It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Defense Department Plan: Lock up Uncharged Detainees For Life.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The Pentagon and CIA have asked the White House to allocate funds to build a 200 bed prison to permanently incarcerate some detainees. The new prison would be known as Camp 6 and would house prisoners that no longed had any intel to give up, but that the government chose not to turn over to U.S. or foreign courts. The plan however has objections from both parties. Republican Senator Richard Lugar has called into question the constitutionality of such a plan.

 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A reported U.S. plan to keep some suspected terrorists imprisoned for a lifetime even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts was swiftly condemned on Sunday as a "bad idea" by a leading Republican senator.


The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it was unwilling to set free or turn over to U.S. or foreign courts, the Washington Post said in a report that cited intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

Some detentions could potentially last a lifetime, the newspaper said.

Influential senators denounced the idea as probably unconstitutional.

"It's a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this," Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on "Fox News Sunday."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The cost of the prison would be about $25 million dollars, and according to the Defense Department, would house those who lacked enough evidence to go before a tribunal. In other word, even though we cannot charge them with anything, we will lock them up for life. Not let me make my position on this issue very clear. I support the premise that allows these terrorist to be detained and help for questioning. Its clear after 911 that we needed to move beyond conventional methods. However, I draw the line at in essence locking them up for life even though they are never charged with anything, nor is there any evidence. If we walk away from the constitution, we are no better than the Jihadists.




posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
This is a bad idea, taking prisoners from other nations and incarcerate them with no prof of guilt will start an unprecedented response from other countries, that will take American prisoners themselves and keep them in their countries, indefinitely also.

Remember the cause and effect law.

Also if this plan falls under the patriot act 2 US citizens could be treated the same way.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I don't know about the Patriot 2 act and U.S. citizens. The law had not been challanged fully and I they would not be able to classify you as an enemy combatant if you were picked up say in the U.S. and were a citizen. But you never know.

At any rate, shocking as it is, I agree with you on this Marg,.


U.S. citizens will now face similar treatment overseas. We could have a defacto enactment of the Monroe Doctrine where the U.S. (at least in therms of visiting other countries) stays at home and simply trades and exerts power.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Actually this idea is worst, having the prisioners detained in prisions made in those countries, who is to say that these prisons may very well become target to terrorist.

It makes no sense at all, Ideas like this make you wonder as to the state of mind of some of our officials. Right?



TextOne proposal would transfer large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries, it said.





posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   


The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it was unwilling to set free or turn over to U.S. or foreign courts


how is this legal?!?! they have to do one or the other! i can't believe this was even asked for approval from the white house! this goes to show the corrupt state of US policy.

-raven



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Come now Marg, which form of "humane" treatment would you prefer then, those of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or "Gitmo"?
Personally, I go with sending them back to those respective "home" countries and let their governments deal with them in their own versions of "humane" that makes what you, and others, have been claiming, preaching, and asserting that the U.S. is not providing. If only you knew.....


What these detainees are recieving is 10-fold better than what they will recieve once or "if" they are returned to their "home" countries....bet!

They will be begging to be back at "Gitmo".
I wonder how much the righteous Humanitarian activist and groups will be howling then, huh?



One proposal would transfer large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries, it said.

The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, a senior administration official was quoted as saying.

US Said to Mull Lifetime Terror-Suspect Detentions


Then again, Marg, the proposal is still under review......




seekerof



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
This is nothing new we did it to the japanies after Perl harbor. The one during world war II was much larger. The whole Asian population of the united states was forced to live in contaminate camps. makes you think FDR was that great of a president after all ...



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Personally, I go with sending them back to those respective "home" countries and let their governments deal with them in their own versions of "humane" that makes what you, and others, have been claiming, preaching, and asserting that the U.S. is not providing. If only you knew.....


Well, I doubt you know either. Interesting how a claim of guilt with NO substance to back it up is automatically taken as gospel in countries throughout the world. In fact, it's this sort of attitude that would have them killed in other countries depending on the attitude of the current leaders.

Now, the issue here is not whether they are guilty or not, because obviously that is up to due process to decide.

The question is, Why the hell aren't they being allowed to appear before court? If they are guilty, let them rot in jail! But, she wouldn't be getting upset at the blatant disregard for justice in our own backyard! What does this tell those countries we attack? How are the citizens of Iraq supposed to have any hope of justice when their conquerors do not show it?

This is absurd. There is no excuse for preventing a trial for these prisoners, especially when you are talking about taking away their lives.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

as posted by Jamuhn
Well, I doubt you know either.


Your funny and quite uninformed, eh? Use a search engine next time....I certainly did. Its a wonderful tool.


As for your other comments: Due process? Is due process regulated by a prescribed and pre-determined time frame, Jamuhn? Due process as in relation to them falling under the U.S. Constitution? Due process as in relation to them recieving a fair trial as say a criminal would under the U.S. legal system? None of these detainees have Constitutional rights or protections under the U.S Judicial system. per se', as say a U.S. citizen would. If you so deem that these detainees are POWs, the so-called War on Terrorism is still ongong. As such, would this indicate that their due process would come after the declared official ending of said "war"? Such as was the case of war tribunials held after WWII, etc.?

But, yes Jamuhn, agreed, they should be accorded due process. Just when they get that 'due process' is still an ongong debate. Just as mentioned before, so is this proposal. It is itself still under review.





seekerof



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I say send then back to their "HOME" countries and fill their government in with the details and let them handle the trials on their own. In Most cases I am sure they will get what they deserve.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW SAYS
Posted Jan 2, 2005 07:04 AM PST

All forms of torture and illtreatment of detainees, whoever and wherever they are and whatever their status, are prohibited under international human rights law ( which applies to states) and international humanitarian law (which applies to parties to a conflict, whether states or non-state actors). The prohibition is binding on all states, regardless of whether they have signed the relevant treaties, and cannot be suspended, whatever the circumstances Torture is normally defined as the purposeful inflicting of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.

International Law Tutorial 101



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
This government is breaking every law known to man. Those prisoners havent even been charged with anything. Incredible



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Yes dg, the government is braking every rule to get away with the use and misused of the Guantanamo inmates.

First Seekerof, how in the world US is going to hold these prisoners with not evidence of their Innocent or guilt.

Second Seekerof, how in the world US is planning to build a 200, bed "more humane" concentration camp for people that has not been prove guilty.

Is this to become the first US officially concentration camp out of US soil?

Will you be ready to be arrested as a US citizen and send to Guantanamo to be in jail indefinitely. Without due process after being tag an "non combatant"?



As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the Washington Post.



And building prisons in another countries to hold nationals of those countries, how in the heck the US is planning to support those prisons and also who is going to run those prisons?

US can do what Its doing to those people in Guantanamo as long as it keeps them of their countries soil and off US soil laws.

It makes not sense what they are planning.

Either let them rot Innocent or not in jail and let the US tax payer money take care of them.

Great to have some geniuses in the white house. To me the inocent in Guantanamo are kidnap victims that now have to live a life of no identity and not laws, in the hands of the US administration.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Now that a dangerous precedent has been set by our government by allowing states to charge gang members as terrorists, anything is possible. With this request for a prison, it means that there will effectively be a 'Justice' system accesible by the wealthy and powerful and an 'Injustice' system for the poor and ignorant. hmm.. I think that's what we have now, but in a less efficient configuration. So in short, nothing has changed. Our government has just gotten sick of keeping their ravenous capitalism secret. It's all out in the open from now on! Good for them, I say.

According to our own government, if you associate with other people and commit criminal acts amounting to sedition, you can all get sent away for life with no process at all: Incarceration without law, without guarantee of fair treatment, without recourse of any kind.

One day Americans will wake up and see that we've gone too far. But by that time it will be too late to undo all of the damage, and our descendants will curse our selfish greed until the end of humanity. We are polishing ourselves to become a beacon of warning dropped into the sea of history. I find it a little sad and a little encouraging. Maybe our mistakes will be a warning to others, and in the end it might just be worth it.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Wyrde, precisely.


Maybe we will set the example to not let this happen again for future generations. *sigh*



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
If you ain't got # to hold 'em, stick a chip in their ass and send 'em home... Follow their ass around and see if they lead to someone important....



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
If you ain't got # to hold 'em, stick a chip in their ass and send 'em home... Follow their ass around and see if they lead to someone important....


Humm, good idea, but to bad our geniuses at the white house are not too smart.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Gaz

You should be in charge of detainees



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Jamuhn
Well, I doubt you know either.


Your funny and quite uninformed, eh? Use a search engine next time....I certainly did. Its a wonderful tool.


About what? Are you googling and looking up each and every person? You don't even have any substance for what you googled? Your smugness is an easy indicator that you don't know what you are talking about.

The US has already made it clear they are "enemy" combatants. Which is funny since they are soldiers for a regime that the afghani country at least was determined to uphold, so one would thing they are fighting for that country at least in part.

But assuming they are enemy combatants, the general nature of a "war on terrorism" should not delay their due process. There is no specific enemy and there is certainly no end in sight.

By creating a definition as you are striving to do, you would essentially deprive any captive due process as a result of the "war on terror" forever. The "war on terror" will not end, there will always be people to fight all over the world. And even if there isn't, the terror alerts will remain the same.

This whole "terror" situation will become a part of our daily lives and those of our descendants. We have a non-specific enemy, merely a "word" that we are fighting against.

It is a very absurd situation. The term "enemy combatant" in my mind would evoke a rationale that they are as any other criminal and should be treated as such either according to our laws or according to international laws. Send them back to their own country or to the country where the crime is committed.

If the pillars of justice fail for anyone within our grasp, they will fail for everyone in this country. This is a precedent in the making.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
This sets a dangerous legal precedent for not only international 'terrorists', but with the new vaguely worded laws and the push for the patriot act 2, hell they can pretty much detain anyone they like indefinately for such crimes as reading anti-government slanted news articles. No, I'm not exaggerating. According to our constitution, they can't pass laws to allow incommunicado detention. Sad state of affairs folks.
We let the nazi's back into power. Prescott Bush should have been tried for war crimes and executed along with Harriman, Walker, Ford, and all the other bankrollers of the Nazi Party in Germany. They cashed checks on the blood of allied soldiers, and we put the bastards in power. I remember watching Bush on the Beach at Normandy giving his WWII memorial speech and something in my stomach made me turn the tv off and shiver. Disgusting.
How far are we going to sit back and watch the American Constitution unravel?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join