The DOD has officially lost its damn mind.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/16/gi...iew/index.html


"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Military officers next week will begin meeting with the more than 600 prisoners being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to determine the legality of their detentions, Pentagon officials said Friday.

Called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, the three-member panels are a response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June.

That court decision gave "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.

But the panels are not a part of the federal court system, and that is part of the reason opponents of the review tribunals say they don't satisfy the high court's order.

Several groups are challenging the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists.

"The [Department of Defense] takes the view that all of the detainees have already been determined to be enemy combatants by using a definition of the term different from the courts, and that it may exercise its discretion to release some of them," said Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights, an organization representing several of the detainees.

There will be three review tribunals with three military officers sitting on each. The tribunal will conduct one-time-only reviews to determine whether a detainee is correctly being held as an enemy combatant.

If a panel determines a detainee is not an an enemy combatant, the the case will be sent to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who will work with the secretary of state to arrange that detainee's trip back to his home country, officials said.

Detainees judged to still be a threat to the United States would remain in detention.

Reviews will occur at Gitmo, with each team striving to complete 72 cases per week.

Detainees will have access to interpreters and military assistants -- not lawyers -- to help in their cases.

Pentagon officials said Friday that the military assistants would have to pass any information received from detainees to the tribunal officials.

"The Supreme Court ruling requires access to legal representation. This process is elaborate window dressing and an attempt to subvert that ruling and the rule of law," said Jeffrey E. Fogel, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The panels will apply only to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo, Pentagon officials said. Most of those imprisoned on the naval station's grounds are captives from the war in Afghanistan. About a dozen of the Guantanamo detainees are accused of participating in terrorist attacks or of being members of al Qaeda.

Pentagon officials said the review panels will eventually be open to the media. But the first few are likely to start before coverage guidelines are settled.

The Supreme Court ruled in late June that U.S. citizens and foreign nationals held as terror suspects in military custody have the right to challenge their detentions.

In reviewing the constitutionality of the administration's war on terror policies, the justices upheld the right of the executive branch to hold such suspects.

The military notified the detainees of their rights during the past week, officials said.

About 95 percent of the detainees reacted positively to the notification, meaning they were interested in going through the process, Pentagon officials said.

Five percent of the detainees were not pleased and did not acknowledge the notifications, said Pentagon officials."

I could swear the the SCOTUS said that the prisoners were to have a hearing in FEDERAL COURT to determine their status. I guess this means the President and Attorney General have to step in and inforce the SCOTUS's ruling.

McMahon: You are correct, sir!

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/s...03-334.ZD.html

Aaaand as best as I can read into it, the District of Columbia holds jurisdiction over such matters.

I don't understand how enemy combatants who aren't US citizens have any constitutional rights at all. Wasn't the ruling only concerning US citizens who were captured and held as enemy combatants?

You're think of one of the other two Gitmo court cases (Hamdi or Paladia) that came out at the same time as Rasul v. Bush. Rasul v. Bush related to all of the enemy combatants that are being held in Gitmo.

Nanofever, your post leaves me puzzled. You claim that the DOD has lost it's mind, then you post an interesting article, yet you have nothing to say on the topic. I'm left wondering what your opinions are based on. In fact, I'm left wondering what your opinions really are.

It's difficult to join a discussion that was never started.

I'm deeply upset that the DOD is choosing to not comply with the Supreme Court's ruling which said that Gitmo prisoners *must* have a federal hearing to determine their status. The DOD is unoffically giving the SCOTUS the finger by setting up DOD-based military tribunals, instead of following the mandate the SCOTUS delivered in Rasul v. Bush. I see this action by the DOD as another attempt by the executive branch to destroy checks and balances between the branches of the federal government.

I see this as a brilliant and very well-considered Administrative branch response to a very presumptive Judicial branch ruling. Score one for the Separation of Powers.

I see this as the continuation of a horrifying policy that runs counter to American ideals of justice and fairness. Unlimited detention and interrogation with no due process is a scary thought, even when applied to "enemy combatants." Do we really want to be a country that "disappears" their enemy?

Sure. They are the enemy.

Or should we just shoot them?

Historically, one tends to proceed the other.

You can tell a lot about a nation by how they treat their enemies. I, for one, think that we deserve a society with higher standards than Pinochet's Chile. The fact that any American administration is trying to define some legal oubliette in which to throw both US citizens and non-citizens is a chilling thought and evokes memories of the Star Chamber.

What I always like to do is put myself in someone else's shoes.

If you were in another country and go arrested by a forgien power that then took you to a territory they owned what would you want to happen? What if they didn't give you access to lawyers or judges. What if they didn't even let you tell your side of the story. You could be innocent but no one would know. Your family would think you are dead.

These guys should be given lawyers and trails no if ands or buts. I seriously doubt they could do much terrorism by talking to lawyers. They have been out of their countries for a couple years, their ties are all but lost.

Give them a trial or set them free. My theory is the only reason our government won't let them talk to anyone is because of how we treated them there. They don't want people to find our dirty underware.

It is time we got back on the highroad and realized we have libirties that many men have died to aquire and protect. Why should we take those very same libirties away from others? They deserve due process. And we need to start questioning our administrations actions because things are not right.

They are not US citizens. They have no Constitutional power. They are being treated fairly according to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by declaring they have constitutional rights, for that to happen it would take the Legislative branch to start a bill. The DoD (or possibly executive branch) told them to fuck off. Good for them.

It doesn't matter if they are US citizens. Just because one of them is a farmer in afganastan who is trying to support his family doesn't make him any less than you or me.

Think about it

Rekna has a point in that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution talk about UNIVERSAL human rights, which we formed a government to protect. It may be less convenient, but we ought to hold those rights as universal in all cases - maybe that would help our public image. At any rate, I think that applying the stated American principles of human rights in all cases would be the patriotic thing to do - sort of a statement that we stand for something, and that ideal cannot be defeated, nor will we compromise what makes America American because we are afraid.

Or shoot them if they are combatants that are really that threatening to us - but this stripping of rights by default through waffling is not in the spirit of American greatness.

The White House and Pentagon have ruled from the beginning that as "enemy combatants," the Guantanamo prisoners are not subject to Geneva Convention regulations. If they also have no legal recourse under American law than they are in limbo and are essentially prisoners to the whims of the executive branch. Doesn't this strike you as a bit authoritarian and, perhaps, unamerican?

The Declaration of Independence is not what is the basis for our government, our Constitution is. It would be nice to treat everyone the same but it's different when they belong to a differnet country, and want to kill everyone in ours as well as all the ideals that we hold on to so dearly.

I'm sorry but they dont sweep up people like cattle over there, they are captured if they are in a firefight against US forces.

Not only that, but it strikes me that "enemy combatant" was just a new category made up to avoid the Geneva convention. It wasn't really a class that needed new guidelines - just semantic sidestepping. The should have just called them POW II or Non-Geneva POW - that would have been more to the point. Otherwise you are implying that the right to be charged depends on your country of origin, not your personal human rights.

So if the constitution specifically denies the ability for a state to take away these rights what makes us assume the government can?

The US administration has shown a couple faux pas in terms of handling prisone... oh wait, "enemy combatants." For the executive branch to have absolute say-so over a group of detainees is asking for abuse of authority. It doesn't have to be so, but it can be so that a couple of Afghani shepherds were picked up for kicks, sent to Gitmo on a lark, and have now been held for years under 23 hour lockdown, without any contacts to a lawyer, and sweating it out when the military translator comes by to tell them how they aren't subject to the geneva convention, judicial oversight, and that the administrations lawyers have found it *legal* to torture them for information.

Swept up like cattle?
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Sa...76495581&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161
To say that the court has overstepped its bounds just by saying that they get to look and see whether or not detainees who are denied even the Geneva convention are even supposed to be in U.S. custody is to put a lot of faith in the military's ability to fill up 600 cell blocks with diehard Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters and not have ONE innocent bystander.

while were at it

It just feels like the government organizations are not being responsive to the people who comprise it. I feel that behavior like this actually engenders more hatred of US citizens and that my long-term interests will suffer the consequences.

--http://www.alternet.org/rights/log/

Great, we've become our enemy. I hope we are all proud of ourselves.

Why don't most people get that we are running around justifying our wars on the basis of human rights while we go around and treat people in very similar ways?

don't blame USA blame the administration. Even better yet do something about it and vote the administration out and pray that the next administration has more foresight.

Rekna... you overlooked a VERY important part.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since when have POWs counted as US citizens?

Oh and everyone please research the Geneva Convention, they apply only to uniformed combatants. If you research it terrorists dont fall into that. Just like the werewolves in WWII they are not included and can legally be shot on sight... so Guetmo doesnt sound that bad now does it?

Since when have they not counted as people?

And concerning being shot on sight, yeah, I'd rather spend 10 years in a Cuban cell than get gunned down. But then again, not every Gitmo detainee has made it these past 2.5 years.

Why did you only bold the one portion that supported your point? Shouldn't we look at the entire sentence, which clearly extends the reference beyond citizens?

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well, if we're gonna play the partial sentence game...

I acknowledged the passage I posted didn't extend to them not because of citizenship but because of state juristiction. The question i asked is why do we assume the executive branch can have that power when the states cannot?

In addition you skipped over these parts
This is not just for US citizens this is for all people within US juristiction. The administration is trying to create a loophole saying they are not in our juristication because they are in Guantanamo when clearly we are the ones who control where they are and hace complete control over them.

Jesus christ, this is what happens when people can't read proper fucking english...


...there are three (3) clauses. Read them all. If you need help parsing the sentence or interpreting a semi-colon, grab a basic comp handbook.

I was just having fun smooth, don't have a coronary. The point is everyone is going to interpret each piece a little differently. The game of posting snippets doesn't get people talking about the issues. Of course, now that I think about it not much does here in Tilted Politics. Nevermind. Carry on.

Well the issue seems to be the Supreme Court attempting bring a form of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees, and the Administration cut the knees off of it by inserting appointed executive-branch-judges.

Art would consider it +1 for seperation of powers, whereas I feel it's -1 for checks and balances.

To grow on that, the executive branch does need a certain amount of wiggle room in times of war, to ensure expedient action against those who would do us harm. I see nothing that would detract from that by having District of Columbia judges determine the justifications for holding each of the detainees. They're off the "battlefield," now it's time to figure out what to do with them (read: Not time to let them rot in a cage for the rest of their natural life).

I think the DoD should have the power to do whatever it wants with prisoners of war, excluding tourture. We need to keep in mind that these ppl are the bad guys. I'm not a big fan of putting them back on the streat.

Also, while the distinctions may be blurry, there is, as far as I know, a difference between a Taliban soldier and an al Qaeda terrorist. Fuck'em both for sure, but in terms of the geneva convetion, Taliban soldiers ought to have been uniformed combatants. Changing "uniformed" to "enemy" doesn't change much about the nature of who they were: Soldiers in the military of a government that A) We had recognized as legitimate (prior to 9/11) and B) Were at war with.

Like I said, fuck'em both, but unlike al Qaeda, Taliban soldiers fall under the umbrella of the Geneva convention according to your terms.

I think. I couldn't tell you what a Taliban uniform looks like.

i think your a bit presumptuous in classifying them as "bad guys". the problem with the current situation of "enemy combatants" is that they are not being given an opportunity to disprove that they are not in fact "bad guys". I don't know how anyone could be so sure that ever person in Guantanamo is in fact guilty and I don't know how one can justify detaining innocents indefinitely.

i wonder what effect our not actually making a declaration of war against both afghanistan and iraq has on prisoners of those conflicts?

The problem, as I see it, is one of classification. The prisoners do not fit nicely into any predetermined pigeon hole. The are not U.S. citizens...nor are they Prisoners of War, as defined by the Geneva Convention. We have to define them. They are our prisoners, and we have to dispense with them in some fashion.

This whole thing is bullshit. Out of all the people that are at Gitmo, surely some must be reletively or fully innocent. Taleban, AQ, or whatever the reasons for detaining them need to be clear. We should only be holding those who posess usefull knowledge or can be identified as credible threats to US security.

If we decide to use these sneaky tactics to keep them indefinitely we are no better than those we are fighting.

Also keep in mind what we do to our prisoners sets a precidence for what the rest of the world does with theirs... What would happen if tomorrow China grabbed all American citizens and declared them all illegal combatants then put them in a prison with no trial and no defense. Then on top of that they informed no one of what they did and who they did it to. Now what if you were one of these people?


Yeah it is a lot of what ifs but all these what ifs are what has happend to the people in Gauntonimo. Some are guilty for sure but there is a good chance that some are not. Should we at least let these people defend their innocence?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ional/Americas

Sorry Charlie, looks like judicial oversight is coming in a bit late in the game.

It's strange that the lawyers dunno why the three were in Afghanistan, but their current freedom says something of it.