Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

              •  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.

    •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site