Military limiting Guantanamo detainee access to lawyers

[Texashiker]

I'm not saying it is right to have these laws but if they aren't using them to silence the masses than why is everyone so adamant that this is some huge problem?

As long as its not happening to you, then everything is ok?

We should not pick and choose who is entitled to basic human rights. One day, someone might be making that decision for you.

 

[CycloWizard]

You know guys, I have to wonder. Do you know ANYONE who has been taken to either of these places for any reason? I don't have one friend, family member, even an acquaintance who has been detained at any of these places or not been allowed representation or the right to contact a lawyer or their family. I mean if this is such a problem then why aren't people disappearing?

I'm not saying it is right to have these laws but if they aren't using them to silence the masses than why is everyone so adamant that this is some huge problem?

Human decency. No one should ever be locked up without charge or legal representation.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Human decency. No one should ever be locked up without charge or legal representation.

I said it wasn't the best thing in the world, just that I think you guys are going overboard with it. The reason this hasn't happened to me or anyone I know is because none of us are terrorists...lol

 

[Texashiker]

The reason this hasn't happened to me or anyone I know is because none of us are terrorists...lol

Define terrorist.

Anwar al-Awlaki was never linked to a single attack against the US. But he was killed by a drone attack.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I said it wasn't the best thing in the world, just that I think you guys are going overboard with it. The reason this hasn't happened to me or anyone I know is because none of us are terrorists...lol

Of course these guys aren't necessarily terrorists. The reason that they're kept there is because they're considered dangerous, not because they necessarily have committed a crime, just dangerous. The fact is that the US does not have evidence to put them in an actual jail, and keep them in limbo.

It doesn't really matter is someone is considered dangerous, if they haven't committed a crime, there is no reason to imprison them.

 

[cybrsage]

Anyway, the decision to close Gitmo got stonewalled and was effectively shut down, can't reall blame Obama for not being able to force his exec order through.

The law only prevents him from moving them to the United States. There is a lot of planet left for him to move them too, not including holding them on aircraft carriers or specially outfitted prison barges.

He can easily transfer them and Congress cannot stop him.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

The law only prevents him from moving them to the United States. There is a lot of planet left for him to move them too, not including holding them on aircraft carriers or specially outfitted prison barges.

He can easily transfer them and Congress cannot stop him.

They removed all funding toward the movement of prisoners to anywere unless extremely specific conditions are met.

So yes, they can stop him.

 

[cybrsage]

From the OP link:

Under the proposed changes, the Navy base commander at Guantanamo would have sole veto power over attorney access, as well as access to classified material, including information provided directly by the detainees from interrogations

I disagree with the attorney access. Classified material, though, is a different ball of wax. It depends on what they want to see and why they want to see it, and if they have been thorough vetted through the security clearance process or not. They need to have obtained the clearance level of the documents AND have a need to know what is in the document. The article is not clear enough about what they may be denied seeing.

 

[cybrsage]

They removed all funding toward the movement of prisoners to anywere unless extremely specific conditions are met.

So yes, they can stop him.

Can you quote that law? The last one I saw very specifically said the United States and its possessions/protectorates. If there is one which says what you say it does, I will change my position.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Section 113 of the law

Notwithstanding section 1101, except as pro-
vided in paragraph (2), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this division or any other Act (including division
A of this Act) may be used to transfer any individual detained
at Guantanamo to the custody or effective control of the individual’s
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign
entityunless the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the
certification described in subsection (b) by not later than 30 days
before the transfer of the individual.

As for the conditions

that the government of the foreign country
or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the
individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred—
(1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a
designated foreign terrorist organization;
(2) maintains effective control over each detention facility
in which an individual is to be detained if the individual is
to be housed in a detention facility;
(3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a
threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise
control over the individual;
(4) has agreed to take effective steps to ensure that the
individual cannot take action to threaten the United States,
its citizens, or its allies in the future;
(5) has taken such steps as the Secretary determines are
necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or re-
engage in any terrorist activity; and
(6) has agreed to share any information with the United
States that—
(A) is related to the individual or any associates of
the individual; and
(B) could affect the security of the United States, its
citizens, or its allies.

How many nations are there in the world that have 1) Indefinite Holding cells for non criminal entities, 2) would agree to all the United States conditions and be subject to US control over their prisons systems, 3) Would even accept them in the first place,

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You can count this liberal as being extremely displeased with the way Gitmo has been handled.

Not only this but basically anything to do with the Justice Department. Why was there no house cleaning of the Pat Robertson college of Law crowd. If and probably when Obama's reelected, there had better be a house cleaning of the Bush leftovers otherwise, I'm confused as to why the Attorney General is a political appointment. After all, the whole point of winning an election is to be able to shape your administration into your political point of view.

Sometimes I think the Obama administration purposely let the Fast'n'Furious bullshit to get so big was to cover up all the other crap this pathetic justice department isn't getting done. Holder is an total failure IMO.

I may not agree with you on much but you damn sure hit this one square on the head and drove the nail through the board with one strike.

 

[werepossum]

Dang, where is that world's smallest violin when I need it?

These are prisoners of war. Not criminals. They should be treated strictly by the rules of warfare, including the right to execute them if they are fighting without a recognized uniform.

That said, I think they should have access to military lawyers. Civilian lawyers can be an information conduit in and out of Gitmo, which can cost lives. However, a military lawyer could pursue evidence of innocence. No human endeavor is perfect; therefore some of these people (not all of whom were picked up on the battlefield) have got to be wrongly accused. And for those who were picked up on the battlefield or otherwise in the act of terrorism, screw 'em.

 

[werepossum]

I may not agree with you on much but you damn sure hit this one square on the head and drove the nail through the board with one strike.

He may have hit the nail but he got a lot of thumb as well. In one little paragraph he recognized that the DoJ is run for political benefit AND still blamed Bush for what's happening 3-1/2 years into Obama's term.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He may have hit the nail but he got a lot of thumb as well. In one little paragraph he recognized that the DoJ is run for political benefit AND still blamed Bush for what's happening 3-1/2 years into Obama's term.

Oops, I meant to quote the last sentence and not the whole post..

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Well look guys, it's real simple. You either think that these guys are terrorists or consort with terrorists, or you think the government is going to put us all in FEMA camps and mass murder the world in order to clear the way for the NWO. I tend to go with the former.

Yeah it might be a denial of their rights, but those are rights guaranteed to US citizens....not everyone else.

 

[CycloWizard]

Well look guys, it's real simple. You either think that these guys are terrorists or consort with terrorists, or you think the government is going to put us all in FEMA camps and mass murder the world in order to clear the way for the NWO. I tend to go with the former.

Yeah it might be a denial of their rights, but those are rights guaranteed to US citizens....not everyone else.

That's a false dilemma. If these guys are terrorists or associated with terrorists, then it's the government's job to prove it. If you disagree, you're an idiot arguing that it's fine for government to suspend decent behavior until it happens to you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well look guys, it's real simple. You either think that these guys are terrorists or consort with terrorists, or you think the government is going to put us all in FEMA camps and mass murder the world in order to clear the way for the NWO. I tend to go with the former.

Yeah it might be a denial of their rights, but those are rights guaranteed to US citizens....not everyone else.

That's a false dilemma. If these guys are terrorists or associated with terrorists, then it's the government's job to prove it. If you disagree, you're an idiot arguing that it's fine for government to suspend decent behavior until it happens to you.

Indeed.

The Bush Admin created a scenario where subsequent Admins will be damned if they do & damned if they don't. Congress went further, insuring that dilemma will remain permanent.

If there were admissible evidence sufficient for conviction, then those held would have been subjected to trial, but they haven't been, because such evidence is obviously lacking. OTOH, they must be released if found not guilty, and that means some would necessarily be granted asylum in this country, plus the right to sue for false imprisonment.

None of the Rightie ravers have come to terms with that reality, or will they ever. But they were doing high-fives when Gitmo was created, even as they now Blame Obama! for what the heroes of their own partisan stupidity created.

I've asked the question many times, and all I get is crickets- What else would they have the Obama Admin do?

Personally, I want them all brought to this country & be subjected to trial under our laws, regardless of the unintended consequences, because it would illustrate just what kind of dangerous immoral charlatans the Bush Admin truly was, and how morally bankrupt their supporters were & are, how easily they embraced demagoguery, fearmongering & bloodlust of the worst kind.

 

[chucky2]

Indeed.

The Bush Admin created a scenario where subsequent Admins will be damned if they do & damned if they don't. Congress went further, insuring that dilemma will remain permanent.

If there were admissible evidence sufficient for conviction, then those held would have been subjected to trial, but they haven't been, because such evidence is obviously lacking. OTOH, they must be released if found not guilty, and that means some would necessarily be granted asylum in this country, plus the right to sue for false imprisonment.

None of the Rightie ravers have come to terms with that reality, or will they ever. But they were doing high-fives when Gitmo was created, even as they now Blame Obama! for what the heroes of their own partisan stupidity created.

I've asked the question many times, and all I get is crickets- What else would they have the Obama Admin do?

Personally, I want them all brought to this country & be subjected to trial under our laws, regardless of the unintended consequences, because it would illustrate just what kind of dangerous immoral charlatans the Bush Admin truly was, and how morally bankrupt their supporters were & are, how easily they embraced demagoguery, fearmongering & bloodlust of the worst kind.

Pre-Surge Harry Reid, is that you???

 

[Pr0d1gy]

That's a false dilemma. If these guys are terrorists or associated with terrorists, then it's the government's job to prove it. If you disagree, you're an idiot arguing that it's fine for government to suspend decent behavior until it happens to you.

I do agree they should have legal rep, but I don't agree they should be allowed bail or even a super speedy trial. These are seriously dangerous individuals and, while they have erroneously imprisoned some people there they have mostly put very dangerous people in there that were a real threat.

I don't like the idea of them doing this but in this day and age you can understand the reasoning for it. And as I said before, most of these people are not American citizens and not born with the rights you and I have when it comes to our country.