home

Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 01:22:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As if it's not bad enough that at least one of the Guantanamo detainees who committed suicide last week didn't know he had been cleared for release, now we find out some of them didn't even know they had lawyers.

The Yemeni captive who killed himself at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had an attorney arranging to visit him in August, but did not know it when he committed suicide. One of the Saudis, Mani Shaman al Utaybi, 30, had been approved for transfer to a jail back home, but also had never been told he was cleared to depart the U.S. detention center.

The military first maintained the men who hanged themselves did not have lawyers.

Attorneys for the men_who the military initially said had no lawyers_say that had the detainees known of legal efforts on their behalf, they might be alive today.

"As far as we know he (Ali Abdullah Ahmed) did not know he had an attorney. We certainly never got through to him to advise him of that fact," said Dave Engelhardt of Washington, D.C., who had filed a habeas corpus petition for Ahmed, the 29- or 30-year-old Yemeni.

"Perhaps he would have not have committed suicide if he had known the facts of his representation of counsel and the progress that is being made in the American courts for the detainees."

Add to that defense lawyers' allegations that government attorneys prevented them from visiting their clients:

Both Engelhardt and attorney Jeff Davis of Charlotte, N.C., said government lawyers had thwarted repeated attempts to see their clients.

Davis said his firm was notified more than a month ago that Utaybi was approved for transfer back to Saudi Arabia. But the notice came under a seal of secrecy, said Davis, so Utaybi, who had never met his lawyer, did not know he would be sent home - which The Miami Herald confirmed independently.

Holding people for four years without bringing charges and without access to counsel is abhorrent. Guantanamo should be closed now.

[hat tip Patriot Daily.]

< Holding Conservative Media's Feet to the Flame | Pardon Talk for Scooter Libby Begins >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers | 37 comments (37 topical)
    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    How nice of the 'pro-life'-deciderers to know how to keep such a big secret.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#2)
    by HK on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    Just when you thought the Guantanamo situation couldn't get any worse, it does...and I have a horrible feeling that there is much worse than this that just hasn't come out yet. Guantanamo is America's shame and other countries must take some responsibility and be more vocal in their condemnation. It is a blatant human rights violation and keeping it is not in anyone's best interests.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 05:32:43 PM EST
    "It's the most transparent detention facility in the history of warfare," insisted Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, echoing comments by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
    True, excepting his editors must have replaced the words detention facility with the word lie.
    On the base, a 10-page list of ground rules bars journalists from interviewing anyone without approval and prohibits photos of detainee faces and base features, such as radar or the coastline. The military says such restrictions are needed for security and to protect detainees' privacy.
    What a load. The were thinking about the privacy of the detainees as well by not telling them they had lawyers. Must be that. link via John Brown's Public Diplomacy Review.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#5)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 06:23:19 PM EST
    What I want to know from some of you apologists for our Guantanamo Gulag is this, how does this system at Guantanamo work? I would think that, at a minimum, prisoners should be told that they have legal representation and they should also be told that they have been cleared for release, but I'm sure there is a good explanation for why they weren't. Some Bush apologists think that Guantanamo should be operated outside the rules of the Geneva Convention and our courts. Implicit in this arguement is that Guantanamo is to be operated by a set of special rules. However, in the absense of the legal safeguards and protections of the Geneva Conventions and our criminal legal system, the Bush administration seems to be making up the rules as they go along. As this recent incident demonstrates, there are so many holes in the legal system at Guantanamo that it can hardly be called a system of justice at all.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:15:03 PM EST
    narius re: "It (Guantanamo) is not a system of justice. It is a system of dealing with our enemies." First of all, as the tragic case of that poor lad who committed suicide without ever knowing he had been cleared deomonstrates, not all the detainees at Guantajustice are enemies. Without a system of justice you cannot weed out the guilty from the innocent. Any system for dealing with our "enemies" that does not take into account a sense of justice is bound to fail.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    Well, Narius, you might have a point if ninety percent of those currently enjoying the luxurious atmospher of Club Gitmo weren't innocent goatherders turned in by their neighbors for cash. But, if you think back to, oh, like World War II, you'd find that Western Civilization used to have a tradition of treating its enemies -- even the Nazis -- humanely. Because that was the right thing to do. Nobody threw Hitler's driver into a dungeon for four years without charges. Even the worst Nazis got actual fair trials, or did you miss that? Anyway, not to worry about that hatred thing. Abu Ghraib and Haditha have created many many more new enemies. You should worry about them.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:37:58 PM EST
    re: "It is not a system of justice. It is a system of dealing with our enemies." If you leave justice out of the equation, then what is the difference between us and our enemies? I agree with you that what we have in Guantanamo is not a system of justice. However, I believe that a system of justice is part of our core values and beliefs which is why Guantanamo is wrong. That is probably the difference between us.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 05:55:32 AM EST
    ok, i could be wrong here, but i think you all may have misread narius' comments as supporting the continuation of the situation at gb. i didn't read them that way at all. the way i read them was as an indictment of the "system" (and i use the term loosely) in place there, and the administration responsible for it. this:
    It is probably a better idea to keep them there than letting them returning to where-ever and continue the fight against us now with even more hatred.
    i read as a legitimate criticsm/concern, regarding the current attitude of those now detained there: they may not have started out hating the the U.S., but they sure as hell do now, thanks to "fearless leader". as a consequence of the admin's actions on gb, we've created a whole group of people ripe for recruitment by al quada(sp) or some other fun, islamic extremist group, when they get back home. anyway, that's how i read his comments.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 06:01:48 AM EST
    John Horse - Poor lad? John, even for you that's a bit much. Let's do two things. First, let's see what the post said:
    One of the Saudis, Mani Shaman al Utaybi, 30, had been approved for transfer to a jail back home, but also had never been told he was cleared to depart the U.S. detention center.
    Now let's see what the Miami-Herald's article, linked to in the post said.
    Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi, also spelled Al Tabi, who according to Pentagon documents was born in al-Qarara, Saudi Arabia, in 1976. A Pentagon statement described him as a member of a "militant missionary/recruitment group" for al-Qaida and "other jihadist terrorist groups." He had been recommended for transfer for detention in "another country," said the Pentagon statement, presumably Saudi Arabia.
    Now go back and read the Miami-Herald's mingling a direct quote with a supposition. Something that most would say is bad journalism and a strong indication that the writer is biased.
    "He had been recommended for transfer for detention in "another country," said the Pentagon statement, presumably Saudi Arabia.
    Note that the writer says, "presumably Saudi Arabia." Why? What basis does he have to say this? None. Here is what the DOD news release said.
    Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi, a Saudi, was a member of Jama'at Tabligh, a militant recruitment group for al Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups, according to the DoD release. Jama'at Tabligh has been used by al Qaeda to cover travel throughout the world and has been banned in Saudi Arabia since the 1980s. Utaybi had been recommended for transfer to another country for continued detention in that country.
    DOD article link. In all of this we see the death of US journalism. The DOD didn't say SA, he was never considered safe for release, as inaccurately reported in the earlier Guardian article yet we now have a new urban legend. Shame on the Guardian. Shame on the Miamia-Heraled. Same on us for putting up with such sloppy work. Why? Because if you want to argue that the DOD is lying, then it is helpful that your sources also not be considered, at best, inaccurate and biased.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 06:05:32 AM EST
    Gee newspapers repeating what they are told by the DOD or sources within. Dog bites man

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#14)
    by john horse on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 08:13:44 AM EST
    PPJ, Whether the Guantanamo prisoner who was about to be released was to be freed unconditionally or returned to his country for further detention is a minor point. The Pentagon plans to release about "a third of the approximately 460 prisoners. Some have been freed without condition. Others have been returned to their home countries for further detention by authorities there." (emphasis mine) If some of the prisoners have been released without condition, then that means that some of the prisoners were innocent. The point is that all Guantanamo prisoners should be informed of a change in their status when their status changes. The point is that a prisoner should be told that he has legal representation. However, as our rightwing friend Narius points out, Guantanamo "is not a system of justice." I give Narius credit for at least being honest about what we have set up in Guantanamo.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    Yes, the DoD has been so trustworthy about all of these events.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    John Horse, What do you mean "prisoners"? These people are Enemy Combatants. That means they have no rights. Enemy Combatant is the military equivalent of a signing statement.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    Che and it isn't torture its harsh interrogation Just define your crime away

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    Yes. Shame on the Guardian and shame on The Herald and shame on anyone thats ever questioned any statement issued by the Junta since 1968. Shame.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    The Left likes to make claims, which says alot about the Left etc etc

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Almost positive that there is no Miranda requirement for the scumbag terrorists that those in the press so politley term detainees. Simply because an attorney is attempting to obtain legal rights for a terrorist being held by the US doesnt mean they would want them or use them to fight for their freedom (anyone watch or read about Zacarias Moussaoui's antics in the US courts?) The U.S. gov't shouldn't be held to a higher standard with terrorists in captivity than they would be held to with its own citizenry. Anyhow, if you don't think this terrorist was briefed on the US legal system before he took up arms agasint us or became aware of the fact, upon entering captivity, that he had right to counsel you are just kidding yourself. It's not like these terrorists tell us when they are walking about with bombs taped to their bodies or fastened to their autos. Procedural due process is reserved for those that recognize the rules of engagement. These terrorists are nothing more than savages and should be shot in the head with no questions asked...i'm sick of paying for their food and having to listen to the Potemkin news stories surrounding Guantanamo from the left.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    well I'm sick of the racist, ignorant, pathetic, self rightous, neanderthal comments from right wing lunatics spreading their version of hatred and human depravity.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    I understand Karl (with a K) Sr. is currently auditioning for the part of Wilbur in the stage production of Charlottes Web, riding on the coattails of his triumph in Babe The Musical.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#23)
    by john horse on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 01:37:41 PM EST
    Carl,
    Simply because an attorney is attempting to obtain legal rights for a terrorist being held by the US doesnt mean they would want them or use them to fight for their freedom
    Sure, but doesn't the detainee have the right to make that decision? How can the detainee make this decision if he isn't informed?
    The U.S. gov't shouldn't be held to a higher standard with terrorists in captivity than they would be held to with its own citizenry.
    I am not saying that the US govt should be held to a higher standard. As a matter of fact, I am suggesting the opposite. I think they should be treated to the same standard.
    Procedural due process is reserved for those that recognize the rules of engagement.
    No its not. When the "rules of engagement" are raised, most people are referring to the Geneva Convention. However, the Geneva Convention provides provides for due process even for captured combatants who do not play by the rules. As a matter of fact, isn't the Bush administration guilty of ignoring the rules of engagement by claaiming that the G.C. do not apply? Finally, when you refer to these detainees are "terrorists" you turn our justice system on its head by presuming that those arrested are guilty of acts of terrorism. Since you are making the claim, please provide me with specific examples of acts of terrorism that have been committed by the detainees at Guantanamo. There is a kind of circular arguement being employed here. Why are the detainees being held in Guantanamo? Because they are terrorists. How do we know that they are terrorists? We know they are terrorists because they are being held at Guantanamo.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#24)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    Carl, Your definition of them as terrorists immediately negates any credibility your arguement might have contained. Sorry but I never finished your comment. B-bye.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    John Horse et al. -- the terrorists held at JTF Guantanamo are there because they are dangerous and continue to pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies. They have expressed a commitment to kill Americans and our friends if released. These are not common criminals, they are enemy combatants being detained because they have waged war against our nation and they continue to pose a threat. Those at Camp Delta fall under the auspices of Procedures for Trials by Military Commissions not the guidelines for court marshalls or the federal court systems. However, if you read the rules governing said procedures you will see that they possess all the requisites for maintaining a legitimate system of justice. Of importance - and something the original author omitted - is that the pathetic terrorists who took the cowardly path out of this world had notice of the charges against them. DoD MCO No. 1, states that "At least one Detailed Defense Counsel shall be made available to the Accused sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare a defense and until any findings and sentence become final in accordance with Section 6(H)(2)." So, if some lawyer in the US was petitioning on behalf of this terrorist, why didn't he get the terrorists authority to do so prior to petetioning the court? Because he's a freaking liberal moron trying to drum up sympathy from other likeminded sheep and doesn't even know how to follow basic procedure. HEREis another example of what happens when competent counsel is provided to the terrorists in Cuba.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    sorry it has been years since i used HTML -- the final link im my last post should be IS HERE.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    So Carl-with-a C, just so we're clear, anyone who resists the occupation is a terrorist or terrorist enabler; is that what we're saying?

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:37:45 PM EST
    the terrorists held at JTF Guantanamo are there because they are dangerous and continue to pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies.
    How do you know? Only 10 have been charged with anything. bush said they would be treated according to the GenCons, but starving, torturing, medical abuse, kept in cages with 1 hr per week of outside access, those are all war crimes.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    SD - The practice of connecting a supposition at the end of a direct quote is bad journalism. If the author of the M-H article had a source, he could have said, "informed sources." That he didn't tells us that he was making things up. The only person more to blame for this is the editors of the M-H. Kinda reminds me of the Rove story. We can also go back to the Guardian, in which Mark Denbeaux, an American law professor who represents some of the foreign prisoners is allowed to make a claim with no questioning as to his source of information:
    Mr Utaybi, a Saudi national, had not been informed of being declared "safe person, free to be released"
    The above was flat out wrong according to the DOD. Yet the Guardian writes it with out mentioning that, or even asking Mr. Denbeaux. Again bad journalism and a clear indication of bias. Sailor - Define "charged with anything." I suspect you are parsing here. Show us your sources. In the meantime, here is one.
    Again, for explanation/clarification, CSRTs, Combatant Status Review Tribunals, that is the determination if someone is or is not an enemy combatant. So it strictly is or is not an enemy combatant; that's the only determination made by those boards. And if an EC -- that is, if an enemy combatant -- then detained, and then they're scheduled for an administrative review board. So administrative review boards' annual review, they determine if someone should continue to be detained after a determination of an enemy combatant status. So they're the two boards and I'll give you a status of where we are, this time at the end of this year...... ..So as of this morning, we have conducted 507 CSRT tribunals... So we now have two detainees at Guantanamo out of 230 that we have determined no longer to be an enemy combatant and 228 determined have been enemy combatants. And so there's still, out of the 507, there's still a number in process; that is, in process from the time of the tribunal through the determination by Admiral McGarrah. And as you are aware, there's been at least 12 of the more than 200 detainees that have been previously released or transferred from Guantanamo that have indeed returned to terrorism. So this is a very difficult process we're in. We don't want to let people out who will come back, fight and kill Americans
    So what we have is a large number of have had trubunals, a large number who have been declared enemy combatants and some released. Of those released, 12 have been killed or re-captured as terrorists. So who are the 10, and what have they been charged with? Again, I suspect we will find that they have been charged with activities in addition to being an enemy combatant.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 06:23:35 PM EST
    PPJ questions every source but the DOD The DOD even lied about the Tillman death. All hail the state.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 06:41:42 PM EST
    but tribunals are not courts under the GenCons and bush has stated that all the prisoners are treated according to the GenCons.
    So who are the 10, and what have they been charged with?
    Gee, ever tried google!?
    the above was flat out wrong according to the DOD.
    Of course ... but the DoD has lied every step of the way: Haiditha? Uhh, yeah, just an IED killed all those civilians. Torture? Never happened ... un til photos were released and then they redefined torture. Suicides at Gitmo? Hey, why tell their lawyers, or tell the detainess they had lawyers. yep, the DoD, 1st place I go for truthiness.
    The practice of connecting a supposition at the end of a direct quote is bad journalism.
    ha, ha ... next we'll hear him arguing about the meaning of the word 'is!' Wow, a guy who quotes LGF and TownHall and every other screeching coulter hosting site is complaing about 'bad journalism' It is to laugh.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    Sailor - Okay, I caught you trying to claim that only ten have been charged...and you act as if that is all there is to it. How does it feel? As for Google.. It is your claim, it is up to you to prove it And I note you don't deny the bad jounalism, or the apparent bias, just try another smoke screen. Doesn't work well. SD - DOD lie? Prove away. But adding a statement to a quote is no way to prove anything. Fact is, and we all know this, you can prove anything.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 08:17:59 PM EST
    Fact is, and we all know this, you can prove anything.
    spoken like the neocon nihlist he truly is. He creates his own reality. He's a figment of his own imagination.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 08:26:04 PM EST
    I guess I shouldn't be surprised that journalists are so damn lazy. Here are the 10 public terrorist cases that have been initiated to date. As you know, since have been dilligent to fully read the links previously posted by me, closed-session hearings are possible, which means you wouldn't even have notice of them. Don't expect more hearings soon, because all sessions in all cases currently referred to trial by Military Commissions are stayed until further notice as of 6/10/2006. NOTE - Stop being lazy and do some investigative reporting of your own please so that petty issues like this don't remain open for the liberal idiots abundantly present here to twist around....and yes Jondee anyone who resists will be lucky to walk away with their lives.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#35)
    by john horse on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 03:57:08 AM EST
    In my previous posts, I raised the question of how this system in Guantanamo is supposed to work given that detainees are not told that they have lawyers and are not informed that they are going to be released. I agree with Narius that Guantanamo is "not a system of justice. It is a system of dealing with our enemies." I have problems with that but apparently my friends on the right do not. So lets move on to another question. How is it working? After 3 or 4 years there are only 10 detainees who will be tried out of the hundreds incarcerated. Hundreds will be released without condition or released to the custody of other countries. Needless to say, given the number of "enemy combatants" being held, there doesn't seem to be many prosecutions that have resulted and its not like they haven't been given enough time to build their cases. Some people may rationalize the betrayal of our belief in due process on the basis that we need to punish our "enemies" but if you look at the results we don't really have much to show for it.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:18:43 AM EST
    John Horse writes:
    So lets move on to another question. How is it working? After 3 or 4 years there are only 10 detainees who will be tried out of the hundreds incarcerated
    john, as you are well aware, they are given ...Again, for explanation/clarification, CSRTs, Combatant Status Review Tribunals, that is the determination if someone is or is not an enemy combatant. Some are released at that point. The ones that are not released receive further administratuve reviews to determine if they should remain at Gitmo, sent to another facility and detained or released. And yes, some of thise released have been killed/recaptured fighting against the US and our allies. Some of the those retained in Gitmo are also charged with additional crimes, war crimes for lack of a better word. They will also receive tribunals, unless the attorneys representing them can get them a full up US CJ trial. I think they don't deserve one. You think, as you called one of them, the poor lad(s) do. To recap, we have EC's who are being held and who will eventually be let go. We have EC's who are being held and will be tried for additional crimes. I think the current number of these is the 10 you refer to. Just as in a war between nation states, opposition prisoners are not let go until the conflict is over. Those who have committed war crimes are tried and punished. Naturally this group is a much smaller number than the general EC population. i.e. 10. The difference is that since this is not a "nation state" type war, we must look at those captured to insure that they are terrorists, and then further review them to see if they can be released. Those that we have released and who return to fight us is a clear demonstration of our desire to err on the side of the prisoner.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 07:27:14 AM EST
    Those that we have released and who return to fight us is a clear demonstration of our desire to err on the side of the prisoner.
    no its a clear demonstration of how much the hate us aafter 4 years in the luxurious accommadations at Camp Gitmo. The real crux here that PPJ tries to bury under a pile of manure is that just because the DOD follows procedures that the developed and then declare them to be appropiate does not make it so. But in PPJ's world the all powerful state gets to be legislator, judge and jury. Unfortunetly he has no problem with that.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 07:57:20 AM EST
    Nobody threw Hitler's driver into a dungeon for four years without charges.
    Very well said CCB. All I can think of is Hitler's driver was caucasian. Or 9/11 was a far worse tragedy than the holocaust.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 08:01:12 AM EST
    To date, the President has determined that 14 detainees currently at Guantanamo are eligible for trial by military commission. Of those 14, 10 have had charges approved against them and six cases have begun, including Hamdan's. The other four of the 14 who are eligible for trial by military commission have not been charged.
    put up all the strawmen you want, you asked for the numbers, several people replied, and then you deny. It is dishonest debating.

    Re: Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:20:28 AM EST
    Sailor - Okay, I caught you trying to claim that only ten have been charged...and you act as if that is all there is to it. How does it feel?
    It feels like all your other factless attacks. I wasn't 'caught', I proved it and provided links, several others proved it, and all you have is a personal attack. SOP for you, since you have been denying the truth the whole time you been commenting here.

    Guantanamo Detainees Not Told They Had Lawyers | 37 comments (37 topical)