• 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
I agree that these combatants are not entitled to be treated as POWs. However, Quirin discusses the treatment which the enemy combatants received through the military:

Pursuant to direction of the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation surrendered custody of petitioners to respondent, Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who was directed by the Secretary of War to receive and keep them in custody, and who thereafter held petitioners for trial before the Commission.

On July 3, 1942, the Judge Advocate General's Department of the Army prepared and lodged with the Commission the following charges against petitioners, supported by specifications:

1. Violation of the law of war.

2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.

3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.

4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.

Were the prisoners at Gitmo given access to the due process of charges filed through the JAG?
 
What were their unlawful actions?

If you cannot specity a 'crime' then you cannot bring charges.

Given that no charges were prepared by the JAG to explain their detention as unlawful combatants, these individuals have been held in indefinite limbo, without access to legal counsel, without charges filed, without fair and impartial hearing, and without due process.

Perhaps the Bush administration should have thought to charge them, in accordance with military law.
 
Ok... and those would be... what?

If you cannot specity a 'crime' then you cannot bring charges.

18 USC 2385 --

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Twenty years in prison plus five years ineligibility to go to work for Uncle Sam... that'll teach 'em!! :2razz:
 
Given that no charges were prepared by the JAG to explain their detention as unlawful combatants, these individuals have been held in indefinite limbo, without access to legal counsel, without charges filed, without fair and impartial hearing, and without due process.

Perhaps the Bush administration should have thought to charge them, in accordance with military law.
I'll take this as an admission that you have no idea whatseoever what their unlawful actions might have been, and so you have no idea whatsoever with what crimes they might be charged with -- but, somehow, youre SURE that they can be charged with SOMETHING.

Tell me:
What makes them "unlawful" combatants?
 
Last edited:
I'll take this as an admission that you have no idea whatseoever what their unlawful actions might have been, and so you have no idea whatsoever with what crimes they might be charged with -- but, somehow, youre SURE that they can be charged with SOMETHING.

Tell me:
What makes them "unlawful" combatants?

I think that they should either be charged or released. They were labeled as unlawful combatants by the Bush administration, who then failed to charge them with unlawful acts.

I find that problematic. They are either POWs (in which case they are subject to the geneva convention), or they are unlawful combatants, in which case they should have been charged by the JAGs and prosected in a military tribunal.

Neither has been done.

That doesn't bother you?
 
I think that they should either be charged or released. They were labeled as unlawful combatants by the Bush administration, who then failed to charge them with unlawful acts.

I find that problematic. They are either POWs (in which case they are subject to the geneva convention), or they are unlawful combatants, in which case they should have been charged by the JAGs and prosected in a military tribunal.

Neither has been done.

That doesn't bother you?

What bothers me most about it, is that the Bush Administration used the "unlawful combatants" definition to deny them their rights under the 6th Amendment (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...), because a public trial isn't the same as a military tribunal.

They're either POW's or they're not. If they're not, then charge them and try them - quit holding them in limbo until someone decides what to do with them.
 
be charged with SOMETHING.

Tell me: What makes them "unlawful" combatants?

The Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin - July 31, 1942

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. 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.
 
I think that they should either be charged or released. They were labeled as unlawful combatants by the Bush administration, who then failed to charge them with unlawful acts.

I find that problematic. They are either POWs (in which case they are subject to the geneva convention), or they are unlawful combatants, in which case they should have been charged by the JAGs and prosected in a military tribunal.

Neither has been done.

That doesn't bother you?
I dont see how you can argue that they should be charged if you have no idea whatsoever what they should lbe charged with.
 

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants.

The problem here?
The war isnt between belligerent nations.
The rules that govern war between belligerent nations therefore do not apply.
 
The big issue is that people just don't want them here. They don't need a good reason. It's political.
 
I dont see how you can argue that they should be charged if you have no idea whatsoever what they should lbe charged with.

If they can't be charged, and they are not POWs, exactly what legal right do we have for holding them? Can you answer that?
 
That's an interesting perspective. :spin:
And, it is absolutely true. The Gevena conventions are all predicated on war between states; the definitions of 'lawful' and 'unlawful' are all made with this predicate in mind.

Thus, the law that might be used to charge these people doesn't apply to these people...
 
If they can't be charged, and they are not POWs, exactly what legal right do we have for holding them? Can you answer that?
They are held as combatants captured on the field of battle.
 
The problem here?
The war isnt between belligerent nations.
The rules that govern war between belligerent nations therefore do not apply.

From Wikipedia --

A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent country is an aggressor.

In times of war, belligerent countries can be contrasted with neutral countries and non-belligerents. However, the application of the laws of war to neutral countries and the responsibilities of belligerents are not affected by any distinction between neutral countries, neutral powers or non-belligerents. A non-belligerent may nevertheless risk being considered a belligerent if it aids or supports a belligerent in a way proscribed by neutral countries.

An interesting use of the term arose during the American Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.

IMHO - You'd have a devil of a time trying to prove that Iraq isn't a belligerent nation, and therefore the detainees aren't "unlawful combatants". You could try to argue this point before the World Court, but I think it would be Quixote-like in it's impracticality.
 
From Wikipedia --
A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner,
Yes... and under the Geneva Conventions, the relevant belligerents are states, as the conventions cover war between states.

IMHO - You'd have a devil of a time trying to prove that Iraq isn't a belligerent nation,
The detainees in question here are not part of the Iraqi army -- they are from various non-goverment entties, such as the Taliban and other similar groups. As such, your objection here is meaningless.
 
Yes... and under the Geneva Conventions, the relevant belligerents are states, as the conventions cover war between states.


The detainees in question here are not part of the Iraqi army -- they are from various non-goverment entties, such as the Taliban and other similar groups. As such, your objection here is meaningless.

So what about the Viet Cong - as opposed to the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) - "unlawful combatants" or innocent bystanders?
 
So what about the Viet Cong - as opposed to the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) - "unlawful combatants" or innocent bystanders?

They're just "combatants." that way you can hold them indefinitely...eternally, perhaps...without convicting them of a crime, or even proving that they were fighting for the other side.
 
So what about the Viet Cong - as opposed to the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) - "unlawful combatants" or innocent bystanders?
The VC were an actor for the state of North Vietnam, who both did and did not fight under the rules of warfare. So, it would depend on the specific situation.
 
They're just "combatants." that way you can hold them indefinitely...eternally, perhaps...without convicting them of a crime, or even proving that they were fighting for the other side.
You do not have to like the fact that some people can be held indefinitely without trial, but it is very certainly the case that some people can indeed be so held.
 
Absolutely nothing. They would be locked up in a federal penitentary, that's all.

They're not going to get out.
 
I believe that they (from their standpoint) would be better of to remain in gitmo. Once they are moved into the states they will go into maximum security facilities where they will spend 23+ hours in a cell. They recieve more time out of cell in gitmo from my understanding.
 
What will happen if the Gitmo were transported to jail facilities in the U.S.?

Tell me, tell me. :)

The largest mistake is placing them in the system at all.
 
Absolutely nothing. They would be locked up in a federal penitentary, that's all.

They're not going to get out.

People escape from the pen all the time. :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom