Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Administration Announces New Combatant Review Status Process For Gitmo Detainees (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I forget Armando (11+ / 0-)

    is such a hawk on national security because he's reasonable on most matters.

    Indefinite detention is constitutional? Um, no. In fact, the power to detain people indefinitely without giving them a trial is a cornerstone of totalitarianism.

    •  To be clear (10+ / 0-)

      Countries may, under the rules of war, hold people captured on a battlefield until the end of hostilities, but the U.S. is claiming -- and Armando is accepting -- that the entire world is a battle field and the GWOT (which by definition is perpetual) is a war. This is the Bush-Cheney view of the war of terror, and one progressives should reject.

      •  I assume that most of these individuals (0+ / 0-)

        were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. For those who weren't, I think the situations is probably different.

        Ok, so I read the polls.

        by andgarden on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:12:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, most of them were not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnnygunn, kurt, Enzo Valenzetti

          captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan, and no the situation for the ones who were not is not different from those who were. One would think so, but that is not the case.

                    Standing for justice and accountability,
                                   For Dan,

          Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is doing it to whom.

          by Chacounne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:23:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If that's the case (0+ / 0-)

            then these proceedings ought to establish that individuals are being improperly held.

            Ok, so I read the polls.

            by andgarden on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:26:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not at all, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              none of the definitions have to do with whether they were captured on the battlefield or not. You seem to be projecting what you hope is the case. I would recommend some research.

                              Standing for justice and accountability,
                                             For Dan,

              Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is doing it to whom.

              by Chacounne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:51:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Even if that is so (0+ / 0-)

                the order explicitly leaves open Habeas. What remedy the President is leaving himself open to accepting by that provision is unclear, but the bottom line is that all of the detainees have access to Federal courts.

                Ok, so I read the polls.

                by andgarden on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:03:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Prisoners of War (6+ / 0-)

        Holding people captured on the battlefield is Prisoner of War.

        Which this order has simply nothing to do with. All language, from the President, in this order, about "law of war detention" and the like, can be simply laughed at.

        The reason we do not do the simple and obvious thing, of classifying them as POWs, of course, is that they have been tortured. Torture of POWs comes with responsibility to investigate and prosecute. And it is Administration policy not to investigate and prosecute. Thus bringing us the absurd CSRTs, or PRBs, or whatever we call them this week.

        The purpose of these things is and always has been to get around the torture problem.

    •  Then we've been a totalitarian nation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Pretty much since before our founding...

      I mean - you don't have to look far to find documented examples of loyalists having their property confiscated and if memory serves, even execution of loyalists -- under the colors of regular continental army regiments in a couple of Philadelphia cases IIRC -- during the American revolution.

      From a strictly legal perspective - we could continue into the Civil War and the treatment of copperheads, it's hard to see the expulsion of Vallandigham as being an especially proud moment, and there were plenty of other instances of indefinite detention, regular army torture (famously along the Virginia/West Virginia split), etc.

      This before we even get into the treatment of isolationists in WWI and the internments of WW2.

      I most definitely don't raise these items to excuse anything that happened in the past nor as an excuse for anything today -- but just as a recognition that war itself is ultimately rather damn illogical and it's exercise in futility to think you can a peacetime system of justice into it.

      History has proven that pretty conclusively - I think the best you can aim for is to import some basic foundations of a peacetime justice system... judicial review is a good one.... but a bar against indefinite detention?  I just don't see how that would work, especially in a situation of asymmetrical warfare.  

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:51:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (60)
  • 2016 (43)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Culture (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Media (22)
  • Education (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site