US gov: We may hold prisoners at gitmo even if they are found not guilty

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3487958.stm

Pentagon officials have confirmed that Guantanamo detainees may still be kept in detention, even if they are found not guilty by a military tribunal.
They say detainees could be kept prisoner if they are considered a security risk.

If found guilty, they could also be held beyond any sentence laid down by the tribunal.

The Pentagon this week laid the first charges against two foreign detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.

'Not common sense'

The US military officials argue that there are two processes underway.

Detainees are being held because they are suspected of being enemy combatants in an ongoing war.

Separately, some may be put before tribunals accused of specific war crimes or other offences.

But the officials say it would not be common sense to release detainees after the tribunals if the so-called war on terrorism were still under way and it was thought they might launch new attacks on US interests.

The officials add that anyone convicted of war crimes would have to serve out their sentences, even if the other detainees were released because the war was deemed to be over.

All of this looks like further evidence of how difficult the issue of detainees is.

amazing

 

[ElFenix]

sweet!

 

[Witling]

Just as an editor's footnote, the finding is "Not guilty." The finding is never "innocent." But, Czar, this is a technical point and most people in the news industry are not aware of this distinction. This is true of our much vaunted National Public Radio, which routinely features stories of people found "innocent." There is a tremendous intellectual gulf between the verdicts of "not guilty" and "innocent" (recognizing that "innocent" is not an available judgment in American jurisdictions.

 

[Czar]

whitling,
sorry, yes very true

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Witling
Just as an editor's footnote, the finding is "Not guilty." The finding is never "innocent." But, Czar, this is a technical point and most people in the news industry are not aware of this distinction. This is true of our much vaunted National Public Radio, which routinely features stories of people found "innocent." There is a tremendous intellectual gulf between the verdicts of "not guilty" and "innocent" (recognizing that "innocent" is not an available judgment in American jurisdictions.

Under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty I don't see how a 'not guilty' verdict can be any different than 'innocent'. Though I don't know if that presumption holds true in military proceedings.

 

[maddogchen]

I always questioned the ability of our justice system to convict terrorists. They couldn't even convict Al Capone of importing and selling illegal liquor for many years even though everyone knew he was the guilty. They finally got him on some IRS technicallity. Good luck trying to convict a terrorist of not paying his taxes.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Witling
Just as an editor's footnote, the finding is "Not guilty." The finding is never "innocent." But, Czar, this is a technical point and most people in the news industry are not aware of this distinction. This is true of our much vaunted National Public Radio, which routinely features stories of people found "innocent." There is a tremendous intellectual gulf between the verdicts of "not guilty" and "innocent" (recognizing that "innocent" is not an available judgment in American jurisdictions.

Under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty I don't see how a 'not guilty' verdict can be any different than 'innocent'. Though I don't know if that presumption holds true in military proceedings.

OJ

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Witling
Just as an editor's footnote, the finding is "Not guilty." The finding is never "innocent." But, Czar, this is a technical point and most people in the news industry are not aware of this distinction. This is true of our much vaunted National Public Radio, which routinely features stories of people found "innocent." There is a tremendous intellectual gulf between the verdicts of "not guilty" and "innocent" (recognizing that "innocent" is not an available judgment in American jurisdictions.

Under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty I don't see how a 'not guilty' verdict can be any different than 'innocent'. Though I don't know if that presumption holds true in military proceedings.

Not Guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. Look at OJ Simpson

 

[maddogchen]

damn you beat me too it. i should shorten it next time

 

[Witling]

Although I think the reference to "OJ" in the previous posts should be sufficient to illustrate the point, the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty," is:

"Innocent" means, you didn't do it.

"Not guilty" means that the government was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused did what the government accuses the person of doing.

If the difference between these two positions is not immediately apparent to you, I'm not going to explain it. But there is a world of difference between being "innocent" and being "not guilty." BTW, meaning By the Way, if you kill someone and you're totally insane, you are, in a technical sense, "not guilty." Some crimes require the ability to form an intent.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually in the alleged War Against Terror . . . most of these people are innocent b/c they haven't been accused of anything by a responsible authority.

But the DOD tools have a point, if you imprisoned me for years on BS charges I might be inclined to bust your arse after being released. I guess we are going to keep these guys until they age out of the prime terrorist years.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Witling
Although I think the reference to "OJ" in the previous posts should be sufficient to illustrate the point, the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty," is:

"Innocent" means, you didn't do it.

"Not guilty" means that the government was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused did what the government accuses the person of doing.

If the difference between these two positions is not immediately apparent to you, I'm not going to explain it. But there is a world of difference between being "innocent" and being "not guilty." BTW, meaning By the Way, if you kill someone and you're totally insane, you are, in a technical sense, "not guilty." Some crimes require the ability to form an intent.

I understand all that, I'm just not sure that we should discard the presumption of innocense because the court was unable to prove that they were guilty. Seems to me the presumption should be even stronger after that. That's not to say gulty people are always convicted, but if they are found not guilty by a court then I don't see how that they can be seen as anything other than innocent in the eyes of the law.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually in the alleged War Against Terror . . . most of these people are innocent b/c they haven't been accused of anything by a responsible authority.

But the DOD tools have a point, if you imprisoned me for years on BS charges I might be inclined to bust your arse after being released. I guess we are going to keep these guys until they age out of the prime terrorist years.

The keeping them locked up incase they might decided to become a torrist sounds like a good plain until you notice that each person locked up mostly has family on the outside who a really pissed off a the goverment and keeping them in jail will only upset them some more.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually in the alleged War Against Terror . . . most of these people are innocent b/c they haven't been accused of anything by a responsible authority.

But the DOD tools have a point, if you imprisoned me for years on BS charges I might be inclined to bust your arse after being released. I guess we are going to keep these guys until they age out of the prime terrorist years.

The keeping them locked up incase they might decided to become a torrist sounds like a good plain until you notice that each person locked up mostly has family on the outside who a really pissed off a the goverment and keeping them in jail will only upset them some more.

Yeah, but you could say that about any person you lock up, their family's pissed. You wanna start letting murderers out just because their families are mad?

No you want to lock them up and brainwash them so that they won't do it again, just like what we try to do with sex offenders, we lock them up and "rehabilitate" them and when we let them out we hope they won't do it again.
All these people in Gitmo we caught in Afghanistan or were turned over to us by authorities in other countries. They were either Taliban or Al Qaeda. Some of them have killed US soldiers, especially a teenager who pretended to be dead when he saw US soldiers coming, and when a US soldier went to check on the boy, he turned over, unveiled his weapon and killed him. I don't have any sympathy for the kid or any of these people in Gitmo, I say screw them, lock them up.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Yeah, but you could say that about any person you lock up, their family's pissed.

sometimes, there is a lot more of a chance for understanding when the people are actually found guilty.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Yeah, but you could say that about any person you lock up, their family's pissed.

sometimes, there is a lot more of a chance for understanding when the people are actually found guilty.

Tell that to the little kid who's father you're taking away, see if that will stop him from punching your groin

 

[kylebisme]

well nothing is 100%, but a little comon sense can reduce the odds. it sounds like you are emotionaly tied to this issue though, sorry about your little guys. :beer:

 

[maddogchen]

yep, thats why I'm mad all the time :|

 

[SherEPunjab]

of course, we're america. got a problem with that?



didn't think so.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Witling
Although I think the reference to "OJ" in the previous posts should be sufficient to illustrate the point, the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty," is: "Innocent" means, you didn't do it. "Not guilty" means that the government was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused did what the government accuses the person of doing. If the difference between these two positions is not immediately apparent to you, I'm not going to explain it. But there is a world of difference between being "innocent" and being "not guilty." BTW, meaning By the Way, if you kill someone and you're totally insane, you are, in a technical sense, "not guilty." Some crimes require the ability to form an intent.

OT, but interesting ; In Scottish law (Scotland has a seperate legal system from the rest of the UK) the court can deliver three verdicts; Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven.

Guilty is pretty self explanatory, Not Guilty is pretty much the same as innocent; it means the person did not commit the crime they were charged with, whereas Not proven means that the prosecution have not provided enough substantial proof to convict the individual of a crime, but that there remains considerable doubt regarding the offender's innocence.

Its an interesting solution, which leads to the interesting situation of the accused being acquitted, but under an official cloud of suspicion, as it were.

 

[Orsorum]

Does a verdict of "not proven" confer any detrimental legal treatment?

 

[dpm]

No - there is no legal punishment for it, per se. Just as after a not guilty verdict, the defendant is acquitted and cannot be retried on the same charge.

However, it does carry a social stigma, which (I believe) was one of the reasons the verdict of Not Guilty was introduced to Scottish law.
Originally the verdict was either that the Charge was Proven or Not proven (Scots law has always prized a logical approach) - Not Guilty came later.