DLC Position on Gitmo and detainee status

[SaveElmer]

Idea of the Week: Bring Gitmo Under the Rule of Law

Let's be clear about this: Most of the detainees at the U.S. camp at Guantanamo Bay are dangerous terrorists who would undoubtedly rejoin the global Jihadist fight against America if they had the opportunity. But more than three years after many of them were first captured, it's time to regularize their treatment according to our own values -- the values we are defending in the war on terror.

...

But much of the domestic debate over Gitmo has revolved around sporadic reports and rumors of prisoner abuse, not the more central question of the legal status of detainees, many of whom have now spent years in a judicial limbo.

...

The basic problem is simple: These detainees represent a new kind of war for which the old rules of law governing combatants don't work. These are not American citizens subject to domestic law; but nor are they the kind of uniformed soldiers under the control of governments that the Geneva Convention system was designed to deal with. And as fighters in a cause eager and willing to target civilian populations, they certainly cannot be treated as mere criminals, either.

...

But while the administration has been right in saying the old rules don't apply, they've been stubbornly unwilling to talk about new rules that do. And that's why, for the third straight year, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has introduced legislation aimed at ending Gitmo's legal limbo and introducing predictable, transparent, and accountable legal procedures for disposing of its detainees.

...
The Schiff bill (the Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act of 2005) does four things. First, it affirms the president's authority to detain foreign nationals as unlawful combatants (a status the bill defines). Second, it entitles detainees to a status hearing before an independent military officer within six months. Third, it requires the government either to bring formal charges against detainees or to repatriate or release them within two years, unless the Pentagon certifies that it needs more time for particular detainees and explains why. Fourth, it requires the Defense Department to put the cases before tribunals that operate under clear standards and procedures, including the right to counsel and to present exculpatory evidence.


http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253431

[longship]

1. The only responsible position.

Any position that falls short of holding everybody responsible for the debacle at Gitmo and Abu-Graib is unacceptable. All those, all the way to the top of the command if necessary, who approved or knew about the torturing and did nothing to stop it, should pay by surrendering their freedom for the rest of their lives.

Gitmo should be closed. Period. Close it up and either bring the prisoners to the US under indictment, or release them.

Abu-Graib should probably be closed too, although I have no idea how that might occur.

All terrists ;-) should be held accountable using the justice system already in place. Defendents should enjoy the exact same guarantees that any criminal has. Trials should open to the extent that any criminal proceedings are.

[paineinthearse]

2. SaveElmer is on a roll

With all the DLC position posts.

[wli]

3. that's completely insane

There is already a criminal justice system in place. If they've committed a crime, let them stand trial before a jury of their peers, not a kangaroo court. If they've not committed a crime, let them go.

[SaveElmer]

6. Question...

Should foreign detainees stand trial in a military tribunal or in an American court like any citizen?

Would you treat a foreigner accused of terrorism differently than an American accused of the same crime?

Bush obviously wants to treat them both the same...just hold them indefinitely.

Not sure how foreign detainees ought to be handled...but it seems to be an American citizen ought to get the same access to the courts everyone else is guaranteed!

[wli]

7. before Bush pulled his "unlawful enemy combatant" stunt

Before Bush when a foreigner was accused of a crime he had the same rights as a citizen to a trial by jury and so on. And this is the correct way for it to happen.

The entire "system" for "unlawful enemy combatants" is an invention of the Bush administration with no legal basis whatsoever, and it's completely unconstitutional.

[SaveElmer]

8. Would you include Afghan prisoners as well...

Not sure where you stood on that, but that action... at least to begin with had wide support!

And, although a foreigner accused of a crime would have access to US courts, I don't believe that a foreigner captured during war would receive the same treatment...

Of course I realize that this war is different in that many of us (me included), think that we entered under false pretenses.

[wli]

10. we're not at war

There's been no declaration of war. Whatever we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq it has nothing to do with war.

As far as prisoners of war are concerned, their treatment is specified by the Geneva Conventions from which the US has not legally withdrawn (Bush's statements and executive orders are not legal withdrawals from treaties).

[SaveElmer]

32. Does the Geneva convention...

Require a declaration of war from the country attacking? Or does it recognize a state of war exists when some threshold has been reached?

Not trying to lead you anywhere...I really don't know!

[wli]

36. I think it makes just about everything done in its course a war crime

If you didn't declare war and you're militarily attacking, I believe that constitutes a war crime.

[The Magistrate]

38. Not True, Sir

It applies when a state of war exists; how that comes into being is immaterial, and various systems of course address that in different ways.

Wars of aggression are criminal under several treaties, but the term is not too well defined. The United Nations forbids the use of war except in legitimate self-defense, and that, too, is a flexible concept. The police usually haul away the man who threw the first punch in a fight, but not always: there are instances where the threat is so obvious that the man who swings first was clearly acting in self-defense.

[wli]

47. things are pretty sketchy

But as I understand it most of what the US calls "wars" are undeclared wars of aggression. For instance, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I'd probably put the Balkans war under a similar banner, largely on account of sidestepping the UN.

[The Magistrate]

49. The Term, Sir

Means something other than "action by a state the speaker using the term disapproves of". It is intended to indicate a war commenced without provocation, for predatory purposes. It did not exist as a legal term before the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, and the only thing that has ever been judged to have met the definition by any tribunal was the efforts of the Axis powers in the Second World War. The Iraqi venture certainly comes close, and an excellent case can be made it does match the requirements, though a good case can be made that it does not. None of the others do. The background of both Korea and Vietnam would consume much more time than is available to me, but the first was an action of the United Nations itself against an open invasion, and the second an intervention in a conflict that had already been going on for more than fifteen years before the United States committed signifigant military power. The invasion of Afghanistan had United Nations acquiesence, and can hardly be described as unprovoked, unless one subscribes to speculative versions of events no one is required to take seriously. The Kossovo intervention can hardly be described as predatory, using any commonly accepted view of the term; there is simply nothing worth stealing there, and the crisis before the world community was sufficiently urgent to justify, in my view, peremptory action. That other instances, such as Rwanda and Sudan, were not responded to in such a wise does not alter that: a burglar in court will not get far offering as his defense that other burglars have not been arrested, too, and so the court should let him go and punish the police instead.

[wli]

50. this is a bit more than I can respond to

Though I personally am not convinced, I've thoroughly lost this debate. At some point I will have to read up on these things to see whether my notion holds any water or not, and get to where I can actually cite sources to back whatever conclusion I come to.

[SaveElmer]

42. So...

WOuld our actions in the Balkans under Clinton be considered a crime ?

We didn't declare war as defined in the Constitution...

Of course we did work through NATO...did that process satisy the Geneva Convention? What about Korea...I don't believe we declared war there either...course there was UN agreement there.

How about the first Gulf War?

[The Magistrate]

44. As A Technical Matter, Sir

The Kossovo war was rather a borderline business. It did not have Security Council approval, but rather appealed to various conventions mandating action against genocide.

[Sparkman]

58. Spy's whose espionage results in harmg us, have been around 300yrs.

There are long established methodologies, including immediate and unceremonious termination or imprisonment, in or out of US boundaries. One wonder's why the neocons want another rhetorical, PR label? Is propaganda and media control elevating to yet another plateau?

[wli]

62. yes, it's a new plateau

USA PATRIOT Act I and II, surveillance crud, and post-Clinton MSM actions demonstrate a rather heightened level of control being sought.

[TahitiNut]

17. The Constitution places limits on the powers of government over PEOPLE

... and nowhere is the phrase "all the people are equal but some of the people more equal than others" even hinted at.

Let's try to make that VERY clear. The Federal government is stepping COMPLETELY outside of the boundaries set by the Constitution when it presumes to make HUMAN right hierarchical and takes upon itself the prerogative of infringing upon rights as though they were abrogatable 'entitlements.'

Let's try to make it simpler: the Federal government is currently granted the sole delegated AUTHORITY to designate who shall and who shall not be deemed a 'citizen.' (If you doubt this, I suggest you research the subject.) If, at the same time, it is allowed to ignore and infringe upon the human rights of non-citizens, then it has the power to infringe upon the rights of anyone.

This CORRUPTION of Federal government power is every bit as heinous as slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. It cannot be permitted to stand!

[dsc]

19. actually the 14th amendment puts limits on the feds in that regard

They can't deny citizenship on the basis of race, for example.

[TahitiNut]

25. Please read more carefully.

I said that the Federal government has the sole delegated authority for entitling people as citizens or not. There is no other authority! I did NOT say that there weren't laws and Constitutional provisions. If, however, the government can ignore and overstep other Constitutional limits, that one won't stop it.

[Eric J in MN]

4. seems like a very weak bill

Would it allow non-citizens arrested in the US to be labelled "unlawful combatants" and held for two years plus more if the Pentagon "certifies" it needs more time, without being charged?

[bpilgrim]

5. a new kind of war for which the old rules of law governing combatants don'

"a new kind of war for which the old rules of law governing combatants don't work"

EXACTLY the neoCON position and btw imperial japan's during wwII

i notice how the powers that be dropped the term 'illegal/unlawful combatant' in favor of 'enemy combatant' which is simply a regular under the eyes of the law... i know, i know, how quaint, eh?

peace

[SaveElmer]

9. What do you think should be done....?

What approach would you take? Do you feel these men should be given access to American Courts ? Military Courts ? Released outright ?

Just curious!

[bpilgrim]

11. plenty of daylight

on the existing processes to start and minimum adherence to our LAWS of DUE PROCESS & HUMAN RIGHTS.

let the international red-cross & the UN monitor the situation at the very least.

but certainly NOT endorsing the neoCON carton world view which will be the death of us all in the end.

:hi:

peace

[SaveElmer]

14. Yeah...that makes sense as far as it goes...

Definitely shine the light on that place...

How should the cases be disposed though...I mean even if you disagree with Congressman Schiff's ideas specifically, he is proposing a regularized way to deal with it...how would you treat it differently from what he proposes?

[bpilgrim]

18. as far as it goes?!? we can't get our leaders to agree to THAT, yet!

once we have OVERSIGHT & TRANSPARENCY we follow ESTABLISHED LAW of DUE PROCESS.

we DON'T go down the path that these are ILLEGAL combatants and DIFFERENT somehow from other enemies that should be treated differently under the law.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." Thomas Paine

peace

[The Magistrate]

28. There Are Several Problems, Mr. Elmer, With The D.L.C .Position Here

The most glaring is the stated belief that just about all the prisoners are dangerous and committed jihadists. It is a sad fact that there is really very little reason to believe this. The largest proportion of prisoners at that facility were men taken in the field in Afghanistan, and the greatest proportion of these were simply infantry fighting Tadjiks. An appreciable proportion were simply unfortunates taken and sold to us for bounty by locals eager to profit from our naivite. This same problem exists in Iraq: for all the quality claimed for our intelligence work, the arrests carried out by our forces are essentially random acts, that have about the same chance of actually netting a real resistance operative as a policeman arresting say, every fifteenth person he encountered, would have of apprehending a genuine criminal. A statement beginning with the proposition that most of the prisoners are serious figures cannot go on to produce much of anything better in subsequent paragraphs.

Attempts to evade the Geneva conventions, and claim they do not apply to this circumstance, are humorous. This is not a situation the Geneva Accords did not foresee: the current regime in our country simply does not wish to apply the relevant regulation. When faced with a non-state actor suspected of conducting itself in violation of the laws of war, a signatory power is to hold a tribunal to determine if there is sufficient evidence to declare a prisoner an "unlawful combatant", and try him for any crimes there is any evidence he has committed. A signatory power is also required to treat any agents of a non-signatory body humanely, refraining from torture, and this regardless of their status as criminal or no. The current administration wants to declare "unlawful combatant" status by mere Executive fiat, use torture on prisoners, sand further, to proclaim the wholly un-American proposition that in time of war, even undeclared war, the Executive is independent of either the Congress or the Judiciary in any act it designates as part of the war effort. Words fail me in describing the degree to which this is wholly noxious, particularly the latter element, and the degree to which any who consider theselves patriots ought to oppose it.

[TahitiNut]

31. Typoes aside, I fully agree ... as is the case most of the time.

In particular, I gree with the sentiment that "(w)ords fail me in describ(ing) the degree to which this is wholly noxious"!!

It's an indescribable usurpation of power, well beyond any and all tenets of law, Constitutional and international.

This is yet another abomination committed by the DLC Fascist-lites!

[The Magistrate]

33. Thank You, Sir

There were some doozies in there; haste is seldom helpful, though sometimes unavoidable. Still, "fangerous" ought to be a word; it has a very nice and slavering air about it....

It does seem to me wise, too, though, to concentrate our fire on the actors really to blame, namely the criminals of the '00 Coup, and not seek to ascribe responsibility for what they have done to others. The D.L.C., in most instances, is simply a group of very conventional strategists, who do not seem to realize the middle is not won by matching elements of the oppposition, but by being more passionate, and by changing the line upon which the middle cleaves to the opposing polls when decision must be made between the alternatives.

[TahitiNut]

37. It's a lving language. Two of us already agree on "fangerous"

... and for the same tactile reasons. :evilgrin:

As for the rest ... that's why I have Ms. Atwood's quote in my sig.

[The Magistrate]

40. That Is An Excellent Line, Sir

Distantly kin to a favorite of mine, from Napoleon if recollection serves: "It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake."

[wli]

12. access to American courts here

And put into ordinary jails instead of Guantanamo.

[dsc]

16. Ordinary jails might well be worse

We don't keep good looking 19 year olds from being raped in them just imagine what would happen to a suspected terrorist.

[wli]

20. as true as that is it doesn't justify Guantanamo

Rather it says something rather serious about human rights abuses in the US committed against US citizens.

In fact, the BBC documentary "America's Brutal Prisons" vastly understates its case and still managed to be a phenomenal shocker to the international community.

[dsc]

23. I wasn't claiming it did

I just wanted you to be careful what you wished for.

[wli]

35. still, if ordinary jails would result in human rights abuses

The human rights abuses that would otherwise be against US citizens need to be dealt with anyway.

[dsc]

51. Yea and we are going to get on that, when?

This has been going on for an immense amount of time and we have shown no effort to change it.

[wli]

61. yes, things look pretty bad on that front

I don't see much hope there, certainly not in any near-term push for the restoration of rights etc.

[Catrina]

13. The DLC are neocons

Fancy language saying much the same thing that the neocons say. Why on earth should the president have jurisdiction over detainees?

The Geneva Convention (I'll have to read that OP again, did they mention that 'quaint' document?) covers every human being involved in a war situation.

The notion of 'enemy combatant' and 'new kind of war' is pure garbage.

I believe it is Article V1 of the Geneva Conventions that covers detainees who are not in uniform.

And for them to make so little of the hundreds of innocent people who have already been released after years of detention, without representation, and many of whom were tortured, rounded up by bounty hunters, in many cases, is enought to make me want to scream!!

This is our party??? Why are we hearing from these people now? Didn't we make it clear that we were done with them after their latest failure?

Didn't even Bremer admit that thousands of innocent Iraqis had been rounded up and kept in Abu Ghraib for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Let them take that garbage to Freeperville ~ we've been paying attention to what's going on ~ I see an attempt here to get Bush et al off the hook!!

Looks like we're not only fighting the right, but the DLC also, or are they one and the same?

END THE TORTURE!! This is unreal!

[SaveElmer]

22. Definitely merit to some of that...

Well let me say up front I too think Gitmo should be shut down (for this purpose). I am just not certain that these prisoners ought to be held in civilian prisons. FIrst of all, they would probably have to be held in solitary to keep them from getting killed by other prisoners.

I also don;t think just letting them go is wise either.

Just off the top of my head, it would seem to make sense to move them to a different facility in the US...and open it up to monitoring by the Red Cross, the UN, and perhaps Amnesty International to make sure they aren't being tortured, as is clear happened at Gitmo...

As to what adjudication should occur...I'm not really sure...I'll have to look at it more I think...

COngressman Schiff's bill is probably not tough enough in protecting the rights of the prisoners...but I do give him credit for trying to come up with some way of regularizing their status, and to move forward getting their cases heard.

Also, I don't think this is a recent effort by Schiff...I think he has introduce this before...so I think he has been working on it for a while...

Also...what happened to Bush's promise to close Abu Ghraib...another lie obviously!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. In a word, yes

If they are guilty or innocent, they are entitled to a "speedy, public trial" under the U.S. Constitution.

And I emphasize the word "public." No trials that are kept secret simply to save the administration from embarrassment, although this administration seems to be immune to embarrassment.

They are human beings in U.S. custody, so they have rights under the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

You need to read up on the treatment of prisoners of war in WWII. Even hardcore Nazis captured by the U.S. were treated better than the Guantanamo prisoners are.

[SaveElmer]

34. On that last point I have no doubt!! ..

I think technically...non-citizens are not guaranteed anything under the constitution...but I take your point!!!

I am coming to that position as well...and whatever happens Gitmo ought to be closed!

[TahitiNut]

45. "non-citizens are not guaranteed anything under the " ...

... warranty on my lawn mower, either!

The Constitution isn't about what citizens or non-citizens are "guaranteed"! It's about what authority is delegated by The People to the Federal government! All authority is derived from the People!! It's NOT the other way around. If the People don't have it to begin with, then it can't be delegated to the government! Absolutely nowhere is the Federal government authorized to imprison people, any people, at its own whim!

[SaveElmer]

46. I agree with you...

Just pointing out that say a petition for freedom for a detainee would not succeed in court on a constitutional argument based on the 14th amendment (which is would most nearly apply I guess)

There are rights reserved for Americans in the Constitution...the right to vote for example...

And by Federal Government I presume you are talking about the executive branch here. Certainly the Congress would have the power to pass a law giving Bush this right.

However...the larger point, and the point you are trying to make I think, is that there has been no law passed giving Bush the right to do what he is doing to the prisoners, so clearly his actions are extra-legal On that I agree, and am coming around to the belief that these men need to be tried as soon as possible...and in the meantime, Gitmo ought to be closed and the prisoners moved to a facility in the US.

[CTLawGuy]

15. the first paragraph already makes me hate it

"Let's be clear about this: Most of the detainees at the U.S. camp at Guantanamo Bay are dangerous terrorists who would undoubtedly rejoin the global Jihadist fight against America if they had the opportunity"


No, they are innocent absent conviction in a court of law.

"First, it affirms the president's authority to detain foreign nationals as unlawful combatants (a status the bill defines"

now, Im against it. I don't want the President to have this power.

I believe that we are not in a state of legal war. A legal war has a defini beginning pursuant to Article I section 8 of the constitution, and a defined end. This "war" has neither of those.

Gitmo must be shut down. Anyone suspected of committing a crime with enough evidence to hold them should be transfered to federal prison within the US. Those for whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing, should be sent home.

Under the Tauscher bill, military tribunals are upheld, and you a max of 6 months before you even get one! That's insane that you would need that much time. How would you like to be mistakenly imprisoned for 6 motnhs before even getting to challenge your detention? And imagine being held without charges for 2 YEARS. Thats unacceptable.

Another watered down Republican idea, as it acknowleges the appaling authority bush has decided to claim for himself.

[TahitiNut]

21. "they certainly cannot be treated as mere criminals"???? BULLSHIT!

That's the designation. Period! This is about the government stepping way beyond the limits of power established by the Constitution and becoming the very HORROR that the Founders feared.

[SaveElmer]

24. Yeah I agree their treatment has been unprecedented...

How would you treat Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan?

[bpilgrim]

27. POWs

the Geneva details the minimum requirements, or do you think the GC are quaint in regard to 'the war on TERROR'?

peace

[SaveElmer]

39. No of course not...

I don't think I ever said that...was just asking a question.

Presumably, being POW's they should be released at some point...what should happen then?

Should they be sent back to Afghanistan...I would think they may not be safe there...

[TahitiNut]

29. As prisoners of war until the government has been established.

They would then be released to their country's government and subject to the laws of their own country.

That's my position now -- subsequent to the invasion and occupation. I was against the invasion at the outset. The acts of al Qaeda were and are criminal acts, not acts of war. They should've been dealt with as criminal acts. If their apprehension required military personnel acting with police powers instead of war powers, I would've hesitantly agreed. I have NEVER regarded outlaw groups and terrorists such as al Qaeda as anything other than criminals.

It is the moral obligation of the US, in the pretense of 'declaring war' against stateless people to treat them as prisoners of war. To the exact same degree they don't qualify as prisoners of war, the US is not warranted to call it a war!!! It's ethically and morally dishonest and criminally hypocritical to proclaim the one without proclaiming the other!!

[SaveElmer]

41. As you say as POW's they would need to be released at some point...

I would think they would not be safe in Afghanistan...

How would yo handle that? Should they be given asylum here?

[TahitiNut]

43. I'm almost completely agnostic regarding the treatment they'd be ...

... subject to in their own country, under a US puppet regime. As POW's after the state-to-state "war" is concluded, they're to be released to their own country. If another country wishes to offer them asylum, so be it.

I would, however, entertain their entitlement to sue the ass off the US for the violation of their human rights and civil liberties.

[LittleClarkie]

26. I like this paragraph

"But while the administration has been right in saying the old rules don't apply, they've been stubbornly unwilling to talk about new rules that do. And that's why, for the third straight year, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has introduced legislation aimed at ending Gitmo's legal limbo and introducing predictable, transparent, and accountable legal procedures for disposing of its detainees."

M'god, due process. NO SHIT! What are they going to do, hold on to these people til they're old and gray?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. They're POWs. Treat them as such.

Whatever the administration wants to call them "detainees", "terrorists", "petunias", they are de facto POWs and should have the protections guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions.

[Freedomfried]

54. Stop the idiocy, of course they're POW's

the reckless lunacy of not classifying them as such endangers US military personal worldwide.

[Sparkman]

59. Spy's whose espionage harms U.S.,have been dealt with for 300 yrs...

One wonders why the neocon's invent another PR rhetorical scheme? Is propaganda and censorship and secrecy elevating to yet another plateau?

[Pepperbelly]

52. I wonder if the US government can account for WHY each and...

every one of the detainees are being held captive. The bounties offered during that invasion offer many reasons to just capture people and take them to the Americans for money.

[Solly Mack]

53. My, wasn't that just aromatic

[Solly Mack]

55. kick

[kliljedahl]

56. "Most of the detainees at the U.S. camp at Guantanamo Bay are dangerous"?

How do we know that? Because * told us so? We don't even know who most of them are? Let's have open trials with definite charges & then we'll find out how many of them are so "dangerous."



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[TahitiNut]

57. For sure, more are dangerous now than they were before detention.

I sure as hell would be! :grr:

[kliljedahl]

60. If I wasn't a terrorist before, I would be now

[bvar22]

63. Secret Detentions, Secret Tribunals, Secret Prisons....

...are an insult to EVERYTHING I believe in as an American!


The Forefathers made it clear that Human Beings are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.."
The forefather MADE IT CLEAR that our rights do NOT come from the government, but solely from the fact that we are Human Beings!
An attempt to argue that the Protections in our Constitution are ONLY for some Human Beings remind me of Animal Farm where "some animals were more equal than others." Arguing that Constitutional Rights extend ONLY to US Citizens indicates a PROFOUND misunderstanding about America and the values this country claims to stand for.

It is very simple. You either believe that our country was founded on values that extend beyond mere local governments, and that our sacred documents restrict Government, or you Don't believe it.


In the thread above, many have listed some of the criminal violations and insults that the very concept of GITMO violates, but no one yet has mentioned this one.


GITMO DEPRIVES ME OF MY RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!

The right of Due Process and Public Trial was specified not ONLY to protect those charged, but it confers on me, an American Citizen, the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to observe the Government in action. It is MY RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to OVERSEE the government. It is absurd to argue that this RESPONSIBILITY is limited by our National Borders. Whenever and Wherever in the WORLD those who serve IN MY NAME act to hide the actions of MY government, something is BAD wrong!

It is MY RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY as an American Citizen:

*to know the NAMES and ORIGIN of those who are being held captive IN MY NAME!

*to HEAR their OWN story in their OWN words delivered in a PUBLIC Forum

*to study the evidence and testimony of those who have accused them

*to hear and study ANY evidence that the accused can present in his/her defense

I DEMAND that my government HONOR my RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES as an American Citizen.
The secret detention centers and secret tribunals are an INSULT and an ABOMINATION to ALL American Citizens!