Skip to main content

View Diary: Defense Department Backs Indefinite Preventive Detention of ACQUITTED Detainees (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Most of the Gitmo detainees were neither members (12+ / 0-)

    of the Taliban, no al Qaeda.

    The Canary in the Coalmine is available for purchase at patriotictruthteller.net

    by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:13:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Shhh! Don't confuse the issue with facts (3+ / 0-)
    •  Is there an independent source (0+ / 0-)

      for this claim (the CCR doesn't count)?

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:15:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A Profile of 517 Detaines: Analysis of DoD Data (13+ / 0-)
        1. 55% of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

        2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

        1. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. 8% are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
        1. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.  This 86% captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the

        United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
        enemies.

        1. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

        You can find the report at http://law.shu.edu/...

        The Canary in the Coalmine is available for purchase at patriotictruthteller.net

        by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:32:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're citing a 2005 defense counsel document. (0+ / 0-)

          Moreover, the report flatly contradicts your argument:

          The data reveals that the Government divides a detainee's enemy combatant status into six
          distinct categories that describe the terrorist organization with whom the detainee is affiliated.
          Figure 1 illustrates the breakdown of each group’s representation by the data:

          1. al Qaeda (32%)
          1. al Qaeda & Taliban (28%)
          1. Taliban (22%)
          1. al Qaeda OR Taliban (7%)
          1. Unidentified Affiliation (10%)
          1. Other (1%)

          Thus, according to your report, 89% of the detainees as of 2005 were members of Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban.  

          Of course, the government's claim regarding each is not the gospel truth, and that's what the habeas hearings are for.  And in fact many have been released.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:44:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Denbeaux Reports are great ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque

          .... but they don't account for the present population at Guantanamo.

          •  They also hold up a legally (0+ / 0-)

            irrelevant distinction between Al Qaeda/Taliban fighters and Al Qaeda/Taliban members.  As the federal courts have ruled, belonging to an enemy military organization is sufficient grounds for detention.  This being a discussion of 'legal authority,' this bears pointing out.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:49:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In reverse, I assume that the Taliban and/or (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              corvo

              Al Qaeda are legally entitled to indefinitely detain US Military personnel . . .

              •  The Taliban, maybe. Al Qaeda is a criminal (0+ / 0-)

                organization so anything they do is a criminal violation.  Holding US servicepeople is kidnapping when done by AQ.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:07:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  in one argument (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lysias, greeseyparrot, dancewater, ewmorr

                  you want criminal law to apply, in the next they're "enemy combatants" and not "criminals", and a paragraph or two later it's "acts of war" that justifies making Al Qaeda "outlaws" in the first place.

                  The ultimate effect of such argument is to make obvious that there is not only no consistency in the law, but there is in fact no law at all . . .

                  Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                  by Deward Hastings on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:53:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Um ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geekesque

                ... tell me you're not equating terrorists with a government's authorized and uniformed military.

                •  I'm not doing that, that's what Geekesque is (0+ / 0-)

                  telling me.

                  To me terrorists are simply criminals that should be dealt with under the criminal justice system.

                  Geekesque is disputing that notion . ..  

                  •  Terrorists are both an armed enemy and criminals. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Adam B

                    Both designations apply, and thus do the legal consequences of both.  We can arrest them and imprison them.  We can also drop a bomb on them, shoot them from 150 yards, and detain them for the duration of the conflict.

                    They do not get to benefit from their dual status as criminals and armed combatants.  To the contrary, whichever is least advantageous to them from a legal point of view may be pursued by the government.  We do not have to choose between treating them as criminals and treating them as armed enemies.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:13:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sure, you can go through legal contortions to (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      greeseyparrot, ewmorr

                      justify whatever it is that we are doing to them.

                      I'm just saying that I'm sure they (with "they" possibly being bereft family members of wedding parties that we have bombed . . .) easily make themselves just as confortable doing whatever it is they may do to us.

                      . . . I believe I'm edging towards the "blowback" concept here.

                      •  So, now being tough on terrorism while following (0+ / 0-)

                        the law is doing 'legal contortions?'

                        No.  It's called common sense--something rejected by the neocon right and the ivory tower left.

                        Again, you insist on some kind of mutuality/equivalence between us and terrorist organizations.  There is none.  Every single member of AQ belongs either in jail or a grave.

                        Blowing up wedding parties of course is a tragedy, and something the US should do a much better job of avoiding.

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:27:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Conversely, I suspect that some of them feel that (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          greeseyparrot, dancewater

                          every single member of the US Military likewise should be killed.

                          I suppose with this type of escalation on a "progressive" website, going even beyond what Bill Clinton would countenace ("we can't kill all of the terrorists . .. . "), there ain't a lot of hope for anything improving in the next generation or so.  

                          Let's all give a big welcome to eternal war!!

                          •  I reject your sympathy for the motives of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Adam B

                            Al Qaeda.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, I think I'm hearing you loud and clear (0+ / 0-)

                            when we kill their innocents, it's unfortunate and something that should be avoided.

                            When they kill our innocents, that's justification for a never-ending literal war against them (even if we really don't know who they are, we'll just take our best guess).

                            Nice to see that American Exceptionalism is alive and well!!

                        •  Trust in the judicial system is important. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lysias

                          Detaining individuals who were acquitted in a criminal court undermines the legitimacy of our court system.  

                          I understand the complexities and the competing interrests, including the need to detain individuals who are members of Al Quada and the Taliban.  But members of these organizations are criminals, and should be treated as such.  They should be tried in the criminal justice system, and the verdict should be respected.  

                          The Canary in the Coalmine is available for purchase at patriotictruthteller.net

                          by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:07:35 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  They are criminals AND armed enemies. (0+ / 0-)

                            There's no reason to treat them MORE leniently because they're criminals than we would noncriminal members of a legitimate state-controlled armed forces.

                            We didn't release German POW's while we were in armed conflict with Germany.  Nor should be release members of AQ and the Taliban while we're in an armed conflict with them.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:10:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  you sure blow up massive civilian casualties (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          greeseyparrot

                          by US forces pretty easily.... how do you look in the mirror and not throw up?

                          The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. - Chris Hedges 3/2/09

                          by dancewater on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:15:41 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, then it's fortunate for all of us that (0+ / 0-)

                    you're not in charge of setting policy.

                    The notion that groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban are equivalent to convenience store robbers is as loony as the Bushies' view of them as an existential threat that can only be met by a global "war".

                    If an American citizen showed up in a U.S. civilian court and asserted that the reason he had tried to steal a propane tanker was that $DEITY had ordered him to crash it into the stadium during the Super Bowl half-time show because rock music and sports played with the skin of a pig were "abominations",  the judge wouldn't release him on probation for "misdemeanor joyriding".  He'd be locked up in a mental ward until a panel of court-approved psychiatrists certified that he was no longer a "danger to society".  The fact that he hadn't succeeded in killing thousands of people would not be a reason to set him free.

          •  As per Brookings, the current stats as of 6/23: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B, greeseyparrot, dancewater

            DETAINEES STILL AT GUANTÁNAMO AND CLEARED FOR RELEASE: 52

            DETAINEES CHARGED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MILITARY COMMISSIONS AFTER DECEMBER 16, 2008: 1

            NUMBER OF DETAINEES CURRENTLY AT GUANTANAMO WHO HAVE EVER BEEN CHARGED: 26

            NUMBER TRIED & CONVICTED: 1

            DETAINEES FACING SWORN CHARGES: 7

            The Canary in the Coalmine is available for purchase at patriotictruthteller.net

            by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:14:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site