In a vibrant democracy we argue about the issues of the day; that's what we do. Differing viewpoints are expressed and opposition between factions is often vigorous. We can have such disagreements in good faith. These are well and good for the republic. What is not beneficial, however, is the erroneous assertion of incorrect history to buttress one's arguments.
That trend has been a common refrain from the left-of-center, exuberant over the recent decision by the Supreme Court pertaining to the "right" of unlawful enemy combatants to challenge their detention in federal, civilian court. An example from the Seattle Times today:
The Bush administration trotted out a variety of explanations, from geography to sovereignty over a prison site specifically picked because it was outside U.S. territory. The court rejected them all.The court knocked down the legal arguments, and emphasized protection from arbitrary suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus was also meant to ensure a right of judicial inquiry and reinforce the separation of powers.
The whole issue at hand is there was no "arbitrary suspension" because the writ has not traditionally been extended to such combatants (see our past and lengthy discussion of that issue here).
Those precedents related to geography and sovereignty that the Times glosses over are the historical record and jurisprudence with which we have traditionally treated armed enemy combatants, lawful or otherwise. Granted, the international scope of the modern fight against radical Islamic terrorism has created a new set of issues that must be addressed by our legal and governmental system. That doesn't change history, however.
Those that would like to grant the writ to unlawful enemy combatants, captured abroad, are entitle to their position. They have argued it and will continue to do so. What they are not entitled to is their own version of history that incorrectly and fictitiously grants a right where none previously existed.
That is the source of conservative dismay with the decision. Had Congress granted such provision that would be one thing, and within that body's jurisdiction whether one would agree with the development or not. The Court, on the other hand, is not intended for such policy making.
For further such discussion see Fred Thompson and Peter Wehner.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 15, 2008 09:22 AM | Email ThisThis circular reasoning is a problem with me because they assume guilt before it's proven thus using that as a reason to deny the need to prove guilt.
I am, quite frankly, seriously considering tendering my resignation as Republican PCO over this, because the leadership of the party isn't doing anything whatsoever to speak up for justice here, nor are they speaking up and pointing out that the US Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it simply prevents the US government from infringing on innate, inalienable rights, within US jurisdiction.
Instead, there is nothing but complete hyperbole and outright lies from Republicans at all levels here. I've been accused of thinking Stalin was a good guy, wanting to hurt America, wanting people to die at the hands of terrorists, etc. I've seen self professed local Republicans claim that they wish a nuclear attack would be executed on New York City or a plane full of terrorists would fly into the ACLU to underscore their emotional and illogical opinions.
It's an outrage, no one is speaking out against it at all, and quite frankly I don't want my name mixed up with people that call for things like what I said above.
I don't flatter myself by suggesting anyone here cares about this, but people who are genuinely interested in a future for the Republican party might be.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 15, 2008 12:24 PMGo already, be gone. This party doesn't stand for conveying rights on the enemy. And no, the
terrorists are NOT human. People that fly plane loads of people into buildings are NOT human. People that saw of heads of people are NOT human.
Does that answer your question?
Why was the Bill of Rights written, Andrew?
What country wrote it?
What country does it serve?
Why bother having a sovereign country if whiners want it to apply globally?
the fact that a lot of them don't believe terrorists should have the same rights as humans
Are/were they as considerate of "humans" when they killed thousands upon thousands of them?
I will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend the American rights of my fellow AMERICANS.
To mention that other countries treat our law-breaking citizens fairly would be an exercise in absurdity.
Look at beheadings, Andrew.
How's that 'due process' concept working in those 7th century civilizations?
Look south to Mexico, Andrew.
How's that 'due process' concept working in that modern country?
Why bother to have country? Why not just a United Places of the World with the governance of the least common denominator?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 15, 2008 01:10 PMIn 1954, the US Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of the plaintiff in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas and ignored the historical record and jurisprudence. The previous ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson, allowed discrimination on the basis of race. Is that a fair analogy? If it is, any time the US Supreme Court reverses itself, the losing side may claim it's ignoring the historical record and jurisprudence.
I would agree that the US Supreme Court set an unusual precedent in Brown v. Board of Ed. The US Supreme Court rarely does that sort of thing (reverse itself). I suppose that's a good thing.
It seems in the Gitmo case, however, that the US Supreme Court is not reversing itself, but is reinforcing a series of earlier decisions. In that sense, they seem to be maintaining the historical record and jurisprudence.
I suspect Pres. Andrew Jackson was thinking much the same way as those opposed to the Gitmo decision, when he refused to enforce the US Supreme Court's decision in favor of the Cherokee Indians and ordering that they not be forceable relocated. We all know that the historical record shows that Pres. Jackson openly refused to enforce the US Supreme Court's decision and the Cherokee were moved. I believe the historical record will also show that the only reason Pres. Jackson was not impeached for failure to carry out his Constitutional duties as President was that too much money was to be made, reselling vacated Cherokee lands.
I find Andrew Brown's comment, the "US Constitution doesn't grant any rights...", even more interesting. I shall sit down and review the Constitution again, before commenting, however. Radical or reactionary claims are not necessarily incorrect.
Posted by: km on June 15, 2008 01:13 PMI predict most if not all the terrorist being held at Guantanimo will be released to go kill Americans.
Now that people like Andrew Brown have their way, these scum will go to trial, demand to see the government;s evidence which of course the government will not be able to produce in court because it will reveal out anti-terrorist operations to the enemy. This is something Andrew Brown calls "justice". I am sure when they are beheading another American, Andrew Brown will get all warm and fuzzy all over seeing "justice" dispensed as the blood gushed from the decapitated AMERICAN. But to hell with that, we gotta have "justice" for these people at Guantanimo.
And what happens when these people go free?
AT LEAST 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release.
These are people like Abdullah Mehsud. In December 2001, Mehsud was captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay until his release in March 2004. He later became the Taliban chief for South Waziristan.
Yet when we are attacked again, people like Andrew Brown will be the first people on the horn complaining how our intelligence agencies dropped the ball etc etc. It makes me want to puke.
They were on a battle field in Afganistan- gun and RPG in hand, side by side with others on a battle field in Afganistan; side by side with those that have been let loose to return to killing American forces in Afganistan.
I'm sure it's a reasonable presumption that the remaining detainees were simply strolling for their morning constitutional- AK47 in hand only to be unwittingly set up by their fellow villagers as a talibani style frat prank that lands them in club gitmo.
We of course are the bad guys, as usual.
Somewhere in a cave in Afganistan/Pakistan border, a jihadist has learned that after he finishes learning how to torture with drill, pliers, and blow torch but before learning American soldier eyeball removal with a rusty spoon, he has to now learn how to retain an ACLU lawyer and act like a nut in front of American TV.
There's a disgrace here alright.
If I were a terrorist and heard this decision I'd be singing and dancing the jihadi jig right after I was able get up from rolling on the cave floor laughing my ass off at the stupid Americans.
Posted by: Andy on June 15, 2008 01:48 PMI can see of the BDS nuts want a proclamation saying that Bush is the devil, but this lunacy of sacrificing our national defense all because they hate the guy is insane.
Posted by: pbj on June 15, 2008 01:54 PMOf course. However, most of the people being held at Guantanamo are not terrorists.
Andy@11 writes, "They were on a battle field in Afganistan"
Who are "they"? Actually, almost none of the Guantanamo detainees were captured on a battlefield. (See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1089475)
Posted by: Bruce on June 15, 2008 06:39 PMAnd you know this...how???
"Who are "they"? Actually, almost none of the Guantanamo detainees were captured on a battlefield. (See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1089475)"
Too bad none of the actual sources of information are listed there in that link. The people simply make assertions claiming it came from a DOD source yet NOWHERE is any reference to that source listed.
Is that what passes for rigor these days in leftist circles?
Go look at your own source. All the conclusions are based upon UNCLASSIFIED summaries of information. So perhaps the location of where the combatant was captured IS classified because revealing it would disclose information that would put our soldiers lives at risk. Not that liberals give a damn about that.
I wish liberal gave a damn about Americans as much as they do for those trying to kill Americans. Of course, the Americans deserved it and caused it all themselves just by existing, didn't they Bruce?
Ask yourself, during the War of 1812, did the Bill of Rights and/or the US Constitution apply to the invading soldiers of his majesty, the King of England?
Posted by: barrackslawyer on June 15, 2008 11:18 PMhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/index.html
As for Andrew Brown, You mention that the Supreme Court has gone against the Bush Admin 3 times, Well they have also gone against themselves three times then too. Here is a link to a Supreme Court ruling in 1942 that states the PResident does have the right to hold unlawful combantants and try them by Military Tribunal (it appears that some justices did not do any precednet research). The case is involving non-uniformed Germans that were caught on US SOIL planning on sabotour attacks (could be called acts of terrorism). They also asked for Habeas rights and were denied them by the US Supreme Court in 1942!
"The Court holds:
(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html
According to this finding it would appear that the current Supreme Court has indeed legislated from the bench.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 16, 2008 02:04 AMcould you imagine living in a country where all it took to remove all your rights was an unsubstantiated claim against you as a Terrorist!
and the Right deriding this ruling ...
shame on you
and SO unAmerican
Posted by: Doc on June 16, 2008 08:56 AMSami al-Hajj was taken from Afghanistan while on assignment as a photographer for the Al-Jazeera news network (Al-Jazeera is, of course, headquartered in Qatar, a US ally). He was a prisoner in GITMO, without charges or explanation, for almost 6 years.
I think its important that Al-Hajj was snatched up by Pakistani intelligence forces. This wasn't some guy who ran afoul of US forces. We depended on the competence of the ISI to justify keeping this guy in GITMO, with no evidence, for almost 6 years. A guy who worked for the most popular and widely watched cable news network in the Arab world. You can read the story at the following link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/01/gitmo.journalist/index.html
Or how about the five Chinese muslims who were kept at GITMO for more than four years even though -- wait for it -- the US government acknowledged that they were innocent. They were captured by mistake in Pakistan, and were held in detention without legal status. You can read their story at the following link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html
Here's a German man (of Turkish descent) who was taken from a checkpoint in Pakistan. His lawyer, a law professor at Seton Hall, uncovered a government document where military intelligence wrote that their investigation revealed "no definite link [or] evidence of detainee having an association with al Qaeda or making any specific threat toward the U.S." You can read his story at the following link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml
There are a lot more stories like these. All the Supreme Court did was allow GITMO prisoners to bring habeas cases to US federal courts. Congress has the ability to suspend the writ of habeas corpus when "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Congress has not done so. Obviously, the GITMO detainees are not US citizens. But they're being held on US land (Guantanamo is on indefinite lease from Cuba). Many, for over 6 years. I think that the detainees should be able to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a habeas case. The harms that some posters here worry about are ridiculously attenuated. Could someone present a plausible scenario where US national interests would be seriously threatened by allowing a GITMO detainee to petition a US federal court to hear a habeas case?
I should be able to pose that question without being accused of forgetting 9/11. I have not forgotten about 9/11.
Responding to another point I've seen posted: I don't think that making effective warfare requires the complete dehumanization of the enemy. Do I think that people who hijack airplanes and fly them into civilian buildings deserve mercy or justice? No, I don't. Do I think that people who saw the heads off of innocent contractors and video tape it deserve mercy or justice? No, I don't. But do I think its important to distinguish between those who have done such despicable acts and those who have participated in a far more ambiguous way (a 17-year old, handed a Soviet-era weapon, and never firing it)? Yes. I don't think its un-American or defeatist to make that distinction.
One more point: I realize that all of the examples I cited above of innocent detainees can be "refuted" by the trump card of "classified information."
"Really, Zeeb? These detainees are innocent? I suppose you have access to classified DoD information, then. No? Well, next time, do your research."
Of course, those citing unspecified classified evidence need not prove anything. They need only the unimpeachable credibility of the DoD to justify any and all GITMO detentions.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 16, 2008 09:24 AMI should be able to pose that question without being accused of forgetting 9/11. I have not forgotten about 9/11.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 16, 2008 09:31 AMI did not mean to imply with my post that all remaining Guantanamo detainees are innocent. They aren't. But I do not think that anyone could say, with any reasonable degree of certainty, that all of them are not innocent.
I think the likeliest scenario is that many of the remaining detainees are low-level Taliban or insurgents. They did, in fact, take up arms against either the US or US-backed governments. But that was the limit of their involvement. They never met Osama bin Laden or any of al-Qaeda's top lieutenants; they were never privy to top level information. They are incapable of providing any intelligence that could actually help in the War on Terror, or the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't think there's a simple solution to take care of these detainees. I suppose you could just keep them in GITMO forever, without any charges, explanation, or hope for release. Or we could work out a system, with a modicum of transparency, that tries to untangle a horrible legal and moral knot that we did not ask to be tied with, but find ourselves in nonetheless. I think the Supreme Court's decision gives us another resource -- the expertise of America's federal judiciary -- to help untie the knot.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 16, 2008 09:45 AMDoc, you ignorant dolt! This ruling applies to non-citizens only. CITIZENS have always had habeus corpus.
Posted by: pbj on June 16, 2008 10:24 AM"Doc, you ignorant dolt! This ruling applies to non-citizens only. CITIZENS have always had habeus corpus."
Classy, pbj. You're not entirely correct, though. The Bush administration argued in Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004) that Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was not allowed, as an enemy combatant, to bring a habeas petition. The court did not agree. So -- there was a time when a U.S. citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and stripped of their constitutional rights. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, that is no longer true.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 16, 2008 10:31 AM
"Could someone present a plausible scenario where US national interests would be seriously threatened by allowing a GITMO detainee to petition a US federal court to hear a habeas case?"
At one time, we were able to track the whereabouts of Bin laden through his satellite phone. However, someone in the government of the Clinton administration let it get out that we were tracking him that way and he immediately switched his method of operations and we could no longer track him. This is the greatest risk of this ruling.
Quite simply it will require the government to either provide opertional details in court that of course will find its way back to the terorrists, or release them . Even BIN LADEN could do this. This is insane. It is like having to provide Hirohito with the details of the manhatten project.
The whole argument the pro-terrorist people make is based on a falsity. It is utterly false and untrue that we have not released any of the Guantanimo prisoners. We already have a process for reviewing their status without giving the enemy vital intelligence as to how we operate. But now, we have basically given the enemy a legal avenue to break our intelligence aparatus and render us impotent to apprehend any individuals.
They presuppose, based upon a subset of the complete facts, that the remaining people are innocent.
Once released, these people go back out to kill:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html
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.
Another example is the commander of a tribal militant group, Abdullah Mehsud, 29.
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."
Posted by: pbj on June 16, 2008 10:52 AMIn regard to THIS ruling, I am correct. That is what we are discussing. Citing some past ruling is what they call a straw man.
Posted by: pbj on June 16, 2008 10:54 AMAnd you know this how? Gut feeling? Woman's intuition?
"I think the likeliest scenario is that many of the remaining detainees are low-level Taliban or insurgents. They did, in fact, take up arms against either the US or US-backed governments. But that was the limit of their involvement. They never met Osama bin Laden or any of al-Qaeda's top lieutenants; they were never privy to top level information.
So I suppose you don't think we are really at war do you? Because you think some misdemeanor (in your mind) like shooting at American troops is only worthy of a slap on the wrist.
Imagine if we fought our past wars like this. In WWII captured Germans and Japanese would have to be immediately released because they did not personally know Hitler or Hirohito.
Posted by: pbj on June 16, 2008 11:02 AMTerrorist: "Death to America! Allah Akbar!"
US: "Do you personally know Bin Laden."
Terrorist: "uh, no."
US: "Right then. You may go."
Posted by: pbj on June 16, 2008 11:06 AMYou said:
"In regard to THIS ruling, I am correct. That is what we are discussing. Citing some past ruling is what they call a straw man."
I don't think citing a past ruling is using a straw man. To use a straw man is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's, but is easier to refute. What I did was confront you directly on what you said. You said "CITIZENS have always had habeas corpus." Well, SCOTUS thought so, but this simply was not true before 2004. It took the Hamdi decision. You stated a legal position, and I said no, that legal position is simply not the case. It took the Supreme Court to affirm what you stated as fact. I did not use a straw man. My broader point is that the Supreme Court does, on occasion, preserve the rights of U.S. citizens.
But, while we're on the subject of straw men...
pbj@34:
"The whole argument the pro-terrorist people make is based on a falsity. It is utterly false and untrue that we have not released any of the Guantanimo prisoners. We already have a process for reviewing their status without giving the enemy vital intelligence as to how we operate. But now, we have basically given the enemy a legal avenue to break our intelligence aparatus and render us impotent to apprehend any individuals."
I guess calling someone arguing in support of a decision handed down by one of the three branches of the US Government "pro-terrorist" is just good faith debate?
Since my post included examples of GITMO detainees being released (after years of unjustified detention), it should be clear that I don't think that GITMO detainees have never been released.
How efficient is this "process for reviewing their status" anyway? I mean, the al-Jazeera journalist was in GITMO for 4 years. And he was only released after almost dying from a hunger strike.
You say that some people argue from "a subset of the complete facts" in maintaining that "the remaining people are innocent."
Well, there's another straw man. I stated @30 that its likely that many, if not most of the detainees are not innocent.
And who, exactly, is arguing from a "subset of the complete facts"? Here's a paragraph of the very article you cited:
"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."
That you accused me of using a straw man argument is ironic, since that seems to be the only kind of argument you use.
I never said the Guantanamo detainees should be freed outright. A federal district court would make that decision. That's what SCOTUS ruled. And they would make that decision only if the habeas petition were granted by the federal district court. Clearly, even if the court decided there was no reason to hold the detainee any further, its not "immediate release". We are talking about people held at Guantanomo for upwards of 7 years -- longer than WWII.
I'll won't address your comments @37. If anyone who reads my posts agrees with your characterization of my arguments, nothing I write will change their mind.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 16, 2008 11:41 AMYou asked: How efficient is this "process for reviewing their status" anyway? I mean, the al-Jazeera journalist was in GITMO for 4 years. And he was only released after almost dying from a hunger strike.
It is a difficult thing to address, and there are many complex issues that we do not have full information in which to judge. What makes things difficult include intelligence and national security issues, the assymetrical nature of the conflict and the nature of the individuals in the conflict. I have been thinking for hours on the best approach for addressing various issues, and I am still uncertain, so I will just think as I type and start with addressing the three examples you cite and see where the argument takes me.
Sami al-Hajj: First, he was detained for over 6 years, not 4. He ran a hunger strike, but he was forced fed and was not "almost dying", though it is possible his hunger strike did affect his release. His health was pretty good despite his "showmanship" as he debarked his plane since he was seen standing and picking up his son shortly afterwards in the hospital. Was he innocent? was he simply a journalist for Al-Jazeera as he and others claimed? Actually, he could be exactly that. and more. Jails are full of innocent people. Some actually ARE innocent, most simply claim to be. There may have been far more data linking al-Hajj to people and activities that we do not know about. It is quite possible that some were quite serious and may have been a legitimate result of his work as a journalist. But then, maybe his status as a journalist lent him access to people and allowed him to provide communications and intelligence. It's what spies do. They build a cover, they exploit their cover. Their job is to be legitimate while doing illegitimate things at the same time. The fact that one fails to prove their connection does not make them innocent. I do not know if al-Hajj is innocent. You don't either. However, how we address his plight stems from the basis of our faith and trust in our government and the processes set up and the logic we might use to make to determine if its actions are fair.
I suppose it would be helpful of we had some understanding of how many people turned over to the US as enemy agents had their incarceration last long enough to get into Gitmo. Did we always place them in Gitmo or did some get released reasonably quickly once we established no basis for keeping them? If we did place only those in Gitmo whom we held suspicion, then we have to decide whether our decisions to hold some were arbitrary or based on reasonable uncertainty. Do we think that the US would hold someone for no reason for 6 years, hold KNOWING that they were innocent? What would be the purpose? If there is no purpose than would the entire group of people involved (and there would be many in the know), be so evil as to punish a man who had no value to us as a prisoner? That attitude would require an extremely cynical view of our American soldiers and leaders. Usually people who knowingly fail to speak up when injustice is done fail due to fear of a very oppressive leadership and thus fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Unless, of course, we are simply a corrupt culture that delights in suffering and do not find such things and imprisoning innocent people to be evil.
Anyway, in looking at the situation and applying a reasonableness filter, I would conclude that we may very well have had suspicion on al-Hajj, but eventually had to give up on our attempts to create a case for him. Or, we could have had suspicions that over time became less and less valid as we learned more and thus had to admit he was not what we thought. Or, he was peripherally connected and we just felt that after 6 years his impact to us would be so small that it was safe enough to release him. All these are possible answers and closely tied to intelligence. It is also possible that if courts were involved we would have released him much earlier due to one of two possibilities (as I see them, there may be others). One, our desire to protect sources and intelligence means we would rather let him go as the lesser of two "bads". Or two, we are forced to let him go because the courts would declare that our evidence too thin, but, too thin does not mean non-existent.
Relying again on logic, is there any possible benefit to the US detaining someone knowing that they are innocent? With all the political pressure, and all the scrutiny and all the condemnations to be leveled for doing so and the fact that eventually the truth will out, then why would people keep someone of no value who can only hurt them by having him in custody? Sadism? On a mass scale?
The Chinese that you linked are a different matter. Their plight can be summed up quite nicely in the last statement of the article you linked:
Besides the Uighur detainees, four other non-enemy combatants are being held at Guant�namo because of human rights concerns if they are returned to their home countries of Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, and Uzbekistan.
We won't let them into our country because of the precedence it will set, and we won't release them to their homeland because we would be subjecting them to human rights abuses. As the article states, they are in limbo. We want to release them but can't find a country willing to take them and their own country will do harm to them. and the courts will do WHAT to remedy that?
Finally there is Kurnaz. He acted just like other KNOWN terrorists and had some connections, so there certainly was suspicion to go on, but many of the arguments for him and any other "innocent" but detained members of Gitmo still hold true.
Ultimately it comes down to whether you think our military is corrupt or not. In a perfect world, we could have full transparency and full protection of our intelligence. Not gonna happen. We have an enemy that specifically relies on deception and obfuscation. Combating that kind of enemy puts in some unfortunate moral dilemmas. How far one is willing to walk down that path has a lot to do with their views on security, faith in the people who are fighting and their outlook on human nature.
Posted by: Eyago on June 16, 2008 12:34 PMWrong. The Hamdi decision in fact, proves that US citizens have always had that right. That is why they found against the Bush administration. Hamdi got his Habeas Corpus. At no point has the court determined that a US citizen does not have that right.
"I guess calling someone arguing in support of a decision handed down by one of the three branches of the US Government "pro-terrorist" is just good faith debate?"
I call em as I see em. You don't honestly think that the enemy see this as a victory for their jihad against us and that we are foolish?
"ince my post included examples of GITMO detainees being released (after years of unjustified detention), it should be clear that I don't think that GITMO detainees have never been released."
You are quite presumptuous. How do YOU know it was unjustified detention? Did you have access to the classified information? No you don't so you have no idea. And of course no terrorist in the world would ever use a cover of being a journalist. Right?
You may want to review your history a bit. Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was killed by an AQ agent posing as a reporter on 9/9/2001 two days before the 911 attacks.
"You say that some people argue from "a subset of the complete facts" in maintaining that "the remaining people are innocent."
Well, there's another straw man. I stated @30 that its likely that many, if not most of the detainees are not innocent.
And then In #30 you contradicted yourself by saying:
"I think the likeliest scenario is that many of the remaining detainees are low-level Taliban or insurgents. They did, in fact, take up arms against either the US or US-backed governments. But that was the limit of their involvement. They never met Osama bin Laden or any of al-Qaeda's top lieutenants; they were never privy to top level information."
In essence, oh what the heck. They only shot at our troops. Heck they may have killed CIA ops man Johnny Span who cares? Let em go. And you make this presumption based upon what? Or do you have access to classified information that gives you special insight?
"How efficient is this "process for reviewing their status" anyway? I mean, the al-Jazeera journalist was in GITMO for 4 years. And he was only released after almost dying from a hunger strike."
Well, apparently some were let out much sooner. Again, there are classified operational details we need to protect. Perhaps this "journalist" became privy to classified information by nosing around where he shouldn't. Since Al Jazeera is practically the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda, always the first group AQ sends it's tapes to, that might be reason to be suspicious.
"I never said the Guantanamo detainees should be freed outright. "
You don't have to. That is the result that will happen with some of the most hardened terrorists. Either we reveal operational details in court or let them go. What decision do you think the government will make?
Furthermore, to claim that Sami al-Hajj was held without charges is a lie.
But in a hearing that determined that he was an enemy combatant, US officials alleged that in the 1990s, al-Hajj was an executive assistant at a Qatar-based beverage company that provided support to Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya.
The US claimed he also travelled to Azerbaijan at least eight times to carry money on behalf of his employer to the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a now defunct charity that US authorities say funded armed groups.
The US also clamed he met Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, allegedly a senior lieutenant to Osama bin Laden who was arrested in Germany in 1998 and extradited to the United States.
Finally, al-Hajj was not release from Guantanimo, but rather handed over to Sudanese custody.
Here's one:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011019002647/news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1558000/1558669.stm
And another:
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/17/article11.shtml
Do you really trust our intelligence agencies and military that they've got the right guys? You're so naive.
Posted by: Jackson on June 16, 2008 09:54 PM
A seven year old article that was written 11 days after 911? You are complaining that 11 days after 911 someone was on the initial suspect list that turned out was wrong? And did they put this fellow in Guantanimo? (NO they did not) Seems to me that is how investigations work, you start with a large list of potential suspects and narrow it down.
"Do you really trust our intelligence agencies and military that they've got the right guys? You're so naive."
Well in the 7 years since 911 we haven't had any more planes crashed into buildings, so I will give them some credit, which is less than you seem willing to do. With you it is presume the US Military guilty first while you live under the protection they give their lives providing you.
What is comes down to is the BDS afflicted and old 60's hippies amongst us hate our military and our president and will do anything, regardless of national security concerns, to strike out. That's insane.
Posted by: pbj on June 17, 2008 06:39 AMI really don't think your point it relevant to the discussion, which means I actually agree with pbj. Once.
Eyago@40:
I think you frame the debate here in the way it should be framed: there is a balance between accuracy and safety. I understand that. Ensuring maximum accuracy for every detention would come, I think, at the expense of safety for Americans, both here and abroad. I don't think its appropriate to give Guantanomo detainees the full range of legal rights that American citizens enjoy, but I do think they should be given the ability to bring a habeas petition to federal courts.
Thank you also, Eyago, for your corrections. You were correct -- my example of the Chinese prisoners was not in line with the other ones. Clearly, they were in a difficult situation with no easy answer, and its probably not true that a habeas petition would have helped them at all. We faced a dilemma and dealt with it in a good faith manner.
I would, however, propose one possible reason for some of the detentions, beyond simple error or sadism: saving face. I know some may think this is ridiculous, but I think that improper detentions were, are and will be a source of embarassment for the United States. Given that the ability of the detainee to contest their detention is severely limited, I think there are some that would rather keep them in legal limbo and detention rather than face international political embarassment when the detainee is released. The Al-Jazeera journalist was released contingent upon him avoiding political activity; that suggests to me that we were trying to mitigate any international political fallout from his detention.
pbj:
Read Eyago's comment for guidance on how to write an intellectually honest response. You're still cherry picking and using straw men.
I don't know if the US will choose to reveal "operational details" or let them go. I would imagine that in some instances operational details from 6 years ago are not as sensitive now as they were then. Given that the Taliban are stronger than they've been since 2001, without the leaking of operational details, it doesn't seem as if the half-decade old details of a low-rung member's capture is going to harm a single coalition troop, US or otherwise. Moreover, if they're not sensitive, then putting them on the public record could be a public relations boon for the War on Terror, since it could remind the public of the still-present danger of international terrorism.
Releasing even an innocent detainee could expose the US to danger. The potential for international embarassment could increase recruitment to terrorist organizations, hurt our political allies abroad and possibly lower troop morale. But we would have weigh those potential cons against the pro of, well, releasing someone who we have little other cause to detain. There has to be a balance somewhere, right?
And there were NEVER any official charges against Sami al-Hajj. Show me a citation that actually said he was officially charged and I'll stand corrected. Yes, the US made claims regarding his terrorist actions. But that's all they were. If claims were charges than everyone in Guantanamo was charged. That's not the case. You use the word "lie" far too freely. But that's of a piece with your pattern of cheap shots, intellectual dishonesty, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Since I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, I'll assume that "BDS-afflicted" didn't apply to me. And since I was born in 1979, I'll assume that I'm not one of your "old 60s hippies". I can't stand hippies.
Hey, maybe George Will has BDS, or was an old 60s hippy. Check out this recent piece by him:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/was_it_really_the_worst_decisi.html
Posted by: Zeeb on June 17, 2008 09:11 AMFirst off you are WRONG. The Taliban are not "Stronger that they were in 2001". In 2001 they ran the entire country of Afghanistan. Saying they are stronger than they were in 2001 shows you simply make stuff up without an fact.
The fact is you have no idea what those detainees know or every detail of why they are being held. Once again I will remind you that the Al-Jazeera "journalist" was not released. He was handed over to the CUSTODY of the Sudanese government. Al-JAZEERA THEMSELVES report this fact.
I would also like to know what ouija board you are using to discern what is relevant and what is not since you have no access to classified information. We still have files form the Kennedy era locked up as classified. So age doesn't really matter.
"And there were NEVER any official charges against Sami al-Hajj. Show me a citation that actually said he was officially charged and I'll stand corrected."
Well I already have. Al Jazeera even reported it:
But in a hearing that determined that he was an enemy combatant, US officials alleged that in the 1990s, al-Hajj was an executive assistant at a Qatar-based beverage company that provided support to Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya.
Hey, maybe George Will has BDS, or was an old 60s hippy. Check out this recent piece by him:
George Will is arguing from emotion not experience or expertise, like most who support this terrorist enabling ruling. He is not a lawyer. His education is in politics and philosophy. I'd take his word on a legal ruling about as much as I'd trust him about brain surgery.
However Fred Thompson, who is a lawyer, has served as Assistant US attorney and has argued before the Supreme Court, calls this decision a "Supreme Error" . You can read his article at:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/06/13/a_supreme_error
Posted by: pbj on June 17, 2008 01:37 PMObama advisers say bin Laden can appeal to U.S. courts
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts, a privilege opposed by John McCain.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1445814~Obama_advisers_say_bin_Laden_can_appeal_to_U_S__courts.html