Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

It is for the Court to say whether or not Congress is acting within an enumerated power, or, by crafting a purported appropriation that actually deprives the Executive of some material measure of his discretion as Commander-in-Chief, Congress has invaded the powwers of the Executive.

In essence, you have Congress demanding that the situation be treated as a purely military one, and the President wanting to treat it as one appropriate for civilian prisons and courts. For that reason, an assertion by the President that Congress is stepping on his enumerated powers as the Commander in Chief is self-defeating -- what Congress is doing is insisting this is a purely military situation, and the Executive disagreeing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not particularly inclined to trust the decisions that are being made about whom to hold and whom to let go, but that doesn't mean that letting everyone go is the right answer.

Isn't letting everyone go the only answer? What other option is there? We have to let them go eventually, don't we?

Assuming, of course, that we can't prosecute them for something.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He has released some people. I'm not particularly inclined to trust the decisions that are being made about whom to hold and whom to let go, but that doesn't mean that letting everyone go is the right answer.



Sometimes killing during wartime is murder and sometimes it is justified.

We aren't at war wth Pakistan or Yemen. A when you are targeting a specific person in the absence of any state of combat, it isn't war, it's the willful killing of an individual. That's murder.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In essence, you have Congress demanding that the situation be treated as a purely military one, and the President wanting to treat it as one appropriate for civilian prisons and courts. For that reason, an assertion by the President that Congress is stepping on his enumerated powers as the Commander in Chief is self-defeating -- what Congress is doing is insisting this is a purely military situation, and the Executive disagreeing.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that Congress is insisting that the executive act as CIC and CE in ways that are inconsistent with the bill of rights and basic civil rights under international law.

Is he bound by that insistence? Or his is only option to release everyone?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In essence, you have Congress demanding that the situation be treated as a purely military one, and the President wanting to treat it as one appropriate for civilian prisons and courts. For that reason, an assertion by the President that Congress is stepping on his enumerated powers as the Commander in Chief is self-defeating -- what Congress is doing is insisting this is a purely military situation, and the Executive disagreeing.

If Congress is insisting on treating it as a purely military matter, hostilities have ceased. They must be released under the Geneva Convention.

Plus, you are assuming the only option other than leaving them in place is to bring the Guantanamo prisoners here and try them, in defiance of Congress. There is another option that avoids a constitutional crisis. We can't try them. Congress has forbidden it. Ergo, they must be released.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Isn't letting everyone go the only answer? What other option is there? We have to let them go eventually, don't we?

Assuming, of course, that we can't prosecute them for something.

Actually, at this point, it appears our strategy is to hold them until they die.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Isn't letting everyone go the only answer? What other option is there? We have to let them go eventually, don't we?

Assuming, of course, that we can't prosecute them for something.

They are prosecuting some of them for some things.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

We aren't at war wth Pakistan or Yemen. A when you are targeting a specific person in the absence of any state of combat, it isn't war, it's the willful killing of an individual. That's murder.

We are at war in Adfghanistan, and you essentially have irregular forces in various countries seeing themselves as allies with the Taliban. While we aren't in something tightly resembling the Platonic ideal of the state of war, we are a long way from being "in the absence of any state of combat."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that Congress is insisting that the executive act as CIC and CE in ways that are inconsistent with the bill of rights and basic civil rights under international law.

No. Congress is saying that the facilities used to hold and try civilians in the US can't be used. Nothing prevents the Executive Branch from using military procedures consistent with due process, the Bill of Rights, and basic civil rights under international law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If Congress is insisting on treating it as a purely military matter, hostilities have ceased.

On what planet? Not here.

They must be released under the Geneva Convention.

If you really think the war in Afghanistan is over and that we have won, then I suppose that the proper course is to release the prisoners into the authority of the Afghan government. That doesn't seem like a hot idea.

Plus, you are assuming the only option other than leaving them in place is to bring the Guantanamo prisoners here and try them, in defiance of Congress. There is another option that avoids a constitutional crisis. We can't try them. Congress has forbidden it. Ergo, they must be released.

Why not try them in military courts, with due process?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Congress says, very clearly, that federal money cannot be used to incarcerate or try these people in the United States, then the federal government cannot spend money on those things. That is what has happened. I happen to think that Congress is very, very wrong in its judgment, but we are stuck with the Congress we have, not the one we want.



Obama is stuck with a mess that President Bush created.* If you assume that the only people left at Guantanamo are those whom Obama would move to the US and try there, then I doubt that there's any international law that says he must free them.

Instead of kidnapping people, Obama is killing them with drones. I've already said that I think this is bad policy, but if you accept that he is killing people who are at war with the United States and who are otherwise outside our reach, I'm not sure it's illegal. Some big caveats there, though.

Wait, they are at war still? Then we can keep the others at Gitmo. Fuck sakes, sometimes I think I don't pay enough attention here, but the fact is the arguments are vapid.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In essence, you have Congress demanding that the situation be treated as a purely military one, and the President wanting to treat it as one appropriate for civilian prisons and courts. For that reason, an assertion by the President that Congress is stepping on his enumerated powers as the Commander in Chief is self-defeating -- what Congress is doing is insisting this is a purely military situation, and the Executive disagreeing.

so the ones he kills are military and the ones he holds are civilians? got it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If Congress is insisting on treating it as a purely military matter, hostilities have ceased. They must be released under the Geneva Convention.

But Wonk, every six months or so the FBI talks some poor schmuck into driving a Tahoe full of "explosives" to a parking spot near something famous. We're under attack!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you really think the war in Afghanistan is over and that we have won, then I suppose that the proper course is to release the prisoners into the authority of the Afghan government. That doesn't seem like a hot idea.

I hope you were just being flip, but the chance that people we have been holding for years without having established even basic probable cause might get out if they don't remain in our unconscionable custody is in no way a persuasive reason to keep holding them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I hope you were just being flip, but the chance that people we have been holding for years without having established even basic probable cause might get out if they don't remain in our unconscionable custody is in no way a persuasive reason to keep holding them.

I don't understand what you think I said. I don't trust the judgments that have been made about whether to hold or release people held at Gitmo. I think that incentives have probably been wrong for the people making those calls, which probably are not getting adequate review.

All the same, I do believe there probably is good evidence against at least some of them. If so, releasing them into the custody of the Afghan government doesn't seem prudent.