PDA

View Full Version : OBAMA: Executive Order INDEFINITE DETENTION



revelarts
03-10-2011, 08:21 AM
Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay


Guantanamo Bay trials to resume
President Barack Obama has ordered a resumption of military trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, in an acknowledgement the prison camp for terror suspect in Cuba is unlikely to close any time soon. (March 7)

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 8, 2011; 12:44 AM

President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.

The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Administration officials said the president is still committed to closing the prison, although he made no mention of that goal in a short statement Monday. The administration's original plans to create a detention center in the United States and prosecute some detainees in federal court have all but collapsed in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition.

The executive order recognizes the reality that some Guantanamo Bay detainees will remain in U.S. custody for many years, if not for life. The new system allows them the prospect of successfully arguing in the future that they should be released because they do not pose a threat.

"Today, I am announcing several steps that broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions and ensure the humane treatment of detainees," Obama said in statement. "I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system - including [federal] Article III Courts - to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened."

But activists on either end of the debate over closing the prison cast the announcement as a reversal.

"It is virtually impossible to imagine how one closes Guantanamo in light of this executive order," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "In a little over two years, the Obama administration has done a complete about-face."

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the order vindicated Obama's predecessor. "I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order," he said in a statement. "The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities."
ad_icon

The executive order applies to at least 48 of the 172 detainees who remain at Guantanamo Bay. An inter-agency panel led by Justice Department lawyers determined that this group could not be prosecuted in military commissions or in federal court because evidentiary problems would hamper a trial. But intelligence assessments also concluded that these detainees remain a serious threat and could not be safely repatriated or resettled in a third country. The administration said it will hold reviews for detainees it plans to prosecute but has not charged.

The administration argues that it has the legal authority to continue to hold all of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay under the laws of war. Federal courts have backed that assertion, although they have found that some detainees should be released for a lack of evidence against them. The detainees will continue to have the right to petition the federal courts under the doctrine of habeas corpus.

"The new executive order doesn't change the legal authority for detention at all," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. "It simply provides additional reviews for individuals who have been found by the habeas courts to be lawfully detained under the laws of war."

SO new boss same as the old boss, as Mentioned before.

indefinite detention for life.
if they/you/we..
" pose a significant threat to national security."
that's real clear. I feel safer now that the gov't can put people in jail for life without a trail and with bad evidences , under the rules of war of course, if the gov't feels/thinks/suspects someone MIGHT pose a threat ONE DAY MAYBE. Preemptive prosecution.

What ever happen to that penulum that's suppose to swing back.

And it Looks like the only reason he was going to close Gitmo in the 1st place was to move the prisoners.

Obama is a much better salesman than Bush though...
"Today, I am announcing several steps that broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions and ensure the humane treatment of detainees,"
Pure double speak, it's not "Justice" and there is no extra oversight, it's the same crap Bush did.


Please do tell me it's Only for the bad guys, there a little thing call equal protection under the law.
So we are all equal to a detainnes or they are equal to us.
Just depends on your lawyer and on the mood of the gov't when they try you. Ooops they don't have to try you now do they.

fj1200
03-10-2011, 10:11 AM
Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay


"I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system - including [federal] Article III Courts - to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened."

And what would your proposal be at this point to deal with the Gitmo prisoners?

I proposed in another forum that Congress create Article I courts to prosecute detainees similar to a Court Martial for military personnel.

They are not citizens and not deserving of our Federal court system.

revelarts
03-10-2011, 09:38 PM
the federal courts. like all of the other 100 + foreign terrorist we've put in jail after a trail already.

fj1200
03-10-2011, 10:57 PM
the federal courts. like all of the other 100 + foreign terrorist we've put in jail after a trail already.

Why would enemy combatants picked up in a war zone who've never stepped foot in the US be entitled to access to the Federal courts?

trobinett
03-11-2011, 01:27 PM
Why would enemy combatants picked up in a war zone who've never stepped foot in the US be entitled to access to the Federal courts?

Excellent, same question I've been asking, since they started dealing with those dick heads. Personally, if your in Gitmo, all you deserve is a bullet to the head.:slap:

revelarts
03-11-2011, 07:34 PM
Why would enemy combatants picked up in a war zone who've never stepped foot in the US be entitled to access to the Federal courts?

1st, what is an enemy combatant?
2nd, what is a war zone?

I'll answer my own questions.
enemy combatant

Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2] Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).[3]

In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.
Bush and crew Co-oped the term to generally mean anyone they freaking say it it is.
Obama has made it clear that it doesn't even matter if your a U.S. citizen or not. (as in assassinate orders on the U.S. citizen/"terrorist").


2. WARZONE.
the WHOLE WORLD IS THE WARZONE.
The war on terror is WORLDWIDE.
So picked up in a warzone basically means picked up on earth.


If your talking about being picked up in Afghanistan after a gun battle "warzone", then it seems that would fall squarely under Geneva, even if "not in uniform" the Taliban were the rulers of the country, if they are trying to take it back that doesn't really constitute "terrorism". And everyone knows that alquida fled Afghanistan so "warzone" ,as in, traditional battle field doesn't apply.

Many of the people in Gitmo have been released already because of lack of evidence. Those that are left were picked up under a variety of circumstances. I have know doubt some are really bad people but most on this board are suppose be conservatives who believe in the "Rule of Law".

Murderers go free regularly in the U.S. because of technicalities. Whose fault is that? Not the Laws in most cases , some police will tell you out right that "i can charge you something." But it's because the police and prosecutors did a crap job presenting a solid case.

Gitmo was - at best - a knee jerk bad reaction and unconstitutional, and indefinite detention is also unconstitutional and a poor euphemism for prison without trail or due process. Something outlawed in England in the 1600's. Nothings going on now so bad that we need to change it.

Zacarias Moussaoui "the 20th hijacker" was arrested on the field of battle in Minnesota U.S.. An un-uniformed "enemy combatant" French citizen and he went to Federal court.
Evidence was presented and his wannabe hijacking arse is prison for life in Colorado, USA.

Please explain to me what's the problem with that?

DragonStryk72
03-11-2011, 07:42 PM
Why would enemy combatants picked up in a war zone who've never stepped foot in the US be entitled to access to the Federal courts?

...Because the federal courts are built specifically for things such as trying foreigners? How do you think we prosecute hackers who commit crimes from overseas. We use our Federal Court system, even if they've never set foot here. The reason it isn't happening in this case is because the evidence has been so fucked up that they can't prove anything on them.

DragonStryk72
03-11-2011, 07:51 PM
Excellent, same question I've been asking, since they started dealing with those dick heads. Personally, if your in Gitmo, all you deserve is a bullet to the head.:slap:

Let's try this point from the OP again, see if it sticks: Even if you are acquitted by a court of law, you can still be detained indefinitely. "Great, you're innocent. Now, get back in your cell."

And what you seem to be saying is that there cannot be any error, at all, in any case of those detained. That there could not possibly be people picked up wrongfully. So here it is: How many innocent people is it worth to keep people in custody we're clearly able to outthink, outgun, and outclass on the battlefield? Even if they weren't really a threat when they went in, I guarantee you that their opinion of us has darkened quite a bit thanks to detention. And guess what? The CIA doesn't care about who you were when you went in, they care about who you are now.

The basis of true justice is innocent until proven guilty. It was one of the main practices and ethical choices we made that broke us so far apart from the other nations of the world, and we are giving up the morals, these ethics, and these beliefs for petty vengeance.

fj1200
03-12-2011, 12:50 AM
1st, what is an enemy combatant?
2nd, what is a war zone?

What is porn? You know it when you see it. ;)


I'll answer my own questions.
enemy combatant

Bush and crew Co-oped the term to generally mean anyone they freaking say it it is.
Obama has made it clear that it doesn't even matter if your a U.S. citizen or not. (as in assassinate orders on the U.S. citizen/"terrorist").

I'm sorry but our elected officials have that option. If the traditional definitions of war no longer apply then the definitions can be rewritten. Should there be checks on the Bush doctrine? Yes, Congress has that responsibility and in my opinion could create an Article I court to address enemy combatants.


Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a
military court, unless the existing laws of
the Detaining Power expressly permit the
civil courts to try a member of the armed
forces of the Detaining Power in respect of
the particular offence alleged to have been
committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a
prisoner of war be tried by a court of any
kind which does not offer the essential
guarantees of independence and impartiality
as generally recognized, and, in particular,
the procedure of which does not afford the
accused the rights and means of defence
provided for in Article 105.

Our own soldiers are not even tried in Article III courts why would enemy combatants be entitled?


2. WARZONE.
the WHOLE WORLD IS THE WARZONE.
The war on terror is WORLDWIDE.
So picked up in a warzone basically means picked up on earth.

Within reason.


If your talking about being picked up in Afghanistan after a gun battle "warzone", then it seems that would fall squarely under Geneva, even if "not in uniform" the Taliban were the rulers of the country, if they are trying to take it back that doesn't really constitute "terrorism". And everyone knows that alquida fled Afghanistan so "warzone" ,as in, traditional battle field doesn't apply.

Does the Geneva Convention demand that they be given the right to a jury trial in the US?


Many of the people in Gitmo have been released already because of lack of evidence. Those that are left were picked up under a variety of circumstances. I have know doubt some are really bad people but most on this board are suppose be conservatives who believe in the "Rule of Law".

Great, where did they go? I'm pretty sure it wasn't the US.


Murderers go free regularly in the U.S. because of technicalities. Whose fault is that? Not the Laws in most cases , some police will tell you out right that "i can charge you something." But it's because the police and prosecutors did a crap job presenting a solid case.

Sure, they're also Americans.


Gitmo was - at best - a knee jerk bad reaction and unconstitutional, and indefinite detention is also unconstitutional and a poor euphemism for prison without trail or due process. Something outlawed in England in the 1600's. Nothings going on now so bad that we need to change it.

No question but we do need to come up with a long term solution.


Zacarias Moussaoui "the 20th hijacker" was arrested on the field of battle in Minnesota U.S.. An un-uniformed "enemy combatant" French citizen and he went to Federal court.
Evidence was presented and his wannabe hijacking arse is prison for life in Colorado, USA.

Please explain to me what's the problem with that?

Last I checked, Minnesota wasn't a battlefield.

fj1200
03-12-2011, 12:56 AM
...Because the federal courts are built specifically for things such as trying foreigners? How do you think we prosecute hackers who commit crimes from overseas. We use our Federal Court system, even if they've never set foot here. The reason it isn't happening in this case is because the evidence has been so fucked up that they can't prove anything on them.

They are NOT built for trying enemy combatants and your "analogy" of hackers and building a case against a "criminal" is proof.