JUSTICE

The Road From Gitmo

Alternative ways of handling suspects in the war on terror.

By Katie Paul | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:49  a.m. ET Jun 27, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: asks questions @ 11/08/2008 10:46:12 AM

    How are the prisoners at GITMO protected during hurricanes?

  • Posted By: MVGALLAGHER @ 06/27/2008 2:52:40 PM

    ONLY A LIBERAL COULD TURN A TERRORIST INTO A VICTIM.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 08/14/2008 11:12:41 AM

      Bull!!

      IT is not a "Liberal" (I love how the brainless always scream "Liberal" when they are trying to upset taht someone actually wants to defend the US Constitution. By their reasoning ALL of our founding fathers were liberals).

      And since there is not evidence given that he is a terrorist no one is tyring to "turn a terrorist into a victim."

      Just more ultra-rigth garbage. That stuff belong to Saddam Hussein's government and is beneath the Us Government. Of course what Bush is supporting is beneath what the US Government should be doing too.

    • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 06/27/2008 4:40:32 PM

      You aren't listening: absent independent review, how do you know that any particular detainee IS a "terrorist"?

  • Posted By: Akmatic @ 06/27/2008 1:50:55 PM

    You know, for every sob story Newsweek mentions, there are probably dozens of these animals being given lawyers and unwarranted legal protection when they deserve little more than the stock end of a carbine rifle to the face.

    Yes, lets give them lawyers and all the idiotic legal protection we can muster up in order to delay their trials, vastly increase the cost of prosecution and likely wind up having to release them with nothing gained due to legal jargon.

    This is why we need to invest in more secret prisons in places like Egypt. None of these people should officially exist anymore and having them out in the open only causes problems and delays. I???m glad we have now found a way to further increase the cost of fighting such an idiotic war.

    • Posted By: Tony C. @ 06/27/2008 2:09:40 PM

      Damn, you sound angry! bue like I said in my message, go get a gun and have at them! Courtesy of the S.C.!

      Only in America!

      • Posted By: Akmatic @ 06/27/2008 2:34:56 PM

        I already have, spend 2 years in Iraq and let me know if it changes your opinion at all...

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 08/14/2008 7:56:07 AM

          I know many military personanel who have spend more than 2 years in Iraq and they would say that you are a traitor to the Constitution and the country. In fact, I asked one about this and his repsonse was, "that guy is a treasonous bast*rd".

        • Posted By: MNDBE @ 06/27/2008 3:07:16 PM

          It shows why you're probably a good warrior - and also why our constitution is structured to protect us from being governed solely by good warriors...

  • Posted By: underdog @ 06/27/2008 4:19:25 PM

    The Associated Press is reporting that the Taliban in Pakistan executed 2 people suspected of spying for the US. The execution was performed in front of thousands of cheering spectaters. One was beheaded the other, a teenager was shot. This is how the enemy in our war on terror deals with suspects. We give them rights, and privliges. They will have a fair trial. Lawyers will represent them and try to get them off, saying they were tortured or, humiliated, while they were kept in captivity, given 3 square meals a day, and allowed to pray to Mecca.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 08/14/2008 7:52:22 AM

      Except that is not always the way we have treated them.

      They do not always get three square meals a day.
      They do not always get to pray.
      They are at time humiliated and tortured.
      They have been denied access to lawyers (until the Supreme Court demanded that the US Cosntitution be followed).

      Just because the Taliban acts teh way they do does not excuse our government acting the way it has. We are supposed to be better. And in the relative sense we have nto been. What the Taliban does is normal for the region they are in. Civil rights are not part of the Arab world as a whole. But inthe US we are supposed to follow certain rules and we have not. We are, in a relative sense, acting worse than the Taliban. They are not going backwards. They are just beng consistent. We are going backwards. That makes us worse in some ways.

    • Posted By: MNDBE @ 06/27/2008 4:32:26 PM

      So what's your point? Does it occur to you that this atrocious system of justice you described in our enemies is one of the things that MAKES THEM OUR ENEMIES?

  • Posted By: Sultan Ahmed @ 06/30/2008 6:30:35 AM

    In case,they do justice,
    the world would nevr believed in them,
    because they are party in the case,
    they are alsocalled prosecution
    as have been proved by constitution of Millitary Commission.


    The persons involved were awearded several punishment
    through waterboarding and adoptions of other coerciove methouds,
    they have also said having no cofidence on the court
    and the pleaders,adopted by the prosecution side.


    If Bush administration wante to show the world,
    they will do justice
    in regard to cases,they should the way,
    in this connection.


    Wolrd orgnisation has jurisdiction
    with the consent of the relevant party,
    can hear the case,
    and take the right decesion ,
    accrding to law.


    So my cosidered opinion is that,
    notorious jails Gauntamo bay
    must be finished and the case filed in the International Court of Justice,
    that is the only way,
    which may save the deteriourating imgae of the United States
    in the world.

  • Posted By: Duck Soup @ 06/28/2008 8:53:59 AM

    Two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.""

    http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/CraigVitter_0627.html

    Who do these fools think they are? Really? They are naked little nebishes who don't know the first thing about marriage, or morality. It's time to throw the Republican bums out. The Republican Party is unwilling to toss out the crud like these two guys, and instead welcomes them to sign on to pandering nasty homophobic legislation.

    This is what the Republicans are about these days. This is it to a T.

  • Posted By: davidflucier @ 06/27/2008 5:35:33 PM

    Forty years ago I swore an oath to supprt and defend the US Constitution, not the President or the Congress or a king or a prince...and certainly not just those parts that I agreed with. It's the principles of the Constitution which makes America unique and any time and EVERY time we've been frightened, goaded, reacted to suspend, avoid, or disregard those principles, we, as a nation, have utimately regretted doing so. If you think upholding and following the Constitution is expensive, try not doing so and see how really expensive it can be. The Constitution is a living document which takes into account our past, our present and our future. If we damage it, trash it, or abuse it...it is we who are harmed. I've been killing communists and insurgents since I was 20 years old (from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan...I just returned from Afghanistan two weeks ago) and not once was I ever felt apologetic about "suporting and defending" the Constitution. However, there have been times when I have felt absolutely ashamed when our nation or an administration has tried to circumvent or dismissed its principles as inconvenient or an obstruction to due process.


  • Posted By: MNDBE @ 06/27/2008 3:17:08 PM

    First to the editors: Consider putting a time limit on the animation from your sponsors - the facial cream sponsor makes your own content hard to read because it is so annoyingly distracting..

    Second - I've always felt that, if these guys are all so obviously guilty as the status quo supporters claim, why do we have any fear of actually giving them trials, lawyers, habeus corpus, etc.? Why risk our moral high ground if the cases are so slam dunk? Maybe they're not so slam dunk? By the way, the people fighting for rights aren't necessarily concerned about the suspects at all - we're concerned about our system of government and our Constitution. I want everyone found guilty legitimately to be punished to the extreme.

    I like the idea of making a distinction between "battlefield capture by the military" vs. "law enforcement arrest" in terms of which rights of process the the detainees have. You can't expect every soldier to memorize the Miranda rights in Pashtun but if the FBI raids an apartment in Manhatten, they'd better follow the law.

    The thought hit me recently that the Constitution was drafted in more dangerous times than these - the British rule was a present, dominant military force and the colonies had no real organization or evidence that they could survive without it. Yet they drew protrections against a secretive government into the Constitution. go figure.

    • Posted By: underdog @ 06/27/2008 4:52:08 PM

      The Constitution was drafted after the Revolutionary War, after the British had left, in a time of peace, when the US was a loose federation of states. It is what seperates us from our enemys, such as the Taliban or Al Quida. It was not meant to be perverted, to protect our enemies caught on a battlefield. For being a spy, all John André had was a court of inquiry before he was executed by George Washington , one of the sponsors of the Constitution.

      • Posted By: MNDBE @ 06/27/2008 5:09:33 PM

        My point, though poorly worded by me, was that the Constitution was framed in response to protect against a worse security situation than we have now. A non-representative government with no guarantees of rights, much abuse of military priviledge, no accountability to standard expectations.

        It may not be perfect for every situation, but part of its strength is that it's a common compact that we all are supposed to agree is the tie-breaker, decision-maker, highest law of the land, etc. When we opt out of it for convenience, for politics or crisis of the day, out of fear, etc., it gets weakened. When we say it's good for us and not for "them," it gets weakened. When the President says his first priority is to keep us safe, when in fact his sworn duty is to protect the Constitution, it gets weakened. If it is what separates us from those who would rule by claiming religious authority and rule of chaos, then we need to keep it strong and unquestionably at the forefront of our decision making.

        Keep in mind that not all detainees are captured on battlefields either - when you get the guy who is aiming a gun at you, I agree- that's a pretty damning piece of evidence. When you go pick up a merchant who's rival told you he's al Qaeda, that's a different story (and a story we've heard come out of Gitmo already).

        I just don't think our security situation is such that we need to just trust people who aren't accountable to anyone (like the CIA and the military prison administrators) to make every judgement in a way that's consistent with our values and doesn't do us ultimately more damage in the world. Showing a double standard on our own Constitution is never going to win "hearts and minds" and thus it becomes and endless battle.

  • Posted By: pjdinger @ 06/27/2008 2:20:05 PM

    I believe that we have the best governmental systemin the world. I truly believe that our democratic republic is an example for the world to follow. So my question is why would they follow it if we don't?
    How can we continue to go around the world praising our Constitution and our system of government and then when it comes to crunch time we skirt around our own laws. Doesn't that make us look like the guys we are trying to replace?
    During a time of war you either kill the enemy or you hold them as POW's. The war on terror will be fought by our children's children, so if we don't kill the enemy on the battlefield then we must hold them as POW's. We must give them a certain amount of rights to challenge their detention in public. To place these individuals on trial with a secret court and secret evidence makes it seem a whole lot like the previous regime that we are trying to replace in Iraq.
    Secret jails, secret trials, evidence that can't be questioned or seen, is our government that blind that they cannot see that there is no difference between what we are doing and what the previous governments in Iraq and Afghanistan were doing?
    Of course it is always going to be harder to be the good guy and to do the right thing. The wars will last longer, more people will probably die, but in the end we will show the world why our system is the best and we will be able to hold our heads high and look people directly in the face.

  • Posted By: Tony C. @ 06/27/2008 2:13:40 PM

    America is in the toilet, crazed politicians running the show and we have the gaul to tell other coutnries how they should live, act, and do things.

    Can now get access to a gun whenever I want, can rape a child and no longer have to fear the death penalty, etc.

    America...... Land of the Free, Home of the Insane! .

  • Posted By: Tony C. @ 06/27/2008 2:08:02 PM

    Perhaps we should just shoot them all like a bunch of vigilantes, now that the Supreme Circus Court has given us all the right to carry a gun.

  • Posted By: Tony C. @ 06/27/2008 2:07:23 PM

    Perhaps we should just shoot them all like a bunch of vigilantes, now that the Supreme Circus Court has given us all the right to carry a gun.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse