UPI: Ridge: Detainees deserved due process

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ridge: Detainees deserved due process

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says the United States was wrong not to give terror suspects due process protections. Speaking on the BBC's 'World Today" program, the former Pennsylvania governor and first federal homeland security chief said he accepts some of the criticisms levied in a recent report International Commission of Jurists.

The group's report found that the U.S. treatment of detainees undermined international law.

" When you are taking upon (yourself) the responsibility to prevent acts I think you do need to engage in slightly different tactics in order to ensure that it happens," Ridge told the British network.

He said the commission was on "solid ground" in its commentary "with regard to torture and sustained detention without due process." He added that regardless of what terror suspects are accused of doing, they deserve "some sense of due process."

"It has taken a while for us to get to that point but we are certainly there now," he said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/21/Ridge_Detainees_deserved_due_process/UPI-77921235246799/

[twa]

Why them?

The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/washington/22bagram.html?_r=2&partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guantanamo21-2009feb21,0,2083521.story

Reporting from Washington -- The Pentagon has concluded that the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay meets the standards for humane treatment of detainees established in the Geneva Convention accords.

In a report for President Obama on conditions at Guantanamo, the Pentagon recommended some changes -- mainly providing some of the most troublesome inmates with more group recreation and opportunities for prayer -- said an administration official who read the report and spoke on condition of anonymity, citing its confidential nature.

The lengthy report was done by a top Navy official, Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, in response to Obama's Jan. 22 executive order to close the U.S. military detention facility in Cuba within a year.

[Prosperity]

one way or another there has to be due process, it doesn't have to be in a criminal court, but we shouldn't lock people up forever without some sort of trial

[AsburySkinsFan]

twa are you planning to answer the question which is about due process? Or are you just going to bring up issues that are not at issue in this article or statement? The issue is not whether they can challenge their imprisonment, or whether the facilities meet the geneva convention requirements, the issue at hand and the issue that has always been at the center of Gitmo is due process.

[twa]

Err challenging their imprisonment is part of due process...A major one,and usually the first step.

Now you can certainly argue the prisoners are different by location, but it is a weak argument that was rejected when W used it..

Did you have a question?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Err challenging their imprisonment is part of due process...A major one,and usually the first step.

And it has been determined via a portion of due process that they cannot challenge their imprisonment, however the biggest issue is that they have not been charged with anything, and now Tom Ridge (too little too late) comes out and says they did stuff wrong by denying this to the detainees.

Did you have a question?

One can raise a question regarding issues without actually placing a question mark on a sentence.

[jpillian]

Regardless what Obama, W, or Ridge say, all prisoners in US custody -- whether they be US citizens, non-citizens, or unlawful combatants -- deserve some form of due process. They may not all be afforded the same protections, I think that is up for debate. However, in my opinion, the US needs to be the standards bearer on this.

[twa]

And they always have...in some form;)

[jpillian]

And they always have...in some form;)

And I think that's a fair question for debate. What protections should the likes of pirates, terrorists, and unlawful combatants (all of which are broad terms, for sure) be afforded? The catch-all term I've seen thrown around to describe this class of persons is "enemies of humanity."

Personally, I think that the safest bet is to give them the same protections under the law our citizens receive. There may of course need to be some adjustments made to evidentiary standards/burdens of proof (i.e., is beyond a reasonable doubt really needed or possible for enemy combatants? is it reasonable to expect evidence convincing enough to convict to be gathered from the battlefield?).

I don't envy our justice department/military having to deal with this thorny issue.

[Burgold]

And I think that's a fair question for debate. What protections should the likes of pirates, terrorists, and unlawful combatants (all of which are broad terms, for sure) be afforded? The catch-all term I've seen thrown around to describe this class of persons is "enemies of humanity."

I think the essential question is how do you know they are "pirates, terrorists, and unlawful combatants" without some form of due process. Certainly, it's not impossible for someone to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we are skeptical of everything the government does, I think it needs to include who it chooses to incarcerate.

Personally, I think that the safest bet is to give them the same protections under the law our citizens receive. There may of course need to be some adjustments made to evidentiary standards/burdens of proof (i.e., is beyond a reasonable doubt really needed or possible for enemy combatants? is it reasonable to expect evidence convincing enough to convict to be gathered from the battlefield?).

We're on the same page here. Now, I don't think they need to go before a civilian court, but I want some kind of procedure making sure that the guys we think are the bad guys actually are the bad guys. A military court is fine as long as there is a defense, evidence, and a prosecutor.

I don't envy our justice department/military having to deal with this thorny issue.

[Larry]

We're on the same page here. Now, I don't think they need to go before a civilian court, but I want some kind of procedure making sure that the guys we think are the bad guys actually are the bad guys. A military court is fine as long as there is a defense, evidence, and a prosecutor.

Actually, as I understand it, the US had a system in place for dealing with people captured in battle, supposedly beginning with "classification hearings". As I understand it, these hearings (required by Geneva) basically consist of a court determining which set of rules a detainee will be subject to. Is he an enemy combatant? a spy? a common criminal?

The US military had people in place, trained to carry out these hearings. It's one of the things the military plans for. (One thing you gotta say about our military: They got a plan for everything. It may be a dumb plan. But they've got one.)

Far as I'm concerned, if the "due process" consists of "Enemy combatant. Next case." (and the detainee gets led away, and taken to a place where he's treated according to the rules for enemy combatant) is good enough for me.

[Thiebear]

Before we do the "THEY DESERVE a TRIAL"

How many trials HAVE THEY HAD so far?

I think its around 3 at this point.

[Prosperity]

And I think that's a fair question for debate. What protections should the likes of pirates, terrorists, and unlawful combatants (all of which are broad terms, for sure) be afforded? The catch-all term I've seen thrown around to describe this class of persons is "enemies of humanity."

Personally, I think that the safest bet is to give them the same protections under the law our citizens receive. There may of course need to be some adjustments made to evidentiary standards/burdens of proof (i.e., is beyond a reasonable doubt really needed or possible for enemy combatants? is it reasonable to expect evidence convincing enough to convict to be gathered from the battlefield?).

I don't envy our justice department/military having to deal with this thorny issue.

I think treating them like our citizens may be the safest bet, but I don't think it's the best. There are countries that have been dealing with terrorists longer than we have. One of them is France, they have very specialized courts and laws to deal with terrorism, and they are recognized as the best in the world for counter-terrorism... so I don't think we have to re-invent the wheel.

[81artmonk]

one way or another there has to be due process, it doesn't have to be in a criminal court, but we shouldn't lock people up forever without some sort of trial

First, enemy combatants have never gotten constitutional rights. I don't believe that americans want these terrorists, to get a trail lawyer, post bail and become free men until their court date.

[Larry]

First, enemy combatants have never gotten constitutional rights.

First, there are no Constitutional Rights. There are only Constitutional limitations placed on the US Government.

Second, his post didn't say "constitutional rights". It said "due process". Your attempt to hijack the discussion into make-believe land is unjustified.

I don't believe that americans want these terrorists, to get a trail lawyer, post bail and become free men until their court date.

You are correct. Nobody wants that. Therefore, the reason why you had to say it was . . .

[ACW]

First, enemy combatants have never gotten constitutional rights. I don't believe that americans want these terrorists, to get a trail lawyer, post bail and become free men until their court date.

Well, apparently some Americans want to go against what America stands for :halo:

EDIT: That, my friends, is the textbook example of the strawman fallacy.

[twa]

First, there are no Constitutional Rights. There are only Constitutional limitations placed on the US Government.

Looks like a good place for a bump

No habeas rights at Bagram

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/no-habeas-at-bagram/

In a major victory for the Obama Administration’s detention policy, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled on Friday that foreign nationals held at a U.S. military prison at Bagram airbase outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, do not have a right to challenge in U.S. courts their continued imprisonment. The ruling overturned a federal judge’s decision that the Supreme Court’s ruling two years ago allowing habeas challenges by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay extends to Bagram, at least for non-Afghan foreign nationals captured outside of Afghanistan and taken there for detention. The three-judge panel was unanimous in Maqaleh, et al., v. Gates (Circuit docket 09-5265). The issue is likely to be taken to the Supreme Court by detainees’ lawyers, but review there is no certainty.

[Burgold]

I still believe that Obama and Bush are wrong on this issue.

I don't care if it is civilian or military court, but someone ought to be making sure the gov't and the military is doing the right thing.

[Thiebear]

Did anyone find out how many trials if were going to protest?

In feb 2009 i thought it was 3.. someone that cares should figure that out.

[Fergasun]

My gut feeling thinks this will get overturned in the Supreme Court; or at least the case of the guy who claimed to be captured in Thailand. It seems like apprehending someone in a war zone, and detaining them in a war zone is different than apprehending someone outside of a war zone and transferring into a war zone. Yet the Court failed to distinguish.

[Thiebear]

Note the dates:

By: Pam On: Jul/9/05 - 2 Comments

WASHINGTON

Seventy enemy combatants have been through the Pentagon’s annual review process at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Of these, 29 have been designated for release or transfer to their home country, a senior official said today.

Navy Rear Adm. James M. McGarrah, director of the Office of Administrative Review for Detained Enemy Combatants, briefed Pentagon reporters today on the status of administrative reviews at Gitmo, as the island naval base is often called.

If its an annual review board, doesn't that mean they have had at least 5-6 of them?

AND if i remember correctly we couldn't get anyone to take the hardcore that remain.. this is why Pres. Obama can't get rid of them.

Same as why Bush couldn't get rid of them either.

Guantánamo Detainees Make Their Case

By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: March 24, 2005

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, March 23 - A 30-year-old Sudanese prisoner listened with barely concealed anger on Tuesday and slouched deeper into his seat as an Air Force officer told a military panel why the man remained a threat to the United States and should not be released from the prison camp here.

Advertisement

The slight and scraggly bearded Sudanese, hands cuffed and feet shackled to the floor, is among more than 500 prisoners from the fighting in Afghanistan who remain here and whose cases are being reviewed under the latest military legal proceeding intended to reduce Guantánamo's prison population and meet the terms of a Supreme Court decision allowing them to challenge their detention.

The prisoner never heard some of the evidence against him because it was deemed classified and was given to the court in secret. He disputed some of the charges, such as that he had participated in a prison riot in Afghanistan, and argued that it was legal for him to have traveled there.

Other prisoners have been more recalcitrant; most of those called for hearings have refused to attend.

The new proceedings, known as administrative review boards, began in earnest this year. They consist of panels of three military officers conducting hearings at which detainees, none of whom are allowed to have lawyers present, can tell their stories and dispute accusations that they were part of the Taliban or allied with Al Qaeda. To be released, they must persuade the board that no matter their history, they are not a threat to the United States or its allies.

The Sudanese prisoner, whose name cannot be disclosed under ground rules set by the military, heard himself described as someone who eagerly joined the Taliban and fought on the northern front during the war in Afghanistan. An Air Force officer who acted as a kind of prosecutor also asserted that the man had been a "special friend" of a Taliban commander who worked under a senior Qaeda field officer. He had weapons training, the Air Force officer continued, and participated in a prison riot at Mazar-i-Sharif.

Like all the other military personnel in the hearing room, fashioned under a low ceiling in a double-wide trailer, the officer had his name tag covered with masking tape.

The Sudanese prisoner was at first sullen and responded tersely through his translator to questions about whether he understood the purpose of the proceeding. But when his turn came to rebut the accusations, he grew angry at the American military officers, at times lecturing the panel.

No, he said, he had never heard of the man described as his special friend. He was at Mazar-i-Sharif, he said, but could not have participated in the riot by captives at the ancient fortress there in 2002, as the Taliban collapsed, because he was handcuffed the entire time.

As to the accusation that he had weapons training, he said: "What is wrong with that? Is it forbidden by the United States for anyone in the world to train with a rifle?"

Asked whether he was a threat to the United States, he replied: "Never. I want to get married and live in my house."

All the detainees whose cases are being heard by these administrative review boards have already been through a similar process in which different military panels determined that they had been properly imprisoned at Guantánamo as unlawful enemy combatants. During that set of hearings, 33 out of 558 detainees were deemed to have been improperly labeled enemy combatants. And about 5 of those 33 have been released, military officials said, because of difficulties in making arrangements to have them transferred to their home countries.

The new proceedings "are just like a parole board" for those held after the earlier round of hearings, said Capt. Eric Kaniut of the Navy, the chief administrator of both sets of hearings. "The bottom line we look at is whether they are a threat to the U.S."

So far, 64 detainees have had hearings scheduled before administrative review boards, and 39 have declined to attend. Captain Kaniut said one reason was that many were skeptical about the fairness of the proceedings. Another reason, he said, may be that the cases against them are so strong that a hearing would be futile.

[Larry]

Err challenging their imprisonment is part of due process...A major one,and usually the first step.

Actually, as I understand it, one of the things that Geneva requires is what's called a "classification hearing".

It's a judicial proceeding which I think of as kind of like an arraignment. At which the judge determines, based on a brief over of the evidence, which set of rules will be applied to the detainee.

I don't know if Geneva even requires that the detainee be present at this procedure. (Although I assume that he has representation.)

If the classification hearing says "unauthorized combatant", then I suppose the detainee has the right to challenge that classification, but I suspect it's going to be real tough for him to win.

(I also seem to recall that one thing Geneva requires is that the detainee, as soon as physically possible, be permitted to send a message informing his next of kin that he's been captured, and where he's being held. Somehow, I suspect that many of the people we detain are not given that right.)

[Fergasun]

Larry,

It did not sound like these folks had an adequate process.

Read the opinion.

[Larry]

Oh, I definitely have problems.

I have a problem with this absolutely ludicrous (actually, I think "Treasonous" is a better word) claim that there exists places where the US Government has power, but is exempt from restrictions on that power. That when you get to this magical place, that all of the parts of the Constitution that say "The government may not" disappear.

I have a problem with the assertion that years after being detained, the names of the people being detained cannot be revealed. (I can certainly see a reason, in the short term, detainees might be denied communication. Things like messages saying "I've been captured. Tell everybody in my cell to switch to their alternate identities. Habib sold me out. Kill him, and alert everybody who Habib knows." But after 5 years?)

I have a problem with the "burden of proof" being that every prisoner must be detained unless the court is certain that he will never in the future do anything contrary to US interests.

(OTOH, I have no problem with a rule saying that "Taliban soldiers will be eligible for release 90 days after the Taliban surrenders.")

I have a problem with the rule that the accused is not permitted to have an advocate on his side. One who has access to all of the evidence. (Maybe he isn't allowed to tell the client about the classified parts. But his JAG lawyer should have access.) Otherwise, who is the check, the person who sees to it that the court hears the evidence that's in the detainee's benefit?

----------

That said, though, I'll also observe. "Due Process" simply means that there exists a procedure. It doesn't mean that said procedure isn't more stacked than the trials in China.

[Koala]

How is the way we treat detainees in the war on terrorism vastly different from the way we treated P.O.W's from past wars?