US names Guantanamo Bay prisoners designated for indefinite detention

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – A list released by the U.S. government Monday identifies several dozen Guantanamo Bay prisoners who have been designated as too dangerous to release but who can't be prosecuted.

Those on the list are prisoners who have been held without charge under the Authorized Use of Military Force act passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2001, said a spokesman for the Pentagon, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale.

The names of all Guantanamo prisoners have been public for years. But the administration of President Barack Obama had declined to disclose which detainees had been designated for indefinite detention in 2010 by an inter-agency review panel, even though the identity of many of them was widely known through their lawyers.

The government released the list after The Miami Herald sued for the document under the Freedom of Information Act.

Most of the 48 on the list are from Yemen and Afghanistan. Two are now dead -- one by suicide, the other by heart attack.

The list also names nearly two dozen prisoners who have been recommended for prosecution, including Khalid Sheikh Mohmmed, who is already on trial for his alleged role in the Sept. 11 attack, and Hambali, an alleged Indonesian terrorist leader.

There are a total of 166 prisoners at Guantanamo. The government has said it wants to release or transfer the remaining prisoners to their homelands or other countries pending adequate security safeguards to prevent the men from attacking the U.S. or its allies.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/us-names-guantanamo-bay-prisoners-designated-for-indefinite-detention/#ixzz2WX3klwph

Problem is most of the countries they're from don't want them back. Those countries that do take them back we're more likely face them again on the field of battle

**Ouze**

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – A list released by the U.S. government Monday identifies several dozen Guantanamo Bay prisoners who have been designated as too dangerous to release but who can't be prosecuted.

Outrageous. That's all there is to say. Beyond all the wiretapping, all the other scandals, this is the worst thing that's happened in my opinion. The POTUS is not a king, and indefinite detention without charge is an offense to all that is American.

**azazel the cat**

Ouze wrote:
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – A list released by the U.S. government Monday identifies several dozen Guantanamo Bay prisoners who have been designated as too dangerous to release but who can't be prosecuted.

Outrageous. That's all there is to say. Beyond all the wiretapping, all the other scandals, this is the worst thing that's happened in my opinion. The POTUS is not a king, and indefinite detention without charge is an offense to all that is ~~American~~ civilized.

Expanded that for you.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Eh, what does POTUS care? They're just foreigners, he and his government (and Bush's before him) step on the rights of American citizens without nary a second thought, so why do you think they'd even start to give a damn about these guys?

**Steve steveson**

Just... Wrong. It's an offense to all civilization. Noone has the right to say "We can't prove anything, but we think these people might do something so we are keeping them in gaol for ever".

**Peregrine**

I'm glad we've finally made it official that the law does not apply to terrorists, and officially designated Enemies Of The State have no rights. If you don't want to end up in prison forever with no trial then you should think twice before you commit terrorism against America.

**Frazzled**

Those countries that do take them back we're more likely face them again on the field of battle

You act like the people in charge care? What gave you that idea?

**AlexHolker**

Peregrine wrote:
I'm glad we've finally made it official that the law does not apply to terrorists, and officially designated Enemies Of The State have no rights. If you don't want to end up in prison forever with no trial then you should think twice before you commit terrorism against America.

Oh really? If you know they're terrorists, you should have no trouble proving it in court.

I have no problem with terrorists being sentenced to life in prison, but the mere accusation that someone is a terrorist doesn't mean they're actually a terrorist. Anyone with half a brain would recognise this, and that indefinite detention consequentially destroys the bright line that separates innocent people (like yourself, presumably) from a slow, painful death in an American oubliette.

**Seaward**

AlexHolker wrote:
Oh really? If you know they're terrorists, you should have no trouble proving it in court.

Al Capone would like a word with you about the difference between knowing someone's committed certain crimes and being able to prove it.

**Dreadclaw69**

So if they are to be detained indefinitely I assume that Obama is in no rush to close Guantanamo

**KalashnikovMarine**

Nope, apparently not. Just remember kids, thanks to the NDAA you can get black bagged for a free trip to scenic cuba yourself today!

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Nope, apparently not. Just remember kids, thanks to the NDAA you can get black bagged for a free trip to scenic cuba yourself today!

Might be the only time the US government condones it's citizens going to Cuba

**Easy E**

I can see, in about 50 years the US Presidnet at the time having to publicly apologize for this. Kind of like we eventually did for the Japanese-American Internment Camps in WWII.

"Hey it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was deeply wrong and against all fo our values. Sorry."

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
I can see, in about 50 years the US Presidnet at the time having to publicly apologize for this. Kind of like we eventually did for the Japanese-American Internment Camps in WWII.

"Hey it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was deeply wrong and against all fo our values. Sorry."

highly Doubtful. The Japanese Americans didn't actively try to kill US soldiers or try to plot to kill American civilians.

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Nope, apparently not. Just remember kids, thanks to the NDAA you can get black bagged for a free trip to scenic cuba yourself today!

I thought the courts struck that part down... (google-fu ain't working at the moment)

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I can see, in about 50 years the US Presidnet at the time having to publicly apologize for this. Kind of like we eventually did for the Japanese-American Internment Camps in WWII.

"Hey it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was deeply wrong and against all fo our values. Sorry."

highly Doubtful. The Japanese Americans didn't actively try to kill US soldiers or try to plot to kill American civilians.

If these guys weren't actively trying to kill US civilians before, we'll see what indefinite detention does to them.

Where's the endgame here? You're either imprisoning them for life, for which the humane thing would be to just take them out back and unceremoniously end them, or you're eventually going to have to release them, more pissed off and embittered toward the US than they were years before hand.

We handcraft our worst enemies.

**whembly**

Yup... it only stipulates the it's unconstituional to hold Citizens indefinately:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/13/1131186/-Judge-Rules-Permanently-Against-Obama-s-Unconstitutional-NDAA

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I can see, in about 50 years the US Presidnet at the time having to publicly apologize for this. Kind of like we eventually did for the Japanese-American Internment Camps in WWII.

"Hey it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was deeply wrong and against all fo our values. Sorry."

highly Doubtful. The Japanese Americans didn't actively try to kill US soldiers or try to plot to kill American civilians.

If these guys weren't actively trying to kill US civilians before, we'll see what indefinite detention does to them.

Where's the endgame here? You're either imprisoning them for life, for which the humane thing would be to just take them out back and unceremoniously end them, or you're eventually going to have to release them, more pissed off and embittered toward the US than they were years before hand.

We handcraft our worst enemies.

I'm ok with the "taking out back" option.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I can see, in about 50 years the US Presidnet at the time having to publicly apologize for this. Kind of like we eventually did for the Japanese-American Internment Camps in WWII.

"Hey it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was deeply wrong and against all fo our values. Sorry."

highly Doubtful. The Japanese Americans didn't actively try to kill US soldiers or try to plot to kill American civilians.

If these guys weren't actively trying to kill US civilians before, we'll see what indefinite detention does to them.

Where's the endgame here? You're either imprisoning them for life, for which the humane thing would be to just take them out back and unceremoniously end them, or you're eventually going to have to release them, more pissed off and embittered toward the US than they were years before hand.

We handcraft our worst enemies.

I'm ok with the "taking out back" option.

Frankly, were it me, I'd prefer being dealt with that way compared with hidden away in a prison cell for the rest of my life.

**MeanGreenStompa**

You cannot just hold people indefinitely without trial or some form of process, doesn't it break the convention on human rights?

Or rather, you cannot just hold them like that and claim the moral highground and the world's justice and democracy bringer...

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You cannot just hold people indefinitely without trial or some form of process, doesn't it break the convention on human rights?

Or rather, you cannot just hold them like that and claim the moral highground and the world's justice and democracy bringer...

1. Sure you can.
2. what convention?
3. who cares about the moral high ground. Strength is power. Everything else is just the chattering of coffee shop nerds and college professors.

**purplefood**

Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You cannot just hold people indefinitely without trial or some form of process, doesn't it break the convention on human rights?

Or rather, you cannot just hold them like that and claim the moral highground and the world's justice and democracy bringer...

1. Sure you can.
2. what convention?
3. who cares about the moral high ground. Strength is power. Everything else is just the chattering of coffee shop nerds and college professors.

So much for the land of the free...

**Seaward**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You cannot just hold people indefinitely without trial or some form of process, doesn't it break the convention on human rights?

Which? None of them are particularly binding if we decide they're not. That's the beauty of international law; the majority of it is entirely academic in its applicability within the US.

**daedalus**

purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You cannot just hold people indefinitely without trial or some form of process, doesn't it break the convention on human rights?

Or rather, you cannot just hold them like that and claim the moral highground and the world's justice and democracy bringer...

1. Sure you can.
2. what convention?
3. who cares about the moral high ground. Strength is power. Everything else is just the chattering of coffee shop nerds and college professors.

So much for the land of the free...

I'd say this is just Fraz being Fraz, but, well, yeah, it's kind of like that here now. :(

**Frazzled**

purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You cannot just hold people indefinitely without trial or some form of process, doesn't it break the convention on human rights?

Or rather, you cannot just hold them like that and claim the moral highground and the world's justice and democracy bringer...

1. Sure you can.
2. what convention?
3. who cares about the moral high ground. Strength is power. Everything else is just the chattering of coffee shop nerds and college professors.

So much for the land of the free...

Free for me. Evil feren devils shooting at US troops, not so much.

**xole**

Hmmm. I guess if they aren't U.S. citizens they aren't guaranteed to the rights a citizen gains.

Maybe they should make new crimes they are guilty of? I imagine that would settle a few people down. Or just shoot them and say "We're closing Guantanamo and we sent them all back home." Or just deliver them back ot their homelands, 35,000 feet above ground. Or in international waters!

i think my moral compass may be a little off though.

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You cannot just hold people indefinitely without trial or some form of process, doesn't it break the convention on human rights?

Or rather, you cannot just hold them like that and claim the moral highground and the world's justice and democracy bringer...

1. Sure you can.
2. what convention?
3. who cares about the moral high ground. Strength is power. Everything else is just the chattering of coffee shop nerds and college professors.

So much for the land of the free...

Free for me. Evil feren devils shooting at US troops, not so much.

That's kinda my general take on the issue. Yes, this is the land of the free. When you try to take that freedom away though... well, we'll reciprocate.

**Easy E**

Free to be you and me.... except you are not free. You are in Guantanamo indefintiely.

Besides, everyone knows the United States was founded on the principles of Thomas Hobbes!

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Free for me. Evil feren devils shooting at US troops, not so much.

I think you forgot the word "allegedly" in there somewhere. Unless, of course, you're trying to say that US government employees - the same ones you scream about being too incompetent to run a lemonade stand, let alone healthcare, immigration, embassy security, or the IRS - could never make a mistake, such as, say, grabbing the wrong guy because he has a similar name.

I'm sure they're right about these guys, though. We can trust the employees of the US government.

**whembly**

I have a question to those who served in active warzones...

Since Guantanamo is a touchy subject, how would you feel that instead of holding them indefinitately, that they're released back in their home country. Even if they go back to actively fighting you?