re: "Gitmo Quagmire: Welcome to the War"
Kat at Castle Argghhh! examines the political and legal pitfalls of closing the Guatanamo detention facility.
Money quote(s):
"It is not secret that the Obama administration would like to turn down the volume on "the war on terrorism". It has been their position all along that the US being "at war" with non-state actors gives terrorists some sort of prestige that acts to bolster their ideologies and legitimizes their general grievances.
Tuning down the volume on the war on terrorism as a military action is high on the list of projects for the Obama presidency and they are starting with plans to shut Gitmo and bring most of the prisoners to the main land of the US or send them back home. That is if any will go home, if their countries will have them and if the US will receive guarantees that these men will be kept from making further trouble for the US.
But, if these prisoners are brought within the continental US, then their status and jurisdiction may change."
Which was the whole point of housing them outside of the U.S. in the first place, to avoid fighting a lawfare battle on ground disadvantageous to the U.S.
"(N)ational security, while bound by laws to some extent, is not a legal matter for the judiciary to determine. It is the primary function of the president to secure the nation and the constitution outlines the powers for the executive and legislative branches. In no place at no time did the founders provide for action by the judiciary."
And yet, with our political class dominated by the products of law schools and after a generation of judicial activism, is there any tent into which the legal camel may not poke its nose?
"(F)oreign fighters captured on a battle field are not provided for any protections beyond those that the US subscribes in international treaties and those set by Congress. The idea that any of these prisoners are afforded any rights beyond the limited rights provided by those two entities is preposterous and deadly."
Amen.
Money quote(s):
"It is not secret that the Obama administration would like to turn down the volume on "the war on terrorism". It has been their position all along that the US being "at war" with non-state actors gives terrorists some sort of prestige that acts to bolster their ideologies and legitimizes their general grievances.
Tuning down the volume on the war on terrorism as a military action is high on the list of projects for the Obama presidency and they are starting with plans to shut Gitmo and bring most of the prisoners to the main land of the US or send them back home. That is if any will go home, if their countries will have them and if the US will receive guarantees that these men will be kept from making further trouble for the US.
But, if these prisoners are brought within the continental US, then their status and jurisdiction may change."
Which was the whole point of housing them outside of the U.S. in the first place, to avoid fighting a lawfare battle on ground disadvantageous to the U.S.
"(N)ational security, while bound by laws to some extent, is not a legal matter for the judiciary to determine. It is the primary function of the president to secure the nation and the constitution outlines the powers for the executive and legislative branches. In no place at no time did the founders provide for action by the judiciary."
And yet, with our political class dominated by the products of law schools and after a generation of judicial activism, is there any tent into which the legal camel may not poke its nose?
"(F)oreign fighters captured on a battle field are not provided for any protections beyond those that the US subscribes in international treaties and those set by Congress. The idea that any of these prisoners are afforded any rights beyond the limited rights provided by those two entities is preposterous and deadly."
Amen.
posted by Consul-At-Arms at 6:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home