Patterico's Pontifications


Administration Considers U.S. Detainee Prison-Court

Filed under: Judiciary,Obama,Terrorism,War — DRJ @ 3:06 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

This month’s trial balloon from the Obama Administration is a new way to deal with the Guantanamo detainees:

“The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.”

The facility would be jointly operated by the Justice Department, the military and the Department of Homeland Security. Initial reports focus on a Michigan state maximum security prison that is scheduled for closure (cost to upgrade: $100M) or the military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

There’s a lot to consider and discuss regarding this proposal, but my first reaction is that implementing it will undoubtedly make Cash-for-Clunkers look well-run. Plus liberals, conservatives and libertarians may finally agree on something: I suspect most of them won’t like it.


61 Responses to “Administration Considers U.S. Detainee Prison-Court”

  1. NPR got played so bad by these Barack Obama people and now they look so stupid as our dimbulb president reinvents President Bush’s wheel. Stepping back and looking at the even bigger picture from an NPR-type dirty socialist perspective makes you really appreciate I think how ill-prepared these Obama people were to actually take charge. They keep running into the conundrum of hey how do we actually implement our policies to damage this stupid country if everyone can see us implementing our policies to damage this stupid country.

    It sucks to be them I think.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  2. Excellent links, happyfeet. I hadn’t seen that ICC article.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  3. “cash for clunkers”

    Are we gonna pay a $4500 bounty on terrorists now?
    Or do I misunderstand?

    I’m all for it.

    I’ve been a little confused up to now to hear that my old truck is a greater danger to society than terrorists are.
    Its good to know things are finally looking up and the smart people are back in charge since Obama got elected

    SteveG (97b6b9)

  4. Would someone tell me what’s wrong with using the facilities that already exist at Gitmo?

    Are we going to spend another $100Mil that was don’t have just so we can say that Gitmo was closed???

    Newtons.Bit (f4099e)

  5. Newtons, you’re not paying attention. There are a lot of voters in Michigan, those that haven’t left looking for a job. I suspect, however, that with the Holder DOJ, there won’t be much need for a prison. Maybe a half-way house on the way back to the jihad.

    Mike K (addb13)

  6. Just so long as it isn’t at Guantanamo.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  7. Hmmm … former autoworkers getting paid to waterboard Saudis. What goes around, comes around…

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  8. I understand that there are some surplus facilities at McMurdo Sound available.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  9. Probably easier to build a new facility state side than it would be to get a US district court judge to take a gtmo post. Plus, you then have another federal judge with lifetime tenure who then has no cases because GTMO normally produces military caseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

    I’m not even sure if GTMO is in any of the circuit courts of appeal.

    Soronel Haetir (869810)

  10. Soronel Haetir,

    I think since 2005 the GTMO cases have been handled by the Washington DC courts with appeals going to the DC circuit. I believe the DC Circuit would retain jurisdiction absent new legislation moving it to the location of any prison-court, which means the prisoners would have to be transported to DC unless a new law is passed changing jurisdiction.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  11. Is this a trial balloon from that big report Baracky’s guys were supposed to be producing on Gitmo but delayed until after the beginning of next year when the place was already supposed to be closed?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  12. Can’t someone in this administration figure out how many clunkers we could get off the streets for $100 million? Don’t they know how much of that $100 million will be kicked back in campaign donations from all those UAW workers? Do they not realize that UAW members are more reliable Democratic voters than prison guards? Why, if we can save just one child from death caused by inhaling the emissions from an old clunker it will be $100 million well spent.

    Won’t anyone think of the children?

    MU789 (f763c7)

  13. They keep this up, pretty soon Michigan’s going to look like NYC in Escape to New York. Snake Plisken can be played by Rahm.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  14. MU789 – That’s why it’s only a trial balloon. I’m sure somebody will gently remind them to think of the chirren (and the voters)shortly.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  15. DRJ,

    I thought that for purposes of habeas that was fine but that criminal districts would be a different matter jurisdiction wise.

    Certainly to hold anyone convicted in a civilian court in a military prison would raise a host of issues. And calling a prison on a military base ‘civilian’ probably isn’t a workable ruse.

    Soronel Haetir (869810)

  16. Unintended consequences. Can You friggin say, “Unintended consequences”? Imagine, a military trial in a freakin’ civilian court. What’s next? Soldiers on the battlefield having to friggin mirandize a terrorist, while the soldier dodges the bullets and IED’s. This is exactly why liberalism should be declared a mental disease, and every last moonbat locked up in a padded cell, both for theirs and our protection.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  17. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Guantanamo and it has the facilities now.

    There are no adults in the Obama administration.

    Not a single one.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. Soronel Haetir,

    You’re probably right about this being venue for habeas jurisdiction, and I’m not sure what the law says about jurisdiction for trial.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  19. Someone, somewhere recently did a lengthy analysis of the legal problems and consequences inherent in bringing the Guantanamo prisoners onto U.S. soil. It was most excellent reading, rather frightening, really, but I’m damned if I can remember who it was or where I read it.

    Diffus (01cd47)

  20. POA at 17 – are indefinite detentions part of your values and the values of an America you want to see? Serious question.

    In all seriousness, this problem was started by the Bush Administration – it wanted to fight a “war” without affording the other side protections of a war. Indefinite detention is just not acceptable in a civilized society.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  21. TAO…
    Indefinite detensions are part of the compacts of war. Combattants may be detained for as long as hostilities exist. If the IslamoFascists who have declared war upon the West, and the United States in particular, want their combattants back, all they have to do is to declare that they will cease all hostilities.
    We have afforded them most of the privileges of POW’s, something that is not required under the Geneva Conventions, instead of just executing them summarily as was always the custom for unlawful combattants.
    Your knowledge of history seems to be deficient.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  22. What protections do unlawful combatants deserve when they do not wear a uniform, do not fight under a flag, hide amongst civilians, and are not signatories to any of the treaties and conventions that govern the conduct of war?

    JD (bd7f0f)

  23. The Angry Optimist,

    As noted above, the Geneva Conventions don’t afford many protections to unlawful enemy combatants and while the Bush Administration struggled with this issue from the beginning, it’s Obama’s call now. Obama has not only continued Bush’s policies, he may also be expanding them in Afghanistan.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  24. JD – tell me this: how do you declare “war” against those people as a side and then declare them “irregulars”? I have seen this argument, and it is silliness. The Bush Administration never declared war, but wanted to fight this like a war. Congress unconstitutionally (IMO) delegated its authority to “declare war”.

    And the law and morality are on my side here. It is unAmerican to shoot people out of hand, especially given the number of detainees who have been found not to have done anything wrong, but were turned over for the bounty.

    Guys, ask yourselves this: you’re invoking the Geneva Conventions, but who did we declare war against? The answer is: nobody.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  25. DRJ – I do not have any love for the current President’s expansion of the program, including increasing the use of Bagram. I understand that the Geneva Conventions do not protect irregulars, but who are the regulars? Where is the actual war, and against whom?

    These are police actions by the United States, terminology aside. You cannot declare a War on Terror (terrorism is a tactic); you cannot declare war on Islamism or “Islamofascism” (that’s a belief system, not a definable army of people to engage and destroy).

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  26. That is about as dishonest of a BS argument as I have seen you advance, angry angry hatey person.

    My kingdom for an honest troll.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  27. JD, learn my handle.

    Trolling does not mean the same thing as disagreeing with you.

    Make an argument.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  28. I think unlawful enemy combatants are spies, mercenaries, fighters who target civilians, and in some cases combatants who are not in uniform or not readily identifiable. Al Qaeda is fighting in a way that makes it hard to identify who is lawful and who is unlawful, but they are doing that because it makes it easier for them to succeed. That’s not our fault.

    And when thousands of innocent Americans are killed on American soil, we’re at war.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  29. “Congress unconstitutionally (IMO) delegated its authority to “declare war”.”

    TAO – Why don’t you explain what was unconstitutional about the authorizations to use militariy force in Afghanistan and Iraq and while you’re at it, why those authorizations do not cover our handling of detainees pursuant to the laws of war and/or treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, pissant.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  30. The Congress, in its’ passage of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (after a respectful period of debate, a debate demanded by the opposition party) did not give the Bush Administration the authority to declare war, they gave the President the authority to conduct war. The AUMF is a Declaration of War, against a non-State entity that had declared war (jihad) against the United States during the Clinton Administration, and had precipitated numerous acts of war against this nation, including the bombing of two of our Embassies, the attack on a U.S.Naval vessel (USS Cole), and the attacks against the Pentagon, the World Trade Center (twice), and possibly against either the Capitol Building and/or the White House.
    The artifice of declaring a war to be a police action is just that, an artifice. Korea was so described because the United Nations, though authorizing the use of force to resist agression by the North Koreans, could not bring itself to state that a state of war existed between itself and the NorKor’s, though they cited the relevant parts of their charter which authorized the resistance to foreign aggression under that charter, and designated the United States as the lead nation in defending the territorial integrity of the Republic of Korea.
    And, you Sir, cannot get any more obtuse; but, I’m sure that you’ll try.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  31. DRJ – you say “we’re at war” – with whom, and where is the declaration?

    daleyrocks – I made my statement. If you wish to present a counterargument, you are invited to do so.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  32. The declaration is the AUMF, and the opponent is self-proclaimed: al Quada!

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  33. Oops….al Qaeda!

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  34. The AUMF is a Declaration of War

    No, it is not. It is a delegation of authority, but there is no declaration in there.

    And, sir, tell me this, please: what are the endstate objectives of this war? At what point would you consider releasing the so-called “EPWs” of this war? Finally, if the war was “declared” “against” Al-Qaeda, as you ignorantly seem to think, then at some point, Al-Qaeda has to, legally speaking, be destroyed or have its operational capabilities degraded to the point that the “war” is “won” and the EPWs go home. So when is that?

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  35. TAO – You made a statement, not an argument. Show your scholarship and back it up, pissant.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  36. The Angry Optimist,

    AD – RtR/OS!’s comment 32 answers your question.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  37. Not only are you a troll, you are an obsessive troll. You are correct that a troll is not someone that disagrees with me, making that one of the few accurate statements you have made. Kudos. Your actions in the various other threads have exemplified the absolute essence of bad-faithed discussion, hence my use of the word troll. I would love to be proven wrong, but every comment you leave tends to prove me right.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  38. Consider being more polite, perhaps.

    Anyway, the Constitution’s words make it clear that Congress is the sole war-making authority. There is nothing constitutional about its delegation of that authority, and the historical reason for that is that the power to make war should be diffused throughout a large, deliberative body, not within the sole discretion of one man. The diffusion of power, especially the war-making power, is the point of the Constitution. Allowing one branch to subjugate itself to another is defeating the purpose.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  39. “…Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it resolved…”

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  40. “The AUMF is a Declaration of War

    No, it is not. It is a delegation of authority, but there is no declaration in there.”

    TAO – Absolute bullshit. Show me the legislative, constitutionsl, legal history, etc. that says U.S. opening of hostilities must use the words “Declaration of War,” if that is your argument. If your argument is something else, please describe it.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  41. Consider being more polite … I just shot Fuze out my nose, all over the living room. Can I send you the cleaning bill, angry person?

    JD (bd7f0f)

  42. “…the sole war-making authority…”

    No! Congress has the sole authority to DECLARE war, but the Executive has the responsibility to conduct war – in fact, the founders speifically took Congress out-of-the-loop when it came to conducting war with the exception of the funding tool (you cannot conduct a war with a general-staff of 535 princes generals). And, no declaration of war is necessary when the nation is attacked, since all nations are presumed to have a right to self-defense; just as you, as an individual, have a right of self-defense in your person and property.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  43. “Anyway, the Constitution’s words make it clear that Congress is the sole war-making authority.”

    TAO – Which they did through the AUMFs. How many wars have we now used AUMFs to avoid having to redo treaty structures? Your contention is that they are all illegal?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  44. “Al-Qaeda has to, legally speaking, be destroyed or have its operational capabilities degraded to the point that the “war” is “won” and the EPWs go home. So when is that?”

    TAO – When we decide. When do you think it should be, pissant?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  45. Comment by daleyrocks — 8/2/2009 @ 9:03 pm

    Well, they all must be illegal, since he’s uncomfortable with them, just doesn’t like them, and – well – they’re downright icky!

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  46. TAO – You know who is at fault here don’t you, it’s the Jooooos. Have you ever heard of the Bilderberg Group?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  47. Comment by daleyrocks — 8/2/2009 @ 9:09 pm


    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  48. TAO – Do you think the Joooos were behind 9/11 to cause us to retaliate and get sucked into more foreign entanglements? That’s what I heard out there on some libertarian sites.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  49. And its not like any of the detainees at GITMO have returned to the field of battle have they? Oh, they are just a bunch of innocent rubes that were out for an evening stroll in the middle of a fucking battle no less. I am sure that since TAO is so fond of them, he won’t mind housing a few of these poor misunderstood souls.

    And as to your asinine question to when do we release them, the answer is simple. When the hostilities cease and they are no longer a FUCKING THREAT!!!!!!!!!

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  50. I have to decided not to respond to idiots like TAO and Danyy anymore, and will follow my advice:

    Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!

    They both have unlimited bounds of experience as idiots of which I can not begin to match.

    Oh by the way TAO, what fluffy said.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  51. POA – I’m just asking questions.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  52. Yeah, the same damned questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum.

    Never accepting once the answers and explanations given them, just a casual dismissive wave of a rhetorical hand. And then demanding an, now follow this closely idiots as I am trying to type slowly so you will understand, explanation that will jibe with your idiotic preconceived notions.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  53. My advice to moonbats by Qui-Gon Jinn: The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. Now get out of here.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  54. TAO,

    You left the other thread. Did you take offense because I called you Dickface, and then Assface?

    I have explained how it was an honest error.

    What confuses me about this discussion is the fact that you never even attempt to make an argument to the effect that the Bush Administration never declared war. This is the reason your comments make no sense.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  55. Hello? Is this thing on?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  56. “This is the reason your comments make no sense” should translate to this is but one of many reasons ….

    JD (5b6053)

  57. “protections of a war”

    Hmmm. First time I’ve run across that phrase. Will have to get back to you.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  58. the art of war…

    …He wrote that . . ….

    the art of war (4b87c8)

  59. The Art Of War…

    …A post I read a while ago over at…

    The Art Of War (e57ed5)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3553 secs.