Obama Pledges To Renew Efforts To Close Guantanamo

[Publicus]

Here's a rare tour of inside Guantanamo:

http://www.businessinsider.com/gitmo-guantanamo-bay-photo-tour-2013-4

[Publicus]

We have a highest level Constitutional conflict here. The commander in chief, President Obama, issued an order to release the 86 detainees of Guantanamo who have been cleared for release, but Congress passed a law saying don't close the facility and don't release anyone.

This is not a duel between the military and its commander in chief, but between the commander in chief and the Congress which has the power to declare war and to fund Guantanamo. As I see it, there's one c-in-c while there are 535 members of congress, none of which commands even a 2nd lieutenant much less a general or admiral. Constitutionally, Congress needs to get their lard <deleted> out of the way on this one.

The link below is to an op-ed by two admirals, each a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy (attorney general of), who represent a bunch of retired generals and admirals who want the 86 who have been cleared released now, and who want the prison closed. They argue other countries try terrorists in their courts of law and successfully incarcerate them in supermax prisons, from which no one has ever escaped.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hutson/guantanamo-obama-executive-order_b_3138404.html

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. There is an entire section of the forum for discussion of economics.

[NeverSure]

Your petty politicking is quite boring vis-a-vis the White House, irrespective of one's political views.

To a more interesting point, though . . . you state:

"The US declared war if some forget"

I do forget . . . Did the US declare war on Afghanistan? Did the US declare war on Iraq?

We can mince words. According to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. It's about semantics only. In both cases congress voted to authorize the use of force against those countries, and the money to do it, which they have the authority to do. If they neglected to use the words "declare war' before they authorized the use of force and continue to authorize it if by nothing else than voting to fund it, then let the wordsmiths debate it. Congress voted and continues to vote what it has the authority to do. Use force.

[Scott]

This is the second warning and it will be the last before suspensions are issued. Stay on the topic and the topic is not Iraq and Afghanistan or the US economy. It is Guantanamo.

[NeverSure]

"U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday pledged to renew (his) efforts..."

Sorry, he's SOL. He has to get it past Congress and he's already failed. Then there are states rights, embedded in the constitution. Where does he propose to put them if he doesn't just turn them lose? In Indiana? Well, Indiana can veto that. Which state wants the bistards?

So even if he managed to cheat the system in a blatant move of corruption, he'd still have to cram them down the throats of some state.

Now, if he offered a state enough money to house them he might find a state which would do it in this time of state deficits. But the people of that state would still shit a brick and then the state leaders would have to answer to that.

I don't think those people would be safe on US soil. I think there would be a lot of balcony jumping into razor wire.

[chuckd]

Now you're just making statements based on fact instead of partisan hyperbole . . . Shame on you

(Interesting fact about Guantanamo prisoners - over 80 of the 170-odd have been completely cleared of any 'crime' or terrorist act for three years already but have not been sent home. Not because their home doesn't want them but because they are not being released. Of the 700 accused that Bush released only 3% have been active recidivists . . . this from a JAG Cmdr who has tried cases)

I ask again, do you have a link to the 3% figure you quote?

Edit in: Never mind. This link refutes your 3% figure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guantanamo Recidivism Rate Climbs Higher

2:09 PM, SEP 14, 2011 • BY THOMAS JOSCELYN

During a joint hearing of the Senate and House intelligence committees yesterday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that the recidivism rate for former Guantanamo detainees has risen to an estimated 27 percent. The total number of “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists, according to Clapper, is now 161.

The latest assessment is higher than the previous one offered by the DNI in December 2010. At the time, the DNI estimated that the recidivism rate was 25 percent, and included 150 “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/guantanamo-recidivism-rate-climbs-higher_593545.html

Want more?

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/latest-gitmo-recidivist-statistics-released/

http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=745

Edited May 4, 2013 by metisdead
Off topic post removed from reply.

[chuckd]

We have a highest level Constitutional conflict here. The commander in chief, President Obama, issued an order to release the 86 detainees of Guantanamo who have been cleared for release, but Congress passed a law saying don't close the facility and don't release anyone.

This is not a duel between the military and its commander in chief, but between the commander in chief and the Congress which has the power to declare war and to fund Guantanamo. As I see it, there's one c-in-c while there are 535 members of congress, none of which commands even a 2nd lieutenant much less a general or admiral. Constitutionally, Congress needs to get their lard <deleted> out of the way on this one.

The link below is to an op-ed by two admirals, each a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy (attorney general of), who represent a bunch of retired generals and admirals who want the 86 who have been cleared released now, and who want the prison closed. They argue other countries try terrorists in their courts of law and successfully incarcerate them in supermax prisons, from which no one has ever escaped.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hutson/guantanamo-obama-executive-order_b_3138404.html

Congress has passed two bills with amendments concerning Guantanamo. Both were signed into law by Obama, with his objection to those amendments. He has done nothing because it is too politically sensitive for him personally.

Here is another link from PBS (hardly a conservative voice in the wilderness) that gives blame where it should be.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four Obama Policies That Help Keep Guantanamo Open

May 1, 2013, 2:38 pm ET by Sarah Childress

I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” he said. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”

The problem, Obama said, is with Congress, which has blocked efforts to transfer detainees or close the prison camp.

...from the article...

1. Detaining prisoners already cleared for release.

2. Closing the office responsible for transferring detainees.

3. Force-feeding detainees.

4. Preserving the designation of “indefinite detention.”

Entire article with explanations... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/four-obama-policies-that-help-keep-guantanamo-open/

[Sing_Sling]

The problem with your stats are the following . . . it's in the language:

either "confirmed" or "suspected" of reengaging in "terrorist or insurgent activities" - See more at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/latest-gitmo-recidivist-statistics-released/#sthash.SpHeryok.dpuf

Also, define recidivism, because as it stands this includes writing something negative . . . you can cut and slice it as you wish.

[Steely Dan]

Now you're just making statements based on fact instead of partisan hyperbole . . . Shame on you

(Interesting fact about Guantanamo prisoners - over 80 of the 170-odd have been completely cleared of any 'crime' or terrorist act for three years already but have not been sent home. Not because their home doesn't want them but because they are not being released. Of the 700 accused that Bush released only 3% have been active recidivists . . . this from a JAG Cmdr who has tried cases)

I ask again, do you have a link to the 3% figure you quote?

Edit in: Never mind. This link refutes your 3% figure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guantanamo Recidivism Rate Climbs Higher

2:09 PM, SEP 14, 2011 • BY THOMAS JOSCELYN

During a joint hearing of the Senate and House intelligence committees yesterday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that the recidivism rate for former Guantanamo detainees has risen to an estimated 27 percent. The total number of “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists, according to Clapper, is now 161.

The latest assessment is higher than the previous one offered by the DNI in December 2010. At the time, the DNI estimated that the recidivism rate was 25 percent, and included 150 “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/guantanamo-recidivism-rate-climbs-higher_593545.html

Want more?

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/latest-gitmo-recidivist-statistics-released/

http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=745

With the Taliban announcing their spring offensive I guess they will be in need of more fighters, which makes now a perfect time not to close Guantanamo.

[chuckd]

The problem with your stats are the following . . . it's in the language:

either "confirmed" or "suspected" of reengaging in "terrorist or insurgent activities" - See more at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/latest-gitmo-recidivist-statistics-released/#sthash.SpHeryok.dpuf

Also, define recidivism, because as it stands this includes writing something negative . . . you can cut and slice it as you wish.

As another liberal once said..."It depends on what the definition of 'is', is."

Don't attack my sources, provide something to support your 3% claim.

[Credo]

I am not particularly fussed one way or the other about closing Guantanamo, but there should be a long term plan to close it. I think that the issue of recidivism is a misnomer. Nothing is being done at Camp Delta to rehabilitate detainees, so how can you expect an outcome?

[Sing_Sling]

The problem with your stats are the following . . . it's in the language:

either "confirmed" or "suspected" of reengaging in "terrorist or insurgent activities" - See more at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/latest-gitmo-recidivist-statistics-released/#sthash.SpHeryok.dpuf

Also, define recidivism, because as it stands this includes writing something negative . . . you can cut and slice it as you wish.

As another liberal once said..."It depends on what the definition of 'is', is."

Don't attack my sources, provide something to support your 3% claim.

So, you're saying that the 80+ prisoners who have been cleared for three years of any wrong-doing have been kept because of . . .

No, your source seems adequate (well, except for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) but it still say 'confirmed or suspected' . . . that doesn't ring quite true.

The numbers I get are from Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift who tried a many cases in Guantanamo

[Sing_Sling]

As an apropos, have a read of the following - it is interesting, irrespective of the political direction of follows.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/071106swift.html

[chuckd]

The problem with your stats are the following . . . it's in the language:

either "confirmed" or "suspected" of reengaging in "terrorist or insurgent activities" - See more at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/latest-gitmo-recidivist-statistics-released/#sthash.SpHeryok.dpuf

Also, define recidivism, because as it stands this includes writing something negative . . . you can cut and slice it as you wish.

As another liberal once said..."It depends on what the definition of 'is', is."

Don't attack my sources, provide something to support your 3% claim.

So, you're saying that the 80+ prisoners who have been cleared for three years of any wrong-doing have been kept because of . . .

No, your source seems adequate (well, except for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) but it still say 'confirmed or suspected' . . . that doesn't ring quite true.

The numbers I get are from Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift who tried a many cases in Guantanamo

Read my link in post 38. That offers an explanation why Obama has not released the prisoners allegedly cleared of terrorism charges.

http://www.pbs.org/w...uantanamo-open/

I must have missed Lt. Commander Swift's reference to the 3% recidivism rate in your link.

[Sing_Sling]

Why did you make me re-read that and see some of Lindsay 'Liberace' Graham's nonsense:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered a colorful explanation for the provision to The Hill:

“We don’t want these crazy bastards brought here to the United States,” he said. “They want to steal your way of life, not steal your car. Have you lost your mind?”

The reasons why are irrelevant, as this is not a political game, it is a social one. It is a legal/judicial one.

There are people who should be sent home but are not due to politics

[Publicus]

Now you're just making statements based on fact instead of partisan hyperbole . . . Shame on you

(Interesting fact about Guantanamo prisoners - over 80 of the 170-odd have been completely cleared of any 'crime' or terrorist act for three years already but have not been sent home. Not because their home doesn't want them but because they are not being released. Of the 700 accused that Bush released only 3% have been active recidivists . . . this from a JAG Cmdr who has tried cases)

I ask again, do you have a link to the 3% figure you quote?

Edit in: Never mind. This link refutes your 3% figure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guantanamo Recidivism Rate Climbs Higher

2:09 PM, SEP 14, 2011 • BY THOMAS JOSCELYN

During a joint hearing of the Senate and House intelligence committees yesterday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that the recidivism rate for former Guantanamo detainees has risen to an estimated 27 percent. The total number of “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists, according to Clapper, is now 161.

The latest assessment is higher than the previous one offered by the DNI in December 2010. At the time, the DNI estimated that the recidivism rate was 25 percent, and included 150 “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/guantanamo-recidivism-rate-climbs-higher_593545.html

Want more?

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/latest-gitmo-recidivist-statistics-released/

http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=745

The Seton Hall University Law Faculty completed a project subtitled, " 'Odd' Recidivism Numbers Undermine the Guantanamo Policy Debate." Several of the law faculty represent or have represented GITMO detainees.

The report shows, among many matters related to the GTMO prison, that the Bush administration, in trying to dig its way out of a mishmash concerning the meaning of recidivism, sent forth Lt. Col. Todd Breasdeale, then the Public Affairs Officer for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, who remarkably admitted that the official definition was unclear due to “conflating” the percentage of “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists to create what he called an “odd 27-28% number” of total recidivists. It is “odd” precisely because, Lt. Col Breasdeale continued, “someone on the ‘Suspected’ list could very possibly NOT be engaged in activities that are counter to our national security interests.” This is indeed a striking admission that the percentage of recidivists repeatedly tossed around, by the Congress especially, is a substantially inflated statement of potential threats to national security.

The Seton Hall research project found that, if the Defense Department or Congress focused on the only number that seems to be meaningful, i.e., the number of strictly confirmed recidivists, the correct percentage is reduced to 15.9%.

Thus in the absence of better official clarification of its always vague, and regularly changing recidivism numbers, the Seaton Hall Law Faculty report provides a more complete picture of post-release GTMO detainees. The findings are otherwise little known, ie., the government knew very early on that there were mostly low-value detainees in Guantánamo. Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted as much in 2003 in a memorandum to the Joint Chiefs of Staff which complained that Guantánamo was “populated with low-level enemy combatants.”

The Bush administrations' own actions make clear it knew early on that the vast majority of detainees were not dangerous because for several years after the facility initially opened the Bush administration released numbers of them with greater regard of diplomatic considerations than for any possible threat the arbitrarily released detainees might have posed or might yet pose.

Further, the Seton Hall Law Faculty project found that:

• The government admitted that it did not begin to keep track of released detainees until at least 2007.

• The government admitted that its primary source of information was reporting by the press, not government intelligence.

Worse, Congress pointedly ignores the plentiful information regarding the transitions by most detainees to peaceful civilian life. Unreported by the Pentagon and ignored by the Congress is the fact that detainees cleared for release and released have gone to college and law school, entered politics, and written books. They even served as translators for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan and stopped terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland.

[geriatrickid]

Forgive my tangent, but has anyone ever asked the Cubans their feelings about having a U.S. military base housing these people on its land? Cuba does retain ultimate sovereignty over the lease granted to the USA which was given under questionable circumstances. I won't go off into a lengthy tangent about whether or not the USA should be occupying this part of Cuba, however, I do believe that the previous use of the base for secret CIA prisons and now for the detention of people the USA deems dangerous, may very well be a breach of the lease as the prisons are not really associated with the use of the area as a naval coaling station. The lease is granted on that basis and the USA has really stretched and pushed the envelope with its use of the base as a detention center. I find it incredible that in 2013 a foreign country is able to occupy a another country's land and forcibly place its military and people that it considers dangerous on that land. The takeaway message is that the USA thinks it's alright to put these people in someone else's country, but too dangerous to do iso n the USA. Why not move these people to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Edited May 4, 2013 by geriatrickid

[Publicus]

The problem was that none of the states were willing to accept them. I do believe the federal government was thinking about buying some Illinois prison but that deal fell through. In other words, there was no room at the inn.

This was, very simply put, just another ill thought out campaign promise made by a politician running for office.

When the politician became the President, reality set in.

Ever considered that the reason for his failure to keep his election promise is because he get's too much opposition from the political party who introduced the prison.

The only little problem with your scenario is for the first two years of his presidency, he enjoyed a Democratically controlled House of Representatives AND Senate.

The Republicans could have done nothing during his first two years. All he had to do was issue an Executive Order and move assets around.

Bringing it up now is simply smoke screen from the administration to deflect interest from chemical weapons being used in Libya, an intensifying Benghazi investigation, more than 21 million Americans still out of work and the other failures of his agenda.

Not all of the cases of former detainees joining the fight against U.S. and allied troops might constitute recidivism. From the outset, the Guantanamo detainee population included individuals who posed no threat to the United States. However, it's well known that some may have been radicalized by their experiences there.

The DNI the figures show that the rate of recidivism among detainees has dropped since Obama took office, compared to the rate under former President George W. Bush.

According to a breakdown released with the latest raw figures, 92 of the 532 Guantanamo detainees released before January 22, 2009 - two days after Bush left office - were confirmed to have returned to the battlefield and 70 were suspected of having done so - an aggregate recidivism rate of 30.5 percent.

The new DNI statistics show only three of the 67 detainees released from Guantanamo since Obama took office are confirmed to have rejoined militants, with another two "suspected" of having done so - another mishmashed recidivism rate, this time of 7.5 percent, based again on press reports rather than national intelligence hard information.

Overall, the statistics showed that, of the 599 detainees who were released as of December 29, 2011, 95 were confirmed to have re-engaged in militant activity or to have been in contact with militants. Seton Hall University Faculty of Law states this comprises 15.9 percent of the total released.

Another 72 militants are "suspected of re-engaging" in militant activity after they were freed from Guantanamo, according to DNI. This would constitute an additional mishmased 12% of all released detainees, beyond the more realistic 15.9% found by Seton Hall.

Lieutenant Colonel Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told Reuters the distinction made in the statistics between militants whose recidivism is "Confirmed" versus "Suspected" was particularly relevant "because there was confusion in some early media reports conflating the two." There in fact were and continues to be a confusing mishmash of data released by the Pentagon to the media.

Breasseal continues to sqirm and wiggle his way through the mishmash, further compounding it. He told Reuters, "To be sure, 'Confirmed' is more consistent with our actual intelligence data and 'Suspected' is a much lower bar, triggering an additional review that is really more akin to a sort of 'early watch' system. Someone on the 'Suspected' list could very possibly not be engaged in activities that are counter to our national security interests," Breasseale said.

He added that a total of 171 detainees are still being held at Guantanamo.

A U.S. intelligence official familiar with the process by which the statistics are put together, speaking to Reuters not for attribution, added that the evidentiary standards for listing a detainee as "suspected" of having returned to the battlefield are vague, always have been vague, with no hope of clarification in sight.

[Publicus]

Forgive my tangent, but has anyone ever asked the Cubans their feelings about having a U.S. military base housing these people on its land? Cuba does retain ultimate sovereignty over the lease granted to the USA which was given under questionable circumstances. I won't go off into a lengthy tangent about whether or not the USA should be occupying this part of Cuba, however, I do believe that the previous use of the base for secret CIA prisons and now for the detention of people the USA deems dangerous, may very well be a breach of the lease as the prisons are not really associated with the use of the area as a naval coaling station. The lease is granted on that basis and the USA has really stretched and pushed the envelope with its use of the base as a detention center. I find it incredible that in 2013 a foreign country is able to occupy a another country's land and forcibly place its military and people that it considers dangerous on that land. The takeaway message is that the USA thinks it's alright to put these people in someone else's country, but too dangerous to do iso n the USA. Why not move these people to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Under the terms of the 1903 treaty in perpetuity, "the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control of the naval station." I simply suspect that complete jurisdiction and control in perpetuity means, well, complete jurisdiction and control in perpetuity.

In 1903 for instance, there were no ground based aircraft or aircraft carriers at the naval facility because military warplanes and aircraft carriers came along after the treaty agreement and just a mite short of perpetuity. The U.S. Navy hasn't used coal fired warships since I don't know how long ago either. None of these factors among others have altered the nature or the terms of the treaty in perpetuity in which the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control of said naval station..

The 1903 treaty was agreed after the 1898 Spanish American war during which it took six months for the United States to relieve Spain of its colony in Cuba. Cuba then regained its sovereignty, U.S. forces went home and Cuba held elections.

I don't give a rat's arse what Castro and his gang think about this. If Castro thought he could cite international law, custom, practice or standards to rid himself of the naval station, he would have tried 50 years ago. It's bad enough he let the Soviets in with nuclear missiles in the early 1960s and we know what happened with all of that.

In North America, Canada and Mexico have diplomatic relations with Cuba, which ought to be fine in respect to the citizens of each country.

[Credo]

I think it is virtually impossible to try the detainees in the US. There are so many constitutional rights that have been disregarded, including the Miranda warning, that they would walk out of any court completely free.

Quite a little quandary. Perhaps a bilateral agreement with another nation.....say...North Korea, perhaps?

[NeverSure]

Forgive my tangent, but has anyone ever asked the Cubans their feelings about having a U.S. military base housing these people on its land? Cuba does retain ultimate sovereignty over the lease granted to the USA which was given under questionable circumstances. I won't go off into a lengthy tangent about whether or not the USA should be occupying this part of Cuba, however, I do believe that the previous use of the base for secret CIA prisons and now for the detention of people the USA deems dangerous, may very well be a breach of the lease as the prisons are not really associated with the use of the area as a naval coaling station. The lease is granted on that basis and the USA has really stretched and pushed the envelope with its use of the base as a detention center. I find it incredible that in 2013 a foreign country is able to occupy a another country's land and forcibly place its military and people that it considers dangerous on that land. The takeaway message is that the USA thinks it's alright to put these people in someone else's country, but too dangerous to do iso n the USA. Why not move these people to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Well, you just had the treaty explained to you.

Now let's give up also on the idea that the prisoners are there because the US thinks they are too dangerous on its land. They are not on US soil because if they were they'd gain certain rights. As it is, they are prisoners of war, captured on foreign soil, and kept on foreign soil so that they remain under the international rules of war prisoners.

You can stop trying to sound as if you're a lawyer any time now.

[Sing_Sling]

Forgive my tangent, but has anyone ever asked the Cubans their feelings about having a U.S. military base housing these people on its land? Cuba does retain ultimate sovereignty over the lease granted to the USA which was given under questionable circumstances. I won't go off into a lengthy tangent about whether or not the USA should be occupying this part of Cuba, however, I do believe that the previous use of the base for secret CIA prisons and now for the detention of people the USA deems dangerous, may very well be a breach of the lease as the prisons are not really associated with the use of the area as a naval coaling station. The lease is granted on that basis and the USA has really stretched and pushed the envelope with its use of the base as a detention center. I find it incredible that in 2013 a foreign country is able to occupy a another country's land and forcibly place its military and people that it considers dangerous on that land. The takeaway message is that the USA thinks it's alright to put these people in someone else's country, but too dangerous to do iso n the USA. Why not move these people to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Well, you just had the treaty explained to you.

Now let's give up also on the idea that the prisoners are there because the US thinks they are too dangerous on its land. They are not on US soil because if they were they'd gain certain rights. As it is, they are prisoners of war, captured on foreign soil, and kept on foreign soil so that they remain under the international rules of war prisoners.

You can stop trying to sound as if you're a lawyer any time now.

It seems it is you who isn't paying attention.

First, the US did NOT declare war on either Iraq nor Afghanistan and if you 'counter' this by saying there didn't need to be a declaration of war then you don't know much about what constitutes a 'prisoner of war' or 'enemy combatant' or whatever term is made up to neatly fit an enemy into the category you want them to be.

Second, why are you neglecting to mention the close-to-a-hundred prisoners who were found to be completely innocent three years ago an are still in captivity.

Recidivism . . . if one hasn't fought against someone but gets imprisoned for ten years or so and then goes back to kick some arse due to this injustice . . . is that recidivism?

Or is it just the US breeding lots of people who hate the US for good reason?

[geriatrickid]

Forgive my tangent, but has anyone ever asked the Cubans their feelings about having a U.S. military base housing these people on its land? Cuba does retain ultimate sovereignty over the lease granted to the USA which was given under questionable circumstances. I won't go off into a lengthy tangent about whether or not the USA should be occupying this part of Cuba, however, I do believe that the previous use of the base for secret CIA prisons and now for the detention of people the USA deems dangerous, may very well be a breach of the lease as the prisons are not really associated with the use of the area as a naval coaling station. The lease is granted on that basis and the USA has really stretched and pushed the envelope with its use of the base as a detention center. I find it incredible that in 2013 a foreign country is able to occupy a another country's land and forcibly place its military and people that it considers dangerous on that land. The takeaway message is that the USA thinks it's alright to put these people in someone else's country, but too dangerous to do iso n the USA. Why not move these people to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Well, you just had the treaty explained to you.

Now let's give up also on the idea that the prisoners are there because the US thinks they are too dangerous on its land. They are not on US soil because if they were they'd gain certain rights. As it is, they are prisoners of war, captured on foreign soil, and kept on foreign soil so that they remain under the international rules of war prisoners.

You can stop trying to sound as if you're a lawyer any time now.

I don't know if I should be flattered. I took a few law courses as they relate to scientific stuff, that's it. I'm just puzzled that you seem to think it's ok for the USA to occupy another country's land under questionable circumstances and then to dump the people it doesn't want on that land. It certainly speaks to a paucity of morals on the part of the USA. Basically, it is akin to people dumping garbage.

The USA has grabbed a tiger by its tail and now cannot let go. The longer the USA lets the Guantanamo debacle drag on, the more it undermines the USA when it speaks out on the need to respect the rule of law, civil rights etc. Holding people without trial isn't right. I find it odd, that the USA had no issues with the release of some vile mass murderers after WWII and yet it hangs on to some of these people captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries which the USA invaded. Neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan declared war on the USA, nor did they attack the USA.

I don't doubt for a minute that some of the detainees are killers or that will seek to kill again. However, the time has come to charge them and to have a trial. If the accused are guilty of crimes, then fine detain them. Unfortunately, the issue is that there are not any trials, just people being held.

[Publicus]

I think it is virtually impossible to try the detainees in the US. There are so many constitutional rights that have been disregarded, including the Miranda warning, that they would walk out of any court completely free.

Quite a little quandary. Perhaps a bilateral agreement with another nation.....say...North Korea, perhaps?

I should think it might be possible to try any or all of the remaining 171 GITMO Camp Delta detainees in a U.S. District Court in one or all of three (of the five) U.S. Territories that have full-fledged U.S. District Courts.

I haven't heard this notion presented as an alternative to trying them in the United States itself, but I should think it would be possible to try them in the U.S. District Courts of the certain, specific U.S. Territories I've identified in the next paragraph. I've researched the question but come up dry. It seems an open question (or perhaps a closed question).

U.S. District Courts of varying legal status and authority exist in the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. Except for Puerto Rico - which chooses to be an unincorporated U.S. Territory, and American Samoa which hasn't any U.S. District Court - the courts in the three particular territories can try both citizens of the United States and non-citizens. Thus it could be possible to try the detainees who are non-citizens of the U.S. For example, residents of Guam who are not citizens of the U.S. have trials, either civil or criminal, in the U.S. District Court there, as do U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens in nearby Japan or S Korea can file suit, or face criminal charges, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. This happens regularly.

A previous poster/forumist had suggested that the remaining 171 GITMO detainees be transferred to a U.S. Territory such as Puerto Rico, or the nearby U.S. Virgin Islands (the latter might sound good to some hard core detainees I'd think ).

However, another supermax prison (albeit smaller) would need to be constructed in any territory, or perhaps in all three, that are have full-fledged U.S. District Courts. This aspect might make the proposed project prohibitive. Legal residents and citizens in U.S. Territories do have U.S. Constitutional rights and can object to any such action by the U.S. government, which if pursued would be likely only slow the process. Still, if that route to trial were taken, detainees anyway would need to be transferred to the territory or territories, so some measure of super security would need to be provided.

Rulings by the U.S. District Courts, respectively, for the District of Guam and for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Judicial Circuit (San Francisco), while appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Judicial Circuit (Philadelphia). The U.S. Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for these and the Courts of Appeals of all 12 U.S.Judicial Circuits.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40932.pdf

(To be a Territory of the U.S. the place must meet certain legal and constitutional criteria and standards, e.g., electing a governor, electing a representative territorial legislature, establishing a territorial judicial system, laws, law enforcement; having a certain number of voting age population, having its own constitution etc etc. Thirty-seven U.S. states legally had been U.S. Territories prior to statehood. Puerto Rico this year and for the first time officially requested statehood, with legislation to be introduced in Congress this month. Texas had to apply twice to obtain statehood; predominantly Mormon Utah had to include monogamy in its proposed state constitution etc etc etc.)

[Credo]

So, which court do you think is going to ignore this:

Q: How long were you detained before they read you your Miranda Rights?

A: Oh, about 12 years.

Q. Did you confess to assisting in a terrorist act?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times were you water boarded before you confessed?

A. About 10 times.

And many variations in between.

[Publicus]

So, which court do you think is going to ignore this:

Q: How long were you detained before they read you your Miranda Rights?

A: Oh, about 12 years.

Q. Did you confess to assisting in a terrorist act?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times were you water boarded before you confessed?

A. About 10 times.

And many variations in between.

Q. When were you first read your Miranda Rights?

A. I think that may have been what the bloody sergeant of the 1st Air Cavalry Division said when he shot me in the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan. At least I got a piece of him too.

Q. Did you confess to being Taliban or al Qaeda?

A. Are you blind?

Q. How many Americans did you kill before you were shot and captured?

A. Counting the World Trade Center? Thousands, Allah willing.

Q. Do you have a lawyer?

A. I don't want a pig American lawyer. I have a socialist human rights lawyer from Paris. Parlez vous francais?

Q. Do you know President Bush says you haven't any Miranda rights?

A. Bush, yeah. Who's Miranda? Is he here? Are you Miranda?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/guantanamo-bay-war-on-terror-justice

[yourauntbob]

Just imagine being held there illegally,tortured if you are innocent.

Just imagine them blowing up your family if their not.

[Publicus]

Prez Obama has placed less emphasis on capturing and interrogating terrorists because early on he directed developing the drone program, which continues to become increasingly advanced and effective. In short, Prez Obama kills the s.o.b.'s. The most prominent hit as far as I'm concerned was of the traitor and cleric, the U.S. born Anwar al-Awlaki. Invariably, his writings and speeches live on but he does not, stopping cold his campaign against his native country, the United States.

But the Obama administration has not been asleep at the switch about interrogating captured suspected terrorists. Quite to the contrary.

Administration officials are satisfied they have found ways to gather intelligence and then prepare a suspected terrorist for civilian trial by giving Miranda warnings.

First, however, they conduct extensive interrogation of the suspected terrorist in the days or weeks after initial capture. Then, they bring in an FBI interrogation team – a group supposedly told nothing at all about what the suspect said during questioning – and that team reads the individual the Miranda warnings about rights. If, as seems to have happened in some of these cases, the individual waives those rights and goes on talking, then the government appears to have it both ways. This clears the path to the U.S. Judicial System rather than Bush's military tribunals. The Bush administration's policy was absolutely not to Mirandize a suspected terrorist.

In fact, the federal government has had far more success getting guilty verdicts against terrorist suspects captured overseas since 9/11 in civilian court than in the war crimes tribunals; the score so far is 67 to 7 (and two of those seven war crimes verdicts have been overturned on appeal). A guilty verdict takes a terrorist out of circulation, often for the rest of that dastardly person’s life. The thorny legal and moral question of long-term detention without criminal charges is thus precluded - removed.

Many remain unsure at this point how all of this is going to be sorted out in the long run. But, for the time being, the government is getting the verdicts it wants in civilian courts, while after ten years the Guantanamo war crimes machinery continues to clank and sputter in almost complete ineffectiveness amidst widespread and sharp criticism and with pathetic results besides.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/04/constitution-check-why-would-a-terrorism-suspect-be-given-miranda-warnings/

[Scott]

Troll post and reply deleted.