The closest you can get under Article 4 is Section 6: "6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." however in this case most of the detainees were neither inhabitants (natural born Afghan) or respected the laws and customs of war (uniforms, insignia, humane treatment of prisoners, etc)

The SCOTUS decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld did not establish protections for the GTMO Group under the GC, but instead overturned the Court of Appeals decision and established that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals...not provisions of the GC. Also the SCOTUS found that special military commissions were not in compliance with the UCMJ or the Geneva Convention. Further, SCOTUS ruled that the minimal protections under Art 3 requires being tried by a regular court or Courts Martial, which military commissions fail to meet. Specifically, Hamdan asserted that the military commission lacks authority to try him because "(1)neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for conspiracy, an offense that, Hamdan says, isnot a violation of the law of war; and (2) the procedures adopted totry him violate basic tenets of military and international law, including the principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him." So the decisions held against the Bush commissions under the provisions of Hamdan v Rumsfeld address the governing bodies, not detainee status.

Regarding Bourmediene v Bush and the Military Commissions Act the SCOTUS decision found that right of habeas corpus applied to the GTMO Group designated as enemy combatants. Suspension of HC would allow for the use of military tribunals under the provision. SCOTUS provisions established that if Congress suspended HC, then the US must provide an adequate substitute for the detainees to prove that he was being held erroneously and that the governing body (MCA) must "have some ability to correct errors, to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence." The military tribunals did not grant that provision under their original establishment. SCOTUS established that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.

CUBA!
1. The Bad Guys are already there.

2. The U.S. Administration wants to
open/normalize relations with Cuba.

3. Castro & Co. need the money. So it
should be fairly cheap.

4. There isn't ANYTHING about running a
prison that the Cubans don't know.

It's a Win, Win, Win, as I see it.
wkj

How about Antartica? No government down there to reject them.

Copyleft "So answer the question, folks: Are you libertarians who want a check on government power? or are you terrorized suckers who don't care WHAT the government does, as long as it promises to keep you "safe"?"

That is a flase choice because you left out "reasonable people who can read a contract (Geneva Convention III,), recognize these people represent a serious threat to our nation and handle them in a reasonable and responsible manner, while executing a duty to protect our nation adn teh people within it.".

Their own people don't want most of these, we don't want them, so Copy what do you suggest. The supreme court has not ruled on all of the detainees so quit using that excuse.

in the words of copy: cricket cricket

How about Hell? Stand them against a wall and shoot each one in the head. Anything else is just plain stupidity.

"They are neither warrented protections under the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution or even the World Court."

Incorrect. That's what the Bush administration CLAIMED, but they were wrong. The Supreme Court overturned those claims in every particular.

There is no "missing category" in the Geneva Conventions (which are U.S. law). Anyone not covered under Section 3 (uniformed soldiers) is by definition covered under Section 4 (civilians). Unlawful combatants ARE protected by Section 3, as the Court ruled in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.

The 2006 Military Commissions Act was supposed to render "unlawful combatants" subject to military tribunals; however, Bourmediene v Bush overturned it.

Finally, the administration tried to claim that since Gitmo was sovereign Cuban territory, the courts' jurisdiction didn't apply there. Strike three: Rasul v Bush trashed that claim, too.

Those are the facts. What you, or I, or anyone here thinks "those animals" deserve is irrelevant. What the LAW REQUIRES is what matters. Or is all this talk about the 'rule of law' just a smokescreen?

Wrong again, Copyleft. They are Illegal Combatants. They are detained at Gitmo after being captured in a combat envirnment having carried arms and engaged in combat operations against US forces; were siezed after US forces found actionable intelligence against them; were turned over by friendly host nationals and later confirmed as to their identity and affiliation with AQ or any number of terrorist organizations...none are uniformed soldiers serving under a national flag, none were arrested as criminals. They are neither warrented protections under the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution or even the World Court.

Wrong. You claim that everyone being held at Gitmo is a "foreign enemy combatant," and yet how many cases have been proved? And how many have been released due to a total lack of evidence of them being connected to enemy-combatant/terrorist activity?

What we have at Guantanamo are SUSPECTS, not "proven terrorists" as in the "24"-style fantasies of so many right-wing ignorami. If they had the evidence needed to prove actual wrongdoing, don't you think the previous administration would've proudly presented it and crowed about it from every rooftop?

We have people in U.S. custody who are being held outside the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. There is no magical category of "non-persons" to whom rights and due process do not apply, and no self-respecting libertarian was anytying less than outraged at the Bush administration's attempt to invent one.

So answer the question, folks: Are you libertarians who want a check on government power? or are you terrorized suckers who don't care WHAT the government does, as long as it promises to keep you "safe"?

I say we transfer them all to Stan Gable's house.

Just one little point here, and its funny how you Libs like to twist facts. No! I do not want them in U.S. Courts! They are military combatants. They are not on U.S. soil. I am not afraid, but why turn them loose if you know what they are going to starting doing again? Thats sad little wrinkle in the whole thing. They are NOT criminals, the are combatants and it should be handled by the Military.

RE: STAN
"Oh wait, Republicans only cry about that when a democrat is president"

Ref anonymous post. You folks were whining so loud you couldn't hear us complian about some of the things BUSH was doing. But compared to OBAMA, Bush was a boy scout!

Nice try!

AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER!

That's my vote.

But Copy...sorry, you fail. These detainees are not part of any established military, so no Geneva Convention. They are not American citizens (to the best of my knowledge) so they are not subject to our legal system, whether or not they are held on our soil.

Short answer? We can do anything with them that we darn well please.

Ooo, I want to change my vote! Lets send them to Copyleft!

Might as well drop them off in Miami if you send them to Haiti. They'll be on the next boat anyway.

I don't see a problem with loading the detainees in a ship and releasing them in the mid Pacific. No other nations want them. Just release them in confirmed international waters and they can swim to anywhere they want to go.

Every Democratic Congressman and Senator should take one into their homes and give them a job on their staff as a liason to the Muslim community.

This is just another example of th elack of management experience and incompetence of our president. Make a decision before you know or consider the consequences. Even a manager at Burger King would know better.

I enjoyed some humor. Love your ideas almost as much as Berkeley..

All you folks who call yourselves libertarian, here's a quick pop quiz:

Do you favor the executive branch having the power to indefinitely "detain," without charges, counsel, or trial, anybody they feel like in an offshore facility where the intent is to keep them beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. law?

If, like Neal, you're terrorized enough to say "Yes! They should do whatever it takes to keep us SAFE," then congratulations: you're NOT a libertarian. You're what's technically classified as a "coward."

To Stan's!

How about putting them on a small island in the Alaskan territory? Here's why:
1. its unpopulated
2. its cold as a witch's teat, and they're not used to that.
3. it is away from the lower 48
4. supplies have to be flown in, they couldn't survive if they escaped.
5. it'd keep Palin occupied.
6. it'd be surrounded by cold water and angry crabs, both are unfamiliar and scary to desert-dwellers.

I know I say it in 70% jest, but really, wouldn't that be an ideal option if they had to be kept somewhere on American soil?

i was going to reply, but Steve A said it all

I'm all for San Fran as well, but I'll do one better. Alcatraz anyone?

This is a picture of them getting tortured. They are wearing those swine flu masks.

Two other options to consider... NOLA or Washington DC.. both of those cities can absorb the detainees without any significant change to the criminal population at large.

but I'd rather see them dropped off at 32.7 Long and -45.3 Lat.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.731841,-45.395508&spn=3.419173,4.921875&z=8

So Obama is shutting down a government run prison of enemy combatants captured by government employees(soldiers). Sounds to me like Republicans are crying about Obama shrinking the size of the federal government. Oh wait, Republicans only cry about that when a democrat is president

Put me down for Berkeley

Although berkely would be fun also, I think San Fransico would be a better place that way Nancy pelosi and her minions could coddle the detainees personally. I can hear the wailing now from the left but HEY its nothing to lose your head over.
SEMPER FI