Obama Proposes Preventative Detention for Terrorists Who Can't Be Tried

[Brainster]

Once again, Obama has the choice of doing it the way "human rights advocates" suggest or the Bush way, and he's chosen the correct course (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss):

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. “The issue is,” the participant said, “What are the options left open to a future president?”

Mr. Obama did not specify how he intended to deal with Guantánamo detainees who posed a threat and could not be tried, nor did he share the contents of Thursday’s speech, the participants said.

I'll give Obama credit; he's much more of a pragmatist than I realized. Preventative detention seems like a solid tool for use in the war on terror, and I am glad to see President Bush's methods in that struggle being validated by the new president.

[INRM]

I can't believe anybody would consider this a good idea.

Preventative Law Enforcement if taken to the degree that Obama wishes to would essentially be like establishing a Department of Pre-Crime like in Minority Report.

And I don't know how anyone could say this would not eventually be used in regular law enforcement functions...


INRM

[gumboot]

Yes I don't see how anyone could think this is a good idea. They're either a POW taken on a battlefield, and can be held until the war ends, or they're a suspected criminal who must be tried or released.

Preventative Detention in the way described amounts to a blatant violation of basic human rights.

[INRM]

Gumboot,

Agreed

[INRM]

The ACLU already knows about this, I'm thinking of writing my Congressman and Senators

[littlehulkster]

And once again, Obama proves that he is basically black Bush.

I think I'm going to have to revert to the "Don't blame me, I voted Socialist" defense again before too long.

[INRM]

Littlehulkster,

Yeah, more or less he is becoming a black-Bush. Well, a more articulate, and clever black Bush...

I don't agree with your beliefs regarding socialism though...


INRM

[Pardalis]

And once again, Obama proves that he is basically black Bush.

My personal theory is that once he got his national security briefings from the CIA and the military, Obama heard things most people wouldn't even dream of about what's really going on out there, he got info he wouldn't ever have imagined, and that made him realize and understand that being the president of the USA isn't that easy a job after all, and that sometimes he must do things he doesn't agree with.

[Skeptic]

Obama puts national security above scoring partisan points against the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Bush. Good for him.

I dislike Obama's views. I think it is not likely he'll be a good president. But, from the very start, I said in this forum that both the hysterical support of him pre-elections, and the hyterical disappointment from him post-elections -- by the very same people -- are irrelevant.

[littlehulkster]

My personal theory is that once he got his national security briefings from the CIA and the military, Obama heard things most people wouldn't even dream of about what's really going on out there, he got info he wouldn't ever have imagined, and that made him realize and understand that being the president of the USA isn't that easy a job after all, and that sometimes he must do things he doesn't agree with.

Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, his veneer of liberalism he put on during the campaign was just that and he is the typical American center-right Democrat who perpetuates the same system he claims to oppose.

[lomiller]

The questions about how to deal with people who are undeniably guilty but have been so abused by the Bush Adminsitration they could never be convicted under US law are certainly problematic. Had US and international law been followed in the first place there wouldn't be a problem, but by most civilized standards these people would need to be released under a normal trial process.

No doubt Obamma wants to avoid this and will explore ways arround it, he's very pragmatic after all. The root of the problem, however, still falls on the Bush adminsitration for the early blunders that make giving these people a fair trial impossible.

[INRM]

LittleHulkster,

Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, his veneer of liberalism he put on during the campaign was just that and he is the typical American center-right Democrat who perpetuates the same system he claims to oppose.

Yeah, I'd have to largely agree with that. He ran on a platform that would make him look good to everybody, offer them change, make everybody feel good. Do a few things to get everybody to trust him, then continue right down the path Bush left off on...

lomiller,
The questions about how to deal with people who are undeniably guilty but have been so abused by the Bush Adminsitration they could never be convicted under US law are certainly problematic. Had US and international law been followed in the first place there wouldn't be a problem, but by most civilized standards these people would need to be released under a normal trial process.

No doubt Obamma wants to avoid this and will explore ways arround it, he's very pragmatic after all. The root of the problem, however, still falls on the Bush adminsitration for the early blunders that make giving these people a fair trial impossible.

Regardless of what you say being right or wrong, preventative detention is simply too dangerous and completely unacceptable. Jailing people on the grounds that they "may" commit a crime indefinitely is too extreme. It would be like something out of Minority Report.

As for trying these terrorists. Why not use a Court Martial system? That could work, and it was considered for awhile. It is a legal process and it has worked in the past.


INRM

[Alt+F4]

Also from the article linked in the OP:

The lawmakers say they want a detailed plan before releasing the money; there is deep opposition on Capitol Hill to housing terrorism suspects inside the United States.

I don't get this, are they afraid they are going to escape? There are many convicted terrorists already in American prisons.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Also from the article linked in the OP:



I don't get this, are they afraid they are going to escape? There are many convicted terrorists already in American prisons.

They are afraid of being targeted by the terrorist organizations.

Also, losing their election for bringing terrorists into the backyard.

[Pardalis]

Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, his veneer of liberalism he put on during the campaign was just that and he is the typical American center-right Democrat who perpetuates the same system he claims to oppose.

Who knows, maybe if you became president, you would do the same.

[egslim]

It's amazing how scared many Americans in a country of 300,000,000 seem to be of a few 100 maltreated prisoners, whose guilt of a criminal offense can't even be proven.

On the one hand we have Americans who feel Iraqis should be grateful to the US for bringing them democracy and freedom, even though Iraq has turned into a warzone in the process. With the argument that democracy and freedom are worth sacrifice, and anyone who disagrees deserves no respect.
Ok.
On the other hand, many of those same Americans now wish to violate these prisoner's fundamental rights (innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial), because their release in the US would make them feel unsafe. Scared of a few 100 people, in a population of 300,000,00.

Disgusting cowards.

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886463f7c8dbf3da.jpg

There egslim, feel better now?

[egslim]

There egslim, feel better now?
Thanks, but I already got one of these.

[Brainster]

It's amazing how scared many Americans in a country of 300,000,000 seem to be of a few 100 maltreated prisoners, whose guilt of a criminal offense can't even be proven.

On the one hand we have Americans who feel Iraqis should be grateful to the US for bringing them democracy and freedom, even though Iraq has turned into a warzone in the process. With the argument that democracy and freedom are worth sacrifice, and anyone who disagrees deserves no respect.
Ok.
On the other hand, many of those same Americans now wish to violate these prisoner's fundamental rights (innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial), because their release in the US would make them feel unsafe. Scared of a few 100 people, in a population of 300,000,00.

Disgusting cowards.

So if we release them in your hometown, you won't raise a fuss? Well, that's one problem solved.

[fishbob]

Oh, look - the *********** + argument lives on!!!

So if we release them in your hometown, you won't raise a fuss? Well, that's one problem solved.

In my hometown? Go right ahead.
Although pending trial, the detention facility up the road might be more appropriate.

Please watch the language.

[Beerina]

Yes I don't see how anyone could think this is a good idea. They're either a POW taken on a battlefield, and can be held until the war ends, or they're a suspected criminal who must be tried or released.

Preventative Detention in the way described amounts to a blatant violation of basic human rights.

I propose we hold them until the war ends. Which in this case, means there are no countries with religious leaders continuing to espouse the moral duty to mass murder Jews and Americans.

It seems to, umm, cross borders and be a quasi-super-state rather than a single, standard government. Even overthrowing the local governments, which we've done twice now, doesn't seem to be working, even in those countries, vs. this supra-national quasi-government.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, his veneer of liberalism he put on during the campaign was just that and he is the typical American center-right Democrat who perpetuates the same system he claims to oppose.

Sounds about right to me

[Tin Foil Timothy]

It's amazing how scared many Americans in a country of 300,000,000 seem to be of a few 100 maltreated prisoners, whose guilt of a criminal offense can't even be proven.

On the one hand we have Americans who feel Iraqis should be grateful to the US for bringing them democracy and freedom, even though Iraq has turned into a warzone in the process. With the argument that democracy and freedom are worth sacrifice, and anyone who disagrees deserves no respect.
Ok.
On the other hand, many of those same Americans now wish to violate these prisoner's fundamental rights (innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial), because their release in the US would make them feel unsafe. Scared of a few 100 people, in a population of 300,000,00.

Disgusting cowards.

Good post. It's ridiculous isn't it. But then scaremongering against an external, fabricated, threat was the teachings of Leo Strauss and fully implemented by the neocons and their ilk.

Only an idiot would believe that freedom and democracy was spread to Israq and only a completely deluded moron would believe that The reasons to invade and commit mass murder in Iraq was about the spread of Freedom and Democracy.

[egslim]

So if we release them in your hometown, you won't raise a fuss? Well, that's one problem solved.
If it was my country that put these people in Guantanamo and maltreated them, then yes. Fortunately, my government was smart enough not to do so. You break the jar, you own it. It's called: "taking responsibility for your own actions". On a related note, I support both nuclear power and building a nuclear powerplant near my hometown.

[linusrichard]

In general, I'm not going to criticize Obama for merely considering a certain course. I'll hold off until he actually chooses a course I find objectionable. In this case, I'll make an exception - this preventive detention garbage is bad enough that I think even considering it is lousy. So I am disappointed, but if he ends up rejecting this idea, I won't consider it a Big Deal. If he actually tries to implement it, I hope he gets smacked down, either by Congress (not very likely) or by the Supreme Court. And I hope the 8-1 majority opinion is written by Sotomayor, J.

[Travis]

Wasn't Obama also supposed to take all the guns and make Ayers the Attorney General and force everyone to be gay while getting numerous abortions?

[Architect]

Does the past teach us nothing?

In response to the violence in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, the UK introduced internment - essentially rounding up terrorism suspects in camps without recourse to any judicial process. In a manner similar to the U.S. government after 9/11, the UK authorities at the time showed a deep lack of confidence in the courts, especially in the capacity of juries to confront the problem of terrorism and to persevere in an environment of intimidation (and also sympathy for many of the accused). Hundreds were rounded-up and interned.

In part because the internees were overwhelmingly Catholics, the internment system was seen as biased and was very controversial. Internees were interrogated without trials and there were many accusations of torture. The system eventually collapsed under its own weight when a British Commission ruled that internment was contrary to British domestic law.

The European Court of Human Rights later determined that the interrogation techniques were not torture but “amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment.” In retrospect, most scholars believe the internment policy accomplished little beyond helping the IRA with recruitment.

And yet we see a similar approach here. Not enough evidence? Change the legal framework. They've got dodgy eyes, swarthy skin, strange churches. THat's good enough for us, guvn'r.

:mad:

[INRM]

Linus Richard,

In general, I'm not going to criticize Obama for merely considering a certain course. I'll hold off until he actually chooses a course I find objectionable. In this case, I'll make an exception - this preventive detention garbage is bad enough that I think even considering it is lousy.

Agreed


INRM

[SezMe]

The European Court of Human Rights later determined that the interrogation techniques were not torture but “amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment.” In retrospect, most scholars believe the internment policy accomplished little beyond helping the IRA with recruitment.
That is all very interesting, Architect; I was not aware of this. I'd like to hear more: What happened to the camps? What became of those imprisoned? Were the internees compensated in any way? Did they become/continue being a menance to society? And so on.

[Texas]

Also from the article linked in the OP:



I don't get this, are they afraid they are going to escape? There are many convicted terrorists already in American prisons. There are at least 2problems beyond the NIMBY issue. If they are transferred a supermax facility they would be in much worse conditions than they are under in GITMO. They would be in 23 hr/day isolation, no visitors, limited ability to practice their religion etc. The Red Cross would have a fit along with the ACLU, and every other HR organisation. If they are placed in a general population prison they would be in danger from other inmates or conversely in a position to radicalise other inmates.

[SezMe]

The Red Cross would have a fit along with the ACLU, and every other HR organisation.
Check in with Randi - predicting the future will win you a cool mil.

[Architect]

That is all very interesting, Architect; I was not aware of this. I'd like to hear more: What happened to the camps? What became of those imprisoned? Were the internees compensated in any way? Did they become/continue being a menance to society? And so on.

You could fill a good sized dissertation with that information.

Firstly, they were sent to prisons rather than camps. Once internment ended, they were either charged (unusual) or released. No, they weren't compensated AFAIK. And terrorism in Northern Ireland continued to be a major problem until there was a political solution just a few years ago, so I think it's safe to say that internment did bugger all to help the cause of peace.

[gumboot]

Why on earth would these people be released into the USA? They're not Americans. Send em home.

[gumboot]

I propose we hold them until the war ends. Which in this case, means there are no countries with religious leaders continuing to espouse the moral duty to mass murder Jews and Americans.

It seems to, umm, cross borders and be a quasi-super-state rather than a single, standard government. Even overthrowing the local governments, which we've done twice now, doesn't seem to be working, even in those countries, vs. this supra-national quasi-government.


Not really. Both the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations are over - each country has their own government. The Afghani and Iraqi captives should be turned over to their respective governments (actually I understand this has already happened, and only foreigners were ever held at Guantanamo Bay anyway).

Any citizens of coalition nations should be turned over to their home nations to be tried for treason or whatever that government feels like trying them for (it would be nice to see some of these countries actually grow the balls to do something like that). That leaves only the citizens of officially neutral nations. Try them with war crimes (third parties to a conflict) in a military tribunal and lock 'em up or send them home.

Anyone snatched at random around the world or handed over by bounty-hunting locals should quietly be returned in the middle of the night, same way they were captured, with a wad of cash in their pocket.

Let's all just forget this ugly mess happened and start again.

What I find so truly bizarre about this entire escapade is how complex and muddy it all good. The Laws of War are pretty damn clear on how all of this should have played out. It's not exactly rocket science.

[JihadJane]

Not really. Both the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations are over - each country has their own government.

Thanks for the laugh. :D

[ddt]

Any citizens of coalition nations should be turned over to their home nations to be tried for treason or whatever that government feels like trying them for (it would be nice to see some of these countries actually grow the balls to do something like that).
Two remarks to that. First, those still in GITMO are there because the US prosecution considers they have too little evidence for a successful prosecution. So why would, say, a British or a NZ prosecutor decide to prosecute them? They probably would arrive at the same conclusion.

Second, an acquittal would mean a near-certain claim of the prosecuted on the prosecuting state for the time spent in detention. Would the USA stand guarantee for that money (i.e., the part pertaining to their detention in GITMO)? It's a bit like a subprime mortgage. :-)


Anyone snatched at random around the world or handed over by bounty-hunting locals should quietly be returned in the middle of the night, same way they were captured, with a wad of cash in their pocket.

Let's all just forget this ugly mess happened and start again.
Amen to that.

[Darth Rotor]

Once again, Obama has the choice of doing it the way "human rights advocates" suggest or the Bush way, and he's chosen the correct course (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss):

I'll give Obama credit; he's much more of a pragmatist than I realized. Preventative detention seems like a solid tool for use in the war on terror, and I am glad to see President Bush's methods in that struggle being validated by the new president.
The more important question is: why is a terrorist taken prisoner at all?

I recall a number of orders we operated under, a while back, that were worded as such: kill or capture.

Kill's actually easier. The only reason to capture one is the potential to extract info to find and kill the others, or at least disrupt and degrade their networks and operations.

In the concept Bush proposed, what was going on vis a vis terror is in fact "war" versus something else. In that framework, kill or capture makes sense only if you intend to exploit for your own purposes those whom you capture. By mixing the two, and deciding to have war crimes trials, or any trials at all, IMO he shot himself in the foot, conceptually. (Sure, war on terror is a nebulous concept to start with, but if the "war" method had been better adhered to, some of this later nonsense might have been avoided. Might.)

Those who keep trying to force feed this matter into a criminal only context ignore, time and again, that for forty years, treating terrorism discretely as a crime not only was ineffective, but it was In No Way a deterrent.

Note Architect's point: the change from internment to prison and trials
Didn't End the Activity

Architect makes another point: political change often helps reduce the tensions that spur terrorist activity, for a while at least. For NI that might have been sweetness and light all around, but not every political change that allegedly would slow that down is palatable:

Or do you want your wife wearing a Burkha?

The initial idea behind Bush's War on Terror was that terrorist organizations, and any nation who gave them shelter, support, and cover, were going to be up against the entire power of the US and its various allies. (See Lybia's 2003 thawing for an example of how that was effective in achieving other objectives.)

The decision to conflate, for the convenience of political momentum being there, War on Terror with the old problem of "What to do with this running political sore that is Iraq" was a departure from the original idea of discarding the profoundly ineffective "treat it only as a crime" concept and maintaining focus on that mission within the original scope.

That decision to expand the "war on terror" to Iraq rendered WoT virtually meaningless. I have a medal that says I fought in the War on Terror. Oh joy.

That loss of focus, for my money, continues to color and confuse the issue.

Separating any operations in Iraq from the general "War on Terror" may not have allowed the war to get approved in Congress, not gonna derail there. But doing so would not have changed the thorny issues raised at Gitmo, a loophole exploitation attempt that does not seem to have worked.

But keeping the scope limited might have made the problem more manageable. Might. It was still going to be a political problem to solve, since the media battlefield and the use of trials as political footballs is an old technique harnessed by terrorist organizations.

As I have suggested before, keeping the prisoners taken in Afghanistan in Afghanistan, in a detention facility, as bait for attempted rescue would have made more logistical and political sense. Part of the purpose of such bait is to lure, and kill, not capture, even more.

But nobody asked me.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Not really. Both the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations are over - each country has their own government.
That's a bizarre way to describe the current state of play.
Any citizens of coalition nations should be turned over to their home nations to be tried for treason or whatever that government feels like trying them for
Makes sense to me.
That leaves only the citizens of officially neutral nations. Try them with war crimes (third parties to a conflict) in a military tribunal and lock 'em up or send them home.
OK, not a bad idea.

Anyone snatched at random around the world or handed over by bounty-hunting locals should quietly be returned in the middle of the night, same way they were captured, with a wad of cash in their pocket.

There are some cases that seemed to scream for just such a resolution.

DR

[tyr_13]

Shouldn't they be sent back to the legal systems in their own countries?

[Darth Rotor]

Shouldn't they be sent back to the legal systems in their own countries?
In some cases, it would seen the rational decision. However, look at the so called problem with China and the Uighars.

See also those sent home who are released, and then go back to the old terrorist game. (The numbers are not great, but then, it does not take great numbers of terrorists to wreak a good deal of havoc.)

DR

[Travis]

The problem with these detentions is, of course, political. Normally a prisoner release isn't associated with any particular politician's agenda or policies but, when they are, and if one, just one, of the released men does anything bad that politicians career is over. Dukakis was linked to a furlough program and because just one of the men let out by that program killed someone he lost the election and was never relevant in politics again.

That is the dilemma: stick to your guns in upholding human rights and release the detainees and just hope that not a single one of them really is a terrorist (because if a single one is your chances of reelection are zero) or keep them all locked away indefinitely.

[Thunder]

anyone accused of a crime has the right to be tried. if they are accused of being war criminals, let them go to trial at the International War Crimes Court.

I do not agree with Obama on this one.

[gumboot]

Two remarks to that. First, those still in GITMO are there because the US prosecution considers they have too little evidence for a successful prosecution.

It's generally the other way around. The ones with a weak case have all been released. Don't forget trials were underway when Obama stopped them.


So why would, say, a British or a NZ prosecutor decide to prosecute them? They probably would arrive at the same conclusion.

It would be up to a British or NZ government to release them then.


Second, an acquittal would mean a near-certain claim of the prosecuted on the prosecuting state for the time spent in detention.

Probably, but it could be ignored. I mean, does everyone else who gets charged with a crime and then acquitted get compensation? Just because you were acquitted doesn't necessarily mean your detainment was unjust.

[gumboot]

That's a bizarre way to describe the current state of play.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan's governments were elected by a larger portion of the voting public than the USA's government.

Both governments have no qualms about dictating terms to the coalition forces, and speaking out against them when they do wrong, which pretty resoundingly undermines any of the ridiculous "puppet state" claims that are thrown around.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan irrefutably have democratically elected governments. Those governments might have pretty substantial issues, but one can you expect given what they inherited? Fact is they're improving. Just last week the Iraqi government unleashed a major corruption initiative that has seen over a thousand warrants issued to arrest government officials exploiting the food programme for their own interests.

[gumboot]

anyone accused of a crime has the right to be tried. if they are accused of being war criminals, let them go to trial at the International War Crimes Court.

There's no such thing. Do you mean the ICC?

International War Crimes Tribunals can be established for specific conflicts, but they're generally reserved for major crimes such as genocide, or crimes against humanity, due to the effort that is required to establish a Tribunal.

For minor war crimes the accepted practise is for the detaining power to try the individuals via their own Military Tribunal or a Court Martial.

[ddt]

It's generally the other way around. The ones with a weak case have all been released. Don't forget trials were underway when Obama stopped them.
IIRC, most of the current detainees were to be released anyway. wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp) says:
As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain. [...] Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
which I understand as that the majority will be freed for lack of evidence. If you have a better reference, please post it - the jungle of wiki pages on this are quite confusing...


It would be up to a British or NZ government to release them then.
To the respective public prosecutors, that is.


Probably, but it could be ignored. I mean, does everyone else who gets charged with a crime and then acquitted get compensation? Just because you were acquitted doesn't necessarily mean your detainment was unjust.
Depends on the jurisdiction - in the Netherlands, it's very unusual not to get compensation when you file a case for it - compensation is not only given in acquitted cases, but also in cases where the public prosecution decided not to prosecute.

Given the way the US thus far has handled the GITMO cases, with all the stalling, I can't imagine a judge anywhere to ignore this and not award compensation.

[gumboot]

IIRC, most of the current detainees were to be released anyway. wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp) says:

which I understand as that the majority will be freed for lack of evidence. If you have a better reference, please post it - the jungle of wiki pages on this are quite confusing...

That's probably true. They were still processing status reviews. My point was more that they're only hanging onto the ones the want to put to trial, and are letting the others go. That they might not have released everyone they don't intend to put on trial yet doesn't really change that point.


To the respective public prosecutors, that is.

I'm using "government" here in the broader context of "the Crown", not specifically the current cabinet in parliament. In Commonwealth monarchies prosecutions are brought by the Crown (government). Having said that, in NZ, serious crimes such as treason, torture and terrorism can only be prosecuted by the Attorney-General who is a member of parliament and a minister (i.e. a member of the government using even the narrowest definition).


Depends on the jurisdiction - in the Netherlands, it's very unusual not to get compensation when you file a case for it - compensation is not only given in acquitted cases, but also in cases where the public prosecution decided not to prosecute.

Well it would certainly be up to the local jurisdiction to decide. I can't say that the system as you describe in the Netherlands sounds particularly sensible.

[ddt]

That's probably true. They were still processing status reviews. My point was more that they're only hanging onto the ones the want to put to trial, and are letting the others go. That they might not have released everyone they don't intend to put on trial yet doesn't really change that point.
On the other hand, Amnesty criticizes in this paper (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/guantanamo-detainees-still-waiting-judicial-review-20090409) both the Bush and the Obama administration for stalling habeas corpus hearings for around 200 of the 240 detainees.



I'm using "government" here in the broader context of "the Crown", not specifically the current cabinet in parliament. In Commonwealth monarchies prosecutions are brought by the Crown (government). Having said that, in NZ, serious crimes such as treason, torture and terrorism can only be prosecuted by the Attorney-General who is a member of parliament and a minister (i.e. a member of the government using even the narrowest definition).
OK, thanks for the clarification. In the Netherlands, the AG and the Minister of Justice are two different persons, and per tradition, the Minister does not comment on individual cases.


Well it would certainly be up to the local jurisdiction to decide. I can't say that the system as you describe in the Netherlands sounds particularly sensible.
Well, to me it doesn't sound sensible that the prosecution can detain you for 3 months in pre-trial arrest, then you're acquitted and meanwhile you've lost your business and you've racked up a huge lawyer bill (link (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s1568125.htm)). I think compensation to the not-guilty is simply part of the cost of having a penal system.

[INRM]

Considering all the people with weak cases have been released, that means all those detained have hard evidence against them, right?

[GreyICE]

Unnamed witnesses? Potential solutions considered for some future date in some unrecorded meeting observed by undocumented individuals?

Hell, the other day Obama told me he was going to shoot all the Republicans. Prove me wrong! Ha! You can't.

Seriously, until I see some policy, legislation, or, y'know, SOMETHING I remain unconvinced.

[gumboot]

OK, thanks for the clarification. In the Netherlands, the AG and the Minister of Justice are two different persons, and per tradition, the Minister does not comment on individual cases.

That's all true here too. The Attorney General is a separate ministerial position, not related to the Minister of Justice.

If the Crown Prosecution and the Ministry of Justice were part of the same government branch that would seem like a major problem to me - the Ministry of Justice should be entirely impartial.


Well, to me it doesn't sound sensible that the prosecution can detain you for 3 months in pre-trial arrest, then you're acquitted and meanwhile you've lost your business and you've racked up a huge lawyer bill. I think compensation to the not-guilty is simply part of the cost of having a penal system.

In a case like that I think compensation would be reasonable. I don't think there should never be compensation, I just don't think you should automatically get it any time you're acquitted. (I am also opposed to pre-trial incarceration unless there's a serious risk to the community if the person is released on bail).

We just finished the most complex and controversial murder trial in NZ history - a retrial of an old trial in which the defendant had been found guilty, but the Privy Council had ruled was a miscarriage of justice. After 13 years in prison, the defendant was acquitted in the new trial. He certainly deserves compensation, IMHO.

[Travis]

Unnamed witnesses? Potential solutions considered for some future date in some unrecorded meeting observed by undocumented individuals?

Hell, the other day Obama told me he was going to shoot all the Republicans. Prove me wrong! Ha! You can't.

Seriously, until I see some policy, legislation, or, y'know, SOMETHING I remain unconvinced.

Same here. This is just a rumor until I see something concrete.

[Brainster]

Unnamed witnesses? Potential solutions considered for some future date in some unrecorded meeting observed by undocumented individuals?

Hell, the other day Obama told me he was going to shoot all the Republicans. Prove me wrong! Ha! You can't.

Well, it's certainly good to see somebody's waking up to the fact that a claim by unnamed "human rights advocates" published in the New York Times could be full of crap.

[GreyICE]

Well, it's certainly good to see somebody's waking up to the fact that a claim by unnamed "human rights advocates" published in the New York Times could be full of crap.
Wow, can you shove words deeper into my mouth? I think Brainster hands contain necessary nutrients, and since they're in my stomach right now I'm about to find out.

Seriously, can we do this again, this time with you asking an honest question? That or state your opinion and ask me what my view is? I'd appreciate it. It could be a brand new approach to things. Well, that or you could write bad poetry and put me on ignore again, that was cute.

[Brainster]

Same here. This is just a rumor until I see something concrete.

Concrete being drafted as we speak (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361.html):

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

[INRM]

Brainster,

Agreed, if that ain't concrete...

[linusrichard]

Brainster,

Agreed, if that ain't concrete...

... then an executive order that has been issued is.