Gitmo (Stick)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Ok, it has been a while.


Gitmo

1. Does the US Consitution apply to non-US citizens? Should it?

2. Should the Geneva Convention apply to detainees at Gitmo? And by principle of precedence to all others?

3. Does releasing the detainees imply they were innocent and the USG made mistakes?

4. Should they be tried?

5. If so, how?

6. If not, what should be done?


Please, keep emotions out of it as much as possible.

[Smokin Joe]

Gitmo

1. Does the US Consitution apply to non-US citizens? No Should it? No

2. Should the Geneva Convention apply to detainees at Gitmo? Nope And by principle of precedence to all others? And Nope

3. Does releasing the detainees imply they were innocent and the USG made mistakes? Why should we release them?

4. Should they be tried? Sorry they have no right to a trial

5. If so, how? See last answer

6. If not, what should be done? Option A:Turn them into "Assests" on a short leash! Option B: If they don't want to comply keep them locked up until Osama,The Taliban, Terrorism, and Allah are no longer worth dying for. Option C: Excute them on site, swiftly.

[Bravo1-3]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

1. Does the US Consitution apply to non-US citizens? Should it?

Not if they are not on US soil or detained there. I was initially for bringing these chumps to Gitmo, but the fact that they are on a US Military Base can make things more complicated. Were they still in A-Stan, a lot of the rules that apply now would not apply anymore.

2. Should the Geneva Convention apply to detainees at Gitmo? And by principle of precedence to all others?

Yes and No. These people are acting in violation of the Geneva Convention, and if I'm not mistaken, there are provisions for being able to put them up against a wall and shoot them for that in the GC. So if we're going to apply GC to them, lets just shoot them. They've been in custody long enough that whatever intel value they have is minimal.

3. Does releasing the detainees imply they were innocent and the USG made mistakes?

Not to anyone who is rational, but I have my doubts about the rationality of most people who object to these clowns being held in the first place.

4. Should they be tried?

Yes, and then shot.

5. If so, how?

In a manner that allows them a fair trial without public disclosure of operational information or intelligence sources.

6. If not, what should be done?

See #5

Please, keep emotions out of it as much as possible.

Oops.

[Roguish Lawyer]

When the Team Sergeant's away, the mice will play? LMAO!

[brewmonkey]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Ok, it has been a while.


Gitmo

1. Does the US Consitution apply to non-US citizens? Should it?

I do not think it applies to non citizens, nor do I think it should unless they have been granted some form of Visa other then a visit (Work/School) or unless they have been granted a green card. It should not apply to people who are within the confines of our borders (no matter how they got here) who have no desire to be constructive members of our society.

2. Should the Geneva Convention apply to detainees at Gitmo? And by principle of precedence to all others?

It should apply only to those who fit the criteria as set forth by the convention, including those of any nations military. There are 4 criteria that must be met in order to be afforded POW status as opposed to unlawful combatants according to the convention and they are,

"(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

It is obvious that many of those being held do not meet the criteria. So no, the convention should not be applied to all detainees and we should make every effort when we capture personnel to document as best as possible if they are in contravention of the articles.

Affording many the rights of one? Not at all. You are either a POW because you played by the rules (as stupid as that might sound) or you are an unlawful combatant IMHO.

3. Does releasing the detainees imply they were innocent and the USG made mistakes?

Not in the least. Many people are set free from the prison system guilty as hell because we could not make a case due to lack of concrete evidence (although I m sure circumstantial cases have been made successfully). It also does not mean we made any mistakes by detaining them. They were captured because they were caught red handed, dimed out by their buddies or we had enough suspicions to detain them while deciding what to do next. Guilt by association is a bitch.

4. Should they be tried?

Yes, they should indeed face trial. IF we have the evidence to do so then we owe it to the people of this country and every other country that has suffered at the hands of these people.

5. If so, how?

If the detainee is IAW the convention then obviously that is the way. For the rest we apply US law and try them by a military court, even Article 85 of the convention allows for detainees to be tried under the host nations laws for crimes occurring prior to capture.

6. If not, what should be done?

We send them to France?

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Ok, it has been a while.


Gitmo

1. Does the US Consitution apply to non-US citizens? Should it?

No, we've made ample legal means for people to be covered by our Constitution, if they choose not to abide by those means, then it doesn't apply. That applies to illegal immigrants as well. For someone that believes everything this country stands for is wrong (therefore thinking the Constitution is wrong/evil) then definitely HELL no. That applies especially well in this case, hell, it applies to a lot of countries and organizations as well.

2. Should the Geneva Convention apply to detainees at Gitmo? And by principle of precedence to all others?

As was pointed out, they are violating the rules of the Conventions by taking action as they are. Therefore, the guidance that applies to treatment of POWs does not apply, as they are not POWs. They are illegal combatants and should be prosecuted fully for that as well as any laws they have broken while taking whatever actions they have. I could see ALL of them easily being charged with attempted murder, murder (in some cases), various forms of conspiracies, etc.

3. Does releasing the detainees imply they were innocent and the USG made mistakes?

Not necessarily. But I don't think we should release them either. If we decide they are of no use to us, transfer them to another country that might want to deal with them and coincidentally has less strict laws regard interrogations.

4. Should they be tried?

Yes, in public if they can. If there are OPSEC/PERSEC reasons not to, give them a closed doors military tribunal, let people know they were found guilty of whatever charges, then lock them away again.

5. If so, how?

See above. Public if the detaining unit feels they should, and any other units involved in the detention feel they should. It should be up to the commanders of those units involved in the detention to determine whether a public trial is appropriate based on the security issues involved, or if they should be tried behind closed doors and have all of the legal proceedings classified.

6. If not, what should be done?

Again, see above.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

When the Team Sergeant's away, the mice will play? LMAO!

I am interested in the counselors' opinions on the application of the US Constitution to non-citizens specifically and the topic generally.

[NousDefionsDoc]

but the fact that they are on a US Military Base can make things more complicated. Were they still in A-Stan, a lot of the rules that apply now would not apply anymore.

How is a US base in 'Stan or Iraq any different than a US base in Cuba? I'm not a lawyer, but I would think control of the base would be the issue?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Does releasing the detainees imply they were innocent and the USG made mistakes? Why should we release them?

Some of them already have been released

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Some of them already have been released

And either re-captured or killed since they returned!!

[NousDefionsDoc]

Terror Suspects Appear Before Cuba Panel

Thu Dec 30,12:36 AM ET

By ALEXANDRA OLSON, Associated Press Writer

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Two suspected members of the al-Qaida terrorist network and an alleged Taliban official appeared Wednesday before U.S. military review tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A 29-year-old prisoner appeared who was accused of leading some Taliban soldiers in northern Afghanistan in 2001, said Capt. Beci Brenton, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The tribunals also heard from a 27-year-old prisoner who was identified as an al-Qaida member by a guard in the terrorist network, Brenton said. The detainee allegedly altered his passport to eliminate evidence of travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The third prisoner to come before the panel Wednesday was also accused of belonging to al-Qaida, Brenton said. He also allegedly altered his passport, in this case after being barred from boarding a plane from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

No names were released and it was unclear what they said at the hearings. The Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request more than a month ago to obtain transcripts of testimonies. The government has still not released any of the transcripts.

The cases were heard a day after the former president of Afghanistan's state-run airline made an appearance.

Brenton said the 32-year-old man headed Ariana Airlines while it was under the control of the ousted Taliban regime. The detainee was arrested in January 2003 in Afghanistan.

Brenton said the Taliban used the airline to transport military forces between the Afghan capital, Kabul, and southern Kandahar province. Much of Ariana's fleet was destroyed during the U.S.-led bombing campaign in 2001.

The Combatant Status Review Tribunals are meant to determine whether the approximately 550 prisoners at the U.S. naval base are correctly held as "enemy combatants" or should be freed.

The tribunals have considered at least 527 cases so far. They have ordered two prisoners released and another 226 to remain in custody. All the detainees are accused of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Many have been held for nearly three years without formal charges.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A01

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said. In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was someone else.

Abdullah Mehsud told reporters he fooled authorities at Guantanamo Bay for two years before his release.

Another returned captive is an Afghan teenager who had spent two years at a special compound for young detainees at the military prison in Cuba, where he learned English, played sports and watched videos, informed sources said. U.S. officials believed they had persuaded him to abandon his life with the Taliban, but recently the young man, now 18, was recaptured with other Taliban fighters near Kandahar, Afghanistan, according to the sources, who asked for anonymity because they were discussing sensitive military information.

The cases demonstrate the difficulty Washington faces in deciding when alleged al Qaeda and Taliban detainees should be freed, amid pressure from foreign governments and human rights groups that have denounced U.S. officials for detaining the Guantanamo Bay captives for years without due-process rights, military officials said.

"Reports that former detainees have rejoined al Qaeda and the Taliban are evidence that these individuals are fanatical and particularly deceptive," said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico. "From the beginning, we have recognized that there are inherent risks in determining when an individual detainee no longer had to be held at Guantanamo Bay."

The latest case emerged two weeks ago when two Chinese engineers working on a dam project in Pakistan's lawless Waziristan region were kidnapped. The commander of a tribal militant group, Abdullah Mehsud, 29, told reporters by satellite phone that his followers were responsible for the abductions.

Mehsud said he spent two years at Guantanamo Bay after being captured in 2002 in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban. At the time he was carrying a false Afghan identity card, and while in custody he maintained the fiction that he was an innocent Afghan tribesman, he said. U.S. officials never realized he was a Pakistani with deep ties to militants in both countries, he added.

"I managed to keep my Pakistani identity hidden all these years," he told Gulf News in a recent interview. Since his return to Pakistan in March, Pakistani newspapers have written lengthy accounts of Mehsud's hair and looks, and the powerful appeal to militants of his fiery denunciations of the United States. "We would fight America and its allies," he said in one interview, "until the very end."

Last week Pakistani commandos freed one of the abducted Chinese engineers in a raid on a mud-walled compound in which five militants and the other hostage were killed.

The 10 or more returning militants are but a fraction of the 202 Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been returned to their homelands. Of that group, 146 were freed outright, and 56 were transferred to the custody of their home governments. Many of those men have since been freed.

Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy in the Defense Department who now teaches at Ohio State University, estimated that as many as 25 former detainees have taken up arms again. "You can't trust them when they say they're not terrorists," he said.

A U.S. defense official who helps oversee the prisoners added: "We could have said we'll accept no risks and refused to release anyone. But we've regarded that option as not humane, and not practical, and one that makes the U.S. government appear unreasonable."

Another former Guantanamo Bay prisoner was killed in southern Afghanistan last month after a shootout with Afghan forces. Maulvi Ghafar was a senior Taliban commander when he was captured in late 2001. No information has emerged about what he told interrogators in Guantanamo Bay, but in several cases U.S. officials have released detainees they knew to have served with the Taliban if they swore off violence in written agreements.

Returned to Afghanistan in February, Ghafar resumed his post as a top Taliban commander, and his forces ambushed and killed a U.N. engineer and three Afghan soldiers, Afghan officials said, according to news accounts.

A third released Taliban commander died in an ambush this summer. Mullah Shahzada, who apparently convinced U.S. officials that he had sworn off violence, rejoined the Taliban as soon as he was freed in mid-2003, sources with knowledge of his situation said.

The Afghan teenager who was recaptured recently had been kidnapped and possibly abused by the Taliban before he was apprehended the first time in 2001. After almost three years living with other young detainees in a seaside house at Guantanamo Bay, he was returned in January of this year to his country, where he was to be monitored by Afghan officials and private contractors. But the program failed and he fell back in with the Taliban, one source said.

"Someone dropped the ball in Afghanistan," the source said.

One former detainee who has not yet been able to take up arms is Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, a Dane who also signed a promise to renounce violence. But in recent months he has told Danish media that he considers the written oath "toilet paper," stated his plans to join the war in Chechnya and said Denmark's prime minister is a valid target for terrorists.

Human rights activists said the cases of unrepentant militants do not undercut their assertions that the United States is violating the rights of Guantanamo Bay inmates.

"This doesn't alter the injustice, or support the administration's argument that setting aside their rights is justified," said Alistair Hodgett, a spokesman for Amnesty International.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I am interested in the counselors' opinions on the application of the US Constitution to non-citizens specifically and the topic generally.

This is a deep topic and I have a busy day or two ahead of me, so give me some time. I do believe we've discussed this before, though.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Human rights activists said the cases of unrepentant militants do not undercut their assertions that the United States is violating the rights of Guantanamo Bay inmates.

"This doesn't alter the injustice, or support the administration's argument that setting aside their rights is justified," said Alistair Hodgett, a spokesman for Amnesty International.

I thought this was an interesting lack of common sense.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I think the USG needs to define this. It is not going to go away.