Tweet
Building on Windy legal-affairs correspondent Daphne Eviatar’s military-commissions post building on mine, here’s a jubilant statement from ACLU executive director Anthony Romero:
"On Day One, President Obama kept his promise to halt the unconstitutional military commissions by ordering the prosecution to seek a 120-day suspension. Had the proceedings continued, the Bush administration would have permanently tied his hands and stopped him from being able to fulfill a top level campaign promise. Within the next 120 days, we trust that the President’s team will be studying and finalizing plans and a timeline for permanently closing Guantánamo, shuttering the military commissions and ensuring justice is served in the best of American traditions. President Obama’s ‘time out’ comes at the perfect time in these shameful military commissions and shows he means business on Day One. President Obama has to restore an America we can be proud of again by once and for all shutting down Guantánamo and its shameful military commissions."
Crossposted to The Streak.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
I wish somebody would explain to me what the basis of the assertion that we cannot use existing judicial institutions either in the Federal Courts or the Department of Defense to address these cases fairly and promptly is.
At this point we KNOW many are innocent of any crimes other than having bad friends or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We know many more cannot actually be tried due to tainted evidence.
We know that US courts have methodologies in place for dealing with classified evidence.
We routinely set free people who have served out or cannot be convicted, even when we know they intend to commit further crimes. This is the part of our commitment to the rule of law and American Values that requires a bit of courage.
I just don’t understand how it was determined that this was so hard…
mikey
If your really asking, then you might start by assuming that the purpose of this and similar detention camps is not as a place to hold prisoners awaiting trial, but rather as a place to hold people prisoner while trying to extract information.
I don’t think that judicial proceedings were ever prominently considered in establishing Guantanamo.
But if that’s the case, they haven’t offered this as an explanation either. And if that’s because they realize that would be an unacceptable justification for the decisions made, then what is the alternate explanation, the one that covers for the real one?
No, my question is more around “Why does nobody ask the obvious question” of why we need a new legal system for dealing with detainees? Kind of like how I never saw anyone’s feet held to the fire over the assertion that to allow gay marriage would destroy traditional marriage. These things seem to be repeatedly stated, but no explanation is ever demanded…
mikey
Sorry, I wasn’t sure if you wanted an explanation.
If you want to know why nobody asked the obvious question, the answer is that plenty of people did ask.
If you want to see somebody’s feet held to the fire, then you should have gotten to Guantanamo.