Imprisoned indefinitely without due process.

[The Postman]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ity_usa_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Citing intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials, the newspaper said the Pentagon (news - web sites) and the CIA (news - web sites) had asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it would not set free or turn over to courts at home or abroad.

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the newspaper.

The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share, The Post said.

"It would be modeled on a U.S. prison and would allow socializing among inmates," the paper said.

"Since global war on terror is a long-term effort, it makes sense for us to be looking at solutions for long-term problems," Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, was quoted as saying. "This has been evolutionary, but we are at a point in time where we have to say, 'How do you deal with them in the long term?"'

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke of the Air Force, had no information on the reported plan.

The Post said the outcome of a review under way would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

One proposal would transfer large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries, it said.

The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, a senior administration official was quoted as saying.

I'd like to see someone defend this course of action. Aren't we supposed to be this shining example to the world about justice and freedom, and yet, we just find a loophole of jurisdiction to completely fuck over the entire lives of a group of people because of lack of evidence, not because they're guilty, but because we can't pin them as such.

Before some asshat points out "dahhhh, they's suspected terrists!' I'll make it known that yes, I know this, and they were arrested probably for a reason, but nevertheless they are due the same justice system as us all if we, as a nation, are holding them. To claim to be morally superior and then suddenly take the low road is pretty damned hypocritical.

[RD]

i bet lifetime means till the moment Bush leaves office

[Duff-e]

im a firm believer in the "if it doesnt directly effect me i dont give a shit" philosophy

i could cry all day for martha stewart

and for the people from the tsunami

and the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay

and the baby seals being clubbed the world over

but to be honest, dont give a shit (and i also dont give a shit if you give a shit that i dont give a shit....so eat my shit)

it works on so many levels too....politics....global warming......the ECONOMY.....trust me, its the only way to live

[The Postman]

Wow you're a fucking moron. I know no flames, but man you're a moron Duffy.

Just remember what you said about it not effecting you, and it not mattering. I'm gonna bring this up whenever you mention a bunch of red-state crap about abortion (you're a male, doesn't effect you) and gay-marriage (you're not gay, nor married, doesn't effect you).

PS: thanks for not contributing and shitting up the thread.

You are naive to think that justice and freedom is for all.

If you are evil no justice nor freedom should rightly befall you.

Instead of cryptic bullshit, howabout supporting your claims with some facts, an anecdote perhaps or say a decent source.

[Fletch]

Duffy, you don't affect me, therefore I don't care what you think.

[The Postman]

Instead of cryptic bullshit, howabout supporting your claims with some facts, an anecdote perhaps or say a decent source.

Fact/anecdote and source of what?

If your evil, justice is that you have no freedom.

What in that sentence could possibly need a verification?

So...guilty until proven innocent eh? :roll:

[mawibse]

Since the short version was trolling I’ll give you the politically correct very long and explaining version:

The decision to send a detainee to Guantánamo is not taken lightly. Of 11,000 fighters detained in Afghanistan over two years by coalition forces, less than 800 have been sent to Guantánamo. More than 9,000 of those detained in Afghanistan have been released. Those who are sent to Guantánamo are held because they are of significant intelligence value or they pose a continuing danger as unlawful combatants to Americans and people from many other countries.

It’s important to note the “unlawful combatants” part since some tree huggers… hrrmmm people think that “unlawful combatants” is just a way to avoid the Geneva conventions when the opposite is true.

They are unlawful combatants because of the Geneva conventions, which clearly states rules such as “distinguishing themselves from the civilian population” and other, to a good man, seemingly obvious rules of war which if broken renders you an unlawful combatant.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters detained at Guantánamo were not entitled to prisoner-of-war status as a result of the choices they made engaged in waging war in a non “Geneva way”.

The United States is constantly and exhaustively reviewing the continued detention of each detainee. Detainees who are deemed not to return to fight against us are released. Scores have left Guantánamo on this basis already. More are expected to be released. Although the law of armed conflict establishes the right to detain combatants, lawful or unlawful, for the duration of the conflict, the United States has no interest in keeping a Guantánamo detainee any longer than necessary.

The purpose of the detention at Guantánamo Bay is defence, to keep Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from attacking us. The taking of prisoners in war has long been justified on this ground. And this is, after all, a war; a non-conventional war, yes, but still a war that is not over yet…

[The Postman]

There, much better. That's all I was asking for, reasonable, intelligent debate.

True it is an unconvential war, however it seems that you tiptoe around the main issue that is the focus of this article. The ones that are being detained indefinitely have no charges brought against them, they're held because they lack evidence. If they're just prisoners of war, they should just cut through the politic bullshit tape and call them such. That's fine, and there are rules for that as well. However, this isn't a nation we're fighting, this is a multi-national cause that, much like the "Drug War" has no viable, or immediate end in sight. In wars, the prisoners are eventually let go after the battles are done and the dust has settled, but to think that this "War on Terror" will end within my lifetime, let alone within the span of 10 years is nearly laughable.

If we are to become a beacon of justice, freedom and proof against the backlash of Anti-Americanism that's sprung up around the globe, the best way to do this is to maintain our idealized stance on justice and freedom. Not just for our own people, but for all. We are the last super power, and much like the Roman Empire was nothing more than Italy with a lot of trade contracts, we are no different. We essentially "rule" the world, and to maintain that rule we must lead by example, not by stooping to their level or compromising our values.

[mawibse]

Yeah I realize I was way to short before, sorry.

Yes it’s not likely we will see an end to the war on terrorism anytime soon. But I’m certain that when there is no real reason to detain them any longer they will be released.

But, I think the distinction between POW and Illegal combatant made is not to do with how long we could detain them (both is until the end of the war or longer) but as an incentive to all opposing us to fight according to Geneva. Also it gives some advantages to how we are allowed to interrogate them and such.

No, I don’t mean torture, for those rare that we must attain information from in such a manner, like al-Qaeda bigwigs Khaled Sheikh Muhammed and Abu Zubayda, those we send to a cooperative Arab government for interrogation where such interrogation methods is not against the law.

Might seem harsh but it’s for saving many lives.

As much as I like the idea of America being the beacon of justice and freedom there is this voice that tells me that it’s naïve to think like that. When you are in a position like Bush and his administration, you will look after the Americans interest the most and in the way you think is the most affective, with that kind of responsibility you realize that some freedom might have to be slightly compromised because if we loose the war, justice and freedom won’t mean a thing.

To tired now, I'll continue after I'v slept.

[kleinluka]

you pretty much ask to be flamed, Duffy

[von*ferret]

Didn't read the posts so I maybe repeating comments.

My thoughts are this. Its fucked up yes. But terrorists, if connected, do not count as american civilians. THey do not undergo privelages under the geneva conventions because they're considered to be working without uniform or allegience to a state. So in that role that they chose, I dont see why I disagree with their detainment.

Another way I look at this is that if we caught the people who were responsible for 9/11 if I would mind them to undergo this. Since terrorists we caught are all capable of what happened in 9/11 I dont pity them and their detainment.

[kleinluka]

The thing is they are detaining people they dont even have ultimate proof that they are terrorists. Just because they ran around suspiciously in Iraq or Afghanistan doesnt make them a terrorist you know? People are being locked away without proper proof and with no chance on a trial or seeing a lawyer.

And apart from that... the human rights apply to every human.

[von*ferret]

Well we all dont know exactly what proof we have against the detainess. However taking how US doesn't want to have anything affect its foreign policy I doubt we dont have evidence. Furthermore to give out what evidence we have could forfeit our contacts, spies, and what ever leverage we have in the region. That is not an option in this war. Human rights apply to humans, not these types of murderers.

[kleinluka]

Unfortunately they do apply to them too...

[von*ferret]

Your opinion, I wont hate you for it though cause I love you