It is not secret that the Obama administration would like to turn down the volume on "the war on terrorism". It has been their position all along that the US being "at war" with non-state actors gives terrorists some sort of prestige that acts to bolster their ideologies and legitimizes their general grievances.
Tuning down the volume on the war on terrorism as a military action is high on the list of projects for the Obama presidency and they are starting with plans to shut Gitmo and bring most of the prisoners to the main land of the US or send them back home. That is if any will go home, if their countries will have them and if the US will receive guarantees that these men will be kept from making further trouble for the US.
But, if these prisoners are brought within the continental US, then their status and jurisdiction may change. Stephanie Hessler continues to point out the difficulties:
As Stephanie notes, national security, while bound by laws to some extent, is not a legal matter for the judiciary to determine. It is the primary function of the president to secure the nation and the constitution outlines the powers for the executive and legislative branches. In no place at no time did the founders provide for action by the judiciary.
While US citizens captured within the US participating in terrorism may be a legal matter for civilian courts, foreign fighters captured on a battle field are not provided for any protections beyond those that the US subscribes in international treaties and those set by Congress. The idea that any of these prisoners are afforded any rights beyond the limited rights provided by those two entities is preposterous and deadly.
Federal judges adhere to US law which does allow these judges to release prisoners on habeas corpus petitions. As Hessler goes on to note, there are a considerable number of prisoners remaining in Gitmo who are unrepentent terrorists and who took part in the 9/11 planning. The idea that any of these would be released on a legal technicality would create such an uproar that no administration would be able to survive it. Think "Willie Horton" on steroids.
The second issue that must be addressed is where will these terrorists be housed on the continental US? In federal prisons that all are near certain populated areas? This seems to unnecessarily place US citizens at risk for attacks by any terrorists seeking to gain noteriety or simply looking for an excuse to attack the US directly for ideological reasons. That is not protecting the citizens. Deliberately placing citizens at risk for some hereto unprecedented concept of "justice" for foreign enemies of the US seems unnecessarily dangerous and no where required by any US law or treaty.
The Obama administration had better step lightly here. But, now that they are in charge, they seem more willing to risk political cache for misguided principles that believes "justice" to be solely a legal term. While it might look nice to all those countries the Democrat party insists we need to impress, freed terrorists will not impress much of our citizenry.
Tuning down the volume on the war on terrorism as a military action is high on the list of projects for the Obama presidency and they are starting with plans to shut Gitmo and bring most of the prisoners to the main land of the US or send them back home. That is if any will go home, if their countries will have them and if the US will receive guarantees that these men will be kept from making further trouble for the US.
But, if these prisoners are brought within the continental US, then their status and jurisdiction may change. Stephanie Hessler continues to point out the difficulties:
First, the holding of Boumediene likely reaches beyond Guantanamo because it almost certainly will apply to detainees held in the United States, and may even apply to detainees held at other U.S. military bases abroad.[snip]
The Boumediene decision opens the door to federal judges to release these dangerous individuals. Moreover, there are no laws for how these proceedings should be conducted. In other words, the judicial branch is left to handle this crucial anti-terrorism challenge.
It is emphatically not the role of the judicial branch to handle such critical national security matters. Permitting judges to decide these crucial anti-terrorism issues can undermine the will of the people. The Constitution expressly instructs that foreign and national security policy should be conducted by the executive and legislative branches,...
As Stephanie notes, national security, while bound by laws to some extent, is not a legal matter for the judiciary to determine. It is the primary function of the president to secure the nation and the constitution outlines the powers for the executive and legislative branches. In no place at no time did the founders provide for action by the judiciary.
While US citizens captured within the US participating in terrorism may be a legal matter for civilian courts, foreign fighters captured on a battle field are not provided for any protections beyond those that the US subscribes in international treaties and those set by Congress. The idea that any of these prisoners are afforded any rights beyond the limited rights provided by those two entities is preposterous and deadly.
Federal judges adhere to US law which does allow these judges to release prisoners on habeas corpus petitions. As Hessler goes on to note, there are a considerable number of prisoners remaining in Gitmo who are unrepentent terrorists and who took part in the 9/11 planning. The idea that any of these would be released on a legal technicality would create such an uproar that no administration would be able to survive it. Think "Willie Horton" on steroids.
The second issue that must be addressed is where will these terrorists be housed on the continental US? In federal prisons that all are near certain populated areas? This seems to unnecessarily place US citizens at risk for attacks by any terrorists seeking to gain noteriety or simply looking for an excuse to attack the US directly for ideological reasons. That is not protecting the citizens. Deliberately placing citizens at risk for some hereto unprecedented concept of "justice" for foreign enemies of the US seems unnecessarily dangerous and no where required by any US law or treaty.
The Obama administration had better step lightly here. But, now that they are in charge, they seem more willing to risk political cache for misguided principles that believes "justice" to be solely a legal term. While it might look nice to all those countries the Democrat party insists we need to impress, freed terrorists will not impress much of our citizenry.
Gitmo is, because it IS. it exists for a specific set of reasons.
Friend, I have NEVER forgotten that oath I first swore 18 years and 2 days ago in Syracuse NY. The President of the United States, with the OVERWHELMING support of Congress pointed me, my brothers, and my sisters at a nation that aided and supported the men who used aircraft to attack our country. We went and made war on those who believed us soft and unwilling to strike back in defense of our fellow citizens.
Quote<i>Is it lawful to deny some the privelidge of a trial, where they can hear the accusiation, and defend against it. Just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Remember, some may be innocent. Just as some may be guilty but not proven yet. And there are maximum security prisions in the States, Just think of how many people are on death row.</i>
In following the rules and reulations set forth in the Geneva Convention, a treaty signed by the United States, Unlawful combatabts (organized groups with no common uniforms and waging war against you) are able to be held until such time as hostilities have ended.
I have a short question for you. Why does it appear that you are defending those who set car bombs in markets and blow up defenseless people? Shouldn't you be WANTING these scum removed from public and held someplace where that they can not do harm to TRUELY innocent people?
It's "...to protect and defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." Obeying a "lawful order" means that the order must not contravene the Constitution, the UCMJ, or those international protocols to which the US is bound by treaty or signature. And there's nothing in any of those documents that says a soldier must read an enemy combattant a list of his Miranda rights -- because an EC doesn't *have* Miranda rights -- and then hand him over to US Civil Authorities for a speedy trial.
Is it lawful to deny some the privelidge of a trial, where they can hear the accusiation, and defend against it.
It would have been "lawful" to have administered some of them a battlefield execution. Holding them without trial until cessation of hostilities is also a "lawful" method of dealing with them.
Just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Von Paulus' Eighth Army outside Stalingrad was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The VC and NVA we killed in Hue City and Saigon during Tet '69 were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay were in the wrong place at the wrong time. A soldier of either side in a war who is caught in an ambush is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Being found on a battlefield in a fighting position with a dead RPG team doesn't give you a whole lot of wiggle room for claiming you're an innocent goatherd, particularly when there are no goats, alive or dead, anywhere within ten miles of your location and there's a pile of expended AK brass to your right front.
Next question, please...