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.
Bad example. Spys we caught and tried during the Cold War were traded to the Soviets for our spys. I think the only spys executed by our government in recent history was the Rosenbergs and they were American Citizens.
Specter is correct in saying that we need to define their rights. We are creating a new breed of prisoner, and we need to show leadership and spell out the rules.
The whole War on Terror has been a mismanaged embarassment after our initial success in Afghanistan. Iraq is taking way too long, our borders are not secure, and those prisoners in GTMO need to start getting tried and executed, or released.
I also noticed the expressions and agree that those testifying exercised amazing restraint - it must have been difficult not to have dragged one of those pissants over the desk and kicked his butt. The islamofascists who started this war need to understand that one of the downsides of terrorism is that you have no Geneva Convention rights. If the terrorists won't play by our rules, we must play by theirs.
"Well, what troubles me was reinforced by the testimony today. There is no endpoint given and when a government says that they can hold people in perpetuity without some type of review, I get nervous"
Have the terrorist scum given us an endpoint as to when they'll stop? You can be nervous for the terrorist. I prefer to be nervous for the innocent Americans they want to kill. You must be a democrat since your sympathies lie with the enemy and not with our fellow countrymen and women, in and out of uniform. You should be posting crap like that on the AirAmerica boards.
Or put them on a C-130, airlift them halfway home, and make them take a walk. Either way works for me.
'those prisoners in GTMO need to start getting tried and executed'
The only part of your post with which I agree.
Try them, then shoot them.P> What I don't understand is why we let people like John Walker Lhind to stand trial as civilians.
Why? What good are they to us alive?
Try them and execute them.
Defining their rights is the right thing to do. We are the leaders of the world, striving for peace... we need to be better than them.
Even Graham is a dunderhead.
They are "unlawful combatants," not "enemy combatants". The are not afforded "due process" under any legal definition and are specifically non-addressed by the Geneva Conventions.
It's a whole lot better fate than we would have if the shoe were on the other foot. At least they have their heads.
"Why? What good are they to us alive?
Try them and execute them."
While I agree with you, I don't see it happening, the US government is losing the PR war on this one.
Return them to their jihadistans. They can disembark at 20000 feet.
You don't have to be a Democrat to be nervous about giving a government the ability to lock people up without the ability to appeal. In fact, quite the opposite. In fact, the irony is that, in most situations, Democrats find it quite acceptable to yield nearly unlimited power to the government. It is the person who is suspicious of government power in the first place, as Republicans used to be before they fell in love with Big Government, who tends to be wary of giving up liberty for a little security. The defense of the country is one of the few Constitutionally enumerated powers of the government. My alarm arises not from the treatment of enemy combatants per se, but from the inevitable expansion of this initial precendent that it is ok to hold people without trial and without appeal for indefinite periods. We trust the current administration to not apply this to American citizens. Do you trust all future administrations to do the same? Do you trust that the definition of what constitutes a threat to national security not to be expanded to include domestic terrorists? Don't forget, the Clinton administration classified disagreeing with the view that HIV is the cause of AIDS as a threat to national security. Should we someday imprison people who disagree with that view? Sounds ridiculous, I know, but 200 years ago, the concept of a living Constitution would have sounded incredible. What changed? People's perception of what a Constitution is for. Is it such a stretch to see this as the start of a slippery slope? I think not. If you disagree, then you obviously have a much greater degree of trust in the ability of people in power not to abuse that power. If these detainees are indeed such a threat to the security of the nation that they need to be held for an indefinite period, then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a little more proof to justify that decision than "Trust us, we know what's best for you." It doesn't have to be done in the open press, but there should be a mechanism in place that has the power to review the decision of one or of a few people. It can even be done in such a way as to provide the President with the ability to overturn the decision of the tribunal if he indeed feels that the risk of release is too great. It is that mindless acceptance of the party line that leads inevitably to loss of all liberty. Again, if they are indeed a threat, I don't object to holding them indefinitely, and with many fewer amenities and much more aggressive interrogation than they are currently afforded. What I do object to, however, is the mindset that they can be held indefinitely without some mechanism for occasional review of their circumstances by some tribunal that doesn't have a vested interest in covering up some mistaken initial assumption that they were indeed dangerous. No one is infallible. To state that isn't disrespecting anyone. To say that the military could possibly make a mistake isn't disrespecting them. I have nothing but admiration for the military and have several friends and family members in the service, several in Iraq. But as I said in previous posts, anyone, even those with the best intentions can make a mistake. To sentence someone "in perpetuity" without some type of occasional review is wrong.
It is a matter of law, but it is not a matter of criminal law. It is a violation of the laws of Land Warfare, ie, they were illegal combatants. The only court with jurisdiction are military tribunals. IOW, we're doing exactly what is required by international convention, Hague, Geneva, etc.
"Well, if we decide we can't hold them forever, and they need to be tried, it seems to me that the appropriate thing to do is to give them full due process rights and full-dress criminal trials under the law...of the place they committed their crimes."
What an absolutely brilliant idea. Let's try them under Sharia law for taking up jihad against the infidel crusader imperialist Americans and International Zionism.
Right you are!! This is the most logical end result for Gitmo that I have seen yet.
The Dem morons can keep squawking; after the legal justice systems are well established in their respective countries, they can have thier "citizens" back...to try them under their own laws.
The GC defined their 'rights'. If after a year they can offer no new info, they should be executed to make room for the next group. Their value is only as repositories of information, once emptied, they are worthless. They could have chosen another status, but declined and took this path by themselves.
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.