Indefinite Detention

[classicman]

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some

President Obama acknowledged publicly for the first time yesterday that some detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have to be held without trial indefinitely, siding with conservative national security advocates on one of the most contentious issues raised by the closing of the military prison in Cuba
"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said. "But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."

Some human rights advocates criticized Obama for adopting the idea that some detainees are not entitled to a trial. Others said the president was boxed in by cases inherited from the Bush administration in which possible prosecution had been irretrievably compromised by coercive interrogation.

The president stopped short of saying he would institutionalize indefinite detention for future captives.

"The issue is framed pretty exclusively in terms of existing Guantanamo detainees," said Tom Malinowski, the head of Human Rights Watch's Washington office. "There is a big difference between employing an extraordinary mechanism to deal with legacy cases compromised because of Bush administration actions and saying we need a permanent national security regime."

But Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said employing preventive detention simply because some cases at Guantanamo are too difficult to prosecute would involve the kind of legal expediency that Obama said was a hallmark of his predecessor's policies.

"My question is not only what happens to those people who may be perpetually in prison but what kind of precedent does that set for the future?" Ratner said. "It's not one I find constitutional or acceptable. Opening that door even for a few Guantanamo detainees is anathema. He is closing Guantanamo physically, but he's repackaging it with a little more legal gloss."

Obama did not lay out the legal underpinnings of preventive detention yesterday, speaking only of "a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight." He could hold detainees under a law-of-war theory that they are combatants or, more radically, create a national security court under domestic legislation to back such a detention system. The Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees are entitled to a judicial review of their detention.

I'm not liking this at all. No, I do not have a better plan, but incarcerating people without a trial or review goes contrary to everything that our judicial system is based on. Innocent until proven guilty, a fair trial and so on.
Bush according to many, broke the law by keeping these people at Gitmo for so long. Obama apparently wants to rewrite existing, or write new legislation so that this can be done "legally." Whaaat?

[glatt]

I can't get behind Obama on this one, but don't have a better solution. He inherited a mess, but he's keeping it going.

[classicman]

I dunno - Based upon what he said during the election, it would seem that he would be morally obligated to release those detainees who are not going to be tried. Politically and realistically he cannot. This seems like a very tight line to walk. I'm very surprised at this decision.

[piercehawkeye45]

I see no other decision Obama can make without risking his image. As I said earlier, if a released Gitmo prisoner does commit a terrorist act on the United States, Obama is screwed.

Not to mention the fact that the potential terrorist could have initially been innocent.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Not to mention the fact that the potential terrorist could have initially been innocent.

So that same potentially innocent person is going to be incarcerated for...... ever???? That is on Obama, not Bush. I'm still amazed that the press isn't going crazy over this.

[piercehawkeye45]

Media probably won't say anything. I'm sure their agenda sides with it.

From the moral standpoint, this is a situation where justice does and will not exist. Innocent lives were completely ruined and these prisoners will probably never be accepted back into mainstream society, which means they could follow paths that will lead to even more deaths. No punishment can undo what has been done even if the "guilty" are brought to justice. This also assumes the "guilty" (CIA or whoever) were guilty because I would not be surprised if they had bad information to begin with.

[Beestie]

If a man of his conviction does something that appears contrary to his conviction then we should at least acknowledge the possibililty that he would prefer the burden of appearing to go back on his word rather than take the easy way out and explain his reasoning when so doing would make matters even worse.

Obama gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this one.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree with that but it seems that no one is going to take the risk of being wrong.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Beestie

If a man of his conviction does something that appears contrary to his conviction then we should at least acknowledge the possibility that he would prefer the burden of appearing to go back on his word rather than take the easy way out and explain his reasoning when so doing would make matters even worse.
Obama gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this one.

The fact that he is rewriting law to incarcerate "indefinitely" without a trial is troubling. This is potentially worse than the previous administrations decision.
He wants to close Gitmo, so he can abide by his pledge, but at what cost? What other implications of these "new laws" are there? This goes against the original principles of America justice. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems like a new legal precedent is being set.

[Undertoad]

uh i think the current thinking is military tribunals

[classicman]

...and?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

As I said earlier, if a released Gitmo prisoner does commit a terrorist act on the United States, Obama is screwed.

And plus, you know, an, uh, act of terror gets commited. Which isn't usually, like, loosening the tops of salt shakers.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

So that same potentially innocent person is going to be incarcerated for...... ever???? That is on Obama, not Bush.

It's on Obama AND Bush. And if anyone is still incarcerated without trial under the next president, it will be on them as well.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Flint

And plus, you know, an, uh, act of terror gets commited. Which isn't usually, like, loosening the tops of salt shakers.

huh?

[Flint]

Man, if I burn the house down, my wife is gonna be pissed. Oh, and also, the house thing.