Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Guantanamo Bay | 07/08/2009 10:20 am

U.S. May Hold Acquitted Gitmo Terror Detainees Indefinitely if They Still Pose Threat

Congress debates how to try 229 Gitmo detainees; at least one suspect would rather stay put than go back home.
By The Staff at wowOwow.com
Image: Wikipedia

President Obama may want to shutter the doors of Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba for good come January, but that doesn’t mean the terror suspects being held there will let go — even the ones who have been acquitted.

As Congress debates how to try the 299 Gitmo detainees, Obama administration officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that it essentially would be decided on a case-by-case basis whether to release those found not guilty of terrorism charges. Taken into account would be whether the prisoner posed a future threat. So what’s so different about that than what the Bush administration was doing? Not much. The Wall Street Journal says Obama officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in the future. In contrast, prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for past war crimes. This approach got high marks from even Republicans.

"Some of them will be able to get out of jail because they’ve rehabilitated themselves and some of them may in fact die in jail," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC. But "I don’t want to put people in a dark hole forever" just "because somebody like Dick Cheney, or you fill in the blank with a politician, said so."

Another Obama official said only voluntary statements by foreign terrorism suspects at Gitmo should be used as evidence at their military trials. He warned that the convictions could be appealed on constitutional grounds if suspects were somehow coerced, and said the administration supported a bill barring the use of any statements obtained by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which would cover torture or other illegal abuse.

And perhaps detainee treatment at Gitmo isn’t as bad as many would make it out to be, because there’s at least one Gitmo detainee who would rather stay put than be sent back home.

Umar Abdulayev, 30, was brought to Guantanamo years ago, and he is fighting to stay at Gitmo rather than be sent back to Tajikistan, reports The Miami Herald. Abdulayev fled civil war in his homeland at age 13 and claims that he was visited by Tajik intelligence agents at Gitmo, who said he could be released if he would spy on Muslim radicals in that country. Abdulayev says that when he refused, the agents threatened retribution. The Herald says: "He [lawyer] argues that his client is twice cursed — not only because he rebuffed the overtures of the secular security forces but because he carries ‘the stigma of having been held at Guantanamo.’"

Meanwhile, Obama is in Italy today for the Group of Eight meeting, which will focus on issues such as the global economy and global warming. The G8 leaders were expected to discuss Obama’s plan for a crackdown on oil speculators amid concerns that the recent increase in crude prices threatened a recession.

 

141 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

S G
Amazing:( When are we humans going to learn to act humanely?
By S G on 07/08/2009 9:32 am
deber B
George Bush, once again, was right.   Thanks for recognizing that, President Obama.
By deber B on 07/08/2009 10:02 am
S G
No deber they are both wrong.
By S G on 07/08/2009 10:03 am
F P
Yup! Georgie threw out habeas corpus and now Obama has done the same—they’re both wrong.
By F P on 07/08/2009 10:26 am
Mary Quite-Contrary

Habeas Corpus, for non-US citizens?  Do you really want to give foreign nationals the same rights and protections given to United States citizens under our Constitution.  Should non-citizens also have the right to vote?  The right to own a gun?  There is a rationality behind the mantle of keeping US laws for US citizens; and international law for those of other countries.

How would HC apply?  Would our soldiers, on the battle field/desert have to ‘Mirandize’ enemy combatants?  Would translators be accompanying every GI to accomodate the possible ‘risk’ of having to take someone into custody?

I don’t agree with Obama very often…but on this, he is right!

By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/08/2009 12:47 pm
Mary Quite-Contrary

Yet again, deber the harsh realities of intelligence data (and the overwhelming responsibility of keeping America safe) trump those pretty words uttered as campaign promises.

I respect that the Obama Administration is doing what is right., ie., keeping those who would Jihad again Americans, safely under lock and Gitmo key.  It would be nice if a public statement (‘we understand now why George W. Bush did the things he did…now’) but that would be asking for too much.

Let’s just hope they keep going in this direction.

By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/08/2009 11:16 am
deber B
You are so right, Mary!   I read both of your posts with great interest because now the Obama administration knows what Bush was up against.   I’ll have to agree with Obama on this one as well.   I would love to read a statement from this administration but unfortunately they dug themselves a very deep hole blaming the former administration.   I can remember what poor Ronald Reagan inherited!   And, he didn’t complain…..
By deber B on 07/08/2009 1:41 pm
Rachel F

And I wonder when Dems are finally going to be able to see what’s been right in front of their faces all along: their messiah used them to get where he wanted to be, by saying what they wanted to hear but doing what he wanted to do. So much of "no more of the same"…oopsie, I guess it’s only bad when a Republican is doing it, not when He (the messiah) is.

But let’s hear again how honest He is, and what a change the Messiah is in politics. Please.

By Rachel F on 07/08/2009 1:16 pm
Mary Quite-Contrary
Since this isn’t ‘Change’ maybe it falls under ‘Hope?’
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/08/2009 1:22 pm
Rachel F
Maybe, but only if it’s "hoping" things don’t "change". ;-)
By Rachel F on 07/08/2009 1:30 pm
deber B
Real hope and change starts in 2012.
By deber B on 07/08/2009 1:42 pm
Rachel F
If our country survives that long, with the messiah and co at the helm…
By Rachel F on 07/08/2009 1:55 pm
deber B
Hang in there, Rachel, the "tide will turn" in 2010.
By deber B on 07/08/2009 2:07 pm
Rachel F
Here’s hoping!
By Rachel F on 07/08/2009 2:53 pm
Kelly In Texas

Yep SG…wouldn’t it be nice if terrorist would abandon their mission to wipe anyone that isn’t an extremist Muslim off of the face of the earth? That would be so nice and comfy….

Until then…they will have to be killed while they are in the act of killing…or kept somewhere that they can not kill again.

Now…if Obama really wanted to secure oil prices and our countries safety…we would drill the damn oil that we have HERE. This environmental BS is taking away our ability to function as a country…

By Kelly In Texas on 07/08/2009 12:23 pm