Say it slowly–Bush was right on the detainees
May 20th, 2009 by David Anderson
Update: A new report shows that a number of detainees who were released when back fighting including one serving as the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Remember these were the guys we couldn’t find anything on, then put in air conditioned rooms with prayer mats and three square ethnically sensitive meals. There is a reason that combatants are not released during a war.
Not only has the Obama administration adopted the Bush reasoning that the detainees at GITMO can be held indefinately and without trial under the law of war, but so has the judge who first allowed the detainees to question their captivity in court. Upon further review, the play stands as called with one sensible modification.
Earlier this year, Bates ordered the Obama administration to give its definition of whom the United States can continue to hold at Guantanamo. The administration responded with a definition that was largely similar to the Bush administration’s, drawing criticism from human rights advocates.
In his opinion, Bates said he agreed with the Obama administration that “the president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.
“The president also has the authority to detain persons who are or were part of Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed (i.e., directly participated in) a belligerent act in aid of such enemy armed forces,” Bates wrote.
But he said the Obama administration went beyond the law of war by including in its definition those who “supported” enemy forces.
“The court can find no authority in domestic law or the law of war, nor can the government point to any, to justify the concept of ‘support’ as a valid ground for detention,” Bates wrote.
“Bush was right on the detainees.”
I didn’t like it when it was the Bush policy, and I don’t like it now.
If I understand this policy correctly, it gives the President unlimited power to sweep up anyone who is deemed a terrorist or an enemy combatant. Not only is this too much power, but it also violates the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a basic of our jurisprudence.
I also don’t like Obama picking up on the Bush rendition program, because it enables torture to be committed in secrecy, elsewhere, but in reality in the name of our country.
Finally, in addition, I am afraid that Obama is losing much of the good will he has generated thus far in his Presidency. Furthermore, these policies will enable our enemies a propaganda windfall in their effort to expand their influence and their manpower.
Perry, you mean the Clinton rendition program, right? And Habeas Corpus applies to US soil, not to foreign battlefields. That’s why Zaccarias Moussaoui is entitled to full US legal rights and privileges, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not. (KSM was captured in Pakistan, by Pakistani security forces and turned over to the US, while Moussaoui was captured in Minnesota.)
G Rex, in other words you think we can just go anywhere outside the US, pick up anybody we feel like, and detain them indefinitely.
For example, what was your reaction to the arrest and sentencing of the Iranian-American reporter in Iran?
This is not my perception of American values or American justice, nor is it yours, except if the victim is not American. This is justice you say??? For shame!!!
G Rex, in other words you think we can just go anywhere outside the US, pick up anybody we feel like, and detain them indefinitely.
No, and that’s not what happened now, is it?
For example, what was your reaction to the arrest and sentencing of the Iranian-American reporter in Iran?
Irrelevant.
G Rex’s policy would permit it to happen, that’s my point!
The Iranian-American reporter detainment is quite relevant, because we protested an Iranian action that G Rex proposes we be able to do, which is to pick up anyone we wish on trumped up charges. True, the Iranians did not torture her (as far as we know so far), or detain her indefinitely without an appearance in court, but we also reserve the right to have our detainees tortured if we so wish and/or held without charges presented to a court. Are the Iranian values actually superior to ours in this respect?
Perry: When/where has the US picked up and detained on “trumped up charges” anyone like that reporter in Iran? You are aware that those in Gitmo were captured on the battlefield or during other military actions, right?
Read the post again, Perry. The Pakistanis captured KSM in Pakistan, and turned him over to us for interrogation. It wasn’t a raid like the Israelis snatching Adolf Eichmann in Argentina, as you seem to suggest.
And even w/Eichmann, he was a well-known wanted war criminal!
Well, I picked Eichmann specifically because that was a de facto violation of Argentinian sovereignty.
Hube, you obviously do not appreciate the gravity of sweeping up people without charges, and holding them without charges for years. Of course this has happened before:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97295936
Also recall that we are down to about 250 detainees, having let more than twice that number off free. What does that tell you?
G Rex, how about the Israelis and Palestinians snatching and jailing people indefinitely without a hearing? This is wrong for them to do, and wrong for us.
Obviously I see a major difference with someone being detained after being captured — again, SIGH — in a military operation as opposed to just swept up off a city street.
Who the F cares if many have been released? That tells me the system works — that even though many were caught up in a military operation, after investigation and legal scuffles, they’ve been released.
In past wars, whenever there was an exhange of prisoners, there was an agreement that the released POWs would not return to the military. Such agreements were kept.
How many of the ‘detainees’ were part of a formal military unit or wore a uniform?
How many were waterboarded? All? Most? Some? A few? Damned few?
Hube reveals his values:“Who the F cares if many have been released? That tells me the system works — that even though many were caught up in a military operation, after investigation and legal scuffles, they’ve been released.”
Right, Hube, many for seven years! Way to go!
And by the way, if the “military operation” is an unprovoked aggression, such as ours in Iraq, this makes matters even worse, if that’s possible.
And Art, we are not discussing torture here, we are talking our detaining people without charge. Is this the kind of a government of which you approve? I already know Hube’s answer; I hope your answer is ‘no’!
People fighting us in Iraq were kept in Iraq unless they were A. Q. That is why we only had 800 or so people at Gitmo. We did not have facilities in Afghanistan for long term detention at the time and we did not want to bring them into the U. S. were they could be targets for release by the scores of sleeper cells that we were breaking up at the time.
The judge said it well. This is not about arresting people. That is a different issue and you know were I stand on it.
There is no logical to close Gitmo. The only reason given is that it is symbol because enhanced interrogation happened there years ago. Well the place is open to journalists and Red Cross now and has been for years. We spent 200 million dollars to upgrade it and build judicial facilities. We spend about a million dollars a person. We can achieve the symbolism by showing the world that what ever image they had is either false or the distant past. Closing it just because it makes someone feel good is not real policy.
The Congress seems to agree.
Art, you are right. All of 3 were waterboarded. The people released have a high rate of returning to war because there is no prisoner exchange. They just torture (in ways too graphic to describe but if you want to understand it be forewarned http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002540.html) and decapitate our guys and drag their burning bodies down the street. Yet, all I hear is how bad the U. S. was for waterboarding. I wish they would spend a 1/10 of the time being as critical of our enemies as of our own guys.
You have to understand that when people are ready to die because it is a greater reward for them than living, gentle persuasion may not work. It is a simple truth that everyone has a breaking point. The question is what kind of people are we and when is it moral to press people beyond civil interrogation? That is a very legitimate debate. I have a problem with the leftists who want to cut it off and criminalize retroactively the reflective opinions of others.
We don’t know how many but we do know that nearly an hundred have of the 500 we released. Maybe we should take it as a compliment that a majority were so well treated that they don’t care to bother us any longer.
Right, Hube, many for seven years! Way to go!
Exactly! Glad you agree.
And by the way, if the “military operation” is an unprovoked aggression, such as ours in Iraq
Except that we’re not talking about Iraq now, are we? We’re talking about Afghanistan. Oops.
Obviously I see a major difference with someone being detained after being captured — again, SIGH — in a military operation as opposed to just swept up off a city street.
Hube – in Iraq we are an expeditionary force, so anything we do is a military operation.
And – as you pointed out, the US detainees were “captured on the battlefield” – only according to the expansive definition of “battlefield” created by the Bush legal team.
In many cases in Iraq, “captured on the battlefield” meant being “swept off city streets” or from homes.
Israel is using the same expansive definition of “battlefield” but with somewhat more justification due to the proximity.
Again, I am talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq.
True… same applies in Afghanistan. We can’t even catch the right guy in Dover, so what makes you think we can catch the right guys in Afghanistan?
Oh, I get it. Now we have to be “absolute certain” of who’s supposed to be on the battlefield and who’s not. Got it.
Great way to fight a war.
Hube, if your sister were swept up by the Taliban while in Afghanistan covering a soccer tournament, and detained indefinitely, and being waterboarded, you would be singing a different tune!
You have absolutely no clue about the rule of law, about what constitutes torture, of the definition of a battlefield involving an insurgency, or the meaning of ‘pro-life’.
Have you ever served in the military? I would guess not, just like Dick Cheney.
Perry: Name for me an instance where American troops swept up a woman covering a soccer tournament, was detained indefinitely, and waterboarded. Good luck.
Oh, so since you served in the military (see any combat? No, you didn’t. No wonder.) you’re the expert on the subject. Then why did you vote for Barack Obama over McCain, hmm?
Hube, let me spell it out for you. The point of my hypothetical was to set up a situation where an innocent person (your sister) might get swept up and detained without being charged. You know well that we have swept up innocents and detained them for up to six years. That’s wrong, because it is a denial of habeas corpus, a basic element of our jurisprudence.
I think you got my point, but decided to respond with a diversion instead of a discussion.
I also note that you did not answer the question about service in the military. I interpret a non-answer as an answer, that you have not served, even in the national guard. Yet your warhawk stance suggests that you have no problem with others going off to fight our wars, even the undeclared wars, even wars of choice based on lies. I find this to be absolutely outrageous!
You know you are free to correct me if I have guessed wrongly about you, however I don’t expect you to respond.
Perry. You were once obsessed w/Colossus, and yet you somehow managed to miss that I was against the Iraq War. How is that possible? I posted about it many, many times.
Oh, right — you’re a say, not listen ideologue.
Oh, and I notice you never answered that you saw combat. How come? Or was walking the streets of Tokyo the extent of your “service?”
You ducked the question about military service, Hube, as I knew you would. This suggests that you have never served.
Perhaps you opposed the Iraq War, I don’t know. When did you start to oppose it? Was it before Bush attacked in March 2003?
No, I did not serve in combat, as most who serve do not. It happens that we were not involved in any military conflicts during my service, so I was very fortunate.
1) How does my service, or lack thereof, mean anything regarding this debate? Is it that you’re trying to make the case that, as a former serviceman, your opinion is more “valid” than mine? Of course you are. Then, as I said, it is remarkable that you voted for Obama over McCain. Why is that, Perry? Furthermore, why do serviceman overwhelmingly vote GOP? Seems to me that YOU need to reassess your values as a former serviceman above all else.
2) What is even more remarkable is that, as one once obsessed with refuting me at every turn at CoR, you did not know I was against the Iraq War. (Yes, before it even started.) Again, this just shows that you’re more obsessed with getting your repeated points out than actually having any semblance of a conversation.
3) Here, I’ll answer your question: My last semester of college I went to the Navy recruiting station on N. Broad St. to take several exams. After being one of only 3 to make it to last one, the officer in charge had a heart to heart w/me. He said that the opportunities available to me due to my terrible vision were quite limited. Flight was a remote possibility. Therefore, I decided not to pursue service.
Satisfied?
No, Hube, my opinion is not more valid than yours. My opinion is based on experiences and observations I have made that you obviously do not comprehend. Is this the way you back out of a debate, with a diversion like this?
On Obama over McCain, there was never any question in my mind that McCain was in over his head and that Obama had the leadership qualities that our nation needed at a time of multiple crises facing us. And then McCain chose Palen!
As far as knowing you did/do not support the Iraq War, I have not made a list, Hube, of all of your positions. You did not mention when your position became opposed to the war, which is a significant piece. I opposed it when I saw the Cheney/Bush/Rice propaganda in support of the build up, knowing that there were lies being told as I followed developments in the British press.
I acknowledge your attempt to serve in the military and applaud your decision to become an educator.
PS: Be sure you watch “Face the Nation” this morning at 9am on CBS, when Colin Powell has a chance to rebut the recent Cheney venom.
Then tell me, Perry — why did you bother to ask whether I had served? What purpose at all did it, well, serve in this convo?
And how did I attempt to avoid this debate at all? I’m right here!
Answer: To add another dimension to the discussion in terms of your perceptions, Hube, since I asked the question before you reminded me that you were against the Iraq War, otherwise I may not have asked it.
But you did not answer my question about when you became opposed to it, whether before or after March 2003. My guess: After, when the execution of the war was failing! I was against the war before March 2003, on moral, ideological, strategic, and tactical grounds; moreover, I did not like being lied to by the WH.
Perry: I DID answer it. Please reread my posts as this is becoming a constant issue with you:
2) What is even more remarkable is that, as one once obsessed with refuting me at every turn at CoR, you did not know I was against the Iraq War. (Yes, before it even started.)
If me being in the service “changes my perceptions,” again, why do servicemen overwhelmingly vote GOP, pray tell, Perry?
My oversight, Hube; sorry!