George Bush’s third term:
So, what’s the point of even having military tribunals in the first place?
Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free
Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely.
The Wall Street Journal
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, July 07, 2009WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.
Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department’s chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions.
[more]
*Whistles the hopeychangey theme song*
And that, my friends, is “Change you can believe in.”
What a joke he’s turned out to be (much as we all figured he would).
This country has a two party system. One party refuses to acknowledge that Bush was just as bad as Obama. The other party refuses to acknowledge that Obama is just as bad as Bush.
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions.
I agree with this in principle.
Prisoners of War are not the same as criminal suspects. The people who have been detained at Gitmo could be one, both, or neither.
I don’t believe that organized international terrorism is a crime like robbing a convenience store.
The problem here is that the POW (or whatever you want to call it) side of the detentions has been kept “behind closed doors.” Nobody has made any attempt at an open process of determining whether someone is a threat.
It appears to me that there would need to be two different processes for each detainee, to make this right.
1. Criminal Trial: Is this person a war criminal?
2. POW “trial”: Is this person an active “enemy soldier” in an active, current conflict?
This could be defined, and it could be done.
I’m curious to know why the options have been presented as either let them all go, or continue imprisoning people for secret reasons. These are NOT the only two options here.
Actually, I agree with it in principle, too.
The problem, in my opinion, is that we forfeit our ability to keep POWs when we wage undeclared wars on concepts instead of countries or defined enemy forces.
We can’t sign a peace treaty with “Terror” and release all the “Terror” soldiers when the war is over.
Yeah, if Bush just *said* they were holding POW’s instead of “unlawful enemy combatants” it wouldn’t be an issue.
The problem is, there’s laws and oversight governing POW’s. Also governing criminal suspects. But there’s no law against housing “unlawful combatants” in a concentration camp off US soil, so let’s do that instead!
I see this as indicative of an utter lack of wisdom that shows in the Bush and Obama administrations.
Someone who talked to me about something a while back said that one of the most important questions one needs to ask is, “And then what?” For some reason, that stuck with me. Can’t remember what the conversation was about, who it was, or even the general context.
I can understand why we might “declare war on terror” in the immediate confusion following 9/11, why we might find and interrogate foreign actors involved, why we might need to figure out where to keep them until we know what the hell is going on.
But where were the exit strategies? Did anyone ask, “And then what?”
It would seem that the “war on terror” could be refined, and renamed, over time, enemies better defined, etc. Did nobody ask what would be done with the Gitmo detainees once 9/11 was long past and there were no imminent attacks that were part of the 9/11 plan?
The powers in DC were far more interested in ramming through the long-term JBT wish list renamed USA-PATRIOT under the cover of crisis, than in much else, it seems.
Of course, the “stimulus” is the Patriot Act of 2009. Another wish list, another crisis, another bill passed without so much as a preliminary read by those who voted on it.
Clearly, we have a political class that is unafraid of any real-world consequences their actions might carry.
But when I ask, “So now what?” I’m at a loss…