Jump to content

Guantanamo Detainees


Sir T Fireball

Recommended Posts

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide appeals by Afghan war detainees challenging their incarceration at a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the first time the justices will rule on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy.

..................................Appealing on behalf of the British and Australians, Michael Ratner of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said, "Every imprisoned person should have the right to test the legality of their detention."

 

"The United States has created a prison on Guantanamo Bay that operates entirely outside the law," lawyers for those detainees told the Supreme Court in one appeal.

 

In the other appeal, for the Kuwaitis, lawyers said the case raised "questions that test the character of our standing in the world community."

 

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...storyID=3790110

 

 

Isn't it about time that these people were tried and PROVEN to be guilty or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Isn't it about time that these people were tried and PROVEN to be guilty or not?

These are War criminals and the Supreme Court has no right to decide anything on the matter.

Guantanamo Bay is not part of the United States :mrsgreen:

These criminals have no rights under the laws of the United States of America.

( In my opion )

Link to post
Share on other sites
These are War criminals and the Supreme Court has no right to decide anything on the matter.

Guantanamo Bay is not part of the United States  :mrsgreen:

These criminals have no rights under the laws of the United States of America.

So under what law are they being held, your military's? If so, doesn't your government have control over it or was martial law declared on the quiet?

 

To become a criminal, you have to be tried and found guilty of a crime, don't you?

 

Justice or Revenge?

By Terry Waite

 

I can recognise the conditions that prisoners are being kept in at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay because I have been there. Not to Cuba's Camp X-Ray, but to the darkened cell in Beirut that I occupied for five years. I was chained to a wall by my hands and feet; beaten on the soles of my feet with cable; denied all my human rights, and contact with my family for five years, and given no access to the outside world. Because I was kept in very similar conditions, I am appalled at the way we - countries that call ourselves civilised - are treating these captives. Is this justice or revenge?

 

I was determined that my five years in captivity would not break me, and they didn't. But I cannot say that it was easy. The hardest thing for a prisoner in those conditions is the uncertainty. You don't know what will happen to you next: you have no rights, no one to speak to, no one to advise you, no one to fall back on. You only have your own resources. These men, who may or may not be guilty, will be experiencing that sense of isolation and dislocation.

 

For four years I was kept in solitary confinement and had no companionship at all. I was always blindfolded, or had to wear a blindfold when someone came into the room. I never saw another human being. The initial effect is eerie, but eventually you become accustomed to it. You learn to live from within. But that's tough, and no one should be forced to attempt it.

 

I had a diet very similar to that being given to these men - bread, cream cheese, rice, beans. I was adequately fed, but not luxuriously, and I lost a lot of weight. The greatest difficulty was never having any exercise in the whole period. I had to get what exercise I could while chained to the wall. I had five minutes a day to go to the bathroom; for the rest of the time I had to use a bottle. The conditions were inhuman, but all the time I had to assert my humanity. What I experienced makes me all the more determined when I say that prisoners of whatever description must be treated humanely and justly. I would stand up for the rights of the alleged terrorist and of any other individual facing serious charges. I am not soft on terrorism - I have had too many dealings with it to be so - but I am passionate that we must observe standards of justice. I fear that unless firm action is taken to institute just and fair procedures, the long-term results for the US will be catastrophic. Terrorism is not ultimately defeated by the force of arms; you have to deal with the root causes and ask what makes people act in such extreme ways.

 

It alarms me greatly that the prisoners' status seems to have been determined almost exclusively by the US president and his advisers. Their status should be determined by an independent tribunal. The US seems to be making up the rules as it goes along. First, it said that the appalling acts of terrorism in New York and Washington were acts of war; now it is saying that these captives are not in fact prisoners of war, that they are unlawful combatants. An independent tribunal should establish precisely what they are.

 

If the US is making up the rules, it will have no moral authority should other countries try, convict and perhaps execute American and European suspects. There will be no moral grounds on which we can stand if we allow this to continue. Americans tell me that they have little patience with international tribunals - they take a long time, and often come up with a different result from that which was hoped. But that is no argument. It doesn't matter how long it takes - justice must be seen to be done, and be done impartially.

 

I was appalled when I heard a prominent American suggest that in certain circumstances the limited use of torture might be justified. That is a dreadful statement to come from a civilised nation. Torture can never be justified, and must be clearly condemned. When it comes to trial, these men are entitled to basic defence rights and ought to be tried under the auspices of the UN. It is vital that we uphold standards of international law for the protection of the innocent, and for the protection of American or European subjects who may find themselves in difficult circumstances in the future. For once, morality and pragmatism go hand in hand.

 

Terry Waite is the former special envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was held captive by terrorists in Beirut from 1987 to 1991.[/QUOTE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

To become a criminal, you have to be tried and found guilty of a crime, don't you?

 

Nope you're guilty untill you prove you're innocent ;)

The military should handle these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope that other countries of the so called 'civilized' world don't follow that example :mrsgreen:

 

Nope you're guilty untill you prove you're innocent

Maybe they will get a trial once the bruises start to fade and then the chance to prove themselves innocent :erm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it isn't my areea of knowledge but I would think that they are combatants in a war zone and would be covered under our treaty obligations (Geneva for one). My concern is that I don't know how you know when this war is over for them to be repatriated. I wouldn't think that Afghanistan would be real pleased to have them back to deal with anyway. I am pretty sure I don't want them wandering around in Iraq. What does need to be done with them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of them being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ,(and outside US soil) is that Cuba has not signed the Geneva war convention , so the detainees don't have even those rights ....!

 

Interesting that even the Nazis were signatories ...! and abided by them .... Even Coldiz had inspections and red cross parcels ....!

 

I'm just wondering if some country were holding US citizens in a similar fashion in the full glare of the media and saying #%^*! you to their humanitarian rights ... what would you say then Ike ?

 

Just makes you feel proud doesn't it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know it's just one little winey problem after another. Try people before deciding their guilt. Prove there was a reason for invasion. Tell everyone how we'll get the money. Since when did kings have to fool with all this. Whatever happened to kickbutt and take names. Sorry Ike no pun intended. :mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

True country55

But the US are doing the two finger s..... in totality ........to the convention .....

 

Pretty hard to use the moral right case from that position don't you think ?

 

War dehumanises all it touches

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to kickbutt and take names.

You're making this too complicated! Don't bother with names, we couldn't pronounce them anyway and they are all guilty. Just kick their butts. :rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certainly no lawyer but after reading over the treaty obligations of the Geneva Convention I see no mention of trial except in the cases where the detainee is subject to capital punishment. Please correct me if I am wrong but other humane conditions and a prohibition against physical torture I do not see any rights these combatants have.

 

Now in reading the Nuremberg trial summaries it looks like a defense Nazis used for failing to follow the convention in Eastern Europe was that Eastern Europe were not signators to the convention. It would seem that the defense was successful, although the defendents were found guilty of other charges. My point is, I doubt that the fallen afghanistan govt. was a signator but even Bush claims that we will adhere to the Geneva Convention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did prisoners have to be treated like queens? They are prisoners of war of an opposing faction. I wouldn't think any opposing terrorist factions would treat US soldiers humanely. I can bet the US way of treating prisoners is much more humane than any of it's enemies ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did prisoners have to be treated like queens? They are prisoners of war of an opposing faction. I wouldn't think any opposing terrorist factions would treat US soldiers humanely. I can bet the US way of treating prisoners is much more humane than any of it's enemies ways.

:funny::jester::rofl:
Link to post
Share on other sites

He had to be joking :lol: Anyone who thinks giving prisoners a fair trial is equal to treating them like queens cannot be serious.

 

Also...

I can bet the US way of treating prisoners is much more humane than any of it's enemies ways.

What about the actions of Lt Col Alan B West?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...