Less than a week after election day, I think we can see that parting the waters and healing the planet are not going to be Obama’s first tasks as POTUS. But could it be that Obama is pulling the same stunt the left has been blasting Bush for over Gitmo detainees?
Say it ain’t so…. as Palin would say.
Indeed, Obama… like McCain… plans on closing Gitmo. This, in itself, is not a surprise. But how, and the timing is quite the surprise. Even Dan Ephron at Newsweek, just three days ago, predicted the problems faced in closing Gitmo wouldn’t permit this to be quick… let alone one of the first things a President Obama would do.
Apparently Dan didn’t take into consideration the man who wants to “remake this great nation”. And boy, is he getting started.
Unlike McCain, who wanted to let the military tribunals handle the security sensitive cases, Obama-elect and advisors are laying plans to create a new court system just for them. Two versions of American justice??
President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.
During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a “sad chapter in American history” and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.Under plans being put together in Obama’s camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.
A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are not final.
“Let me be clear”, as Obama loves to say… this bit about addressing this particular category of detainee has been the source of the left, this campaign, and a SCOTUS decision. Bush recognized this was not your run of the mill criminal court scenario, but that didn’t stop the left from screaming about the detainees habeas corpus… even tho they were enemy combatants held on foreign soil. Indeed, the only reason the SCOTUS came to the decision they did was built *entirely and solely* on whether the SOFA in Cuba designated Guantanamo as US or Cuban soil. Without it being considered US soil, the decision would have gone quite differently.
But now, as both McCain and Obama wanted to do… we’re bringing them here, to a neighborhood near you.
While this has been simmering slowly and quietly in the background, enough details have come out to even have the ACLU looking askance.
It drew criticism from some detainee lawyers shortly after it surfaced Monday.
“I think that creating a new alternative court system in response to the abject failure of Guantanamo would be a profound mistake,” said Jonathan Hafetz, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents detainees. “We do not need a new court system. The last eight years are a testament to the problems of trying to create new systems.”
Apparently, there may be no easy ride from the DNC/left that insist on giving the detainees nothing less than full constitutional rights either.
“There would be concern about establishing a completely new system,” said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. “And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system — trying to establish that would be very difficult.”
Obama’s idea is that this new court system is a hybrid of the US courts, and Bush’s military tribunals. Interesting stance considering his statement on the campaign trail after the SCOTUS opinion.
“The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo — yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,” Obama said. “This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”
“The fact is, this Administration’s position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend,” he said. “Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.”
I guess it’s easy to talk about “core values”… i.e. either they have constitutional rights, or they are unlawful combatants who should not be run thru the US court system… until the reins fall in one’s own hands. Now Obama sees the quandary the current admin faced in handling the detainees…. and why they were kept off (what they thought) was US soil.
So now, Obama needs to create a “new system of justice”. Wonderful.
Obama has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide “a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” and [Laurence] Tribe** said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.
“It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts,” Tribe said. “It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard.”
**Mata Musing: Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, is Obama’s legal adviser
Excuse me? The benefit of the doubt in that regard??? I’d like to say I’m speechless, but let’s just say what speech comes to mind is not fit for public print.
In theory, Obama could try to transplant the Bush administration’s military commission system from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. prison. But Tribe said, and other advisers agreed, that was “a nonstarter.” With lax evidence rules and intense secrecy, the military commissions have been criticized by human rights groups, defense attorneys and even some military prosecutors who quit the process in protest.
“I don’t think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent,” Schiff said.
That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn’t be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what that something would look like remains unclear.
According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.
Like most of Obama’s other grandiose plans, they were long on rhetoric, and short on specific details. As the President-elect’s term nears, we’ll finally learn more about just how Obama plans to implement his visions for this nation.
If this is our first look at the “new” way of doing things, not only to mention his choice of priorities, we’re going to be in for a very long four years.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Let’s see here;
Nutroots accuse Boooosh and the “Rethuglicans” of having “secret courts” and “Illegally” detaining terrorists (Oops, excuse me, I mean “Innocent civilians”.) in Gitmo. After 8 years of emo whining by them and the press, they finally trick enough Americans into voting for their “Golden Boy” (Ooo! I said “boy”, I’m a raaaaaacist!) Barack Obama into office.
What’s the VERY FIRST thing “The One” wants to create? SECRET COURTS!
Color. Me. Not. Surprised.
Anyone wanna take bets on how long it will be until some of B.O.’s political enemies end up in these courts? Anyone?
Yeah, I wouldn’t take that bet either.
Sounds like Obama has read Philip Bobbitt’s “Terror and Consent.” Bobbitt (a law professor at Columbia, BHO’s alma mater) doesn’t think much of the military tribunal system, but he doesn’t think that civilian courts are appropriate. He alludes to a third option that sounds like this- e.g. “National Security Courts.”
Mata,
“As the President-elect’s term nears, we’ll finally learn more about just how Obama plans to implement his visions for this nation.”
You seem to concede in passing that we should wait until after the Inauguration to learn of the President-Elect’s specific plans for dealing with the Guantanamo detainees. Then just one sentence above criticize him for being “long on rhetoric and short on specifics.” I prefer a President who tells the American people he is going to try to solve a particularly intractable problem and suggests how he might do that while his plans are still in the process of development. This is the dialogue a democratic leader should have with the citizens of a vibrant democracy.
Would it be better to ignore the problem or keep the American people in the dark regarding his thinking? For the past eight years, President Bush has treated the American people like frightened children who cannot possibly understand what he needs to do to protect them.
amazing that obama is saying he is gonna do anything after he has scrubbed his transition site. he will royally screw this up and then he will try and blame bush and the conservatives, yet this is all on him. so how many justice systems would obama like us to have? should we have on for evey type of crime, that almost sounds like that is where he is going. can you see the court of the stolen cookies? when he starts doing these things and forgets to pay for peggy josephs house payment and her gas bill where will we all be? obama has no idea what he is doing and as someone said, this isn’t a position for on the job training.
I prefer a President who tells the American people he is going to try to solve a particularly intractable problem and suggests how he might do that while his plans are still in the process of development. This is the dialogue a democratic leader should have with the citizens of a vibrant democracy.
With a separate, and secret court system? That is the hallmark of fascism, not a vibrant and open democracy.
I agree with your sentiments regarding democracy, that is why I voted for McCain/Palin.
Dave Noble, I absolutely am on the edge of my chair to see what a President Obama will do. His campaign was fraught with “long rhetoric” and few “details”. I am one of those that “hopes” for a major flip flopper as POTUS.
I will also observe, with the same scrutiny, what a President-elect Obama intends to do with his plans. The Gitmo detainees have always fallen into a very risky area. Obama and the left have spent the past years blasting everyone, demanding they are granted full constitutional rights.
What I see with him doing in creating a parallel court system here is worthy of criticism, as… at least… Bush tried to work within the frame work of our existing military and criminal court system. By contrast, Obama is… despite what Rep Adam Scriff (D-CA) says… reinventing the wheel.
Wearyman and luva have it right. Just what criteria dictates one ends up in front of this shadow court system in the US, vs our criminal system? Who are the judges, and where is their jurisdiction? Who appoints them? And does SCOTUS continue to reign supreme, or is this court system subject to different oversight.
And what “constitutional rights” that everyone has been demanding, get left by the wayside while within US borders…. a status that no one can deny is most definitely US soil.
Quite frankly, this falls into the “one law for them, another law for us” category. Who decides who is “them” and “us”?
This nation was founded on one justice system for all, with the exception of military courts for personnel. These guys are neither US citizens, nor our military. Obama is looking at altering the very foundation of our nation.
June 2008, in Obama’s nomination victory speech, he said it in no uncertain terms…
Not only does this “great nation” *not* need “remaking”, but that “remaking” does not start by thwarting the very heart of our structure by the founding fathers.
Yo! Commenter about the book and the National Security Courts…. come back, please. Was approving a moderate and accidentally unapproved you simultaneously! Would you mind reposting? Thanks…
So sorry about the above. The “National Security Court” proposal, or terrorism courts, are not a new prospect. They surfaced after the SCOTUS opinion early this year.
They were examined and deemed “unnecessary” and “dangerous to traditional constitutional protections” in a paper by the Constitutional Project.
From an article at the Jurist Legal News and Research:
At issue is, of course, who ends up in these courts (administrative officials that speak of issues without intent to create crimes, such as waterboarding?), reconciling them with int’l law… not to mention that Geneva law dictates that the courts must already be constitued… i.e., already existing.
There is absolutely no precedence on this. The decision to award Habeous Corpus rights was iffy at best. America’s Habeous Corpus laws are based on those existent in England. No other country would have awarded Habeous Corpus rights to illegal combatants that do not fall under the Geneva Convention. Let alone awarding them full Constitutional rights. Most countries refuse to recognize terrroist born on their soil as legal combatants nationally sanctioned, and that is required for them to fall under the Geneva Convention. Most refuse to even accept them as citizens. That puts terrorists in a category as people without a country. And only prisoners who belong to signatory nations of the Geneva Convention get Geneva Convention protections.
When prisoners are taken during actions of war the are subjected to an initial military review of their case. Captives who appear to be innocent civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time are released and repatriated. Lawful Combatants are remanded over to Prisoner of War camps usually for the duration of the combat so that they may not rejoin their forces and fight again. Those who committed war crimes are remanded over for criminal trial within 30 days following the end of hostilities. The Geneva Convention specifically states neither of the aforementioned captives may be housed in criminal facilities. Unlawful combatants, are considered criminals and remanded over to the Military Tribunal to await trial for war crimes. This is the way all countries who fall under the Geneva Convention handle this process. The same legal systems that were used during our Revolutionary War and the Civil War against those who aided the enemy. You do remember what happened to Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth’s co-conspirators, and Saddam Hussien? The penalty for War Crimes is usually death. There is no reason or justification for a new system.
What Obama and his bunch obviously wish to do is the same thing bleeding hearts have done to screw up our own criminal justice system. Ignore common sense and treat them as rehabilitatable wrong-doers who were poor victims of their environment. 60% of those already released from Gitmo following their Military Review where it was decided there was not enough to hold them for criminal trial, when back to al Qaeda and participated in further terrorist actions or became suicide bombers killing innocent civilians in schools, market places, medical treatment facilities, places of worship, and at historic sites. All of which are illegal targets.
It will be a mockery if these people are treated as common criminals like pick-pockets, burglars, and sneak thieves. Can you imagine how many Obama’s lawyers would decide to release because the evidence against them was “circumstantial” or because our troops did not read them their “Miranda Rights” (which do not apply except to people arrested in this country) upon capturing them. During War Tribunals, laws of evidence are different. Many of those convicted during the Nuremberg Trial were done so on circumstantial evidence and testimonies of individuals who died before these people were caught and put on trial. Under our crinimal justice system, this same evidence would have likely been thrown out. The latter because the defense could not cross-examine the witnesses if they were already dead, even forensic evidence for the guilt for those deaths point directly at the defendent.
This was not something I was expecting. I half expected Obama to remand them all over to the U.N.’s International Court of Justice (ICJ). What he is proposing now is even more disturbing because the ICJ would conduct war crime trials. Obama will have them tries only as criminals. And what would happen to them if Obama’s legions of get the cases dropped or thrown out? I’m sure they would be released out onto our streets. Not deported or returned to the regions where they were captured.
No problem. Confine and try all of them in the D.C. court system. They’ll all be on the street within 30 days.
How do you set up a different court system? By Constitutional amendment, by Executive fiat, by legislation? Surely the US Supreme Court might want to take a look at it. What are the rules of evidence, what court do you appeal to? If the Supreme Court decided they had jurisdiction over Guantanamo, they will certainly demand the same for these ad hoc courts.
Any conviction under arbitrary rules will be overturned. Despite Larry Tribe’s confidence that they will be returned (forcibly??) to their country of capture, even the Bush administration didn’t think they could pull that one off. Actually, if that were on the table they would do it right now, and not wait for a trial. Better to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed to Pakistan and let them solve the problem. Their techniques are not as subtle as ours.
For all the whining about the illegal combatants’ treatment, Obama and his advisers are now realizing the difficulty the Bush administraton had.
Let them out of jail. WTF, thats where the will be anyways. don’t waste the money. I “hope” they bomb stuff or kill people, so the idiots WAKE THE F UP!
Poor little terrorists! Poor innocent’s victims! They just want to destroy your country and bomb it to ashes. Gee… this is a free country after all, no? We should aloud them the freedom to do it, no?
Get them out of Guantanamo, they don’t deserve that. And give them a special treatment, a special court that will judge them with indulgence. Come on, bee nice guys… be tolerant… keep being idiots.
Mata,
“I am one of those that “hopes” for a major flip flopper as POTUS.”
Really? Do you really wish failure upon our President-Elect at this crucial juncture in American history, just because you didn’t vote for him? Do you love your idealogy more than your country?
“Not only does this “great nation” *not* need “remaking”, but that “remaking” does not start by thwarting the very heart of our structure by the founding fathers.”
Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address resolved that “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom.” What was wrong with the old birth? A living democracy must continually, and particularly at critical points in its history,rededicate itself to its founding principles.
I would also remind you of the words of the Declaration of Independence:”We hold these truths to be self-evident. That *all men* are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
It doesn’t say “all Americans;” it say “all men.” That includes Guantanamo detainees.
How to administer justice to them is a highly complex problem. It should be addressed with the utmost concern for the security of the American people. But the process must be founded in justice and an acknowledgement of the rights of the detainees. That’s the American way. 9/11 didn’t change that.
I beg your pardon, Dave Noble. My wishing for a flip flopper is wishing for a successful President Obama.. not a socialist big domestic spender who bankrupts the US and turns it into Euro socialist democracy. Nor a President Obama who appeases our enemies (Chavez and Ahmadinejad), turns Pakistan against us, and fails Iraq.
Bite your cyber tongue, and stop making up BS.
Lincoln’s new birth had to do with the civil war and slavery. I’d say Obama’s rise to POTUS pretty much puts to rest that Lincoln’s “new birth” does not need remaking.
We *are* at a critical point. And instead of rededicating ourselves to our founding principles, Obama wants to “remake” the nation, create a shadow court system for a select group of criminals, and throw opportunity for all out the window for affirmative action for some.
INRE Gitmo and this shadow court system… the SCOTUS ruled. I disagree that Cuba is sovereign US soil, the basis for their decisions. They should be handled thru a military system… not some new US court system on our soils. And no, I doubt the founding fathers would have envisioned granting those attacking our citizens, military and allies Constitutional rights. They would have shot them on the battlefield, and been done with it.
Poor Dave Hussein Noble. He doesn’t know the difference between the Constitution upon which all our law is based and the Delcaration of Independence.
Hey Dave… why not offer every citizen of the world a “tax cut” under the Obama plan too? Doesn’t it say something about that in the Declaration too? Shouldn’t we spread the wealth around to everybody?
Oh wait… Obama already proposed just such a thing when he was in the Senate.
You first Dave…. give away 90% of your income and wealth and the rest of us will follow…
Gee Mata, aren’t you getting fed up to have to put up with all the leftists bullshit? I am. I’m fed-up of reading their idiotic comments. I try not to read them, but still, I get to read them anyways thru intelligent commentators that respond to them.
What are they doing here? They disagree with everything that is written by conservatives on this site. When you give them facts, they repudiate them. So what are they doing here? They are not listening, they are not learning, they have no arguments. They are just trying to provoke with their ignorance. What’s the point of dealing with them? They bring nothing to the exchange… so what the hell are they doing here. And why are they tolerated? I don’t understand, I really don’t.
@MataHarley: I believe that you want Obama to succeed, because I believe YOU want America to succeed, but janiesgotagun is a different story she said in post 12 she hopes they blow stuff up or kill people to prove her point, that is SICK. THAT IS NOT A PATRIOT. That is a person full of hate, to wish harm on fellow Americans, just so Obama fails. I’ve heard that kind of thing alot, from people around where I live.
A couple of notes To: Dave Noble
Re: “Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address resolved that “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom.” What was wrong with the old birth? A living democracy must continually, and particularly at critical points in its history,rededicate itself to its founding principles.”
I would note that to rededicate ourselves to the founding principles of the nation does not mean the same thing as “Remaking the nation.” Use of the work “remaking” would indicate making changes to the founding principles. It is not the founding principles that are broken.
Re: “I would also remind you of the words of the Declaration of Independence….”
The SCOTUS does not recognize the Declaration of Independence as a document with any legal standing, or that it has any bearing or influence on US law. It is an important Historical document, but it is neither law nor legislation.
Mata,
If you tried “straight talk” when it comes to President-Elect Obama, I might not get confused with your convoluted sarcasm. As in, everything Obama campaigned on, and the American people elected him for, is wrong; and he can only succeed if he becomes John McCain. And for the record, Barrack Obama is not going to become John McCain. If he did, he would be betraying the will of the American people who chose him and not John McCain.
Our democracy must, as I said earlier, not only rededicate itself to its founding principles at critical points, as in the aftermath of the Civil War, but continually, like a worthy sea captain always checking his compass to ensure he is still on course. Democracy has no autopilot.
The founding fathers would have shot them on the battlefield and had done with it. Really?
Even if they surrendered? That’s a war crime. Are you suggesting we scrap the archaic Prisoner of War concept in the Geneva Convention.
And how about criminals? Should the police summarily execute them on the spot? It would save all those inefficient trials and the expense of prisons.
Think before you speak, Mata. I know from reading your posts you are highly capable of doing that.
Hey, Mike,
I guess Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the co-authors of the Declaration of Independence weren’t Founding Fathers. And even if they were, they threw out all those fuzzy-headed bleeding-heart sentiments about all men being equal when they wrote the Constitution. The reality is that the Constitution implements the priniciples of the Declaration of Independence. It’s you, not me, who doesn’t understand the interplay between the Declaration and the Constitution. Mike, learn some more about your America.
Craig,
It’s you with your rants that debases the discourse on this site. This site, although it sometimes looks and sounds like it, is not some kind of exclusive He-Man Obama Hater’s Club. And you are not the hall monitor. If you want to argue with me, argue with me. Don’t play out some scene from Mean Girls – “Do you see that silly leftist. He actually thinks he can hang out with us.
What a loser.” Your game is weak, man.
Ditto,
Sorry, missed your post.
Your point re: remaking is well taken. But, the American people in polls after poll during the election by large majorities said that the country was on the wrong course. That suggests a substantial course correction. If the word remaking is too strong for you, you’re entitled to your opinion. Remaking works for me.
Re: the distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I am aware of the legal status of the Declaration. Please see my post above. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree that denying the detainees justice would violate the founding principles of our country.
To Dave Noble:
Wrong… I’ve said here many times I don’t have a dog in this race. I had a dog I wanted not to gain the Oval Office because I don’t agree with his basic vision of the US. Therefore, he can only succeed if he becomes more like Reagan.
As I said, and Ditto “ditto’ed”… rededication to founding principles is not “remaking” the nation. Obama veers away from our founding principles at a critical time. This is my view. Obviously you have another. Welcome to America, and our “founding principles”. So stop nagging me for blind faith and support for a POTUS who’s vision I don’t agree on. That is not part of our “founding principles”.
I’m sorry, Dave… are you suggesting the Geneva Convention was in place during the American Revolution? Or are you just expanding on my actual statement for some sort of self-gratifying widened assault which, in no way, represents my views? Get real… you have to know me better than that by now.
And you say I’m not “straight talk” enough?? How “straight” is it to say the *founding fathers* would have shot them on the battlefield and been done with it? Did that sentence, in anyway, suggest I advocate executing criminals in the street? If they’re engaged in a shoot-to-kill at police or innocents… hang, yeah. Go ahead in self-defense, if you’re not a good enough shot to wound/incapacitate him. But not in the capacity you imply.
My suggestion? Stop implying, and read my sentences…. not read *into* my sentences what you want to think. Then you won’t get so confused.
@Dave Noble:
Someone should read and polish up his understanding of the Geneva Conventions as well as the the Law of Land Warfare.
There are specific provisions which must be met to be considered a POW.
There are also specific provisions and punishments established for those who fight without uniforms and those who hide among civilian populations.
The implementation of the gallows and the use of firing squads were once rather common on the battlefield.
Why should this war be any different?
Aye is right. Terrorists cannot be classified as P.O.W.’s., they were not lawful combatants captured and held for fighting for their country, they committed war crimes. During times of war, our P.O.W.s are never afforded all the rights of a foreign captor’s citizens. Even citizen tourists who leave this country to visit others and break their laws rarely receive such treatment. Habeus corpus is one thing, but the question as to whether the terrorist detainees should be awarded full Constitutional rights of this country is patently absurd.
There is a standard procedure already in place. War Tribunals are the world-wide accepted venue for trying those suspected of war crimes. They are usually held in the individual’s own country or a neutral country. By forming a new court system to try them in the United States, Obama is ignoring long recognized world custom. The world is speaking out against this on principle. It doesn’t matter to them whether such a new justice system would be too lenient or too strict. But that it does not allow for proper oversight and provides no mention concerning an appeal process. That is why it is wrong.
Mata is also correct in that our military are prohibited by law from summarily executing anyone who disarms themselves and surrenders. Even the most reprehensible of captives. To do so is considered a war crime.
Perhaps some of you who faun over Gitmo prisoners and whose hearts bleed for them missed the al Qaeda decapitation videos that were aired on al-Jazeera, such as that of Nick Berg?
As for torture; The water-boarding and humiliated of Gitmo captives was nothing compared to those endured by our P.O.W.s such as (WARNING: GRAPHIC LITERARY VIOLENCE DESCRIBED); Having glass rods inserted into their urinary tracks and then shattered, their sexual units being attached to electrical devises and the voltage kicked up, female captives being repeatedly raped, captives of both sexes being sodomized, limbs and digits broken, and should all interrogatory tortures fail, being summarily executed in full sight of other P.O.W.s to serve witness to what happens to those who refuse to co-operate.
Those were the forms of torture utilized on our P.O.W.s. by other countries in the past. Now allow me to educate non-military on something they may not be aware of. In order to prepare some of our own military members who were at high risk of being captured. They are willingly subjected, under close supervision, to techniques such as water-boarding, sleep deprivation, exposed to constant music playing, humiliation, solitary confinement, and other techniques to help them prepare for what might happen should they be captured. They were also thoroughly briefed on other types of misuse they might endure at the hands of a morally corrupt enemy. Some others willingly subjected themselves to these techniques to help our intelligence agencies find effective, emotionally and physically non-permanent methods to extract extremely critical information from captives. As was described to me by other vets who willingly participated in the past, such practices started around the time of the Vietnam War. Aside from a few military personnel took things beyond what was deemed “acceptable” and for which they are paying the price, for the most part there was nothing used on terrorist detainees that had not first been performed on volunteers from our own military.
One final point, Dave, as well as most Democrats, frequently refer to this country as a Democracy. It is not and was never designed to be so. If it were there would be no place for Executive or Judicial Branches. And a “pure Democracy” of the type they seem to desire falls under the definition of Communist one-party system. This country was designed to be a Republic. I advise you to review the definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Don’t take it the wrong way; Even Abraham Lincoln, a distant relative of my own got that wrong, IF he were using the word in the truest sense of it’s meaning. And that is the fundamental divide between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans prefer the checks and balances remain in place as a means to prevent this country from sliding into the morass that is Socialism. Democrat would prefer to change that system. And never the two shall meet.
To David, Voter, Brandon, and others, that is why Mata, Mike, and yes even Craig will never concede to remaking this government as you might wish it to be and why they are so very vocal in their protests. Republicans do not want Democrats pushing this country too far towards the slippery edge of that cliff and will fight it tooth and nail to their dying breaths. As will I, though I count myself an Independent, and countless others.
Change is one thing, your candidate has won the right to change our country’s direction and we concede that point, but he has not won the right to overhaul it. And that is something we cannot abide.
Re: “…But, the American people in polls after poll during the election by large majorities said that the country was on the wrong course….”
The polls clearly show that the American people primarily voted to change the economic situation of the nation. (NOTE: 52% of the popular vote is not a mandate for a presidential candidate.) The voters did not elect Obama to blindly “change” any and everything the Democrats desire. The American people have not asked the Democratic party to “Remake” the country, but only to take over the reins and steer for a while.
Re: “…the distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I am aware of the legal status of the Declaration. Please see my post above. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree that denying the detainees justice would violate the founding principles of our country.”
If you are trying to equate this issue to what the founding fathers would have felt regarding Iraq and “justice” for the enemy combatants; I would point out that the Founders were against involving our nation in the aggressive posturings between nations, and especially in foreign wars. Were we to hypothesize on the question of what to do with enemy civilian combatants during the US revolutionary war (i.e. “Tories”, waging war on and against General Washington’s forces), we would review the history of what happened during that war, and how the Revolutionists felt about the Tories, the British occupation forces, and the oppression of the colonists. On the battlefield, they would have most likely have either shot them where they stood, or executed them later.
Ditto, Mata,
The Geneva Conventions did not exist during the American Revolution. Then why even consider the Founding Fathers speculated actions with respect to the terrorists? You took us down that inapposite trail, Mata, not I. Lets not fantasize about how the Founding Fathers would have treated the Guantanamo detainees if they had caught them on the battlefield. BTW, are either of you under the impression that those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan were all “terrorists,” or believed to be such by their captors. I would note that though the Taliban harbored AQ, that does not make every member of the Taliban per se a terrorist.
“Were we to hypothesize on the question of what to do with enemy civilian combatants during the US revolutionary war (i.e. “Tories”, waging war on and against General Washington’s forces), we would review the history of what happened during that war, and how the Revolutionists felt about the Tories, the British occupation forces, and the oppression of the colonists. On the battlefield, they would have most likely have either shot them where they stood, or executed them later.”
Ditto, respectfully, that is just the kind of unhelpful (not to me, but to the discussion) speculation I refer to above. Can you support your citation that there were no British prisoners of war in the Revolutionary War or that all captured British or Tory troops were summarily executed without any form of trial? The bottomline is that we are bound by the Geneva Convention
today, so this line of discussion is sterile.
My question remains: Is justice an archaic concept in the War on Terror? My answer is an emphatic “No,” both in terms of basic morality and the intent of the Founders. All men are created equal and all men deserve justice. The working out of what constitutes justice in the context of the Guantanamo detainees is, as I noted, a complex problem, not amenable to bumper sticker thinking, emotion, or idealogy. The question is how do we simultaneously do justice and protect our security? Any future schema for dealing with the Guantanamo detainees proposed by the new Administration should be judged by that standard.
@Dave Noble:
Are you sure that you want us to be bound by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions Dave?
Are you sure?
If so, then we agree.
The Geneva Conventions are very, very clear about what is to happen to those who are fighting on the battlefield not in uniform, or hiding among civilians.
I have no problem at all in applying them precisely as they are written. No problem at all. Because I know what they say. In fact, one of my biggest criticisms of the way the war has been fought has been our failure to follow the GC’s to the letter.
I’m in favor of loading up and returning all of the inhabitants of Gitmo to the place of their capture.
Then the US military can implement the GC’s and we won’t have to worry about the Gitmo issue any more.
“All men are created equal…”
I hate that statement, because it is not true. Some people are born beautiful, intelligent, healthy, wealthly, etc. Others ar born ugly, idiot, sick and poor.
Every man is only equal in rights and liberties. That’s it, that’s all.
Well Dave Noble… you don’t want to fantasize about how they would have treated stateless, murderous thugs trying to take over territory because they were fighting British troops.
So let’s talk about how they treated the British POWs…. not likely to be to your “justice for all” imagination. They kept them for indentured servitude… using them on farms. Labor, in exchange for room and board. Missing that lofty Constitutional bit for a national enemy.
Dave Hussein Noble: If you are clear about the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration why do you continue to cite Gitmo as evidence of some judicial deficiency using the Declaration?
Surely one who understand that the Constitution is the ultimate blueprint for the judiciary knows that the Declaration is moot on whether tribunals or some as yet undefined judicial process would be more judicious.
Who are the idiots that thinks we should be dealing with terrorists? Who are the idiot leftist pacifists who thinks we should not go to war against terrorism? You think it is the U.S. foreign policies that are wrong? Think again.
SCHOOLGIRLS ATTACKED WITH ACID IN AFGHANISTAN – 12 NOV. 2008
Re: Dave “Can you support your citation that there were no British prisoners of war in the Revolutionary War or that all captured British or Tory troops were summarily executed without any form of trial?”
(1) Where did I say there were no British prisoners?
(2) Where did I say ALL captured British or Tory troops were executed? (Note that the premise of Tory “troops” is a bit of a trick question as there were few civilian military {Tory} combatants, due to the fact that if a Tory wished to fight Washington’s army along side the trained British troops, they would have been required to enlist and don the uniform. An exception of course, would be Tories who might be aiding the British officers with temporary support: information, supplies or as guides.)
(3) Some of those captured may have been taken prisoners but only if they surrendered, or were for whatever reason unable to continue fighting.
(4) Where did I say that those captured did not receive “some” form of trial? Battlefield justice would have been the general “trial” method. The Revolutionary army officers knew quite well that many of their fellows captured by the “Redcoats” would have been executed with expediency. King George and the British did not consider such executions as war crimes. The injured revolutionaries may have been give some treatment for their injuries until they were fit enough for their executions. This was not unusual for the time.
Remember Dave, that you were the one that brought the founding fathers into this discussion to speculate on their viewpoints. When you waver from the subject to bring in obscure (or barely related) speculative elements, you are the one being unhelpful to the discussion. I just figured I’d join you in your little saunter into to left field, because the American Revolution and the creation of this country are a favorite historical period of study. (Most fascinating was the Antifederalist’s and their writings, I wrote a political science paper on the subject. ;-D )
We all are quite aware that the Geneva Convention was not in effect 100+ years before it was written. You may put your strawman back in your pocket.