Questions about "prolonged detention"
Please help me out. I'm not a big student of politics or law, and I'm confused.
President Obama just gave a speech about detainees and how to deal with them, and he proposed some new stuff about keeping folks for a prolonged period of time when you can't convict them of anything but know they're bad guys. Obviously some people are upset about his proposals, which is normal with all things political. But the people complaining are saying essentially that it's unconstitutional to keep people in prisons indefinitely without charges.
Doesn't the constitution only apply to citizens of the country, or people here legally? Shouldn't we be more concerned with making sure the Geneva conventions are adhered to, since they're sort of prisoners of war? And why can't we just give these people back to their own countries so they can try and jail them and whatever? Seems to me this is a new situation... the US is at war but not with specific countries. At war with groups of people, terrorist organizations, etc. There doesn't seem to be an existing set of rules to deal with people you pick up on the battlefield shooting at you, when you can't send them back to their own governments to deal with when the war's over. What does the Geneva convention, or any international rules, say about stuff like this? You pick up a guy in Afghanistan because he's shooting at your guys. He's Pakistani. He's sitting in your jail telling you he can't wait to get out and blow up more Americans. Your evidence isn't strong or is tainted (also, what does that mean? I hear that a lot, that we've got bad guys who we can't convict because of "tainted evidence"). Pakistan doesn't want him back. What's supposed to happen?
Sorry if this seems ignorant and confusing... I'm very confused myself.
Re: Questions about "prolonged detention"
The Bush administration's position was that those detainees were: 1) Not Prisoners of War, and therefore are not covered by the Geneva Accords; and 2) Not criminal defendants, and therefore are not covered by the Bill of Rights. They came up with an abomination called the "Unlawful Combatant" classification, which basically meant that they were non-persons with no rights.
The parts of the Bill of Rights that seem most relevant to me (Amendments V, VI and VIII) don't give citizenship as a condition; they simply say "person" or "the accused".
The first huge disappointment (for me) in the Obama administration is that he'd consider, for even a minute, continuing to hold people in prison without formal charges or a proper trial. "We can't prove it in a fair trial, but we just know they're dangerous, so we're locking them up forever. Trust us on this." That's something you expect from tyrannies.
Re: Questions about "prolonged detention"
When dealing with public safety and a sneaky enemy, any detention of suspects should be done with the assumption of complete innocence, and detainees should be treated respectfully.
If the security forces are not just clutching at straws, how long should it take them to make all the enquiries they need to make about person x's associates and activities?
Let's say the combined forces of government and intelligence need 3 mth - surely any longer should be a joke or a sign of incompetence? - until the moment they have enough evidence to bring charges of some sort related to terrorism, their personhood and human rights should be given the same consideration we would want, if not actually expect, from our enemies!
Re: Questions about "prolonged detention"
Quote:
Originally posted by Baldwin
The Bush administration's position was that those detainees were: 1) Not Prisoners of War, and therefore are not covered by the Geneva Accords; and 2) Not criminal defendants, and therefore are not covered by the Bill of Rights. They came up with an abomination called the "Unlawful Combatant" classification, which basically meant that they were non-persons with no rights.
Actually, AIUI, until the 1977 additions to the Geneva Accords "unlawful combatants" was a recognized category. FTM, "mercenary" still is recognized that way. And those persons were specifically excepted from any Geneva protections.
And the couple of times I went through the additions proposed in 1977, there were some pretty insurgent friendly terms in there. Enough so that I think any nation would be insane to accept them. Again, however, this is just my impression as a layperson having read through them one night a couple years ago. I may be mistaken about that.
Personally, if we can't prove in a court of law (And IMNSHO a Court Martial should be able to work for that - so long as the evidence is made available to everyone in the court.) that so-and-so was breaking the law, one way or the other, it's time to find something else to do with them. Habeas Corpus is too important to fuck with this way.
