 |
Inmates. |
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.
Yeah, those decks can be very slippery, can't they?
We should allow them to live in that same great state of euphoria that Terri Schiavo did. The autopsy said she didn't starve to death. She died of euphoria.
Ha!, Biden and Leahy think Gitmo is bad for terrorists. I'm actually looking forward to the day we can incarcerate in perpetuity traitors who happen to be serving in either house of congress, or who are working in the MSM. I'm sure the day is coming. We can't win the war until it does.
Last I heard all these Moozelum terrorists were going to commit Holy Suicide?
Guess they really must be enjoying their stay among the infidels ..but then who wants to go back to snowy winters in A-Stan when you can winter in Gitmo and eyeball the pretty infidel female attendants
Agreed.
Fox showed them playing soccer today in beautiful tropical beaches of cuba. Here in south florida a view like that starts at about $2million.
|
Inmates. |
Hey, if we can hold them in perpetuity, what would be the best way?
Freezing?
Freeze drying?
Cryogenics?
Maybe just as DNA?
Still I think the idea of their organs continuing to live
and save infidel lives as the best option.
It would be difficult for a muslim to contemplate being,
undead.
We're probably closer to having a functional judicial system in Iraq than in Afghanistan, and the ideal solution would be to have those prisoners tried in Iraq and for them to administer the justice.
But I think we need the constitution in place there and a better judiciary in place with complete groundrules. That means keeping the status quo at Gitmo for now.
If we had dealt with these folks the old fashioned way - on the field of battle - there wouldn't be a need for Gitmo in the first place.
But accepting the need for a facility for extracting intelligence from captures combatants who are not covered byt the Geneva COnventions, I'd suggest a top secret facility at an extremely remote location with virtually NO chance of accidental discovery, and there individuals could be treated with all the civility they deserve for as long or short a time as may be required.
Come to think of it, ARE there any Islamic organ donors?
Especially when you've been chumming for sharks for a couple hours...
Are you watching Hardball??
They may be summarily executed. While a trial is generally appropriate, it is not necessary for unlawful combatants whose status as such is obvious. As a practical matter a secret military tribunal holding a hearing which the prisoner(s) neither participate in or are aware of is probably appropriate. The issue determined at the hearing can and should be whether the prisoner(s) are more useful dead than alive. That would satisfy those portions of the Geneva Convention we signed, subject to exceptions noted by the Senate at the time, as opposed to the GC articles we didn't sign.
Then we should wait for an appropriate opportunity to execute them. It need not be a formal hanging. As an example of behavior modification, set it up so that one of them is provoked to do something he shouldn't while other prisoners are watching, such as throwing s*** or urine at a guard. Then shoot him on the spot, while the other prisoners watch. That would certainly have a deterrent effect on similar misconduct. They won't know that we've already decided to kill him.
Interrogation purposes - loudly tell the dude, in the presence of other prisoners, that this is his last chance to talk. Shoot him in front of the other prisoners when he doesn't talk. They won't know that we've already decided to kill him.
Or slit the throats of 5-6 of them, or whatever number is deemed effective, in front of another prisoner we're trying to impress. Some of these guys are really impressed by throat-slitting.
If one of them has a particular fear of drowning, or being eaten by sharks, take him on a boat ride with a bunch of these guys, tie them all up in chains with weights attached, do a phony random number means of determining who dies first but have your guy be last, or in the middle, demand that they talk and start throwing them overboard when they refuse. If your guy talks, he lives. If he doesn't, he walks the plank right there too.
Be cold-blooded about it. Once these guys are no longer useful alive, get some use from their executions. Use those to impress the ones you haven't decided to kill yet.
Yeah, that's what I heard, but that could be just a silly rumor, which cannot be proven in court. =)
What's going on??
If they aren't captured wearing recognized military uniforms, fighting for a recognized beligerent nation, then the Geneva Convention gives them *no* rights. Ever.
They can be shot on sight as spies or sabotuers, legally. Anything less is American charity.
Unfortunately, yes---
It didn't take long for ole Lindsay to become a Hardball favorite, did it...
Chrissy always gets a REpublican that will blame Bush for something...!
Look, they want to be martyrs, we want them to be martyrs. What's the problem?
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.