• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Happens To Gitmo Detainees?

What will happen if the Gitmo were transported to jail facilities in the U.S.?

  • Nothing

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • We will be attacked from those detainees

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • OMG all hell will break loose because our jail security will suddenly become weaker

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 40.9%
  • Total voters
    22
Redress said:
I would still argue that a trial would be a good thing.
Click to expand...
With what, exactly, do you charge those 200,000 Germans we captured in Tunisa?
 
Goobieman said:
Nope.

When you're captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops, you arent detained because you've committed a crime, you're detained because you are a combatant that was fighting our troops. You dont have a right to a trial because there's nothing to charge you for or try you for.

"Unlawful" means that you aren't following the rules of warfare, not that you are breaking come criminal law, and so being an 'unlawful enemy combatant' doesnt grant you any rights under the usual criminal codes.

And so, not ALL enemy combatants have a right to a fair trial, to confront their accusers and present the evidence in their favor, or to some finite sentence.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Unlawful combatants DO, in fact, have a right to trial, per the U.S. Supreme Court, 1942. Do you have significant authority to overrule them?
 
Goobieman said:
With what, exactly, do you charge those 200,000 Germans we captured in Tunisa?
Click to expand...

They were captured as POWs. You understand the concept of a POW, right? POWs aren't given trials, they are held until the cessation of hostilities so they cannot resume fighting.

:roll:
 
Redress said:
I am not talking about Germans, you are.
Click to expand...
You are talking about peoiple who were detained because they were combatants that were fighting our troops.

So, again, with what, exactly, do you charge those 200,000 Germans?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Wrong. Unlawful combatants DO, in fact, have a right to trial, per the U.S. Supreme Court, 1942. Do you have significant authority to overrule them?
Click to expand...
And those who were detained because they were combatants that were fighting our troops on the battlefield -- what, exactly, do you charge them with?
 
Goobieman said:
You are talking about peoiple who were detained because they were combatants that were fighting our troops.

So, again, with what, exactly, do you charge those 200,000 Germans?
Click to expand...

They were POWs. What part of that do you not understand? You handle them the same as any other POW, according to the Geneva Conventions.

Because they were POWs, they are also apples to the oranges of this discussion. The people in Gitmo were SPECIFICALLY identified as unlawful combatants so as to exempt them from the Geneva Conventions.

However, by identifying them as unlawful combatants, they then become subject to different standards of treatment, including trial by a military tribunal.

This process was codified into U.S. Law by the Supreme Court in 1942.

Does that help to explain the difference?
 
Goobieman said:
And those who were detained because they were combatants that were fighting our troops on the battlefield -- what, exactly, do you charge them with?
Click to expand...

If they were fighting under the organized auspices of a nation with whom we are at war, they are recognized as prisoners of war, and aren't charged with anything. Their treatment is specified by the Geneva Convention.

If they are unlawful combatants, the Supreme Court set federal law in regards to their handling in 1942.

We're talking between 50 and 100 years of case law on these issues, dude. This isn't new.
 
Goobieman said:
You are talking about peoiple who were detained because they were combatants that were fighting our troops.

So, again, with what, exactly, do you charge those 200,000 Germans?
Click to expand...

I am talking about the ones currently detained, not the ones from WWII.
 
Redress said:
I am talking about the ones currently detained, not the ones from WWII.
Click to expand...
Both sets of people are/were being held for exactly the same thing -- becaise they were combatants captured by our troops while fighting on the battlefield.

So, I ask again -- what, exactly, do you charge them with?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
If they were fighting under the organized auspices of a nation with whom we are at war, they are recognized as prisoners of war, and aren't charged with anything. Their treatment is specified by the Geneva Convention.

If they are unlawful combatants, the Supreme Court set federal law in regards to their handling in 1942.

We're talking between 50 and 100 years of case law on these issues, dude. This isn't new.
Click to expand...
You didnt answer my question:
What, exactly, do you charge them with?
 
Goobieman said:
Both sets of people are/were being held for exactly the same thing -- becaise they were combatants captured by our troops while fighting on the battlefield.

So, I ask again -- what, exactly, do you charge them with?
Click to expand...

What you say is true, but incomplete. There is no end in site for the "war on terror", nor does it look likely that it will end any time even remotely soon. Since the situation is different, we should look for different solutions.
 
Goobieman said:
You didnt answer my question:
What, exactly, do you charge them with?
Click to expand...

If they are POWs, you don't charge them with anything. You detain them, scrupulously observing the protocols of the Geneva Convention, until the cessation of hostilities.

If they are unlawful combatants, YOU CHARGE THEM WITH THAT.

If I typed slower, would it help?
 
Redress said:
What you say is true, but incomplete.
Click to expand...
I didnt see an answr to my question.

There is no end in site for the "war on terror", nor does it look likely that it will end any time even remotely soon.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. All combatants captured on the battlefield are held 'for the duration'.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
If they are POWs, you don't charge them with anything. You detain them, scrupulously observing the protocols of the Geneva Convention, until the cessation of hostilities.

If they are unlawful combatants, YOU CHARGE THEM WITH THAT.
Click to expand...
Yes... and this is what I have been asking...
What specific LAW were they violating?

If I typed slower, would it help?
Click to expand...
No, but worthwhile content might.
 
Goobieman said:
I didnt see an answr to my question.


Irrelevant. All combatants captured on the battlefield are held 'for the duration'.
Click to expand...

You do not see an answer because I am not going to let you frame what I am arguing.

You have arrived at the crux of my argument. I don't believe that "for the duration" is a good idea at this time, it should be re-examined.
 
Redress said:
You do not see an answer because I am not going to let you frame what I am arguing.
Click to expand...
Actually I dont see an answer because you have not given one.

All you need to do is cite a crime that combatants captured on the battlefield can be charged for.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes... and this is what I have been asking...
What specific LAW were they violating?

No, but worthwhile content might.
Click to expand...

Ex Parte Quirin, Supreme Court, 1942:

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
Click to expand...

They would be charged with whatever conduct they engaged in that was unlawful, and that would vary, based upon the combatant's actions, under the uniform code of military justice.

Their charges would likely be determined by JAG officers based upon the circumstances of their conduct. In these instances, their conduct might include, but would not be limited to, unlawful insurgency, spying, etc.

Since I can tell that you have a sincere desire to learn more about this subject, this article might be of assistance to further explain:

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aba/abatskforce103rpt.pdf
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Actually I dont see an answer because you have not given one.

All you need to do is cite a crime that combatants captured on the battlefield can be charged for.
Click to expand...

I am not giving one because I reject the premise of your question.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Why are you not answering my question?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Ex Parte Quirin, Supreme Court, 1942:
They would be charged with whatever conduct they engaged in that was unlawful, and that would vary, based upon the combatant's actions.
Click to expand...
Ok... and those would be... what?

If you cannot specity a 'crime' then you cannot bring charges.
 
Redress said:
I am not giving one because I reject the premise of your question.
Click to expand...
You can reject it all you want -- doing so does not change the fact that it is a legimate question, based on the argument presented.

If you cannot specify what law has been broken, you cannot charge someone with a crime.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
If you cannot specify a crime, why are they being held?
Click to expand...
Because they are combatants captured on the battlefield while fighting US troops.

So, back to my question...

What were their unlawful actions?

If you cannot specity a 'crime' then you cannot bring charges.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Wrong. Unlawful combatants DO, in fact, have a right to trial, per the U.S. Supreme Court, 1942. Do you have significant authority to overrule them?
Click to expand...
The 1942 case you reference is Ex Parte Quirin, which held something very different.

In Ex Parte Quirin, the petitioners sought a civilian trial by jury rather than military tribunal:
Petitioners' main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses. In any case it is urged that the President's Order, in prescribing the procedure of the Commission and the method for review of its findings and sentence, and the proceedings of the Commission under the Order, conflict with Articles of War adopted by Congress-particularly Articles 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70-and are illegal and void.
Click to expand...
Chief Justice Harlan Stone framed the issue thus:
An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law [317 U.S. 1, 29] of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions. We are concerned only with the question whether it is within the constitutional power of the national government to place petitioners upon trial before a military commission for the offenses with which they are charged. We must therefore first inquire whether any of the acts charged is an offense against the law of war cognizable before a military tribunal, and if so whether the Constitution prohibits the trial. We may assume that there are acts regarded in other countries, or by some writers on international law, as offenses against the law of war which would not be triable by military tribunal here, either because they are not recognized by our courts as violations of the law of war or because they are of that class of offenses constitutionally triable only by a jury. It was upon such grounds that the Court denied the right to proceed by military tribunal in Ex parte Milligan, supra. But as we shall show, these petitioners were charged with an offense against the law of war which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury.
Click to expand...
In fact, Stone's opinion rejects your assertion rather directly:
Our Government, by thus defining lawful belligerents entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, has recognized that there is a class of unlawful belligerents not entitled to that privilege, including those who though combatants do not wear 'fixed and distinctive emblems'. And by Article 15 of the Articles of War Congress has made provision for their trial and punishment by military commission, according to 'the law of war'.
Click to expand...
If you want to argue right of trial for the detainees, you would be better off starting with something directly applicable, like Hamdan v Rumsfeld.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom