Issue of terrorists' rights to test Obama's pledge

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's pledge of bipartisan cooperation with Congress will be tested as he tries to fulfill a campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay and establish a new system for prosecuting suspected terrorists.

The undertaking is an ambitious one. Fraught with legal complexities, it gives Republicans ample opportunity to score political points if he doesn't get it right. There's also the likelihood of a run-in with his former rival, Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war who before running for president staked his career on overhauling the nation's detainee policies.

"We look forward to working with the president and his administration on these issues, keeping in mind that the first priority of the U.S. government is to guarantee the security of the American people," McCain, R-Ariz., said in a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

In his first week in office, Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to be closed within a year, CIA secret prisons shuttered and abusive interrogations ended.

So far, Obama's team has given every indication it will engage lawmakers, including Republicans, on the issue.

But once the two sides begin delving into details, there will be ample room for dispute.

Among the unknowns is how many of the 245 detainees now at Guantanamo Bay will be prosecuted.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_go_pr_wh/guantanamo_politics;_ylt=Ai6nrhfiewPDQwKIFOLtv.Zv24cA

that need to be looked at. Rushing into closing Guantanamo Bay simply to satisfy a campaingn promise could prove costly. I hope that President Obama will take his time and ensure the safety of U.S. citizens above all.

and defend the United States Constitution. As Obama said in his inaugural address, it's a false choice, between our safety and our ideals. Man's got it right.

What is costly is the mess Bush made, with his eagerness to torture, and left behind for others to clean up.

it appears that he will take the time necessary to ensure safety of all, under the law.

Or restoring our Bill of rights! We shouldn't be too hasty about that! After all, we have to keep the public completely safe at all costs, even if it means a dictatorship!

Shouldn't it read "suspected terrorists' rights" rather than just "terrorists' rights," as leaving off the word "suspected" implies that all the detainees at Guatanamo Bay are, in fact, terrorists?

Before their trials or even the decisions as to which ones will even be prosecuted?

The article itself does use the word "suspected," but then closes with the line:

"Obama's other option is to seek legislation on the issue, potentially exposing his administration to a bruising fight with Republicans on how to handle the most dangerous of terrorism suspects."

Has it been determined which "suspects" are the "most dangerous," and if so, how has this been determined? It just seems to me that this article is pushing the idea of collective guilt before it has been established.

The AP was a reliable propaganda organ for the bush junta. It appears that they are continuing that role evan after the junta's figurehead is gone. I guess this should be a reminder that, while bush himself may be gone, there are still legions of unamerican "loyal bushies" left around, still doing the neocons' bidding.

Clearly AP has already convicted them all of being terrorists...

I have a Repub coworker who's railing about this. He says that is given a fair trial outside of Gitmo, they will all be released for the fact that they didn't have their Miranda rights read to them. I'm really not up on the specifics of how this will work though I don't believe that. Anyone have any info?

BUT so many of them were just grabbed off the street after being identified by neighbors (who were paid a ransom) that we are not going to be letting evil terrorists loose.

Al qaeda were worth $25,000. Taliban $5000.

Tell your co-worker he is lucky you aren't in the middle east and mad at him or you could turn him in and make some $$$$.

Taliban dispense justice the old fashioned way
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/world/asia/26pstan.html?_r=1

They don't need no stinking lawyers

how it can deal with (and has dealt with) suspected terrorists.

G. Miranda and the Right to Remain Silent

The famous Miranda warnings-"You have the right to remain silent" and so on-are deeply ingrained in domestic law enforcement and, more broadly, in our national culture. In general, if a law enforcement officer procures a confession from a defendant who is being questioned while in custody, the confession is admissible in court only if the officer read the Miranda warning at the beginning of the interrogation and the defendant agreed to waive his Miranda rights. Where a terrorism defendant is arrested in the United States by law enforcement, compliance with the Miranda warnings is easy. But what happens when an individual is arrested overseas?

If the questioning is conducted by foreign officials, then under well-settled case law, Miranda does not apply, and a defendant's post-arrest confession is admissible so long as it was voluntarily given. However, in the Embassy Bombings case, the presiding judge broke new ground by holding that when U.S. law enforcement questions a detained suspect overseas, the U.S. officers must administer a variant of the Miranda warnings even though the questioning is occurring outside the United States.

Some have criticized this holding, invoking the absurdity of soldiers administering Miranda warnings to fighters who are captured on the battlefield. We agree that soldiers need not and should not administer Miranda warnings in the heat of battle, but we do not believe that this scenario has significant implications for criminal terrorism prosecutions. As an initial matter, few individuals have been placed on trial following a battlefield capture; the vast majority of confessions in terrorism cases have resulted from traditional interrogation by law enforcement officers rather than soldiers. (The case of John Walker Lindh is an interesting exception that we discuss in this Paper.) Further, we believe in a battlefield situation, the courts would likely find that Miranda does not apply.

much more at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/prosecute/pages.asp?id=20

The U.S. courts have developed flexibility through the wisdom of experience. Statutes criminalizing material support, broadly interpreted, give courts ample ability to convict terrorists. While it is true that evidence procured through torture is inadmissible, say Zabel and Benjamin, independent evidence is likely to convict the handful of Guantánamo detainees who suffered torture, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. Alhough one old case, U.S. v. Toscanino, may suggest that extreme government torture strips a court of jurisdiction, Benjamin and Zabel think that precedent is tenuous. The fact that a detainee may have been arrested as the consequence of another's torture is not an obstacle to prosecution, say the ex-prosecutors. There are public safety exceptions for Miranda warnings. Poorly documented evidence, seized abroad under difficult conditions, can be admitted as long as there are indicia of authenticity. Courts are adept at handling declassified information, thanks to a well-crafted and well-used statute, the Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980.

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/01/escape-from-gitmo.html

This is very good reading. I suggest reading it through, because it presents the arguments of both schools of thought. And will show up your uninformed coworker pretty effectively.

What does a people become when they torture?

Our President is clear enough in his defense of our country. He will not hesitate in destroying the perpetrators of war on innocent people, and he has sworn to seek-out those who would, as a planned scheme, would criminally attack innocent people to bring the attention of their cause to the sight of the world.

When we are forced to act we must not waiver,but all actions should reflect our morals and conform to the justice we must swear to observe.

Dubya really should have come up with a plan from the beginning rather than just assuming these detainees were terrorists and had no rights. A strong leader concerned with how to reconcile our Constitution and the Geneva Convention to this new enemy with different techniques would have tackled that dilemma using true input from Congress as well as input from the international community. Let's face it, techniques used during war have changed over time and so has the way people fight.

The Bush administration liked to use the excuse that these "enemy combatants" weren't prisoners of war because they weren't regular military. Well heck, some historians believe our freedom was won by non-regular forces. Guerrilla warfare has been used by the people of occupied nations for hundreds of years. I bet most of those people swept up who really were trying to harm our men and women had no intent of ever attacking the US, only trying to get the foreign army out of their country. Maybe because we are fortunate enough not to have been occupied in over 200 years we've forgotten what this is like. In the case of Afghanistan, you're also talking about one of the world's least developed economies, a country with less than 50% literacy rate. Do you think they're going to have a "regular" army? As for the ones picked up fighting in Afghanistan who were from Yemen or elsewhere they saw America as a hostile force occupying their "friend" country.

The problem with treating them as prisoners of war is that usually we have an idea of when such detainees will be released (when their country surrenders and a peace is negotiated). However, we're really not fighting a nation here, we're fighting an idea or tactic. This tactic will never go away.

Sadly, I think the odd compromise is going to involve rendition. Obama will get some sort of promise from these foreign countries not to torture the people we turn over to them, although we would really have no way of making sure they keep their promise.

The thing is, if some of these possibly dangerous people are released and do later attack the United States, Bush bears some responsibility for not coming up with a legal way of dealing with suspected terrorists. Had he shown true leadership from the beginning, we could have dealt with the detainees properly - from the beginning.

Think of the revenue worldwide they could raise selling comercial time
Only in america


I'm dead serious

Suspected terrorists rights. One of the key due process elements is being able to fairly determine suspected vs actual.

Terrorists rights are the same as anyone else suspected of a crime. That's the point.

To be the safest nation on the planet from terrorist attacks would require us to beat the current #1 most safest nation on the planet from terrorist attacks...that is, North Korea.

The United States ranks fourth among countries most likely to be targeted by terrorists next year, while tightly controlled North Korea was ranked as the least likely to suffer such an attack, according to an index assessing the risk of 186 countries.
http://fc.ak-prepared.com/dailysitrep/FOV5-0000D6AC/FOV5-000108A4/S00726759

Are the American people REALLY sure they want that??? Because being "tightly controlled" is the only way a government can "guarantee the security".

a better chance of being attacked?

Pakistan?
India?
Britain?


btw your STATE OF ALASKA link doesn't seem to fit your quote

International Situation
· The United States ranks fourth among countries most likely to be targeted by terrorists next year, while tightly controlled North Korea was ranked as the least likely to suffer such an attack, according to an index assessing the risk of 186 countries. The London-based World Markets Research Center ranked Colombia, Israel, Pakistan, the United States and the Philippines, in descending order, as the five countries most likely to be targeted in a terrorist attack in the next year. The index assesses the risk of terrorism to the countries and their interests abroad. The assessments used five criteria: motivation of terrorists, the presence of terror groups, the scale and frequency of past attacks, efficacy of the groups in carrying out attacks and how many attacks were thwarted by the country. The categories also were weighted differently. For example, 40 percent was given to motivation and 10 percent to prevention.


And if you'd prefer a different link to the same report:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059728992.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EEDB1230F934A2575BC0A9659C8B63

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/18/alqaida.terrorism1

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200311/primarysources

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439239/Britain-10th-on-terror-target-list.html

In 186th place, is North Korea. ''Despite being a member of the so-called Axis of Evil,'' Mr. Dunn said, ''North Korea's repressive state has basically made it impossible for terrorists to function.''

the ones that slipped through the cracks.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ef_1233072449

If only the MSM would televise the trials