During his 2008 campaign, President Obama promised the country "change we can believe in." Yet, more than a year into his administration, he has delivered "more of the same" on issues pertaining to Guantanamo Bay. The island prison is still open, detainees still await trials, and officials have recommended the worst of George W. Bush's policies -- indefinite detention.
The Bush way of thinking seems to be the guiding force behind many of the administration's decisions on terrorism and Guantanamo. Following the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner, Obama administration officials decided to read the suspect his Miranda rights, claiming former President Bush would have done the same thing. I commend using our federal courts to try suspected terrorists, but I'm alarmed at how U.S. officials arrived at that decision.
If Obama's invocation of Bush stopped there, I might cut him some slack. Unfortunately, the Bush mindset never left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue along with its former inhabitant. Not long after taking office, Obama promptly revamped the conviction machine known as the military commissions, an alternative legal system that, as a presidential candidate, he had led us to believe he would abandon altogether in favor of federal trials.
The military commissions system is a second-tier justice system that is tolerant of flimsy evidence and uncorroborated hearsay by unnamed sources. Cases tried under the military commissions allow evidence that is unreliable or tainted by abuse. In fact, an internal Department of Defense review found that the case of my client, Kuwaiti detainee Fayiz Al Kandari, is "made up almost entirely of hearsay evidence recorded by unidentified individuals with no first-hand knowledge of the events they describe."
This is evidence that would be laughed out of federal court in real criminal proceedings. Such multiple layers of hearsay introduced through highly redacted and secret documents, often from anonymous sources, is little more than rumor in the real world. In the commission system, however, a judge can find such statements based on the "totality of circumstance" not only admissible, but can base an entire case solely on their existence.
But it doesn't stop there, either. As if kangaroo courts and their rules of evidence weren't enough, the Obama administration is considering indefinite detention for some Guantanamo detainees, extending one of the Bush administration's worst policies. In fact, a secret group known as the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force recently recommended approximately 50 detainees to be held indefinitely without trial, claiming these detainees are considered too dangerous to be released but too difficult to prosecute - even in the conviction-friendly military commission system.
Congress meanwhile has jumped on the bandwagon with legislation that, if passed, would make the recommendation of indefinite detention a reality. In early March, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced a bill that would allow the U.S. government to arrest so-called "enemy belligerents" and imprison them for years in military custody with no charges. Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald has called the legislation "probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades."
Now it is tempting to assume the decision to hold detainees indefinitely is based on a review of credible evidence. But if the evidence is so persuasive, why not introduce it in a public trial in a federal court of law and secure a legitimate conviction? And if the evidence is not reviewed by a court of law, who does review the evidence and determine the fates of individual suspects?
In these cases, evidence is classified and the identities of those making the determinations are closely guarded. This process is entirely secret and inherently un-American. A system that authorizes indefinite detention based on secret evidence can only result in distrust and suspicion much like the maligned Soviet system of years past. Remember two additional things: First, no one knows what the newly created laws of material support and conspiracy even mean. Secondly, it should not be unreasonable to believe that other countries will hold Americans under unclear laws, in secret proceedings, or in the alternative, indefinitely under no system at all if a secret group from that country deems it "necessary."
It pains me to say that nothing has changed since Obama became President. In fact, people are questioning whether we can believe that any change will ever come. On February 5, 2008, Obama said, "change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time." He is right. We are not waiting for a new administration to bring about a false sense of hope. We are asking this administration to stand strong and bring the change it promised because it is right and not just a little better than before.
Watching Judge Judy does not make you an international lawyer.
I think Oleg1 very accurately outlines the former Presidents thinking and all that has followed. Twisted.
And if so, under which jurisdiction-- military, civilian or Hague/ Geneva conventions laws of war.
Another options--
1.Deportation to the country of citizenship
2.Indeterminate detention allowed by Hague/ Geneva Conventions.
This is an important legal question with global ramifications.
1. having a required Article 5 hearing to determine status immediately after detention;
2. information required to be furnished to a captor;
3. torture;
4. abuse/humilitaion by captors
5. communal living and chain of command
6. contact with family
7. pay in captivity.
Oh, you just like the part about captivity until the cessation of hostilities which in this case will be whenever or if ever we decide the tactic of terror has ended. He haw he haw.
That 26 years in the military is a good thing maybe if not a bad thing I guess. Then again maybe it could be depending on the possibility of other things I think.
Example 1:
Iran just declared a war on "anti-Iranian thoughts" and will hold all American/Christians until it ends unless a secret group of Iranians determine indefinite detention is warranted. I bet they have some right wingers there as well.
Example 2:
****** stated Oleg1 is a bad guy. ******* was interrogated in *********** using ******** technique. Signed by ********** and using interpreter **************.
Military Commissions (MCA 2009 (d) Hearsay evidence not otherwise admissable) this may be good evidence. What am I hearing? Oh that's the Federal Judge still laughing as he scolds the DOJ attorney.
A red herring switch cannot be even classified as a reply.
Firstly the rate of recidivism makes it politically difficult to release some terrorists. If any one of the released suspects kills Americans, the political price to this administration will be extremely high. S
Interesting point: Any fighter (Afghan regular army or militia) can claim to belong to protected POW class.
And International war laws are explicit --POWs are not subject to the criminal system of the capturing country.
Here, the corollary of Geneva/Hague Conventions is that U.S. is legally justified to hold prisoners of war at its pleasure for as long as necessary.
I noticed the author of the article carefully avoided mentioning that aspect of international law.
Hmmm, what IS obvious, that you neither read nor comprehended the points I've made in my post.
Justice as we once knew it, is being redefined. The bell tolled for whom first?
I have zero respect for anyone who criticized the Bush administration for these terrible policies but is defending the very same policies now that the Obama administration is using them. The policies were wrong under Bush and they are still wrong under Obama.
We can DEMAND the impeachment of the president and recall congressman, we can see that the Supreme Court justices are living their oath to protect the constitution and if
not, Article 3.1 say they are unworthy of their positions. Ignorance of the law is what keep us from doing what the Supreme Law of the Land demands of us. We want change for the people, let us DEMAND it from the governors.
He was born in Canada, but moved to Afghanistan/Pakistan at age 4 and spent much of the rest of his life there. The ludicrous "war crimes" charges are based entirely on his having fought the US military, during a two month period at age 15, when it invaded the country, under the influence of his father and other adults. He did not personally commit war crimes or terrorism. He committed normal acts of war, at most, but he is charged with war crimes and supporting terrorism solely for fighting the US military with an armed group that qualifies as unlawful, like every fighting group in Afghanistan.
Obama will be the first president to preside over the conviction of a 15 year old for "war crimes". He will also seem a huge hypocrite to the world, since many believe real war criminals in the Bush Admin were never prosecuted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/senate-votes-to-block-fun_n_205797.html
I think the Obama Admin should let the Senate take the heat for not closing Gitmo, and concentrate on Civilian Trials for terror suspects.
Indefinite detention as put forward by Obama is NO process at all. As the article states, what you do to your enemy in the name of law both limits your ability to prosecute those who do it to you, while actually making it arguably legal to do to you and your children!
Forget about the whole red herring of closing GTMO as resolution of anything.