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.

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Arrested by US Law Enforecement on US soil. Not at all similar situation.

They were also classified as "enemy combatants". They did not go before a civilian court. Maybe you should read the link after all.

Your right they did not. But they could have been held until the end of hostilities without a trial. A trial was ordered by the President, by military tribunal per the USSC, since they determined that the enemy combatants weren't entitled a civilian trial in the US court system. The point I was making was that because they were obtained by actual law enforcement the situation is differant in how the trial would work.

We have given some of the Gitmo detainees tribunals. We are not required to by any stretch of the imagination. They are illegal enemy combatants, we can hold them until the end of hostilities, and since those hostilities may never end, we can pretty much hold them indefinitely.

**Jihadin**

Two of the Germans in New York, Dasch and Burger, had decided to defect to the United States immediately. Dasch went to Washington, D.C., and turned himself in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was dismissed as a crackpot by numerous agents until he dumped his mission's entire budget of $84,000 on the desk of Assistant Director D. M. Ladd. At this point he was taken seriously and interrogated for hours.[7] None of the others knew of the betrayal. Over the next two weeks, Burger and the other six were arrested. All eight were put on trial before a seven-member military tribunal on specific instructions from President Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were charged with 1) violating the law of war; 2) violating Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of corresponding with or giving intelligence to the enemy; 3) violating Article 82 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of spying; and 4) conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in the first three charges.

Lawyers for the accused, who included Lauson Stone and Kenneth Royall, attempted to have the case tried in a civilian court but were rebuffed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, a case that was later cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States. The trial was held in the Department of Justice building in Washington. All eight defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death. Roosevelt commuted Burger's sentence to life and Dasch's to 30 years, because they had turned themselves in and provided information about the others. The others were executed on 8 August 1942 in the electric chair on the third floor of the District of Columbia jail and buried in a potter's field called Blue Plains in the Anacostia area of Washington. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on the condition that they be deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.

Alright. They got popped under AoW.

Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany. Political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council which, having sovereign power over Germany, could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on 1 September 1939.

Nuremburg Trials

**Easy E**

Frazzled wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

Edit: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news and believes they've figured out the perfect loophole argument to shut the place down.

What this guy said.

Or, we could just... you know... shut it down? That would also end the arguments.

**djones520**

Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

Edit: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news and believes they've figured out the perfect loophole argument to shut the place down.

What this guy said.

Or, we could just... you lnow... shut it down? That would also end the arguments.

And do what with the people? That just creates a whole lot of new arguments.

**Jihadin**

Obama wants to move them to the States. You good with that? You good if the regular court system finds them not guilty and release them into the States even if their home country doesn't want them? (Prison in Ill. I believe)

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

Edit: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news and believes they've figured out the perfect loophole argument to shut the place down.

What this guy said.

Or, we could just... you lnow... shut it down? That would also end the arguments.

No then we have all these guys in the states. what do we do with them? They touch US soil there is a very strong chance US rights attach to them. Are you going to let the 911 planners go free in the US, or make a US prison the subject of a potential terrorist attack to get them out? Do you think $8 an hour prison guards, who signed up to deal with felons are equipped to deal with suicide bombers ?

**djones520**

Jihadin wrote:
Obama wants to move them to the States. You good with that? You good if the regular court system finds them not guilty and release them into the States even if their home country doesn't want them? (Prison in Ill. I believe)

It would be nice if Obama hadn't just axed the tribunals as soon as he took office. I wonder how many of them would have been tried by now. Maybe we wouldn't be having this huge discussion about how poorely we're treating rabid murderers who want to saw our heads off.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:

No then we have all these guys in the states. what do we do with them?

Indoctrinate them. We'll see how hard they want to jihad when they discover miniature American flags, queso, and 401(k)s.

I mean, 40 virgins is good for a while, but flextime is eternal.

**djones520**

daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

No then we have all these guys in the states. what do we do with them?

Indoctrinate them. We'll see how hard they want to jihad when they discover miniature American flags, queso, and 401(k)s.

I mean, 40 virgins is good for a while, but flextime is eternal.

I hope your not being serious. One just has to look at what just happened in Boston. That was kids living the collge life... if American college life can't make you mellow out...

**Jihadin**

Well SCOTUS shot the Tribunals down what....three times now. Only way to give them a trial now is to move them to the States (budget cuts) Set them up a barely use Federal Pen and go from there with a federal court system. I've seen enough bodies in my life time. Insurgents, Coalitions and American war dead. So when/if/maybe one of these guys get release within the States its not going to bother me if they went ahead to take out American civilians. Its what the American people want. Because as Americans we're suppose to be compassionate and have a fair concept of justice. Yet these Americans truly don't know who they are dealing dealing with.

**djones520**

Jihadin wrote:
Well SCOTUS shot the Tribunals down what....three times now. Only way to give them a trial now is to move them to the States (budget cuts) Set them up a barely use Federal Pen and go from there with a federal court system. I've seen enough bodies in my life time. Insurgents, Coalitions and American war dead. So when/if/maybe one of these guys get release within the States its not going to bother me if they went ahead to take out American civilians. Its what the American people want. Because as Americans we're suppose to be compassionate and have a fair concept of justice. Yet these Americans truly don't know who they are dealing dealing with.

SCOTUS never did that to my knowledge. They set the precedent for them in WW2 with the case that Ouze mentioned. It was Obama who stopped the tribunals with an executive order. He's made rumbles of reopening them since he realized how dumb that was.

Edit: I see what your talking about now. So that makes me scratch my head a bit. The USSC said they were no good in 2008, then Obama suspended them in 2009. That makes no sense.

**Grundz**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

Edit: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news and believes they've figured out the perfect loophole argument to shut the place down.

What this guy said.

Or, we could just... you lnow... shut it down? That would also end the arguments.

No then we have all these guys in the states. what do we do with them?

we have the highest per-capita prison population in the world, by almost a factor of 2 in many cases, and you dont think we cant stuff them /somewhere/ ?

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

No then we have all these guys in the states. what do we do with them?

Indoctrinate them. We'll see how hard they want to jihad when they discover miniature American flags, queso, and 401(k)s.

I mean, 40 virgins is good for a while, but flextime is eternal.

We'd have to. I mean where are you going to find 40 of them in the US?

**Jihadin**

Wait one. Those were individual cases seen at SCOTUS. Well this is was I meaning

The Military Commissions Act of 2009, which amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was passed to address concerns by the United States Supreme Court.[1] In Boumediene v. Bush (2008) the court had ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional in suspending the right of detainees to habeas corpus. The court ruled that detainees had the right to access US federal courts to challenge their detentions.[2][3]

Well I've no idea where we're at on that. It seems though GITMO not being closed down for awhile or till the last detainee dies of old age. Or Cuba under pressure or persuaded by Russia ask the US Government to leave GITMO in a tit for tat move for Tartus in Syria if by Allah blessing of a giant proportion that can be seen written across the sky for all the world to see that the Rebels has his backing which in turns means we provide better/advance weapon systems to them...well...you know

**djones520**

Grundz wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Grundz wrote:
And?
You're saying POWS should be detained forever with no release, ever, because they had the audacity to oppose us? Do you have the same policy for american POW's?

Prisoners of war aren't detained enemy combatants, and these guys aren't prisoners of war.

Edit: The worst thing about Gitmo is that we're going to have to keep having the same arguments each successive year as somebody else graduates high school and suddenly starts paying attention to the news and believes they've figured out the perfect loophole argument to shut the place down.

What this guy said.

Or, we could just... you lnow... shut it down? That would also end the arguments.

No then we have all these guys in the states. what do we do with them?

we have the highest per-capita prison population in the world, by almost a factor of 2 in many cases, and you dont think we cant stuff them /somewhere/ ?

I don't want them being able to interact with other prisoners. Case in point the two whacko's in Britain recently. Unless your suggesting we take these indefinite detainees, move them to the US, and then slam them in isolation forever.

**Jihadin**

Its cheaper to keep them in GITMO then then move them to the states to lock them away. Military Guards vs federal prison guards....budget cuts going to dictate that

**Grundz**

djones520 wrote:

I don't want them being able to interact with other prisoners. Case in point the two whacko's in Britain recently. Unless your suggesting we take these indefinite detainees, move them to the US, and then slam them in isolation forever.

sure

after their trial

**djones520**

Grundz wrote:
djones520 wrote:

I don't want them being able to interact with other prisoners. Case in point the two whacko's in Britain recently. Unless your suggesting we take these indefinite detainees, move them to the US, and then slam them in isolation forever.

sure

after their trial

So your cool with them sitting in Gen-Pop interacting, converting, etc with other prisoners? And these trials may never happen, no matter how many trendy words you pull from the HuffPo or Daily Kos and sling about.

So I guess it's a good thing on some things cooler heads prevail, and Gitmo will remain open and keep these very dangerous people there.

**irondad**

whembly wrote:
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?

when I was down range back in the day (2003-2005) if we (meaning cia, osi, or other government agencies involved) couldn't prove they were insurgents with in three days we had to release them back to the public which involved a mission risking the lives of me and my squad. I hated it then and I hate it now for the poor men and women risking their lives out there. we would actually capture the survivors of a fire fight against us and have to take them home 3 days later. lets just say that wasn't a pleasant ride for said individuals.

**Jihadin**

They also say "What!? Me no go Bagram!?

{we have a detention facility there right off Disney Rd near the Rotary Wing operation center.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
Hopefully sometime tomorrow you're dismissing people's arguments by claiming it all seems pretty cut & dried in the middle school playground, but out here in the real world, etc etc.

Hey, if the shoe fits.

**Jihadin**

None of this is cut and dry because no one on the same sheet of music of closing it down, how to prosecute them, or where to hold them. Its Pandora Box damn near.

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
None of this is cut and dry because no one on the same sheet of music of closing it down, how to prosecute them, or where to hold them. Its Pandora Box damn near.

It isn't cut and dry, no.

Offering up arguments over half a decade old as proof that the One Truth has been stumbled upon is pretty worthy of a middle schooler, though, which is what I was referring to.

**Breotan**

President Obama gave a speech in Berlin and while the Daily Mail was offering their analysis, I saw this quote:

Obama told crowd: 'We must redouble our efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo'

What the heck does Berlin have to do with Gitmo staying open? Have we given the Germans some sort of say in the matter? Are they standing in the way of shutting it down? Or can the country of Germany somehow help the President get it closed (as opposed to him just closing it on his own)?

**Ahtman**

God forbid the 'leader of the free world' have a dialogue with,ya know, the rest of the world. Other countries take an interest in what we are doing just as we take an interest in what they are doing.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
God forbid the 'leader of the free world' have a dialogue with,ya know, the rest of the world. Other countries take an interest in what we are doing just as we take an interest in what they are doing.

The Prez is the "leader of the free world"?

Since when?

The Irony here is that Obama could SHUT DOWN Gitmo NOW if he wanted to... now, tell me why he hasn't already.

**Jihadin**

Because now Obama is sitting in the Chair that Bush was sitting in and reading the same documents on the Prisoners Bush read in the same Chair and debating with himself can he? Will he? Should He? Or one of many scenario's running through his head. I agree....forget about them and hope the rest of the world does to. Those with soft hearts and moral compassions. Do a couple of tours over there...not Humanitarians tour because they still kill you. Regardless of country....remember the South Koreans