Guantanamo suicides confirmed

Australia has troops in the Coalition does it not, anton? You had better get busy to let your Prime Minister know how ALL Australians feel about Iraq and President Bush!!!

They are unlawful combatants (the same class as spies and saboteurs), and as such do not have the right of communication with the outside world that a POW would have.

Actually, the "creativity" that extended Geneva 3 only to lawful combatants came from the people who wrote the Geneva Conventions.

Oralloy- This may help people like Mr. Walter Hinteler and Mr. Free Duck-- Unlike the savages in Iraq, we use the rule of law. The status of the prisoners at Gitmo is being adjudicated. If we followed the procedures followed by the savage fanatical Islamo-Fascists, we would not have a problem. But we follow the rule of law--Note

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm

US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling


Prisoners can now go to court
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can take their case that they are unlawfully imprisoned to the American courts.

BBC News Online looks at the issues involved.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."

The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

What is habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning: "You have the body." It is the name given to an ancient legal device under English common law (a mixture of judge-made laws, precedents and statutes). Habeas corpus was continued in American law after independence.

If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court, the person holding a prisoner (the "body") must bring the prisoner to the court and justify the detention. It has been a basic instrument under which courts in common law systems have protected citizens against wrongful imprisonment.

Why did the Supreme Court rule in the prisoners' favour?

The court was divided 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and hinged on the definition of "sovereignty." He argued that, even though Cuba retained "ultimate sovereignty", the United States exercised, in the words of the lease from Cuba, "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay.

Therefore federal jurisdiction applied there and "aliens, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the Federal courts' authority."

The court rejected an argument that a case arising out of World War II should be followed in this instance (see below), saying that the two were quite different.

Justice Stevens quoted a predecessor on habeas corpus: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since [King] John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

The majority was formed by the liberals on the court, joined by the "swing" justices. One of the latter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that the US government could not have a "blank check" even in time of war.

What did the minority on the Court say?

The minority opinion, on behalf of the three core conservatives, was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

He based his argument on the "Eisentrager" case. This arose out of the arrest in China of a number of Germans agents accused of helping the Japanese after the surrender of Germany in World War II.

Their leader, who called himself Lothar Eisentrager though his real name was Ludwig Ehrhardt, had hired himself to the Japanese after the German surrender. He was sentenced to life in a prison in Germany but appealed for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not apply because he was an alien outside US sovereign territory. He was eventually freed anyway under an amnesty.

Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".


Is this the end of the prisoners' "legal black hole"?


It should be the beginning of it, though getting access to the US courts does not mean the prisoners necessarily getting their freedom. But they do now have much more of a legal status and the courts might order a full clarification.


The Defense Department announced (on 7 July) that nine more prisoners will face trial by military commission, bringing to 15 the number of prisoners who will be tried in this way.

On 7 July, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals. Why?


The Pentagon is responding to the Supreme Court ruling and is trying to pre-empt any criticism from a US court. It is setting up three-officer review panels to determine whether a prisoner is a combatant.


This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely.


The prisoners' lawyers are likely to argue in court that the panels are not enough and that the detainees should be properly charged or set free.


Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which could go on for many months.


end of quote-

THIS WILL BE TAKEN UP SOON BY THE US SUPREME COURT...

That anti-American bigotry is on the rise in the world is something that we are all aware of.

But not all Australians or Europeans are such bigots.

A2K contains a good sampling of such non-bigots, IMO.

80% of all humans think that Bush is a scary warmonger.
.
Aren't you lucky to belong to the 20% that support that wonderful simpleton.

Yes, Mr. Detano, and 80% of all people think that Canada has a great Health system. They would be wrong, of course, since the Canadian Supreme Court, as I am sure you know, recently downgraded the system because a petitioner was not allowed to BUY HIS OWN MEDICAL INSURANCE.

Canada found itselft in good Company. Three countries do not allow the purchase of Private Medical Insurance--Cuba,North Korea, and Canada!

I see no source for you 80% finding and therefore am discarding it as a fiction!!!!

Bush went to war because he was afraid that Hussein was continuing to lie about WMD, and that his research programs might eventually come to fruition at a terrible cost to the world. This is set against the history of war in which, usually, countries have gone to war, whenever they saw some advantage to themselves, as when Iraq invaded Iran or Kuwait. To call Bush a warmonger compared to this historical standard is absurd. We are rebuilding Iraq and trying to set up constitutional, elected government, which is rare for victors in a war.

Brandon9000 - I wonder what Mr.Detano would say if the two soldiers which had been captured and brutally tortured by the Islamo-fascist fanatics had been Australian?

Bernard, he would say that the Islam fanatics are low-down criminals and should be punished severely. All people who kill or torture civilians are the scum of the earth, whether they wear a uniform or not.
I judge all warmongers the same, no matter which side they are on.
Some of the members are selective. They condemn the Muslim heavies but protect the US heavies. Tunnel vision, no doubt.

And "rendition" of "unlawful combatants"? You find that in the conventions as well? No oral, ole buddy - You've got to give this administration a little credit for creative thinking.

The fourth Geneva Convention deals with civilians. What part do you think applies to the detainees at Guantanamo?

This one perhaps?

or this one?


According to the 4th Geneva convention all persons covered by it should be returned to their countries at the end of hostilities or within 1 year of an occupation. This raises 2 questions. Are you sure that the 4th applies? Are the hostilities ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Btw: in Vienna, Bush said today he would like to close the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and send many detainees back to their home countries.
However, he said not all the inmates would be returned - some would need to be put on trial in the US because they were "cold-blooded killers".
He said 200 detainees had been sent home, and most of those remaining were from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan.
But he added that there were some detainees "who need to be tried in US courts".
"They will murder somebody if they are let out on the street."

It also deals with most unlawful combatants.





Articles 5 and 42 (and the various articles that provide rules for implementing article 42).





It applies to all Afghani citizens at Guantanamo.

Non-Afghanis are protected by Customary Law instead.





Yes.

(And the war against al-Qa'ida will probably continue in other places even when the fighting ends in those places.)

Again-------THE US SUPREME COURT WILL RULE ON THE GITMO QUESTION.

Again-

Oralloy- This may help people like Mr. Walter Hinteler and Mr. Free Duck-- Unlike the savages in Iraq, we use the rule of law. The status of the prisoners at Gitmo is being adjudicated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm

US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling


Prisoners can now go to court
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can take their case that they are unlawfully imprisoned to the American courts.

BBC News Online looks at the issues involved.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."

The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

What is habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning: "You have the body." It is the name given to an ancient legal device under English common law (a mixture of judge-made laws, precedents and statutes). Habeas corpus was continued in American law after independence.

If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court, the person holding a prisoner (the "body") must bring the prisoner to the court and justify the detention. It has been a basic instrument under which courts in common law systems have protected citizens against wrongful imprisonment.

Why did the Supreme Court rule in the prisoners' favour?

The court was divided 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and hinged on the definition of "sovereignty." He argued that, even though Cuba retained "ultimate sovereignty", the United States exercised, in the words of the lease from Cuba, "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay.

Therefore federal jurisdiction applied there and "aliens, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the Federal courts' authority."

The court rejected an argument that a case arising out of World War II should be followed in this instance (see below), saying that the two were quite different.

Justice Stevens quoted a predecessor on habeas corpus: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since [King] John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

The majority was formed by the liberals on the court, joined by the "swing" justices. One of the latter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that the US government could not have a "blank check" even in time of war.

What did the minority on the Court say?

The minority opinion, on behalf of the three core conservatives, was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

He based his argument on the "Eisentrager" case. This arose out of the arrest in China of a number of Germans agents accused of helping the Japanese after the surrender of Germany in World War II.

Their leader, who called himself Lothar Eisentrager though his real name was Ludwig Ehrhardt, had hired himself to the Japanese after the German surrender. He was sentenced to life in a prison in Germany but appealed for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not apply because he was an alien outside US sovereign territory. He was eventually freed anyway under an amnesty.

Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".


Is this the end of the prisoners' "legal black hole"?


It should be the beginning of it, though getting access to the US courts does not mean the prisoners necessarily getting their freedom. But they do now have much more of a legal status and the courts might order a full clarification.


The Defense Department announced (on 7 July) that nine more prisoners will face trial by military commission, bringing to 15 the number of prisoners who will be tried in this way.

On 7 July, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals. Why?


The Pentagon is responding to the Supreme Court ruling and is trying to pre-empt any criticism from a US court. It is setting up three-officer review panels to determine whether a prisoner is a combatant.


This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely.


The prisoners' lawyers are likely to argue in court that the panels are not enough and that the detainees should be properly charged or set free.


Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which could go on for many months.


end of quote-

THIS WILL BE TAKEN UP SOON BY THE US SUPREME COURT...

And I imagine folks like you can't wait with the court stacked in your favor.

It is obvious<Ms. Revel, that you know very little about the Supreme Court. At this time. there are at least five judges on the Court who will usually lean towards liberal solutions.

Exagerration like this does not help your position.
If 80% of all humans think so,who did the poll?

Were the indeginous tribes living in the Amazon River basin asked?
Who asked the people of Mongolia and the Russion Steppes?
Who polled the people of Micronesia and the pacific islands?

Who asked the people of interior China?
Who did the worldwide poll,and asked every person on earth?

So US polls ask every single US-American.

WOW!

The claim was that 80% of ALL HUMANS.

Now,last time I looked,that includes every person on earth,or is it your claim that people outside the US arent human?

If thats your position,and if thats detano's position,then you need some serious help.