Prisoners of war don't get trials. They get the Geneva Convention.

It's pretty clear what Obama really is proposing, when you read the full statement in context -- holding enemy soldiers for the duration of the war as pows.

had no connection to Al Queda, the Taliban, nor took up arms against the United States. They belong to no military at war with the United States. I can not join anyone in being an apologist to detention without charges or evidence in a timeframe only determined by the executive branch of the US government.

so whatever Bush did can be imputed to Obama, no matter what Obama says his plans are.

I keep forgetting to apply Obama hater and Democratic Party hater logic in my responses. It trips me up every time.

A lot of them have been released. These are the worst of the worst who are left. Most of them will be tried. They really have decalred war on the U.S., we really do have a right to self-defense, even if you disagree on the strategy and tactics.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm

What are the criteria for victory? How will we know we've reached them? It's like talking about winning the war on crime. We can't "win" the war so long as there is a single criminal out there. We can only talk about progress.

While I don't relish the idea of releasing people who really are a threat (I wouldn't want to do that) there has to be a better way of holding them than just calling it "prolonged detention". Imagine, if you will, that we've got some hardened street criminal covered in gang tattoos, etc., but with no evidence he's done anything. Of course, we're pretty sure he's done *something* worthy of prison time, and will certainly rejoin his gang friends if we release him. What if we just told him, "well, we're going to hold you until the end of the war on crime". What kind of system is that?

I sympathize with Obama because he has been left with a legal train wreck by the oversteps and abuses of the Bush administration, but I think he needs to try harder than "prolonged detention" to solve them.

So for those who will be detained until the "war" is "over"? There will be no release.

Live with it I guess.

Armando on "Talk Left" has posted a good read on this topic:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/5/22/112959/706

how do you calculate terms of victory.
Would another great vowel shift do it?

Look. Had Julius Caesar declared a war on
boredom, we'd still be fighting it.

"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no 'intermediate' status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

A combatant is not entitled to more lenient treatment because he violates the laws of war.

He is not entitled to prolonged, indefinite, inconvenient or other euphemestically termed incarceration.

his opponent can keep him locked up.

German POW's had no right to be released from US custody during WW II. Similarly, hardcore AQ members have no right to be released.

No war has been declared and there is no objective measure of when "the war on terror" ends.

AQ are not considered POWs at all and their status is subject to independent review.

Why is this so hard?

and AQ and its affiliates that has been going on since 1996. AQ are considered 'unlawful combatants' by the Red Cross and can be detained as long as any POW would.

When AQ stops trying to massacre thousands of Americans, then its members can expect to be set free. Not a second earlier.

That by no means is a state of armed conflict. Furthermore, the United States can no more declare war on al Qaeda than it can on the Mafia or the Medellin cartel.

Read the link elsewhere on what the ICRC considers the proper treatment of detainees.

(Pssst, it is not prolonged, indefinite detention.)

How many people do they have to kill before you take them seriously?

then they can be reclassified.

K&R

Will anyone we find suspected of communist leanings and activity be detained without trial until the new war ends?

Oh wait!

That "war against communism" never officialy ended so is it all right if suspected "communists" are rounded up for indefinite detention?

Is that really what you mean to say?

They killed 3000 people in New York. That is not a neocon fantasy.

It goes on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, etc etc.

The government has to provide evidence that the detainee is a combatant in order to detain them, per the SCOTUS ruling in Boumediene.

If they guy isn't a combatant, he will get his chance to argue that in court. If he is an AQ-supporting combatant, he shouldn't be released.

The kangaroo courts they mocked up are ridiculous and unconstitutional.

sufficient habeas protection and thus ruled that federal courts would review the petitions of the Gitmo inmates.

No formal declaration of war is necessary to have armed conflict.

Armed conflict without a formal declaration of war has been going on on every second of every day for the past 3000 years.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or the war on terror that will arguably never end?

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-aslan8-2009apr08,0,7881551.story

I want to know if the war in AFghanistan and Iraq is what we're talking about here, or whatever you call our struggle against acts of terrorism in general by Al Qaeda et. al.

then we won't have to invent a new legal framework.

And we'll have to ensure that the "war" never ends.

There was no DECLARATION of war

or belonging to any state military are not "prisoners of war".

Sorry, you may try again.

IMO POW status is perfectly reasonable as long as we are still fighting the Taliban and AQ nut-jobs in Afghanistan.