The forgotton ones in Guantanamo without rights

[Klaus]

BBC News

Guantanamo detentions blasted
A senior Red Cross official has launched a rare attack on the US detention of al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

Christophe Girod told the New York Times it was unacceptable that the 600 detainees should be held for open-ended terms without proper legal process.

His criticism came as a group of American former judges, diplomats and military officers called on the US Supreme Court to examine the legality of holding the foreign nationals for almost two years, without trial, charge or access to lawyers.

Mr Girod said the International Committee of the Red Cross was making the unusually blunt public statement because of a lack of action after previous private contacts with American officials.

"One cannot keep these detainees in this pattern, this situation, indefinitely," he said during a visit to the US naval base where the Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects are being held.

'Ghosts'

US officials insist there are reasons for holding the alleged fighters and say they will get a fair legal hearing in due course.

Mr Girod is leading a team from the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has just completed an inspection tour of the detention camp in Cuba.

Although he did not criticise any physical conditions at the camp, he said that it was intolerable that the complex was used as "an investigation centre, not a detention centre".

"The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the mental health of the population has become a major problem," he told the New York Times.

Christine Huskey, an American lawyer representing 28 Kuwaiti inmates, told the BBC she had had "absolutely" no access to them.

"I represent a ghost," she told the World Today programme.

Deaf ear?

In the past 18 months, 21 detainees have made 32 suicide attempts, and many more are being treated for depression, the New York Times says.

Mr Girod says prisoners who spoke to his team regularly asked about what was going to happen to them.

GUANTANAMO BAY
United States Navy base in south-eastern Cuba
Leased by Washington since 1903, but not regarded as US territory
Houses more than 600 al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects
Inmates not covered by US constitutional guarantees

"It's always the number one question," he said. "They don't know about the future."

Camp officials have said most of the detainees' mental health problems existed before they arrived.

The Geneva-based ICRC is the only group outside the US Government allowed to visit the detention camp.

In exchange for access, the committee has agreed to take any initial complaints directly to Washington. It publicises its views only when it feels they are not being heeded.

In this instance, the ICRC says it has been urging the White House for months to make significant changes in Guantanamo.

The administration, Mr Girod said, should consider establishing a policy of giving detainees some idea of when they can learn whether they will be charged or released.

'Repugnant'

On Sunday a group including former American judges and military officials filed legal papers urging the US Supreme Court to intervene.

Don Guter, the US navy's judge advocate general until last year, said it was not acceptable simply to hold suspected al-Qaeda or Taleban members until the US war on terror was over.

The argument filed to the Supreme Court by Mr Guter and others said: "The lives of American military forces may well be endangered by the United States' failure to grant foreign prisoners in its custody the same rights that the United States insists be accorded to American prisoners held by foreigners."

That view was backed by ex-prisoners-of-war, some of whom told the Supreme Court they owed their lives to the fact that their captors abided by the Geneva conventions.

On Wednesday an Australian lawyer representing some of the suspects said they were being submitted to torture.

US officials have denied torturing detainees, saying they are allowed to practice their religion and given good medical care.

The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the mental health of the population has become a major problem
Christophe Girod, ICRC

 

[hiphop]

I?m wondering why no one reads this thread.

 

[Bunbury]

These people are are alleged terrorists they need to be detained until they are cleared or get prosecuted. Simple as that.

 

[Rono]

These people are are alleged terrorists they need to be detained until they are cleared or get prosecuted. Simple as that.

Whatever happend with Not guilty till proven,...but that only counts if you have a chance for a fair trail anyway.

 

[Rono]

I?m wondering why no one reads this thread.

Realy ?

 

[Bunbury]

Whatever happend with Not guilty till proven,...but that only counts if you have a chance for a fair trail anyway.

The beauty of this is that none of these people are American citizens and they are held under military law. Meaning they will be tried by the military.
So innocent until proven guilty does not apply

 

[Angela Harlem]

What about those who might be found innocent?

Oops?

 

[Rono]

The beauty of this is that none of these people are American citizens and they are held under military law. Meaning they will be tried by the military.
So innocent until proven guilty does not apply

So this are second class people and not worth a human treadment ?

 

[Dreadsox]

It is time to put them on trial. I am for that. I am not for just releasing them. A year and a half is a long time without legal contact and a trial.

I will be making calls....gag....to Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, and gag Rep. Barny Frank.

 

[Scarletwine]

Really, enough is enough.

Charge them or let them go. We have lost our souls to terrorism.

 

[Leeloo]

It bothers me that these people who are against everything American suddenly want the American way when it comes to 'rights' and 'freedom.' Gung ho human rights types need to realize that these are dangerous people and they can't be treated like some 'innocent until proven guiilty' American on the street. They cannot be judged by the same standards as American criminals because their belief system, values and culture makes them very different. Don't forget, bleeding hearts, if you live in a western country, they'd just as soon see YOU dead and believe they'd get to Heaven for killing you. Think they're bad off? It's not half what they'd have done to you if they had their way. But yes, charge them, or let them go. But preferrably far, far away from me.

 

[Klaus]

They should be put to trial as soon as possible - and after that i hope that there will be a discussion what has bin done to the innocent imrisoned in the name of Patriotism and the Fight against Terrorism.
But i'm affraid it will be just ignored what hapened to their lifes.
Like the canadian guy ai reported about.
He was deported from the USA to Jordan for torture, because the government thought there were links to al-Qa'eda - at the end they found ot that they were wrong - oups, sorry for torturing

Klaus

 

[Rono]

It bothers me that these people who are against everything American suddenly want the American way when it comes to 'rights' and 'freedom.' Gung ho human rights types need to realize that these are dangerous people and they can't be treated like some 'innocent until proven guiilty' American on the street. They cannot be judged by the same standards as American criminals because their belief system, values and culture makes them very different. Don't forget, bleeding hearts, if you live in a western country, they'd just as soon see YOU dead and believe they'd get to Heaven for killing you. Think they're bad off? It's not half what they'd have done to you if they had their way. But yes, charge them, or let them go. But preferrably far, far away from me.

Than please stop thinking that the western moral is better than moslim moral,..

How can someone say that he believe in justice for all humans and put people without any chance of a fair trail in camps. ( 103 people are under 15 years old )

 

[BVS]

The beauty of this is that none of these people are American citizens and they are held under military law. Meaning they will be tried by the military.
So innocent until proven guilty does not apply

I see no beauty in that.

It bothers me that these people who are against everything American suddenly want the American way when it comes to 'rights' and 'freedom.' Gung ho human rights types need to realize that these are dangerous people and they can't be treated like some 'innocent until proven guiilty' American on the street. They cannot be judged by the same standards as American criminals because their belief system, values and culture makes them very different. Don't forget, bleeding hearts, if you live in a western country, they'd just as soon see YOU dead and believe they'd get to Heaven for killing you. Think they're bad off? It's not half what they'd have done to you if they had their way. But yes, charge them, or let them go. But preferrably far, far away from me.

You're assuming everyone of these people are guilty. You know what they say about people who assume...

These people are human like you and I, don't give me this they don't deserve the same rights bullshit!

 

[Bunbury]

I see no beauty in that.



You're assuming everyone of these people are guilty. You know what they say about people who assume...

These people are human like you and I, don't give me this they don't deserve the same rights bullshit!

There is no doubt they that need to be treated humanely. They should be accordingly to U.N. human righst laws.
But these enemy combatants do not deserve to have American legal rights, they are not even on American soil.
That is just ridiculous to even think about that.
Yes they should be released or tried and soon as possible.

 

[Klaus]

Bunbury:
I agree with you that they should be treated humanely according to International laws like the Genova Convention.

But the US Government decided to give them no rights at all - and who could stop them except the US citizens?

Klaus

 

[sue4u2]

Thanks for the link, Klaus. I read some of the other links as well. This quote really caught my attention:

"All too often where the US leads others follow - increasingly by using the language of "war", governments have disregarded human rights obligations; by using the term "terror" they have endeavoured to avoid international human rights law; and by using the phrase "war on terror", they have challenged the very framework of human rights and international humanitarian law."

I don't know what the answer is, but I can't help but believe a good number of attorneys would handle these case's pro bono.
If for no other reason than the fact that they deserve it. If they have to wait untill "the war on terror" ends, they will never see a trial since terrorism will always be a threat. This continued action could be breeding the next generation. If they weren't a terrorist already, they probably are now.

 

[BVS]

There is no doubt they that need to be treated humanely. They should be accordingly to U.N. human righst laws.
But these enemy combatants do not deserve to have American legal rights, they are not even on American soil.
That is just ridiculous to even think about that.
Yes they should be released or tried and soon as possible.

Yes they should be released or tried as soon as possible. But they aren't. They are given no rights. We may have innocent people locked up without any rights. That doesn't bother you? Does giving them the label of "enemy combatant" help you sleep better at night?

I have an aquaintance that is locked up in a foreign prison right now as we speak. He's guilty until proven innocent and he can't be proven innocent because his family is poor and the government there will not allow him certain rights. The guy is innocent. He was a truck driver and his boss gave him a load of drugs to transport which he had no knowledge of. When trying to contact his boss from prison he found out the business is shut down and no one can contact him. The guy faces life. If you've ever seen the movie "Brokedown Palace", he's in a very simalar situation. He's considered an "enemy combatant" over there. Does he deserve what he's getting?

American or not, these people deserve rights.

 

[Bunbury]

Yes they should be released or tried as soon as possible. But they aren't. They are given no rights. We may have innocent people locked up without any rights. That doesn't bother you? Does giving them the label of "enemy combatant" help you sleep better at night?

I have an aquaintance that is locked up in a foreign prison right now as we speak. He's guilty until proven innocent and he can't be proven innocent because his family is poor and the government there will not allow him certain rights. The guy is innocent. He was a truck driver and his boss gave him a load of drugs to transport which he had no knowledge of. When trying to contact his boss from prison he found out the business is shut down and no one can contact him. The guy faces life. If you've ever seen the movie "Brokedown Palace", he's in a very simalar situation. He's considered an "enemy combatant" over there. Does he deserve what he's getting?

American or not, these people deserve rights.

Your friend is in an unfortunate situation. All I can say is different countries have their own laws, but I can't see the parallel between a person arrested off a truck for drugs and a bunch of terrorists running around Afghanistan.

 

[deep]

Who will have the final authority over the fate of these people?

 

[BVS]

Your friend is in an unfortunate situation. All I can say is different countries have their own laws, but I can't see the parallel between a person arrested off a truck for drugs and a bunch of terrorists running around Afghanistan.

You are not getting the point. How do you know that all these people are terrorist? You have no idea how they were obtained...were they holding their Al Queida membership card? You are already labeling these people as terrorist, just like my friend was labeled a drug dealer, without knowing all the facts. The point is that this system will never be able to determine the truly innocent.

 

[STING2]

The safety and security of the American people come before the rights of enemy combatants engaged in an effort to kill every American citizen. Even the best law system in the world will make mistakes. This situation would not exist if it was not for Bin Ladin and his followers. I favor the current situation over giving terrorist the same rights as American citizens. Yes, there could still be innocent people in there, but if a more lax system were in place, what would the cost be to the USA and the rest of the world, if key terrorist got out and were able to mount an attack worse than 9/11? The government is being very careful and the American people demand that following 9/11. Its one thing to have a dozen innocent people locked up indefinitely, its another thing to have 3,000 or more people murdered in a single act of terror.

 

[Popmartijn]

So in a way you are saying that the US Justice System does not work. I mean, they can't even give a person a fair and speedy trial, let alone prove the guilt of those detained in Guantanamo Bay.
BTW, it never was about giving 'terrorists' the same rights as American citizens, it's about giving human rights to those who are subject to crimes. Amnesty International and others do not demand those on Guantanamo Bay can vote in the presidential election next year, they only ask for those to be treated as humans.

 

[hiphop]

Klaus posted the link to an article that says:
----
Concern has been expressed at the circumstances in which the US authorities carried out the deportation. Maher Arar was reportedly expelled from the USA without being represented at any hearing prior to deportation, and was not permitted to communicate with family or friends. The US government also failed to provide information on his whereabouts and of the date and circumstances of his removal from the USA. The USA also violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to inform the Canadian authorities of its intention to deport Maher Arar, thereby depriving him of the assistance of his
consulate.
----
So, again the United States are violating international treaties. It?s as simple as that. The politicians who are responsible for that mess do not deserve to be treated any better than criminals. You are criminal when you break laws - in my humble opinion. Also if you break laws to protect others, you must be held responsible for your actions. That means that a good part of the current U.S. administration could be locked up in prison.

 

[STING2]

Popmartijn,

"So in a way you are saying that the US Justice System does not work. I mean, they can't even give a person a fair and speedy trial, let alone prove the guilt of those detained in Guantanamo Bay.
BTW, it never was about giving 'terrorists' the same rights as American citizens, it's about giving human rights to those who are subject to crimes. Amnesty International and others do not demand those on Guantanamo Bay can vote in the presidential election next year, they only ask for those to be treated as humans."

This is not some run of the mill situation where someone broke into the local Dollar Store and took some pencils. 3,025 people were murdered in the space of 2 hours. Given the potential for even worse destruction down the road, and its threat to US National Security, the USA has every right to hold these individuals until it can insure that letting certain individuals go is not a danger to US National Security. The right to life of 290 million Americans trumps the right to any perception of a "speedy trial" for individuals there.

Most of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay have never experienced the Standard of Living that they currently have. Many of these people come from area's where three hot meals a day, a warm bed, a Vollyball court, and a spectacular view of the ocean do not exist.

Part of Al Quada's startegy is to hide themselves among civilian society and conduct operations in which there will be little or no evidence of who was involved. Because of this, insuring that a terrorist is not mistakenly let out is going to take a lot more time, than your typical court case in your town.

The only person that should be going to jail would be anyone that would let out a potential terrorist to kill 10,000 or more people. The safety of American citizens comes before any Terrorist right to a speedy trial.

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

"So, again the United States are violating international treaties. It?s as simple as that. The politicians who are responsible for that mess do not deserve to be treated any better than criminals. You are criminal when you break laws - in my humble opinion. Also if you break laws to protect others, you must be held responsible for your actions. That means that a good part of the current U.S. administration could be locked up in prison."

The #1 priority of the US administration is to protect the American people. There is no law that is above the right of self defense.

Insuring that 9/11 does not happen again is a higher priority than whether individual a or b got this level of communication or was deported by procedure a or procedure b. One needs to look at the big picture and understand the uniqueness of the situation, and the risk and cost of any action whether it be lawful or unlawful under normal circumstances according some other countries interpretation of the law.

 

[Klaus]

The #1 priority of the US administration is to protect the American people. There is no law that is above the right of self defense.

I fully agree to a certain point.
But how many lifes of foreigners can you kill in the name of self defence to defend your citizens?

Again - i'm thinking about a definition and i can't find one.. Can you?

Klaus

 

[Leeloo]

Good points Sting2!

Another thing about this and the international treaty thing is, when those things were made, there was a certain amount of honor even among the worst militaries. But with these people we deal with a new breed with a totally diferent mindset and set of values than any dealt with before, so they must be dealt with in a different way. Someone must feel strongly they are a danger to the US public or they wouldn't be there. I'm sorry but I care more about thousands of innocent lives being possibly lost to terrorist attacks than the feelings of these few who would love to carry out such acts. We are dealing with very dangerous people here. Any time someone is ready to die to kill Americans, and you can't even threaten him with his life to behave, that's scary as hell to me.

 

[Dreadsox]

I do not believe anyone here is saying to set them free. However, we are approaching almost two years for some of these detainees. All people want to see is some kind of trial. I am not advocating setting anyone free.

 

[Angela Harlem]

And all that is only relevant if and when they are found to be guilty, as BonoVoxSupastar said.

Anyone know the answer to the question deep posed?