Detainees in the States (OR: Do bad apples spoil American Pie?)

[psychlopath]

According to this article:
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20091216722792.html
, the fine young men who are detained in GITMO will soon be living in the states.

I can tell you for 100% certainty that not all of the detainees the US holds will be delivered to the states for care, custody and control, but I'm wondering what people think of this??

I currently work in a detainment facility in Afghanistan.
I can tell you that if the US detainment facility is run like a US prison, or even a jail, these detainees are in for a very, VERY rude awakening when it comes to living standards.

Knowing the type of people which are housed in my facility, I can tell you I very much wish that they were not headed to the 'States. Thinking more upon it, though, I dont see how it's much different than a standard POW scenerio from years passed, where prisoners were transported to the "rear." The huge difference in this case is that these are not POWs as they do not fit the definition of members of an army.

I wonder what this will do to the ability of NGOs to inspect or protest the facility.

I wonder what will happen now that some of the crazies in the US will have the ability to get near the facility.

I wonder what this will do in the way of allowing them to make a mockery of our justice system by being tried in a civilian court?

I wonder....

-David

 

[cellopudding]

First, thank you for putting yourself in harm's way. I can't serve, wish I could, and I'm very grateful for those who can.

As for the Gitmo folks coming Stateside, I say send 'em to Michigan! We've got an empty maximum security facility just itchin' to be filled, and folks who are hungering for employment. As for the crazies, this particular prison is in the middle of nowhere (anyone ever been to Standish? Anyone? Bueller?) so I wouldn't worry about them getting too close.

 

[airplanedoc]

I lived about 20 miles from Marion Federal Penitentiary, back when it was the end of the line before ADX at Florence, CO, it never bothered me too much, I saw the real Con-Air a time or two. It does not bother me at all that they will be in my state. I am a little concerned about trying them in civilian court

 

[Leche]

I am a little concerned about trying them in civilian court

Yup, this is the big concern.

 

[SRock]

I've seen detention facilities in theater and even worked at GITMO years ago. I'm not keen on these people being brought onto US soil. However, a proper prison facility will house them just as well as a detainee facility in theater or in Cuba.

 

[psychlopath]

I've seen detention facilities in theater and even worked at GITMO years ago.

Ah! Youre probably familiar with ICRC, then. Any thoughts on what will happen with these sorts of visits?

I mean..there are a ton of accusations of various behaviors. Thoughts that these facilities are sealed off from all outside investigations; Which is...not true.

Do you see these kind of accusations stopping? Increasing?

What about the life style for these people? Any thoughts about a change? They have things pretty sweet how it is and being treated as a standard jail-bird would be a huge step down for them.

 

[majorhoople]

The purpose of a trial is to determine the truth. I don't know if any of those detainees is guilty of anything until a legitimate court has heard his side of the story, heard any witnesses either for or against him, has reviewed the evidence. A legimate trial, not a kangaroo court. What is wrong with that? Grabbing people up and locking them away without trial is the action of a tin-horn banana republic...not worthy of a great nation.

 

[Unknownsoldier]

I want to know why they were taken alive in the first place, BTW any who claim to be British, can you dump them off the nearest aircraft carrier for us please.....

What makes me laugh is when you get them and they were caught in Afghanistan, armed and fighting with the Taliban and they then claim to have been forced/there on holiday.... sorry didn't know Wartorn Afghanistan was a hot bed of tourism......

They arn't there without good reason, tri them then when they're, sorry if they're found guilty, just get rid of them.....

They must be tried in a civillian court as technically they are not POW's as they were never part of a ratified military, the Taliban under no circumstances can be classed as a military organisation under the Geneva convention. So they must be tried as civillians on multiple homicide, treason and other offences.

Third Geneva Convention:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They fail on all these counts.....

Tom

 

[chainfire]

They must be tried in a civillian court as technically they are not POW's as they were never part of a ratified military, the Taliban under no circumstances can be classed as a military organisation under the Geneva convention. So they must be tried as civillians on multiple homicide, treason and other offences.

So true, a drastic mistake was made by confusing the issue in 'declaring war on terror' - causing people to think of these people as prisoners of war. It's paramount to 'declaring war on drugs', no matter what you call it, the Taliban is an international 'gang' at best - similar to a biker gang with illegal activities driving it forward.

The US needs to be extremely careful in dealing with them and other people identified as 'terrorists'. If you have no civilian laws to charge them with, holding them indefinitely or without cause is detrimental to us as a society. It's too close to the mistakes we made with Japanese internment camps in WW2, the red scare in the 50's, etc. - innocent people can just as easily be swept up in the furor to grab the guilty.

I definitely don't want another large terrorist attack to take place, but at the same time, I'm afraid of the gov't using our fear to fuel a hatred of what's being done to fan a hatred for a group people that don't necessarily deserve it.

 

[SRock]

Ah! Youre probably familiar with ICRC, then. Any thoughts on what will happen with these sorts of visits?

I mean..there are a ton of accusations of various behaviors. Thoughts that these facilities are sealed off from all outside investigations; Which is...not true.

Do you see these kind of accusations stopping? Increasing?

What about the life style for these people? Any thoughts about a change? They have things pretty sweet how it is and being treated as a standard jail-bird would be a huge step down for them.

I don't think it appropriate to comment on specifics. I'll just leave it at my previous comments that I don't really like the idea of bringing them into the US, but fully expect that a max prison would house them just fine.

 

[jazzman]

Our prisons have housed terrorists for a long time. None have escaped. I'm not concerned about our security.

 

[psychlopath]

The purpose of a trial is to determine the truth. I don't know if any of those detainees is guilty of anything until a legitimate court has heard his side of the story, heard any witnesses either for or against him, has reviewed the evidence. A legimate trial, not a kangaroo court. What is wrong with that? Grabbing people up and locking them away without trial is the action of a tin-horn banana republic...not worthy of a great nation.

Isnt a trial in a US system part of a privlidge of being a citizen? If so, most of these people are not.

As far as housing them in a US system..it's not so much an escape I picture as much as the implication of "Well, if they are here...why not send them through our system?"

as well as...rows and rows of screaming people declaring the terrible conditions they are kept in...and going on hearsay and immagination.

Have you guys seen the supposed conditions these people are kept in as noted by blog after blog? The reliable sources are typically former guests...I'm sure they are fine gentlemen and would have no reason to shape reality to fit an agenda.

 

[chainfire]

Isnt a trial in a US system part of a privlidge of being a citizen? If so, most of these people are not.

If that's the way you see it, then you don't find it scary at all that the US unilaterally decides to just grab non-US citizens from other countries? I know I do.

 

[psychlopath]

If that's the way you see it,

It's not the way I see it, it's what I've been told. And I, unfortunatly, do not know how to confirm or deny it.

What do you mean grab people from other areas? Are you refering to the detainees?

 

[chainfire]

What do you mean grab people from other areas? Are you refering to the detainees?

Yes, my understanding is that the detainees in Gitmo were not arrested here in the US...but I could be wrong.

 

[psychlopath]

I'm honestly not sure where the majority of those guys are from...I would guess that since they are termed "Detainees," they are likely not from the United States.

 

[Protocol]

I think we have a lot more to be concerned about when it comes to the terrorist proclivities of sympathizers to folks like Terry Nichols or Eric Rudolf. They enjoy some degree of regional popular support among an indigenous group of antigovernment crazies and, at least in the case of Rudolf, managed to allow him to evade capture through their cooperation.

That said, I am still not at all concerned that American security is somehow diminished by our incarcerating either of them on American soil. In other words, the idea that we are somehow less safe because Gitmo detainees are behind 20 feet of concrete and concertina wire in Illinois instead of Cuba is pretty laughable.

 

[psychlopath]

I dont think that I know how to make myself clear, honestly.

One of the things I was asking oppinions on was not so much the security. I believe that there is the possibility of an escape proof cell.

It was the...implications...?...of having these people in the states. The idea that it could lead to civilian-type trials when they are not civilian...or perhaps they are civilian but not members of our society. Our court systems is designed, as far as I know (I dont claim to be very smart about this...) for our society. To protect it. To be tried by peers.

It seems like a sticky political situation all 'round and I'm glad that smarter people than I are in charge of this whole thing.

Eh..I guess I was looking to educate myself through other people's oppinions. Maybe not the best thing in the world to do.

 

[Protocol]

Isnt a trial in a US system part of a privlidge of being a citizen? If so, most of these people are not.

As far as housing them in a US system..it's not so much an escape I picture as much as the implication of "Well, if they are here...why not send them through our system?"

as well as...rows and rows of screaming people declaring the terrible conditions they are kept in...and going on hearsay and immagination.

Have you guys seen the supposed conditions these people are kept in as noted by blog after blog? The reliable sources are typically former guests...I'm sure they are fine gentlemen and would have no reason to shape reality to fit an agenda.

Actually, the right to a trial is not a right specifically assigned to citizens of the United States. Those would be limited to the right to vote and be represented, the right to protection while abroad, and the right to reside in the US without immigrant status. All other rights articulated by the Constitution apply to all legal residents and those under US jurisdiction. Otherwise, it would have been entirely legal to send my mother in law to Gitmo for whatever fictional reason just about anyone could come up with. And though I'm sure there are many who may see advantages in altering the doling out of these natural rights, I, for one, am quite happy that an uninterrupted string of Supreme Courts have seen the wisdom in not doing so.

I have absolutely no problem with doling out rough justice to those who have sought to do us harm. The fact that Eric Rudolf and Terry Nichols have managed to evade the hangman's noose is, to me, a tragedy to modern American society. That said, I am also a big believer in the judicial process. It gets us no closer to who we want to be as a people or a world power if the adjudication of our power is perceived as arbitrary.

I understand that there must be times when exceptions must be made. When it is more important to protect the sources of our intelligence than it is to demonstrate guilt, for instance. In those cases, extraordinary measures must be made available, but they absolutely MUST be highly exceptional in order to preserve the credibility of the system as a whole. Otherwise, what is the point in having a Constitution or laws to begin with?

 

[psychlopath]

Actually, the right to a trial is not a right specifically assigned to citizens of the United States. QUOTE]

Just to clarify: While youre saying it's not promised to citizens, are you also saying it is granted to non-citizens?

I mean...case in point there would be the recent "911 Mastermind," case, but typically...can a non citizen expect this trial to be granted?

And would this be case by case?

I think I'm taking my own thread off topic, but if, for example, a non citizen commited a murder/rape/whathaveyou, would it be expected he would be sent to his country for a trial or tried here?