No trial, no appeal, just lifetime detention

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sindawe

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
3,480
Location
Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects

Sun Jan 2,12:00 AM ET

By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

The Pentagon (news - web sites) and the CIA (news - web sites) have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

"We've been operating in the moment because that's what has been required," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, who said the current detention system has strained relations between the United States and other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries. The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, the senior administration official said.

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, according to defense officials.

The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share, the officials said. It would be modeled on a U.S. prison and would allow socializing among inmates.

"Since global war on terror is a long-term effort, it makes sense for us to be looking at solutions for long-term problems," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "This has been evolutionary, but we are at a point in time where we have to say, 'How do you deal with them in the long term?' "

The administration considers its toughest detention problem to involve the prisoners held by the CIA. The CIA has been scurrying since Sept. 11, 2001, to find secure locations abroad where it could detain and interrogate captives without risk of discovery, and without having to give them access to legal proceedings.

Little is known about the CIA's captives, the conditions under which they are kept -- or the procedures used to decide how long they are held or when they may be freed. That has prompted criticism from human rights groups, and from some in Congress and the administration, who say the lack of scrutiny or oversight creates an unacceptable risk of abuse.

Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the House intelligence committee who has received classified briefings on the CIA's detainees and interrogation methods, said that given the long-term nature of the detention situation, "I think there should be a public debate about whether the entire system should be secret.

"The details about the system may need to remain secret," Harman said. At the least, she said, detainees should be registered so that their treatment can be tracked and monitored within the government. "This is complicated. We don't want to set up a bureaucracy that ends up making it impossible to protect sources and informants who operate within the groups we want to penetrate."

The CIA is believed to be holding fewer than three dozen al Qaeda leaders in prison. The agency holds most, if not all, of the top captured al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida and the lead Southeast Asia terrorist, Nurjaman Riduan Isamuddin, known as Hambali.

CIA detention facilities have been located on an off-limits corner of the Bagram air base in Afghanistan (news - web sites), on ships at sea and on Britain's Diego Garcia island in the Indian Ocean. The Washington Post reported last month that the CIA has also maintained a facility within the Pentagon's Guantanamo Bay complex, though it is unclear whether it is still in use.

In contrast to the CIA, the military produced and declassified hundreds of pages of documents about its detention and interrogation procedures after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. And the military detainees are guaranteed access to the International Committee of the Red Cross and, as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruling, have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court.

But no public hearings in Congress have been held on CIA detention practices, and congressional officials say CIA briefings on the subject have been too superficial and were limited to the chairman and vice chairman of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

The CIA had floated a proposal to build an isolated prison with the intent of keeping it secret, one intelligence official said. That was dismissed immediately as impractical.

One approach used by the CIA has been to transfer captives it picks up abroad to third countries willing to hold them indefinitely and without public proceedings. The transfers, called "renditions," depend on arrangements between the United States and other countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Afghanistan, that agree to have local security services hold certain terror suspects in their facilities for interrogation by CIA and foreign liaison officers.

The practice has been criticized by civil liberties groups and others, who point out that some of the countries have human rights records that are criticized by the State Department in annual reports.

Renditions originated in the 1990s as a way of picking up criminals abroad, such as drug kingpins, and delivering them to courts in the United States or other countries. Since 2001, the practice has been used to make certain detainees do not go to court or go back on the streets, officials said.

"The whole idea has become a corruption of renditions," said one CIA officer who has been involved in the practice. "It's not rendering to justice, it's kidnapping."

But top intelligence officials and other experts, including former CIA director George J. Tenet in his testimony before Congress, say renditions are an effective method of disrupting terrorist cells and persuading detainees to reveal information.

"Renditions are the most effective way to hold people," said Rohan Gunaratna, author of "Inside al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror." "The threat of sending someone to one of these countries is very important. In Europe, the custodial interrogations have yielded almost nothing" because they do not use the threat of sending detainees to a country where they are likely to be tortured.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...0050102/ts_washpost/a41475_2005jan1&printer=1
----------------

So much for being the Land of the Free
 
Disgusting. It's early today, and I'm having trouble expressing just how disgusting I find the entire concept of lifelong imprisonment without due process of law. If there isn't enough evidence to even put the person before a military tribunal, then how on Earth could any American support locking the person up for the rest of their life?

I can tolerate a lengthy detainment of individuals captured on the field of battle for purposes of interrogation and the gathering of intelligence, but not life imprisonment without a trial. Not when the current "war" is against non-governmental organizations and will never end.

We don't have to become monsters to be victorious against monsters.

Don't "want" to set them free? Too bad. At some point habeas corpus must kick into play.
 
Those who commit offenses against the State must go to the Gulag! Dostvadanya, tovarisch!
The detention centers we set up for Americans of Japanese descent in WWII can't hold a candle to this garbage.
 
I find myself wondering just how much spin and distortion there is in this article. It wouldn't be the first time that the media has "tweaked" the facts to turn something reasonable into something that sounds horrid in order to smear President Bush.

That said, if what is reported is anywhere close to reality, this is so far past acceptable that I'm having trouble finding words to express my disgust and horror. Just like armoredman, the thought of Japanese internment camps immediately came to mind. I'm even finding myself wondering if I voted for the right man for president. (The alternative, though, remains even more frightening to me.)

The question is, what do we do about this? At this moment, I'm feeling like I'm sitting here helpless, watching the rise of the Third Reich, or the start of the October Revolution.
 
I dunno. They're foreign nationals with clear links to our enemies and terrorism in a time of war. Why should they have Constitutional protections? Would you prefer we handle international terrorism as a criminal matter?
 
RileyMc I am with you.

As long as these are not US Citizens then I am willing to let the government use its knowledge to say these individuals have an affiliation to terrorism and let them rot.

If they were US Citizens then I would have a severe problem with this.

Otherwise to hades with these scum.
 
RileyMc, does the name Jose Padilla ring a bell?

On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina. Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and probably a violation of the 6th Amendment. It is also a clearly abominable violation of the democratic traditions of the United States.

Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".

These are frightening accusations, and they may be true. Accusations do not give the President the authority to lock someone away, however. According to the laws and traditions of the U.S., the way to determine who gets imprisoned is through the due process of a trial by jury.

Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. That is tyranny. We must put an end to it.

It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.

Source: http://www.chargepadilla.org/

HE is not a foreign national, nor was he captured in open combat with U.S. troops. Yet still he's not been charged, and remains in detention.
 
Yeah, I've heard of Padilla. If .gov has violated his Constitutional rights, why hasn't an action been brought by his attorneys (writ of habeas corpus, or whatever). Has Padilla renounced his U.S. citizenship at some time in the past?

Whatever the reason in the Padilla case, it does not invalidate detention of foreign nationals with ties to our enemies in a time of war.
 
Let them Go?

They bought into their "holy War" and vowed the destruction of our society and nothing short of that will suffice to those that lead this Jihad.

Now - Let's go back to how they treat our prisoners and civilians or anyone else who disagrees with there philosophy's?

Are we really the bad guys here? Are we not in a fight and war for the very survival of our way of life and country as a whole? What part of this scenario don't you follow?

Have any of these measures been applied to any others, other than those that have sworn an allegiance to OBL and his band of criminal thugs. They have no standing whatsoever under our laws.

Maybe we could ship them to Sheriffs Joe's Jail in Maricopa Co, put them in tents and feed them bologna sandwich's for the rest of their miserable life's... :) :) :) :)

12-34hom.
 
Do they have clear links to terrorism? I don't know; I don't have access to information to judge such claims. If they are terrorists then they are criminals and should be tried as such. If they are POWs then they should be treated like POWs (there is no reason to hold them at Guantanamo, we can hold them in the US like we did with the Germans in WWII). If they were Taliban POWs it seems they should be released as the Taliban has been defeated, and a new regime has taken its place.

I realize that they may not have Constitutional protections, but that does not mean that detaining them indefinitely can be justified morally.
 
And heres the rub...

The .gov has asserted that ANY American citizen can be declared an enemy combatant and held...

The recent cases of Yaser Hamdi1 and Jose Padilla,2 United States citizens detained as "enemy combatants," bring this potential danger into sharp relief and raise troublesome and profound issues. The government has taken the position that "with no meaningful judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel on the government's say-so."3

3 See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, _____ F.3d ____ , 2002 WL 148390802 at *5 (4th Cir. July 12,
2002).We note that both the Hamdi and Padilla cases are in litigation, and facts and arguments
may emerge that have not been made public. It is not our purpose to address these cases
specifically, but rather to discuss the implications of them and the principles we believe should
be considered as our nation confronts the broader questions they raise.
Source: www.abanet.org/leadership/enemy_combatants.pdf

"So Mr. RileyMc has a liking for firearms and a long history of posting his views on an online forum known as The High Road.Org, a web site which as consistently permited its members to spout anti-government views and even calls for open rebellion against the legitimate authority of the United States Government. Clearly Mr. RileyMc presents a danger to the security of the United States, and by his own actions is an enemy combatant."
 
Look at the facts of what you KNOW to be true... these scum bags were captured in a war, as enemy combatants, trying to kill your countries soldiers, they do not stand for your beliefs of freedom, or consitutional laws, would kill you, your family and all living members of your family if they could, these are the people who cheered when the towers fell on 911, and in their eyes, have no belief in honor, america, democracy, you or your beliefs. How do you conclude, these scum bags have the rights, of someone living in america? Without question, america went back to sleep after 911, and forgot what responsibility we have to each other, and what it takes to be free, do you think this comes by just being an amrican, have YOU ever done ANYTHING, other then talk, to defend your country? If these camps and prisons were build for the people of america, and the line was formed to fight that belief, ALL of you, would be in line BEHIND me, but this is not the case with these pig scum bags. In their country, you would not have lasted as long as they have here, under our care, you would be at the bottom of a pit, with them making plans to do the same to your family, there would be no one, talking of your rights. In a hard ball game, you play hard ball, and you better play to win. I support americans and the rights our grandfather died for, but not some lawyer fluff, thinking our rights, are made for the pig scum trying to away with you, me, and all of America.
 
This is new ground . . . . in a regular war, declarations are made by combatant nations and prisioners are held as POW's, no crime other than that they were enemy soliders and then get imprisioned as POW's

In that light, maybe these detentions seem more reasonable.

But without formal declarations from one nation to another; what do you do then? And when is the war "over" and the POWs released?

I think we have to be real careful here, and without shooting ourselves in the foot I'd like to see them charge and try these guys as civillian criminals, or declare them POW's based on some specific criteria or let them go.
 
Wow, life imprisonment without being charged with any crime. But they aren't American citizens (except for the ones that are/were that is)...

Maybe I'm mistaken but isn't everyone here always on about our rights being endowed by our Creator, not by our government? If so, then why don't foreign nationals have the same rights?

Yes, they may be our enemy, but we won't know that until they are charged with an actual crime. Our government is supposed to be transparent. This is shadowy and smacks of totalitarianism.

Just my 2 pfennig.
 
So let me see if I have this right, your saying Padella has been treated unfair? and if so, how would you suggest he be treated? After his capture, his name was released, yes? the evidence presented, yes? what is your way of dealing with an american who has vowed to kill americans? Is this going on in large numbers? or is this just another story of the run away,conspiracy assumption gang?
 
I don't give a flying fruitcake about the fact that terrorists are being imprisoned. What I am worried about is how they are defined as terrorists - not just now, but in the future. They do not have enough evidence against them to charge them in court. That is what the article says. So, what degree of guilt do they really have? Second-cousin to Osama? Is that good enough? Neither you nor I nor anybody else really knows, because there is a small group of people defining terrorist in this situation. And if that doesn't frighten you, or strike you as a bit off, then... I don't know.

This is all assuming the article is true, which may or may not be the case.
 
In my opinion there are two classes of people who should be imprisoned, prisoners of war and criminals.

In both cases the status of such should be open to at a minimum judicial review.

If you're not a member of a standing army of a country we are at war with, we shouldn't be detaining you for an extended period of time unless you're a criminal.

There is some flexibility on if a person should be tried before a military tribunal or a civillan court, but people should not be held without the government being able to prove that they need to be held.

The right to freedom from unreasonable persecution is an unailienable right. The US Constitution recognizes that right but does not create it. The right exists for both US citizens and foreigners.
 
all articles, such as this, are written to not inform, but to tell you the things, most likely to stir you up, this artcle was not one of information, but one, that they make a point, and only give the data to support that point, NOT all the data. One realistic lesson of war, is that if you fight, with a lawyer looking over your shoulder, you have more then one enemy. I hope america wakes up, thought 911 might do it, but I was wrong, american again hit the snooze alarm, next time something happens, do not come back with "how did THEY let this happen" ........they is us.
 
I understand the concern and fear of the government overreaching and detaining persons without due process. What do you propose as an alternative? Do you think international terrorism should be handled as a criminal justice matter? If so, who has authority to prosecute? Furthermore, if it were handled as a criminal justice issue, no 'prior restraint' measures could be used AFAIK. So you just let known terrorists run around loose until they blow something up??????
 
Okay, so far on the "lock 'em all up even if we don't have any evidence!" side of things, we have the following arguments.

1) They're not Americans and they don't deserve the rights of Americans.
2) They're out to kill us.
3) They treat us worse than we treat them.
4) Everybody knows they've done it (or will do it), so they should be locked up.
5) What should we do, just let 'em run around free until they kill someone?

***

My answer to the above:

1) Some of them are. As this drags on, more of them will be.
2) Freedom is dangerous. Deal with it.
3) So? Didn't your mamma teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
4) If everybody knows it, someone should be able to come up with evidence, acceptable in a court of law, which proves it.
5) Freedom is dangerous. Deal with it.

pax

Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, Earl of Chatham

pax
 
Gee, I wonder how much longer it will be until "undesirable elements" simply start disappearing off the streets of the United States, snatched up at those wonderful, Supreme Court authorized random road stops?

Over the course of my life, I've witnessed a frightening rise of the police state mentality in this country.

What's really distressing is that neither party is immune from enacting its own version of it.
 
Freedom is not about Safety.

I'm curious as to how it is that people can post about Jose Padilla and yet the refrain does not change? "They're not American citizens. . . . they were captured in open battle. . . . they're not American citizens . . . they were captured in open battle. . . ."

Is there anything anyone can say that will convince you to stop saying that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top