White House: We Can Keep You At Gitmo "For 100 Years" With No Trial

a reply to: 0311Warrior

Explain that to the German citizen who got grabbed at a European airport because the Central LACK of intelligence agency confused his name with someone else, then got tortured for months at black sites around the world before ending up in your concentration camp.......and when the mistake was found out he was released without apology or compensation.......

a reply to: DieGloke

1. HAVE you been to GITMO? I have. It’s definitely not a concentration camp.
2. You clearly didn’t read what I said, I’ll state again. INFANTRY. I’m not a spook so I can’t speak for their lack of attention etc. I’m just saying we don’t go grabbing randoms and throwing them in GITMO. You go there if we grab you and you’re deemed vital for intel. They don’t stuff GITMO with tons of peopl.

I hate the CIA anyways, we have military intelligence to do their job don’t need redundancy and $$ to waste. So as you said, if they’re the ones having problems getting who they nab then we need to get rid of their ability to take people to black sites. Shouldn’t be hard for them to ID correctly.

a reply to: 0311Warrior

That's why you need due process.

So if you do take someone by mistake, it can be quickly sorted out.


I don't really give a dam with the real terrorist. Put a bullet in there head or drown them in guatamino bay for all I care.
I just wanna see a process that ensures suspects picked up are proven to be guilty of something and mistakes released with some compensation. It can't be hard to add a little oversight and a military tribunal to endure actually terrorists are the ones kept there.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

They're the ones who chose to wage war outside of uniformed services. Having been military intelligence at gtmo,I can tell you they probably live better there than they did at home.

I'm sorry but as long as the conflict exists, the absolute most asinine thing would be to release them and you don't have to give them a trial until the conflict is done. These are not citizens being held on a crime, and because they chose to wage war outside of uniformed services, they are not even prisoners of war. They are insurgent detainees with no rights. We have afforded them many rights but they don't deserve any.

Jaden

a reply to: DieGloke

They WERE quickly sorted out, there are no Farmers that were erroneously detained still there, there haven't been since about 2004. I have personally seen the evidence on the detainees that were there in 2006 and it is substantial.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: DieGloke

They WERE quickly sorted out, there are no Farmers that were erroneously detained still there, there haven't been since about 2004. I have personally seen the evidence on the detainees that were there in 2006 and it is substantial.

Jaden

Tell that to Murat Kurnazband others like him who where tortured before the mistake was found out and got nothing in compensation, not even a apology.

Quickly sorted out is still 6months to a year of torture and having your life wrecked by mistake.

a reply to: DieGloke

If You're talking about CIA arrested detainees then the only thing I can tell you is that CIA is corrupt. They're a leftist new world order entity controlled by people that want to further that agenda and you can't trust them to do anything it should be disbanded.

If you want to talk about legislation that was passed that allows American citizens to become detainees then that's absolutely wrong. All I can speak to is what the military intelligence did and what the military did up until 2006. We did not torture anyone, unless you count offering them McDonald's and Papa John's torture, we did not detain anyone who didn't deserve to be there and we will continue to do our jobs and take our oaths seriously.

Jaden

FREE HAROLD AND KUMAR!!!!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

No there's not. That is for citizens, that is not for enemy combatants, lol. Even our treaties that allow for certain treatments don't apply because they weren't members of uniformed services.

Jaden

a reply to: Southern Guardian

How is Gitmo "a massive stain on our country and Constitution"?
1000's of miles from home with no trial?
Oh the poor dears! Good thing they aren't U.S. citizens, who are afforded the right of due process and a speedy trial. Nope. These people were insurgents and jihadists, not part of a formal army or government, so I don't think they're covered by the Geneva Convention either. They were often captured in combat zones, not on U.S. soil.
So basically, they have no right to a speedy trial or due process. I don't consider it shameful that the U.S. chooses to detain it's enemies how it sees fit, as long as it's legal.
Considering other countries methods around the world, ours would seem pretty tame by comparison.
In this case, personally, IDGAF what they do with characters such as these. If left unchecked, we are all their targets. Lock em under the damn place and throw away the key. There will be plenty more where they came from.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: DieGloke

You're talking about CIA arrested detainees then the only thing I can tell you is that CIA is corrupt. They're a leftist new world order entity controlled by people that want to further that agenda and you can't trust them to do anything it should be disbanded.

If you want to talk about legislation that was passed it allows American citizens to become detainees then that's absolutely wrong. All I can speak to is what the military intelligence did and what the military did up until 2006. We did not torture anyone unless you count offering the McDonald's and Papa John's torture, we did not detain anyone who didn't deserve to be there and we will continue to do our jobs and take our oaths seriously.

Jaden

That's the problem and why some sort of due process is needed.

You guys might be doing your jobs well and treating those there correctly but as you said there are corrupt agency's like the CIA that are incompetent at best and evil at worst involved and they sully everyone reputation.
A sort of due process would limited the excesses of the CIA.

That due process could be as simple as a judge and investigation panel from the navy, army or marine core giving them a tribunal and chance to plead their case. If a mistake they can be released with some fair compensation (taken out the CIA budget) and if not a mistake and they belong there? Keep them there.

truthout.org... scotus ruled that you can indefinitely detain immigrants revering 9th circuit ruling

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that US immigration officials can detain immigrants within the US indefinitely, without offering periodic bond hearings. Immigrants with permanent legal status and those seeking asylum would not be exempt from this policy. In 2015, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigrants must be given a bond hearing every six months, so long as they are not deemed a flight risk or a threat to national security. The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the lower court’s ruling and remand the case for reconsideration by the Circuit Court marks yet another victory in the Trump administration’s xenophobic crusade against immigrants.

i only post this as the detention of gitmo detainees (41 of them) is most likely headed to the SCOTUS as well and the above ruling could be an example of which way the wind will blow on this case

www.washingtonpost.com... -11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?utm_term=.40a524f292d7

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment, saying that officials were reviewing the filing. The new legal action could present a test of the Trump administration's resolve in keeping the controversial prison in operation and breaking with the previous administration's practice of releasing detainees overseas, which many Republicans allege has threatened American security. With 41 prisoners remaining, the population at Guantanamo is a fraction of the more than 700 it housed in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Trump, criticizing the actions of his predecessor, vowed after his election that he would end detainee transfers and fill the detention facility, perched on a corner of Cuba, with "bad dudes." Trump has backed off that promise in recent months, suggesting that it would take too long to try the suspect in a November terrorist attack through the dysfunctional process for trying Guantanamo detainees. More than 16 years after the 9/11 attacks, trials for those suspects are stuck in years of logistical and security delays and could be years away from conclusion. A spokesman for the National Security Council, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said decisions regarding "terrorists" were made on an individual basis, grounded in the particulars of each case. "President Trump remains committed to using military detention and all available tools to defeat terrorism and protect the United States and its interests abroad," he said.

with Kavanuagh looking twords confirmation his views differ starkly on this issue from kennedy
www.washingtonpost.com... tm_term=.74af5769a5d5 so this link could give an example of how the court may rule if he is confirmed

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Lumenari

They are enemy combatants.

Oh really? Which courts ruled that they were guilty of the charges laid upon them? Is this not the point of the OP?

Most Guantanamo detainees are innocent: ex-Bush official

There's something called innocent until proven guilty sweetheart. I'm sure you've heard of it.

Innocent until proven guilty is a part of our legal system, of course. It is also not in our Constitution.

It also does not apply to enemy combatants.

The Geneva convention is something you can bring up, of course.

Which applies to lawful combatants.

There is no court needed to levy charges on them because they are enemy combatants.

Told you that you didn't understand the word.

Enemy Combatant

Captured fighter in a war who is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he or she does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as established by the geneva convention; a saboteur.

So they have no rights, either by our Constitution, our laws or under the Geneva convention.

They should be happy to be alive, because by law we can kill them in battle and keep going.

Hope that helps your misconceptions on reality, sweety.

Exactly.
The bottom line is....don’t have your fingers into anything that could possibly land you at Gitmo and you will be fine.
What is a good reason that I should care about these 30+ clowns that are rotting in there?

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: dug88

Last I checked we are still at war with terrorists. Detention without charges during a war and dealing with enemy prisoners is allowed.

And when the Central LACK of intelligence agency picks someone up by mistake? What then? Because that has happened.

Then they sue and win like the others.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Terrific. Held without trial 1000's of miles from home and the Administration thinks it's perfectly fine and legal.

Another source:

Twenty-six prisoners at Guantánamo remain detained without charge or trial, including the eight men represented in court Wednesday, who have been at Guantánamo between 10 and 16 years. Two of them have been cleared for release by a government review panel. Lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights, along with other attorneys, are challenging the prisoners’ detention both as a violation of due process and also under the laws of war as dictated by the authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF

The government countered that as long as operations continue against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the original theater of the war on terror, the authority underpinning the AUMF still holds. When Judge Thomas Hogan asked if, in the government’s view, the war could last 100 years, Justice Department attorney Ronald Wiltsie said, “Yes, we could hold them for 100 years if the conflict lasts 100 years.”

Can we just come to a consensus that Gitmo is a massive stain on the country and the constitution? This is down right disgusting. The place was a stain under Bush, it was a stain under Obama, and now it's a stain under Trump and this administration makes no bones about preserving Gitmo at its core function. Imagine that? Being held, jailed, without trial? Without a proper defense? for the rest of your life.

True.They are not regular prisoners, but enemy combatants..subject to the Geneva convention....but aren't subject to the same "due process" Americans are.

we have very twisted angles to keeping those types "in leiu of" official charges or rules for release.

Can hold them as long as wanted...then charge them..then put them right back in Gitmo...for another 10 years...

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: highvein

No where.

Exactly. Moving on.

Bye Felicia.