Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

What Now for Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
When Congress passed the latest defense appropriations bill Wednesday, it also may have ended any chance that there will be a federal criminal trial soon for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Thirteen months after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the key 9/11 planner would be tried for terrorism, murder and conspiracy in Lower Manhattan, Congress formally banned any such trial for the confessed al-Qaeda chief or any of the other prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Lawmakers also forbade the Pentagon transfer of the Gitmo prisoners to the United States for any other purpose, blocked Defense Department spending on the building of domestic prisons for detainees, and imposed sharp limitations on the ability of the government to transfer the detainees to other countries. Each of these new restrictions will make it measurably more difficult for the Obama administration to close the prison in Cuba. And each reduces the power and authority of the executive branch to perform a traditional function: prosecute people accused of violating federal law.

But when President Barack Obama was asked about the closure of the prison during a press conference Wednesday afternoon, he did not mention (much less criticize) the extraordinary legislative effort undertaken to curtail the work of the Defense Department and the Justice Department in this area of terror law. Nor did he offer any details about an executive order, a draft of which is said to be circulating around the White House and Office of Legal Council, which would continue and and thus institutionalize the controversial Bush-era policy of "indefinite detention" for dozens of Gitmo prisoners. Instead, we got a holiday blend of Obama as law professor and commander in chief.

"I think we can do just as good of a job housing [detainees] somewhere else," the president said tepidly of Gitmo before explaining why administration lawyers are striving to change the rules governing the legal treatment of the dozens of prisoners there whom officials believe can neither be tried nor released. "Releasing [those detainees] at this stage could potentially create greater danger for the American people," the president said. "That's what this team has been looking at: Are there ways for us to make sure these folks have lawyers, to make sure that these folks have the opportunity to challenge their detention, but at the same time making sure that we are not simply releasing folks who could do us grievous harm."

Currently, 174 prisoners are at the Cuban prison. Of that number, approximately 48 are slated for "indefinite detention." The White House is said to be considering a set of rules that would grant these men far more due process rights than they received from military officials during the Bush administration. For example, they would have more access to attorneys and to some of the evidence against them. They would still be able to challenge their confinement in federal court, but they would also have to accept the verdict of quasi parole-boards staffed with officials from the military and, for the first time, from other agencies. Civil libertarians argue that none of this makes up for the "indefinite" part of these prisoner's "indefinite detention." Ultimately, the Supreme Court may have to decide.

In any event, for the time being that leaves approximately 126 Gitmo prisoners who still may be processed and prosecuted. What to do with these men is a fundamental question that official Washington will have to ponder when the 112th Congress convenes next month. For example, will the executive branch react to the narrowing of its power by Congress? Will it seek to get around the new law? Attorney General Holder was angry earlier this month when he realized that the lawmakers were serious about blocking his ability to prosecute men like Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh in federal court. But can and will the Justice Department do something about it? Holder said the congressional limitations were "unwise." He did not say they were unconstitutional. At least not aloud.

If there is a White House challenge to Congress over civilian terror trials (and I hope there is for the sake of precedent, if not principle), I suppose we'll be where we've been for the past year or so -- in unproductive stalemate. The attorney general keeps trying to remind people that hundreds of terrorists have been tried successfully in New York -- both before and after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. But there has been a hardening of views toward these trials -- coinciding with the Obama presidency, for reasons I will leave you to ponder -- and it's hard to see how Holder and Company are going to change that dynamic without a great deal of bully pulpit help from the president. And he showed very clearly on Wednesday that he does not intend to spend a great deal of his political capital on this issue. Turns out that joblessness and the economy have in the end hurt even the Gitmo detainees, too.

That leaves us with the idea of revving up the military commissions system for Gitmo prisoners. As I have argued for nearly nine years, and as many others have more persuasively contended as well, if the administration provides these men fair tribunals there is little doubt that the results will be upheld by the Supreme Court. In other words, what crippled the Bush administration's plans to use tribunals was its short-sighted insistence upon unfair procedures that were short of the due process requirements the Supreme Court was willing to accept on behalf of the prisoners. At no point in any of the great post-9/11 rulings did any of the justices ever declare that they would not accept properly conducted commissions. It's also clear from the precedent that the closer those military trials look like federal civilian trials, the more likely they'll be upheld.

So the "draft" rules for "indefinite" detainees is a good start. The rights and access contemplated for those men should be granted to all Guantanamo prisoners to make the tribunal process fairer and thus more legally and morally defensible for the 126 defendants, including Mohammed and Binalshibh, who are just waiting to be tried. If Congress won't allow terror detainees to come to the United States for federal trials, in other words, then the Obama administration should bring more of the essence of those federal trials down to Guantanamo Bay.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

34 Comments

Filter by:
00skiergirl@comcast.net

They are prisoners of war, not common criminals; however, the "War on Terror" is somewhat ambiguous. We can't end this war with a treaty, and the only "victory" we can hope for is protecting our homeland from muslim extremists. Because an we won't be able to define an ending point to this war, the POWs at Guantanamo can never be released. Even if they are given trials, they can only be mock trials; no judge would let a suspected terrorist go free.

January 03 2011 at 12:50 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
DIXIE SUNSHINE

These are POW's, prisoners of war. Everyone seems to forget that fact. Maybe they did'nt wear a uniform or fight under the flag of a nation. But they declared war on America and it's non-muslim citizens. War is War. You keep POW's locked up until the war is over.

December 26 2010 at 5:31 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
fred98591

Try every terrorist by MIlitary tribunals There is no Geneva Convention for terrorists they are crimnals and nothing less Upon conviction Impose the death Penalty

December 26 2010 at 4:36 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
david

Who really cares how they are tried. Take a civilian trial to them. Try and find a sypathetic juror ,, either way they would be found guilty.

December 25 2010 at 6:45 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
jjmcdonald7911

As I see it, we have encountered a problem for which our ethics do not find a easy solution. The basis of Law is to prevent conflict between people. The function of a court is to ajudicate conflicts between individuals. The liberal belief is that there IS one overall basis of "Law" and "Justice" for people. This works when all parties agree that it exists.
With the Terrorists we have encountered a problem with that ethical belief. They adhere to a belief that their activities are outside of the rule of our concept of law and insist that they will engage in those activities when they have physical freedom to do so. Confinement prevents the activities which they would attempt to inflict on us later. Killing them would also prevent that activity, but we do not care to act in that manner. They however are not so ethically limited.

December 25 2010 at 7:52 AM Report abuse +18 rate up rate down Reply
ccptcrl

What's going on, here? Has everybody forgotten the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush? On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution. It seems that Congress, the Prez, and numerous others (including those who comment herein) have chosen to pretend that this ruling never happened. The powers-that-be are "graciously" considering the idea of possbily granting prisoners the right to consult with an attorney. Hey, doesn't the Boumediene v. Bush ruling count for anything anymore?

December 25 2010 at 7:19 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to ccptcrl's comment
stimarth

Just goes to show ya how far left the Supreme Court is, under the Geneva Convention to have those right they have to wear the same uniform as a country and not harm women and children...........or didn't they tell ya that little bit of information

December 25 2010 at 2:48 PM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply
ryanbrown616

The Supremem Court has NO jurisdiction over Prisoners of War!

December 25 2010 at 9:53 PM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
Schatzie

POW'S RIGHT ARE, IF THEY WIN THEY GO HOME. IF WE ARE STILL FIGHTING THEIR ARMY'S THEY STAY POW'S UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER AND THEN THE WINNING SIDE DETERMINES WHAT TO DO WITH THEM.

December 25 2010 at 5:17 AM Report abuse +13 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Schatzie's comment
firstad

The Geneva Convention was written for conditions in wars between nations where there is a winner and loser. This religious war will have no nations bartering for release and is without end.

December 26 2010 at 4:32 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
bocavert

After Abe Lincoln's assasination we held mass executions by hanging those involved in the conspiracy, It might have felt good at the time for the American public psyche. But in truth we just lowered ourselves to the murderous level of those involved. It is probably a natural reflex to seek revenge. Yet allowing the Guantanimo prisoners languish is really the best revenge. We show our compassion, we tell those who would bring harm to our nation that there is no early or other world escape; and we demonstrate that the Cuban government really has no power on the United States of America.

December 25 2010 at 4:59 AM Report abuse -5 rate up rate down Reply
leonard

This prison should never be closed. And the prisnors that are there should never be brought to the states. We have a sorry goverment!

December 25 2010 at 1:26 AM Report abuse +22 rate up rate down Reply
ddavidmcnab

I embarked on an excursion not long ago to Guantanamo Bay with a group. I can attest one thing aboout this place:It is a very scary place to visit!The prisinors are very eccentric and peculiar. There is a sinister feeling lingering in that area. One of the individuals in the group allegedly said that there were spirits of former deceased inmates tampering or disturbing new inmates. My next escapade will be a nearby beach- not Guantanamo!

December 25 2010 at 1:02 AM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>