If you were President, What would you do with the Gitmo Detainees?

You can consider this a push poll if you must, but I believe the following should be taken under consideration when making your determination, because I think as President, you would have to.




We all understand that in addition, The Republicans will of course attack with fury, if they are tried in open court. They will say that Foreign born people captured on the battlefield who have never set foot in the US should not be afforded US courts or the same rights as Citizens, and that even if tried in our courts, the judges will have no choice but to let them go based on Precedence (and they would be correct).

Then they will accuse the Obama administration of being soft on terror and they will say that if any of these people are ever caught in any terror plot, it will be the Democrats' fault.

In addition, Republicans would pitch a hissy fit and scream that these Detainees should not be allowed to ever walk down a U.S. Street. The media will help as much as it can with this propaganda (it will be real easy for them), and the trials will not be televised anyways except for on C-Span 3, if at all, and if they are, it will be timed to be right around midterm elections.

... then, when we're forced to let them go... have a mob outside ready to burn them at the stake.

It's win win. A bone to the Left, and a bone to the Right.

Tribunals the least of the bad options.

Unfortunately, this is like a lose-lose proposition no matter....after 7 years!

The same article I cited in the op also states....

Interestingly, such problems would not have arisen had these suspects been hauled before a military tribunal at the outset. The Pentagon's procedural rules for tribunals allow evidence to be admitted if it "would have probative value to a reasonable person." These rules contain no provision for the exclusion of involuntary statements, and on their face, do not allow the presiding officer of such tribunals to rely on Supreme Court precedent or federal case law to decide issues of evidence. Presumably, these tribunals were designed to allow for the admission of evidence from dubious circumstances, including the "intensive questioning" of Mohammed and Zubaida. So, if the Pentagon moves forward with its plans to try al-Qaida members before these courts, it may be able to evade this problem altogether.

However, even that won't solve the problem for the rest of the legal system, which only allows evidence obtained through constitutional means. By using torture to question the top terrorists it has in custody, the government has effectively sabotaged any future prosecutions of al-Qaida players—major and minor—that might depend on evidence gathered through those interrogations. It's plausible that skilled interrogation by the FBI, in accordance with American law, could have produced valuable evidence of these terrorists' guilt, which could have been used in court. But now that torture has been used, that may just be wishful hindsight.

As a nation, we still haven't clearly decided whether it's better to prosecute terrorists or pound them with artillery. But by torturing some of al-Qaida's leaders, we have completely undermined any efforts to do the former and irreversibly committed ourselves to a martial plan of justice. In the long run, this may be counterproductive, and it will show that we have compromised such liberal, democratic ideals like adherence to the rule of law to counter terrorism. Torture and tribunals do not help America show that it believes in the rule of law. But if CIA officials continue to use tactics that will get evidence thrown out of federal court, there will increasingly be no other option. :(

of detainees except for the man from Germany.

even though there was a great documentary on the 3 men from England.

There are many very human sides to these men.

and the woman who are in the shadow prisons.


* GENEVA: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights yesterday welcomed the election of the United States to the top United Nations rights forum and urged it to prosecute those accused of torture and other abuses.

Navi Pillay said Washington should investigate all US renditions of terrorism suspects and ensure that interrogators who mistreated them are brought to justice for violating an international ban on torture.

Military Tribunals aren't exactly justice and very hard to prove innocence.


I find it so shameful that this country is still debating what is and isn't torture and also Guantanamo. The trials should have started already. Both for the prisoners and also for those who were behind the torture, and rendition program.

http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php

Mr Errachidi, a 40-year-old Moroccan national who lived in England for 18 years, has two sons in Morocco. The reason he was in Afghanistan in late 2001 was to help his son who has a heart condition, says Mr Stafford Smith.
An enemy combatant' being held by the American military at Guantanamo Bay could not have been at an Afghan Al-Qaeda training camp as alleged, because he was working at a Muswell Hill cafe.
Ahmed Errachidi has been imprisoned without trial at the military base in Cuba for almost five years, accused of attending the Al Farooq training camp in July 2001 to learn about weapons, war tactics and bomb making.
But Mr Errachidi was working as a chef at Cafe Loco, in Muswell Hill Broadway, according to his lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who says he has payslips, time-sheets and bank transactions to prove it.
"He got grabbed in Pakistan and he was sold to the US by bounty hunters for about $5,000, the going rate."
Ahmad Errachidi was born in Tangiers, in Morocco. He has worked as a cook in London for almost 18 years. The best man at Ahmad’s wedding, Mohammed Khenoussi, lives in North London and describes Ahmad as a “loyal, trustworthy and totally unselfish friend.” He is the middle child of five, a loving son to his “dear and beloved mother”. He once spent all of his savings cleaning up the cemetery where his father was buried, unable to endure it unkempt. He is a faithful husband, and the devoted father to his two young sons, Muhammad and Imran, who live mainly with his wife’s family in Morocco.



Abdul-Hakeem Bukhari
He was a carpet trader from Makkah, in Saudi Arabia.
He travelled to Pakistan in August 2001 for medical treatment and returned to Saudi Arabia before the September 11th attacks.
Abdul Hakeem again went to Pakistan after the terror attacks thinking he could purchase Afghan carpets at bargain prices. It was then that he disappeared.
He was first detained in the US Base in Kandahar and reportedly telephoned his family whilst in detention there in late December 2001. He told them that he was imprisoned by the Taliban, "then the line was cut off", his brother said.
His family did not hear anything from him for the next three months until on 16th March 2002 they finally received two letters from him. His brother, Abdul-Rahman was quoted as saying, "Although the letter was very short and did not give much detail about our brother, it nevertheless made us very happy. At least now we know that he is still alive''.

When journalists toured the facility in March, one prisoner tried desperately to attract their attention. "We've been on a hunger strike for 14 days, and nobody cares," he called out. "Can you tell the world about us?"




Abdullah Eidah al-Matrafi is 41 years old and is from Saudi Arabia. He is married with three children.
He is the director of the Wafa charity, which was involved in the construction of mosques, digging wells, setting up medical centres and running a hospital in Kabul. He has spent most of his life in charity work and never engaged in politics. He has previously worked as a the director of a fund-raising committee in Bosnia for five years.
He left Kabul due to US air raids and was subsequently seriously injured in the bombings. He suffered a fractured leg and ribs and burns in various parts of his body.
His family last heard from him on December 10th, from the airport, shortly before he boarded an Emirates flight from Lahore to Dubai. He boarded the flight at Dubai for Jeddah but never arrived there. His family believe that he has been "kidnapped" by US intelligence iagents n Pakistan.

Abdullah's father said his son, who has three children, spent most of his life in charity work and was never involved in politics. He worked as director for a fund-raising committee for Bosnia for five years.



the list goes on...

http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=1367



Aafia Siddiqui was born in Karachi, Pakistan, on March 2, 1972. She was one of three children of Mohammad Siddiqui, a doctor trained in England, and Ismet. She is a mother of three.

Aafia moved to Texas in 1990 to be near her brother, and after spending a year at the University of Houston, transferred to MIT. Aafia then married Mohammed Amjad Khan, a medical student, and subsequently entered Brandeis University as a graduate student in cognitive neuroscience.



Aafia's eldest son, Ahmad, is believed to be in custody in Afghanistan. Despite the fact he is a US national he was not extradited along with his mother to the US. The whereabouts of Aafia's two youngest children, missing for the past five years, remain unknown.

Dr. Aafia is a gunshot victim and has suffered unspeakable torture and abuse during the last 5 years of her disappearance and kidnapping in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The prison has been unable to treat Dr. Aafia effectively and insists on giving her dehumanizing and degrading strip searches that cause further harm and prevent attorney visits. Her attorneys have stated in court that Dr. Aafia has become more despondent and fearful about her health and that if she does not receive the proper medical and psychiatric treatment, Dr. Aafia’s health will seriously decline.

Dr. Aafia has the basic right to appropriate medical treatment for her physical and psychological injuries.

There is no doubt there.

were not charged in the 7 years that they were held.

Again, this issue is a lose-lose for the Janitor who now must clean up after the frat boys' party....
as well as for the detainees, and of course, for the American people.

the time is coming very shortly that these folks will be heard and/or tried, convicted or released.

detainees who have been found to have been innocent of anything or crimes so minor that they would be released for time served.

Only the real hard core AQ should be handed over for trial.

I believe that there are 20-25 of the 250 or so who will be charged and tried. I have to imagine that the administration is attempting to figure out what to do with the rest of them, i.e., how to release them and to whom.

And I agree with your OP, O is just the clean up guy!

Those who were apprehended but we have no evidence against them should be released and it wouldn't be a bad idea to compensate them for wrongful imprisonment.

Those who were captured by law enforcement should be tried in a civilian court.

Those who were captured on the battlefield I would probably use the tribunals.