Guantanamo Update
| Mon Jan. 12, 2009 10:45 PM PST
GUANTÁNAMO UPDATE....The latest on Guantánamo:
President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.
But experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.
This doesn't surprise me in either respect. That is, it doesn't surprise me that Obama plans to issue the order immediately, and it also doesn't surprise me that he thinks it will take upwards of a year to actually complete the shutdown. It will.
So far, Obama has been as good as his word on a wide variety of subjects, which means he deserves the benefit of the doubt here. Figuring out what to do with detainees at Guantanamo really is a tough problem, and suggesting that it will take several months to resolve is just a recognition of reality. Still, we'd all like something a little better than "trust us," and Hilzoy suggests a couple of things that would help:
Luckily, the Obama administration can help us out here, by doing a couple of things that would clearly demonstrate good faith, and that the administration could do by fiat. First, it could suspend ongoing trials under the existing system of military commissions. That system is a joke. There is no reason to go on using it.
Second, it could accept the Uighurs into the United States. The Uighur detainees at Guantanamo have been found not to be enemy combatants. They have never taken up arms against the United States. The Uighur community in DC is prepared to help them out, as are religious communities in DC and Tallahassee. A judge has ordered them to be released into this country. There is no earthly reason not to do so; after holding them for seven years, it's the least we can do.
Last month the Washington Post reported that several European countries have quietly made it known that once Obama takes office they're willing to consider resettling some of the Guantanamo detainees who can't be returned to their home countries. But one thing they want first is for the United States to take at least a few of the refugees itself as a show of goodwill that will help them sell the program to their own citizens. Apparently, though, the Bush White House has resisted the idea:
In interagency discussions, the State Department has argued that the Uighurs be brought to the United States to help persuade Europe to resettle other detainees. But a State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the departments of Homeland Security and Justice, as well as White House officials, considered resettlement in the United States a "red-line" issue.
Hopefully Obama can remove this red line, resettle the Uighurs, and get this program going.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Perhaps you should do some reading of the Geneva Conventions, Thomas.
For example, while article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention does have language about uniforms and identification, section 4.1.6 allows for combatants without uniform or identification.
Note also the commentary:
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution ? not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.)[3]
The concept of "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatant is discussed in the Fourth Geneva Convention but:
Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.".[4] In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."[5]
I've been seeing this everywhere in the last twelve or so hours. It's such a non-news kind of story. Of course it would take time to shut down a prison. I wonder if this is meant to make hardcore irrationals start picketing that somehow the lag time is a breech of promise on Obama's part.
The Democrats put the politics into play over Gitmo and now they have been handed the ball. Before the election they were all screaming even though they supported Bush at first in order to use it in politics later. The answer to Gitmo is really very simple. The military has always handled everything in the legal sense related to prisoners. This is no different with the exception their belong to no organized military or country.
For the ones they deem really guilty of committing crimes against Americans they proscute them in accordance with the military legal system. For the remainders they transport them back to their country of orgin and let them handle the issues.
It is time for the Democrats to stand up and deliver as promised.
Has anyone actually READ the Geneva Convention? "They belong to no organized military or country". And what does the GENEVA CONVENTION say about such guys, Gene44? They don't have any Uniforms or insignia. I believe that the GENEVA CONVENTIONS assigns them NO RIGHTS. They can be EXECUTED, on sight. You IDIOTS don't know what you're talking about. And, RENDITION? I don't remember any COMPLAINTS, when the RAPIST-Bill Clinton-was doing it. And, while we're at it, I don't remember any hue and cry when he was BOMBING SERBIA with NO CONGRESSIONAL APPROVEL, and NO CONSULTATIONS WITH THE UN. You look the other way, when it's your guy in the White House. And now that your Boy is in, he could crap on the stage, and you'ld marvel at the smell. Pathetic.
Perhaps you should do some reading of the Geneva Conventions, Thomas.
For example, while article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention does have language about uniforms and identification, section 4.1.6 allows for combatants without uniform or identification.
Note also the commentary:
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.)[3]
The concept of "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatant is discussed in the Fourth Geneva Convention but:
Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.".[4] In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."[5]
Submitted by DJK (not verified) on Tue Jan. 13, 2009 9:06 AM PST.
"So far, Obama has been as good as his word on a wide variety of subjects, which means he deserves the benefit of the doubt here."
Good on his word on a wide variety of subjects? Like never disowning his racist, anti-American pastor (oops). Or taking public financing (oops). Or not having lobbyists in his White House (oops). Or turning the page on the Clinton era (oops). Or ending the war swiftly (oops).
I could go on and on and on. Obama has already left a trail of broken promises. The kool-aid at Mother Jones is very, very strong.
1) He did disown specific statements of his pastor.
2) He never promised to take public financing. He said he'd consider it. Having considered it, he decided not to take it.
3) Um - he doesn't actually take office or occupy the White House till January 20.
4) When did he promise to "turn the page on the Clinton era"? Cite please
5) See item 3.
But do go on and on DJK - you are pretty hilarious.
