Skip to main content

View Diary: Due process at Guantánamo (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Um... (0+ / 0-)

    "The military carefully created conditions of confinement in order to crush the prisoners’ mental resilience."

    You do realize we are talking about al-Qaeda operatives here? You do realize that many of these people want to destroy the United States?

    Actually, now that I think about it, I hope you didn't realize that.

    That would mean you could be perceived as defending and supporting al-Qaeda, which, of course, no one on Daily Kos would ever do.

    You know, there is a reason why, in 2006, The Onion parodied the First Annual YearlyKos by stating that we hosted a "al-Zarqawi Memorial Service."

    I know some will agree with me, others will not. I cannot endorse the sentiment in this entry.

    "Quotes from others represent a mental laziness in themselves" - Dailykos member "Rudgirl"

    by misterblaine on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:53:01 AM PST

    •  Nonsense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Maven, lotlizard, rhutcheson

      The US has released hundreds of prisoners from Guantanamo. Obviously, they were not "al-Qaeda operatives." When there is no due process, or checks on the power of the executive, innocents are swept up. This is precisely what our Constitution and the separation of powers are intended to prevent.

      The same is true of secret renditions. Please read about Maher Arar, who our government kidnapped from JKF and delivered to torture. Clearly not an "al-Qaeda operative," but he spent ten months in hell compliments of our government.

      Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. - B. Franklin

      Not a Cent to those who won't fight torture.

      by not a cent on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:03:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The fact that people are being released (0+ / 0-)

        (a) shows that the system works without resort to civilian courts and (b) does not prove that the released men are not al Qaeda operatives.  Indeed, over 30 released men are known to have rejoined al-Qaeda upon release.

        •  This is just plain nonsense (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rhutcheson, not a cent

          You're saying that a deliberately cruel system "works" because it eventually releases some of the (many) innocent men it has locked up for years without due process? After many have been driven insane?

          If you were a prisoner there, would you say the system is working? chiz

          •  If these men had access to civilian (0+ / 0-)

            courts it does not necessarily mean that they would be released in any shorter period of time.  Surely you don't suggest that the detainees would have the right to petition for habeas the moment they are detained.  Even in Hamdi and Rasul, the Supreme COurt acknowledged that the military needs to be given time to interrogate before any procedures to determine status kick in.  

            So, even given an access to civilian courts, the detainees are unlikely to spend any less time in confinment.  So the length of confinement does not inform me whether or not the system works.

            •  this is silly beyond measure (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rhutcheson, not a cent

              Even if they had access to civilian courts, they'd have been kept locked up (and without habeas review) for years on end? Of all the strange things you've claimed on this thread, this is the oddest of all.

              •  If they had access to civilian courts (0+ / 0-)

                that access would not have been instantaneous.  To see how long a habeas proceedings can take, look at various capital habeas cases.  For instance, the federal habeas petition for Mumia Abu Jamal was filed in 1999.  The District Court ruled on the petition in 2001.  The appeal was filed in the Third Circuit in 2001, but was not heard until May 2007.  It is now December 2007, and no decision has issued yet.  This makes for 8 years of litigation (during which Mr. Jamal continues to sit in jail).  

                There is little reason to believe that the habeas claims of Gitmo detainees would be handled any faster, and while the claims were processed they of course would remain in detention.

                Additionally, the detainees would most likely not be able to file claims immediately, as the military would be given sufficient leeway to debrief and interrogate them.  That period could very well take a year or so.  

                Thus, even if there were access to a civilian court system, and even if the courts were ordering releases, it is questionable that these releases would have occured any quicker than they are occuring now.  

    •  Al-Qaeda operatives . . . says who? (5+ / 0-)

      As determined by what process?

      If you have confidence that anyone the authorities accuse of something is automatically guilty exactly as charged, what need do we have for this thing which has become strangely foreign to Americans, this "rule of law", with courts and human rights?

      Surely you see that you are making a circular argument.

      The Dutch children's chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “kids for kids”): is a world cultural treasure.

      by lotlizard on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:04:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And Do You Realize (7+ / 0-)

      that this is the whole point of what's going on here?  Six years into the detentions at Guantanamo and for the overwhelming majority of the remaining detainees, there's been no formal determination as to whether they even had the slightest connection to al-Qaeda.  Just because some tribesman came into an American camp in Afghanistan in late 2001 or 2002 and handed over some names doesn't necessarily make those people al-Qaeda operatives.  The CSRTs, horribly flawed as they are, represent an acknowledgement that no such determination as to the detainees' proper status has yet been made.

      The concept of rounding everyone up and only years later worrying about who's genuinely worthy of continued detention and prosecution is inimical to the concept of individual liberty and fundamental human rights.  For your sake, I hope that no one you care about is ever caught up in a similar dragnet.

    •  So explain why so many of the prisoners have (6+ / 0-)

      been repatriated to their own countries where they ar usually freed upon arrival? Or are the stories about people being sold to US authorities by bounty hunters fake? What about the 13 year old incarcerated there?
      This does not even begin to discuss the difference between al Qaeda and the Taliban which are not the same organization.  If you follow the Brit press, you will see the estimate is that 90% of the detainees have never committed any violent act against the US or planned to.

    •  It would be nice (5+ / 0-)

      to have trials, with, you know, evidence and all that, so we can see the extent to which the detainees are al-Qaeda operatives.  Otherwise, lengthy confinements without trial serve no purpose, except to have people like me question the validity of your statment.  Any intelligence value is long gone.

      As for Hamdan himself, the only allegation I see made against him is that he was bin Laden's driver.  We would hardly suggest that Bush's driver knows much about the workings in the Oval Office.  Hamdan wasn't captured by Americans, but by Afghan warlords and then turned over to us.  We're alleging conspiracy.  I think Americans should get to see the evidence.

      "Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." --George W Bush, May 2, 2007

      by mspicata on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:17:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where is your proof? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You do realize we are talking about al-Qaeda operatives here? You do realize that many of these people want to destroy the United States?

      Sounds like mere assertion. None of this has been proved in a court of law, so why are you stating it as if it were a fact?

      Isn't it the point that these questions ought to be tested in a court of law?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (28)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site