[quote]The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.
His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.
“They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. “He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear.”[/quote]
Wow rehab for jihadists. That sounds marginally less effective than rehab for Hollywood celebrities.
This is why the US needs to go slow on who we release and closing Guantanamo. If he met the criterion to be released, and then goes and gets a high level position in aQ, we’ve got a serious problem on what we are using to determine who should be released. It also partially substantiates the Pentagon’s claim that released detainees are returning to fight.
Gee, too bad there wasn’t a decent legal process in place to sift out the truth.
I wonder, did this guy rejoin Al Qaeda, or join up for the first time? If he weren’t a member before, subjecting him to years of wrongful imprisonment – not to mention torture – would have been a great way to push him in that direction.
much simpler to kill them all in the first place, of course. no prisoners, no dilemmas. no intel either, but hey, half of what they do end up squeezing out (or waterboarding out, or electrocuting out) is fake and the other half is unactionable so there’s no real problem there.
“He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.”
MikeN -
From the article:
[i]"The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Barack Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen."[/i]
I am doubtful that you would be able to produces an Executive Order signed by Pres. Bush authorizing the release of this individual.
A note, it has been mentioned that PEBOs rush to grant “rights” to the Gitmo detainees may interfere with trial proceedings already underway or in planning for several of these terrorists.
One of these individuals receiving these newly created “rights” is the person who video-taped and performed the bloody decapitation of Daniel Pearle.
Lets keep these things in mind when considering actions of the present administration.
TC, you’re an educated, intelligent person. For some reason though you don’t seem to have a clue that no one here is advocating letting anyone go free who is suspected of a crime such as being involved in Daniel Pearle’s murder.
Closing Guantanamo does not = releasing detainees. They will be tried in courts according to the law, and convicted if found guilty. They are not being given “new” rights; the rights they will be gaining are the ones that the law grants to all suspects, but were illegally denied to them by BushCo (e.g. habeas corpus). This is how things work under the rule of law in free, democratic countries like the US.
[quote=“Chris”]Closing Guantanamo does not = releasing detainees. They will be tried in courts according to the law, and convicted if found guilty. They are not being given “new” rights; the rights they will be gaining are the ones that the law grants to all suspects, but were illegally denied to them by BushCo (e.g. habeas corpus). This is how things work under the rule of law in free, democratic countries like the US.
Don’t like it? North Korea isn’t too far away.[/quote]
Closing Guantanamo != releasing detainees, but closing Guantanamo = having to find somewhere else to put them. The main argument is whether or not they are entitled to be tried in civilian courts or military courts. It is also on what rights they are granted since they aren’t suspects, but were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. It’s not as cut and dry as you make it Chris.
Here is just one issue involved, for a brief example. In a civilian courtroom, you have to provide the defense with the means in which you came across information, be it: a wiretap, a snitch, an undercover agent, whatever the means. The intelligence methods used to find some of these guys in Afghanistan came from either the military or one of the 3 letter acronym agencies. A lot of our intelligence gathering capabilities and methods are classified as Top Secret or higher for a reason. We don’t want our nations enemies to know how we are listening to them.
In a civilian courtroom you can’t just say “Yes we have this reliable information, but so sorry we can’t tell you how we have it, you can’t cross examine the operatives who got the information, and no Mr. Jihadi can’t confront his accusors”. In a military court, which is better equipped to handle sensitive information, you can exclude Mr. Jihadi from the courtroom and allow his lawyers to cross examine the technicians. His lawyers still assist him in getting a fair trial, the cloak of secrecy stays on our intelligence gathering methods and Mr. Jihadi can’t tell his buddies that we are listening into them or that we have a mole in their organization.
Suspects is a term that is involved in law enforcement, not matters of our nations security. These guys weren’t picked up for robbing a Quik-e-mart. Lest you forget, habeas corpus has been suspended in our nations history during war time. It was invoked by Lincoln during the Civil war and it was invoked during World War 2. The pertinent case was Ex parte Quirin, dealing with German saboteurs who were captured on American soil.
[quote]Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court.
[lots of text ]…
If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and “werewolves” could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against “unreasonable” searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have been so significant an innovation in the practice of governments that, if intended or apprehended, it could scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment. Not one word can be cited. No decision of this Court supports such a view. Cf. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 . [339 U.S. 763, 785] None of the learned commentators on our Constitution has even hinted at it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.
We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. [/quote]
What the Supreme Court found in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was that President Bush didn’t have the authority to set up the tribunals. They ignored the most recent precedent set by Ex parte Quirin where FDR set up the military tribunals, and where Presidents Washington, Jackson, and Andrew Johnson set up military tribunals. Worse than that, they also granted all enemies captured on the battlefield the status of “POW” when that is inappropriate. Those caught breaking the laws of war are not granted the same status as those who have laid down their arms. It was based on an incorrect interpretation of the following portion of the Geneva Convention:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ’ hors de combat ’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
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.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.[/quote]
The assumption, based on the reading of the text, is that (4) is applicable only to non-combatants, soldiers who have surrendered and soldiers who have been otherwise incapacitated. The assumption of a soldier, as I wrote in another thread, is that they:
If you do not have a fixed distinctive sign that distinguishes you from the civilians around you, then you are not a legal combatant. The previous Geneva conventions and the Hague protocols have specific penalties for those breaking the laws of war in this manner.
The Fourth Geneva convention allows for the following:
Those whose status are not clear are to have their status cleared by a competent tribunal. After their status has been determined is the tricky part. The Geneva convention specifies what combatants must do to follow the laws of war and what they are forbidden to do. Those who don’t adhere to the laws of war are not considered POW’s when captured. They also aren’t civilians because civilians by definition are non-combatants. They are unlawful combatants and they fall under the same category as spies and saboteurs. Since POW’s cannot be tried for their legitimate actions and civilians are afforded a civilian trial, unlawful combatants must be judged by a tribunal.
[quote=“Chris”]Closing Guantanamo does not = releasing detainees. They will be tried in courts according to the law, and convicted if found guilty. They are not being given “new” rights; the rights they will be gaining are the ones that the law grants to all suspects, but were illegally denied to them by BushCo (e.g. habeas corpus). This is how things work under the rule of law in free, democratic countries like the US.
Don’t like it? North Korea isn’t too far away.[/quote]
Do you also notice the duplicity of the media? They are inferring that the 61 alleged “from Guantanamo to Al Qaeda” people were released by Obama, as if they weren’t part of the 520 released while George Spuds was allegedly the US president.
Another big lie that you addressed is that the remaining ~250 will be “released”. Being held in Leavenworth prison until tried in a legitimate court isn’t exactly freedom to roam the streets, but the dishonest reichwing nutballs want to pretend it is.
And as you said, there is no evidence that the 61 were Al Qaeda members before hand. In fact, only 18 of the 520 released are now in Al Qaeda, with another 43 alleged but not proven. As well, when independent and unbiased groups such as Media Matters (no doubt FAUX Noise fans will whine and cry about that statement) ask about the 61, the Pentagon refuses to give details in much the same way that Joe McCarthy refused to identify the “57 communists”.
They’re hoping to throw up numbers as scare tactics and are depending on the media to be complicit…which they unfortunately are. There are no reporters at CNN or other such “media”, only stenographers who copy down what they’re told without question.
Isn’t it funny that the Bali bombers got a better and fairer trial than anyone held by the US? And that extremist muslims have not acted out any recriminations against the Indonesian government?
Not all or even the majority of prisoners at Gitmo were picked up on a battlefield. That quaint claim was discredited long ago.
They didn’t ignore them since they had to address their use in the district court decision. They rightly claimed that the tribunals set up by the Bush admin (and no others) violated the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice both of which btw came into effect after WWII. I’ve been arguing this for years every time some jackass thinks that Bush 's actions were okay because Lincoln or Washington did them too. Washngton was not constrained by the UCMJ nor by the GC, and the various treatises and statutes regarding the treatment of prisoners signed into law after WWII.
They did nothing of the sort. Where do you get this? They claimed rightly that the GC require that all prisoners receive minimal protections. They also claimed that the laws of war did not authorize Hamdan to be tried by the type of tribunal set up by the Bush admin.
Very few people, if anyone, ever argued that Al Qaeda should be granted POW status. That would be absurd since such status would mean they could not be interrogated. What was always the issue was providing standards that were consistent with US and international law on the treatment of prisoners. The commissions were described as not meeting the minimum standards of a fair justice system. They had to go.
As for the fears of a civilian trial, they appear unfounded as many terrorists have been successfully put away for life in fair trials. This contrasts with the zero convictions of Gitmo prisoners over the past 7 years.
[quote=“Chris”]Closing Guantanamo does not = releasing detainees. They will be tried in courts according to the law, and convicted if found guilty. They are not being given “new” rights; the rights they will be gaining are the ones that the law grants to all suspects, but were illegally denied to them by BushCo (e.g. habeas corpus). This is how things work under the rule of law in free, democratic countries like the US.
Don’t like it? North Korea isn’t too far away.[/quote]
Those detainees are not American. How can they be tried in courts according to American law, when the laws of their land are entirely different? American law does not grant rights to “all suspects” all over the world. The Constitution protects the rights of Americans.
Not all or even the majority of prisoners at Gitmo were picked up on a battlefield. That quaint claim was discredited long ago.
They didn’t ignore them since they had to address their use in the district court decision. They rightly claimed that the tribunals set up by the Bush admin (and no others) violated the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice both of which btw came into effect after WWII. I’ve been arguing this for years every time some jackass thinks that Bush 's actions were okay because Lincoln or Washington did them too. Washngton was not constrained by the UCMJ nor by the GC, and the various treatises and statutes regarding the treatment of prisoners signed into law after WWII.
They did nothing of the sort. Where do you get this? They claimed rightly that the GC require that all prisoners receive minimal protections. They also claimed that the laws of war did not authorize Hamdan to be tried by the type of tribunal set up by the Bush admin.
Very few people, if anyone, ever argued that Al Qaeda should be granted POW status. That would be absurd since such status would mean they could not be interrogated. What was always the issue was providing standards that were consistent with US and international law on the treatment of prisoners. The commissions were described as not meeting the minimum standards of a fair justice system. They had to go.
As for the fears of a civilian trial, they appear unfounded as many terrorists have been successfully put away for life in fair trials. This contrasts with the zero convictions of Gitmo prisoners over the past 7 years.
I like this quote:
[quote] If U.S. civilian courts were inadequate forums for obtaining convictions of Terrorism suspects, then the above-listed individuals would not be imprisoned – most of them for life – while the Guantanamo military commission system still has nothing to show for it other than a series of humiliating setbacks for the Government. As is true for virtually every fear-mongering claim made over the last eight years to frighten Americans into believing that they must vest the Government with vast and un-American powers lest they be slaughtered by the Terrorists, none of these claims is remotely rational and all of them are empirically disproven.
[/quote][/quote]
I’ll see what statistics I can dig up from the organizations who filed Freedom of Information Act requests and address where they were picked up later. Meanwhile though, see the following:
MM, you are right about the Uniform Code of Military Justice coming into effect after WWII. It was signed by President Truman in 1950. As far as the Geneva Convention, which one are you referring to? There are 4 of them, written in years 1864, 1906, 1929 and then 1949. When the 4th Geneva convention was written they updated the previous conventions. I’m assuming you are referring to the 4th Geneva convention, specifically on what to do with civilians in times of war. The 3rd Geneva convention is on POW’s.
I thought I explained pretty clearly that those combatants who do not wear uniforms aren’t afforded the protections under the 3rd Geneva Convention. You have to wear a uniform while fighting to be granted Prisoner Of War status, it is explicit in the text. It is equally explicit that the 4th Geneva convention covers what to do about the civilian population and what constitutes a civilian.
My argument is that a combatant who is not wearing a uniform is not considered a POW and is also not considered a civilian. That’s where you and I seem to disagree. I don’t see a combatant who doesn’t follow the laws of war as a civilian. I see them as the middle category. In this middle category they exist along sides with: spies, saboteurs, mercenaries and francs-tireurs. POW’s aren’t charged in civilian courts for their actions. Civilians aren’t charged in military courts unless they commit military offenses. Both categories are ironclad. If you deviate from them, you do so at your own peril.
I also wasn’t arguing what President Washington was allowed to do, I was arguing that President Bush was following the legal precedent set by previous Presidents. As you know, Article 2 Section 2 sets forth what the Presidential powers are, including as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. My point was that as previous CIC’s have done, President Bush was within his constitutional rights to set up the tribunals as outlined in the constitution. Congress has the ability to declare war but the President is the one who wages it. FDR set up a legal military tribunal to deal with the German saboteurs. That had nothing to do with, and has nothing to do with any of the protections afforded under the Geneva Conventions or the Hague protocols. Those deal with legitimate combatants. A military tribunal would have been unacceptable to use on a POW for legal actions he/she committed, however it is entirely appropriate and justified for an illegal combatant.
The GC requires that all Prisoners Of War, who follow the customary laws of war and identify themselves as combatants, to be treated humanely and with regards to human dignity. It also requires that all civilians be treated humanely and with regards to human dignity. It sets forth the requirements to be considered either as lawful combatant who is entitled to receive POW status upon capture (GC3) or a civilian who is considered as a protected person. If you aren’t a lawful combatant, and you aren’t a civilian, then what are you?
I did not ever say a combattant out of uniform is either a POW or a civilian. Nor did I ever say that a military trial was inappropriate given the need for heightened security in such cases. I have said and will always say that the Bush admin tribunals were an unfair system of justice that furthermore violated US law. Pretty simple.
For many reasons, not least of which is the credibility they confer (and the insult to Al Qaeda), civilian trials are now probably the best way to try the Gitmo detainees.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]I did not ever say a combattant out of uniform is either a POW or a civilian. Nor did I ever say that a military trial was inappropriate given the need for heightened security in such cases. I have said and will always say that the Bush admin tribunals were an unfair system of justice that furthermore violated US law. Pretty simple.
For many reasons, not least of which is the credibility they confer (and the insult to Al Qaeda), civilian trials are now probably the best way to try the Gitmo detainees.[/quote]
By saying that [quote=“Mucha Man”]the GC require that all prisoners receive minimal protections.[/quote] Geneva Convention 3 and 4 do no such thing. As I have provided links for, they only refer to the civilian population or those who fall under the specific guidelines for a POW. You are thinking of GC Protocol 1, which the US has not ratified. The US has not ratified it for a variety of reasons, but specifically because of Article 44.
Article 44 says that it is not necessary for combatants to wear distinguishing uniforms only that they show up with their gun. It’s controversial because it would afford guerrillas, insurgents and others the same protections that POW’s are entitled to without them having to follow the customary Laws of War. That defeats the purpose of having clear, distinct lines between civilians and combatants. If combatants can wear civilian attire, but still be afforded the protections as a POW, then the line between civilian and combatant is blurred. That is not only antithetical to what the Geneva Conventions and Hague protocols set out to do, but wrong.
You haven’t said why the military tribunals set up by President Bush were an unfair system of justice. If the tribunals are an unfair system of justice, then what should these men be afforded? A civilian trial? It isn’t pretty simple when you don’t provide any evidence to back up your claims.
I have shown that these men aren’t considered POW’s or civilians under the GC 3 or 4. As such they don’t, and shouldn’t, be afforded the protections that go to those two categories, i.e. no civilian trial and no POW status. I have also shown that there was pertinent case law regarding what the Executive branch can do about setting up military tribunals to try those not afforded POW status. The GC3 and 4 do not cover the afore mentioned individuals. While I understand the desire to not have sham trials where the accused is afforded no liberties or justice, but this isn’t it.
Civilian trials are the worst way to go for dealing with military detainees who were caught overseas. Even if the US had ratified Protocol 1, the detainees would still be tried under a military court martial for their actions, not a civilian court. Civilian courts are not equipped to deal with this situation because the conditions on a battlefield are fundamentally different than those of civilian life. If you do use civilian trials, then do you abridge the fundamental rights afforded a defendant under the Constitution or do you allow them the same rights as any other detainee without regards to their circumstances? One affords detainees more rights than POW’s the other lessens the credibility of US courts, not strengthens it.
[quote]Guantanamo Case Files in Disarray
Situation Complicates Prison’s Closure
By Karen DeYoung and Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 25, 2009; Page A05
President Obama’s plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials – barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees – discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.
Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is “scattered throughout the executive branch,” a senior administration official said. The executive order Obama signed Thursday orders the prison closed within one year, and a Cabinet-level panel named to review each case separately will have to spend its initial weeks and perhaps months scouring the corners of the federal government in search of relevant material.[/quote]
Bush-league management, Bush-league record keeping, and Bush-league “justice”. Why are some people surprised this happens? Or go into denial because they don’t like the facts.
Remember, this is the Bush-league administration which couldn’t round up school buses or respond to Hurricane Katrina for five days after the storm. It shouldn’t surprise anyone.
