Dozens of Gitmo detainees finally get day in court

Good. It's more than time that America took resposibility for these men.

And more than time for Americans who are against giving these men a fair trial to step up to the plate, stop broadbrushing ALL these men as guilty and give them access to a fair legal process that their accusers would expect to receive themselves.

I can guarantee that almost everyone who does not agree with this idea will be completely unable to specify what the majority of these men are guilty of.

This is seriously scary stuff - it means there are still Americans out there who have so totally bought the bush government line (that these men are all guilty) that they have suspended use of their own thinking faculties and simply believed what their government told them to believe.

That is weak-willed and sheep-like to the extreme.

Good on the Obama administration for at least attempting to give these men their day in court.

These evildoers should be tried in the manner Bush decided, not Obama.

They should not be wasting my tax Dollars on Obama`s whim. These guys tried to destroy our freedoms, they envy the American dream. The original plan of possible indefinite jail is the correct way to go.

Obama appeases everyone, even the bad guys now, it seriously is beyond belief.

DickMorris - "These guys tried to destroy our freedoms, they envy the American dream. The original plan of possible indefinite jail is the correct way to go."

This is exactly what I mean when I wrote "Americans out there who have so totally bought the bush government line (that these men are all guilty) that they have suspended use of their own thinking faculties and simply believed what their government told them to believe."

DickMorris, what are these men 'guilty' of.

I know that you have no idea at all but I just want to ask.

SushiSake3; All the bad guys are detained due to overwhelming evidence of being involved directly or inderctly on attacks against the US and our allies.

Dick Cheney stated while in office this fact, and i certainly put more credence in his statements than from OBama and his liberal elite buddies.

These terrorists were not put in Gitmo for fun, but to preserve our freedoms.

The prison had 775 people enter and all but 215 have been released. Of that 215, some have been cleared for release but won't be accepted by any country.

Where will they find a "jury of their peers"? Obama's administration?

Where will they find a "jury of their peers"? Obama's administration?" That is one hell of a question!

So, after all this, is the US going to re-try people from other wars like Nazis, Japanese, North Koreans, spies? All of them went through military tribunals.

DickMorris

These evildoers should be tried in the manner Bush decided, not Obama.

Well then bush should have done something. Instead he sat on his hands and stayed the course in Iraq for years. bush had these men behind bars in Gitmo so long that if the Justice Department had not pressed charges and moved to try these men we would have legally run out of time to try them. But go on and protect the failure president.

We're so damned proud of our legal system and taut it above other countries and even used it as justification to illegally attack a virtually defense country, but we want to circumvent it and make rules to suit our whim, not the law. < :-)

"I can guarantee that almost everyone who does not agree with this idea will be completely unable to specify what the majority of these men are guilty of."

props, my revolutionary brother. I hope you have a law degree. You sound like you could really make a difference .America needs patriots like you.

Dozens of Gitmo detainees finally get day in court

Gitmo? Was this article written by some hick from Nowheresville Texas? Don't they realise this is supposed to be the international section of a News page, not page 11 of the Hicksville News?.

Obama should let them go so they can blow up NATO allies in the sandbox. It's his destiny!!

Citizens should always question their government doing things, whether it's national health insurance or evidence holding prisoners. Even the great Abraham Lincoln later regretted suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

DickMorris - "SushiSake3; All the bad guys are detained due to overwhelming evidence of being involved directly or inderctly on attacks against the US and our allies."

"overwhelming evidence"???

Where? That must be why only a handful of them have been charged with anything.

You have absolutely no regard for the rule of law in your country - that much is crystal clear.

You claim Gitmo detainees are guilty and yet fail to provide a shred of evidence to back up your assertion, which makes your claims pretty much worthless and an insult to those of us on this board who actually think.

SuperLib - "The prison had 775 people enter and all but 215 have been released. Of that 215, some have been cleared for release but won't be accepted by any country."

But DickMorris claims "All the bad guys are detained due to overwhelming evidence of being involved directly or inderctly (sic) on attacks against the US and our allies."

One of you is not telling it like it is. :-)

There are times when I think the freedom of speech should be recinded for certain people. I have never seen anyone so vaguely declare a whole group of people guilty while presenting no evidence and while not even being able to name one suspect's name of the top of the head! Its like arguing with a character out of a Warner Brother's cartoon! Or a judge in the Salem witch trials!

numbskull - "I have never seen anyone so vaguely declare a whole group of people guilty while presenting no evidence and while not even being able to name one suspect's name of the top of the head."

It is as if a section of the U.S. population has bowed down to the totally illogical rationale of bush/cheney and completely suspended common sense, while simultaneously succeeding at making themselves look like idiots.

Hook, line and sinker - this group of individuals has completely bought the bush line.

Incredible.

SushiSake: But DickMorris claims "All the bad guys are detained due to overwhelming evidence of being involved directly or inderctly (sic) on attacks against the US and our allies." One of you is not telling it like it is. :-)

DickMorris is a troll, just like you. I ignore all of his posts and 95% of yours. The other 5% is when I use your falsehoods to educate others who might be interested in facts. Anyway, I think I saw a Republican over there behind a tree somewhere. If you run fast enough, you just might catch him.

SuperLib - what is false about the fact that the vast majority of Gitmo inmates have not been charged with a crime?

It's been 8 years now. This situation would not stand in any country that cares to call itself a democracy, but a certain segment of Americans have come to accept that holding people indefinitely without trial let alone access to lawyers is somehow acceptable.

Recklessly slamming people for pointing this out makes you look less than smart. You can do better than that.

segment of Americans have come to accept that holding people indefinitely without trial let alone access to lawyers is somehow acceptable." And there is a great many who would blow a bunch of people up to further their agenda, and you have instead of criticism found fault in those killed.

Why don't they just keep the prisoners until the war is over and then send them home like did in the past?

And this: "This situation would not stand in any country that cares to call itself a democracy," Well, if I have to drop and bend over for a bunch of people think it is their right to kill friends, then I'll drop the democracy definition. If you want to talk about democracy, how about putting what should be done out for a vote instead of having a group politicians deciding it for us.

Skipthesong - "And there is a great many who would blow a bunch of people up to further their agenda, and you have instead of criticism found fault in those killed."

The point is that not everyone - in fact, I would guesstimate it is the minority - in Gitmo are criminals, despite how desperately the previous U.S. administration wanted people to believe they were.

If there is evidence against these men, bring it. If not, release them.

I think it was SuperLib who, to his credit, made the valid point that explaining the evidence against some of these men would make them understand certain aspects of U.S. intel gathering techniques and thus put U.S. lives at risk.

That's a good point, there's no denying it.

But....many of these men were "swept off the battlefield" before - for example - drones were watching overhead 24/7, and now that drones are a widely known weapon of this war, I think that exposing their existance - in particular - is not going to be a threat to U.S. lives.

Skipthesong - "Why don't they just keep the prisoners until the war is over and then send them home like did in the past?"

So the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners should just be ignored? That's already been tried by the previous U.S. adminstration. They were sued by the federal government over Gitmo detainee detention issues and lost.

Skipthesong - "Well, if I have to drop and bend over for a bunch of people think it is their right to kill friends, then I'll drop the democracy definition."

This is like running around in circles... You seem to completely forget the fact that - shock, horror - some Afghans aren't happy with having foreign troops in their country. Of course some are hitting back - what do you expect? - the entire Afghan population to just roll over and play "Rub my tummy, I'm a cute puppy"?

Try putting yourself in the position of an ordinary Afghan for a moment. Would you be happy to see armed foreign troops controlling your streets?

SushiSake3

Try putting yourself in the position of an ordinary Afghan for a moment. Would you be happy to see armed foreign troops controlling your streets?

This is one of the main reasons that until there was an agreement that we were going to leave Iraq, that Iraqi citizens attacked US forces. Occupation is what you call it.

That's one of many reasons that Obama won't accept a plan for more forces into Afghanistan unless there is an exit strategy. < :-)

adaydream - "Occupation is what you call it."

Repeat 10 times for all those who can't understand why U.S. soldiers have been attacked in Afghanistan and who think the problem is all due to crazy locals and 'insurgents.'

You guys are talking the wrong conversation. We are talking about those in Gitmo, are we not?

Sushi: Try putting yourself in the position of an ordinary Afghan for a moment." I can put myself in an ordinary Afghan's position.... I worked in the WTC and my entire company was gone in a matter of minuets, not to mention those friends I had working upstairs, downstairs, across the walkway....Do you know how many funerals I've attended? Now, how about you doing that for me?

Now: "So the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners should just be ignored?" I'll be honest, I have no idea what the Geneva Convention says entirely, but is there a line that says they must be returned before the end of a war? And, how about knowing that those particular countries are NOT signatories to it?

aday: "Occupation is what you call it." Gee, what caused such an occupation? You can blame a lot on Bush, but you can't find anything to blame Saddam, AQ, or the Taliban on?

I really like how Aday and Sushi think we all should just roll over, condemn ourselves because a bunch of enemies don't like the hot weather of Cuba.

Why does the US have a base in Cuba anyway? I thought ol Castrol was our enemy.

Skipthesong - "I really like how Aday and Sushi think we all should just roll over, condemn ourselves because a bunch of enemies don't like the hot weather of Cuba."

I think what you are saying is that America should just throw out the rule of law. That's been tried, and when that happens, you become just as low as the s*um you are fighting against.

Have a think about the implications.

Skipthesong - "I'll be honest, I have no idea what the Geneva Convention says entirely,"

That explains a lot....

FYI: The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms.

All 194 of them (that's nearly the entire planet, including America).

Here's the pertinant bit - (under the 'Grave Breaches' section):

"Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments

-Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power

- Willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.

Skipthesong, did you get that last line above? That's where bush/cheney screwed up, and what President Obama is now trying to correct.

I'm sorry about your company in the WTC, but the bottom line is - follow the rules.

If you (generally speaking) and you sink to the depth of your enemy, you deserve everything you get and shouldn't be surprised when your side starts getting hit.

Also, when you go as low as your enemy, you also kneecap yourself in the sense that you can't claim your side is any better, because by stooping to their level, you're not.

Skipthesong - "Do you know how many funerals I've attended?"

As I said - Try putting yourself in the position of an ordinary Afghan for a moment.

Do you know how many funerals they have attended duw to unrest and violence caused by the U.S. occupation of their country???

This is not just all about you.....

Well, it really is too funny (and too predictable) that the few remaining supporters of bush, worst president in ALL of US history, are tilting at sawmills on this one.Said tilters are still bitter about last November's shellacking, but hey, being reality-based never was their strong suite.

Well, anyways, extreme kudos to Obama on this one.The image of America, under Obama, just continues to improve each and every day.All of my students say so.His speeches and textbooks continue to sell like crazy, and giving the innocent men and boys locked up in the inhuman gulag in Gitmo only boosts said sales.I myself am looking for a wiki tutorial on how to partition my i pod.Why?So I can listen to TWO of President Obama's speeches at once.And if the sargies of the world don't like it well, it's just how I roll, dammit!

Anyways, the carte blanching of the Muslim world (not just in Palestine) by bush co and the illegal rendition flights are a thing of the past, and clearly America under Obama is safer for it.

sushi: I am quite sure that when the Geneva Convention was written up, they never imagined there would ever be creatures like the Taliban or Al Queda. As for the occupation, I tried to call Bush but he didn't answer my call. I would have been able to finish this job a long time ago. I never supported an occupation, changing their governments, building anything.... But still like your claim for understanding them, just what bought us into this mess? Bush didn't start it, sure he screwed it up - actually the entire government at large did, but who started the fight with who?

Oh, and "Also, when you go as low as your enemy, you also kneecap yourself in the sense that you can't claim your side is any better, because by stooping to their level,"

I don't buy that. I don't really care I guess I'll just have to live with myself being such a low life like them.

Skip, Timothy McVeigh, bomber of the Murrah Office Building in Oklahoma City, was given a lawyer.

He was also given a day in court.

He was a terrorist who killed 168 people in the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to 9-11.

Even top Nazis were given a day in court.

But you're somehow saying that Gitmo detainees don't deserve a lawyer or a day in court?

And about the Geneva Convention. This is a conventiont that America signed and agreed to abide by.

Then bush and cheney went ahead and refused to abide by key parts of it.

What did this tell the world?

It told the world that America is willing to sign internationally binding agrrements, conventions adn treaties but isn't willing to abide by them.

It's like if you are atenant who puts his name to a tenancy agreement saying you'll pay the rent.

A month later the landlord calls you and says 'You're late - where's your rent?"

You say "I'm not paying the rent this month."

Landlord says, "You put your name to a document saying you would pay the rent by this date each month."

You say, "Stuff it, I'm not paying."

The landlord has every right to take you to court.

Skip, you're intelligent enough to see where this is heading.

Are you basically saying this kind of behavior is responsible?

Oh, and Skip, Timothy McVeigh was successfully convicted of bombing the Murrah Office Building.

The vast majority of Gitmo detainees have not been convicted of anything.

But you're saying that Timothy McVeigh should get more rights than them???

Please correct me if that is not what you are saying.

But you're saying that Timothy McVeigh should get more rights than them???" Not my call, but you know how I think so..., but how many other countries extend their rights to people from outside their countries in such cases? I can't change the rule when an American does such a terrorist act, if I were in office, I would, but for the moment, my gripe against these guys getting such rights I think is warranted. I don't know why it makes you so happy to know that these guys are getting rights that were once reserved for the people of the US. Other countries have their laws for their people and we have ours for our people - well we did. Additionally, you are aware of the coming ramifications such as Miranda rights not being read, rights to investigate secret military strategies, etc.. What other country does this for their enemies? it doesn't bother you one bit know that all of them have a 50/50 chance of walking? Besides, my gripes shouldn't really concern you, as you know I'm on the losing side.

Sushi, it's not that cut and dry. The Geneva Conventions were made to set rules for two nations at war, not individuals who commit acts of war against nations. The Conventions gives rules based on how war was fought when they were signed. People didn't see in the future where you could have a handful of men kill thousands of people with 2 airplanes. For them war was two nations lining up tanks and going head to head.

The Conventions set out a list of rules to protect prisoners, but they also gave a listed of rules to decide if a person is protected or not. You can quote the Conventions all day long if you want, but unless that person meets the definition of a protected person then it doesn't matter.

The Third Convention talks about Prisoners of War and gives a list of criteria that one must meet to be protected, and Al Queda doesn't meet those criteria. At that point you'd move to the Fourth Conventions which apply to civilians, but once again the Conventions make a list of standards that the person must meet in order to be afforded protection and once again Al Aqueda doesn't meet those standards.

The Conventions were also written at a time when wars had a fixed ending. If you had prisoners, you held them until the war war over, then you released them. There were no trials for German or Japanese foot soldiers, for example. So what do you do when there technically is no ending date? Again....it was never decided before since the rules were based on how wars were fought when the rules were written.

So you have "soldiers" who don't meet any standard definition and you don't have a war that meets any standard definition. That means an entirely new set of rules has to be made, and that's what's being done now. But you have situations where you reach a verdict in a court which gets overturned on appeal which gets overturned by the Supreme Court. It's constantly a moving target. You also have foreign fighters captured on foreign soil and American citizens arrested in the US. How do you create one law to reconcile the rights of an American citizen on US soil with a foreign national in Cuba? And even when you do decide charge them and put them on trial, that type of trial is suddenly deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and you're back to square 1 again. So you create another legal avenue to put them on trial and someone challenges that and the system goes back to court. There's no legal slam dunk, it's all just opinion based on case law from the US, other international courts, past precedents, etc.

So you want to know why some of them haven't been charged yet? Go ahead and figure out the above and tell the world exactly how to do it. By the way, the same man who decided to bring some of them to the US for trial is referenced here:

"In January and February 2009, President Barack Obama's nominees for Attorney General and Solicitor General, Eric Holder and Elena Kagan, both testified they agreed the U.S. government may detain combatants in accordance with the laws of war until the end of the war, (this sidesteps the issue of deciding whether the combatant is a lawful or unlawful combatant and the need to try them). When asked by Senator Lindsey Graham "If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield?" Both Holder and Kagan said that they would"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Supreme_Court_ruling_on_Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

This year, the U.S. government found a home for four Uighurs in Bermuda and six on the Pacific island nation of Palau. The seven still at Guantanamo hope to live in the United States.

President Obama said freedom of expression and worship are "universal rights", during his visit to China. Letting those Uighurs, who are found innocent, live in a place where they will be less likely to face any persecution will demonstrate the current administration's commitment to upholding those universal rights.

skipthesong, What part of, we were legally running out of time or we would not have been able to charge and convict these terrorist?, do you not understand?

We are a country of laws and the world watches what we do. When we start treating people differently then the laws we have on the books, the world sees this and judges us. No different then when we watch other countries and want to hold them to their ethics.

But you can justify anything I guess.

I wish bush had gone on and held tribunals or court trials. But like I said earlier he just sat on his hands and did nothing. You're a bush supporter. Did you want him to do nothing and leave this in Obama's court? < :-)

These detainees were all carrying out or planning terror attack on the US or our allies. If not they were aiding the evil doers.

These detainees must stand military trials, they have no right to be tried in a US court. The militray courts have safeguards to ensure fair trials. President Bush made sure of that, and Obama wants to let all these guys loose to rejoin their terrorist buddies.

"President Bush made sure of that, and Obama wants to let all these guys loose to rejoin their terrorist buddies."

lol!!

The thing that eludes many on the Right on this issue is that what bush and cheney have done has fundamentally weakened America.

How? By not charging Gitmo inmates with a crime and detaining them indefinitely in Gitmo.

When the American president, Sec. of State, etc. or a report - for example the annual U.S. report on Human Rights - is issued that criticizes nations like China for human rights abuses, China can - and does - effectively just say one word - 'Gitmo.'

bush and cheney's actions of detaining individuals without charge has seriously undermined the bargaining position of the U.S. and weakened its top diplomat.

And when people like myself ask "What are Gitmo inmates still in Gitmo for?", the standard reply is something along the lines of 'They are 'enemy combatants,' 'terrorists,' 'swept up off the battlefield'.. etc.

A more believable answer is 'They are incarcerated because [Name of Charge].

The problem is, in the vast majority of cases, there is no charge.

Which circles back to the question - Then what are they being detained for?

I think the thing that frustrates me the most about the Right on this issue is NOT that they have a weak case - it's that they don't have a case - full stop.

DickMorris - "These detainees were all carrying out or planning terror attack on the US or our allies. If not they were aiding the evil doers."

Here's another ill thought out bombastic statement that also has no basis in fact - "All Americans can't think for themselves."

See where this is going? :-)

SushiSake3; Do you honestly believe that Bush would lock innocent guys up at the tax payers expense?

He complied with all aspects of the Geneva Convention. It is Obama who is destroying the sterling work made by our security services with this appeasement to the far left.

sushi: stop this right left crap.. what, do you think you are the only enlightened one here because of which table you sit at? I could care less - I'm left on some things, right on others and find myself in the middle on many things. As for this article, look, maybe you have no worries or anger about what's happened to us and maybe you really don't believe their actions were not the catalyst that lead up to Bush's war but a great many do and they come from all backgrounds and walk with many different political agendas.

[A more believable answer is 'They are incarcerated because [Name of Charge].

The problem is, in the vast majority of cases, there is no charge.

Which circles back to the question - Then what are they being detained for?]

Maybe for engaging in armed conflict with US troops on the battlefield. Or is that not a crime? POWs don't need individual trials.

SushiSake: When the American president, Sec. of State, etc. or a report - for example the annual U.S. report on Human Rights - is issued that criticizes nations like China for human rights abuses, China can - and does - effectively just say one word - 'Gitmo.'

And before they'd just change their system based on our reports, eh? This argument makes me laugh. I don't believe it and you don't believe it, either.

By not charging Gitmo inmates with a crime and detaining them indefinitely in Gitmo.

You don't "charge" an unlawful enemy combatant. Their designation is their charge. Jeeze, why is it that every time I decide to talk with you about this issue I feel like I have to sit you down and start from the beginning and explain even the most basic concepts to you?

This is similar to after WWII. The Nazis were charged with war crimes, convicted and were sentenced. If they had not been charged and convicted, they would of had to be released along with the release of all POWs.

Making up terms as you go doesn't make them any different. Enemy combatants are POWs. < :-)

Let me rephrase that

...some would of had to be released along with the release of all POWs. < :-)

Enemy combatants are POWs.

The Taliban and Al Queda are neither enemy combatants nor POWs. They do not meet the criteria to label them as such.