US wants others to deal with its problems

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Real clever fuck face. Release them into our country as FREE MEN.

Real Clever MORON. They have no citizenship. Shall we try them instead as illegal Immigrants?

What court of law shitstain?

Your Court.

Oh, so they have NOT been found guilty of ANYTHING.

But there is evidence that is inadmissible in court that shows they are guilty.

So we fucking grant them asylum in the United States. We assumed control of their lives and we don't have the fucking right to lock them away for the rest of their lives when they haven't committed a single fucking crime against this country.

ANd again they will NOT be granted asylum because they have been found to have carried arms and fought against the US. SO NO, sorry, they will not be given asylum EVER.

Are you a fucking idiot or something?

Oh no, you are the idiot who is suggesting that rules must be broken.

[Stark]

Sure. Why not? If the organiser of the Bali Bombings were returned, it's very likely he will also be put into detention without trial, especially if he ended up in Malaysia or Singapore. And if he were in Indonesia, I would place bets there would be a jail break within weeks to months.

So what? What's the point of all these red herrings? People were actually convicted of that attack, you know; unlike these guys. Do you see a tiny difference?

How does this red herring address my point that you whittling on about 'reality' (which means LOL FUCKEM) and then getting cranky because the Canadians (who have nothing to do with their detention as far as I know) refused to do America a favour! It's asinine, even outside the appalling 'we know they're guilty' thing.

Oh man that's great. 'Inadmissable evidence shows they're guilty'!! Clearly we have to punish them anyway, just like in the legal... system... oh wait.

[Alyeska]

Real Clever MORON. They have no citizenship. Shall we try them instead as illegal Immigrants?

We give them ASYLUM numbnuts.

Your Court.

According to your own words they have not be convicted of anything. So you are flat out lying.

But there is evidence that is inadmissible in court that shows they are guilty.

Guess what dumbass? We have that all the time in the court system. There is already a solution. Its called RELEASE THEM. No conviction, THEY ARE NOT GUILTY. If the evidence is inadmissible, they are innocent as far as the law is concerned.

ANd again they will NOT be granted asylum because they have been found to have carried arms and no, sorry, they will not be given asylum EVER.

And what court of law made this determination?

Oh no, you are the idiot.

Real clever. You can't even keep your lies straight.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So what? What's the point of all these red herrings? People were actually convicted of that attack, you know; unlike these guys. Do you see a tiny difference?

And what great work that did, when the spiritual adviser for the JI happened to be jailed for 3 years NOT on the charge of the Bali bombing. You haven't really read much on that case did you? They had to scramble to find a reason to even jail him despite the fact that they knew he was part of the JI.

[Stark]

SO WHAT? How is this EVEN REMOTELY RELEVANT to the thread?

And wow, a guy they had little evidence connecting him to the crime was hard to convict - amazing! It's like you need to prove things these days in a kind of 'court' of some kind of 'law' and can't just imprison people... at... will...

Like America.

But they don't want to deal with it, and nobody wants to help them for obvious reasons. And you're OFFENDED!

[ray245]

So what? What's the point of all these red herrings? People were actually convicted of that attack, you know; unlike these guys. Do you see a tiny difference?

And what great work that did, when the spiritual adviser for the JI happened to be jailed for 3 years NOT on the charge of the Bali bombing. You haven't really read much on that case did you? They had to scramble to find a reason to even jail him despite the fact that they knew he was part of the JI.

Why do we have to jail him? Can't we just put him under some form of monitoring?

God, just because the law is imperfect doesn't mean we should have a total disregard for the legal system.

[Lord of the Abyss]

They have been found to have raised arms or conspired against the United States or their allies,

And how do you know THAT, either ?

You mean the US ARmy goes around rounding up people to prison for fun?

For fun ( torture requires victims after all ), or because they were turned in for our bounties by ( for example ) their personal enemies, or because of lies we tortured out of someone.

[MKSheppard]

Fun Fact; but someone DOES want them and is willing to take them in!

China has requested the return of the Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs) but the U.S. has refused, due to fears of possible torture.

Boo.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Fun Fact; but someone DOES want them and is willing to take them in!

China has requested the return of the Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs) but the U.S. has refused, due to fears of possible torture.

Boo.

Better to have scruples late than never.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

We give them ASYLUM numbnuts.

Let's check this: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/ ... cd190aRCRD

Oh look, they likely will be barred based on this:

An asylum seeker will be barred from a grant of asylum pursuant to INA § 208(b)(2) if it is determined that he or she:

*
Ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; or
*
Was convicted of a particularly serious crime such that is a danger to the U.S. (including an aggravated felony as defined under INA § 101(a)(43)); or
*
Committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States; or
*
Poses a danger to the security of the United States; or
*
Has been firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States (see 8 CFR § 208.15 for a definition of “firm resettlement”)

An asylum seeker will also be barred from a grant of asylum under INA § 208 if he or she is described in the terrorism- and national security-related inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(3)(B) or (F) INA § 237(a)(4)(B) because he or she:

*
Has engaged in terrorist activity;
*
Is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that this is the case);
*
Has, under any circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
*
Is a representative of

a. A foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the INA, or
b. A political, social, or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities;

*
Is a member of a terrorist organization designated under section 219 of the INA (Tier I) or otherwise designated through publication in the Federal Register under INA section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) (Tier II);
*
Is a member of an undesignated terrorist organization described in INA section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) (Tier III), unless he or she can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he or she did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
*
Has used a position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities.
*
Has received military-type training from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization;

“Military-type training” is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2339D(c)(1) to include: “training in means or methods that can cause death or serious bodily injury, destroy or damage property, or disrupt services to critical infrastructure, or training on the use, storage, production, or assembly of any explosive, firearm or other weapon, including any weapon of mass destruction . . .”

*
Is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years. To qualify as a “child,” the individual must be unmarried and under 21 years of age.

You don't even need a court to do this! Quick background check and nope. No asylum.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Why do we have to jail him? Can't we just put him under some form of monitoring?

God, just because the law is imperfect doesn't mean we should have a total disregard for the legal system.

I'm not sure if Indonesia has any laws on this, but some countries have laws that require a court order.

In any case, it was likely the Indonesian version of the ISB was already monitoring him, possibly illegally.

[Lord of the Abyss]

You don't even need a court to do this! Quick background check and nope. No asylum.

Assuming of course that they actually fall into any of those categories using evidence we didn't torture out of someone. And that begs the question of what we DO do with them. Without compounding our already disgusting behavior, so "send them off for the Chinese to torture" is out.

[Themightytom]

Can we send them to Crawford Texas?

[Elfdart]

Can we send them to Crawford Texas?

Best idea I've heard all day.

[Elfdart]

They should be allowed to settle in the US, with pensions. The US brought them over, ruined their lives, tortured them, so the US should deal with it.

Oh sure. How about the lives they ruined in Afghanistan?

You know I have to agree with Shep. Technically, we should return them to where they belong, which is China. I suppose you should be fine with that.

US law prohibits turning prisoners over to other countries if there's reason to believe that the country will kill, torture or otherwise deprive them of due process of law.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is exactly what conservative blowhards keep saying. Everyone else SHOULD accept America's prisoners, because otherwise they'll be incarcerated by the US forever! Clearly this is everyone's responsiblity and not that of the US.

One, I am not a conservative. Second, I fully acknowledged that the US probably should take the prisoners, but since they're apparently not going to, someone else probably should as a morally preferable alternative to saying "fuck you" and letting them sit in Guantanamo forever. I never once said that its not America's responsibility, nor that, ideally, any other nation should be under an obligation to take them.

I could also say "Canada is under no obligation to provide foreign aid, as those country's are their own government's responsibility," but that would be an incredibly dickish thing to do. Now, I know its not an exact parallel by any means, but it does serve to illustrate the point I am trying to make: that even if the prisoners are or should be America's responsibility, if America won't deal with it then someone else has to, and we can't simply use someone else's misdeeds or failiures as an excuse to turn our back. I've seen lots of Canadians look down at America during the Bush years. Well, if we're so fucking superior, let's take a chance to show it.

Really, I've tried to make this as clear as possible. If you don't get it, I can't help but suspect that you are deliberately failing to do so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why are idiots so big on 'reality' of 'law' or politics when it supports their position, but not when it has obvious explanations for the actions of others? Shit I wonder what 'realities of the law' might be behind Canada's refusal in this case!

If you can point to the law that would bar Canada from accepting these people, please do. All the article gives is some vague mention of security issues, which is not much to go on but suggests to me that the Conservative government views these people as terrorists despite lack of convictions and is using some fear mongering to justify a guilty-until-proven-innocent type of policy.

That or Harper is being China's bitch.

[Surlethe]

But there is evidence that is inadmissible in court that shows they are guilty.

How do you know? Can you produce it?

[Guardsman Bass]

But there is evidence that is inadmissible in court that shows they are guilty.

How do you know? Can you produce it?

He's probably referring to information that was gathered through classified means, so that if you brought it up in court, an element critical to US intelligence-gathering might be exposed.

I'd just as soon deport them to China, particularly since China wants them back (and yes, I know that's against US extradition law, and that there's a possibility that they'll end up tortured and dead). It's not like we've released all POWs we've captured into the US over history.

[Knife]

They should be allowed to settle in the US, with pensions. The US brought them over, ruined their lives, tortured them, so the US should deal with it.

Oh sure. How about the lives they ruined in Afghanistan?

You know I have to agree with Shep. Technically, we should return them to where they belong, which is China. I suppose you should be fine with that.

US law prohibits turning prisoners over to other countries if there's reason to believe that the country will kill, torture or otherwise deprive them of due process of law.

So, from that we can't possibly release them in the US.

[/half serious]

I'm not sold on the force them to have US asylum either. Without knowing if these guys even want US asylum after their run in Gitmo. Insisting that the US gives them asylum without even knowing if these guys want to live in the US after what was done to them just reeks as us wanting to relieve our guilt and not doing what's best for those guys.

[Lord of the Abyss]

But there is evidence that is inadmissible in court that shows they are guilty.

How do you know? Can you produce it?

He's probably referring to information that was gathered through classified means, so that if you brought it up in court, an element critical to US intelligence-gathering might be exposed.

Or it was gotten via torture and they don't want that little detail to come out in court.

[D.Turtle]

He's probably referring to information that was gathered through classified means, so that if you brought it up in court, an element critical to US intelligence-gathering might be exposed.

Its not like there are procedures for exactly this kind of thing...

Its very simple: You made the mess, so you should clean it up. Currently, the US is trying to simply off-load these prisoners to other countries without taking any themselves. Once they start doing that, other countries will be willing to take some of the prisoners. As long as the US refuses to release them into their own country or move them into normal jails, other countries will be very unlikely to take any of the prisoners.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Hey, let's just kill them instead !

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.

The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention.

The proposal would ease what has come to be recognized as the government’s difficult task of prosecuting men who have confessed to acts of terrorism but whose cases present extraordinary challenges. Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret C.I.A. prisons. In any legal proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making full trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment.

Some experts on the military commissions said such a proposal would raise new questions about the fairness of a system created by the Bush administration that has been criticized as permitting shortcuts to assure convictions.

David Glazier, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who has written about the commission system, said: “This unfortunately strikes me as an effort to get rid of the problem in the easiest way possible, which is to have those people plead guilty and presumably be executed. But I think it’s going to lack international credibility.”

Capital cases
The draft legislation includes other changes administration officials disclosed last month when President Obama said he would continue the controversial military commission system with changes that would increase detainees’ rights. It is not known whether the White House has approved the proposed death-penalty provision. A White House spokesman declined to comment.

The provision would follow a recommendation of military prosecutors to clarify what they view as an oversight in the 2006 law that created the commissions. The law did not make clear if guilty pleas would be permitted in capital cases. Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such pleas

But American military justice law, which is the model for the military commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty.

During a December tribunal proceeding in Guantánamo, the five detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks said they wanted to plead guilty. Military prosecutors argued that they should be permitted to do so. Defense lawyers argued that tribunals should follow American military law and bar the guilty pleas. The military judge has not yet made a decision.

9/11 suspects
Lawyers who were asked about the administration’s proposed change in recent days said it appeared to be intended for the Sept. 11 case.

“They are trying to give the 9/11 guys what they want: let them plead guilty and get the death penalty and not have to have a trial,” said Maj. David J. R. Frakt of the Air Force, a Guantánamo defense lawyer.

The military commission system has been effectively halted since January while the administration considers its options. The only death penalty case now before a military judge is the case against the five detainees charged as the planners of the Sept. 11 attack, including the self-proclaimed mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

It is not known how many detainees might eventually face death-penalty charges. Some lawyers say others may follow the lead of Mr. Mohammed and seek execution by trying to plead guilty.

Cmdr. Suzanne M. Lachelier, a Navy lawyer for one of the detainees in the Sept. 11 case, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, said of the Obama administration, “They’re encouraging martyrdom.”

Jihad against America
The administration has not announced whether it will continue with the Sept. 11 case in the military commissions or charge some of the men in federal court. Officials involved in the process said that lawyers reviewing the case have said that federal-court charges against four of the men might be possible, but that the evidence might be too weak for a federal court case against one of the five, Walid Bin Attash, a veteran jihad fighter who was known as Khallad.

Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman, said no decisions had been made about where the men would be prosecuted. Mr. Boyd said it was premature to discuss any legislative proposals. But, he said, “As the president has said, the administration is working diligently to identify possible legislative amendments to the current military commission system.”

A bill presented to Congress seeking changes in the commissions could open a new debate about the system for trying terrorism suspects. The administration is expected to present a controversial proposal for indefinite detention inside the United States and is already in a standoff with Congress over financing for Mr. Obama’s plan to close the Guantánamo prison by January.

Yeah, let's just skip the trials and go straight to the executions; that'll be great for our credibility. I'm SURE no one will think about phrases like "tortured until he begged for death".

[Themightytom]

Really?? We would claim we are giving them what they want??

[Siege]

Didn't anyone associated with the previous administration consider the ramifications before they stuck people in Gitmo and began waterboarding them in "secret C.I.A. prisons"? Was everyone seriously so fucking obsessed with asinine Jack Bauer scenarios that no-one stopped to think about how the hell they'd ever get these people properly charged and convicted even before a military tribunal? Seriously these terror trials have long since descended from 'botched job' into 'total farce' territory, and I can't blame other countries for being unwilling to clean up the US' mess. You fucked up, now you fix it--the time where the US could rely on its diplomatic credit to get other people to help out is long gone.