Peace-Prize President Obama RESTARTS Guantanamo military commission trials

[Agorism]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/254564/thumbs/r-GUANTANAMO-DETAINEE-huge.jpg


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/obama-guantanamo-trials_n_832451.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama approved Monday the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban.

It was the latest acknowledgement that the detention facility Obama had vowed to shut down within a year of taking office will remain open for some time to come. But even while announcing a resumption of military commission trials, Obama reaffirmed his support for trying terror suspects in U.S. federal courts – something that's met vehement resistance on Capitol Hill.

"I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system – including Article III courts – to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened," the president said in a statement.

The White House also reiterated that the administration remains committed to eventually closing Guantanamo Bay, though Monday's actions didn't seem to bring that outcome any closer.

Under Obama's order, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban against bringing new cases against the terror suspects at the detention facility.

The first trial likely to proceed under Obama's new order would involve Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Al-Nashiri, a Saudi of Yemeni descent, has been imprisoned at Guantanamo since 2006.

Closure of the facility has become untenable because of questions about where terror suspects would be held. Lawmakers object to their transfer to U.S. federal courts, and Gates recently told lawmakers that it has become very difficult to release detainees to other countries because Congress has made that process more complicated.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said he was pleased with Obama's decision to restart the military commissions. But he said the administration must work with Congress to create a trial system that will stand up to judicial review.

A sweeping defense bill Obama signed in January blocked the use of Defense Department dollars to transfer Guantanamo suspects to U.S. soil for trial. The White House said Monday it would work to overturn that prohibition.

also see
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-07/obama-approves-resumption-of-military-trials-at-guantanamo.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYXYqGqKH44

[Lucille]

They are cutting him no slack in the comments. All talk. Like they're not gonna vote for Bushbama again.

[specsaregood]

I don't really care HOW they are tried, just as long as they actually get a trial. And if found not guilty or time served get to be released.

[Agorism]

He should release them in the districts of the congressman and senators who are most strongly opposed to a federal trial if they aren't willing to budge.

[Zippyjuan]

Finally getting around to granting due process and some human rights? Some people have been detained for ten years now without being actually acused of anything. If they are guilty of crimes, then yes, punish them. If not, they should be released. You cannot hold somebody for an unlimited time without accusing them of anything. We are not Russia or China.

[specsaregood]

You cannot hold somebody for an unlimited time without accusing them of anything. We are not Russia or China.

Now, now ZJ, don't sell the US short. We've got ambition and ingenuity on our side!

[Brett85]

I don't see why anybody should have a problem with this. At least they're getting tried instead of just being held indefinitely.

[Agorism]

I think they should be let go if they don't get a Federal trial. This is a criminal justice issue not a military one.

[Zippyjuan]

We can't criticize any other countries on human rights as long as we hold prisoners for indefinate times without right to a trial.

[Brett85]

I think they should be let go if they don't get a Federal trial. This is a criminal justice issue not a military one.

Federal trials are meant for U.S. citizens who commit crimes, not foreigners who we capture on the battlefield. The Constitution actually authorizes military tribunals during times of war, which is why I have no problems with them at all.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Federal trials are meant for U.S. citizens who commit crimes, not foreigners who we capture on the battlefield. The Constitution actually authorizes military tribunals during times of war, which is why I have no problems with them at all.

If you support military tribunals, you should understand that we didn't declare war.

[Brett85]

If you support military tribunals, you should understand that we didn't declare war.

I support declaring war, but I don't think it's clear cut that military tribunals can't take place without a declaration of war. Some people like the Judge interpret it that way, but it doesn't seem that clear cut when I read that part of Article 1 Section 8. It doesn't specifically say that military tribunals can only occur when war is actually declared.

[Icymudpuppy]

Art 1 sec 8 para 11. "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Now, we get into the "RULES CONCERNING CAPTURE" which basically the USA has allowed Geneva Convention treaties to be considered the law on such things.. Thusly, since we have not declared war which is a Geneva convention requirement, we can't legally take prisoners, and by doing so, we are violating international treaties saying that prisoners can be held until a peace treaty can be made. Therefore, since the detainees at Guantanamo aren't legally POWs, they must be treated as regular criminals and thus are entitled to all the rights regarding criminals under US jurisdiction listed in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Including a speedy public trial by jury in the jurisdiction in which their alleged crime took place. Which may be New York, but is more likely to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan where their jury of local peers would almost certainly acquit them.

[Kludge]

I don't really care HOW they are tried, just as long as they actually get a trial. And if found not guilty or time served get to be released.
Wonder if they'd be granted any type of monetary reward for wrongful imprisonment.

[Brett85]

Now, we get into the "RULES CONCERNING CAPTURE" which basically the USA has allowed Geneva Convention treaties to be considered the law on such things.. Thusly, since we have not declared war which is a Geneva convention requirement, we can't legally take prisoners, and by doing so, we are violating international treaties saying that prisoners can be held until a peace treaty can be made. Therefore, since the detainees at Guantanamo aren't legally POWs, they must be treated as regular criminals and thus are entitled to all the rights regarding criminals under US jurisdiction listed in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Including a speedy public trial by jury in the jurisdiction in which their alleged crime took place. Which may be New York, but is more likely to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan where their jury of local peers would almost certainly acquit them.

The prisoners that we capture fight for no specific country and haven't signed on to the Geneva Convention treaty. Thus, I don't believe they have legal rights under the Geneva Convention. I also don't think that we should worry about international laws when our national security is at stake. I'm opposed to indefinite detention simply because America is better than that, but on a legal basis I don't believe that foreign terrorists are entitled to any legal rights under the Constitution. The Constitution was intended to only apply to U.S. citizens.

Also, just to be clear, I do fully support Ron, but this is one of about three issues that I happen to disagree with him on.

[TheDriver]

I think they should be let go if they don't get a Federal trial. This is a criminal justice issue not a military one.

They weren't captured by local police in America. They were captured by the military or forces (CIA, etc) functioning as military personnel. Some were detained by foreign countries, then transferred to the military. So I fail to see how this isn't a military issue. A better argument would be for trials at the Hague or something (not federal courts), imo.

[Icymudpuppy]

The Constitution was intended to only apply to U.S. citizens.


Perhaps you should read the constitution again. In the bill of Rights it says "PERSON", not citizen, not permanent resident, not legal alien, but PERSON!

The right to vote, be an officer in the military, or hold public office is reserved to citizens. The right to a fair trial is for every human being that comes under US jurisdiction.

[TheDriver]

If you support military tribunals, you should understand that we didn't declare war.

This is such a weak argument, imo. Congress gave Bush permission to take action, whether they had an up or down vote is irrelevant when you abrogate your responsibilities, imo. The only people who believe we didn't declare war are some Ron Paul supporters, lol. I guess it makes a good rallying cry and moves the conversation to an easier playing field on foreign policy, but Congress gave Bush permission to invade Iraq. And if they didn't support the war, they could have defunded it at any time, or moved to impeach the President, however they whole-heartely supported it for the most part. The declaration of war is overplayed, imo. Sure, ideally we want that, but when Congress ok's a resolution saying attack when you want, Mr. President. When he attacks, we've declared war. Besides: silence is consent.

I realize this cuts against the grain here, but that's my 2 cents; no flaming necessary.

[Icymudpuppy]

This is such a weak argument, imo. Congress gave Bush permission to take action, whether they had an up or down vote is irrelevant when you abrogate your responsibilities, imo. The only people who believe we didn't declare war are some Ron Paul supporters, lol. I guess it makes a good rallying cry and moves the conversation to an easier playing field on foreign policy, but Congress gave Bush permission to invade Iraq. And if they didn't support the war, they could have defunded it at any time, or moved to impeach the President, however they whole-heartely supported it for the most part. The declaration of war is overplayed, imo. Sure, ideally we want that, but when Congress ok's a resolution saying attack when you want, Mr. President. When he attacks, we've declared war. Besides: silence is consent.

I realize this cuts against the grain here, but that's my 2 cents; no flaming necessary.

As signatories to the Geneva Conventions, we are obligated to follow that international treaty. That treaty requires a formal declaration of war.

[TheDriver]

As signatories to the Geneva Conventions, we are obligated to follow that international treaty. That treaty requires a formal declaration of war.

Or what? We'll have the UN get the US to attack us? *pun intended* Much like the Constitution, the document [Geneva] is open for interpretation.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is such a weak argument, imo. Congress gave Bush permission to take action, whether they had an up or down vote is irrelevant when you abrogate your responsibilities, imo. The only people who believe we didn't declare war are some Ron Paul supporters, lol. I guess it makes a good rallying cry and moves the conversation to an easier playing field on foreign policy, but Congress gave Bush permission to invade Iraq. And if they didn't support the war, they could have defunded it at any time, or moved to impeach the President, however they whole-heartely supported it for the most part. The declaration of war is overplayed, imo. Sure, ideally we want that, but when Congress ok's a resolution saying attack when you want, Mr. President. When he attacks, we've declared war. Besides: silence is consent.

I realize this cuts against the grain here, but that's my 2 cents; no flaming necessary.

Ron wasn't silent.

I also don't think that we should accept tyranny of the majority.

[TheDriver]

The one upside to this I see is: Ron can actually oppose Obama on this, and no one else can on the Right, of course most on the Right agree with Obama's newfound position.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Wonder if they'd be granted any type of monetary reward for wrongful imprisonment.

Yeah right.

[Icymudpuppy]

Or what? We'll have the UN get the US to attack us? *pun intended* Much like the Constitution, the document [Geneva] is open for interpretation.

Actually, unlike the constitution, the Geneva conventions are very clear, and don't have silly introductions and open ended clauses. There is no enforcement body to the geneva conventions, but to violate them automatically sacrifices the moral high ground. Violators of the conventions are by definition not good guys.

[ExPatPaki]

It will be interesting to see how these kangaroo trials with flimsy evidence turn out. Are there any more child soldiers?