The Other Guantanamo

There just seems to be no end to the steaming pile of poo that Obama (and the rest of us)is to inherit from George Jr.

Haven't followed the links yet, but can't we simply declare that a state of war exists, declare that anyone we are holding are prisoners of war and treat them as such? This insistence on pretending that 'unlawful enemy combatants' means anything but an intention to ignore the laws relating to enemy combatants is precisely the problem. It needs to end.

But if he wants them handled the same way as the Guantanmo detainees, he's going to run afoul of the U.S. military's wishes. Given Obama's promise to nearly double the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, that's not something he wants to do.
.
I'm not sure I get this. I thought the military wanted more troops in Afghanistan. So if Obama doesn't cooperate on one of the military's priorities, they'll refuse to carry out another of their priorities?
.
And what happened to the "Commander in Chief Uberalis" ethos? I thought the military was supposed to be in lock step with the wishes of Glorious Leader. Or is that only for Republicans?

Considering he is the commander in chief, there is an international desire to redress the wrongs of the Bush administration to the point England is taking in prisoners and Australia is considering it, and the American public is focused on the economy I think he has room to do a deal and get something legal and effective done.

The trouble with that, Paul, is that there isn't an army, or a well-defined insurgency associated with these captives. Sure, they should be treated as POWs, but they are still stateless. The idea of POWs is based in the concept of a war that can be won. This war cannot end, because it's not a war. As Allawi said about Iraq, this is like the Philippines, a low-level conflict with no objective that will last decades.
.
The things imperialists do. That sort of thing.
.
BTW, I've been working on the Virtually Speaking on ning thing. Stop by. Give me a rant to read aloud to Fallows. The link is up to listen to the live broadcast without sullying yourself by creating an SL account.

And what happened to the "Commander in Chief Uberalis" ethos?
.
what digby said has already been posted wrt this and related questions.
.
The sad, pathetic thing is that the traditional media is going to suddenly become concerned about an overweening executive. I'm fine with that, in the abstract, but where the eff were they?

This is the kind of decision that Cheney believes Obama will do exactly what he did, and puts the lie to all his rhetoric. I confess I don't know the solution, but I hope it involves a transparent effort to work through the mess, even if you have to seem like an effete liberal to do it. Above all, don't prove Cheney right and return to an opaque, authoritarian solution.

Why do we have our own prisons in Afghanistan? What is the green robe wearing dude doing?

Haven't followed the links yet, but can't we simply declare that a state of war exists, declare that anyone we are holding are prisoners of war and treat them as such?
_
contra Jay, the problem is the lack of a "well-defined insurgency" in Afghanistan... there is no real impediment to treating those detainees captured in Afghanistan as prisoners of war.

The problem (as the link demonstrates) is that Bagram is holding people who were not captured in Afghanistan (like the Tunisian who was arrested in Pakistan, and has been sitting in Bagram for six years.) Because he wasn't captured in Afghanistan, the US has no right to detain him as a POW under the Geneva conventions. Basically, we've just kidnapped this guy and threw him down a hole.

Sorry: the dude is Pres Karzai.

jayack: You're right. But I'm thinking more about what the military will allow itself to do. Does the rank hypocrisy illustrated by digby extend even into the top brass, to the point of disobeying their CiC?

contra Jay, the problem is the lack of a "well-defined insurgency" in Afghanistan... there is no real impediment to treating those detainees captured in Afghanistan as prisoners of war.
The problem (as the link demonstrates) is that Bagram is holding people who were not captured in Afghanistan (like the Tunisian who was arrested in Pakistan, and has been sitting in Bagram for six years.) Because he wasn't captured in Afghanistan, the US has no right to detain him as a POW under the Geneva conventions. Basically, we've just kidnapped this guy and threw him down a hole.
.
don't understand what the "contra" is. I agree they should be treated as POWs. I agree that they've just been kidnapped and thrown into holes. Where I am saying the problem lies is that there is no condition for ending the war for which they are (temporarily) imprisoned. A POW has committed no crime, done nothing wrong. Imprisonment is necessary, from the military perspective, because he is an effective resource for the other side. So the imprisonment should be as humane as possible. And the prisoner should be released, with rancor, at the end of the war.
.
The problem here is that there is no end to a war on "terror." These innocent people don't have a condition upon which they will be released. And that's barbaric.

BTW, I've been working on the Virtually Speaking on ning thing. Stop by. Give me a rant to read aloud to Fallows. The link is up to listen to the live broadcast without sullying yourself by creating an SL account.
--
jayackroyd, I will listen in. I'm too intimidated by the idea of actually creating an SL account - Although if I could fly like Dwight Schrute that would be cool.
--
I think the issue of Obama's authority in the military may be affected by technological changes in communications - some of which are still developing - and his base of committed supporters. The whole idea of military secrets has been undermined by technological developments. If Special Ops do something in a third-world country, there's a good chance that by Obama's second term a villager will be there to record it on their cellphone. Similarly if the top military officials refuse to follow Obama's orders, news of that will likely come out quite soon. Then it becomes more of a PR battle and frankly Obama has a good record of winning those.
--
Anyway I don't mean to deny the power of the military or the problems Obama faces. I just think that technological developments will affect foreign and military policy, and the power of the CIC, in ways that we may not be able to predict in January 2009.

Time magazine: "the U.S. military is building a new prison for what it calls 'unlawful enemy combatants' at Bagram ...."

-

"[W]hat the [U.S. military] calls 'unlawful enemy combatants'"? Try: what Time magazine calls its "soul brothers" or what normal Americans call "Time magazine's dearest friends".

Simple solution. You got evidence to convict or you don't. Try and imprison those who you can. Release the rest. With reasonable haste. Over 1 year is unreasonable.

A feeble, incoherent attempt at trollery. It wasn't even trying to be original here; a weak slap without passion. Scherer's scribblings have never been it's best venue but this nonsensical, flailing attempt misses the target by a substantial margin with a pathetic stab at nonexistent racism. Laughable without being actually funny. Incorrect use of brackets. D- .

You either respect the rule of law or you don't. Obama has uncomfortable decisions to make- but they are not difficult ones.
.
The detainees need to be processed and tried if there is evidence or released if not. Of course there is the potential that released prisoners can fight our troops. Unfortunate- however, you cannot deny individuals their basic human rights due to speculation. He must also make sure that these prisons treat detainees humanely and within the confines of the law. So too must Obama appoint an independent committee to investigate violations of international law by the Bush admin. And if congressional leaders -republican and democrat (Reid, Pelosi included)- are implicated, if information comes to light that is embarrassing, if careers are ruined and people go to jail-- so be it. Obama has to clearly state what the USA stands for. Are we leaders or deceivers? Are we for civility, freedom, diplomacy, democracy, altruism? Because right now no one, other than a shrinking number of Americans, believes that.