Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guantanamo inmates can be held 'in perpetuity'
yahoo.com ^ | June 15, 2005 | Reuters

Posted on 06/15/2005 3:35:00 PM PDT by AgThorn

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican senators called on Wednesday for the rights of foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay prison to be legally defined even as the Bush administration said the inmates could be jailed there "in perpetuity."

ADVERTISEMENT

The prison, currently holding roughly 520 inmates, opened on the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in January 2002 in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Many of the detainees have been held for more than three years, and only four have been charged.

At a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said Congress should help to define the legal rights of the inmates at the prison, which the panel's top Democrat called "an international embarrassment."

Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) asked Deputy Associate Attorney General J. Michael Wiggins whether the Justice Department had "defined when there is the end of conflict."

"No, sir," Wiggins responded.

"If there is no definition as to when the conflict ends, that means forever, forever, forever these folks get held at Guantanamo Bay," Biden said.

"It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity," Wiggins said.

Earlier, the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, said the United States may face terrorism "as long as you and I live." He asked Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, who oversees military trials of Guantanamo prisoners, if that means America can hold prisoners that long without charges.

"I think that we can hold them as long as the conflict endures," Hemingway responded.

"Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals, and it remains a festering threat to our security," Leahy said.

"Our great country, America, was once viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, and justly so. Guantanamo has undermined our leadership, has damaged our credibility, has drained the world's goodwill for America at an alarming rate," Leahy added.

Critics have decried the indefinite detention of Guantanamo prisoners, whom the United States has denied rights accorded under the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war. The prison, was called "the gulag of our times" in a recent Amnesty International report.

Hemingway said the military commissions created by the Pentagon were the appropriate forum for trying Guantanamo prisoners. Human and legal rights groups have said the rules created by the administration are heavily biased toward the prosecution. The trials have been held up amid legal fights.

Navy Rear Adm. James McGarrah called "rigorous and fair" the Pentagon's annual review of the status of Guantanamo prisoners -- a process that can lead to their release. In those proceedings, detainees are prohibited from having lawyers and cannot see all the government's evidence relating to them.

Lawyers representing Guantanamo prisoners criticized their treatment and the government's system for trying them.

"The (reviews) are a sham," said Joseph Margulies, one of the lawyers. "They mock this nation's commitment to due process, and it is past time for this mockery to end."

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record) of Alabama said: "This country is not systematically abusing prisoners. We have no policy to do so. And it's wrong to suggest that. And it puts our soldiers at risk who are in this battle because we sent them there."

Referring to detainees, Sessions added, "Some of them need to be executed."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina joined Specter and others who said Congress needed to get involved to better define the process at Guantanamo.

"I think it would be tremendously helpful if the Congress and the administration came together with some general statutory language to help define what's going on at Guantanamo Bay, to better define what an enemy combatant is, to make sure that due process is affordable," Graham said.

Specter noted that legislation he introduced in 2002 on legal rights of detainees had gone nowhere.

"It may be that it's too hot to handle for Congress, may be that it's too complex to handle for Congress, or it may be that Congress wants to sit back, as we customarily do, awaiting some action with the court no matter how long it takes," he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a year ago that Guantanamo prisoners had the right to seek their release in federal court. But decisions in the lower court have been contradictory, creating what Specter called a "crazy quilt" of rulings.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Cuba; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; detainees; enemycombatants; gitmo; noproblematall
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-184 next last
To: superiorslots

These terrorists in Gitmo aren't "our own". They're folks who in any other war in the history of mankind would be summarily executed on the battlefield. It is only because we are a singularly humane people that they are alive at all. For God's sakes, the "detainees" eat better than do most Americans! (And their religious beliefs are respected, too, for that matter.)

It only bespeaks your ignorance of the true horrors of Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam that you can compare the luxury treatment of war criminals equal to summary executions and unanethestized surgical removal of eyeballs. If these terrorists were staying at the Four Seasons, all expenses paid, they could hardly have less to complain about.


121 posted on 06/15/2005 6:50:36 PM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
It is not necessary to execute them. It is ridiculous to be stampeded toward it by unfounded idiots spouting transparent lies. No they do not "deserve" any "due process", which is for citizens. They are enemy combatants. While imprisoned, they are however harmless. If the thought that the US military can detain enemies in time of war bothers you, take up knitting or move to France.
122 posted on 06/15/2005 6:52:31 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
It is silly to try to criminalize what is not a matter of law to begin with. They are not our subjects, they are not bound to any of our laws. They are men, they are therefore bound to moral codes, which most of these have systematically violated. But we do not need any claim arising from their conduct to justify detaining them. We detain them merely by force of arms, as they took arms against us. They declared themselves our enemies, we take it from them that they are, and protect ourselves from them. Law has nothing to do with it, no prior agreement of any kind having passed between them and us.
123 posted on 06/15/2005 6:56:15 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It is frightening and sickening to realize that what you say is so true!


124 posted on 06/15/2005 7:05:28 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9-11!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Thud
It's my understanding that a very large number of these are known terrorists captured in Iraq, and a smaller number from Afghanistan.

I thought I heard, none from Iraq and some from other than Afghanistan....

125 posted on 06/15/2005 7:11:00 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Better yet....make them watch the live C span of the Senate!!!!


126 posted on 06/15/2005 7:12:22 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9-11!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: standing united

Well put!!!!! I agree completely.


127 posted on 06/15/2005 7:13:45 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9-11!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

You could be right. The facts on this are not publicly available. Maybe they're all from Pakistan.


128 posted on 06/15/2005 7:20:27 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: noteiverseUSA

Hey, I'm not shocked by such a response. I nearly went out of mind last night at my condo association meeting. Just because Arriana has money and some TV notoreity she is just as stupid as the people last night at our condo association meeting.

What is amazing to me is...our country continues to function. Sometimes I just look at the traffic around me on the roads and wonder," How could this be happening when there are so many idiots?"ha.


129 posted on 06/15/2005 7:22:20 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9-11!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment to our nation..." Leahy said.

Not nearly the embarrasment you are to this nation Leaky.

130 posted on 06/15/2005 7:24:21 PM PDT by WoodstockCat (Gitmo? Let them eat Pork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

no info, kill them, they are the same as spies, killers without a uniform.
Drag them behind a boat over the nearest reef till the sharks show up and cut them loose, play the national anthem and wave goodbye.


131 posted on 06/15/2005 7:26:48 PM PDT by WoodstockCat (Gitmo? Let them eat Pork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
WHY don't we set up a tribunal and trial on each prisoner? It is idiotic to try to hold these creeps till the 'end of the war' or whatever, as there may never be an end of this war. Did we hold the spys we caught till the end of the 'cold war'? No, we tried, convicted and sentenced them. Why is this any different for this 'war on terror' that will probably last as long or longer as the cold war?

I listened to the testimony. We only start the prosecution process when INTEL says they are through with them. More than 250 prisoners have been released from Gitmo using screening panels. Some have been sent back to their home countries for prosecution. There are over 40 countries represented in the prison population.

What's the rush? We held German prisoners for longer periods. The Nuremberg Trials lasted until 1949.

132 posted on 06/15/2005 7:27:55 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
It is human nature to acquire power.

Agreed, but the correct method to acquire said power is through honest, truthful debate. Lying and exaggerations about abuse of terrorists accomplishes little.

One should state their honest case and then the voters elect the person they agree most with (11/04) and we move on. This latest tirade by the democrats is nothing but an abuse of their elected positions. This will come back hauntingly in 2006 IMO. Remember Daschle?

133 posted on 06/15/2005 7:32:21 PM PDT by Chuck54 (Ignorance is curable by education. Stupidity is incurable and lasts a lifetime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn

I am not sure this was a good answer by Wiggins. His answer should have been that once the US criminal courts take their hands off this situation, military tribunals will start. some need to be executed to be sure, and once we demonstrate that we will execute some of the worst ones - you'll see others start to talk.

Its just like with the "deck of cards" people we captured in iraq. if we had tried and executed chemical ali quickly, we might have gotten more cooperation from the others.

so long as these prisoners have a hope that the ACLU, Amnesty, the Democratic party and the US media are still trying to get them out of Gitmo, they will never give up any information.


134 posted on 06/15/2005 7:42:41 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"Some Senators hate the Administration more than they hate terrorists."

It's not the administration, its America.

They want to see this nation destroyed by another terrorist attack.

Unfortunately, these individuals are so stupid that when the next event occurs, people will remember what they did to hinder the WOT....and America will respond to The Enemy Within accordingly.


135 posted on 06/15/2005 7:43:16 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (Saddam: $25k to suicide bombers = BAD --- Bush: 50 mil to terrorist scum = "GOOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
"in perpetuity", in PERDITION.

Whatever. Just never let these sick crazed animals loose.

136 posted on 06/15/2005 7:44:54 PM PDT by LibKill (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59

No, I don't think of them as criminals. I am quite aware that they are terrorists. However, I am not comfortable with keeping people imprisoned without appeal for an indeterminate period of time. For example, even if they are a threat and a source of information, both are limited. Their usefulness as a source of current information lasts, at best, only a few years. What justification do you then have to hold them indefinitely. Suppose they really weren't a member of the terrorist cell as you originally thought? Do you suppose that the military is going to be eager to admit such a mistake? They don't ever have to if there is no avenue for periodic review. If, after the terrorist's value as an information source becomes non-existent, you still consider him a threat, fine, then keep him locked up or execute him. But again, he should have the right for periodic review. Situations change. Someone who is a threat now, may not be in 25 years. I'm not arguing for leniency, but no one is infallible. And you also might want to look at exactly what qualifies as a terrorist in some of the statutes passed and considered. In the same way that RICO statutes have been expanded beyond any of their original intent, the definition of who qualifies as a terrorist is sadly not nearly well defined enough.


137 posted on 06/15/2005 7:51:29 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Guantanamo inmates can be held 'in perpetuity'

Sounds like a plan to me.

Executing a few would be even better.

138 posted on 06/15/2005 7:54:23 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54

I am not talking at all about the abuse allegations. To me, they don't even approach abuse, and were it left up to me, much uglier methods of information extraction would be used. For example, perhaps forcing them to listen to Air America 24/7! The Administration needs to get better at explaining the difference between a POW with rights under the Geneva Convention and a terrorist. They also need to explain, since learning Civics in a public school is a joke, that the guarentees of rights in the Constitution apply only to American citizens. This is a serious failing of this and of many Republican administrations. They rely too heavily on talking points and just recite them over and over. The rationale for these policies don't require a lot of background information to understand.
My only caveat with all of this is the perpetuity angle. I have no problem with a life sentence without possibility of parole. But, for that level of containment I do think there need to be checks and balances other than some bureaucrat or random military or homeland security official assuring us he's a threat. Some level of proof needs to be given to justify holding someone, even a terrorist without the guarentees due an American citizen, for an indefinite period of time. Again, I'm not arguing for leniency, but there does need to be some check in place.


139 posted on 06/15/2005 8:00:00 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Referring to detainees, Sessions added, "Some of them need to be executed."

My Senator made me proud today.

What has happened to our country? These gutless democrats and many RINOs have no business being in public office because they haven't the stomach for it. It's to the point that our country must be taken back to ensure our survival. This is no longer an idealogical little game of Republicans vs Democrats and worrying about taxes and crap. I'm now worrying about my children's ability to survive when terrorists get and deploy nukes. And here we have Senators worried about what the French think of these captured terrorists from a battle of war following 9/11.

These traitors to our country must be politically defeated by any legal means necessary. The ends justify the means.

140 posted on 06/15/2005 8:10:18 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-184 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson