Guantanamo 47 Cannot Be Freed

Users who are viewing this thread

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Pathetic and a blatent human right violation being continued. :thumbdown

Guantanamo: 47 'cannot be freed'
A task force on the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay has advised that 47 inmates should be held indefinitely without trial, officials say.
It is thought to be the first time that officials have given a figure for those who might be held without charge.
Some 35 prisoners have been recommended for prosecution through trials or military commissions.
The news came as the deadline US President Barack Obama had set himself for closing the prison camp passed.
The task force, led by the US justice department, recommended that while 35 people could be prosecuted, 110 could be released either now or at a later date, unnamed officials said.
The other nearly 50 detainees are considered too dangerous to release, but cannot be tried because the evidence against them is too flimsy or was extracted from them by coercion, so would not hold up in court.
'Dismay'
Congress has laid down that only those to be tried can be moved to US soil, so the question of what to do with those to be detained indefinitely without trial has yet to be resolved.
The BBC's Adam Brookes says the outcome will dismay civil liberties groups, and will also dismay many of Mr Obama's supporters who hoped the president would end the practice of detention without trial.
A White House official stressed that this was only a recommendation, which Mr Obama does not have to accept.
The task force's findings are subject to review by the National Security Council.
More than 40 detainees have been transferred out of the prison under the Obama administration.
But diplomatic hurdles and domestic opposition to the government's plan to house suspects on US soil have hampered his plans to close it down completely.
Plans to move detainees approved for trial to a prison facility in Illinois remain under consideration.
Yemen suspension
The task force recommended that among those cleared for release, 80 detainees, including about 30 Yemenis, could be freed immediately, the Washington Post said.
The panel said the release of another 30 Yemenis should be contingent on an improved situation in Yemen, the newspaper reported.
However, the US recently suspended the repatriation of Yemeni prisoners indefinitely, following an airliner bomb plot that was allegedly planned in Yemen.
Yemenis account for approximately half of the inmates at Guantanamo.
Mr Obama set himself the 22 January deadline a year ago, shortly after being sworn in.
He has subsequently said he wants the camp closed this year, without setting a specific deadline.

Story from BBC NEWS:
 
  • 18
    Replies
  • 335
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

KpAtch3s

Active Member
Messages
993
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
They don't have miranda rights. They are not US citizens and have no right to a normal trial. They are prisoners of war.

They get a military tribunal.
 

Francis

Sarcasm is me :)
Messages
8,367
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
2.08z
They don't have miranda rights. They are not US citizens and have no right to a normal trial. They are prisoners of war.

They get a military tribunal.

I thought they didn't even qualify as "Prisoners of War" ?

No Geneva Convention status or any rights at all..

Hence the special status for Guantanamo Bay..
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
They don't have miranda rights. They are not US citizens and have no right to a normal trial. They are prisoners of war.

They get a military tribunal.

Must have missed that bit in the article, care to point it out? I got the impression they were being held indefinately, from that article, saw nothing about a military tribunal.
 

KpAtch3s

Active Member
Messages
993
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I thought they didn't even qualify as "Prisoners of War" ?

No Geneva Convention status or any rights at all..

Hence the special status for Guantanamo Bay..

I was just thinking about this as well and was going to add to my statement.

My biggest problem with this is mainly that they want to give them the right to a normal trial as well as other terrorists, such as the underwear bomber.
 

KpAtch3s

Active Member
Messages
993
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Must have missed that bit in the article, care to point it out? I got the impression they were being held indefinately, from that article, saw nothing about a military tribunal.

They currently are, but this is what they want.

Some 35 prisoners have been recommended for prosecution through trials or military commissions.
 

Francis

Sarcasm is me :)
Messages
8,367
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
2.08z
I was just thinking about this as well and was going to add to my statement.

My biggest problem with this is mainly that they want to give them the right to a normal trial as well as other terrorists, such as the underwear bomber.

I can understand the concerns but eventually how do you deal with someone..

You have to either decide they are a danger to society, prove it and move forward with punishment that would be appropriate or let them go free..
 

Francis

Sarcasm is me :)
Messages
8,367
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
2.08z
If you deal with people in a more barbaric way then they did are you not worse then them ?

Just asking an opinion ?
 

KpAtch3s

Active Member
Messages
993
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I can understand the concerns but eventually how do you deal with someone..

You have to either decide they are a danger to society, prove it and move forward with punishment that would be appropriate or let them go free..

I can agree to a military tribunal, but not to a normal trial with citizen rights.

If you deal with people in a more barbaric way then they did are you not worse then them ?

Just asking an opinion ?

Is this to say their imprisonment is worse than their terrorrist activities or 9/11?
 

nova

Active Member
Messages
799
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
They don't have miranda rights. They are not US citizens and have no right to a normal trial. They are prisoners of war.

They get a military tribunal.

The combination of two facts puts them into a bit of a legal grey area.

1. We didn't actually declare war.
2. They are members of an extra-national group waging warfare against nation states, something Geneva never even began to consider.


There are really no existing legal mechanisms to deal people who are really nasty, heavily armed, well organized and yet not part of a nation state.

I'd go into a lot more detail but I just don't have the time at the moment. Needless to say we screwed the pooch on this one....
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
If you deal with people in a more barbaric way then they did are you not worse then them ?

Just asking an opinion ?
The answer to your question is yes, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.

IMO, this weird limbo prison bullshit has to stop. Congress needs to stop trying to grab more extraconstitutional power and start doing the fucking job in their job descriptions. Either they are POWs, in which case most of them get no trial & are only held until the war is over, or they are simply criminals, in which case we aren't at war at all & need to pull our troops out, apologize for breaking & entering, and beg China to send them a check on our behalf for reparations.

If it's neither of these, they need to define whatever the fuck the prisoners are. THAT's what they should be debating right now.
rant2.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Francis

Sarcasm is me :)
Messages
8,367
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
2.08z
The answer to your question is yes, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.

IMO, this weird limbo prison bullshit has to stop. Congress needs to stop trying to grab more extraconstitutional power and start doing the fucking job in their job descriptions. Either they are POWs, in which case most of them get no trial & are only held until the war is over, or they are simply criminals, in which case we aren't at war at all & need to pull our troops out, apologize for breaking & entering, and beg China to send them a check on our behalf for reparations.

If it's neither of these, they need to define whatever the fuck the prisoners are. THAT's what they should be debating right now.
rant2.gif

Interesting view..

We have a similar issue here with our Government skirting the torture issue and saying it's not our problem. Passing the buck is just not cutting it when our best men and women are fitting in Afghanistan if all is for nothing..

If all we do is take prisoners and hand them over to get tortured without knowing if they are even terrorist we have a BIG credibility issue that makes our military look bad when it's not their call.

Their solution was to shut down out House until the Olympics are over.. Basically putting a muzzle on the press and opposition parties.. :blah:
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Interesting view..

We have a similar issue here with our Government skirting the torture issue and saying it's not our problem. Passing the buck is just not cutting it when our best men and women are fitting in Afghanistan if all is for nothing..

If all we do is take prisoners and hand them over to get tortured without knowing if they are even terrorist we have a BIG credibility issue that makes our military look bad when it's not their call.

Their solution was to shut down out House until the Olympics are over.. Basically putting a muzzle on the press and opposition parties.. :blah:
Sounds like you've got as big a problem as we do.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Nary a word in his State of the Union speech. You'd think the only people living outside our borders are our business competition.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top