[subego]

White House Drafts Executive Order For Indefinite Detention | The Public Record

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

There's no doubt I could benefit from more research, but my off-the-cuff response is to find this nauseating.

[The Final Dakar]

More like Barack W. Obama.

[turtle777]

Ha. As it turns out, Obama will out-Bush W in any- and everything.

God job, you gullible lefties, in electing him to office.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Not new. Anyone who followed the serious proposals, from both Left and Right, to close the Guantanamo facility before and after the election knows that virtually everyone has acknowledged there will be some prisoners that you can't try due to lack of evidence/tainted evidence, you can't transfer because no one wants them, and you can't let go because of the security implications. This is a catch-22 arising from the poor legal and practical decision-making that set up Gitmo in the first place.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

This is a catch-22 arising from the poor legal and practical decision-making that set up Gitmo in the first place.

My further off-the-cuff reaction is "too bad".

[ort888]

The UNited States needs a modern day equivalent to Australia. Somewhere to shuffle the riff-raff.

What if we just wall off Idaho or something? Would anyone even notice?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

My further off-the-cuff reaction is "too bad".

Certainly a principled way out is to release the bad guys you can't put on trial. There isn't a lot of appetite for that even among a lot of the human rights groups.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The UNited States needs a modern day equivalent to Australia. Somewhere to shuffle the riff-raff.

What if we just wall off Idaho or something? Would anyone even notice?

Like... Cuba?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

This is a catch-22 arising from the poor legal and practical decision-making that set up Gitmo in the first place.

Oh, a new way of blaming Bush. I like it.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, a new way of blaming Bush. I like it.

-t

Do you have a different explanation? The Bush Administration itself eventually expressed the desire to close Gitmo but couldn't articulate a plan for doing it, exactly because of this reason.

[turtle777]

Meh, I just don't believe in this "Bush set me up - I'm powerless" mentality that Obama sometimes likes to display.

-t

[OAW]

Personally I never thought the Guantanamo facility was the issue. IMO ... it's indefinite detention w/o charge that's the issue. Would holding suspected enemy combatants like this be substantively different if it were done at Leavenworth? So while it's disappointing to see this policy continued it's somewhat encouraging to see an Executive Order formalizing some sort of "due process" with periodic status reviews and the ability of the detainee to formally challenge their detention.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

BTW, when I first read the title I thought this thread would be about highschool for some reason.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The UNited States needs a modern day equivalent to Australia. Somewhere to shuffle the riff-raff.

What if we just wall off Idaho or something? Would anyone even notice?

YouTube - 4 Groups that Gotta Go - George Carlin

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

BTW, when I first read the title I thought this thread would be about highschool for some reason.

[The Final Dakar]

I can't wait until I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The UNited States needs a modern day equivalent to Australia. Somewhere to shuffle the riff-raff.

What if we just wall off Idaho or something? Would anyone even notice?

We already have it - DC. We just need to build a wall around it. Some of the highest crime rates in the country (both blue and white), and this isn't even mentioning all the corruption and sleazy dealings that happen in the executive and legislative branches.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We already have it - DC. We just need to build a wall around it. Some of the highest crime rates in the country (both blue and white), and this isn't even mentioning all the corruption and sleazy dealings that happen in the executive and legislative branches.

Ha, and in line with our democratic ideals, we elect people to prison.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not new. Anyone who followed the serious proposals, from both Left and Right, to close the Guantanamo facility before and after the election knows that virtually everyone has acknowledged there will be some prisoners that you can't try due to lack of evidence/tainted evidence, you can't transfer because no one wants them, and you can't let go because of the security implications. This is a catch-22 arising from the poor legal and practical decision-making that set up Gitmo in the first place.

Does this not worry you at all, think about what you said. Can't try due to lack of evidence but can't release because of security implications. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocents. Its why our legal systems are designed around innocent until proven guilty. This can be abused in so many ways. We have a security concern about this person but lack the proof to try them so we will hold them until such proof materializes. Any one could be locked up under that scheme.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, a new way of blaming Bush. I like it.

-t

Well who else can be blamed for creating the situation. Bush wanted to avoid the legal system and now its a giant mess because of it.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Personally I never thought the Guantanamo facility was the issue. IMO ... it's indefinite detention w/o charge that's the issue. Would holding suspected enemy combatants like this be substantively different if it were done at Leavenworth? So while it's disappointing to see this policy continued it's somewhat encouraging to see an Executive Order formalizing some sort of "due process" with periodic status reviews and the ability of the detainee to formally challenge their detention.

OAW

I agree its progress but its still a slippery slop. Its a power that can and will be abused down the road in domestic issues and people. I still see it as a pendora's box that like the patriot act is a step in the wrong direction removing freedoms and allowing government ultimate power and control. Once open its almost impossible to go back.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Does this not worry you at all, think about what you said. Can't try due to lack of evidence but can't release because of security implications. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocents. Its why our legal systems are designed around innocent until proven guilty. This can be abused in so many ways. We have a security concern about this person but lack the proof to try them so we will hold them until such proof materializes. Any one could be locked up under that scheme.

Of course it worries me. But the issue here is that our domestic judicial system, as it should, enforces a (relatively) strict and high burden of proof to declare someone guilty of a crime. That's entirely appropriate. On the other hand, it's entirely possible for the government to have someone in custody who they know would be a tremendous security risk if released, but who they would be unable to convict in a court of law (for example, if introducing critical evidence would compromise certain ongoing operations, or if the evidence, like in a confession under duress, is tainted by the circumstances of the prisoner's detention). In our judicial system we have decided that it is better to let the guilty go free than to mistakenly punish the innocent. But if that guilty person is someone who would then go out and plan a terrorist attack that kills a thousand people does the calculus change? I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other, but you have to recognize the extreme circumstances that are possible in these cases, which are partly the result of the decision to hold people in custody through extralegal means in the first place.

[Athens]

The only solution I would find acceptable in such a case is a multinational court. IE 3 Judge panel made up of a American, Canadian and British Military judge. Lawyers could be picked from military lawyers from any country represented by the Judges. IE some Afghan accused of whatever has more trust in a British Lawyer then a American one so be it, but military lawyers because of the sensitive nature and top secret security level of evidence.

I find that more appealing then just being locked up for life with no charges. A top secret military case alone also wouldn't satisfy many people in the public. A multinational one with more then one country ensuring fairness is prob the most palatable of all options. Still a crappy option in my opinion but protecting top secret stuff is always going to be of a great importance.

I don't like the UN, or the current International courts, as far as im concerned the only requirement is the a country picks 2 other representative countries of its choice but the accused has to accept the choice as well. If the US picks Australia as a option and the accused does not accept that option it means picking another one.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Does this not worry you at all, think about what you said. Can't try due to lack of evidence but can't release because of security implications. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocents. Its why our legal systems are designed around innocent until proven guilty. This can be abused in so many ways. We have a security concern about this person but lack the proof to try them so we will hold them until such proof materializes. Any one could be locked up under that scheme.

I'm uncomfortable with this, too. I can rationalize it only by noting that these prisoners are not American citizens, and if the evidence against them was gathered abroad then it may not have been gathered in a manner that would be admissable in a court here. Based on the evidence, we may know that these people are dangerous, but we may not have enough admissible evidence to make a conviction stick, and we may not want to risk putting them on trial if there is a chance they would be let off on a technicality.

So, if we are going to have Indefinite Detention, I think this proposal put forth by Obama is reasonable. These people won't be "disappeared". Their status will be reviewed yearly, and if we don't need to detain them anymore, they will be released. We are trusting that the administration will make that determination eventually, of course. But if you don't trust the administration to release these people eventually as a result of the reviews, you probably don't trust their decision to indefinitely detain these people, either.

[ebuddy]

I don't think it's about Gitmo, the facility, or indefinite detention as much as it is a President who is quickly realizing how many of his campaign promises were pipe dreams.

To those who harken back to the development of Gitmo under the Bush Administration, given what you've seen of this Administration's 2-year, "man this heavy crown thing's a bitch" enlightenment plan, is there any doubt in your mind that Gitmo would've occurred under the same circumstances?

[Athens]

I think the question must be asked, does any 1 person pose enough of a security risk to allow for a Indefinite Detention law. The idea of a Indefinite Detention law by its very nature sounds more dangerous then any possible danger from one man.

The only type of person I can think of that can even come close enough to be considered for such a law is a person who knows how to make weapons of mass destruction. And if that was the case I can't see why it would need to be secret. This person has the ability and is suspect of creating weapons of mass destruction. The person has been trained in Nuclear science, we have good reason to believe they put those skills to use or sold the knowledge in part to a 3rd party. For these reasons this person will be confined indefinitely.

Now a second part to this, if a person is held for such reason should they be held in a regular jail cell like a criminal for the rest of there lives never convicted of a crime or should they be held in a more appropriate Detention facility with all the comforts of a typical care home. Private room, entertainment, privacy, allowance to order personal items.

After all we are holding a person for life with out any trial or peer review of evidence and for a period that could be until death. With no proper due process I think its only fair that they be held in a detention facility that offers them some elements of normal life. No phone, no internet, chaperoned visitation and conjugal rights. If the situation changes and they can be released then release them. If the situation changes and a proper trial can be conducted and found guilty put them in a normal jail for the sentence. As vial as it sounds to offer such a comfortable solution to some one suspect of a crime, they are already being removed of rights by being held with out process anyways and could very well be innocent.

I think this is worth debating, what kind of life is offered to some one treated so unfair by the nature of secrecy.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To those who harken back to the development of Gitmo under the Bush Administration, given what you've seen of this Administration's 2-year, "man this heavy crown thing's a bitch" enlightenment plan, is there any doubt in your mind that Gitmo would've occurred under the same circumstances?

Yes. The pursuit of a "war on terror" was not a foregone conclusion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes. The pursuit of a "war on terror" was not a foregone conclusion.

"War on Terror" perhaps not though it may have gone by a different name such as "Overseas Contingency Operation". Given the degree of bipartisan support for action against terrorism and Obama's (inaugural) statement; "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.", I think it's pretty safe to say that military response to terrorism was a forgone conclusion.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"War on Terror" perhaps not though it may have gone by a different name such as "Overseas Contingency Operation". Given the degree of bipartisan support for action against terrorism and Obama's (inaugural) statement; "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.", I think it's pretty safe to say that military response to terrorism was a forgone conclusion.

A "military response to terrorism" is not a necessary-and-sufficient condition for Guantanamo. Bill Clinton initiated a "military response to terrorism" following the 1998 embassy bombings. The problem is the bleeding between traditional military and law enforcement roles that proceeds from the rhetorical position of "going to war against terrorism," terrorism being a crime that Western civilization has sought to delegitimize from being an accepted military tactic. It's an inherent contradiction that leads directly to the problem of what to do when you capture a terrorist and you can't call him a POW but because you are at "war" you also don't want to treat him like a criminal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

A "military response to terrorism" is not a necessary-and-sufficient condition for Guantanamo. Bill Clinton initiated a "military response to terrorism" following the 1998 embassy bombings.

This would be the missile attack on the pharmaceutical plant buildings in Sudan that had no appreciable impact on terrorism or its leadership in the region. In this you're right, there are all kinds of ineffective alternatives, but the forgone conclusion was that you need boots on the ground. When you have boots on the ground, you're either killing combatants on site or taking captives. When you're taking captives (over killing them on site), you're assessing their threat and defining their status. If their status is ambiguous while their threat deemed lethal, you have indefinite detention.

You seem to forget that it was Clinton's Justice Dept that made a court order for Gitmo's closure disappear citing; "foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law." Sound familiar? Or what of the hunger strikes and riots there that led to a bunch of them being thrown in naval brigs as criminals under the Clinton Administration. Fast-forward to Obama who had always been a proponent of action in Afghanistan where a great many of the first "enemy combatant" detainees came from, the political pressure of avoiding trials here in the US a foregone conclusion, etc... it seems to me not only was the "war on terror" a forgone conclusion (albeit by any other name) a "Gitmo" or gitmo-style detention was also a forgone conclusion.

[Athens]

Lets look at it from a different perspective. What would or reactions be if old USSR or China maintained a facility in a different country and they held enemy combatants, of which we support because they are combatants against communism. I bet we would have bleeding hearts all over the place calling for the freedom of these people and would be citing international law and human rights as well.

Isn't the problem really just the re-writing laws and history to suite methods that at a previous time would have been unthinkable?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This would be the missile attack on the pharmaceutical plant buildings in Sudan that had no appreciable impact on terrorism or its leadership in the region. In this you're right, there are all kinds of ineffective alternatives, but the forgone conclusion was that you need boots on the ground. When you have boots on the ground, you're either killing combatants on site or taking captives. When you're taking captives (over killing them on site), you're assessing their threat and defining their status. If their status is ambiguous while their threat deemed lethal, you have indefinite detention.

It seems to me that there is no particular reason why their status would need to remain "ambiguous" other than that it fits neatly in the "war on terror" paradigm. There is nothing inherently unusual about what U.S. forces would encounter in Afghanistan. Individuals requiring detention might be broadly categorized into two groups: (1) individuals engaging in armed resistance against the U.S. invasion, and (2) individuals identified as members of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. There were several established options available to the Bush administration for dealing with individuals in these categories. Where there is overlap between (1) and (2), obviously the government has the freedom to choose to treat them as one category or the other.

In situation (1), individuals captured during hostilities are entitled under the Geneva Conventions to a determination of POW status (In Afghanistan/Gitmo, this was not consistently done). If they are POWs, they can be held for the duration of hostilities, but certainly not in the conditions that exist at Guantanamo.

Even if individuals under (1) are found to not be lawful combatants as described in the Geneva Conventions and thus not entitled to POW status, the Bush Administration had multiple options. They could certainly be tried by a court-martial under the UCMJ for violations of the laws of war and/or ordinary crimes (since they are not POWs). This would have provided basic due process rights. Another option providing due process would have been an ad hoc international tribunal (e.g. Nuremberg), again for violations of the laws of war, but that would have dragged on for probably far too long and generally been unworkable. In contrast to courts-martial, military commissions, which is what the Bush Administration opted for, are governed entirely by presidential directive. They developed historically in the 19th century as a way to try civilians who did not fall under the jurisdiction of courts-martial, though their use later expanded. The rules governing the commissions in the case of Afghan prisoners changed somewhat over the course of the war, but a notable constant was the failure to bar indefinite pretrial detention. The initial Bush directive following 9/11 also suggested a standard for guilt less than beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, less restrictive rules of evidence than in courts-martial, closed hearings, and limits on counsel of choice. These were all choices. There is nothing, legally speaking, that would have prevented the Bush Administration from setting a limit or a rigorous review process on pretrial detention, for example.

In situation (2), individuals could clearly be tried in civilian courts under U.S. law.

You seem to forget that it was Clinton's Justice Dept that made a court order for Gitmo's closure disappear citing; "foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law." Sound familiar? Or what of the hunger strikes and riots there that led to a bunch of them being thrown in naval brigs as criminals under the Clinton Administration.

You're not talking about terrorists, though, you're talking about a refugee camp (which was in fact a holdover from George H.W. Bush). I don't see how this relates directly to the decision to prosecute the "war on terror." It certainly set up the legal precedent. But it was still an independent decision by the George W. Bush Administration to set up Gitmo as a terrorist detention camp.

Fast-forward to Obama who had always been a proponent of action in Afghanistan where a great many of the first "enemy combatant" detainees came from, the political pressure of avoiding trials here in the US a foregone conclusion, etc... it seems to me not only was the "war on terror" a forgone conclusion (albeit by any other name) a "Gitmo" or gitmo-style detention was also a forgone conclusion.

Assuming the invasion of Afghanistan would be a foregone conclusion (I agree), I do not see how that necessitates a "war on terror" nor the most draconian aspects of the treatment of prisoners, as I describe above. There was a significant amount of latitude here exercised by the Bush Administration. This gives me doubt that another administration, including Obama's, would have reacted in the same way. In fact, Obama's recent decision, to me, seems to be seeking to routinize the review of candidates for indefinite detention (including access by the prisoner to an attorney and to more of the evidence against them) in a way that seemed totally unthinkable to the Bush Administration in the early years following 9/11. Would Obama have reacted the same way back then? I don't know for sure, but coupled with the variety of options I described earlier it's certainly cause for the "doubt" you referenced in your earlier post.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Lets look at it from a different perspective. What would or reactions be if old USSR or China maintained a facility in a different country and they held enemy combatants, of which we support because they are combatants against communism. I bet we would have bleeding hearts all over the place calling for the freedom of these people and would be citing international law and human rights as well.

The holding of non-uniformed enemy combatants in wars against terrorist strongholds? I suspect we would charge them a fee to house them in Gitmo. Otherwise, I'm not sure how your alternative perspective is meaningful. Would it be more humane to simply shoot them on site? We engage military action using uniformed combatants, soldiers. Others do not. We are talking about the "others" who do not fit the mandates of Geneva as uniformed combatants.

Isn't the problem really just the re-writing laws and history to suite methods that at a previous time would have been unthinkable?

I think even a cursory glance through history would show a time of exponentially greater cruelty and ambiguous applications of "justice" for the enemy.

[Athens]

I think you missed my point. What one nation calls a terrorist another nation calls freedom fighters. In Iraq the Kurds where considered Terrorists by Saddam Husein during the ku attempt which was also partially sponsored by the CIA. Locally non-uniformed enemy combatants of the State of Iraq, domestically we considered them freedom fighters. Now you have non-uniformed enemy combatants at war with the US and while we consider them terrorists others consider freedom fighters.

A solder is a solder is a solder. Uniformed or not, state sponsored or religious sponsored or gorilla force, same rules should apply. The issue with Gitmo and these detention laws is how new laws are being created because the current laws are inconvenient. We are making up a totally new term for these kind of combatants and conveniently saying the laws that apply to other forms of combatants do not apply to these kinds.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ha. As it turns out, Obama will out-Bush W in any- and everything.

God job, you gullible lefties, in electing him to office.

-t

It makes this sign a bit prophetic

[Athens]

I came across something today while researching something different and found that currently already the US Constitution already allows for indefinite Detention

The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause(Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

My understanding of this, Habeas corpus a method to challenge the validity of a courts authority to jurisdiction and imposed sentence or in this case detention is suspended if public safety may require it. Now its a Civil based system not a Criminal based system but the enemy combatants are not being tried through the Criminal court system to begin with. This should provide protection for the Military Courts in securing authority of jurisdiction with no further laws being created due to the constitution already allowing the suspension of Habeas Corpus in matters of public security.

Habeas corpus /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔrpəs/, Latin for "you [shall] have the body," is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
United States law affords persons the right to petition the federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus petitions are generally filed as pro se cases, and the government (state or federal) is usually ordered by the court to respond. Individual states also afford persons the ability to petition their own state court systems for habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws when held or sentenced by state authorities.

Examples of usage

In 1942, eight German saboteurs, including two U.S. citizens, who had entered the United States were convicted by a secret military court set up by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In Ex parte Quirin (1942)[12] the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the writ of habeas corpus did not apply, and that the military tribunal had jurisdiction to try the saboteurs, due to their status as unlawful combatants.
In the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor martial law was declared in Hawaii and habeas corpus was suspended, pursuant to a section of the Hawaiian Organic Act. The period of martial law in Hawaii ended in October 1944. It was held in Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946)[13] that although the initial imposition of martial law in December 1941 may have been lawful, due to the Pearl Harbor attack and threat of imminent invasion, by 1944 the imminent threat had receded and civilian courts could again function in Hawaii. The Organic Act therefore did not authorize the military to continue to keep civilian courts closed.
After the end of the war, several German prisoners held in American-occupied Germany petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. In Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950)[14] the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the American court system had no jurisdiction over German war criminals who had been captured in Germany, and had never entered U.S. soil.

And thus from this decision in 1950 the US Courts established that as long as a enemy had been captured in a foreign country and has never entered U.S. Soil the American court system had no jurisdiction. This is why it was vital to keep the enemy combatants off US soil. Because the constitution already allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in situations of public safety, Obama should bring one detainee to US soil to establish a precedent setting court case on Jurisdiction and this claws in the constitution. If successful no new laws are required, and neither is Gitmo.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A solder is a solder is a solder. Uniformed or not, state sponsored or religious sponsored or gorilla force, same rules should apply.

The word is "SOLDIER." "Solder" means this:


BTW you also mean "guerilla" not "gorilla"

[subego]

And "coup" instead of "ku".


Edit: not a flame. You strike me as someone who would ultimately be glad to know this. Carry on

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

And "coup" instead of "ku".

Don't be koi.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

And "coup" instead of "ku".

Wow, good catch. I couldn't even tell what "ku" was supposed to be.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I came across something today while researching something different and found that currently already the US Constitution already allows for indefinite Detention

The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause(Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

My understanding of this, Habeas corpus a method to challenge the validity of a courts authority to jurisdiction and imposed sentence or in this case detention, is suspended if public safety may require it.
Habeus corpus Now its a Civil based system not a Criminal based system but the enemy combatants are not being tried through the Criminal court system to begin with. This should provide protection for the Military Courts in securing authority of jurisdiction with no further laws being created due to the constitution already allowing the suspension of Habeas Corpus in matters of public security.

The writ of habeas corpus is a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Meaning, if it is found that someone has been taken into custody illegitimately, the custodian (whether police, military, etc.) will not face criminal charges on account of habeas corpus by itself. That's irrelevant to the nature of the reason for the initial imprisonment or the identity of the person/agency holding him/her.

The text you cited from the Constitution refers to situations when public safety is threatened only in cases of rebellion or invasion, which don't seem to apply to Guantanamo. I'm not really sure where you are going with the idea of bringing "one detainee to US soil to establish a precedent setting court case," but in the recent Supreme Court case on habeas corpus re Guantanamo (Boumediene v. Bush), the decision was that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to captives in Guantanamo on account of the fact that the U.S. maintains "complete jurisdiction and control" (de facto sovereignty) over Guantanamo per its agreement with Cuba.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The writ of habeas corpus is a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Meaning, if it is found that someone has been taken into custody illegitimately, the custodian (whether police, military, etc.) will not face criminal charges on account of habeas corpus by itself. That's irrelevant to the nature of the reason for the initial imprisonment or the identity of the person/agency holding him/her.

The text you cited from the Constitution refers to situations when public safety is threatened only in cases of rebellion or invasion, which don't seem to apply to Guantanamo. I'm not really sure where you are going with the idea of bringing "one detainee to US soil to establish a precedent setting court case," but in the recent Supreme Court case on habeas corpus re Guantanamo (Boumediene v. Bush), the decision was that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to captives in Guantanamo on account of the fact that the U.S. maintains "complete jurisdiction and control" (de facto sovereignty) over Guantanamo per its agreement with Cuba.

Look to the example I gave for world ware 2 with the Germans how it was also applied in those cases for unlawful combatants and captured solders. What i was trying to get at is that everything seems to be in place already to hold people for good under the right reasons and conditions. I was looking up something else and while reading that at the time it seemed like it applied in such a way that it could be used in cases like Gitmo to secure some one.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Look to the example I gave for world ware 2 with the Germans how it was also applied in those cases for unlawful combatants and captured solders. What i was trying to get at is that everything seems to be in place already to hold people for good under the right reasons and conditions. I was looking up something else and while reading that at the time it seemed like it applied in such a way that it could be used in cases like Gitmo to secure some one.

Absolutely. But regardless of the scenario, the prisoners are still entitled to a judicial review to determine whether there is a factual and legal basis for their detention (as in fact occurred in the WW2 Quirin case), which has until more recently been the sticking point regarding Guantanamo. Quirin properly held that a military tribunal had jurisdiction to try German saboteurs. In Guantanamo, that means the military commissions themselves may be legal, but the indefinite detention without recourse to review of prisoners in anticipation of them (or not, as is increasingly the case with the remaining population -- even the commissions aren't rubber-stamp 'guilty' machines) is probably not legal.

[Athens]

Yup, but there is one thing that is different between the 2 cases. World War 2 came to a end while the war on Terror could last for generations. So it was never really a question of indefinite detention in the 50's while now we are in a totally different kind of conflict and length of time. I think thats the part the government has itself in a sticky situation that is unique.

[Taliesin]

At least the prisoners have access to a half-year, full-year-review and allowed to challenge their detention.

If though indefinite detention really means eternal detention due to a never-ending war on terror, then it would be more human to shoot the prisoners to death.

Things will get much more problematic after islamistic terrorists used some nukes in the US or at least some dirty bombs making some cities/areas uninhabitable due to radioactivity, then I can imagine that the muslims in the US could get the same treatment japanese in the US got during ww2. Martial law could be declared and the fema-camps could be used for the indefinite detention.