More news from Git-Mo
 

The latest story on Guantanamo from The New York Times (snip and paste, full story here with free subscription http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/na...ed=2&oref=regi)

The (Supreme) court ruled 6 to 3 in June that detainees had a right to challenge their detentions in federal court, saying that even though the base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States, federal judges have jurisdiction to consider petitions for writs of habeas corpus from those who argue that they are being unlawfully held.

The hearings here have come under heavy criticism ... For one thing, the detainees are left to argue their cases for themselves, without assistance from lawyers.

The hearings, formally called combatant status review tribunals, were hurriedly devised and put into place just weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling. The administration... told a federal court in Washington last week that the tribunals more than satisfy the Supreme Court ruling. The government argued that because of the tribunals, federal judges should reject the dozens of petitions they have received from defense lawyers asking them to intervene.

Critics have complained that the tribunals are fatally flawed, not only because the detainees do not have lawyers but because they are generally hampered in disputing any charges because they are not allowed to see most of the evidence against them because it is classified.

Detainees at all the hearings are given an unclassified summary of the charges, but the evidence to support the most serious accusations is classified and is considered in a closed session after prisoners are taken back to their cells.

One official said it was apparent from the unconvincing explanations of many detainees as to why they had been carrying a gun or were at a battle site that they were indeed enemy combatants.

The administration has asserted that the Guantánamo detainees are not entitled to the prisoner-of-war protections of the Geneva Conventions as they do not meet the criteria of regular soldiers. International lawyers have criticized the United States, saying that the Geneva Conventions require hearings to determine whether they can be deemed other than P.O.W.'s.

So, on the one hand these prisoners really ARE enemy combatants, but, really, they're not. HUH? George Orwell would have been knocked out by this wonderful example of administration double speak. Even the vilest war criminals at the Nuremberg trials were allowed to have lawyers, confront their accusers and hear the evidence against them. But I guess the US is above all that because we're making the world safe for Democracy. Right.

Its alright, Mari. It isn't that hard to understand, really. Basically, if the government says you are a terrorist, then you are. Therefore, you are an enemy combatant. Except that we aren't actually at war with anyone, so there's no Geneva Convention protection.

Got it? :D

I can't tell you how much better this explanation makes me feel :rolleyes:

I used to be more concerned about this issue until I learned that people have been released from Gitmo only to return to doing battle against US forces.

Or begin...

If you send me to Gitmo guess who I will battle with, if and when I'm lucky enough to leave? Duck and cover... :D

If you grab a tiger by the tail...

If you sent me there I'd wage war on the US afterwards as well.

Grab a jaguar by the tail.....

So these poor innocent law abiding civilians are being scooped up off the streets and thrown in a prison thousands of miles from their homes for no apparent reason other than perhaps being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Somehow I get the feeling there is more animosity toward the Bush administration itself here rather than outrage at the violation of some Iraqi insurgents human rights.

Innocent people are held in Guantanamo for years - and tortured. When finally released, they join the insurgents to attack Americans. Its called revenge. Then Rush Limbaugh types spin this into how the world always hates Americans.

The same source that forgot to mention why innocent people were in Guantanamo - and tortured - now says former prisoners are attacking America. We believe news sources that only report propaganda? We should believe a news source that forgets to mention how America authorized the Spanish Inquisition in Guantanamo?

The problem is not those former torture victims. The problem is that 'so called' responsible news source. You have promoted classic propaganda. If your news sources don't explain why America routinely tortured prisoners and denied those prisioners 'rule of law', then your news source is the real problem.

Then you really don't get it. It is outrage at actions like this that fuels animosity towards the Bush administration. Unfettered indefinite imprisonment is something I do not support. Active avoidance of national and international standards of prisoner treatment and rights is something I do not support. I'm pretty cynical, but I gotta say that if you can't understand something like that, you make me sad. http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/frown.gif

I *get* things just fine. I do not support unfettered imprisonment either, the protocols of the Geneva Convention should apply to anyone imprisoned during a time of war. Indefinite is subjective to how long the war goes on, I do not think these imprisoned people should be let go to return to fight against us again. My original point was, I do not believe we are just scooping up *innocent* people off the streets, these were combatants in a war zone. I do think a fair and impartial inquiry into their imprisonment should be made and they should be let go if, in fact, found innocent.

Some were scooped up in a war zone (ie, random locations in Afghanistan), some were turned in by locals for whatever reason. Neither method is by any stretch of the imagination foolproof. The beef with the administration is that they are resisting any attempts to allow trials of any meaningful kind to determine whether they are innocent. In the meantime, they are treating them as if they have already been convicted. Given their methods, I think it is all but certain that there are substantial numbers of innocent people there, as already turned out to be true in Iraqi POW prisons, and those people (and their family and friends back home) are not getting a very good impression of the US.

My point wasn't that all the people there are loveable little angels who wouldn't hurt a fly. My point is that once they are released, our actions have made it much more likely that they will fight us, whether or not they were fighting us in the first place. UT said that the fact that some releasees (people that even the heavily tilted Pentagon hearings determined were innocent) turned on us made him less concerned about how the US treats its prisoners. That's what I was responding to.

When did you stop torturing your wife?

It's not a blame-the-administration game, it's a blame-the-US game -- which offends middle America more deeply than religious differences, I'd bet.

Yes, perhaps those desert Arabs were merely in wintry Afghanistan to charitably help with the annual poppy harvest and now the US has turned them into violent anti-US terrorists. I kinda doubt it though.