Friday night news dump: "U.S. weighs proposal for Guantanamo inmates facing death penalty"

[Contrary1]

Unbelievable. I can't think of anything to say that isn't profanity laced.

"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..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31132901/

[magellan]

1. Oh, it's believable

Though no less enraging.

[sandnsea]

2. Two weeks from now the truth will come out

It'll get posted once and everybody who is in a rage today will completely ignore it because they will be on to their next faux outrage of the day. Allowing these people to become martyrs would be incredibly stupid, as would allowing people to be executed to avoid discussing something everybody already knows happened.

Not that I think it will stop the haters from indulging in the venom.

[ThomCat]

3. "faux outrage?"

You keep insulting other DUers. Every time DUers are upset about something the Obama administration is doing you claim that it's not real, that we're faking how we feel.

That's really petty.

Do you really think you can read people's mind and you know what everyone is thinking? Do you really think that everyone who posts stuff you disagree with is making it all up? :(

And, what is this about predicting the future? What truth do you expect will come out that would make this suddenly not be an issue? That they really will somehow get real trials despite everything the administration has said for months? That our government's use of torture will be taken into account, as it should be, when determining what happens to these people? Of course neither of those things can or will happen in the current political environment, so what do you expect will happen?

Instead of just insulting and dismissing a lot of DUers how about contributing something to the discussion?

[sandnsea]

5. You must have me confused with someone else

I've said relatively little about all the ridiculous distortions that pass as news. This is the first time I've posted something directly about one of these unsupported allegations.

The administration has never said they won't get trials. They said they would not use information gained by torture. They also said it creates some real difficulties with some of the more dangerous terrorists. How that got twisted into letting them willingly be executed will be interesting to discover. I'm as entitled to my "prediction of the future" as you are in concluding they're all being beaten as we speak and will be given trials in front of sleeping judges and summarily executed. It's sick.

And if you don't like what I contribute - don't read my posts. There's that ignore feature, use it.

[ThomCat]

6. No Confusion at all.

The administration has said all along that they won't get trails. They will get military tribunals. Information learned from "harsh interrogation techniques" will be admissible. The government is pushing for the death penalty. This is all old news and none of it has changed. The only new part is the new rules that might now be in place soon.

I'm not sure what you consider a distortion or an unsupported allegation in this. Please tell. Given that you keep calling anyone who critiques the administration a "hater" I'd love to see what news you consider legitimate.

And, not knowing what news you've been considering legitimate, it's even more interesting to find out what truth you think will come out in a few weeks to straighten everything out, and why you think everyone will ignore it when it does. :)

[sandnsea]

8. I guess you can't read

The ones who have committed crimes will get trials. The ones who were on the battlefield will be tried in military trials, like we always have. Others have been ordered released, others are looking for a country to take them.

As to the military trials for actual war detainees, "The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify."

I go to the horse's mouth for my news. Always have. That's why I don't typically engage in kneejerk fanaticism that honestly goes on far too much around here. And yes, there are plenty of honest to god Obama haters here, and more than a few "lefty" troll pretenders as well.

Just about everything people have gotten in a tizz over has generally been a distortion or incomplete information. Health care is prime. Obama is still being attacked for stuff he doesn't even support, it's absurd.

I have as much right to express my opinion on what a Democrat is as anybody else does, certainly as much as Naderites and Greens do.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. You have swallowed the Bush/Cheney doctrine here in its entirety.

The ones who were on the battlefield will be tried in military trials - oh wait, the ones captured on an actual battlefield would be taliban militia and would qualify as prisoners of war and are guilty of no crime at all and need to be repatriated to Afghanistan. However we need not worry about this category as as far as anyone knows there are and have been very few people in Guantanamo who fit this category.

The ones who have committed crimes will get trials. The ones who were not captured on a battlefield and are not soldiers of any sort, in or out of uniform, and instead are alleged to have committed crimes of various sorts: those people are illegally incarcerated in a military facility and illegally facing an extraordinary military tribunal. The people we simply snatched off the streets of various cities and towns, or bought from afghanistan northern alliance militias, are in no valid sense 'unlawful combatants'. They are civilians illegally detained by our government in violation of international law, and if our USSC was not a bunch of fascist knobs, in violation of Ex parte Milligan.

[sandnsea]

21. Yeah! Then there won't be many military tribunals

Good news. Thanks. As to the rest of your comments, there really are terrorists and I knew that back in the 90s when they were bombing embassies and the USS Cole and AL GORE commissioned the Hart-Rudman report.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Huh?

We have successfully prosecuted people who have engaged in acts described as terrorism in the past using our criminal justice system with full respect for due process and the rights of the accused to a fair trial etc. There is simply no excuse for the serious crimes against humanity we have committed in the bullshit 'global war on terror', and it doesn't matter which party label the administration of our government is wearing when it commits these crimes.

It was wrong when Bush was in charge and it is just as wrong now that Obama is in charge.

[sandnsea]

24. And we will now

Which has been said repeatedly which is one of the things most of DU has preferred to ignore because they prefer hate over common sense. I will wait to see the individual circumstances of the military tribunal before I scream Nazi. You go right on ahead and nail people to the stake before you have all the facts, knock yourself out. NOBODY can have all the facts right now because no final decisions have been made.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. due process fair trials etc and eight years of torture followed by

a secret military tribunal with newly minted made up rules are not equivalent.

I haven't screamed nazi at anyone in this thread or elsewhere regarding this topic, although I do in fact believe that a supreme court that allows this farce to proceed is composed of a majority of fascist knobs.

Here is a simple fact: nobody reasonable is disputing that these people were tortured and abused for years. That, in and of itself is a crime against humanity and is why no judicial proceedings can be justly brought against any of the victims of this crime. Are some of these people responsible for serious crimes? That is possible, but as the article cited states, the evidence against them is primarily from testimony obtained through torture. Keep trying to avoid this problem, keep pretending that elephant isn't in the room, and by all means try to forget that when the former administration was trying to do the same thing, you quite likely saw it for the outrage that it was.

[sandnsea]

28. You do not know that

Because none of that has been decided. Nothing will happen to anybody based on torture either. Did you miss that, or do you just choose to ignore it?

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Brick thickness as such.

A person tortured for years pleads guilty to a capital offense in an extra-judicial military tribunal of dubious constitutionality and most likely in violation of international laws and, without the benefit of any sort of trial, is executed. That is the proposal being discussed that you have no problem with.

[ThomCat]

18. Another insult

and in the end it shows only that perhaps you can't read.

As already mentioned, perhaps one, maybe two people total were captured on a battlefield. The rest were turned in for commissions, or captured in civilian raids in homes and may have been pointed out to our soldiers for political reasons, etc.

You're wearing interesting blinders, and it shows that you haven't paid much attention to actual news of the war over the past years. Perhaps you should read more.

[sandnsea]

22. Again, good, there won't be many military trials then

I've paid attention to ALL the news, not just wsws.

[ThomCat]

32. If you believe that then you're living in a dream land.

All of this, all of the quest to approve new rules outside of the real courts is one attempt after another to push through a rigged military tribunal. The supreme court has yet to approve a set of rules because they are so obviously rigged.

If Obama wants something that isn't a military trial then the ONLY option is a court trial. That's easily possible. Turn them over to the federal courts. But he is refusing to do that, just like Bush.

Why is it that you think that just because they haven't yet found a way to get extra-judicial rules approved that means that they won't be using extra-judicial rules? Everything they are proposing is extra-judicial.
:wtf:

[Political Heretic]

7. distortions = any news we don't like. Truth = any news we do like.

Everyone on any side of any issue has to fight hard to avoid the subject line becoming accurate. I don't know the ins and outs from this one news story. But its certainly discomforting, and I definitely wish there would be more investigative reporting on the entire subject of the handling of Gitmo.

But getting to the truth is difficult.

[upi402]

4. There will be no peace without truth

and there is little hope the light of day will touch the worms who made this mess -and who made some real cash too.

[lapfog_1]

9. I might point out that allowing someone who is "facing the death penalty"

to plead guilty without a trial is accepted in most state and federal jurisdictions.

See Chapman v. Commonwealth, 2007 Ky. LEXIS 178 (Ky. 2007).

However, that does not imply that the death penalty would be imposed.

The US government would be incredibly stupid to execute anyone held and grant them the martyrdom they seek.

However, if I were the US government and I thought that I actually had real terrorists that had been tortured and, other than their testimony, I had little to no evidence, I might well promise such defendants that they CAN plead guilty and "be eligible for the death penalty". And then give them a platform (TV broadcast) to make their statement admitting their guilt, with specifics... and then "show them mercy" and sentence them to life in a maximum security prison where they are well treated, but locked up forever.

It's a win-win for everyone.

Should they talk about torture, fine. Let them. But they have to talk about why they are being martyred by the infidel too.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. It is a lose-lose for enlightened society.

The state has granted itself permission to torture people until they agree to be executed.

[lapfog_1]

13. Not everyone captured and held in Gitmo is innocent

Which doesn't excuse torture by any stretch. However, some of these religious fanatics didn't need to be tortured to admit to all that they did or knew about. They WERE tortured to provide "facts" that were NOT true, like Osama and Saddam planning and executing 9/11 together.

If they wish to now plead guilty (while not under the threat of more torture), AND they provide details that only a terrorist would know (which would be of no intelligence value at this point), I have no problem with finding them guilty.

Most will only plead guilty IF they believe that they will be executed for their actions.

Let them plead guilty and then we deny them the execution they seek.

You act as if they wish to be found "not guilty" (because they are not guilty). That's true for probably 99% of all the detainees. However, this handful might actually BE guilty (as least you should hear what they confess to before deciding).

The other detainees are probably only guilty of having pissed off someone or of being from the wrong tribal group.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. The way an elightened society determined guilt or innocence is

through due process within a framework of established rights and procedures that the state must respect and follow. When the state egregiously violates that framework, as we have done here, justice cannot be served and the victims of that malfeasance must be released.

You have no idea of the truth of your statement: "However, some of these religious fanatics didn't need to be tortured to admit to all that they did or knew about." All we know is that they were tortured and like virtually all people who have been tortured, they have confessed to whatever they have been accused of.

Nor do you know the validity of your follow on assertion: "They WERE tortured to provide "facts" that were NOT true, like Osama and Saddam planning and executing 9/11 together." All of what we have done to these people, even including who they are in many cases, is a state secret we are not privileged to know, and that now two administrations are determined to prevent being revealed in a court of law. Everything else is leaks and hearsay.

It is the height of naivety to believe that if these people are allowed to plead guilty to capital offenses that they will not then be sentence to death and executed. Good luck with that fantasy.

I have no idea as to the guilt or innocence of any of the people in Guantanamo. I do know that they have been subject to a brutal dehumanizing torture regime for eight years, and that consequently our government has lost the right to conduct any sort of judicial procedure against these people.

[lapfog_1]

15. You are just simply so wrong about all that you write.

We have statements of the tortured and statements from witnesses as to what was asked.

We also have statements from the interrogators who DID NOT torture (before torture even occurred), and who got voluntary statements from some of the detainees.

Did you simply not pay any attention for the last month or so, especially when some of these people testified to congress?

It is NOT naive to think that they would NOT be executed. We have not executed the followers of the Blind Sheik who bombed the WTC the first time. Why is that? We executed Timothy McVeigh toot sweet, why not the self admitted WTC terrorists (some who confessed to their crimes, without torture)?

I have no idea as to the guilt or innocence of any particular individual at Gitmo either, however, having heard the testimony of their military court appointed attorneys, I feel that many are guilty only of being in the wrong place or having the wrong enemies. However, I also feel that a few who freely admit to being terrorists, should be allowed to plead guilty. And by "freely" I mean those that admitted to such before being tortured or who admit it now without the threat of torture AND whose admissions of guilt can be proven by independent means ( even with the guilty plea).

[Warren Stupidity]

17. "We have statements of the tortured" - you can stop right there.

You really do not understand at all. How absurd. Every police state can trot out 'the statements of the tortured' and the other blather and trappings of a kangaroo court to justify their malfeasance. That is the standard practice.

Tim McVeigh was accorded all of the rights and processes our system provides for. The WTC 'Blind Sheik' perpetrators also went through our criminal justice system, with full rights and strict adherence to due process and were charged tried and convicted accordingly. We should have done that with those we think were associated with the 9-11 attack, unfortunately we decided instead to torture them for eight years and follow no legal process at all. Too bad for us. Justice cannot be served here, the state does not get a do-over.

[lapfog_1]

19. Ok. I'll give you the benefit of being so blinded that you can't read things in context.

We have the statements from those who were tortured ABOUT their torture and the questions the torturers were asking.

I don't care what answer was given, as anyone with a brain knows that the tortured will give whatever answer is needed to stop the torture. Ask ManCow.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. See the OP.

"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..."

It is that simple. But keep excusing torture and supporting this judicial farce.

[lapfog_1]

25. I know you think that is some sort of "telling point" in your argument

but it isn't.

These few defendants are CHOOSING to plead guilty. I don't believe that the military tribunal or the JAG officers assigned to each defendant is water boarding these defendants NOW into pleading guilty. That evidence against them is tainted is not important as it will never see a courtroom.

Or is it your belief that these few defendants, knowing that they confessed to things under torture, are now saying "Well, I'm actually innocent, but go ahead and give me the death penalty because I confessed to something I didn't do under torture." I have met many devout Muslims, and I doubt any would feel that way, even after years of captivity.

And I never once excused torture.

And I don't believe that we WILL give them what they want, which is execution by the US government. That's simply not smart. And we haven't done it in the past (pre Cheney, pre torture), at least not with Muslim terrorists.

But hey, your mind is made up. Keep ignoring logic and facts.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. They are choosing to plead guilty after eight years of torture. nt.

[lapfog_1]

29. 8 years of torture.

Give me a break. 8 years ago there wasn't a single detainee.

And no one is alleging that any single detainee has had 7 years or 6 years of torture. No one. Not at Gitmo.

The article referred to 4 or 5 prisoners that wish to plead guilty and not have a trial. The debate in the administration was whether to LET them or put them on trial (which would make the US look bad when the details are made public about the torture).

President Obama has decided to try to sweep the torture crap under the rug. Not to release more public information. I'm sure he has gotten enormous pressure from the military that this be the case, and the concern for the forces still engaged in Islamic countries is real. Still, this is like a old scab. I don't think we should pick at it a little and hope that it goes away. Better to rip the sucker open, let it bleed, and then begin to heal to wounds. Release all of the classified intelligence. Release the photos. Release the names and case histories on each detainee and have their trials in open court rooms (forget the military tribunals). Let it all out. Prosecute the previous administration officials for their roles. All of them.

The Islamic world will be horrified at first, then grateful that it's all in the open and we are addressing the matter. But at first, terrorist recruitment will go up... and some of our soldiers will likely die that wouldn't have otherwise.

I don't want to make that decision.

But if there are real bad guys in Gitmo, ones that were captured at Al Qaida training camps... and they willingly want to confess now without a trial, then so be it. Only don't give them what they really want... which is to be a martyr.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. 7 years and some months. Whatever.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Kill them quietly in secret behind closed doors without due process.

After torturing them for eight years.

Change that has not one fucking iota of what I was voting for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "..allow military prosecuters to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation.."

Transparency in government. Riiiight.