Should detainees have the right to an attorney? If not how long should they be held until charged or freed?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_detainees&printer=1;_ylt=AvkBgL98KPveqz1maV3QM.yWwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

U.S. seeks to silence terror suspect

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh — but undefined — interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt t

Answer 1

yes they should get a lawyer, and I believe they should be charged with something or released

Answer 2

It's amazing how many of the answers to the question start with "if they are enemy combatants..." as if that made a difference.

Read Article VI of the Constitution -- "In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall have a right to counsel." All proceedings, for ANYONE accused.

The so-called right is a limitation imposed on the government for anyone held in custody and accused by the government. It has nothing to do with citizenship, nationality, or where they were captured. Anyone accused by the govt gets an attorney. As if being in the plain text of the Constitution weren't enough, the Supreme Court has confirmed this several times over the past century, most recently this year.

Now, granted, nothing inherently requires a civilian attorney. So, an appointed attorney who is a US military officer would satisfy the Constitutional requirements, and still provide necessary security.

Same for the trial. If the govt believes that only a regularly constituted court martial (military court) can be made secure enough, that's fine. That's still legal. But the govt cannot just make up a different set of rules (the newly proposed military tribunals), ignoring Due Process and the Confrontation Clause and the other requirements of the 5th and 6th Amendments, just because they are inconvenient.

By all means, find a way to follow the law while still maintaining security. But the govt cannot just ignore the plain text of Constitution because they don't fee like following it.

Answer 3

Enemy prisoners of war or combatants don't really fall under criminal due process, they are simply held until the end of the conflict and then returned to the country of origin.

I find it odd that they are requesting lawyers and then I realize that we are still playing that blurry "we will find them guilty in a court" thing when dealing with terrorists and there is no place to return them to because they are part of rogue groups from around the world who all want to cause harm to the US.

I suppose I have to fall back on the previous point that they are prisoners of war and shouldn't be granted access to a civilian attorney. I would imagine it true that military would be better suited to deal with this odd situation to determine the prisoner's legitimacy.

They need to be held until the process of determining their association is complete by the military. The scary thought is, that could take a very long time. These 'crimes' that they are being held for are truly acts of war and can't be equal to anything less than 1st degree capital offenses. They are also sources of intelligence that must be explored to it's fullest. You don't just release sources of intelligence because 48 hours passed he wasn't charged with a crime yet. That's just completely irresponsible.

So, as it stands, yes, keep it with in the military, and no time line for release. This just isn't the same thing as due process in the civilian world.

Answer 4

These are prisoners and just called detainees. There has to be documented "due cause" for their arrests. The USA has no rights to remove them off their home soil and that countries leadership needs to approve it or it is just a case of kidnapping and improper confinement. Saddam sits there in Iraq in trial for all to see, why did the USA do that? Why is he not in Cuba? The answer was above, "due cause". How long to hold them? that is a hard question to answer. What are their crimes?

Answer 5

If they're enemy combatants they should be held until the combat is over. It's been shown time and again how when they are released some are recaptured on the battlefields. How many of our soldiers were killed by that release combatant? We've already released thousands who were found not to be a further threat to us or the Iraqi's. This is war and there isn't room for political correctness in war. You can't win that way.

Military tribunals are legal and needed.

Answer 6

If they're enemy combatants, then NO. The ACLU need to be closed down by the authorities, and tossed in there with them.

Of course, all of this offends liberals greatly, because their sympathies are with the terrorists, and they hate the United States. They believe that we are "evil," and the that the enemy is "President Bush."

If liberals were around in WW2, they would have demanded attorneys for Japanese and German soldiers during combat action and we would have lost.

Answer 7

the ones in cuba arnt being treated fairly, no one has said they had anything to do with 9/11, they were ina different country not attacking the usa , then the usa attacks the country they are in then declares they shouldnt be fighting.
fair enough get any info you can out of them, but it has been 5 years now any thing they havnt told isnt wroth anything.
if they are guilty , then they should be tried either in the usa or in an international court, problem there , they wernt actualy do anything, planning anything and not in the same half of the world as the usa

how can they be enemy comabtants? what is an enemy combatant? were us troops captured by the nazis enemy comabatants? or were they prisoners of war?
time to either put up or let them go

Answer 8

Sure, but if that was an American being held in a foreign prison, we would probably bomb them. Bush talks out both sides of his mouth.

Answer 9

Another person that wants to help the poor POW that wants to kill him, his children and any other American he can. Wake up fool.
These people are the enemy, once captured they can legally be held without charges until the end of the war.
Just like the Japs and Germans were in WWII.
Get a life, the ones you want to protect want nothing more than to kill you your whole family and as many more as possible.
you make me sick.

Answer 10

no, they should not been ******* around with the enemy