The article reports the rest to you. From that, you have the opportunity to make up your own mind, whether you agree or not.
That's right, the Bush administration put people in prison without keeping any case record of why they were there. This says a lot for suspending Habeus Corpus.
This does resolve part of the reason for why the Bush administration released some detainees who turned out to be pretty dangerous and refused to release other detainees who weren't dangerous at all.
When I read things like this, I have to say that luck, and not the Bush Administration, protected us from further terrorist attacks.
pieces of shit after we got intell out of them.
Ya got that right!
Toondin: You ever stop and think that just maybe, a lot of that info is classified top secret, and not just any Tom, Dick, and Harry are going to get their hands on it. Also, did you actually read the entire Post article? Some 'senior officials' say info is missing, some other 'senior officials' say it is there but not readily available in one place because several different agencies, e.g., Army, Marines, CIA, FBI, have been involved in the capture, imprisonment, and interrogation of the prisoners, and they are each holding on to their piece of the pie until it is needed. Initially, there were over 700 prisoners at Gitmo. Now , there are about 250. Some were released after being deemed not a threat, a few were released after lawyers secured a federal court order, even though the military considered them a threat. Some of those have been recaptured, or killed on the battlefield. Sad to say, war is not perfect, expect some fuck ups, and live with it.
Or it was supposed to do that. I thought the one accomplishment of the Bush administration was to get the agencies on the same page. Again the Bush administration disappoints me.
No, war not "perfect," but war is not an excuse here. It's not like the administration was so desperately pressed that making case files wasn't possible. People had time and resources to do it, and it was important enough; the Administration just didn't want to keep the documentation, to prevent review of these guy's cases. The only other reason would be laziness.
toondin"That's right, the Bush administration put people in prison without keeping any case record of why they were there. This says a lot for suspending Habeus Corpus.
This does resolve part of the reason for why the Bush administration released some detainees who turned out to be pretty dangerous and refused to release other detainees who weren't dangerous at all.
When I read things like this, I have to say that luck, and not the Bush Administration, protected us from further terrorist attacks."
Obama is now the President..He can release all the innocents immediately..
If it wasn't luck and they aren't all good guys ,I hope you can still tune in after the carnage..
didn’t fit the agenda you have?
Or was it just “luck”?
Subject: one reason to keep this secret was pure sloppiness. No, I don't believe the Obama administration is back-peddling here. Reason being: it doesn't have to. Most people agree that this is a huge problem.
The article reports the rest to you. From that, you have the opportunity to make up your own mind, whether you agree or not.
I SUSPECT YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT OBAMA SHOULD BE TRIED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!!!
Personally, I agree with the previous posters, should have just killed those bastards in the field.
The way it was done here was a war crime. The Bush administration needed to do something besides going at it alone. It had the support of the International community, and of Congress; it would have been time to get some rudimentary convention about the capture, incarceration and treatment of terrorist prisoners. It's part of the larger problem with the Bush Administration: that it absolutely insisted on doing the illegal.
In this case, were they even thinking that there would be a succeeding administration, which would need to know why these guys were imprisoned?
A war crime????
I thought th whole point of the libs arguments was that war was never declared!! How can you have a war crime without a war!!
Geeezzz....
Actually I think the American voters decided that issue in 2004 when they had to choose John Kerry "I would get UN approval" and GWB "I will do what I think is necessary to protect the US"
Personally I will miss a President who is not afraid to act...
If so, the Bush Administration violated the Conventions on Land Warfare, among other things.
If not, what are they? The whole purpose of placing them in Gitmo was to keep their status obscure. Now, the Bush administration had the chance cooperate in making laws defining the prisoners. Instead, the administration chose lawlessness.
It seems the American voters repudiated the 2004 election with the 2006 and 2008 election, which you obviously don't respect.
It's strange to me that you see lawlessness as a matter of not being afraid to act, and I suppose that's one virtue of it. As long as the lawless administration acts in your perceived interests, that is.
and this is because they were not POWs. They fought for no country or recognozed government.
This also means they were not covered by the Geneva Convention and were illegal combatants.
BTW, if you do want to give them POW status, aren't POWs detained until the fighting is done and someone surrenders. If you want to give them POS status, then basically you are saying we should hold them for life.
As far as resprecting the election, under the way you haev framed it, people should have totally and blindly followed Adolf Hitler since he was elected (and no, I am not comparing Obama to Hitler, just pointing out the naivate of your position)
It's strange to me how you can not grasp what lawlessness really in and so easily toss the phrase around with understanding it. You are no differnt than anyone else, as long as Obama acts in a manner you agree with, you will continue to make excuses for him. BTW, I guess you would agree that Obama driopping bombs into Pakistan is "lawlesness" or do you want to simply show us all your hypocricy.
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2441. A declaration of war is not a requirement at all.
And that is just as far as US criminal law is concerned. International law also imposes sanctions for "war crimes" even in the absence of a formal war.
I mean, think about it. Genocide is genocide - it hardly matters whether your country is at war with the ethnic minority being exterminated.
It removed the prisoners from jurisdiction. That's most of the reason why it should be closed, because the place is all about unlimited executive power-- to imprison.
Lincoln Suspended Habeus Corpus
FDR interred Japanese Americans.
Sounds to me like GWB is very much like these two, or are you claiming all three are shitty Presidents?
You can't hold up two Presidnets as great leaders and then claim another is shitty for basiclly doing what the first two did.
Hypocricy from the Left, Gee, I'm so suprised!!
Some can be charged with crimes and some can't. Either way you don't release prisoners of war until the war ends. They don't have a right to habeas corpus because they are not on U.S. soil. They have the same rights, or lack thereof, as the German and Japanese prisoners of war during WWII. It is much safer for the U.S. to keep terrorists in custody off shore than it is to release them so they can attack the U.S. That is just common sense; someting the lefty's don't seem to have.
or illegal combatants who have no legal status.
Violent religious fanatics are worse than capitalists, they should be executed.
You are mistaken on several points
1.The detainees apprehended in Afghanistan are “enemy combatants” and are not “prisoners of war.” This is a very important distinction under international and US law.
2.These detainees do have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.
3. Although few understand this, the protections of the Constitution do not vanish beyond US soil and are not limited to US citizens. When the US government acts on foreign soil, it remains subject to those restrictions imposed by the Constitution.
4. Of course it’s safer to keep terrorists in custody than to release them but that does not mean it is lawful. And who knows how many of the detainees are really terrorists.
Some of these guys were children when they were taken and have spent six or seven years without any process other than the perfunctory determination by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (“he looks like a terrorist to me”). If you happened to be walking next to two Al Qaeda operatives when they were apprehended, you would likely have been apprehended with them. Once these habeas corpus trials get going, the public will be shocked at how flimsy some of the evidence is against some of these guys and I predict a large number will be released.
And then will come the civil suits against the US government officials responsible….
I wish more people here would dispense with the partisanship and stick with the facts.
I agree that Gitmo or some sort of substitute is neccessary in our "war on terror", but to give the executive branch carte blanche, with no oversight whatsoever is foolhardy and dangerous, not to mention illegal.
It's about what the administration would say. The problem is Gitmo prisoners don't meet the definition of being prisoners of war. Despite the rhetoric, the "War on Terror" does not meet the definition of being a war, either.
Now the Bush administration had a golden opportunity to correct these glaring problems, but instead took the tact that it could call the detainees whatever it wanted to, make up and change the laws about them how ever when ever, and if they called them POW's, they could ignore any of the free world's laws on POW treatment.
It generally fit in to Cheney's view that the Presidency is a law onto itself, and didn't have to deal with anybody else when it made a decision.