1
1
0
http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/383004-nows-the-time-to-act-on-guantanamo
Ridiculous argument. It is curious why you never mention the on-going Global War on Terror or the Authorization for the Use of Military Forces (AUMF). According to the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare, even lawful combatant POW's may be held, without charge or trial, "until the end of hostilities." Those who were held and are still being held at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are all at least unlawful combatants, and therefore enjoy ZERO extra legal privileges. The congestion, confusion and procrastination in the Military Commission's process is due to the Obama/Holder 2009 Military Commissions Act, which gives unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us captured during the Global War on Terror virtually the SAME rights you or I would enjoy in a US federal court of law, should they be charged with war crimes. Fill it up? Most of the released 730 detainees should still be in Gitmo. 30 percent are known or suspected to have returned to the fight. These remaining few are not jaywalkers, they are what's left of the "worst of the worst." They are enemies and deserved to be treated as such. Until all Islamists are dead or no longer have the means or will to kill us, we must defend ourselves, and Gitmo is a small but essential piece to the puzzle of how we do that. Fill it up.
Ridiculous argument. It is curious why you never mention the on-going Global War on Terror or the Authorization for the Use of Military Forces (AUMF). According to the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare, even lawful combatant POW's may be held, without charge or trial, "until the end of hostilities." Those who were held and are still being held at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are all at least unlawful combatants, and therefore enjoy ZERO extra legal privileges. The congestion, confusion and procrastination in the Military Commission's process is due to the Obama/Holder 2009 Military Commissions Act, which gives unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us captured during the Global War on Terror virtually the SAME rights you or I would enjoy in a US federal court of law, should they be charged with war crimes. Fill it up? Most of the released 730 detainees should still be in Gitmo. 30 percent are known or suspected to have returned to the fight. These remaining few are not jaywalkers, they are what's left of the "worst of the worst." They are enemies and deserved to be treated as such. Until all Islamists are dead or no longer have the means or will to kill us, we must defend ourselves, and Gitmo is a small but essential piece to the puzzle of how we do that. Fill it up.
Guantanamo Bay
War on Terror
Terrorism
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
I have to question the premise of this article based on the Dynes v. Hoover (1858) decision. In this case the Court ruled, in an eight-to-one decision, that neither it nor lesser Article III courts had jurisdiction over military courts martial. It went on further to say, “These provisions show that Congress has the power to provide for the trial and punishment of military and naval offenses in the manner then and now practiced by civilized nations, and that the power is given without any connection between it and the third article of the Constitution defining the judicial power of the United States, indeed, that the powers are entirely independent of each other.”(Justice James Moore Wayne)
Now, some may argue that these people aren't subject to matters courts martial, but they also don't meet the requirements of legal combatant under the Geneva Conventions either. They would be better served to station some JAG personnel, and others to move the process along more efficiently - to shut up the far left about "without trial" arguments we've been hearing for years.
Another case which springs to mind is Goldman v. Weinberger. While the case involved first amendment rights of military personnel. The Court said, "Our review of military regulation challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society. The military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps. The essence of military service ‘is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.’"
Essentially, this extends to all constitutional rights - if the left wants to argue that illegal combatants have rights, and these are just two off the top of my head. I'm sure if I actually dug I'd find more.
Technically, if we want to be sticklers, illegal combatants could be marched outside and shot. Period. Dot. Hell, even the Contras learned in the 1980's to wear an arm band which designated them as enemy combatants in lieu of a full uniform.
Now, some may argue that these people aren't subject to matters courts martial, but they also don't meet the requirements of legal combatant under the Geneva Conventions either. They would be better served to station some JAG personnel, and others to move the process along more efficiently - to shut up the far left about "without trial" arguments we've been hearing for years.
Another case which springs to mind is Goldman v. Weinberger. While the case involved first amendment rights of military personnel. The Court said, "Our review of military regulation challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society. The military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps. The essence of military service ‘is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.’"
Essentially, this extends to all constitutional rights - if the left wants to argue that illegal combatants have rights, and these are just two off the top of my head. I'm sure if I actually dug I'd find more.
Technically, if we want to be sticklers, illegal combatants could be marched outside and shot. Period. Dot. Hell, even the Contras learned in the 1980's to wear an arm band which designated them as enemy combatants in lieu of a full uniform.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google