Pay attention to Eric Holder’s law firm and Gitmo detainees
A good friend writes:
[A]s nearly 100 of the remaining detainees are Yemenis, reflecting that country’s refusal to assure security for repatriated Yemenis, note that AG nominee Eric Holder is a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo. From the C & B website:
The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
Covington & Burling’s Gitmo bar roster has included some of the most radical detainee advocates; see David Remes, who peeled down to his underwear at a press conference in Yemen to draw attention to his clients’ plight and Marc Falkoff, who published a book of detainee poetry and who, in the book’s intro, compared their heroic struggle to the Jews held in concentration camps and Japanese Americans held in internment camps during WWII. [One of Falkoff's "gentle, thoughtful" young poets--a Kuwaiti "cleared for release" and repatriated in 2005--blew himself up in a truck bomb in Mosul last March, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.]
The fact that Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them, suggests that he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country. He is not suited for the job of attorney general, which is central to the issues surrounding the disposition of war on terror detainees.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The Brian Terry Memorial Act passes
December 15, 2011 06:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 CommentsThe murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Holder, Blago, Richardson: Triangle of Sleaze
December 9, 2011 09:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
125 CommentsCapitol Hill hearing/vote watch: Holder, Corzine, Cordray; Update Holder: Nobody lied; Corzine: Don’t know where $ went; F&F impeachment?; Issa turns up heat; Holder “possibly” will clean house; vids added
December 8, 2011 09:41 AM by Michelle Malkin
157 Comments
The Johnny-come-lately anti-Eric Holder brigade
November 30, 2011 10:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
The Accountability Charade
November 18, 2011 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: Eric Holder,Gitmo
Sister Toldjah
» Video: A president of the People, and for the PeoplePundit & Pundette
» Oh my: Santorum sweepsAmSpecBlog
» Thoughts on the Santorum SweepHot Air
» Video: The Obama 2012 fashion show!Riehl World View
» Santorum Kicked The Mitt Out Of RomneyHot Air
» Santorum sweeps back into the race
sounds like a lobbyist situation to me…..
Ya think? Man obamas on a roll.
1/ Sec. of state who is getting money from overseas.
2/ Sec. of the treasury who can’t do his own taxes
3/ AG who is actively supporting terrorists.
HECKOFAJOB obama…
Obama pushes to release Gitmo detainees and his buddy’s former law firm gets to represent those clients.
I’m starting to think this is all about $$$.
I heard a law professor say once that those who make the laws are lawyers and will always make sure there is enough work for lawyers. Yep.
More traitors to put to the gallows when the time comes to round them up.
“…he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country.”
Well, duh! With Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durbin, McDermott, et al as role models, what do you expect?
Well, for everyone hoping for change, this does represent change!
That Yugoslavian made MG42 looks like an essential purchase now. I’ll have to construct more firing positions around the yard, get a little more concertina wire and make my kids practice at the range more frequently.
But, when the jihadis break out of Murtha’s house we’ll be ready for them. A crew-served weapon will really come in handy once the Obama courts resolves those pesky “habeas” decisions.
“Peace through superior firepower!”
I think he just likes to strip in public in front of Muslims.
If Republicans can’t blow this guy out of the saddle then I would be embarrassed for them to sit in on any future reviews. Holder is incompentent at best.
Parties at you house must be “interesting”
Me, I am building a bomb shelter under my house with a nerve gas booby traped door and motion a sensing m240g.
Can we say that this brand spankin’ new hopey changey administration is in bed with terrorists? Or would that be raaaaacccciiiiisssssttt?
The meek Republican will do nothing. The remaining handful of true conservatives are powerless with the likes of Grahamesty, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Hatch, etc. sucking Obama’s ______
[Lili von Schtupp has lured Barack back to her room]
Lili Von Shtupp: Is it true how zey say zat you people are… gifted?
[Lights go out, sound of zipper opening]
Lili Von Shtupp: Oh. It’s twue. It’s twue. It’s twue, it’s twue!
Resistance is here. Resistance is now.
If confirmed, Holder should recuse himself from any participation in any case involving detainees. (I suppose calling them terrorists-in-waiting would be rude.)
Watch the confirmation vote on this traitor.
ECS
la, la, la, I can’t Gitmo Satisfaction, la la la.
Please get a grip on reality. C&B has over 600 attorneys. They probably represent Halliburton too.
What can you say? I mean it. What the heck can you say?!?! It just keeps getting worse. All of it.
And, yes, there are probably a lot of senior partners, but this one is going to be AG. And the fact that ANYONE would willingly represent these vermin in Gitmo is disgusting in its own right.
It is hard to believe in three days bho has already done un-told damage to our Republic. This is only the beginning. BOHICA people, BOHICA.
L
Are they pro bono, meaning the detainees not being prosecuted at all is good for the firm, or is the government going to pay the legal bills of the detainees?
Because if Uncle Sugar is on the hook for the defense, full trials, followed by at least some convictions, and many more billable hours preparing appeals should be great for C&B;.
Look RedState #15: Your boy “O” is now POTUS (I know you are soooo happy”) but get off the Halliburton issue–not relevant to this discussion. Your BDS days are now over…get it?
I used to work for Halliburton, and owned stock for years, and to the best of my recollection, HAL never flew airplanes into office buildings, bombed subways and trains, or beheaded anyone.
It was a big company, I wasn’t privy to everything.
We (not me personally, I voted for the RINO) elected the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.
Expect the unexpected, lots of red meat tossed to the MoveOn.org, ACLU, Code Pink and Kos Kiddies Klub dogs.
I’m just saying that any firm as huge as C&B represents widely disparate clients and pro bono interests.
And it really should be noted that no one posting here has any idea how many Gitmo detainees are actually guilty, and even if they get a “fair” trial, we will still never know since many obviously involve coerced false confessions.
Get ready for the “He’s too critical to not confirm” argument.
They may have over 600 attorneys, but I’m guessing they don’t have all that many SENIOR PARTNERS.
I’m guessing he has at least been included in the strategy meetings.
We’ll see, but I think you’re wrong. Obama has always played it safe at whatever position he’s held. As a state senator for a liberal district, he took liberal positions. As a US senator with presidential aspirations, he took the easy road the whole way and only got his name on legislation when it was a no-brainder (like ethics reform), and except for when he was trying to woo Illinois liberals in 2002, he never spoke out against the war until after he was sure that it was unpopular.
Assuming he doesn’t all of a sudden change his stripes (as delusional liberals seem to expect) he will govern from the center throughout his presidency. He has such lock on his fan club that he can move to the right on just about anything, and he will still get the liberal vote in 2012. Already Rahm Emmanuel has said that he won’t tackle immigration reform until his second term (if ever, and if he’s even reelected) for fear of pissing off angry white people.
He might be a bleeding-heart liberal in his soul, but he’s even more of a wuss.
Pretty sure you guys are missing RedState’s point.
Large law firms like Covington have a lot of attorneys. They have lots of different kinds of cases, representing lots of different kinds of clients.
Alberto Gonzales’ former firm, Vinson & Elkins, defended companies who hired illegal immigrants, and represented University of Texas in defending their affirmative action program. Michael Mukasey’s former firm, Patterson Belknap, filed amicus briefs in the enemy combatant cases supporting the enemy combatants.
Does this mean that Gonzales and Mukasey favor the positions of their firms? No, of course not.
Guilt by association is absurd, when either the left or the right do it.
Someone honestly thinks there are many innocent Muslim men just minding there business just kidnapped from wherever and tortured into false confessions?
Since many of the Gitmo detainees already released have turned back up in the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d dare say you are an America hating POS, just like our new Chief Executive.
BTW, if Bush and Halliburton and Cheney were the evil empire, how did we manage honest elections and a peaceful transfer of power?
Just like, for the “Bush Lied, People Died” morons, if Bush was smart enough to lie about WMD (or even stage the WTC attacks) so we could invade Iraq for Halliburton (or his puppet-masters were), how did they forget to plant WMDs in Iraq?
If Bush was Hitler, why is the fat slug Michael Moore still walking free and wasting our oxygen?
Don’t hurt yourself trying to answer, POS.
What are you basing that on? Ordinarily the celebrity partners like Holder have no need or desire to get involved in firm strategy. They do a little lobbying, collect their paycheck, and go home early on Fridays.
That’s your second Mel Brooks reference, we both obviously watch the same movies.
Ooh, I hate it. I don’t know how many people at Gitmo are really bad guys, and how many are falsely imprisoned, but the BEST way we can find out is give them fair trials with competent representation.
No doubt, the US has messed up by releasing bad guys AND detaining and innocents. Is your solution to keep everyone just to be safe? And why have even the military tribunals if the lawyers are a joke.
The right worries about saving the lives of soldiers and innocent civilians. The left worries about making sure terrorists are comfortable and given the best lawyers money can buy.
It’s a fundamental difference.
According to one AP spokesman, who conducted an interview with law enforcement’s Officer Barbrady, there is “…nothing to see here. Move along.” In addition, his deputy Eric Cartman has advised us all to “respect his authority.”
Like the one who was released and is now one of the leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Yes, I proudly err on the side of protecting innocent life. Lefties like RSS proudly err on the side of making sure terrorists are comfortable, happy, and well represented.
Damn right I feel superior.
If the Republicans on Capitol Hill can’t mount a vociferous assault on Holder for this issue and gun control, they may just as well resign now and hand everything to the democrats.
Gallows it should be-a firing squad is too honorable for them. But I image that they will have killed many, perhaps millions, of us before we can get the American people riled up enough to actually do something.
Neither the Russian or German people ever did; I hope we are better.
But that does explain Eric Holder’s almost wet pants attitude towards gun owners. Eric Holder does seem to make exceptions for terrorist killing Americans though.
—
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
Should be a convenience store
NOT a Government Agency
Really? Does “innocent civilians” include Maher Arar?
Mel Brooks wasn’t afraid to shellack anybody, good stuff all around.
There are other quotes from that movie (Blazing Saddles for you youngsters)that would seem apropo to a number of threads about Obama and his administration, but, decorum prohibits listing them here.
“…and even if they get a “fair” trial, we will still never know since many obviously involve coerced false confessions.”
Just how is it we “obviously know there were coerced false confessions?” Did you come to that conclusion before or after your sip of kool-aid?
Which ones exactly? I mean, they’re obvious so you’ll be able to tell us.
I already did; see #36. Do you actually deny that torture (or “enhanced interrogation techniques”) compels people to confess to crimes they didn’t commit in order to stop the torture?
And you know this how?
Nice smear of those conducting the interrogations buttmunch.
Since U.S. soldiers captured by these people never had false confessions coerced from them, they were just butchered without exception, I can tell you I REALLY do not care how they are treated, interogated, fed, housed, clothed, etc.
Reciprocity is the first rule of combat.
P.S. Do not expect to see any of their buddies surviving any firefights either. They will now all gloriously start fighting to the death……whether they choose to or not.
I understand your point, but this Guantanamo case is directly germane to Holder’s nomination because of his statements about water boarding being “torture”, and his past actions with FALN.
Certainly Holder should have to answer questions about his involvement with the Yemeni’s case – if any. It’s certainly timely, considering that a former GITMO Yemeni made a splash in the news today, which was very poor timing for Obama’s executive order yesterday.
The solution was to allow the tribunals to go forward in order to protect classified information, among other reasons, yet the left fought that since before they were even formed. There were enough raving lawyers lining up to defend them.
…but then with the tribunals, the huge pool of lawyers would miss the gravy train if that were allowed.
Why are you so quick to confer constitutional rights to foreign, enemy combatants?
Arar’s meetings with other Arabs linked to the terrorist Khadr family may or may not have been innocent.
If he was indeed innocent, I guess it is too bad he got caught up in a program started under the Clinton Administration, the rendition program.
He claims his contacts with al Qaeda affiliated Arabs in Canada and trips to Tunisia were innocent, and his identification by teenaged al Qaeda member Omar Khadr is in doubt.
Well, now we know that there might be one Muslim swept up in the war on terror who may not be a terrorist.
And I do feel bad if he really was innocent.
But treating al Qaeda as just another criminal organization as Clinton did and Obama will killed almost 3,000 Americans and many more around the world.
The Geneva Convention and the rules of war are wonderful things, but our enemies don’t follow it. And if we further restrict ourselves with full habeas corpus rights and full legal representation, the next logical step will be the extension of Miranda rights against questioning without council.
Nick Berg didn’t get read his Miranda rights before the vermin in bed sheets sawed off his head while chanting Allahu Ackbar, did he?
Did this man get legal council before al Qaeda killed him?
Hmm. Someone should keep a casualty count of those killed or wounded by GITMO alumni. Do you think the media will make a big deal out of the milestone counts: 100, 200, 400, 1000…?
Frankly, I’m surprised we even hear of the ones released who rejoin the battlefield.
The point is that ‘these people’ are not necessarily the ones who butchered US soldiers. Some of them probably are, and a fair trial with due process will separate them out for the punishment they richly deserve. Some, however, are not, and we do a disservice to US ideals if we don’t care about how they are treated, interrogated, etc.
Reciprocity may be the first rule of combat, but it’s a hell of a crappy way to set foreign policy. The reason the US is the leader of the free world is because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than terrorists and dictators.
I wonder if RSS knows that part of the Al Qaeda field manual includes the requirment to claim that you have been tortured even if you haven’t. NAHHH that would mean he would know what he was talking about.
RRRIIIGGGHHTTT I hope the first children these inoccent angels of yours kill are closely related to you.
Dumbass liberals are going to get americans killed.
Way to help your cause, champ. Wishing harm on my children (or is it just my relatives? The lack of grammar made it difficult to follow) in response to what I think was a pretty well thought out, fair post, is certainly a good way to make your point.
Personally, I would have preferred someone to engage what I said, rather than throw out a rather sick curse followed by a foolish statement that doesn’t really mean anything. But that’s just my preference.
Maybe Ed Mahmoud or Buy Danish or someone else like them could respond to me next instead, since they seem to have both the capacity for rational thought and the ability to string sentences together without threatening someone.
Why do you think trying them in a military tribunal would be unfair? or that it would be wrong for our ideals?
Can you explain that rather than offer claptrap?
You are the one wanting to release the very people who want to kill them. I want to keep them in irons, so shove your fake outrage.Please like you demand that they get a trial, which releases guility with the inoccent, then whine about it when they come back and kill children, so if we are going to release child killers, then I would rather your kids get hit next instead of mine. I am sorry if you don’t like the results of the actions you are calling for, but thats the hard facts of life. Not the liberal fairy land where only the inoccent go free.
Don’t like it? sue me.
Please get a grip on Reality.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Thats the best line Ive heard in 8 years!!!!!
OMG…. make it stop.. make it stop… no really, your killing me…..
Ummm ‘Give Obama a rope and he thinks he’s a cowboy’?
Republicanvet:
I never said trying them in a military tribunal would be unfair. As long as they receive a fair trial, with due process, under the UMCJ, I have no problem with a military tribunal. I understand the need to keep certain information out of the openness of the civilian court system. My point is that we cannot use military tribunals in lieu of a fair, impartial trial. That is how despotism begins.
sonofdy:
Try reading this time. I don’t want to release anyone who wants to kill children. Yes, some guilty people go free after a trial. That’s the price we pay for a functional system of justice. I have faith in our military justice system that 99% of the time, they can separate out the guilty from the innocent.
We don’t round up groups of people and throw them in jail because they might be murderers. Those in custody now who can be proved to be criminals should be treated as such. Those who are not should have the opportunity to show they are not.
I keep hearing that. Unlike the Japanese and German War Crimes trials we are not going to have a mountain of paperwork on these people. As this war is going on any evidence we do present will have to disclose who and how we got it–therefore shutting down future operations and putting allies lives in danger-which I have a deep suspicion is what the Leftist and Islamist sympathizers had in mind all along.
Virtually all the lawyers representing these people, and sadly that includes military and naval lawyers, are hard core leftist intent on harming America and Americans. Better the way my father’s unit did it in 1944-5. Hitler Youth who they caught smuggling weapons or committing sabotage were just lined up and shot. When they found two Gestapo agents who had hanged downed airmen other action was taken.
But that was then. Let the damn liberals defend this country-I don’t owe this country anything- not any more. Let the jihadist go anywhere they want and perhaps Obama’s glow will cause them to hold hands and sing stupid hippy songs.
—
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
Should be a convenience store
NOT a Government Agency
But you are saying it is unfair by saying it would not be fair or impartial or that it would lead to despotism.
We do in wartime.
Why the F$%K do liberals insist on saying this isn’t a war? Logic like this would have released hundreds of thousands of people back to hitler in 1942 to fight again.
Vargas #48 said “The reason the US is the leader of the free world is because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than terrorists and dictators.” No, that is not true. The reason why we are the leader of the free world is because freedom is not free, and it sometimes requires men and women who are able to inflict great violence on those that try to take it away from us and the other leech-like countries hovering around us.
Republicanvet:
I’m not saying a military tribunal would be unfair. What I meant is that we cannot use an unfair, biased military tribunal in lieu of a fair, impartial military tribunal. That is what I have a problem with. Sorry for the confusion.
sonofdy:
In wartime, we hold people caught in active combat as POWs. We don’t round up entire groups of people on the chance they may be enemies.
ArizonaNeanderthal:
You’re doing a great job making my point for me. You’re right, we’re not going to have a mountain of paperwork on these people–we may not have evidence on them at all.
Further, the way your father’s unit did it was to deal with enemy saboteurs and spies who they caught in the act. That’s a far cry from people who were not engaged in active combat or sabotage when they were picked up.
Finally, I’m going to have to disagree with you on your last point. You owe this country a lot, including your right to make the statement you did. You don’t owe your allegiance to the US when the Republicans are in power, and then turn your back on it when Democrats are.
#45 Ed: Thank you for the all-too-vivid reminder of the consequences of inaction and the nature of the beast which we absolutely must engage, slay and bury.
Why the heck can’t these nominees have to pass a LITMUS test that is absolute and non negotiable.
Holder is a born loser, who would never earn a cent if he wasn’t connected to those who sue victims instead prosecuting the perpetrators.
Red State Skeptic said: (#22)
I don’t know about the subject of how many detainees are guilty, but military leaders have publicly said that coerced confessions–such as those done under torture–are not useful as the information can not be trusted, therefore, the interrogators/interviewers should not use coercive measures as there are other ways, although they take longer. And, it is against US policy to torture.
(Sorry if I missed someone else’s comment before mine of this point, I only skimmed the listing before I posted this.)
vargas said: (#61)
How do you know the circumstances of their capture, or what evidence there is against them?
I am in favor of treating these detainees humanely (we do), but they are not POWs (they do not meet the definition of solders), and should not get full US citizen rights as they are not US citizens. However, there should be some sort of trial system, and the current military tribunal system seems to be a reasonable way to do that.
Terrorists have taken captives and beheaded them. They take a knife and start sawing on the neck of their victim. Meanwhile, besides the obvious pain, the victim sees his own blood running on the floor.
In this process the terrorist receives a metal jacketed injection. Very humane, very quick, and over in a jiffy.
Yes, we do hold ourselves to a much higher standard.
Vargas, Kevin K. makes a valid point. Do you think we picked up Joe Schmoe (or in this case Ali Abdul) from a coffee shop or Denny’s? The ones that were rounded up were the ones that were in association with the combatants or were on the battlefield, threw down their weapon, and when caught, stood up and said “who, me? Oh no, that not my weapon! We love Billy Clinton.
Please call your new leader and tell him you need a bailout to buy a clue.
I don’t know the circumstances of the capture of everyone in Gitmo. I don’t think any of us do. That’s why its important for them to get due process–to separate those who have been caught on the battlefield from those who were not.
Of course, we could just follow bedje’s lead and state with absolute certainty that they were all on the battlefield holding weapons. I’m sure his information is accurate and comes from reliable sources.
Do you know how wrong you are? Just being captured during “active combat” does not give you POW status if you:
(a) are not being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) don’t have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) don’t carry arms openly;
(d) don’t conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
That describes most of the idiots at Gitmo.
Hold on there Vargas. Re-read the post. Again, the question posed for you is, do you think we picked up anyone that we saw, or known combatants and the people that were known to be associated with the afore mentioned? It’s not a trick question.
How can you think anyone that does not wear a uniform can be distinguished from the guy that’s carrying 40lbs. of plastic ready to kill your brother, cousin, uncle, aunt or sister? I am saying that I don’t think we went far off of the beaten path to get the ones that you think were “just there”.
I think you need to adjust.
I don’t think we randomly picked up anyone we saw. I do think we have a valid basis for most of the people we picked up. However, I do think there are some that were picked up based on bad information, informants with personal vendettas, or just plain mistake. If there’s a village where terrorist fighters camp out, it’s going to be damn tough to figure out on the battlefield who is in cahoots with Al Qaeda and who is just trying to live their life.
Once again, this is why we need a competent tribunal to sort out who falls into which camp.
By the way, bedje, thanks for the serious response. Sorry if I came off as abrasive towards you in the previous post.
War is a messy dirty business. Mistakes are made all the time. The rule of law can seldom be applied because there is no law. War is the absence of law.
We need to finish this war so we can return to the order of law. Until we do, I will trust the military to use their laws and not follow civil law.
Do you liberals understand?
We are not talking about the open battlefield. We are talking about a situation where we can, in a controlled environment, step back, look at all the evidence, question witnesses, interrogate the suspects, and think. If very understandable mistakes are made on the field of battle, hey, you are right. It happens. But there is no need to exacerbate a mistake that can be remedied, is there?
I know it sounds nice Chap, but evidence usually is challenged on the chain of custody…something that is difficult when someone is captured on the battlefield and transported to some place like Gitmo.
Interrogating suspects is fine, but they have already been trained to claim torture, and with the definition of torture so watered down, the current atmosphere is claiming any questioning is suspect.
Questioning witnesses is also a problem. What if the witness was in Afghanistan and escaped, or can no longer be found, or nobody knows who it is? Also, what is the witness (soldier) was later killed on the battlefield? or is no longer in the military?
Knowing how leftist lawyers operate, they would use any of these to put any court, military or civilian, proceeding on trial rather than the suspect.
Based on this, I would still favor military tribunals, with an appeal to a special civilian court that would be able to handle the type of information presented.
I think I would be perfectly fine with this so long as there was genuine opportunity for someone to challenge their detention.
I agree that it is unreasonable to expect all of the niceties and protections of the US legal system. And there are clearly unique security concerns that preclude these types of cases from being tried in any sort of open court. But there must be some happy medium between that and “our evidence is that we say there is evidence” (which is actually what the administration argued).
And I do think we have moved mostly to that now. But that was only after some high profiles incidents and court cases that basically dragged the Bush administration kicking and screaming.
For example…I know that the burden of proving chain of custody lies with the prosecution in the US. I see absolutely no problem with a presumption of proper chain with respect to trials (or tribunals or whatever) of terror suspects.
Release the detainees and let the chips fall where they may. The American people voted for a man who SAID he would close Gitmo so close it and stop hedging the bet.
Pull out of Iraq-he SAID he would. Personally I never thought we should have been there but if we are to fight a war fight it. President Obama is not convinced we are in a war so it is nothing but foolish and a waste of lives to stay without an end purpose-if we ever had one.
Afghanistan? It is an isolated mountain region wholly dependent on the fortunes of Pakistan-demographics alone tell us Pakistan is toast; we have dawdled too long to have any positive effect there.
And vargas: go to hell-I owe this country nothing. I did not grow up on the public teat, I did my service in Viet Nam, lost a hip and have been insulted by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and now this. And over the years I have been privileged to pay several millions of dollars in taxes to supported layabouts, leftist and cowards.
I do not know about you vargas but this Coconut came out of the fields, packing sheds and day labor office. The Hell with the weaklings and cowards-I owe them nothing.
—
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
Should be a convenience store
NOT a Government Agency
Speak for yourself. They were all captured on the battle field in the act of attacking uniformed soldiers, which means they’re all guilty of being on the battlefield out of uniform and without identification as required by the Geneva Conventions and were caught in the act of attacking uniformed soldiers which is a major violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions allow for partisans in this situation to be shot and killed – as spies and partisans – without a trial, confession or no.
Spare me your tears and hand wringing but just the fact that they’re sucking oxygen proves that they’ve been better treated than the law allows for and MUCH better than they treat their prisoners. At least their heads are still attached to their shoulders.
A “fair” trial for a POW is not a criminal trial. What’s fair for a POW is to be held until the end of hostilities and then released WITHOUT a trial.
What you’re considering a “fair” trial by law is just a prelude to allowing the piece of human debris to dance the hemp fandango.
That is so shockingly, demonstrably false I cannot truly believe that you believe it.
A study done, using only the government’s own data, looked at 517 detainees. Do you know how many of those were captured by US or coalition forces?
99%? 75%? 50%?
Nope. Of the amount where the report identified who they were capured by, it was 11%. The vast majority had been turned over to the US by Afghans or Pakistanis. To be fair, 44% of the detainees reports did not list how they were captured, but even if we were to set aside all logic and reason and assume that all 44% were captured by US or coalition forces, that still brings us to…51%. A far freaking cry from “all”, as you claim.
But keep wrapping yourself up in those warm little myths the Gitmo apologists need to to justify their otherwise untenable position.
duhhh…44+11=56%.
But same point.
Lets try that a third time…
44+11=55.
I really hate this keyboard.
Chap…why don’t you let these poor misunderstood folks live in your house? You might want to get a steel neck brace before you host them.
havok:
You understand that there are possibilities in between 1) indefinite detention with no way to challenge it, and 2) having suspected terrorists move into our homes?
I know it’s easier and simpler when you think in absolutes, but unfortunately the world doesn’t always work that way.
Havok,
Sure. I can whip up some pizza bagels and we can play Guitar Hero as they regale me with stories about how they WERENT captured on the battlefield in the act of attacking uniformed soldiers.
Chap, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers (I saw the keyboard problems) and accept them as accurate.
If we say they are accurate, why then has the left stood in the way for so long fighting the ability of them to get a trial before a tribunal?
That seems to me to have delayed their release for a long time if they are truly innocent as you suggest.
First, Republicanvet, I said nothing as to their guilt or innocence. Just as not being captured on a battlefield does not prove innocence, nor does it prove guilt. I suspect many are.
Second, as far as military tribunals, I suppose many on the left felt the military tribunals afforded no real procedural protections. For example, and its one I use often, the US government argued that it had no responsibility to share their evidence with anyone, that the fact that they SAID they had evidence was evidence enough. What kind of system is that?
Many on the left probably go too far in wanting to grant procedural rights to Gitmo detainees. As I said above, there is no way one could effectively replicate the US criminal justice system for these detainees, nor should such a high burden of prrof be required for the government. But that doesn’t mean there is not some areas of agreement we could come to. But whenever anyone tries to bring it up, they are accused of wanting terrorists to roam free on the streets of Mayberry. To be fair, the left can be just as vitriolic and asinine in their accusations, refusing to acknowledge real security concerns.
The depth of your BDS and disdain for our country on behalf of those who would kill, maim and/or destroy us all is simply stunning. Maybe you could take in a few? Do you have an infidel daughter (preferably pre-pubescent) that a few of the wonderful lads of allah could take as a bride?
What is wrong with people like you? Justice for these cretins should be dispensed from a gun barrel, just as they would do for you. Or do you feel the love?
So now we have a corrupt, plastic neophyte of a president, a secretary of homeland security employed because she “can see Mexico from her house,” a Treasury Secretary who is guilty of tax fraud, and an anti-Gitmo Attorney General who worked for a firm who will directly benefit from the closing of Gitmo, which is a blatant conflict of interest.
First week in office and already the worst president the country has ever witnessed.
Welcome to the USSA!
Ok, but besides that what don’t you like about the man? Come now Ty85719 feel the LUV and bask in the Glow of the Obaminites–or that might be a fragmentation grenade-I am not sure which.
But I do know this: if the jihadist hit New York, Chicago, Boston or any other of the Great Blues I’ll not send a dime. I do firmly believe that These United States need a Great Separating of people. We of the Right are not the ones talking about death camps nor having tea with those who do.
It was and is President Barack Hussein Obama’s friend and mentor William Ayres who danced on the flag. Close Gitmo and bring ALL our troops home from everywhere. I would hate to see American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines die for this odd mix of allah, Karl Marx and Richard Daley.
Has William Ayres started on the death camps yet? Is that part of the Infrastructure package?
That would almost be funny if it were not such a viable possibility in the very near future. Re-education? We don’t need no stinking re-education.
Fade to black as gun-shot rings out …
Welcome to the new socialist utopia.