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 and the CIA 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.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:56 pm Posts: 19957 Location: Jenny Lewis' funbags
maybe i'm missing something here, but how can you propose giving someone a life sentence without giving them a trial....or without supporting evidence even...other than the fact that these detainees look like they "could" be terrorists, or may have sketchy pasts. someone help me out on this ive been trying to ignore the war on terror lately
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
mikef wrote:
maybe i'm missing something here, but how can you propose giving someone a life sentence without giving them a trial....or without supporting evidence even...other than the fact that these detainees look like they "could" be terrorists, or may have sketchy pasts. someone help me out on this ive been trying to ignore the war on terror lately
Damn good question. They haven't even been charged yet.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
mikef wrote:
maybe i'm missing something here, but how can you propose giving someone a life sentence without giving them a trial....or without supporting evidence even...other than the fact that these detainees look like they "could" be terrorists, or may have sketchy pasts. someone help me out on this ive been trying to ignore the war on terror lately
Damn good question. They haven't even been charged yet.
Just charge and try them in a tribunal, already.
You can't charge them. There isn't any evidence against them. But you can't release them either, because there's no evidence to prove they're innocent. So you detain them forever on zero evidence. That's how the Bush administartion is approaching this.
--PunkDavid
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
punkdavid wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Damn good question. They haven't even been charged yet.
Just charge and try them in a tribunal, already.
You can't charge them. There isn't any evidence against them. But you can't release them either, because there's no evidence to prove they're innocent. So you detain them forever on zero evidence. That's how the Bush administartion is approaching this.
--PunkDavid
In the land of innocent until proven guilty, I think that's wrong.
Strategically, I can see why the administration might do this--I bet those they are detaining indefinitely will likely feel that the US is their enemy now.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Damn good question. They haven't even been charged yet.
Just charge and try them in a tribunal, already.
You can't charge them. There isn't any evidence against them. But you can't release them either, because there's no evidence to prove they're innocent. So you detain them forever on zero evidence. That's how the Bush administartion is approaching this.
--PunkDavid
In the land of innocent until proven guilty, I think that's wrong.
You do? I'm kind of a bit leery of this policy myself. But then, I value civil liberties.
--PunkDavid
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
punkdavid wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Damn good question. They haven't even been charged yet.
Just charge and try them in a tribunal, already.
You can't charge them. There isn't any evidence against them. But you can't release them either, because there's no evidence to prove they're innocent. So you detain them forever on zero evidence. That's how the Bush administartion is approaching this.
--PunkDavid
In the land of innocent until proven guilty, I think that's wrong.
You do? I'm kind of a bit leery of this policy myself. But then, I value civil liberties.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:56 pm Posts: 19957 Location: Jenny Lewis' funbags
Green Habit wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Damn good question. They haven't even been charged yet.
Just charge and try them in a tribunal, already.
You can't charge them. There isn't any evidence against them. But you can't release them either, because there's no evidence to prove they're innocent. So you detain them forever on zero evidence. That's how the Bush administartion is approaching this.
--PunkDavid
In the land of innocent until proven guilty, I think that's wrong.
Strategically, I can see why the administration might do this--I bet those they are detaining indefinitely will likely feel that the US is their enemy now.
I still think it's wrong, though.
i think ive seen enough US court dramas to know what im talking about . i do see their point though. if you don't have enough evidence to charge someone you are certain is guilty (how certain are you if you dont have proof???) you may as well just keep them locked up so they cant commit any crimes...wasnt that the premise of that shitty tom cruise movie "minority report"??? precrime? in todays society though i think its pretty illegal to detain someone on the premise that they might commit a crime "someday"...id like to see the international laws that actually allow this type of imprisonment. It seems almost like a prisoner or war type setup. so as long as george w is waging his endless wars on various adjectives, he can keep these people locked up?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:56 pm Posts: 19957 Location: Jenny Lewis' funbags
another thought. why is it that the US hasnt tried to even have a show trial for these detainees? im sure they could bullshit enough half assed evidence to appease people. at least then it would LOOK like theyre doing something. this approach just seems lazy lol
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
mikef wrote:
id like to see the international laws that actually allow this type of imprisonment. It seems almost like a prisoner or war type setup.
It's interesting you mention this, because W is trying to circumvent the POW rights set up by the Geneva convention by defining these detainees as "enemy combatants".
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
My thoughts are
- If you don't have evidence to prove someone is guilty, they go free. I don't give a fucking rats ass if you think they are about to blow up the empire state building, or whatever. Innocent until proven guilty. Putting someone away for life without charge is a crime from where I'm standing, and it makes me feel physically ill.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:56 pm Posts: 19957 Location: Jenny Lewis' funbags
Green Habit wrote:
mikef wrote:
id like to see the international laws that actually allow this type of imprisonment. It seems almost like a prisoner or war type setup.
It's interesting you mention this, because W is trying to circumvent the POW rights set up by the Geneva convention by defining these detainees as "enemy combatants".
thats convenient . "potential" enemy combatant maybe. by that logic, and the state of americas foreign affairs, theres probably a billion of those lurking around lol
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:56 pm Posts: 19957 Location: Jenny Lewis' funbags
vacatetheword wrote:
My thoughts are
- If you don't have evidence to prove someone is guilty, they go free. I don't give a fucking rats ass if you think they are about to blow up the empire state building, or whatever. Innocent until proven guilty. Putting someone away for life without charge is a crime from where I'm standing, and it makes me feel physically ill.
the only way around that is if somebody had enough proof to say that someone was going to blow up that building (ie documents, purchase records, BOMB PLANS, etc) not "hey that guy wears a towel on his head and has a name i cant pronounce. Hes gotta be a terrorist...or at least he looks like one and thats good enough for me!"
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
My thoughts are
- If you don't have evidence to prove someone is guilty, they go free.
I'm glad to see people agree. I kinda take a hard line sometimes
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:36 pm Posts: 833 Location: Detroit, MI
mikef wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
mikef wrote:
id like to see the international laws that actually allow this type of imprisonment. It seems almost like a prisoner or war type setup.
It's interesting you mention this, because W is trying to circumvent the POW rights set up by the Geneva convention by defining these detainees as "enemy combatants".
thats convenient . "potential" enemy combatant maybe. by that logic, and the state of americas foreign affairs, theres probably a billion of those lurking around lol
pretty much anyone who doesn't love Jesus is on their shit list.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
How would declaring them enemy combatants circumvent the Geneva agreement on POWs? If anything, it makes them subject to those rules. I was under the impression that a state can hold enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict if they so desire. And as its not like there's gonna be an all out victory, that could very well be forever. If'n they can show that these individuals are in fact enemy combatants, I would think that would be good enough reason to hold them for as long as they deem necessary. Key word being IF.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
. i do see their point though. if you don't have enough evidence to charge someone you are certain is guilty (how certain are you if you dont have proof???) you may as well just keep them locked up so they cant commit any crimes...wasnt that the premise of that shitty tom cruise movie "minority report"??? precrime? in todays society though i think its pretty illegal to detain someone on the premise that they might commit a crime "someday"...id like to see the international laws that actually allow this type of imprisonment. It seems almost like a prisoner or war type setup. so as long as george w is waging his endless wars on various adjectives, he can keep these people locked up?
