DoJ recommends Bush strategy for terrorist detainees

posted at 11:36 am on January 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

I’m not surprised that the Department of Justice reached the same conclusion as the Bush administration on how to deal with unlawful combatants in a time of war.  I’m just surprised that they publicly admitted it:

A Justice Department-led task force has concluded that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war, according to Obama administration officials.

The task force’s findings represent the first time that the administration has clarified how many detainees it considers too dangerous to release but unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion.

Human rights advocates have bemoaned the administration’s failure to fulfill President Obama’s promise last January to close the Guantanamo Bay facility within a year as well as its reliance on indefinite detention, a mechanism devised during George W. Bush’s administration that they deem unconstitutional.

“There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people without charge or trial indefinitely,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Actually, yes there is.  In a time of war, we are not required to release combatants from detention regardless of whether they are lawful or unlawful.  Either both sides must wait for hostilities to come to an end before releasing unlawful combatants and POWs, or they can agree to exchanges during hostilities (a practice that has all but disappeared from modern warfare anyway).  In fact, unlawful combatants — those that attack without wearing uniforms or identify themselves with legitimate partisan militias, and those who target civilians — can be summarily shot after a status determination by a military tribunal.

Nothing requires us to end detentions until the end of hostilities.  If the detainees were stupid enough to join an endless jihad against the US, that’s their problem, not ours, in terms of the length of their detention.

Of course, that means actually acknowledging that the US is at war with these terrorist networks rather than attempting to contain a crime spree.  Barack Obama finally started using the war terminology after the Christmas Day terrorist attack attempt, and the DoJ has begun understanding it as well.  Of course, that doesn’t actually jibe with their actions, at least not this week, as Obama sent two more Gitmo detainees to Algeria — which has a growing al-Qaeda network.  Thomas Joscelyn explains the risks:

One of the two was implicated in al Qaeda’s millennium plot against Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in California. The other is allegedly a devout takfiri, who was plotting attacks against American forces in Afghanistan in 2002 and was also responsible for two attacks against churches in Pakistan that same year.

The first of the two is Hasan Zumiri (or Hasan Zemiri), an Algerian who lived in the West for years. In Canada, Zumiri was friends with millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam, who plotted to attack LAX in California in late 1999. According to a memo prepared at Guantanamo, Zumiri gave “a video recorder to an individual in order to obtain a reconnaissance video of the target and as a prop when the attack is executed.” In addition, Zumiri gave “an individual 3,500 Canadian Dollars to support the attack in the United States.”

The “individual” in question was Ahmed Ressam, who identified Zumiri while in U.S. custody. The “attack in the United States” was to be Ressam’s attack on LAX, which was disrupted when Ressam was arrested while entering the country from Canada. Ressam, who has cooperated with American authorities since his arrest, later tried to take back his implication of Zumiri (reportedly with the assistance of Zumiri’s attorney), but still conceded that Zumiri gave him the camera and cash. In addition to being used for surveillance, Ressam told authorities that the camera Zumiri gave him was to make him look more like a tourist while carrying out his attack.

According to documents produced at Gitmo, Zumiri knew that Ressam and others were mixing explosives for the attack and wanted to take part. Indeed, Ressam told authorities that Zumiri was aware that he was going to carry out “a job in America.” …

The other Gitmo detainee transferred to Algeria is Adil Hadi al Jazairi Bin Hamlili. According to documents produced at Gitmo, Hamlili is a particularly nasty takfiri, which means he is a hardcore ideologue who believes that not only Christians and Jews, but also most Muslims, are infidels.  In fact, Hamlili allegedly killed Osama bin Laden’s personal representative in Pakistan because Hamlili felt he had violated sharia law. Despite this incident, memos produced at Gitmo note that Hamlili worked for the Taliban, al Qaeda and a variety of other terrorist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Hamlili was allegedly part of a trained IED cell plotting attacks against Americans in 2002.

We know that these two men prepared terrorist attacks against the US, and now we’re setting them free.  Why?  If we’re going to keep 50 incorrigibles indefinitely, then why release any of them?  They should remain in our custody in the military system until the hostilities cease.  We can keep building prisons, after all.

Or, more to the point, we can keep the one we have that was expressly designed for that purpose.  Why close Gitmo?  It is still the best operational venue for terrorist detention.  If we’re agreed that we need to hold them, let’s hold them in the place  we designed for it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Circle jerk of confusion and duplicity. Obama administration defined.

Fletch54 on January 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Barrack W. Obama

fogw on January 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM

That darned Bush. He apparently was a lot smarter than he let on.

BetseyRoss on January 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

It’s the number 1 Al-Qaeda recruiting tool! /

Disturb the Universe on January 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Obama’s ego is too big. He’ll close it no matter what.

nickj116 on January 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

More liberals become disenchanted with Teh One.

Disturb the Universe on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

One part of the country lives in the universe of truth, and the liberals live in the universe of lies. They are completely unable to swerve into the correct thing to do. They refuse to let words have a static meaning and to acknowledge the existence of evil in the world. They are reckless and dangerous. The continual obsession with style over substance is failing every day. It is a matter of time before more people get hurt.

daesleeper on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

This should be good for another 5 point drop in approval.

txag92 on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Let’s see now. Where has the Obama administration strayed away from Bush Policy? Oh yeah, trying MKH in New York City.

Inquiring minds want to know, how will that pan out?

*snort*

fogw on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Can flushing Korans down the toilet be far behind?

Disturb the Universe on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM


In fact, unlawful combatants — those that attack without wearing uniforms or identify themselves with legitimate partisan militias, and those who target civilians — can be summarily shot after a status determination by a military tribunal.

Well now THAT’S the best idea I’ve heard all day!

Tony737 on January 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Bush was right… funny thing… EAT IT OBAMA!

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Or, more to the point, we can keep the one we have that was expressly designed for that purpose. Why close Gitmo? It is still the best operational venue for terrorist detention. If we’re agreed that we need to hold them, let’s hold them in the place we designed for it.

Because than we can’t cry booooooosh…

SHARPTOOTH on January 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

That darned Bush. He apparently was a lot smarter than he let on. – BetseyRoss

He’s an evil genius!

Tony737 on January 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Later today:

“I have asked for the resignation of the Attorney General. The DoJ findings concerning GITMO made public earlier today are an embarrassment to me personally and to the policy of my regime. This cannot stand. Accordingly, I am tossing Mr. Holder under the bus. Let me be clear….insubordination will not be tolerated in my White House. Staff and other other people not as powerful nor as smart as I am will not be permitted to act in ways counter to my interests, even if such action is wholly based on protecting this country.

Thanks for coming. Uh…by the way….I’m considering another long-time friend and heavy contributor, Martha Lewis, as the next Attorney General.”

BobMbx on January 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

“There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people citizens without charge or trial indefinitely,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Fixed it for him, not that he will understand. If we had followed the rules of war in place for the past 400 years or so, these terrorists would have been hung or shot shortly after their capture.

Vashta.Nerada on January 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Oh yeah, trying MKH in New York City.

fogw on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Why is Mary Katherine Ham on trial???

CurtZHP on January 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Change!

Track-A-'Crat on January 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Barack Obama- single handedly restoring George Bush’s reputation.

anniekc on January 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Let’s see now. Where has the Obama administration strayed away from Bush Policy? Oh yeah, trying MKH in New York City.

fogw on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Mary Katharine Ham’s on trial? :)

Doughboy on January 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Floundering.

petefrt on January 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

I’m sure this will be mentioned in the SOTU.

txag92 on January 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

He needed some excuse for not shutting down GITMO within one year the way he promised.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

“There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people without charge or trial indefinitely,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

There’s that word ‘regime’ again…

This DoJ recommendation should lose Obowmao another few popularity points, this time from his own side. What a week!

Liam on January 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I’m just surprised that they publicly admitted it:

Why close Gitmo? It is still the best operational venue for terrorist detention. If we’re agreed that we need to hold them, let’s hold them in the place we designed for it.

Is DOJ simply giving Obama the cover that he should’ve realized that he needed a year ago before he signed the stupid EXORD to close the damn place? It’s now obviously post the deadline for his ill-advised closure. I think DOJ is walking Obama back to the status quo he rails against so much and is now forced to admit is in the best interests of the country. Hard to tack on “progress” to sh!t that’s already maximized the amount of tolerable imperfections, ain’t it there champ?

B+

ted c on January 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

“There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people without charge or trial indefinitely,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

They’re not in America. That is the whole point of Gitmo.

neobadger on January 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Why is Mary Katherine Ham on trial???

CurtZHP on January 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Ha. KSM, yeah. Need more coffee.

fogw on January 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Related parody: Obama Orders Indefinite Detention of Officials from Previous Administration So They Can Continue Policies He Opposed During the Presidential Campaign http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-orders-indefinite-detention-of.html

Mervis Winter on January 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM

That darned Bush. He apparently was a lot smarter than he let on.

BetseyRoss

Yeah, those darned Texans will fool you like that.

Crusader Rabbit on January 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Bestest Administration, evah!

GarandFan on January 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

So, how does this mesh with Holder’s decision to deliver the Chistmas crotch bomber into the tender arms of our criminal justice system while denying our intelligence people the opportunity to meaningfully question him? this administration just makes up rules as it goes with absolutely no coherent policy.

a capella on January 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

[sarc]
Oh, but, but, but now we’re going to create more terrorists by keeping those people indefinitely without a trial. The cycle of violence will never end this way! That’s the whole reason that so many of them hate us remember?
[/sarc]

MJBrutus on January 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Another solution: Don’t bother detaining them. Its lawful, economical, and elimitates some potential future problems with releasing people who’s life mission it is to kill Americans.

hooligan on January 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

A little OT, but at least still pertaining to terrorists:

TSA worker plays “joke” on passenger

Tell me again I can trust them with full body scans? Or security in general?

DrAllecon on January 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

OT: Heard on the Mark Levin show that the ACLU lost a Huge donor (approx. 25% of their funding) the other day. Looks like someone else is fixing to need a bailout! :)

Dire Straits on January 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Well, somebody’s gotta tell the President how to be the President.

bridgetown on January 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Cheney: Louie
Obama: pudding

Christien on January 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Obama favors status quo
.
bears repeating….
Obama favors status quo
Obama favors status quo
Obama favors status quo

ted c on January 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Politicians sometimes refer to a status quo. Often there is a policy of deliberate ambiguity, referring to the status quo rather than formalizing the status. Clark Kerr is reported to have said, “The status quo is the only solution that cannot be vetoed,” meaning that the status quo cannot simply be decided against; action must be taken if it is to change

Obama’s against Change?
broken campaign promise

ted c on January 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

So, how does this mesh with Holder’s decision to deliver the Chistmas crotch bomber into the tender arms of our criminal justice system while denying our intelligence people the opportunity to meaningfully question him? this administration just makes up rules as it goes with absolutely no coherent policy.

a capella on January 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Two words______Total Incompatence.

SHARPTOOTH on January 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Of course, that means actually acknowledging that the US is at war with these terrorist networks rather than attempting to contain a crime spree.

Obama & Holder are certainly not at this point yet and I seriously doubt they ever will be.

jwolf on January 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Imagine that…keep people who have sworn to destroy us locked up where they can’t. Well, duhhhhh!

kingsjester on January 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

But…. but…..

What about those 7000 jobs that were promised to the people of Illinois if the detainees were moved to a federal prison there?

There are going to be a lot of disappointed Democraps in Chicagoland this year…..

UltimateBob on January 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I hope the KSM trial gets started before midterms. Should be good for another half dozen House seats and maybe another senator or two. I sense that Holder will go under the bus pretty soon, leaving The One with deniability. They can’t continue to ignore the public anger.

a capella on January 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

So, they’ll keep Gitmo open, but not put anyone there. UFA the Panty Bomber, gets three hots and a cot in Detroit or somewheres, and all the other peeps in Gitmo get sent back to Algiers, Yemen or wherever. Translation: We won’t close gitmo, we just won’t put anyone there either.
.
“….to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…..”

ted c on January 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

OK, how about we just hang a sign outside Gitmo that says, “Open under new Management”. Next we drop leaflets over the war zones inviting everyone to “Barak Obama’s Endless Summer Camp for Muslim Boys, All Meals Included!” Then we declare Gitmo closed and all those wacky Jihadis are just at Summer Camp.

trubble on January 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM

“There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people without charge or trial indefinitely,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

But the detainees aren’t IN America, and they’re not U.S. citizens. But German POWs were held in the U.S. for years, so it’s not like there’s no legal precedent for it.

The fact that lawyers and courts are trying to apply U.S. laws is a source of much amusement for me. If our laws apply to foreigners, why don’t we charge them all with tax evasion?

hawksruleva on January 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Imagine that…keep people who have sworn to destroy us locked up where they can’t. Well, duhhhhh!

kingsjester on January 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Whats it matter. People in the White House and Congress who have sworn to uphold the Constitution from domestic enemies are, in fact, domestic enemies. I’m guessing Holder is so big on the “hugs for thugs” approach to terrorism as a professional courtesy.

highhopes on January 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Why close Gitmo?

“Well…uhh…you see…uhhhhh…well, the uhhh rest of the uhhh mmmmm world….uhhhhh…doesn’t…uhhhh….like us. But let me be perfectly clear….uhhhh…mmmmm….we want…uhh..the ummmm rest of the….ahhhhh world to…uh…like us.”

GoldenEagle4444 on January 22, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Tony737 on January 22, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Either that or just never capture them – battlefield justice works for me.

katiejane on January 22, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Huh.

MassVictim on January 22, 2010 at 12:06 PM

That Bush fella had some good ideas on how to defend this country. Too bad he doesn’t get credit till after he’s gone.

lorien1973 on January 22, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Perpetual incarceration w/out trial corrupts liberty.

A constitutional change is needed to account for foreign terrorists. Criteria for a closed trial needs to be developed, perhaps with some kind of point system. Points could accrue for being captured in battle, promoting radical Islam, violence against guards, threats etc… Have an open military trial on just that in order to determine if a closed trial is justified. Then prosecute them without anyone chosen by the defense having access to whatever evidence needs to be kept secret.

If America is too politically corrupt to agree on that or some other constitutional change that eliminates perpetual incarceration without trial, we’re too politically corrupt to perpetually incarcerate anyone without trial. Today it’s terrorists, tomorrow its criminals, day after that it’s political opponents.

elfman on January 22, 2010 at 12:08 PM

“….to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…..”

ted c on January 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM

TOTUS wasn’t present at the inauguration so this line meant nothing, plus I think I saw Ob*ma crossing his fingers.

Electrongod on January 22, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Obama Caligula is now in charge…

PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 12:08 PM

A little OT, but at least still pertaining to terrorists:

TSA worker plays “joke” on passenger

Tell me again I can trust them with full body scans? Or security in general?

DrAllecon on January 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM

That’s nothing. Some people in this current administration thinks they should be unionized.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM

I know this is sort of a reach but Marc Thiessen’s book Courting Diaster is causing the Obie Team major headaches. Every left wing show he has been on he has B!tch slapped them to the floor. I just believe that some people are starting to notice this even Obie’s tone death crew.

Dire Straits on January 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Jeb and Lynn in 2012.

Bush/Cheney 2012!

lavell12 on January 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM

That’s nothing. Some people in this current administration thinks they should be unionized.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM

An even scarier thought. At least that jackass lost his job. If unionized nothing at all would have happened, and this will happen even more often.

DrAllecon on January 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Let’s see now. Where has the Obama administration strayed away from Bush Policy? Oh yeah, trying MKH in New York City.

Inquiring minds want to know, how will that pan out?

*snort*

fogw on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I see someone else has corrected you on your initial mix up.

As for the trial of KSM and friends, the Democrat politicians who represent Lower Manhattan are now advocating a slight change of venue-from the courthouse near Ground Zero to nearby Governors Island in NY Harbor.

http://www.ny1.com/5-manhattan-news-content/top_stories/112391/kelly-considers-proposal-to-move-terror-trials-to-governors-island

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I know this is sort of a reach but Marc Thiessen’s book Courting Diaster is causing the Obie Team major headaches. Every left wing show he has been on he has B!tch slapped them to the floor. I just believe that some people are starting to notice this even Obie’s tone death crew.

Dire Straits on January 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Really? Noted HA rocket scientist Norman Blizter assured us yesterday that Marc had been b*tch-slapped by Christiane Amanpour on CNN. And Norm has never been wrong before, has he?

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM

I’m surprised there hasn’t been more made of the fact that Obama promised time and again that Gitmo would be closed by today. You’d think the usual crowd would want to protest.

It’s been a great week.

Scott Brown wins and the people of Boston are wandering around asking one another what a R-MA is.

Healthcare is in the ICU and could well need use of the DNR order.

The Dems have been both sniping and scared about the election results.

Holder is exposed for over-reaching in a terrorism case.

DOJ admits Bush was right.

The thug nominated for the TSA skulks back under whatever rock he came from.

Oh Happy Days!!! Here’s looking at more weeks like this!

highhopes on January 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM

A Justice Department-led task force has concluded that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war, according to Obama administration officials.

Just another brick in the wall of Bush Vindication.

No need to worry about waiting 25 years for History to vindicate the Bush administration….
…..Obama is doing a fine job of it.

Here is a great article written by a (D) John Kerry legal advisor:

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a journalist and lawyer who served on Senator John F. Kerry’s legal team during the 2004 election. He is currently organizing a nationwide effort called “Honor Freedom” to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine, which can be reached at http://www.honorfreedom.com


America Betrayed President Bush
President Bush deserves our respect not our scorn.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro 
 - FOXNews.com
 - January 19, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/19/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-bush-obama-president-betrayed/#/opinion/ci.America+Betrayed+President+Bush.opinionPrint

In the wake of this stunning adoption of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, there is little, if any dissent. The same people who crucified Bush for liberating Iraq are hardly criticizing Obama for using force to promote democracy in Afghanistan.

Despite what Michael Moore implied in his film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Congress did not base their 2002 authorization for the Iraq War solely on the premise that Saddam Hussein either had or was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Their legislation reads very clearly that America’s purpose in sending troops back to Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions, some of which were violated in the 1990’s and probably should have been enforced by President Clinton. Whether actual weapons were found or not, the war in Iraq was legally and morally justifiable, and necessary.

As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of terrorism.

BUSH WAS RIGHT!!!!!

Baxter Greene on January 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

If America is too politically corrupt to agree on that or some other constitutional change that eliminates perpetual incarceration without trial, we’re too politically corrupt to perpetually incarcerate anyone without trial.

elfman on January 22, 2010 at 12:08 PM

It’s not incarceration; that’s a penalty following trial. It’s detention; custody awaiting a disposition. The disposition in this case is STOP TRYING TO KILL US!

Contrary to what Ed says above, POWs are not repatriated at the cessation of hostilities. We were still sending German POWs home in prudent dribs and drabs in the late 40s. Wars are not over until all such niceties are tied up. WWII didn’t end until the fall of ’51 with the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco.

Also, elfman, there’s a bright-line standard between enemy hostiles picked up on the battlefield or trying to take down an airliner and a criminal picked up at the scene of the crime. I’m certain there must have been an episode or two of confusion over our 200+ years but hardly enough to indicate this is policy sorely in need of reevaluation.

Chaz on January 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Human rights advocates have bemoaned the administration’s failure to fulfill President Obama’s promise last January to close the Guantanamo Bay facility within a year as well as its reliance on indefinite detention, a mechanism devised during George W. Bush’s administration that they deem unconstitutional.

Indefinite detention didn’t start with the Bush administration.

chemman on January 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Here is a great article written by a (D) John Kerry legal advisor:

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a journalist and lawyer who served on Senator John F. Kerry’s legal team during the 2004 election. He is currently organizing a nationwide effort called “Honor Freedom” to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine, which can be reached at http://www.honorfreedom.com

Baxter Greene on January 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Interesting story. I wonder what Shapiro thinks of the lawsuit filed against his former 2004 employer a few weeks ago by Ralph Nader? Nader alleges that the 2004 “nominee” and his people had conspired to keep his name off the ballot.

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

unlawful combatants — those that attack without wearing uniforms or identify themselves with legitimate partisan militias, and those who target civilians — can be summarily shot after a status determination by a military tribunal.

It is indicative of the deep wussification of our country, even as our Islamic enemies plot to kill us, that our Govt cannot bring itself to do this least risky, cost effective and sensible thing. Our leaders – and George Washington Univ. law Profs – would rather see thousands of us blown to little pieces while they sanctimoniously preen themselves with childish liberal rationalizations.

Chessplayer on January 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM

highhopes on January 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM

You…You…You… We’re doin’ OK, We’re doing OK” – Ob*ma.

Electrongod on January 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Then prosecute them without anyone chosen by the defense having access to whatever evidence needs to be kept secret.

elfman on January 22, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Defeats your whole argument. It will just result in detention via a show trial. The Laws of War allow for the indefinite detention of hostiles. If you aren’t pleased with them lobby the countries that have signed to change them.

chemman on January 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Of course this is a seriously underreported story by the MSM because Obama has been laying the ground work for this all through 2009:

Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
By EVAN PEREZ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html#printMode

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil — indefinitely and without trial — as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Going backwards on indefinite detention, too?

posted at 1:34 pm on November 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/15/going-backwards-on-indefinite-detention-too/#comment-1651600

That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.


“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,” said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.

Well of course you have to be able to “preventively detain someone”…clearly an argument that the Bush administration made for years but were called “war criminals” by the very same people who advocate it now.

Even Obama’s Solicitor General Nominee supports these “war crimes” the left whined and cried about so much:

Indefinite Detention-Lite: Et Tu, Elena Kagan?
By Spencer Ackerman 2/11/09 11:22 AM

Last week, CIA Director-designate appeared to argue that certain Al Qaeda detainees were too dangerous to stand trial — something that threw civil libertarians for a loop, given the recent executive orders from the Obama administration ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the CIA’s secret prisons and a thorough review of future detention policy. Now it looks like Panetta has company. At her confirmation hearing yesterday, Elena Kagan, the administration’s nominee to be solicitor general, made a similar point,

according to the Los Angeles Times:

Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

Obama has had this position in the shadows for quite awhile with the MSM and it’s democratic activists have provided cover for him by keeping it in the shadows.

But what is even more telling about this whole faux,selective outrage coming from the left for so long,is that while Obama postured and pranced about self-righteously saying he was going to “restore” our standing in the world…..
……..he is supporting a bigger version of Gitmo in Bagram that affords very little rights to the terrorist held there.


Obama Administration: Guantanamo Detainees Have More Rights than Bagram Detainees, Who Have None

September 15, 2009 4:15 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/obama-administration-guantanamo-detainees-have-more-rights-than-bagram-detainees-who-have-none.html


Whatever limited rights detainees at Guantanamo have under the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration argued in a brief filed last night, they are not shared by detainees in Afghanistan.

President Obama’s Justice Department last night filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia arguing that the 600 or so detainees the U.S. is holding in Afghanistan at Bagram Air Base have no right to have their cases heard in U.S. courts.  Unlike detainees at Guantanamo, those being held in Bagram – many of whom were picked up outside of Afghanistan — have had no access to attorneys or to even hear the allegations against them.

….Calling code pink!!!!
……….calling International Answer!!!!
…………..calling Move on!!!!!
………………calling hollywood!!!!!!!!!!

Where are all your “anit-war” marches calling out Obama for being a “torturer” and a “war criminal”.

………oh,that’s right…….
…………..when a democrat is in the White House…..

…………..WAR IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!

Baxter Greene on January 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Somewhere in Texas, a cowboy is smiling.

Dubn8tr on January 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

If the detainees were stupid enough to join an endless jihad against the US, that’s their problem, not ours, in terms of the length of their detention.

Thats the money line right there Ed. Well done!

JusDreamin on January 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Of course, that means actually acknowledging that the US is at war with these terrorist networks rather than attempting to contain a crime spree.

Only Congress can do that (declare war). They have not. They don’t want to suspend every insurance policy in America due to the non-existential (and really, rather mundane) threat of terrorism. Declaring this to be a war is an over-reaction.

Too bad the Constitution doesn’t have any mention of how to deal with these modern day pirates. OH WAIT.

Mark Jaquith on January 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Have not heard anything about that…..

………but it would not surprise me to see Nader,Ron Paul,and Cynthia Mckinney sitting at the same table competing on who is the most paranoid.

http://www.ny1.com/5-manhattan-news-content/top_stories/112391/kelly-considers-proposal-to-move-terror-trials-to-governors-island

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Thanks for the link….great info.

Baxter Greene on January 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Somewhere in Texas, a cowboy is smiling.

Dubn8tr on January 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

It’s not Jerry Jones

Baxter Greene on January 22, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Human rights advocates have bemoaned the

administration’s failure to fulfill President Obama’s promise last January to close the Guantanamo Bay facility within a year as well as its reliance on indefinite detention, a mechanism devised during George W. Bush’s administration that they deem unconstitutional.

Indefinite detention didn’t start with the Bush administration.

chemman on January 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Great point ignored by many a leftist activists and the MSM.

Baxter Greene on January 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM

ObaMao: “If you like the prison detention facility that you have, you can keep it…”

onlineanalyst on January 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Indefinite detention didn’t start with the Bush administration.

chemman on January 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Yeah..but..but…we were at war with the Japanese…it was different, man! They were fighting dirty too…you know…the Bonzai charges, kamikazes, cutting the heads off of US soldiers and civilians and all that.

Those folks in GITMO didn’t do anything like that….oh….wait….

BobMbx on January 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM

*snicker*

TN Mom on January 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Only Congress can do that (declare war). They have not. They don’t want to suspend every insurance policy in America due to the non-existential (and really, rather mundane) threat of terrorism.

Mark Jaquith on January 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Not sure if you meant this as sarcasm or not, but we all learned the folly of Life Insurance Companies refusing to pay out due to the “act of war” or “act of terrorism” sort of clauses on Sept 12, 2001.

Can you say “Public Relations Failure”? That position evaporated about 2 minutes after it was broadcast.

“Sorry, we’ll pay. No problem at all.”

BobMbx on January 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Really? Noted HA rocket scientist Norman Blizter assured us yesterday that Marc had been b*tch-slapped by Christiane Amanpour on CNN. And Norm has never been wrong before, has he?

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Thanks for the info! Don’t watch Blitzer much (Thank God for Fox News) but wasn’t he the one on Celebrity Jeopardy that ended up in Negative Dollars? If he can watch that video and say that Christiane B-Slapped Marc then I can see how he ended up in negative $$$ and he is certifiable a Loon.

Dire Straits on January 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

these libs are just shameless. its OK if they do something, but sinful if a republican does it…

some pigs are more equal than others…Orwell understood these PROGESSIVE FASCISTS all too well…

right4life on January 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Let’s see now. Where has the Obama administration strayed away from Bush Policy? Oh yeah, trying MKH in New York City.

Inquiring minds want to know, how will that pan out?

*snort*

fogw on January 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM

They’re putting Mary Katherine Hamm on trial?! What did she do?

stvnscott on January 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Hmmm maybe GWB knew what he was doing huh Barry?

gophergirl on January 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM

It looks like they wanted to figure this one out on their own. I guess they could have listened to us, but that means they would have to acknowledge that we were right.

tommer74 on January 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM

………but it would not surprise me to see Nader,Ron Paul,and Cynthia Mckinney sitting at the same table competing on who is the most paranoid.

Baxter Greene on January 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Now I would like to see that! Can we throw in Jesse Ventura to round out the panel? Plus we could let George Noory narrate. Can you imagine? That would be priceless!

Dire Straits on January 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Should have hanged the jihadis years ago.

Those who forced the Gitmo releases of “innocentillegal enemy combatants ~who then returned to Islamofascistic terrorism~ should be tracked down, held to account, meaning: fired if on the government psyroll as incompetent, at best, and made an example of.

As demonstrations of the deadly flaw in political correct thought.

profitsbeard on January 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM

In fact, unlawful combatants — those that attack without wearing uniforms or identify themselves with legitimate partisan militias, and those who target civilians — can be summarily shot after a status determination by a military tribunal.

Sounds fair to me. And think how much money we’d save by dispatching them to their virgins sooner rather than later. No Gitmo housing, no guards, no lawyers, no Korans and prayer rugs, etc., to be supplied to them indefinitely at U.S. taxpayer expense. And best reason of all to choose this option: no chance of them re-offending.

AZCoyote on January 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM

The Nazis committed lots of horrible, unspeakable crimes against humanity, but the one thing they did nobody cares about is the summary execution of French resistance fighters. Why? Because these fighters were, by definition, unlawful combatants and subject to whatever punishment the Germans wished to mete out.

Kafir on January 22, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Two words______Total Incompatence.

SHARPTOOTH on January 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Funny, I’d have chosen different words. One would be “cluster”….

cthulhu on January 22, 2010 at 2:05 PM

And then they arrest the underwear bomber as a common criminal, read him his Miranda rights and let him lawyer up. “We’ve met the enemy and he is us!”

Dandapani on January 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Howzabout we get serious with all these people who want us dead by getting as much information from them as possible using any means available (and yes, I mean “torture”) then executing them.

Make them fear us. Make them quake in their sandals at the thought of being caught and sent to Guantanamo. Make them think twice and question the mad mullahs encouraging their martyrdom. Make them ask themselves, “Is it really worth it?” before they strap on their suicide vest.

If we turn the tables on them, then we can start winning.

BackwardsBoy on January 22, 2010 at 3:35 PM

This thread is a lie!

Gitmo is closed… Troops are out of Iraq… All Bills are Available on the Internet… C-SPAN is showing congressional committee meetings… Lobbyists are out of the White House… No Special Deals for Corporations or Interest Groups… Earmarks Are Gone… Unemployment Peaked at 8% After Stimulus…

mankai on January 22, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Why is Mary Katherine Ham on trial???

CurtZHP

Don’t know, but it outta be a crime to be that hot AND intelligent.

xblade on January 22, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Should have hanged the jihadis years ago.

Those who forced the Gitmo releases of “innocentillegal enemy combatants ~who then returned to Islamofascistic terrorism~ should be tracked down, held to account, meaning: fired if on the government payroll as incompetent, at best, and made an example of.

As demonstrations of the deadly flaw in political correct thought.

profitsbeard on January 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2