Obama Looking to Revive Guantanamo Tribunals

[OCGuy]

"The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...tics/02gitmo.html?_r=1


It seems that the more Obama learns how the real world works as CIC, the more he understands Bush's methods.

Personally, I think many on the left have many more disappointments to come when they realize that you can campaign on the left or right, but you are going to end up pissing both sides off no matter what.

 

[fskimospy]

So Obama is trying to revive a system that he criticized, but provide more legal protections to those involved in it. Scandal!!!! It seems to me like you're taking a news headline and making big bullshit business out of it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So Obama is trying to revive a system that he criticized, but provide more legal protections to those involved in it. Scandal!!!! It seems to me like you're taking a news headline and making big bullshit business out of it.

So essentially Obama is reviving, rebranding and tweaking a Bush Administration policy the Democrats, and Obama himself, heavily criticized.

This system still treats insurgents as military prisoners under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal system.

Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama?s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.

Not a scandal, but quite hypocritical, and a complete 180 from his campaign stance on the issue.

I just find it ironic that Obama continues to utilize the same strategies followed by the Bush Administration, with minor variations...welcome to the real world Mr. President.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So Obama is trying to revive a system that he criticized, but provide more legal protections to those involved in it. Scandal!!!! It seems to me like you're taking a news headline and making big bullshit business out of it.

So essentially Obama is reviving, rebranding and tweaking a Bush Administration policy the Democrats, and Obama himself, heavily criticized.

This system still treats insurgents as military prisoners under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal system.

Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama?s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.

Not a scandal, but quite hypocritical, and a complete 180 from his campaign stance on the issue.

disagree.

Everyone and their grandma knew that the Bush system of military tribunals was ineffective in protecting the rights of the accused.

As well as everyone and their grandma knew that the federal judicial system cannot try the prisoners because of their quasi war criminal status.

It was obvious from the getgo that a new system would have to be formulated to prosecute the accused. Its no surprise that a military tribunal (With a new system that affords more legal protections to the accused as this article suggests) could be the route this administration takes.

If you look at the issue other than the superficial analysis that the OP does...it makes sense.

quote:

Any plan to adjust the military commissions would walk a tightrope of granting the suspects more rights yet stopping short of affording them the rights available to defendants in American courts. Several lawyers say the commissions are only beneficial for the government if they make it easier to win a prosecution than it would be in federal court.

The Bush administration?s commission system was criticized in part because it permitted evidence that would often be barred in federal court, like evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and hearsay.


Everyone and their grandma KNEW that prosecuting the accused would NOT be easy.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Everyone and their grandma KNEW that prosecuting the accused would NOT be easy.

Hindsight is always 20/20...no one understood the complexity of dealing with an enemy like Al Quaida...you can rightfully criticize the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, but it is difficult to question the handling of Al Quaida POWs.

These combatants don't fit the classic model, and intelligence is a critical component to fighting an asymmetrical war against an enemy not aligned to any sovereign nation, and whose members are fanatically loyal to a cause we may never understand.

The Bush Administration faced unprecedented national security and foreign policy challenges...Obama is quickly learning and perhaps coming to understand the motivating factors that dictated our course of action to this point.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Everyone and their grandma KNEW that prosecuting the accused would NOT be easy.

Hindsight is always 20/20...no one understood the complexity of dealing with an enemy like Al Quaida...you can rightfully criticize the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, but it is difficult to question the handling of Al Quaida POWs.

These combatants don't fit the classic model, and intelligence is a critical component to fighting an asymmetrical war against an enemy not aligned to any sovereign nation, and whose members are fanatically loyal to a cause we may never understand.

The Bush Administration faced unprecedented national security and foreign policy challenges...Obama is quickly learning and perhaps coming to understand the motivating factors that dictated our course of action to this point.

Only this isn't hindsight being 20/20 so other than you trying to be dismissive I don't know what point you are trying to make. Even back when the Military Tribunals were created there was legal questions and arguments about the validity and the legal application of the tribunals. And no one is questioning the the handling of ALQ POWs....only, the position of this administration seemingly is that they are now willing to look at what rights these POWs are entitled to for trial purposes...something the previous administration felt it could get away with NOT doing.

Like I said, everyone KNEW that prosecuting these accused people would not be easy. And I think its possible to misinterpret the actions of the Obama administration. It is not accurate to say Obama is reversing course and adopting the Bush approach to creating "kangaroo courts" similar to the original Military Tribunal version. I don't think you are saying that, but I think the OP is.

I think it is more accurate to state that the current administration is learning from the previous administration in terms of what it did right...and what it did wrong. And I think on this point we agree.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Obama could come out and fully endorse full out torture.. I'm talking hooking up the electrodes to the testicles and turning up the amp meter to 11 torture, and the libs of the forum would praise him for being innovative and thoughful in his decision.

 

[waggy]

WELL DUH!@

some of the stuff people expect obama to change (and he does not) amaze me.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama could come out and fully endorse full out torture.. I'm talking hooking up the electrodes to the testicles and turning up the amp meter to 11 torture, and the libs of the forum would praise him for being innovative and thoughful in his decision.

Libs could consistently criticize Obama for his positions and actions that are in conflict with liberal values, and FNE would post lies about them. In facts, that's what happened.

 

[MovingTarget]

I see no problem with this, provided that the process is transparent and the rights of the accused were protected. Under Bush, it seemed like we kept going back and forth between simply holding them indefinitely without charge or having tribunals that denied them the basics of due process. That is why people were so pissed off at the whole situation. Even terrorists have a right to due process, no matter what I think of them.

 

[Xellos2099]

The problem is often time prisoner capture on the battlefield there are hard any evidence beside they carry a gun. We can't possibly release them so they can potentially kill more of our soldier but we don't have any solid and hard evidence to charge them either. What would you do? Remember, they also don't belong to military of any country and they are a liability if released.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Only this isn't hindsight being 20/20 so other than you trying to be dismissive I don't know what point you are trying to make. Even back when the Military Tribunals were created there was legal questions and arguments about the validity and the legal application of the tribunals. And no one is questioning the the handling of ALQ POWs....only, the position of this administration seemingly is that they are now willing to look at what rights these POWs are entitled to for trial purposes...something the previous administration felt it could get away with NOT doing.

My point is that Obama is throwing out a few sound bytes to make it sound like there is a grand change of policy where there really isn't.

POWs typically do not face military tribunals unless engaged in espionage or otherwise violating the loosely defined principles of Just War. Usually, there is an exchange of POWs once hostilities cease. But POWs of the WoT don't fit the classic model, hence the need for Guantanamo...so Obama wants to provide them with more rights under the military tribunal system. Seems like a band-aide to a fairly complex problem.

The problem is often time prisoner capture on the battlefield there are hard any evidence beside they carry a gun. We can't possibly release them so they can potentially kill more of our soldier but we don't have any solid and hard evidence to charge them either. What would you do? Remember, they also don't belong to military of any country and they are a liability if released.

In past wars, if our soldiers encountered a combatant not clearly identified as such, or not clearly serving under the flag of a sovereign nation, they could execute on the spot, no questions asked. Unfortunately, some of these Al Quaida knuckleheads are also a source of intelligence, so we have to hold on to them for a while.

Even terrorists have a right to due process, no matter what I think of them.

Why?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama could come out and fully endorse full out torture.. I'm talking hooking up the electrodes to the testicles and turning up the amp meter to 11 torture, and the libs of the forum would praise him for being innovative and thoughful in his decision.

A cookie for the troll...

 

[Genx87]

But in recent days a variety of officials involved in the deliberations say that after administration lawyers examined many of the cases, the mood shifted toward using military commissions to prosecute some detainees, perhaps including those charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks.

?The more they look at it,? said one official, ?the more commissions don?t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.?

Translation: Battlefield evidence wont convict in our civilian courts. No shit sherlock, people have been saying this for years. Welcome to reality.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I see no problem with this, provided that the process is transparent and the rights of the accused were protected. Under Bush, it seemed like we kept going back and forth between simply holding them indefinitely without charge or having tribunals that denied them the basics of due process. That is why people were so pissed off at the whole situation. Even terrorists have a right to due process, no matter what I think of them.

As another posted said.. WHY? They DO NOT have access to 'due process' on the Battlefield. The soldier on the other side is judge jury and executioner. Do you propose we use non-lethal weapons and give every person on the battlefield a trial? WTF?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So Obama is trying to revive a system that he criticized, but provide more legal protections to those involved in it. Scandal!!!! It seems to me like you're taking a news headline and making big bullshit business out of it.

The OP (in typical fashion) neglects the fact that the original Bush *military tribunals* at Gitmo were declared unconstitutional.

Holder and Gates are overseas laying the groundwork for the first of the final major transfers out of Cuba. Possibly as many as half will go to our good friends, the Saudis (who seem to be interested in around 100 Yemeni 'detainees' they wish to 'rehabilitate'). There are also more than a dozen Muslim Chinese separatists that are causing a bit of angst. They were captured in Afghanistan/Pakistan but the China gov't wants to 'question' them, being our allies and bastions of civil rights that they are ....

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama could come out and fully endorse full out torture.. I'm talking hooking up the electrodes to the testicles and turning up the amp meter to 11 torture, and the libs of the forum would praise him for being innovative and thoughful in his decision.

Do you wear your Clown Suit in public or just here at P&N ?

 

[Xellos2099]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Only this isn't hindsight being 20/20 so other than you trying to be dismissive I don't know what point you are trying to make. Even back when the Military Tribunals were created there was legal questions and arguments about the validity and the legal application of the tribunals. And no one is questioning the the handling of ALQ POWs....only, the position of this administration seemingly is that they are now willing to look at what rights these POWs are entitled to for trial purposes...something the previous administration felt it could get away with NOT doing.

My point is that Obama is throwing out a few sound bytes to make it sound like there is a grand change of policy where there really isn't.

POWs typically do not face military tribunals unless engaged in espionage or otherwise violating the loosely defined principles of Just War. Usually, there is an exchange of POWs once hostilities cease. But POWs of the WoT don't fit the classic model, hence the need for Guantanamo...so Obama wants to provide them with more rights under the military tribunal system. Seems like a band-aide to a fairly complex problem.

The problem is often time prisoner capture on the battlefield there are hard any evidence beside they carry a gun. We can't possibly release them so they can potentially kill more of our soldier but we don't have any solid and hard evidence to charge them either. What would you do? Remember, they also don't belong to military of any country and they are a liability if released.

In past wars, if our soldiers encountered a combatant not clearly identified as such, or not clearly serving under the flag of a sovereign nation, they could execute on the spot, no questions asked. Unfortunately, some of these Al Quaida knuckleheads are also a source of intelligence, so we have to hold on to them for a while.

Even terrorists have a right to due process, no matter what I think of them.

Why?

So we can legally kill them but it is illegal for us to use torture to extract information? I am confuse...

 

[Genx87]

I think what he is saying in the past countries including us if we captured enemy combatants or people who are not dressed or fighting under a flag and thus not extended geneva convention rights were executed on the spot.

In the past these guys would never have made it to Gitmo as they would have been shot and buried on the spot.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama could come out and fully endorse full out torture.. I'm talking hooking up the electrodes to the testicles and turning up the amp meter to 11 torture, and the libs of the forum would praise him for being innovative and thoughful in his decision.

Add in a Pay-Per-View component with all proceeds going towards UHC or children's healthcare and it would be the most revolutionary concept this country has ever known.

 

[Xellos2099]

So why are people complaining? Geneva convention rights is the sole cause that the torture opponents are using to claim it is illegal.