US releases Guantánamo prisoner after 14 years and no conviction

boing
41

The topic is the entire kidnapping, torture and indefinite detention without trial practice. There’s no difference between Guantanamo and the other places they do it.

Most of what you’re talking about was under CIA control. Some is military, but related to Iraq or Afghanistan, not Guantanamo.

Some was under CIA control, and some was under military control. Which is irrelevant; ALL of it was under US Government control. No-one disputes that torture happened at Guantanamo, despite it being under military control and illegal under US military law.

No one is currently being held on vague suspicions. They’ve had tribunals, annual reviews and reviews by federal judges.

WRONG. The very case for this topic is illustrates this: The guy was detained from 2003 to 2016 (if not longer; we’ll see). He was released without trial (if he is indeed released). There was obviously a lack of evidence to convict him.

One more time: Why was he held beyond year one? What happened to those “tribunals, annual reviews and reviews by federal” for 13 years? Other than they were a sham?

There have been many others released (and others sent for further detention in Uruguay) who were never convicted of anything, after multiple years or a decade+ of detention.

Instead, he is an example of what I was talking about: There was plenty of evidence that he was a member of a terrorist group. He just couldn’t be charged for a particular crime.

Weapons were found buried in a field near his house. Anything more? Anything that would paint him as guilty beyond even the flimsiest reasonable doubt?

When your justification for jailing someone for 13+ years without trial is “He just couldn’t be charged for a particular crime”, YOU are the criminal.

They’re still enemies of the U.S. They’re just not chargeable as criminals.

And…? Being an enemy of the US isn’t a crime. There were Americans who proudly considered themselves enemies of the Soviet Union, but no, that didn’t give the Soviets any right to abduct and torture them.

If they’ve commited an act of war, treat them as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. If not, give them a criminal trial. Lawlessly detaining them without trial makes YOU the criminal.

This is a war. We’ve always taken prisoners in wars.

And observed the Geneva Conventions in the case of soldiers. And released them at the end of the war. Non-uniformed combatants - German spies - got criminal trials too. And often executions, but when found guilty through due process.

We didn’t hold large numbers of Germans - and anyone from any other country on vague suspicions - into the 1950s, let alone with torture them.

There were not 200 “kidnapped” from the EU. They may have been from the EU, but they weren’t all captured there.

About 3000 people were detained under America’s “extraordinary rendition” program. (citation) About 100 (sorry, not 200) from EU countries. (citation) Others were kidnapped elsewhere around the world, nowhere near any war zone.

Today’s enemies don’t care about POW status.

So you don’t think that America shouldn’t hold itself to a higher standard than ISIS or some tin-pot dictatorship?

you really shouldn’t be trying to argue that Al Qaeda members should be treated like innocents

Jesus Christ, you’re a slimy little bastard. NO-ONE is suggesting that Al Qaeda members should be treated like innocents.

We’re talking about all those people kidnapped, tortured, detained for years or decades… without any due process, military or civilian.

You don’t hold a suspected bank robber for 13 years - let alone torture him - without trial because you don’t have evidence to convict him of anything. Accusing those who demand due process of supporting bank robbery is sleazy, slimy, and no different from what you’re doing.

And make no mistake; the US never had a problem with due process for terrorists in the past. I especially like the judge’s response when would-be 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui was handed his life sentence, and claimed that his life sentence meant America had lost and he had won.

The judge told him, "Mr. Moussaoui, when this proceeding is over, everyone else in this room will leave to see the sun … hear the birds … and they can associate with whomever they want. You will spend the rest of your life in a supermax prison. It’s absolutely clear who won. Mr. Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr in a great big bang of glory, but to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper.

The difference here - besides the lack of due process and the indefinite detention without trial - is often the lack of evidence for a trial to begin with.

11 Likes
42

If you think the Supreme Court has agreed with the executive branch on the matter of Guantanamo Bay then I advise you to read Rasul v. Bush (2004), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), and Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

As for “history”… well, let’s just say it has not smiled kindly on times when the U.S. government ignored due process in the name of national security. (Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment Camps, Hoover’s FBI, etc.)

9 Likes
43

Have you by chance ever read Farenheit 451, or maybe a better example, 1984?

Your misconceptions are too great for me, or anyone here, to correct. Thank you for keeping this conversation civil, but I think we are both done here. Have a good day.

5 Likes
44

That’s rich.

6 Likes
45

8 Likes
46

Countries do maintain the right to go to war. That gives them moral authority to take prisoners in such wars.

Congress passed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF) after 9/11. Whatever you may think about it, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it functions as a declaration of war. “War on Terror” is just a name, and it’s not on the AUMF itself. We’re not technically “at war” against the concept of “terrorism” itself, just like in World War II we weren’t technically at war in the entire world.

It’s really irrelevant. Had the Court said the AUMF wasn’t legally sufficient, then Congress would have passed another one. The Court also said that, under the terms of the AUMF, they recognize the war hasn’t ended yet.

As for the types of prisoners being applicable, this was something the tribunals and federal judges looked at. If you’re going to disagree, then that’s a case you haven’t made.

Yes, some of them are not soldiers in a regular sense, but that doesn’t mean we can’t hold them. The Court agreed on the principle, and the federal judges agreed on the specific cases. Had a German rocket scientist been captured in 1944, he wouldn’t have been released either.

The detainees are pretty well united with the exception of the two I mentioned who had to be separated from the others. It’s widely known and acknowledged that they had been led by detainee Shaker Aamer until his release to the UK last year. Even before his release, Aamer made frequent statements to the press through his lawyer. Several have done that from Guantanamo. He takes the same positions as others, notably former detainee Moazzam Begg.

Their positions sound nice at first. They oppose attacks on civilians. They oppose attacks in the U.K., but not on British soldiers elsewhere. The more they talk, the more you can see what they leave out.

On the war in Afghanistan, they support the Taliban. They usually avoid the subject, but Begg has acknowledged said he supported “their right” to fight. (This, in spite of UN-monitored Afghan elections.) He recently said he supports the stoning of adulterers, but admittedly, you don’t need to support Al Qaeda to want that.

They oppose ISIS. But ISIS is currently at war with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, among others. It doesn’t mean anything to oppose ISIS if they support a different terrorist group. It’s like saying they oppose torture, but only want to talk about the CIA’s waterboarding.

Sooner or later, you need to take calculated ambiguity for what it is. As I said, the detainees are pretty well united. Most keep that position when they leave. I take that unity as meaning something.

47

I don’t have time to argue about the entire war.

Again, crimes and wars are two different things.

The tribunal, reviews and federal judges looked at the law, and decided the evidence was sufficient to hold them under the law.

Either all those people were involved in a giant conspiracy, or you are simply wrong.

Not exactly. People who hated the Soviets weren’t really “at war” with them, and that’s a big difference. The Soviets would indeed have the right to go to war if an attack was made.

This is why we have laws against civilians making wars against other countries. The attacker would be an unlawful combatant. If captured, they would not be eligible for POW status. It’s always worked this way.

Of course, they’d probably be treated as criminals if it’s just a handful of nutcases. But if it’s more than that, then there’s a point where they’d handle it as a war. But the fact that it’s handled as a war doesn’t turn those unlawful combatants into lawful ones. So, they’re still not given POW status.

This isn’t new. It’s been this way since before they had the Geneva Conventions.

48

I was upset Guantanamo didn’t close right away, but as a Canadian I can’t really blame Obama without blaming my own government. Omar Khadr was a Canadian citizen held in Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan in a compound raided by American soliders.

Even before Obama came in the US didn’t really want him anymore. Depending on what version of events you take Khadr was either a frightened kid who hid under corpses to avoid being killed by US soldiers or a child solider. Either way, holding him looked bad and he was of no value to the US.

But Canada wouldn’t take him back. The US can’t just let him walk out the front door into Cuba and say, “Well, you’re on your own now.” My dumbass government kept telling the US, “No, we don’t want our citizen back” and made up some bullshit laws to try to let them strip people of citizenship, presumably to be used in cases like Khadr’;s.

So I’d like to blame Obama, but I’m left blaming my own dumbfuck country and our own neo-liberal government-of-the-time for our dumb role in it. If they can’t even get rid of the Canadians in Guantanamo, how are they going to get of people from countries they have poor relationships with.

9 Likes
49

I didn’t say they won. I very explicitly said in that very post you cited that they lost, but that they “changed their policies to comply with the decision.”

Guantanamo is still open, and the detainees are still not POWs. The Supreme Court was always fine with that.

It’s not just me you’re all arguing with. It’s also the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.

50

And M_Dub’s GIF:

Where I said, “Most detainees would be happier in Guantanamo,” I was clearly referring to them preferring it to the federal prison that President Obama wanted them transferred to.

Since at least one detainee sued to try to prevent a move, you’d have a hard time explaining why they’d prefer a cold prison in Illinois.

51

You didn’t stutter. That’s fucking hilarious.

2 Likes
52

You’re the one making the extraordinary claim. Not me.

I think you’re funny. On both accounts.

2 Likes
53

What’s extraordinary about preferring Guantanamo to a cold prison in Illinois?

Admittedly, the one in Illinois is probably ruled out. The Obama administration is looking at building a new prison elsewhere.

Perhaps you’ve seen their plans, and you think it’s better than the facilities in Guantanamo. If so, then I’ll stand corrected.

54

You don’t have a valid argument to back your claim.

Again, crimes and wars are two different things.

No-one disagrees with that.

But if someone committed a crime, you give them due process as a criminal and put them on trial. If they were acting as soldiers, you treat them as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. If they committed war crimes, again, you put them on trial.

You DO NOT hold people for years or decades without trial, let alone torture them.

Either all the people involved were involved in a giant conspiracy, or you are simply wrong.

Given all the people released after a decade+ in detention, released with an “er, never mind” without ever having gone to trial, that “giant conspiracy” is well established. (More of a sham or pathetic excuse than a giant conspiracy, really.) Given the MANY well documented instances of torture - illegal under both civilian and military law - that “giant conspiracy” is well established. What part of this do you not understand?

This is why we have laws against civilians making wars against other countries. The attacker would be an unlawful combatant. If captured, they would not be eligible for POW status. It’s always worked this way

Wrong on all counts. They’d be either a POW or a criminal. Nazi spies landing on the US east coast for example got trials. They tended to be executed, but they got due process.

Second, you’re thinking only of large US-style armies. The Geneva Conventions also cover insurgencies and cases where one side simply doesn’t have the resources for uniforms and tanks and a bureaucracy-run supply chain. In such cases someone CAN be a valid combatant, hiding mines in a nearby field. They can still be considered soldiers, not criminals.

But that’s not even the case for this topic. As with many other cases, your claim “the attacker would be an unlawful combatant” fails because you haven’t shown him to be a combatant at all, lawful or unlawful.

Which is why they guy is being let go (or being shipped to detention elsewhere) with an “er, never mind” and no trial.

8 Likes
55

I have some vague suspicions that they’ve had tribunals, reviews and reviews by federal judges.

YOU FIRST.

2 Likes
56

In Illinois the Constitution and Due Process would apply, instead of the declaration that an overseas detention and torture center is the legal equivalent of outer space.

But we get it. You don’t think that the US should hold itself to a higher standard than a tin-pot dictatorship.

5 Likes
57

What’s extraordinary is you think they prefer to be imprisoned at all.

7 Likes
58

There are two kinds of people the government has a legal right to detain:

  1. POWs, who are supposed to be accorded certain rights under the Geneva conventions.
  2. Suspected criminals, who are supposed to get due process under the laws of the detaining state. (So-called “unlawful combatants” fall under this category.)

The U.S. government set up Gitmo in an attempt to create a new, third category of detainees so they wouldn’t have to grant them either set of rights. That’s some Orwellian bullshit any way you slice it.

12 Likes
59

Whoops?!?!:astonished:

60

In most cases a uniform is simply some article of identifying clothing sufficient to distinguish them from civilians.

In Afghanistan the Taliban’s distinctive hats were considered enough of a uniform that their soldiers had to be accorded POW status. Al Queda fighters did not wear such uniforms. They would not have been POWs but as you said common criminals and subject to the laws of the country they are caught in. An “illegal combatant” is a euphemism for “common criminal”.

The only drawback to the “common criminal” part is when you have countries with no real government or laws in place except US occupation forces. But in both Afghanistan and Iraq that situation was fairly short lived.

You are absolutely correct. The whole "we could do anything we want to “illegal combatants” argument is bullshit.

8 Likes