Posted on Feb 21, 2018
Trump Administration: Gitmo Captives Face 'Indeterminate,' Not 'Indefinite' Detention
4.9K
6
20
6
6
0
You ignore the recidivism rate among those released from the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At least 30 percent have returned or suspected to have returned to the battlefield, some as enemy leaders. That's about 219 of the 730 RELEASED detainees. One would be too many. And what about the 70 percent we DON'T know about, where are they? The Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions state that even lawful combatant POW's may be held without charge or trial, "Until the end of hostilities." What's different about unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us that they should be released before the end of hostilities? By law they are not entitled to extra legal privileges. PC and Alt-Left entities are struggling for relevance in the discussion about what to do about Gitmo. They need simply read the law and understand that the detainees are lucky to be alive. Six of eight German saboteurs who were caught dry-foot on US soil in 1942 during WWII, were executed by electric chair less than eight weeks after their capture because they were deemed to be in violation of the Law of War and Geneva (unlawful combatants). They hadn't hurt a fly nor destroyed any property, but had the means and intent to do so. They were denied habeas corpus and found guilty by military commission. Why are unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us treated differently?
Trump Administration: Gitmo Captives Face 'Indeterminate,' Not 'Indefinite' Detention
Posted from shadowproof.com
Guantanamo Bay
War on Terror
Terrorism
Law
Afghanistan
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
Who on the terrorist side does the US recognize as having the authority to surrender and declare an end to hostilities for the GWOT? How do you actually see an end of hostilities ever officially being declared? Is there even such a thing as an end of hostilities when the GWOT is a catch all term? Do you think there will ever be a day when terrorism ceases to be a threat?
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Their religious/government leaders. They have the authority to end hostilities and their people will listen to them. Yes there can be an end to terrorism threats when they realize there is no quarters... My opinion.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SFC (Join to see) - Which one? Countless religious leaders have called an end to hostilities. Each group has its own leader that they "listen" to. And I use that term loosely. They don't care about quarters or reprieves or death - they never expect to survive the terrorism in this life. That methodology won't work. What will work is providing alternatives to becoming radicalized out of desperation.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
When all Islamists are dead or no longer have the means or will to kill us, an end to hostilities may be declared. As far as I'm concerned this is the SAME enemy fought during the Crusades and Barbary Wars. Their form of government is theocracy, which is the opposite of democracy. We are incompatible people's. It really is up to them. They can declare an end to jihad anytime they want, throw down their arms, give up their explosives, and promise never to fight or kill again. If they do not, that is their choice, and as long as they have that choice the fighting cannot be indefinite, it is "indeterminate."
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
You can't have it both ways. They are either combatant POWs, or they are unlawful combatants who may be tried by a military tribunal. There are different rules for either category, and for the later category, if you are not going to try them, you have to release them at some point.
You keep bringing up the Ex parte Quirin as if it were somehow relevant, and it's not. There were different laws in effect at the time, and World War II was a declared war, not an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) conflict. You are letting your biases blind you, and you are putting out information that is just not legally correct, such as when you kept referring to FM 27-10 as if it governed the Air Force, Navy, or Marines (it doesn't).
You have to follow the law dealing with an AUMF, not a declared war, and you have to follow the law as to the category of the detainee. You don't get to apply POW rules to unlawful combatants.
You keep bringing up the Ex parte Quirin as if it were somehow relevant, and it's not. There were different laws in effect at the time, and World War II was a declared war, not an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) conflict. You are letting your biases blind you, and you are putting out information that is just not legally correct, such as when you kept referring to FM 27-10 as if it governed the Air Force, Navy, or Marines (it doesn't).
You have to follow the law dealing with an AUMF, not a declared war, and you have to follow the law as to the category of the detainee. You don't get to apply POW rules to unlawful combatants.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
The Air Force, Navy and Marines don't to EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War) operations, only the Army is trained in EPW OPS. Lawyers can parse anything. Let the law speak for itself. A "declared war" is no different than an AUMF if there are people trying to kill you OUTSIDE the Geneva Conventions and Law of War. They are simply not entitled to extra legal privileges.
As much as I love 'em, Bush, Jr. and Rumsfeld ERRED on the side of the enemy IMO when they decided to treat unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us "within the spirit of Geneva." Not that we should ever abuse or torture anyone in our care, they certainly don't deserve the stellar treatment they have received. All should have been tried as unlawful combatants.
As much as I love 'em, Bush, Jr. and Rumsfeld ERRED on the side of the enemy IMO when they decided to treat unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us "within the spirit of Geneva." Not that we should ever abuse or torture anyone in our care, they certainly don't deserve the stellar treatment they have received. All should have been tried as unlawful combatants.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ Montgomery Granger - you may want to read the Congressional Research Service about the difference between declared war and an AUMF. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf
The two are not the same. Never have been.
The two are not the same. Never have been.
kD¿sgmvÞà(PxGú3BÙXúÚmøÃoÞÁã5Rz,.Ý!!ðÝEäàÎÛâôYÕÞsÖ·DòJø»ÂíÒ4ìW%ü.(]a)XÂoÌßqë%ÖTt-AóÌNqVÎÆÃ_Ò&$XØH9ñªdVjðùCöÍbQ
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ Montgomery Granger - oh, and FM 27-10 doesn't cover EPW operations. That's covered by FM 19-4. Which also doesn't apply to the Air Force, Navy, or Marines.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google