Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  What they're saying would be true for anyone (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dancewater

    held there because the fact that they've been imprisoned there without justification creates that individual who would harm the US if given the opportunity to do so even if that individual was not inclined to do so prior to his imprisonment.

    I think what Johnson said is a half truth.  That's exactly what they're doing and that they intend to continue utilizing Bush's illegal plans and that is in part why no investigations will ever take place for the war crimes that were committed by the Bush Administration.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:39:55 AM PDT

    •  Amazingly, that has not turned out to be the case (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, dancewater

      If someone were put in the black hold otherwise known as Guantanamo Bay, you would think that even if they were innocent, six years of Gitmo would turn them into a terrorist.

      But about 520 detainees have been released from Guantanamo or transferred to other governments since the facility was established in 2002, and only 18 have "returned to the fight," which can include propaganda critical of the United States.  The Defense Department doesn't claim that they've "returned to the battlefield" because they have not.

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

      by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:48:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, no. (0+ / 0-)

        From a Pentagon report released about a month ago:

        Based on a comprehensive review of available information as of mid-March 2009, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported 14 percent as the overall rate of former Guantanamo detainees confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist activities. Of the more than 530 Guantanamo detainees transferred from Department of Defense custody at Guantanamo Bay, 27 were confirmed and 47 were suspected of reengaging in terrorist activity. Between December 2008 and March 2009, nine detainees were added to the confirmed list, six of whom were previously on the suspected list

        Apparently someone at the Pentagon has been reading dkos,  and noticed some of the disparaging comments about the Bushies' earlier claims:

        For the purposes of this definition, engagement in anti-U.S. propaganda alone does not qualify as terrorist activity

        •  Numbers may be different, but the point remains. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot, dancewater

          The main point is that not everyone becomes a terrorist from being in GITMO.  Only a small number (the biggest claimed was 27) have been confirmed to engage in terrorist activity after being released.  That is a small number compared to the 500+ that were released.  

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

          by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:13:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We'll never get health care if we prosecute (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greeseyparrot, corvo

      the torturers.  Besides, "bipartisanship" is the wave of the future.

      In hindsight, I'm not sure what I expected from the Obama WH.  I didn't, however, expect the foremost legal scholar ever to assume the presidency to effectively sweep such a giant body of lawlessness under the rug.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:49:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not even talking about prosecuting torturers. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lysias, nupstateny, greeseyparrot, corvo

        I'm just talking about setting acquitted detainees free.

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

        by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:50:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not lawlessness. You may not like the law, (0+ / 0-)

        but the law of the United States explicitly and unambiguously allows for the detention of Al Qaeda and Taliban members as combatants, which means there's no need for criminal charges to be filed.

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

        by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:51:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is lawless when you make a law (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot

          to allow you to continue to do something after you got caught doing it illegally.  That's what the republicans did, not only with torture and imprisonment, but with eavesdropping as well, retroactive legislation.


          The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

          by nupstateny on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:02:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It was never illegal to detain members (0+ / 0-)

            of AQ and the Taliban at Guantanamo.  Certainly not after the 2001 AUMF.

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

            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:06:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I never argued that detaining AQ or Talib. (0+ / 0-)

              was illegal.

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

              by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:30:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  just to be clear: (0+ / 0-)

                Your stance is that we can detain them indefinitely as enemy combatants without putting them on trial for criminal charges, but if they are put on trial for criminal charges, they must be released even if it is indisputed that they are card-carrying members of AQ and the Taliban who are likely to kill Americans in armed attacks if released?

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

                by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:47:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  That didn't fly at Nuremberg. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot, dancewater

          "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

          by bellatrys on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:14:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, now Obama's a Nazi? (0+ / 0-)

            Not sure what your point is here.  We held German POW's while we were in an armed conflict with Germany.  We can hold AQ and Taliban members while we are engaged 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 07:18:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're making inflammatory comments. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RFK Lives, greeseyparrot, dancewater

              No one called Obama a Nazi.  No one said we could not hold al Qaeda or Taliban members on Guantanamo.  This diary is about indefinitely detaining acquitted detainees as a preventive measure.

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

              by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:32:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  For a former DOJ lawyer, your grasp (0+ / 0-)

                on the applicable law is rather skaky.

                To restate things concisely:

                There are two separate and independent sources of authority for the detention of AQ and Taliban members.

                We can put them on trial for criminal violations and/or detain them as enemy combatants.

                If they are acquitted of criminal charges, that does not remove the authority to detain them as members of AQ or the Taliban.

                The burden of proof for detention under the law governing  is a preponderance of the evidence. Miranda warnings are not necessary.  There is no exclusionary rule for violations of privacy.

                Moreover, being a member of the Taliban is not necessarily a crime.  

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

                by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:41:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Detaining after Acquittal is unacceptable. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lysias

                  It makes a criminal trial unneccessary and a waste of time.  The individual will be detained anyway--either convicted and detained or detained after they have been acquitted because the government still thinks they are dangerous.  

                  This makes a mockery of our criminal justice system.  

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

                  by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:58:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So, then Obama should not put them on trial (0+ / 0-)

                    and instead should just detain them as combatants.

                    Problem solved.

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

                    by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:03:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What are they being acquitted of? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      greeseyparrot

                      If they are acquitted, how can the administration plausibly argue they are combatants?

                      If the administration doesn't plan on releasing them even in they are aquitted, what's the point of the trial?

                      How is this any better than some garden variety show-trial in a third world country?

                      •  It will depend on the individual. (0+ / 0-)

                        E.g.,  a Taliban detainee might be charged as one of the people throwing acid on schoolgirls,  or for placing a bomb in a school that accepted girls.

                        Any of the detainees might be charged if they had a significant role in any attack that deliberately targeted civilians.

                        Those would be war crimes,  distinct from "merely" being "combatants" who (attempt to) attack enemy military targets.  The "combatants" are subject to detention even if they're not war criminals.

                •  Your grasp of this diary is shaky. It's not re: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greeseyparrot, dancewater

                  al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.  It's about detainees who have been acquitted.

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

                  by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:17:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  And, someone mentioned Nuremburg. (0+ / 0-)

                Please tell me how that's not making Nazi comparisons.

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

                by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:41:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  When the administration is talking of doing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dancewater

                  just one of the worst things the SS did, how is one to avoid Nazi comparisons?

                  The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                  by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:25:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Categorically false statement by you. (0+ / 0-)

                    Detaining enemy combatants was not one of the worst abuses of the SS.  Gassing millions of human beings, conducting medical experiments on prisoners, murdering civilians, and helping keep a genocidal dicatator in power were the bad things about the SS.

                    Get a freaking grip.  You're talking like a nutjob.

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

                    by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:29:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I remember how Wm. Shirer described this (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      greeseyparrot, dancewater

                      particular abuse of the SS in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.  He was (properly) horrified.  That you are not speaks volumes.

                      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                      by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:31:25 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He was horrified by POW camps? eom (0+ / 0-)

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

                        by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:32:44 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  He was horrified by the SS taking into (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          greeseyparrot, dancewater

                          "protective custody" people right after they were acquitted at trial.

                          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                          by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:34:13 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Were those people members of an armed group (0+ / 0-)

                            involved in an armed conflict with Germany?

                            You see, and it's sad that this needs to be explained to you, detaining, torturing, and murdering a printing press operator is different than detaining someone who will shoot at American soldiers if released.

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

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:37:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They were leftists that the Nazis regarded as (3+ / 0-)

                            enemies of the German people, by and large.  The Nazis were unreasonable in this view, I would admit.  I wonder how many of our detainees are also being held unreasonably.

                            To the extent that these people are dangerous, I think the law of war allows us to hold them for the duration of hostilities.  So why hold a farce of a trial that you're not going to accept, if it goes the wrong way?

                            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                            by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:41:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Trials not necessarily a farce. (0+ / 0-)

                            Let's say in 2020 the Taliban have finally prevailed/surrendered/reached a deal with us.  AQ has completely melted away and no longer has any financing or infrastructure.

                            Then, those who were tried and acquitted would be released.

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

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:43:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If there's no trial, then they will also be (0+ / 0-)

                            released at the end of hostilities.

                            What's the point of the trial?

                            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                            by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:45:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If there's a trial and they get sentenced to (0+ / 0-)

                            life in prison, then there is something at stake.

                            Also, the government could (as opposed to should) wait until the end of hosilities, and then try them.

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

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:47:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One-way trials, in other words. (0+ / 0-)

                            If they go the government's way, they get enforced.  If they don't, we imprison the people anyway, for as long as we think we need to.

                            If the paramount concern is avoiding the danger of releasing dangerous people, why not just imprison them, rather than holding these farces of trials?

                            And, in particular, what's all this about military commissions, where people will be tried that the government doesn't think it can get convicted in normal courts?  What's wrong with just holding them as POW's?

                            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                            by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:51:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Members of AQ placed themselves in this (0+ / 0-)

                            legal double jeopardy.  

                            The major justification for criminal trials is PR.

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

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:54:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is BAD PR if we continue to hold someone (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dancewater

                            who was acquitted.  

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

                            by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:56:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then the solution is to only try those (0+ / 0-)

                            who are guaranteed to be convicted. At least in the short term.

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

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:57:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, if a car thief beats up or kills a (0+ / 0-)

                            fellow prisoner,  you'd oppose putting him on trial because he's still going to be in prison if acquitted?

                          •  In that case, he is in prison because he was (0+ / 0-)

                            already convicted of a crime, during which process he was afforded the protections of the Article 3 courts.  He is not being held because he is "dangerous".  

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

                            by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 09:03:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The same "point" as the Nuremberg (0+ / 0-)

                            trials,  and many other trials held during and after WWII:  some of the people being held were merely "combatants",  but some had also been accused of crimes.  The German soldiers who were charged with,  e.g.,  looting,  raping/murdering civilians,  etc.,  but were acquitted were returned to POW confinement and released after the war.  The ones who were convicted were punished.

                          •  Some of the defendants at Nuremberg were (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dancewater

                            acquitted, and set free.

                            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                            by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 09:00:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  POW's have more procedural protections than (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greeseyparrot, dancewater

                            "enemy combatants".  And in this "war on terror", being held until the end of hostilities is basically a life sentence without a trial.  

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

                            by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 09:00:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You are conflating POWs and enemy combatants. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lysias

                          The "enemy combatant" label takes the detainees outside both the benefits of the Geneva Convention (granted to all prisoners of war) and the constitutional protections of the criminal justice system (granted to all criminal defendants.  

                          Enemy combatants are in legal limbo.

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

                          by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:43:07 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hostile combatant, enemy combatant, (0+ / 0-)

                            whatever.  The point is that they are a combatant adhering to an entity involved in armed conflict with the United States, and may thus be detained under the law governing such conflict.

                            All combatants may be detained.  But, not all combatants are POW's.  Taliban-maybe POW's.  AQ--not entitled to POW status, but the US has the option of granting them those enhanced protections.

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

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:46:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you paraphrasing my law review article?: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            [I]f al Qaeda or Taliban membership is the litmus test, under international law Taliban members may be lawful combatants while al Qaeda members may be unlawful combatants . . .

                            [However], there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the current crop of "enemy combatant " classifications.  Almost ever possible variation of combinations of facts has been explored--with completely inconsistent results.

                            Radack, Opportunistic Treatment of Terrorism Suspects, 29 N.Y.U. REV. OF LAW & SOCIAL CHANGE 125.

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

                            by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:56:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I use enemy combatant instead of "unlawful" (0+ / 0-)

                            combatant because of Bush's usage of the latter term in order to justify denying them basic human rights.  imo, the salient point is that they are, well, enemies who are also combatants and thus may be detained, whether lawful or otherwise.  

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

                            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:59:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  When bellatrys mentioned Nuremberg, (0+ / 0-)

                  he or she was making a point about legal defenses, not (as you re-characterize his or her comment) saying "Obama's a Nazi."

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

                  by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:28:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Completely absurd reference. (0+ / 0-)

                    It has always been legal under international law to detain enemy combatants.  Germans were not tried at Nuremberg for holding American soldiers in detention camps.

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

                    by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:31:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wrong. You can hold POWs until (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ewmorr

                      the end of hostilities and then you must release them.

                      The term "enemy combatant" has been all over the map.  It was not until World War II that the executive branch designation of "enemy combatant" was officially coined, and back then it was for individuals suspected of committing offenses in the United States.

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

                      by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:37:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Okay, when hostilities between the US and the (0+ / 0-)

                        Taliban/AQ end then there will be no legal authority for detaining the Gitmo chaps as combatants.

                        Then they'll have to be tried or released.

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

                        by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:40:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  It's more important to avoid unjust treatment (0+ / 0-)

        of prisoners than to get health care.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Both issues are important. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot

          It's not a competition.

          Though I think I have a unique vantage point as

          1. someone who was was placed under a pretextual criminal investigation, put on the "No-Fly List," and denied due process in myriad other ways, and
          1. someone with a pre-existing condition that precludes obtaining health insurance.

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

          by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:31:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Environment (42)
  • Elections (38)
  • Media (36)
  • Republicans (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Barack Obama (30)
  • Iraq (30)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Culture (28)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • LGBT (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site