Excerpt
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): They rallied in the rain today across from the White House to protest the ongoing detention of foreign terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Some of the more than 200 protesters wore orange jumpsuits and black hoods to mark 10 years since the first 20 prisoners arrived at Guantanamo. At its peak, the prison housed nearly 700 men. More than 500 were released or transferred to other countries during the Bush administration.
The facility currently holds 171 detainees, with 36 awaiting military tribunals on war crimes charges. Among them is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, expected to be arraigned at Guantanamo later this year. The Obama administration had wanted to try him in federal criminal court in New York City, but dropped the idea in the face of strong opposition.
Congress has since barred moving any of the detainees to the U.S. mainland for trial. That, in turn, has effectively prevented any attempt to close the prison once and for all.
In the meantime, there's a renewed focus on the broader question of how to handle terror suspects. A provision in the recently passed national defense authorization bill requires the military to take custody of foreign terror suspects linked to al-Qaida, unless the president specifically rules they should be held by civilian authorities.
It also allows indefinite military detention without the right to trial. But the interpretation of both provisions remains in dispute. The bill was debated in the House of Representatives last month.
REP. ALCEE HASTINGS, D-Fla.: Well, here we are today trying to return to an era of arbitrary justice, witch-hunts and fear-mongering. While this measure includes an exemption for United States citizens, it does not protect them from indefinite detention.
REP. MAC THORNBERRY, R-Texas: The provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are a small step towards having this Congress back involved in making these detention -- detention decisions.
JEFFREY BROWN: White House officials initially warned that President Obama would veto the bill. Congress made modifications, and he ultimately signed it. But he added in a statement: "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
The protesters at today's rally in Washington made clear the issue will not go away, and legal challenges to the new law remain possible.
PBS Newshour 1/11/2012
Interpretation of legalese:
"is it provided political imprimatur by Congress."
Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary:
1 a: a license to print or publish (as a book or paper) b: approval of that which is published under the circumstances that censorship of the press exists
More excerpts
VINCENT WARREN, Center for Constitutional Rights: We have in this country confused the war paradigm and the law enforcement paradigm.
And the NDA is the precise example of that. And my colleague is right that the Supreme Court has talked about...
JEFFREY BROWN: You mean it's codifying the war, the war approach?
VINCENT WARREN: It's codifying...
DAVID RIVKIN, former associate White House counsel: As one approach.
VINCENT WARREN: It's codifying the conflation of it, in my view, because the Supreme Court has spoken to that -- the issue in Hamdi.
But in the Padilla case, where you had someone that was captured in the United States and the Bush administration tried to push him into military custody, before the Supreme Court could rule on it, the Bush administration moved him out, because -- frankly, because I thought that they thought that they were going to lose.
So, in fact, the broader discussion really here is about to what extent should law enforcement actions and crimes be treated as crimes in the U.S., and to what extent should crimes of war and violations of the war -- of law of war be treated as military situations...
DAVID RIVKIN: Let's be -- let's be honest.
Do you not accept the notion, as many critics allege, that propels the exclusive use of the civilian justice paradigm? Would you support the trial of somebody, at least high-valued detainees, clearly individuals who are enemy combatants by revamped military commissions that operate in full accordance with the Constitution, with the highest standards of military justice? Or do you think that they're all a bunch of muggers and rapists and bank robbers, so be tried in the district courts?
VINCENT WARREN: No, I would support -- I would support military courts for people who have violated the law of war.
But what I don't support is a conflation of criminal activity and military activity by calling the U.S. a battlefield, and then anybody that is captured on the battlefield of the United States has the option of going to...
----
VINCENT WARREN: The question that really should be asked is, when have we ever seen a war that has no location, no geographical limit, and no time limit? That's the situation that we're in now.
The reality of the War on Terror, specifically against Muslim Terrorists, is that it will NEVER end. Historically, when has any religiously based movement been stopped by military action? The Roman Empire's actions did not stop the creation of the Christian Religion, did it.
The only thing that will end this is when peaceful Muslims world-wide stop Muslim extremists.
No comments:
Post a Comment