Dilemma?

This is coolbert:

As devoted readers to the blog are aware, President Obama has ordered the closing of Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo [Gitmo] within one year. The status of each inmate to be decided on an individual basis? Most will undoubtedly be released. A small remnant will continue to be held and possibly tried? I have in mind those folks, being held in Gitmo right now, that were directly involved in some manner with 9/11. Those 9/11 conspirators, villains, each and every one of them, are not to be released??!!

The Obama administration is going to have a dilemma here? Trying the bad guys in a criminal court might not result in a conviction? Evidence will not hold up under scrutiny due to allegations of “torture”? And these men do not fit the ordinary profile or legal status of a prisoner-of-war? What to do with them then?

From the Chicago Tribune today:

"NATION & WORLD"

"WASHINGTON, D.C."

"'OFFICIAL' NO TRIAL FOR WAR PRISONERS"

“Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator during hearings Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.”

Dean Kagan should MORE than believe? She should KNOW? Some German prisoner-of-war [POW] during World War Two detained [being held as a POW] while ON AMERICAN SOIL, actually sued for due process. This POW had his claim to lack of due process rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. THERE IS PRECEDENT IN THIS MATTER OF POW’S begin held without “due process”. Surely Dean Kagan is aware of this??

“She echoed similar comments by Atty. Gen. Eric Holder during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda, and suggest the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.”

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT TO SAY “AT WAR”? More correct to say: IN A STATE OF WAR? NOT a declared war, but still WAR with all the manifestations thereof. A state of war!

“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former Air Force lawyer, said that under the law of war, the government can say: ‘If you’re part of the enemy force, there is no requirement to let them go back to the war and kill our troops. Do you agree that makes sense?’”

Lindsey Graham is NOT a “former” Air Force lawyer. While a sitting Senator, he remains a Colonel in the Air Force reserve, a JAG officer. A legal officer and an acknowledged [??] authority and expert on military law and the Rules of Land Warfare.

“Kagan replied, ‘I think it makes sense, and I think you’re correct that that is the law.”

Again - - Dean Kagan - - THINKS!!?? I would hope she more than THINKS on this matter.

“’So American needs to get ready for this proposition that some people are going be detained as enemy combatants, not criminals,’ Graham concluded.”

Comments:

The correct term would be UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT. NOT merely enemy combatant. A person waging war while in civilian dress, not carrying a weapon openly, not wearing a uniform or badge of rank identifiable at a distance, and not obeying and following the laws of land warfare. A TERRORIST/UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT!! Again, according to precedent as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the eight German World War Two saboteurs.

Traditionally, a POW is held without due process or trial for THE DURATION OF HOSTILITIES!! In the case of the battle against Al Qaeda and associated minions, this is a state of war that may LAST FOR DECADES OR GENERATIONS!! PERSONS OF THE ILK SUCH AS KHALID SHEIK MUHAMMAD MAY HAVE TO BE KEPT FOREVER!!

It is really troubling that going on eight years now since 9/11, the U.S. government still has not firmly and decisively decided how to deal with captured terrorists/unlawful enemy combatants/POW’s, whatever you care to call them!! Try them in an ordinary criminal court. Try them as unlawful enemy combatants as were the Nazi saboteurs. Hold “forever” as a POW. A combination perhaps? Well, which is it?

NONE of this should be “rocket science”? This discussion is being held, but by now, should have been resolved and decided upon, a long time ago?

coolbert.