Obama Approves Life Imprisonment without Trial for Guantánamo Prisoners

(If this is a dupe, I could not find the previous post.)


Wednesday, March 09, 2011

On March 7, President Barack Obama signed an executive order permitting the indefinite detention without trial of prisoners being held at the U.S. military installation at Guantánamo Bay.

The order will be applied to 47 prisoners at Guantánamo, out of the 172 being held there. Another 36 are due to be tried before a military commission, while the remaining 89 have been cleared for eventual release. Those who may spend the rest of their lives in custody without trial are considered too dangerous to let go. However, the legal cases against them are fraught with “evidentiary problems,” which in many instances means the evidence the U.S. has was obtained through the use of torture and could be thrown out in court.

Under Obama’s policy, detainees will be able to submit documentary evidence every six months about their innocence, but their cases will only be reviewed every three years.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obama_Approves_Life_Imprisonment_without_Trial_for_Guantanamo_Prisoners_110309

it could mean forever. it seems like forever.

I wish there were some sort of timeline written into his executive order, but without one, the detentions are indefinite - as in "not definite" Also in his EO are intentions to do something definitive with Guantanamo, FWIW.

Hey, that sounds like one of Rumsfeld's:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...and all that rot.

http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/

in·def·i·nite/inˈdefənit/Adjective
1. Lasting for an unknown length of time: "indefinite detention".
2. Not clearly expressed or defined; vague: "their status remains indefinite".

"Their status" should be defined, not "indefinite".

you'll find that I agree.

:hi:

How did you like the poetry?

:evilgrin:

:)

which really makes the response against this decision easy to dismiss in its entirety.

try though you may to spin otherwise.

It's already outrageous without having to make it even more outrageous.

people held in Guantanamo couldn't be convicted in a civilian court. You can't violate all of a suspects constitutional rights and expect to put them in a civilian court, give them a fair trial and think they won't walk away. Obama finally comes to this decision after over two years.

than before military tribunals.

All the rest of your post is false.

what if you were held for something they were sure you did but had no evidence. Would you be happy rotting in jail?

with no or tainted evidence and violated every constitutional right. Now you either have to bring them to a civilian court and end up releasing a possible terrorist. Or keep violating their rights and holding them in Guantanamo, either way it is a mess.

Has the USA become the war criminal nation? When did human rights become ancient history?

Habeas Corpus Act 1679
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
Parliament of England
Long title: An Act for the better securing the Liberty of the Subject, and for Prevention of Imprisonment beyond the Seas

Royal Assent: 27 May 1679

Status: Substantially amended
Official text of the statute as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
v · d · e

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is an Act of the Parliament of England (31 Cha. 2 c. 2)<1> passed during the reign of King Charles II by what became known as the Habeas Corpus Parliament to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, whereby persons unlawfully detained cannot be ordered to be prosecuted before a court of law.

The Act is often wrongly described as the origin of the writ of habeas corpus, which had existed in England for at least three centuries before. The Act of 1679 followed an earlier act of 1640, which established that the command of the King or the Privy Council was no answer to a petition of habeas corpus. Further Habeas Corpus Acts were passed by the British Parliament in 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862, but it is the Act of 1679 which is remembered as one of the most important statutes in English constitutional history. Though amended, it remains on the statute book to this day.

It could have been me. It could be me. It could be you, next.

This decision bodes ill for faith in America. It must be changed.

if not, it couldn't be you.

Sid

It is why they do not want civilian courts.

He is dragging us down.

I think he even mentioned "justice" in it.