners after that will be a lot less controversial than who’s responsible for the torture and what to do about it.
HinTH
I think the place to start is The Hague. Take the issue there and seek guidance. The world is ready to see America become a partner again. This would let us into that desire AND transfer the oozing sore of Bush policy off Barak’s back.
geemoney
I can’t believe that I am the first to comment on this, but:
I think you mean terrorists.
Good post, otherwise.
Unabogie
I don’t think this is that much of a landmine. Simply close Gitmo and transfer all prisoners to a US prison (or brig). Allow the prisoners lawyers, access to families, and then charge or release them, one by one. By following the law, the prisoners will be released slowly, instead of in some mass spectacle. After a year or so, they will all be convicted or freed. Since so few of them can be convicted, most will be freed.
demimondian
In the case of al-Marri, the situation is settled law: the detention is legal. He’s an enemy agent, a non-citizen, and he was within the United States; habeas simply doesn’t apply to him. He has no rights, period, (no) end of sentence.
I would like to see the Congress act to change that — I think he should have at least rights to determine whether or he is legally detained. But, right now, that’s clearly settled law.
Tim F.
No, it was right the way I wrote it. The sentence accurately describes the thinking of the people (I hesitate to use the term) who set up the system, it describes how the system runs and it especially covers the hysterical ignoramuses who defend it.
geemoney
@Tim F.: I see. My snark detector was thrown off by the otherwise sober post, coming as it did on the heels of "widely reported facts".
My bad.
sparky
seems like two distinct problems to me:
first is what to do with the human beings. i suspect that the US will simply continue the sub rosa repatriations that Bush has started. a few who may actually have some basis for being detained can be tried within the existing system (NOT the Bush CSRTs) and we’ll have to see how that plays out.
second, and more problematic, is rehabilitating the US. externally, perhaps that will require a proceeding beyond US jurisdiction. internally is a much greater problem, IMO. the enablers will have to concede that torture is wrong (eg it violates any number of laws), and the public will have to be given to understand that you don’t get to behave badly just cuz you are scared (closer to the moral point but difficult to make today given the fetishizing of torture). i don’t hold out much hope of that happening until the current players are gone from the scene. so it is entirely possible that nothing will be "solved" ala WWII unless you consider the apologies issued to those we failed (ex: to Japanese-Americans) solutions.
Polish the Guillotines
Ironically, I think Bush would be doing Obama a huge favor by blanket pardoning everyone involved in this mess. If that happens, the blame clearly assigns to Bush, Obama is relieved of having to make any sort of call on punishment for the low- to mid-level players in Bush/Cheney’s crew, and he will be free to focus on repatriation and adjudication of detainees.
Obama — just by virtue of being who he is — has some extra bonus goodwill internationally. I think if he makes the clear, honest statement that this is an unholy mess requiring patience and international cooperation to unwind, he’ll get it.
He’s less likely to get sympathy from within the U.S. because the screeching monkeys on the right will be screaming "Traitor!" at the top of their lungs.
Walker
This becomes more interesting considering the likely return of right-wing terrorism (Oklahoma II). Would the new administration be tempted to use detention powers for this?
Mary
25 – you need to go re-read Rasul and Boumedienne. That’s not correct.
Phil
Lucky old you having a "confirmed list". Should save a lot of time and energy circumventing that pesky legal process. How much do they cost?
burnspbesq
@demimondian:
Umm, no.
I think you need to take a closer look at what the Fourth Circuit en banc actually did.
They remanded for a determination as to whether there is justification for the original determination that al-Marri could be designated as an unlawful enemy combatant.
The original determination appears to have been based primarily on information extracted from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad using torture. Not exactly the most reliable source.
What should really happen in this case is that Obama’s DOJ should conduct a thorough review and if they conclude (as I suspect any rational lawyer would conclude) that the guy was never a threat, they should cut him loose and send him home. And if he files a 1983 action, just write the fucking check.
anonocrat
I think Unaboogie gets it right. This is a problem we can let the courts handle. Let the cases go to trial — and then establish that the evidence for holding these prisoners was bad, or that the good evidence we have is inadmissible. Sunlight.
I know it won’t calm the wingnuts who think that everybody in a robe is a baby-eating liberal, but the better we can document whether we have the right to hold these people prisoner or not, the better it is for the adults at the table.
Loneoak
1) I think the international legal world will be pretty forgiving to Obama if he makes good faith efforts at resolving this impossible mess.
2) Thank jeebus we just elected a Constitutional lawyer.
3) There are two distinct elements to this: what is legally necessarily and what is politically possible. In order to achieve what is legally necessary, there will have to be some major efforts at expanding what is conventionally believed to be politically possible. Obama is clearly capable of that. In this case, it will have to be a matter of letting as much sunshine as possible through the doors.
Clio
Sorry to hijack the thread, but this is at least foreign policy related. I was watching fareed zakaria this afternoon, and i really have to say that i can not fricking wait for obama to smack putin back. Vlad clearly thinks that barack is a big pussy that he is going to be able to push around from the antics that were pulled this week with the missles. Guess what, putin: this is not a man who tolerates this macho nonsense. You are going to learn and learn fast that your days of dealing with a president rube are over.
Bill White
Clio, if we set aside the symbolism and the bargaining chip aspects how does a ballistic missile defense facility in central Europe offer any tangible military benefit?
Suppose we have two dozen or even four dozen ABM missiles in Poland, Russia can deploy 10x that number in the blink of an eye.
Other than the symbolism of "standing up to Putin" what do we gain?
But ten missiles? Ten?
The only purpose of that would be to show Russia our middle finger, all without any tangible military benefit attached. Why?
priscianus jr
I’m not sure the problem is quite as complicated as you make it out. I have always believed that the real point of this torture regime was not to acquire valuable information, which it does not do anyway, as to deliberately smash the regime of international law. For somewhat different but overlapping reasons, the fundies, the corporatists, the rogue intelligence people and the neocons all hate international law. If we reestablish a sound, professional intelligence process and the Geneva conventions, I think most of these guys can soon be sent home, with considerable confidence that they are innocent. For the others, we go back to the status quo ante of international law. They are prisoners of war, and they were captured. They should be treated as prisoners of war according to the Geneva conventions.
Clio
Bill white- i was not really trying to make a point about missile defense. It was a point about our larger relations with russia, and i think that putin has been in the drivers seat ever since president putz saw his soul. Putin was trying to intimidate barack with that garbage last week, i seriously doubt he was trying out some new policy initiative. He was throwing his weight around and trying to start a pissing contest. My point was that barack is not going to play that game or be pushed around by putin, much to vladimir’s surprise. We finally have a strong leader to balance putin and hopefully put him back on his heels, and im glad for it.
JWW
Tim,
The litany of BS you just rang up is far more than any in your audience could comprehend without taking all of their vacation to do so.
If you were to look at such writings as not being the author, you would find it quite stupid. Your assumptions are without basis and your credits regarding such are the same.
Here is your case, "my daddy owns a farm in Idaho, if your farm ain’t like his, your wrong. My brother did kill that man, he was just holding him down, it weren’t my fault.
The real question should follow these lines.
Why has no nation of the currently held prisoners demanded release?
If we were to release them, would they be executed within 72 hours of arrival to their home nation? Why would they be executed? Think about that.
We didn’t retain them for political gain, we could have gathered much higher men on the tree.
We allow thugs like these to roam our streets every day, it has nothing to do with religion, country of origin, or ethnicity.
We feel sorry for and remember the gang members name for years after the ones they have murdered. It is no different for the Gitmo guys.
When they knock on your door, tell them, you were behind them all the way!!!
JWW
Tim,
Just a quick follow up,
Send them back to their country of orign. I’m sure they are ever so welcome.
The beheadings start at sunrise.
You are so smart.
Thank you
Bill White
JWW,
That is exactly why we need to give them to the Red Cross and/or Red Crescent or some other similar group. We cannot just send them home nor can we continue to keep them in legal limbo.
But getting these people out of US custody and possession as soon as practicable simply is a geo-political necessity.
Then, accepting an international "punishment" (I again refer to the Henry II / Thomas Beckett affair, at least the more theatrical interpretations of that historical event) would be a useful step forward along with the "retirement" of those senior officers responsible for violations of international law.
Nancy Irving
People being held illegally should be let go.
The idea that anyone now being held is somehow uniquely dangerous to us is false. Thousands of young people now living freely in the Islamic world (and in the West) are ready and willing to commit terrorist acts against the United States, and more join them every day. Adding some hundreds of torture-broken men to this reserve army of terrorists–some hundreds moreover whose names will forever be on no-fly lists–is not going to increase our danger. Al Qaeda already has all the human tools it needs. Why we have not been attacked on U.S. soil since 9/11 is not known, but for sure it is not because some individual Ali or Muhammad is in jail at Gitmo.
J. Michael Neal
By my reading of the Geneva Conventions, there actually is a way out of this. The CSRTs are required because we are trying to declare that these people are illegal enemy combatants. The rules on holding people as actual prisoners of war, covered by the Conventions and due its protections, are much less onerous. My guess is that President Obama could hold on to the people we really think are dangerous, so long as he made a good faith effort to release all of those that aren’t.
I would bet that this would even be tolerated politically, even on the international stage. Put together a prima facie case against the ones we want to keep, that relies upon non-illegal evidence, and treat them humanely.
wilfred
An Iraqi colleague of mine, with whom I’m collaborating in a translation of Iraqi resistance poetry, tells me that her 19 year old nephew recently reappeared after going missing for the past 2 years and 4 months. He just turned up at home one day, after being taken off the street by an American patrol and held in lock-up near Baghdad the whole time. Guess what he thinks.
This is actually the best post I’ve seen around here for ages – thoughtful and well-written.
I’m in the Islamic world at the moment and I’d have to say the number is more like the hundreds of thousands, if not fucking millions. A lot has to do with the stupidity of the last 16 years – and don’t kid yourself, Clinton isn’t very popular around here either. But stupidities like those expressed in her comment don’t help. Is at all possible to imagine that everyone who wants the United States out of their country is not a fucking terrorist but someone who resents injustice and is willing to fight against it? It’s thinking like that that built those prisons in the first place – the only good Muslim is…
We will reap what we have sown. A lot of people are trying to undo the senseless damage and cruelty of the last 16 years -wallahi, I’m one of them – and I tell you after 3 months that it seems pretty hopeless right now. This was a good post because it recognizes the wrongs that have been done – it’s up to Obama to recognize them and correct them as best he can.
anonocrat
Called it.
JWW
Bill,
I say release them to the goverment of their country of origin. They will either be free or dead.
Nancy,
It only takes one more log on a fire too produce more heat. It only that one more day of rain to make a river flood.
Wilfred,
I would say to you, "Why don’t you go join them"?
empty
Wow! What a lucid post. Thanks Tim.
And thanks Mary for the elaborations.