Democrat Senator Jim Webb Flip-Flops On Closing Guantanamo Bay

Proof  •  May 19, 2009

At first Senator Webb was against closing Gitmo immediately. Now he’s wondering what the rush is, favoring a closure of the facility at some unspecified point in the future and saying that not one of the Gitmo detainees should be brought onto American soil.
Which I’m pretty sure was the Bush administration’s position on the matter all along.
Video at the link.

If Sen. Webb’s any indication, the president is running into more trouble with his own party on his plans to close down Guantanamo. Despite his support earlier this year for the president’s policy, Webb, D-Va., said today on “This Week” that no detainee, including the 17 Uighurs, should come to the U.S. He also said that Guantanamo should not be closed on the current timeline.

Back when Obama began to go wobbly on Guantanamo a bit I said this:

It’s very easy to rail against Guantanamo Bay. It’s easy to march in the streets wearing orange jumpsuits and decrying the alleged mistreatment (for which there is no evidence) of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It’s quite another to be the person responsible for releasing them back into the world, and the one who must face the consequences for such a decision.

I think a lot of Democrats, up to and including Senator Webb, are starting to understand this.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    First, Rob is wrong.

    They are NOT Prisoners of War.

    Legal combatants (a very low bar) who are captured by the enemy become Prisoners of War. Illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of a Prisoner of War. Once determined to be an illegal combatant, such are subject to execution as being an illegal combatant is a war crime traditionally punished by death.

    As to why those currently detained at Guantanamo Bay should NOT be tried in the Federal Courts under Federal Law:

    1. Jurisdiction. Extending the limits of the Jurisdiction of the United States to foreign nationals making war upon the United States in foreign nations is a rather large stretch.

    2. Applicability. The applicability of United States Code to foreign nationals operating outside of the United States is also a stretch, so too is extending the Constitutional protections of United States Persons to non United States Persons.

    3. Existing Law. The Customary Laws of Warfare have jurisdiction (wherever armed conflict is in progress), applicability (what the terrorists do are indeed war crimes), and both exist and are internationally enforceable.

    4. Protection of U. S. Justice System. Rather than bastardize the civil liberties and protections of the United States criminal courts by allowing secret evidence and closed courts, instead try the terrorists in a venue that already allows such.

    QED

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Bat One: I remember reading a story about a guy picked up in a sweep. He might have been buddies with some illegal combatants, but apparently wasn’t one himself, and he was unarmed.

  • robert108

    Non-uniformed combatants aren’t entitled to trials in civil courts. They are lucky they aren’t summarily executed, as called for by the Geneva Convention.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Da Wiz, you miss the fact that many of these people are not combatants, legal or otherwise, therefore not war criminals.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    Heck Rob, they’re not even soldiers in the meaning of the Geneva Convention. They don’t wear uniforms, or fight openly against our troops, but practice terror, without the morals or decency of the common Mafiosi or serial killer.

    Traditionally, these terrorists would have been classified as francs-tireurs (Franco-Prussian war) , incendiaries Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, spies and saboteurs (all sides WWII) and if at sea, pirates. Their entitlement would be limited to a noose, a firing squad or a simple bayonet to the gut.

    UN-made international law might have altered this to an extent, but you have to remember the UN was largely a Communist-controlled, but Western, and particularly US-financed operation. The UN’s direction then would be to protect tyrants (such as Annan’s Oil-for-Food scandal) , protect the Communist status quo, destroy the Western ability to resist the communist encroachment.

    For that reason, the UN regularly condemns Israel, champions efforts to make civilian ownership of weapons and the use of mercenaries illegal, while at the same time, sheltering the worst tyrants from any sort of responsibility or justice and protecting terrorists — which have traditionally been trained, supplied and directed by the USSR and Communist China (see the Patrice Lumumba University)

    Thus, you have to take into account that any new, UN-based legal protections for terrorists have been intended to protect terrorism and have no valid basis for the US honoring such laws.

  • carrick

    postpartisan:

    Admittedly, if they were captured “on the battlefield” (wherever that is), then it seems pretty obvious that they are terrorists (or soldiers, depending on your viewpoint) – but we don’t imprison people for murder just because we found a bloody knife in their hand. We give them a trial first.

    So… what do we do with ordinary POWs by your logic? Are we allowed to hold them until the end of hostilities or should we release them?

    And what separate GITMO as in internment facility other than it is in US territory?

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    More unintended consequnces…

    The Obamateur Hundred Days of Unforced Errors tour extends it’s tour for the foreseeable future.

  • Bat One

    Well, that is a good question Bat One. Hopefully there will be fair trials to sort that out.

    Thank you. But if it is yet to be determined which ones may not be combatants, then why would you state that it is “fact” that some are not?

  • postpartisan

    Rodney,

    Thanks for the links. I understand your positions pretty well now. Although the one about Guantanamo inmates returning to the battlefield links to an unproven Pentagon assertion, which is why I was asking for proof above. I don’t feel that a Pentagon claim is by definition a total guarantee of veracity.

    I’ve enjoyed learning what you think, but I’d rather not be patronized by you claiming that you’re “educating” me. You don’t seem to be actually reading my posts any more, or at least, you’re not responding to anything I ask in them, so I’ll leave the discussion now, I think.

    Oh, plus-perfect “has always been.”

    ?????

  • postpartisan

    Because some of the folks we have captured or who have been transferred to us were planners, leaders, or commanders who were attempting to work in the shadows. The evidence which damns them comes from sources and methods which we need to protect from compromise.

    This can be done in a regular court. That’s what the state secrets privilege was originally designed for.

    there is an extant and time tested alternative

    But is it really time-tested? If so, why have the rules of the military courts been changed just in the last week? Because they’re not time-tested enough?

    Your dismissal of the issue of jurisdiction strikes me as hand-waving where you have no counter argument.

    My counter-argument is a pretty straightforward one, actually. Every trial should be conducted in the fairest possible court. What is “possible” or “safe” is where we differ. The “jurisdiction” issue feels like a red herring because military courts have never been universally accepted as a fair and just way of deciding cases.

    Though you should note that two dozen former Guantanamo detainee’s cleared at Combatant Status Review Boards and released were subsequently recaptured or killed on the battlefield.

    I’ve heard this claim, I’d just like some evidence of it before taking it at face value. Hopefully you’ll link to the evidence in your reply.

    Plus : imagine for a moment (if you can) that the men who were cleared were genuinely innocent. After years in Guantanamo, these innocent men would have been turned against the US by now anyway. So the fact that they were found fighting the US after their release would not be a shock. Of course, they may well have been guilty, but even the fact that they were found “on the battlefield” (I’m still not sure where that actually is) would not in itself prove that they were guilty the first time round.

    Illegal Combatants have exactly two rights under international law as recognized by the United States: The right to become dead, and the right to remain dead.

    Rodney, as I said before, if shooting captured enemy combatants in the back of the head is OK by you, then I can’t really have a rational debate on any of this. It just feels morally repugnant to kill someone who is in your power. If you don’t feel that way, I’m not sure how to discuss this further.

  • postpartisan

    Zig seems to have anticipated my point about Geneva. But if they aren’t soldiers, and the rules about prisoners of war don’t apply, then is this a war at all? If not, what would you call it?

    Also, Zig, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to use examples from the 19th century as a comparison to how we treat prisoners now. To put it mildly, things were very different then.

  • sayanything-5371

    They should never have been taken prisoner. They now pose a long term dilemma as to what to do with them. Summary execution should have been done when they were captured. They would have done the same, and have, to our soldiers.

  • postpartisan

    there is nothing justifying the protection of terrorists.

    The point being, Zig, that until they have a trial, we can’t say for 100% certain that they are terrorists. Unless the military are judge, jury and executioner, which is pretty undemocratic.

    Admittedly, if they were captured “on the battlefield” (wherever that is), then it seems pretty obvious that they are terrorists (or soldiers, depending on your viewpoint) – but we don’t imprison people for murder just because we found a bloody knife in their hand. We give them a trial first.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    Postpartum,

    It’s fairly obvious in a combat situation just who is not a soldier. Nieman, Chief and several others can tell you that during wartime, men of fighting age skulking in an area were there has been a roadside bomb or sniping or something of that nature is suspicious. Because in wartime, men of fighting age in many countries are, well, fighting.

    But, in an abundance of caution, let’s not even arrest the merely suspicious. Let’s look at the more common situation of those Muslim who have opened fire on Americans or our allies, we have killed some or most of those shooting as us from the schoolhouse, the hospital or mosque and now we have them in custody. They are wearing civilian clothes, the same as other non-combatants. In the building or position our troops have just overrun, there may remain small arms, grenades and the like. The air still smells like cordite.

    There is indicia that the guys who have been shooting at us have had military training, such as how they initiated the ambush or conducted the firefight.

    But they are not in uniform. There is a complete absence of even the distinctive armbands the French resistance would wear when fighting the Germans.

    These now are not soldiers, but terrorists. Were it not for their intelligence value, any troop would be well-justified to kill them all on the spot.

    Tell me you understand the difference between an American civilian who has been stopped in America for a traffic violation, a German soldier who has surrendered under flag of truce after his bunker has been overrun and the terrorist who has been caught, with no distinctive uniform or insignia, detonating a roadside IED, sniping at US troops or sawing the heads off civilian contractors in front of a video camera.

    Explain.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    “plus-perfect-partisan” opines:

    This [secret evidence and proceedings] can be done in a regular court. That’s what the state secrets privilege was originally designed for.

    Secret proceedings and evidence are antithetical to the Civil Rights of United States Persons.

    But is it really time-tested? If so, why have the rules of the military courts been changed just in the last week? Because they’re not time-tested enough?

    What changes to the Law (The Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed into law in October of 2006) have been enacted since Obama took office? What act amending that law has passed by both houses of Congress and been signed into law? What proposed amendments has the Obama Administration asked for from Congress?

    Further note that the The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was more of an answer to the question of war powers as a specific authorization for the Executive Branch’s War Time Power of enforcing the Customary Laws of Warfare. The law is very reminiscent of the procedures used (and upheld by the Supreme Court) in Yamashita and ex parte Quirin, which gives them sixty years of historical precedent.

    [I had stated]
    Your dismissal of the issue of jurisdiction strikes me as hand-waving where you have no counter argument.

    [to which plus-perfect-partisan responds, but does not reply]
    My counter-argument is a pretty straightforward one, actually. Every trial should be conducted in the fairest possible court.

    That is not an answer to the question of jurisdiction:

    # legal power: (law) the right and power to interpret and apply the law; “courts having jurisdiction in this district”
    # in law; the territory within which power can be exercised

    What jurisdiction does a Federal Court of the United States have over a foreign national who has never set foot on the Territory of the United States? What jurisdiction does a Federal Court of the United States have over a crime allegedly committed by such a foreign national in a foreign nation? What sections of the United States Code are applicable to foreign nationals operating in foreign countries?

    The Customary Laws of Warfare, by contrast, are enforceable wherever a belligerent party is operating, and whenever such a party is engaged in hostilities or in planning, financing, or preparing for hostilities.

    What is “possible” or “safe” is where we differ.

    Military Tribunals are “possible.” They have a long historical record (unless you are going to contend that the Nuremberg Tribunals were somehow unjust). Such tribunals, which cannot be employed against United States Persons per The Military Commissions Act of 2006, are time tested and have jurisdiction.

    If you believe them to be procedurally unfair, you have yet to make that case.

    The “jurisdiction” issue feels like a red herring because military courts have never been universally accepted as a fair and just way of deciding cases.

    And you continue to wave your hands frantically vice answering the question of jurisdiction. What court is “universally accepted as a fair and just way of deciding cases.”?

    …if shooting captured enemy combatants in the back of the head is OK by you…

    Preferable? No. Historically supported? Yes.

    Answer on jurisdiction and what has changed with regards to The Military Commissions Act of 2006 or go away as just another leftard whose opinions are unsupportable.

  • postpartisan

    Rodney,

    Sorry if you thought I was trying to “limit the debate”. I retract. Feel free to debate with me about the morality of killing captured illegal combatants. As I said, though, I don’t think we’ll have any common ground. Perhaps I should have said : I will happily debate this, but I suspect it may be a pointless experience for both of us. If I was not “particularly polite” in my request not to discuss it, that was a mistake.

    So I’ll re-open the discussion. You obviously don’t find killing captured prisoners “morally repugnant” as I do (I assume those are the words that offended you). What are your moral views on the subject?

    Until such time as “plus-perfect-partisan” makes a sincere effort to remedy its woeful lack of education, I see no purpose in sharing what I have researched and learned with someone who appears to be wilfully ignorant.

    A bit hostile. I made some points in my previous post that are at least relevant, even if you totally disagree with them. You’ve ignored any points I may have made in favour of calling me “wilfully ignorant” with a “woeful lack of education”, not to mention comparing me with people you think are “retarded”. This feels like a bit of an over-reaction to me suggesting that a replacement to the Military Commissions Act could be formulated, if the administration had the will to do so. Do you disagree with that point so strongly? I’m not clear from your last post.

    On another point : I’m genuinely interested in why you’re calling me “plus-perfect-partisan”? I don’t really understand the joke/reference. I’m guessing it’s not intended as a compliment.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    “plus-perfect-partisan” complains:

    Can we please not resort to this name-calling? I thought it was a pretty civil debate until now.

    Odd, that. I don’t consider “plus-perfect-partisan”s earlier shot:

    I’m shocked to find several commenters in favour of summary execution. If you actually want US soldiers to take a captured enemy, make him kneel down and shoot him in the head, then I don’t think we can possibly find any common ground. To me, it just seems so obviously morally wrong, I can’t even start a debate.

    to be particularly polite. Rather, I find it to be an attempt to limit the debate which demonstrates a gross ignorance of the Customary Laws of Warfare and the way in which illegal combatants have been historically treated under those customary laws.

    “plus-perfect-partisan” continues:

    On a previous thread I was considered a libertarian, now I’m a “leftard”, whatever that is. The truth is that I don’t see this as a left-right issue, although you obviously do.

    The issue is not, per se, left vs. right. The tactical attempt to limit debate while demonstrating a noteworthy ignorance of the subject matter (the Customary Laws of Warfare and their very dim view of illegal combatants) is a combination often demonstrated here on SAB by the wilfully ignorant (retarded) leftists, or “leftards.” If “plus-perfect-partisan” wishes to avoid being considered a “leftard’ then it would best serve “plus-perfect-partisan”s interests to become educated on the matter and avoid flagrant attempts to limit debate.

    Until such time as “plus-perfect-partisan” makes a sincere effort to remedy its woeful lack of education, I see no purpose in sharing what I have researched and learned with someone who appears to be wilfully ignorant.

    The ball is, as they say, in “plus-perfect-partisan”s court.

  • Bat One

    Da Wiz, you miss the fact that many of these people are not combatants, legal or otherwise, therefore not war criminals.

    Really? Fact, huh? Okay, which ones are and which ones aren’t?

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    “postpartisan” writes:

    I just don’t understand why we need secret evidence. If they are guilty and were captured “on the battlefield”, shouldn’t we be able to prove them guilty without denying them access to the evidence?

    Because some of the folks we have captured or who have been transferred to us were planners, leaders, or commanders who were attempting to work in the shadows. The evidence which damns them comes from sources and methods which we need to protect from compromise.

    As stated above, I find it a offense to a great justice system that people think it can’t deal with something like this.

    Our system is based on public trials and public presentation of evidence. I an offended that anyone would so lightly compromise our means of intelligence or introduce secret trials or evidence into our system of criminal justice when there is an extant and time tested alternative (see ex parte Quirin and Yamashita).

    Your comments about doubtful jurisdiction feel like a red herring.

    Your dismissal of the issue of jurisdiction strikes me as hand-waving where you have no counter argument.

    Military trials have always been controversial because they deny due process and favor conviction.

    Quel dommage. Though you should note that two dozen former Guantanamo detainee’s cleared at Combatant Status Review Boards and released were subsequently recaptured or killed on the battlefield.

    If we wanted to give these people a fair trial then it could be done.

    I don’t much care that you don’t think the tribunals will be sufficiently fair when you have no specific objections to their form and process.

    Illegal Combatants have exactly two rights under international law as recognized by the United States: The right to become dead, and the right to remain dead.

  • postpartisan

    Rodney

    Answer on jurisdiction and what has changed with regards to The Military Commissions Act of 2006 or go away as just another leftard whose opinions are unsupportable.

    Can we please not resort to this name-calling? I thought it was a pretty civil debate until now. On a previous thread I was considered a libertarian, now I’m a “leftard”, whatever that is. The truth is that I don’t see this as a left-right issue, although you obviously do.

    I might as well ask you to reply to my question about providing some proof of the released prisoners that were “captured on the battlefield”, which you ignored. I’m not fond of this blog-posters’ habit of saying “answer question X or I am proved right”. It unfairly frames the debate. I could understand, but I haven’t been evading the question regularly over several posts. I was more vague than you were hoping for on one answer about jurisdiction, and I haven’t even had the chance to evade your question about the MCA yet, since you only just brought it up.

    Anyway, I’m happy enough to play along and give my opinion.

    I think you represent this as more black-and-white than it really is. The Supreme Court did after all vote 5-4 to support the right of Guantanamo inmates to resort to the civil courts. The Act is controversial, to say the least. Nevertheless, your main point is correct, at least technically. The Military Commissions Act does authorize these trials. Of course it does – that’s why it was created. Therefore they do have jurisdiction. Obama, who on terrorism is very Bush-like indeed, has not backtracked from this Act, and so under law you are correct.

    However, before 2006 this would not have been so clear-cut. Should they so wish, the administration could doubtless create a new framework which would replace that set out in the MCA. I would urge that they do this, although quite clearly they will not.

    So, to explain my position more accurately than I did in previous posts : the jurisdiction issue is a ‘red herring’ because if the will was there from those in power, it could be changed. The will evidently is not there, so in real life, your side of the argument wins. Much to my disappointment, since I believe justice is the loser.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    The rules war have gone on for thousands of years, and for the most part, it was based upon Vae victus but there is nothing justifying the protection of terrorists.

  • robert108

    Can anyone explain why they can’t all be brought to the US (joining a number of dangerous terror suspects already in high-security prisons) and tried in the regular courts?

    That was the Clinton approach to the ’93 WTC bombing by AQ. You know how well that worked.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Well, that is a good question Bat One. Hopefully there will be fair trials to sort that out.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    “plus-perfect-partisan”,

    As a start in your education on the Customary Laws of Warfare:

    Shearing Samson

    The Fundamental Questions, Part I

    http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/a_phyric_victory_for_lawfare/

    and a bone:

    61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism

    All of which you could have found for yourself (except the bone) via a search of this site for “Customary Laws of Warfare”.

    Oh, plus-perfect “has always been.”

  • carrick

    Postpartisan:

    I understand the “not American citizens” point, but non-American citizens have been tried in the US before.

    Not prisoners of war. Not even war criminals who’s crimes were committed in another country.

    It’s not our fault that these guys flagrantly disregarded the rules of warfare. As I see it, they got into this predicament by not wearing uniforms that clearly delineated them as combatants.

    Now people are spilling tears for the poor sods, who only wanted to reek murder and mayhem upon the west. *dries tears*

    This might seem a little off-topic, but if they must be handled as prisoners of war, then the Geneva Conventions apply. I’m getting this from Wikipedia (forgive me!) but apparently they state :

    Do you really think it applies to illegal combatants? We have requirements for how we treat them, but they have no “special rights” under the GCs if they aren’t signatories and were operating in flagrant violation of the GCs to start with.

    In fact, I would argue that it’s a real slap in the face to the judicial system that successive administrations appear to believe that it can’t handle this.

    Oh bullshit.

    They are military prisoners, so they fall under military jurisprudence.

    If we followed your logic, what would we do next time we had 200,000 POWs? Are we supposed to process them under a civilian court, and if so, for what?

    The only thing they (in principle) was to lawfully fight against us.

    By your logic it appears that we must follow the “catch and release” program for POWs. That’s sheer brilliance!

  • postpartisan

    I imagine this has already been discussed on other threads, but I’m new here, so hopefully someone will indulge me.

    Can anyone explain why they can’t all be brought to the US (joining a number of dangerous terror suspects already in high-security prisons) and tried in the regular courts? The US justice system has done pretty well in difficult circumstances in the past, I believe.

  • postpartisan

    Rob :

    Giving them access to the American judicial system opens up a whole world of legal headaches that simply aren’t necessary.

    Could you mention any specific ones? I understand the “not American citizens” point, but non-American citizens have been tried in the US before.

    Because they aren’t mere criminals, and not American citizens. They are prisoners of war and should be handled as such.

    This might seem a little off-topic, but if they must be handled as prisoners of war, then the Geneva Conventions apply. I’m getting this from Wikipedia (forgive me!) but apparently they state :

    The passing of sentences must be pronounced by a regularly constituted court

    In fact, I would argue that it’s a real slap in the face to the judicial system that successive administrations appear to believe that it can’t handle this.

  • sayanything-4625

    Again, I have to post this…

    To be a POW under the Geneva Convention you have to have this…

    That is a Geneva Convention Card. Here is what the Geneva Conventions says…

    Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner’s surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from h

    To be a POW you must have it. It also covers insurgents. Here is what it says…

    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

    4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

    6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

    To sum up.

    1. You must have a chain of command
    2. You must have a fixed sign that is visible from a distance.
    3. You must carry arms openly.
    4. You must abide by the laws of war.
    5. You must be a member of someones regular military forces.
    6. You must carry a Geneva Convention Card.

    Al Queda fails on 3, 4, 5 and 6. Unless I am mistaken, no one recognizes Al Queda a government with regular armed forces.

    Strangely, the Saddam Fedayeen qualify as POWs because of these very rules.

    Notice, they are carrying their arms openly and have a very distinctive uniform.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    “plus-perfect-partisan”

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

  • postpartisan

    I’m shocked to find several commenters in favour of summary execution. If you actually want US soldiers to take a captured enemy, make him kneel down and shoot him in the head, then I don’t think we can possibly find any common ground. To me, it just seems so obviously morally wrong, I can’t even start a debate.

    WillHuntForFood :

    Summary execution should have been done when they were captured. They would have done the same, and have, to our soldiers.

    You obviously don’t hold us to a higher standard than terrorists. I do. Call me naive.

    Rodney Graves :

    4. Protection of U. S. Justice System. Rather than bastardize the civil liberties and protections of the United States criminal courts by allowing secret evidence and closed courts, instead try the terrorists in a venue that already allows such.

    I just don’t understand why we need secret evidence. If they are guilty and were captured “on the battlefield”, shouldn’t we be able to prove them guilty without denying them access to the evidence?

    As stated above, I find it a offense to a great justice system that people think it can’t deal with something like this. Your comments about doubtful jurisdiction feel like a red herring. Military trials have always been controversial because they deny due process and favor conviction. If we wanted to give these people a fair trial then it could be done.

    Carrick points out :

    If we followed your logic, what would we do next time we had 200,000 POWs? Are we supposed to process them under a civilian court, and if so, for what?

    This is a false premise. Would we really believe that 200,000 POWs had individually committed war crimes and all needed separate trials? Even military courts would be unable to cope with this. Genuine POWs, if not dangerous, can be released after the end of hostilities, and should be treated well in the meantime. The others can be tried.

    They are military prisoners, so they fall under military jurisprudence.

    I don’t believe this is necessarily the case. As I said above, military trials have always been controversial because of the bias towards the prosecution. There has never been a rule that they must be used in any situation. I find it particularly doubtful for guys that have been abducted from the streets of foreign countries. I understand your point of view, though. I just think we have a far better and fairer system, so we should use it.

    I also reject the notion that anyone we have captured is by definition a “terrorist”. It unfairly frames the debate. As in Rodney’s comment above :

    instead try the terrorists in a venue that already allows such

    Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, or so I thought. They are “terrorist suspects”. Describing them as “terrorists” is just a way of convincing people to support the harshest possible treatment. It’s like saying “I don’t think murderers have rights”. Maybe not, but “murder suspects” do. We don’t describe people as “murderers” until they have been found guilty in court.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Because they aren’t mere criminals, and not American citizens. They are prisoners of war and should be handled as such.

    Giving them access to the American judicial system opens up a whole world of legal headaches that simply aren’t necessary. The military tribunals are perfectly adequate for the purposes of habeas corpus and establishing guilt. There’s really no reason not to use them, and plenty of reasons to use them.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development