home

New Challenge to Guantanamo Detention Filed

The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed what it says is a "groundbreaking brief" (available here) on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.

On August 24, 2007, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) attorneys and co-counsel submitted a ground-breaking brief to the Supreme Court in the case that will determine whether detainees at Guantánamo possess the fundamental constitutional rights to due process and habeas corpus.

The brief was filed on behalf of men from the first habeas corpus petitions submitted immediately after the landmark 2004 Supreme Court decision in CCR's case Rasul v. Bush. Al Odah v. United States, as the case is now called, has been consolidated with a related case, Boumediene v. Bush; both challenge the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which attempted to strip away the statutory right to habeas corpus the Supreme Court recognized in 2004 and replace it with a far more limited review process set up by the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA).

< Duke Lacrosse: "Until Proven Innocent" | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    some highlights from the brief (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:16:11 AM EST
    In Shakespeare's 2 Henry 6, 4.2.67, Cade says, "The first thing we do let's kill all the lawyers." Read the brief and you can see why the Bush Administration might be feeling that way right about now. Following are some excerpts that really speak for themselves.

    From Page 36
    Assistance of counsel was particularly important here
    because the detainees were isolated at Guantanamo with
    virtually no ability to communicate with the outside world.
    In these circumstances, assistance of counsel was essential to
    test the allegations and gather evidence to disprove them.
    For instance, one of the principal reasons for detaining
    Murat Kurnaz as an enemy combatant was that he was a
    friend of Selcuk Bilgin, who was "alleged to have been a
    suicide bomber." App. 107. Detained at Guantanamo,
    without counsel or access to the outside world, Mr. Kurnaz
    could only express shock at that allegation. He did not know
    and could not find out that that his friend, Mr. Bilgin, far
    from being a suicide bomber, was alive and well and living
    peacefully and without criminal suspicion in their hometown
    of Bremen, Germany.37 That is something his counsel could
    have found out and proved in short order, had he been
    allowed counsel. Because he was not, the allegation that his
    friend was a suicide bomber was accepted by the CSRT as
    true, as it would be on review under the DTA, even though it
    was objectively false. Thus, even when the detainees were
    informed of the accusations against them, without the assistance of counsel, they were deprived of a meaningful
    opportunity to rebut the accusations and to develop and
    present the evidence needed to establish their innocence.

    From Page 39
    Judge Green, in her opinion,
    refers to a number of cases of alleged abuse there and quotes
    from a memorandum by an FBI agent, produced in response
    to a Freedom of Information Act request, summarizing his
    observations of interrogation methods used at Guantanamo:
    On a couple of occassions [sic], I entered interview
    rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal
    position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most
    times they had urinated or defacated [sic] on themselves,
    and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one
    occassion [sic], the air conditioning had been turned
    down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room,
    that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold.
    When I asked the MP's what was going on, I was told
    that interrogators from the day prior had ordered this
    treatment, and the detainee was not to be moved. On
    another occassion [sic], the A/C had been turned off,
    making the temperature in the unventilated room
    probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost
    unconcious [sic] on the floor, with a pile of hair next to
    him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own
    hair out throughout the night. On another occassion [sic],
    not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but
    extremely loud rap music was being played in the room,
    and had been since the day before, with the detainee
    chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the
    tile floor.

    From page 40
    Other memoranda from FBI agents also complained
    about the "torture techniques" and "extreme interrogation
    techniques" employed at Guantanamo, and reported, among
    other incidents: (1) a female interrogator grabbing the
    genitals of a detainee and bending his thumbs back; (2) a
    detainee gagged with his head wrapped with duct tape; (3)
    the use of dogs to intimidate detainees; and (4) a detainee
    left in isolation for three months in a cell constantly flooded
    with bright light who afterward showed signs of "extreme
    psychological trauma."

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#1)
    by notime4lies on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 12:39:28 AM EST
    Won't Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts have to recluse himself?? If that's the case, the Guantanamo detainees just might get back their legal rights.

    San Diego Union Tribune has the AP story (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:58:06 AM EST
    up on line, including information as to who signed the petition, including 20 retired federal judges, former head of JAG, et al.  One commenter sd. he/she wanted the names and former courts of those judges and advocated no life tenure.  

    O/T, but thought you might have missed... (none / 0) (#4)
    by dutchfox on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:14:54 AM EST
    The writer and peace activist, Grace Paley, has died in Thetford Hill, Vermont.

    Fresh Air's Terry Gross interviewed her in 1984.

    When you write, you illuminate what's hidden, and that's a political act.

    What I liked about her, was the way she caught the 'street' voices, the every-day lives of people in her neighborhood.

    Perhaps someone can explain (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    to me why non-US citziens, having committed crimes, or accused of commiting crimes outside the US and remaining outside the US have the same rights as US citizens??

    Shall we dispatch hordes of lawyers to every battlefield?

    And given that the GC, which I don't think applies here, but for sake of argument will say it does, gives us the right to hold these people until hostilities are over, why are we even concerned??

    PPJ roots for Saddam! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    Perhaps someone can explain to me why non-US citziens, having committed crimes, or accused of commiting crimes outside the US and remaining outside the US have the same rights as US citizens??

    Is this a trick question?  It didn't take you long to come around to Saddam's political philosophy.

    Because this is the United States of America, and only dictators like your boy Saddam throw people in jail without giving them an opportunity to contest that imprisonment.

    If ONE of these prisoners is innocent, how would we find out?  Are you willing to trust the folks who sold you the bogus WMD story to be right about a prisoner's guilt or innocence, when their track record is that they have been wrong about absolutely everything they have told us that could be checked out?

    Parent

    It wasn't a trick question, (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    but I see that you can't answer it.

    Now try real hard and focus on what I said:

    why non-US citziens, having committed crimes, or accused of commiting crimes outside the US and remaining outside the US have the same rights as US citizens??

    I didn't say to not give them hearings.

    I said why do non-US citizens.....have the same rights as US citizens????

    Oh well, I'm sure you now get the point...

    Even if you won't admit it.

    Parent

    why they have the same human rights? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    oh... I don't know... cause they aren't elephants?

    Parent
    Jen M (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    If you want to extend the US Constitution to all countries and peoples of the world, kindly call Tehran....

    Parent
    I didn't know (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:19:53 PM EST
    it was in the hands of the us military

    When did this happen?

    Parent

    Huh?? (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:32:53 PM EST
    we don't control (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    Iran

    thats, you know, another country.

    I at least am an american citizen.  I am concerned about what MY country is doing. I am concerned about  MY rights.

    Oh whats the use.
    You don't get that, never have.
    or pretend not to.

    Parent

    Jen (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:36:03 PM EST
    Utter nonsense.

    Did you even read my proposal??

    Somehow I don't think you did.

    Oh well, a good rant is always better than actually thinking.

    Parent

    Sheesh. You shouldn't get so (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:41:38 AM EST
    elitistly intellectual about it, DA. It could be confusing... ;-)

    Parent
    etc, etc, (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:19:31 AM EST
    Ah, the Dark Avenger and his sidekick gave arrived.

    Tell us edge, been caught calling people liars lately??

    Parent

    Every time they lie. You know me. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:51:25 AM EST
    We can expect a few juicy ones from you again toady?  Sorry, I mean today. That was a typo, you know? ;-)

    Parent
    edger was caught (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:35:57 AM EST
    heh...I provided all the details on you... quit running.. snarky comments are no defense..

    Parent
    People everywhere just got to be free (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    If you want to extend the US Constitution to all countries and peoples of the world, kindly call Tehran....

    I think it would be wonderful if people all over the world had the same civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but of course that is not the argument here.

    The prisoners in Gitmo are being held by THE UNITED STATES, not by Iran, and I'm mystified why you would think we hold prisoners in Iran.  If we are responsible for them, then we should afford them the same HUMAN rights we are apparently trying to impose on Iraq.

    Just so we're clear, do you agree with Saddam's philosophy of holding prisoners with no means of determining guilt or innocence, or do you side with English common law dating back to 1215 a.d. that prisoners are entitled to a hearing?

    Parent

    Repack (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:23:10 PM EST
    I think it would be wonderful if all the swords were beat into plowshares...

    But since that ain't going to happen I'll hope for a company of PO'd Marines.

    And I have explained my proposal more than enough for any half way intelligent person to understand it.

    So just to be clear, piss off.

    And have a nice night.

    Parent

    PPJ hands out candy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:03:52 AM EST
    just to be clear, piss off.

    Ah, the clarity of PPJ's incisive logic.

    Considering that you live in Bizarro World, where everything is backwards, I accept your compliment.

    You're too kind.

    No, really.

    Parent

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 08:24:23 AM EST
    ?so think you Do

    flabbergasted am I

    BTW - Do you have a comment regarding my proposal, or have you still not figured it out??

    Parent

    I see facts once again escaped your notice (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:16:03 PM EST
    GITMO, where these people are being held, is US territory/soil. Basic Human Rights, not US Bill of Rights, but the global variety that is being pursued all over the world, should also extend to the people being held at GITMO.

    Didn't know you were that obtuse. Or is it a case of your rose colored Bush glasses getting in the way again?

    Parent

    Now (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:26:38 PM EST
    Actually I have had it explained to me, by the Left, on this blog, that Gitmo is not US soil.

    I really don't care either way. The fact of the matter is my proposal has nothing to do with Gitmo. Perhaps we can discuss that when we get this problem worked out.

    Why is it so hard for you folks to focus??

    Parent

    Notes from Bizarro World (none / 0) (#39)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    I have had it explained to me, by the Left, on this blog, that Gitmo is not US soil.

    Whoever "explained" that to you was wrong.  Perhaps you could identify that individual.

    If Gitmo is not our soil in the same sense that an embassy in a foreign country is considered "our" soil, then the only alternative is that it is Cuban soil, and the prisoners there are subject to Cuban courts.

    Works for me.

    You?

    Parent

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    The theory was leasehold vs freehold. As to who, that is lost in the mist of antiquity.

    Parent
    This is how the brief addresses your questions (none / 0) (#9)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    FROM PAGE 9
    The petitioners seek modest relief, but relief that is
    essential to America's standing as a nation committed to the
    rule of law. Petitioners do not challenge the government's
    authority to capture and detain members of enemy armed
    forces who engage in combat against the United States and
    its allies. Nor do petitioners challenge the government's
    authority to arrest and incarcerate people who engage in acts
    of international terrorism. But petitioners contend that they
    have not engaged in combat against the United States or its
    allies and have not participated in acts of terrorism. All they
    seek - and have ever sought for the almost six years that
    they have been detained - is a fair and impartial hearing at
    which they have the opportunity to confront and rebut
    whatever accusations there are against them and to present
    evidence of their own to establish their innocence. They
    have never had that opportunity, and the MCA would
    deprive them of it forever.

    FROM PAGE 10
    Military personnel at Guantanamo have acknowledged
    that many of the detainees are there by mistake. The former
    Guantanamo commander stated: "Sometimes we just didn't
    get the right folks," and the reason these "folks" were still in
    Guantanamo was that "Nobody wants to be the one to sign
    the release papers . . . . There's no muscle in the system."11
    We now know that five years ago the CIA had sent a
    confidential memorandum to Washington reporting that
    most of the Guantanamo detainees "didn't belong there."12
    This Court held in Rasul that petitioners are entitled to
    challenge the legality of their detentions through the writ of

    FROM PAGE 11
    habeas corpus. That right is protected by the Suspension
    Clause in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
    The D.C. Circuit's decision that the Suspension Clause is
    inapplicable here because the petitioners have no rights to
    the writ under the common law or the Constitution is simply
    incorrect:
    1. The Suspension Clause is a direct and explicit structural
    limit on the power of Congress. Unless the circumstances
    specified in the Constitution for a suspension exist - and
    they clearly do not - Congress may not suspend the writ. It
    is simply without power to do so.
    2. Moreover, petitioners' right to habeas corpus falls
    squarely within the protections of the Suspension Clause. As
    this Court has made clear, "at the absolute minimum, the
    Suspension Clause protects the writ `as it existed in 1789.'"
    INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). The Court
    concluded in Rasul that petitioners would have been entitled
    to the writ as of 1789. Thus, it held not only that petitioners
    were entitled to the writ under the habeas statute, but also
    that application of the writ to them "is consistent with the
    historic reach of the writ of habeas corpus" at common law,
    where it extended to such persons detained not only "within
    sovereign territory of the realm," but in "all other dominions
    under the sovereign's control." Id. at 473, 481-82.
    3. Petitioners' constitutional protections are not limited to
    the Suspension Clause. These petitioners, who have been
    detained by the U.S. government for more than five years in
    exclusive U.S. custody and within the territorial jurisdiction
    of the United States, are entitled to fundamental
    constitutional protections, including the protections of due
    process of law as well as the Suspension Clause.
    They are entitled to those protections, first, because as
    the Court made clear in Rasul, Guantanamo is not
    extraterritorial; it is within U.S. "territorial jurisdiction."
    Rasul, 542 U.S. at 480. Fundamental constitutional
    protections apply to "all persons within the territorial

    FROM PAGE 12
    jurisdiction" of the United States. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
    118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).
    Second, they are entitled to those protections because the
    rights they assert - to habeas corpus and due process of law
    - are fundamental. The courts long ago rejected the
    proposition that the Constitution limits U.S. government
    action only within our borders. As Justice Frankfurter stated:
    that "notion . . . has long since evaporated. Governmental
    action abroad is performed under both the authority and the
    restrictions of the Constitution . . . ." Reid v. Covert,
    354 U.S. 1, 56 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); see
    United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 277
    (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Although certain
    provisions of the Constitution might not apply in all
    locations and in all circumstances, "a fundamental right . . .
    goes wherever the jurisdiction of the United States extends
    . . . ." Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 148 (1904). No
    court has ever found that the rights of habeas corpus and due
    process of law are anything less than fundamental.
    Finally, petitioners are entitled to fundamental
    constitutional protections because they are being confined -
    potentially indefinitely - by the U.S. government. The
    United States has deprived them of their liberty and imposed
    its control over them and, in doing so, must act in
    accordance with those principles of fairness fundamental to
    our constitutional system. The government has never cited a
    case holding that it may deprive people of their liberty
    except in accordance with due process of law. The process
    that is due may differ depending on the circumstances, but
    there is no rigid rule automatically exempting U.S.
    government officials abroad from the obligation to act in
    accordance with the "traditional notions of fair play and
    substantial justice" embodied in the Fifth Amendment.
    See Asahi Metal Indus.


    Parent

    now that's a surprise (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:55:09 PM EST
     
    But petitioners contend that they
    have not engaged in combat against the United States or its
    allies and have not participated in acts of terrorism.

    Hmmmmm

    the D.C. Circuit's decision that the Suspension Clause is
    inapplicable here because the petitioners have no rights to
    the writ under the common law or the Constitution is simply
    incorrect:


    Parent
    I am not presauded. (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    invasion or rebellion? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    which is it?

    Pretty amazing if it's invasion since the Bush Administration has lowered taxes, not instituted a draft, encouraged people to go about their daily lives spending cash.

    Rebellion in the Cheney view of the world might be anyone who disagrees with anti-Constitutional governance.

    If the GWOT can't meet either standard the Suspension Clause holds. And that's a fact!

    Parent

    Say what??? (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:30:45 PM EST
    I truly don't understand your comment. We invaded Iraq, no doubt about that. Are you saying that you favor a rebellion here to protest the invasion??

    And can you tell me why we should raise taxes? Rvenues are up and the economy is doing quite well..

    Tell me. Did you actually pay any FIT last year??

    As for facts, what you have is a brief. I would recommend waiting until you win before celebrating.

    But that's just me.

    Parent

    Suspension Clause (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:51:31 PM EST
    The suspension clause is only viable when the US is either being invaded or experiencing a rebellion. Otherwise, Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus. If Congress cannot suspend habeas and GITMO is territorially governed by the US, then the detainees must be accorded that basic right. Such a right is not the full panoply of rights that American citizens have, but a right in common law that predates the Constitution and which is recognized by the Constitution, our present AG notwithstanding. So, are you  not persuaded that we are A) being invaded or B) undergoing a rebellion or C) basic rights extend to people even if they're potentially guilty of terrorism? Extension of this right to those charged with crimes in no way means anyone sympathizes with their motives, means, or madness, but it does mean that we have confidence in our existing form of jurisprudence to handle people who clearly want to harm us. It is my hope that you will someday recognize that the struggle against such people is harmed by operating outside of established law.

    Parent
    tnthorpe (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    but it does mean that we have confidence in our existing form of jurisprudence to handle people who clearly want to harm us.

    Ah yes. The old "treat'em like criminals" strategy.

    Worked so well that 9/11 never happened.

    Gorelock's firewall didn't keep the FBI from examining the infamous hard drive and Clinton picked up OBL 10 years or so ago.

    Clinton picked up OBL and put him in prision.

    Not.

    Yes, in case you missed it, or have forgotten, we were invaded on 9/11 by members of a terrorist group that is loosely aligned with oher terrorist groups of a multinational nature, supported by various nation states and driven by radcial members of the Islamic faith who have declared that the US, and the world, must be governed by Shari law.

    We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical.....Their going to Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan and other countries is but a fulfillment of a duty, because we believe that these states are part of the Islamic World. Therefore, any act of aggression against any of this land of a span of hand measure makes it a duty for Muslims to send a sufficient number of their sons to fight off that aggression....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather. it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world

    There you go. An invasion and attack preceeded by a declaration of war and terms of surrender.

    Questions??

    Parent

    Have you (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    ever thought of doing stand-up comedy?

    So during this "invasion" we've cut taxes, no draft, no serious advances in port security --wasn't it the Bush Administration who wanted to give control of key ports to  a Dubai-based co.?--, failure to reform immigration, diplomatic failures on several fronts--whose side are the Russians on any more? What are the Chinese doing with Iran, Sudan, etc.?--, and during this "invasion" we send our troops to a foreign country that had nothing whatever to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

    Yeah, that sounds like the homefront is being seriously invaded by nonsense.

    Al-Qaeda is a serious threat, no doubt at all there, but making them into something they're not isn't going to help. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are invading Pakistan, there's a real problem. A-Q attacked us on 9/11 and the response ought to be to track them down and bring them to justice. As for quoting from a lunatic's manifesto, that's like looking to Mao's little red book for philosophy.

    Parent

    tnthorpe (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:05:52 PM EST
    FIT taxes were cut to spur the economy... and it's working well.

    Of course for those who were paying no FIT it doesn't matter.

    Immigration reform was shot down by the American people, even if Bush and the Demos tried to keep the door wide open and give'em amnesty..

    The ports were shot down by the Repubs themselves, with a little help from their friends....

    Whose side is Russia on? Same as all countries. Their very on.

    Your problem us that you think I am a Bush fan. I'm not. He was just the best of the two we had to draw from. He is wrong on NHC, gay mariage, drug laws, immigration and other isses... And I have commented such time and again.. So don't waste time attacking Bush's non-national defense programs in the belief I will always defend... He did get us Medicare Rx Insurance.

    I am a social liberal independent who believes in a strong national defense. Think of Scoop Jackson... among others.

    Parent

    Glad to hear (none / 0) (#45)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    that you don't support the Bush Administration across the board. Neither do I, as you've noted. You argue that we've been invaded. While clearly we were attacked, we haven't been invaded. Infiltrated perhaps, almost certainly, but I haven't got proof there. Now, my point was the the Suspension Clause only holds when we're undergoing rebellion or invasion. Nothing that this Administration has done supports the idea that we're being invaded. That's what all those points were focused on.  If we were serious about international terror, we'd be doing a damn sight better on the diplomatic front and the Bush Administration's unilateralism is an obstacle. If we were actually being invaded I'd expect to hear some such news from our allies abroad. So, you may think the economy is being spurred by giveaways to the über-rich, fine. That wasn't the point. Point is that it's business as usual on the homefront and in such an unremarkable environment I can see no reason for legal novelties such as military tribunals or other authoritarian forms of shoddy justice. I can see no reason not to accord a basic human right like habeas to detainees.

    Parent
    Heh (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:20:24 PM EST
    While clearly we were attacked, we haven't been invaded.


    Parent
    You caught'em you bought'em. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Al on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:16:38 PM EST
    And you want to set'em free?? (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:33:52 PM EST
    "Of the people that we've released, we've captured a number of them or killed a number of them back on the battlefield in Afghanistan," Hunter, R-Calif., told FOX News on Sunday. "The question is, are we liberal enough in the application of our standards that determine who we release back into the world. I think some American parents who have kids out there would argue we're too liberal."

    Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.

    Link

    Parent

    It's about getting it right (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    This from CBS news in 2002 link here
    Rumsfeld said officials are vetting the prisoners to make sure they are not candidates for prosecution, no longer of any intelligence value, and not a threat to the United States or its allies.

    So, Duncan Hunter's report ought to focus on how the Pentagon's assessments got it wrong, which is a serious issue.

    This from 2006, Dept. of Defense link here

    "The Department of Defense announced today [Feb. 9, 2006] that it released seven detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Afghanistan.  This movement included five detainees recommended for release by the Administrative Review Board.  

                During the course of the war on terrorism, the department expects that there will be other transfers or releases of detainees.

                There are ongoing processes to review the status of detainees.  A determination about the continued detention or transfer of a detainee is based on the best information and evidence available at the time.  The circumstances in which detainees are apprehended can be ambiguous, and many of the detainees are highly skilled in concealing the truth.

                With this release, DoD has transferred or released 267 detainees from GTMO - 187 for release and 80 transferred to other governments, including Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden and Uganda.

                Approximately 490 detainees remain at Guantanamo."

    The point is that the strategy that the Pentagon is following now is flawed, though no procedure will be perfect. Correct the strategy by returning to the law and do away with bad procedures that have not withstood the test of time as have habeas hearings. Surely you don't think that the gov't can't make its case if pressed in a court of law?

    Parent

    Make your mind up (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:31:03 AM EST
    So, Duncan Hunter's report ought to focus on how the Pentagon's assessments got it wrong, which is a serious issue.

    The point is that the strategy that the Pentagon is following now is flawed, though no procedure will be perfect. Correct the strategy by returning to the law and do away with bad procedures that have not withstood the test of time as have habeas hearings. Surely you don't think that the gov't can't make its case if pressed in a court of law?

    If you think bad guys fell through the cracks when a hearing with relaxed rules of evidence was used, how many do you think will if they are given a full USJC trial?

    Parent

    I didn't say that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Al on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:20:32 PM EST
    You asked why they should have the same rights as US citizens. Like the right to a fair trial.

    Parent
    Al (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    That is a statement of "want," not an answer as to why.

    Parent
    So you ::don't:: (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 10:54:28 AM EST
    believe that, as American citizens, George Bush and Dick Cheney and yourself and Jose Padilla deserve better treatment than was given to Jose Padilla?

    No? Or Yes, ppj?

    Parent

    Do you still beat your wife?? (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:06:53 PM EST
    Do you, ppj? (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:59:54 AM EST