WP: Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects

[quaoar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41475-2005Jan1.html

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 2, 2005; Page A01

Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

"We've been operating in the moment because that's what has been required," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, who said the current detention system has strained relations between the United States and other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries. The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, the senior administration official said.

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. Labor camps

for Ford, GE, Halliburton, ect.

[Acryliccalico]

2. That all sounds like a different country???

Isn't that the kind country Americans avoided in the 60s and 70s because we could never come home if we got caught with pot.:scared:

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. actually, its the country

our grandparents went to war against in the 1940's

[papau]

10. Lifetime in jail with no court - and Lugar only says a "bad idea" on Fox

And today the Washington Post reports that GOP Senator Lugar on Fox News Sunday refused to denounce the Bush newly announced plan to keep some suspected terrorists imprisoned for a lifetime even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts - saying only that it was "bad idea".

[Julius Civitatus]

9. American Gulag

[demigoddess]

22. or the bastille and their lettres de cache

see what that led to.

[daleo]

4. This phrase is incredible

"The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts."

Lifetime detentions for people they don't even have enough evidence to try legally. If this is possible, there is no rule of law, no civil rights, no habeas corpus, no Magna Carta, nothing. Everything is potentially at the whim of the government.

On edit - An equally scary comment from the article:
"Renditions are the most effective way to hold people," said Rohan Gunaratna, author of "Inside al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror." "The threat of sending someone to one of these countries is very important. In Europe, the custodial interrogations have yielded almost nothing" because they do not use the threat of sending a detainee to a country where they are likely to be tortured.

[TankLV]

8. "Renditions" now. What other words can they come up with to try to hide

their crimes?

"Renditions"?

"RENDITIONS"?

Somebody save us from these insane criminals!

What is most disturbing, for the last 4 or more years, is that anyone is NO LONGER AFRAID TO EVEN UTTER ALOUD SUCH CRAP LIKE THIS, let alone be taken seriously.

Where's the media firestorm on this? Oh, wait, Michael Jackson has his hand on his crotch again, news at eleven.

[daleo]

18. True, the spectrum of political discourse has moved toward fascism

At one time no American official would even have contemplated such ideas, or at least spoke them in public. The sense of shame would have prevailed. Now, anything goes.

[Supersedeas]

28. Not enough evidence....not a problem for lifetime detentions...not for

Bush lovers.

Business as usual in Bush World.

[primavera]

5. Is there a lawyer in the house?

Okay, I’m confused now, didn’t the Supreme Court just hold that detainees could not be denied access to federal courts? Don’t the fourth and fifth amendments expressly bar the government from doing precisely the sort of thing it seems to be attempting to do? I don’t recall that either amendment was limited in its application only to US citizens, nor do I recall reading any special “except-when-we-think-they-might-be-a-terrorist” exception. So why isn’t this a slam dunk, black letter law case? I just don’t get this. I mean, how could there possibly be any legal basis for allowing a government to detain people – even temporarily, much less permanently – without bearing any burden for first establishing their guilt? Wouldn’t the supposition that a government may deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without evidence or basic legal protections be pretty much antithetical to a democratic state based upon rule of law? If that were the case, what would prevent a government from pointing the finger at any of us and tossing us in the klink for life, on no more than the individual say so of a government official? Even detached from any normative, natural law considerations regarding the “justice” of such a condition, I can’t imagine a system of laws even functioning when the government is free to exempt itself whenever it wishes. So why aren’t the courts stomping the administration’s guts out? Okay, I haven’t studied criminal law, but many DUers have, so what’s the deal here? Are there plenary powers cases on the books which establish the government’s obligation to uphold the Constitution only when they feel like it or find it convenient to do so? What possible loophole could the government be envisioning for itself that gives it the unchallengeable right to play judge, jury, and executioner over persons whose guilt or innocence has never even been established?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. This is terrifying, but again, this, and the Iraq invasion/occupation as

a whole, were the biggest reasons I opposed the Bush Administration in the first place.

[wildflower]

12. I believe that SCOTUS ruling applies only to American citizens.

I'm not sure how the court can even rule on people the government has taken from other countries.

ON EDIT: In fact I don't understand how it's even legal for the U.S. to imprison people from other countries. Can't those countries demand extradition?

-wildflower

[primavera]

20. Quite right, unfortunately

I read the oral argument transcripts and opinion from Hamdi v Rumsferatu today and the attorney for Hamdi based his whole argument on the fact that Hamdi was a US citizen. The SCOTUS justices repeatedly asked whether counsel seriously felt that habeus petitions could practically be extended to all parties in a war, to which the response was no, of course not, but Hamdi as a US citizen faced the prospect of criminal prosecution which was a possibility armed combatants did not face.

I was rather disappointed, actually, but how narrowly defined the ruling was. It didn't seem to bother anyone that the term enemy combatant was never defined and consequently could be applied to virtually anyone the administration didn't happen to like. Nor did anyone question this alleged state of war in which we now find ourselves - despite the lack of any actual declaration of war against any specified opposing state or entity - nor the propriety of suspending the rights of likewise unspecified parties to that "war." The shrub is trying to have it both ways: he doesn't want to consider them criminals because then they'd have the protections of the constitution, therefore we're at war; neither though does he want to consider them prisoners of war, as then they'd be protected by the Geneva Convention. So he invents the gibberish term of "enemy combatant," a term which is never defined, has no legal meaning, applies it wholesale to anyone whose civil rights he wishes to violate and presto! No more legal problems. And apparently that state of affairs didn't bother SCOTUS.

[daleo]

19. Excellent questions

As you say, it seems incredible these prospects are even being mooted. All I can say, is that they must expect the Supreme Court will give them some creative ruling, which will escape all logic, but have the force of law nonetheless (like the Bush-Gore case in the 2000 election).

[Zhade]

24. You're thinking of the Old Republic.

Seems there will only be one way to stop this, eventually, and it won't be pretty.

Why, oh WHY, did I father a child now? What kind of world is he going to grow up in?

[TankLV]

7. Well, we now know where the next four years is heading.

Guess this answers my question of "just how bad do you think the NEXT four year will be?"

There is NO excuse for thie LINE OF THINKING, let alone policy.

All those who espouse and support such crimes, should be rounded up and shot on site.

I'll repear.

ALL THOSE WHO ESPOUSE AND SUPPORT SUCH CRIMES AS THE LIFELONG DENTION OF PERSONS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE BROUGHT UP ON ANY CHARGES, SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP AND SHOT ON SITE.

When will enough be enough people?

[Rose Siding]

11. A repub denounced this today on Faux

"It's a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this," Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on "Fox News Sunday."

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YHE3NYTLSCKL4CRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7218051

[Slyder]

13. Outrage is the only rational response

to such an idea. It is utterly repugnant to everything the Founding Fathers stood for. It is utterly repugnant to any true American. Don't Republicans realize that if they can do it to them, they can do it to you? This Republican administration has apparently given up on liberty. What was it Benjamin Franklin said about people who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserving neither?

[catlawyer]

14. Did you see Powell's response when asked about it on MTP?

MR. RUSSERT: There's a front-page report in The Washington Post today that the administration is considering a prison to detain alleged terrorists where they do not have enough evidence to bring them to prosecution. What's your role in that and do you seem...

SEC'Y POWELL: I am not familiar with that and I can't talk to it.

MR. RUSSERT: The State Department is involved.

SEC'Y POWELL: I just don't have the facts on that one.

MR. RUSSERT: Why would the United States detain people for life without bringing them to trial?

SEC'Y POWELL: I have no information on this one, Tim.

[Chicago Democrat]

15. Understatement of the Year Award Headline!

Should be: "US to Detain Terror Suspects for Life Without Trial"

[Chicago Democrat]

16. Should have referred to "Final Solution" for terror suspects!!

SEIG HEIL!!

SEIG HEIL!!!!

[UncleSepp]

17. How long after this until the public cry comes to kill them?

Seriously, if this happens, how long until we hear from the Rush-listener corner "Why are MY tax dollars going to keep these terrorists alive?" coupled with demands to just execute these prisoners?

This makes me ill.

[Ranec]

21. I'm suprised we haven't seen this already.

I bet once they see Saddam hang on primetime TV then the blood lust will well up and we'll start executing terrorists one by one.

I don't know whether to throw up or cry.
:cry:

[primavera]

23. Sounds like a pay-per-view opportunity to me

Finally, a practical solution for how to pay for the war on terror. Sigh. :(

[Jack Rabbit]

25. These plans will also strain relations with other countries

From the Washington Post:

"We've been operating in the moment because that's what has been required," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, who said the current detention system has strained relations between the United States and other countries.

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Monday January 3

US plans permanent Guantanamo jails
By Julian Borger in Washington

The United States is preparing to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial, replacing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp with permanent prisons in the Cuban enclave and elsewhere, it was reported yesterday.
The new prisons are intended for captives the Pentagon and the CIA suspect of terrorist links but do not wish to set free or put on trial for lack of hard evidence.

These plans still call for indefinite detention without trial for anybody the US government Mr. Bush considers dangerous. That, not the location of the prison, is what is straining relations with other countries.

The plans have emerged at a time when the US is under increasing scrutiny for the interrogation methods used on the roughly 550 "enemy combatants" at the Guantanamo Bay base, who do not have the same rights as traditional prisoners of war.

A leaked Red Cross report described the techniques used as "tantamount to torture".

Over the weekend the New York Times quoted a former interrogator as saying one in six detainees were subject to harsh techniques including sleep deprivation, exposure to constant loud music or advertising jingles, and being shackled for long periods to a low chair.

Is there anything in these new plans that will prohibit the use of such practices? Mr. Bush's approval of the use of torture is also a matter of contention with the world, as it should be.

[peacebird]

26. Christian Science Monitor has a great article on this today also

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0103/dailyUpdate.html

[Bill McBlueState]

27. what bs

The prisons would be operated by those countries but monitored by the State Department for compliance with international human rights standards, the Post said, citing a senior administration official.

The US State Department is going to monitor compliance with human rights standards? Ha, ha, ha! Just like the fox is going to make sure nobody eats the hens.

[alfredo]

29. Look to literature for wisdom

Bolt's dialogue from A Man for All Seasons.

Sir Thomas Moore's family want him to arrest Richard on the grounds that he is a dangerous man, and Moore insists he needs proper legal grounds before he will do that.

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Moore: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Moore: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

[Pachamama]

30. Umm, what is that little thing called "due process"? Is this even legal

within International Law?

I just don't see any way that they will be able to get away with this and not have the International World Court come down on them...

OOPS! That's right! I forgot! BUSH doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court and International Law....my mistake...

:scared:

[primavera]

31. The problem is there isn't much law written on this

International law does in fact authorize the detention of prisoners of war for the duration of a military conflict in order to prevent them from returning to the field of battle. But those laws were written with an eye to wars which have a finite duration, I don't think anyone ever envisioned them being applied to long-term enforcement efforts which have no prospect of ending within the foreseeable future. Traditionally, those sorts of efforts have fallen under the rubric of criminal law and the legal protections associated with it, but our beloved Fuehrer keeps trying to convince everyone that this is an actual war, so criminal law doesn't apply. Unfortunately, the courts seem to be going along with the distinction for the most part and are evaluating cases in terms of the laws of warfare. But even then, we're trying to wriggle out of the basic protections afforded even prisoners of war by inventing this new term "enemy combatant" which has no legal meaning under any law anywhere and is consequently not afforded any protections whatsoever (since it's a meaningless gibberish term not addressed by law).

Unfortunately, this is something the law is really bad at addressing: when a party invents new terms to describe things traditionally proscribed by law and then argues that the new term somehow differs from the old term covered by law. For instance, deportation for centuries has been considered a form of punishment and therefore covered by habeus rights. A while back, the government decided to abandon deportations in favor or "removals," and argued that it was alright, they weren't deporting anyone anymore. Never mind that they were still arresting aliens, putting them on planes, and shipping them out of the country, in short, deporting them, no, this was different, now they were being removed, not deported, so there wasn't any need to extend habeus rights to them as all agreed would most certainly be the case were they being deported. No doubt those removed took great comfort from the knowledge that they weren't actually being deported after all.

So the next time you want to murder a Republican, go ahead and just explain to the arresting officer that you weren't actually murdering anyone, rather, you were "slaying" them, and hey, there's no law against "slaying" people, so you're not subject to criminal prosecution. It works for our government, why shouldn't the same thing work for the rest of us?