Well the latest news from the Obama camp is disheartening indeed. His current plans for shutting down Gitmo and transferring the enemy combatants to Federal Court is foolhardy. Why indeed would the president elect even entertain releasing 250 enemies to U.S. Soil since no other countries want them? I certainly hope they are released into a certain Chicago Suburb instead of the usual Miami dump job.
"President-elect Obama, with a stroke of your presidential pen, on Day One of your administration, you can ensure that our government will be faithful to the Constitution and to the principles upon which America was founded," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a full-page ad in the New York Times.
Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. This would include 5 September 11 terrorists. Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises many problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.
Obama's other solution is to create a whole new Court system to try the detainees instead of the tribunals we have now. Looks like a very merry Christmas for the detainee's, likely in South Florida.
"President-elect Obama, with a stroke of your presidential pen, on Day One of your administration, you can ensure that our government will be faithful to the Constitution and to the principles upon which America was founded," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a full-page ad in the New York Times.
Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. This would include 5 September 11 terrorists. Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises many problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.
Obama's other solution is to create a whole new Court system to try the detainees instead of the tribunals we have now. Looks like a very merry Christmas for the detainee's, likely in South Florida.
Posts
You and I are at opposite sides of this debate. And I appreciate your position, but I do NOT condone the breaking of fundamental laws to keep us safe. Nor do I believe Gitmo keeps us safe. In fact, I think its very existence endangers us as Americans, and hurts us economically.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama reinstates respect for the Geneva Conventions at a minimum, then he is doing what I hoped he would.
Wow, your gonna love my next entry on Obama's plans for gutting the Patriot Act!
ReplyDeleteI don't have the strongest feelings about the Patriot Act, except for the Orwellian name. If someone can prove to Obama that it has saved America from our enemies, then he would be foolish to quash it, unless it proves unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteBut torture is another story.
I'm 100% against torture and don't see any space for it in Gitmo or anywhere else. What I am against is giving enemy combatants constitutional rights that they are not entitled to as military prisoners. What is alarming is the allegations that people released in the past have been found back in the battlefield shooting at us through DNA. Now fast forward to releasing these people here in the US. What do you presume will be the results of that? Apple pies and stars and stripes forever?
ReplyDeleteTorture-NO!
Tribunal-YES!
That's good to hear, but there have been serious and substantive allegations of torture at Gitmo.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/21794
"Three times in the last four years the Supreme Court has rejected the Bush administration's legal defenses of its program for detention of alleged "enemy combatants." In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, a 6–3 majority held that prisoners at Guantánamo could test the legality of their detention by petitioning in federal courts for writs of habeas corpus. In 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a 5–3 majority held that trials of prisoners before military commissions under rules laid down by the Bush administration were unlawful because limits on the rights of defendants violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. This June, in Boumediene v. Bush, a 5–4 majority held that a congressional statute barring habeas corpus petitions by Guantánamo detainees violated the Constitution's guarantee of the right to habeas corpus."
Obama will likely sign an executive order on inauguration day closing Gitmo. SInce he is a bright fellow, I expect a time frame of 9-12 months to give him breathing room to figure out what to do with the Jihadist's in Gitmo. Once they hit US Soil they get lawyers. Even if we give them that, here is the greater problem. What to do with future captures in the battlefield? Bring them right to the US for trial? Is the US Military now going to have to read Miranda and collect evidence in hte heat of a battle? Perhaps a CSI team in Iraq? I don't condone torture, but I do believe there is nothing wrong with interrogation. This is a major problem and I don't like any of the solutions. Perhaps we can turn over the Jihadist's to the Israeli's.
ReplyDelete