Where to Put Gitmo Prisoners...

[oladub]

Not rights conferred to Americans in exchange for the responsibilities required for those rights.

Bats, Perhaps you chose inappropriate wording. As you are aware, Jefferson wrote that certain unalienable rights are granted by a Creator. You inferred, instead, that governments 'confer' rights. Governments are created to secure rights not allocate them.

However, since these are not US citizens, I suggest trying some of these hostages in US courts for crimes committed against the US, or Iraqi courts, or the courts of their respective home countries, since they can't be held as prisoners of war because we never declared war. The remaining prisoners that are pretty obviously innocent should be temporarily put into something like a illegal alien holding center and offered to the world community for humanitarian reasons with a deadline. After the deadline, the remaining individuals should be sent back to their home countries with the explanation that no fault could be found with them.

[mjs]

Thats the easy part, but whats not so easy is the guy you know is guilty but you can't convict in a court of law because he was tortured.

You keep saying this. Cite a source that supports this claim. All I've ever heard is that we can't use evidence that came from torture and the torturer could face civil and criminal charges subject to certain limited immunities. Sounds fair to me.

. . . they can't be held as prisoners of war because we never declared.

Interesting legal theory. That might just work. I also agree on the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Those that opposed them said they were god given rights that couldn't be taken away and weren't Federally listed powers so the Bill of Rights wasn't needed. Those that supported them said they'd feel better if it was written down anyways. Good thing they did seeing how the second President signed a law that attempted to undermine the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment which is simply a written version of why some thought we didn't need the Bill of Rights in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[mjs]

You know, despite how its portrayed in Dirty Harry movies, the exclusionary rule isn't really a burden on good cops. It just made life easier for innocents and made the laziest cops put in a little work and act within the Constitution.

A current drug bust goes like this: "Judge I need a drug warrant for this house". "What makes you think they're selling drugs?" "A reliable informant told us and we watched the house at three different times of the day. Every few minutes someone comes to the house, stays only a few minutes, and leaves." "Ok, here you go."

An old school drug bust: "Hey partner, those SOB's just gave us the evil eye on the way into that house." "Looks like a drug house to me, lets kick in the door and then kick in some heads." Then if they got lucky, the guys got time. If not, that showed them not to look at the cops.

Whether its local cops or federal intelligence officers, accountability and notions of fair play doesn't undermine justice.

[firstandten]

You keep saying this. Cite a source that supports this claim. All I've ever heard is that we can't use evidence that came from torture and the torturer could face civil and criminal charges subject to certain limited immunities. Sounds fair to me.

The president said it himself in this interview with George Stephanopoulos about closing Gitmo

OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up".

Some people have summarized the presidents statements in this way !

we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes" due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.

That is the dilemma that the Bush policies put the president in. Thats why I said the fifth bucket of detainees as the president indicated is going to provide the greatest challenge in the closing of Gitmo

The relaxing of due process goes against the very foundation of law in this society

To me that is more of an issue than where we will physically put people

[rb336]

gitmo costs at least 120 million/year to operate, not including the no-bid contract to KBR that is over 100 million/ year. 220 million a year 16 million more go to another company, the dick corporation. that was just what the bushies actually put ON the budget. double or triple it for the real cost

[mjs]

He was answering whether it could be done in 100 days and said we were going to get it done. To me, its says that it may take more than 100 days to clean up the gigantic mess left by the Bush administration and sort out what information is usable. Are you saying we should convict even if the only evidence was derived from torture? Consider that torture is notorious for getting false confessions and that 25% of the Project Innocence cases that were disproven by DNA evidence had false confessions elicited under less harsh methods. . http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...onfessions.php

[firstandten]

He was answering whether it could be done in 100 days and said we were going to get it done. To me, its says that it may take more than 100 days to clean up the gigantic mess left by the Bush administration and sort out what information is usable. Are you saying we should convict even if the only evidence was derived from torture? Consider that torture is notorious for getting false confessions and that 25% of the Project Innocence cases that were disproven by DNA evidence had false confessions elicited under less harsh methods. . http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...onfessions.php

I am just pointing out the situation the president is in this because of the Bush administration trying to justify illegal actions as being legal. In no way am I suggesting that we should convict based on evidence gotten by torture , BUT I am just relating a very real fact that indefinite detention in an american prision may be a very real possiblity for some detainees. What I don't know, is if you can legally justify that sort of action without a official declaration of war.

[d.mcc]

I am just pointing out the situation the president is in this because of the Bush administration trying to justify illegal actions as being legal. In no way am I suggesting that we should convict based on evidence gotten by torture , BUT I am just relating a very real fact that indefinite detention in an american prision may be a very real possiblity for some detainees. What I don't know, is if you can legally justify that sort of action without a official declaration of war.

How many are ACTUALLY terrorists? Now answer...How many if released would probably be terrorists...

[firstandten]

How many are ACTUALLY terrorists? Now answer...How many if released would probably be terrorists...

According to the president the detainees fall into 5 buckets, the only bucket that concerns me are the ones that are known to be terrorists but can't be tried. I believe that is a small number but still a concern.

I heard a number that 1 in 7 detainees released to this point went back to fight again and I guess thats to be expected. I think the U.S. doesn't want to release someone who may have specialized skills such as in explosives but your foot soldiers you would just have to live with that.