3/13/2008

18 Responses to “Should We Allow GTMO Detainees to Phone Home?”

1. Frankly, no. EIther they are telling us things we want to know, or they are being lined up and shot in accordance with the provisions in the GC concerning the proper method of dealing with non-uniformed combatants.

   Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/13/2008 @ 5:49 am

   
   

2. Not letting them call home is torture!

   Kevin (3efe14) — 3/13/2008 @ 6:09 am

   
   

3. Good. Now hose him down, and hand me the jumper cables and car battery. This one knows something about an attack on LA…

   Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/13/2008 @ 6:13 am

   
   

4. Only if Lynn Stewart gets to make the call and keep it all legal.

   capitano (03e5ec) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:12 am

   
   

5. Can we listen, or would that require a FISA warrant?

   Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/13/2008 @ 7:52 am

   
   

6. I think it’s an unnecessary risk. Anything that provides their side with possible encouragement or support just shouldn’t happen while they are in custody. If they did have something to tip off to the party on the other end, it would have to be something pretty dastardly for them to risk it. I’d rather not inadvertently open a Pandora’s box that results in an attack too quickly for us to hunt it down. If we keep them in isolation, after a few years, they don’t have anything actionable left to give up to a would-be attacker.

   NeoconNews.com (2a37f8) — 3/13/2008 @ 8:01 am

   
   

7. They were ALL captured in conditions that warrented their execution in the field acccording to the geneva convention.

   That we chose instead to let them live is all the mercy they need.

   martin (86a2e8) — 3/13/2008 @ 8:06 am

   
   

8. There’s a part of me torn on this….we would allow letters to/from POW, so phone calls are not too far away…

   But, my Marine father told me that he had made arrangements with my mother to write letters home and hide Morse Code info in the letters, to give her other information….

   So, do we take risks…

   Another part of me sees this as more “touchy-feely” liberal mumbo jumbo….

   I would lean toward Stashiu, who is more actively involved, and knows the risks…

   But, don’t throw any caution to the wind…

   reff (bff229) — 3/13/2008 @ 8:16 am

   
   

9. Good link. I’m not a terrorist sympathizer but Stashiu convinced me it’s a good idea.

   DRJ (a431ca) — 3/13/2008 @ 8:51 am

   
   

10. Well, it’s true that detainees and families might use this opportunity to communicate as means to generate negative publicity… bwahahahah… hold on… bwahahaha… 😉

    Seriously, aren’t the phone calls of inmates (unless with an attorney) in prison within the United States monitored? I’m sure these would be as well, so any “misrepresentation” in the call would be easily disproved. If the military has waited this long before agreeing to this, they’ve certainly considered the potential hazards.

    It’s also one more privilege that could be removed for any misbehavior… and by misbehavior I mean throwing feces, urine, or other things; trying to strike guards or staff; hunger-strikes, etc… Some are saying that we already have too many carrots and not enough sticks. For the type of intelligence we’re trying to get from these guys (methods, contacts, etc… i.e. non-immediate threats) carrots are what work. The stick is for things we have to know right now.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/13/2008 @ 8:54 am

    
    

11. Even better than monitoring their calls, as a prison inmate’s are, would be to publish the transcripts on-line, so the entire world can judge. Of course, editorial comment by the detainee’s handlers/interrogators would be encouraged, to expose false accusations, etc, in those conversations.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/13/2008 @ 9:13 am

    
    

12. Since after years we are still holding these people based only on some government bureaucrat’s sayso, I think we could let them talk to their families.

    JayHub (0a6237) — 3/13/2008 @ 10:27 am

    
    

13. Since after years we are still holding these people based only on some government bureaucrat’s sayso

    It’s based on a bit more than some bureaucrat’s sayso. A lot more actually.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/13/2008 @ 10:31 am

    
    

14. Stashiu3

    Still solely an executive branch decision with no review. As you can see, I don’t agree with the process and think it fundamentally unjust.

    JayHub (0a6237) — 3/13/2008 @ 10:38 am

    
    

15. Still solely an executive branch decision with no review.

    Kind of like pardons and commutations which are also Executive Branch functions. Nevertheless, the decisions about detainees are based on more than whimsy and the judgment of a single individual. These guys were not just randomly plucked from open fields while tending wildflowers, so keeping them at Guantanamo is based more than on bureaucratic sayso.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/13/2008 @ 10:57 am

    
    

16. JayHub, are you saying that it is wrong for the Executive Branch to perform the duties given to it by the Constitution???

    reff (bff229) — 3/13/2008 @ 11:41 am

    
    

17. These guys were picked up by uniformed soldiers and marines in the field in circumstances that make their getting shot perfectly moral, legal and valid.

    If I were bush, when this crap blew up I would have read aloud from the section of the Geneva convention regarding the treatment of unauthorized combatants, particularly those who commit war crimes, and then announce that they were all shot that morning.

    Then I would have the DOJ start filing treason charges against agitators in the press and elsewhere who are providing moral support to the enemy.

    But I guess that means I could never get the office, not slimey enough.

    martin (86a2e8) — 3/13/2008 @ 11:47 am

    
    

18. Let the liberals pay their phone bills

    krazy kagu (656fec) — 3/13/2008 @ 12:59 pm