busyWhite House denies indefinite detention order
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The White House dismissed reports that it has drafted an executive order allowing indefinite detention in the United States of some of the top terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.</p>An administration official told AFP that no such draft order existed, though internal deliberations were taking place on how to deal with those inmates who could not be released or tried in civilian courts.
It is somewhat encouraging that the White House has not actually ordered indefinite detention. However, this conclusion to the article worries me:
But the other half of the remaining detainees, the Post noted, "present the greatest difficulty" because they cannot be prosecuted in either a federal court or a military trial.Evidence against these detainees is either classified, was provided by foreign intelligence services or was obtained through harsh interrogation techniques approved by former president George W. Bush.
Several officials involved in the Justice Department's reviews told the newspaper they had agreed with the Bush administration's conclusion that up to 90 detainees can be neither charged nor released.
Regardless of what the accused have done or are alleged to have done: it is unacceptable to imprison persons indefinitely without charge or conviction. If a crime has been committed, charges must be laid and either proven or disproven in a court of law, and the accused sentenced or released accordingly. The practice of indefinite detention allows governments to lock away persons they find inconvenient without any obligation to prove that those persons have broken any law. History demonstrates the destructive and oppressive results of such policies. Civilized nations follow legal practices which ensure that nobody is imprisoned without charges, that accused persons have a right to a fair trial, and that specific sentences are handed down for crimes proven.
June 29 2009, 06:57:13 UTC 12 years ago
Yes...
June 29 2009, 07:11:43 UTC 12 years ago
However, punishing other people for your mistakes is definitely uncivilized.
The obvious next step is to ascertain whether the prisoners can be charged with crimes. If they can, they should be tried; if convicted, sentenced; if exonerated, released. If they cannot be charged with specific crimes, they should be released. It would be prudent to provide medical care, counseling, apologies, and possibly other reparations to those released. This might make them (and others) less inclined to disparage or attack America. In any case, it is the decent thing to do; responsible people and nations clean up after their own mistakes.
Re: Yes...
June 29 2009, 09:32:13 UTC 12 years ago
June 29 2009, 10:59:38 UTC 12 years ago
June 29 2009, 12:17:39 UTC 12 years ago
June 29 2009, 13:45:13 UTC 12 years ago
Some of these guys are genuinely innocent of any crime. Some of them are essentially petty gangsters. Some of them are anti-American (and also anti-their-country's-government) types who aren't terrorists. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the American military was used to get romantic or business rivals out of the way, as well. Just call him a terrorist and POOF! He disappears! How handy!
Only the genuinely innocent really have a shot of getting out. The rest are pretty much going to rot unless there's a government change or we break some arms. I'm kind of hoping the latter.
June 29 2009, 13:58:26 UTC 12 years ago
June 29 2009, 15:01:09 UTC 12 years ago
June 30 2009, 00:46:43 UTC 12 years ago
Thoughts
June 30 2009, 00:50:49 UTC 12 years ago
For many of the prisoners, that probably makes sense. However, some of those proven innocent might be considered for this option. Particularly the ones who were imprisoned as children (which is a violation of global rules of engagement).
>> Legally speaking, it would be a violation of a country's sovereign rights to just dump them somewhere without asking, including their home country.<<
Since when has that stopped America from doing anything? It violates the rights of sovereign nations every day, and not even just the ones marooned within its boundaries.
I would consider dumping released prisoners back on their home turf to be a possible option. If there is reason to believe they would be killed, however, that would be tantamount to murder and probably unacceptable. Same if they were sure to be tortured, although America has pretty well taken care of that already.
However, there's a way to sidestep this: put them on a boat in international waters and let them go. Where they go is then their business. We have a Coast Guard and a Navy whose job it is to keep unwanted people from getting into American waters and causing trouble here.
>>I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the American military was used to get romantic or business rivals out of the way, as well. Just call him a terrorist and POOF! He disappears! How handy! <<
That is a key reason why such things must never be allowed: the power is too tempting and too easy to abuse, as abundantly demonstrated by history.
Re: Thoughts
June 30 2009, 02:14:51 UTC 12 years ago
The entire idea is that we're trying to clean up our act, here. What was "true" under Bush is not true under Obama, and besides, the entire world is watching, as well they should.
However, there's a way to sidestep this: put them on a boat in international waters and let them go.
Yeeeeah, that would be murdering them as surely as just shoving them off the prow of the boat.