Jedi Council Forums - The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
crystalrain Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 11/10/03 12:35pm Subject: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees - Date Edited: 11/10/03 12:42pm (1 edits total) Edited By: crystalrain
	Around 600 prisoners are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most have been held there without charge or trial for almost two years. Can this be justified? It cannot be justified under the Geneva Conventions. The USA attempts to get around this problem by describing the detainees not as "prisoners of war" (this would give them rights under the Third Convention) nor as "civillians" (this would give them rights under the Fourth Convention), but as "illegal combatants". So, then, if they are "unlawful combatants", could they be subject to criminal law? Apparently not. Because the detainees are not being held on American soil, and because they are "combatants" not "civillians", they do not enjoy any of the rights that would go with being subject to criminal law (i.e. it's constitutional protections). In effect, what we have here is a legal loophole that allows the USA to hold prisoners for as long as it wants, without rights or charges. I am concerned that this loophole is being abused by the USA - for example, six Algerian detainees were transported to Guantanamo Bay from Bosnia after a local court ordered their release for lack of evidence. It seems to me that the camp is being used as a sort of legal no mans land where no laws are in effect to protect the detainees. Is this an acceptable situation? What should be the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay? Discuss. (Most of the above info comes from this page of the Lawyers Committiee for Human Rights website and from this article from the BBC website.)
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Red-Seven Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 11/10/03 12:37pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	That's exactly what the US has been using Gitmo for. And, in some ways, that's the only real legal recourse they have. However, after 2 full years, the lack of consultation and information and confidence-building for due process is indeed worrying, and cannot be given carte blanche moving forward. That's my 30-second take on the issue. Another issue is the unfolding security breaches, where several of the translators and chaplains at the base have been accused of colluding with the prisoners, moving information. NOT GOOD. -----signature----- SERENITY NOW!! "All Shall Love Me And Despair!!" - North Korea tells you: "Dood u r teh suq. I will r0xxorz u" "Error of opinion maybe tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 11/10/03 2:02pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	I agree Red, but given their situation, can you blame them? I mean, I think people forget that the GUILTY are JUST as deserving of their rights as anyone else. Even if they are dirty America hating dogs, even if they are guilty as sin, IMHO they still deserve basic legal protections, like a right to counsel, a right to due process, etc. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Red-Seven Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 11/10/03 2:22pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	Can I blame who? Are you seriously defending people accused of espionage/treason?!?11?! Didn't I just say something along the same lines as you, as far as the 'rights' (murky though they may be) of the detainees? -----signature----- SERENITY NOW!! "All Shall Love Me And Despair!!" - North Korea tells you: "Dood u r teh suq. I will r0xxorz u" "Error of opinion maybe tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Singularity Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 11/10/03 2:55pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	I suspect the U.S. would argue it has the right to hold the Gitmo detainees if it intends to charge them with crimes under the Geneva Convention, i.e., fighting out of uniform, deliberately targeting civilians, murdering wounded American combatants, etc. The Quirin case, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942 (I think ), offers precedent for holding "illegal combatants" and putting them before a military tribunal. The Quirin case actually offers for subjecting certain U.S. citizens to such circumstances. Here's a link to the Quirin case. In wartime, Quirin appears to offer broad powers to the U.S. government to deal with "illegal" or "unlawful combatants." Congress did pass a declaration of war I believe so Quirin is in play. Though, I think there are alot of critics of the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court utilized in Quirin. Al Qaeda and Taliban members are alleged war criminals and thus have no rights under habeus corpus to access normal U.S. courts but rather their only recourse is via military justice. However, I do not believe Bush hasn't formally suspended habeus corpus for the Gitmo detainees though. As for indefinite retention, Quirin appears to support this also. Lincoln imposed this type of a solution in the Civil War but legal historians have been somewhat critical of this practice. Ultimately, there is legal precedent to hold these detainees indefinitely. We may not like that result but until the U.S. Supreme Court overrules its Quirin decision or Congress changes the law in a drastic way then there is legality to the current situation. -----signature----- I have decided to no longer participate in this forum due to the arbitrary and capricious nature with which the administration applies its rules. I wish you all the best.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 11/10/03 3:48pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	Singularity's post above illustrates the reality of the situation.. At the very least, I, for one, am glad that people have finally moved on from incorrectly attributing this "power" to the Patriot Act.. As illustrated, these prisoners fall within a strictly defined group.. First off, It cannot be justified under the Geneva Conventions This statement is not completely accurate.. Even if they were considered opposition soldiers under the Geneva Convention, they would still be allowed to be held until the hostilites are concluded, which, realistically could be years or more.. Under the 4th treaty(1949), which revised and collected the previous 3 treaties: Prisoners of war have no protection from the law of the nation that captures them and no civil remedy. By the customs, treaties, and conventions of international law, however, prisoners of war are guaranteed human treatment while incarcerated.. The Geneva convention allows for the indefinate detention of enemy combatants(until the conflict is over), in fact it specifies that EPW's have no legal remedy of their host nation.. The Convention perscribes certain treatment once they are captured.. Secondly, as pointed out, the Geneva Convention only applies to valid enemy combatants. International law allows for the immediate execution of a defined group of belligerents For instance, sabateurs, spies and enemy soldiers who undertake hostile actions while not in a distinct uniform can be executed.. Geneva Provisions -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
sithsarbad Registered: Feb '03	Date Posted: 11/10/03 3:53pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	Dude, there suicide bombers. They don't have living conditions. They used to live in a cave, i see it as a step up. But opinions do differ, don't they?? -----signature----- strippers rock
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 11/10/03 4:36pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	But how do we know they are guilty. What if an Afghani shepard happened into the middle of a firefight and was captured and brought to Guantonamo Bay? Or maybe something more sinister, such as saying a political opponent was fighting with the enemy? Unless their is a trial, we have to take the government's word for it. If we are unwilling to take the government's word in most other cases, why should we in this case? And you can't say because they were enemy combantants, because that is what the trials are supposed to show. -----signature----- As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Uruk-hai Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 11/10/03 4:41pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	It seems strange to me that a country so proud of promoting it's ideal of inalienable human rights has so blatantly refused to acknowledge the rights of those they have imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Hipocritical. Let's see if the US starts badmouthing China or Burma or North Korea for it's record of human rights abuses again. I know what the response will be. That being said, I can understand the emotion involved in fighting terrorists. It's a new kind of war and it will effect the judgement of those fighting it. I just hope the US authorities don't become the new Gestapo though. -----signature----- Math is hard! Tho are etheth! Remember Bali 12th October 2002.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Trell Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 11/10/03 4:53pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	I doubt we will ever get that bad. And keep things in perspective in regards to China and North Korea. Really, what we are doing isn't that bad comparativly. Sure it isn't exactally fantastic, but there IS far worse going on right now. -P!- -----signature----- I like otters. I hate possums. - Jifty It made me think of the Amish., I AM NOT THE WHITE QUEEN!- Bassil I love cursing of any kind. - Shiri STOP CHECKING YOU STOP BITTORRENT THINGY - that afro american girl is annoying me - Omega
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Singularity Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 11/10/03 4:53pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	Point of clarification, the Bush administration does not view Al Qaeda detainees as from an entity or country party to the Geneva Convention of 1949. However, Taliban detainees are technically able to benefit from the considerations of the Geneva Convention of 1949. However, in theory any country party to the Geneva Convention of 1949 would adhere to its provisions relative to any human being irregardless of whether the person's country or relevant entity of association is party to the convention. The U.S. has observed the Geneva Convention provisions in the past relative to POWs of countries that, at the time, were not party to the convention, e.g. China in the Korean War. -----signature----- I have decided to no longer participate in this forum due to the arbitrary and capricious nature with which the administration applies its rules. I wish you all the best.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Uruk-hai Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 11/10/03 5:05pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	Trell, detaining people indefinitely in appalling conditions without charge for "interrogation" is about as bad as it gets. -----signature----- Math is hard! Tho are etheth! Remember Bali 12th October 2002.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Trell Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 11/10/03 5:06pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	I would think actually killing them is worse. And the conditions aren't a Hilton, but neither are they deadly or anything. Zero comfort yes. From what little I have seen, they seem to still be bound to much. But I doubt they are starving and being beaten daily. -P!- -----signature----- I like otters. I hate possums. - Jifty It made me think of the Amish., I AM NOT THE WHITE QUEEN!- Bassil I love cursing of any kind. - Shiri STOP CHECKING YOU STOP BITTORRENT THINGY - that afro american girl is annoying me - Omega
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Uruk-hai Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 11/10/03 5:27pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	Yes killing them is worse, but how do you know they aren't being mistreated? How do you know no-one has been killed? There have been stories that they are mistreated, though they are totally unconfirmable because the US won't let anyone near the place. -----signature----- Math is hard! Tho are etheth! Remember Bali 12th October 2002.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Trell Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 11/10/03 5:57pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
	Exactally. All reports lead to them not being treated in the absolute best of conditions. And in fact some relativly bad ones. But nothing exactally deplorable. -P!- -----signature----- I like otters. I hate possums. - Jifty It made me think of the Amish., I AM NOT THE WHITE QUEEN!- Bassil I love cursing of any kind. - Shiri STOP CHECKING YOU STOP BITTORRENT THINGY - that afro american girl is annoying me - Omega
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 11/10/03 6:10pm Subject: RE: The Status of Guantanamo Bay Detainees - Date Edited: 11/10/03 6:25pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	Uruk-hai, my question is why do these detainees warrant any consideration not afforded to any other military prisoners? During every other conflict, prisoners were deatined for the duration of the hostilities.. In fact, international law allows for the execution of the category these prisoners are.. The point is that people wrongly assume that this is a new practice, or someone invented this specifically for these prisoners.. EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) already established in US law that combatants can be held without a writ for habeas corpus.. The Geneva Convention consolidation of 1949 has also upheld in international law that EPW's can be held as long as the hostilities remain.. The Guantanamo detainees are not being held in violation of the Convention, and in fact, are not afforded the right to council.. They are provided shelter, food, spiritual guidance, correspondence, everthing specified by the Convention.. As far as the question of "who monitors their condition?" International law mandates that the monitoring of the prisoner's condition be conducted by a neutral NGO, which the Red Cross/Crescent is the standard.. Any other personnel(such as cilivian lawyers) are not covered by treaty, and as such would only be allowed access as determined by the Commander.. Let's review again: Prisoners of war have no protection from the law of the nation that captures them and no civil remedy. By the customs, treaties, and conventions of international law, however, prisoners of war are guaranteed human treatment while incarcerated.. The prisoner has a right to adequate food, clothing, and quarters and to the transmission of letters and parcels Nothing in the Convention mandates that prisoners be given any sort of trial, or released after a set period of time.. If the US wants to grant access to a legal system, it is solely at the military's discretion.. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload