OBAMA Considering - Covering Up Torture By Permitting Detainees To Plead Guilty & Be Executed

[kpete]

Covering Up Torture By Coercing Guilty Pleas
by davidseth
To Permit Detainees To Plead Guilty & Be Executed
Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 07:32:17 AM PDT


According to the New York Times, the Obama Administration may modify the military commission rules to permit require have Gitmo prisoners plead guilty and be executed:

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo 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 Defense Secretary 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 terrorism but whose cases present 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 proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/us/politics/06gitmo.html?_r=1&hp
via:
http://dreamantilles.blogspot.com/2009/06/covering-up-torture-by-coercing-guilty.html

[alarimer]

1. If this happens, I am through with Obama.

No vote from me ever again and I will ACTIVELY campaign for someone else.

[Mari333]

10. ditto on that! nt

[geek tragedy]

44. Oooh, I'm sure Rahm Emmanuel is shaking in his shoes. n/t

[alarimer]

111. Fuck that piece of shit.

Fuck all these Quisling Dems (and I include Obama in that assessment).

Not "Change I can believe it".

You can belittle it all you like but I am thoroughly sick of broken campaign promises and the cover up of prior crimes. They are complicit. So fuck them.

[emilyg]

138. Amen.

[ima_sinnic]

158. he is as corrupt as all of them,

so he can go fuck himself.
your constant defense of the indefensible is a joke.

[ima_sinnic]

157. I reached that point a while ago

he is simply far too interested in covering up major crimes than in fulfilling his bogus claim of being a "constitutional scholar," the bullshit (along with "community organizing") that most impressed me and falsely convinced me that he would pursue justice in these cases. I will be registering as an Independent as soon as I move in two weeks and will also ACTIVELY campaign for NONCORPORATE, NONCOMPLICIT candidates.

[Zavulon]

179. Bookmarked.

Tell me, when it happens will you give us a farewell post or just stop coming here?

Obama would have to do a lot more than that to lose MY support, but good luck to you.

[ixion]

2. "intense interrogations" = torture = "challenging" cases

we reap what we sow.

The descent of American into a Third-World Republic continues. :(

[Brooklyns_Finest]

3. If the September 11 Attackers

Want to die, then let them die. I am for it.

[mmonk]

4. Unfortunately, since we are a country of torture, secret evidence,

and prisoners with destroyed minds, it's not as clean and clear as it would have been had we been a country of acceptable legal practices and civilized government.

[eShirl]

5. I thought they already died

:shrug:

[vadawg]

6. i think he means the planners and money men etc

[Sebastian Doyle]

101. But those people aren't in a shithole on the south end of Cuba.

They're in Kennebunkport and other "undisclosed locations".

[Baby Snooks]

110. And don't forget the money women...

Let's throw Princess Haifa into Guantanamo and see how quickly she confesses after she's tortured and then, of course, let's see how quickly Saudi Arabia cuts us off of the oil which some would not mind if it meant justice for the victims of 9/11. She wrote checks which provided the funding for the hijackers. Where is she? Instead of Guantanamo she is hidden away in a royal palace in Saudi Arabia.

[Ghost in the Machine]

116. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the CIA?

:shrug:

[KayLaw]

122. Exactly.

That's what I thought.

[galloglas]

133. And now, my adept artisté, how

in the name of Allah's that holy, did you draw such a stunningly vindicating opinion of things?

And if, per chance, there are one or more detainees who draw an Obama-sanctioned Verdicto Ultimo, will the highly dubious assertion that his actual intention is to get only "the planners and money men" make a single whit of difference?

[RedCloud]

153. Except the Saudis, the Pakistanis, etc...

[RedCloud]

154. Except the Saudis, the Pakistanis, etc...

[truedelphi]

83. Good point! n/t

[Dragonfli]

7. I don't know if they are all Sept 11 attackers - but regardless, they don't want to die they want

To be martyred (that means killed by us to make them catalysts for more attacks on us)

If what they wanted was simply to die they would attempt suicide instead.

Martyrdom is another tactic like terrorism, do we really need to play the hand they want us to?

[14thColony]

91. We've reacted in exactly the way they've wanted since 11 Sept

One ill-conceived over-reaction after the next. Why stop now? They strike up the tune, we dance the jig.

[boston bean]

8. They can't get a conviction because of the tactics used to get a confession

they would never be able to be proven guilty because of the torture committed against them.

so now, 5,6,7 years later they want to die and we will oblige.

Something is wrong here.

I am not saying they aren't guilty or innocent, but this rule change is not right.

[ThomCat]

11. If they are really the 9/11 attackers then they would have died in the planes.

So how can we have them in Guantanamo? x(

And how is it that people keep forgetting to ask themselves this question?

If they want to die only because our government has tortured them CONSTANTLY for the past EIGHT YEARS and this is the only way to make it end then I want another solution. I want them to go free. I want them to go someplace where they can get medical and psychiatric care to get over what we did to them. I want to know the truth of what happened Before we tortured them. And then I want Justice everyone who was involved in this: them AND the people who tortured them.

It's not nearly as simple as assuming their guild and letting them die.

[Mari333]

16. a LOT of people think , thanks to the right wing media

that the people in Gitmo had something to do with the 9/11 attacks..its a small minded way of thinking, like 'every muslim is a terrorist'....not the brightest bulbs in the box.

[vadawg]

17. erm you do realise that the guys who flew the planes on 911 would of had material support and

operational support, you know kinda like the guys who ran recon, planned the mission etc, i think these are the guys the poster is talking about. Also i thik the reason they want to die is because is all about being martyrs to the cause, i think this is something most americans find hard to understand but in some cu;ltures death is what is actually sought.

[ThomCat]

18. Then that material support should be proven in a court of law.

That was courts are for. There are perfectly good LAWS against providing material support to criminal conspiracies.

There is no need to kidnap people, lock them away extra-judicially and torture them constantly for 8 years. That isn't justice.

[vadawg]

22. heres were you differ from the other poster i think, you see it as a criminal act

he dosent, and honestly neither do i, i think acts like 911 are acts of war for want of a better phrase and not criminal acts.

[ThomCat]

25. How do you prove that people are involved if you are rounding them

up and torturing them instead of putting them through the justice system?

Criminal act or act of war, if you want to kill people as accessories to 9/11 without proving that they were really involved then you are committing evil too.

[vadawg]

26. no real answer thats why security services have always had the own goal or work related accident to

deal with organisations such as al quaeda etc, saves a lot of paperwork

[ThomCat]

28. Are you approving of assassination? When in doubt just kill people

even if they might be innocent just because it saves on the hassle of investigating and saves on paperwork? Really?

I hope you're not really supporting that.

[vadawg]

29. I am supporting the euthanasia of people who persuade people to strap bombs on themselves

and walk into crowded markets etc, or plant bombs in crowded railway stations, i have no problem with this whatsoever.

[ThomCat]

33. Again, do you bother to prove it first?

Or is it enough that you simply suspect? It is enough that someone was suspiciously associated with bomber? Do you kill them then?

I'm sorry, if you have enough suspicions to want to kill someone then you should have enough evidence to bring them to trial. If you don't have enough evidence to bring someone to trial and you're about to kill someone then you're jumping to conclusions and a cold blooded murderer.

[vadawg]

37. yup you keep on believing that law enforcement is the answer and keep watching bombs go off.

[ThomCat]

40. Do you really think military assisinations are a better answer?

Clinton had law enforcement track down, capture, prosecute and convict the first World Trade Center bomber. He showed that it works and works well.

Bush has shown that the military option is a total fiasco, with an endless price tag.

You would think that anyone here at DU would at least know enough history to know this. We have a clear example that the courts work, even when dealing with terrorists.

I invite you to show me any evidence that you have a better way. So far you haven't offered anything.

[vadawg]

42. yup setting up own goals and getting the bombmakers to have work related accidents is much preferabl

lol yes tracking down the world trade center bomber worked, what happened to the same target a few years later, its easy to be on the moral high ground if you are not a target, if suddenly car bombs started going off all over your hometown im pretty sure you would be happy to have the security forces take out the planners of the bombs.

[ThomCat]

47. I'M IN NYC. I worked a few blocks from The WTC

and my roommate and best friend was IN the WTC both times. Don't talk to me about feeling differently if it was my home town. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You're still offering no better alternative. You're just saying that if I was emotionally closer to the target I'd prefer assassination? Really? WRONG?

I'm here in NYC and I know from being here in NYC that the judicial option worked here in NYC. You're still offering nothing but more war crimes, more escalating retributions back and forth. That's not a solution.

[vadawg]

71. well thats you, im sure if you felt they were targeting you specifically

ie it was happening a lot more then your feelings would be different, if not then does this mean you never fight back you just always hope the bad guys will respond to your giving them hugs. America is still not expecting to be bombed everyday so the dynamics are different than from other countries in the world but as i said you start getting carbombs or suicide bombers going off in NY and im sure your attitude would completely change or mayby not but im sure as hell the rest of the people in NY would want the planners etc assasinated as you put it.

[tkmorris]

97. You disgust me sir

Your position goes beyond being uncivilized, it is downright loathsome. You realize that your approach would enable us to assassinate anyone, anywhere, simply as a matter of convenience? Are you really of the opinion that such a policy would not be abused?

In every barroom there is at least one loutish boor, whose opinions on virtually everything border on the insane, but he is certain that if everyone would just listen to him all the worlds problems would be solved. This explains the sheer volume of his voice whenever he decides to chip in to the conversation.

As a corollary there is an old truism in poker. When you sit down at the table to play you should look around to find the "fish" (sucker). If you can't identify him, it's you.

[Skittles]

126. learn to put disgusting people on IGNORE, tk

much less stressfull

[uppityperson]

88. You are being much more patient than I would be. eom

[spiritual_gunfighter]

100. Agreed you are being much more patient with this guy than me as well.

I don't think you are going to convince this guy, anyone that condones the assassination of targets without a fair trial is ridiculous to begin with. But nice attempt anyway.

[Thickasabrick]

114. Thank you n/t

[alarimer]

115. So you just fuckin kill them instead?

What you are advocating is illegal and unAmerican.

Law enforcement was good enough for Tim McVeigh and for the first WTC bombing.

You are no better than any terrorist if that is what you advocate.

[Leftist Agitator]

56. Yeah!

Bombing is only OK if you do it from a ship or plane miles away!

[Brooklyns_Finest]

69. I agree

Why did we not just kill them on the battle field or wherever we found them instead of brining them to our own soil is beyond me.

[14thColony]

95. Guantanamo Bay is not our own soil. It's Cuba's.

Which is the whole point they're there - to be beyond US law.

We didn't just kill them on the battlefield because a) they were mostly arrested and turned over to us by other countries, and b) killing people captured during battle is murder, and is a capital offense under US military law.

If we want to blow off all those laws and treaties (most of which WE sponsored) when they're suddenly inconvenient to us, then why stop at a few dozen people? Got problems with Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Provinces being terrorist/Taliban safehavens? About twenty 10kT nukes should de-populate the place pretty well. If in for a penny, why not in for a pound?

[twitomy]

140. Me neither. NT

[shadowknows69]

169. Ok, then, the detainees are prisoners of war.

Did we slaughter every German soldier in our custody because the war went longer than we thought?

[Edweird]

173. Prisoners of war are to be treated as specified in the Geneva Convention.

Make no mistake, they ARE prisoners of war.

Executing them with a fair trial is a WAR CRIME (not that that has been much of a deterrent so far, but we voted to change the direction of our government not continue the war crimes)

[xxqqqzme]

104. They may or may not have planned

'the mission'. But now that they have been tortured and confessed, we are never going to know. So do we martyr them, as they wish (and lower our standing in the world yet again) or do they go on trial in real courtrooms w/ real evidence, not hearsay or forced confessions.

[Subdivisions]

105. There will never be a REAL trial for any of those held at Gitmo. And there

damn sure will never be a public one.

What Obama is attempting to do is an outrage without it.

[JDPriestly]

124. Those who support this believe that the people who planned

9/11 are in Guantanamo and have confessed. Hard to say whether all of those who "confessed" really planned 9/11 since some or all of them have been tortured. But I believe that at least one if not more of them confessed before being tortured.

So, you can't paint all the cases with one brush. I do not believe in the death penalty, but I do believe that those who planned Guantanamo should face the severest punishment short of the death penalty.

I do not believe in the death penalty for one of the reasons that I oppose torture (just one of the reasons that I oppose torture) and that is that I do not want to ever kill anyone and I don't want to ask anyone else to kill someone on my behalf. I believe that killing is immoral and wrong and that killing harms the killer as well as the person who is killed. No matter how much harm the person who is sentenced to death may have done, I do not wish to harm the killer. I do not wish to sentence the person who carries out the death penalty to a life of knowing that he or she killed someone also. That just compounds the killing.

[CoffeeCat]

136. YES, and how convenient that our government...

...is claiming that these detainees are saying that they want to die.

How do we know that?

For all we know, these are innocent people. They've never been charged with anything.
They've never had a trial.

But we do know that they've been detained and most likely, tortured for several years.

Sounds like someone wants evidence destroyed.

Why would Obama go along with this?

[timtom]

177. Well, actually,

the five of the nineteen hi-jackers that were still alive after 9-11 should be in Guantanamo. Dammit!

[Mari333]

15. um, no one has been charged at Gitmo with anything

you are listening to too much Sean Hannity.

[ThomCat]

19. Right. If there were charges it would mean they were brought in front

of a Judge. They would have had a chance to contest those charges, review evidence, and all of that.

That absolute lack of justice started with not having charges so they don't even know what they are accused of doing.

:grr:

How can you defend yourself if you don't know what accusation to defend yourself against?

[RufusTFirefly]

73. At the risk of skirting Godwin's Law...

... it's important to realize that according to Laurence Rees' book Auschwitz: A New History, the death camps didn't just happen. It was a steady devolution. From internment to slave labor to extermination.

[IsItJustMe]

93. You got that right. And the rest of the ass hats like Rush and BillO. Got to be a Faux news hound

[liberation]

86. I thought... all the Sept 11 attackers did already die. You know...

Or was there some sort of miracle and some of the suicide pilots did survive?

[IsItJustMe]

89. Some of those detainees may very well be innocent. You torture anybody over a period of time and

they will say and do anything to make it stop. Many would rather be dead than to continue in such a hopeless state. It's called human nature.

After being in such conditions and conditioning, I really don't know how one could tell the difference between someone who did something and someone who did not.

There in lies the problem. You or I hopefully will never be in this given situation, so it is hard for us to imagine what toll this has on the human spirit. Not good, that is for sure.

[14thColony]

98. It's probably a lot more than some that are innocent

Two friends of mine were both intelligence analysts at Guantanamo at different times. Neither knows the other to this day. In separate conversations they both related to me that in their opinions the majority of detainees (one said 2/3, one said 3/4) had nothing to do with nothing. Wrong place wrong time, detained on a hunch, dimed out to settle local grudges, personal enemies turned in for big-money rewards, detained in mass cordon-search operations because the line troops figured someone higher up would sort out the wheat from the chaff, whatever.

One friend mentioned to me a case of a guy detained in Afghanistan and shipped to Gitmo because he was wearing a Timex watch, and they had intel that al-Qaida operatives all wore Timex watches (which is in itself a great illustration of some of the top-notch HUMINT we were getting). So he sits in Gitmo because of his choice of chronographic accessories that day. I think I later read about this one in the news when the detainee's lawyer brought it up to illustrate the ludicrous 'evidence' some people were being held on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Ah yes how to create martyrs for the cause

I wish people GOT IT IN THIS FUCKING COUNTRY... the last thing you need is to CREATE MARTYRS...

But hey, whatever trips your trigger...

[Sebastian Doyle]

99. The September 11 attackers died on September 11

Assuming you believe that steaming pile of fucking bullshit that the Bush Crime Family put together as the "official story", that is.

[Baby Snooks]

107. Excuse me but they're already dead..

They died on 9/11 and if you're referring to the alleged "co-conspirators" we don't know if they confessed or were coerced.

Given the evidence of torture, the majority of rational people would assume they were coerced.

If this is true then the American people were lied to in order to get them to vote for Barack Obama and Barack Obama is in fact worse than George W Bush simply in that he will have acted to further cover up war crimes since we don't know if these "co-conspirators" perhaps know more about the complicity of others in the planning of 9/11 and particuarly the complicity of some in the Bush administration. That seems to be a question no one wants answered as evidenced by the lack of outrage by Congress when Princess Haifa "flew the coop" rather than risk being handed a subpoena over the matter of her having funded the hijackers.


Dead men tell no tales. And apparently the Obama Administration wants to ensure that they tell no tales.

[blindpig]

9. "Dead men tell no tales." k&r n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. This is nauseating.

[merh]

13. At the risk of being ridiculed as a cheerleader please let me point out

that the key phrases in the articles are "are considering" and "facing the death penalty".

That means that the changes have not taken place.

That means they are just being considered along with other potential changes.

That also means that the detainees may "face the death penalty" but the determination of the appropriate sentence has not been made, death is just one of the potential sentences that detainees face, if the changes are made.

And please let me point at that the press is not that reliable. That is what I find so amazing about the attitude around here, the once mocked MSM is now accepted at face value. The tainted stories of the past, doubted for their slants and distortions, are now given credence that allow the outrage.

[blindpig]

23. That such actions are even being considered is henious. n/t

[merh]

36. What is heinous

That the detainees are allowed to make their choose, to take a plea?
If they are charged and represented and know what they face and their rights, then what is heinous about that?

[ThomCat]

41. What is heinous is that they have been held extra-judicially and tortured

for EIGHT YEARS.

If they plead guilty at this point we have to wonder if they have been coerced into doing it because of the torture. We have to wonder if they see no other way out. That isn't free choice.

As for being represented, their own lawyers have complained repeatedly of not having access to them, of being spied upon by the pentagon while preparing their cases, of not having access to evidence, of having evidence disappear, so how can anyone say they are really being adequately represented when their own attorneys keep complaining They Aren't Allowed To Adequately Represent The Detainees because the system is rigged and broken?

How can anyone look at this situation with open eyes and NOT think that it is heinous?

[merh]

43. I agree, that is heinous

What should we do with them?

I have asked you and you have no answers.

And again, please give me links about the lawyers being spied on by the Pentagon of this administration. I've not read where they have had issues seeing their clients since the end of January 2009.

[ThomCat]

49. Geez, again you want me to do your research.

I assume you read the news occasionally.

Please do a search for the information. It has been in the news repeatedly for years now. That's not esoteric information. It is essentially common knowledge at this point to anyone who has paid attention.

[merh]

51. I want you to back up your statements with legitimate links.

Not with the distortions of the media.

What was news for years does not equate to news that applies to the practices of this admin.

[ThomCat]

55. Links

http://www.vpr.net/episode/46171/
Two Guantanamo lawyers talk about being dissapointed in Obama's decision NOT changing things since taking office.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/06/press-and-guantanamo-lawyers-score-victory-over-documents.html
Here, they are STILL fighting for access to evidence because Obama hasn't changed the rules to give them access to the stuff the Pentagon unilaterally classified.

http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/2009/04/guantanamo-lawyers-urge-panetta-to-preserve-black-site-evidence.html
Here, they are urging Panetta in APRIL to make the CIA preserve evidence instead of destroying it, so clearly it's still going on.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi-0510_gitmomay10,0,4801583.story
A chicago lawyer is risking her career to find out if the detainees have any rights? That's definitely a lack of support.

Again, this is stuff you could find. Insisting that others have to provide all the information for you just means that information has to be spoon fed to you. Asking for the occasional link for odd information is one thing, for asking for links for major information is really bad form. It means you don't pay attention and can't be bothered to go look for things yourself.

[merh]

61. I'm aware of what you have provided, it does not support your

position that I questioned.

And again, please give me links about the lawyers being spied on by the Pentagon of this administration.

Under the bush admin, the lawyers were not allowed to meet with their client's and were spied upon. It took the federal courts and SCOTUS decisions that came down during bush adminstration to tell the DOJ and the DOD that these detainees do have rights. You are familiar with that, aren't you? If not, I'm sure you can find the links.

If you make broad statements accusing the Obama administration of perpetrating the wrongs of the bush administration then yes, I will ask for you to support your broadbrush statements with links. You have failed to support your statement which I questioned so why does my asking for a links seem so wrong?

Relative to the rules of discovery (which many of your articles discuss), the federal criminal process sucks for everyone - trials by ambush are allowed. The feds have been allowed to keep the evidence away from the defense for years and federal case law allows it, as has SCOTUS (even the most liberal of SCOTUS panels). I don't approve of trial by ambush for anyone and think the rules suck.

[ThomCat]

62. More links.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/government-brief-says-confirming-whether-guant%C3%A1namo-lawyers-are-illegally-sp
Government Brief Says Confirming Whether Guantánamo Lawyers are Illegally Spied Upon is National Security Threat

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/89556/judge:_nsa_not_compelled_to_disclose_spying_on_gitmo_attorneys/
Judge: NSA Not Compelled to Disclose Spying on Gitmo Attorneys

The lawyers went to court to get Pentagon to release the proof of the spying, and the government fought back saying that they don't have to show whether or not they are spying on the lawyers. The judge sided with the government, so it's legal for the Pentagon to spy on the lawyers and keep it a secret.

[merh]

66. Why are you giving me headlines from

June of 2008? Wasn't that under the Bush admin?

This is 2009

[blindpig]

48. A kangaroo court designed for a predetermined outcome...

Some justice.

And making martyrs is such a good idea.

[merh]

52. You don't know it is a kangaroo court.

The concept is under consideration - when they adopt something then you can decide it is a kangaroo court after reading how it will operate, if the descriptor applies.

Also, "facing the death penalty" does not mean they will be sentenced to death. I would venture to guess that the mental capabilities of the detainees will come into play and like the SCOTUS holding that you cannot sentence mentally retarded to death, the court accepting the plea may well be of the same mindset.

[ThomCat]

58. It it takes this long and they still don't even have rules for how the

court will operate then that is pretty much the definition of a Kangaroo court. They are bypassing the rules of law and making up new rules just to get the pre-defined results they want. There are no valid reasons to ignore real courts and make up new rules Except to set up a Kangaroo court.

If you can think of any valid reasons for inventing a new kind of court with all new rules then I'd love to hear about it. Please provide links to back it up. :P

And "Facing the death penalty" when they are going so far out of their way to bury evidence, stay out of real courts, avoid letting people know what the charges against them are, and have real rules of law DOES MEAN that the death penalty is pretty much assured. They are deliberately and obviously trying to rig a system to get that death penalty.

You seem to think they are allowing for other options, but you're ignoring or refusing to see every act, over and over, to exclude any other option. Or maybe you just haven't been paying attention so you're blissfully unaware of what's really happening.

[merh]

67. Correct me if I am wrong

but didn't SCOTUS opine in the detainee rights suits that the policies of the Bush admin were illegal as they were not in compliance with the Constitution? I believe what you have here is an effort to conform the law with the constitution. I don't know for certain as I am not part of the process and it is still being considered.

You are the one that is blissfully unaware, you have no answers but yet you want results.

What you suggest be done is being applied but it isn't good enough.

Again, should they just open the gates and let them out?

[Snazzy]

117. yes they did and exactly on this issue

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD
H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.

...


Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” 6 U. S. T., at 3320 (Art. 3, ¶1(d)). While the term “regularly constituted court” is not specifically defined in either Common Article 3 or its accompanying commentary, other sources disclose its core meaning. The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines “ ‘regularly constituted’ ” tribunals to include “ordinary military courts” and “definitely exclud all special tribunals.” GCIV Commentary 340 (defining the term “properly constituted” in Article 66, which the commentary treats as identical to “regularly constituted”);64 see also Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 44 (Rutledge, J., dissenting) (describing military commission as a court “specially constituted for a particular trial”). And one of the Red Cross’ own treatises defines “regularly constituted court” as used in Common Article 3 to mean “established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country.” Int’l Comm. of Red Cross, 1 Customary International Humanitarian Law 355 (2005); see also GCIV Commentary 340 (observing that “ordinary military courts” will “be set up in accordance with the recognized principles governing the administration of justice”).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html

Regularly constituted court per Stevens majority means it must be a regular civilian court or a military court (here or another country). You can't make special courts with special rules, under Geneva and therefore under our own laws. It's that friggin' simple as some people have been trying to point out for years.

[merh]

125. And they are not making new law

it has never been against the law to allow someone to plead guilty, not in the US or under the GC.

[Snazzy]

128. that's not the point (although that's also not true, they are)

what court would they be pleading guilty in. That's the point. If it is neither regularly constituted US court then the proceedings are illegal.

(edit to add: and they are making new law. That's why the tribunals under Bush were ruled not regularly constituted, and why the OP is about yet another piece of legislation to make special rules for Gitmo--that's exactly what the supremes as well as international law already said won't fly).

[merh]

132. I don't know how you can say "they won't fly"

when nothing has been adopted or decided.

But I guess if getting all upset about "considering" and maybes helps folks feel "in touch" - well hell - go for it.

[Snazzy]

135. Then you aren't paying attention.

As you yourself pointed out, tribunals were already "considered" and found illegal by SCOTUS. Obama the president (unlike Obama the Senator) now says tribunals are the way to go. Consideration = done. And behind the scenes in Congress is legislation to tweak the tribunals, exactly like Obama said there would be.

So yes, people do actually consider policy and the law, amazingly enough; count me in. People float trail balloons too. But no matter what they come up with, if it's a tribunal, if there are special rules made for these detainees after capture (not even getting into the probable torture), it will be illegal. That's my consideration, that's SCOTUS', and it ought to be Obama's too. To not "consider" the issue just puts this discussion somewhere between STFU and "don't worry be happy" which would be a pointless waste of everyone's time, no?

[merh]

142. I am paying attention

I think you are not.

SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan that enemy combatants are protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Resolution that authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan did not grant the executive office (Bush) the authority to create new tribunals without congressional mandate. And the crime of "conspiracy" is not a war crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Hamdan was charged with conspiracy which is not a war crime.)

See, the Geneva Conventions do authorize that POWs can be held until the aggression is ended. It also provides that the POWs (detainees) be granted detention hearings to determine if they be charged with war crimes or offenses against the holding nation's laws.

Bush was bypassing the GC, he said they never applied to the detainees (that is why they had no problem mistreating them or denying them basic rights). SCOTUS ruled that the military commission created by Bush admin were not authorized by the UMCJ or an act of congress.

So what the Obama administration has to do is determine what option is the best option for the nation and the individual detainee. Some of the options available for dealing with detainees include Article III of the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court, the detainees’ home countries, the laws of war and federal law. Also, as Beyer opined in his concurring opinion, the executive office can ask congress to pass legislation that creates another unique tribunal and/or military commission.

The Bush administration did not make the process public, many of the files they should of had on the detainees did not exist when Obama's administration took over.

Some have been charged with federal crimes and the admin is trying to find nations that will take some of the detainees.

It isn't as simple as folks want it to be. I can guarantee you that members of the administration that are working on this mess wish it were as simple as most think it should be.

[Snazzy]

145. Hamdan opinion picks apart the concept of the US holding military tribunals

for these prisoners in many ways (I count seven big ones and several little ones). Essentially it says the President is not a king, even at one point quoting Madison (“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”).

The underlying common thread of the opinion is this:

"As recently as the Korean and Vietnam wars, during which use of military commissions was contemplated but never made, the principle of procedural parity was espoused as a background assumption.
...
That is, the rules applied to military commissions must be the same as those applied to courts-martial unless such uniformity proves impracticable.
...
The military commission was not born of a desire to dispense a more summary form of justice than is afforded by courts-martial; it developed, rather, as a tribunal of necessity to be employed when courts-martial lacked jurisdiction over either the accused or the subject matter."

When the GC states "regularly constituted court" it is addressing kangaroo courts, where special rules are employed to find defendants guilty. The GC is part of our law (literally in our law, almost word for word, it's not some external treaty we just refer to when we're in the right mood) and in the UCMJ. And it meshes with this opinion nicely, which is also consistent with the body of international law.

There is no smorgasbord of laws and procedure to choose from as you suggest ("Some of the options available..."), there is simply the rule of law.

The opinion granted the District court habeas, halting the tribunals. When Obama continues this path, with or without NEW laws from Congress, they will also find themselves at the supremes who will say the same damn thing. Or it will somehow get spun, get done, and be a stain on justice and our country's commitment to it).

All because of torture.

[merh]

147. Yes, all because of torture.

and the torture all because bushco wanted a reason to attack Iraq. They couldn't afford to provide the detainees the Geneva Convention protections because that would prevent them from abusing and torturing.

The rule of law provides what exactly? Which rules apply?

I don't have any answers, I just know that this is very complex.

Do we just open the gates and send them on their way?

[Snazzy]

149. our laws apply

not special laws. You try them in a regular military court or a regular civilian court and let the chips fall where they may. If they have no evidence that wasn't tainted by torture or hearsay, then yes they go free. That's not going to happen. If the Fed wants to convict someone they damn well convict them. With regular laws, of which we got plenty. And if they do somehow go free, well it's on Cheney and a victory for principles isn't it? And so what anyway, lots of dangerous people out there in the world who wish us harm, with more made everyday by Gitmo being a festering symbol of America abandoning of its championship of justice and equality under the law and instead being the imperialist crusaders that the radical jihadists claim we are.

Hell, should Cheney's torture and incompetence somehow provide a get out of jail free card (I don't understand how that's possible, unless there is no real evidence whatsoever) we use our gigantic military, LE and spying apparatus to watch them, ensure that we don't sell them box cutters, etc. Couldn't we? Or we just assume that's impossible, incompetence rules, and these super-villain terrorists beyond monitoring.

No, I have come to the conclusion that it is a contorted mess for one reason alone: we are protecting the torturers. With that as the cornerstone assumption, looking forward never back, the rule of law already is out the window, and Cheney scored a check-mate in that imaginary chess game everyone always talks about. It is a losing assumption.

[merh]

167. What laws would that be.

You have not provided the exact "rules" that should be applied.

SCOTUS said what options were available and all of them are our laws. We are charter signatory members to the GC so pursuant to the constitution, that makes it the law of the land. It goes without saying the UCMJ are "our" laws.

Military commissions are not new or illegal. The military commissions created by bush were not lawful as they violated the GC, the constitution and the UCMJ.

Let them all go and track them? How, by implanted gps microchips?

Yes, it is a complex and contorted mess. You will find that most criminal decisions discussing the rights of the individuals weight them against the duty owed society. You see the government has a duty to the constitution, thus protecting the constitutional rights of the accused is critical, but the government also has a duty to protect society. It is not as simple as you try to make it.

[Snazzy]

175. yes I have, existing US law

be it military or civilian. In fact I have made the same point over and over again, despite your efforts to reduce this to an absurdity, now complete with microchips.

It's interesting that so many are so happy to throw 200+ years of US justice out the window. The opinion I discussed doesn't offer "options." Far from it, it shoots down not using existing US courts and returned the matter to the DC, a virtual legal face slap to the unitary executive and ever holding military commissions with the Gitmo prisoners. The opinion states that commissions are questionable, but didn't need to rule on them, because there was no legal reason to have them in the first place.

[merh]

176. The absurdity was all your doing.

we use our gigantic military, LE and spying apparatus to watch them, ensure that we don't sell them box cutters, etc. Couldn't we?

And the military commissions are lawful tribunal when they follow the constitution, the UCMJ and the GC.

From what I have read, Obama's administration is doing just what you say they should do. They are trying to abide by the laws and apply the laws to the individual detainees as appropriate. There are these little issues of jurisdiction and statutes and such.

Hamdan did not state commissions are questionable. It stated the Bush's military commissions were illegal. It stated that the detainees are to be afforded the rights as provided in the GC and our constitution. It stated that the executive and congress cannot do away with habeas corpus. It stated that conspiracy is not a war crime that can be tried by commission or war crime tribunals.

You need to read it again, it specifically details the lawful use of commissions in our history. It would appear that you are willing to throw away the 200 plus years of legal history. At least you ignore it and the reference to it in the Hamdan opinion.

[Snazzy]

180. The hell it didn't

" We have no occasion to revisit Quirin’s controversial characterization of Article of War 15 as congressional authorization for military commissions. .... Contrary to the Government’s assertion, however, even Quirin did not view the authorization as a sweeping mandate for the President to “invoke military commissions when he deems them necessary.”"

...

Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” 6 U. S. T., at 3320 (Art. 3, ¶1(d)). While the term “regularly constituted court” is not specifically defined in either Common Article 3 or its accompanying commentary, other sources disclose its core meaning. The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines “ ‘regularly constituted’ ” tribunals to include “ordinary military courts” and “definitely exclud{e} all special tribunals.”

...

{I}n undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."

--------

It doesn't get any clearer than that in a SCOTUS opinion. The prisoners in Gitmo are subject to regular courts and specially contrived courts are illegal.

As far as reductio ad absurdum, you have been goading people in this thread repeated by stating something like "so what, we just set them free?" which nicely mirrors what I can hear from likes of Bill-o (had that channel not been long blocked). They are not super-villians. We do have a system of justice that works pretty damn good. If there is no evidence against these men, yes you set them free. That's how it works, innocent people go free. I put the line about box cutters in there so I could see you quote it, I knew you would.

[merh]

181. You need to understand that the Hamdan decision is applicable to the Hamdan facts.

Hamdan was charged with conspiracy and, according to SCOTUS, conspiracy is not a war crime triable by a military commission.

Try to follow what SCOTUS held.

1. The Government has not charged Hamdan with an "offense ... that by the law of war may be tried by military commission," 10 U. S. C. §821. Of the three sorts of military commissions used historically, the law-of-war type used in Quirin and other cases is the only model available to try Hamdan. Among the preconditions, incorporated in Article of War 15 and, later, UCMJ Art. 21, for such a tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction are, inter alia, that it must be limited to trying offenses committed within the convening commander's field of command, i.e., within the theater of war, and that the offense charged must have been committed during, not before or after, the war. Here, Hamdan is not alleged to have committed any overt act in a theater of war or on any specified date after September 11, 2001. More importantly, the offense alleged is not triable by law-of-war military commission. Although the common law of war may render triable by military commission certain offenses not defined by statute, Quirin, 317 U. S., at 30, the precedent for doing so with respect to a particular offense must be plain and unambiguous, cf., e.g., Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 771. That burden is far from satisfied here. The crime of "conspiracy" has rarely if ever been tried as such in this country by any law-of-war military commission not exercising some other form of jurisdiction, and does not appear in either the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions--the major treaties on the law of war. Moreover, that conspiracy is not a recognized violation of the law of war is confirmed by other international sources, including, e.g., the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which pointedly refused to recognize conspiracy to commit war crimes as such a violation. Because the conspiracy charge does not support the commission's jurisdiction, the commission lacks authority to try Hamdan. Pp. 30-49.

They found the military commissions used by the Bush administration, not all military commissions, to be illegal. They use the phrase "the military commission at issue" throughout the decisions.

2. The phrase "all the guarantees ... recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan deviate from those governing courts-martial in ways not justified by practical need, and thus fail to afford the requisite guarantees. Moreover, various provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the principles, which are indisputably part of customary international law, that an accused must, absent disruptive conduct or consent, be present for his trial and must be privy to the evidence against him. Pp. 70-72.

Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the "Constitution and laws," including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional authorization, the task of this Court is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan's military commission is so justified. It is to that inquiry we now turn.

Again, it was the military commission that was to "try" Hamdan and the bush military commissions that did not allow appeal or habeaus corpus proceedings, the ones that violated the Constitution, the GC and the UCMJ, that SCOTUS ruled illegal.

[Snazzy]

182. Uh yeah Hamdan is about Hamdan, amazing

You have heard the phrase set precedent right?

Look, I have in the interest of sharing the startling information that SCOTUS already ruled on holding kangroo courts in Gitmo in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, persisted with this thread. The opinion is clear, I have quoted parts of it, I'm not going to quote the whole thing. Interested parties should read it. The common thread, emphasized in the conclusion and the introduction, when one exists you need a regularly constituted court. This is not the civil war. That is consistent with international law, US law, the UCMJ, and the GC. In fact everyone knows, children know, that constructing special rules to try certain individuals is not only unfair but also illegal. It was for Bush and it will be for Obama, or Obama + Congress.

Since we have devolved to the point of you just making some stuff up: "They use the phrase "the military commission at issue" throughout the decisions", a phrase which appears exactly zero times in the decision, I'm out.

Have fun trying to obfuscate for someone else.

[merh]

184. You are right, the opinion just uses terms such as "Hamdan’s commission"

and consistently refer to the particular commission that was to try Hamdan.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Four of us also conclude, see Part V, infra, that the offense with which Hamdan has been charged is not an “offens that by … the law of war may be tried by military commissions.” 10 U. S. C. §821.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.

Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the “Constitution and laws,” including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional authorization, the task of this Court is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan’s military commission is so justified. It is to that inquiry we now turn.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html

It is the Court's syllabus that has the term "the military commission at issue".

3. The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional Act. Quirin held that Congress had, through Article of War 15, sanctioned the use of military commissions to try offenders or offenses against the law of war. 317 U. S., at 28. UCMJ Art. 21, which is substantially identical to the old Art. 15, reads: “The jurisdiction courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions … of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by such … commissions.” 10 U. S. C. §821. . . . Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution and laws, including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional authorization, this Court’s task is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan’s military commission is so justified. Pp. 25–30.

4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49–72.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

And yes, I understand precedent. If Obama's administration tries to set up military commissions that do not abide by the US Constitution, the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, then the commissions are illegal.

It's a damn shame that you are now pouting simply because I showed you by quoting that precedent that you are not properly interpreting what it holds.

[Autonomy]

148. Speculation

I don't see anything in those links you posted to back up your "inevitable" conclusions.

[ThomCat]

24. What is amazing is that a Democratic President STILL hasn't

supported the rule of law by either accusing these people with something or letting them go free. He hasn't put them in front of a real judge in a real court. He is still holding them extra-judicially without charges, without rights, and according to the red cross and amnesty international still being tortured as of earlier this year!

Is this what we do in a Democracy that runs according to the rule of law? :grr:

Blame the media all you want, but if we had a President who respected the law none of this would still be up in the air.

[merh]

27. It's not that easy

Like with the 17 Uighurs, if they were sent back to China they face death.

I agree they should be charged and face trial. They are charging and getting ready to try some aren't they? Like Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani.

In your world would we just open the gates of Gitmo, give them $25 and a bus ride home?

Please, provide me the links about the "still being tortured".

[ThomCat]

30. It has been in the news. Here are some links from a google news search.

I'm assuming you could have checked the news yourself if you really were interested.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/05/guantanamo-prisoners-still-being.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/guantanamo-prisoners-still-being-tortured-under-obama.html
These blogs quotes the New York Times and the CBC since Obama took office.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scahill_little_known_military_thug
Here is a video from MAY of reporter Jeremy Scahill talking about the ongoing torture on Democracy Now.

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2009/04/is-torture-still-going-on-at-guantanamo.html
This blog talks about that video and links to the Amnesty International report about ongoing in Escallating abuses at Guantanamo. Reports are STILL coming in.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=568
This is the Amnesty International report, updated in MARCH of this year.

[merh]

38. Thank you for the links.

I agree with you that the abuses described in the articles are heinous, they should not be allowed.

What you may not realize and what the articles seem to miss, is that these IRF squads "Immediate Reaction Force" are used in jails all the time, these are considered legitimate prison control tactics.

I share your alarm but not just for the detainees at GITMO but for all prisoners held by the USA. I think if you go to the human rights and prisoner rights organizations you will find that they have objected to the abuses in US prisoners for years now. They have reported on the abuses in US jails for years, abuses like the IRF squads and the escalated use of tazers in US jails and prisons.

It is not just Gitmo detainees that know these abuses.

[nashville_brook]

53. omg -- your contortions in defense of the system of torture are beyond revolting.

[merh]

54. I'm not contorting a thing.

I'm actually pointing out that prison practices in the US have been condemned by human rights groups for years.

I don't condone the abuses - your ignorance seems to condone the abuses in the US prison system. That is pretty sad.

[merh]

39. And the snark about "if I were interested"

is hardly necessary - if you were truly concerned, you would answer my questions.

What should be done with the Gitmo detainees? Should the gates be opened and all be set free?

What if their home countries don't want them? What then?

[ThomCat]

45. The only humane option

after we kidnapped them, tortured them, and abused their rights for 8 years is to see if we can offer them healthcare and psychiatric care to get over the torture, and if they can convince them that the US can be a safe place for them to live then we should let them immigrate here.

If there is no place else for them to go then we have a moral obligation to let them live here. After all, we kidnapped them. Now they are our responsibility.

If we find that they hate the US so much that they can't live in the US (which would be understandable) then I don't morally we have to use our diplomatic authority to convince some ally to take them in someplace where they are willing to go.

[merh]

50. Well that is keeping them in detention indefinitely, isn't it?

We just change their titles from "enemy combatants" and "detainees" to mental wards and force them to be treated, medically and psychologically.

You do realize that the force feeding of those on hunger strikes has been called abuse, don't you? How do we force them to be cared for and to let us take care of them?

The 17 Uighurs seem to fit the category you suggest in your last sentence. No other nation would take them and Obama is trying to get Australia to take them.

I've often wondered if they could get the US Marshal service that is responsible for the Witness Protection Program to begin a "Detainee Relocation Program". The WPP has had great success (with the exception of the serial killer they had in the program). They could use the skills from the WPP to relocate and provide the protections and care the detainees need so that they can become members of society, somewhere.

But see, I don't have the answers because this is very complex. I know right now that folks smarter than me and more informed as to the history of the detainees are trying to figure this out, despite the fact that the files on the detainees didn't exist when the admin took office.

[ThomCat]

60. If we weren't torturing them and holding them extra-judicially

for 8 years they wouldn't be on hunger strikes. If they are on hunger strikes forcing tubes down their throats (brutally according to reports, causing physical damage) is definitely torture. And, no, I won't keep finding the reports for you. You can go find them yourself. They are out there and have been reported and posted here at DU numerous times.

Whether it is the Marshal's Witness Protection Program or the State Department doesn't matter as long as someone does it.

[merh]

63. I'm confused.

You are now objecting to providing them treatment and caring for them. Your other post said that is what we should do.

You complain about the prolonged detention but you said that we should detain them and care for them. You are okay with changing their designation from "detainee" to "mental ward of the state".

You haven't yet acknowledge that what the Obama administration is trying to do with the 17 is a good thing even though it appears to be in accordance with what you suggest be done - find them some place to live.

Again, should the gates just be opened and we provide them with a new suit and a trip home? What if home doesn't want them? What if all the other nations let us know that they will not allow our planes to land if we have the detainees?

This is not a simple process, it is very complex. You don't have the answers.

[ThomCat]

65. No, i'm not objecting. I'm saying we must do it.

I just don't care which agency does it.

[merh]

68. And they are trying to do it.

[boston bean]

120. um, no. they want to change a rule to have the authority to execute them based on a guilty plea

after they have been tortured.

[merh]

178. That is not what the article states

and that is not what they intend to do.

Why spread bullshit lies?

[chimpymustgo]

94. Rah rah sis boom bah!!! Utter bullshit.

[alarimer]

112. "facing the death penalty" = more covering up the human rights violations.

The human rights violations that Obama is now guilty of. He IS no better than Bush, if this goes through. It is already debatable in my mind.

[G_j]

14. and the truth will set us free?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/us-war-crime-probes-inade_n_208787.html

US War Crime Probes Inadequate: UN Expert


FRANK JORDANS | May 28, 2009 04:27 PM EST

GENEVA — An independent U.N. human rights investigator said Thursday that the United States is failing to properly investigate alleged war crimes committed by its soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Although some cases are investigated and lead to prosecutions, others aren't or result in lenient sentences, said Philip Alston, the U.N. Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings.

"There have been chronic and deplorable accountability failures with respect to policies, practices and conduct that resulted in alleged unlawful killings _ including possible war crimes _ in the United States' international operations," Alston said in a report dated May 26 and published on a U.N. Web site.

A spokesman for the U.S. mission in Geneva, Dick Wilbur, said Alston's conclusions and recommendations would be reviewed closely.

"We support the independence and work of all U.N. special rapporteurs and meet regularly with those who examine issues in the U.S., including Mr. Alston," he said.

Alston, a New York University law professor, stressed he saw no evidence on a recent trip to Afghanistan that U.S. forces were committing "widespread" abuses or war crimes.

The U.S. military has conducted dozens of investigations into misconduct by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of which have resulted in trials and convictions.

But among numerous cases mentioned in the report, Alston cited that of Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, an Iraqi general who had turned himself in to military authorities. Mowhoush suffocated after his head was covered with a sleeping bag and an electrical cord wrapped around his neck. Welshofer was fined and ordered reprimanded, without jail time.


..more..

[kenny blankenship]

87. The Truth is an Allergen

This system cannot stand it in ANY amount.

[Dragonfli]

20. Why would he even consider such a thing?

If a confession were gained under duress it would be meaningless as a method to ascertain guilt, The Inquisition obtained "confessions" as well.

Another important point is that even if any of them are guilty, they are seeking martyrdom, why give them that when the result would be more animosity toward us and more violence?

This makes no sense to me at all, can anyone explain the reasoning to me? I sometimes can be a bit dense but I don't see anything desirable about considering such a move. Nothing good could possibly come of it.

[nichomachus]

75. It's interesting to note

that the Inquisition limited torture to 15 minutes -- not seven years as the US is doing. Torture someone for seven years and he'll confess to starting the great San Francisco Earthquake of 1904.

[The Leveller]

21. K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5795034

[malaise]

31. I don't believe this

bullshit.

[leftyladyfrommo]

32. Oh, I just don't believe this. n/t

[ProgressIn2008]

34. The lengths to which the WH will go to share the war crimes of the Bush admin is disgusting

Complicity.

Send all of 'em to the Hague.

[Mari333]

35. they keep this up, its a repub for sure in 2012

what the hell..a moderate republican would be all on board for this..i see no difference between obama admin and mod repubs.
psst..there is no 'left' left.

[geek tragedy]

46. Why shouldn't they be allowed to plead guilty?

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants his martyrdom, let's give it to him.

[Generic Other]

57. If he wants it maybe he should get the opposite

I am pretty sure it's wrong in the America I grew up in to execute anyone without a trial. Period. We are walking on the thinnest ice. It makes me very very frightened no matter who is on the other side urging me forward.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

70. Why is it wrong?

This is no difference from a prosecutor offering a criminal a certain jail sentence for their confession. In this case, the US is offering the detainees a death sentence for their confession. No problem here.

[Edweird]

171. It's a war crime. I prefer that no more war crimes be committed by my government.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[geek tragedy]

96. We send people to jail without a trial all the time.

People plead guilty to crimes every minute of every day.

[Generic Other]

165. Name one person executed without any trial just a confession

in this country. I never heard of such a thing. Maybe it has happened. I just never heard of one case where a death sentence was handed down based on a confession of guilt. I assumed we would not execute a person without a trial of some kind, particularly one that did not include torture to extract said confession.

[Generic Other]

166. jail is not the same as execution

we are a country of laws with a concept called due process. we usually insist that capital crimes be tried. Unless we have something to hide...

[YankmeCrankme]

103. Let me get this straight...

If I walked into a police department and confessed to murdering an individual, admitted I did it and that I'll plead guilty because I want to be executed for my crime. You'd have the state execute me...just on that?

Even in cases where a person confesses, they still need evidence that they did it. Anybody can plead guilty, doesn't make them so and to execute someone for convenience is barbaric to say the least.

You realize in our normal world of justice people do voluntarily confess for crimes they did not commit, right? Before they accept those confessions they investigate and gather evidence to prove it. Torturing people to get that "evidence" isn't allowed in civilized courts of law.

Also, if you read this part..."achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom." That says nothing about admitting guilt, just that they want martyrdom and they don't care if the US murders them to achieve it...but I do.

[Octafish]

59. What a coincidence! That's just what Cheney wants.

Cheney: Death only option for some detainees if Gitmo closed

I bet Bush feels the same way. Not that that would be a coincidence.

[RufusTFirefly]

64. Too bad Jack Ruby's dead

He'd be perfect for this assignment.

[datasuspect]

72. what's funny is that people think the 2000 coup was just gonna go away

our country was hijacked by right wing fascists in 2000. they haven't left power. does anyone think they would give up that much power without a fight?

[Blackhatjack]

74. Every plea in a criminal court must be knowing, willing and voluntary....

How do you prove that the defendant meets this criteria in entering their plea where there is evidence that he was subjected to 'advanced interrogation techniques'(torture) in the collection of evidence to be used against him in support of the charges that carry the death penalty?

This is wrong on so many levels. There is a legitimate question as to whether the choice was coerced.

The Government would have to put into evidence sufficient facts to support the plea and the charges. Where would that come from? The tortured admissions of the defendant?

I doubt this will ever happen.

[Karmadillo]

76. Once the Democrats control both the White House and the Congress, this sort of thing will stop.

nt

[MisterP]

77. onlyhadfourmonths, cantreverseitallovernight, sacrificeforbigpicturechess :sarcasm: n/t

[Mari333]

78. k

[Uncle Joe]

79. Logic dictates not to do this, if they were guilty we would be rewarding them

with the martyrdom for which they seek, if they're innocent, the state would be committing murder after it tortured innocent men to the point of them wanting to die.

This would be a national evil and would set back any serious efforts to change our relationship with the Islamic World, ironically coming after President Obama's speech in Cairo.

I believe this to be a no-win, ludicrous idea from a logical and a moral standpoint.

[winyanstaz]

80. If this happens we can kiss our asses goodbye...

cause we will be next.
I just am having a hard time believing Obama would even concider doing such a thing..it would just be murder. I shall have to wait and see like everyone else I guess..but if it happens...I am afraid the world is in for a hell of a ride.

[Delphinus]

81. WTF?

I read this three or four times and I'm still having a hard time comprehending this!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Military tribunal = "Lead the guilty man in for a fair trial."

[sixmile]

84. Lots of 'woulds' and 'coulds' in this article

It's clearly full of baloney.

[BlooInBloo]

109. Doesn't matter. If it's Obama Outrage, then it wins on DU.

[Cha]

121. It wins with

this little section of dead enders.

[Beacool]

85. My same thoughts

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.”

x(

[HughMoran]

90. Hmmm, does that decision actually coverup torture as implied?

I suppose one could suggest that, though closing Guantanamo has some real challenges associated with "what to do" with the prisoners there - interesting dilemma.

[ooglymoogly]

102. That pile under the oval office rug where no light is allowed is getting so high

visitors have to wear climbing gear and carbide lamps to see the Prez through the maze of darkness he is creating around past crimes against humanity and the American people.

A piton for your thoughts.

[pjt7]

106. You can't have these guy's speak in public

because some of the lies of 9.11 will unravel.

It's that simple.

That's why they have been locked up away from everybody & have been tortured.

[ooglymoogly]

123. That is very true

Dead men don't tell; Making this whole cover up more grotesque every day.

[Junkdrawer]

127. Tortured to Talk…or Tortured to KEEP QUIET?

....

So, information was coming out of the FBI’s LEGAL interrogation of Zubaydah and then the head of CIA hears this and sends in the torturers. At that point, information stops.

Now, the article implies Tenet acted out of interagency jealousy. But I wonder. You see, I’m a fan of the work of Nafeez Ahmed and Nafeez has documented many, many instances where what we call “al Qaeda” was used by US/Saudi oil interests throughout the Near East. He’s written several books on the subject, but here’s a good hour long talk he gave a few years back where he outlines his ideas:

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/23955

So, if the Saudi GID and/or parts of the CIA were involved in using “al Qaeda” for their purposes, one could imagine Tenant becoming quite disturbed if he heard that high “al Qaeda” operatives were talking to FBI law enforcement types.

....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5503402

[shadowknows69]

108. I think I'm going to be sick. If this is actually being planned then there is no redemption for us.

[yy4me]

156. Your statement fits with my feelings exactly. This whole thing

is so wrong from all points. We have sunk so low, we'll need a backhoe to get us to ground level.
Not good early morning reading.

[Dinger]

113. O.K.

I'm sick.

[Politicalboi]

118. The closer we get to good relations in the ME

The harder it will be for Obama to dismiss the torture. I don't agree with Obama on this and I am pissed about it, but he's only been in office 130 days. I think he will have to do what is right.

[DissedByBush]

119. If they want maryrdom

I am more than happy to give it to them. I wish every terrorist would martyr himself right now.

But even these people deserve a fair trial. I can see the government converting their confessions into guilty pleas then executing them. That is not the American way.

[Wednesdays]

129. K&R

:kick:

[bluestateguy]

130. This "story" is full of speculation, conjecture and anonymous sources

I'll have a comment if and when the Administration announces a policy.

[glinda]

134. I agree. There is a lot of crap being flung out there.

[colorado_ufo]

131. This has multiple inherent dangers.

Beyond corrupting any semblance of justice, if the information from these detainees was obtained under torture and has a high probability of being flawed, and they only want the torture to end and/or be esteemed as martyrs, then the ACTUAL GUILTY PARTIES may still be at large.

It would be very easy to have the automatic guilty plea in place, and then simply torture detainees until they agree to the plea, just to have the torture end.

Then, there is the legal precedent this would set, which could be extrapolated to other cases.

So much ugliness has come to the surface, it appalls the sensibilities to think what lies beneath and is still being covered up.

[NorthCarolina]

137. Are Dems ready to support a Kucinich yet? nt

[babsbunny]

139. oh yeah, did you forget Obama needs to hear from us?

He's listening.....right?......cricket.......cricket.........

[WeDidIt]

141. There will be NO prosecutions for torture

No president in their right mind will EVER set the precedent of prosecuting their predecessor, it matters not what crimes the predecessor may have committed.

It will NEVER happen because if it happens just once, it will happen EVERY time the white house changes parties.

I predict Obama will let them all plead guilty in the first hearings of the military tribunals and they will all be sentenced to death (which is what they want). After all of them that are accused of the 9/11 attacks are sentenced, Obama will commute the sentences to life without any possibility of parole in a SuperMax facility.

This will let Obama kill two birds with one stone.

But one thing is absolutely certain.

There will be NO PROSECUTIONS FOR TORTURE! The sooner you get that through your thick skulls, the sooner you'll be able to concentrate on an issue where you can actually make a difference, like healthcare and DADT.

[Usrename]

144. That doesn't sound like a rational grip on reality.

Do you think that if these war criminals are not prosecuted then they will stop? They will police themselves?

What makes you think that turning a blind eye to their crimes will prevent them from prosecuting or assassinating whomever they please in the future?

Do you really believe that their behavior will change, that they will become merciful, if they are allowed to go free, without any charges against them?

[WeDidIt]

161. The war crimes DON'T MATTER!

No president will ever prosecute their predecessor. It simply can't be done.

Ford knew pardoning Nixon would destroy him politically, yet he did it anyway. The reaosn is because nno president will ever set the precedent of prosecuting their predecessor. It simply cannot be done because that would, in one simple move, destroy this naiton completely. As soon as one president prosecutes their predecessor, all presidents will be prosecuted by their successors.

[Usrename]

170. So. what you are saying is this:

If Obama does not pursue these criminals then he is somehow ASSURED that the next administration will not come after him.

Right? That is what you are saying isn't it?

I don't get the implied DEAL that you think is being made here, or exactly who the deal is being made with. You seem to be saying that if he scratches their back, they will scratch his, or something to that effect.

Haven't you been paying attention? These fascists want to destroy this country and the world. Remember, Clinton let the Iran/Contra criminals go (some of the very same criminals, I might add) and they still impeached him. They did prosecute him, didn't they? What makes you think they won't try to destroy this President, no matter what he does?

What makes you think they will stop their march toward totalitarianism just because Obama is no longer in office? Don't you believe that there are some who would love nothing better than to put Obama behind bars? Why do you think that these folks will stop fighting once Obama is out of office if, and only if, Obama fails to pursue justice while he is in office?

[mrJJ]

143. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) SOP

Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure

Summary

Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) standard operating procedures (SOP) for Camp Delta (Guantanamo Bay prison). This is the primary document for the operation of Guantanamo bay, including the securing and treatment of detainees. The document is extensive and includes, in addition to text various forms, identity cards and even Muslim burial instructions. It is signed by Major General Miller, who Donald Rumsfeld later sent to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize it". The document is also the subject of an ongoing legal action between the ACLU, which has been trying to obtain it, and the Department of Defense, which has withheld it in full (see http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/20070110/dod_vaughn_r_denied_in_full_section_6_interim.pdf).

"This document, and any part therein, are classified as 'for official use only' and are limited to those requiring operational and procedural knowledge in the direct performance of their duties as well as those directly associated with JTF-GTMO. It is the responsibility of all personnel to protect and safeguard the contents of this SOP and ensure appropriate distribution thereof."
The document exposes, among other matters, systematic methods to prevent prisoners meeting with the Red Cross and the use of extreme psychological stress as torture.

On Wednesday November 14, 2007, a week after the release of the document by Wikileaks, the Pentagon demanded Wikileaks censor the material. Subsequent U.S military statements including by spokesperson Lt. Col Bush to Reuters and the Miami Herald confirm the documents veracity.
Note

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_Standard_Operating_Procedure_%282003%29

[AZBlue]

146. I call COMPLETE BULLSHIT on this.

After all, the NYT isn't exactly know for fact-checking.

[Bette Noir]

150. No executions. To do so would make them heroes in their hometowns.

Let the guilty sit in super-max for the rest of their lives. Let the innocent go free.

[Beam Me Up]

151. One giant leap for mankind: Backward.

Back to the inquisition. IF this is true (and one has to wonder why it was leaked), this could be the death knell of our Civilization. It has been tattered and ratty, especially behind the covers, for a long time now. But if something like this were allowed to stand then there really is no hope for us. If we are willing to accept confessions given under torture as PROOF of guilt, then there really is no hope.

Has anyone ever noticed how the word "alleged" is never used when referring to the "9/11 hijackers." This came close and if you really read what the sentence is saying, it should give everyone pause: "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." What is being said there is quite an admission but the following sentence is a bit of a deflection. IF the government HAS solid cases against these detainees, why would they be concerned about the trials becoming "difficult"? Could it be they don't HAVE substantial cases except for these torture derived confessions? That's what I get out of it.

[Raine]

152. BULLSHIT

complete and total BULLSHIT ... RW propaganda and SHAME ON ANYONE HERE who is swallowing it! :mad:

[lamp_shade]

155. It appears that very few DUers here read anything beyond the OP's subject line.

[mystieus]

168. Agreed.

[ima_sinnic]

159. in 2012 I will be writing in Kucinich (nt)

[and-justice-for-all]

160. Those people being held had NOTHING to do with 9/11

ZERO.

They are being held as 'enemy combatants' via the Iraq occupation and invasion. All those who had something to do with 9/11, died in those planes.

Those people being held are shrub and dickheads prisoners, and for all the ones the hold, twice as many have already been enlisted in the Taliban. As long as we occupy their countries, they will never stop.

[Baby Snooks]

164. We are not occupying Afghanistan and Iraq...

We are liberating Afghanistan and Iraq. That's what Bush said. Obama has said so as well. We are liberting them. Sort of. In a way. Kind of.

We are liberating the oil in Afghanistan and liberating the pipeline Enron was going to build in Afghanistan.

If you believe in justice and rule of law and sovereignty of nations, then we are illegally occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you believe that "might makes right" and in the "constitutional" right to anything we want including cheap prices at the gas pump, if you support the Bush "millions of lives for billions of barrels" policy in other words, then we are liberating Afghanistan and Iraq.

[MasonJar]

162. When the USA tortures individuals, then we throw out the evidence.

the guilty then go free, that is a lesson for the future, n'est pas? I do not understand this irrational fear of a definable number of terrorists. We are talking about throwing out our system of justice; that is much more frightening.

[MasonJar]

163. When the USA tortures individuals, then we throw out the evidence.

the guilty then go free, that is a lesson for the future, n'est pas? I do not understand this irrational fear of a definable number of terrorists. We are talking about throwing out our system of justice; that is much more frightening.

[Edweird]

172. "I did bad, illegal things to you and now I have to kill you to keep you from telling"

That's fucked up.

If Obama does this, he will lose my support on the spot.

[shadowknows69]

174. Fucked up doesn't even begin to cover it

[BuyingThyme]

183. Animal.