Gates Calls for Indefinite Incarceration without Judiciary Review
Gates said the challenge is figuring out what to do with hard-core detainees who have "made very clear they will come back and attack this country."
He said it may require a new law to "address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever, but that doesn't get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released," Gates told the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee.
Read the full story.
Nominally, this article is about Gates calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility. His reasoning is that the bad press, both domestic and international, has ruined Guantanamo Bay. Postings to Guantanamo Bay are no longer respected, and the existence of the facility hurts US credibility in the International community.
In its place, Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants a new permanent prison constructed, where our government could hold individuals indefinitely, and without a trial, due to the risk that the prosecution fails to secure a conviction. Now, Gates intends to use this prison to hold terrorists. More specifically, this hypothetical prison is for detaining dangerous men and women who have stated their intention, upon release, to return to the United States and engage in more terrorist activity. It should be noted that some of these are individuals who the United States is trying to deport, and whose native countries are refusing to take responsibility for.
It almost sounds reasonable, doesn't it? It's not that simple. Let us, for the moment, assume that every single person that will ever be detained in this prison is 100% guilty and every bit as dangerous as Gates claims. This program would still be objectionable for several very important reasons. The most obvious relates to international relations. We have lost credibility because of Guantanamo Bay and the abuses perpetrated there. The immediate establishment of its replacement will not do much to help our international standing.
More importantly, it sets a precedent. I will not get into the Geneva Conventions themselves, because the current administration is actively seeking out every loophole it can find to circumvent them. However, should we adopt such a program, we would quickly find other nations doing the same. And while in this hypothetical situation the United States never abuses this prison system, we cannot expect the same elsewhere. Note that foreigners, especially military personnel are sometimes illegally held now (CNN: British Soldiers in Iran), but the United States loses its bargaining power and moral high ground if we do the same.
Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, or even a perfect country; I wouldn't be posting this if we did. We already know that when given new powers to fight terrorism, domestic law enforcement agencies will use them incorrectly and under routine investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism (CNN: Audit: FBI's Patriot Act snooping broke rules).
The Patriot Act is bad enough; no one should have to face the threat of lifetime imprisonment without a jury of one's peers, regardless of the charges against them. It may not seem like it to a defendant, but the court system is in place for our own protection. Due process is constitutionally guaranteed for a reason, and we should be very very sure that we know what we're doing before we wave it, for any reason.
He said it may require a new law to "address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever, but that doesn't get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released," Gates told the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee.
Read the full story.
Nominally, this article is about Gates calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility. His reasoning is that the bad press, both domestic and international, has ruined Guantanamo Bay. Postings to Guantanamo Bay are no longer respected, and the existence of the facility hurts US credibility in the International community.
In its place, Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants a new permanent prison constructed, where our government could hold individuals indefinitely, and without a trial, due to the risk that the prosecution fails to secure a conviction. Now, Gates intends to use this prison to hold terrorists. More specifically, this hypothetical prison is for detaining dangerous men and women who have stated their intention, upon release, to return to the United States and engage in more terrorist activity. It should be noted that some of these are individuals who the United States is trying to deport, and whose native countries are refusing to take responsibility for.
It almost sounds reasonable, doesn't it? It's not that simple. Let us, for the moment, assume that every single person that will ever be detained in this prison is 100% guilty and every bit as dangerous as Gates claims. This program would still be objectionable for several very important reasons. The most obvious relates to international relations. We have lost credibility because of Guantanamo Bay and the abuses perpetrated there. The immediate establishment of its replacement will not do much to help our international standing.
More importantly, it sets a precedent. I will not get into the Geneva Conventions themselves, because the current administration is actively seeking out every loophole it can find to circumvent them. However, should we adopt such a program, we would quickly find other nations doing the same. And while in this hypothetical situation the United States never abuses this prison system, we cannot expect the same elsewhere. Note that foreigners, especially military personnel are sometimes illegally held now (CNN: British Soldiers in Iran), but the United States loses its bargaining power and moral high ground if we do the same.
Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, or even a perfect country; I wouldn't be posting this if we did. We already know that when given new powers to fight terrorism, domestic law enforcement agencies will use them incorrectly and under routine investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism (CNN: Audit: FBI's Patriot Act snooping broke rules).
The Patriot Act is bad enough; no one should have to face the threat of lifetime imprisonment without a jury of one's peers, regardless of the charges against them. It may not seem like it to a defendant, but the court system is in place for our own protection. Due process is constitutionally guaranteed for a reason, and we should be very very sure that we know what we're doing before we wave it, for any reason.