America could keep Gitmo detainees, even if acquitted
Tuesday a representative of the Obama administration said that the U.S. could continue to detain non-U.S. citizens in facilities like Gitmo, even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by an American military commission.
The Defense Department’s chief lawyer, Jeh Johnson, told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would have to make based on their estimates of whether or not the accused posed a future threat.
But why should there be a different standard for Americans than non-U.S. citizens? Hundreds of criminals who were probably guilty as sin have been acquitted only to return to society and harm others. If a military commission cannot find enough evidence to convict an individual of terrorism charges, why should the American government be allowed continue to hold these people when any other justice system could not?
And it is safe to say that the Obama administration (or any other administration for that matter) would not stand by while another country implemented an equivalent policy. Just weeks ago, injustices toward former Northwestern University student Roxanna Saberi topped the U.S. diplomatic agenda because she was being unfairly detained. And she was found guilty in a court of law. Admittedly, the court system of Iran does not have the same tradition of justice that its American counterpart has. But Iran found Saberi to be a threat, just as the American government finds these Gitmo detainees to be threats.
If we are just going to hold these people anyway, maybe the American government should lose the pretenses of justice and skip the trial all together. Either way, the standard of the American justice system is not being upheld.
Full Wall Street Journal article: Detainees, even if acquitted, might not go free
Well, the difference in the situations is clear. We are willing to take Americans who have been wrongfully detained back. The big problem is with those Gitmo prisoners who have been acquitted, but whose own home countries will not accept them back within their borders. And the leader of the one nation that did allow some of said individuals in, faced an incredible backlash for his decision. This post ignores the fact that there is simply nowhere else for them to go.
Your point is valid, but this policy is not exclusively in place for those detainees who cannot return to their home country. Also, there are countries, like Palau for example, which have volunteered to take in detainees that cannot return to their home country. So theoretically there is a place for anyone.
From what I understand, Palau has agreed to take those detainees from CHINA, who we couldn’t find a home for, not ALL the detainees we haven’t found a home for. I could, of course, be wrong.
You are correct. Palau has agreed to take the Chinese detainees. I am using this as an example to show how there are countries who will take these people.
Right, and are we not sending them there already? We are and HAVE BEEN trying to send them places, but it has been hard.