AOC Call For ‘Prison Abolition’ May Have Potential

A common characteristic of the 2019 news cycle is that it is often difficult to distinguish reality from satire. The glitch in the matrix that is 2019 often blends the two together in a way often makes satire seem more real than reality while reality can seem totally unreal. Figures from both sides of the political spectrum are included in this phenomenon, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most prevalent players in today’s surreal news cycle.

Last week, AOC figured prominently is a story that claimed that climate change alarmists thought it would be necessary to eat babies for humanity to survive. The “baby-eater” story turned out to be a hoax, but, not to be topped, AOC returns with a series of tweets from her personal verified Twitter account in which she advocates “prison abolition.”

On Monday, AOC tweeted that “mass incarceration” needed to be replaced by “decarceration & [sic] prison abolition.”

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181196457145225216?s=20

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181198160045195269?s=20

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181207065072676864?s=20

Okay, you may think, we do incarcerate too many people in this country. But what about the tens of thousands of violent criminals who would go back to committing violent crime on us ordinary law-abiding citizens if they were decarcerated?

Well, AOC has an answer to that, by which I mean that she does not actually have an answer. “Our lawmaking process means we come to solutions together,” she tweets, kicking the can down the road.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181207079190708224?s=20

AOC’s non-solution is reminiscent of Will Rogers’ suggestion in World War I that the ocean should be boiled to deter German U-boats. When asked how this could be accomplished, Rogers replied, “I’m just the idea man.”

AOC is evidently just the idea person, leaving the implementation and practical problems to others.

Allow me to make a suggestion on how to handle decarceration and prison abolition. In the 1981 film, Escape From New York, the entire island of Manhattan was converted into a maximum-security prison. While the movie was considered science fiction at the time, maybe the idea of walling off large areas and using them as free-range prisons has finally come. We can quibble over what parts of the country would be best suited for conversion to prisons, but I submit that New York City has the infrastructure and capacity to house the nation’s criminals well into the coming decades.

The plan has something to make everyone happy. Conservatives get to keep violent criminals off the streets (of other towns anyway). Liberals get more humane conditions without cages. Average Americans get to not have their streets flooded with drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. Maybe we could even sweeten the pot by building a wall around the island of Manhattan for added security. That would help win support from Keynesians and Donald Trump.

There really isn’t a strong argument against turning New York into a prison. The city is past its prime and crumbling in many areas. The Statue of Liberty would be outside the prison area and New York residents and pizza makers could be transplanted to much nicer parts of the country (just NIMBY, although I will take a New York pizza shop). We could even let AOC keep her old district.

I know I said before that AOC was a major player in the surreal news cycle, but maybe she’s on to something here.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Rights of Guantanamo Detainees

Since 9/11, the United States has held prisoners from Iraq, Afghanistan and other terror training sites at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The number of prisoners was over 700 at its highest point and now is just over 400. Many opponents of the Bush Administration in the United States and around the world believe that the continued detention of the Gitmo detainees is immoral and illegal under US and international law.

Much of the opposition regarding US law focuses on the lack of habeas corpus rights for detainees. Habeas corpus is the right to have a prisoner appear before the court and be shown why he is detained.

There are several problems with applying habeas corpus rights to the Gitmo detainees. They are not US citizens. They were not captured in the United States. They are not prisoners of civilian authorities. The detainees were captured by the US or allied military forces in a foreign country while they were fighting a war even though they were not part of an organized military unit and were not wearing military uniforms. This means that they are not subject to US civilian law and do not have the rights of US citizens. The few detainees who are US citizens would have rights under US law, especially those captured within the US.

Treatment of prisoners-of-war is regulated by the Geneva Convention. During WWII, large numbers of German and Italian prisoners were held in prison camps in the United States. None of these prisoners was given habeas corpus rights and all were held prisoner until the end of the war. Those who were found to be guilty of war crimes were given military trials.

Gitmo detainees do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention, however. Because the detainees were not part of organized military units, they would only be considered POWs in very limited circumstances. The Convention does state that “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” are lawful combatants “provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" (Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention).

Many of the Gitmo detainees were members of paramilitary groups prior to the Coalition invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Many others later became members of militia or terrorist groups much later and had time to organize. This would exclude them from POW status under the Geneva Convention. Articles 5 and 42 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, state that unlawful combatants may be deprived of communication and interned. They may also be tried for their actions.

Some Gitmo prisoners have been paroled and released. Of these, several have been confirmed to have returned to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. If these parolees are recaptured, their rights under the Geneva Convention are forfeited.

Gitmo prisoners have alleged that while they were US prisoners they were subjected to various methods of torture and harassment. The Geneva Convention stipulates that all prisoners, whether they are lawful or unlawful combatants, should be treated humanely. Torture is also illegal under US law and any Americans who torture prisoners can be and are being prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It must be understood that captured Al Qaeda training manuals instruct captured to terrorists to complain of torture and mistreatment and engage in hunger strikes in order to win propaganda victories in the media. We should understand that when detainees claim they were tortured by US authorities, they are doing exactly as they were taught in the terrorist training camps.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2004) that the detention of unlawful combatants is legal, but that detainees can challenge their detentions. The Supreme Court also found in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2006) that the Bush Administration’s first attempt at military tribunals for the detainees was uncontitutional and that the Geneval Convention article pertaining to civil wars applied. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006 to authorize military tribunals for the detainees. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Al Odah vs. United States which seeks to apply habeas corpus rights to the detainees and give federal, not military, courts jurisdiction.

The problem with Guantanamo is the perception, due to Al Qaeda propaganda disseminated through the western media, that the detainees are innocent people who are being detained and tortured without regard to US and international law. This is not true. The US detention of prisoners at Guantanamo without habeas corpus rights is legal under US and international law. The prisoners at Guantanamo are dangerous terrorists who would return to combat against US troops if they were released. It is important to keep these prisoners confined until they no longer present a danger to the United States or its allies.

The best solution seems to be to close the prison facility at Guantanamo and house the prisoners at a less publicized location. The prisoners should also face military tribunals to confirm the danger that they pose. The results of the tribunals and the evidence against the detainees should be made public to the maximum extent possible given national security considerations. Shining a light on the process and showing the world how dangerous these terrorists really are can only help the United States retain the moral high ground necessary to win the war on terror.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp
http://www.appstate.edu/~hudnallac/pow.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0303/15.html