Military Tribunals

[Ox]

They're baaaaaack (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1):
The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself...

When President Obama suspended Guantánamo cases after his inauguration on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system appeared dead...

“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

[TheKeck]

Oh how thinks look so different on Jan 20.

[Johan]

I read this elsewhere, and I just have to say...

I have to...

I...

Bwahahahaha!

:breathes:

"Change we can believe in!"

That's it! :D

[Ink Asylum]

Very disappointing. I hope this can be prevented.

[Johan]

Very disappointing. I hope this can be prevented.

You have another shot, in 2012. :D

[Ink Asylum]

You have another shot, in 2012. :D

I certainly will weigh this against all of Obama's other actions, and compare it to whoever is running against him.

[National Kato]

In all fairness, Ox, the article goes on to say that the administration has previously stated that they were not ruling out prosecutions in the military commission system. They don't want to have to let these men go just because a judge decides they can't prosecute due to having used brutal treatment or intelligence officials' hearsay evidence. They'd prefer to do it in exisitng American courts, but again, they'd rather not have the cases thrown out because of the bungling of the previous administration.

What it appears Obama is doing is trying to find a middle ground: a way to prosecute these men with more legal protections than were afforded under Bush, but not lose the ability to prosecute altogether.

Sometimes when you're left with a shit sandwich, you have to try and take a very precise bite.

[Johan]

I certainly will weigh this against all of Obama's other actions, and compare it to whoever is running against him.

Off topic:

Don't forget he:

* Supports RIAA fines up to $150,000.
* Quadrupled Bush's biggest deficit.
* Increased by tens of thousands the number of troops in Afghanistan, and also increased our presence in Iraq.
* Is using military tribunals, while Guantanamo apparently has gotten worse (unless you ask Miss Venezuela).
* May break the UAW through bankruptcy for GM.
* Doesn't support federal recognition of gay marriage.

Oh...that's enough for a laugh for now.

Sometimes when you're left with a shit sandwich, you have to try and take a very precise bite.

I thought these detainees were innocent shepherds? Why eat a shit sandwich when you can just release them and right the Bush-wrong done to them?

:confused:

[Ox]

In all fairness, Ox, the article goes on to say that the administration has previously stated that they were not ruling out prosecutions in the military commission system.
I was not deliberately trying to shade this as an example of President Obama going back on his word -- that's why I left out any of the rather harsh quotes the President made on the campaign trail. I elided that information solely out of a concern to stay within fair use, not out of a desire to malign the President.

Indeed, I don't intend to criticize the President at all. Frankly, it takes a remarkable amount of courage to reconsider your previous views, even if you were careful to leave yourself wiggle room on the campaign trail. Many lesser Presidents would have abolished military tribunals against their better judgment simply out of an arrogant assumption that they could not possibly have made an overhasty judgment.

They don't want to have to let these men go just because a judge decides they can't prosecute due to having used brutal treatment or intelligence officials' hearsay evidence. They'd prefer to do it in exisitng American courts, but again, they'd rather not have the cases thrown out because of the bungling of the previous administration.
I suppose you can characterize brutal treatment as "bungling" by the previous Administration, but you can't characterize the hearsay evidence in that way. That's a problem inherent in prosecuting people based on evidence gathered through clandestine surveillance -- indeed, it's even a problem in ordinary domestic criminal cases involving confidential informants.

I agree the President is trying to find a middle ground between the extremes of a completely unreviewable detention and a full criminal trial. But then again, that's exactly what the previous Administration was trying to do with the MCA.

[Ink Asylum]

I suppose you can characterize brutal treatment as "bungling" by the previous Administration, but you can't characterize the hearsay evidence in that way. That's a problem inherent in prosecuting people based on evidence gathered through clandestine surveillance -- indeed, it's even a problem in ordinary domestic criminal cases involving confidential informants.

It's not just brutal treatment used to gather information or hearsay that makes Guantanamo a difficult situation. The state of all information on the detainees was far worse than expected. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401702.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is "scattered throughout the executive branch," a senior administration official said.

[Ox]

Okay, but I don't really see how that's relevant to this conversation. How would that inspire the President to choose to pursue military commissions rather than full trials?

[National Kato]

I thought these detainees were innocent shepherds?

I expect you're being facetious or intentionally sarcastic. Else, you just thought wrong. Yes, there were innocent individuals held in Guantanamo, even after being cleared with NLEC status ("No Longer Enemy Combatant") by American authorities. However, what we're talking about here are those individuals who still warrant being tried for their crimes. The questions authorities are dealing with is how to best do so.

The NYT link Ox provided goes into more detail.

[Ink Asylum]

Okay, but I don't really see how that's relevant to this conversation. How would that inspire the President to choose to pursue military commissions rather than full trials?

It extends on Kato's point. There's sufficient evidence that certain detainees are guilty, but a lot of it has been tainted by how it was gathered and then further weakened by how unorganized it is. Couldn't the disorganization lead to important evidence being inadmissable in American courts?

I'm not agreeing with that decision, but I can understand the Obama Administration's reasoning. They've been left with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation created by the Bush Administration's horrid handling and investigation of detainees. Either they go with his campaign pledge, try them in regular courts, and risk letting terrorists go free, or they go back on their pledge and try them in military tribunals.

I honestly can't say how I'd act if I were in Obama's shoes. It's easy to snort about "Change we can believe in," but this situation reflects far more on the Bush Administration. If we're unable to convict actual terrorists because of how poorly Bush managed their detention and investigation it'll be his fault if we either have to release them or continue to imprison them without convictions.

[Ox]

It extends on Kato's point. There's sufficient evidence that certain detainees are guilty, but a lot of it has been tainted by how it was gathered and then further weakened by how unorganized it is. Couldn't the disorganization lead to important evidence being inadmissable in American courts?
There's two ways I could think of it being inadmissible:
1. Practically, if the government lawyer doesn't know about or can't find it, it's pretty tough for him to offer it as evidence. But that applies with equal force to military tribunals.

2. For some types of physical evidence, one needs to demonstrate a chain of custody -- e.g., we have to show the gun we ran ballistics tests on is the same one we found on your person. But I didn't see anything in the article that suggested chains of custody were broken -- it's just that there's no one file that provides a convenient summary of all the evidence the government has on a detainee.

So, basically, I think the answer is no.

I'm not agreeing with that decision, but I can understand the Obama Administration's reasoning. They've been left with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation created by the Bush Administration's horrid handling and investigation of detainees. Either they go with his campaign pledge, try them in regular courts, and risk letting terrorists go free, or they go back on their pledge and try them in military tribunals.

I honestly can't say how I'd act if I were in Obama's shoes. It's easy to snort about "Change we can believe in," but this situation reflects far more on the Bush Administration.
I doubt it. Think about it: even if an ordinary criminal defendant is beaten into confessing, any evidence you gathered before the confession is still admissible against him. There's no rule that says someone who is subjected to brutal treatment thereby can never be prosecuted for anything.

So, if liberals are correct and we've never gotten a shred of useful information out of any detainee who wasn't treated like the Queen of Sheeba, it doesn't matter: we can still prosecute them with whatever evidence we do have. Only the hearsay evidence -- which can hardly be ascribed to some failing of the Bush Administration -- is inadmissible. If you want to say the Bush Administration somehow tainted these cases, you have to say that the coercive interrogations yielded critical information without which the government has no case. An interesting dilemma.

[Ink Asylum]

2. For some types of physical evidence, one needs to demonstrate a chain of custody -- e.g., we have to show the gun we ran ballistics tests on is the same one we found on your person. But I didn't see anything in the article that suggested chains of custody were broken -- it's just that there's no one file that provides a convenient summary of all the evidence the government has on a detainee.

You mean like this?

He said he once accidentally found "crucial physical evidence" that "had been tossed in a locker located at Guantanamo and promptly forgotten."

Physical evidence forgotten about in a locker in Guantanamo Bay. For how long? Could someone have tampered with it between the time someone tossed it in there and it was later found?

There's no way we can determine yet whether or not any of that happened, but you do recognize that it's possible, and judging by that quote seems likely for at least one piece of crucial physical evidence. What about others?

[Ox]

Physical evidence forgotten about in a locker in Guantanamo Bay. For how long? Could someone have tampered with it between the time someone tossed it in there and it was later found?

There's no way we can determine yet whether or not any of that happened, but you do recognize that it's possible, and judging by that quote seems likely for at least one piece of crucial physical evidence. What about others?
That's not usually what chain of custody implies -- even if evidence is sealed in a proper evidence room, it could be tampered with by a malicious cop -- but I see your point. Still, if a piece of evidence could have been tampered with, that evidence will likely still be admissible and the possibility of tampering will go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. And there's no reason to think the military commissions are going to start ignoring chain-of-custody issues anyway, unless the President creates a system that is even looser than the one his predecessor tried to employ.

EDIT: It's not like evidence doesn't sometimes get lost in ordinary criminal prosecutions, either.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I certainly will weigh this against all of Obama's other actions, and compare it to whoever is running against him.

Bleep bloop I am a robot I don't have emotions bleep bloop

[torrefaction]

I was actually relatively impressed that he reviewed the evidence available to him, evidence he did not have while running against Bush, and realized some of his positions weren't tenable for national security.

I'm STILL not sure where I stand here, because I certainly see the need, but I also understand the reasoning behind using our own justice system. So I can certainly understand how a man's position may change when all the evidence is presented.

[Ink Asylum]

Bleep bloop I am a robot I don't have emotions bleep bloop

Is that all you have to add to the discussion? A sarcastic insult?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Is that all you have to add to the discussion? A sarcastic insult?

....
....
yes?

[Ink Asylum]

Then I'd thank you to refrain.

2] Personal attacks, mudslinging and insults will not be tolerated at all within this P&R forum area.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Then I'd thank you to refrain.

Broseph, it was just a little joke. I find it incredibly humorous how important it is to you that you remain very mature on the internet. On a gaming website.

You'll know when I'm actively spiteful, I'm just currently being the Loki to your <god too uninteresting to actually be in the Norse pantheon>. If it were personal, you'd know.

[Ox]

I'm going to report you for using the term "Broseph."

[Ink Asylum]

Broseph, it was just a little joke. I find it incredibly humorous how important it is to you that you remain very mature on the internet. On a gaming website.

You'll know when I'm actively spiteful, I'm just currently being the Loki to your <god too uninteresting to actually be in the Norse pantheon>. If it were personal, you'd know.

Forgive me for not being able to discern when you're just joshing or honestly spiteful. You've insulted me quite directly before, after all.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'm going to report you for using the term "Broseph."

Please note that I only use it when I need to kick the "this is a facetious post" meter up to 11.

Also, ironically, Ink has assisted me in my ultimate goal: to derail every thread.

Ever.

edit: Fair enough.

[Voodoo]

Mr. Orc has been removed from P&R.

[Ink Asylum]

Oh well, that's that.

For the record, I did not flag or report Orc's posts, nor contact Voodoo or any other mod.

[Johan]

I think we should release them all to their homelands and that would be that.

The detainees, that is.

[torrefaction]

I think we should release them all to their homelands and that would be that.

The detainees, that is.

Problem is, a lot of their homelands won't take them. And people aren't offering them asylum. So wtf do we do with them?

It's like The Terminal, but some of them may be potential terrorists (Even if they weren't before, really.)

[Johan]

Problem is, a lot of their homelands won't take them.

They're citizens. Parachute them in. How the hell can a nation refuse to take one of its own citizens? That's horseshit.

Send them to their homelands, one way or another.

[DoctorFinger]

Actually in many cases their homelands would take them back. They'd just be tortured (and I don't mean warterboarded) and killed the minute they're off the plane. The US can't ethically return them to those situations.

[BlackPete]

Well... considering Obama was running against McCain/Palin, it looks like America was fucked either way. :(

[National Kato]

Former Bush State Dept. official Philip Zelikow testified that we have the ability to hold Guantanamo prisoners within the U.S. safely (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/former-bush-philip-zelilkow-says-closin)and agrees with closing the troubled prison:

Zelikow: Guantanamo, in world public opinion, had become a toxic problem for the United States of America, and so we needed to address that as an issue in our foreign policy.
Zelikow: Sir, we hold people who are far more dangerous in such institutions including quite dangerous terrorists like Ramzi Yousef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef), who's currently residing in a maximum security facility inside the US now. I'll also add that I've had the opportunity on behalf of one of the federal judges who have been working through the habeas petitions to be asked to examine classified files and provide expert advice on holding these folks and one of the things that strikes me now and struck me then is we have a vast amount of experience in how to judge the continued incarceration of highly dangerous prisoners since we do this with thousands of prisoners every month all over the United States including some really quite dangerous people. We routinely make these decisions...

[Johan]

Yes...let's close Guantanamo so we can release...I mean indefinitely detain...those held there, without trial. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html)

Change is indeed in the air; change of view, for permanent prisoners. I thought Bush was only allotted two terms in office, not three. :confused:

This is so funny for its inherent irony and unbelievable hypocrisy.

[Ox]

Wait, now we're closing Gitmo and reopening a clone of Gitmo on U.S. soil? Exactly how is that any better in anyone's eyes?

I'm not all that worried about the possibility of escape (maybe a little, but not much). But I hardly thought the biggest objection to Gitmo was that it was in Cuba.

[headhunter228]

Off topic:

Don't forget he:

* Supports RIAA fines up to $150,000.
* Quadrupled Bush's biggest deficit.
* Increased by tens of thousands the number of troops in Afghanistan, and also increased our presence in Iraq.
* Is using military tribunals, while Guantanamo apparently has gotten worse (unless you ask Miss Venezuela).
* May break the UAW through bankruptcy for GM.
* Doesn't support federal recognition of gay marriage.

Oh...that's enough for a laugh for now.


I never thought I would miss "Slick Willie" Clinton, but recent events are making me start to think otherwise. For Christ's sake, get someone in here to balance the budget, sex scandals be damned!

And, as I have mentioned in a different thread, it's wrong to deprive US citizens of their rights simply because they're gay. I may think it's wrong, but they chose to live their lives that way. They shouldn't be punished for it. The reason I didn't vote in the last election is because I didn't like either of the canidates. Hopefully they'll be better in 2012.

Yes...let's close Guantanamo so we can release...I mean indefinitely detain...those held there, without trial. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html)

Change is indeed in the air; change of view, for permanent prisoners. I thought Bush was only allotted two terms in office, not three. :confused:

This is so funny for its inherent irony and unbelievable hypocrisy.

That's why people who are running for President should make as few promises as possible. Canidates don't know the reality of the situation until they're sitting in the big chair in the Oval Office. They may want to keep their campaign promises, but find out later that they simply cannot because of circumstances they didn't know about when they were running for office. Look what happened to Bush Sr. "Read my lips: No New Taxes" came back to bite him in the ass when he had to raise them a few years later. Obama brought all of this on himself.

[Johan]

But I hardly thought the biggest objection to Gitmo was that it was in Cuba.

You weren't thinking hard enough, you see! :)

Indefinite detention on American soil means these detainees will have indefinite access to the American dream!

[National Kato]

As far back as a 2006 Senate debate on the Military Commissions Act, Obama was calling the Bush administration's approach 'sloppy' and pushed for more rights for detainees.

"Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court," Obama said on the Senate floor on September, 28, 2006. "This is not how a serious administration would approach the problem of terrorism." Upon entering office, he suspended the Bush administration's military commissions by executive order and stated his administration would conduct a 120-day review. That review comes due next week, so it's no surprise that we're hearing about his plans now.

The updated system is said to include enhanced due-process rights for detainees.

[BlackPete]

Wait, now we're closing Gitmo and reopening a clone of Gitmo on U.S. soil? Exactly how is that any better in anyone's eyes?

I'm not all that worried about the possibility of escape (maybe a little, but not much). But I hardly thought the biggest objection to Gitmo was that it was in Cuba.

This military tribunal news and the opening of Neo-Gitmo makes me wonder if anyone in the White House or on Capitol Hill even remember what "due process" means.

[DoctorFinger]

Actually under the Geneva Conventions terrorists, spies and other un-uniformed combatants are specifically denied due process.

[Shrinn]

It still has to be proven that they are un-uniformed combatants, though. Right? At least in American opinion it seems like it does.

[BlackPete]

Yep, and by moving Gitmo onto American soil, it makes it even more hazy about what their true status was. I thought the whole point of keeping Gitmo on Cuba.

There's also the "War on Terror" thing... these guys are exactly who the war was declared on.