Guant?namo Prison - the dark side of the "free world"

[Klaus]

A fight against Terrorism or a fight against the constitution of the USA and international rights?

The Court and Guant?namo

Published: April 19, 2004

The Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases tomorrow that will help set the ground rules for the war on terror. Detainees at Guant?namo, some of whom have been held for more than two years, are seeking an opportunity to challenge their confinement. The Bush administration insists, however, that they can be imprisoned indefinitely. That position is legally and morally wrong, and rather than help America's defense, it makes the nation more vulnerable. The Supreme Court should rule for the detainees.

More than 600 detainees are being held in the American military base at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba. Most were captured in Afghanistan while American troops were fighting the Taliban forces there. Their advocates say many were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, or innocent men whom bounty hunters handed over as terrorists in order to claim rewards. The cases the court is hearing involve Kuwaiti, British and Australian nationals whose families say they were not involved with Al Qaeda or engaged in military action against the United States.

The detainees are seeking only the most basic elements of due process: to be informed of the charges against them, to meet with their families and lawyers, and to have a forum for contesting their imprisonment. They do not claim a right to have the American court systems review their cases. A military tribunal would be sufficient.

The administration argues that as noncitizens being held outside the United States, the detainees have no right to be heard in federal court. But the law gives the courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," which certainly describes these cases. The federal habeas corpus statute also gives anyone held by the government, which the detainees certainly are, the right to challenge their confinement. Even if the government's narrow view of jurisdiction were right, it is irrelevant. Guant?namo, as the Navy concedes on its own Web site, "for all practical purposes, is American territory."

International law also strongly supports the detainees. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, following American and British legal traditions, states that "anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court."

Legal arguments aside, the Guant?namo policies are a tragic mistake. They are being followed closely abroad, where they are greatly harming America's reputation for fairness. And ? as a group of retired American military officers argue in a friend-of-the-court brief ? they will come back to haunt us when Americans are taken captive.

Most important of all, the treatment of the Guant?namo detainees is not true to America's guiding principles. "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments," Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 84, has been "in all ages" one of "the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Much has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, but one thing that has not is this nation's commitment to freedom, and to the rule of law.

 

[Scarletwine]

"Most important of all, the treatment of the Guant?namo detainees is not true to America's guiding principles. "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments," Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 84, has been "in all ages" one of "the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Much has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, but one thing that has not is this nation's commitment to freedom, and to the rule of law."

I have my doubts how the court will rule especially with Scalia being Cheney's buddy.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ah yes...if only Alexander Hamilton lived in a world in which the push of one button, or the flying of 4 jetliners could kill thousands or even millions.

Different worlds.

 

[pax]

I think the people who founded this country were persons of character, who wouldn't have backed down from their principles when the going got tough.

I hope the Supreme Court realizes we can't just toss "illegal combatants" into prison and forget about them. They are entitled to the basic legal protections they seek. We cannot continue to see ourselves as the worldwide arbiters of truth and goodness if we are not willing to play by the rules by which we want everyone else to play.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that it does a disservice to the US around the world by not giving these alleged scumbags a proper trial, the western world stands for the rule of law proper trials will reaffirm our commitment to it. I myself think that anybody who fought for the taliban in any capacity or support their beliefs are scum and should be locked away, but only after a fair trial to determine guilt.

 

[Dreadsox]

I think the people who founded this country were persons of character, who wouldn't have backed down from their principles when the going got tough.

I hope the Supreme Court realizes we can't just toss "illegal combatants" into prison and forget about them. They are entitled to the basic legal protections they seek. We cannot continue to see ourselves as the worldwide arbiters of truth and goodness if we are not willing to play by the rules by which we want everyone else to play.

I predict a loss for the Bush team on this issue.

And I agree that John Adams may have been a founding father that behaved the way you describe Pax. I cannot make a blanket statement about them all.

I still believe that a majority would recognize the difference in the world and believe it to be better to take action first and worry about the legality of it later. The court will sort it out. It is a new situation to be in and our Constitution is working perfectly to sort it out. For better or worse, we will have official rules to work by when the court rules on the case.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I still believe that a majority would recognize the difference in the world and believe it to be better to take action first and worry about the legality of it later.

When later? Some of the people there have been imprisoned for over two years already. Several people were released earlier this year without any charge against them, meaning that they were imprisoned for two years through no fault of their own. How long is acceptable to imprison people without charge?

 

[Angela Harlem]

later....is the administration doing anything in say 2023? that might be a good time to actually DO what they keep wanking on about and find out once and for all if these people ARE terrorists who are being detained. they cant say they are fighting this, when it is nothing more than convenience imprisonment.

the administration has no idea who they have locked up. this guantanamo crap is the biggest load of bullshit. and i am not a sympathiser nor against fighting terrorism, nor any of that. this is simply about the piss poor way this is being handled. actually, it has little to do with what these people might be guilty of. guilty or not makes no difference. this is why half of america and a large portion of the rest of the world hates bush.

well done to him.

 

[pax]

wow.

yeah.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Ah yes...if only Alexander Hamilton lived in a world in which the push of one button, or the flying of 4 jetliners could kill thousands or even millions.

Different worlds.

I see your point, these are different circumstances with things those guys could only have imagined. In those days there was honor even among enemies, but the terrorists of today are a different breed that require a different situation. But there are governments, past and present, who would have simply 'done away' with them and denied knowing how they 'disappeared.' At least they're alive and you know right where to find them.

 

[meegannie]

angie

 

[Scarletwine]

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Public Statement

AI Index: IOR 41/024/2004 (Public)
News Service No: 098
20 April 2004

Commission on Human Rights, 60th Session (15 March - 23 April 2004)
The human rights scandal of Guantanamo Bay
Amnesty International welcomes consideration by the UN Commission on Human Rights of the situation of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This is long overdue.

More than two years after the first of the detainees arrived in the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Camp X-Ray and its successor Camp Delta, the United States Government continues to exert unfettered executive power in total disregard for the rule of law. Hundreds of detainees remain held in tiny cells for up to 24 hours a day without any legal process.

International law has been flouted from the outset. None of the detainees was granted prisoner of war status nor brought before a competent tribunal to determine his status, as required by the Third Geneva Convention. None has been granted access to a court to be able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9) to which the United States is a party. Detainees have been denied access to legal counsel and their families. When a state, let alone one as powerful as the United States of America, adopts a selective approach to international law and standards, the integrity of those standards is eroded.

While welcoming that the Commission will consider the arbitrary detention of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Amnesty International is concerned that the Commission has not been asked to consider other human rights violations involving the detainees. These include the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees and refoulement to countries where released detainees are in danger of torture or other serious human rights violations.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has taken the unusual step of going public about the deterioration in mental health it has witnessed among many of the detainees as a result of the indefinite and isolating incarceration regime. Amnesty International considers the totality of the conditions in which most of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are held amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

According to a statement by the Department of Defense on 2 April 2004, 146 prisoners have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to their countries of origin leaving "approximately 595" detainees in the base. Most have been released upon return, but at least 12 have been transferred for continued detention in their home countries. While welcoming releases, Amnesty International is concerned that some detainees may be at risk of serious human rights violations if returned to their home countries for continued detention. Amnesty International considers that the US authorities have a responsibility to ensure that the human rights of the detainees will be fully respected after their transfer.

Guantanamo Bay is a human rights scandal, and Amnesty International believes that the Commission on Human Rights must urgently address this situation in all its aspects. Amnesty International considers that draft resolution L.88 on the question of arbitrary detention in the area of the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo is a welcome development, but it does not go far enough.

 

[pax]

That reminds me--gotta send in my membership renewal.

 

[deep]

I still believe that a majority would recognize the difference in the world and believe it to be better to take action first and worry about the legality of it later.

Dread,


Do you realize how self-serving this sounds?


Americans go nuts when our citizens are locked up in other nations and we believe they have not recieved OUR concept of due process.

 

[Dreadsox]

Oh please...tell me Deep how self-serving does it sound.

Do you have anyone else you like to lecture or do you save it all for me?

It is self serving if you take it out of the context of the debate.

Again, part of the reason 9/11 was not stopped was because of the "legality" of things.

 

[pax]

"Legality" is not something I would put in quotes.

And it is self-serving to believe that you, or your country, do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else does because, well, you don't feel like following them at this particular moment. Deep is right--if these were Americans having been held in, say, Afghanistan for two years with no right to due process, no family visits, etc., we would have sent in troops after maybe a week. Not only do we expect to get away with this, but we expect to get away with it with no reprisals.

If these prisoners had been found guilty of crimes or conspiracies to commit crimes, I would have no problem with imprisoning them. But, if I am not mistaken, none hasbeen formally charged or brought before a tribunal to determine his status. This is a human rights disaster, a black eye on the United States, and a situation we need to remedy to set ourselves forth as arbiters of justice, peace, and fairness--which, if we believe our President, is a big part of why we went into Iraq in the first place, right?

 

[nbcrusader]

And it is self-serving to believe that you, or your country, do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else does because, well, you don't feel like following them at this particular moment.

What are the rules that "everyone else" plays by? Does this include the rules the Taliban played by?

 

[pax]

Let me rephrase that, then: the rules all civilized countries play by and the rules we expect all countries to play by, and the rules we had a hand in writing.

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

 

[nbcrusader]

Let me rephrase that, then: the rules all civilized countries play by and the rules we expect all countries to play by, and the rules we had a hand in writing.

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

If there are civilized countries and there are uncivilized countries, how can we expect the uncivilized countries to play by the rules we extend to our citizens?

And should our obligation be extended to the uncivilized, especially if lives could be saved in the process?

 

[anitram]

If there are civilized countries and there are uncivilized countries, how can we expect the uncivilized countries to play by the rules we extend to our citizens?

Well apparently Bush believes you become "uncivilized" like them.

How is it outrageous for the Vietnamese to keep Americans indefinitely but not for Americans to keep foreigners indefinitely without due process? Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[nbcrusader]

The difference between POWs and enemy combatants.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The difference between POWs and enemy combatants.

So as long as you invent a new title for the people you imprison, it's okay to detain them as long as you please without charge?

 

[pax]

Apparently, yes!



[/sarcasm]

 

[pax]

And yes, our obligation should be extended to the uncivilized. I believe in leading by example, not by stooping to the tactics used by our enemies.

 

[Dreadsox]

Let's see.....last I knew Al-Qaeda has not surrendered nor have they approached us for a cease fire or an end to the "war" with the US.

Out of ignorance, I ask has there ever been a war in history, where combatants were captured and set free? For that matter, has there ever been a war where soldiers, enemy soldiers, were put on trial. And, no I am not talking about the top ranking soldiers.

As for the legality of it.....I have said many times....we are dealing with a war with a terrorist organization. There is no legal precident for this to my knowledge. We are not dealing with a nation. Thus, rather than wait to determine the legality of things, I would prefer my governement to act proactively.

The Supreme Court will do its job and sort it out as it has done since our country was founded. It takes time, but we will soon learn what the boundaries are.

 

[Angela Harlem]

What are the rules that "everyone else" plays by? Does this include the rules the Taliban played by?

So the thought/implication/suspicion/accusation/supposed guilt of these individuals is enough for some to calmly sit here, comfortable with their incarceration under such conditions?

America should be ashamed.

Isn't it ironic that you wage wars to defend the very notion of freedom and rights for all and then you send out this message. America's distinction between the goose and the gander has become a little too clear.

 

[Dreadsox]

Are we at war? is there a prior war where people are tried or freed during the war? I am still looking for some precidence but I do not believe that the enemy has ever been released during a war.

 

[Dreadsox]

Isn't it ironic that you wage wars to defend the very notion of freedom and rights for all and then you send out this message. America's distinction between the goose and the gander has become a little too clear.

So were captured nazi's just released in the middle of WWII. Were they held in prisons? Or were they just released?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Good God Dread. Where to start!

I wasn't calling this specifically a war, but making the point that America wages wars (in general) on the very things your country holds dear. This war on terrorism. Is it a war or not? Sometimes it is called one so the shoe fits now, surely?

Enemies? What enemies? Does your administration have a damned clue who they have locked up in there? Apart from suspicion, is there any proof (as found through the usual means ie a court of law) that these people are guilty?

You want precedence? Sounds like a defence argument. You know, like in a court of law.

Forget everything else for a moment Dread. Look only at the detainees. You think this is ok?

 

[Dreadsox]

Angie,

I support it 100%. I have in thread after thread. It is a war, and there is no other way for me to look at it. When there are clear rules for fighting a war a terror organization maybe we would not have this debate.

These "detainees" are prisoners of war. The only time that I have been upset is at the "children" that were held. To my knowledge they have been released.

The rest, be they Talliban or Al-Qaeda are being held until it has been defined by the courts if this is legal. Unfortunately, since there were not guidlines for a terror war, I do indeed support the governments taking action.

Others here may not view it as a war, however, shall I list the number of attacks committed by Al-Qaeda over the last ten years. It is indeed a war in my mind. They are indeed POW's until the Supreme Court declares otherwise.