Ban on Gitmo military trials to end

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Meet the new boss . . . same as the old boss.

President Obama signed an executive order Monday that ends a two-year ban on military trials at Guantanamo Bay.

The president had campaigned on a promise to close the detention facility, but that's turned out to be difficult. His actions set up a system that could keep Guantanamo operating for some time.

The administration laid out a new process for dealing with detainees in Cuba. There have always been essentially three groups of people the administration was dealing with: those it wanted to try in federal civilian courts; those who would be tried in military commissions; and a third category that no one quite knew how to deal with — people who couldn't be tried for various reasons but in the administration's view were too dangerous to release.

For the first time, the administration has actually addressed that last group directly.

Changing Rules

Two years ago, the Obama administration put all new trials in the commissions on hold so it could review the status of the 170 or so detainees who are still being held. It announced Monday that this review is complete.

In those two years, the Obama administration also tinkered at the edges of the military commission system, changing rules of evidence and some defense procedures that defense attorneys had previously thought were unfair. Not everyone agrees that the military commissions are completely fair, but the consensus is the changes — such as changes in hearsay evidence and discovery — made them more so.

Civilian trials seem to have been the most controversial. Congress has passed laws that make it virtually impossible for the administration to transfer Guantanamo detainees here for trial in regular federal court.

The only detainee who was essentially grandfathered in was Ahmed Ghailani, who was detained for his role in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. He was charged with hundreds of counts of murder and conspiracy and ended up being convicted of a single charge of conspiracy. In the end, he did get sentenced to life in prison, but critics of federal trials saw this as too close a call.

Codifying A System

Finally, there are detainees who don't seem to fit in either system.

The president has actually codified a system detaining people indefinitely. This is for people deemed too dangerous to release but who for various reasons can't be tried either in military commissions or federal courts. The executive order essentially sets up a review process for people who have been put in this third category.

That process would take place before a review board with representatives from the Department of Defense, Justice Department, State Department and some other agencies. There is an initial review, and then the administration will review the information on the detainee every six months. The idea is that these detainees have some recourse so they just aren't locked up and forgotten.

Administration officials say the president is still committed to closing Guantanamo Bay, but on some level this is recognition that that's still a long way off.

So . . . yeah, way to go Dubya 2.0. At least, instead of being left in Gitmo to rot, a person can now expect to have someone periodically make sure that he's rotting in a politically acceptable fashion.

[Aaron]

So there info gets reviewed every six months? So what does this actually do for them? If you've been locked up since the early 2000's, will the good info fairy drop by to hand over something that will actually get them a trial/release/something?

[TheHammer]

Meet the new boss . . . same as the old boss.

President Obama signed an executive order Monday that ends a two-year ban on military trials at Guantanamo Bay.

The president had campaigned on a promise to close the detention facility, but that's turned out to be difficult. His actions set up a system that could keep Guantanamo operating for some time.

The administration laid out a new process for dealing with detainees in Cuba. There have always been essentially three groups of people the administration was dealing with: those it wanted to try in federal civilian courts; those who would be tried in military commissions; and a third category that no one quite knew how to deal with — people who couldn't be tried for various reasons but in the administration's view were too dangerous to release.

For the first time, the administration has actually addressed that last group directly.

Changing Rules

Two years ago, the Obama administration put all new trials in the commissions on hold so it could review the status of the 170 or so detainees who are still being held. It announced Monday that this review is complete.

In those two years, the Obama administration also tinkered at the edges of the military commission system, changing rules of evidence and some defense procedures that defense attorneys had previously thought were unfair. Not everyone agrees that the military commissions are completely fair, but the consensus is the changes — such as changes in hearsay evidence and discovery — made them more so.

Civilian trials seem to have been the most controversial. Congress has passed laws that make it virtually impossible for the administration to transfer Guantanamo detainees here for trial in regular federal court.

The only detainee who was essentially grandfathered in was Ahmed Ghailani, who was detained for his role in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. He was charged with hundreds of counts of murder and conspiracy and ended up being convicted of a single charge of conspiracy. In the end, he did get sentenced to life in prison, but critics of federal trials saw this as too close a call.

Codifying A System

Finally, there are detainees who don't seem to fit in either system.

The president has actually codified a system detaining people indefinitely. This is for people deemed too dangerous to release but who for various reasons can't be tried either in military commissions or federal courts. The executive order essentially sets up a review process for people who have been put in this third category.

That process would take place before a review board with representatives from the Department of Defense, Justice Department, State Department and some other agencies. There is an initial review, and then the administration will review the information on the detainee every six months. The idea is that these detainees have some recourse so they just aren't locked up and forgotten.

Administration officials say the president is still committed to closing Guantanamo Bay, but on some level this is recognition that that's still a long way off.

So . . . yeah, way to go Dubya 2.0. At least, instead of being left in Gitmo to rot, a person can now expect to have someone periodically make sure that he's rotting in a politically acceptable fashion.

Did you actually read the article that was posted? I'd actually call that signifigant progress. New detainees aren't being sent there. Now its a matter of how to deal with the ones already there and unfortunately there isn't an easy solution. At least the majority of these people will now have a chance to have a day in court, even if it is a military court.

[Thanas]

Given the descriptions of the military courts so far by lawyers, it is not a day in court at all.

And this still does not excuse the fact that the US holds people with no trial, which is an egregious violation of Human Rights. Remember when China did that and the west was howling? Well, where is the US moral superiority now?

[wautd]

So there info gets reviewed every six months?

I heared on the radio it would be a wopping 4 years, but perhaps I heared wrong. Sucks if you're innocent though (don't forget they're sitting there for 10 years already. That's a pretty fucking long time).
Which also makes me wonder how long they're planning to keep everyone imprisoned. Even the guilty ones should one day be released right?

[PeZook]

Bah, just keep them locked up until they die and the facility will close itself!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Given the descriptions of the military courts so far by lawyers, it is not a day in court at all.

And this still does not excuse the fact that the US holds people with no trial, which is an egregious violation of Human Rights. Remember when China did that and the west was howling? Well, where is the US moral superiority now?

Since when did moral superiority ever come into the equation?

[Sarevok]

This is pure speculation on my part.

I think US does not know or care enough to find out who is innocent and who is guilty. These men were rounded up from around the world in chaotic circumstances. Instead of risking releasing a potential suspect I think they will be kept under lock and key for as long as the current obsession with counter terrorism warfare lasts.

This is the only reason I could think of other than the administrators at Gitmo being sick bastards; who would keep people locked up for a decade without any trials.

[Simon_Jester]

Given the descriptions of the military courts so far by lawyers, it is not a day in court at all.

And this still does not excuse the fact that the US holds people with no trial, which is an egregious violation of Human Rights. Remember when China did that and the west was howling? Well, where is the US moral superiority now?

Since when did moral superiority ever come into the equation?

Since the US government brought it up a lot when you weren't paying attention?

US officials like to maintain the pretense that America has the right to do such things, as opposed to merely coming out and saying "well, we're strong enough to kidnap and permanently imprison whoever we please, so suck it, world!" By that standard, hell yes moral superiority comes into the equation.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Since the US government brought it up a lot when you weren't paying attention?

US officials like to maintain the pretense that America has the right to do such things, as opposed to merely coming out and saying "well, we're strong enough to kidnap and permanently imprison whoever we please, so suck it, world!" By that standard, hell yes moral superiority comes into the equation.

Isn't that my point, albeit sarcastically made? The US Govt likes to go hey and high about moral superiority, but they truly don't give a shit, except that so and so xxxx nation obeys the US and pays it obeissance.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah. I'm sorry; I having memories of earlier exchanges that left me unsure whether you were being sarcastic or not.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ah. I'm sorry; I having memories of earlier exchanges that left me unsure whether you were being sarcastic or not.

You mustn't forget I live in Asia, where a lot of this ranting about human rights occurs. Shroom is practically right in my neighbourhood.

[Simon_Jester]

Suffice to say that I consider your views on the subject of human rights to be interesting, quite nuanced, and possibly from Mars.

Honest mistake, nothing to see here, move along.

On the original topic, I suspect Sarevok is right: there's a blatant indifference to questions of guilt and innocence here, combined with a paralyzing fear of letting even one "terrorist" out of the prison camp- even if the odds of one "terrorist" released from the camp actually killing even one American are quite slim. The word "terrorist" has a magical ability to override people's judgment these days; I note with some bemusement that if "Nazi" had the same override effect back in the day we'd probably have managed to lose World War II because we'd be so desperate looking for Nazis in our soup that we'd forget to fight the German army.

The only reason we can survive trying to prosecute a war like this is that the opposition is too feeble to take advantage of our own foolishness.

[TheHammer]

Given the descriptions of the military courts so far by lawyers, it is not a day in court at all.

And this still does not excuse the fact that the US holds people with no trial, which is an egregious violation of Human Rights. Remember when China did that and the west was howling? Well, where is the US moral superiority now?

The fact is that many of the people held at Guantamo ARE dangerous. Obama can't simply throw open the doors and let all of them go. So the question remains, what do with them...

From the article:

Civilian trials seem to have been the most controversial. Congress has passed laws that make it virtually impossible for the administration to transfer Guantanamo detainees here for trial in regular federal court.


So essentially, even those persons Obama wants to try in civilian courts he is largely unable to do so because of existing laws.

also according to the article:

In those two years, the Obama administration also tinkered at the edges of the military commission system, changing rules of evidence and some defense procedures that defense attorneys had previously thought were unfair. Not everyone agrees that the military commissions are completely fair, but the consensus is the changes — such as changes in hearsay evidence and discovery — made them more so.


The administration has taken steps to alleviate defense complaints about the Military tribunals. And given that civilian trials don't seem to be an option, I think that's definitely an improvement over what they had before. Now at least the innocent (if any) have a chance of getting out.

I'm not saying everything is perfect and a bastion of civil liberties, but its also a far cry from Dubya Redux. And China's civil rights abuses and holding suspected terrorists at Guantamo bay is hardly an apples to apples comparison. I'm not saying the US is perfect, but nor are they on par with China in that regard.

[Duckie]

Probably most of them weren't guilty, but after what america has done to them they're probably now all going to be really angry. A self fulfilling prophecy! You'd think it was almost planned: it's perfect.

America should just let them out for a few years, let them take vengeance on losing a decade of their lives, then charge them with the actual terrorist activities they preform later.

[Edi]

TheHammer, we've heard all those excuses a thousand times before and they still don't wash anymore than they did before.

[TheHammer]

TheHammer, we've heard all those excuses a thousand times before and they still don't wash anymore than they did before.

They aren't excuses. They are reasons why things are the way they are. I think Obama is dealing with the GITMO situation the best that he can. The steps he has taken are hardly "Just like Bush" as some have stated. If you have a better idea, working within the same constraints, what would be your solution?

[Simon_Jester]

The fact is that many of the people held at Guantamo ARE dangerous. Obama can't simply throw open the doors and let all of them go.

Why not? Seriously, why not? There are people now free who have done far more harm, both to the world and to America in particular.

Who is located in Guantanamo that it is so absolutely vital they stay in jail indefinitely even if that means keeping dozens of innocent people in there with them? Is America so brittle and feeble a state that a few hundred people who hate us* pose some kind of existential threat?

Again, it's like as soon as we call someone a terrorist, our ability to rationally assess the size of the threat they pose disappears. On the one hand we refuse to take serious steps to rationalize our anti-terrorist efforts; on the other, we treat every single designated-terrorist we find as if they present an imminent risk of going on a Godzilla-like rampage. It doesn't add up.

*(at this point, not without reason since we've been beating and imprisoning them for ten years)

I'm not saying everything is perfect and a bastion of civil liberties, but its also a far cry from Dubya Redux. And China's civil rights abuses and holding suspected terrorists at Guantamo bay is hardly an apples to apples comparison. I'm not saying the US is perfect, but nor are they on par with China in that regard.

Citation requested.

[TheHammer]

The fact is that many of the people held at Guantamo ARE dangerous. Obama can't simply throw open the doors and let all of them go.

Why not? Seriously, why not? There are people now free who have done far more harm, both to the world and to America in particular.

Don't be naive. On top the fact that it would be political suicide, chances are high that many of these men ARE in fact terrorists. Some may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but again simply letting them go is not an option.

Who is located in Guantanamo that it is so absolutely vital they stay in jail indefinitely even if that means keeping dozens of innocent people in there with them? Is America so brittle and feeble a state that a few hundred people who hate us* pose some kind of existential threat?

As noted, steps have been taken to give most of them a trial. Additional steps were also taken to make sure those trials were more fair than the trials done under the Bush administration. I'd dare say that most of the "innocent" ones will be released following their trial. For the ones wrongly accused/convicted? Well it sucks, but we have innocent people in prison here in the United States as well. No justice system in the world is perfect.

Again, it's like as soon as we call someone a terrorist, our ability to rationally assess the size of the threat they pose disappears. On the one hand we refuse to take serious steps to rationalize our anti-terrorist efforts; on the other, we treat every single designated-terrorist we find as if they present an imminent risk of going on a Godzilla-like rampage. It doesn't add up.

*(at this point, not without reason since we've been beating and imprisoning them for ten years)

I think the steps the Obama administration has taken are very rational. A balance between giving the prisoners at GITMO their right to be heard, while at the same time protecting the United States.

And to your point, say for someone was abducted someone who was innocent, but after 6-8 years in the Bush controlled GITMO, he swears to Allah that if he ever gets out he's going to make the US pay in blood. Should he just be let go? An idealist might say "absolutely" but a realist would most likely say "absolutely not". I'm not saying he should be locked up for the rest of his life or killed, but you have to deal with that situation.

I'm not saying everything is perfect and a bastion of civil liberties, but its also a far cry from Dubya Redux. And China's civil rights abuses and holding suspected terrorists at Guantamo bay is hardly an apples to apples comparison. I'm not saying the US is perfect, but nor are they on par with China in that regard.

Citation requested.

Seriously? I mean, you could just google "China human rights abuse" and find that. But here are some likely hits when you do:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_ ... ts_of_1989

http://www.tchrd.org/press/2011/pr20110112.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... c_of_China

http://www.amnestyusa.org/china/page.do?id=1011134

[Metahive]

Don't be naive. On top the fact that it would be political suicide, chances are high that many of these men ARE in fact terrorists. Some may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but again simply letting them go is not an option.

Why not?

As noted, steps have been taken to give most of them a trial. Additional steps were also taken to make sure those trials were more fair than the trials done under the Bush administration. I'd dare say that most of the "innocent" ones will be released following their trial. For the ones wrongly accused/convicted? Well it sucks, but we have innocent people in prison here in the United States as well. No justice system in the world is perfect.

What massive comfort for the people that were sold as terrorists to the US by greedy warlords.

And to your point, say for someone was abducted someone who was innocent, but after 6-8 years in the Bush controlled GITMO, he swears to Allah that if he ever gets out he's going to make the US pay in blood. Should he just be let go? An idealist might say "absolutely" but a realist would most likely say "absolutely not". I'm not saying he should be locked up for the rest of his life or killed, but you have to deal with that situation.

So the answer to injustice is more injustice on the chance that doing otherwise might prove to be detrimental to the US, great argument there. Maybe you should have thought about that before reelecting Bush or letting him get away with this BS. Innocent men should not suffer for american paranoia and stupidity.

I'm having a massive déjavu here, a few months ago I discussed exactly this issue with Shadowdragonnumbers and he made exactly the same points as you. Hope you haven't been taking lessons from him.

[Serafina]

Don't be naive. On top the fact that it would be political suicide, chances are high that many of these men ARE in fact terrorists. Some may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but again simply letting them go is not an option.

So - just because it would be politically damaging, it's okay to imprison people?
And just because someone MIGHT be a terrorist, it's okay to detain him without any evidence? If you have actual proof that they ARE terrorists, sure, imprison them all you like after a trial.

As noted, steps have been taken to give most of them a trial. Additional steps were also taken to make sure those trials were more fair than the trials done under the Bush administration. I'd dare say that most of the "innocent" ones will be released following their trial. For the ones wrongly accused/convicted? Well it sucks, but we have innocent people in prison here in the United States as well. No justice system in the world is perfect.

Why did you put innocent in quotation marks here? Oh, right, there can't be anyone imprisoned there who is actually innocent, right?

I think the steps the Obama administration has taken are very rational. A balance between giving the prisoners at GITMO their right to be heard, while at the same time protecting the United States.

How exactly would giving them a trial ASAP be any danger to the USA? Then again, you seem to think that political harm is a reason to imprison someone.

[Rahvin]

Don't be naive. On top the fact that it would be political suicide, chances are high that many of these men ARE in fact terrorists.

Evidence?

If the US has sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any individuals in Gitmo are guilty of an actual crime, including even material support of a terrorist organization, conspiracy, etc, then why have they not been tried and convicted? It's been 10 years! Even if convicted, some of them may have already fulfilled their sentences just waiting!*

On what basis do you estimate that there is a "high" probability that "many" of the Gitmo detainees are actual terrorists? Are you privy to some form of evidence that the rest of us are unaware of? Why can't that evidence be used in a normal, civilian trial so that we can follow due process?

Or, instead, are you simply taking the fact that they have been accused and imprisoned as strong evidence of guilt?

Because that would be stupid.

Are things like the right to a speedy, fair trial before a jury of your peers following due process actually inalienable? Or are they just suggestions that can conveniently be ignored when we get a little scared?

*I don't actually know the standard sentences for any of the possible terrorism-related charges, that was really just a commentary on the ridiculousness of waiting for 10 years before even being charged with a crime, let alone receiving a trial.

[TheHammer]

Don't be naive. On top the fact that it would be political suicide, chances are high that many of these men ARE in fact terrorists. Some may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but again simply letting them go is not an option.

So - just because it would be politically damaging, it's okay to imprison people?
And just because someone MIGHT be a terrorist, it's okay to detain him without any evidence? If you have actual proof that they ARE terrorists, sure, imprison them all you like after a trial.

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to closing the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and moving some of the detainees to prisons on U.S. soil, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
By more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn't be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009 ... itmo_N.htm

I didn't say damaging. I said political suicide. If he threw open the doors and let them all out, Republicans would crucify him in the media with the terrorist boogeyman. If even ONE of them was later found to have been guilty of an act of terror, Then you'll get a fine Republican President in there who will reverse the progress Obama has made to this point.

Sorry I couldn't find a more recent poll, but I imagine the sentiment is much the same. If anyone can find a more recent poll the the contrary I'd like to see it.

As noted, steps have been taken to give most of them a trial. Additional steps were also taken to make sure those trials were more fair than the trials done under the Bush administration. I'd dare say that most of the "innocent" ones will be released following their trial. For the ones wrongly accused/convicted? Well it sucks, but we have innocent people in prison here in the United States as well. No justice system in the world is perfect.

Why did you put innocent in quotation marks here? Oh, right, there can't be anyone imprisoned there who is actually innocent, right?

Because the word innocent might be too strong. I'd prefer the term "not guilty" I suppose.

I think the steps the Obama administration has taken are very rational. A balance between giving the prisoners at GITMO their right to be heard, while at the same time protecting the United States.

How exactly would giving them a trial ASAP be any danger to the USA? Then again, you seem to think that political harm is a reason to imprison someone.

I believe the point of the article is that most of them are now getting trials. Military trials certainly, but they are trials none the less. Ironically, many of them probably have more chance at a fair trial now than they would have had in their own countries of Iraq, Afghanistan, et. al.

[Serafina]

I didn't say damaging. I said political suicide. If he threw open the doors and let them all out, Republicans would crucify him in the media with the terrorist boogeyman. If even ONE of them was later found to have been guilty of an act of terror, Then you'll get a fine Republican President in there who will reverse the progress Obama has made to this point.

So what? Your argument is still "it would give us a bad image, therefore it's okay to wrongfully imprision lot's of people".

Because the word innocent might be too strong. I'd prefer the term "not guilty" I suppose.

They ARE innocent in regard to the crimes they are accused of (at least some of them most likely, obviously not everyone).

I believe the point of the article is that most of them are now getting trials. Military trials certainly, but they are trials none the less. Ironically, many of them probably have more chance at a fair trial now than they would have had in their own countries of Iraq, Afghanistan, et. al.

And that makes it any better? Their countries would not have them imprisoned in the first place. And while they MIGHT get a fair trial, they certainly did NOT get a fair procedure.



Your major point seem to be "Obama can't release them, because the american public would hate him for it". That is likely true. However, if that is the case, then the american public is at fault for what is happening , because they are ultimately the ones responsible for it. Furthermore, Obama hasn't actually made an effort to convince the public that releasing those in Guantanamo would be the right thing to do, which is something that he can and should do.

[TheHammer]

Don't be naive. On top the fact that it would be political suicide, chances are high that many of these men ARE in fact terrorists. Some may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but again simply letting them go is not an option.

Why not?

Because you have to first determine if they were in fact at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would guess that this group would be in the minority of the people held at Guantamo.

As noted, steps have been taken to give most of them a trial. Additional steps were also taken to make sure those trials were more fair than the trials done under the Bush administration. I'd dare say that most of the "innocent" ones will be released following their trial. For the ones wrongly accused/convicted? Well it sucks, but we have innocent people in prison here in the United States as well. No justice system in the world is perfect.

What massive comfort for the people that were sold as terrorists to the US by greedy warlords.

I agree that sucks. Hopefully, after trial, most of those people will be set free and compensated as best they can be.

And to your point, say for someone was abducted someone who was innocent, but after 6-8 years in the Bush controlled GITMO, he swears to Allah that if he ever gets out he's going to make the US pay in blood. Should he just be let go? An idealist might say "absolutely" but a realist would most likely say "absolutely not". I'm not saying he should be locked up for the rest of his life or killed, but you have to deal with that situation.

So the answer to injustice is more injustice on the chance that doing otherwise might prove to be detrimental to the US, great argument there. Maybe you should have thought about that before reelecting Bush or letting him get away with this BS. Innocent men should not suffer for american paranoia and stupidity.

I'm having a massive déjavu here, a few months ago I discussed exactly this issue with Shadowdragonnumbers and he made exactly the same points as you. Hope you haven't been taking lessons from him.

I'm saying the answer to injustice is prudence. What specifically must be done depends greatly on the individual involved.