Might as well save transportation costs back to their home countries as they will certainly be executed or forbidden to re-enter.
On Nov 21, 2:27 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obama and Guantánamo > By Don Knowland > 21 November 2008 > > During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged to close the > infamous prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and try detainees charged with > crimes in American courts rather than in military commissions. Obama > reiterated his intention to close Guantánamo in an appearance on the > “60 Minutes” television program last Sunday, but he and his > spokespeople have been less than forthcoming about what will be done > with the 250 prisoners still housed at the prison. > > Around 80 of them have been deemed eligible for trial under the > military commissions established by the US Congress in the 2006 > Military Commissions Act. Some 125 prisoners fall into a no-man’s land— > they are considered too dangerous to release but not guilty enough to > prosecute. The remaining 50 or so have been cleared for release or > transfer, but in many cases returning them to their home countries may > subject them to further incarceration or torture. > > An article appearing in the November 14 New York Times reported that > within the Obama camp there is an intense debate on these matters. > According to the Times, “people with ties to the Obama transition team > say [what] is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted > or cannot be prosecuted at all?” > > This is a reference to those whose prosecutions are irretrievably > tainted by alleged confessions or testimony obtained through torture > or other coercive means, or regarding whom specific evidence of war > crimes is otherwise sorely lacking. > > According to the Times, “even some liberals” are pushing the new > administration to seek congressional authority for preventive > detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release, even > if they cannot be successfully prosecuted. The Times quotes Ken Gude, > a national security scholar at the liberal Center for American > Progress, who says that the introduction of preventive detention and > other issues related to the handling of alleged terrorist detainees > and terrorist suspects has inspired “a very hot and serious debate.” > > A new law authorizing preventive detentions would be fully in line > with Bush administration policy and practice. In July Bush’s attorney > general, Michael Mukasey, called on Congress to pass a new law > reaffirming that the US remains in a state of “armed conflict,” and > that for the duration of that conflict the president may detain as > enemy combatants those who have “engaged in hostilities or > purposefully supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated > organizations.” > > In 2004, the US Supreme Court accepted the Bush administration’s > assertion of the power to detain so-called “enemy combatants.” The > ruling, which accepted as legitimate a “war on terror” with no limits > as to time or geography and never formally declared by Congress, cited > international laws of war that uphold the authority to governments to > hold captured enemy fighters until the completion of a conflict. But > the court at that time rejected the Bush administration’s attempt to > deny detainees the right under the Geneva Conventions to appear before > a tribunal to challenge the classification. > > The US Congress twice passed laws revoking the authority of American > courts to hear habeas corpus challenges to government detention filed > by alleged enemy combatants. But in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that > detainees had a constitutional right to a habeas corpus challenge to > an enemy combatant status determination, and that the Combatant Status > Review Tribunals (CSRTs) set up by the US military to make such > determinations were insufficient for due process purposes. > > In practice, the CSRTs had prevented detainees from gaining access to > lawyers and deprived them of an opportunity to present evidence or > witnesses in their defense or to see or hear classified evidence > against them. In 2007, US intelligence veteran Lt. Col. Stephen > Abraham, who worked on the tribunals, denounced them as nothing more > than a front to rubber-stamp the military’s prior designation of > detainees as enemy combatants. > > The overwhelming majority of detainees had been brought in as a result > of bounties paid by the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many > had no Taliban or Al Qaeda connection at all, or had only tangential > connections. > > After several detainees were found not to be enemy combatants, the > military eliminated that innocence option and began requiring the term > “no longer an enemy combatant” for those held for no apparent reason. > Annual Administrative Review Boards (ARBs), the successors to the > CSRTs, whose stated aim was to determine whether the prisoners still > constituted a threat to the US, rapidly dispensed with the claim that > prisoners were “no longer enemy combatants.” > > According to British journalist Andy Worthington, who has carefully > followed Guántanamo developments, of 207 prisoners approved to leave > Guantánamo after the first three rounds of the ARBs, only 14 were > regarded as “no longer enemy combatants.” The rest were still > explicitly regarded as “enemy combatants” who were approved only for > transfer from Guantánamo—to continued custody in their home country or > a third country. > > In voting against the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Senator Obama > told Congress that it did not allow detainees a fair opportunity to > prove their innocence and did not develop a system of justice to sort > out suspected terrorists from those accidentally accused. He stated at > the time: “We have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 > his day in a [military commission] court, but not the innocent people > we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists—people > who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives.” > > But Obama’s transition team is now considering a law to grant > statutory authority to detain persons indefinitely through an > unspecified review process. > > The short rejoinder to any attempt to authorize indefinite detention > by law is that after upwards of seven years of detention, if someone > cannot be proven guilty of actual terrorism or other criminal acts by > means consistent with basic due process, there is no legal > justification to detain him further. > > In July Attorney General Mukasey also asked Congress for a law that > would funnel detainee habeas corpus challenges into a special court > that would, among other things, bar bringing detainees into US > courtrooms for hearings and shield classified evidence from the > detainee and his counsel. Such an approach could also conceivably > include placing the burden of proving innocence on the detainee rather > than the government, and curtailment of the right to appeal. The > behind-the-scenes discussion in Obama’s transition team is likely > exploring similar approaches. > > While the military commissions have been so widely discredited that > Obama may feel impelled to junk them in order to curry favor with > international opinion, it is likely that an alternative special court > is being considered to try such charges. That is an approach Attorney > General Mukasey floated during his Senate confirmation hearings last > year. > > Raised here is a serious threat—the establishment of a parallel court > system, a national security court, where normal constitutional > guarantees are denied in the interests of government secrecy and the > so-called “war on terror.” > > In practice, military commission prosecutions thus far have proven to > be a fiasco for the government. In the first case brought to trial > this summer, a military jury acquitted Osama Bin Laden’s driver and US > citizen Yaser Salim Hamdi of a conspiracy charge, instead convicting > him of a lesser charge of supporting terrorism. The jury handed out a > five-and-a-half-year sentence rather than the 30 years the government > prosecutor requested, with credit for the five years he has already > been detained. That prompted the Defense Department to threaten to > continue to hold Hamdi as an enemy combatant after his sentence was > served. > > The second trial, of alleged Bin Laden bodyguard and video > propagandist Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, resulted in a life sentence in > October. But the entire case rested solely on prosecution evidence, > since al-Bahlul sat silently in protest. His appointed lawyer, Maj. > David Frakt, was bound by ethical requirements to honor his client’s > wishes, so he also refrained from participating at trial. The jury > never heard the defendant’s allegations that he had been tortured, nor > his counsel’s contention that al-Bahlul was not an operational > combatant and had no role in planning or carrying out terrorist > activities. > > A year ago, chief prosecutor Colonel Morris Davis resigned because he > concluded that “full, fair and open trials were not possible” under > the deeply politicized system in place. Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, the > prosecutor in the case of Afghani Mohamed Jawad, who claims his > confession to throwing a grenade at two US soldiers when he was a > juvenile was extracted through torture, also recently resigned. > Vandeveld blistered the system as one designed to prevent disclosure > of essential defense evidence. > > In Jawad’s case, this included suppression of evidence that Jawad was > drugged before the attack and that two other men had confessed to the > act. To avoid further charges from Vandeveld, the government then > dropped charges against five other prisoners he was prosecuting. > > Other incidents have further laid bare the farcical nature of the > military commission proceedings. In the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, > the Pentagon removed the trial judge because he had made rulings > favorable to the defense. Air Force Brig. General Thomas Hartmann, the > legal advisor to Susan Crawford, the Defense Department appointee > overseeing the military commissions, was “reassigned” after three > military judges removed him from any role in the Hamdan, Jawad and > Khadr cases due to his naked pro-prosecution basis. > > Hartmann is now subject to investigations by the Air Force and the > Defense Department’s Office of the Inspector General for trying to ram > trials though on absurdly short time frames and for pushing the use of > evidence obtained through torture over objections from prosecutors. > > The list could go on. > > The procedures Congress enacted in 2006 for conducting the > prosecutions further lay bare the absence of fundamental guarantees of > fairness. These include restrictions on public access to the trial > proceedings and defense access to allegedly sensitive evidence and > witnesses, and the discretionary use of coerced and hearsay testimony. > > It is not unlikely that the Obama administration will take steps to > rehabilitate the commission process in the eyes of the world. But > those with illusions that he intends to repeal the Military > Commissions Act outright or to give all the accused the full panoply > of rights accorded criminal defendants in regular American courts are > likely to be badly disappointed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
